Charles H. Talbert - Reading Luke-Acts in Its Mediterranean Milieu (Supplements To Novum Testamentum) - Brill Academic Publishers (2003)

READING LUKE-ACTS IN ITS MEDITERRANEAN MILIEU
SUPPLEMENTS TO
NOVUM TESTAMENTUM
EDITORIAL BOARD
C.K. BARRETT, Durham - P. BORGEN, Trondheim

J.K. ELLIOTT, Leeds - H. J. DE JONGE, Leiden
A. J. MALHERBE, New Haven
M. J. J. MENKEN, Utrecht - J. SMIT SIBINGA, Amsterdam
Executive Editors
M.M. MITCHELL, Chicago & D.P. MOESSNER, Dubuque
VOLUME CVII
READING LUKE-ACTS
IN ITS MEDITERRANEAN MILIEU
by
CHARLES H. TALBERT
BRILL
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2003
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Talbert, Charles H.
Reading Luke-Acts in the Mediterranean milieu / by Charles H. Talbert.
p. cm. -- (Supplements to Novum Testamentum, ISSN 0167-9732 ; v. 107)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 90-04-12964-2 (hb : alk. paper)
1. Bible. N.T. Luke--Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. N.T. Acts--Criticism,
interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Series.
BS2589.T345 2003
226.4’06--dc21
2002033037
ISSN 0167-9732
ISBN 90 04 12964 2
© Copyright 2003 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal

use is granted by Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands

To
Donna Orsuto and the Lay Center
and
The Pontifical Biblical Institute
in Rome
This page intentionally left blank
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
. On Reading Luke and Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

. Succession in Luke-Acts and in the Lukan Milieu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
. Reading Aune’s Reading of Talbert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
. Prophecies of Future Greatness: The Contributions of
Greco-Roman Biographies to an Understanding of
Luke :–: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
. Jesus’ Birth in Luke and the Nature of Religious Language . . . . 79
. The Way of the Lukan Jesus: Dimensions of Lukan
Spirituality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
. Martyrdom in Luke-Acts and the Lukan Social Ethic . . . . . . . . . . 105
. The Place of the Resurrection in the Theology of Luke . . . . . . . . 121
. Conversion in the Acts of the Apostles: Ancient Auditors’
Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
. Acts :– as Early Christian Apologetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
. Once Again: The Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
. The Theology of Sea Storms in Luke-Acts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
. What is Meant By the Historicity of Acts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Index o Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
PREFACE
The essays published herein reflect a selection of my work on Luke-

Acts done since the late ’s as I was gaining clarity about my
method: reading as a participant in the authorial audience. They orig-
inally appeared as scattered items, often in out of the way places like
Festschriften. Being pulled together between two covers allows them to be
seen as a coherent reading of the Lukan writings.
That these essays appear in print in this form is because of the ser-
vices of a number of people. This volume appears in the Novum Testa-
mentum Supplement Series due to its gracious acceptance by the editors,
David Moessner and Margaret Mitchell. It appears at all because of
the painstaking copy-editing of my graduate assistant, Michael W. Mar-
tin, who has transformed a variety of editorial styles into one, follow-
ing The SBL Handbook of Style, edited by Patrick H. Alexander and oth-
ers (Peabody, Mass.: Henrickson Publishers, ). It is to that Hand-
book that the reader is referred for abbreviations used in this book.
This study was supported in part by funds from the Baylor University
Research Committee that underwrote Mr. Martin’s expenses during the
summer . The generous permission given by the original publish-
ers to use these essays in a new form is gratefully recognized in the
Acknowledgments. As always, any productive work on my part would
not have been possible without the stimulating and supportive relation-
ship over the years with my wife, Dr. Betty W. Talbert. To these loved
ones and friends I say, thank you.
Charles H. Talbert
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Grateful acknowledgment is made for permission to use previously

published material of mine.
‘Luke, Gospel of,’ Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. John H. Hayes;

Nashville: Abingdon Press, ), :–.
‘Succession in Mediterranean Antiquity Part : The Lukan Milieu,’
and ‘Succession in Mediterranean Antiquity Part : Luke-Acts,’
Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers,  ( vols.; SBLSP ;
Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, ), :–, –.
‘Prophecies of Future Greatness: The Contribution of Greco-Roman
Biographies to an Understanding of Luke :–:,’ The Divine
Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou
H. Silberman (ed. James L. Crenshaw and Samuel Sandmel; New
York: KTAV, c. Vanderbilt University Divinity School, ), –.
‘Jesus’ Birth in Luke and the Nature of Religious Language,’ The
Heythrop Journal  (): –. (c. The Editor/Basil Blackwell
Ltd, Oxford, UK)
‘The Way of the Lukan Jesus: Dimensions of Lukan Spirituality,’
Perspectives in Religious Studies  (): –.
‘Martyrdom in Luke-Acts and the Lukan Social Ethic,’ Political Issues in
Luke-Acts (ed. Richard J. Cassidy and Philip J. Scharper; Maryknoll,
New York: Orbis Books, ), –.
‘The Place of the Resurrection in the Theology of Luke,’ Interpretation
 (): –.
‘Conversion in the Acts of the Apostles: Ancient Auditors’ Perceptions,’
Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson (ed.
Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Phillips; Macon, Georgia:
Mercer University Press, ), –.
‘Once Again: The Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts,’ Der Treue Gottes
Trauen: Beiträge zum Werk des Lukas, Für Gerhard Schneider (ed. Claus
Bussmann and Walter Radl; Freiburg: Herder, ), –.
 
‘Acts :– as Early Christian Apologetic,’ I Must Speak to You Plainly:

Essays in Honor of Robert G. Bratcher (ed. Roger L. Omanson; Carlisle,
UK: Paternoster Press, ), –.
‘A Theology of Sea Storms in Luke-Acts,’ Jesus and the Heritage of Israel:
Luke’s Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (ed. David P. Moessner; Harrisburg,
Penn.: Trinity Press International, ), –; Society of Biblical
Literature Seminar Papers,  (SBLSP ; Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars
Press, ), –.
‘What Is Meant by the Historicity of Acts?’ Reading Acts: A Literary and
Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Macon, Georgia:
Smyth & Helwys, ), –.
 
ON READING LUKE AND ACTS
This volume contains a selection of my essays on Luke and Acts pro-

duced since the late ’s. They reflect a certain method and yield a
coherent reading of the Lukan writings. The essays can best be under-
stood if the approaches employed in them are seen within their context
in the history of interpretation. Because of the availability of sources,
Luke will be the focus of this survey, with Acts discussed as appropriate.
The Interpretation of Luke in Early Christianity

The interpretation of Luke has generally followed the cultural and
religious currents of the times. In the early period the context for
interpretation was the church. The occasions were two: the demand for
a defense against heresy within the church and the need for an apology
directed toward the world outside the church. Tertullian and Cyril of
Alexandria represent the former, Augustine the latter.
Luke was early on the object of Gnostic and Marcionite interpreta-
tion. Irenaeus complained that Valentinians disregarded the order and
connection of the Scriptures and adapted the Gospels to their own posi-
tions.1 For example, there are, they said, three kinds of people: mate-
rial (Luke :–), animal (Luke :–), and spiritual (Luke :;
:); Achamoth wandered beyond the pleroma and was sought by the
Savior (Luke :, ); Simeon (Luke :) is a type of the Demiurge,
Anna (Luke :) a type of Achamoth (Haer. ..–). Marcosians, Ire-
naeus claimed, also misinterpreted the Gospels, e.g., for them Luke :
speaks of Jesus’ announcement of the Unknown God (Haer. ..).
Clement of Alexandria further charged that Heracleon, a leading Val-
entinian, interpreted Luke :– in a way that allowed a Gnostic to
avoid martyrdom (Strom. .).2 Marcion dispensed with the Law and
the Prophets and in their place substituted an abbreviated version of
1 ANF .
2 ANF .
  
the Gospel of Luke and an expurgated collection of Paul’s letters,

supporting thereby his understanding of Christ as one who stood in
antithesis to the creator God of the Jews.
Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem, book , may be regarded as his com-
mentary on Luke.3 The work’s form is to take up a position of Marcion
and then refute it by appeal to the Third Gospel. Its focus is that Jesus is
the Christ of the Creator, with proof being derived from Luke’s Gospel,
since that is the narrative portion of the New Testament accepted, at
least in part, by Marcion. At the end, Tertullian concluded: “Marcion, I
pity you; your labor has been in vain. For the Jesus Christ who appears
in your Gospel is mine” (.). The first full-scale orthodox interpreta-
tion of Luke, then, was by an early third century anti-heretical Latin
writer of North Africa who used the Third Gospel to refute Marcion’s
Antitheses.
The commentary on Luke by Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria from
A.D.  to , is a collection of  extemporaneous sermons.4 The
opening sentence of Homily Three betrays the sermonic form: “Very
numerous indeed is the assembly, and earnest the hearer—for we see
the church full.” The focus of the commentary is Cyril’s opposition to
Nestorius amid the christological controversies leading up to Chalcedon
(A.D.  ). For example, in Homily One on Luke :, “because he was
of the house and lineage of David,” he says: “The natures, however,
which combined unto this real union were different, but from the two
together is one God the Son, without the diversity of the natures being
destroyed by the union.” Homily Twelve on Luke : reads: “Yes,
verily, as both to think and say, that the Word of God the Father is
one Christ separately by himself, and He who is of the seed of David is
another.” From the Greek church this early interpretation of Luke, like
Tertullian’s from the Latin church, had an antiheretical aim.
Augustine’s De consensu evangelistarum, written ca. A.D. , employs
the form of the harmony, a literary type previously produced by Tatian
in the second century, Ammonius of Alexandria in the third, and
Eusebius in the fourth.5 The focus of De consensu evangelistarum is to
vindicate the Gospel against the critical assaults of the heathen who
attacked the veracity of the Gospel writers, claiming that the Gospels
3 ANF .
4 Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (ed. and trans. R. P. Smith; 
vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, ).
5 NPNF 1 .
     
contradict each other, contradict the Hebrew Bible, and add to Christ’s
teaching (..). Using a Latin translation older than the Vulgate, in
book  Augustine denied that the Gospels go beyond what Jesus taught;
in book  he examined Matthew, comparing it with Mark, Luke, and
John and exhibiting the perfect harmony between them in the narrative
down to the Last Supper; in book  he completed the project of book ,
dealing with the narrative from the Supper to its end; in book  he
dealt with passages in Mark, Luke, and John that have no parallel
in Matthew. One way Augustine sought to avoid difficulties was by
supposing different instances of the same circumstances or repeated
utterances of the same words. For example, the different versions of
the voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism mean that both voices were
heard from heaven (..); if Matt :– has two blind men and
Luke :– has only one, it is explained by the fact that Luke is
narrating a miracle wrought on a blind man as Jesus came near Jericho
while Matthew tells of a similar miracle as he was leaving Jericho;
Luke :, although similar to John :–, refers to another, similar
incident. Augustine’s interpretation of Luke, then, had the practical,
churchly aim of displaying the unity and harmony of all Scripture in
order to refute the pagans’ charges.
The Interpretation of Luke in Medieval Christianity

Early medieval exegesis, designed to move its audience, was cast in
two forms: that of the sermon, if it was meant to move the hearer,
and that of the commentary to be read by monks as part of their
ascetic discipline, if it was meant to move the reader. The Venerable
Bede’s impact is from the latter.6 This eighth century monk’s exegetical
writings were much in demand in later centuries and were studied
and copied in monastic centers all over Europe, with the result that
his authority grew to be little inferior to that of the four doctors of
the Latin church. His Commentarius in Lucam is a good example of
his exegetical work. In Bede’s time to be a scholar meant digesting
the learning of earlier thinkers and passing it down in a simpler and
6 Bedae Venerabilis, Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina ,  (Turnholti: Typogra-
phi Brepols, –); M. L. W. Laistner, ed., Bedae Venerabilis Expositio Actuum Apostolorum et
Retractatio (MAAP ; Cambridge, Mass.: Medieval Academy of America, ); idem,
Venerable Bede: Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (trans. L. T. Martin; Kalamazoo:
Cistercian Publications, ).
  
more intelligible form. What this meant for exegetical work was that,
after the fifth century, for more than one thousand years the task of
a biblical commentary was that of compiling and ordering extracts
from the exegetical literature of the patristic age. This Bede did. In his
commentary on Luke he initiated a system of marginal source marks
to indicate which passages he borrowed from Ambrose, Augustine,
Jerome, or Gregory the Great, “lest I be accused of stealing from my
elders, and of proposing their views as if they were my own.” The focus
of his exegetical work was eminently practical. In his Historia ecclesiastica
., Bede wrote of himself:
I have spent all my life in this monastery, applying myself entirely to the
study of the Scriptures. … From the time I became a priest until [this]
the fifty ninth year of my life, I have made it my business, for my own
benefit and that of my brothers, to make brief extracts from the works of the
venerable fathers on the holy Scripture, or to add notes of my own to
clarify their sense and interpretation.
The same point is made in the preface to his Commentarius in Actus,

where he wrote that the author is Luke the physician and that “all of
his words are … medicine for the ailing soul.” Bede’s exegesis tended to
be, like monastic exegesis in general, devotional, concerned with living
the Christian life and attaining salvation.
The Interpretation of Luke

in the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation
Erasmus produced not only the first printed Greek New Testament
() but also paraphrases and annotations on biblical books.7 His
paraphrase of Luke (In Evangelium Lucae Paraphrasis []) was not a
translation but a freer kind of continuous commentary that never-
theless maintained the integrity of the persons speaking. The Annota-
tiones, which went through five expanding editions in Erasmus’s lifetime,
are characterized by two principal features: Textual Criticism (his pri-
mary concern) and consideration of the opinions of the fathers (like
the medieval exegetes but with greater freedom). Thus he reported the
opinions of the fathers who agreed with him, pointed out differences
among them to justify his own departures from commonly held views,
7 A. Rabil, Jr., Erasmus and the New Testament (TUMSR ; San Antonio: Trinity
University Press, ); Erika Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: From
Philologist to Theologian (Erasmus Studies ; Toronto: Toronto University Press, ).
     
and criticized their errors. The focus of his interpretation was the moral
meaning of Scripture. Humanists like Erasmus used Luke, as they used
other Scripture, to expose the folly and corruption of the church. Eras-
mus’s favorite subjects were the tragedy of the institutionalization of
religion, the sophistical nature of scholastic theology, and the worldly
aspirations of the clergy. Beyond his specific moral interpretation of
Luke and other NT documents, he gave the Protestant Reformation a
Greek text and a philological method to use in its theological exege-
sis.
If humanists like Erasmus used Scripture to expose the church’s
corruption, Reformers like Calvin employed Scripture as a theologi-
cal weapon. In his Harmonia ex tribus Evangelistis () Calvin reclaimed
an ancient form.8 Maintaining that no one can comment intelligently
or aptly on one of the three synoptic Gospels without comparing it
with the other two, he treated Luke in connection with the other syn-
optic writers, focusing on Reformation theology. For example, when
Luke : says, “They [Zachariah and Elizabeth] were both righteous
before God” (RSV), does it mean that they had no need of Christ?
No! They were not perfect. They needed forgiveness. Their righteous-
ness depended on the free kindness of God whereby God did not lay
their unrighteousness to their charge because of the covenant God had
made with them. On this point Calvin fought against both those who
read justification by faith into the passage and those Roman Catholics
who claimed to be justified by works. In Luke :–, did Mary say,
“Henceforth all generations shall call me blessed” (RSV) because she
sought renown through her own virtue and efforts? No! She was cele-
brating God’s work alone. Calvin held that this shows how completely
Roman Catholics were mistaken in giving her titles like ‘Queen of
Heaven’ and in conferring on her the royalty that belongs to Christ,
saying, “Ask the Father, bid the Son.” The holy Virgin rejects them
all, fixing her glory on the grace of God. “It follows that the praises
of Mary, where the might and sheer glory of God are not entirely set
forth, are perverse and counterfeit.” Although Calvin, like Augustine,
dealt with such difficulties as the different genealogies of Matthew and
Luke, his major concern remained theological; and Luke served as a
tool for his aim of the theological reformation of the church.
8 John Calvin, A Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists ( vols.; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, ).
  
Calvin’s treatment of Acts was more historical than theological.9

Nevertheless, it still functioned in the interests of reformation. Oper-
ating out of the assumption that history teaches what people ought
to do and what they ought to eschew, Calvin focused on how Acts is
concerned to show how God cared and still cares for the church and
directed its life through the Spirit, how Satan and his hosts oppose
the church, and how the apostles are examples of patience in the
midst of reproach, sorrow, and calamity, trusting in God to deliver the
church.
The Interpretation of Luke in the Enlightenment

H. S. Reimarus (–), professor of oriental languages at the
Hamburg academic gymnasium, worked in the context of develop-
ments in the German Enlightenment’s understanding of the relation
between revelation and reason.10 The leading German philosopher of
the period, C. Wolff (–), held that (a) revelation may be above
reason but not contrary to reason, and (b) reason establishes the cri-
teria by which revelation may be judged. The Wolffian synthesis was
attacked from two directions. Neology, the middle phase of the Enlight-
enment, contended that (a) revelation is real, but its content is not dif-
ferent from that of natural religion in general and that (b) reason may
eliminate those doctrines of Christian revelation that are not identical
with reason. Rationalism, however, (a) agreed that reason establishes
the criteria to judge revelation but (b) contended that reason’s crite-
ria prove revelation to be false, leaving reason to exist alone. Publicly
Reimarus followed Wolff in saying that natural religion prepares for
Christianity; privately he joined rationalism in saying that natural reli-
gion replaces Christianity. Wolff held that there are certain criteria by
which any alleged revelation must be tested: First, revelation must be
necessary, containing knowledge available only by miraculous means.
Second, it must be free from contradictions. Privately Reimarus took
Wolff’s criteria and applied them to Christian origins, as set forth in the
four Gospels and Acts, to show that it is possible to trace the natural
9 John Calvin, A Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles ( vols.; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, ).
10 Charles H. Talbert, ed., Reimarus: Fragments (Lives of Jesus Series; Philadelphia:
Fortress, ).
     
origins of Christianity and that the supposed revelation is filled with

contradictions. Reason’s criteria thereby undermine the claims of the
alleged Christian revelation.
Reimarus accepted the traditional view that Matthew and John were
written by eyewitnesses, while Mark and Luke were not. He claimed
that the evangelists constructed their own picture of Jesus after his
death, but that they left, unintentionally and through sheer careless-
ness, traces of the historical reality of Jesus. From these traces one can
see that Jesus did not espouse the three central doctrines of Christianity:
spiritual deliverance through the suffering and death of Christ (atone-
ment), Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead, and Christ’s speedy
return for reward and punishment. Jesus saw himself as a worldly Mes-
siah, but his disciples turned him into a spiritual Savior after his death
for economic reasons. It requires no miracles to explain the develop-
ment of Christian origins; furthermore, the historical facts of Jesus’
career contradict the claims made for him by his disciples after his
death. Other contradictions are everywhere apparent, e.g., Matthew
and John make no mention of the appearance on the road to Emmaus
as Luke :– does; Matthew knows nothing of the appearance in
Jerusalem that is found in Luke :–; John and Matthew do not
report Jesus’ ascension as Luke : does; Mark : says the women
buy spices when the feast day is past, whereas Luke : has them
buy the spices in the evening before the feast day; Matthew and Mark
report only one angel at the tomb, while Luke : says there were
two. Reimarus used Luke only to illustrate contradictions in the Gospel
accounts, contradictions that he believed show the falsity of the alleged
Christian revelation.
Reimarus wrote as an academic, not a cleric, expressing his personal
doubts in the form of an apology focused, not at the enemies of the
church, but at Christianity itself. He sought to disprove its claims to
have received truth through revelation. His interpretation of Luke, the
other Gospels, and Acts both denied their essential historicity and
exposed their creation by Jesus’ disciples after his death. Reimarus is
so important for biblical interpretation because on these two points his
work set the stage for the subsequent interpretation of Luke and the
other Gospels up to our day.
  
The Interpretation of Luke in the Modern World

Since , interpretation of the Gospels, including Luke, has followed
two very different lines. On the one hand, in response to Reimarus’s
denial of the essential historicity of the Gospel accounts (later reinforced
by D. F. Strauss), there has been a drive to establish the historical
basis of the tradition by means of source analysis and by appeals to
authorship and archaeology: the quest of the historians’ Jesus. On the
other hand, there has also been an attempt to interpret the meaning
of the Gospels in their final form by relating the tendency of each to
its historical context or occasion: the quest of the evangelists’ theology.
The different ways Luke and Acts have been interpreted since 
have depended on which of these two approaches has been applied to
them at any given time.
The impetus to establish the historical basis of the tradition about
Jesus was sometimes undertaken on behalf of the aims of orthodox
Christianity in the belief that, if the historicity of the tradition was
validated, it would confirm the picture of Jesus in the Gospels. Some-
times the impetus came from the desire to overthrow Chalcedonian
christology in the belief that the historical tradition behind the Gospels
would reveal a Jesus more intelligible to modern times, a Jesus of obvi-
ous moral superiority to all others and, therefore, self-validating to the
modern conscience. Exponents of this general approach to scholarship
as it applies to Luke and Acts include A. von Harnack,11 W. Ramsay,12
B. H. Streeter,13 and V. Taylor.14
In order to reestablish the value of the Lukan writings as historical
authorities, von Harnack () sought to prove that the Third Gospel
and Acts were written by a fellow worker of Paul, Luke the physi-
cian. Von Harnack then () reconstructed Q from Matthew and
11 Adolf von Harnack, Luke the Physician: The Author of the Third Gospel and the Acts
of the Apostles (ed. W.D. Morrison; trans. J. R. Wilkinson; NT Studies ; New York:
G. P. Putnam’s Sons, ); idem, The Sayings of Jesus: The Second Source of St. Matthew and
St. Luke (trans. J. R. Wilkinson; NT Studies ; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, ).
12 William M. Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? A Study of the Credibility of St.
Luke (London: Hodder and Stoughton, ); idem, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the
Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, ).
13 B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition,
Sources, Authorship, and Date (New York: Macmillan, ).

14 Vincent Taylor, Behind the Third Gospel: A Study of the Proto-Luke Hypothesis (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, ); idem, The Passion Narrative of St. Luke: A Critical and
Historical Investigation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ).
     
Luke, concluding that Q was a document of the apostolic epoch, more

ancient than Mark and composed in Palestine. Ramsay took what is
perhaps the most historically dubious passage in the New Testament,
Luke :–, and attempted to establish its essential historicity on the
basis of contemporary discoveries in Egypt that seemed to indicate a
system of periodic enrollments in Syria and the East generally. Streeter,
assuming the two source theory, argued for the existence of Proto-Luke,
a synthesis of Q+L that was, in fact, a complete Gospel prior to the
composition of the Third Gospel. Proto-Luke appears to have been a
document independent of Mark and approximately of the same date—
a conclusion Streeter believed to be of considerable moment to the his-
torian. Taylor contended that behind the Third Gospel’s passion narra-
tive was a special source, an authority as old as Mark but independent
of the Second Gospel. Such an independent pre-Lukan passion narra-
tive would assist the historian in reconstructing the events of Jesus’ final
days.
The focus of all these efforts was to use the Third Gospel as a win-
dow through which to view something other than the Lukan text; inter-
pretation consisted of treating Luke as a mine from which one could
dig the ore of pre-Lukan historical tradition. This concern persists—in
part at least—in I. H. Marshall15 and J. Nolland,16 doubtless due to the
authors’ evangelical Christian conviction that “faith follows not feeling
but fact.” Since Luke was regarded as a secondary source by this line of
interpretation, moreover, the Third Gospel received considerably less
attention from scholars pursuing the quest of the historical Jesus than
did Mark.
The attempt to interpret each of the Gospels in its final form was,
initially at least, based on the assumption that the true meaning of a
Gospel is determined by discerning its place in the historical develop-
ment of early Christianity, as opposed to its canonical context. Inter-
pretation, therefore, took the form of a history of early Christianity.
F. C. Baur, in the first half of the nineteenth century, is the epitome
of this approach.17 Assuming J. J. Griesbach’s order of the Gospels,
with Matthew first, then Luke, and finally Mark, Baur read Luke as a
reinterpretation of Matthew from a Pauline perspective. The Gospel of
15 I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ).

16 John Nolland, Luke ( vols.; WBC A, B, C; Dallas: Word, –).
17 F. C. Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien ihr Verhaltnis zu
einander ihren Charakter und Ursprung (Tübingen: LF Fues, ).

  
Luke arose in its final form after A.D. , motivated by the party rela-
tionships of that period. Luke’s universalistic tendency was a Pauline
antithesis to the particularism of the Jewish Christian Matthew; it was
related to an alleged occasion in the historical development of early
Christianity. Thus interpretation of Luke consists of the act of bring-
ing tendency and occasion together. For Baur, such interpretive activity
must be accompanied by indifference to result and freedom from sub-
jectivity, the shining goal toward which every true scholar presses. It
never occurred to the university-based Baur that his Hegelian presup-
positions were a significant component of his own subjectivity.
R. Bultmann’s view of Luke in his Theology of the NT 18 represents
both continuity and discontinuity with the interpretive scheme of Baur.
Like Baur, Bultmann was concerned to set the Third Gospel in its
historical context. The tendency of Luke and its companion volume,
Acts, is to substitute a history of salvation for the primitive Christian
imminent eschatology. The occasion is the delay of the parousia in early
Christianity at the end of the first century. Faced with disappointments
arising from the delay, the Third Evangelist told the story of Jesus as
part of a history of salvation in which the gift of the Holy Spirit replaces
the imminent end. Unlike Baur, Bultmann then engaged in content
criticism: The NT contains two strata, the first embodying the early
eschatological kerygma, the second reflecting an early Catholic fall away
from the truth. Paul and John’s Gospel represent the authentic stratum;
Luke, among others, belongs to the early Catholic distortion of the
original Gospel and as such does not have the same normative quality
for the church that Paul and the Fourth Gospel have. Interpretation for
Bultmann began with discerning Luke’s alleged tendency and setting
it in connection with an alleged occasion; it finished with a critical
appraisal of the value of Luke’s tendency for Christian faith.
H. Conzelmann further developed Bultmann’s view of Luke as an
account of Jesus that eliminates imminent eschatology in response to
the delayed parousia,19 although he refused to relegate Luke to early
Catholicism.20 Conzelmann’s contribution lies in the methodology pro-
18 Rudolf Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr, –); idem,
Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribner, –).

19 Hans Conzelmann, Die Mitte der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des Lukas (BHT ;
Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, ); idem, The Theology of St. Luke (New York: Harper &
Brothers, ).
20 Hans Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (New York: Harper
& Row, ), –.

     
posed to discern the Lukan tendency. By noting Luke’s departures from

his primary source, Mark, and by paying special attention to the over-
all narrative framework or pattern of arrangement, one can discern
the Lukan tendency. This became, with some fine-tuning, the method
of Redaction Criticism that dominated Lukan studies for more than a
generation. Even where the overall Bultmannian picture of Lukan the-
ology is resisted, as in the commentaries by Marshall,21 J. Fitzmyer,22
Nolland,23 and Bovon,24 the German redaction-critical method is as-
sumed. F. Bovon25 summarizes the results of such redaction-critical
study of Luke under the headings plan of God, the interpretation of
the OT, christology, Holy Spirit, salvation, reception of salvation, and
church.
At the end of the twentieth century, interpretation of Luke reflected
a multiplicity of methods and approaches. In addition to those carried
over from the past, five interpretive options may be mentioned in a
logical, not chronological, order.
) Interpreting Luke in light of Mediterranean parallels. From  to  the

Society of Biblical Literature’s Luke-Acts Group (–) and Semi-
nar (–) broke with the construct of Conzelmann and developed
an approach to Luke more akin to that of H. Cadbury.26 Like Conzel-
mann, Cadbury assumed the two source theory and viewed Luke as
a reinterpretation of Mark. Unlike Conzelmann, he did not believe it
possible to detect a single dominating occasion for Luke’s Gospel or
a singular purpose formulated consciously in response to it; he was
concerned to set Luke’s literary techniques, no less than his theol-
ogy, in relation to parallels from the Mediterranean world. The Luke-
Acts working groups likewise eschewed an approach that depended on
a dominant conception of the development of early Christianity and
opted for a method of interpretation that depended heavily on paral-
21 I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ).

22 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke ( vols.; WBC , a; Dallas:
Word, –). See my critical review in CBQ  (): –.
23 John Nolland, Luke (WBC A, B, C; Dallas: Word, –). See my review
in CRBR , –.

24 Francois Bovon, L’Evangile selon Saint Luc :–: (CNT IIIb; Geneve: Labor et
Fides, ). See my critical review in Biblica  (): –.

25 Francois Bovon, Luke the Theologian: Thirty Three Years of Research (–) (Allison
Park, Pa.: Pickwick, ); idem, Luc le Theologien: Vingt-Cinq Ans de Recherches (–)
(Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, ).
26 Henry J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (New York: Macmillan, ).
  
lels, especially literary ones, from the Mediterranean world. Perspectives

on Luke Acts27 and Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Liter-
ature Seminar,28 reflect an approach that sees interpretation primarily as
setting what is said in Luke and how it is said by Luke in its immediate
context in Mediterranean antiquity. The Mediterranean milieu allows
one to determine how Luke would have been heard by an ancient audi-
tor and, therefore, to discern what it would have meant to him or her.
The focus is on what Luke meant in the context of his own time. This
stream of interpretation has yielded monographs like that of S. Gar-
rett29 and a commentary by Talbert.30
) Interpreting Luke in light of non-biblical literary criticism. The older New

Criticism has been supplanted by a Narrative Criticism based on a
communications model like that of R. Jakobson, which regards texts
as mirrors rather than windows. This way of reading focuses on the
final form of the text and concentrates on such matters as plot, char-
acters, and type of narration by an implied author. Something of the
method was presented to historically oriented New Testament scholars
by N. Petersen.31 This type of literary study is devoid of references to
the Mediterranean environment just as was that of the New Criticism;
thus the narrative world of the Gospel text is abstracted from its time
and place. This type of reading has borne fruit in monographs like that
of D. Gowler,32 which deals with the matter of characterization, and
in the commentary by R. Tannehill,33 a combination of New Criticism
and modern narrative criticism in which there is an almost total lack of
references to Mediterranean sources outside the Bible. Tannehill’s the-
sis is that the author of Luke-Acts consciously understood the story of
27Charles H. Talbert, ed., Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ).

28Charles H. Talbert, ed., Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature
Seminar (New York: Crossroad, ).
29 Susan R. Garrett, The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke’s Writings
(Minneapolis: Fortress, ).

30 Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third
Gospel (New York: Crossroad, ); idem, Reading Luke (rewritten ed.; Macon, Ga.:
Smyth & Helwys, ).
31 Norman R. Petersen, Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (Philadelphia: For-
tress, ).
32 David B. Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and
Acts (New York: Peter Lang, ).

33 Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation ( vols.;
Philadelphia: Fortress, –).

     
Jesus and his followers as unified by the controlling purpose of God.34

A less insular example of a commentary written from this perspective is
that of Joel Green.35
) Interpreting Luke in light of anthropological and sociological models. J. Neyrey’s

edited collection is concerned with the question, What is the social sys-
tem assumed by Luke?36 Issues addressed include: What is the typi-
cal economic system in a peasant society? What are the features of
patron/client relations? What is the relation between city and country-
side? Who benefits from labeling another as deviant? How do honor
and shame operate in Mediterranean society? Given these questions
and their answers, where does Luke fit and how does he react?
) Interpreting Luke in the context of ancient liturgical practices. M. Goulder con-

tends that Luke wrote his Gospel as a cycle of liturgical/Gospel read-
ings to be used throughout the year in Christian worship as fulfillments
of the Hebrew Bible lections then existent in the synagogues.37
) Interpreting Luke in the context of the canon. B. Childs reflects what has
come to be called Canonical Criticism.38 This approach tries to take
account of the fact that as a result of the canonization process a new
and larger context has been effected for originally independent mate-
rial. Luke, for example, cannot be read canonically if it is interpreted in
isolation from the other three Gospels. Read in connection with them,
Luke can neither become part of a complete harmony of the Gospels
(as with Tatian) nor be sifted to discover the real Jesus behind the levels
of accretion (as with the quest of the historical Jesus). The plural form
remains constitutive for the canonical critic, so the Lukan Gospel must
be read as part of the canonical four. A large segment of Childs’s book
34 See my critical review of volume  in Biblica  (): –.

35 Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ). See
my review in Biblica  (): –.
36 Jerome H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Pea-
body, Mass.: Hendrickson, ).

37 Michael D. Goulder, The Evangelists’ Calendar: A Lectionary Explanation of the Develop-
ment of Scripture (London: SPCK, ); idem, Luke: A New Paradigm ( vols.; JSNTSup ;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ). See the evaluation of Goulder’s work by
Mark S. Goodacre, Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm (JSNTSup
; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ).
38 Brevard S. Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (Philadelphia: For-
tress, ).
  
is given over to ‘A Canonical Harmony of the Gospels,’ in which he

treats the final form of the text of Luke in its individuality but alongside
the other Gospels read in the same way. Childs refuses either to harmo-
nize or to attempt to establish the historical events behind the Lukan
text.
In large measure the diversity of methods proposed for interpreting
Luke today is rooted in biblical scholars’ openness to currents in fields
outside biblical studies. Their inability to choose among the multiplicity
of methods derives largely from the confusion over which community
they represent: church or academy. What may be appropriate for the
one may not always be appropriate for the other, as F. Dreyfus has
convincingly shown.39 One’s community determines what questions are
deemed appropriate to ask of the text; methods of interpretation are
chosen and/or developed in order to answer such questions. If there is
anything the history of interpretation of Luke teaches us, it is this.
The Method(s) Employed by Essays in This Volume

The essays in this volume reflect both lines of interpretation character-
istic of scholarship since : theological and historical. All but the last
are concerned with the theological perspectives of Luke and Acts. The
last focuses on the possible historicity of Acts.
The essays devoted to the theology of Luke-Acts reflect methodologi-
cal continuity with the work of Cadbury, Dibelius,40 and the SBL Group
and Seminar (–) in that the Lukan milieu is deemed critical for
understanding the New Testament writings. They are more particu-
larly aligned with the work of modern non-biblical literary critics Peter
J. Rabinowitz41 and Hans Robert Jauss,42 although the roots of such a
way of reading are found in the German New Testament tradition of
scholarship at least as early as Walter Bauer.43 The essays that follow,
39
F. Dreyfus, ‘Exegese en Sorbonne, Exegese en Eglise,’ RevBib  (): –.
40
Martin Dibelius, Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte (ed. H. Greeven; Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, ).
41 Peter J. Rabinowitz, ‘Truth in Fiction: A Reexamination of Audiences,’ Criti-
cal Inquiry  (): –; idem, Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics of
Interpretation (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, ); idem, ‘Whirl Without End:
Audience Oriented Criticism,’ in Contemporary Literary Theory (ed. G. Douglas Atkins;
Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, ), –.
42 Hans Robert Jauss, ‘Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory,’ New
Literary History  (): –.

43 J. Louis Martyn, The Gospel of John in History (New York: Paulist, ), –,
     
save two, reflect a concern for the authorial audience. They join a con-
cern for a synchronic reading of the final form of the text with a focus
on the milieu within which Luke and Acts were written. Explanation is
in order.
Rabinowitz distinguishes between the ‘actual audience’ (the flesh-
and-blood folks who listen to a text), the ‘authorial audience’
(those for whom the author thought he was writing, who possessed the
background knowledge presumed by the text), the ‘narrative audience’
(those with whom the narrator communicates, who have a particular
understanding of reality that would not be consistent in all ways with
the actual or authorial audience), and the ‘ideal narrative audience’
(who embrace the perspective of the narrator even when neither the
narrative nor authorial audience does).
The ‘authorial audience’ is different from W. Iser’s ‘implied reader’
(an idealized hypothetical reader who must be extracted from the text
itself, which text is viewed as a closed, autonomous object).44 By con-
trast, the ‘authorial audience’ is presupposed by the text. Identifying
it involves a careful analysis of both the text itself and the context in
which the text was produced. The authorial audience equals the con-
textualized implied readers.
Reading in light of the authorial audience builds also on the work of
H. R. Jauss whose Rezeptionsgeschichte attempts to determine the horizon
of expectations (= the set of cultural, ethical, and literary expectations)
that would have been current at the time the work appeared.
To read as authorial audience is to attempt to answer the question:
If the literary work fell into the hands of an audience that closely
matched the author’s target audience in terms of knowledge brought
to the text, how would they have understood the work? This type
of reading involves trying to adopt the perspectives of the authorial
audience so that one may become a member of the author’s original
audience’s conceptual community. To do this, modern readers must
gain an understanding of the values of the authorial audience and
the presuppositions upon which the original text was built. We must
reconstruct the conceptual world that was used in the creation and
n. , refers to a hermeneutical rule attributed orally by E. Käsemann to W. Bauer:

“Before one inquires into the author’s intention, he must first ask how the first readers
are likely to have understood the text.”
44 Wolfgang Iser, The Implied Reader: Patterns in Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan
to Beckett (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, ).

  
original reception of the text. This approach focuses on how members

of a particular culture communicate with one another.
This approach to reading yields a very different use of comparative
materials from that characteristic of the old Religionsgeschichtliche Schule.
Whereas the History of Religions School saw comparative material as
evidence of Christian borrowing from non-Christian sources with the
result that Christianity was perceived as a syncretistic religion, reading
in terms of the authorial audience sees material from the milieu as
data for reconstructing the reader who would have heard the text in
a certain way. Christianity is assumed to have its own integrity as a
religion. Not borrowing but understanding is the focus.
Jauss proposes a similar tack. He says:
Whenever a writer of a work is unknown, his intent not recorded, or
his relationship to sources and models only indirectly accessible, the
philological question of how the text is “properly” to be understood,
that is according to its intention and time, can best be answered if the
text is considered in contrast to the background of the works which the
author could expect his contemporary public to know either explicitly or
implicitly.45
In reading this way, one is not claiming that the ancient readers were
consciously aware of these particular texts. Rather these texts help to
establish the most likely conceptual world of the readers, the authorial
audience. This conceptual world is similar to what Wolfgang Iser calls
“the readers’ repertoire,” the broader societal ways of looking at the
world.46
The question of how the authorial audience would have understood
the text is not a novel notion of recent non-biblical literary critics.
Although these critics have developed the theoretical framework for
such a way of reading, the awareness of the correctness of this type of
approach is found in earlier New Testament scholarship. A hermeneu-
tical rule attributed orally by E. Käsemann to W. Bauer runs: “Before
one inquires into an author’s intention, he must first ask how the first
readers are likely to have understood the text.” Quite apart from Jauss,
Iser, and Rabinowitz, this stream from New Testament studies has con-
tinued into the present, as witnessed by the following: “A likely (reason-
able) interpretation by an original audience … is … part of the social or
45 Jauss, .
46 Wolfgang Iser, The Acts of Reading (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
).
     
public meaning of the discourse in its original moment.”47 Ultimately,

this way of reading rests on the reality that authors share with their
intended audience a set of background information and presupposi-
tions that make communication possible.48
This approach to reading does not rule out all attempts to discern
authorial intent. Richard B. Hays’ comments are on target.
Often overlooked in the discussion of authorial intention is the fact
that W. K. Wimsatt, Jr. and Monroe C. Beardsley, in their landmark
essay, ‘The Intentional Fallacy,’ The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of
Poetry (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, ), did not exclude
in principle the possibility of gaining information about the author’s
intention in all texts. Indeed, they asserted that “practical messages”—as
distinguished from “poetry”—“are successful if and only if we correctly
infer the intention” (). Their primary point was that “the design or
intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard
for judging the success of a work of literary art” (, emphasis mine). This
is a proposal about aesthetics, not a skeptical stricture on historical
knowledge.49
Sometimes, starting with the question, “How would the authorial audi-
ence have heard this text,” leads to a conclusion about what the author
of the text probably intended.
By authorial audience one is not necessarily referring to a particular,
localized community from which and for which a text is alleged to
have originated. Rather the authorial audience refers to the larger
cultural milieu within which a document was read/heard. So when
R. Bauckham argues that a Gospel was expected to circulate widely
among the churches with no particular Christian audience in mind,50
47 Charles H. Cosgrove, ‘The Justification of the Other: An Interpretation of Ro-
mans :–:,’ SBL Seminar Papers,  (SBSLP ; Missoula: Scholars Press, ),
, says: “A likely (reasonable) interpretation by an original audience … is … part of
the social or public meaning of the discourse in its original moment.”
48 Selected examples of scholars who use this method in their work include: Warren
Carter, ‘The Crowds in Matthew’s Gospel,’ CBQ  (): –; idem, ‘Recalling
the Lord’s prayer: The Authorial Audience and Matthew’s Prayer as Familiar Litur-
gical experience,’ CBQ  (): –; idem, ‘Matthew :– and Matthean Dis-
cipleship: An Audience-Oriented Perspective,’ CBQ  (): –; Warren Carter
and John Paul Heil, Matthew’s Parables: Audience-Oriented Perspectives (Monograph Series;
Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, ); Stanley D. Harstine, Moses as a
Character in the Fourth Gospel (JSNTSup ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ).
49 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University
Press, ), , n. .

50 Richard Bauckham, ‘For Whom Were Gospels Written?’ in The Gospel for All
Christians: Rethinking Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ), –.

  
he is critiquing the redaction critical assumption that the Gospels were

produced in and for specific churches with specific problems to be
addressed, by analogy with the occasional letters of Paul. His critique,
however, is entirely compatible with a reading in terms of the authorial
audience. When, moreover, C. R. Koester argues that the original
readers of the (Fourth) Gospel came from a variety of backgrounds,51
this poses no problem for a reading in terms of the authorial audience.
Although the original readers were not entirely homogeneous, they
would have nevertheless shared in the conceptual repertoire of the
popular culture of the day.
Readers of this volume will be aware immediately that, even when
not explicitly stated, the method used when discussing Lukan theology
is a reading in terms of the authorial audience. The question is: How
would ancient auditors have heard this text?
When perusing the final essay on the historicity of Acts, the reader
will quickly recognize that the old handles of authorship and sources
are not criteria employed. The final essay is more in tune methodolog-
ically with Dibelius than Ramsay. Like Dibelius it assumes that the his-
toricity of Acts will be established in the sifting of the Lukan sands one
grain at a time.52
51 Craig Koester, ‘The Spectrum of Johannine Readers,’ in What Is John? (ed. F. F.
Segovia; SBLSymS ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ), –.

52 Martin Dibelius, ‘Zur Formsgeschichte des Neuen Testament (ausserhalb der
Evangelien),’ TRu  (): –.

 
SUCCESSION IN LUKE-ACTS
AND IN THE LUKAN MILIEU
The question addressed in this essay is: How would ancient auditors
have heard the sections of Luke-Acts that deal with succession? Pursuit
of an answer to this question requires a focus on two topics: succession
in the Lukan milieu and succession in Luke-Acts. We may take up these
two topics in order.
Succession In Mediterranean Antiquity, Part : The Lukan Milieu

The purpose of this essay, in Part , is to describe the concept of
succession in Mediterranean Antiquity, to delineate its semantic field,
to identify extant texts in which succession plays a key role, and to
define the conventional form of a succession story. The authors1 do not
claim that their work is exhaustive, only that it is as exhaustive as their
time constraints allowed.
The Concept of Succession in Antiquity

In the Greco-Roman world the concept of succession was widespread.
It was used above all for rulers (e.g., Phoenician kings [Porphyry, Christ.
acc. to Eusebius, Praep. ev. .]; succession to the Lydian throne [Oeno-
maus, ΓοÜτων φωρÀ, acc. to Eusebius, Praep. ev. .]; kings of Athens,
Macedon, Ptolemies, and Seleucids [Tatian, acc. to Eusebius, Praep.
ev. .]; Alexander the Great’s successors [Diodorus Siculus ff.];
Druid chiefs [Caesar, Bell. gall. .]; Assyrian kings [Vellius Patercu-
lus ..]; kings of Tyre [Josephus, Ag. Ap. . §–]; governors
[Livy ..; Cicero, Fam. ..; Josephus, A.J. .. §–]; a
ruler in Syria [Josephus, A.J. .. §]; pagan rulers [Athenago-
ras, Leg. .]; Roman emperors [Josephus, A.J. .. §; Dio Cas-
sius ..; ..; ..; ..]). It was also used widely for philoso-
1 This essay was jointly authored with my graduate student, Perry Stepp, and is
used with his permission.

  
phers (e.g., generally [Cicero, Nat. d. ..–..]; of the Stoic suc-

cession [Div. ..]; of the Platonic succession [Acad. .–]; cf. also
Plutarch, Exil. ; Athenaeus d; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. .;
Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. and his predecessors; Origen, Cels. .).
Writers also employed the concept when referring to such figures as
jurists (Pomponius Sextus, Ench. [acc. to a fragment contained in Jus-
tinian’s Dig., Book , authority , sections –]), magi (Lucian, Men.
; Xanthus of Lydia, acc. to Diogenes Laertius, ..), rhetoricians (Aris-
totle, Soph. elench. .– §b; Cicero, Div. ..; Brut. .), temple
wardens (Lucian, Alex. ), priests (Athenagoras, Leg. .), admirals (Dio
Cassius ..), and generals (Livy ..; ..). It could also be used
of a succession in a craft (Ovid, Metam. .). The concept of succes-
sion was so integral to Greco-Roman thinking that Pliny, Naturalis histo-
ria .–, notes that the survival of magic is surprising because there is
“no line of … continuous successors” in it.
In the Jewish world the concept of succession was related to leaders
or rulers of the people (e.g., the patriarchs [Josephus, A.J. . §]; Joshua
as successor to Moses [LXX Num :–; LXX Deut :–; :–
, ; :–, –, –, ; LXX Josh :–; Josephus, A.J. ..
§; Sir :; L.A.B. .; T. Mos. : and :; Clement Alex, Strom.
..] ; kings of Israel [LXX  Kgs –; :, etc.; Josephus, A.J.
.. §; .. §, etc.; Clement Alex, Strom. ..]; Edomite
kings [Gen :–// Chr :–]; Maccabean rulers [Josephus,
B.J. .. §; .. §; LXX  Macc :]). It was also used for
prophets (e.g., LXX  Kgs ; Eupolemos, acc. to Eusebius, Praep. ev. .;
Sir :; Josephus, Ag. Ap. . §; Justin, Dial. .), and for priests (e.g.,
Aaron is succeeded by Eleazar who is succeeded by Phinehas [LXX
Num :–; :–; Josephus, A.J. .. §]; the succession
in the high priesthood under the kings [Josephus, A.J. .. §–
]; the succession of high priests from Aaron [Josephus, A.J. .
§–]; the succession of priests under the Herods [Josephus, A.J.
.. §] the discontinued authoritative succession of the Jewish
high priesthood [Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ..]). The concept of succession
was furthermore used in discussions about the passing on of both
rabbinic tradition (Josephus, A.J. .. §; Acts : when read in
terms of  Macc : and  Macc :; m. Avot ; Avot of Rabbi Nathan ;
Letter of Peter to James in Pre. Pet. .; Ps-Hippolytus, Fragment [ANF
.–]) and the mystical tradition ( En. D.).
Christian writers also made use of the concept. It was used for bish-
ops (e.g., Irenaeus, Haer. ..; Tertullian, Praescr. ; Pseudo-Clement,
  -      
Hom., Ep. Clem. Jac. ; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ..; ..; ..; ..–
; Ennodius, Vit. Epiph.; Paulinus, Vit. Ambr. , ; Hegesippus, acc.
to Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ..). It was also employed for monastic founders
(e.g., Vit. Pachom.; Serm. vit. Hon.) and for teachers/elders (e.g., Irenaeus,
Haer. ..; ..). The idea of succession was furthermore related to
the notion of the passing on of tradition, whether the apostolic tradition
(Pastoral epistles; Polycarp, Phil :; Clement Alex, Strom. .; Letter of
Peter to James in Pre. Pet. .) or the Gnostic tradition (Hippolytus, Haer.
.; Irenaeus, Haer. , preface; Ep. Ptol. Flor.; Gos. Phil. .–).
The Semantic Field of Succession Thinking

Certain expressions were characteristic of ancient references to succes-
sion when a phenomenological description of the fact was given.
. The one after him/me/you (µετÀ or post/ab hoc/deinde) in

Aristotle, Soph. elench. .– § b
LXX  Kgs : [David said Solomon will reign after me]
Sir : [Solomon was the one raised up after David]
L.A.B. : [Joshua who was ruler after Moses]
Josephus, A.J. .. §  [after Marcus Ambivius came Annius Rufus]
Plutarch, Vit. X orat. C [Philocles was the one after …]
Pomponius Sextus, Ench. [acc. to Justinian, Dig. .., , , , ;
.., ; .., ]
Hegesippus [acc. to Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ..]
Diogenes Laertius . [Sphaerus and Cleanthes are said to be after Zeno]
. The one in his stead//instead of him/me/you (ντÝ)

LXX Gen :– [Edomite kings rule instead of their predecessors]
LXX  Kgs : [David says Solomon will rule in his stead]
LXX  Kgs : [Asa, his son, reigns in his stead]
LXX  Kgs : [Elijah is to anoint Elisha as prophet in his stead]
LXX  Macc : [Judas rules in his father’s place]
. To be successor/to succeed/be succeeded by/by succession/to

spring from (διÀδοχο̋/successit/διÛρχοµαι πο)
Eusebius, Praep. ev. .
Pomponius Sextus, Ench. [acc. to Justinian, Dig. .., , ]
Josephus, A.J. .. § 
Diogenes Laertius .; .–
. His/their disciples included/were (ab … profecti/ µα©ητÜ̋ +verb to

be/ to be a hearer of [using κοàω or διακοàω)
  
Pomponius Sextus, Ench. [Justinian, Dig. ..-these men’s pupils included]

Diogenes Laertius .; .; . [his disciples were] Diogenes
Laertius ..; .. [he was a hearer of]
When speaking of the one who passes something on to a successor,
certain expressions are conventional.
. To give/deliver/commit (παραδÝδωµι)
P.Hercul.  [X.; XX.; XXII.]
Josephus, A.J. . § ; .. § 
Luke :
Diogenes Laertius .
. To bequeath (διατÝ©ηµι/δια©Üκη + διÀδοκον//relinquere testatur)
Isocrates, Aegin.  [διÛ©ετο an inheritance to διαδÞχου̋)
Josephus, A.J. .. §  [Alexander left behind him two sons but
bequeathed his kingdom to Alexandria]
Josephus, B.J. .. § ; .. § ; .. § ; .. § ; ..– § –
[δια©Üκη + successor]
Josephus, A.J. .. §  [δια©Üκη + successor]
Luke :
Tacitus, Ann. . [Seneca bequeathed to his friends the image of his life]
. To leave to (πολεÝπω)
P.Hercul.  [X.]
Diodorus Siculus ..; ..; ..
Arrian, Alex. ..
(καταλεÝπω)
P.Hercul.  [XVI.; XXV.]
Diodorus Siculus ..; ..; .. Dionysius of Hal ..
Josephus, A.J. . § ; .. § ; .. § 
Dio Chrysostom ..
Diogenes Laertius ..
. To appoint (κα©Ýστηµι)
P.Hercul.  [VIII.]
LXX  Macc :, 
Josephus, A.J. .. § ; B.J. .. § 
 Clem. :; :
Titus :
Acts :
(συνÝστηµι)
LXX Num :
  -      
(χειροτονÛω)
P.Hercul.  (VII.)
P.Hercul.  (VIII. )
Josephus, A.J. .. § 
Acts :
(ναδεÝκνυµι)
 Macc :; :
(ποδεÝκνυµι)
Josephus, A.J. .. § 
. To entrust to (παρατÝ©ηµι)
P.Hercul.  [V.; VIII.; XI.]
 Tim :
(πιστεàω)
Dio Cassius ..
(εγχειρÝζω)
Josephus, A.J. .. § 
. To cast (something) upon him (π’ ατÞν)

LXX  Kgs : [God tells Elijah to anoint Elisha to be prophet after him]
so
LXX  Kgs : [Elijah casts his mantle upon him]
The language used for the one who receives something passed on is
also reasonably stable.
. To receive (διαδÛκοµαι)
Aristotle, Soph. elench. . § b
P.Hercul.  [VI.; IV.; XXXV.]
P.Hercul.  [XLV.]
Diodorus Siculus ..
Dio Chrysostom ..; ..
Josephus, A.J. . § ; .. § ; .. § 
 Clem. :
Lucian, Alex. 
Appian, Hist. rom. ..
Athenagoras, Leg. . and :
  
Diogenes Laertius .

Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ..
(κδÛχοµαι)
Appian, Hist. rom. ..
Numenius, Περd τ̋ τν καδηµαϊκν πρe̋ ΠλÀτωνα διαστÀσεω̋ [acc. to
Eusebius, Praep. ev. .]
(παραλαµβÀνω)
P.Hercul.  [X.]
P.Hercul.  [XXVIII.; XXIX.] Dionysius of Halicamassus ..
Josephus, A.J. .. § 
(λαµβÀνω)
LXX  Kgs :
P.Hercul.  [.; XV.]
P.Hercul.  [.; .; VIII.]
Acts :
. To be upon me/him (π’ µÛ/π’ ατÞν/πÀνω©εν ατÞν)
LXX  Kgs : [a double portion of Elijah’s spirit upon Elijah]
LXX  Kgs : [Elijah’s mantle fell off him upon Elisha]
LXX  Kgs : [the spirit of Elijah has rested upon Elisha]
The language used for what is passed on varies widely because what is
passed on is so diverse.
. A kingdom (βασιλεÝα)
Diodorus Siculus ..; ..; ..
Alexander Polyhistor [acc. to Eusebius, Praep. ev. .; .; .]
Dionysius of Halicamassus ..
Josephus, A.J. .. § ; .. § 
Athenagoras, Leg. .
. Rule/authority/leadership (ρχÜ)
Diodorus Siculus ..
Dio Chrysostom ..
Dio Cassius ..
Josephus, A.J. .. § –
(γεµονÝα)
Diodorus Siculus ..
Dionysus of Halicarnassus ..
Josephus, A.J. .. § 
  -      
(µοναρχÝα)
Dio Cassius ..
(δυναστεÝα)
Dio Cassius ..
(ναυαρχÝα)
Dio Cassius ..
. The succession (διαδοχÜ)
Aristotle, Soph. elench. .– § b
P.Hercul.  [XXXVI.]
Plutarch, Exil. 
. The school (scholia)
P.Hercul.  [XII.; XX.] Athenaeus 
Diogenes Laertius .; .
Iamblichus, Vit. Pythag. 
Eusebius, Praep. ev. .]
(diatribe)
P.Hercul.  [VI.; VII.; XXXV.]
Plutarch, Vit. X orat. C
Lucian, Alex. 
Diogenes Laertius .
Eusebius, Praep. ev. ., ]
Ammonius Saccus [acc. to Porphyry, Isag. .]
. The disciples (µα©ητÜ̋/profecti)
P.Hercul.  [X.; IV.; X.; XX.]
P.Hercul.  [XII.; XVI.]
Josephus, A.J. .. § 
Pomponius Sextus, Ench. [acc. to Justinian, Dig. ..]
. The instruction/true teaching (disciplinam/παρα©Üκη)
Cicero, Nat. d. ..–
 Tim :;  Tim :
. The ministry (λειτουργÝα)
 Clem. :
. The chair (κα©Ûδρα)
  
Pseudo-Clement, Hom., Ep. Clem. Jac. , 

Pre. Pet., Letter of Peter to James 
. The role of prophet

LXX  Kgs : [anoint Elisha to be prophet after you]
. An oracle shrine (µαντεον)

. The priesthood (εροσàνη)

Josephus, A.J. .. § 
. βÝο̋ /vita

P.Hercul.  [XXVII.]
Tacitus, Ann. .
Diogenes Laertius .
Extant Texts from Antiquity in Which Succession Plays a Key Role

A surprising number of extant texts from Mediterranean Antiquity
employ the succession motif in significant ways (in references to suc-
cession; in succession lists; in stories of succession). They are related to
at least seven different types of figures.
. Rulers. Texts that reflect a significant influence of the succession

concept in relation to rulers include:
LXX Num :– ; LXX Deut :–; :–, ; :–, –, –,
; LXX Josh :–; Josephus, A.J. .. § ; L.A.B. : [Moses to
Joshua]
LXX  Kgs – [Saul to David]
LXX  Kgs ; Josephus, A.J. . § – [David to Solomon]
Diodorus Siculus ff. [Alexander the Great’s successors]
Josephus, A.J. ..– § – [Tiberius to Caligula]
Josephus, A.J. .– § –; B.J. ..– § – [Caligula to Claudius]
Josephus, A.J. ..– § – [Claudius to Nero]
. Priests. Texts that relate priests to succession include:

LXX Num :–
Lucian, Alex. .
. Prophets. Texts that speak about prophets in terms of succession

include:
  -      
LXX  Kgs :–;  Kgs ; Josephus, A.J. .. § 

. Philosophers. Texts that employ succession in descriptions of philoso-
phers include:
Philodemus, Σàνταξι̋ τν φιλοσÞφων
Aulus Gellius, Noct. att. .
Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil.
Iamblichus, Vit. Pythag.

The four documents that contain succession information
about philosophers require further explanation
Philodemus’s Σàνταξι̋ τν φιλοσÞφων comes from the first century
B.C. It is extant in fragments from the Herculaneum papyri: (a) on
the Eleatic and Abderite schools (P.Hercul. ); (b) on the Pythagorean
school (P.Hercul. ); (c) on the Epicurean school (P.Hercul. );
(d) on the Socratics (P.Hercul.  and ); (e) on the Academics
(P.Hercul.  and ); and (f) on the Stoics (P.Hercul. ). Of these
the ones most studied and most accessible are P.Hercul.  and .
On P.Hercul. , see Domenico Camparetti, ‘Papro ercolanese ined-
ito’;2 Augusta Traversa, Index Stoicorum Herculanensis;3 and Titiano Do-
randi, Storia dei Filosofi: La Stoa da Zenone a Panezio (P Herc ).4 On
P.Hercul. , see Segofredus Mekler, Academicorum Philosophorum Index
Herculanensis;5 Konrad Gaiser, Philodems Academica: Die Berichte uber Pla-
ton and die Alte Akademie in zwei herkulanensischen Papyri;6 and Tiziano
Dorandi, Storia dei Filosofi: Platone e L’Academia (P Here  e ).7
Much of the recent work on the Herculaneum papyri has come as the
result of the founding of the ‘Centro Internazionale per lo Studio dei
Papiri ercolanesi’ in  by Marcello Gigante. A survey of the stud-
ies to the early ’s is given by Gigante in his article ‘Les Papyrus
d’Herculanum aujourd’hui.’8
2 Rivista di Fililogia  (): –.

3 Genoa: Istituto di Filologia Classica, .
4 Leiden: Brill, .
5 Berlin: Weidmannos, , repr. .
6 Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, .
7 Naples: Bibliopolis, .
8 BullSocFrPhil  (): –.
  
The Σàνταξι̋ is constructed in the style of a large ‘institutional’ man-

ual.9 This describes its function, not its genre. What is its genre? First, it
is not a history as the ancients defined history near the beginning of our
era. In Antiquity, history claimed completeness (Cicero, De or. .).
History dealt with grand events (Herodotus .; Xenophon, Hell.
..; Polybius ..–; Dionysius of Halicarnassus ..; Statius, Silv.
..–). In history there was an attempt to discern causes (Poly-
bius .; :b.; Cicero, De or. ..). As Dionysius of Halicarnas-
sus put it: “The readers of histories do not derive sufficient profit from
learning the bare outcome of events, but … everyone demands that
the causes of the events be related.” Much of history was designed as
instruction for political figures as political figures. Dionysius of Halicar-
nassus .. is to the point. “For statesmen I perceive that the knowl-
edge of these things is absolutely necessary, to the end that they have
precedents for their use in the various situations that arise.” The sub-
ject matter of history was states, that is, political and military events.
The Σàνταξι̋ does not satisfy these criteria. This conclusion is sup-
ported by the fact that our search of P.Hercul.  and  finds no
evidence of στορÝα used self-referentially. Second, Walter Scott, Frag-
menta Herculanensia10 spoke of these fragments as Lives. Dorandi calls the
pieces of it that he has studied bios, vita, and biografia.11 Furthermore,
the closest analogies to the Σàνταξι̋ are the collections like the Vitae
prophetarum, Diogenes Laertius and his numerous predecessors, Philo-
stratus’s Vitae sophistarum, and Jerome’s and Gennadius’s De viris illus-
tribus. These either call themselves, or are called by others, Lives (βÝοι).
Their brevity (some sketches in such documents are no more than one
sentence while others are a long paragraph) raises the question in what
sense these sketches convey character, individuality, distinctiveness. For
that matter, the same may be said of the first century biography of
Aristotle that served to introduce his works, and its later derivatives.
Can anything this sketchy be said to be βÝο̋? They can, we think, be
said to be βÝοι in the same way that biography in the modern world
covers not only a long, fully developed treatment of an individual per-
sonality but also the sketches of people that appear in volumes like
9 Marcello Gigante, Philodemus in Italy: The Books from Herculaneum (trans. Dirk Ob-
bink; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, ), .

