The First Christian Historian: Writing the 'Acts of the Apostles'

307 Pages·2008·2.12 MB·English

The First Christian Historian
Writingthe‘ActsoftheApostles’
DANIELMARGUERAT
Universite´deLausanne,Switzerland
TranslatedbyKenMcKinney,GregoryJ.LaugheryandRichardBauckham
         
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom
  
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain
Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa
http://www.cambridge.org
©Daniel Marguerat 2004
First published in printed format 2002
ISBN 0-511-04263-9 eBook (netLibrary)
ISBN 0-521-81650-5 hardback
InmemoryofDomJacquesDupont(1915–1998)

CONTENTS
Preface pagexi
1 HowLukewrotehistory 1
Howdoesonewritehistory? 2
Luke:thepositionofahistorian 13
Conclusion:Lukeatthecrossroadsoftwohistoriographies 25
2 Anarrativeofbeginnings 26
Seekingaliterarygenre 26
ThepointofviewofLukethehistorian 34
Conclusion:theGospelandtheapostle 40
3 TheunityofLuke–Acts:thetaskofreading 43
Luke–Acts,anarrativeentity 47
Threeunifyingprocedures 49
PermanenceandsuspensionoftheLaw 59
Conclusion:Luke–Acts,adiptych 63
4 AChristianitybetweenJerusalemandRome 65
Paul,Barnabas,Timothyandothers 66
Semanticambivalence:aLucanrhetoricaldevice 68
Atheologicalprogrammeofintegration 75
Conclusion:integrationoftheopposingpoles 82
5 TheGodofActs 85
Twolanguagestospeakof‘God’ 86
HowarethehistoryofGodandhumanhistoryarticulated? 92
Conclusion:theGodofLuke 107
6 TheworkoftheSpirit 109
TheChurchbetweenfireandtheWord 110
TheSpiritbuildstheChurch 113
‘TheyspoketheWordofGodwithboldness’ 118
TheSpiritandunity 121
ix
x Listofcontents
FreeorcaptiveSpirit? 124
Conclusion:apragmaticoftheSpirit 128
7 JewsandChristiansinconflict 129
Israel,atwo-sidedface 130
Apropheticmodelofrupture 136
Theturning-pointofhistory 141
Opennessandclosure(Acts21–28) 147
Conclusion:continuityandrupture 151
8 AnaniasandSapphira(Acts5.1–11):
theoriginalsin 155
Fivereadingsofthetext 156
ThenarrativestructureofActs2–5 158
Thecommunity,theSpiritandtheWord 164
Anoriginalsin 172
Anethicofsharing 176
Conclusion:anoriginalsinintheChurch 177
9 Saul’sconversion(Acts9;22;26) 179
Aseriesofthreenarratives 183
Whatisspecifictoeachnarrative 191
Conclusion:anenlighteningroleinActs 203
10 TheenigmaoftheendofActs(28.16–31) 205
TheproblematicoftheendingofActs 206
Arhetoricofsilence 210
Acts27–28andthedisplacementofthereader’sexpectation 216
Thelasttheologicaldisputation(28.17–28) 221
Paultheexemplarypastor(28.30–31) 226
Conclusion:thepoweroftheend 229
11 Travelsandtravellers 231
ThenarrativefunctionoftravelinthebookofActs 236
ImagesoftravelinGraeco-Romanculture 239
ThesemanticsofthejourneyinthebookofActs 246
Conclusion:thememoryofatimewhentheWordtravelled 256
Bibliography 257
Indexofpassages 282
PREFACE
Luke,notEusebiusofCaesarea,wasthefirstChristianhistorian.Inanti-
quity,hewasthefirsttopresentareligiousmovementinahistoriograph-
icalmanner.Asforallhistorians,theaimofLukeisidentity.Whenhe
recounts the birth of Christianity, its undesirable rupture with Judaism,
andthentheuniversaladventureoftheWord,theauthorofActsoffers
the Christianity of his time, an understanding of its identity through a
returntoitsorigins.
MyreadingofthehistoriographicalworkofLukecombinestwopro-
ceduresofinvestigation:historicalcriticismandnarrativecriticism.Iam
convincedthattheunderstandingofabiblicalwritingrequiresthatitbe
immersedinthehistoricalmilieuofitsproduction(thisistheepistemo-
logicalcredoofthehistorical-criticalmethod).Constantly,inthecourse
ofthestudy,Ishallbeexaminingthecultureandcodesofcommunication
oftheancientMediterraneanworldtowhichLukeandhisreadersbelong.
However,theauthorofActsisalsoastoryteller;thetoolsofnarrativecrit-
icismhelptoidentifythestrategyofthenarrator,theorganizationofthe
story,andtheprogrammaticcluesforreadingthathehassowninhistext.
Oneoftheinsightsdefendedinthisbookisthatwecannotreachthe
theology the author has written into his work without adopting the
itineraryheimposesonhisreaders;thisitineraryisthetwistsandturns
of the narrative. I think that narrative reading makes it possible to do
justicetothethinking,oftenscornedbyscholars,ofthistalentedstory-
teller.Becausehetellshisstorywell,Luke’sthinkingisnotsystematic.