10 Oxford: Clarendon Press, .
11 Titiano Dorandi, Storia dei Filosofi: La Stoa da Zenone a Panezio (P Herc ) (Leiden:
Brill, ), , , , , etc.; idem, Storia dei Filosofi: Platone e L’Academia (P Herc 
e ) (Naples: Bibliopolis, ), , , –, , etc.
  -      
that of the Dictionary of International Biography. Even the sketches convey

something of an individual’s uniqueness. So also in antiquity. The Σàν-
ταξι̋, taken as a whole, however, is not a biography. There is no certain
place in P.Hercul.  and  where βÝο̋ is used self-referentially.
Although the pieces are biographical, the whole is not. It would not be
too great a stretch to translate Σàνταξι̋ as ‘Dictionary’ and to complete
the title Σàνταξισ τν φιλοσÞφων with a translation like ‘Dictionary of
Philosophical Biography.’ It contains biographical material but is itself
something else.
The Σàνταξι̋ is not polemical but is fundamentally descriptive. Its
substance is faithful to the principle of the successions. There is dis-
agreement about whether its function was esoteric (so Dorandi) or exo-
teric (so Gigante). The forms of the individual sections,  and ,
may be described. P.Hercul.  gives a fairly full Life of Plato fol-
lowed by much briefer sketches of his successors. P.Hercul.  gives
an outline of the Stoic succession which is filled in at least four points
by anecdotal material about the successors. The absence of more anec-
dotal material elsewhere is often due to the fragmentary nature of the
papyri.
Aulus Gellius’s Noctes atticae is a second century A.D. collection of
notes on grammar, public and private antiquities, history and biogra-
phy, philosophy, law, textual criticism, literary criticism, and more. It
consists mainly of extracts from a great number of Greek and Roman
authors ( are mentioned by name), many of whom are otherwise
lost. It is not at all clear from whom Gellius derived his story of the
Aristotelian succession.
Diogenes Laertius’s Vitae philosophorum is a third century collection of
successions whose thesis is that philosophy had its origin wholly within
Greek culture. His succession lists establish the coherence of Hellenistic
civilization in terms of a common philosophic culture. (An analogy
might be Irenaeus who used the successions of Christian bishops as a
guarantee of the coherence of a common Christian doctrine untainted
by pagan culture.)
Iamblichus’s De vita Pythagorica (Περd το πυ©αγορεου βÝου) is the
first volume of a ten volume encyclopedia of Pythagorean thought.
The latest editors, John Dillon and Jackson Hershbell, Iamblichus, On the
Pythagorean Way of Life,12 claim that the work is not merely a biography
12 Atlanta: Scholars Press, .

  
of Pythagoras. The reason is that, although it contains the founder’s

Life, it also contains additional material about the school, including a
succession narrative in chapter . Actually this work is a βÝο̋, not of
an individual but of a community, the Pythagoreans. It tells what is the
essence of the Pythagorean school by including a Life of the founder
who defines the Way and adds to it other school traditions as well. In
this regard, it is analogous to the ancient biographies of peoples which
attempted to depict the character of the group: e.g., Dikaiarchus’s th
century B.C. ΒÝο̋ τ̋ ^ΕλλÀδο̋, a life of the Greek people from the
Golden Age to his own time, and Varro’s st century B.C. De vita populi
Romani, a social treatment of the Roman people.
In order to evaluate this evidence, especially the biographical parts, it is

necessary to have some perspective on the data.
The collections of successions such as are evidenced by Philodemus
and Diogenes Laertius are part of a large stream of such writings:
e.g., Antigonus of Carystus, ∆ιαδοκc τν φιλοσÞφων (rd century B.C.);
Hermippus of Smyrna, ΒÝοι (rd century B.C.); Sotion, ∆ιαδοκαÝ (–
 B.C.); Heraclides of Lembus, \Επιτοµc ΣωτÝωνο̋ (– B.C.);
Sosicrates of Rhodes, ∆ιαδοκαÝ (d century B.C.); Alexander Polyhistor,
∆ιαδοκÜ τν φιλοσÞφων (– B.C.); Iason ( B.C.); Antisthenes of
Rhodes (st century B.C.); Nicias of Nicaea, ∆ιαδοκαÝ (st century B.C.
or st Century A.D.). There may be others as well.13
There were also histories (?) of single schools: e.g., Phaenias of Ere-
sus, Περd τν Σωκρατικν (th century B.C.); Idomeneus of Lampsacus,
Περd τν Σωκρατικν; Sphaerus of Borysthenes, Περd τν \Ερετρια-
κν φιλοσÞφων (rd century B.C.); Stratocles, a history of the Stoics;
Plutarch, Περd τν πρτου φιλοσοφησÀντων καd τν π’ ατν and
Περd Κυρηναϊκν; and Galen, Περd τ̋ ΠλÀτωνο̋ αρÛσεω̋ and Περd
τν ^Ηδονικοd αρÛσεω̋.14
There were biographies of individual philosophers as well. Most
of these Lives seem to have been written between approximately 
and  B.C.: e.g., Xenocrates, ΒÝο̋ ΠλÀτωνο̋; Hermodorus, Περd
ΠλÀτωνο̋; Philippus, Περd ΠλÀτωνο̋; Aristoxenos, ΒÝο̋ ΣωκρÀτου̋;
ΒÝο̋ ΠλÀτωνο̋; ΒÝο̋ Πυ©αγÞρου; ΒÝο̋ \Αρχàτου̋; Zeno the Stoic, ΒÝο̋
ΚρÀτου̋; Aeschines Socraticus, Alcibiades (P Oxy ); from the rd
13 Jorgen Mejer, Diogenes Laertius and His Hellenistic Background (Wiesbaden: Franz
Steiner, ), –.

14 Ibid., –.
  -      
century B.C. a biography of Socrates (P Hibeh ); Eratosthenes, Περd

ΑρÝστωνο̋; Apollophanes, Περd ΑρÝστωνο̋; Ariston the Peripatetic,
Περd ^ΗρÀκλειτο̋; ΒÝο̋ \Επικοàρο̋; etc.15 Biographies of individual phi-
losophers were far less numerous between  B.C. and A.D. : e.g.,
P.Hercul. ’s Vita Philonidis and Lucian’s Demonax.16 Although the
boundaries are not exact, it is fair to say that in general terms the
Lives of individual philosophers dominated from – B.C. and
collections of biographies of philosophers dominated from  B.C.
to the beginning of our era. In our era, there was a renewed interest
in both individual Lives and collections in the rd and th centuries.
Often later Christian and pagan biographies give a clue about earlier
Lives that we know only by name or in fragments. Palladius’s Dialogus
de vita Joannis Chrysostomi (A.D. ) and Sulpicius Severus’s Vita Sancti
Martini (A.D. ) offer two late Christian biographies in the form of a
dialogue. There is only one such pre-Christian biography, Satyrus’s Vita
Euripidis from the rd century B.C. (P Oxy ). The question is: were
the late Christian biographies modeling themselves on Satyrus’s work
in particular or are they but examples of a form that was widespread in
pre-Christian Antiquity but whose examples have now been lost? To us
at least, the latter is more plausible than the former.
The context also comes into play in matters of biographies of found-
ers of communities whose Lives contain a succession list or narrative
that is integral to the founder’s biography. The Vita Pachomii and Hilary
of Arles’s Sermo de vita Honorati offer th and th century Christian
examples. Diogenes Laertius includes at least six such lives, the fullest
of which is his Vita Epicuri in Book . The various Lives of Aristotle
collected by Ingemar During from Medieval times go back, he claims,
to a fourth century biography by Ptolemy.17 Certain of these contain
a succession component. Arnaldo Momigliano contends that the Vita
Marciana of Aristotle, one of During’s collection with a succession note,
is likely to reproduce the substance of the biography Andronicus wrote
about  B.C. to introduce his epoch-making edition of Aristotle.18 Is
there other evidence of individual Lives with succession components
from pre-Christian times? The clearest evidence is that of Aristoxenos’s
15 Ibid., .
16 Ibid., .
17 Ingemar During, Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition (Goteborg: Goteborg
Universitet Arsskrift, ), –, .

18 Arnaldo Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, ), –.

  
ΒÝο̋ Πυ©αγÞρου.19 Of Aristoxenos’s work Clement of Alexandria says

in Stromata .: “Aristoxenos, in his Life of Pythagoras, and Aristarchos
and Theopompos (\ΑριστÞξενο̋ ν τÿ Πυ©αγÞρου βÝÿω καd ΑρÝσταρχο̋
καd ΘεÞποµπο̋’).” Are we to suppose that there were one or maybe
two pre-Christian biographies of individual founders of philosophical
schools that were used as models by later authors in the rd and th
centuries A.D. or are we to think that what is evident in the later
Lives is representative of a whole range of pre-Christian Lives that are
now lost? Either way, there is evidence for the existence of individual
biographies of founders of philosophical schools with a succession com-
ponent integral to the Life, as well as collections of successions, from
pre-Christian times.20
. Jurists. A text that records the succession of jurists is:

Pomponius Sextus, Ench.
. Monastic founders. Sources that employ succession thinking in accounts
of founders of monastic communities include:
Vit. Pachom.
Hilary of Arles, Serm. vit. Honor.
. Bishops. Texts that utilize the succession concept in the treatment of
Christian bishops include:
 Clem. :; :
Pseudo-Clement, Ep. Clem. Jac.
19 F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles ( vols.; Basel: Schwabe, ), :–, frgs. –
.
20 This answers Loveday Alexander’s question about the alleged missing middle
stage of biographical development (‘Acts and Ancient Intellectual Biography,’ in The

Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting [ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ], –, esp. ). A further argument derives from
an observation about Diogenes Laertius’ sources. Take the case of the Vita Epicuri in
Book . In the section of this Life which deals with Epicurus’ career and his succes-
sors, Laertius mentions as his sources: Heraclides, \ΕπιτοµÜ ΣωτÝωνο̋, Apollodorus the
Epicurean’s multi-volume ΒÝο̋ \Επικοàρο̋ and Ariston’s ΒÝο̋ \Επικοàρο̋. The first is a
collection of Lives like that of the later Laertius. The second and third are individual
Lives. Thus Laertius drew not only on collections but also on individual bioi. If he did
the latter, then they existed and apparently included succession motifs. In the section
on Epicurean teaching, Laertius draws on a different set of sources: e.g., Κανñν, Περd
φàσεω̋, Περd ΒÝων, and Περd τÛλου̋. In other words, the materials for Epicurus’ Life
and Succession come from one set of sources and the materials for the teaching of
Epicureans from another.
  -      
Paulinus, Vit. Ambr.

Ennodius, Vit. Epiph.
. Tradition. Sources that use the concept of succession with reference to

the passing on of tradition are:
Pastoral Epistles
Clement of Alexandria, Strom. .
m. Avot and Avot of Rabbi Nathan
 Enoch21
A Conventional Form of a Succession Story?

Was there such a thing as a conventional form of a story of a succes-
sion? In order to answer this question, one must do two things: first,
separate the accounts into three groups (Jewish, Greco-Roman, and
Christian), and second, analyze the individual sources.
The Jewish sources that employ succession thinking to a significant

degree may be divided according to what is passed on: rule, priesthood,
prophet’s role, and tradition.
) Rule. Here one must examine accounts of three successions: that from
Moses to Joshua, that from Saul to David, and that from David to
Solomon.
(a) The succession from Moses to Joshua. There are two separate stories
of the succession from Moses to Joshua in the Bible. The first, LXX
Num :–, says that a leader of the congregation was needed for
the time after Moses. The act of passing the torch was accompanied by
certain symbolic rites: Joshua was set before Eleazar the priest (vv. ,
); Moses laid his hands on him (vv. , ), gave a charge to him
before the congregation (v. ) and the congregation a charge concern-
ing him (v. ), and put his glory upon him (v. ), and appointed him
(συνÛστησεν, v. ). The second, LXX Deut :–; :–, ; :–
, –, –, , involves the passing on of the role of field general or
head of the army (Deut :; :–, ; :, ).22 This succession
21 James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha ( vols.; Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, , ), :: This is a chain of mystical tradition similar to the chains
of tradents of the oral law. Cf. L.I. Levine, ‘R. Abbahu of Caesarea,’ in Christianity
Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, Part Four (ed. J. Neusner; Leiden: Brill, ), –.
22 Norbert Lohfink, ‘The Deuteronomy Picture of the Transfer of Authority from
Moses to Joshua,’ in Theology of the Pentateuch (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis:

  
involved Moses’ exhortation to Joshua in the presence of the people

(Deut :–), a theophany in which Yahweh charges Joshua with his
new task (Deut :–, ), and Moses’ laying his hands on Joshua
(Deut :). It was confirmed by Joshua’s being filled with the spirit of
wisdom (Deut :) and by the people’s listening to him (Deut :).
Both succession accounts lead to the book of Joshua where further evi-
dence is given of the transfer. This confirmation involves the people’s
acknowledging Joshua as leader (Josh :–) and Yahweh’s exalting
him through success in his ventures (Josh :; :). One of the most
striking strands of evidence for the transfer’s having taken place is the
correspondence between Moses’ and Joshua’s careers (e.g., the Lord
says to both, “I will be with you” [Exod ://Josh :, ; :]; both
send out spies [Num //Josh :]; both are involved in the parting
of the waters [Exod //Josh –]; both have the people circumcised
[Josh :; Lev :; Exod :, //Josh :–]; both celebrate the
Passover [Exod //Josh :–]; both are involved with the manna
[its gift, Exod //its cessation, Josh :]). At the same time that
Joshua’s career is like that of Moses, it is also unlike his (e.g., Moses
is the giver of the law [Exod ] while Joshua is to do all the law
which Moses commanded [Josh :–]). Moses is a foundational figure
in a way that Joshua could never be, even if he were Moses’ succes-
sor.
Later Jewish writings address the same succession. Liber antiquitatum
biblicarum : merely says that Joshua was ruler “after him” (Moses).
In :–, God says to Joshua after Moses’ death:
Take his garments of wisdom and clothe yourself, and with his belt of
knowledge gird your loins, and you will be changed and become another
man. Did I not speak on your behalf to Moses, my servant, saying, “This
one will lead my people after you”? (v. )
When Joshua does so, “his mind was afire and his spirit was moved”
(v. ). The people then say to Joshua: “Behold we know today … ‘After
Moses goes to rest, the leadership … will be given over to Joshua.’”
From then on, the people believe and acknowledge him as ruler in
Israel (v. ). The Testament of Moses :– says Moses called to himself
Fortress, ), –, contends that the succession involves two offices: field general
and distributor of the land. Our reading of Deuteronomy indicates that therein the only
succession is that of leader of the army. One must wait until Josh :,  to hear about
Joshua’s appointment by God to be the distributor of the land. That, in turn, is not
something passed on from Moses as is the role of field general.
  -      
Joshua, a man approved by the Lord, “that Joshua might become the
minister (successor) for the people in the tent of testimony and that he
might lead the people into the land promised to their fathers.” Jose-
phus, Antiquitates judaicae .. §, says Moses appointed (κα©Ýστησιν)
Joshua as his successor (διÀδοκον). Joshua had been instructed in all
learning concerning the law and God. Moses had been his instruc-
tor.
(b) The succession from Saul to David. The LXX  Kgs – deals
with the passing of kingship from Saul to David (:). In obedience
to Yahweh, Samuel anoints David (:a) and the Spirit of the Lord
comes upon (πÝ) him from that time (:b). (The MT, :, has
Jonathan give David his clothing and weapons. This is not in the LXX
or Josephus.) In :,  we hear that the Lord was with David; in
verse  that David had success; and in verses ,  that all Israel
loved David. Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae ..–.. §– tells a
similar story of Samuel’s anointing David as king, of the Divine Power’s
coming upon David so that he began to prophesy, of David’s successes
in battle, and of the women’s celebrations of David’s prowess. Josephus
says that David had God going along with him wherever he went and
so prospered in his undertakings.
(c) The succession from David to Solomon. The LXX  Kgs  has David
say that Solomon would sit upon his throne “after me” (µετ’ µÛ, v. )
and “in my stead” (ντ’ µο, v. ). The succession is accompanied by
certain symbolic acts: Solomon is set on David’s mule (vv. , ), he is
anointed by Zadok the priest (vv. , ) and Nathan the prophet (v. ),
and the trumpet is blown (vv. , ). The succession is confirmed by
the people’s acclamation: “Let king Solomon live” (v. ). Josephus,
Antiquitates judaicae .. §–, tells essentially the same story about
the passing of the kingship to Solomon: the ride on the mule, the
anointing by Zadok and Nathan, and the people’s acclamation. The
people’s acclamation is expanded in Josephus to include the people’s
celebrating a festival after Solomon was set upon the throne.
) Priesthood. The LXX Num :– tells of the succession of the

priesthood from Aaron to his son, Eleazar. The act was accompanied
by certain symbolic acts. God told Moses to take Aaron’s apparel off
him and to put it on (νδυσον) his son, Eleazar, before all the congre-
gation. The succession is confirmed by Eleazar’s being associated with
Moses in leadership (e.g., :, ) as Aaron had been (e.g., :, ).
  
) Prophet’s role. The LXX  Kgs  has God command Elijah to

anoint Elisha prophet in his place (ντd σου). Elijah does so by cast-
ing his mantle upon him (π’ ατÞν). The succession is confirmed by
Elisha’s being willing to “follow after you” (κολου©Üσω πÝσο σου).
The LXX  Kgs  tells of Elishah’s succeeding Elijah as prophet. A cer-
tain symbolic act accompanies the succession: Elijah’s mantle falls from
off Elijah and upon Elisha. “He received (λαβε) the mantle of Elijah
which fell upon (πÀνω©εν) him” (v. ). The confirmation that Elisha is
the true successor is that he divides the water and goes over (v. , an
act like that of Moses and Joshua and Elijah) and that the sons of the
prophets acclaim him (“The spirit of Elijah has rested upon Elisha,”
v. ), and do obeisance to him (v. ), and that he performs deeds
reminiscent of those of Elijah: aiding a widow ( Kgs // Kgs ), a
water miracle ( Kgs // Kgs ), and the resuscitation of a dead child
( Kgs // Kgs ). Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae .. §, speaks of
Elijah disappearing from among men but leaving behind him his disci-
ple (µα©ητÜν), Elisha.
) Tradition. Jewish writers used the concept of succession to refer to the

passing on of two very different kinds of tradition.
(a) The Mishnaic tractate m. Avot begins with the well known words:
Moses received the Law from Sinai and committed it to Joshua, and
Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets to
the men of the Great Synagogue. … Simeon the Just was of the remnants
of the Great Synagogue. … Antigonus of Soko received the Law from
Simeon the Just.
A similar account of the succession of the Pharisaic/rabbinic oral law is

also given in Avot of Rabbi Nathan chapter .23
(b) Third Enoch D. gives a succession of mystical tradition. It says
that Metatron committed to Moses a secret ()
and Moses to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets,
the Prophets to the men of the Great Synagogue, the Men of the Great
Synagogue to Ezra the scribe, Ezra the scribe to Hillel the Elder, Hillel
the Elder to R. Abbahu, R. Abbahu to R. Zira, R. Zira to the Men of
Faith, and the Men of Faith to the Faithful—so that they should use it to
admonish men and to heal the diseases that befall the world. …24
23 Judah Goldin, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (New Haven: Yale University
Press, ), –.

24 Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, :.
  -      
In these Jewish sources, a full-fledged succession story has three main

components: () naming what is to be passed on (e.g., rule, priesthood,
prophet’s role); () giving the symbolic acts which accompany the suc-
cession (e.g., transfer of clothing or other possessions; transfer of glory,
spirit, authority/role; laying on of hands; anointing); and () confirming
that the succession has taken place (e.g., the people’s acclamation; repe-
tition by the successor of acts that replicate the type of thing performed
by his predecessor). A succession story is different from a succession list
such as one finds in Gen :–, m. Avot, or  En.  in that compo-
nents  and  are missing in the list.
The sources that speak about succession in the Greco-Roman world

may also be divided according to what is passed on.
) Rule. Two sources provide evidence for the succession of rule.

(a) Diodorus Siculus ff. presents a narrative of the succession from
Alexander the Great. In .., when Alexander is asked, “To whom
do you leave (πολεÝπει̋) the kingdom (βασιλεÝαν)?” he replies, “To the
strongest.” In .. Diodorus says that in the next book () he
will “narrate the actions of the successors” (τeν διαδεξÀµενον). This
is repeated in summary form in ... Then Alexander’s words are
added: “for I foresee that a great combat of my friends will be my
funeral games.” In .., we are told: “The preceding Book included
all the acts of Alexander up to his death; this one, containing the deeds
of those who succeeded to his kingdom. …” (το̋ διαδεξÀµενοι̋ τcν
τοàτου ΒασιλεÝαν). In .. we hear that great contention arose over
the leadership (γεµονÝα̋).
(b) Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae ..– §–, offers a narrative
of the succession of the γεµονÝα from Tiberius to Gaius Caligula.
Tiberius’s speech, giving the Roman empire into Gaius’s hand, is the
lad’s appointment as successor. Gaius confirms the transfer by three
acts: he has Tiberius’s grandson killed, he sends letters to the Senate
announcing his elevation, and he sets Agrippa free and makes him king
of the tetrarchy of Philip.
) Temple guardianship/priesthood and prophet’s role. Lucian’s Alexander  says

that around the time of Alexander’s death
the foremost of his fellow-conspirators and impostors referred it to Rutil-
ianus to decide which of them should be given the preference, should
succeed (διαδÛχασ©αι) to the shrine (τe µαντεον, the oracle), and should
  
be crowned with the fillet of priest and prophet (τe εροφÀντικο και
προφÜτικο στÛµµατι, the priestly and prophetic wreaths). Rutilianus, the
umpire, sent them off unfilleted, keeping the post of prophet for the Mas-
ter after his departure from this life. (LCL)
) Philosophic succession. (a) Philodemus’s Σàνταξισ τν φιλοσÞφων (in 
books) is preserved in fragments among the Herculaneum papyri. In
P.Hercul.  the Stoic succession is preserved. At a number of points
the list is interrupted by anecdotes about the teachers mentioned.
P.Hercul.  and  present the succession in the Academy. P.Hercul.
 contains sections of the Eleatic and Abderite schools; P.Hercul.
, the Pythagorean; P.Hercul. , the Epicurean; and P.Hercul.
 and , the Socratic successions. This institutional manual is
closer to a list with anecdotes than to a story of an actual succes-
sion.
(b) Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum (in  books), is heir to a
long tradition of such collections of philosophic successions. At about
half a dozen places, Laertius includes individual Lives that give the life
of a founder followed by a list of his successors: Socrates, Aristippus,
Plato, Zeno, Pythagoras, Epicurus. In some of these six, the list contains
anecdotes about the successors’ words and/or deeds.
(c) Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica, the first volume of a ten volume
encyclopedia of Pythagorean thought, is a combination of a Life of
Pythagoras and a collection of Pythagorean traditions that define the
way of life of this philosophical school. In chapter  the Pythagorean
succession is given. Pythagoras’s acknowledged successor was Aristaeus.
He carried on the school. Then when he grew old, he relinquished the
school to Pythagoras’s son, Mnesarchus. He was followed by Bulagoras,
etc. There then follows a list of other famous Pythagoreans. This again
is more a list than a story of succession.
(d) Aulus Gellius, Noctes atticae ., provides a full description of a
philosophic succession. When Aristotle was old and near his death, his
disciples asked him to choose a “successor to his position and office”
(loci sui et magristerii successorem). He agreed. The two best men in his
school were Theophrastus of Lesbos and Eudemus of Rhodes. A little
later, he asked his disciples to bring him a foreign wine, either from
Rhodes or Lesbos. He would use the one he liked better. They did
so. Aristotle tasted the Rhodian and said: “This is truly a sound and
pleasant wine.” Then he tasted the Lesbian. He said: “Both are very
good indeed, but the Lesbian is the sweeter.” When he said this, no one
doubted that he had by those words chosen his successor (successorem
  -      
… delegisset), Theophrastus of Lesbos. So when Aristotle died not long

after, they all became followers of Theophrastus.
) Study of the law. There is a long fragment from Pomponius Sextus’s

Enchiridion quoted in Justinian’s Digesta, Book , section , authority .
In ...–, this second century A.D. author deals with the origins
and development of law. In ...–, Pomponius gives the succession
of jurists. The section dealing with succession is more a list than a story
of a succession, even when it gives information about the accomplish-
ments of the individual jurists.25
It may be noted that when a succession event is described in detail
by a Greco-Roman author, it possesses the same three components as
the Jewish stories: () naming what is being transferred (emperor’s role;
headship of a school); () specifying the symbolic acts that are associated
with the act of transfer (speech of some type); and () indicating what
confirms that the succession has taken place (decisive acts by the new
emperor, recognition by Aristotle’s followers of the new leader).
The early Christian sources that deal with succession will also be divid-
ed according to what is being transferred.
) The episcopacy. (a) First Clement  speaks of a succession that runs from
God to Christ to the apostles to their appointees as bishops and dea-
cons. The key sentence is in verse : “they appointed (κα©ιστÀνων) their
first converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of
the future believers.” In :, the apostles who knew there would be
strife for the title of bishop, “appointed (κατÛστησαν) those who have
been already mentioned, and afterwards added the codicil that if they
should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed (διαδÛξονται) to
their ministry (λειτουργÝαν).”
(b) The Pseudo-Clementine Homiliae is a narrative about Clement’s
boyhood and association with Peter. It is introduced by a succession
narrative in the form of the Epistle of Clement to James. When Peter
was about to die, he told the church: “I lay hands upon this Clement
as your bishop; and to him I entrust my chair of discourse. … I
communicate to him the power and the binding and loosing” (). Peter
25 Theodor Mommsen, Paul Kruger, Alan Watson, The Digest of Justinian (Philadel-
phia: University of Pennsylvania Press, ), :–. This volume gives the Latin text
on the left and an English translation on the right.
  
then reminds Clement in the presence of all about the things belonging
to the administration (). “Having thus spoken, he laid his hands upon
me in the presence of all, and compelled me to sit in his chair” ().26
The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitiones, in the preface, refers to the letter
from Clement to James which informs him of the death of Peter and
that Peter had left Clement his (Peter’s) successor in his chair and
teaching.
(c) Paulinus’s Vita Ambrosii says that Simplicianus is Ambrose’s succes-
sor (). In chapter  we hear how this occurred. The deacons, Cas-
tus, Polemius, Venerius, and Felix, when Ambrose was near death, were
talking about who should be ordained bishop after Ambrose’s death.
Ambrose heard, and when they spoke the name of Simplicianus, he
exclaimed three times: “Old but good.” So when Ambrose died, none
other succeeded him in the episcopacy except him whom the bishop
had designated.27
(d) Ennodius’s Vita Epiphanii tells that Bishop Crispinus knew he was
about to die. He then commends his young cleric, Epiphanius. Then
the people agree on Epiphanius as the bishop’s successor and lead him
away to be consecrated.
) Rule in a monastic order. (a) Vita Pachomii 28 tells about the life of this
founder of cenobitic monasticism and includes toward the end accounts
of the appointment of his successors: Petronius (), Orsisius (διÀδοχον,
), and Theodore (διÀδοχον, ).
(b) St. Hilary’s Sermo de vita Honorati was given on the anniversary of
the death of Honoratus, the founder of a monastery on the Island of
Lerinson in the early fifth century. The encomium not only celebrates
the life of Honoratus but also tells how Hilary was elected as Honora-
tus’s successor.
) Tradition. (a) The Pastoral Epistles reflect a succession of true tra-

dition. In  Tim :, Timothy is exhorted to “guard what has been
entrusted (τcν παρα©Üκην) to you” (RSV). In  Timothy we hear that
Paul has been entrusted with the tradition παρα©Üκην, :). Timothy
26 ANF :–.
27 The Fathers of the Church. Vol : Early Christian Biographies (ed. Roy J. Deferrari; New
York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., ). This volume contains translations of Ennodius,
Hilary, and Paulinus.
28 Apostolos A. Athanasskis, The Life of Pachomius (Atlanta: Scholars Press, ).
  -      
has been entrusted with the tradition (παρα©Üκη, :) by Paul (:). He
is exhorted to guard what has been entrusted to him (:). He is also to
entrust this tradition that he heard from Paul to faithful men who will
be able to teach others also (:). Here there is a line that runs from
God to Paul to Timothy to the faithful men who will be teachers also.
The succession is first of all a succession of tradition.
(b) Clement of Alexandria, Stromata ., refers probably to Pantaenus,
master of the catechetical school in Alexandria and Clement’s teacher,
as “the true Sicilian bee, gathering the spoil of the flowers of the
prophetic and apostolic meadow, engendered in the souls of his hearers
a deathless element of knowledge.” He preserved “the tradition of the
blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James,
John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father … came by God’s
will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds.29
Here again in the Christian stories of succession the same three
components are found: () naming what is being passed on (either the
role of bishop or ruler of a monastery); () giving the symbolic acts
that accompany the transfer (e.g., laying on of hands, commendation by
authority, transfer of possessions); and () confirming that the succession
has been completed (usually recognition by the community involved;
sometimes repetition of key actions like teaching, binding and loosing).
Since these same three components are found in all the stories of
succession, whether they be Jewish, Greco-Roman, or Christian, it
seems reasonable to conclude that there was a conventional form of
a succession story in Mediterranean antiquity.
The survey so far yields certain conclusions.
) The notion of succession is a cross-cultural phenomenon. It is found

in Greco-Roman, Jewish, and early Christian cultures.
) It is not limited to any one social context. It is associated with rulers,

priests, prophets, philosophers, jurists, etc.
) It is not genre specific. Succession material has been found in his-

tories, biographies, institutional manuals, novels, letters, Israelite scrip-
29 ANF :.
  
tural narratives, sermons, collections of anecdotes, halakhic collections,

and mystical sources.
) It serves a variety of goals but is usually associated with the desire

to show continuity in a given area, to guarantee preservation of some-
thing, to legitimate or authenticate. (a) The LXX stories of succession
function to show the true line of leadership in salvation history. It is
often not the line that would have been expected but the one God wills:
e.g., it is not Moses’ son but Joshua who succeeds him; it is not Saul’s
son but David who succeeds; it is not David’s eldest son but Solomon
who comes after him. (b) A similar theme runs through the successions
of Roman emperors. The successions often reflect unexpected turns
and twists: e.g., it is not Tiberius’s grandson who succeeds him but a
more distant relative because of Tiberius’s perception of divine inter-
vention in the matter. Nevertheless the succession provides the continu-
ity in rule that is needed. (c) The same emphasis on continuity is seen in
Pomponius Sextus’s succession of Roman jurists. (d) Perhaps in Pliny’s
comment about how surprising it is that magic has survived because
it had no continuous line of succession, we hear that succession func-
tioned in the interests of preservation (Nat. .). (e) The philosophical
successions show the true line of leadership in the schools. It is often
based on outstanding performance, as Aullus Gellius shows. (f) M. Avot’s
succession of tradition serves clearly to legitimate. This rabbinic mind-
set is made explicit by y. Pesahim ..a. There one hears about Hil-
lel who discoursed on a matter all day only to have his interpretation
rejected until he said: “Thus I heard from Shemaiah and Abtalion.”
) The use of the concept of succession is found, at least, from the –th
centuries B.C. to the –th centuries A.D. During that time span, the
language and form of succession thinking is remarkably consistent.
) What is passed on varies: sometimes a role or office, sometimes a

tradition or lifestyle, and sometimes a combination of the previous two.
) The centrality of the concept of succession to a document may be

determined by whether or not it seriously affects the form of the doc-
ument. When a source is seriously influenced by succession thinking,
it manifests a form that is [a+b] or [a+b+b’+b’’+b’’’ +b’’’’, etc.].
Information about the founder of an empire, a school, a monastic com-
munity, an oracle, or the originator of a tradition or profession is given
  -      
first and then comes matter about his successor(s). This form may shape
the entire document or it may merely shape the part of the document
in which it is located.
Succession in Mediterranean Antiquity, Part : Luke-Acts

The purpose of this essay, in Part , is to explore, on the basis of the
data base from Part , what affinities, if any, the Lukan narrative might
have with the succession material in Mediterranean antiquity.
The Concept of Succession and Luke-Acts

Succession thinking was a part of the Lukan narrative world. Acts :
(“the customs which Moses delivered to us,” RSV) echoes the Pharisaic
succession of the oral law. Acts : (“Felix was succeeded by Porcius
Festus,” RSV) reflects the succession of Roman procurators. The issue
for this paper is: Does succession play a part in the Messianists’ story as
it is depicted in Luke and Acts? How would the ‘authorial audience,’30
sensitized by the thinking about succession in Mediterranean antiquity,
have heard the Lukan narrative’s depiction of Jesus and the church?
Would they have encountered any parts of the semantic field involved
with succession?
In the prologue to the Gospel of Luke the Evangelist speaks about a
succession of tradition. Luke : mentions the matters fulfilled among
believers that were delivered (παρÛδοσαν) by eyewitnesses (st gener-
ation?) and ministers of the word (nd generation?) to the Evange-
list’s own time (rd generation?). Moreover, at three points they would
have heard succession terminology used of the Messianist movement:
Luke :–, especially verse  (διατÝ©ηµι + βασιλεÝαν) Acts :–,
especially at verse  (κα©Ýστηµι); and Acts : (χειροτονÛω). Would the
Lukan authorial audience have recognized a story about a succession at
any of these three points in the narrative?
The first passage with succession terminology, Luke :–, seems
to be related to material with the requisite three components. (A)
Luke :– is a logion in the mouth of the Lukan Jesus at his last
meal with his disciples and in the midst of a farewell speech.
30 P. J. Rabinowitz, ‘Whirl Without End: Audience-Oriented Criticism,’ Contemporary
Literary Theory (ed. G.D. Atkins and L. Morrow; Amherst: University of Massachusetts
Press, ), –; ‘Truth in Fiction: A Reexamination of Audiences,’ Critical Inquiry 
(): –.
  
You are those who have continued with me in my trials. And I bequeath
(διατÝ©εµαι) to you, since/just as my Father has bequeathed (διÛ©ετο) a
reign (βασιλεÝαν) to me, that you should eat and drink at my table in
my reign (βασιλεÝαν) and sit upon thrones judging (κρÝνοντε̋) the twelve
tribes of Israel.
The only significant textual variant, the insertion of “covenant” after

“I bequeath to you” in verse  (so A, Θ, , and a few others) is
most likely to be explained as a copyist’s following of LXX patterns
of speech (cf. LXX Gen :; :, ; :; :; Deut :, ; :;
:; Josh :; :; Judg :;  Kgs :–;  Kgs :;  Kgs :;
 Kgs :, etc.). It is not original. What is bequeathed to the disci-
ples? Regardless of how one takes the syntax, Jesus bequeaths to the
disciples/apostles some kind of position of authority.
This logion has a parallel in Matthew :.
Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man shall sit
on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (RSV)
In its Matthean form, the logion is clearly eschatological. It refers to

the apostles’ participation in the judgment of the Last Day. Interpreters
who work with a diachronic method usually read Matthew’s meaning
into the Lukan form (e.g., Fitzmyer31, Nolland32). The reference is then
to the apostles’ rule at the Last Day. Interpreters who work with a more
synchronic method are more sensitive to the distinctively Lukan point
of the passage (e.g., Jervell33, Johnson34).
A correct reading requires an understanding of the distinctive Lukan
language. (a) What is Jesus’ reign according to Luke-Acts? Acts :–
 indicates that it is his session at God’s right hand, beginning with
the resurrection-ascension-exaltation (cf. Luke :). The logion, then,
does not refer to the time of the Last Day but to the period beginning
with Jesus’ exaltation. (b) What does it mean to eat and drink at his
table in Jesus’ reign? The image is that of the king’s closest associates
sitting at privileged places at the very table of the ruler himself (cf.
LXX  Kgs :b;  Kgs :, , ; :;  Kgs :; :; :). It
31 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X–XXIV (Garden City: Doubleday,
), –.
32 John Nolland, Luke :–: (Dallas: Word, ), –.
33 Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg, ), –.
34 Luke T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, ),
–.
  -      
means to be accorded a place of honor and intimacy with the king

in his house. (c) What does it mean to judge the tribes of Israel?
Again the expression comes from the Jewish scriptures (e.g., Exod :;
:; LXX  Kgs :—Absolom said: “Oh that I were judge in the
land! Then every man with a suit or cause might come to me, and
I would give him justice”;  Kgs :–; Mic :). It refers to the
role of rendering decisions that were right and just. Sometimes such
judges were kings’ sons. Taking these three expressions together yields
a reading that sees Luke :– as referring to the apostles’ role in
Jesus’ reign from the time of his exaltation. It is one of honor. They
are sons of the king in that they eat and drink at his table and function
as judges among the people within and under the reign of Christ. So
Luke :– is not about the parousia and last judgment but about
the period after Jesus’ ascension and about the apostles’ role of judging
in that period.
What does it mean for the apostles to judge? In Acts they are
portrayed as witnesses of the resurrection (e.g., Acts :, ). How is
judging Israel tied to being witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus? The
apostles deliver God’s right and just verdict to Israel about Jesus’ status
(Acts :; :). By raising Jesus, God vindicated him (Acts :, ;
:). Israel’s earlier ignorance that allowed her to kill God’s servant is
now dispelled (Acts :). Israel should, in light of this divine verdict,
repent (:; :). If any do not, they are cut off from the people (:).
From this point of view, the rulers who have yet once more rejected
Jesus are cut off from the people. They no longer are the rulers in the
reconstituted Israel (Luke :–, –). The apostles now hold that
role (Luke :–; Acts :–). In other words, to bear witness to
Jesus’ resurrection is to render God’s righteous verdict in Israel. Their
being witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection is at the core of their being judges.
It does not exhaust their role, however. For example, in Acts  Paul
and Barnabas go up to Jerusalem to the apostles to settle a policy
issue (v. ). The apostles and others gather together to consider the
matter (v. ). At the end of the discussion, James concludes: “I judge
(κρÝνω) that” +his decision (v. ). It is a decision with which the apostles
concur (vv. –). When Paul goes back to south Galatia, he delivers
to the churches there the matters decided (κεκριµÛνα) by the apostles in
Jerusalem (:). Here the apostles are judges within the restored Israel.
The same point is born out by the role of Jerusalem in Acts. Jerusa-
lem has a central role in the missionary enterprise in Acts (:, ; :–
; :–; :; :). This includes the Jerusalem frame of reference
  
for Paul’s entire ministry in Acts (:–; :–; :–; :; :;
:; :). Jerusalem’s control of missions in Acts is closely tied to
the fact that, for Luke, Jerusalem is the place where the twelve apostles
reside (:; :; :–; :, ; :). The twelve apostles function as
appointed people of honor who make key decisions within the early
church under the reign of Christ.
If one assumes this reading of Luke :–, then on the basis of
God’s bequeathing a reign to Jesus, Jesus subsequently bequeaths to his
apostles a position of honor and authority within his reign and under
his authority. In this sense, a transfer of authority is involved. The first
component of a story about a succession is present. What about the
second?
(B) Are there any symbolic acts that accompany the transfer? Yes.
Jesus’ words of promise in Luke :– are analogous to the speech
Tiberius used to convey the reign to Caligula (so Josephus, A.J. ..–
 §–). Furthermore, the Spirit comes upon (φ’ Acts :; πÝ, :)
the apostles, just as it did in the case of David (LXX  Kgs :) and
Elisha (LXX  Kgs :, ). They are clothed (νδàσησ©ε, Luke :)
with the Spirit (cf. L.A.B. :–; LXX Num :–). This happens
in connection with Jesus’ being taken up (ναληµ©εÝ̋, Acts :) into
heaven, just as in the case of Elijah and Elisha. The echoes of the
Elijah-Elisha transfer are unmistakable. Why would such echoes be
present? Luke’s succession from Jesus to the apostles, like that from
Elijah to Elisha, involves a foundation figure who, though absent from
the earth, is still alive in heaven. The second component is present.
What about the third?
(C) Is there any confirmation that the transfer has taken place? In
some of the LXX stories of a succession the transfer is confirmed
by the successor’s replication of the type of actions performed by his
predecessor (e.g., Joshua and Elisha). The Lukan narrative uses this
technique. Just as the Lukan Jesus made a lame man walk (Luke :–
), so the apostles (Acts :–; :–); just as Jesus had power come
forth from himself so that people were healed (Luke :), so does Peter
(Acts :); just as Jesus resuscitated the dead (Luke :–; :–,
–), so does Peter (Acts :–); just as Jesus cast out demons
(Luke :–), so do the apostles (Acts :). The third component is
indeed present in the Lukan narrative.
Given the presence of the three requisite components and the pres-
ence of a number of linguistic signs of the semantic field related to suc-
cession, one must conclude that whatever distinctive nuances the Lukan
  -      
succession from Jesus to the apostles might have, the authorial audience
would have almost certainly regarded this as a conventional story of a
succession.
The second text in Luke-Acts with a semantic marker denoting suc-
cession, Acts :, now needs attention. Are the three requisite compo-
nents of a story of succession present in Acts :–?
(a) What is being transferred? It is the function of διακονÝα (vv. ,
), here, meaning serving tables. The transfer is described with a fre-
quently used term of succession: appoint (καταστÜσοµεν). The first com-
ponent is present.
(b) Are there symbolic signs accompanying the transfer? “They
prayed and laid their hands on them” (v. , RSV), just as Moses did
on Joshua (LXX Num :, ; Deut :). The second component is
here.
(c) Are there any confirming acts to indicate a transfer has taken
place? One of the strangest aspects of the plot of Acts is that, after
the Seven have been appointed to the role of διακονÝα, the subsequent
stories about Stephen (:–:) and Philip (:–) show them active
not in διακονÝα but in powerful preaching! This apparent awkwardness
can be understood if one remembers that in the LXX a major sign
that the succession has taken place was the replication in the life of the
successor of acts characteristic of the predecessor. Since the apostles
were mighty preachers, a replication of their actions would require
members of the Seven to so act as well (even if they were appointed
for διακονÝα). If this reading be accepted, then the third component is
present as well.
Given the presence of the requisite three components of a story of a
succession and the use of a key term from the semantic field related to
succession in antiquity, the authorial audience would most likely have
regarded this as a second story of a succession in Luke-Acts. What
about the third possibility?
The third possibility, signaled by Acts :, may also be part of
an ancient story of a succession involving the Pauline appointment of
elders in his churches.
(a) What is being transferred? The context is Paul’s concern for the
care and nurture of his churches (:b-). When Paul and Barnabas
appoint (χειροτονÜσαντε̋) elders for them in every church, it is the
function of nurturing and caring for believers that is primary. It is this
function that is being transferred to others, the elders. In the other text
in Acts that deals with elders in the Pauline churches, the function is
  
described as shepherding (ποιµαÝνειν) and the role as that of πισκÞπου̋

(guardians, Acts :).
(b) Are there any symbolic acts associated with the succession? In
: the transfer involves prayer, fasting, and committing them to
the Lord. In the other text dealing with elders in Pauline churches
(Acts :–), we hear that elders (presumably appointed by Paul)
have been fully instructed (vv. , ) as Joshua had been (LXX Num
:; especially Josephus, A.J. .. §). They are also entrusted
to the Lord (v. ). The second component is present in the Lukan
narrative.
(c) Are there signs that the succession has been completed? Since
there are no narratives telling of the behavior of either the elders
of : or those of :–, there are no explicit confirming signs
of the succession (just as there had been none in LXX Num :–
’s account of the succession from Moses to Joshua). The auditors
of the narrative most likely knew whether or not the Ephesian elder-
bishops had, in fact, been faithful to Paul’s charge to defend the church
against the grievous wolves. If Luke-Acts represents their response to
the charge, then the very existence of the Lukan narrative would com-
plete the form.
Given the succession vocabulary and the presence of at least two of
the requisite components of a story of a succession (as in the case of
Joshua in LXX Num :–), it is likely that the authorial audience
would have heard, in this instance as well as in the case of the former
two, a Lukan adaptation of succession, as it was understood in antiq-
uity, for the Messianists’ story.
Would the authorial audience of the Lukan narrative have regarded
Paul as a successor of the twelve apostles? The answer to this question
is clearly NO. Why? (a) Thrice it is said in Acts that Paul’s appoint-
ment is of divine origin. Acts : has the risen Jesus speak about Paul
as “a chosen (κλογ̋) instrument of mine” just as the Twelve were
(Luke :, κλεξÀµενο̋; Acts :, ξελÛξατο; :, ξελÛξω). Acts :
says Paul was appointed by God (προχειρÝζοµαι just as the Twelve were
(προχειροτονÛω, Acts :). Acts : says Paul was appointed by the
risen Jesus (προχειρÝζοµαι). The agreement with Gal :– is striking.
(b) When Paul is converted on the road to Damascus, he does come to
the apostles in Jerusalem. When he does, however, it is not to receive
any appointment from them but rather to have his divine conversion/-
call/commission declared to them by one of their own congregation
(Acts :). There is, moreover, no evidence of the semantic field of suc-
  -      
cession in Paul’s relation to the Twelve. (c) Acts :– does portray Paul
as an apostle (:, ) of the church in Antioch of Syria, a Jerusalem
approved congregation. This status is limited only to Acts –. In
Acts :ff. the focus is back on Paul’s direct commission by the heav-
enly world (cf. :–).35
At no point in the narrative of Acts is there a story of Paul’s succes-
sion from the Twelve. At the same time, however, Paul’s career repli-
cates that of the Lukan Jesus, just as did the careers of Peter and others
of the Twelve. For example, as Jesus (Luke :–) and Peter (Acts :–
) heal a lame man, so does Paul (Acts :–); as Jesus (Luke :)
and Peter (Acts :) have power come forth from their persons to heal
people, so does Paul (Acts :–); as Jesus (Luke :–) and Peter
(Acts :–) resuscitate the dead, so does Paul (Acts :–); as Jesus
(Luke :–) and Peter (Acts :) perform exorcisms, so does Paul
(Acts :–). Indeed, the replication of the pattern of Jesus’ life in
that of the Paul of Acts goes even further. In the narrative at the end
of Acts, there are also correspondences between the life of Jesus and
that of Paul: e.g., () both Jesus (:–) and Paul (Acts :) enter
the temple upon their entry into Jerusalem; both Jesus (Luke :)
and Paul (Acts :) are seized by a mob; both Jesus (Luke :–)
and Paul (Acts :) are slapped by the priest’s assistants; both Jesus
(:; :; :; :) and Paul (Acts ; ; ; ) are involved
in four trials; both Jesus (Luke :–) and Paul (Acts :–:)
have a Herod involved in their trials; both Jesus (Luke :) and Paul
(Acts :, ) have a centurion act positively towards them; both Jesus
(Luke ) and Paul (Acts ) have their ministries end on the positive
note of the fulfillment of scripture. If such replication of a predecessor’s
life confirms that a succession has taken place, then Luke believes that
Jesus’ emissaries are both those who came to their position by means
of a horizontal, historical process of succession (the Twelve) and those
whose appointment was a vertical, experiential event (so Paul). The
validation of both is the replication of the life of the founder in their
own.
Would Luke’s authorial audience have considered any of the trans-
fers to involve multiple generations? (a) First Clement : speaks of the
apostles’ appointing (κατÛστησαν) bishops and deacons and then after-
wards adding a codicil “that if they [the first appointees] should fall
35 Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts (New York: Crossroad, ), –.

  
asleep, other approved men should succeed (διαδÛξονται) to their min-

istry” (LCL). In  Clement the succession is multigenerational: apostles-
first appointees-the appointees of the first appointees, etc. (b) In Luke
: there is a succession of tradition that conceivably could be seen as
running through three generations. In Acts, however, the successions
explicitly run only one generation: from Jesus to the Twelve; from the
Twelve to the Seven; from Paul to the elders. This, of course, could
be taken in either of two ways. On the one hand, it could be taken
to mean that Acts envisioned no succession beyond the first generation.
Why? An eschatological explanation might run: because of Luke’s belief
in an imminent End,36 he would not have thought of later generations.
A non-eschatological explanation would contend that Luke understood
the writing of Luke-Acts to fulfill at least the teaching function assigned
to the elders. On the other hand, it could be taken to mean that Acts
assumes what  Clement states. Why? If Acts is an etiological narrative
indicating the origins of the offices existent in his day, then a multiple
generational transfer could be assumed. The issue is moot.
Implications of Succession Thinking in the Lukan Narrative

Three literary implications may be noted. First, given the centrality of
the succession from Jesus to the Twelve in the Lukan plot, the source of
Lukan duality has likely been found. The narrative naturally reflects the
pattern of a foundational figure and his successors (a +b). This supports
the designation Luke-Acts rather than Luke and Acts.
Second, for the first time we have an explanation for the remarkable
correspondences between the career of Jesus in the Third Gospel and
that of the apostles in Acts. It is part of a story of a succession in
the LXX to have the successors replicate in their own lives the actions
of their predecessors. The correspondences are part of component
three of a succession story. The employment of such correspondences,
moreover, explains the expanded scale of the part of the succession
story in Acts.
Third, Luke-Acts’ being shaped by the succession principle raises
the question of genre. Unfortunately, it does not automatically answer
the question. Various genres were shaped by the succession principle.37
Further discussion is required.
36 Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke (New York: Crossroad, ), .

37 Hubert Cancik, ‘The History of Culture, Religion, and Institutions in Ancient
  -      
Any discussion of genre must begin with the reminder that genres
are not prescriptive. “Genres do not resemble some kind of eternally
immutable Platonic Ideal Forms. …”38 If one, therefore, asks to what
genre Luke-Acts belongs, what is meant is: with what group of writings
in its cultural setting does Luke-Acts have the greatest affinity? To say
that Luke-Acts belongs to this or that genre does not mean that its
author imitated this or that other document. It means rather that the
author of Luke-Acts reflects affinities with a stream of literature that in
turn possesses affinities among its participants. Such affinities would be
picked up by the authorial audience and would condition the way the
document was heard and understood.
If one asks where one would look for possible genre analogies to
Luke-Acts, it seems to us that one would need to search for literature
possessing () similarities of contents, in the sense that an analogous
writing would contain more than one type of succession story; ()
formal similarities, in the sense that an analogous writing would be
a prose narrative whose duality of form is derived from a controlling
story of a succession from a foundation figure to his successor(s), ()
similarities of details like terminology, ritual acts accompanying the
succession, and evidences of the transfer, and () similarity of function,
in the sense of what roles the stories of succession play in the plot.
) The LXX offers the closest analogy of contents, in the sense that
it includes several different types of succession in one narrative. There
are stories of successions from Aaron to Eleazar (priestly), from Moses
to Joshua (leader of the army, etc), from Saul to David and from David
to Solomon (kingly), and from Elijah to Elisha (prophetic).
) There are loose formal similarities with a number of surviving doc-

uments from antiquity, in the sense that the narrative is shaped by one
controlling story of succession. (a) The LXX’s stories of the succes-
sion from Moses to Joshua, from David to Solomon, and from Elijah
to Elisha possess in themselves the necessary duality of form that is
Historiography: Philological Observations Concerning Luke’s History,’ JBL  ():

–, contends that Acts is an ‘institutional history.’ His analogies show that accounts
of the origin and development of an institution are not genre specific. They may
be found in manuals (Pomponius Sextus) and biographies (Lucian’s Alexander and
Dikaiarchus’ ΒÝο̋ τ̋ ^ΕλλÀδο̋ as well as in histories [e.g. Herodotus]).
38 Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, ), .

  
derived from a story of a succession, even if the narrative about the

predecessor is not fully a Life. (b) Diodorus Siculus’s account of the
transfer of rule from Alexander to his successors also possesses a certain
duality of form at the break between Books  and . (c) If one con-
siders only the individual parts of Philodemus’s Σàνταξισ, then there is
some similarity in form here also. The life of the founder of a partic-
ular school is followed by an expanded list of his successors, giving the
document a certain duality of form. (d) Iamblichus’s De vita Pythagorica
possesses some of the same duality by its following the Life of Pythago-
ras with a succession list in chapter . (e) The six Lives of philosophers
with a subsequent succession list in Diogenes Laertius also reflect the
duality of form. (f) That there was a pre-Christian exemplar of a single
life of a philosophic founder followed by material about his successors
is proved by Aristoxenos’s ΒÝο̋ Πυ©αγÞρου. (g) Vita Pachomii involves an
extensive narrative about the succession from the founder of cenobitic
monasticism which gives the Life a certain duality of form.
The greatest contrast between some of these cited formal analogies
to Luke-Acts and the Lukan narrative is that they are parts of larger
wholes which do not reflect the same duality of form that the parts do.
For example, whereas the succession sections in the LXX, the succes-
sion section in Diodorus Siculus, and the six individual Lives in Dio-
genes Laertius themselves are formally similar to Luke-Acts, the larger
wholes in which they are located do not reflect this duality. It is writ-
ings like Aristoxenos’s ΒÝο̋ Πυ©αγÞρου, Iamblichus’s De vita Pythagorica,
and Vita Pachomii that reflect a duality derived from the succession motif
in the formal arrangement of the documents as wholes. It is worthy of
note that the documents that are the closest analogies to Luke-Acts at
the formal level are biographies, either of individual founders of com-
munities or of a philosophical community itself.
) The similarities of linguistic data, ritual acts associated with a suc-

cession, and evidences of a transfer are also present in the extant doc-
uments we have surveyed. (a) Linguistic data. The Lukan employment of
διατÝ©ηµι (Luke :–) is paralleled by both Jewish and non-Jewish
usage. The Lukan appropriation of κα©Ýστηµι (Acts :) is likewise par-
alleled by Jewish and non-Jewish usage. The Lukan incorporation of
χειροτονÛω (Acts :) is paralleled by both Jewish and non-Jewish
usage. There is little in the Lukan use of linguistic markers that points
in one direction or another among the literature of succession in antiq-
uity.
  -      
(b) Ritual acts. In the first place, Luke-Acts’ use of a speech by the
foundation figure to his successors as a defining ritual act of transfer
finds analogies in Josephus’s account of the succession from Tiberius
to Gaius in Antiquitates judaicae ..– §–, and in the Pseudo-
Clementine Homiliae story of Peter’s address to Clement as part of
the succession. In the second place, Luke-Acts’ employment of lan-
guage about the Spirit’s coming upon (πÝ) the apostles echoes that of
the LXX’s use of such language for the Spirit’s coming upon Elisha.
That this occurs in the context of the foundation figure’s ascent into
heaven in both documents is significant. Only in the case of the suc-
cession from Jesus to the apostles and from Elijah to Elisha does the
succession involve the predecessor’s being in heaven after having left
this earth. In the third place, Luke-Acts’ use of the language of ‘be-
ing clothed’ (here, with the Spirit) is similar to that used in the story
of Joshua’s succession from Moses in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum :–
(Take Moses’ garments and clothe yourself) and the LXX’s narrative
about the succession from Aaron to Eleazar in Num :– (Moses
takes Aaron’s apparel off him and clothes his son, Eleazar). In this
category, Luke-Acts’ links are with both LXX and non-LXX sources,
although the former predominate.
(c) Signs of confirmation that the transfer has been made. The remarkable
correspondences between Jesus’ career in Luke and that of the apostles
in Acts is analogous to the LXX’s practice of having the successor
replicate in his career deeds associated with his predecessor (e.g., Joshua
replicates a number of items from Moses’ career, Elisha replicates
several items from Elijah’s life). To our knowledge, nowhere outside of
the Deuteronomic history’s section of the LXX is this technique found
in so explicit a fashion in the period before or after Luke-Acts.
) The succession from the apostles to the Seven in Acts  guarantees

the continuation of a function (διακονÝα), just as the succession from
Paul to the elders in Acts  and  ensures the continuation of a
function (the care and nurture of the churches, including defending
against grievous wolves among the flock). In both cases, the succession
provides for the continuity in ministry that is needed. This is analogous
not only to the LXX but also to the successions of emperors, jurists,
and philosophers. The succession from Jesus to the Twelve involves the
gift of both a status (eat at my table) and a role (judging) under the
authority of the King (= the risen Christ). This legitimates the Twelve
as the true judges who dispense righteous judgment, under their King,
  
in the restored Israel. Again, this is analogous not only to the LXX
but also to the philosophical schools and the rabbinic tradition of
authenticated teachers.
The impression created by this search for analogies in the areas of
contents, form, details, and function is that Luke-Acts is in contents
(i.e., use of multiple types of succession stories) most like the LXX; it is
formally (i.e., duality of structure) most like the ancient Mediterranean
writings whose surface structure is controlled by a succession principle
(founder-successor[s]); in the category of details (i.e., linguistic mark-
ers, symbolic rites, confirming signs) is most like the LXX and certain
other Jewish narratives that retell the biblical stories, and in function
finds its analogies across a wide spectrum of Jewish and Greco-Roman
sources. It is as though the author of Luke-Acts stands with one foot in
the Greco-Roman culture of succession with its biographies of founders
and their successors and the other foot in the biblical world of Ancient
Judaism with its stories of successions, and from that dual stance creates
a distinctive synthesis of the two that would nevertheless be recogniz-
able to pagan, Jew, and early Christian alike as a succession narrative.
In so doing, the author of Luke-Acts acts as modern genre critics sup-
pose an author would do.
In fact, the creation of a new type arises from old types. … The new
depends on a ‘leap of the imagination’ from the known to the unknown,
to assimilate it and make it known, either through an amalgamation of
two old types, or an extension of an existing type.39
Whatever name one gives to the genre of Luke-Acts, after this survey its
affinities with a clearly defined body of analogous ancient writings are
obvious.40
Given the formal similarities between Luke-Acts and analogous
Greco-Roman writings,41 the issue that remains unsettled for the two
39 Burridge, . One of the changes Burridge mentions that is characteristic of
flexible genres is “changes of scale.” Another is “inclusion of one genre within another”
().
40 William G. Doty, ‘The Concept of Genre in Literary Analysis,’ SBL Seminar Papers,
 ( vols.; SBLSP ; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, ), :, says: “generic def-
initions are best understood as relational terms—they demonstrate how some literary
works are similar.” Burridge, , says: “If genre involves ‘family resemblances,’ then the
key to correct generic understanding will be to relate literary works to other works to
ascertain points of contact and divergence.”
41 Varro’s Antiquitates Rerum Divinarum does not belong to the group of writings with
which Luke-Acts has affinities (contra H. Cancik, JBL  []: –). Varro wrote
forty-one books under the title Antiquitates. He divided his matter into two categories:
  -      
authors of this paper is: Is Luke-Acts more like biographies of indi-

vidual founders that contain within them a succession list or narrative,
or biographies of communities that employ a Life of their founder to
define the Way and then follow that with a succession list or narrative?
That is, is the concern of the document to describe Jesus’ distinctiveness
so that the inclusion of the successions provides part of his uniqueness,
or is the aim to describe the distinctiveness of the Christian commu-
nity so that the inclusion of a Life of the founder functions to define
the basis of the uniqueness of the community? At this point, from our
perspective, the decision is too close to call.
At the theological level, there are doubtless sectarian battles to be
fought, with all sides likely finding that Luke-Acts offers both some
comfort and some correction to all concerned. This, however, takes us
beyond the prescribed aim of the article.
human and divine. He devoted twenty-five books to the former and sixteen to the lat-
ter. Under human things he dealt with persons, places, times, and actions. In general
he followed a similar plan for divine things: i.e., sacred actions are performed by per-
sons in certain places at definite times. Book One of Rerum Divinarum is an introduction.
Books two through four deal with the persons who perform the rites (Bk. = pontiffs;
Bk. = augurs; Bk. = sacred college of the Fifteen). Books five through seven deal with
places (Bk.  = shrines; Bk.  = temples; Bk. = sacred places). Books eight through ten
deal with the times (Bk.  = festivals; Bk. = circus games; Bk. = theatrical perfor-
mances). Books eleven through thirteen deal with the rites (Bk.  = consecrations; Bk.
= private worship; Bk. = public rites). Books fourteen through sixteen deal with the
gods to whom the religious persons, places, times, and rites are directed (Bk. = the
known gods; Bk.  = unknown gods; Bk.  = select major divinities). In fragment ,
Varro says the object of his research and writing is that people might reverence rather
than despise these things. He works in the period of the Republic as it came to its end
when Roman religion was more and more in decline. Varro’s work on divine things
is more like an encyclopedia than a history. Burkhart Cardauns, ed., M. Terentius Varro
Antiquitates Rerum Divinarum ( vols; Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, ), gives a col-
lection of the fragments (vol. ) and a German translation and commentary (vol. ).
Augustine in De civitate Dei, Books –, gives a summary of much of Varro’s work. The
Index of terms in volume  of Cardauns’ work includes none belonging to the semantic
field of succession.
 
READING AUNE’S READING OF TALBERT
David Aune has on two occasions made what others have called “telling
criticisms”1 of Talbert’s arguments regarding gospel genre in general
and the genre of Luke-Acts in particular.2 Because of work on other
projects, Talbert has thus far failed to make a sustained response to
Aune, leading some to think that he has accepted Aune’s critique as
valid. This seems an appropriate place to indicate otherwise.
Gospel Perspectives II
Aune’s critique in the article of  was directed against Talbert’s What
Is a Gospel?, a volume usually credited with “the paradigm shift away
from form-critical notions of the gospels’ uniqueness.”3 In it there are
seven criticisms to which we may direct attention.
The first consists of two parts. Argument a runs: “while Talbert has
chosen to refute the critical consensus of NT scholarship as represented
by Bultmann, the real Goliath is K. L. Schmidt.”4 “It is Schmidt, not
Bultmann, who requires refutation.”5
Argument b runs: Talbert assumes Bultmann’s views retain validity
after fifty years.6
Translation: a—Talbert did not do what I would have done. b—
If I do not regard Bultmann’s views as still valid, no one else does.
1 Mikeal Parsons, ‘Reading Talbert: New Perspectives on Luke and Acts,’ in Cad-
bury, Know, and Talbert (ed. M. C. Parsons and J. B. Tyson; SBLBSNA; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, ), .
2 D. E. Aune, ‘The Problem of the Genre of the Gospels: A Critique of C. H. Tal-
bert’s What Is a Gospel?,’ in Gospel Perspectives (ed. R. T. France and David Wenham; 
vols.; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ), .–; idem, The New Testament in Its Literary Environ-
ment (Library of Early Christianity; Philadelphia: Westminster, ), .
3 Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography
(SNTSMS ; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), ; cf. Parsons, ‘Reading
Talbert,’ .
4 Aune, ‘The Problem of the Genre of the Gospels,’ .
5 Ibid., .
6 Ibid.
  
Response: Argument a—What Is A Gospel? “is essentially a negative

argument: Bultmann’s rejection of the biographical genre of the gospels
is dismissed because other ancient βÝοι were essentially mythic, cultic
and world-denying. … In the end, What Is a Gospel? … destroys the
arguments of earlier critics who thought it is not biography.”7 It did not
attempt more. The different tasks were left to others. The question,
then, should be: Has Talbert done what he set out to do? It should not
be: Should Talbert have attempted more than he did? Argument b—
That the entire form-critical affirmation of a gospel’s literary unique-
ness fell like a house of cards in spheres of scholarship influenced by
Bultmann after What Is a Gospel? indicates that his views had in fact
retained their validity for many even after fifty years. Conclusion: This
argument is inappropriate and inaccurate.
The second argument also consists of two parts. Argument a runs:
The focus on the myth of the immortals was the result of Talbert’s
preoccupation with Luke-Acts.8
Argument b runs: The terminology ‘eternals … immortals’ is not
that of the ancients.9 Translation: Argument a—Talbert did not pres-
ent all of the different ways it was believed men could become gods
in antiquity. He dealt only with the one way, that which was closest
to Luke-Acts (and the other synoptic gospels). I know more than he
does which I show in my fifteen-page presentation of all the other
models.10 Argument b—The reality is contained in the terminology.
If the terminology is not exactly that of the ancients, then the reality
of two types of gods is null and void. Response: Argument a—This
is a variation on the logic of argument a. Because Talbert does not
do everything, especially what I would do, means that what he does
do is inaccurate. However, if one’s purpose is to show the mythical
structure of the synoptics, what is the point of spending fifteen pages on
models that are irrelevant? Why would one not rather spend the pages
on the one model that is relevant for the synoptics, which, after all, are
the focus of the debate? Argument b—This argument is analogous to
that of some ancient Christians who opposed the Nicaean trinitarian
formula because µοοàσιο̋ is not used in scripture. It is akin to certain
modern day fundamentalists who claim that unless the correct formula
7 Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, .

8 Aune, ‘The Problem of the Genre of the Gospels,’ .
9 Ibid., .
10 Ibid., –.
 ’    
is used, one is an outsider who has not appropriated Christian religious

reality. Philo, for example, uses the categories ‘gods and demigods’
to describe the reality.11 The reality about which he speaks, however,
is exactly that conveyed, in context, by the categories ‘eternals and
immortals.’ Conclusion: This argument in its two parts is specious,
based on fallacious assumptions, and without relevant merit.
The third argument makes two claims. First, “To regard ‘biography’
as a monolithic literary form … is a major methodological error of
Talbert, … to ignore the confluence of ‘biography,’ ‘romance,’ and even
‘aretalogy’ in the legendary lives of Alexander or the Vita Apollonii of
Philostratus only compounds the error.”12 Second, to include under the
rubric of biography all that Talbert does is to empty the comparison
of all meaning.13 Translation: I am calling for two disparate things at
the same time. On the one hand, I claim Talbert regards biography
as monolithic and on the other hand I complain that he includes
under biography too diverse a list of writings. Response: First, such a
contradictory critique in one paragraph implies that the author must
have slept through the composition of this part of his argument. It
makes no sense whatsoever.
Second, Talbert sees a great diversity in ancient biography: a dif-
ference between didactic and non-didactic biography; a difference be-
tween biographies with a mythical structure and those without it; a dif-
ference between those with one form of myth and those with another;
a difference between biographies with functions A, B, C, D, and E, etc.
In the chapter on the myth of the immortals, aretalogical elements of
biographies are treated. The charge is without foundation in fact. Did
he read the book? Third, Talbert does include under the biographical
label a diverse group of writings. Why? It is because in the secondary
literature, which is often uncited but not unknown, these documents
were so included. Conclusion: This is the weakest argument so far. It is
a contradictory claim that makes no sense.
The fourth argument runs: The gospels are not cult legends, so Tal-
bert’s attempt to show that some biographies are cultic is unnecessary.14
Translation: Talbert does not argue the case the way I would have. Re-
sponse: So what? Is not the result the same? Conclusion: Again, the
11 Philo, Legat. .; .; .; Prob. ; Contempl. .

12 Aune, ‘The Problem of the Genre of the Gospels,’ .
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid., –.
  
same complaint: Talbert does not do what I would have done. The
arguments seem to get weaker as we go along through the article.
Argument five, regarding Talbert’s classification of didactic biogra-
phies in terms of five types, again has two parts. Argument a—“While
Types D and E are dubious distinctions, it cannot be doubted that
many ancient biographies functioned in the ways categorized in the
first three types.”15 Argument b—“It is bold for Talbert to strike off
on his own in proposing a new typology.”16 Do not change Leo’s clas-
sification. Translation: a—Although I offer absolutely no evidence for
a rejection of types D and E, I reject them because if I accept them I
must accept also the cultic location of some biographies (which I have
just rejected). b—I like Leo. I regard Leo’s classifications as prescrip-
tive. Why change? Response: Classifications of biographies, like gen-
res of literature, are not prescriptive but descriptive. They shift as new
questions are asked of the data. So a shift from a formalistic classifica-
tion (Leo) to a classification in terms of functions (Talbert) results not
from an overly bold act but from the natural tendency to ask new ques-
tions of the evidence as new circumstances arise. Judging from Classi-
cists’ responses to me over the years, the functional classification is often
helpful. The evidence for types D and E is as abundant as for types A,
B, and C. Conclusion: The critique is untenable, based on judgments
pronounced with no evidence offered and on fallacious assumptions
about the nature of classifications.
The sixth argument runs: In rejecting Bultmann’s third pillar, Tal-
bert is right but he fails to call attention to another strong argument.17
Translation: Talbert is right but does not argue as I would have. Re-
sponse: Thanks for the help. Conclusion: The argument is supportive
in terms of its evidence and meaningless in terms of a critique.
The seventh argument comes after pages – sketch Aune’s ques-
tions and proposals about gospel genre. At the end of his “constructive”
work, he concludes: Talbert could have avoided his difficulties if he had
“approached the ancient literature … with a different and more appro-
priate set of questions.”18 Translation: Here it is again. Talbert did not
do it my way so it cannot be right. Response: I am growing weary of
this broken record. Has Aune ever read Mortimer J. Adler and Charles
15 Ibid., .
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid., .
18 Ibid., .
 ’    
van Doren, How To Read A Book (rev. ed.; New York: Simon & Schus-
ter, )? Conclusion: There is more heat than light in this review.
Rhetoric, however, is no substitute for substance.
The New Testament in its Literary Environment

In this volume of  David Aune leveled three criticisms against Tal-
bert’s claim that Luke-Acts reflects the a+b pattern of didactic biogra-
phies which presented first the life of a founder and then a list or narra-
tive of his successors. () The usual pattern of life+successor +teachings
which Talbert claimed was typical of Diogenes’ Vitae Philosophorum is
found in only six of the eighty-two lives. () Contrary to Talbert’s view,
Diogenes is concerned only with who succeeded whom, not with the
legitimacy of their views. () To speak as Talbert does of a succession
narrative in ancient biography is an “inappropriate description of brief
lists of students or successors.”19 Let us take these objections one by one.
In the interests of accuracy, we should allow Aune to state his first
critique in his own words.
The only examples of this genre are Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Philoso-
phers, a lengthy compendium of the lives and teachings of eighty-two
ancient philosophers from Thales to Epicurus, written ca. A.D.  at
the earliest. Talbert regards the similarities between Diogenes’ Lives and
Luke-Acts as remarkable, for both contain the life of the founder of a
religious community, a list or narrative of successors, and a summary of
the community’s teaching.20
There are two pieces to this critique. In the first, Aune says that the
only example of the genre of an a+b biography is Diogenes Laer-
tius and that source is late. In Literary Patterns, I referred to a pre-
Christian biography of Aristotle and to first century B.C. Herculaneum
Papyri , , and possibly , in addition to Laertius.21 In What
Is a Gospel?, I spoke of a pre-Christian Life of Aristotle and various
collections of Successions of which Diogenes Laertius is the best pre-
served.22 In ‘Discipleship in Luke-Acts,’ I mentioned Vita Pachomii and
Hilary of Arles’ Sermo de vita Honorati.23 At no time did I ever say the sole
19 Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, .

20 Ibid., .
21 Charles H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts
(SBLMS ; Missoula: Scholars Press, ), –, .

22 Charles H. Talbert, What Is a Gospel? (Philadelphia: Fortress, ).
23 Charles H. Talbert, ‘Discipleship in Luke-Acts,’ in Discipleship in the New Testament
  
example of the a+b genre was Laertius or imply its only examples were
late. The previous essay on ‘Succession in Mediterranean Antiquity,’
moreover, should put the lie as well to this part of Aune’s argument.
The second part of Aune’s first argument is his assertion that I
claim Laertius’ biographies “usually” exhibit an a+b pattern, whereas
in fact only six lives out of eighty-two do so. In Literary Patterns I
noted that the a+b pattern is characteristic of five lives of founders
of philosophical schools in Laertius and listed them as Aristippus, Plato,
Zeno, Pythagoras, and Epicurus.24 My comment was: “The similarities
between the lives of founders of philosophical schools presented by
Laertius and Luke-Acts are remarkable.”25 In ‘Discipleship in Luke-
Acts,’ it was specified that only certain lives in Laertius reflect the
a+b pattern and six were specified: Socrates, Aristippus, Plato, Zeno,
Pythagoras, and Epicurus.26 From first to last I have contended that
only five or six founders of philosophical schools mentioned by Laertius
reflect the pattern, not Laertius as a whole.
Aune’s second argument is that Diogenes is concerned only with
who succeeded whom, not with the legitimacy of their views. If one
grants that such a+b biographies are a phenomenon wider than Laer-
tius, then other evidence can clarify the dispute. Vita Pachomii  says
that Pachomius’ successor Orsisius zealously emulated the life of the
founder. Hilary of Arles’ Sermo de vita Honorati  says Honoratus’ succes-
sor’s task was to do what the founder had done. These two Christian
appropriations of the a+b biographical form used for founders explic-
itly say that the succession narrative was to demonstrate continuity
between founder and successor. The succession list found in m. Avot cer-
tainly has as its aim to assert continuity between the rabbis of the time
of writing and the oral law of Moses. The succession narrative of Laer-
tius’ Vita Epicuri shows continuity, not identity, between founder and
successors. From the previous essay on ‘Succession in Mediterranean
Antiquity,’ it has become clear that continuity between predecessor and
successor in LXX stories is a guarantee that succession has taken place.
The a+b form, then, is concerned to demonstrate continuity between
founder and true successors and discontinuity between the founder and
false followers.
(ed. Fernando Segovia; Philadelphia: Fortress, ), –.

24 Talbert, Literary Patterns, ; , n. .
25 Ibid., .
26 Talbert, ‘Discipleship in Luke-Acts,’ ; , n. .
 ’    
Aune’s third argument is that the a+b pattern of biography has only
lists of a founder’s successors, not a narrative as Luke-Acts does. In Lit-
erary Patterns I specified that the biographies of Zeno and Epicurus in
Laertius have brief narratives of successors and that the pre-Christian
biography of Aristotle ended with an anecdote about his choice of
a successor.27 In ‘Discipleship in Luke-Acts,’ I pointed out that Vita
Pachomii had a long succession narrative. The previous essay on ‘Succes-
sion in Mediterranean Antiquity’ has, moreover, shown that the LXX
employed detailed succession narratives in which the successor acted in
various ways like his predecessor. Once it is recognized that the a+b
pattern is wider than Laertius’ five or six examples, succession lists are
seen alongside succession narratives as part of the total scene.
Having looked at Aune’s ‘three telling criticisms’ and more, what are
we to conclude? Aune has not read carefully or reported accurately but
opposes a straw man of his construction. His negative assertions do not
apply to my thesis and, therefore, constitute no refutation of my thesis
about the genre of Luke-Acts. Indeed, the more comprehensive data
base on succession in antiquity presented in the previous essay should
make my initial argument even more persuasive to any fair-minded
reader.
At the end of this process one cannot help but wonder: why has
Aune so repeatedly misread and so inaccurately reported the work he
is allegedly evaluating? In this case he seems like a blind man in a
dark room at midnight trying to make sense of a printed text. Having
followed his literary career over the years, I must regrettably say that
this is not the only occasion where this has occurred.
27 Talbert, Literary Patterns, , n. ; –.

 
PROPHECIES OF FUTURE GREATNESS: THE

CONTRIBUTIONS OF GRECO-ROMAN BIOGRAPHIES
TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF LUKE 1:5–4:1
What handle can the interpreter grasp to bring Luke :–: within
the sphere of our understanding? Since the question of the sources of
Luke – is well nigh impossible to answer1 and that of Luke :–:
has become increasingly difficult,2 no argument can be framed with
confidence on the basis of a comparison of the final form of the Gospel
with its sources. An alternate route, the one chosen in this paper, is to
attempt to indicate how a Greco-Roman reader/hearer of Luke-Acts
would have understood Luke :–:.3
Before taking this route, however, it is necessary to justify the focus
on :–: as a coherent unit within the Third Gospel. A survey
of the contents of the early chapters of Luke seems to support the
focus. Before :–: we find the prologue (:–); after it there is the
frontispiece of the public ministry (:–). Within :–: is a unit
dealing with John the Baptist and Jesus in three episodes:4 () :–, the
annunciations of the births of John and Jesus; () :–:, the births
and early lives of the Baptist and Mary’s son; and () :–:, the adult
ministry of John and the prelude to Jesus’ public career. Each of these
three episodes is built around a series of correspondences between the
1 For a concise survey of the discussion, see Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of
the Messiah (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, ), –; Charles H. Talbert, Literary
Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts (SBLMS ; Missoula: Scholars Press,
), , .
2 Cf. Joseph B. Tyson, ‘Source Criticism of the Gospel of Luke,’ in Perspectives on
Luke-Acts (ed. Charles H. Talbert; ABPRSSS ; Danville, Va.: Association of Baptist

Professors of Religion, ), –.
3 This type of approach has proved effective at other points in the study of Luke-
Acts: e.g., G. B. Miles and G. Trompf, ‘Luke and Antiphon: The Theology of Acts –
 in the Light of Pagan Beliefs about Divine Retribution, Pollution, and Shipwreck,’
HTR  (): –; Fred Veltman, ‘The Defense Speeches of Paul in Acts,’ in
Perspectives on Luke-Acts, –; Vernon K. Robbins, ‘By Land and By Sea: The We-
Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages,’ in Perspectives on Luke-Acts, –.
4 Talbert, Literary Patterns, –.
  
material about John and that dealing with Jesus that reflects the Lukan
artistry; each is concerned to portray Jesus’ superiority over John the
Baptist. In all three episodes John is depicted as a prophet (:–;
:; :–), not the Messiah (:ff.), whereas Jesus is pictured in all
three as the Davidic Messiah (:–; :; :, ; :–) and Son
of God (:; :; :). This internal coherence argues for :–:’s
being a single thought unit in the Lukan narrative.
The major objection to such a claim is the possibility that the Third
Gospel once began with :ff.5 Three reasons have recently been ad-
vanced to support this contention. First, there are alleged historio-
graphical parallels to :ff. in other Greek writings which argue for
this passage’s having been the original opening of the Lukan Gospel.
Second, Acts :,  may be interpreted to mean that the Gospel once
began with the baptism of Jesus. Third, the placing of the genealogy
in the third chapter of Luke makes more sense if that had been done
before an infancy narrative had been prefixed. This problem, I think,
is more apparent than real. On the one hand, the reasons for think-
ing that the Third Gospel originally began with :ff. are not com-
pelling.6 () The evidence of the first argument cuts both ways. Of the
two examples cited by Raymond Brown, the first (Josephus, B.J., ..
§) comes in the middle of Josephus’ narrative, not at the start of any
main section. The second parallel (Thucydides, Hist. ..) may be the
beginning of a section but is certainly not the start of the document
as a whole. Given these facts, we may acknowledge that :ff. is the
beginning of the third episode of the unit :–:. One should note,
however, that : gives a similar, if not as elaborate, beginning for the
first episode; and :– and :ff. give analogous beginnings in the
first and second episodes for the material that relates to Jesus. The first
argument is not persuasive. () The second argument depends on a
given interpretation of Acts :, . It seems just as plausible, however,
to take Acts’ reference to the baptism of John as a marker for the begin-
ning of the adult career of Jesus as for the start of the Gospel. () Finally,
the position of the genealogy is due to theological considerations. It is
integral to the unit which begins with the baptism and ends with the
5 Most recently, Raymond E. Brown, ‘Luke’s Method in the Annunciation Narra-
tive of Chapter One,’ in No Famine in the Land (ed. J. W. Flanagan and A. W. Robinson;
Missoula: Scholars Press, ), ; idem, The Birth of the Messiah, .
6 Cf. Paul S. Minear, ‘Luke’s Use of the Birth Stories,’ in Studies in Luke-Acts, ed.
L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, ), –.

    
temptation narrative and which focuses on the Son of God.7 There is

no need to resort to the hypothesis of the Third Gospel’s beginning
at :ff. to account for its presence in chapter  rather than in chap-
ters –. On the other hand, the issue before us ultimately has nothing
to do with earlier stages in the Third Gospel’s development but with the
question whether or not in the present form of Luke, :–: is a coher-
ent narrative unit. The answer to that, I think, is ‘yes.’ This paper will
focus, then, on Luke :–: as a unit within the Lukan Gospel which
treats the life of Jesus prior to his public career.
What is the thrust of the material about Jesus in Luke :–:?
Anticipations of Jesus’ destiny predominate. These anticipations are
given in various forms.
) There are two angelophanies.8 (a) In the first, Luke :–, the
angel Gabriel comes to Mary not only to announce the miraculous
conception (:a) but also to tell of the child’s destiny.
He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the
Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will
reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be
no end. (:–, RSV) … and the child to be born will be called holy,
the Son of God. (:b)
(b) In the second, Luke :–, an angel of the Lord appears to the
shepherds in the field announcing the birth of one who would be a
Savior, Christ the Lord (:).
) There are four prophecies. (a) Luke :–, the first, is a prophecy
of Zechariah when he was filled with the Holy Spirit (v. ). In the
context of his predictions about John (vv. –), there is praise to God
for raising up a “horn of salvation” in the “house of his servant David”
(v. , RSV). This, of course, refers in its Lukan context to Jesus. (b)
Luke :–, the second, gives us the prophecy of Simeon, to whom
it had been revealed that he should not taste death before he had seen
the Lord’s Christ (v. ). In the Spirit, on seeing Jesus he blesses God.
7 Talbert, Literary Patterns, –.

8 On the form of these two narratives see G. F. Wood, ‘The Form and Composition
of the Lucan Annunciation Narratives’ (STD thes., Catholic University of America,
); Benjamin Hubbard, ‘Commissioning Stories in Luke-Acts: A Study of Their
Antecedents, Form and Content,’ Semeia  (): –.
  
Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy
word;
for mine eyes have seen thy salvation
which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples,
a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and for glory to thy people Israel. (:–, RSV)
(c) In the third, Luke :–, we hear of the prophetess Anna who
spoke of Jesus “to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusa-
lem” (v. , RSV). (d) Finally, Luke :– gives John the Baptist’s
messianic preaching. He speaks of the mightier one who is coming who
will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire, a prophecy the author of
Luke-Acts apparently believed was fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts :–, ).
) Closely related to the series of four prophecies is Luke :, –

, which consists of a portent followed by a prophetic interpreta-
tion. When the pregnant Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the
babe leaped in her womb. Filled with the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth then
exclaimed: “Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord
should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came
to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy” (vv. –, RSV).9
) Luke :– has similarities to :–. It too has an event that is

prophetic in nature followed by a verbal interpretation. Though not
usually read as such, Luke :– is a prayer scene consisting of a
vision followed by an audition which interprets it. The Third Evangelist
has turned the narrative of Jesus’ baptism into an episode of prayer in
which there are an accompanying vision and audition. This is typically
Lukan. (a) The Lukan emphasis on the prayer life of Jesus is well known
(e.g., Luke :; :; :; :; :–; :; :; :–; :;
:).10 (b) It is also characteristic of the Evangelist to have prayer
accompanied by visions and auditions.11 For example, Luke :–
mentions that Jesus was praying, that a heavenly apparition occurred—
Moses and Elijah appeared—and an interpretative audition followed—
“this is my Son…” (RSV). Acts  offers another excellent example.
In this chapter both Cornelius and Peter are involved in prayer; both
9 Cf. Gen :–. John Drury, Tradition and Design in Luke (Atlanta: John Knox,
), , says: “In both instances the phenomenon is prophetic.”

10 Cf. Allison Trites, ‘The Prayer Motif in Luke-Acts,’ in Perspectives on Luke-Acts, –
.
11 Cf.  Esd :ff.;  Bar :lff. for Jewish parallels.
    
have visions; both receive auditions which interpret what is seen. The
same tendency may be found elsewhere in Acts :ff.; : plus :ff.;
Luke :–; :ff. In Luke :– while Jesus is praying there is a
heavenly apparition. The Holy Spirit descends in bodily form as a dove
upon him.12 The symbolism of the dove in Mediterranean antiquity
(i.e., the beneficence of the deity in love)13 is then interpreted by a
bath qol: “You are my Son, my beloved, in you I am well pleased.”14
Here is another anticipation of Jesus’ destiny, one that will become
more striking when viewed in the context of the pagan practice of
divination by means of the flight of birds. In Luke :–:, therefore,
angelophanies, prophecies in the Jewish sense of the word, a portent
followed by an interpretation, and a vision plus an audition combine to
give numerous verbal anticipations of Jesus’ destiny.
Three other pericopes also deserve attention. There are two stories
about the youth in which Jesus displays his wisdom and prowess (:–
; :–). In the episode of the twelve year old Jesus in the temple,
the wisdom of the lad predominates.15 In the test in the wilderness, the
young Son of God demonstrates his spiritual power by means of his
wise use of scripture and thereby defeats his adversary. Finally, there is
the genealogy (:–) which traces Jesus’ lineage back through David
to the father of the human race, Adam, and through him to God.16
The impact of this material will be felt fully only after our foray into
the Greco-Roman milieu of Luke-Acts.
How would such material—verbal anticipations of Jesus’ destiny,
stories of a young prodigy, and a genealogy—have been understood by
12 Leander E. Keck, ‘The Spirit and the Dove,’ NTS  (–): –, argues
that ̋ περιστερÀν originally was adverbial, specifying the action of the Spirit. On
Hellenistic soil there was a shift from adverbial to adjectival meaning, clearly evident in
Luke. In the Third Gospel it is the dove-like form that is meant.
13 E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period ( vols.; New York:
Pantheon Books, –) :–, after a survey of the uses of the dove in pagan, Jew-
ish, and Christian tradition, concludes: “Beneath the variety of settings the dove itself
shows a unity, and that unity, we may now see, lies essentially in the fact that the dove
represents the beneficence of divinity in love, the loving character of divine life itself.”
14 Ultimately the textual question must be settled by determining the mind of the
Evangelist. If Luke – is an integral part of the Gospel, then Luke : indicates Jesus
was not begotten Son of God at his baptism. The Western reading is thereby excluded.
15 Henk J. de Jonge, ‘Sonship, Wisdom, Infancy: Luke :–a,’ NTS  (): –
.
16 Rodney T. Hood, ‘The Genealogies of Jesus,’ in Early Christian Origins (ed. A. P.
Wikgren; Chicago: Quadrangle Books, ), –, still seems to me to offer the best
clue to Luke’s genealogy.
  
a Greco-Roman reader? The question can be sharpened. Elsewhere I

have argued that Luke-Acts belongs to a type of biography in antiquity
which has the life of a philosopher who is a founder of a school followed
by a narrative (or list) of his successors and selected other disciples.17
The very form (a+b) would have been a clue to the readers/hearers
about what to expect. In this light, how would a Greco-Roman listener
hear a biography which had in its beginnings the components we have
found in the Third Gospel in :–:?
Suetonius’s Vitae XII Caesarum is a good place to begin. In Divus
Augustus there is one section (), set aside for “an account of the omens
which occurred before he was born, on the very day of his birth, and
afterwards. …” In this unit one finds at least fourteen omens which
include: (a) portents interpreted by predictions ( of the  items) which
belong in the same general category as Luke :–; (b) dreams ( of
the  items)—e.g., a man dreamed of the savior of the Roman people,
then on meeting Augustus for the first time, declared he was the boy
about whom he had dreamed (cf. Luke :–); (c) prophecies ( of 
items), that is, verbal anticipations of the child’s greatness and destiny
(cf. the prophecies of Luke –); (d) childhood prodigies ( of  items),
which tell us already that such childhood exploits were regarded as
omens of the youth’s destiny (cf. Luke :–; :–); (e) reference to a
miraculous conception by Apollo ( of  items), though the treatment
of Augustus’s family belongs to another section of the narrative about
his pre-public life. In this section of omens from the beginning of
Augustus’s life we find all of the types of material that we noted in
Luke :–: except a genealogy. It is interesting to note that here,
as in Luke :–:, the main thrust is on anticipations of the hero’s
destiny. Divus Augustus is, moreover, typical of Suetonius’s efforts.
In Tiberius , Suetonius speaks of Tiberius’s “strong and unwavering
confidence in his destiny, which he had conceived from his early years
because of omens and predictions.” There follow seven such omens and
predictions, all of which belong to the category of prophecies. There
are no childhood prodigies, nor is there a miraculous conception. In –
 we hear of the stock from which Tiberius derived his origins.
Suetonius’s Divus Claudius – treats the emperor’s ancestry. In  there
is one portent of a prophetic nature. When Claudius entered the Forum
17 Talbert, ‘Literary Patterns,’ in What Is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ), ch. .

    
for the first time carrying the fasces, an eagle lighted upon his shoulder.
This was regarded as prophetic because of the Roman use of the flight
of birds of omen to discern the decrees of Fate.18 A classic case, as
described by Plutarch, is that of Numa who was chosen king after
Romulus.19 Numa said that before assuming the kingship his authority
must first be ratified by Heaven. So the chief of the augurs turned the
veiled head of Numa toward the south, while he, standing behind him
with his right hand on his head, prayed aloud and turned his eyes
in all directions to observe whatever birds or other omens might be
sent from the gods. When the proper birds approached, then Numa
put on his royal robes and went down where he was received as the
“most beloved of the gods” (©εοφιλÛστατον). In such a thought world,
the Lukan baptismal narrative would have been viewed as an omen of
Jesus’ status as the beloved Son of God.
Three other Lives from Suetonius’s work will suffice. In Nero –, the
emperor’s family is treated. In  we are told that omens at his birth
led to “direful predictions.” Four examples follow, including one on the
day of his purification (cf. Luke :ff.). In Vespasianus –, Suetonius
treats the emperor’s family line. At the beginning of  we hear that
Vespasian began to hope for imperial dignity “because of the following
portents.” At least fifteen examples follow, including the prophecy of
Josephus when he was captured during the first Jewish Revolt against
Rome. Suetonius’s Divus Titus includes both prophecies of his future
rule ( and :) and a note about his youthful excellencies in body
and mind (). From Suetonius’s Vitae XII Caesarum one can conclude
that this biographer believed a Life should include something about a
hero’s family lineage, prophecies of his future greatness, and examples
of childhood prodigies as part of his pre-public career. Sometimes there
might be a reference to a miraculous conception. Is Suetonius to be
considered typical of the Greco-Roman biographical tradition in this
regard? The answer is ‘yes.’
Portents, prophecies, and omens are widely used in biographical
literature of Mediterranean antiquity for the period of a hero’s life
before he enters upon his public career. For example, Quintus Curtius,20
18 Cf. Plutarch, Rom.  and Livy .. for the use of such means to settle the quarrel
between Romulus and Remus. Plutarch, in this context, speaks of the continuing
Roman practice of taking auguries from the flight of birds.
19 Plutarch, Num. .–.
20 Quintus Curtius, Hist. Alex.  (a portent plus an interpretative prophecy).
  
Plutarch,21 Philostratus,22 Pseudo-Callisthenes,23 the Historiae Augustae,24

and the biographical section in Josephus’s Antiquitates judaicae dealing
with Moses25 all contain this type of information in the pre-public
lives of great men. A. D. Nock rightly said: “It was normally expected
that a great man would be heralded by signs and prophecies.”26 The
convention, being subject to perversion, could be ridiculed in satire, as
in Lucian’s Alexander (Pseudomantis). Before Alexander and his partner
Cocconas entered into their public routine, they went, says Lucian, to
Chalcedon and buried bronze tablets, stating that very soon Asclepios
and his father Apollo would come to Pontus and settle. When the
tablets were found, the people voted to build a temple. Alexander
then came proclaiming an oracle that he was the scion of Perseus.
Next a Sibylline prediction of his activity was produced. This series
of prophecies set the stage for the false prophet’s public activity. Such
prophecies are a convention in biographical literature.
Childhood prodigies are just as frequently a part of the Lives of
great men in Mediterranean civilization. It was a commonplace of
Hellenistic biography to relate tales of the precocious intelligence and
of the unusual power and authority of the youths of destiny.27 Quintus
Curtius,28 Plutarch,29 Philostratus,30 Pseudo-Callisthenes,31 the Historiae
Augustae,32 Josephus,33 and Philo34 reflect the practice.
21 Plutarch, Rom. .; Per. .–; Alex. ., –; Mar. .–.; Lyc. , etc.
22 Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. ..
23 Pseudo-Callisthenes, Hist. Alex. magn..
24 Hadr. ., , ; Sev. .–; Ant. Pius .–.
25 A.J. ..– §–. John Drury, Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel, , says: “The
resemblance of this to the prophetic canticles in Luke  and  needs no advertisement.”

Cf. also  En. :– (prophecy about Noah’s destiny at his birth) and the Genesis
Aprocryphon  which has a similar story about Noah.
26 A. D. Nock, Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to
Augustine of Hippo (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), .

27 De Jonge, ‘Sonship, Wisdom, Infancy: Luke :–a,’ .
28 Quintus Curtius, Hist. Alex. .
29 Plutarch, Rom.  (overthrow of a tyrant); ; Alex. . (wisdom); Sol. ; Them. .; Cic.
.; Thes. . (prowess and wisdom); Dion ..

30 Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. ...
31 Pseudo-Callisthenes, Hist. Alex. magn. (a number of childhood wonders, e.g., one
of wisdom, one of strength, one of self-control, one of peacemaking, two of reliance on

persuasion instead of war, one of respect for his father).
32 Sev. ..
33 A.J. .. §; .. §; ..– §ff. Cf. also  En. : where Noah blesses
God while still in the hands of the midwife.

34 Mos. ..–; ..–. Cf. also Jub. – (childhood prodigies of Abraham).
    
References to miraculous conceptions are also an integral part of

the biographical tradition, especially when the hero’s Life is told in
terms of the myth of the immortals.35 Quintus Curtius,36 Plutarch,37
Philostratus,38 and Pseudo-Callisthenes39 give abundant examples of this
tendency.
Finally, one expects to find material on the hero’s family lineage
which may eventuate in a genealogy. One may compare Plutarch,40
Philostratus,41 the Historiae Augustae,42 and Josephus.43
The point is made. The biographical tradition of the Greco-Roman
world would have conditioned a person in the Mediterranean region
at the end of the first century A.D. to expect an account of the hero’s
career before he embarked on his public activity which included mate-
rial on his family background, perhaps a reference to a miraculous con-
ception, along with omens and other predictions of his future greatness,
including childhood prodigies. When the reader confronted Luke :–
:, this narrative unit fulfilled these expectations in a remarkable
way.
What was the purpose of such material in the narrative of a hero’s
life prior to his public career? For the sake of analysis, it will help
if we divide the materials into two categories: omens, portents, and
prophecies on the one hand, and birth, family, and childhood prodigies
on the other.
) Many Greco-Roman people believed that there existed a divine order

of things which could be known by humans either through the initiative
of the gods (i.e., revelation of when they were either angry or benev-
olent) or through the initiative of human beings skilled in unlocking
such secrets (e.g., astrology). The prophecies of the biographies fit into
35 Charles H. Talbert, ‘The Concept of Immortals in Mediterranean Antiquity,’ JBL
 (): –.
36 Quintus Curtius, Hist. Alex. .
37 Plutarch, Thes. ; ; . (begotten by Poseidon); Rom. .; .; Alex. .–.
38 Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. ...
39 Pseudo-Callisthenes, Hist. Alex. magn..
40 Plutarch, Thes. ; Fab. ; Brut. –; Pyrrh. ; Lyc.. (genealogy tracing his lineage
back to Heracles).
41 Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. ..
42 Hadr. .–; Ant. Pius .–.
43 A.J. .. § (genealogy tracing Moses back to Abraham); Vita  (the genealogy
of Josephus).
  
this context. When Philostratus says of the portent at the birth of Apol-
lonius, “No doubt the gods were giving a revelation—an omen of his
brilliance, his exaltation above earthly things, his closeness to heaven,”44
he was speaking of the belief that Tacitus alludes to with reference to
Vespasian. Certain events, says Tacitus, revealed “the favour of heaven
and a certain partiality of the gods toward him.”45 Through omens
the gods revealed their preferences. Tacitus also tells how astrologers
could, on their initiative, uncover fate. He says that Otho accepted the
astrologer Ptolemy’s “prophecies as if they were genuine warnings of
fate disclosed by Ptolemy’s skill. …”46 In a similar manner Suetonius
can say that Domitian knew the very hour and manner of his death
because “in his youth astrologers had predicted all this to him. …”47
Since either divine initiative or human skill could reveal one’s destiny,
Suetonius could write of Augustus:
Having reached this point, it will not be out of place to add an account
of the omens which occurred before he was born, on the very day of
his birth, and afterwards, from which it was possible to anticipate and
perceive his future greatness and uninterrupted good fortune.48
Sometimes, of course, such omens were not believed until after their
fulfillment. Tacitus tells us that the secrets of Fate and the signs and
omens which predestined (destinatum) Vespasian and his sons for power
“we believed only after his success was secured.”49 And even a disregard
of omens often pointed to acceptance of the assumption that there
existed a higher order which was revealed through signs. So Tacitus
tells us that Galba’s disregard for omens was due to the fact that we
“cannot avoid the fixed decrees of fate, by whatever signs revealed.”50
Given this way of thinking, it is to be expected that a biography of
a great man would often contain one or more omens of the destiny
allotted the individual and that they would be given during the period
prior to his public career.
) When we focus on the family lineage, birth, and childhood of the

hero, we find sometimes an emphasis on the supernatural dimensions
44 Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. . (LCL).

45 Tacitus, Hist. ..
46 Tacitus, Hist. ..
47 Suetonius, Dom. .
48 Suetonius, Aug.  (LCL).
49 Tacitus, Hist. ..
50 Tacitus, Hist. ..
    
of them, sometimes an emphasis on their natural character. On the one

hand, sometimes a miraculous conception is joined with the theme of
its manifestation in youthful prowess. For example, in Plutarch’s Romu-
lus, Numitor beholds Remus’s superiority in stature and strength in
body and notes that his acts correspond with his looks, when as yet
the twins’ identity was unknown. From this, Plutarch says, he grasped
the truth of Remus’s identity—that is, he was a divinely conceived child
of a noble family.51 Or in his Theseus, Plutarch remarks about the youth-
ful triumphs of the hero who was offering “noble deeds and achieve-
ments as the manifesting mark of his noble birth.”52 On the other
hand, sometimes the youth’s behavior is understood as a natural phe-
nomenon as in Plutarch’s Demetrius. He gives a story of Demetrius’s
boyhood and says: “This … is an illustration of the strong natural bent
of Demetrius towards kindness and justice.”53 Whether the emphasis is
on the supernatural or the natural, such stories of youthful behavior
were taken as anticipations of the hero’s future character. Plutarch says
of Alcibiades: “His character, in later life, displayed … many strong
passions. … This is clear from the stories recorded of his boyhood.”54
Again, the biographical tradition used a combination of birth, fam-
ily, and boyhood stories to give anticipations about the future life of
the hero. It would not be amiss to say that all of these components
functioned also as prophecies of the character of the public career of
the subject of the biography. If this was their purpose in the Greco-
Roman biographies, then this is how a reader/hearer of Luke would
most probably have taken the material of a similar nature in Luke :–
:.55
Virtually the totality of the material about Jesus in Luke :–:
would have been regarded as an anticipation of his later public great-
ness. The angelophanies, the prophecies of a Jewish type, the portent
plus its interpretation, the vision plus its audition, the two stories of
childhood prodigies, and the genealogy (and miraculous conception)
would combine to foretell/foreshadow the type of person Jesus would
51 Plutarch, Rom. .–.

52 Plutarch, Thes. .
53 Plutarch, Demetr. ..
54 Plutarch, Alc. ..
55 John Drury, Tradition and Design, , says the order of the temptations in Luke
places the Jerusalem temptation last because Jerusalem is the end and goal of Luke’s
gospel. “The temptations are thus made prophetic of Jesus’ course.”
  
be in his public ministry which began at Luke :–.56 By writing in

this way, the Evangelist was simply following the conventions of Greco-
Roman biographical literature.
The Jewish cast to Luke’s materials57 is no obstacle to this thesis.
Philo’s De vita Mosis, the biographical section on the career of Moses
in Josephus’s Antiquitates judaicae, and Josephus’s autobiography show
that the Hellenistic biographical tradition made its impact on Judaism
before and alongside of its impact on Christianity. Charles Perrot’s
collection of haggadic materials relating to the infancy/childhood of
Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Samson, Samuel, Elijah, and Moses makes the
same point.58 The tendency in Mediterranean culture at large provoked
a renewed interest in the early lives of heroes in Jewish circles which
surfaced in the haggadah. To find material with a Jewish cast but
presented in the mold of biographical convention is no impossibility,
therefore. It is again rather what one would expect in an early Christian
gospel.
Are we justified in speaking of a genre of an account of the pre-
public careers of great men in Mediterranean antiquity? I think so. If
so, then it would be a bit more inclusive than the recognized genre of
infancy narratives of famous men.59 In any case, the evidence assembled
in this paper has enabled us to see that Luke made use of the conven-
tional form of expression in his time and place for telling the story of
the pre-public life of a hero.60
Mediterranean culture usually assumed that there was a divine order
with some type of predetermined plan for human life. This order
or plan was disclosed either through divine or human initiative in
‘prophecy’ of some sort. Prophecy, both oral and written, belonged to
56 Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, , – (following Laurentin, Jesus,
–) recognizes this principle for Luke :–. This essay suggests the principle
holds for the totality of Luke :–: as it relates to Jesus.
57 E.g., echoes of Old Testament material that are often called midrashic and the use
of an annunciation form characteristic of the Jewish scriptures.

58 Charles Perrot, ‘Les recits d’enfance dans la haggada,’ RdSR  (): –,
esp. .
59 Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, , says the first two chapters of the
Third Gospel belong to the genre of “infancy narratives of famous men.”

60 As always, the question of genre is separable from the question of historicity.
Cf. Charles H. Talbert, ‘Oral and Independent or Literary and Interdependent? A

Response to Albert B. Lord,’ in The Relationships among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary
Dialogue (ed. W. O. Walker, Jr.; San Antonio: Trinity University Press, ), –.
    
the propaganda strategies of Mediterranean religion generally.61 It was

not the preserve of Jewish and Christian traditions only. In using the
argument from prophecy, then, Christians were merely working within
the framework of common cultural assumptions. The particulars varied
but the underlying structural assumptions were similar.
61 A. D. Nock, Conversion, .

 
JESUS’ BIRTH IN LUKE AND

THE NATURE OF RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE
At no point is the theological difference between the two post-World

War II generations more clearly seen than in their dominant under-
standings of the nature of religious language. The first post-World
War II generation assumed a view of religious language typified by
Rudolf Bultmann: it is the unfolding of believing self-understanding.1
The preaching of the kerygma evokes faith. Faith has cognitive dimen-
sions: implicit is a certain understanding of the self ’s relation to God,
to others, the created order and to itself. Religious language is an expli-
cation of this believing self-understanding. This stance, of course, had
roots in the liberal view that theology is the result of reflection on
religious experience. In liberal theology, however, the religious experi-
ence on which reflection is done is secondary religious experience; that
which is common to humans as humans (so Schleiermacher). In the
Bultmannian system however, reflection is on primary religious expe-
rience, of a variety that is peculiar to Christians as Christians (i.e., to
adherents of a particular religion).
The current generation assumes a view of religious language as
political/projectionist. Its roots are in the thought of Feuerbach, Marx
and Durkheim. (a) For Feuerbach, theology is but a mystified form of
anthropology. God is the projection of universal humanity in a cosmic
image.2 (b) For Marx, social existence determines consciousness. Reli-
gious language is mere ideology, the idea system of the dominant class,
reflecting the socio-economic interests of that class, and functioning to
enforce the status and self-interest of that class. A changed social exis-
tence, however, will result in a new consciousness and eventually in the
abolition of both religion and religious language.3 (c) For Durkheim,
religion is something eminently social. Religious language is a collective
1 Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament ( vols.; New York: Scribner, –
), :–.
2 Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity (New York: Harper, ).
3 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, On Religion (New York: Schocken, ).
  
representation of collective realities. Religion was established to support

and preserve group goals. It functions to give such goals sanctity and
authority.4
Taken together, Feuerbach, Marx and Durkheim have bequeathed to
our generation a distinctive view of religious language: () it is a projec-
tion/reflection of the existing social order; () it functions to maintain
existing social arrangements; and () if the social system is changed, it
will result in a corresponding alteration in religious language. It is this
view of religious language as political/projectionist that is assumed by
the current generation.5
At no point is the methodological difference between the two post
World War II generations more clearly seen than in the shift from a
historical to a literary paradigm for reading the Bible. The historical
reading of the Bible is a diachronic method interested in tradition his-
tory and ‘what really happened.’ Its quest for sources atomizes the text
and detracts from its canonical form and context.6 The literary read-
ing of the Bible is a synchronic method interested in the textures and
interrelationships of the final form of the text and in its effect on the
text’s readers. It suspends judgement, for the most part, on questions
of sources and historicity.7 Although the first post-World War II gen-
eration’s historical method did not entirely exclude literary considera-
tions, and although the current generation’s literary reading does not
completely eliminate the diachronic concerns of the historical method,
each generation is characterized by its own dominant methodological
approach.
What I propose to do in this essay is twofold. First and foremost, I
aim to employ a modified type of reader-based interpretation of the
Lukan birth narratives (second-generation methodology) in order to
show how such a literary-critical reading supports a view of religious
language that is closer to that typified by Bultmann than to that repre-
sented by Durkheim (first-generation theology).8 By reader-based criti-
4Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (New York: Free Press, ).
5In New Testament studies, for example, it is this view of religious language that
underlies Wayne A. Meeks’s widely cited article, ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine
Sectarianism,’ JBL  (): –.
6 Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress, ).
7 Norman Peterson, Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (Philadelphia: Fortress,
).
8 I have no wish to endorse the Bultmannian theological programme which, I
believe, is seriously flawed. I wish only to contend that religious language like that
found in the Bible is better understood in theological than in political terms and that
’    
cism I mean an approach to the text that asks first of all about what the
auditors in Mediterranean antiquity would have heard when the text
was read aloud in their presence.9 It is my belief that an answer to this
question then permits an inference about the author’s general intent.
Second, in the light of such a reading, I intend to comment briefly on
an alternative interpretation of Luke – which illustrates how biblical
study should not be done.
A Modified Reader-Based Interpretation of Luke –

The text under consideration in this essay is Luke –. These two
chapters are part of the larger thought unit, :–:, in the overall
arrangement of the Third Gospel. Luke :–: belongs to the genre of
accounts of the pre-public life of a hero often found in ancient biogra-
phies. The biographical tradition of the Greco-Roman world would
have conditioned a person in the Mediterranean region at the end of
the first century A.D. to expect an account of a hero’s career before
he embarked on his public activity which included material on his
family background, perhaps a reference to a miraculous conception,
along with omens and other predictions of his future greatness, includ-
ing childhood prodigies. In Mediterranean antiquity stories of a hero’s
pre-public life were told as a way of explaining the hero’s later life.
Suetonius, Divus Augustus , puts it this way:
Having reached this point, it will not be out of place to add an account
of the omens which occurred before he was born, on the very day of
his birth, and afterwards, from which it was possible to anticipate and
perceive his future greatness and uninterrupted good fortune.
It was a working out of the principle: the adult is foreshadowed in the
child.10 Given this tendency, the Evangelist’s audience would hear the
birth narratives (Luke –) as the Third Gospel’s answer to the ques-
tion: How is such a life (that recorded in Luke :–:) possible?11
this was characteristic of Bultmann (as well as of others of his generation).

9 This, of course, is different from modern reader-response criticism which focuses
exclusively on the modern readers. Cf. Jane Tompkins, Reader-Response Criticism: From
Formalism to Post-Structuralism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, ).
10 See chapter , ‘Prophecies of Future Greatness: The Contribution of Greco-
Roman Biographies to an Understanding of Luke :–:.’

11 This is an entirely appropriate question for a biography. The biographical char-
acter of the Gospels has been settled. Cf. Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels?
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ).
  
The distinctive way Jesus’ birth is told would determine the auditor’s
perception of Luke’s answer.
In order to clarify the Lukan answer, it will be necessary to deal with
two related questions: () what options were available in Mediterranean
culture for speaking about an individual’s origins? and () what would
ancient Mediterranean auditors have understood the various options to
mean?12
What options existed in ancient Mediterranean culture for talking
about an individual’s origins? At least five different schemes come
immediately to mind.
) One way of speaking was to say that a person had a human father
and a human mother. For example, Matt :b says: “And David was
the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah” (RSV). The Third Evan-
gelist employed this option in Luke :–, , , , , where he tells
the reader that John the Baptist was the son of Zechariah and Eliza-
beth. John, like Solomon, had a human father and a human mother.
This, of course, was the normal way of talking about an individual’s
origins.
Implicit within such a description of human origins were certain
religious or philosophical underpinnings. (a) Theological corollary—The
normal way of speaking about human origins assumes at least a semi-
autonomous world system within which at least semi-autonomous hu-
man acts of creativity take place. For example, given the sexual order
of the natural world, a man and a woman can normally produce an
offspring by means of their semi-autonomous sexual acts. If the system
works properly, God is not overtly a direct or an immediate part of the
equation. Of course, if the system is flawed in some way, it may take
some adjustment by God to get it to work properly (e.g., as in the case
of John the Baptist). Even in such a case, however, the child is the result
of a father’s and a mother’s creative activity within the world system. (b)
Christological corollary—In such a scheme, the one who is born is purely
human, nothing more. So Solomon may be wise and may be king but
he is not divine, and John the Baptist may be inspired but he remains a
creature. (c) Soteriological corollary—The one whose origins are explained
12 This essay assumes that the various options were ‘in the air’ in the Mediterranean
world of antiquity so that even an early Christian would have been cognizant of them.
Note in the discussion of each option indications of Christian knowledge.
’    
by reference to a human father and a human mother is the product of

what is humanly possible, even if on occasion God must make what is
humanly possible possible.
An ancient Mediterranean author of a narrative about origins told in
terms of one’s having a human father and a human mother would have
heard it as having such associations. That the Third Evangelist did not
tell the story of Jesus’ origins in this the normal way is indicative that
such a scheme did not adequately say what he wanted his auditors to
hear.
) On at least one occasion in the New Testament it is said that an

individual was ‘without father or mother.’ So Heb : characterized
Melchizedek. In Mediterranean antiquity this is the way true gods are
usually described.13 Lactantius, Epitome divinarum institutionum .. says:
Mercury, that thrice greatest … not only speaks of God as ‘without a
mother,’… , but also as ‘without a father,’ because He has no origin from
any other source but Himself.
The Apocalypse of Abraham :–, moreover, provides the following
acclamation of God:
Eternal One, Mighty One, Holy El, God autocrat
self-originate,14 incorruptible, immaculate,
unbegotten, spotless, immortal;
self-perfected, self-devised,
without mother, without father, ungenerated.
Likewise in the Acts of Peter , Simon Magus says to Peter that the
Romans are not fools, and turning to them he says: “Ye men of Rome,
is God born?”15 In , a prophet is cited: “Born not of a woman but
from a heavenly place came he down.” On occasion in antiquity, one
could hear that such and such a one was without father or mother.
Implicit within such a claim would also be certain religious or philo-
sophical corollaries. (a) Theological corollary—In this scheme divine inter-
vention is deemed necessary. The individual’s presence in the world is
not the product of autonomous or semi-autonomous human creativ-
13 Jerome H. Neyrey, “Without Beginning of Days or End of Life’ (Hebrews :):
Topos for a True Deity,’ CBQ  (): –.

14 Cf. Sib. Or. .; .; frg. , line .
15 The background for Simon’s remark is the Mediterranean distinction between
deities who were ‘eternal’ and those who were ‘immortal.’ Cf. C. H. Talbert, ‘The
Concept of the Immortals in Mediterranean Antiquity,’ JBL  (): –.
  
ity. It is not the result of human creativity at all. It rather results from
an inbreaking divine activity. So Simon, in the Acts of Peter, says a god
comes down, and Marcion (Tertullian, Marc. :–) speaks of Christ
appearing in Galilee as a full-grown man. (b) Christological corollary—The
one whose presence is the result of divine intervention is himself divine,
not human. Without father and mother means to be self-generated.
This is a trait of a true god, not a human. (c) Soteriological corollary—
Such a life is due to the transcendent deity’s intervention in the world,
devoid of human involvement. In this scheme one encounters a system
of human passivity. All the activity is God’s.
An ancient Mediterranean auditor would have understood a narra-
tive that portrayed an individual’s origins as ‘without father or mother’
in terms of these corollaries. That Luke did not tell the story of Jesus’
origins in this particular fashion indicates that he did not regard such a
scheme as adequately conveying to his auditors what he wanted them
to hear.
) In other circumstances, it could be said that one had a divine

father and a divine mother. Horus, the son of Isis and Osiris, comes
immediately to mind. The Egyptian god Osiris and his consort, the
goddess Isis, produced an offspring, Horus. Horus was the son of two
deities: Isis, wife and mother, and Osiris, husband and father (e.g.,
Aristides, Apol. ).
Such a scheme also had certain religious or philosophical corollaries
associated with it. (a) Theological corollary—In this system of origins deity
is understood as both male and female. God does not transcend sexu-
ality; God is, rather, sexual. Deity is not merely male or merely female;
deity is both; God/ess. (b) Christological corollary—The one produced by
such a divine union is himself divine. Horus is a god, not a human.
(c) Soteriological corollary—Such a life is due to the sexual involvement of
male and female deities. Divine creativity is by means of sexual activity.
This is doubtless the way a Mediterranean auditor would have heard
a narrative that spoke of origins in terms of two divine parents. That
the Lukan Evangelist did not tell of Jesus’ origins in these terms indi-
cates that such a scheme did not adequately communicate to his audi-
tors what he wanted them to hear.
) At other times it could be said that one had a human father and a
divine mother. For example, it was believed that Persephone was the
daughter of the goddess Demeter and the mortal Iasion who made
’    
love in a ploughed field (Od. .–); that Achilles was the son of
Thetis, a goddess, and a mortal, king Peleus (Arnobius, Disp. adv. nat.
.; Chariton, Chaer.),16 and that Aeneas was the son of Venus and a
mortal (Ovid, Metam. .–; Arnobius, .).
Again, such a scheme of origins contained within it certain religious
or philosophical corollaries. (a) Theological corollary—God is understood
as the world, either the earth (Gaia) or the ocean (Thetis), viewed as
animate and divine and understood as the mother of all that is. Some
feminist scholars contend that Hera, Athene, Aprodite, Isis, Demeter,
Cybele are but individualized manifestations of the one feminine divine
principle, the primordial mother goddess.17 In so far as this is the case,
it is a pantheistic understanding of deity and world. (b) Christological
corollary—The one so produced partakes of the natures of both parents
and so participates in both the human and the divine spheres. Exactly
how the two spheres are related in the one person varies, depending
upon the context. (c) Soteriological corollary—In this system such a life is
the result of the divine possibilities inherent in the world which have
been brought to fruition by the intervention or involvement of a human
catalyst.
A Mediterranean auditor of a narrative that spoke of origins in terms
of a human father and a divine mother would have heard these things
implied. That Luke did not utilize this scheme in his depiction of Jesus’
origins implies that he did not think such a system adequately conveyed
to his auditors what he wanted them to hear.
) On still other occasions, it could be said that an individual had

a divine father and a human mother. For example, it was believed
that Dionysius was the son of Zeus and Semele, daughter of Cadmus,
founder of Thebes (Diodorus Siculus, ..–; Ovid, Metam. .–);
that Hercules was the son of Zeus and Alcmene, a daughter of Perseus
(Diodorus Siculus, ..); that Asclepios was the son of Apollo and the
mortal Coronis (Diodorus Siculus, ..); that Romulus and Remus
16 B. P Reardon, ed., Collected Ancient Greek Novels (Berkeley: University of California
Press, ), .

17 E.g., Miriam Robbins Dexter, Whence the Goddess? (New York: Pergamon Press,
), pp. –; and Christine Downing, ‘The Mother Goddess among the Greeks,’
in The Book of the Goddess: Past and Present (ed. Carl Olson; New York: Crossroad, ),
–. This assertion by feminist scholars runs counter to Hesiod’s Theogony which
attempts to integrate popular piety into a scheme which is essentially alien to its
primitive roots.
  
were the offspring of the god Mars and the woman Ilia (Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..–..); that Osiris, a king of Egypt, was
the son of Zeus and a human daughter (Diodorus Siculus, .); that
Alexander the Great was the son of either Jupiter (Quintus Curtius,
Hist. Alex. ) or the god Ammon of Egypt (Pseudo-Callisthenes, Hist.
Alex. magn.) and the mortal Olympias; that Augustus was the offspring of
Apollo and the mortal Atia (Suetonius, Aug. :). This position did not,
of necessity, involve sexual relations between the deity and the human
mother (Plutarch, Num. ) but could be spoken of as occurring by means
of spirit/pneuma (Plutarch, Is. Os. ).
This scheme of speaking about an individual’s origins also involved
a system of allied assumptions of a religious or philosophical nature.
(a) Theological corollary—In this system, God is regarded as other than
the world. The world is the arena of His activity. This, of course, is a
theistic system. (b) Christological corollary—The one so produced shares in
both the divine and the human spheres. (c) Soteriological corollary—Such a
life is the result of human submission to the divine will. Human activity
is involved, but it is in response to the divine initiative. An ancient
Mediterranean auditor would have associated a narrative that spoke
about origins in terms of a divine father and a human mother with
these religious or philosophical connections.
In Mediterranean antiquity there were, then, at least these five op-
tions for speaking about an individual’s origins. Each of these options,
moreover, had certain philosophical or religious corollaries that would
have been recognized, consciously or unconsciously, by auditors. That
the Third Evangelist chose the fifth option as the vehicle for his telling
of the story of Jesus’ origins must surely indicate that implicit within
such a scheme were the religious or philosophical points that he wanted
his auditors to pick up.
When the five options are laid out and the religious or philosophical
corollaries of each position are exposed to view and it is possible to
recognize how each would have been heard by ancient auditors, it is
not difficult to see which Luke regarded as the most appropriate vehicle
for his Christian convictions. Given those convictions, it is not difficult
to see why he eschewed the other four options.
) The option that speaks of origins in terms of a human father and

a human mother is problematic on all three counts. Theologically,
Luke wanted his auditors to hear that Jesus’ life was the result of the
deity’s direct intervention, not the result of autonomous human creativ-
’    
ity. Christologically, he wanted them to hear that Jesus participated in

both human and divine spheres, not the human only. Soteriologically,
he wanted them to hear that such a life is not the product of what is
humanly possible, but the result only of God’s direct creative interven-
tion. If auditors would have heard Option One in terms of problematic
associations, it was inappropriate.
) The option that speaks of one as without father and mother would
be problematic on two counts. Theologically, this position is conso-
nant with Christian convictions. God’s direct intervention is necessary.
Christologically, however, it is deficient in that it eliminates the human-
ity of the one so described. Moreover, soteriologically it is problematic
in that it eliminates all human involvement. If ancient readers would
have associated Option Two with questionable corollaries, it was not
suitable.
) The option that speaks of origins in terms of a divine father and

a divine mother is problematic on all three counts. Theologically, it
is inappropriate for Luke because it understands deity in terms of
sexuality: God is sexual, male and female. Christologically, it eliminates
the humanity of the one so produced. Soteriologically, God’s creative
activity is viewed in sexual terms whereas Luke wanted his auditors to
hear that God transcends sexuality. If Mediterranean auditors would
have connected Option Three with such baggage, it was to be avoided.
) The option that views origins in terms of a divine mother and a

human father is problematic for Luke on two counts. Theologically, this
stance is unacceptable to him because it regards God as the world,
the mother of all that is. This pantheistic system is alien to Luke’s
Jewish roots. Christologically, however, its corollary is consonant with
what he wants to affirm. The one so produced shares, in some way, in
both divine and human spheres. Soteriologically, however, it is prob-
lematic because it regards salvation as possible whenever a human cat-
alyst develops the divine possibilities inherent in the world. If potential
readers would hear a narrative told in terms of Option Four in this way,
it was not suitable.
) The option that regards origins in terms of a divine father and

a human mother apparently fits Luke’s expectations on all counts.
After all, this is the option he chose. Theologically, God is other than
  
the world but acts directly in the world. Christologically, the one so
produced shares in both divine and human spheres. Soteriologically,
such a life is due to human submission to the divine will. Of the options
available for speaking about Jesus’ origins in order to explain how such
a life was possible, Option Five functions best as a vehicle for Luke’s
Christian convictions. It is, then, no surprise that the Third Gospel
tells the story of Jesus’ birth in just the way that it does. The God
who is other than the world intervenes in the world to create one
who is both divine and human and whose birth models the means
of salvation for all people: submission to the divine will. In only one
area does the Lukan infancy narrative deviate from some of the Greco-
Roman traditions that speak of an individual’s being the offspring of
a divine father and a human mother. Under no circumstances would
Luke think of the conception of Jesus as occurring by means of sexual
contact between God and the woman. Like Plutarch, Luke speaks in
a way that has the conception take place by means of Spirit (Plutarch,
Is. Os. ). Mary asks; “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”
The angel says: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, And the power
of the Most High will overshadow you” (Luke :–, RSV). The God
who in Jewish tradition was transsexual remains so in the Christian
story of Jesus’ origins in the Lukan Gospel. A narrative told in terms of
Option Five with the safeguards built in to avoid any inference about
sexual contact between deity and woman would be heard by ancient
auditors in a way that was consonant with the expectations of the Third
Evangelist.
Read in terms of a modified form of reader-based criticism, Luke –
is best seen as the explication of Christian believing self-understanding
by means of the Evangelist’s use of the literary genre of the pre-
public life of a hero figure such as is found in ancient Mediterranean
biographies. Such a second-generation post-World War II methodology
justifies a first-generation view of religious language.18
18 The second post-World War II generation’s view of religion and religious lan-
guage was already successfully critiqued in the first generation by Reinhold Neibuhr. A
generation that no longer reads Neibuhr can find a reasonably sympathetic summary
of his positions on this issue in Roger A. Johnson, et al., Critical Issues in Modern Religion
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, ), –.
’    
Evaluation of an Alternative Reading of Luke –

The reading offered above of the narratives of Jesus’ birth in Luke runs
counter to that offered by Richard A. Horsley’s The Liberation of Christ-
mas.19 Horsley’s book is a variation on the same theme as that pursued
by Klaus Wengst three years earlier.20 It could have been appropriately
subtitled: ‘A Marxist Reading of Jesus’ Birth.’ Horsley extracts from the
birth narratives three themes: () the rulers (= the oppressors); () the
people (= the oppressed); and () the songs of liberation (= celebration
of the political overthrow of the oppressors by the oppressed). He then
moves to a modern analogy: () the United States (= the oppressor); ()
the Nicaraguan revolutionaries (= the oppressed); and () the infancy
narratives (= consciousness-raising stories reinforcing the overthrow of
the oppressor by the oppressed). For Horsley, Jesus’ birth, interpreted
in terms of a second post-World War II generation’s political view of
religious language, is a story about people’s political liberation from
political exploitation and domination. If, as Horsley argues, the Christ-
mas story in North America has become subservient to capitalist eco-
nomic ends and so functions to legitimate the festival of retailing and
consumption of goods, in The Liberation of Christmas it has become sub-
servient to Marxist goals and functions to legitimate class warfare. If
an ancient text has any meaning other than what a modern reader
imposes on it from her own perspective, Horsley’s reading of the stories
of Jesus’ birth misses the whole point of the narratives.21 Theological
texts (= texts that view life in terms of a transcendent deity) cannot be
legitimately demythologized into political tracts (= texts that view life
solely in terms of a struggle between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ in
the areas of class, race and gender). Such reductionism violates their
very nature.
Horsley’s book proves, to me at least, that it is impossible to read a
religious text properly (= in a way that does not violate the religious
19 Richard A. Horsley, The Liberation of Christmas: The Infancy Narratives in Social Context
(New York: Crossroad, ).

20 Klaus Wengst, Pax Romana: Anspruch and Wirklichkeit (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag,
).
21 Equally off-target is Geoffrey Parrinder, Son of Joseph: The Parentage of Jesus (Edin-
burgh: T. & T. Clark, ), who contends that the Virgin Birth tradition was due to
ascetical trends in the early church which led to a depreciation of sex and family life.
Whereas this might have been true for later popular religion as reflected in the apoc-
ryphal Gospels (e.g., the Protevangelium Jacobi), it was certainly not true for Luke, given
this essay.
  
nature of the text) if one’s view of religious language is skewed. The

foundation documents of Christianity cannot, I think, be read with
integrity (= without reductionism) if the interpreter assumes, either
consciously or unconsciously, a view of religious language as politi-
cal/projectionist.
 
THE WAY OF THE LUKAN JESUS:

DIMENSIONS OF LUKAN SPIRITUALITY
The purpose of this paper is to use one facet of Lukan Christology

to cast light on the current struggle to find an acceptable form of
spirituality for our time. It will begin with historical description and
then move to a use of this description as a basis for an evaluation of the
current scene.1
The Lukan picture of Jesus, viewed as a whole, corresponds to the
pattern that has been called exaltation Christology.2 Conceived by the
Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, the earthly Jesus lives and dies as
a benefactor,3 is then taken up to live an immortal, exalted existence
as heavenly Lord who from time to time intervenes on behalf of his
cause and his devotees.4 In this christological pattern, Jesus’ continuing
reign from heaven has as its basis his resurrection from the dead, his
ascension, and his exaltation. His remarkable life as benefactor has as
its basis his miraculous conception. The miraculous conception says
that Jesus’ earthly life is due to God’s act. Like Adam, Jesus is one
whose existence resulted from the direct, creative intervention of God.
Within this frame of reference, two questions related to this christology
must be asked and answered: () What kind of life does God’s creative,
redemptive act produce? and () What is the relevance of such a life for
Jesus’ disciples?
1 The literature on New Testament spirituality is limited and what is available is
oftentimes of little use either for accurate description or for assistance in the current
theological enterprise. Perhaps the best available is Louis Bouyer, The Spirituality of the
New Testament and the Fathers (vol.  of A History of Christian Spirituality; New York: Seabury,
).
2 R. H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Scribner’s,
).
3 F. W. Danker, ‘The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts,’ in SBL Seminar Papers,
 (SBLSP ; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, ), –.

4 Charles H. Talbert, ‘The Concept of Immortals in Mediterranean Antiquity,’ JBL
 (): –.
  
What Kind of Life Does God’s Intervention Produce?

A correct understanding of the Lukan Jesus’ earthly life is possible
only if one recognizes that the Evangelist depicts it in developmen-
tal terms. Three observations prove this to be the case. The first is
found in Luke :–, the story of the twelve year old Jesus in the tem-
ple. Enclosed in a frame, verses  and ,5 it focuses on the youth’s
growth and development. Verse , “And Jesus increased in wisdom
and stature, and in favor with God and man,” uses the term προκÞ-
πτειν (to increase).6 In the Greek world this term was used in philo-
sophical circles to depict an individual’s process of moral and spiritual
development between beginning and perfection. Epictetus, for exam-
ple, speaks of “one who is making progress” ( προκÞπτων) because he
has learned from the philosopher (Diatr. ..). He says: “Whatsoever
the goal toward which perfection in anything definitely leads, progress
(προκοπÜ) is an approach thereto” (..). He asks:
Where, then, is progress? If any man among you, withdrawing from
external things, has turned his attention to the question of his own moral
purpose, cultivating and perfecting it so as to make it finally harmonious
with nature, elevated, free, unhindered, untrammelled, faithful, and hon-
orable …—this is the man who in all truth is making progress ( προκÞ-
πτων). (..–, LCL)
Philo uses it the same way. He speaks of three grades of people: αρχÞ-
µενο̋, the man who is just beginning his training; προκÞπτων, the one
who is making progress; and τÛλειο̋, the perfect or mature person
(Leg. .). In Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat  he uses προκοπÜ to
speak of moral progress in life. In De posteritate Caini  he contrasts
προκÞπται̋ (those making progress) with τελειÞτητι (those attaining per-
fection). In De somniis .– he describes the perfect man (τÛλειον)
as neither God nor man, but as on the border-line between the uncre-
ated and the perishing form of being. The man who is on the path
of progress (προκÞπτοντα) is placed between the living and the dead,
between those who have wisdom for their life-mate and those who
rejoice in folly. Philo, of course, regards the source of one’s progress
not as nature but as God. Later, Greek-speaking Christians made use
of this terminology and assumed a similar conceptual world. In Vita
Pachomii  we hear that the monastic father made progress (πρÞκοψα̋);
5 Henk J. de Jonge, ‘Sonship, Wisdom, Infancy: Luke :–a,’ NTS  (): –
.
6 For the data in the following paragraph, see G. Stählin, TDNT :–.
      
that he took joy in those who made progress (τν προκÞπτων) in virtue
and increased in faith (). We also hear that some of the brothers had
not attained perfection (τελειÞτητα, ). Among monks as well as moral
philosophers life’s journey was described as making progress toward
perfection. In the New Testament’s nine uses of προκοπÜ and προκÞ-
πτειν two are very close to the widespread use in popular philosophy
in speaking of the personal moral and spiritual progress of individuals
( Tim :—Timothy; Luke :—Jesus). In Luke : the emphasis
is on the spiritual progress of the youth, Jesus. Although this facet of
the development of the Lukan Jesus has been recognized by research,
it is usually treated in isolation from the rest of the Lukan narrative.7 It
needs to be seen, however, in the context of the unfolding of the divine
plan in Luke-Acts.
The second observation is that the Third Evangelist traces an unfold-
ing history of salvation in his two-volume work.8 The author signals
new stages in what God is doing by reference to significant divine
inbreaks (sometimes accompanying human prayer). For example, in
Acts the movement to the Gentiles is a major new development in
salvation history. Its actualization is accomplished only by the direct
intervention of God. In Acts  the prayers of Cornelius and Peter are
accompanied by visions and auditions which direct the course of events.
The intent of God to open a new front in the expansion of the gospel
is signaled by an unexpected outpouring of the Holy Spirit while Peter
is still speaking. In Acts  the person to be used as an instrument for
the mission to the Gentiles is overpowered by the Lord in an event
which includes a vision (the light—v. ) and an audition (the voice—
vv. –). In Acts :– the beginning of the missionary outreach of
Barnabas and Paul results from a prophetic word spoken in the midst
of the church’s worship. In the Third Gospel there are also significant
new stages in the unfolding of God’s plan in the life of the Lukan Jesus
which are marked by divine intervention. For instance, in Luke :–
, in the midst of prayer, the Lukan Jesus experiences a vision (v. a)
and an audition (v. b). This, he says later (:–), is the basis for
his ministry of power in Galilee (:–:). That the Evangelist intends
the reader to see the event as a development within the Lukan Jesus is
7 Stählin’s failure to distinguish adequately between the level of the historical Jesus
(for whom it is impossible to trace any development) and the level of the Lukan Jesus
kept him from pursuing the obvious development in the Third Gospel.
8 To acknowledge this fact does not commit one to the thesis of Conzelmann.
  
evident both from the second person form of address in :b (“Thou
art my beloved Son” RSV) and from the first person speech in :–
 (“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me”
RSV). Furthermore in Luke :ff. and :ff., the confession of Peter
and the transfiguration are portrayed as prayer scenes in which there
is a recognition on the part of the Lukan Jesus of a new departure in
the unfolding of God’s plan for his way—rejection, suffering, death.
That the Evangelist thought in terms of Jesus’ own understanding is
confirmed by : which speaks of the Lukan Jesus’ intentionality.
The third observation is found in Luke :–, a Lukan paragraph
composed of a number of independent traditions which portrays the
Lukan Jesus as looking toward Jerusalem and his death. In the course
of the unfolding of the thought unit, Jesus says: “Behold, I cast out
demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and on the third
(day) I am being perfected” (τελειοµαι—first person singular, present
indicative passive).9 That this completion refers to his death is evident
from what follows: “it cannot be that a prophet should perish away
from Jerusalem” (RSV). In any case, here the Third Evangelist depicts
the Lukan Jesus as saying that he will be perfected or brought to
completion in his death. This is much the same thing that is said in
Heb : and :– where Jesus’ being made perfect (τελειεαι and
τελειω©εÝ̋) refer to his having learned obedience through suffering. The
significant thing to note at this point is that the Evangelist regards the
life of Jesus in developmental terms and leads his readers to believe
that the Lukan Jesus was aware of and consciously participated in this
development.
To sum up, the Third Evangelist portrays an ever unfolding plan of
God in the history of salvation, both in the career of the Lukan Jesus
and in the life of the church of the apostolic age. In the Gospel of
Luke, the Evangelist’s choice of terminology at one point shows that he
interprets the significance of this unfolding in the life of Jesus in terms
of the Hellenistic concept of the progress of the individual in spiritual
growth between beginning and perfection.
Once this is grasped, it is possible to look at the Lukan Jesus’ life
in terms of five stages; (a) his dedication to God by his parents as an
infant (Luke :–); (b) his personal agreement with their parental
decision as a youth (Luke :–); (c) his empowering by the Holy
9 G. Delling, TDNT :, incorrectly interprets it to mean Jesus’ work will be
brought to conclusion by God.

      
Spirit (Luke :–); (d) his acceptance of rejection, suffering, and

death as part of his way (Luke :, ; :–; :; :; :–,
etc.); and (e) his resurrection, ascension, and exaltation (Luke ; Acts).
In the paragraphs that follow there will be a brief examination of each
of these five stages, with a focus on the third and fourth.
(a) Dedication to God. Luke :– falls into an AB:B’A’ pattern:
verses a and  (cf. Lev :) which deal with the purification of
the mother after childbirth being A and A’; verses b and  which
deal with the redemption of the first-born being B and B’. The pre-
scription of Exod : concerning the first-born is here literally fulfilled
in the case of Jesus. Jesus, the first born (Luke :), is not ransomed
(Exod :). No such ransom is paid by Jesus’ parents (Num :;
:). Contrary to normal custom, Jesus is dedicated to God and
remains his property.10 That Luke’s auditors would have heard the text
in these terms is likely given the references to the redemption of the
first-born in both the iconographic and the literary traditions of later
Christianity.11 Gentile readers would, indeed, have been aware of the
ritual.
(b) Youthful Agreement with Parental Decisions. Luke :– gives the story
of the youthful Jesus’ trip to Jerusalem at Passover time. Verse  says
that his trip at age twelve was according to custom. This is probably in
preparation for his entrance into religious responsibility which, accord-
ing to m. Avot :, came at age thirteen. When his parents returned
and finally found him in the temple, his mother reproached him: “Son,
why have you treated us so? Behold your father and I have been look-
ing for you anxiously”(v. , RSV). The Lukan Jesus’ response, “How is
it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s
house?” (v. , RSV), can only be understood if seen in the context
of his childhood dedication. The closest parallel to the Lukan empha-
sis in :– is found in  Sam -. There Hannah gives Samuel,
at his birth, to the Lord for as long as the child lives. Consequently
Samuel lives in the presence of Eli at the tent of meeting. If the Lukan
10 Bo Reicke, ‘Jesus, Simeon, and Anna (Luke :–),’ in Saved By Hope (ed.
J. I. Cook; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ), –, esp. .

11 For the iconographic tradition, see Dorothy Shorr, ‘The Iconographic Develop-
ment of the Presentation in the Temple,’ Art Bulletin  (): ; for the literary tradi-
tion, see Ps-Bonoventura, Meditations on the the Life of Christ (ed. and trans. I. Ragusa and
R. B. Greene; Princeton: Princeton University Press, ), . For the combination,
see Heidi Hornik and Mikeal Parsons, ‘Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s Presentation in the Temple:
A ‘Visual Exegesis’ of Luke :–,’ PRSt  (): –.
  
Jesus, in a similar manner, was dedicated to God and not redeemed,

then he belonged to God permanently. This would explain why, in the
Lukan narrative, Jesus would not understand why his parents did not
know where to find him in Jerusalem. Since he was God’s, he could be
expected to be in his Father’s house, as in the case of Samuel. At the
level of the plot of the Lukan narrative, the boy Jesus had made a per-
sonal identification with the decisions his parents had made about him
at his birth.
(c) Empowering for Service. The Third Evangelist has turned Luke :–
, the so-called narrative of Jesus’ baptism, into an episode of prayer.
After his baptism and while Jesus is praying, there is a heavenly appari-
tion. The Holy Spirit descends in bodily form as a dove upon him. To
Greco-Roman hearers of Luke’s narrative this would evoke echoes of
the Roman use of the flight of birds of omen to discover the decrees
of fate.12 For example, Plutarch in describing how Numa was chosen
king after Romulus tells how Numa insisted that before he assumed the
kingship his authority would first have to be ratified by heaven. So the
chief of the augurs turned the veiled head of Numa toward the south,
while he, standing behind him with his right hand on his head, prayed
aloud and turned his eyes in all directions to observe whatever birds
or other omens might be sent from the gods. When the proper birds
approached, Numa then put on his royal robes and went down where
he was received as the “most beloved of the gods.” In such a thought
world the Lukan narrative would be viewed as an omen of Jesus’ status.
Exactly what that status was can be discerned from the bird involved, a
dove, and the interpreting voice from heaven.
In Mediterranean antiquity the dove was symbolic of “the benefi-
cence of divinity in love, the loving character of divine life itself.”13 For
the Holy Spirit to come on the Lukan Jesus in the form of a dove’s
descent would say to Mediterranean hearers that Jesus was beloved of
God. That this is Luke’s intent can be seen from the interpretation
offered of the event by the voice from heaven; “You are my Son, my
beloved, in you I am well pleased.”
This post-baptismal gift of the Holy Spirit is interpreted by Luke
as Jesus’ anointing for ministry as God’s servant, an equipping of him
12 See chapter , ‘Prophecies of Future Greatness: The Contribution of Greco-
Roman Biographies to an Understanding of Luke :–:.’

13 E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period ( vols.; New York:
Pantheon Books, –), :–.

      
for his task. Luke :–, the formal opening of Jesus’ ministry in the
Third Gospel, has Jesus read from Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is
upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the
poor” (RSV). Then, after returning the scroll, Jesus sat down and said:
“Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (RSV). The
reference is, of course, back to the baptism-prayer scene with its descent
of the Holy Spirit on Jesus (cf. Acts :; :).
It is noteworthy that in the plot of the Third Gospel Jesus found it
necessary to receive an empowering for ministry before he embarked
on his public career. He had been conceived by the Holy Spirit; he
had been dedicated to God by his parents as a babe; he had person-
ally identified with his parents’ decisions about him and consciously
assumed the yoke of the kingdom of heaven. Yet none of these could
substitute for the necessary anointing-empowering given him when he
prayed after his baptism. What is needed for adequate ministry in the
Lukan understanding is a prior empowering by God’s Spirit. It was
this that the Lukan Jesus received in :– and of which he was con-
scious in :–. It was out of this empowering that he entered into his
Galilean ministry (:–:). The keynote there is power.
(d) Acceptance of Rejection, Suffering, and Death. Luke :– marks a
crucial turning point in the plot of the Third Gospel. It functions to
conclude the Galilean ministry which began with :; it also sets in
motion a new departure in the unfolding of God’s plan in the narrative
of Luke-Acts. Two questions about Jesus’ identity give focus to the
passage as a whole. Herod asks, “Who is this?” (:, RSV) Jesus himself
reiterates the query. “Who do you say that I am?” (:, RSV) Luke ’s
answer is that Jesus is the one who, through prayer, moves into a new
stage of the spiritual process, a stage that involves rejection, suffering,
and death.
On the one hand, it is a Lukan concern to show that prayer is the
instrument by which God directs the development of the history of sal-
vation.14 It is no surprise, therefore, to find the Evangelist in Luke 
signaling a new development in the Lukan Jesus’ career by two para-
graphs that show Jesus at prayer (:ff.; :ff.). Both references to
prayer in Luke : and :– are distinctively Lukan. Both link
Jesus’ prayer with his coming suffering. In : the Lukan Jesus’ word
about his suffering, rejection, and death is the response to Peter’s con-
14 A. A. Trites, ‘The Prayer Motif in Luke-Acts,’ in Perspectives on Luke-Acts (ed.
C. H. Talbert; Danville, Va.: ABPR, ), .

  
fession that arises out of his session of prayer. In :– Jesus’ prayer
transports him to the heavenly world where a conversation with two
heavenly residents ensues about his exodus (his departure from this
world which includes his death, as well as his resurrection and ascen-
sion). The Lukan Jesus’ grasp of his future suffering is once again tied
to his prayer.
On the other hand, if prayer was the medium through which the
Third Evangelist believes Jesus came to an awareness of God’s will
for a new departure in his life, the content of that will involved not
immediate exaltation but rather rejection, suffering, and death. The
one who had been anointed with the Spirit would be rejected and
killed.
How can it be that the Spirit-empowered Jesus must suffer? The
answer lies in the eschatology of main line Christianity in the first
century. This eschatology combined a ‘now’ and a ‘not yet’ (cf. Paul
in  Cor , ; Phil ). The New Age had broken in with the resur-
rection of Jesus, but the Old Age continues until the Parousia. Believ-
ers live where the ages overlap. How to hold on to these two reali-
ties (now—not yet) has always been among the most difficult tasks for
Christian life and thought. There is perennially the temptation to allow
one to swallow the other. Either the emphasis is so focused on the pow-
ers of the New Age at work in believers that an eschatological reserva-
tion is lost, or the focus is so directed to believers’ involvement in the
structures and limitations of this life that the power of the Holy Spirit
in the midst of weakness is overlooked.
The Third Evangelist, having presented Jesus in his Galilean min-
istry as a Spirit-empowered conqueror of evil, now is concerned to
show that even such a Spirit-empowered figure is subject to the limi-
tations of this age. He is not immediately and automatically triumphant
because of the Spirit unleashed in his life in healing, exorcism, and
powerful teaching. He will be rejected and killed. Only the other side
of this subjection to the limitations of this age will he enter into his
final glory. Theologically, it is necessary to juxtapose ‘anointed with the
Spirit’ and ‘destined to die’ because to say less would be to break the
delicate balance between the ‘now’ and the ‘not yet’ of Christian exis-
tence.15
15 “Sufferings … point the sufferer … toward the future, and thus stamp ‘not yet’
upon the consummation of salvation. To this extent they have an antifanatical function.
…” (E. S. Gerstenberger and W. Schrage, Suffering [trans. J. E. Steely; Nashville:
      
What purpose could such suffering serve for the Lukan Jesus? In
order to answer this question, two items of background information are
necessary, one from Luke and the other from the New Testament at
large.
On the one hand, the Third Evangelist frames Jesus’ earthly career
within two temptation sequences (Luke :–; :, –, ). The
first, Luke :–, must be read against the background of Jesus as both
the culmination of all that God had been doing in the history of Israel
and the second Adam. The genealogy of Luke :– portrays Jesus
both as the culmination of Israel’s history and as second Adam. The
order of the temptations in Luke :– echoes not only the threefold
temptation of Adam and Eve in Gen : (cf.  John :) but also the
temptation of Israel in the wilderness as given by Ps  (cf.  Cor :–
). The temptations of the Lukan Jesus in :– thereby become anti-
typical of the experience of Israel in the wilderness and of the original
pair in the garden. Whereas those who came before were disobedient,
Jesus as second Adam and as the true culmination of Israel’s heritage
is obedient. He has reversed Adam’s fall and Israel’s sin. This tempta-
tion narrative thus understood has the effect of setting all that follows in
Jesus’ earthly career under the sign of ‘Jesus’ obedience.’ Remember: in
the Lukan plot, Jesus is the unredeemed first-born who belongs wholly
to God. The second temptation sequence comes in Luke :, –,
. It is also a threefold temptation, this time of the crucified Jesus. The
Lukan Jesus has spoken earlier of the divine necessity of his death (:,
; :–).16 In the garden he has surrendered to the divine will even
if it means death (:–). Now he faces the temptation to use divine
power for self-preservation (a power he still has—:). Three times he
is confronted with the demand: “save yourself ” (:, , ). That he
does not is his obedience unto death, the perfection of his obedience to
the Father (remember :). The Lukan frame around the public min-
istry of Jesus defines the Lukan Jesus’ career as the way of obedience,
even unto death.
Abingdon, ], ). That Luke was concerned about such a problem is argued by
C. H. Talbert, ‘The Redaction Critical Quest for Luke the Theologian,’ in Jesus and
Man’s Hope (ed. D. Y. Hadidian;  vols; Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary,
), :–.
16 Should one think of the divine necessity in terms of the law of the unredeemed
first-born?
  
On the other hand, in the New Testament one stream of early Chris-
tian thought saw Jesus’ death not only as an atonement for sin and as a
defeat of the powers of evil but also as Jesus’ ultimate act of obedience
or faithfulness to God (e.g., Phil :; Rom :–).17 Jesus died rather
than sin. In this context, Jesus’ suffering and death were regarded as the
arena in which his obedience to God was perfected. Heb : says: God
made “the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering” (RSV).
Heb :– says: “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through
what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eter-
nal salvation to all who obey him” (RSV).18  Pet :– says:
Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same
thought, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as
to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer by human passions
but by the will of God. (RSV)
Paul, Hebrews, and  Peter speak of a suffering endured by Christ
which is the arena in which obedience to God is perfected.19 Luke’s
view of Jesus’ suffering belongs to this facet of New Testament thought.
It is in the context of a view of suffering that is integral to the process
of spiritual growth that Luke  should be understood. The Lukan
Jesus, through prayer, has come to see that he is about to enter a new
17 The entire discussion of ‘the faithfulness of Jesus’ in Pauline thought is relevant
here. Most recently, see Luke T. Johnson, ‘Romans :– and the Faith of Jesus,’ CBQ
 (): –, and the bibliography listed there.
18 Eduard Schweizer, Lordship and Discipleship (Naperville: Allenson, ), , says
that Hebrews here regards Jesus’ death as the final, finishing stage of his obedient
suffering. There are roots both in the Jewish and in the Greek worlds. The Hellenistic
background is that which regarded suffering as an education (παιδεÝα) which leads to
progress and in the end perfection. The Old Testament has as one interpretation of
suffering that pain can be a means of discipline employed by God (e.g., Jer :–,
where Jeremiah’s own sufferings have the purpose of bringing him closer to God). Such
suffering is to be cherished (e.g., Ps :; :). This view is found also in post-biblical
Judaism (e.g.,  Bar. :–, where one is chastened in order to be sanctified). In
Hellenistic Judaism the perfection that was suffering’s goal was understood as complete
and exclusive devotion to God. Progress toward it was a lifelong process but could be
completed in death (cf.  Macc :). On the Jewish background, see Jim Alvin Sanders,
Suffering as Divine Discipline in the Old Testament and Post-Biblical Judaism (Rochester, N.Y.:
Colgate Rochester Divinity School, ) and E. S. Gerstenberger and W. Schrage,
Suffering, Part One (OT).
19 Wolfgang Schrage (Suffering [Nashville: Abingdon, ], ) argues that  Pet :
does not intend to say that suffering liberates from all the dross of the world and sin and
turns one’s gaze from peripheral matters to the center; rather in the fire of suffering it
is revealed what is faith and what is not. Two responses are necessary. First, in revealing
what is not faith suffering strips away the dross. Second,  Pet :– most definitely
asserts a purifying function for suffering whether or not  Pet : does.
      
phase of God’s plan for him. He is moving beyond the initial stage of
empowering into a dimension of life which, though still empowered, is
characterized by rejection (:). In this phase he will learn obedience
through what he suffers. His obedience to God in the face of rejection,
persecution, suffering, and finally death will signal his victory over sin
as one who belongs totally to God.
The importance of rejection, persecution, suffering, and the threat of
death in the process of spiritual growth is that each of these holds up
the possibility of the loss of something which the self either holds dear
or is tempted to hold on to. One is threatened with the loss of eco-
nomic security, of status, of reputation, or of life itself. Circumstances
remove the possibility of one’s holding on to any of these finite treasures
as security. The suffering of rejection detaches one from these real or
potential false gods. One learns obedience to God alone through what
is suffered. Rejection or suffering shatters real or potential idols and
allows God to draw one to himself alone. This redemptive dimension
of suffering would not be possible without the prior stage of empower-
ing. From the Third Evangelist’s perspective, only as God lives within is
there the potential for suffering to be experienced as the perfection of
one’s obedience. The way of the Lukan Jesus, then, was from empow-
ering through suffering to glory.
(e) Resurrection, Ascension, Exaltation. The Lukan view of Jesus’ glorifi-
cation can only be grasped if seen in the context of the early Christian
understanding of Jesus’ resurrection. In earliest Christianity the resur-
rection of Jesus encompassed three different realities: () Jesus’ victory
over death; () Jesus’ removal from human time and space into another
dimension (that of God); and () Jesus’ new function as cosmic Lord. In
Luke-Acts the unity of these three realities is broken and they become
three separate events on a chronological time-line: () the resurrection
of Jesus is reduced to the reality of his victory over death; () the ascen-
sion becomes in Luke-Acts Jesus’ removal to heaven; and () the exal-
tation designates the moment of Jesus’ new status as Lord and Christ.
By taking the different pieces of a whole individually, the Evangelist can
focus on the meaning of each without distraction. Taken together, they
represent the Lukan Jesus’ entry into glory (cf. Luke :).
To sum up, Luke gives us a developmental picture of Jesus in which
his individual progress spiritually is depicted as the gradual unfolding
of the divine plan in Jesus’ way.
  
What Relevance Does Jesus’ Development Have?

This second question, that of relevance, is construed both as descriptive
and as constructive. It asks both how the Third Evangelist saw the
relevance of the way Jesus and how this Lukan perspective may feed
into current constructs for spiritual formation.
There are several strands of evidence that make clear how the author
of Luke-Acts viewed the relevance of Jesus’ way for that of his disciples.
The first strand of evidence is that of the basic architectonic principle
that governs the arrangement of the entire two-volume work, namely,
the remarkable correspondences both in content and sequence between
the events and persons found in Luke and those in Acts. What happens
in the career of Jesus in the Third Gospel has its parallel occurrence
in the history of the church in the Acts of the Apostles.20 This is
one way to say that the life of Jesus is the norm for the lives of his
followers.
A second strand of evidence consists of a cluster of closely related
concepts. (a) Christianity is described in Acts as “the Way” (cf. Acts :;
:, ; :; :, ; also see :; :–).21 (b) As in the Heb :
and :, Jesus is described in Acts as the ρχηγÞ̋ (:; :; cf. Luke
:). (c) A disciple in Luke’s understanding is one who follows behind
Jesus (cf. Luke : where Simon of Cyrene carries the cross “behind
Jesus,” a distinctively Lukan note). Taken together, these components
describe a Way opened up by Jesus, the pioneer, for his disciples to
follow behind him.
The third strand is found in so many specifics of the Lukan story
of Jesus where the Lord is depicted as a model for Christians to emu-
late (e.g., the temptation narrative in :–; the prayer in the garden
in :–).22 Among the items in which the Lukan Jesus is held up as
a model for his followers is his suffering-death. This is made very clear
20 C. H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts (Mis-
soula: Scholars Press, ), –.

21 S. Lyonnet, “La voie’ dans les Actes des Apotres,’ RechSR  (): –;
J. Pathrapankal, ‘Christianity as a ‘Way’ according to the Acts of the Apostles,’ in Les

Actes des Apotres (ed. J. Kremer; Gembloux: J. Duculot, ), –. E. Repo, Der ‘Weg’
als Selbstbezeichnung des Urchristentums (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, ). For
the history of scholarship concerning the absolute use of the term ‘Way’ in Acts, see
F. Bovon, Luke the Theologian (Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick, ), –.
22 M. Bouttier, ‘L’humanite de Jesus selon Saint Luc,’ RechSR  (): –.
      
by the correspondences between the martyr death of Jesus in the Third

Gospel and the martyrdom of Stephen in Acts – (cf. also Luke :–
; Acts :).23
All three strands of evidence mentioned here point to the same
conclusion. Jesus’ way is normative for his followers. As a pioneer,
the Lukan Jesus has opened a way for life to be lived from cradle
to the grave and beyond. It is a developing way but with certain set
components. Those who belong to him walk the way he has opened,24
energized by the same power-Spirit that led him.
Over and beyond how the Third Evangelist described the relevance
of Jesus’ way for disciples, there is the question of how the Lukan per-
spective fits into the larger picture of the history of Christian spiritual-
ity. The history of Christian mysticism lights up the process by which
human spiritual consciousness generally unfolds. Evelyn Underhill con-
tends that just as human embryos pass through the same stages of phys-
ical growth, so too with spiritual man. The normal individual, no less
than the mystic, moves through certain stages of spiritual growth:
If he moves at all, he will move through a series of stages which are,
in their own small way, analogous to those experienced by the greatest
contemplative on his journey towards union with God.25
Underhill also argues that “Christians may well remark that the psy-
chology of Christ, as presented to us in the Gospels, is of a piece with
that of the mystics.”26 I would qualify her remark by saying that at least
in Luke this seems to be the case. Underhill speaks of five stages of spir-
itual development: awakening, purification, illumination, purgation or
the dark night of the soul, and the unitive life. Of these, two are relevant
parallels to what one finds in the Lukan depiction of Jesus: illumina-
tion and purgation or the dark night.27 In illumination there is the initial
experience of the presence of God in power which may be accompa-
23 C. H. Talbert, Luke and the Gnostics (Nashville: Abingdon, ), .

24 Luke’s view corresponds to what James M. Gustafson, ‘The Relation of the
Gospels to the Moral Life,’ in Jesus and Man’s Hope (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological
Seminary, –), :–, means when he says the Jesus of the gospels functions
as a ‘paradigm.’
25 Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism (New York: Meridian Books, ), .
26 Ibid., .
27 It would be an arguable position to say that the Lukan Jesus reflects all five
of Underhill’s stages: () awakening (Luke :–); () purification (Luke :—Jesus’
baptism by John the Baptist being the culmination); () illumination (Luke :–); ()
the dark night (Luke –); and () union (Luke  and Acts).
  
nied by auditions, visions, and other manifestations. This would seem

to correspond loosely to the Lukan Jesus’ experience of empowering
after baptism and to his disciples’ baptism in the Holy Spirit. In the
dark night the pleasure of the former stage is often replaced by pain of
one kind or another. The purpose of the suffering is the healing of the
self at levels that cannot otherwise be touched. This seems to corre-
spond to the phase of the Lukan Jesus’ career that begins in Luke  and
continues through his passion and to which his disciples are called to
participate in Luke :. What is important to see in all of this is that
the Lukan portrayal of the Christian Way as seen in the development
of the Lukan Jesus’ career is very close to what a modern scholar has
been able to discern as typical for the spiritual giants of later Christian
faith.
For those of us who teach religion in an academic context, the Bible
and church history have often been used to correct erroneous ways of
thinking among our students. What we now need to hear is their call
to us, as well as to our students, to expand our models of religious
experience. Luke has presented us with the Way of Jesus in five stages:
dedication to God as an infant; confirmation of parental decisions as
a responsible youth; empowering for service; rejection and suffering as
the perfection of obedience; and glorification. Contemporary reduc-
tions abound. Myriads of Christians live out of a model that is com-
posed of dedication, confirmation and glorification. Some live out of
a paradigm that includes dedication, confirmation, rejection and suf-
fering, and glorification. Others attempt to live with a schema that
embraces dedication, confirmation, empowering for service and glo-
rification. Only rarely do we ever meet a Christian whose model of
the Christian Way is inclusive enough to embrace all five of the Lukan
components. For those of us with attenuated models of religious experi-
ence and development, the Lukan Jesus both shatters our expectations
of what to anticipate in ourselves as we walk the Way of the Lord who
calls us to follow ‘behind him.’
 
MARTYRDOM IN LUKE-ACTS
AND THE LUKAN SOCIAL ETHIC
In Luke-Acts the deaths of Jesus and Stephen are portrayed as mar-

tyrdoms.1 When we focus on the Lukan Jesus’ death, two things need
to be said. On the one hand, in contrast to other New Testament wit-
nesses like Paul (e.g.,  Cor :;  Cor :; Rom :) and Matthew
(e.g., :), Luke avoids any connection between Jesus’ death and the
forgiveness of sins.2 In the speeches of Acts, both Peter (Acts :; :;
:; :) and Paul (Acts :; :; :) preach the forgiveness
of sins as the risen Christ directed (Luke :). Yet neither combines
the forgiveness of sins with the death of Jesus on the cross. In contrast
to Mark : (“For the Son of man also came … to give his life as a
ransom for many,” RSV), Luke :b (“I am among you as one who
serves,” RSV) avoids any mention of an atoning death. In Luke :
(Isa :) and Acts :– (Isa :–), although Isa  is quoted,
there is no mention of the sacrificial death of the servant. In Luke-
Acts, neither baptism (Acts :, ; :, , ; :–; :; :–
; :; :; :) nor the Lord’s Supper (Luke :–; :ff.;
:ff.; Acts :–; :, ; :) is connected with Jesus’ death
(contrast Rom :ff. and  Cor :ff.). In Luke-Acts forgiveness of
sins flows from the earthly Jesus, especially at mealtime (Luke :–
; :ff.; :ff.), and after the resurrection from the exalted Lord
(Acts :; :; :—“God exalted him at his right hand as leader
and savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins,” RSV).3
On the other hand, Luke portrays the death of Jesus as a martyrdom,
the unjust murder of an innocent man by the established powers due
to the pressure of the Jewish leaders. Jesus is innocent of the charges
1 C. H. Talbert, Luke and the Gnostics (Nashville: Abingdon, ), ch. ; Gerhard
Schneider, Die Passion Jesu nach den Drei Alteren Evangelien (Munich: Kösel, ), .
2 Luke :– and Acts : are often cited as exceptions to this claim. Neither
actually is. Both speak about the death of Jesus as the seal of the new covenant.
3 Richard Zehnle, ‘The Salvific Character of Jesus’ Death in Lucan Soteriology,’ TS
 (): –; I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan, ), .
  
against him (Luke :, , , , , ). He is delivered up by the
Jewish chief priests and scribes (Luke : and :–; : and ,
, , ; cf. Acts :, ; :) and executed by Gentiles (Luke :;
Acts :). His death is parallel to the sufferings of the prophets of old
at the hands of the Jews (Luke :; Acts :—“which of the prophets
did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced
beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now
betrayed and murdered,” RSV). So Jesus stands at the end of a long
line of martyrs. Like the martyrs in  Macc :,  and  Macc :
and :, Jesus is silent before his accusers (Luke :). As in the
martyrdom of Isaiah, Jesus’ martyrdom is due to the Devil (Luke :,
). As in the case of the martyrs slain by Herod (Josephus, Ant.,
..– §–), there is an eclipse at Jesus’ death (Luke :).
His demeanor in martyrdom leads to the conversion of one of the
thieves crucified with him (Luke :–). Jesus’ death as a martyr is a
fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (Luke :–, ; Acts :–
), a part of God’s plan (Acts :).
When we focus on the Lukan picture of Stephen’s demise, we find
that the story of Stephen parallels that of Jesus. Both are tried before
the Council (Luke :ff.; Acts :ff.). Both die a martyr’s death.
Acts :, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (RSV), echoes Luke :,
“Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit” (RSV). Acts :, “Lord,
do not hold this sin against them” (RSV), echoes Luke :, “Father,
forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”4 Both stories
contain a Son of man saying: Luke : and Acts :. This is remark-
able since Acts : is the only occurrence of the title Son of man
outside the Gospels and on any lips except those of Jesus. Both men’s
deaths issue in evangelistic results (Luke :–; Acts :ff.; :ff.).
Moreover, the story of Stephen’s martyrdom fulfills Jesus’ words: Luke
:–, especially verse  (“some of you they will put to death,” RSV;
4 This verse is textually questionable. It is omitted by such witnesses as P75 and B. It
is included by such witnesses as à*. The language and thought are Lukan (Father—
Luke :; :; :; :; forgive because of ignorance—Acts :; :; intercede
for executioners—Acts :). Sayings of Jesus are found, moreover, in each of the main
sections of the crucifixion narrative (:–, , ). If one is missing here the pattern
would be disturbed. It could have been omitted either because it was believed to have
conflicted with vv. – or because the events of A.D. – were thought to show
that it was not answered. The probabilities are that it is an integral part of the Third
Gospel.
  -      
cf. also Luke :–). The deaths of both Jesus and Stephen are por-
trayed as martyrdoms in Luke-Acts. Having noted this fact, it is now
necessary to focus on two facets of the Lukan theology of martyrdom.
Martyrdom as Rejection
These martyrdoms are understood by the Evangelist in the first in-
stance as the rejection of God’s spokesmen which results in the rejection of
the rejectors by God. This aspect of the Lukan mind can be grasped if
we look at those martyrdoms in the context of the Evangelist’s under-
standing of Israel. This understanding may be set forth in five summary
statements.
) Before Israel’s refusal of the gospel, Luke regards her as a reality

existing on two levels: first, as an historical people defined by race and
nationality, the Jewish nation (e.g., Luke :; :; Acts :; :, ;
:; :); and second, as the people of God (e.g., Luke :; :;
:; Acts :; :).5 Recognition of this fact is crucial to further
discussion.
) The third Evangelist makes a great deal of the Jewish rejection of

Jesus and the Christian message (e.g., Luke :; :–; :; :;
:; :; :–; :–; :; Acts :–, –; :–, ; :;
:; :; :–; :; :–, –; :–; :; :–, etc.). At
the same time, he makes clear the fact that the earliest believers were
Jewish (Acts :–, ) and that there were many Jewish converts to
Christianity (Acts :, ; :; :; :; :; :; :, etc.) both
in Jerusalem and elsewhere. Hence the Lukan narrative shows how the
Christian movement divided Israel into two groups: the repentant and
the unrepentant. Israel did not reject the gospel but became divided
over the issue.
) In the Lukan perspective the repentant portion of the Jewish nation

is Israel, the people of God. It is to them and for them that the promises
have been fulfilled. This restored Israel is the presupposition of all the
missionary work that follows to the Gentiles (Acts :–). God first
rebuilds and restores Israel and then as a result the Gentiles seek the
5 A. George, Etudes sur Poeuvre de Luc (Paris: Gabalda, ): –.

  
Lord. The unrepentant portion of the nation, however, has forfeited its
membership in the people of God (Acts :). A formal statement of the
rejection of the unrepentant portion of the Jewish nation is delivered
three times, once in each main area of missionary activity. Acts :
has Paul and Barnabas say to the unbelieving Jews in Antioch of
Pisidia: “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first
to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy
of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles” (RSV). In Acts :
the scene is Corinth. Here, when the unbelieving Jews opposed him,
Paul said: “Your blood be upon your heads! I am innocent. From now
on I will go to the Gentiles.” Finally, in Acts :– Paul says to
the unbelieving Jews in Rome: “Let it be known to you then that this
salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen” (RSV).
) It is incorrect to say only that for Luke it is when the Jews have
rejected the gospel that the way is open to the Gentiles .6 It is equally
incorrect to say only that when Israel has accepted the gospel that the
way to the Gentiles is opened.7 Both, indeed, are parts of the total view
of Luke.8 That is, both Acts :– on the one hand and Acts :;
:; and :– on the other are parts of the total perspective of the
third Evangelist. In the first place, the Jewish Christian community in
Jerusalem, as the restored Israel, is the means through which salvation
comes to the Gentiles (Acts :–). The Gentiles are incorporated
into believing Israel. They are, however, incorporated without circum-
cision and the law, that is, without first becoming proselytes (Acts ).
In the second place, the explanation why the Lukan church feels no
obligation to evangelize the national-racial entity of Israel is that these
unrepentant ones have excluded themselves from Israel, the people of
God (Acts :; :; :–). Hence, in Luke’s view, by the end
of Acts the people of God are no longer a race or a nation but those
who believe (Luke :–). The unbelieving Jews remain an histori-
cal people who experience the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of
the temple (Luke :a; :–; :–; :–), but they do not
belong to Israel, the people of God. The destruction of the temple and
6 Hans Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, ), ; Ernst
Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, A Commentary (trans. B. Noble; Philadelphia: Westmin-
ster, ), ff.
7 Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg, ), –.
8 S. G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, ), –.

  -      
of the holy city, moreover, are understood as the consequences of the

rejection of Jesus by the racial-national Israel.9
) The question whether Luke, like Paul in Rom –, envisioned a final
conversion of the entire Jewish people prior to the parousia, prompted
by the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God, is debatable.
Most scholars think that the Lukan Paul of Acts :–, unlike the
historical Paul of Rom , seems resigned to a Gentile church.10 A few
Lukan scholars think that Luke, like Paul in Rom :, looked forward
to a time when the Jews as a people would be reinstated.11 Acts :;
Luke :, ; and Luke :– are about the only supports for this
stance that are not simply too far-fetched. There is enough question
about even these texts, however, to make it improbable that the Gentile
Christian community from which Luke-Acts came expected any final
conversion of the nation as a whole before the parousia. The Evangelist
would not have ruled out the conversion of any individual Jew, but
as far as the direction of the church’s mission was concerned, it was
to Gentiles. In this Luke is akin to Justin Martyr, who believed that a
remnant of Jews was still being saved by conversion to Christianity in
his own day (Dial. ; ; ). Justin, furthermore, allowed these Jewish
Christians who lived within the church to practice the law (Dial. :).
In the Lukan narrative we note that those responsible for the deaths
of Jesus and Stephen are the chief priests and their associates, not
the Pharisees. On the one side, in the Third Gospel the Pharisees
vanish as soon as Jesus enters Jerusalem in : (the last we hear
of Pharisees is in : on the outskirts of the city.). The opponents
in the passion narrative are the chief priests, rulers, Sadducees, and
the Council (Luke :; :, , ; :, , , , ; :, ,
; cf. :—“how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to
be condemned to death, and crucified him,” RSV). On the other
side, in Acts – the enemies of the church are all associated with
the temple (Acts :, –, , , ; :, , , , , , , ).
Likewise, Stephen in Acts : is brought before the Council, where he
is interrogated by the high priest (:).
9 This became standard Christian argument. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ..–.
10 E.g., Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, –.
11 A. W. Wainwright, ‘Luke and the Restoration of the Kingdom of Israel,’ ExpTim
 (): –; Robert Karris, ‘Missionary Communities: A New Paradigm for the
Study of Luke-Acts,’ CBQ  (): –.
  
If the clear sense of language is followed in Acts :ff., then the

Council members must have participated in the death of Stephen. In
the Lukan perspective, therefore, it is the rulers of the nation and the
administrators of the temple, that symbol of Jewish national identity,
who are portrayed as the instruments behind Jesus’ martyrdom and as
agents involved in Stephen’s death. This is the Evangelist’s way of say-
ing that it is the racial-national entity that has rejected God’s messen-
gers, not once but twice. What could be attributed to ignorance the first
time (Acts :) is clearly deliberate the second time. If the martyrdom
of Jesus symbolized the first rejection of God’s messenger, the martyr-
dom of Stephen symbolized the second. The racial-national Israel twice
rejected God’s messenger. The result is spelled out clearly by Luke.
Luke :– and Acts : make it plain. Those who have rejected
Jesus have been rejected by God. The first dimension of the Lukan
understanding of martyrdom, therefore, is that such a death represents
the rejection of God’s messenger by those supposed to be God’s people.
Martyrdom as Legitimation
A second dimension of the Lukan understanding of martyrdom is
that such deaths serve to legitimate Jesus and the Christian cause and to
function as catalysts for evangelistic outreach. This aspect of the Lukan
mind can be grasped if we look at these martyrdoms in the context
of the understanding of martyrdom in Greco-Roman, Jewish, and early
Christian thinking.12
Greco-Roman Views of Martyrdom

We may begin with a look at the Greco-Roman view of martyrdom.
On the one hand, martyrdom was regarded positively in many circles
in antiquity. It was a commonplace that true philosophers lived their
doctrine as well as expounding it. The philosopher’s word alone, unac-
companied by the act, was regarded as invalid (e.g., Seneca, Ep. .–
; Dio Chrysostom, De philosophia .). Some very harsh things were
said about philosophers’ sincerity—or lack of it—in antiquity. Josephus
(C. Ap. .) exaggerated when he said that no Greek philosopher would
12 On the general topic of martyrdom, cf. W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution
in the Early Church (Oxford: Blackwell, ); Norbert Brox, Zeuge und Märtyrer (Munich:
Kösel, ); H. A. Fishel, ‘Martyr and Prophet,’ JQR  (): –, –.
  -      
ever die for his philosophy. The same sentiments are found, however, in
Lucian (Pisc. ): “in their life and actions … they contradicted their
outward appearance and reversed (philosophy’s) practice.” Epictetus
(Diatr. ..) says: “What, then, is the thing lacking now? The man …
to bear witness to the arguments by his acts.” Seneca (Ep. .) joins
the chorus: “There is a very disgraceful charge often brought against
our school—that we deal with the words, and not the deeds, of philos-
ophy.” In view of this cynicism about philosophers’ sincerity, sometimes
only the willingness to die or actual death could validate a philosopher’s
profession.
Several examples of philosophers sealing their profession with either
their deaths or their willingness to die illustrate this fact. Tertullian
(Apol. ) tells us that Zeno the Eleatic, when asked by Dionysius
what good philosophy did, said it gave contempt of death. When he
was called on to prove it, given over to the tyrant’s scourge, he was
unquailing as he sealed his opinion even to death. In Vita Secundi,
Secundus, because of an incident that had caused his mother’s suicide,
put a ban on himself, resolving not to say anything for the rest of
his life—having chosen the Pythagorean way of life. The Emperor
Hadrian arrived in Athens and sent for Secundus to test him. When
Secundus refused to speak, Hadrian sent him off with the executioner
with instructions that if he did speak his head should be cut off. If he
did not speak, he should be returned to the Emperor. When he was
returned to Hadrian after having been willing to die for his vow of
silence, Secundus was allowed to write answers to the twenty questions
asked by the Emperor—which answers were put in the sacred library.
His willingness to die had validated Secundus’s philosophy. Origen
(Cels. .) commends Celsus when the pagan says:
If you happen to be a worshipper of God and someone commands you
either to act blasphemously or to say some other disgraceful thing, you
ought not to put any trust in him at all. Rather than this you must
remain firm in face of all tortures and endure death rather than say
or even think anything profane about God.
The sealing of one’s profession in death as a martyr sometimes issued
in furthering the cause of the philosopher. Plato’s Apologia tells the story
of Socrates’ death. In chapter  Socrates says:
I fain would prophesy to you; for I am about to die, and that is the hour
in which men are gifted with prophetic power. And I prophesy to you
who are my murderers, that immediately after my death punishment far
heavier than you have inflicted on me will surely await you.
  
What is meant in this context is that there will be more accusers than
there are now. His position vindicated by death, Socrates’ disciples will
attack the Athenians as never before.
On the other hand, however, Greco-Roman teachers gave two seri-
ous cautions about martyrdom. Martyrdom is not to be sought. Seneca
(Ep. .) says: “Above all, he should avoid the weakness which has
taken possession of many—the lust for death.” Martyrdom does not
provide certain results. That is, it does not guarantee the furtherance of
one’s cause. It may win some but not necessarily others (Lucian, Peregr.
; Marcus Aurelius ..).
Jewish Tradition Regarding Martyrdom

The view of martyrdom in ancient Judaism has similarities to this
Greco-Roman stance but there are also differences. On the one side,
there was a positive attitude toward martyrdom. Two streams of
thought ran alongside one another. One stream spoke of the prophets
dying as martyrs at the hands of God’s people (e.g., Jer :; Neh :;
 Kgs :, ;  Chr :–; Jub. :; Liv. Pro.; Mart. Isa.; cf.
also Matt :–; Heb :ff.;  Thess :; Mark :–). Here
the emphasis is on the sinfulness of God’s people (cf. Luke :–;
Acts :). The other stream spoke of the faithful among God’s people
dying as martyrs at the hands of the Gentiles. Here, as in Greco-Roman
paganism, it was believed that the true prophet sealed the truth of his
testimony with death. In  Macc  the aged scribe Eleazar refused to
eat swine’s flesh as demanded by the Syrians or even to pretend to eat
it (cf.  Macc :ff.). Instead he endured willingly the scourge, the
rack, and the flame ( Macc :). In  Macc : the author cried
out: “O life faithful to the Law and perfected by the seal of death.”
It was also believed that such martyrs gained thereby the resurrection
from the dead ( Macc :, , , –—the seven brothers and their
aged mother; Josephus, B.J. .. §ff.—those who tore down the
golden eagle Herod the Great had erected over the gate of the Temple;
 Macc :; :; b. Berakhot b—Akiba). Such martyrs’ deaths more-
over were believed to benefit the nation ( Macc :–;  Macc :–
; :), effecting a new relationship between God and the people.
Sometimes the martyrs’ actions made converts to Judaism. For exam-
ple, b. Avodah Zarah a, tells of R. Hanina b. Teradion who in the time
of Hadrian was arrested for teaching Torah to groups. He was burned
to death. After watching, the executioner then threw himself into the
  -      
fire. Whereupon a bath qol (voice from heaven) exclaimed: R. Hanina

and the executioner have been assigned to the world to come.
On the other side, we find the same two cautions among Jewish
teachers that we found in the pagan world. Overeagerness for mar-
tyrdom is denounced as self-annihilation (e.g., Genesis Rabbah ).13 Mar-
tyrdom is no guarantee of another’s conversion (e.g.,  Macc. :).
Martyrdom in Early Christianity

Ancient Christianity was deeply indebted to the pagan and Jewish
views about martyrdom in defining its own stance. On the one hand,
there was a positive attitude toward martyrdom. Like pagans and Jews,
most Christians believed that the truth of their profession must be
sealed in blood if it came to that (e.g., Revelation; Justin,  Apol. ).
It is, of course, true that some Gnostics refused to undergo martyrdom
(cf. Irenaeus, Haer. ..–—Basilides; Tertullian, Praescr. —Basilides;
Scorp. —Valentians and other Gnostics). Christians also believed, like
the Jews, that martyrdom benefited the martyr (Revelation;  Tim :–
; Matt :–; cf. the Martyrium Apollonii, where Apollonius says:
“Proconsul Perenius, I thank my God for this sentence of yours which
will bring me salvation.”). Christians also believed, like the Jews, that
martyrdom benefited the community of Christians (e.g., Mart. Pol. .;
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. .., who says Polycarp put an end to the per-
secution by his martyrdom.). Christians, even more than pagans and
Jews, believed that martyrdoms had ‘evangelistic’ benefits. They helped
spread the gospel. For example, Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone , says:
“The more we are persecuted, the more do others in ever-increasing
numbers embrace the faith.” Tertullian, Apologeticus , says: “We con-
quer in dying. … The oftener we are mown down by you, the more
in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed.” Epistula ad Dio-
gnetum . says: “Christians when they are punished increase the more
in number every day.” In .–, it says: “Can you not see them thrown
to wild beasts, to make them deny their Lord, and yet not overcome?
Do you not see that the more of them are punished, the more numer-
13 Stanley Hauerwas in a private conversation suggested that Jews and Christians
would have reservations about an overeagerness for martyrdom because they believed
that life belonged to God. Therefore, one is not free to dispose of it at will. For the Jew-
ish casuistry developed to help Jews avoid martyrdom, see David Daube, Collaboration
with Tyranny in Rabbinic Law (New York: Oxford University Press, ).
  
ous the others become?” Compare also the Martyrium Apollonii and
the Martyrium Potamiaenae et Basilidis. Lactantius (d. A.D. ), Divinarum
institutionum libri VII ., says: “It is right reason, then, to defend
religion by patience or death in which faith is preserved and is pleasing
to God himself, and it adds authority to religion.”
On the other hand, Christians shared the pagan and Jewish reserva-
tions about martyrdom. An overeagerness for martyrdom is denounced
(e.g., Mart. Pol. : “We do not approve those who give themselves up, for
the gospel does not teach us to do so”; Act. Cypr. says: “Since our dis-
cipline forbids anyone to surrender voluntarily.”). Martyrdom was not
regarded as a certain proof.14
Summary of Luke’s Attitude toward Martyrdom

When we compare Luke-Acts with its environment we find many points
of contact. Like pagans and Jews, as well as later Christians, Luke-Acts
assumed that martyrdom legitimated a philosopher’s/prophet’s profes-
sion, and that such a death might very well issue in the conversion of
others to the innocent one’s cause, though Christian emphasis is more
often here than in pagan or Jewish circles (cf. Luke :–; Acts :b,
ff.; :ff.). In Luke-Acts, the two Jewish streams of martyrology flow
together in the picture of Jesus’ death. Jesus is a prophet rejected and
killed by God’s people (cf. Luke : ff.; Acts :); he is also a devout
Jew executed unjustly by the Gentiles (Acts :–). Stephen’s death
reflects only the first of three streams—prophetic martyrdom at the
hands of God’s people. Further, Luke-Acts agrees with Jewish thought
in the belief that by martyrdom the man of faith gains eternal life (so
Jesus and Stephen—cf.. Luke :), and the belief that the martyrdom
of a righteous man benefits the community (so Luke :– says that
Jesus’ blood sealed the new covenant).
Luke shares with the milieu generally the two main reservations
about martyrdom. On the one hand, martyrdom is not to be sought
(cf. Luke :—“Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me;
nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done,” RSV). Jesus did not have
a lust for death but sought to avoid it, if God would permit it. On the
other hand, martyrdom is not proof of the truth of one’s cause and does
14 H. Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon, ), passim.
  -      
not lead to the conversion of everyone (cf. Luke :–, where only
one of the two thieves crucified with him is converted; the other rails at
Jesus).
How then would Luke’s first readers/hearers have perceived his
account of the martyrdoms of Jesus and Stephen? Three things would
likely have stood out. First, neither man died because of a lust for death.
Both were healthy selves. Second, both legitimated their profession
as they sealed it with their blood. Both were sincere in their stands.
Third, this legitimation is evidenced in the conversion of others as
a result of their deaths. Martyrdom has an evangelistic function. In
the ancient world this Lukan motif would have served as part of the
confirmation of the Christian message. Its persuasiveness was that of a
selfless commitment on the part of stable persons.
The Social Implications of Luke’s View

What are the implications of this view of martyrdom for our understand-
ing of the Lukan social ethic? What kind of political and social stance
does Luke attribute to Jesus? This question is prompted by Jesus, Pol-
itics, and Society, by Richard Cassidy.15 Cassidy argues that the Lukan
Jesus is portrayed as a Gandhi-like figure advocating nonviolent resis-
tance. Is this position tenable in light of our previous discussion? I think
not.
Cassidy works with three possible stances:16 (a) nonresistance (where
people refrain not only from physical violence but also from directly
confronting those responsible for existing ills; they identify with those
suffering from such evils; they offer no defense if they themselves are
subjected to violence by those who have power; their hope is that
their example will eventuate in changes in the attitudes and actions
of others); (b) nonviolent resistance (where people avoid violence to
persons but confront in a nonviolent way those responsible for existing
social ills; their hope is that the challenge will serve to create a dialogue
that may eventually result in a favorable change of behavior); and (c)
violent resistance.
These or similar stances had their representatives among Jewish peo-
ple at the time of Christian origins. The Zealots were the advocates of
15 Richard Cassidy, Jesus, Politics, and Society: A Study of Luke’s Gospel (Maryknoll, New
York: Orbis Books, ).

16 Ibid., –.
  
armed revolution against Rome. Josephus gives us at least two examples

of nonviolent resistance in Jesus’ time. The first is found in Antiquitates
judaicae .. §– and Bellum judaicum .. §–. This is an
account of a five-day sit-in to protest Pilate’s introduction of images
into Jerusalem. When threatened with death if they did not end their
protest, the Jews cast themselves on the ground and bared their throats,
declaring that they gladly welcomed death rather than violate their
law. The protest caused Pilate to remove the offensive images from the
city. A second is found in Antiquitates judaicae . §– and Bellum
judaicum . §–. This tells of a general strike by Jews that left
fields untilled in the sowing season for more than a month. The protest
prevented Caligula’s statue from going up in the temple.
Although during the Hasmonean rule at least some of the Pharisees
functioned as a political party, from the rise of Herod the Great until
the end of the first Jewish revolt against Rome, the Pharisees seem
to have moved away from direct political involvement and to have
adopted an attitude of indifference regarding rulers and the forms
under which they ruled. It seems likely that the Pharisees did not
oppose Roman rule in Judea.17 Their concern in this period was with
the proper ordering of the life of God’s people according to the law.
The Lukan Jesus’ stance is more complex than Cassidy’s descrip-
tion allows. Two components must be recognized in Luke’s picture
of Jesus’ social and political stance. First, although the Lukan Jesus
shows no deference toward political rulers (e.g., Luke :–), this
does not mean that he is involved, Gandhi-style, in a nonviolent resis-
tance to them. Like the Pharisees, the Lukan Jesus manifests an indiffer-
ence to the political rulers. For someone who believed that all power
and authority resided with God and all history unfolded according
to his purpose, human rulers were of little consequence. Since the
rulers shared no common assumptions that would facilitate dialogue
with him, the Lukan Jesus opted for silence in their presence. Sec-
ond, toward the Jewish structures (the church), however, the Lukan
Jesus showed no indifference. Here he was involved in nonviolent resis-
tance. Confrontation between the Lukan Jesus and the Jewish leaders
was frequent (e.g., Luke :–:; :–; :–; :–; :–
; :–:). Only at Luke : is there any hint of possible vio-
lence. The Evangelist has so shaped the cleansing story, however, that
17 Ibid., –.
  -      
it becomes merely Jesus’ entry into the site of his subsequent teaching
(Luke :–:). Moreover, Luke :– has Jesus explicitly reject
violence against Jewish authority. Nonviolent confrontation aimed at
dialogue and hoping for a change of behavior seems the best descrip-
tion of the Lukan Jesus’ stance toward the Jewish structures. This was
doubtless due to the fact that Jesus and the Jews shared common
assumptions about God and values. With such a people dialogue could
be profitable.
The Lukan view of martyrdom offers specific support to this cor-
rection of Cassidy’s thesis. Were the deaths of the Lukan Jesus and
Stephen designed by either to influence the political structures of the
times (that is, Roman political structures)? Were their deaths the result
of Rome’s resistance to their political agitation? The answer to both
questions must be in the negative. In Luke-Acts these deaths were the
outcome of a struggle within the people of God, which at that time
was also a racial-national entity. The deaths, moreover, had their pos-
itive influence on those within the people of God: the thief converted
on the cross was almost certainly a Jew, and the spread of the gospel in
Acts  and  was by Christians (cf. Phil :–, where Paul’s impris-
onment and threatened martyrdom caused most of the Christians to be
bold in preaching). The Lukan Jesus and his followers, like the Phar-
isees of Jesus’ time, had as their concern the proper ordering of the
life of God’s people.18 If the Lukan Jesus adopted an attitude of indif-
ference regarding rulers and the forms under which they ruled, the
Christians in Acts basically looked with favor on the Roman structures
because, when they worked at their best, they protected the preachers
of the gospel from attack (e.g., Acts :–; :–; :–; :–
; :–), and, even when they were flawed (e.g., Acts –), they
facilitated the preaching of the gospel.
The Lukan Jesus’ primary vehicle for social change—if such lan-
guage is even legitimate in describing Lukan thought—was the struc-
ture of life in the community of his disciples. Among his followers the
Lukan Jesus sought a revolution in social attitudes. His disciples were to
live in the present in light of God’s reversal of all human values in the
Eschaton. Such a stance, of course, was regarded by some as “turning
the world upside down” (Acts :), even if that was not a primary or
even a conscious intention of the Christians. By embodying structures
18 H. C. Kee, Christian Origins in Sociological Perspective (Philadelphia: Westminster,
), .
  
of social relationships that reflected the new life in the Spirit under the
Lordship of Jesus, the Christian community functioned in the larger
society as an agent of social change.
It would be improper, I think, to close without at least raising the
question of the relevance of the Lukan perspective for modern life.
Two contemporary Christian ethicists reflect the stance we have found
in Luke-Acts: John Howard Yoder19 and Stanley Hauerwas.20 Yoder’s
thesis is that the first duty of the church for society is to be the church.
That means to be a society which through the way its members deal
with one another demonstrates to the world what love means in social
relations. In this way the church fulfills its social responsibility by being
an example, a witness, a creative minority formed by obedience to
nonresistant love. From this point of view, the church does not attack
the social structure of society directly, as one power group among
others, but indirectly by embodying in its life a transcendent reality.
Hauerwas acknowledges both his debt to Yoder and to the Gospel of
Luke. The Lukan Jesus, he argues, did not go to the top (to Caesar
or to Pilate) to get something done. Nor did he go to the Left (the
Zealots). He went instead to the poor and the sinners. He established
a community to embody God’s grace. By insisting on being nothing
less than the community of love, moreover, the church forces the world
to face the truth of its own nature. “The most vital form of Christian
social ethics must actually be a concern about the kind of community
that Christians form among themselves.”21
To conclude: The Lukan Jesus is no more a social activist of the
Gandhi variety than of the Zealot type. Like the Pharisees of the
historical Jesus’ time, he is preoccupied with the ordering of the life of
the people of God. It is through the leaven of the life of the community
of the Lukan Jesus’ disciples that the world is turned upside down. This
19 Yoder is known to a wide reading audience by his The Politics of Jesus (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, ). There he argues that “a social style characterized by the
creation of a new community and the rejection of violence of any kind is the theme of
New Testament proclamation from beginning to end” (p. ). He has strong support
from Jacques Ellul, Violence (New York: Seabury, ), who shows the fallacy of the
logic of the assumption that violence, while wrong in the oppressor, becomes right when
used by Christians for desirable social change. The best summary of Yoder’s position
is found in Stanley Hauerwas, Vision and Virtue (Notre Dame, Ind.: Fides, ), in a
chapter entitled, ‘The Nonresistant Church: The Theological Ethics of John Howard
Yoder,’ –.
20 Stanley Hauerwas, ‘The Politics of Charity,’ Int  (): –.
21 Hauerwas, Vision and Virtue, .
  -      
Lukan perspective on social ethics, moreover, is now incorporated in

at least one stream of contemporary Christian theological ethics. The
advisability of basing contemporary Christian ethical thought on Lukan
perspectives is a matter for Christian ethicists to decide after debate.
What the Lukan point of view is with regard to social ethics, however,
seems to me beyond debate.
 
THE PLACE OF THE RESURRECTION

IN THE THEOLOGY OF LUKE
According to Luke, the resurrection takes place according to divine

plan and functions variously: to signal God’s reversal of Jesus’ rejection;
to attest to Jesus’ victory over death; to confirm Jesus as the mediator of
salvation; to establish the Eucharist as the extension of table fellowship
with Jesus; and to make mission possible.
The apocryphal Gospel of Peter (–) purports to give an account of

Jesus’ resurrection.
Now in the night whereon the Lord’s day dawned, as the soldiers were
keeping guard two by two in every watch, there came a great sound
in the heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men descend
thence, shining with a great light, and drawing near unto the sepulchre.
And that stone which had been set on the door rolled away of itself and
went back to the side, and the sepulchre was opened and both of the
young men entered in. When therefore the soldiers saw that, they waked
up the centurion and the elders (for they also were there keeping watch);
and while they were yet telling them the things which they had seen,
they saw again three men come out of the sepulchre, and two of them
sustaining the other, and a cross following after them. And of the two
they saw that their heads reached unto heaven, but of him that was led
by them that it overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice out of
the heavens saying: “Hast thou preached unto them that sleep?” And an
answer was heard from the cross, saying: “Yea.”1
None of the canonical Gospels, Luke included, recounts the resurrec-
tion itself. They rather focus on the aftereffects, like the empty tomb
and the appearances of the one who was raised. Luke’s Gospel speaks
about the resurrection of Jesus by using three types of tradition: () pas-
sion predictions and references to such (: [cf. :–]; :); () sto-
ries of and references to an empty tomb (:– [cf. :–]; :
[cf. :]); and () stories about (:–, ; :–) and references
1 M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, ), –.

  
to (:) appearances of the risen Christ. The task of this article is

not to do an exegesis of these texts but rather to explore the role of
Jesus’ resurrection in Lukan theology. This will be done by examin-
ing in order the theological, christological, soteriological, ecclesiolog-
ical, and missiological ramifications of the resurrection in Luke (and
Acts).
Theological Ramifications
Theologically, what is the role of Jesus’ resurrection in Luke? For the
third evangelist, God raised Jesus as part of the divine plan. In Luke
:, Jesus predicts: “The Son of Man must [δε] suffer many things,
and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed,
and on the third day be raised [γερ©ναι, aorist passive]” (RSV).
) The passive “be raised” is a divine passive. Jesus will be raised by

God. This is explicitly stated in Acts : (“God raised him up”); :
(“Jesus God raised up”); : (“God raised from the dead”); : (“God
raised from the dead”); : (“God raised Jesus”); : (“God raised
him on the third day”); : (“God raising Jesus”); : (“God raising
him from the dead”). This was also common early-Christian confes-
sion (e.g., pre-Pauline— Cor :; Rom :; Pauline— Cor :;
Deutero-Pauline—Eph :; Petrine— Pet :; Ignatian—Trall. .).
) Jesus’ being raised, moreover, is a part of the divine plan. In Luke-

Acts there is a divine purpose that stands behind the events of his-
tory.2 It is spoken of as “the purpose of God” (βουλc το ©εο) in
Luke :; Acts :; :; :–;:; :; as God’s “will” (©Ûλεµα)
in Luke :; Acts :; :; as God’s “authority” (ξουσÝα) in
Acts :. Sometimes the divine plan is described by the term “must”
(δε) or “it was necessary” (δει), as in Luke :; :;:;:; :;
:; :, , ; Acts :, ; :; :; :; :; :; :; and
here in Luke :. Mark : and Matt : reflect the same use of
“must” relative to Jesus’ resurrection. The realization of the divine
plan is often spoken of in terms of fulfillment. Luke :; :; :;
Acts :; :; :, all use πληρον (“fulfill”). Luke : uses συµπλη-
ροσ©αι (literally, “when the days were fulfilled”; “drew near,” RSV).
2 John T. Squires, ‘The Plan of God in Luke-Acts,’ (Ph.D. diss., Yale University,
).
          
Luke : and : employ τελεν (“accomplish,” RSV). Luke :
reads: “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything written
of the Son of Man by the prophets will be fulfilled.” This includes Jesus’
resurrection (“and on the third day he will rise”). Luke :– con-
tinues the same thread. The risen Jesus says:
“Everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and
the psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand
the scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ
should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead.” (RSV)
The divine plan can be known by humans. Prophecy of various sorts

makes it known, including the prophecy of the pre-Easter Jesus. So, in
Luke :–, the angels say to the women who have found the tomb
empty:
“Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son
of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified,
and on the third day rise” [Luke :]. And they remembered his words.
(RSV)
The divine plan is made known by Jesus’ prophetic words. In Luke,

Jesus’ resurrection is God’s doing and is a part of his overall plan.
Christological Ramifications
Christologically, the resurrection functions both as part of Luke’s at-
tempt to maintain the identity of the pre- and the post-Easter Jesus
and as God’s reversal of the human no to Jesus. First, the resurrection
serves as part of a larger motif emphasizing ‘this same Jesus.’ There
is a pattern in Luke-Acts that seeks to guarantee that the one who
dies, is buried, is raised, and ascends in Jerusalem and its environs is
the same Jesus who worked in Galilee. () Luke : says: “And all
his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee
stood at a distance and saw these things” (RSV). The echoes of :–
 (the choice of the twelve apostles) and :– (a notice that the twelve
were with him and also some women) are unmistakable. The continuity
of the witnesses ensures that the Jesus who died is the same as the one
who worked in Galilee. () Luke : reads: “The women who had
come with him from Galilee followed, and saw the tomb, and how
his body was laid” (RSV). Again, an echo of :– is heard. Again,
the effect is to guarantee that it is the same Jesus who was buried.
() Luke :– has the two angels remind the women who find the
  
tomb empty of something Jesus said “while he was still in Galilee”

(i.e., the passion prediction of :), “and they remembered his words”
(:). The words of the one who had predicted his resurrection while
in Galilee are fulfilled, as the empty tomb evidences. The prophecy-
fulfillment schema underwrites the identity of the Galilean prophet
and the risen one. () Acts : has two angels address the witnesses
of Jesus’ ascension: “Men of Galilee [remember Luke :–], why
do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from
you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into
heaven” (RSV). That the witnesses of the ascension are Galileans serves
to underscore that it is the same Jesus who ascends. From the Lukan
perspective, credentials for a witness to the resurrection of Jesus include
that such a one has “accompanied us during all the time that the
Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism
of John until the day when he was taken up from us” (Acts :–,
RSV). Why? Only such a person could verify that it was the same
Jesus from Galilee to ascension. Lukan christology is one with that
of the Johannine community in its preoccupation with guaranteeing
the identity of Jesus through the events of passion, resurrection, and
ascension (e.g., the role of the beloved disciple—John :; :?;
:–; :; :, –).
Christologically, Jesus’ resurrection in Luke-Acts also functions as
God’s reversal of the human no to Jesus.3 This motif is most explicit
in Acts. In Acts :– Peter says: “This Jesus … you crucified and
killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up” (RSV). In
Acts :– Peter again says: “But you denied the Holy and Righteous
One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the
Author of life, whom God raised from the dead” (RSV). In Acts :–
 Peter and the apostles say: “The God of our fathers raised Jesus
whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his
right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and
forgiveness of sins” (RSV). In Acts :b- Peter says: “They put
him to death by hanging him on a tree; but God raised him on the
third day and made him manifest” (RSV). In Acts :– Paul says:
“Though they could charge him with nothing deserving death, yet
they asked Pilate to have him killed. … But God raised him from the
dead” (RSV). If Jesus’ death is the result of human rejection of God’s
3 I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, ),

.
          
messenger, his resurrection is God’s vindication of him. This view of

Jesus’ resurrection is implicit in his words in Luke :: “But from
now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power
of God” (RSV). Like a prophetic perfect in Hebrew, the future tense
(‘will be’), joined to the expression ‘from the now,’ speaks of events
as if already realized, so certain is the speaker of their fulfillment by
God (in this case, God’s vindication of Jesus). The evangelist’s words in
Luke :, at the end of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus,
reflect the realism of post-resurrection experience: “If they do not hear
Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one
should rise from the dead” (RSV).
Soteriological Ramifications
Soteriologically, the resurrection functions both to provide the means
by which salvation may flow from Jesus and to define the nature of the
ultimate victory over death.
) In Luke-Acts salvation flows from the living Jesus.4 This is true for the
periods both before and after Easter. Thus, this is so before Easter (e.g.,
Luke :–; :–; :–, –; :–). Even the promise to the
thief on the cross was a promise made by the living Jesus (Luke :–
). In the period after Easter, this is still true. Luke :– links
the proclamation of repentance and forgiveness of sins in Jesus’ name
to his resurrection from the dead. The emphasis is continued in Acts.
In :–,  the call to “Repent, and be baptized everyone of you
in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (RSV)
is predicated on Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation (so also in :, ;
:–; :–). In : the same point is explicit: “God exalted
him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel
and forgiveness of sins” (RSV). In : one hears it yet again: “Christ
… by being the first to rise from the dead … would proclaim light
both to the people and to the Gentiles” (RSV). It is by virtue of his
resurrection that salvation flows from Jesus in the period after his death.
Luke shares this emphasis with other early Christians (pre-Pauline—
Rom :; :b; Phil :–; Deutero-Pauline— Tim :; Heb :;
:; :).
4 Ibid., .
  
) Jesus’ resurrection serves in the Third Gospel to describe the nature

of the ultimate victory over death.5 For Luke, the resurrection of Christ
is not the resuscitation of a corpse, as in the case of the widow’s son at
Nain (Luke :–; described in : as “the dead are raised up”) and
of Jairus’s daughter (Luke :–, –).6 When a corpse is resus-
citated, it will eventually die again of something else. Whenever one
has experienced the ultimate victory over death, however, that one will
never die again (cf. Rom :, “For we know that Christ being raised
from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over
him,” RSV). Neither can the resurrection of Jesus in Luke be under-
stood as a disembodied existence in the intermediate state, as such
a state is assumed in the parable of Luke :– and the words
of Jesus to the repentant thief in Luke :–. Resurrection implies
an embodied existence (cf.  Cor :–). Nor does Luke regard
Jesus’ resurrection as identical with his “departure” (ξοδο̋, :; cf.
his “coming” [εσοδο̋], Acts :). Like the fourth evangelist, the third
evangelist sees Jesus’ departure as encompassing his death-resurrection-
ascension-exaltation. Jesus’ death is part of the Way to the climactic
“being received up” (ναλÜµψεωσ, :; cf. Acts :, ), or “entering
into his glory” (εσελ©εν ε̋ τcν δÞξαν ατο, :). Thus, Jesus’ resur-
rection in Luke is one facet of his departure.
In earliest Palestinian Jewish Christianity the one event, the resur-
rection of Jesus, encompassed three different realities: his victory over
death, his removal from human time and space into another dimension
(that of God), and his new function as cosmic Lord (cf.  Cor :–;
Rom :–). In Luke-Acts the temporal unity of these three realities is
broken apart, and they are treated narratively as three separate events
on a time line. The resurrection of Jesus is used to refer to the reality of
his victory over death (Luke :–, , –, –). The ascension
becomes Jesus’ removal to heaven (Luke :; Acts :–). The exal-
tation designates the moment of Jesus’ new status as Lord and Christ
(Luke :; Acts :–; :). Other early Christians near the same
time as Luke-Acts make the same theological separation between res-
urrection (Eph :; Col :;  Tim :;  Pet :, ; :; Heb :),
ascension (Eph :; :; Col :;  Tim :;  Pet :; Heb :),
and exaltation (Eph :; Col :;  Tim :;  Pet :; :; Heb :;
5 Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke (New York: Crossroad, ), –.

6 J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X–XXIV (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
), .
          
:; :). Luke’s use of narrative as his theological vehicle necessitated

his taking the three religious components of resurrection as understood
by the earliest Palestinian Jewish Christians separately ‘for the sake of
analysis.’ In so doing, however, Jesus’ resurrection comes to refer only
to his ultimate victory over death.
This ultimate victory over death is understood in corporeal terms.
Both the first empty-tomb tradition (Luke :–) and the second
appearance story (Luke :–) witness to the corporeality of the
risen Christ. Luke :– (and par.) has some distinctive traits. Luke
contrasts what the women did find (the stone rolled away) with what
they did not find (Jesus’ body). The absence of the body echoes Luke
:, where the women observe the body of Jesus laid in the tomb,
and is echoed later in the Emmaus account (:, “did not find his
body”). The two angels’ words interpret this empirical data: “Why do
you seek the living among the dead? He is not here but has risen” (:,
RSV, following the long text). Whatever the nature of Jesus’ victory over
death was, it involved the absence of his body from the tomb.
Assuming the long text,7 a second empty-tomb tradition (Luke :)
is attached to the first in order to eliminate two erroneous explanations
of the missing body of Jesus. First, the report was not due to the hysteria
of some women. The second empty-tomb story in Luke furnishes a
second witness that is needed for a valid testimony under Jewish law
(cf. Num :; Deut :–; :). Second, it eliminates the possible
explanation of the empty tomb as due to the theft of Jesus’ body (cf.
Matt :– and John :– for concern with the same issue). Just
as in John :–, Peter’s seeing the linen cloths lying by themselves
argues against theft. A thief would have taken not only the body but
also the expensive cloths. The tomb was in fact empty, says Luke. We
do not have a case of hysterical women getting it wrong. Moreover, it
was empty not because of the theft of Jesus’ body but, as the angels
said (Luke :) and Jesus predicted in Galilee (Luke :–; cf. :),
because he has been raised from the dead in a corporeal fashion.
Luke :– tells of an appearance of the risen Jesus to the eleven
and some others in Jerusalem. This story also functions to establish the
corporeality of the risen Christ (cf.  John :–; John :–; for
a similar concern cf. Ign., Smyrn. .–; Ep. Apos. –). When Jesus
7 J. E. Alsup (The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition [Stuttgart:
Calver Verlag, ], ) indicates the trend of recent research is to accept v.  as an
integral part of the Third Gospel.
  
appeared, the disciples supposed they saw a spirit. The story rectifies
the disciples’ belief with two proofs. First, Jesus says: “See my hands
and feet, that it is I myself, handle me, and see; for a spirit has not
flesh and bones as you see that I have” (:, RSV). The pagan
Lucretius (Rer. Nat. .) enables one to sense the significance of this for
Luke’s readers. He says: “For nothing can touch or be touched except
a bodily substance.” This kind of saying was also known to an early
Christian like Tertullian (An. ; Marc. :), who used it to argue for the
corporeality of Jesus. In contrast to this, consider the gnosticizing Coptic
Gospel of Thomas, “Jesus said: I will give you what eye has not seen and
ear has not heard and hand has not touched and which has not come
into the heart of man” ().
Second, when Jesus says, “Have you anything here to eat?” the
disciples give him a piece of broiled fish and “he took it and ate before
them” (:–, RSV; cf. Acts :; :). The significance of this
act for Jewish sensitivities is clear: Angels do not eat (e.g., Tob :;
Josephus, A.J. .. §; Philo, Abr. ); human beings do eat. For
Luke, the risen Lord, no less than the pre-Easter Jesus, is flesh and
bones, corporeal, truly human. Not only does the risen Jesus eat, but he
also can be seen (even the wounds in his hands and feet) and touched.
The two stories (Luke :– and –) say the same thing about
the nature of Jesus’ victory over death. It is not to be understood as
an escape from this perishable frame (the Greek immortality of the
soul) but as a transformation of it. It is to be understood neither as a
transformation into a purely spiritual, angelic being nor as the mere
survival of his shade (cf.  Sam :–). Jesus remains flesh and bones,
though immortal. His existence, although bodily, is nevertheless not
limited by the normal human constraints (e.g., :, “He vanished out
of their sight,” RSV; :, “As they were saying this, Jesus himself
stood among them,” RSV). Again, the similarities with the Fourth
Gospel are striking (John :, “the doors being shut … Jesus came
and stood among them,” RSV; :, “the doors were shut, but Jesus
came and stood among them,” RSV).
In Luke-Acts Jesus is understood, in part at least, as the prototype of
Christian existence. He is the pioneer (ρχηγÞ̋, Acts : [“Author,”
RSV]; : [“Leader,” RSV]; cf. Heb :; :) who goes before,
opening the Way for his disciples to follow. His existence is, then, a
model for his followers (cf. Luke :– and :–, where Jesus’
dealing with temptation is an example for Christians facing the same
difficulties). Given this mindset, if Luke speaks about the nature of
          
Jesus’ victory over death, he is also making a comment about the nature
of the victory over death for which Christians hope (cf. Phil :–;
 John :). Luke’s answer, therefore, is very much the same answer
as Paul’s ( Cor ). Still, Luke does not make his confession in an
analytical or systematic manner but rather offers his confession in
the form of a narrative of the risen Christ who is understood as the
prototype of Christian existence. In the nature of Jesus’ victory over
death, one sees the victory for which his disciples hope as well. It
is a bodily existence in which marks that allow for the recognition
of individuality remain, but it is not subject either to death or to
the normal constraints of bodily existence as known this side of the
transformation from mortal to immortal.
Ecclesiological Ramifications
Ecclesiologically, the resurrection of Jesus functions in Luke to clarify
the nature of the Eucharist as mealtime with Jesus.8 The Lukan Jesus is
frequently involved in meals: (a) with sinners (:–; :–; :–);
(b) with Pharisees (:–; :–; :–); (c) with disciples (:–
; :; :–; Acts :—the term is literally “to take salt with
someone,” but the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic translations read “to eat
together”—cf. RSV, “while staying with them,” :); (d) with the
multitudes and disciples (:–). Three of the meals in which the
earthly and risen Jesus is involved mention the breaking of bread (:–
; :–; :).
) Luke :– portrays Jesus as one who satisfies the hungry, feeding
them through his disciples (cf. Luke :, “He has filled the hungry
with good things”; :, “Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall
be filled”). In Luke the feeding is in the neighborhood of Bethsaida
(‘House of fishing’). Although the crowd could not be satisfied by their
natural circumstances, Jesus can meet their need. He takes the five
loaves and two fishes, blesses and breaks them, and gives them to his
disciples to set before the crowd. “And all ate and were satisfied” (v. ,
RSV).
8 Talbert, Reading Luke, –; Robert F. O’Toole, The Unity of Luke’s Theology
(Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, ), –.

  
) Luke :– is a farewell speech of Jesus that contains within it

the Third Gospel’s account of the Last Supper.9 In ancient Jewish and
Christian farewell speeches there are certain constants. A hero figure
knows he is about to die (cf.  Pet :, where the apostle describes
his death as an exodus). He gathers his primary community about
him and gives a farewell speech with two standard components: first,
a prediction of what is to take place after he is gone; and second, an
exhortation of how his community should behave after he has departed.
(a) Luke : indicates Jesus has gathered his community about him.
(b) Verses – function as Jesus’ prediction of his impending death
(e.g., “I shall not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God,”
v. , RSV; “I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom
of God comes,” v. , RSV). (c) Verses – give the predictions
and exhortations. Within this section of predictions and exhortations
come the Eucharistic words. Assuming the long text, verses –
read:
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave
it to them, saying “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in
remembrance of me” (v. , RSV).
And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out
for you is the new covenant in my blood” (v. , RSV).
Here Jesus (a) asks his disciples to repeat the meal in his personal
memory (v. , i.e., exhortation) and (b) says his death is the seal of
the new covenant (v. , i.e., prediction or promise).
In Jewish thought, a covenant was sometimes sealed by a sacrifice
(e.g., Gen ; Exod :–, “Behold the blood of the covenant which
the Lord has made with you,” RSV). Matt :a (“this is my blood of
the covenant,” RSV), Mark : (“This is my blood of the covenant,”
RSV), and  Cor : (“This cup is the new covenant in my blood,”
RSV) join Luke in this emphasis. This was not a sacrifice to deal with
sins but one that sealed the pact.
In the Greco-Roman world, memorial meals for founders of semi-
religious groups were sometimes held at the founder’s request (e.g.,
the Epicurean school’s remembrance of Epicurus and Metrodorus at
their annual celebration provided for in Epicurus’s will, so Diogenes
9 Talbert, Reading Luke, –; for a survey of the literature, see François Bovon,
Luke the Theologian (trans. Ken McKinney; Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick, ), –.
          
Laertius, Vit. phil. .–) . In an analogous manner, the Lukan Jesus

exhorts his followers to repeat the meal as a personal remembrance of
him.
) In Luke : the risen Jesus “took bread and blessed, and broke
it, and gave it to them” (RSV). This action echoes the previous meals
of : and :. At this point, although the disciples have previously
been kept from recognizing Jesus (v. ), now their eyes are opened
and they do recognize him (v. a). The table fellowship that was inter-
rupted by Jesus’ death is here resumed at the risen Christ’s initiative.
Hereafter, the disciples will go on doing this in remembrance of him
(:), and they will mediate to the multitudes the nourishment Jesus
provides (:). Then, too, this incident is but one of several occasions
on which the risen Jesus ate with his followers (Luke :–; Acts :;
:). It serves as a bridge between the meals the earthly Jesus had
with his disciples and the later church’s Eucharist.10
In Acts we hear of the church’s being involved in breaking bread
(Acts :, ; :; :–—all but the last text in the setting of
Christian worship). Since ‘breaking bread’ is Eucharistic language in
the Third Gospel and since elsewhere in early Christianity there is
evidence of cultic meals with only bread and no mention of wine
(e.g., Acts John –; Acts Thom. , –, ; Pseudo-Clementine
Rec.  and Hom. :), this seems the appropriate way to construe the
expression ‘breaking bread’ in Acts.
All of this yields the distinctive Lukan understanding of the Eucha-
rist. If Paul understands the Lord’s Supper as the moment when Chris-
tians remember Jesus’ death11 and the Fourth Gospel views the Eucha-
rist as the cultic extension of the incarnation, Luke-Acts regards it as
the extension of mealtime with Jesus. Such Eucharistic breaking bread
with Jesus looks back to mealtime with Jesus during his earthly career
and his request that it be continued (Luke :–; :–); it is now
grounded in Jesus’ resurrection appearances to his disciples in con-
nection with the breaking of bread (Luke :; Acts :; :); and
it anticipates the coming Messianic banquet in the Kingdom of God
10 Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke Acts ( vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress,
), :.
11 For various ways this could be understood, see C. H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians
(New York: Crossroad, ), –.

  
(Luke :–; :). In Luke-Acts, the resurrection of Jesus supplies

the ground for the ongoing Eucharistic breaking of bread in the com-
munity of his disciples.
Missiological Ramifications
Luke-Acts sees the church in terms of mission. This mission is grounded
in the resurrection of Jesus in at least three ways.12 First, mission is
based on the authoritative word of the risen Christ. Resurrection-
appearance narratives are of two types. Some function merely to prove
that Jesus is alive; others serve not only this purpose but also to allow
the risen Christ to give further instructions to his disciples. Luke :–
 falls into the latter category. After establishing that Jesus is alive and
what the nature of his victory over death is (vv. –), the story shifts
focus so that verses – serve the needs of the disciples for further
teaching, in particular, about the christological meaning of scripture.
Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise
from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be
preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (RSV; cf.
Acts :b)
The one who speaks this word of command is the one whose prophe-
cies during his earthly career have now been fulfilled (v. ; cf. :–).
In the ancient world, fulfilled prophecy legitimated the one who made
the prediction (cf. Deut :–). If Jesus’ words have been fulfilled,
he is a true prophet who speaks with authority. It is this authoritative
prophet, now risen from the dead, who gives the command to mission.
Second, mission is enabled by the risen Christ’s gift of the Spirit.
Luke : reads: “And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon
you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high”
(RSV; cf. Acts :–, a). One reason the risen Christ commands the
disciples to remain in Jerusalem until the Spirit is given concerns the
Lukan belief that a valid testimony to Christ requires two witnesses,
in accordance with Deut :, namely, the witness of the apostles
and the witness of the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts :, “we are witnesses to
these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those
who obey him,” RSV; cf. :–, “grant to thy servants to speak thy
word with all boldness, while thou stretchest out thy hand to heal,
12 Talbert, Reading Luke, –.

          
and signs and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy
servant Jesus,” RSV). Another reason the disciples are to remain in
Jerusalem until they receive the gift of the Spirit has to do with the
Lukan conviction that God has the initiative in salvation history, so that
what human beings do must be done in response to divine leading and
empowering (cf. Luke :–, where successful fishing is done only after
and in obedience to the directions of Jesus) . A third reason the disciples
are not to depart Jerusalem before receiving the Spirit is quite simply
that until this gift is bestowed on them, they will have no personal
desire to bear witness. Acts : is not a command; it is a promise. “You
shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you
shall be my witnesses” (RSV). If disciples have been empowered by the
Spirit, they will bear witness. This is the promise the risen Jesus makes.
In Lukan missiology, the principle is clear cut: There is no mission
without a prior empowering! This empowering was promised by the
pre-Easter Jesus (Luke :) and the resurrected Christ (Luke :a;
Acts :, a), but it was made possible because of Jesus’ resurrection-
exaltation. Acts :– puts it plainly:
This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being there-
fore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the
Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you
see and hear. (RSV)
Third, those who will be involved in mission are placed under the pro-
tection of the risen Lord. Luke : says that prior to his ascension, the
risen Jesus “led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he
blessed them” (assured them of God’s favor and support; RSV).13 Bless-
ings were often part of final-departure scenes in Jewish literature (e.g.,
Gen :; :–). This act of blessing is like that of the high priest,
Simon, in Sir :–. With a priestly act, the risen Christ puts his
disciples who are to be involved in mission under the protection of God
before he leaves them (cf. Matt :, “and lo, I am with you to the end
of the Age,” RSV; John :, , “Holy Father, keep them in thy name.
… I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that
thou shouldst keep them from the evil one,” RSV, for similar concerns).
After blessing the disciples, Jesus ascends heavenward. For their part,
the disciples obediently return to Jerusalem, there to await the gift of
the Spirit and the beginning of their mission to the nations.
13 Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age (Philadelphia: Fortress, ), .
 
CONVERSION IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES:

ANCIENT AUDITORS’ PERCEPTIONS
Conversion is a central focus of Acts, maybe the central focus.1 There

are at least ten conversion narratives in Acts2 plus numerous statements
by the narrator about such phenomena. In , Paulist Press published
The Salvation of the Gentiles by Jacques Dupont, which contained an
essay on ‘Conversion in the Acts of the Apostles.’3 Dupont contended
the following concerning conversion in Acts: () that it belonged to
the moral category of conversion which was concerned with sin and
forgiveness, () that it involved a ‘turning from’ as well as a ‘turning
to,’ () that its catalysts were miracles and preaching, () that its roots
were in divine grace, and () that it resulted in a continuing change
of life. Looking back on Dupont’s study, one may conclude that the
only point that needs modification is the first one. In Acts, instances are
identifiable of both the moral and the cognitive types of conversion
(e.g., the account that includes Simon in Acts  is an example of
cognitive conversion because his worldview, even after his baptism,
includes magic; :–; :–; :–).4 With this one adjustment,
1 Thomas M. Finn, From Death to Rebirth: Ritual and Conversion in Antiquity (New York:
Paulist, ), , says conversion is the major theme of Acts.

2 Finn, From Death to Rebirth, , says there are twenty-one. In the summer of ,
my student, Craig Joseph, and I attempted to build a database of ancient conversion

accounts and, on the basis of an examination of that collection to determine whether
or not there was a set form for a conversion story. We concluded that it is possible to
isolate five stable components in these ancient conversion narratives: (l) the context,
() the catalysts leading to conversion, () the counter-forces which pose an obstacle or
opposition, () the conversion itself, and () the confirmation of the genuineness of the
conversion by postconversion evidence. These results essentially confirmed an earlier
attempt by Robert Allen Black, ‘The Conversion Stories in the Acts of the Apostles’
(Ph.D. diss., Emory University, ). A reading of Acts then showed ten narratives
which contained these five components: () :–, () :–:, () :–, () :–,
() :–, () :–, () :–, () :–, () :–, and () :–.
3 Jacques Dupont, The Salvation of the Gentiles (New York: Paulist, ) –. Cf.
further R. Michiels, ‘La conception lucanienne de la conversion,’ ETL  (): –

; and Augustin George, Études sur l’oeuvre de Luc (Sources bibliques; Paris: Editions
Gabalda, ), –.
4 Nancy Shumate, Crisis and Conversion in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (Ann Arbor: Univer-
  
I want to employ Dupont’s description of conversion in this study of

Acts and ask a further question: How would ancient auditors have
heard Acts’ description of Christian conversion?5 An answer to this
question will be attempted, mostly but not exclusively, on the basis of a
comparison of Acts with selected conversion narratives from antiquity.6
We will take up in order the five parts of our modified version of
Dupont’s description of conversion in Acts.
Moral and Cognitive Conversions

First, if we grant the modification of Dupont’s proposals as stated
above, Acts describes some conversions as primarily moral, which in-
volve issues of sin and forgiveness (e.g., :; :; :–; :; :;
:–), and others as essentially cognitive, which involve a shift of
basic paradigms about the world, that is, a movement from idolatry to
the worship of the living God (e.g., :–; :–; :–). How
would people outside of messianic Judaism have heard this depiction?
On the one hand, a moral type of conversion was known to both
Jewish and pagan7 persons alike.
sity of Michigan Press, ) works out the contrast between a moral type of conversion
in which the stress is ethical, a movement from vice to virtue in which the convert
recognizes his/her shortcomings in light of a heightened awareness of morality, and a
cognitive type of conversion in which there is a collapse of an entire system of premises
and assumptions about how the world works and its replacement by one radically dif-
ferent, a change of worldviews. In Acts, Jews and God-fearers are offered forgiveness
for sins through Jesus (a moral type of conversion) while pagans are called upon to
experience a shift from polytheism to monotheism (a cognitive type of conversion).
5 The audience-oriented approach taken here is like that of Peter J. Rabinowitz,
‘Whirl Without End: Audience-Oriented Criticism,’ in Contemporary Literary Theory (ed.

G. Douglas Atkins and Laura Morrow; Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press,
), –; idem, ‘Truth in Fiction: A Reexamination of Audiences,’ Crln  ():
–; and idem, Before Reading. Narrative Conventions and the Politics of Interpretation (Ithaca,
N.Y.: Cornell University Press, ), –. Rabinowitz defines the ‘authorial audi-
ence’ as the readers that the author has in mind in creating the text. These readers pos-
sess the sociocultural knowledge and interpretive skills necessary to actualize the text’s
meaning. Unlike some contemporary uses of the expression ‘implied reader,’ the term
‘authorial audience’ locates the interaction of text and reader in a particular sociohis-
torical context.
6 The database of conversion narratives from antiquity may be found in my Reading
Acts (New York: Crossroad, ) in the section on Acts :–. Some scholars would
also include Dio Chrysostom’s De exilio and Aelius Aristides’ ^Ιερν λÞγοι. I have
reservations about both and so have omitted them.
7 See Finn, From Death to Rebirth, –, for a discussion of the term.
      : 
) Jewish. One example will suffice. Although the material is not in

the form of a conversion narrative, the synoptic traditions about John
the Baptist (Matt :–; Mark :–; Luke :–) relate John’s call
for a repentance/conversion that involved the forgiveness of sins and a
change of behavior in an ethical direction. Such a view of conversion
was far from unique in ancient Judaism.
) Pagan. Conversion to philosophy belongs to the moral type, although

the categories employed are those of vice and virtue rather than sin and
forgiveness. Two examples will suffice.8 The first example is the case of
Polemo. In Bis accusatus (ca. A.D. ), Lucian presents the judicial case,
Drink versus the Academy, in which Drink accuses the Academy of
luring away her faithful servant, Polemo. In section , the Academy
responds.
One day he reached my door. He found it open: I was discoursing to a
company of my disciples, as is my want, upon virtue and temperance.
He stood there, with a flute-girl at his side and the garlands on his
head, and sought at first to drown our conversation with his noisy outcry.
But we paid no heed to him, and little by little our words produced a
sobering effect, for Drink had not the entire possession of him: he bade
the flute-girl cease, tore off his garlands, and looked with shame at his
luxurious dress. Like one waking from sleep, he saw himself as he was,
and repented his past life; the flush of drunkenness faded and vanished
from his cheek, and was succeeded by a blush of shame; at last, not (as
plaintiff would have you believe) in response to any invitation of mine,
nor under any compulsion, but of his own free will, and in the conviction
of my superiority, he renounced his former mistress there and then, and
entered my service.9
This is a conversion from vice to virtue.
A second example of philosophical conversion of the moral variety
is Lucian’s Nigrinus (mid-second century A.D.). Lucian presents a dia-
logue between two friends, one (Lucian?) who has been converted by
exposure to Nigrinus and the other who is befuddled by his friend’s
new behavior (–). The friend sets the tone with his comment about
the other’s behavior since he came back. “You don’t deign to notice us
anymore, you don’t associate with us, and you don’t join in our con-
versations; you have changed all of a sudden. … [W]hat is the cause
8 One could also refer to the conversion of the brother of Apollonius of Tyana in
Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. ..

9 Translation from F G. Fowler and H. G. Fowler, The Works of Lucian of Samosata (
vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, ), :–.

  
of all this?” The other answers: “I have come back to you transformed
… into a happy and blissful man—in the language of the stage, ‘thrice
blessed.’ ” The friend replies: “In so short a time?” The other responds:
“Yes. Don’t you think it wonderful, in the name of Zeus, that once
a slave, I am now free; once poor, now rich indeed; once witless and
befogged, now saner?” The friend replies: “I don’t clearly understand
what you mean.” The other then tells of his experience. He was going
to Rome to see an oculist about eye trouble. While there he went early
one morning to pay his respects to Nigrinus the Platonic philosopher,
something he had not done for some time. Nigrinus began to speak to
him. He praised philosophy and the freedom it gives; he ridiculed the
things that are commonly counted blessings like wealth and reputation,
dominion and honor, purple and gold. As a result, the other says: “I
couldn’t imagine what had come over me.” The other now regarded all
these things as paltry and ridiculous and was, in his words, “glad to be
looking up, as it were, out of the murky atmosphere of my past life to
a clear sky and a great light.” He forgot his eye ailment as he became
sharpersighted in his soul. “There you have it! I am going about enrap-
tured and drunk with the wine of his discourse” (LCL). This dialogue,
then, is also indicative of a conversion from vice to virtue.
In both examples of conversion to philosophy given above, the con-
version is moral. There is a renunciation of a lifestyle (drunkenness,
luxury) that is now replaced with a higher virtue (sobriety, simplicity).
At the same time, the philosophic convert remains within the pagan,
polytheistic worldview. His conversion is moral not cognitive.10
On the other hand, a cognitive type of conversion was also known to
both Jewish and pagan persons in antiquity.
10 Wayne A. Meeks, The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries (New
Haven: Yale University Press, ), , agrees with A. D. Nock that “being or becom-
ing religious in the Greco-Roman world did not entail … moral transformation.” His
position is critiqued by Thomas M. Finn, review of Wayne A. Meeks, The Origins of
Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries, CBQ  (): . There are texts that cast
doubt on the long held stereotype about Greek religion: () Euripides, Bacchae, lines –
 (“O blessed he who in happiness knowing the rituals of the gods makes holy his way
of life and mingles his spirit with the sacred band.”); () Theophrastus, Pietate, extant
in fragments attested by Porphyry (Abst.), discusses the relationship between ethics and
sacrifice (e.g., “One must go to the sacrifices having a soul pure from evils.”); () Por-
phyry, De abstentia, quotes an inscription at the entrance to the sanctuary at Epidauros:
“Pure must one be when entering the temple. … But purity is thinking holy things.”
Among pagans, it was not just in philosophy that conversion meant a changed lifestyle.
This is not to deny that in some pagan religion ethics were irrelevant; it is to say that
not all pagan cultic religion was devoid of ethical concern.
      : 
) Jewish. The five major conversion narratives from ancient Judaism

about which I know11 have one thing in common: they all understand
conversion as the movement from a worship of idols to the worship of
the living God. This commonality is found in the following accounts:
the conversion of Achior, an officer in the Ammonite army (Jdt ;
second century B.C.); the conversion of Aseneth (Jos. Asen.;  B.C.-
A.D. );12 the case for Izates as recounted by Josephus (A.J. ..–,
–); Job (T. Job –;  B.C.-A.D. ); and Abraham (Apoc. Ab.
–; A.D. –). The conversion of these Gentiles to Judaism was
understood as a cognitive shift from a polytheistic frame of reference to
a monotheistic worldview.
) Pagan. Nancy Shumate’s Crisis and Conversion in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses

offers a reading of the novel as a narrative of religious experience
and specifically as a narrative of conversion. Throughout this work,
Shumate contends that Lucius’s conversion is not moral but cognitive.
She asserts: “The axis upon which the conversion of Lucius turns is one
of epistemological rupture rather than moral reform.”13 Conversion of
this type involves a comprehensive and radical shift from one paradigm
of interpreting and constructing reality to another. In spite of having a
secondary moral component, this model is primarily a cognitive one.14
It is a mistake to see Lucius’s transformation as punishment for his
moral sins (lust and striving after forbidden knowledge) and to see Isis
as an agent of moral purification.15 Rather, Lucius’s conversion is a
move from one plausibility structure to another, from one worldview
to another. It is a process of changing a sense of root reality, the ground
of being that orients and orders experience.16 Shumate concludes:
Lucius begins with his worldview bounded by conventional structures of
meaning and is thrown off-balance when these structures collapse. For
11 I am not counting the conversion of Naaman in  Kgs . This seems closer to
adhesion than conversion.

12 Randall D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life: Conversion in Joseph and Aseneth (JSPSup ;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ), : “Conversion in Joseph and Aseneth
is … conceived as a transition from death and destruction which characterize the
predicament of the godless to the life and immortality enjoyed by those who worship
the true God, and creation imagery is the descriptive language used most often.”
13 Shumate, Crisis and Conversion, .
14 Ibid., .
15 Ibid., .
16 Ibid., –, .
  
this reason it is in the end the structuring function of Isis … to which he

is especially attracted.17
Both Jewish and pagan persons, therefore, knew of cognitive type con-
versions.
When Mediterranean auditors heard Acts read and encountered
both its moral and cognitive types of conversion, they would have been
sensitized already to both types of life transformation in their ancient
milieu. In respect to the possibility of moral and cognitive conversions,
Acts would have posed little formal discontinuity between Christian
conversion and that of non-messianic Jews and Greco-Roman pagans.
‘Turning From’ and ‘Turning To’

Second, Dupont argues further that conversion in Acts involves both
a ‘turning from’ and a ‘turning to’ (e.g., :–, turning from idols
to the living God; :, turning from darkness to light, from Satan to
God).18 This, of course, fits A. D. Nock’s definition of conversion: an
experience that involves belief that the old was wrong and the new is
right. According to Nock, this is different from ‘adhesion’ in which one
turns toward a deity and an accompanying lifestyle without ever break-
ing off from another prior deity or lifestyle. In Nock’s view, Judaism,
Christianity, and pagan philosophy demanded conversion while cultic
paganism expected only adhesion.19 What the ancient textual evidence
shows, however, is that there is a ‘turning away’ and a ‘turning towards’
not only in Judaism and in philosophy but also surprisingly in some
forms of cultic paganism.
) Jewish. The Hellenistic-Jewish romance, Joseph and Aseneth, tells the

story of a pagan girl, Aseneth, who converts to Judaism as a condition
for marrying Joseph. In :, we hear that she “repented of her (infat-
uation with the) gods whom she used to worship, and spurned all the
idols.” In :–, she cries out to the God of Joseph:
Behold now, all the gods whom I once used to worship in ignorance: I
have now recognized that they were dumb and dead idols, and I have
17 Ibid., .
18 The language of turning (πιστρÛφειν and cognates) is shared by pagans, Jews, and
Christians.
19 A. D. Nock, Conversion (London: Oxford University Press, ), , , , .
      : 
caused them to be trampled underfoot by men, … And with you I have

taken refuge, O Lord my God.20
Aseneth turns from idols to the living God of Joseph. This conversion
from idolatry to the living God is characteristic of all five of the post-
biblical narratives of Gentile conversion to Judaism that I have men-
tioned above.
) Pagan. On the one hand, in philosophical conversions there is the

same double turning that we have seen in conversions of Gentiles
to Judaism.21 For instance, in Nigrinus, Lucian (or another) turns from
luxury to the simplicity of the philosophic way. The case is similar with
Polemo. Lucian says that, once exposed to the Academy’s discourse,
Polemo “repented of his past life,” he “renounced his former mistress,”
and he “entered my service” (Bis acc. ).22 In Philostratus’s Vita Apollonii,
a youth is converted from skepticism to belief in the immortality of the
soul by an appearance of Apollonius to him after the philosopher’s
departure from this life (.). On the other hand, in the type of
cultic paganism reflected in Apuleius’s Metamorphoses, Lucius turns from
hostile fate and magic as a way to manipulate that fate, to the goddess
Isis for her protection.23 Isis, not magic, saves, so Lucius comes to
believe.
What is seldom recognized is that cultic paganism often involved the
dual turning.24 Two examples will suffice to show this to be the case.
One example is found in Plutarch’s De defectu oraculum (.d-f), which
captures the conversation of Greeks about the decreased consultation
and utilization of the country’s oracles.
“I do not know,” said Demetrius, “the state of affairs there at present;
for as you all know, I have been out of the country for a long time now.
But when I was there, both the oracle of Mopsus and that of Amphilocus
20 The translation is from James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseude-
pigrapha ( vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, , ), :.

21 The origins of this dualism would be Plato, Resp. c–d where he speaks of the
conversion of the soul as the movement from darkness to light.

22 Not all stories of conversion to philosophy explicitly involve the double turning:
e.g., Porphyry’s Vit. Plot.  speaks only of his following Ammonius continuously for
eleven years.
23 This was regarded as an exception by Nock, Conversion, –.
24 This is not to deny that some conversion narratives tell only of adhesion, e.g.,
Ovid, Metam. .–, tells of the adhesion of one Acoetes to the worship of Diony-
sius.
  
were still flourishing. I have a most amazing thing to tell as the result
of my visit to the oracle of Mopsus. The ruler of Cilicia was himself
still of two minds toward religious matters. This, I think, was because
his skepticism lacked conviction, for in all else he was an arrogant and
contemptible man. Since he kept about himself certain Epicureans, who,
because of their admirable nature studies, forsooth, have an arrogant
contempt, as they themselves aver, for all things such as oracles, he sent
in a freedman, like a spy into the enemy’s territory, arranging that he
should have a sealed tablet, on the inside of which was written the
inquiry without anyone’s knowing what it was. The man accordingly,
as is the custom, passed the night in the sacred precinct and went to
sleep, and in the morning reported a dream in this fashion: it seemed
to him that a handsome man stood beside him who uttered just one
word ‘Black’ and nothing more, and was gone immediately. The thing
seemed passing strange to us, and raised much inquiry, but the ruler was
astounded and fell down and worshipped; then opening the tablet he
showed written there the question: ‘Shall I sacrifice to you a white bull
or a black?’ The result was that the Epicureans were put to confusion,
and the ruler himself not only duly performed the sacrifice, but ever after
revered Mopsus.” (LCL)
Here a pagan person turns from skeptical philosophy to traditional
religion.
A second example of the dual turning in the conversion to cultic
paganism is found in the first book of Horace’s Carmina (ca.  B.C.).
Carmina  describes the poet’s renunciation of skeptical philosophy and
his return to the traditional state religion:
My religious devotions were mean and infrequent.
I strayed, a foolish man of wisdom,
But now I set my sails
in reverse, compelled to trace
abandoned routes; for Jove who normally

parts the clouds by fire crossed
the empty sky with his thundering
horses and aerial chariot
by which the solid earth and wandering

rivers, the dreaded Taenaran cave,
the Atlantic shore, and the Styx
are shaken. God can raise
      : 
the depths, diminish distinction, reveal

the obscure. Rapacious Fortune on whirring
wings delights in moving
crowns from head to head.25
Here Horace claims he moved from religious skepticism back to tra-

ditional religion because of his experience of the inexplicable phe-
nomenon of thunder on a clear day. He remains within a pagan frame
of reference, but he has been converted from one form of paganism to
another.26
Since both Jewish and pagan persons had knowledge of conversion
as a ‘turning from’ and as a ‘turning to,’ they would have felt little
formal discontinuity if and when they heard the narrative of Acts with
its depiction of conversion in these terms.
Miracles and Preaching as Catalysts

Third, Dupont contends that in Acts the catalysts of conversion are
preaching (e.g., :–; :; :; :–) and miracles (e.g., :;
:–; :–; :). This fits nicely into the ancient Greco-Roman
context of both Jewish and pagan persons.27
) Jewish. On the one hand, Josephus (A.J. ..– §–) tells of

the conversion of the royal house of Adiabene. It happened because a
certain Jewish merchant, whose name was Ananias, taught the women
who belonged to the king to “worship God according to the Jewish
religion.” Ananias also persuaded Izates, the king’s son, to embrace
Judaism as well. Here conversion is prompted by teaching. On the other
hand, in Judith, the conversion of Achior, an officer in the Ammonite
25 Translation from David Mulroy, Horace’s Odes and Epodes (Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, ), –.

26 This evidence demands a rather severe revision of Nock’s categories. This is
important because Nock’s distinction between Jewish and Christian conversion and
cultic pagan adhesion underlies most New Testament scholarship today. See, e.g.,
Meeks, The Origins of Christian Morality, ; John E. Stambaugh and David L. Batch,
The New Testament in Its Social Environment (LEC; Philadelphia: Westminster, ), –
; and Martin Goodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the
Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, ), .
27 Ramsay MacMullen, ‘Two Types of Conversion to Early Christianity,’ VC 
(): – and elsewhere, contends that early Christianity grew mainly through
demonstrations of divine power/miracles. There would have been a cultural predispo-
sition in this direction apart from Christianity.
  
army, is effected when he hears that Judith has slain the Assyrian gen-
eral, Holofernes. “And when Achior saw all that the God of Israel had
done, he believed in God with all his heart, and accepted circumcision
and was adopted into the household of Israel” (Jdt :). Both teaching
and marvels functioned as catalysts for conversion in ancient Judaism.
) Pagan. On the one hand, conversion to philosophy was usually due

to hearing the teaching of the philosopher. So Polemo is brought from
drunkenness to sobriety by exposure to the words of Xenocrates. Dio-
genes Laertius says that, in spite of the young man’s intrusion, Xeno-
crates “without being at all disturbed went on with his discourse as be-
fore, the subject being temperance. The lad, as he listened, by degrees
was taken in the toils” (Vit. phil. ..–). Also, Lucian (or another)
becomes enraptured and transformed as a result of hearing the words
of Nigrinus in Rome. Lucian, speaking of Nigrinus, says: “Beginning to
talk on these topics and to explain his position, … he poured enough
ambrosial speech over me to put out of date the famous sirens … and
the nightingales and the lotus of Homer. A divine utterance!” (Nigr.
). On the other hand, conversion within cultic paganism was usually
linked to a miracle. Lucius becomes a devotee of Isis when she effects
his transformation from a donkey to human form. The ruler of Cilicia
becomes a worshipper of Mopsus as a result of a miracle of knowl-
edge. Horace changes orientation from skeptical philosophy to tradi-
tional religion because of an unprecedented event that was, to him,
best explained in terms of traditional mythology.28
Whether one was Jewish or pagan, preaching/teaching and miracle
were the normal catalysts of conversion in antiquity. If and when such
people of antiquity heard the narrative of Acts, they would have felt
at home in its religious world, at least in respect to the forces which it
depicts as the catalysts of conversion.
Divine Grace
Fourth, Dupont argues that in Acts the roots of conversion are in divine
grace. God grants salvation (:; :; :; :, ; :). The same
assumptions are found in non-messianic Jewish and pagan traditions.
28 The Christian Apocryphal Acts express the conviction that more than anything
else miracles initiate the process of conversion. Cf. Eugene V. Gallagher, ‘Conversion
and Salvation in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles,’ Sec Cent  (): –.
      : 
) Jewish. In the Testament of Job – we hear of the conversion of

Job from idolatry to faith in the living God, the creator. The process
involves two steps. First there is a time of reasoning in which Job’s
critical faculties undermine the status of idols. Then there is a divine
disclosure which grants Job the true knowledge he seeks. This act of
divine grace enables Job to make the transition from idolatry to true
faith. In the Apocalypse of Abraham –, the patriarch’s conversion fol-
lows the same two steps noted in the case of Job. Abraham is initially
involved in a rational critique of idols (–); he then is the recipient of
a divine disclosure which enables the transition to faith in the living
God (–). In both of these Jewish documents, the process of conver-
sion is possible only because divine grace grants an individual what is
needed.
) Pagan. The same emphasis may be found in pagan sources as well.

Shumate’s study of Apuleius’s Metamorphoses shows how the preparation
for Lucius’s conversion operates on an almost entirely passive subject.
In theological terms, this conversion occurs because of grace.29 Fur-
thermore, just as in the cases of Job and Abraham, Lucius’s transition
to devotion to Isis is made possible only by her self-disclosure to him.
This comes on the beach, in her actions on his behalf to restore him to
human form, and by her later invitation to him to be initiated. Lucius’s
conversion is by grace from first to last. In the accounts of conver-
sion to philosophy one does not normally hear such an explicit empha-
sis on divine grace. Nevertheless, Dio Chrysostom says that “whatever
wise and true words about the gods and the universe there are to be
found among men, none have ever lodged in human souls except by
the divine will” (  Regn. ). The assumptions of pagan philosophy
allowed for the possibility of belief in the graced nature of conversion.
Once again, the ancient Mediterranean auditors who heard the
Acts of the Apostles would sense continuity between the larger cul-
tural expectations about conversion and those depicted in Acts. Non-
messianic Judaism and Greco-Roman paganism allowed for a common
belief in deity as the ultimate author of change.30
29 Shumate, Crisis and Conversion, –.

30 Finn, From Death to Rebirth, .
  
A Continuing Change of Life

Fifth, the final aspect of Dupont’s portrayal of conversion in Acts is that
Christian conversion involves a continuing change of life. This belief
was not alien to Mediterranean antiquity generally.
) Jewish. The account of the conversion of Achior, which we introduced

earlier, emphasized the ongoing significance of his newfound faith and
circumcision by closing with the note that he remained committed
to Judaism “unto this day” (Jdt :). There was permanence to the
conversion. In the Testament of Job, the hero makes his commitment to
renounce idols and worship the creator. He says to God: “ Till death
I will endure: I will not step back at all” (:).31 Subsequent events
depict Job as showing endurance, as not growing weary, and as finally
triumphing over Satan (:–). Thus, his conversion also apparently
involved a continuing commitment to the convert’s change of life-
orientation.
) Pagan. On the one hand, a continuing change of life-orientation was

characteristic of a true conversion to philosophy, Diogenes Laertius
says of Polemo who was converted by listening to Xenocrates’ words
about temperance: “He became so industrious as to surpass all the
other scholars, and rose to be himself head of the school in the th
Olympiad” (Vit. phil. .–), Seneca claimed that what is stated in the
conversion narrative itself is typical of the life of philosophy:
I understand, Lucilius, that I am not only being improved but that I am
being transformed. I do not already promise or hope that nothing is left
in me that needs change. … The very fact that the soul sees failings in
itself which it previously ignored is a proof of its change to a better state.
(Ep. ., LCL)
Plutarch speaks to the same issue:
What possible form of argument, my dear Sosius Senecio, will keep alive
in a man the consciousness that he is growing better in regard to virtue, if
it is a fact that the successive stages of his progress produce no abatement
of his unwisdom. … [I]n the study of philosophy, neither progress nor
any sense of progress is to be assumed, if the soul does not put aside any
of its gross stupidity and purge itself thereof, and if … it is wedded to the
evil. (Virt. prof. .b-d, LCL)
31 Translation is from Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, :.

      : 
The argument moves on the assumption that conversion to philosophy

involves a change of life by degrees and in stages during one’s entire
lifetime.
On the other hand, the persistent effects of a change can be found in
cultic paganism as well. Plutarch’s account of the conversion of a ruler
of Cilicia to belief in the oracle of Mopsus ends with the statement that
“the Epicureans were put to confusion, and the ruler himself not only
duly performed the sacrifice, but ever after revered Mopsus” (Def. orac.
.d-f).
Whether it be a Jewish or pagan person in Mediterranean antiq-
uity, conversion was believed to involve a change of orientation that
continued throughout one’s lifetime.32 Once again, the ancient auditors
who heard the Acts narrative and reflected on its depiction of Chris-
tian conversion would have sensed little formal discontinuity in the way
conversion was described.
This essay began with a slightly modified form of Jacques Dupont’s
description of Christian conversion as depicted in the Acts of the Apos-
tles. It then sought to determine whether or not auditors from non-
messianic Judaism, on the one hand, and pagan philosophy and cultic
paganism, on the other, would have heard continuities or discontinu-
ities in the depiction of conversion in the narrative of Acts. This brief
comparison has enabled us to see that, insofar as the formal compo-
nents of conversion are concerned, non-Christian auditors in antiquity
would have sensed enough continuities with the depiction of Chris-
tian conversion in Acts to be able to understand it.33 Their difficulty,
32 Both Jews and pagans were aware of and concerned about conversions away from
their positions to others.  Macc (:–, –; :–) tells of Jewish conversion
in Palestine to pagan ways under Antiochus Epiphanes. Cf. Harry A. Wolfson, Philo:
Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam ( vols.; Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, ), :–, who identifies at least three reasons for
Jewish conversion to paganism in Alexandria. Aulus Gellius, Noct. att. ..– tells of
Demosthenes’ leaving Plato for Callistratus; . tells how Protagoras forsook philosophy
for rhetoric.
33 An obvious question to be raised at this point has to do with whether or not
pagans and non-messianic Jews engaged in aggressive proselytizing as did the mes-
sianists and Christians. The issue is focused especially on non-messianic Judaism.
Since the work of Schurer and Juster at the beginning of this century, most schol-
ars have subscribed to the view that Jewish proselytizing reached a peak of intensity
in the first century A.D. In recent years there has been some dissent (e.g., J. Munck,
D. Rokeah, E. Will, and C. Orrieux, and most recently, Martin Goodman and Scott
McKnight). James Carleton Paget, ‘Jewish Proselytism at the Time of Christian Ori-
gins: Chimera or Reality?’ JSNT  (): –, surveys the evidence and argu-
  
if they felt one, would have been with the object/content of the Chris-
tian conversion experience (that is, Christ), not with its formal compo-
nents.
ments and concludes that some Jews proselytized, contra Goodman and McKnight.
Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (LEC; Philadelphia: Westminster,
), , draws a similar conclusion: “There is no evidence of an organized Jewish
mission to the Gentiles, but individuals seem to have engaged in this activity on their
own.”
 
ACTS 20:7–12 AS EARLY CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC
In the narrative flow, Acts :–: carries out Paul’s resolution in

: to go to Jerusalem after having passed through Macedonia and
Achaia. The functions of the large thought unit within the overall plot
are three: () to depict Paul’s care of his churches as he is leaving them,
as a model for ministry (:; :–; :–); () to parallel Jesus’
journey to Jerusalem in Luke :–: and his acceptance of God’s
will in Luke : with the experience of Paul, as a way of interpreting
Paul’s sufferings; and () to show Paul’s spirit of accommodation in his
quest for church unity (:–).1 Our passage, :–, fits within
the first function. It shows concretely the truth of Paul’s assertions in
Acts :, ,  (e.g., v. —“I did not cease night or day to admonish
everyone with tears,” RSV).
It is possible, moreover, that an additional aim is operative in this
passage, an apologetic one. If so, this would not be the only place in
Acts where apologetic purposes are being served.2 The possibility of an
apologetic function for Acts :– is raised by two sets of details in
the pericope: () the reference to the ‘many lamps’ in verse , and ()
the reference to the fall, death, and resuscitation of the boy, Eutychus,
in the context of Christian worship (vv. , , ). The purpose of
this essay will be to explore how an ancient auditor might have heard
Acts :–, given these details. We begin with the reference to ‘many
lamps.’
The Many Lamps

The reference to the ‘many lamps’ in verse  has been variously inter-
preted in the past.
1 Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of
the Apostles (New York: Crossroad, ).

2 A. J. Malherbe, ‘Not in a Corner: Early Christian Apologetic in Acts :,’ in
Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, ), –.

  
) Some think that the presence of lamps serves no discernible purpose.

In antiquity, for example, the Western witness, D, has not ‘lamps’ (λαµ-
πÀδε̋) but rather ‘windows’ (πολαµπÀδε̋). In the modern period, Jür-
gen Roloff says merely that it is unclear why the lamps are mentioned.3
A confession of ignorance is an honest response by an interpreter but it
leaves open the door for others to explore additional possibilities.
) Others think that the reference to ‘lamps’ has an historical function.

The many lamps, which depleted the oxygen in the air, were the cause
of Eutychus’s drowsiness and his falling asleep.4 Even if one assumes
the narrative is historical, however, the text does not make any explicit
cause and effect connections between the lamps and Eutychus’s falling
asleep.
) Still others think Acts :– has a novelistic function. The lamps
are an incidental detail—like mention of the time of night, the length of
the discourse, the number of stories in the house, and the name of the
youth—included by a good fictional imagination in a story designed to
portray the power of the risen Jesus at work in Paul.5 A judgment about
the genre of the material and the lack of the historicity of the material,
however, does not thereby exclude a ‘meaning function’ for the details
in the narrative of Acts.
) Yet others think that Acts :– has a symbolic function.6 The story
depicts the church with the word and sacrament as the sphere of light
and life, outside of which is darkness and death, and warns believers to
remain awake lest they fall into the darkness and perish. Whereas Luke
would doubtless have agreed with the proposed theological statements
associated with the symbolic interpretation (e.g., Luke :–), it is
not characteristic of Luke to allegorize his narratives.
3 Jürgen Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD ; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
), .
4 E.g., F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ), .
5 Luke T. Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (SP ; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press,
), , .

6 B. Tremel, ‘A propos d’Actes :–: Puissance du thaumaturge ou du temoin?’
RTP  (): –. Both Gerhard Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, Teil  (HTKNT;
Freiburg: Herder, ), –, and Robert Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts,
( vols; Minneapolis: Fortress, ), :–, are sympathetic with Tremel’s thesis.
 :–     
) A final group of scholars regard Acts :– as having an apologetic

function.7 The many lights prove the nonsubversive and moral nature
of the worship assemblies of Christians, defending against charges that
Christians engaged in subversive activities and immorality in the dark-
ness of their gatherings. The major argument against this reading is
that the evidence for such charges against Christians is later than Acts.8
It is the thesis of this part of this essay that the suspicion of night
meetings, especially religious ones, was so pervasive in Mediterranean
culture that an auditor of Acts would automatically have heard the
way the story was told as a legitimation of Christian worship and as
protection against past, present, or potential charges against Christian
assemblies. The evidence that follows shows this to be the case.
) Pagan charges against other pagans. Romans feared night meetings for two
reasons: conspiracy and immorality. On the one hand, conspiracy was
associated in the Roman mind with night meetings. (a) Cicero’s speech
against Cataline reflects the mindset. He asks the accused:
Do you not see that your conspiracy is held fast by the knowledge of all
these men? Do you not think that there is a man among us who does not
know what you did last night or the night before last, where you were,
whom you summoned to your meeting, what decision you reached? (Cat.
., LCL)
Later Cicero describes in detail the association of the conspiracy with
nocturnal activity.
As it was growing dark, they (Cataline’s conspirators) went secretly to
the Mulvian Bridge and there divided their party into two groups in the
near-by houses, so that the Tiber and the bridge lay between them. …
At about three o’clock in the morning when the envoys of the Allobroges
with a large retinue and accompanied by Volturicius were beginning to
cross the Mulvian Bridge, these men fell upon them, and both sides drew
their swords. (Cat. .–, LCL)
(b) Juvenal continues the comment on the conspiracy of Cataline in his
Satirae.
Where can be found, O Cataline, nobler ancestors than thine, or than
thine, Cethegus? Yet you plot a night attack, you prepare to give our
7 E.g., Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Westminster, ), .
8 Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, ),
.
  
houses and temples to the flames as though you were the sons of trous-
ered Gauls, or sprung from the Senones, daring deeds that deserved the
shirt of torture. (Sat. .–, LCL)
The connection of conspiracy with night meetings was ingrained in the
Roman consciousness.
On the other hand, sexual immorality was associated by Mediter-
ranean peoples with night meetings. First, in the th century B.C.,
Euripides has Pentheus voice the Greeks’ concern about Bacchic night-
time excesses.
It chanced that, sojourning without this land,
I heard of strange misdeeds in this my town,
How from their homes our women have gone forth
Feigning a Bacchic rapture, and rove wild o’er wooded hills,
in dances honouring
Dionysus, this new-God—whoe’er be. (Bacch. –, LCL)
Second, Cicero, writing in the first century B.C., mentions in passing a
concern about “the performance of sacrifices by women at night” (Leg.
.). Marcus proposes to Atticus:
Assuredly we must make most careful provision that the reputation of
our women be guarded by the clear light of day, when they are observed
by many eyes, and that initiation into the mysteries of Ceres be per-
formed only with those rites which are in use in Rome. … And, that we
may not perchance seem too severe, I may cite the fact that in the very
centre of Greece, by a law enacted by Diagondas of Thebes, all noctur-
nal rites were abolished for ever; and furthermore that Aristophanes, the
wittiest poet of the Old Comedy, attacks strange gods and the nightly
vigils which were part of their worship. (Leg. ., LCL).
Third, Livy also speaks about such nighttime immorality connected
with religious rites.
A nameless Greek came first to Etruria, … a priest of secret rites per-
formed by night. There were initiatory rites which at first were imparted
to a few, then began to be generally known among men and women. To
the religious elements in them were added the delights of wine and feasts,
that the minds of a larger number might be attracted. When wine had
inflamed their minds, and night and the mingling of males and females,
youth with age, had destroyed every sentiment of modesty, all varieties of
corruption first began to be practiced. (., LCL)
 :–     
) Pagan charges against Jews. Plutarch makes reference to the nocturnal

festivals of the Jews.
The time and character of the greatest, most sacred holiday of the Jews
clearly befit Dionysus. When they celebrate their so-called Fast, at the
height of the vintage, they set out tables of all sort of fruit under tents
and huts plaited for the most part of vines and ivy. They call the first
of the days the feast of Tabernacles. A few days later they celebrate
another festival, this time identified with Bacchus not through obscure
hints but plainly called by his name, a festival that is a sort of “Procession
of Branches” or “Thyrsus Procession,” in which they enter the temple
each carrying a thyrsus. What they do after entering we do not know,
but it is probable that the rite is a Bacchic revelry, for in fact they use
little trumpets to invoke their god as do the Argives at their Dionysia.
(Quaest. conv. .., Stern).
) Jewish charges against pagans. The Wisdom of Solomon from the st
century B.C. accuses pagans of the same type of immorality in associa-
tion with their night meetings.
For whether they … celebrate secret mysteries or hold frenzied revels
with strange customs, they no longer keep either their lives or their
marriages pure. (:–, NRSV)
) Pagan charges against Christians. During the nd and rd centuries
A.D., the charge of loving the dark and practicing immorality therein is
explicitly levelled against Christians.
(a) Justin in his Dialogus cum Tryphone asks his Jewish debate partners
if they believe the pagan charge that after their banquets Christians
extinguish the lights and indulge in unbridled sensuality (). Trypho
says that he does not believe the charges of nocturnal immorality made
by the rabble ().
(b) Theophilus of Antioch also echoes the charge.
They (the unintelligent people who falsely accuse Christians) said that
our wives are the common property of all and live in promiscuity, that
we have intercourse with our own sisters. (Autol. ., Grant)
(c) Athenagoras refers to the same thing in his Legatio pro Christianis .
(d) Tertullian also knows the charges that a Christian, before the light
is extinguished, checks to see where his mother or sister may be so as
to be able at least to avoid them in the sexual excesses which will follow
(Apol. .–.).
(e) Minucius Felix offers the fullest statement of the charges, as
expressed by the pagan, Marcus Cornelius Fronto:
  
They have thus formed a rabble of blasphemous conspirators, who with

nocturnal assemblies … seal their pact not with some religious ritual
but with desecrating profanation; they are a crowd that furtively lurks in
hiding places, shunning the light. (Oct. ., Clarke)
We all know, too, about their banquets; they are on everyone’s lips. …
On a special day they gather for a feast with all their children, sisters,
mothers—all sexes and all ages. There, flushed with the banquet after
such feasting and drinking, they begin to burn with incestuous passions.
They provoke a dog tied to the lampstand to leap and bound towards a
scrap of food which they have tossed outside the reach of his chain. By
this means the light is overturned and extinguished, and with it common
knowledge of their actions; in the shameless dark with unspeakable lust
they copulate in random unions, all equally being guilty of incest, some
by deed, but everyone by complicity. (Oct. .–, Clarke)
(f) Origen reports a similar charge levelled by Celsus that Christians
extinguish lamps to do the works of darkness (Cels. .). This includes
indulging in unrestrained sexual intercourse with the women among
them (.).
Given the trajectory of pagan criticism of Christians about night
meetings, the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan in the early
nd century takes on new meaning. Pliny writes to the emperor about
the “Christian problem” in Bithynia (Ep. Traj. .). He says those who
had formerly been Christians said that the sum of their guilt amounted
only to their meeting before daybreak on an appointed day to sing
hymns to Christ as to a god and then to depart until evening when they
would meet again to partake of ordinary and harmless food. They had,
moreover, ceased the evening meetings after Pliny’s edict forbidding
secret societies. Whether the governor’s concern was about conspiracy
or immorality, Roman suspicion of Christians’ night meetings existed in
the early nd century A.D.
) Jewish charges against Christians. Origen, Contra Celsum ., criticizes

Celsus for his hatred of Christians. He compares the pagan critic to a
group of Jews who
when the teaching of Christianity began to be proclaimed, spread abroad
a malicious rumour about the gospel, to the effect that … when the
followers of the gospel want to do the works of darkness they turn out
the lights and each man has sexual intercourse with the first woman he
meets. (Chadwick)
 :–     
) Christian charges against pagans. Eph :– addresses converted Gen-

tiles with an exhortation not to engage in the behavior of their pagan
past (cf.  Pet :–), including nocturnal excesses.
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose
them. For it is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret.
(RSV)
) Christian charges against other Christians. Mainline Christians criticized

certain fringe groups in terms of the cultural stereotype.
(a) Jude – is too general for certainty but its concerns are similar
to those expressed elsewhere.
These are blemishes on your love-feasts, while they feast with you with-
out fear, feeding themselves. They are waterless clouds carried along by
the winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves
of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for
whom the deepest darkness has been reserved.
(b) Justin, Apologia i  is explicit about the matter. He says:
All who follow these men (e.g., Simon of Samaria, Menander, and Mar-
cion) are, as we said above, called Christians, just as those who do not
share the same doctrines share among philosophers the name of philos-
ophy. We do not know whether they are guilty of those disgraceful and
fabulous deeds, the upsetting of the lamp, promiscuous intercourse. …
(Falls)
What does this evidence indicate? It shows that hostility to night meet-
ings because of their associations with conspiracy and/or immorality
was commonplace among and within a wide variety of groups in the
ancient Mediterranean world. This hostility existed before Christianity
ever came on the scene and on a scope far broader than later pagan
critiques of Christians. Given the cultural mindset, it would have been
almost impossible for an auditor of Acts :– not to have heard these
overtones being addressed by the text. The reference to the ‘many
lights’ would have served an apologetic purpose. Christian assemblies
may be at night but they do not take place in the darkness. They are
no cover for immorality. Having said this, it is now time to turn to a
second set of details that has the potential to be understood in terms of
apologetic.
  
The Fall, Death, and Resuscitation of a Boy

The fall (v. ), death (v. —ρ©η νεκρÞ̋ refers to real death, cf. T. Jud.
:9), and resuscitation (vv. ,) of the lad, Eutychus, are integral to
the miracle story. The fall and death constitute the problem, while the
resuscitation is the miracle cure. The reaction to the miracle comes in
verse .
These particular details in the story have been variously interpreted.
() Some interpreters note that Acts :– follows the model of similar
stories of Elijah ( Kgs :–) and Elisha ( Kgs :).10 () Others see
the similarities with the story about Peter in Acts :–.11 () Still
others say Acts :– reflects a link with Jesus’ raising of a young
man (Luke :–).12 It seems to me that all three of these readings are
correct, as far as they go. The same power that worked in the prophets,
Jesus, and Peter is now at work in Paul. Having said that, however, there
is more to be noted.
In Mediterranean culture, reference to a night meeting involving
a boy who is killed in a cultic context immediately poses a problem
that must be addressed. The association of infanticide and cannibalism
with deviant religious/magical practices was so widespread in Mediter-
ranean antiquity that any mention of a lad’s death in connection with
a cultic observance would automatically evoke suspicion in people’s
minds. The following evidence shows this to be the case.
) Pagan charges against other pagans. Cannibalism in the Greco-Roman

mind was associated either with groups on the geographical fringes of
the civilized world that tended towards bestiality (Aristotle, Pol. ..)
or with deviant religious/magical practices.13 On the one hand, eating
humans was deemed typical of the uncivilized. Herodotus is a store-
house of examples: the Massagetae (.), certain Indians called Calla-
tiae (.), other Indians called Padaei (.), Isedones (.), Sythians
(.), neighbors of the Sythians, the maneaters (.; also referred to
9 Haenchen, Acts, , n. ; Conzelmann, Acts, .

10 Haenchen, Acts, .
11 F. C. Baur and the Tübingen School made much of this.
12 R. B. Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles (Westminster Commentaries, th ed.;
London: Methuen, ), .

13 Andrew McGowan, ‘Eating People: Accusations of Cannibalism against Chris-
tians in the Second Century,’ JECS  (): –.

 :–     
by Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. .). In addition, Strabo mentions the men

who inhabit the Caucasus (..).
On the other hand, infanticide/cannibalism was associated with
deviant cultic practices. (a) Livy’s comments about the undesirability
of the Bacchanalia focus not only on the sexual immorality but also
on the practices of murder and dismemberment (.–). (b) Diodorus
Siculus tells of Apollodorus, the leader of a proletarian revolution in
Cassandreia in the rd century B.C., who invited a young lad, a friend,
to a sacrifice, then slew him as an offering to the gods, gave his con-
spirators the lad’s vitals to eat, and when he had mixed his blood with
wine, bade them drink it (..). (c) Ovid speaks about Lycaon’s disbe-
lief that his visitor was a god, so in order to test him killed a hostage,
cooked his limbs, and set the food on the table for Jupiter to eat. Being
a deity, Jupiter knew what was done. In anger he brought the house
crashing down and changed Lycaon into a wolf (Metam. .–).
(d) Achilles Tatius’s Leucippe et Clitophon ., tells of a band of robbers
who sacrifice a young girl, roast her bowels, and then eat them. (e)
Fragment B of Lollianus’s Phoinikika speaks about a band of robbers
who kill a boy, cut his heart out, roast it, and then distribute it to the
gang members who swear an oath of loyalty over it. (f) Philostratus,
Vita Apollonii, tells of certain false charges against the philosopher. He
allegedly sacrificed an Arcadian boy to divine the secrets of the future
as part of a conspiracy (., ; .). Reference is made to his alleged
eating of the sacrifice (.). Apollonius denies the false charges and is
freed.
) Pagan charges against Jews. Josephus, Contra Apionem .–, says that
Apion told the tale that Jews used to catch a Greek, fatten him up, kill
him, eat his entrails, and swear an oath upon this sacrifice that they
would ever be at enmity with the Greeks.
) Jewish charges against pagans. Wisdom of Solomon :– accuses

pagans not only of sexual immorality but also of infanticide in their
cultic observances.
For whether they kill children in their initiations, or celebrate secret
mysteries, or hold frenzied revels … , they no longer keep either their
lives or their marriages pure. (NRSV)
) Pagan charges against Christians. In the second and third centuries A.D.,
pagans charged Christians with infanticide/cannibalism as part of their
  
worship assemblies. (a) Justin, Apologia i , presupposes the charge

of cannibalism. His Apologia ii , refers to the charge against Chris-
tians that they “feast on human flesh.” (b) Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos ,
also mentions the charge. (c) Theophilus, Ad Autolycum .,, defends
against the charge that Christians eat human flesh. (d) Athenagoras,
Legatio pro Christianis , refutes the charge that Christians engage in
Thyestean feasts. (e) Minucius Felix, Octavius , deals with the charge
that in Christian worship an infant is slain by the initiate.
A young baby is covered with flour, the object being to deceive the
unwary. It is then served before the person to be admitted into their rites.
The recruit is urged to inflict blows onto it—they appear to be harmless
because of the covering of flour. Thus the baby is killed with wounds that
remain unseen and concealed. It is the blood of the infant—I shudder to
mention it—it is this blood that they lick with thirsty lips; these are the
limbs they distribute eagerly; this is the victim by which they seal their
covenant; it is by complicity in this crime that they are pledged to mutual
silence; these are their rites, more foul than all sacrileges combined (.,
Clarke)
(f) Tertullian refers to and refutes the charge that Christians in their
rites kill a little child and eat it (Apol. –; Praescr. .,).
) Jewish charges against Christians. Origen, Contra Celsum ., speaks

about those Jews who early in Christian history spread the false report
that “Christians offered up an infant in sacrifice and partook of its
flesh.”
) Christian charges against pagans. The Christian apologists of the second

and third centuries not only tried to refute the charges that Christians
were guilty of infanticide/cannibalism in their rites but also levelled
such charges against the pagan world. (a) Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos ,
contends:
It is not we who eat human flesh … it is among you that Pelops is made a
supper for the gods, although beloved by Poseidon; and Kronos devours
his children; and Zeus swallows Metis. (ANF )
(b) Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum, both castigates Greco-Roman
theater for portraying cannibalism in depicting the eating of the chil-
dren of Thyestes and Terens (.) and critiques Greek philosophy for
its teachings.
What is your opinion of the precepts of Zeno and Diogenes and Clean-
thes which their books contain, inculcating the eating of human flesh:
 :–     
that fathers be cooked and eaten by their own children? Diogenes …

teaches children to bring their own parents in sacrifice and devour them.
(. [ANF ])
(c) Minucius Felix, Octavius , contends that Saturn did not expose his
children but devoured them; Jupiter, moreover, taught Bellona to steep
her sacred rites with a draught of human gore.
) Christian charges against other Christians. Justin, Apologia i , says that
Simon Magus, Menander, Marcion, and those who take their names
from these men are called Christians even though they are rejected by
mainstream believers. These heretics may very well be guilty of “eating
human flesh.”
The charges of cannibalism and/or infanticide are so pervasive in
Mediterranean antiquity from pre-Christian times until well into our
era among so many different groups that anyone in that culture who
heard about a night meeting, associated with cultic practices, that
involved the death of a child would automatically be suspicious. The
story in Acts :– would almost certainly have been heard in the
context of these associations.
Already in pre-Christian times, the two charges of the practice of
sexual immorality in the dark and the killing of children in religious
rites were associated as part of a total picture of undesirable practices.
Livy  and Wis : show this to be the case for both pagans and
Jews. The link between the two charges continued into the second and
third centuries of our era (e.g., Justin, Dial. ; Origen, Cels. .). It can
with justification be said that there was a Mediterranean mindset that
linked night meetings having religious overtones with immorality and
the killing of children.
The miracle story of Acts :– had among its ingredients the
death of a boy in the context of Christian worship. The reference
to the ‘many lights’ in verse  would say to the auditor that the
Christian assembly was not doing anything under cover of darkness.
The circumstances surrounding the death of Eutychus (an accident
due to his falling asleep) and his resuscitation by the leader of the
assembly say that the Christian assembly neither intended nor tolerated
his death. He left alive! A story told in the terms given it in Acts :–
 would dispel an auditor’s suspicions and allay an auditor’s fears.
Its apologetic overtones would defend Christian assemblies against the
hostile stereotypes described in this essay. Given the cultural milieu,
  
Acts :– would function in this way whether or not explicit charges
were at that moment being made against Christians and whether or
not its author intended it to do so.14
14 I am indebted to Daniel Hilty who in the summer of  worked with me on an
independent research project that included a study of ancient Mediterranean views of

‘night meetings.’
 
ONCE AGAIN: THE GENTILE MISSION IN LUKE-ACTS
This paper deals with two problems, one major and one minor, related
to the depiction of the Gentile mission in Acts. () How is the origin of
the Gentile mission in Acts to be understood theologically? () Why is
there a disproportionate amount of attention given to Jewish rejection
of the gospel in Acts? These two questions will be treated in order. We
begin with the first.
Luke-Acts is a narrative account in two parts: part one, the life of the
founder of the Christian community; part two, a sketch of the Chris-
tian community from its beginnings in Jerusalem to its expansion to
Rome. The story is about a Jewish founder and a community of Jewish
followers in Palestine that ultimately becomes a predominantly Gentile
Christian community in lands outside Palestine. How did a Palestinian
Jewish movement become a non-Palestinian Gentile one? That is the
historical question. What justification was there for a Palestinian Jewish
movement becoming a non-Palestinian Gentile one? That is the reli-
gious question. It is on the latter question that this essay focuses.1
How is the origin of the Gentile mission understood by the author
of Luke-Acts? Research offers us two options. On the one hand, some
scholars contend that Luke thinks the Gentile mission originated be-
cause of Jewish rejection of the gospel.
It was to the Jews that salvation was first offered, and offered again and
again. It was not until they refused it by their vilification of Jesus that the
emissaries of Christianity turned to the Gentiles.2
At three points in the Pauline mission, in Asia Minor, in Greece, and in

Rome, there are statements to this effect.
1 Dixon Slingerland, ‘The Jews in the Pauline Portion of Acts,’ JAAR  ():
–, argues that Acts is not historical either in its picture of Paul or its portrayal of
the Jews. Whatever one makes of such a claim, it is irrelevant for our purposes. This
article is concerned solely with Acts’ theology.
2 Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (trans. R. McL. Wilson; Philadelphia:
Westminster, ), ; Jack T. Sanders, The Jews in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress,
).
  
) Acts :– indicates that when the Jews in Antioch of Pisidia

rejected Paul’s preaching, Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying:
It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you.
Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal
life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. (RSV)
The turning to the Gentiles is depicted as a fulfillment of scripture
(Isa :):
I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation
to the uttermost parts of the earth.
) Acts : tells how, when Paul preached to Jews in Corinth and
experienced their rejection of his message that the Christ was Jesus,
the apostle said:
Your blood be upon your heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go
to the Gentiles. (RSV)
) Acts :– relates how in Rome, after the Jewish response to

Paul’s preaching was divided, he made two points. First, the Jewish fail-
ure to respond properly fulfilled the prophecy of Isa :– (Acts :–
). Second, “let it be known to you then that this salvation of God has
been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen” (Acts :, RSV).
J. C. O’Neill has also contended that the Stephen episode marks
the same point in the mission to the city of Jerusalem signaled by
the threefold refrain in Paul’s mission in the Diaspora.3 By the end
of the Stephen episode, the city as a whole has lost its chance, though
individual Jews might still repent. Furthermore, the spread of the gospel
ultimately to Gentiles results from the city’s rejection (:–; :–;
:–). If so, then there is a motif in Acts that portrays the Gentile
mission as originating because of Jewish rejection of the gospel. Both
the rejection by the Jews and the turning to the Gentiles, moreover, are
seen as fulfillments of scripture.
On the other hand, other scholars argue that in Lukan theology the
Gentile mission originated because of Jewish acceptance of the gospel.4
Their argument unfolds in several stages.
3 J. C. O’Neill, The Theology of Acts in Its Historical Setting (London: SPCK, ), .
4 Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg, ), –; Ger-
hard Lohfink, Die Sammlung Israels. Eine Untersuchung zur lukanischen Ekklesiologie (StANT
; München: Kösel-Verlag, ), ; Augustin George, ‘Israël dans l’oeuvre de Luc,’
RB  (): –.
 :     - 
) Israel did not reject the gospel but became divided over the issue.
Some were repentant (Acts :; :; :; :, ; :; :; :;
:–; :; :–); others were unrepentant (Acts :–; :,
–; :; :, –; :–; :; :–).
) The repentant Jews are the restored, purified, true Israel. The unre-
pentant portion of the People has forfeited its membership in the peo-
ple of God (Acts :).
) The presupposition of Gentile inclusion does not consist in Israel’s

rejection of the gospel en bloc, but in the fulfillment of the promises to
Israel. As Acts :– (= Amos :– LXX, influenced by Jer :)
puts it:
After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which
has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up, that the rest of men
may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says
the Lord, who has made these things known from of old. (RSV)
According to this text, it is the repentant Israel that is the theological
presupposition for the inclusion of the Gentiles. Because Israel has thus
been restored, the Gentiles seek out salvation (:, , –, –).
There is here a motif of Jewish acceptance of the gospel which leads
to Gentile inclusion with believing Jews in God’s people (:). This is
also regarded as a fulfillment of scripture.
Current research is stalemated on the issue of which explanation is
to be preferred because both options have a basis in the text of Acts.
Neither is capable of displacing the other.5 How is this apparent contra-
diction to be explained? Should one take a tradition history approach
and argue that one explanation represents the perspective of the author
and the other is but undigested tradition? Or should one take the posi-
tion that the author is but a primitive individual who happens to be
confused and perhaps does not recognize the apparent contradiction
he has created? Neither of these options is worthy of respect because
each violates the integrity and intelligence of the author. If an explana-
tion is to be offered, it should be one that respects the final form of the
text of Luke-Acts and that gives the author the benefit of the doubt on
5 The same two points of view lie side by side in the Pseudo-Clementines, Recogn.
:. and ..—the Gentile mission results from unbelief of Jews; Recogn. .—the
Gentile mission follows belief of Jews.
  
his intelligence. This essay will argue that the apparent contradiction
can be resolved if read in light of Luke’s overall perspective regarding
the divine plan.6
According to Luke-Acts, there is a divine purpose that stands behind
the events of history. It is spoken of as the βουλc το ©εο in Luke :;
Acts :; :; :–; :; :. It is referred to as God’s ©Ûληµα
in Luke :; Acts :; :. It is described as God’s ξουσÝα in
Acts :.
Events of history happen according to this divine plan in Luke-Acts.
This is sometimes described with the term δε as in Luke :; :;
:; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; Acts :; :; :;
:; :; :; :; :. It is referred to by κατa τe ρισµÛνον
in Luke :; by ρισµÛνο̋ πe το ©εο in Acts :; and by ÿz
ñρισεν in Acts :. In Acts : the term used is προχειρÝσασ©αι;
in Acts : it is προεχειρÝσατο. The expression is qν ναγκαον in
Acts :. In Luke :; :; :; Acts :; :–, it is µÛλλει
that refers to the fact that events happen according to the divine plan.
The realization of the divine plan is often spoken of in terms of
fulfillment. Luke :; :; :; Acts :; :; :, all use πληρον.
Luke : uses συµπληροσ©αι. Luke : and : employ τελεν.
This divine plan or will of God can be known by humans. The
scriptures of Israel make it known: for example, Luke :–; :–;
Acts :, –, ; :; :–. Angelic announcement reveals
it as well: for example, Luke :–; :–; Acts :–, , –;
:–. Living humans prophesy in ways that make the divine will
known: for example, Luke :–, –; Acts :–. Both the pre-
Easter Jesus (for example, Luke :, ; :–; :) and the risen
Christ (for example, Luke :; Acts :–; :) express the divine
purpose for others to know. Sometimes God’s purpose is manifest by
special appointment, as in Acts :. In various ways, the will of God
which lies behind and determines the course of history is made known
to humans.
When God’s plan is made known to humans, it often explains the
meaning of events: for example, Acts :–; :–; :–; :–
; :–. It also may evoke an active response to something that
needs doing: for example, Acts :–; :–. This latter fact shows
6 John T. Squires, ‘The Plan of God in Luke Acts,’ (Ph.D. diss., Yale University,
). Robert C. Tannehill, ‘Israel in Luke-Acts,’ JBL  (): –, regards it as
the unifying element in Luke-Acts.
 :     - 
beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Lukan understanding of the

divine plan does not carry with it ideas of inexorability but rather those
of contingency. There is here no determinism that undermines human
freedom.7
What has been said so far about the Lukan understanding of the
divine plan for history would have been intelligible to a Mediterranean
hearer of Luke-Acts. The belief that a divine necessity controls human
history, shaping the course of its events, was a widespread assumption
in Mediterranean antiquity. A pagan like Polybius reflects this convic-
tion. Early in his career he saw that Roman power was irresistible. As a
Stoic, he believed that the Roman order of things was part of a divine
providence that ruled the world. This belief he expounded in his Histo-
riae. In ..– he says:
Fortune ( τàχη) having guided almost all the affairs of the world in one
direction and having forced them to incline towards one and the same
end, a historian should bring before his readers under one synoptical
view the operations by which she has accomplished her general purpose.
A Jew like Josephus shared this cultural belief. As a Jew, however, he
viewed the divine necessity as deriving from the personal will of God
who is a living person and not a neutral necessity. So in Antiquitates
judaicae ..– § he tells of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the fall of
Jerusalem being fulfilled and says that these events manifest the nature
of God, “which foretells all which must (δε) take place, duly at the
appointed hour.” Pagan and Jew alike believed that history unfolded
according to a divine necessity or compulsion that could be expressed
in terms of δε or δÛον εστÝ. A Jew would have heard it in terms of
his belief in a personal deity, but the cultural context was agreed that
history unfolded according to a divine necessity. It was in these terms
that Luke’s language about the divine plan would have been heard.
It was also believed in Mediterranean antiquity that the divine will
could be disclosed to and known by humans. This was often con-
nected with oracles in the pagan sphere and prophecy in the Jewish
culture. Indeed, oracles/prophecy not only revealed the divine plan but
advanced it. History moved along its appointed course as a fulfillment
of oracles/prophecy.
7 As Charles Cosgrove, ‘The Divine δε in Luke-Acts,’ NT  (): –,
correctly argues, disagreeing with S. Schulz, ‘Gottes Vorsehung bei Lukas,’ ZNW 
(): –.
  
Three examples from the pagan world give one a feel for that seg-
ment of the culture.
) Lucian’s Alexander (Pseudomantis) tells of one Alexander who wanted

to start a new religion. As a first step to this end, he and a companion
went to Chalcedon and buried bronze tablets which stated that in the
near future Asclepios and his father, Apollo, would migrate to Pontus.
These tablets were found and, as a result, the people set about building
a temple. Alexander, dressed like Perseus, then went to Abonutichus,
declaiming an oracle which said he was a scion of Perseus. A Sybilline
prophecy of his activity was then produced. As a result of two written
prophecies and one oral prophecy, the stage was set for the emergence
of a new religion. Events follow oracles.
) Suetonius’s Vespasianus contains a section of omens that prophesy his

ascendancy as emperor. Among these references are not only Josephus’s
declaration that he would soon be released by the same man who
would then be emperor but also mention of antique vases dug up
by soothsayers which had on them an image of Vespasian. History
develops along lines indicated by prophecy/oracles.
) Apuleius’s Asinus aureus moves to its climax with Lucius trapped in

the form of a donkey as a result of his experimentation with magic.
Despairing over his plight, he cries out to Isis to save him. The goddess
appears to him by night and gives an oracle (.). The next day Lucius
does exactly as Isis had said. He eats the roses that are a part of the
procession in Isis’s honor and is miraculously changed back into a
human being. Having been saved from his fate, Lucius is initiated into
the Isis cult. He says, “I was not deceived by the promise made to
me” (.). In all three of these examples from the pagan world, the
fulfillment of the oracle legitimates the religious or political authority
of the person referred to by the prophecy or the deity that gave it.
What happened in each case was in line with what the divine realm
had allegedly revealed before the fact.
Three examples from the Jewish milieu should also suffice.
) The Deuteronomy history uses the device of prophecy and fulfill-

ment. For example, in Deut  Moses says that if Israel does not keep
the covenant and obey the commandments, then she will go away into
exile (vv. , –). In  Kgs  the northern kingdom falls to the
 :     - 
Assyrians and the Israelites are taken into bondage. Verse  says the
exile was because of Israel’s sins; verse  says what was done was “as
the Lord spoke by all his servants the prophets.” In  Kgs  the south-
ern kingdom is taken away into Babylonian exile. Moses’ prophecy in
Deut  about what would happen if Israel proved disobedient is shown
to have been fulfilled in the subsequent narrative of  Kings. History
moves according to the divine plan as disclosed and effected through
prophecies.
) At Qumran one finds a religious community that believed its own

history was the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Jewish scriptures. In
the commentaries on Isaiah, Micah, Ps , and especially Habakkuk,
there are statements of their position. When they interpret the prophets
and Psalms as prophecies that are fulfilled in the wickedness of Qum-
ran’s enemies and in the righteousness of Qumran’s covenanters, they
are saying not only that the time of fulfillment has come but also that
they are heirs of the promises of Israel, the true people of God. Again,
what happens in history is the fulfillment of the divine plan for history
as revealed and effected by prophecies.
) In his Antiquitates judaicae Josephus uses the motif of prophecy and

fulfillment as evidence of the providence of God (.. §). In ..
§– the fact that the prophecy of David was fulfilled makes clear
the providence of God. In ... §– the fulfillment of Daniel’s
prophecies of the destruction of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes
and later the Romans is said to demonstrate, against the Epicureans,
the providence of God. The pattern of prophecy-fulfillment in the
history of Israel constitutes evidence for the providence of God. Again,
history moves according to the divine purpose as revealed and effected
by prophecies.
Of course, in Luke-Acts there is a major motif of the fulfillment of
prophecy.8 The prologue speaks of “the things fulfilled (πεπληροψορη-
µÛνων) among us” (Luke :). There follows a narrative that is literally
8 Charles H. Talbert, ‘Excursus A: The Fulfillment of Prophecy in Luke-Acts,’ in
Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary (New York: Crossroad, ), –;
idem, ‘Promise and Fulfillment in Lucan Theology,’ in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from
the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar (ed. C. H. Talbert; New York: Crossroad, ),
–.
  
controlled by a prophecy-fulfillment pattern. Prophecy is given by the

scriptures of Israel, by living prophets, and by heavenly beings. The
prophecies disclose the divine will and the fulfillment of the prophecy
moves the story along to another stage. In this regard, the Lukan
writings would have been perfectly intelligible to the Mediterranean
hearer whether pagan or Jewish.
It was also a part of the Mediterranean mind-set that viewed history
as the fulfillment of oracles/prophecies to hold that an oracle could be
misunderstood as well as understood. The very act of misunderstand-
ing could be the means by which the oracle/prophecy was fulfilled.
Herodotus’s Historiae are a storehouse of examples. The classic example
is the story of Croesus, who, after acknowledging the Delphic oracle to
be the only true place of divination, asked it if he should send an army
against the Persians. The oracle replied that if he should send an army,
he would destroy a great empire. Mistaking the meaning of the oracle,
Croesus went to war against the Persians and lost. Sending his chains to
Delphi, Croesus asked if it were the manner of Greek gods to be thank-
less. The priestess replied that the oracle was right. Croesus should have
sent to ask whether the god spoke of Croesus’s or Cyrus’s empire. “But
he understood not that which was spoken, nor made further inquiry:
wherefore now let him blame himself ” (.). When Croesus received
the answer, he confessed that the sin was not the god’s but his own.
The similarity of this way of thinking to Acts : would not be lost
on Luke’s original hearers:
those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recog-
nize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets which are read
every sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning him. (RSV)
Here, in a speech of Paul to the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, the
claim is made that the death of Jesus, which was a part of the divine
plan (Luke :, ; :–; :–, ; Acts :; :), happened
according to divine plan because of the people’s failure to understand
the oracles/prophecies of scripture. A similar note is sounded in Peter’s
speech in Acts :–:
And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your
rulers. But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his
Christ should suffer, he thus fulfilled. (RSV)
In Luke-Acts, as in Mediterranean culture generally, the divine purpose
for history can be effected by human misunderstanding and ignorance
as well as by human understanding and cooperation. Once this fact
 :     - 
is grasped, the impasse in New Testament research over whether the

Gentile mission originated because of Jewish unbelief or belief can be
resolved.
Since Mediterranean culture assumed a divine plan behind the
events of history which was moved along in terms of oracles/prophecies
and their fulfillment, and since the divine purpose could be accom-
plished both by human understanding and cooperation with prophecy
and by human misunderstanding/ignorance of it, it ought not to be
difficult to believe that in Acts both streams of evidence for why the
Gentile mission originated are part of the Lukan mind.
It is indisputable that Gentiles were included in God’s people in Acts
after some in Israel believed the gospel and because they believed it.
The believing Jews interpreted their inclusion of Gentiles as action
in line with the revelation of the divine will in scriptural prophecy
(Acts :–). Inclusion of Gentiles after Jewish belief is understood
as part of the divine plan. It is something that is done and approved
by those who know the meaning of scripture and, therefore, cooper-
ate with the divine will revealed in it. History moves along accord-
ing to the will of God because of human understanding and coopera-
tion.
It is also indisputable that Gentiles were included in God’s people
after Jewish rejection of Jesus and the gospel and because of such rejec-
tion (Acts :–; :; :; :–). The missionaries interpreted
their inclusion of the Gentiles as action in line with the revelation of the
divine will in scriptural prophecy (Acts :–—going to the Gen-
tiles is in line with the prophecy of Isa :; Acts :–—Jewish
rejection is in line with the prophecy of Isa :–). Inclusion of the
Gentiles after Jewish unbelief is interpreted as part of the divine plan.
The very rejection of Jesus and the gospel by certain Jews, though done
in ignorance and out of misunderstanding of the meaning of scriptural
prophecies, served but to advance the divine will’s accomplishment in
history. Ignorance of God’s intent and failure to cooperate with his will
serve to advance his purposes just as understanding and cooperation
do.
For Acts to assert that the Gentile mission had originated both
because of Jewish belief and in accordance with the meaning of scrip-
tural prophecy and because of Jewish unbelief due to failure to under-
stand scriptural prophecy properly is something that Mediterranean
hearers would have understood. It was a common cultural conviction
that the divine purpose behind history that determined history’s move-
  
ment was effective not only in connection with human understand-

ing and cooperation but also in spite of human misunderstanding and
opposition. Both dimensions of the matter would have been expected
by the readers. As so often is the case in Luke-Acts, the author does not
disappoint cultural expectations.
Having dealt with the major question, it is now necessary to focus
on the minor issue with which this essay is concerned. Why is there a
disproportionate amount of attention given to Jewish rejection of the
gospel in Acts? A cursory reading of Acts reveals that when Jews are
approached with the gospel, some believe and some disbelieve. The
same phenomenon is present in the Gentile mission. Some believe and
some do not. Both audiences become divided when confronted with
the Christian message. Yet the narrative of Acts makes much of the
Jewish rejection and little of the Gentile disbelief. Why is this the case?
Is it, as has been recently suggested, that the Christian author of Acts is
anti-Semitic?9 Or are there other concerns that are involved?
In the Third Gospel there is a general theme of status reversal.10 The
New Age will overturn the values and structures of the Present Evil
Age. We meet this motif in the birth narratives (:–) and in the
Sermon on the Plain (:–), for example. In the central section of
Luke (:–:), Jesus’ teaching anticipates this eschatological reversal
by overturning the common estimate of what is virtue and what is vice.
Consider :– (good Samaritan—bad priest and levite); :–
(good inactive Mary—bad active Martha); :– (good unclean—
bad clean); :– (good poor—bad rich); :– (good humble—
bad exalted); :– (good prodigal—bad elder brother); :–
(good beggar—bad rich man); :– (good tax collector—bad Phar-
isee); :– (good poor—bad rich). This essay will suggest that the
Lukan focus on Jewish rejection and Gentile acceptance of the gospel,
in spite of the fact that both groups were divided in their response, is
yet another part of the general theme of reversal connected with escha-
tological fulfillment and its inauguration.
The positions taken in Luke that we describe as reversal are rarely
explicitly described as such by the author of Luke-Acts. The Magnificat
(Luke :–) is explicit.
9 Jack Sanders, ‘The Parable of the Pounds and Lucan Anti-Semitism,’ TS 
(): , says of the Lukan scheme: “we recognize it for the anti-Semitic lie that
it is.”
10 Talbert, Reading Luke, .
 :     - 
He has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud in
the imagination of their hearts, he has put down the mighty from their
thrones, and exalted those of low degree; he has filled the hungry with
good things, and the rich he has sent empty away. (RSV)
The same is true of the beatitudes and the woes (Luke :–, –).
That the Evangelist is explicit in places like these enables the reader to
say for certain that the reversal theme is intended and to anticipate it
later in the narrative when it is not explicitly signaled.
What enables the reader to say that various passages that have no
explicit designation as such reflect the reversal motif is a knowledge
of the common cultural assumptions that lie behind a given text. Only
because the reader knows the general Jewish cultural estimate of priests,
levites, and Samaritans can she hear the parable of the Good Samar-
itan as a reversal of values (bad priest and levite—good Samaritan). It
is not spelled out explicitly in the text. Yet because of the reversal motif
that is explicit elsewhere and because of a knowledge of general cultural
assumptions not spelled out in the text, one does not hesitate to read or
hear the parable in terms of the reversal motif.
It was common Jewish conviction that when the Law was revealed
at Sinai, it was offered to all nations. When the nations refused it,
God gave it to Israel. Three examples illustrate the position, () Mekilta,
‘Bahodesh,’ , on Exod :, says that although God gave the Torah
openly, the nations were unwilling to accept it. So He declared his
word unto Jacob. () Sifre on Deuteronomy §, says that when God
revealed himself he did so not only to Israel but to all the nations.
They rejected his revelation. So when the Lord saw that, he gave the
Law to Israel. () Pesikta Rabbati :, says that before the Lord gave the
Torah to Israel, he went around offering it to all the seventy nations.
Since no one of them would accept it, it was finally offered to Israel.
G. F. Moore contends that this position was “the teaching of both great
schools of the second century, the schools of Ishmael and Akiba, and is
therefore presumably part of the earlier common tradition from which
they drew.”11 We are dealing, then, with a belief of at least the late
first century. It was Jewish convention that God’s revelation had been
offered first to the Gentiles; after their rejection of it, God had turned
to Israel who accepted it.
11 George F. Moore, Judaism ( vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, ),
:.
  
Acts  tells of a new communication from God analogous to the

Sinai events that is intended to be understood by all.12
) Philo’s comments show how the Sinai theophany was understood in

Hellenistic Judaism prior to Luke-Acts. In De decalogo ., he writes:
God wrought on this occasion a miracle … by bidding an invisible sound
to be created in the air … which giving shape and tension to the air
and changing it to flaming fire, sounded forth like the breath through a
trumpet.
) In addition to the sound and fire, Philo speaks of the speech that
could be understood by all the audience.
Then from the midst of the fire … there sounded forth to their utter
amazement a voice, for the flame became articulate speech in the language
familiar to the audience (Decal. .).
We have already seen that part of the Jewish conviction about Sinai
was that it was offered to the nations. Midrash Tanhuma c says it
went into seventy languages so that all could understand (cf. t Sotah :).
Sound, fire, and speech understood by all were characteristic of the
Sinai theophany. The same ingredients are found in Luke’s narration
of the Pentecostal events of the New Covenant. Taken together with
the fact that Jubilees  regards Pentecost as the day associated with the
renewal of the covenant made with Moses and the fact that at least
by the second century rabbinic Judaism regarded Pentecost as the day
the law was given at Sinai, it seems that Acts  intends to understand
the Christan Pentecost in terms of the events that took place at Sinai.
Just as a revelation of God was disseminated from Sinai, so a new
communication goes forth at Pentecost. This is the key signature for
the composition that follows.
Unlike the events at Sinai where God goes first to the Gentiles
and only after their rejection of his revelation turns to Israel, the new
divine disclosure goes first to Israel and only after her rejection of the
gospel do the messengers turn to the Gentiles who listen. The narrative
of Acts continues the Lukan reversal theme. In connection with the
inauguration of the New Age, there is a status reversal. Whereas it was
formerly rejection by Gentiles/acceptance by Israel, now it is rejection
12 Gerhard Schneider. Die Apostelgeschichte ( vols.; Freiburg: Herder, , ):
:–.
 :     - 
by Jews/acceptance by Gentiles. Just as in the Third Gospel’s use of

the reversal motif, so here too reversal is ironic. The disproportionate
attention given to Israel’s rejection of the gospel is not a manifestation
of anti-Semitism but an expression of the irony of reversal of status in
connection with the End times.
 
THE THEOLOGY OF SEA STORMS IN LUKE-ACTS
This essay deals with the theology, implicit and explicit, in the nar-
ratives about sea storms in Acts  and Luke :–.1 It attempts
to answer two questions: () What theological content would ancient
Mediterranean listeners have heard in these narratives? and () How
do the theological implications of these two stories fit into the Lukan
whole?2
Theological Content in Acts  and Luke :–

Acts 
We begin with Acts . What theological content would an ancient lis-
tener have heard in this narrative? The attempted answer to this ques-
tion will be developed in three stages: () composition, () comparative
materials, and () context.
Composition
Acts  belongs to a large thought-unit dealing with Paul’s journey from
Caesarea to Rome. It consists of introductory (:–) and concluding
(:–) itineraries enclosing three episodes (:–; :–; :–
).
  (:–)

. To Myra in a ship of Adramyttium (–)
. To Fair Havens on a ship of Alexandria (–)
1 This essay was co-authored by Talbert and his student, John Herbert Hayes, and
is used with the latter’s permission.

2 This way of framing the aim of the paper relegates to irrelevance much secondary
literature which either focuses on the question of sources or treats the text of Luke-Acts
as something other than a religious document (e.g., a secular narrative).
  
  (:–)

. Paul’s prediction (:) based on the time of year (:) is dis-
regarded because of greed (:) and an unsatisfactory harbor
(:)
. Paul’s prediction is fulfilled in three paragraphs:
(a) the south wind blew gently (:)
(b) a tempestuous wind struck (:–)
(c) they were violently storm-tossed so that all hope was aban-
doned (:–)
  (:–)
. Paul’s prediction (:–, ) is based on an angelic message
(:–)
. Paul’s prediction is fulfilled in three paragraphs:
(a) about midnight, Paul gives a warning (:–)
(b) as day was about to dawn, Paul gives encouragement (:–
)
(c) when it was day, all escaped to land (:–)
  (:–)
. Paul is protected from the effects of snakebite (:–)
. Paul prays effectively for healing (:–)
  (:–)
. To Puteoli on a ship of Alexandria (:–)
. To Rome via the Appian Way (:–)
Acts  comprises the introductory itinerary and the first two episodes
of the larger thought unit.
Comparative Materials
Acts  is an example of the type-scene involving sea storm and ship-
wreck.3 Narratives of storm and shipwreck are widespread in Mediter-
ranean antiquity. Among the extensive remains we may mention the
following:4
3 The language of type-scene is that of Pamela Thimmes, Studies in the Biblical Sea-
Storm Type-Scene (San Francisco: Mellen, ).

4 The following accounts of sea storms and shipwrecks were collected by J. H.
Hayes as part of a project sponsored by the Spire for Individualized Research at Wake
      - 
) Greek. Homer, Odyssea .–; .–; .–; Aeschylus,

Agamemnon –; Herodotus, Historiae .–; .–; Euripides,
Troades –; Iphigenia taurica –; Helena –; Apollonius
Rhodius, Argonautica .–; Polybius, Historiae .; Ninus C; Cha-
riton, De Chaerea et Callirhoe .; Chion of Heraclea, ; a fragment of
the romance, Herpyllis; Dio Chrysostom, Orationes .–; Xenophon of
Ephesus, Ephesiaca .; .; .; Lucian, Toxaris –; Navigium –;
Aelius Aristides, ^Ιερν λÞγοι .–; .–; Achilles Tatius, Leucippe
et Clitophon .; .; the anonymous romance, Historia Apollonii regis Tyri
–; Heliodorus, Aethiopica .; .; Quintus of Smyrna, Posthomerica
.–.
) Roman. Plautus, Rudens –; Virgil, Aeneid .–; .–; .–

; Ovid, Metamorphoses .–; Tristia ..–; Curtius, Historiae
Alexandri Magni ..–; Phaedrus, Fabulae .; Petronius, Satyricon
; Seneca, Agamemnon –; Lucan, Bellum civile .–; .–
; .–; .–; Statius, Thebais .–; Valerius Flaccus,
Argonautica .–; Silius Italicus, Punica .–; Tacitus, Annales
.–.
) Jewish. Jonah :–; Testament of Naphtali :–; Josephus, Bellum

judaicum ..– +–; Vita –.
) Christian. Acts of Philip .–; Pseudo-Clementine Homilae ..
Practice in composing such narratives was part of the rhetorical train-

ing in the Roman imperial period.5 Such stories shared numerous ele-
ments: for example,6 (a) a warning not to sail (Polybius; Chion; Herpyl-
lis; Aelius Aristides); (b) sailing in a bad season (Polybius; Chion; Dio
Chrysostom; Lucian); (c) unusually chaotic winds (Homer; Herodotus;
Apollonius Rhodius; Herpyllis; Lucian; Aelius Aristides; Achilles Tatius;
Hist. Apoll. reg. Tyr.; Virgil; Ovid; Petronius; Seneca; Lucan; Statius); (d)
Forest University in the summer of .

5 M. P. O. Morford, The Poet Lucan: Studies in Rhetorical Epic (New York: Barnes
and Noble, ), –; Susan Marie Praeder, ‘The Narrative Voyage: An Analysis
and Interpretation of Acts –,’ (Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union, ),
. The Elder Seneca, Controv. .. and ., illustrates the use of stylized sea-storm
episodes in his declamations.
6 The list that follows is a part of a larger collection compiled by J. H. Hayes,
summer, , as part of his individualized research project.

  
darkness during the storm (Homer; Herodotus; Apollonius Rhodius;

Chariton; Herpyllis; Aelius Aristides; Achilles Tatius; Hist. Apoll. reg. Tyr.;
Heliodorus; Virgil; Ovid; Curtius; Petronius; Seneca; Lucan; Juvenal);
(e) horrendous waves (Herodotus; Herpyllis; Lucian; Achilles Tatius; Vir-
gil; Ovid; Lucan); (f) sailors scurrying about (Aelius Aristides; Achilles
Tatius; Heliodorus; Virgil; Curtius; Petronius; Tacitus; Jonah); (g) cargo
or tackle thrown overboard (Lucian; Achilles Tatius; Heliodorus; Tac-
itus; Juvenal; Jonah; Josephus; Acts Phil.); (h) control of the ship given
up and its being driven by the winds and waves (Homer; Herodotus;
Apollonius Rhodius; Chariton; Herpyllis; Lucian; Achilles Tatius; Helio-
dorus; Virgil; Ovid; Petronius; Lucan; Juvenal; T. Naph.); (i) the ship’s
frame or hull breaking up (Homer; Aeschylus; Euripides; Apollonius
Rhodius; Xenophon; Lucian; Achilles Tatius; Hist. Apoll. reg. Tyr.; Vir-
gil; Ovid; Petronius; Jonah; T. Naph.); (j) passengers abandoning all hope
(Homer; Herodotus; Apollonius Rhodius; Herpyllis; Lucian; Achilles
Tatius; Virgil; Ovid; Petronius; Lucan; Valerius Flaccus; Acts Phil.);
(k) the ship wrecking on rocks or a shallow beach (Homer; Aeschy-
lus; Herodotus; Euripides; Apollonius Rhodius; Polybius; Ninus; Dio
Chrysostom; Xenophon; Lucian; Achilles Tatius; Heliodorus; Plautus;
Virgil; Seneca; Lucan; Tacitus); (l) survivors drifting on planks (Homer;
Euripides; Apollonius Rhodius; Xenophon; Lucian; Achilles Tatius;
Hist. Apoll. reg. Tyr.; T. Naph.); (m) swimming to shore or to another ship
(Homer; Ninus; Xenophon; Lucian; Achilles Tatius; Phaedrus; Jose-
phus); (n) helpful, simple folk on shore (Dio Chrysostom; Petronius).
The common elements justify one’s calling such accounts type-scenes
(i.e., a literary convention with recurring elements and functions). So
predictable were these accounts that they became the object of satire
(Juvenal, Sat. .; Lucian, Merc. cond. –) and parody (Lucian, Ver.
hist. .–).
Some of these sea stories functioned merely as a record of histori-
cal events (e.g., Tacitus, Ann. .–); others served primarily as enter-
tainment (e.g., Petronius, Satyr. ). Certain narratives, however, taught
either theological or moral lessons. Examples of moral lessons taught by
sea narratives include:7 (a) reckless pride leads to destruction (Polybius,
Hist. .; cf. Acts :–); (b) wealth is a burden and is a transient pos-
session (Phaedrus, Fab. .; cf. Acts :, ); (c) a true friend is willing
to risk his life for the other (Lucian, Tox. –; cf. Acts :–); (d)
7 Luke T Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, ),
, recognizes some of these moral lessons.

      - 
only the true philosopher is calm in a crisis (Lucian, Peregr. –; the
story of Pyrrho in Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .; cf. Acts :–);
(e) when in crisis, pray (T. Naph. :–; cf. Acts :–). Most of these
moral points function in subsidiary roles in Acts .
The theological functions of sea narratives, viewed in terms of cau-
sality,8 fall into four categories:9
) Storm caused by gods or God and outcome also due to gods or

God, whether deliverance or death (Homer, Od. .–; .–;
Aeschylus, Ag. –; Herodotus, .–; Euripides, Tro. –; Iph.
taur. –; Apollonius Rhodius, .–; Chariton, .; Virgil,
Aen. .–; Seneca, Ag. –; Statius, Theb. .–; Valerius
Flaccus, .–; Silius Italicus, .–; Jonah :–).
) Storm caused by gods or God and outcome due to mortals on the

ship (Euripides, Hel. –; Plautus, Rud. –).
) Storm due to other than a divine cause and outcome due to gods or
God (Herpyllis; Lucian, Merc. cond. –; Nav. –; Aelius Aristides, ^Ιερν
λÞγοι .–; Achilles Tatius, .; .; Virgil, Aen. .–; Ovid, Trist.
..–; T. Naph. :–; Josephus, Vita –; Acts Phil. .–).
) Storm due to other than a divine cause and outcome due to natural
or human agents (Apollonius Rhodius, Argon. .–; Polybius, .;
Ninus C; Chion, ; Dio Chrysostom, Orat. .–; Xenophon of Eph-
esus, Ephes. .; .; .; Lucian, Tox.–; Ver. hist. .–; .; Aelius
Aristides, ^Ιερν λÞγοι .–; Hist. Apoll. reg. Tyr. –; Heliodorus,
.; .; Virgil, Aen. .–; Ovid, Metam. .–; Quintus Cur-
tius, Hist. Alex. Magn. ..–; Phaedrus, Fab. .; Petronius, Satyr.
; Lucan, .–; .–; Tacitus, Ann. .–; Josephus, B.J.
.–).
8 Ancient Mediterranean peoples debated various theories of causation. Sometimes
the categories ‘natural’ and ‘divine’ were used. See R. M. Grant, Miracle and Natural
Law in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Thought (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing,
).
9 This typology was suggested by C. H. Talbert and developed by J. H. Hayes
during the summer of  as part of the Spires Program for Individualized Research
at Wake Forest University.
  
The first of these categories of narratives of sea storms has received

attention of late. Gary Miles and Garry Trompf in 10 and David
Ladouceur in 11 have called attention to the Mediterranean as-
sumption that nature is a vehicle of divine justice and, if so, then storm
and shipwreck can be understood as divine judgment on the wicked;
and conversely, the absence of storm and shipwreck can be seen as
evidence of absence of guilt. It is against this background, they claim,
that Acts  is to be understood.
The Elder Seneca, in his stylized declamations written in the early
first century A.D., includes one that is relevant to our concerns (Con-
trov. ., LCL). A son is unjustly convicted of parricide (the attempted
murder of his father). As punishment, he is put on a boat whose rigging
was removed. He immediately finds himself in a storm. Seeing this,
his brother says: “The sea … is waiting for a parricide” (i.e., to pun-
ish the criminal). Then he prays: “I commend him to you, Fortune—
if he is innocent” (..). “The seas roll savagely, hurricanes press the
ship’s sides with the rush of their spray, the boat is beaten on every side
by dangers; but innocence is safe” (..). The boat is “equipped by
heaven; suddenly sails have appeared, suddenly the ship begins to ride
higher and right itself. Innocence is a great shield in danger” (..).
This vindication by heaven is met with wonder: “O seas that are more
fair than trials” (..). In the first century A.D. the assumption that
divine justice sometimes acts through the sea is common enough that it
can be used in the teaching of declamation. If this is really the backdrop
of Paul’s shipwreck scene, in what way does this cultural assumption
serve as the key to Acts ?
Acts  belongs to category  of ancient sea-storm type-scenes: the
storm is due to natural causes, the outcome is due to the divine will. In
Acts  the narrator makes no mention of divine action in sending the
storm. Rather there are references that indicate the natural causes of
the storm: (a) the time of year (:—“the time of the fast had already
gone by,12 so Paul warned them,” NAB); (b) the apparent greed of the
10 Gary Miles and Garry Trompf, ‘Luke and Antiphon,’ HTR  (): –.
11 David Ladouceur, ‘Hellenistic Preconceptions of Shipwreck and Pollution as a
Context for Acts –,’ HTR  (): –.
12 The fast refers to the Day of Atonement, th Tishri. For Jews, the Feast of Booths
five days after the fast marked the end of the season for sailing. Generally, from May 
(?) until September  was regarded by Mediterranean people as the safe season for sea
travel.
      - 
pilot and owner of the ship who want to sail despite the bad time of
the year13 (:—“the centurion paid more attention to the pilot and
the owner of the ship than to what Paul said,” NAB); (c) the search
for a suitable harbor in which to spend the winter (:—“Since the
harbor was unfavorably situated for spending the winter, the majority
planned to put out to sea … in the hope of reaching Phoenix, a port
in Crete,” NAB); (d) the fact that other ships had spent the winter in
a safe harbor (:—“Three months later we set sail on a ship that
had wintered at the island,” NAB). All of these details make the same
point. The storm and shipwreck were not due to divine judgment but
rather to a natural cause, namely, the time of the year. Such a depiction
of Paul’s experience of storm and shipwreck could be understood as
a protection against possible misunderstanding in terms of category :
since one cannot escape divine justice, the storm is caused by God as
a judgment on a guilty party, Paul. That the narrator was aware of
such a possibility is evidenced by the views espoused by his characters
in :b: “This man must certainly be a murderer; though he escaped
the sea, justice has not allowed him to remain alive.”
Over against any impression that Paul was judged guilty by God
because he was involved in a storm and shipwreck, Acts  makes
explicit that the storm and shipwreck were due to the time of the year
(:). Over against any claim that Paul’s escape from the dangers of
the deep was due to human prowess, Acts  makes explicit that the
deliverance was in accord with the divine plan (:–; :–;
:). The effect of the former is to declare that Paul’s involvement
in storm and shipwreck was not evidence of his guilt. The effect of the
latter is to say that Paul’s preservation is part of the divine plan to carry
the gospel to Rome by means of this innocent man. You cannot stop the
divine plan! This seems likely to be the way an ancient Mediterranean
listener would have heard the narrative, given the cultural conventions
about sea storms and shipwrecks.
13 Since grain was needed in Rome, Claudius had instituted a policy to secure a
regular supply. Suetonius, Claud. ., says Claudius assumed the expense of any loss
suffered by ship owners due to winter storms. Pliny the Elder, Nat. .., says that
not even the fury of storms closed the sea, because of avarice (David W J. Gill and
Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting [Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, ], ).
  
Context
The reading suggested above on the basis of comparative material is
reinforced by an examination of the immediate contexts of Acts .
Two contexts should be considered: () Acts :–, the narrative
which follows chapter  and which goes together as part of the larger
thought-unit of :–:, and () Acts :–:, the large thought-
unit which precedes chapter .
Acts :– constitutes Episode Three in the thought-unit of :–
: and consists of two parts: :– and :–. In the first part,
Paul is bitten by a viper (v. ) which causes the natives to think he is a
murderer who, though he escaped from the sea, has now been caught
by divine justice (v. ). When he is not affected by the snakebite, the
natives change their opinion (v. ). He is not a murderer; he is a god.
Two observations emerge from verses –. First, there is an explicit
statement by the characters of the Mediterranean assumption that the
animal kingdom, often a serpent, functioned as a vehicle of divine
justice. Second, the serpent bite is explicitly understood as a corollary
to involvement in storm and shipwreck. Both are believed by the natives
to function in the same way, as divine judgment.
Three examples from the Greco-Roman world illustrate one or both
dimensions of the case. (a) In Anthologia Graeca ., we read:
The shipwrecked mariner had escaped the whirlwind and the fury of the
deadly sea, and as he was lying on the Libyan sand not far from the
beach … naked and exhausted by the unhappy wreck, a baneful viper
slew him. Why did he struggle with the waves in vain, escaping then the
fate that was his lot on the land? (LCL)14
Here both dimensions are combined: snakebite and shipwreck as vehi-

cles of divine destiny.
(b) Heliodorus, Aethiopica ., tells of a brigand, Themouthis, mak-
ing his escape, who lay down to sleep, “but the sleep he slept was the
final sleep, the brazen sleep of death, for he was bitten by a viper.”15
(c) An Egyptian papyrus of the fourth to fifth centuries A.D., cited by
Cadbury, reads:
14 Sometimes a villain escaped judgment by the sea because he was destined for a
further punishment (e.g., Caesar escapes by being hurled to shore by a miraculous tenth
wave [Lucan, Bell. civ. .–] because the parricide was being saved for the death
he deserved). See Morford, The Poet Lucan, .
15 B. P. Reardon, ed., Collected Ancient Greek Novels (Berkeley: University of California
Press, ), .

      - 
A son having murdered his own father and fearing the laws fled into the
desert. As he passed through the mountains he was pursued by a lion;
and being pursued by a lion he went up into a tree, and finding a snake
as he went up into a tree and being unable to go up on account of the
snake he came down again. Wrong doing does not escape the attention
of god. The divine always brings the wicked into Dike.16
Similar assumptions are expressed in Jewish sources as well.17 (a) In the
Tosefta, Sanhedrin : [E], R. Simeon ben Shatah (ca. A.D. ) said he
saw a man with a sword running after a fellow. The two ran into a
deserted building. When Simeon entered, he saw the one slain and the
other with the sword dripping blood. The rabbi comments: “But He
who knows the thoughts of man will exact punishment from the guilty.
He did not move from the spot before a snake bit him and he died.”18
(b) The Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot : [XIVD], contains a tradition
about R. Haninah ben Dosa (before A.D. ) who, when praying, was
bitten by a snake but did not interrupt his prayers. Not only was the
rabbi not affected by the bite but the snake died at the entrance to its
den. In the Babylonian Talmud, after these events Haninah is reported
to have said: “It is not the snake that kills, but sin” (b. Berakhot a).19
A righteous man is unaffected by snakebite, just as a wicked man is
punished by it.
This latter point corresponds to the Jewish mind-set found in Dan
:, in which Daniel says to the king: “My God sent his angel and shut
the lions’ mouths … because I was found blameless before him.” That
this idea is not limited to a Jewish context is evidenced by the Greco-
Roman tradition found in Horace, Carmina .. There the poet proves
his righteousness with the news that while he was strolling unprotected
through the woods, a wolf fled from him, leaving him unharmed. The
animal kingdom, like the sea, punishes the wicked as the agent of divine
justice. It does not, however, harm the righteous.
The same cultural mind-set is reflected in Christian sources as well.
In the Acts of John a villain lusted in vain after the married Drusiana.
When she died, he bribed the steward of her husband to open the
tomb so he could have his way with the corpse. When they entered, but
before the act could occur, a serpent appeared and slew the steward
16 Henry J. Cadbury, The Book of Acts in History (London: Black, ), .
17 L. H. Silberman, ‘Paul’s Viper: Acts :–,’ Forum  (): –.
18 The Tosefta: Neziqin (trans. Jacob Neusner; New York: KTAV, ), .
19 The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Zera’im (ed. I. Epstein; trans. M. Simon; London:
Soncino Press, ), .

  
with a single bite. The narrator describes this judgment as “such as

they deserve to suffer who do such deeds” (–). The apostle John,
however, who then entered the tomb, was unharmed by the serpent
().20
There seems to be no other way to read Acts :– in a Mediter-
ranean context. The natives think Paul guilty when he is bitten; they
change their minds when he is unaffected. So Paul is declared inno-
cent by God! Neither storm nor serpent bite is to be taken as God’s
judgment on Paul. Quite the contrary, God protects and vindicates his
upright one.
Acts :– functions in two ways. First, it refutes the natives’ wrong
belief that Paul is a god (v. ). How? In verse , in connection with the
healing of Publius’s father, Paul “prays” for the healing. A god does not
pray for a healing but heals out of himself (cf. Luke :). Likewise, a
magician with pretensions to deity would not pray but would regard
the miracle as his own doing. This is made clear by Philostratus, Vita
Apollonii ... In Apollonius’s defense before Domitian, he contends
that he is no magician even though he has eradicated the disease caus-
ing a plague in Ephesus. Why? Because he “prayed” to Hercules for
the healing. A magician would not do this because he would consider it
his own achievement. Contrary to the natives’ opinion, Paul is neither
a god nor a pretender to divine honors (= a magician; cf. Acts :).
Second, the four-verse unit indicates that Paul is a righteous man.
James :b-, in the context of prayers for healing, uses Elijah as
an example to indicate that “the fervent prayer of a righteous person
is very powerful” (NAB). John :, again in the context of healing,
has the formerly blind man declare: “We know that God does not
listen to sinners, but if one is devout and does His will, He listens
to him” (NAB). That Paul’s prayer is answered is an indication that
he is regarded as righteous by God. Paul is not a god but he is a
righteous man. Acts :– declares Paul innocent by God’s decree.
This declaration parallels the same point in chapter . Acts  says
Paul is not guilty even if he was in a storm and shipwreck. Acts  says
Paul is not guilty even if he was bitten by a serpent. Both affirm that
Paul is God’s servant, a righteous man whose prayers are answered. By
God’s decree, Paul is innocent.
20 M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, ), –.

      - 
Acts :–: forms the second part of chapter ’s immediate

context as the immediately preceding large thought-unit. This unit
is subdivided into four scenes, each dealing with Paul’s status before
Roman authorities.
  (:–)

The plot (:–)
The plot is discovered (:–)
The plot is foiled (:–) and Paul is declared innocent (:)
  (:–)
Felix hears charges against Paul (:–)
Felix hears Paul’s defense (:–)
Felix disposes of Paul’s case by delay, putting off the Jews (:–)
and Paul (:–)
  (:–)
Festus hears charges against Paul (:–)
Festus hears Paul’s defense (:) and appeal to Caesar (:–)
Festus disposes of Paul’s case by agreeing to send him to Caesar
(:)
  (:–:)
Agrippa hears charges against Paul: privately (:–) and publicly
(:–), including a statement of Paul’s innocence by Festus
(:)
Agrippa hears Paul’s defense (:–)
Agrippa and others, after dialogue with him (:–), give their
judgment that Paul is innocent (:–)
The thrust of the large thought-unit, :–:, is that Paul is declar-

ed innocent by human authorities (Acts :; :; :; :). This
means that the last sections of Acts are concerned to declare Paul’s
innocence. His innocence is recognized and declared by both human
authorities (:–:) and divine authority (:–:). The storm
and shipwreck function as part of this overall design. At the same time,
the deliverance from the storm and shipwreck are understood as part of
God’s vindication of God’s messenger, enabling Paul to carry the gospel
to Rome (Acts :–; :).
  
Luke :–
It is time to turn to Luke :– to ask what theological overtones an
ancient listener would have heard. Again, remarks that follow will be
developed in terms of composition, comparative materials, and context.
Composition
This is a miracle story with the usual three parts: problem (vv. –a),
miracle (v. b), and reaction to the miracle (v. ). Its obvious point is
that Jesus has power over the wind and the sea.
Comparative Materials
Ancient listeners might have heard a range of implications.
) When Luke :b gives as the reaction to the miracle the question,
“Who then is this, who commands even the winds and the sea, and
they obey him?” (NAB) echoes from the LXX could have been heard.
Ps : (LXX; MT :) reads: “Thou rulest the power of the sea, and
thou calmest the tumult of its waves.” Ps :– (LXX; MT :–
) reads: “And he commands the storm, and it is calmed into a gentle
breeze, and its waves are still. And they are glad, because they are quiet;
and he guides them to their desired haven.” Of course, the one about
whom the LXX speaks is Yahweh. The story, then, applies to Jesus the
attributes of the Lord. Who is Jesus? Jesus is one with Yahweh’s power.
) The question, ‘Who is this?’ might have evoked other echoes as well.
Two biographies of Pythagoras offer relevant data about the popular
belief that would have been ‘in the air’ in Luke’s time. Porphyry, Vita
Pythagorae , says of the philosopher that “he calmed storms on rivers
and seas, for the comfort and safe passage of his friends.”21 Similar feats
were performed by his followers Empedocles, Epimenides, and Abaris.
Iamblichus, Vita Pythagorae , says that one sign of the philosopher’s
divinity were his “tranquilizations of the waves of rivers and seas,
in order that his disciples might the more easily pass over them.”22
Among others who did such things was Empedocles of Agrigentum,
surnamed the ‘wind-stiller.’ In Vita Pythagorae , moreover, a story is
21 Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, ed., The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Phanes Press, ), .

22 Ibid., .
      - 
recounted of a shipboard journey Pythagoras took during the time

for travel to be suspended. “The sailors considered that contrary to
their expectations, the voyage had proceeded without interruptions, as
if some deity had been on board.”23 Again, echoes that might have
been heard in Luke :– relate to one who had the marks of
divinity.
) It is even possible that the question of the identity of Jesus, the

stormstiller, could have had apologetic overtones. Plutarch, in Caesar
.–, tells the story of how Caesar, disguised as a slave, went on
board a ship. When a strong wind arose so that the ship could make no
progress, the captain was about to turn around. Caesar then disclosed
himself and said: “Come, good man, be bold and fear naught; thou
carryest Caesar and Caesar’s fortune in thy boat” (LCL). The sailors
forgot the storm and tried to force their way through the waves with
the oars. The project proved impossible, and Caesar reluctantly allowed
the captain to put about and return to port. In such a story, one
hears that Caesar is only a man, although he tries to act like a god.
In his pretensions to divinity, he is an impostor—unlike Jesus.24 Such
stories about Caesar were likely to have circulated long before Plutarch
wrote.
“Who is this that commands the wind and the sea and they obey
him?” An ancient listener would have heard in the story a claim for
Jesus’ divine authority. Luke :–, like Acts , belongs to category 
of sea-storm type-scenes: the cause of the storm may be other than the
divine (here, actually the demonic), but the outcome is due to divine
power. The divine power in Luke :– is located in the person of
Jesus. Contrast Acts :–: in which divine power is located outside
of Paul. Indeed, that Paul is delivered from storm and shipwreck in
Acts  is due to the divine power of the Lord, a power demonstrated
in Luke :–.
23 Ibid., .
24 It is possible that Acts : reflects the same type of polemic in its context: “Three
months later we set sail on a ship that had wintered at the island, an Alexandrian ship
with the Twin Brothers as its figurehead” (NRSV). While Paul and his company were
tossed about on the sea and finally delivered by the God to whom Paul belonged, the
Twin Brothers, those famed deliverers of travelers in peril at sea, spent the winter in the
safe harbor at Malta (so J. H. Hayes).
  
Context
Luke :– is part of a large thought-unit, :–:, in which four
miracle stories demonstrate Jesus’ power (:–; :–; :–;
:–, –). These stories are followed by :–, in which Jesus
gives power and authority to the Twelve for their mission work.25 Luke
:–’s function in this thought-unit is to say that Jesus’ power in-
cludes authority over the sea. His ‘sent ones’ are, therefore, not outside
the sphere of his control and protection when they travel on the sea.
Moreover, the exorcism story in :–, set in Gentile territory, in
which demons, resident in unclean swine, try to escape Jesus’ power by
rushing into the waters of the lake, functions in part to say that demons
are by no means eluding the authority of the one to whom even wind
and water hearken. Jesus is Lord of the sea and its storms. His ‘sent
ones’ may have faith that they are safe in his power for the assigned
tasks that lie before them.
Do Acts  and Luke :– Fit into the Lukan Whole?

The theological perspectives of Acts  and Luke :– fit nicely into
the Lukan whole. Three dimensions of the overall vision of Luke-Acts
can be employed to demonstrate this claim: () the divine plan, () the
use of foreshadowing in Luke-Acts, and () the use of correspondence
between events in Luke and those in Acts.
The Divine Plan

According to Luke-Acts there is a divine plan that stands behind the
events of history.26 It is spoken of as the βουλc το ©εο in Luke :;
Acts :; :; :–; :; :. It is referred to as God’s ©Ûληµα
in Luke :; Acts :; :. It is described as God’s ξουσÝα in
Acts :.
Events of history happen according to this divine plan in Luke-Acts.
This is sometimes described with the term δε as in Luke :; :;
:; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; Acts :; :; :;
:; :; :; :; :. It is referred to by κατa τe ρισµÛνον
in Luke :; by ρισµÛνο̋ πe το ©εο in Acts :; and by ÿz
25 Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke (New York: Crossroad, ), –.

26 For what follows, see chapter , ‘Once Again: The Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts.’
John T. Squires, The Plan of God in Luke-Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
), offers the fullest treatment of the Mediterranean backgrounds of the concept.
      - 
ñρισεν in Acts :. In Acts : the term used is προχειρÝσασ©αι;

in Acts : it is προεχειρÝσατο. The expression is qν ναγκαον in
Acts :. In Luke :; :; :; Acts :; :–, the word
µÛλλει refers to the fact that events happen according to the divine plan.
The realization of the divine plan is often spoken of in terms of
fulfillment. Luke :; :; :; Acts :; :; :, all use πληρον.
Luke : uses συµπληροσ©αι. Luke : and : employ τελεν.
The divine plan can be known by humans. The scriptures of Israel
make it known, as in Luke :–; :–; Acts :, –, ;
:; :–. Angelic announcement reveals the plan as well, as in
Luke :–; :–; Acts :–, , –; :–. Living humans
prophesy in ways that make the divine will known, as in Luke :–,
–; Acts :–. Both the pre-Easter Jesus (Luke :, ; :–
; :) and the risen Christ (Luke :; Acts :–, ) express the
divine purpose. Sometimes God’s purpose is made manifest by special
appointment, as in Acts :. The will of God, which lies behind and
determines the course of history, is made known to humans in various
ways.
What has been said about the Lukan understanding of the divine
plan for history would have been intelligible to a Mediterranean hearer.
The belief that divine necessity controls human history, shaping the
course of events, was a widespread assumption in Mediterranean antiq-
uity.
A pagan like Polybius reflects this conviction. Early in his career,
Polybius saw that Roman power was irresistible and, as a Stoic, he
believed the Roman order was part of a divine providence that ruled
the world. This belief he expounded in his Historiae.
Fortune (τàχη) having guided almost all the affairs of the world in one
direction and having forced them to incline towards one and the same
end, a historian should bring before his readers under one synoptical
view the operations by which she has accomplished her general purpose.
(..–, LCL)
A Jew like Josephus shared this cultural belief. As a Jew, however,
he believed that the divine necessity derived from the personal will
of God, who is a living person and not a neutral necessity. So in
Antiquitates judaicae ..– §, for example, he tells of the fulfillment
of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem, and says that these
events manifest the nature of God, “which foretells all which must
(δε) take place, duly at the appointed hour” (LCL). Pagan and Jew
alike believed that history unfolded according to a divine necessity or
  
compulsion that could be expressed in terms of δε or δÛον στÝ. A Jew

would have heard the idea in terms of his belief in a personal deity,
but the cultural context was agreed that history unfolded according to
a divine necessity. It was in these terms that Luke’s language about the
divine plan would have been heard.
It was also believed in Mediterranean antiquity that the divine will
could be disclosed to and known by humans. This idea was often
connected with oracles in the pagan sphere and with prophecy in
the Jewish culture. Indeed, oracles and prophecy not only revealed
the divine plan but advanced it. History moved along its appointed
course as a fulfillment of oracles and prophecy. This was true for pagan
(e.g., Lucian, Alex.; Suetonius, Vesp.; Apuleius, Asin. aur.) and for Jewish
settings (the Deuteronomic history; Qumran; Josephus, A.J.).
A major motif of fulfillment of prophecy exists in Luke-Acts. The
prologue speaks of “the things fulfilled (πεπληροφορηµÛνων) among us”
(Luke :). There follows a narrative that is literally controlled by a
prophecy-and-fulfillment pattern. Prophecy is given by the scriptures
of Israel, by living prophets, and by heavenly beings. The prophecies
disclose the divine will and the fulfillment of prophecy moves the story
to another stage. In this regard the Lukan writings would have been
perfectly intelligible to the Mediterranean hearer, whether Jewish or
pagan.
Within this scheme, the narrative of Acts :–: fits nicely. In
Acts : a prophecy of the risen Christ controls the rest of the book:
“The following night the Lord stood by him and said, ‘Take courage.
For just as you have borne witness to my cause in Jerusalem, so you
must (δε) also bear witness in Rome’” (NAB). In Acts :– Paul
speaks to the terrified sailors and passengers on board the storm-driven
ship:
I urge you now to keep up your courage; not one of you will be lost,
only the ship. For last night an angel of the God to whom I belong and
whom I serve stood before me and said, “Do not be afraid, Paul. You are
destined (δε) to stand before Caesar; and behold, for your sake, God has
granted safety to all who are sailing with you.” Therefore, keep up your
courage, men; I trust in God that it will turn out as I have been told. We
are destined (δε) to run aground on some island. (NAB)
If the storm and shipwreck of Paul’s journey to Rome are due to
natural causes and not divine judgment, his deliverance is part of the
divine plan that he preach the gospel in Rome before Caesar. In this
regard, Acts  fits into the scheme of Luke-Acts.
      - 
Foreshadowing in Luke-Acts
In Luke-Acts, as in other texts of Mediterranean antiquity, there is fre-
quent use of foreshadowing. In Greek and Roman epics, for example,
one finds devices to forecast the future, both the future that finds ful-
fillment within the narrative and the future whose fulfillment is beyond
the narrative.27 Sometimes the foreshadowing is done by the author,
sometimes by a divine being within the narrative, and sometimes by
a mortal character (all of which are found in Luke-Acts). These fore-
shadowings frequently take the form of prophecies of the future: for
example, in the Aeneid .–, the author hints that Lausus will meet
his death; in the Aeneid .–, the goddess Diana’s words to Opis
foreshadow the later death of Camilla with the attendant death of her
slayer; and in the Aeneid .–, Andromache foresees the future fate
of Astyanax and of the Trojans in general. A Greco-Roman hearer
of Luke-Acts, therefore, would have understood the evangelist’s use of
foreshadowing.
The closest parallels to the Lukan use of foreshadowing by prophecy,
however, are from the LXX. Luke’s repeated use of prophecy ful-
fillment, for example, functions as foreshadowing by divine forecast,
sometimes within a dream or vision, sometimes apart from a dream or
vision.28 This reflects the same practice in the LXX.
) Take the matter of foreshadowing by divine forecast. In  Sam 

David sins against Uriah. In chapter , Nathan the prophet confronts
David. In :–, , there is a prophecy of the consequences of
David’s sin (foreshadowing by divine forecast): (a) the sword will never
depart from David’s house (v. ); (b) God will raise up evil against
David out of his own house (v. a) and will take David’s wives and give
them publicly to another (vv. b-); (c) the child to be born of the
illicit union with Bathsheba will die (v. ).
This foreshadowing serves as a focusing technique, enabling the
reader to know what to look for in the narrative that follows.29 (c)
The child dies ( Sam :b-). (a) Absalom has his brother Amnon
killed ( Sam :–, ). Absalom is killed by Joab and his men
27 George E. Duckworth, Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Epics of Homer, Apollonius, and
Virgil (New York: Haskill House, ).

28 Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, ), , –.

29 Ibid., .
  
( Sam :–). Solomon has his brother and rival, Adonijah, killed
( Kgs :–). (b) Absalom goes in to his father’s concubines in the
sight of all Israel ( Sam :–). The foreshadowing allows the
narrator to dispense with continual enactment of divine intervention
that might overschematize the plot, and to benefit from the artistic
gains of “omnipotence behind-the-scenes.”30
This foreshadowing is much like the divine forecast of Acts ::
“Just as you have borne witness to my cause in Jerusalem, so you must
also bear witness in Rome” (NAB). What follows throughout the trials
before authorities may seem like a secular narrative devoid of divine
intervention, but the action is controlled by the foreshadowing of divine
forecast. Following biblical models, it is a theological narrative with
omnipotence behind the scenes.
) Consider also the matter of foreshadowing through dreams or visions

in the LXX. In Gen :–, Joseph tells his brothers of his dream that
they would bow down to him and that he would rule over them (v. ).
The wellknown events of Joseph’s sale into slavery in Egypt follow.
Then because of famine the brothers are forced to come to Egypt to
seek food. In :, Joseph remembers the dream. Then when events
take a turn for the worse with the brothers, in : they bow down
before Joseph, in : they do obeisance before Joseph, and in :
they fall to the ground before Joseph. Again the story is told in terms of
divine omnipotence behind the scenes, much like Acts , in which Paul
tells fellow travelers of the previous night’s dream/vision that all would
be saved (vv. –). The apparently secular narrative that follows is
very much a theological narrative.
Luke :–, together with its companion pieces in the large
thought-unit (:–:), also functions as foreshadowing. In this case,
it is not foreshadowing by prophecy but foreshadowing by demonstra-
tion. One hears both that Jesus’ power controls the sea and that he has
authority over demons, even in Gentile territory. Acts works out that
foreshadowing both in terms of the Lord’s protection of the Lord’s ser-
vants on the sea (Acts ) and in terms of authority over the demonic in
Gentile territory (Acts :–; :–).
This usage resembles the LXX’s use of foreshadowing by demon-
stration in the Elijah-Elisha cycles of  and  Kings. The first cycle
30 The language is that of ibid., .

      - 
dealing with Elijah tells stories of his accomplishments. Then the reader
learns that Elisha is anointed as prophet in his stead ( Kgs :), and
that the Spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha ( Kgs :). Following that, a
series of events connected with Elisha depicts his deeds, which have
similarities with deeds of Elijah. For example, Elisha parts the water
( Kgs :–) as Elijah had done ( Kgs :); Elisha promises a gift of
water ( Kgs :) as Elijah had done ( Kgs :); Elisha multiplies the
oil ( Kgs :–) as Elijah had done ( Kgs :–); and Elisha raises a
child ( Kgs :–) as Elijah had done ( Kgs :–). In these two
cycles, the deeds of Elijah function as foreshadowing by demonstrat-
ing what will be accomplished by Elisha, who has the Spirit of Elijah’s
hero. Demonstrations of the Spirit in the Elijah cycle foreshadow events
worked out in the Elisha cycle. Whether it be foreshadowing by divine
forecast, by dream, or by demonstration, Acts  and Luke :– fit
nicely into the overall Lukan literary and theological design.
Correspondence between Luke and Acts

Recognition of correspondences between persons and events in Luke
and Acts has a long history. Given the evidence, such claims seem
reasonable. Luke-Acts comes from a time and place in which Virgil
could organize the Aeneid into two halves, Books – and Books –,
with each book of the second half balancing the corresponding book of
the first.31 Correspondence between Jesus’ last journey to Jerusalem and
Paul’s final journey to Jerusalem is especially persuasive.32 Examples
include the following.
Luke :–: . Acts :–:

Jesus makes a final journey to Paul makes a last journey to
Jerusalem (:, ; :; :; Jerusalem (:; :–, –;
:–) :, –, :)
under divine necessity (:) under divine necessity (:; :)
involving disciples’ lack of involving friends’ lack of
understanding (:; :) understanding (:, –)
Luke : . Acts :–
Jesus receives a good reception and Paul receives a good reception and
the people praise God. God is glorified.
31 George E. Duckworth, Structural Patterns and Proportions in Virgil’s ‘Aeneid’ (Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, ), –.

32 C. H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts (Mis-
soula, Mont.: Scholars Press, ), –, gives a fuller discussion.

  
Luke :– . Acts :

Jesus goes into the Temple. Paul goes into the Temple.
Luke : . Acts :
Jesus is seized. Paul is seized.
Luke :; :; :; : . Acts , , , 
The four trials of Jesus (Sanhedrin, The four trials of Paul (Sanhedrin,
Pilate, Herod, Pilate). Felix, Festus, Herod).
Luke :, , ,  . Acts :; :; :, 
Jesus is declared innocent. Paul is declared innocent.
Luke  . Acts :–:
Jesus is raised from the dead. Paul is saved from death by God.
It is the last two sets of parallel events that concern us here. If Acts
:–: functions as a declaration of Paul’s innocence by human
authorities, parallel to the declarations of Jesus’ innocence by human
authorities in Luke :, , , , can his deliverance from storm,
shipwreck, and from snakebite be seen as a parallel to Jesus’ resurrec-
tion?33
Jesus’ death in Luke raises the question whether, from a human point
of view, he is a guilty criminal and, from the divine perspective, is
accursed. Declarations of his innocence by human authorities make it
clear that his death is not the execution of the guilty but the innocent
sufferings of a martyr. The vindication of his resurrection and exalta-
tion reveals that he is not accursed of God but is Lord and Christ.
Similarly, after Paul is taken into custody he is kept a prisoner, possibly
indicating that, from a human vantage point, he is wicked. Moreover,
he experiences shipwreck and snakebite, events that might convey that
he was a wicked man receiving his just deserts from God. Declara-
tions by human authorities of his innocence make it clear that he is no
criminal, and the circumstances of his shipwreck and snakebite speak
forcefully of his innocence and righteousness before God. Both Luke
and Acts end with declarations of their respective heroes’ innocence by
both human and divine authority. In the Third Gospel, Jesus’ vindica-
tion takes the form of his resurrection and exaltation; in Acts, Paul’s
33 M. D. Goulder, Type and History in Acts (London: SPCK, ), , describes the
events of Acts  as Paul’s “death” and those of Acts :– as Paul’s “resurrection,”
paralleling Jesus’ death in Luke  and his resurrection in Luke .
      - 
vindication takes the form of deliverance from shipwreck and snakebite,

and the fact that his prayers for healing were answered.34
The foregoing remarks have attempted to answer the two questions

with which we began: () What theological content would the hearers
of Luke-Acts have derived from sea-storm narratives in Luke :–
and Acts ? and () How do these sea-storm narratives fit into the
Lukan whole? At least a tentative answer can be given to both queries.
Jesus possesses divine power over wind and storm, an authority he uses
for the benefit of his ‘sent ones,’ both before and after Easter. That Paul
was caught in a storm and shipwreck and was bitten by a serpent do
not mean he was deemed guilty by God. The sea-storm narrative says
the storm was due to natural causes, not divine justice. His deliverance
was due to the divine plan, not Paul’s own human prowess. The Malta
narrative states that Paul is not a guilty man because he was bitten
by a serpent. Rather he is a righteous man who is untouched by
snakebite and whose prayers are answered by God. Acts :–:
says, therefore, that Paul is deemed not guilty by God, but rather as
righteous. God has pronounced Paul innocent in this thought-unit as
human authorities did in :–:. These conclusions, moreover, fit
nicely into the larger Lukan literary and theological landscape.
34 This interpretation hardly qualifies as a candidate for Luke Johnson’s scorned
“allegorical” reading of Acts  in terms of Jesus’ death and resurrection (Acts, ).
 
WHAT IS MEANT BY THE HISTORICITY OF ACTS?
Of what value is the Acts of the Apostles for the study of early Chris-
tianity? This question demands answers on two levels: () Of what value
is Acts for our knowledge of Christianity near A.D.  (i.e., for the
time when the book was written)? and () Of what value is Acts for our
knowledge of Christianity during the apostolic age (i.e., for the time
of the events narrated, before A.D. )? The latter is the focus of this
chapter. Our query is about the historicity of Acts, that is, Acts’ value
for our knowledge of Christianity up through Paul.
The question of the historicity of Acts has been neglected since the
early years of this century.1 Two reasons for this neglect seem to be
primary: () There has been in this century a shift of focus in the study
of Acts from historical to theological concerns, and () the complexity
of the problems and the extent of the knowledge from multiple fields
required to deal with the issues are so threatening as to make scholars
look to less demanding areas of study.
If one agrees that such neglect should be remedied, one then faces
the further question: What do we really mean by the historicity of Acts?
One’s answer to this question determines how one goes about arguing
either for or against the historicity of Acts. So what and how are two
sides of the same coin. In fact, one can see the what assumed by noting
the how of the argument.
A survey of the secondary literature reveals three levels of argument
about what and how, plus three specific issues crucially related to the
matter of the historicity of Acts. The purpose of this chapter is to
describe these three levels and three issues in order to define as pre-
cisely as possible what one means when one speaks about the historicity
of Acts. Until the nature of the problem is clearly defined, progress
toward the larger matter of the value of Acts for the study of early
Christianity is delayed.
1 Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (ed. C. H. Gempf;
Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, ), .

  
We begin with an overview of the three levels of argument about the

historicity of Acts: () contemporary color, () historical sequence, and
() individual events and episodes. These three levels of argument will
be taken up in the order mentioned here.
Contemporary Color
The argument from contemporary color assumes that a document is
not historically accurate if it contains errors and anachronisms.2 By
inference, a document must be historically accurate if one does not
find errors and anachronisms. Hence, the quest to show or to deny
the historicity of Acts involves the search for signs of the presence or
absence of contemporary color, that is, the fitness of details in Acts to
our knowledge of its environment.
Let us begin with a few representative examples of Acts’ congruence
with its milieu.
) Titles of officials. (a) The title ‘proconsul’ (ν©àπατο̋) is correctly

used for the two governors of senatorial provinces named in Acts:
Sergius Paulus, governor of Cyprus (Acts :–), and Gallio, governor
of Achaea (Acts :). (b) Inscriptions confirm that the city author-
ities in Thessalonica in the first century A.D. were called politarchs
(πολιτÀρχη̋, Acts :, ). (c) According to inscriptions, γραµµατεà̋ is
the correct title for the chief executive magistrate (town clerk) in Eph-
esus (Acts :). (d) Felix (Acts :, ) and Festus (Acts :; :)
are correctly called procurators (γεµñν) of Judea. (e) Acts correctly
refers to Cornelius (:) and Julius (:) as centurions (κατοντÀρχη̋)
and to Claudius Lysias (Acts :; :) as a tribune (χιλÝαρχο̋).
) Administrative divisions. Unlike other provinces, Macedonia was divided

into four administrative districts. If one follows the Greek text of the
Nestle th edition (πρñτη̋ µερÝδο̋ instead of πρñτη τ̋ µερÝδο̋, as-
suming dittography of τη), Acts : reflects this division when it calls
Philippi a colony and a city of the first district of Macedonia.
2 E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden:
Brill, ), , gives an example of this type of argument in denying historicity to a
purported letter from Hadrian to his brother-in-law about the emperor’s visit to Egypt
in A.D. .
        
) Town assemblies. Acts :– and (possibly) : describe the function
of town assemblies in the operation of a city’s business. This is char-
acteristic of the first and perhaps early second centuries. In the second
century A.D., however, these town assemblies were replaced by town
councils.
) Details about the administration of affairs associated with the Jewish temple in
Jerusalem. (a) Both inscriptions3 and literary sources (e.g., Philo, Legat.
; Josephus, A.J. .. §; B.J. .. §–; .. §–) speak
about the prohibition against Gentiles in the inner areas of the temple.
Acts :– presupposes this. (b) A Roman tribune had to possess
Roman citizenship. During the reign of Claudius citizenship could be
bought with a sufficient number of bribes (e.g., Dio Cassius ..–
). The tribune in Acts :, Claudius Lysias, who had bought his
citizenship, apparently had gained it during the time of Claudius, when
bribes were in fashion. (c) Roman soldiers were permanently stationed
in the tower of Antonia with the responsibility of watching for and
suppressing any disturbances at the festivals of the Jews (e.g., Josephus,
B.J. .. §). To reach the affected area they would have had to
come down a flight of steps into the Temple precincts (Josephus, B.J.
.. §). The events of Acts :– reflect these details precisely.
) Synchronization of historical details. R. P. C. Hanson gives an example.

He (Luke) tells us that Paul encountered the high priest Ananias shortly
before he met the procurator Felix (Acts :, ; :, ); that Felix
was at that time married to Drusilla (:); that some time afterwards
(whether as long as two years or not is uncertain) Felix was superseded
by Festus, who shortly after reaching Palestine attended to Paul’s case
and gave him, among other measures, a hearing before King Agrippa II,
with whom the King’s sister Bernice was at that time living (:–).4
Hanson concludes, “This is a very remarkable piece of synchronization

on the part of the author.”5 It would have been easy to miss the fact that
Ananias was priest at just that time. He was deposed sometime during
the procuratorship of Felix. It would have been difficult to get Drusilla
rightly related to Felix. She had already been married to one husband,
3 Cf. C. K. Barrett, The New Testament Background: Selected Documents (New York:
Harper, ), , for an example.

4 R. P. C. Hanson, The Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, ), .
5 Ibid.
  
and even more so to get Bernice correctly associated with Festus. She
lived with her brother, Agrippa, for only a limited time during Festus’s
procuratorship.
This type of evidence has been assembled carefully by a host of
scholars. One of them, the Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White,
concludes,
For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in
simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda document
than the Gospels, liable to similar distortion. But any attempt to reject
its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.
Roman historians have long taken it for granted.6
There are those, however, who believe the same type of evidence argues
against the historicity of Acts. A few typical examples should suffice.
) Gamaliel’s speech. Acts :– gives an account of a speech by the

first-century Pharisee Gamaliel, in which he refers to two movements
other than the Way: one led by Theudas (v. ), and “after him” (v. )
one led by Judas the Galilean. Josephus places Judas about A.D.  (A.J.
.. §–; .. §; B.J. .. §; .. §; .. §). He
places Theudas under the procurator Fadus, A.D. – (A.J. ..
§–). Two problems emerge. First, the order of Judas and Theudas
is reversed in Acts . Second, Theudas’s movement comes after the
time when Gamaliel is speaking. There is not much to be said about
this unless Josephus is wrong or there was an earlier Theudas.
) Geography of Palestine. First, Acts :, which says, “So the church
throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built
up” (RSV), has been taken to mean that Judea was understood to have
been directly connected to Galilee. If so, then Luke had an incorrect
understanding of Palestinian geography. In response, one must note
first that Luke does not always use Judea in the same way. (a) Some-
times Judea refers to the Roman province which, in contrast to Galilee,
was subject to Roman procurators (Luke :; :). (b) At other times
it refers to the whole of Palestine (Luke :; :; :; Acts :). (c)
In still other places Judea refers to the part of Palestine inhabited by
Jews, excluding Samaria (Acts :) and Galilee (Acts :) and even
Caesarea (Acts :). (d) Sometimes Luke distinguishes between Judea
6 A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Baker, ), .

        
and Jerusalem (Acts :; :). In Acts : Judea is used as in instance
(c). One must note secondly, given Acts : (“scattered throughout the
region of Judea and Samaria,” RSV) and :– (which has the journey
pass from Antioch through Phoenicia and Samaria to Jerusalem), that
Luke knows the proper arrangement of Palestine’s component regions.
The order of the regions mentioned in : must be due to other than
geographical reasons.7
A second example is Acts :, which says the soldiers brought
Paul from Jerusalem to Antipatris, a distance of some forty-five miles,
overnight. Thirty miles constituted a suitable day’s journey whether by
land or by sea. Both the numbers involved (two hundred soldiers, sev-
enty horsemen, two hundred spearmen) and the speed of the journey
(thirty-eight to forty-five miles in a night) are exaggerated to emphasize
the importance of the person being accompanied and the extent of the
danger.
There are certainly points at which the contemporary color of Acts
can be challenged, but they are few and insignificant compared to the
overwhelming congruence between Acts and its time and place. What
is one to make of such evidence?
There is widespread agreement that an exact description of the
milieu does not prove the historicity of the event narrated. Henry
J. Cadbury’s The Book of Acts in History makes two points: () Acts fits
beautifully into its contemporary setting (Greco-Roman, Jewish, and
early Christian), and () accurate local color in no way proves general
historical accuracy.8 This has prompted a strong response from Ward
Gasque.
Cadbury’s statement … that Greek and Latin novels are often as full
of accurate local and contemporary color as are historical writings is
misleading. … Whereas the author of Acts is carefully accurate in his
representation of the time and places of which he writes, the local and
contemporary color contained in the writers of fiction is that of the time
and places in which they write.9
One level on which the argument about the historicity of Acts is carried
on is that involving the quest for contemporary color. Taken alone,
however, its results are indecisive.
7 Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, ), .
8 Henry J. Cadbury, The Book of Acts in History (London: Adam & Charles Black,
), .
9 Ward Gasque, A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles (Tübingen: Mohr,
), , n. .

  
Historical Sequence
The argument from historical sequence assumes that a document is
not historically reliable if it lacks a correct sequence of the events
narrated. By inference, a document must be historically trustworthy
if the events it relates are given in their proper chronological order.
Scholars involved in this type of argument, therefore, look for evidence
to corroborate or correct the historical sequence given by Acts. This
evidence comes from Greco-Roman and Jewish sources on the one
hand and the Pauline epistles on the other.
Greco-Roman and Jewish sources speak about certain events also
mentioned by the narrative of Acts. They enable one to check the
relative chronology of the events in Acts. Five such events are usually
noted.10
) The reference to the death of Herod Agrippa I in Acts : has a

counterpart in Josephus (A.J. .. §–). From Josephus, Herod’s
death can be dated to A.D. .
) Acts : and : speak of a famine under Claudius (A.D. –).
The famine is mentioned in Acts before the death of Herod (:–
). Josephus (A.J. .. §–; .. §–) mentions a famine in
Jerusalem relieved by the good graces of Queen Helena of Adiabene
connected with the procuratorship of Tiberius Julius Alexander (A.D.
–) and possibly with that of his predecessor, Fadus. Josephus, how-
ever, locates the famine after the death of Herod. Assuming Josephus’s
accuracy, Agabus’s prophecy is, therefore, not precisely placed in the
sequence of Acts (:). It may belong to the period when the signs of
trouble were first apparent in Egypt.11 Or the order of the two events
may have been inverted due to some Lucan tendency.12
) Acts : mentions an edict of Claudius expelling the Jews from

Rome. Suetonius (Claud. .) mentions the same event. The fifth-
10 E.g., Donald L. Jones, ‘Luke’s Unique Interest in Historical Chronology,’ in SBL
Seminar Papers,  (SBLSP ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ), –; Karl P. Donfried,
‘Chronology,’ ABD :–; G. B. Caird, ‘Chronology of the New Testament,’ IDB
:–.
11 Hemer, The Book of Acts, ; K. S. Gapp, ‘The Universal Famine under Claudius,’
HTR  (): –.

12 Charles H. Talbert, ‘Again: Paul’s Visit to Jerusalem,’ NovT  (): –.
        
century historian Orosius (..–) places the edict in the ninth year
of Claudius (A.D. ), citing Josephus as an authority. Two matters
cause some pause. First, we know of no such reference by Josephus in
his extant materials. Second, Dio Cassius (..) mentions Claudius’s
embargo on Jewish meetings in Rome in A.D. , but there is no hint
of actual expulsion. As a result, some have wanted to identify the
embargo on public meetings with the expulsion and regard them as
two references to the same event and then to date the event to A.D. .
If so, then the relative chronology of Acts at this point is problematic.
If, however, as seems preferable, one takes the references to be to two
different events and accepts Orosius’s date of A.D. , the relative
chronology is correct.
) The proconsulship of Gallio is mentioned in Acts :. On the basis

of an inscription found at Delphi, Gallio’s stay in Corinth can be dated
to about A.D. –.13 This fits the relative chronology of Acts.
) The procuratorship of Festus mentioned in Acts : is also referred

to by Josephus (A.J. .. §). Eusebius in his chronological tables
places the arrival of Festus in the tenth year of Agrippa II. Josephus
(B.J. .. §) places the beginning of Agrippa’s reign in A.D. .
His tenth year would have been A.D. .14 If so, then the relative
chronology of Acts is appropriate.
In addition to these five points in the relative chronology of Acts cor-
roborated or corrected by Greco-Roman and Jewish sources, scholars
who work at this level seek further clarification from a comparison of
Acts with Paul’s letters.
T. H. Campbell, in a rarely noticed article of ,15 argues that the
sequence of Paul’s missionary activities that can be inferred from his
letters is remarkably compatible with the information from Acts.16 His
schema as developed from the letters runs as follows:
13 Klaus Haacker, ‘Gallio,’ ABD :–.

14 Contra Kirsopp Lake, ‘The Chronology of Acts,’ in The Beginnings of Christianity
(ed. F. J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake;  vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, ), :–
, who puts the date at .
15 T. H. Campbell, ‘Paul’s Missionary Journeys as Reflected in His Letters,’ JBL 
(): –.
16 His schema is approved by W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (Nash-
ville: Abingdon: ), , and J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Pauline Letters and the Lucan
Account of Paul’s Missionary Journeys,’ in SBL Seminar Papers,  (SBLSP ; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, ), .
  
persecution of Christians (Gal :–; cf. Acts )

conversion (Gal :–a; cf. Acts )
to Arabia (Gal :b; cf. Acts makes no mention)
to Damascus (Gal :c; cf. Acts )
to Jerusalem (Gal :–; cf. Acts )
to regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal :; cf. Acts :)
to Jerusalem after fourteen years (Gal :–; cf. Acts  or ?)
to Philippi ( Thess :–; Phil :–; cf. Acts )
to Thessalonica ( Thess :–; Phil :–; cf. Acts )
to Athens ( Thess :–; cf. Acts )
to Corinth ( Cor :–; cf. Acts )
to Ephesus ( Cor :–; cf. Acts )
to Troas ( Cor :; Acts does not mention)
to Macedonia ( Cor –; cf. Acts )
to Corinth ( Cor ; cf. Acts :b-)
to Jerusalem (Rom :–; cf. Acts )
to Rome (Rom :–; cf. Acts )
When the sequence of Paul’s movements as revealed by his letters is put
side by side with that recorded in Acts, there is a correspondence which
is very striking, especially in view of the probability that the author of
Acts had not read Paul’s letters.17
There are, of course, some details Acts does not mention just as there
are some things the epistles do not mention. The most serious gap
in the sequence is that in Paul’s letters one finds no clue as to when
his work in the province of Galatia should be placed. We learn only
that Paul had been among the Galatians twice when he wrote them
(Gal :). In spite of these gaps, the overall correspondence between
the relative order of events in Acts and in Paul’s letters is remarkable.
The major problem in any attempted correlation between Paul’s
letters and Acts is that of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem. The situation
can be simply stated. In Paul’s letters one hears explicitly about three
visits of the apostle to Jerusalem: (a) Gal :–; (b) Gal :–; (c)
Rom :–. In Acts there are five such visits described: (a) Acts :–
; (b) Acts :–; :; (c) Acts :–; (d) Acts :; and (e)
Acts :–. The first visits mentioned in Paul’s letters and in Acts
are usually thought to be the same, in spite of certain difficulties. It
is Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion. The last visits in
Paul’s letters and in Acts are usually thought to be the same, in spite of
certain differences. It is his visit to deliver the collection, at which time
17 Campbell, ‘Paul’s Missionary Journeys,’ .

        
he is arrested and eventually sent to Rome. The problem lies in the

attempted correlation between the second visit mentioned in Galatians
(:–) and the three visits in Acts (chs. ; ; ).
There are multiple solutions proposed. A partial list is instructive.
(a) Galatians  =Acts 18
(b) Galatians  =Acts 19
(c) Galatians  =Acts =Acts 20
(d) Galatians  =Acts 21
(e) Galatians  =a visit nowhere mentioned in Acts22
If one assumes the first solution, the implications about the historical
sequence of Acts are negative. Acts is not simply silent about events; it
is simply wrong about a certain key event (Acts ). If one assumes the
second solution, the implications are more favorable for Acts. The first
two visits dovetail nicely. A certain later visit merely goes unmentioned
in the epistles. At present the entire discussion is stalemated.
At this point one needs to become aware of an assumption that
controls virtually the entire discussion. It is decisive in the evaluation
of the data. This assumption runs as follows: Paul’s letters are primary
sources for a knowledge of Paul; Acts is a late secondary source. Of the
two sources, Paul’s letters are obviously the more trustworthy. This is
true not only for Paul’s ideas but also for Paul’s career.23 So one starts
from Gal –. The trustworthiness of the narrative outline of Paul’s
career in this autobiographical section is underscored by his oath of
truthfulness in : (“In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not
lie!” RSV).
In spite of its apparent truth (a primary source is to be preferred over
a secondary source), this assumption is in need of careful reconsider-
ation given the nature of autobiography in antiquity.24 George Lyons
states the case:
18 J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (th ed.; London: Macmillan,
), –.
19 A. M. Ramsey, ‘What Was the Ascension?’ in Historicity and Chronology in the New
Testament (ed. D. E. Nineham: London, SPCK, ), –.

20 Morton S. Enslin, Christian Beginnings (New York: Harper, ), –.
21 John Knox, Chapters in the Life of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, ).
22 T. W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Philadelphia: Westminster, ),
–.
23 Knox, Chapters in the Life.
24 George Misch, A History of Autobiography in Antiquity ( vols.; Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, ).

  
Caution is in order in reaching historical conclusions on the basis of

ancient autobiographical literature. … Persuasion, not truth, was its
overriding concern. … The emphasis upon ethical characterization and
idealization permitted exaggeration and/or suppression of certain as-
pects of the real life as legitimate autobiographical devices. Protests of
truthfulness often were made precisely at the point where truth was
most seriously compromised. … Autobiographical documents scarcely
ever have the value of truthful records or objective narratives.25
Scholes and Kellog take the same line. “First person narrative in antiq-
uity seems to have been used mainly not for factual representation but
for highly unreliable and one sided apologiae.”26 For this reason, Jack
Sanders can say that Paul’s remarks in Gal – should be considered
suspect and so unreliable as to the sequence of events and details of
the apostolic council.27 If one operates out of expectations conditioned
by ancient autobiography (e.g., Cicero Ep. .—“An autobiographer
must needs … pass over anything that calls for censure”), there must
be much less certainty about the absolute reliability of the sequence
of events derived from Gal –, especially as regards Paul’s visits to
Jerusalem. The implications of this consideration have yet to be worked
out in terms of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem in Acts.
From the point of view of Greco-Roman and Jewish history, the
relative sequence of events in Acts is sound. The one possible exception
is the date of the famine. From the perspective of Paul’s letters, the
relative sequence of events is also generally sound. The one sticking
point is the possible correlation of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem in Galatians
and Acts, especially Gal :–’s counterpart in Acts (? or ?). This
is not to claim historicity for every detail; it is to claim soundness for
the overall sequence of events in Acts with rare exception, insofar as
comparative materials allow one to check.
Nevertheless, the ongoing debate about the correlation of Paul’s visits
to Jerusalem in Galatians and in Acts prevents decisive conclusions
from this level of argument.
25 George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography (Atlanta: Scholars Press, ).

26 Robert Scholes and Robert Kellog, The Nature of Narrative (New York: Oxford
University Press, ), .
27 Jack T. Sanders, ‘Paul’s Autobiographical Statements in Galatians –,’ JBL 
(): .
        
Confirmed Facts and Episodes of Integrity

It is assumed that a document cannot be regarded as historically reli-
able if its individual events cannot be confirmed by external evidence
and if its individual episodes do not manifest integrity/unity. By infer-
ence, a document whose events can be confirmed by external means
and whose episodes can be shown to possess integrity must be con-
sidered historically reliable. Scholars who argue at this level search for
external confirmation for individual facts in Acts’ narrative and seek
to show that the individual episodes of the account do, in fact, possess
integrity/unity. The two sides of this argument need explanation.
) Excursus I of Adolf Harnack’s The Acts of the Apostles is entitled ‘Survey

of the narratives of St. Luke concerning the Primitive Community
and the earlier history of St. Paul (Acts i–xiv), which are confirmed
by the Pauline Epistles.’28 In this appendix, Harnack gives thirty-nine
examples of facts in Acts – that can be confirmed from the Pauline
epistles. A few examples suffice.
(a) Jerusalem, not some town in Galilee, is the seat of the primitive
community (Acts passim; Gal ; Rom ).
(b) Christian communities were also in existence outside Jerusalem,
especially in Judea, at a very early date (Acts :;  Thess :;
Gal :).
(c) The churches of Jerusalem and Judea had to endure persecution
at the hands of their compatriots (Acts passim;  Thess :).
(d) Barnabas is an important missionary to the Gentiles from the
Jerusalem church, especially as regards Antioch of Syria (Acts
:–; Gal :). He worked side by side with Paul (Acts :–
; Gal :, ).
(e) Baptism was an act of entry into the Christian community (Acts
:; :;  Cor :; Rom :–). It was in the name of Jesus
(Acts :;  Cor :).
(f) The resurrection of Jesus was at the core of Christian proclama-
tion (Acts :; :; :; :;  Cor :, ).
(g) Paul fled secretly from Damascus after escaping over the wall
(Acts :–;  Cor :–).
28 Adolph Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, ).
  
Harnack concludes,
The agreement which in these numerous instances exists between the
Acts (chs. i–xiv) and the Pauline epistles … is so extensive and so detailed
as to exclude all wild hypotheses concerning those passages of the Acts
that are without attestation in those epistles. The Acts is an historical
work that has nothing in common with the later ‘Acts of the Apostles,’
and is not to be judged by the standard nor criticized by the method
which suits these.29
) The second aspect of this level of work has to do with the challenges
to the integrity of various episodes in the narrative of Acts. It is some-
times argued that a single episode in Acts is actually a combination of
more than one event and hence is not to be taken as historically reli-
able.30
Acts , Paul’s visit to Corinth, is a prime example. Does Acts  con-
flate two or more Pauline visits to Corinth into one? Jerome Murphy-
O’Connor seems to think so.31 On the one hand, Acts : says that
Aquila and Priscilla had lately come to Corinth from Italy because
Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. As we have
seen, this expulsion is confirmed by Suetonius (Claud. .), who says,
“Since the Jews were continually making disturbances at the instigation
of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome.” The question
about the expulsion relates to its date.
The fifth-century historian Orosius (..–) says,
Josephus refers to the expulsion of Jews by Claudius in his ninth year. But
Suetonius touches me more in saying, “Claudius expelled from Rome the
Jews constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.”
If Orosius is taken at face value, then the event is linked to A.D. .
Dio Cassius, a third-century historian, speaks of an event that hap-
pened in A.D. . He says,
As for the Jews, who had increased so greatly by reason of their multitude
that it would have been hard without raising a tumult to expel them from
the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing
their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings. (..)
29 Ibid., .
30 Gerd Lüdemann, Early Christianity according to the Traditions of Acts (Minneapolis:
Fortress, ), –, , , , .
31 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier,
).
        
The question is, Are Orosius and Dio Cassius speaking about the
same event or two separate events? Murphy-O’Connor contends they
are referring to one and the same event: namely, as a result of a distur-
bance in a Roman synagogue concerning Christ, Claudius expelled the
missionaries who were not Roman citizens and temporarily withdrew
from that Jewish community the right of assembly.32
On the other hand, Acts : says that when Gallio was proconsul
of Achaea, the Jews brought Paul before the tribunal. From an inscrip-
tion found at Delphi, Gallio’s presence in Corinth can be dated to A.D.
–.33 If this is so, then Acts  actually contains in its narrative about
Paul’s coming to Corinth two separate visits of the apostle to the city,
one in A.D.  and the other in A.D. –. A document that conflates
separate events into a narrative and treats them as one is obviously not
historically reliable.
Stephen Benko, however, concludes that the accounts of Claudius’s
dealings with the Jews in Rome cannot be convincingly conflated into
a single episode, but that trouble did arise on two occasions during
his reign: A.D.  and A.D. .34 The main reason for refusing to
conflate the events is that the one denies what the other affirms. Dio
Cassius says Claudius in  did not expel the Jews; Orosius agrees with
Suetonius that Claudius did expel the Jews and dates it to . The
most natural way to take accounts that are diametrically opposite is
to regard them as referring to different events. If so, then the unity
of Acts  is upheld. Priscilla and Aquila arrived in Corinth sometime
after their expulsion from Rome in . Paul joined them and was there
during Gallio’s tenure in –. A document that narrates episodes that
have integrity has a high claim to historicity; one that conflates separate
events into one does not.
From this cursory survey of the types of argument having to do with
individual events and episodes one can see the nature of the issues.
Regarding the evidence assembled by Harnack, an opponent might say,
Yes, a number of details in Acts – are confirmed by Paul’s letters,
but what about those that are not? Is it legitimate to infer historicity for
uncorroborated details because some details check out? Regarding the
32 Ibid., .
33 Adolf Deissman, Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History (New York: Harper,
), –; Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, –.
34 Stephen Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (Bloomington: Indiana Univer-
sity Press, ), .

  
debates about the unity of individual episodes, one can see that every
issue is debatable and that what is probable appears different to various
scholars.
This appendix so far has sought, by a hasty survey, to indicate the
three levels on which the debates about the historicity of Acts are
carried on. No one is sufficient to carry the day, either for or against
the historical value of the Acts of the Apostles. Any successful argument
must involve all three levels of evidence: accurate contemporary color,
sound historical sequence, and confirmed facts and individual episodes
with integrity. Even then the argument is incomplete. This is because
the matter of Acts’ historicity also involves three specific issues: () the
speeches, () the portrait of Paul, and () the miracles. No argument
for or against the historicity of Acts is adequate that omits even one of
these issues. The second part of this paper, therefore, will survey these
issues and how they play a role in the overall case one way or the other.
The Speeches of Acts

Since Dibelius35 and Cadbury,36 most scholars have regarded the
speeches of Acts after the analogy of the speeches used in ancient his-
torical writings. Thucydides (..) is most often quoted:
As to the speeches that were made by different men, either when they
were about to begin the war or when they were already engaged therein,
it has been difficult to recall with strict accuracy the words actually
spoken, both for me as regards that which I myself heard, and for those
who from various other sources have brought me reports. Therefore, the
speeches are given in the language in which, as it seemed to me, the
several speakers would express, on the subjects under consideration, the
sentiments most befitting the occasion, though at the same time I have
adhered as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually
said.
Tacitus (Ann. .) remarks on the occasion of Seneca’s death that
the farewell speech of that philosopher had been published literally so
that the historian did not need to reproduce it in Seneca’s own words.
Pliny (Ep. .) says regarding Pompeius Saturninus, “his histories will
please you … for the words he puts into the mouths of his characters
35 Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (ed. H. Greeven; New York:
Scribner’s, ).
36 Henry J. Cadbury, ‘The Speeches in Acts,’ in The Beginnings of Christianity (ed.
F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake;  vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, ), :–.
        
are as vivid as his own public speeches, though condensed into a

simpler and terser style.” Lucian (Hist. conscr. ) says, “If a person
has to be introduced to make a speech, above all let his language
suit his person and his subject.” Such statements from Thucydides to
Lucian have been taken to mean that ancient speeches were an author’s
compositions based on what he deemed appropriate for the particular
individual in his particular time, place, and circumstances.
This conclusion is reinforced by two additional strands of evidence.
On the one hand, comparison of different versions of ancient speeches
seems to confirm the conclusion reached. (a) Josephus (A.J. .. §–
) gives the farewell speech of Mattathias in a very different form
from that in  Macc :–. (b) Also Herod’s speech to his soldiers is
found in two very different forms in two different places in Josephus
(A.J. .. §– and B.J. .. §–). (c) Plutarch (Oth. )
and Tacitus (Hist. .) manifest extensive agreement in their accounts
of Otho but offer entirely different versions of his last address. (d)
Dio Cassius’s report of Caesar’s speech to his soldiers (.–) is
very different from that reported by Caesar himself (Bell. gall. .).
On the other hand, recognition that biographers since the time of
Xenophon,37 as well as Jewish writers,38 followed the same practice
offers confirmation to the widely held conclusions of Cadbury and
Dibelius. If so, what does this imply about the historicity of Acts?
A minority voice contends that it is “by no means true that all
ancient historians felt free to put fictitious speeches in the mouths
of historical characters.”39 Polybius is the example cited. In book ,
Polybius gives a contrast between history as he understands it and as
one Timaeus practices it. Polybius is critical of Timaeus because his
“pronouncements are full of dreams, prodigies, incredible tales, and to
put it shortly, craven superstitions and womanish love of the marvelous”
(:). His speeches are “untruthfully reported” and “on purpose”
(.a). Timaeus “actually invents speeches,” while it is the function
of history to discover first of all what was actually spoken (.b). The
brief speeches in Acts, moreover, bear no resemblance to the rhetorical
compositions of Josephus. “This is not to say they are to be simply
37 Patricia Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press,
), .
38 Julius Kaplan, The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud (New York: Bloch, ), .
39 Hemer, The Book of Acts, .
  
fitted into a ‘Polybian’ alternative.”40 It does mean, however, that the

possibility exists that some or all of the speeches of Acts are a digest or
summary of what was actually said. The matter needs examination. In
confronting this first specific problem, one meets yet again the divide
between scholars about the historicity of Acts.
The Portrait of Paul

With the shift in focus from the historicity to the theology of Acts, cer-
tain scholars sharpened their descriptions of Lucan theology by con-
trasting it with Paul’s as known from his epistles. Out of this emerged
the contention that there is a discrepancy between the portrait of Paul
in Acts and that in the genuine letters. Representative points in the
comparison may be noted.41
) In Acts, Paul is a great miracle worker. In the epistles, he is a
suffering apostle (e.g.,  Cor :).
) In Acts, Paul is an outstanding orator. In the epistles, he is called a
feeble speaker ( Cor :).
) In Acts, Paul is not on an equal footing with the Twelve. In
the epistles, he is an apostle of equal standing with the Twelve
( Cor :; :–).
) In Acts, Jewish opposition to Paul is due to his teaching about the
resurrection from the dead. In the epistles, Jewish opposition is
over the law (Gal :–).
) In Acts, natural theology is used to portray Greco-Roman culture
as a true preparation for Christianity. In the epistles, natural theol-
ogy is used to hold the Gentiles responsible before God (Rom –).
) In Acts, Paul is pro Jewish law. In the epistles, he wages an anti
Jewish polemic against the law.
) In Acts, Paul’s Christology is adoptionistic. In the epistles, Paul
holds a Christology of preexistence.
) In Acts, Paul does not hold to an imminent eschatology. In the
epistles, there is an imminent expectation.
40 Ibid., .
41 Derived from Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Westminster,
), –, and Philip Vielhauer, ‘On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,’ in Studies in Luke-Acts
(ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn; Nashville: Abingdon, ), –.
        
These contrasts are taken by scholars like Haenchen and Vielhauer

as irreconcilable differences between the portrait of the historical Paul
and the Lucan Paul. Given these discontinuities, the historical reliability
of Acts is called into question.
These sharp distinctions between the picture of Paul gained from
his genuine letters and that found in Acts have not gone unchallenged.
Granted, there are at least three portraits of Paul found in the New
Testament: that of the genuine epistles, that of the Deuteropaulines like
the Pastorals, and that of Acts. Granted, each has its own distinctive
elements. To call the discontinuities irreconcilable differences, however,
is something many scholars will not accept. A typical response to
Haenchen and Vielhauer runs something as follows.42
) In Paul’s letters, his ministry includes miracles ( Cor :; Rom
:;  Cor :–; Gal :–;  Thess :). In Acts, Paul’s ministry
also involves suffering (Acts :, ; :–; :–, ; :–;
:, ; :, –, –).
) In Paul’s letters, one finds evidences of rhetorical skills and tech-
niques characteristic of the orators of his time (e.g., diatribe, inclu-
sio, chiasmus). The specific charge in  Cor : refers to Paul’s
withdrawal at an earlier time rather than risk the loss of the
church in Corinth.43 It has nothing to do with his lack of rhetor-
ical skill. Nor does  Cor :– imply that Paul was oratorically
deficient. It says rather that Paul’s converts’ confidence lay in the
evidences of the Spirit in their midst rather than in Paul’s verbal
pretenses.
) In Acts, the Twelve represent the true Jesus tradition while Paul
stands for the vitality of religious experience of the risen Lord.
Acts’ schema makes the latter subservient to the former. In his
letters, one also finds Paul subservient to the authentic tradi-
tion, which came down to him from the apostles before him
( Cor :–;  Cor :–), at the same time that he claims
his equal status based on his religious experience (Gal ).
42 A composite taken from Ulrich Wilckens, ‘Interpreting Luke-Acts in a Period of
Existentialist Theology,’ in Studies in Luke-Acts (ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn; Nasville:

Abingdon, ), –; Peder Borgen, ‘From Paul to Luke,’ CBQ  (): –;
and Kümmel, Introduction.
43 Charles H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians (New York: Crossroad, ), –.
  
) Jewish opposition to Paul in Acts is due not only to his teaching

about the resurrection (Acts :; :; :) but also because of
Paul’s perceived opposition to the law and Temple (:; :;
:).
) Both the Paul of Acts and of the genuine epistles hold to a nat-
ural theology or general revelation. The functions of this natural
theology vary, depending upon the context in which it is used.
) In Acts, Paul expresses reservations about the soteriological value
of the Law (Acts :) at the same time that he, as a Jewish
Christian, lives by its rules amidst Jews (:; :–). This
is similar to the Paul of the epistles who is critical of the law’s
soteriological role (Gal :–) at the same time that he lives by
its tenets when necessary ( Cor :–).
) Paul’s picture of Jesus in Acts : belongs not to preexistence
Christology but rather to exaltation Christology; in Acts :–
 it resembles two-foci Christology. In the epistles, an epiphany
Christology (Gal :) lies side by side with exaltation Christology
(Phil :–) and probably a two-foci Christology ( Thess :–
).44
) In the epistles, Paul sometimes seems to hold to an imminent
expectation and believes he will be alive when the end arrives
( Thess :;  Cor :–); in other places he seems to reckon
with his death before the parousia (Phil :–;  Cor :–?).
Two observations need to be made at this point. First, given these
adjustments to the claims made for irreconcilable differences between
Acts and the epistles in their portraits of Paul, Ulrich Wilckens can say
that “it is Paul, interpreted existentially, who is so sharply set against
Luke. … But the existentially interpreted Paul is not the historical
Paul.”45 Second, given the different historical situations of Paul and
Acts, one should not expect theological identity. There would be con-
tinuity in doctrine, but the doctrines would be expected to function
differently in different contexts.
If the discontinuities in the portraits of Paul in the genuine epistles
and in Acts are taken to be irreconcilable differences, then the historic-
ity of Acts may be called into question. If the discontinuities are seen
44 The categories are those of R. H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology
(New York: Scribner’s, ).

45 Wilckens, ‘Interpreting Luke-Acts,’ .
        
merely as different shadings due to variation in historical contexts, then

the historical reliability of Acts fares better.
Miracles
Since the nineteenth century the historical value of Acts has been called
into question because of the presence of miracles in its narrative. This
posture is still dominant. Gerd Lüdemann is a typical representative of
this perspective in the current generation. Regarding the healing of the
lame man in Acts , he writes,
There is no historical nucleus to the tradition of the miracle story in
vv. –. Those who are lame from their childhood are (unfortunately)
not made whole again. But the story reflects the existence of a Christian
community which reported great things of Peter’s activity in Jerusalem
and/or miracles performed by him.46
Regarding the story of Peter’s release from prison by an angel in
Acts , Lüdemann writes,
the miraculous release bears within itself its own historical refutation.
However, we may still presuppose a historical nucleus in it, namely that
Agrippa had Peter arrested.47
For someone with this presupposition about miracles, Acts is indeed a
questionable entity.
Over against Lüdemann, one finds a scholar like the late Colin
Hemer. Hemer says,
I am content to operate in a framework where the possibility of miracle is
accepted and its appearance is not an automatic cue for reinterpretation
or special interpretation.48
Within that framework we may still require reasonably rigorous testi-
mony … but their possibility may be accepted in principle.49
Are miracles possible? The possible is always a function of one’s world-
view. Worldviews are highly resistant to disconfirmation. The material-
istic worldview, represented by Lüdemann, dictates that the world was
and is ruled by iron physical laws that not even God could or can bend.
Walter Wink comments:
46 Gerd Lüdemann, Early Christianity, .

47 Ibid., .
48 Hemer, The Book of Acts, .
49 Ibid., , n. .
  
In the last decade, advances in the understanding of the placebo effect,

the functioning of the immune system, empirical studies of the control
yogis can exercise over their internal organs, and above all, the shift
from Newtonian lawfulness to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle have
changed the way many people look at the possibility of healing. We
simply no longer know for certain what is within the realm of possibility.
Consequently, some scientists are beginning, through science, to jettison
the materialistic worldview as reductionist.50
Wink points out that these changes in attitude are not based on a
single scrap of new evidence from the ancient world but on shifting
evaluations of what is possible. What one considers possible determines
one’s stance on the miraculous in the Acts of the Apostles.51 On the
matter of what is considered possible, scholars differ. These differences,
of course, affect their evaluations of the historicity of Acts.
Having looked at the three levels of argument and the three specific
issues associated with the question of the historicity of Acts, what can
be concluded? What does one mean by the historicity of Acts? Judging
from how the argument is conducted, it possible to say that an affir-
mation of the historical worth of the Acts of the Apostles can be given
only if and when certain answers are possible on the levels of contem-
porary color, historical sequence, and individual episodes on the one
hand, and to the issues of speeches, portrait of Paul, and miracles on
the other. Confidence in the historicity of Acts requires a certain type
of answer to be given in all six cases.
Even then the issue is not settled because of a final matter, namely,
the burden of proof demanded. Lüdemann poses the problem. He says,
The real question is whether Luke’s information has to be proved to be
true or rather whether it is only false if it can certainly be shown to be
so.52
If one can show that external evidence confirms the accuracy of Acts’
contemporary color at numerous points, does that give one the right to
assume the accuracy of points that cannot be checked? If one can show
that at a significant number of points the historical sequence of Acts’
narrative checks out as sound, does that mean that one can assume
the soundness of sequence at those points that cannot be checked? If
50 Walter Wink, ‘Our Stories, Cosmic Stories, and the Biblical Story,’ in Sacred Stories
(ed. Charles and Anne Simpkinson; San Francisco: Harper, ), .
51 Ibid., .
52 Gerd Lüdemann, Early Christianity, .
        
one can show that many individual matters of fact can be confirmed
and the unity of a number of episodes can be established, should one
infer that matters of fact that cannot be confirmed externally can be
assumed to be accurate and that other episodes that are unverified by
external data are indeed possessed of integrity?
One group of scholars believes it is responsible to infer the accuracy
of unconfirmed material because of the accuracy of confirmed mate-
rial. F. F. Bruce serves as spokesman for this position. He says,
When a writer’s accuracy is established by valid evidence, he gains the
right to be treated as a reliable informant on matters coming within his
scope which are not corroborated elsewhere.53
The other group thinks it is not responsible to accept anything in
Acts as historically reliable unless it has been corroborated by other
data, either external or internal. The former feel free to speak globally
about the historicity of Acts; the latter are willing to speak about Acts’
historical reliability in a much more limited sense. Martin Dibelius says,
“the historical reliability of Acts must be measured in each individual
case.”54 Assumptions matter.
Enough corroborating data has been assembled already by scholars
to enable one to conclude that Acts is not mere fiction and that its
record is reasonably reliable in areas where it can be checked. There
are, however, enough unchecked areas and enough problems in areas
that can be checked to keep professors and graduate students in work
for the indefinite future.
Of what value is the Acts of the Apostles for the study of early Chris-
tian history, in particular the period prior to A.D. ? That depends on
what one thinks about Acts’ historicity. How is the historicity of Acts
determined? If the thesis of this essay is correct, the historical value of
Acts is determined by an argument that includes the three levels and
that addresses the three specific issues described above. Ultimately, the
pervasiveness of one’s argument will depend on the burden of proof
demanded of it.
53 F. F. Bruce, ‘The Acts of the Apostles: Historical Record or Theological Recon-
struction?’ ANRW .:.

54 Dibelius, Studies in the Acts, ; cf. Charles H. Talbert, ‘Luke-Acts,’ in The New
Testament and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. E. J. Epp and G. W. Macrae; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, ), .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alsup, J. E. The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition. Stuttgart:

Calver Verlag, .
The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson.
–.  vols. Repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, .
Athanasskis, Apostolos A. The Life of Pachomius. Atlanta: Scholars Press, .
Aune, D. E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Library of Early
Christianity. Philadelphia: Westminster, .
———. ‘The Problem of the Genre of the Gospels: A Critique of C. H.
Talbert’s What Is a Gospel?’ Pages – in vol.  of Gospel Perspectives. Edited
by R. T. France and David Wenham.  vols. Sheffield: JSOT Press, .
The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Zera’im. Edited by I. Epstein. Translated by M.
Simon. London: Soncino, .
Barrett, C. K. The New Testament Background: Selected Documents. New York:
Harper, .
Bauckham, Richard. ‘For Whom Were Gospels Written?’ Pages – in The
Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking Gospel Audiences. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
.
Baur, F. C. Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien ihr Verhaltnis zu
einander ihren Charakter und Ursprung. Tübingen: LF Fues, .
Bedae Venerabilis. Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina , . Turnholti: Typo-
graphi Brepols, –.
Benko, Stephen. Pagan Rome and the Early Christians. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, .
Borgen, Peder. ‘From Paul to Luke.’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly  (): –
.
Bouttier, M. ‘L’humanite de Jesus selon Saint Luc.’ Recherches de science religieuse
 (): –.
Bouyer, Louis. The Spirituality of the New Testament and the Fathers. Vol.  of A
History of Christian Spirituality. New York: Seabury, .
Bovon, Francois. L’Evangile selon Saint Luc :–:. Commentaire du Nouveau
Testament IIIb. Geneve: Labor et Fides, .
———. Luc le Theologien: Vingt-Cinq Ans de Recherches (–). Neuchatel:
Delachaux & Niestle, .
———. Luke the Theologian: Thirty Three Years of Research (–). Translated
by Ken McKinney. Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick, .
Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
.
Bruce, F. F. ‘The Acts of the Apostles: Historical Record or Theological
Reconstruction?’ ANRW .:–. Part , Principat, .. Edited by
H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: de Gruyter, .
 
———. The Book of Acts. New International Commentary on the New Testa-
ment. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, .
Brox, Norbert. Zeuge und Märtyrer. Munich: Kösel, .
Bultmann, Rudolf. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: Mohr, –.
———. Theology of the New Testament. New York: Scribner, –.
Burridge, Richard A. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biog-
raphy. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, .
Cadbury, Henry J. The Making of Luke-Acts. New York: Macmillan, .
———. ‘The Speeches in Acts.’ Pages – in vol.  of The Beginnings of
Christianity. Edited by F. J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. Grand Rapids:
Baker, .
Caird, G. B. ‘Chronology of the New Testament.’ Pages – in vol.  of
Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by George Arthor Buttrick.  vols.
New York: Abingdon Press, .
Calvin, John. A Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists.  vols. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, .
———. A Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles.  vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
.
Camparetti, Domenico. ‘Papro ercolanese inedito.’ Rivista di Fililogia  ():
–.
Campbell, T. H. ‘Paul’s Missionary Journeys as Reflected in His Letters.’
Journal of Biblical Literature  (): –.
Cancik, Hubert. ‘The History of Culture, Religion, and Institutions in Ancient
Historiography: Philological Observations Concerning Luke’s History.’ Jour-
nal of Biblical Literature  (): –.
Cardauns, Burkhart, ed. M. Terentius Varro Antiquitates Rerum Divinarum.  vols.
Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, .
Carter, Warren. ‘The Crowds in Matthew’s Gospel.’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
 (): –.
———. ‘Matthew :– and Matthean Discipleship: An Audience-Oriented
Perspective.’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly  (): –.
———. ‘Recalling the Lord’s Prayer: The Authorial Audience and Matthew’s
Prayer as Familiar Liturgical Experience.’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly  ():
–.
Carter, Warren, and John Paul Heil. Matthew’s Parables: Audience-Oriented Perspec-
tives. Monograph Series. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association,
.
Cassidy, Richard. Jesus, Politics, and Society: A Study of Luke’s Gospel. Maryknoll,
N.Y.: Orbis Books, .
Charlesworth, James H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.  vols. Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday, , .
Chesnutt, Randall D. From Death to Life: Conversion in Joseph and Aseneth. Jour-
nal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series . Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, .
Childs, Brevard S. The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction. Philadelphia:
Fortress, .
 
Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Library of Early Chris-
tianity. Philadelphia: Westminster, .
Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles. Translated by James Limburg, A. Tho-
mas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress,
.
———. Die Apostelgeschichte. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, .
———. Die Mitte der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des Lukas. Beiträge zur historischen
Theologie . Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, .
———. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row,
.
———. The Theology of St. Luke. New York: Harper & Brothers, .
Cosgrove, Charles H. ‘The Divine δε in Luke-Acts.’ Novum Testamentum 
(): –.
———. ‘The Justification of the Other: An Interpretation of Romans :–
:.’ Pages – in SBL Seminar Papers, . Society of Biblical Literature
Seminar Papers . Missoula: Scholars Press, .
Cox, Patricia. Biography in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California
Press, .
Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Edited and translated by
R. P. Smith.  vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, .
Danker, Frederick W. ‘The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts.’ Pages –
in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, . Society of Biblical Literature
Seminar Papers . Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, .
———. Jesus and the New Age. Philadelphia: Fortress, .
Daube, David. Collaboration with Tyranny in Rabbinic Law. New York: Oxford
University Press, .
Deissman, Adolf. Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. New York: Harper,
.
Dexter, Miriam Robbins. Whence the Goddess? New York: Pergamon Press, .
Dibelius, Martin. Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte. Edited by H. Greeven. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, .
———. Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. Edited by H. Greeven. New York:
Scribner’s, .
———. ‘Zur Formsgeschichte des Neuen Testament (ausserhalb der Evan-
gelien).’ Theologische Rundschau  (): –.
Dillon, John, and Jackson Hershbell. Iamblanchus, On the Pythagorean Way of Life.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, .
Donfried, Karl P. ‘Chronology.’ Pages – in vol.  of Anchor Bible Dic-
tionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman.  vols. New York: Doubleday,
.
Dorandi, Titiano. Storia dei Filosofi: La Stoa da Zenone a Panezio (P Herc ).
Leiden: Brill, .
———. Storia dei Filosofi: Platone e L’Academia (P Herc  e ). Naples: Bibliopo-
lis, .
Doty, William G. ‘The Concept of Genre in Literary Analysis.’ Pages –
in volume  of SBL Seminar Papers, .  vols. Society of Biblical Literature
Seminar Papers . Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, .
 
Downing, Christine. ‘The Mother Goddess among the Greeks.’ Pages –
in The Book of the Goddess: Past and Present. Edited by Carl Olson. New York:
Crossroad, .
Dreyfus, F. ‘Exegese en Sorbonne, Exegese en Eglise.’ Revue Biblique  ():
–.
Drury, John. Tradition and Design in Luke. Atlanta: John Knox, .
Duckworth, George E. Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Epics of Homer, Apollonius,
and Virgil. New York: Haskill House, .
———. Structural Patterns and Proportions in Virgil’s ‘Aeneid.’ Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, .
Dupont, Jacques. The Salvation of the Gentiles. New York: Paulist, .
During, Ingemar. Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition. Goteborg: Gote-
borg Universitet Arsskrift, .
Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Free Press,
.
Ellul, Jacques. Violence. New York: Seabury, .
Enslin, Morton S. Christian Beginnings. New York: Harper, .
The Fathers of the Church. Vol : Early Christian Biographies. Edited by Roy J.
Deferrari. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., .
Feuerbach, Ludwig. The Essence of Christianity. New York: Harper, .
Finn, Thomas M. From Death to Rebirth: Ritual and Conversion in Antiquity. New
York: Paulist, .
———. Review of Wayne A. Meeks, The Origins of Christian Morality: The First
Two Centuries. Catholic Biblical Quarterly  (): .
Fishel, H. A. ‘Martyr and Prophet.’ Jewish Quarterly Review  (): –,
–.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke.  vols. Word Biblical Commen-
tary , a. Dallas: Word, –.
———. ‘The Pauline Letters and the Lucan Account of Paul’s Missionary Jour-
neys.’ Pages – in SBL Seminar Papers, . Society of Biblical Literature
Seminar Papers . Atlanta: Scholars Press, .
Fowler F. G., and H. G. Fowler. The Works of Lucian of Samosata.  vols. Oxford:
Clarendon, .
Frend, W. H. C. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church. Oxford: Blackwell,
.
Fuller, R. H. The Foundations of New Testament Christology. New York: Scribner’s,
.
Gaiser, Konrad. Philodems Academica: Die Berichte uber Platon and die Alte Akademie
in zwei herkulanensischen Papyri. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, .
Gallagher, Eugene V. ‘Conversion and Salvation in the Apocryphal Acts of the
Apostles.’ Second Century  (): –.
Gapp, K. S. ‘The Universal Famine under Claudius.’ Harvard Theological Review
 (): –.
Garrett, Susan R. The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke’s Writings.
Minneapolis: Fortress, .
Gasque, Ward. A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles. Tübingen: Mohr,
.
 
George, Augustin. Études sur l’oeuvre de Luc. Sources bibliques. Paris: Editions
Gabalda, .
———. ‘Israël dans l’oeuvre de Luc.’ Revue biblique  (): –.
Gerstenberger, E. S., and W. Schrage. Suffering. Translated by J. E. Steely.
Nashville: Abingdon, .
Gigante, Marcello. ‘Les Papyrus d’Herculanum aujourd’hui.’ Bulletin de la Socié-
té française de philosophie  (): –.
———. Philodemus in Italy: The Books from Herculaneum. Translated by Dirk Ob-
bink. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, .
Gill, David W. J., and Conrad Gempf, eds. The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman
Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, .
Goldin, Judah. The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan. New Haven: Yale Univer-
sity Press, .
Goodacre, Mark S. Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series . Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic Press, .
Goodenough, E. R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period.  vols. New York:
Pantheon Books, –.
Goodman, Martin. Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the
Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon, .
Goulder, Michael D. The Evangelists’ Calendar: A Lectionary Explanation of the
Development of Scripture. London: SPCK, .
———. Luke: A New Paradigm.  vols. Journal for the Studie of the New Tes-
tament: Supplement Series . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
.
———. Type and History in Acts. London: SPCK, .
Gowler, David B. Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and
Acts. New York: Peter Lang, .
Grant, R. M. Miracle and Natural Law in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Thought.
Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing, .
Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. .
Gustafson, James M. ‘The Relation of the Gospels to the Moral Life.’ Pages
– in vol.  of Jesus and Man’s Hope. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological
Seminary, –.
Guthrie, Kenneth Sylvan, ed. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Grand
Rapids: Phanes Press, .
Haacker, Klaus. ‘Gallio.’ Pages – in vol.  of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited
by David Noel Freedman.  vols. New York: Doubleday, .
Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles, A Commentary. Translated by R. McL.
Wilson. Philadelphia: Westminster, .
Hanson, R. P. C. The Acts. Oxford: Clarendon, .
Harnack, Adolph von. The Acts of the Apostles. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons,
.
———. Luke the Physician: The Author of the Third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.
Edited by W. D. Morrison. Translated by J. R. Wilkinson. NT Studies .
New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, .
 
———. The Sayings of Jesus: The Second Source of St. Matthew and St. Luke. Trans-
lated by J. R. Wilkinson. NT Studies . New York: Putnam’s, .
Harstine, Stanley D. Moses as a Character in the Fourth Gospel. Journal for the
Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series . Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, .
Hauerwas, Stanley. ‘The Politics of Charity.’ Interpretation  (): –.
———. Vision and Virtue. Notre Dame, Ind.: Fides, .
Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale
University Press, .
Hemer, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Edited by
C. H. Gempf. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, .
Hengel, Martin. Between Jesus and Paul. Philadelphia: Fortress, .
Hood, Rodney T. ‘The Genealogies of Jesus.’ Pages – in Early Christian
Origins. Edited by A. P. Wikgren. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, .
Hornik, Heidi, and Mikeal Parsons. ‘Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s Presentation in the
Temple: A ‘Visual Exegesis’ of Luke :–.’ Perspectives in Religious Studies 
(): –.
Horsley, Richard A. The Liberation of Christmas: The Infancy Narratives in Social
Context. New York: Crossroad, .
Hubbard, Benjamin. ‘Commissioning Stories in Luke-Acts: A Study of Their
Antecedents, Form and Content.’ Semeia  (): –.
Iser, Wolfgang. The Acts of Reading. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
.
———. The Implied Reader: Patterns in Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to
Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, .
James, M. R. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, .
Jauss, Hans Robert. ‘Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory.’ New
Literary History  (): –.
Jervell, Jacob. Luke and the People of God. Minneapolis: Augsburg, .
Johnson, Luke T. The Acts of the Apostles. Sacra pagina . Collegeville, Minn.:
Liturgical Press, .
———. The Gospel of Luke. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, .
———. ‘Romans :– and the Faith of Jesus.’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 
(): –.
Johnson, Roger A. et al. Critical Issues in Modern Religion. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, .
Jones, Donald L. ‘Luke’s Unique Interest in Historical Chronology.’ Pages
– in SBL Seminar Papers, . Society of Biblical Literature Seminar
Papers . Atlanta: Scholars Press, .
Jonge, Henk J. de. ‘Sonship, Wisdom, Infancy: Luke :–a.’ New Testament
Studies  (): –.
Justin Martyr. The Writings of Justin Martyr. Translated by Thomas B. Falls.
Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, .
Kaplan, Julius. The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud. New York: Bloch,
.
Karris, Robert. ‘Missionary Communities: A New Paradigm for the Study of
Luke-Acts.’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly  (): –.
 
Keck, Leander E. ‘The Spirit and the Dove.’ New Testament Studies  (–):
–.
Kee, H. C. Christian Origins in Sociological Perspective. Philadelphia: Westminster,
.
Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
Translated by G. W. Bromiley.  vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, –
.
Knox, John. Chapters in the Life of Paul. Nashville: Abingdon, .
Koester, Craig. ‘The Spectrum of Johannine Readers.’ Pages – in What
Is John? Edited by F. F. Segovia. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium
Series . Atlanta: Scholars Press, .
Krentz, Edgar. The Historical-Critical Method. Philadelphia: Fortress, .
Kümmel, W. G. Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon: .
Ladouceur, David. ‘Hellenistic Preconceptions of Shipwreck and Pollution as a
Context for Acts –.’ Harvard Theological Review  (): –.
Lake, Kirsopp. ‘The Chronology of Acts.’ Pages – in vol.  of The
Beginnings of Christianity. Edited by F. J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake.
Grand Rapids: Baker, .
Laistner, M. L. W., ed. Bedae Venerabilis Expositio Actuum Apostolorum et Retrac-
tatio. Medieval Academy of America Publication . Cambridge, Mass.:
Medieval Academy of America, .
———. Venerable Bede: Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Translated by L. T.
Martin. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, .
Levine, L. I. ‘R. Abbahu of Caesarea.’ Pages – in Christianity Judaism
and Other Greco-Roman Cults, Part Four. Edited by J. Neusner. Leiden: Brill,
.
Lightfoot, J. B. Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. th ed. London: Macmillan,
.
Lohfink, Gerhard. Die Sammlung Israels. Eine Untersuchung zur lukanischen Ekkle-
siologie. Studien zum Alten and Neuen Testaments . München: Kösel-
Verlag, .
Lohfink, Norbert. ‘The Deuteronomy Picture of the Transfer of Authority
from Moses to Joshua.’ Pages – in Theology of the Pentateuch. Translated
by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, .
Loveday, Alexander. ‘Acts and Ancient Intellectual Biography.’ Pages – in
The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter and
Andrew D. Clarke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, .
Lüdemann, Gerd. Early Christianity according to the Traditions of Acts. Minneapolis:
Fortress, .
Lyonnet, S. “La voie’ dans les Actes des Apotres.’ Recherches de science religieuse
(): –.
Lyons, George. Pauline Autobiography. Atlanta: Scholars Press, .
MacMullen, Ramsay. ‘Two Types of Conversion to Early Christianity.’ Vigilae
christianae  (): –.
Malherbe, A. J. ‘Not in a Corner: Early Christian Apologetic in Acts :.’
Pages – in Paul and the Popular Philosophers. Minneapolis: Fortress, .
Manson, T. W. Studies in the Gospels and Epistles. Philadelphia: Westminster, .
 
Marcus Minucius Felix. The Octavius. Translated by G. W. Clarke. New York:

Newman, .
Marshall, I. H. The Gospel of Luke. New International Greek Testament Com-
mentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, .
———. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, .
Martyn, J. Louis. The Gospel of John in History. New York: Paulist, .
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. On Religion. New York: Schocken, .
McGowan, Andrew. ‘Eating People: Accusations of Cannibalism against
Christians in the Second Century.’ Journal for Early Christian Studies  ():
–.
Meeks, Wayne A. ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism.’ Journal
of Biblical Literature  (): –.
———. The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries. New Haven: Yale
University Press, .
Mejer, Jorgen. Diogenes Laertius and His Hellenistic Background. Wiesbaden: Franz
Steiner, .
Mekler, Segofredus. Academicorum Philosophorum Index Herculanensis. Berlin: Weid-
mannos, . Repr., .
Michiels, R. ‘La conception lucanienne de la conversion.’ Ephemerides theologicae
lovaniensis  (): –.
Miles, G. B., and G. Trompf. ‘Luke and Antiphon: The Theology of Acts –
 in the Light of Pagan Beliefs about Divine Retribution, Pollution, and
Shipwreck.’ Harvard Theological Review  (): –.
Minear, Paul S. ‘Luke’s Use of the Birth Stories.’ Pages – in Studies in Luke-
Acts. Edited by L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn. Nashville: Abingdon, .
Misch, George. A History of Autobiography in Antiquity.  vols. Cambridge: Har-
vard University Press, .
Momigliano, Arnaldo. The Development of Greek Biography. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, .
Mommsen, Theodor, Paul Kruger, and Alan Watson. The Digest of Justinian.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, .
Moore, George F. Judaism.  vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, .
Morford, M. P. O. The Poet Lucan: Studies in Rhetorical Epic. New York: Barnes
and Noble, .
Mulroy, David. Horace’s Odes and Epodes. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, .
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. St. Paul’s Corinth. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Gla-
zier, .
Musurillo, H. The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Oxford: Clarendon, .
Neyrey, Jerome H., ed. The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation.
Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, .
———. “Without Beginning of Days or End of Life’ (Hebrews :): Topos for a
True Deity.’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly  (): –.
The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series . Edited by Philip Schaff. –.
 Vols. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, .
Nock, A. D. Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to
Augustine of Hippo. Oxford: Clarendon Press, .
 
Nolland, John. Luke.  vols. Word Biblical Commentary A, B, C. Dallas:
Word, –.
O’Neill, J. C. The Theology of Acts in Its Historical Setting. London: SPCK, .
Origen. Contra Celsum. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, .
O’Toole, Robert F. The Unity of Luke’s Theology. Wilmington, Del.: Michael
Glazier, .
Paget, James Carleton. ‘Jewish Proselytism at the Time of Christian Origins:
Chimera or Reality?’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament  (): –
.
Parrinder, Geoffrey. Son of Joseph: The Parentage of Jesus. Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, .
Parsons, Mikeal. ‘Reading Talbert: New Perspectives on Luke and Acts.’ Pages
– in Cadbury, Know, and Talbert. Edited by M. C. Parsons and J. B.
Tyson. Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Publications. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, .
Pathrapankal, J. ‘Christianity as a ‘Way’ according to the Acts of the Apostles.’
Pages – in Les Actes des Apotres. Edited by J. Kremer. Gembloux:
J. Duculot, .
Perrot, Charles. ‘Les recits d’enfance dans la haggada antérieure au IIe siècle
de notre ère: [OT personages and Jesus].’ Recherches de Science Religieuses 
(): –.
Petersen, Norman R. Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics. Philadelphia:
Fortress, .
Praeder, Susan Marie. ‘The Narrative Voyage: An Analysis and Interpretation
of Acts –.’ Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union, .
Pseudo-Bonoventura. Meditations on the Life of Christ. Edited and translated
by I. Ragusa and R. B. Greene. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
.
Rabil, A., Jr. Erasmus and the New Testament. Trinity University Monograph
Series in Religion . San Antonio: Trinity University Press, .
Rabinowitz, Peter J. Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics of Interpre-
tation. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, .
———. ‘Truth in Fiction: A Reexamination of Audiences.’ Critical Inquiry 
(): –.
———. ‘Whirl Without End: Audience Oriented Criticism.’ Pages – in
Contemporary Literary Theory. Edited by G. Douglas Atkins. Amherst: Univer-
sity of Massachusetts Press, .
Rackham, R. B. The Acts of the Apostles. Westminster Commentaries. th ed.
London: Methuen, .
Ramsay, William M. The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New
Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, .
———. Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? A Study of the Credibility of St. Luke. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, .
Ramsey, A. M. ‘What Was the Ascension?’ Pages – in Historicity and
Chronology in the New Testament. Edited by D. E. Nineham. London: SPCK,
.
 
Reardon, B. P., ed. Collected Ancient Greek Novels. Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia Press, .
Reicke, Bo. ‘Jesus, Simeon, and Anna (Luke :–).’ Pages – in Saved
By Hope. Edited by J. I. Cook. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, .
Repo, E. Der ‘Weg’ als Selbstbezeichnung des Urchristentums. Helsinki: Suomalainen
Tiedeakatemia, .
Robbins, Vernon K. ‘By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea
Voyages.’ Pages – in Perspectives on Luke-Acts. Edited by Charles H. Tal-
bert. National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Special Studies
Series . Danville, Va.: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, .
Roloff, Jürgen. Die Apostelgeschichte. Das Neue Testament Deutsch . Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, .
Rummel, Erika. Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to
Theologian. Erasmus Studies . Toronto: Toronto University Press, .
Sanders, Jack T. The Jews in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress, .
———. ‘The Parable of the Pounds and Lucan Anti-Semitism.’ Theological
Studies  (): .
———. ‘Paul’s Autobiographical Statements in Galatians –.’ Journal of Biblical
Literature  (): .
Sanders, Jim Alvin. Suffering as Divine Discipline in the Old Testament and Post-
Biblical Judaism. Rochester, N.Y.: Colgate Rochester Divinity School, .
Schneider, Gerhard. Die Apostelgeschichte.  vols. Herders theologischer Kom-
mentar zum Neuen Testament. Freiburg: Herder, , .
———. Die Passion Jesu nach den Drei Alteren Evangelien. Munich: Kösel, .
Scholes, Robert, and Robert Kellog. The Nature of Narrative. New York: Oxford
University Press, .
Schrage, Wolfgang. Suffering. Nashville: Abingdon, .
Schulz, S. ‘Gottes Vorsehung bei Lukas.’ Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wis-
senschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche  (): –.
Schweizer, Eduard. Lordship and Discipleship. Naperville: Allenson, .
Scott, Walter. Fragmenta Herculanensia. Oxford: Clarendon Press, .
Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Grand
Rapids: Baker, .
Shorr, Dorothy. ‘The Iconographic Development of the Presentation in the
Temple.’ Art Bulletin  (): .
Shumate, Nancy. Crisis and Conversion in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, .
Silberman, L. H. ‘Paul’s Viper: Acts :–.’ Forum  (): –.
Slingerland, Dixon. ‘The Jews in the Pauline Portion of Acts.’ Journal of the
American Academy of Religion  (): –.
Smallwood, E. Mary. The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian.
Leiden: Brill, .
Squires, John T. The Plan of God in Luke-Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, .
———. ‘The Plan of God in Luke-Acts.’ Ph.D. diss., Yale University, .
Stambaugh, John E., and David L. Batch. The New Testament in Its Social
Environment. Library of Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Westminster, .
 
Stern, Menahem, ed. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism.  vols. Jerusa-
lem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, –.
Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Bloomington: Indiana Univer-
sity Press, .
Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript
Tradition, Sources, Authorship, and Date. New York: Macmillan, .
Talbert, Charles H. ‘Again: Paul’s Visit to Jerusalem.’ Novum Testamentum 
(): –.
———. ‘The Concept of Immortals in Mediterranean Antiquity.’ Journal of
Biblical Literature  (): –.
———. ‘Discipleship in Luke-Acts.’ Pages – in Discipleship in the New Testa-
ment. Edited by Fernando Segovia. Philadelphia: Fortress, .
———. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts. Society of
Biblical Literature Monograph Series . Missoula: Scholars Press, .
———, ed. Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar.
New York: Crossroad, .
———. ‘Luke-Acts.’ Pages – in The New Testament and Its Modern Inter-
preters. Edited by E. J. Epp and G. W. Macrae. Atlanta: Scholars Press, .
———. Luke and the Gnostics. Nashville: Abingdon, .
———. ‘Oral and Independent or Literary and Interdependent? A Response
to Albert B. Lord.’ Pages – in The Relationships among the Gospels: An
Interdisciplinary Dialogue. Edited by W. O. Walker, Jr. San Antonio: Trinity
University Press, .
———, ed. Perspectives on Luke-Acts. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, .
———. ‘Promise and Fulfillment in Lucan Theology.’ Pages – in Luke-Acts:
New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar. Edited by Charles
H. Talbert. New York: Crossroad, .
———. Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles.
New York: Crossroad, .
———. Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary on  and  Corinthi-
ans. New York: Crossroad, .
———. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel.
New York: Crossroad, . Rewritten ed., Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys,
.
———. ‘The Redaction Critical Quest for Luke the Theologian.’ Pages –
in vol.  of Jesus and Man’s Hope. Edited by D. Y. Hadidian.  vols. Pittsburgh:
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, .
———, ed. Reimarus: Fragments. Lives of Jesus Series. Philadelphia: Fortress, .
———. Review of Francois Bovon, L’Evangile selon Saint Luc :–:. Biblica 
(): –.
———. Review of Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke. Biblica  (): –.
———. Review of John Nolland, Luke. Critical Review of Books in Religion ,
–.
———. Review of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Bible (NT), English: The Gospel According to
Luke –. Catholic Biblical Quarterly  (): –.
———. Review of Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary
Interpretation, vol. . Biblica  (): –.
 
———. What Is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress,
.
Tannehill, Robert C. ‘Israel in Luke-Acts.’ Journal of Biblical Literature  ():
–.
———. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation.  vols. Philadel-
phia: Fortress, –.
Taylor, Vincent. Behind the Third Gospel: A Study of the Proto-Luke Hypothesis.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, .
———. The Passion Narrative of St. Luke: A Critical and Historical Investigation. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, .
Theophilus of Antioch. Ad Autolycum. Translated by R. M. Grant. Oxford:
Clarendon, .
Thimmes, Pamela. Studies in the Biblical Sea-Storm Type-Scene. San Francisco:
Mellen, .
Tompkins, Jane. Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, .
The Tosefta: Neziqin. Translated by Jacob Neusner. New York: KTAV, .
Traversa, Augusta. Index Stoicorum Herculanensis. Genoa: Istituto di Filologia
Classica, .
Tremel, B. ‘A propos d’Actes :–: Puissance du thaumaturge ou du te-
moin?’ Revue de théologie de Louvain  (): –.
Trites, Allison. ‘The Prayer Motif in Luke-Acts.’ Pages – in Perspectives
on Luke-Acts. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. National Association of Baptist
Professors of Religion Special Studies Series . Danville, Va.: Association of
Baptist Professors of Religion, .
Tyson, Joseph B. ‘Source Criticism of the Gospel of Luke.’ Pages – in
Perspectives on Luke-Acts. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. National Association
of Baptist Professors of Religion Special Studies Series . Danville, Va.:
Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, .
Underhill, Evelyn. Mysticism. New York: Meridian Books, .
Veltman, Fred. ‘The Defense Speeches of Paul in Acts.’ Pages – in
Perspectives on Luke-Acts. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. National Association
of Baptist Professors of Religion Special Studies Series . Danville, Va.:
Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, .
Vielhauer, Philip. ‘On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts.’ Pages – in Studies in
Luke-Acts. Edited by L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn. Nashville: Abingdon,
.
Wainwright, A. W. ‘Luke and the Restoration of the Kingdom of Israel.’
Expository Times  (): –.
Wehrli, F. Die Schule des Aristoteles.  vols. Basel: Schwabe, .
Wengst, Klaus. Pax Romana: Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. München: Chr. Kaiser
Verlag, .
Wilckens, Ulrich. ‘Interpreting Luke-Acts in a Period of Existentialist Theol-
ogy.’ Pages – in Studies in Luke-Acts. Edited by L. E. Keck and J. L. Mar-
tyn. Nashville: Abingdon, .
Wilson, S. G. The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, .
        
Wink, Walter. ‘Our Stories, Cosmic Stories, and the Biblical Story.’ Pages –
 in Sacred Stories: A Celebration of the Power of Stories to Transform and Heal.
Edited by Charles and Anne Simpkinson. San Francisco: Harper, .
Wolfson, Harry A. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam.  vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, .
Wood, G. F. ‘The Form and Composition of the Lucan Annunciation Narra-
tives.’ STD thes., Catholic University of America, .
Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, .
Zehnle, Richard. ‘The Salvific Character of Jesus’ Death in Lucan Soteriol-
ogy.’
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS
Adler, Mortimer J.,  Cosgrove, Charles H., , 

Alexander, Loveday,  Cox, Patricia, 
Alsup, J. E.,  Danker, Frederick W., , 
Athanasskis, Apostolos A.,  Daube, David, 
Aune, David E., – Deissman, Adolf, 
Barrett, C. K.,  Delling, G., 
Batch, David L.,  Dexter, Miriam Robbins, 
Bauckham, Richard, – Dibelius, Martin, , , , 
Bauer, W., – Dillon, John, 
Baur, F. C., –,  Donfried, Karl P., 
Beardsley, Monroe C.,  Dorandi, Tiziano, –
Benko, Stephen,  Doren, Charles van, –
Black, Robert Allen,  Doty, William G., 
Borgen, Peder,  Downing, Christine, 
Bouttier, M.,  Dreyfus, F., 
Bouyer, Louis,  Drury, John, , , 
Bovon, Francois, , ,  Duckworth, George E., , 
Brown, Raymond E., –,,  Dupont, Jacques, , , , ,
Brox, Norbert,  , 
Bruce, F. F., ,  During, Ingemar, 
Bultmann, Rudolf, –, –, , Durkheim, Emile, –
,  Ellul, Jacques, 
Burridge, Richard A., , , –, Enslin, Morton S., 
 Feuerbach, Ludwig, –
Cadbury, Henry J., , , , , Finn, Thomas M., –, , 
 Fishel, H. A., 
Caird, G. B.,  Fitzmyer, Joseph A., , , , 
Camparetti, Domenico,  Fowler, F. G., 
Campbell, T. H., – Fowler, H. G., 
Cancik, Hubert, ,  Frend, W. H. C., 
Cardauns, Burkhart,  Fuller, R. H., , 
Carter, Warren,  Gaiser, Konrad, 
Cassidy, Richard, – Gallagher, Eugene V., 
Charlesworth, James H., , , , Gapp, K. S., 
 Garrett, Susan R., 
Chesnutt, Randall D.,  Gasque, Ward, 
Childs, Brevard S., – Gempf, Conrad, 
Cohen, Shaye J. D.,  George, Augustin, , 
Conzelmann, Hans, –, , , Gerstenberger, E. S., , 
 Gigante, Marcello, –
    
Gill, W. J.,  Krentz, Edgar, 

Goldin, Judah,  Kruger, Paul, 
Goodacre, Mark S.,  Kümmel, W. G., , 
Goodenough, E. R., ,  Ladouceur, David, 
Goodman, Martin, ,  Laister, M. L., 
Goulder, Michael D., ,  Lake, Kirsopp, 
Gowler, David B.,  Levine, L. I., 
Grant, R. M.,  Lightfoot, J. B., 
Green, Joel B.,  Lohfink, Norbert, 
Griesbach, J. J.,  Lord, Albert B., 
Gustafson, James M., , Lüdemann, Gerd, , , 
Guthrie, Kenneth Sylvan, – Lyonnet, S., 
Haacker, Klaus,  Lyons, George, –
Haenchen, Ernst, , , , , MacMullen, Ramsay, 
 Malherbe, A. J., 
Hanson, R. P. C.,  Manson, J. W., 
Harnack, Adolf von, , – Marshall, I. H., , , , , ,
Harstine, Stanley D.,  –
Hauerwas, Stanley, ,  Martyn, J. Louis, 
Hays, Richard B.,  Marx, Karl, –
Heil, John Paul,  McGowan, Andrew, 
Hemer, Colin J., , , –, McKnight, Scott, 
 Meeks, Wayne A., , , 
Hengel, Martin,  Mejer, Jorgen, –
Hershbell, Jackson,  Mekler, Segofredus, 
Hood, Rodney T.,  Michiels, R., 
Hornik, Heidi,  Miles, Gary B., , 
Horsley, Richard A.,  Minear, Paul S., 
Hubbard, Benjamin,  Misch, George, 
Iser, Wolfgang, – Momigliano, Arnaldo, 
Jakobson, R.,  Mommsen, Theodor, 
James, M. R., ,  Moore, George F., 
Jauss, Hans Robert, – Morford, M. P. O., , 
Jervell, Jacob, , ,  Mulroy, David, 
Johnson, Luke Timothy, , , Munck, J., 
, ,  Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome,
Johnson, Roger A.,  –
Jones, Donald L.,  Musurillo, H., 
Jonge, Henk J. de, , ,  Neibuhr, Reinhold, 
Kaplan, Julius,  Neyrey, Jerome H., , 
Karris, Robert,  Nock, A. D., , , , –, 
Käsemann, Ernst, – Nolland, John, , , 
Keck, Leander E.,  O’Neill, J. C., 
Kee, H. C.,  Orrieux, C., 
Kellog, Robert,  Paget, Carleton, 
Knox, John,  Parrinder, Geoffrey, 
Koester, Craig R.,  Parsons, Mikeal, , 
    
Pathrapankal, J.,  Sternberg, Meir, 

Perrot, Charles,  Strauss, D. F., 
Petersen, Norman R., ,  Streeter, B. H., –
Praeder, Susan Marie,  Talbert, Charles H., , , , ,
Rabil, A., Jr.,  , –, , , , , ,
Rabinowitz, Peter J., , , ,  , , , , , –, ,
Rackham, R. B.,  , –, , , , ,
Ramsay, William M., –, , , , , , , ,
Ramsey, A. M.,  
Reardon, B. P., ,  Tannehill, Robert C., , , ,
Reicke, Bo,  
Reimarus, H. S., – Taylor, Vincent, –
Repo, E.,  Thimmes, Pamela, 
Robbins, Vernon K.,  Tompkins, Jane, 
Rokea, D.,  Traversa, Augusta, 
Roloff, Jürgen,  Tremel, B., 
Rummel, Erika,  Trites, Allison A., , 
Sanders, Jack T., , ,  Trompf, Garry, , 
Sanders, Jim Alvin,  Tyson, Joseph B., 
Schliermacher, Friedrich,  Underhill, Evelyn, 
Schmidt, K. L.,  Veltman, Fred, 
Schneider, Gerhard, ,  Vielhauer, Philip, 
Scholes, Robert,  Wainwright, A. W., 
Schrage, Wolfgang, ,  Watson, Alan, 
Schulz, S.,  Wehrli, F., 
Schweizer, Eduard,  Wengst, Klaus, 
Scott, Walter,  Wilckens, Ulrich, –
Sherwin-White, A. N.,  Will, E., 
Shorr, Dorothy,  Wilson, S. G., 
Shumate, Nancy, , ,  Wimsatt, W. K., Jr., 
Silberman, L. H.,  Wink, Walter, –
Slingerland, Dixon,  Wolff, C., 
Smallwood, E. Mary,  Wolfson, Harry A., 
Squires, John T., , ,  Wood, G. F., 
Stählin, G., – Yoder, John Howard, 
Stambaugh, John E.,  Zehnle, Richard, 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
ancient auditors, , , , , , genre, , , –, , , , 
,  gentile mission, , 
angelophany, , ,  gnostic, 
antiheretical,  gospel harmony, , , 
apology/apologetic, , , , , grow(th), –, –
,  heresy, 
apostles, , , , , , ,  historical sequence, –
atonement, , ,  historicity, , –, , –
authorial audience, –, , humanist readings, 
– ignorance, 
authorial intent, , ,  immorality, –, , 
autobiography, , ,  immortals, , , 
baptism, , , , , , ,  implied author, 
biography, –, , , –, , implied reader, 
, , , ,  infanticide, –
birth narratives, , , , , , intentional fallacy, 
 justification, 
Calvinistic reading, – Marcionite, 
cannibalism, – martyr(dom), , –, ,
canonical criticism, – –, 
characterization,  Marxist reading, 
conspiracy, , , ,  medieval exegesis, –
contemporary color, ,  miracles, , –, –
conversion, , , , – miraculous conception, , , ,
corporeality, ,  , , 
correspondences, , , – misunderstanding, –
covenant, ,  Nestorians, 
death of Jesus, , , , , – narrative criticism, –
, , –, , –, non-resistance, 
, ,  nonviolent resistance, –
diachronic, ,  obedience, , –
divine plan, , –, , , origins, –
, , , – pantheism, , 
development(al), , –, , , parousia, , 
– passion narrative, 
enlightenment readings, – perfect(ion), –, 
eschatology, , , , ,  pioneer, , 
eucharist(ic), , – portrait of Paul, , –
fate, , ,  prayer, , , , –, 
foreshadowing, , – progress, –, ,
   
prophecy, , , –, –, storms, –, –, 

, , , , , , , semantic field, –
–, ,  semantic marker, 
readers’ repertoire,  shipwreck, , , 
redaction criticism, ,  snake bite, –, 
redemption, , ,  speeches, , –
rejection, , , , ,  status reversal, –
religious language, . ,  succession, –
resurrection, , , –, , synchronic, , 
,  temptation, , 
revelation, –,  violent resistance, 
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
I. Old Testament
Genesis :–,  , 

:  :– 
  : 
:  :– 
:–  :– 
:–  : , 
:   
:–  : 
:– ,  :–, –, , , 
:–  –, 
:  : , 
:,  
:  Joshua
:–  :– , 
:– 
Exodus : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:– 
Judges
Leviticus : 
: 
 Samuel
Numbers – 
:  :– 
:  – , 
:  : 
:,   :– 
:– , , , 
:,    Samuel
:– , , ,  : 
:  :, ,  
 
Deuteronomy  
:– ,   
    
: ,  : 

  : 
:–  : 
   
: 
:   Chronicles
:– 
 Kings
 ,  Nehemiah
:  : 
: 
–  Psalms
:  : 
:–  : 
:   
:,   : 
: 
:–  Isaiah
:–  :– , 
:–  : , 
:–  :– 
:  : 
: 
: , , , , , Jeremiah
 : 
:  : 
:– 
 Kings
:  Daniel
 ,  : 
: 
: ,  Amos
: ,  :– 
:,  
:–  Jonah
:  :– 
:– 
:–  Micah
:  : 
II. New Testament
Matthew : 

:  :– 
:–  :– 
:–  :– 
    
: ,  : 

:–  :– 
:  :– , , , , ,
, 
Mark :– , , 
:–  :– , , , 
:  :– , 
:  :– , 
:–  : , 
:  :– 
:  : , , 
:– , 
Luke : 
–  : 
:  :– , 
:  :– , , 
:– ,  :– 
: ,  : , , 
:– , ,  : 
:  : , 
: ,  :– , , 
:  : 
:– ,  :– , , , ,
:– , , ,  , 
: , , , , : 
 : , , 
:– ,  :– 
:–  :– , , 
:– ,  :– , , , ,
:  , , , 
:–  : 
:  :– , 
:  : 
:  : 
: ,  : 
:  : , , , ,
:  , , , ,
:– ,  
:– ,  : 
:  :– , , , , 
:  : , , , 
:  : , , , ,
:– ,  
:– , , ,  : 
: , , ,  : , , , ,
:  
:– , ,  :– 
    
:  : 

:–  :– 
:  :– 
:  :– , , , 
:–  : , 
:–  : 
:  : , 
:  :– , , , , ,
:  , , 
:– , ,  : 
:– ,  : , , , ,
:–  
:  :– , , , , ,
:–  , 
:–  : , , , ,
:– , , , , , 
 :– , , 
:  : , , 
: , , , , : 
,  : , , 
:– , , ,  :– , , , 
:– ,  : 
:,   : , 
:–  : 
:–  : 
:– , ,  : 
: , ,  : 
:–  : 
:–  : , , 
:– , , , , :– 
, ,  : , 
:  :– 
:–  : , 
:– ,  :– 
:  :– , , , 
:  : 
: ,  : , 
:–  : 
: , , ,  : 
: ,  : , 
:, ,   : 
:– , ,  :– , , , , ,
:–  , , , ,
: , ,  , 
:– ,  : , 
:– , , , , :– , , 
 : , 
    
: ,  : , , , ,

:– ,  , 
:  : 
:– , , , , :– , 
,  :– , , 
:– , , ,  : , , , 
:  : , , 
:– , , , , , :– , , 
 : 
: , ,  :– , 
: , , ,  : , , , 
: ,  : , , 
: , , ,  : , , 
:– , ,  : , 
: ,  : , 
: , , 
John :– , , 
:  : 
:  : , 
:,   : , 
:  : , , 
:–  :– 
:  :– 
:–  : 
:–  : , 
:  :– 
:– ,  : 
:–  :– , , 
:  : , 
:–  : , 
: , , 
Acts :,  , 
: ,  :– , , , ,
: , , , , , , , ,
 
:  :– , , 
: ,  :– , , , 
: , , , , : 
,  : , 
:– , , ,  : 
:–  : 
:–  : , , 
: , ,  : 
: , ,  : 
: ,  : 
:–  : 
:  : 
    
: , ,  : , , 

:–  : , 
:  : 
:–  : , 
:–  : , , , ,
:–  
:–  : 
:  : 
:  : 
: ,  :,  
:  :– , , 
:– , ,  :– 
: , ,  : 
:– ,  : , 
:– ,  : , , , ,
  
:   , 
:,  , ,  :– 
: , ,  : , 
:– ,  : 
:  : , 
:  :– , , , ,
:–  
: , , ,  : 
: ,  :– 
: , ,  : 
:  : , 
:–  : 
:– ,  :– , 
:  : 
:– , ,  :– 
:  : , 
:–  : 
:–  :– , , 
:  : , 
:  :– 
:–  : , 
:  :– , 
: ,  : 
:– , , ,  : , , 
:– , ,  : 
:  :– , , ,
: ,  
:  :– , , , ,
: , , ,  
:  : , 
: , ,  :– 
    
:  :– , , , 

:–  : , 
:,   :– 
:–  :– , , , ,
:–  , 
: ,  : , 
:– ,  :– 
:  :– , , 
:  :– , , , ,
:  
:– , , , , :– , , , 
, , , , : 
 :– , , , ,
:– ,  , , 
: 
: , , ,  Romans
:  – 
:–  :– 
: , ,  : 
:– ,  : 
: ,  : 
:  :– 
:– ,  :ff. 
:  : 
:– ,  : 
:–  – 
:  : 
: , , ,  : 
:  :– 
:  :– 
: , , , 
:– ,   Corinthians
:,    
:  : 
:– ,  :– 
:,  ,  :– 
:,   :– 
: ,  :– , , 
: , , , ,  , , , 
 :– , 
:– , ,  : 
:  : 
: , ,  : 
: , ,  : 
: , ,  :– 
:  :– 
:– ,  :– 
    
 Corinthians : 

: 
:–   Timothy
:  : , 
–  : 
: ,  : , 
:– 
:–   Timothy
: ,  : , 
:  : , 
:– 
Galatians
:–  Titus
:–  : 
:– 
:–  Hebrews
:  : 
:  : , , , 
:  : , 
:– , ,  :– , 
:–  : 
:–  : 
:–  : 
:  : 
: 
Ephesians :ff 
: ,  : , 
:–  : 
Philippians James
:–  :– 
:– 
:– ,   Peter
:  :,  , 
  : 
:–  : 
:–  : 
:– , 
Colossians :– 
: 
 Peter
 Thessalonians : 
: 
:–   John
:–  :– 
:  : 
:  : 
    
Jude
– 
III. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Qumran
Apocrypha
Tobit  Maccabees
:  :ff 
: 
Judith :,  
  : 
: ,  : 
:– 
Wisdom of Solomon : 
:– , ,  : 
Sirach  Maccabees
:  :– 
:–  : , 
: 
 Maccabees : 
:–, – : 
:– 
:–   Esdras
:  :ff 
:,  
Pseudepigrapha
Apocalypse of Abraham Jubilees

– ,  : 
:–   
 Baruch Ps-Philo, L.A.B.

:–  : , , 
:ff  :–
 Enoch Testament of Job

D. ,  – , 
: 
Joseph and Asenath :– 
: 
:–  Testament of Moses
:– 
    
Testaments of the XII Patriarchs

T. Judah
: 
IV. Josephus and Philo
Josephus B.J.
A.J. .. § – 
.. § –  .. §  
. §  ,  .. §  
.. § –  .. §  
.. §   .. §  
.. §   .. §  
.. §   ..– § – 
.. §  , ,  .. §  
.. § – , , ,  .. §  
..–..  . § – 
§ – .. §  , 
.. §  , , ,  .. §  
.. § –  .. § – 
.. § –  .. § – 
..– §  ,  .. § – 
.. § –  .. §  
.. §   C.Ap.
.. §   . §  
.. §  ,  . § – 
.. §   Vita
.. § –   
.. §  , 
..– § – Philo
.. § –  Abr.
.. §    
.. § –  Decal.
.. §  ,,, , : 
,  : 
. § –  Legat.
.– § –  . 
.. § –  Leg.
..– § – ,  . 
.. § –  Post.
.. § –   
.. § – ,  Somn.
..– § –  .– 
.. §  
    
V. Rabbinic Writings
Abot R. Nat. Pesiq. Rab.

  : 
Gen. Rab. Sipre

  § 
Mek. Talmud
Bahodesh b. Abod. Zar. a 
  b. Ber. a 
b. Ber. b 
Tanh. y. Ber. . 
c  y. Pes. ..a , 
Mishnah Tosefta
Abot Sanh.
 ,  . [E] 
:  Sotah
: 
VI. Early Christian Writings
Acts John Augustine

– ,  Cons
–  .. , 
.. 
Acts Pet.
  Bede
  Hist.
. 
Acts Thom.
, –   Clement
: , , 
Aristides : , , , , , 
Apol.
  Clement of Alexandria
Strom.
Arnobius . , 
Disp. adv. nat. . 
. 
Coptic Gos. Thom.
Athenagoras  
Leg.
  Cyril of Alexandria
.  Com. Luke
. ,  Homily  
    
Homily    
 
Diogn.
.  Lactantius
.–  Epit.
.. 
Ep. Apos.
–  Mart. Pol.
. 
Eusebius  , 
Hist. eccl.
..  Minucius Felix
Praep. ev. Oct.
..  . 
.  .– 
.  . 
.   
Gos. Pet. Origen

–  Cels.
. , , 
Hilary . 
Vit. Honorati
 ,  Orosius
..– , 
Ignatius
Smyrn. Paulinus
.–  Vit. Ambr.
Trall. ,  
. 
Preaching of Peter
Irenaeus . ,
Haer. Ep. Pet. Jac.  
..– 
..  Ps.-Clem.
..–  Hom.
Ep. Clem. Jac.  , 
Justin Martyr . 
 Apol. Recogn.
 , ,  .. 
 Apol. . 
 ,  .. 
Dial.  
 , 
  Tatian
.  Graec.
   
    
Tertullian Theophilus of Antioch

An. Autol.
  . 
Apol. . 
.–. , 
 ,  Vit. Pach.
Marc.  
.– ,   
.   
Praescr.
 
Scorp.
 
VII. Greco-Roman Writings
Achilles Tatius Chion of Heraclea

.   
Aeschylus Cicero
Ag. Cat.
–  . 
.– 
Anthologia Graeca De or.
.  .. 
. 
Apollonius Rhodius Ep. Brut.
Argon. . 
.–  Leg.
. 
Appian Nat. d.
Hist. rom. ..– 
.. , 
Caesar
Apuleius Bell. gall.
Metam. . 
. 
.  Dio Cassius
.– 
Aristotle .. 
Soph. elench. .. 
.– , ,  .. 
§ b .. , 
.. , 
Aulus Gellius ..– 
. , , 
    
Dio Chrysostom .. 

Or. ..– 
.  .. 
.– 
..  Euripides
..  Bacch.
– 
Diodorus Siculus Tro.
.  – 
..– 
..  Juvenal
..  .– 
..  . 
.. 
..ff  Herculanium Papyri
.. ,  P. Herc.  
.. , ,  P. Herc.  
.. ,  P. Herc.  
..  P. Herc.  , , , ,
, , ,
Diogenes Laertius 
Vit. phil. P. Herc.  , , , ,
..  , , , ,
..  
.  P. Herc.  , 
.  P.Herc.  
.–  P. Herc.  
.– 
..–  Heliodorus
.  . 
..  . 
. ,  . 
. , 
.  Herodotus
.  . 
.–  . 
. 
Dionysius of Halicarnassus . 
Ant. rom. . 
..  . 
..–..  . 
..  . 
..  .– 
Epictetus Historiae Augustae

Diatr. Ant. Pius
..  .– 
    
Hadr. Lucian
.–  Alex.
 , 
Homer  , , , 
Od. Bis acc.
.–   , 
.–  Hist. conscr.
.–   
Merc. cond.
Horace – 
Carm. Nigr.
.  – 
  Pisc.
 
Iamblichus Peregr.
Vit. Pyth.  
  – 
 ,  Tox.
– , 
Isocrates Ver. hist.
Aeginet. .– , 
 
Lucretius
Justinian Rer. Nat.
Dig. . 
...– 
..–  Marcus Aurelius
.., , ,  .. 
, 
..,   Ovid
..,   Metam.
.. ,  .– 
.., ,   .– 
.– 
Juvenal .– 
Satr.
.–  Petronius
.   , 
Livy Phaedrus
. , ,  Fab.
. , 
Lucan
Bell. civ. Philostratus
.–  Vit. Apoll.
.–  . 
. 
    
.  Quaest. conv.

.,   .. 
.  Rom.
.  . 
. 
Plato .– 
Apol. Thes.
   
 
Pliny the Elder . 
Nat. hist.  
..  . 
.–  Virt. prof.
.b-d 
Pliny the Younger Vit. X orat.
Ep. C 
.  C 
. 
Polybius
Plutarch Hist.
Alc. ..– , 
.  . , 
Alex. . 
.–  ..– 
.  .– , 
Brut.
–  Porphyry
Caes. Vit. Pyth.
.–   
Def. orac.  
, d-f ,  Isag.
Demetr. . 
. 
Exil. Quintus Curtius
  Hist. Alex.
Fab.  , 
  ..– 
Is. Os.
 ,  The Elder Seneca
Lyc. Controv.
.  . 
Num.
  Seneca
Oth. Ep.
  . 
Pyrrh. . 
  . 
    
.–  Tacitus

Ann.
Statius .– , 
Silv. . , 
..–  . 
Hist.
Strabo . 
Nat. Hist. . 
..  . 
. 
Suetonius . 
Aug.
 , , , Thucydides
 .. 
Claud. .. 
– 
. ,  Vergil
Dom. Aen.
  .– 
Nero .– 
–  .– 
Tit. .– 
 
.  Xenophon of Ephesus
Vesp. . 
–  . 
  . 

Charles H. Talbert - Reading Luke-Acts in Its Mediterranean Milieu (Supplements To Novum Testamentum) - Brill Academic Publishers (2003)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charles H. Talbert - Reading Luke-Acts in Its Mediterranean Milieu (Supplements To Novum Testamentum) - Brill Academic Publishers (2003)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charles H. Talbert - Reading Luke-Acts in Its Mediterranean Milieu (Supplements To Novum Testamentum) - Brill Academic Publishers (2003)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

READING LUKE-ACTS IN ITS MEDITERRANEAN MILIEU

C.K. BARRETT, Durham - P. BORGEN, Trondheim

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

© Copyright 2003 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal

printed in the netherlands

. On Reading Luke and Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

The essays published herein reflect a selection of my work on Luke-

Grateful acknowledgment is made for permission to use previously

‘Luke, Gospel of,’ Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. John H. Hayes;

‘Acts :– as Early Christian Apologetic,’ I Must Speak to You Plainly:

ON READING LUKE AND ACTS

This volume contains a selection of my essays on Luke and Acts pro-

The Interpretation of Luke in Early Christianity

the Gospel of Luke and an expurgated collection of Paul’s letters,

The Interpretation of Luke in Medieval Christianity

The same point is made in the preface to his Commentarius in Actus,

The Interpretation of Luke

8 John Calvin, A Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists ( vols.; Grand Rapids:

Calvin’s treatment of Acts was more historical than theological.9

The Interpretation of Luke in the Enlightenment

origins of Christianity and that the supposed revelation is filled with

The Interpretation of Luke in the Modern World

Sources, Authorship, and Date (New York: Macmillan, ).

Luke, concluding that Q was a document of the apostolic epoch, more

15 I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ).

einander ihren Charakter und Ursprung (Tübingen: LF Fues, ).

Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribner, –).

& Row, ), –.

posed to discern the Lukan tendency. By noting Luke’s departures from

) Interpreting Luke in light of Mediterranean parallels. From  to  the

21 I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ).

in CRBR , –.

Fides, ). See my critical review in Biblica  (): –.

lels, especially literary ones, from the Mediterranean world. Perspectives

) Interpreting Luke in light of non-biblical literary criticism. The older New

27Charles H. Talbert, ed., Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ).

(Minneapolis: Fortress, ).

Acts (New York: Peter Lang, ).

Philadelphia: Fortress, –).

Jesus and his followers as unified by the controlling purpose of God.34

) Interpreting Luke in light of anthropological and sociological models. J. Neyrey’s

) Interpreting Luke in the context of ancient liturgical practices. M. Goulder con-

34 See my critical review of volume  in Biblica  (): –.

body, Mass.: Hendrickson, ).

is given over to ‘A Canonical Harmony of the Gospels,’ in which he

The Method(s) Employed by Essays in This Volume

Literary History  (): –.

n. , refers to a hermeneutical rule attributed orally by E. Käsemann to W. Bauer:

to Beckett (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, ).

original reception of the text. This approach focuses on how members

public meaning of the discourse in its original moment.”47 Ultimately,

47 Charles H. Cosgrove, ‘The Justification of the Other: An Interpretation of Ro-

Press, ), , n. .

Christians: Rethinking Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ), –.

he is critiquing the redaction critical assumption that the Gospels were

51 Craig Koester, ‘The Spectrum of Johannine Readers,’ in What Is John? (ed. F. F.

Segovia; SBLSymS ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ), –.

. The one in his stead//instead of him/me/you (ντÝ)

. To cast (something) upon him (π’ ατÞν)

. An oracle shrine (µαντεον)

. The priesthood (εροσàνη)

described as shepherding (ποιµαÝνειν) and the role as that of πισκÞπου̋