In rediscovering the hidden architecture of his work, one discovers the
mastery and coherence of this great historian and theologian, without
whomChristianitywouldbeignorantofmostofitsorigins.
ThisbookisthetranslationofelevenchaptersofmyworkLapremie`re
histoireduChristianisme(Actesdesapoˆtres)(LectioDivina180;Paris,
CerfandGeneva,LaboretFides,1999).Chapter10hasbeenpublishedin
aslightlyabridgedforminDavidP.Moessner,JesusandtheHeritageof
Israel(Harrisburg,PA,TrinityPressInternational,1999),pp.284–304.
xi
xii Preface
BeguninNovember1992attheGraduateTheologicalUnioninBerke-
ley(whereIwasaninvitedscholar),theFrenchversionwascompletedin
June1999attheUniversityofLausanne(Switzerland).Itsargumentation
hasprofitedfromthequestionsandsuggestionsofcountlesscolleagues,
studentsandfriends,manyofwhomarecitedinthefootnotes.Theprepa-
rationofthebookowesmuchtomyassistantEmmanuelleSteffek,whose
workwasinvaluable,checkingthereferences,thebibliography,andthe
multiple re-drafts. The English version depends on the talent of three
translators, Ken McKinney, Gregory J. Laughery and Richard Bauck-
ham,whomIcongratulateontheirpatienceinunderstandingmyFrench.
I am particularly indebted to Richard Bauckham for having reread and
correctedtheEnglishtext,andtoDavidAlbanandVale´rieNicolet,whose
competencies were precious in checking the final version. The English
translationwasmadepossiblethroughagrantofthe‘Socie´te´Acade´mique
Vaudoise’,andthegenerosityofadonor.
IwonderifLukebenefitedfromasmuchsupport.Ihopeso.
1
HOW LUKE WROTE HISTORY
WasthefirsthistorianofChristianityaproperhistorian?
There is no doubt that Luke – for this is what we name the anony-
mousauthorofthethirdgospelandthebookofActs–intendedtotell
a story about the birth of Christianity. He was the first to have writ-
ten a biography of Jesus followed by what was later given the title of
‘ActsofApostles’((cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:14)ˆ(cid:15)).Inantiquity,thiswouldnever
be repeated. The two volumes of this grand work were divided at the
time of the constitution of the canon of the New Testament, before the
year AD 200; the first volume was grouped with Matthew, Mark and
John to form the fourfold Gospel; the second work was placed at the
headoftheepistles,toestablishthenarrativeframeworkofthePauline
writings.
It is here, at the moment when the corpus of Christian literature be-
gins to emerge, that Luke’s writing, dedicated to the ‘most excellent
Theophilus’ (Luke 1. 3; Acts 1. 1), was broken in two. The length of
thewholeisimpressive.Thesefifty-twochaptersrepresentaquarterof
theNewTestament.ModernexegesisreferstothistextasLuke–Actsin
order to remind readers that Acts cannot be read without remembering
thegospelasLukehaswrittenit.
Luke, then, wanted to create a history, but was he a good historian?
Exegetes continue to disagree on the answer. In order to take a posi-
tioninthisdebateonemustfirstofallclarifywhatismeantbywriting
history and what we mean by historiography. It has been shown that
the expectations of the reader vary according to the type of historiog-
raphy adopted by the author. Paul Ricœur helps us to clarify this point
by proposing a useful taxonomy. Secondly, I shall investigate the ethi-
calrulesinuseinthefirstcentury.Astudyoftheworkofhistoriansin
Graeco-Romanantiquityleadsustonotethathistoriographydidnotwait
untiltheEnlightenmenttobeconsciousofitself.AmongtheGreekand
Roman historians there is open discussion about the notion of truth in
history.
1
2 TheFirstChristianHistorian
I intend to move forward, depending successively on the results of
recentepistemologicalreflectionaswellasthedeontologicaldebatesof
‘theancients’concerninghistoriography.
Howdoesonewritehistory?
Untilthebeginningofthenineteenthcentury,thequestionofthehistorical
reliabilityofLuke’sworkwasnotevenanissue.Anyonewhowantedto
knowhowtheChurchwasbornhadbutoneplacetoturn:theActsofthe
Apostles.Thisdocumentprovidedwhatwasnecessaryand,evenmore,
whatwastobebelieved.ThebookofActswasbothamanualofthehistory
ofChristianityand(especially)thebaptismalcertificateofaChurchborn
ofGod.
Doubtsarise
Doubtsarose,however,whenthedataofActswereseriouslycompared
withtherestoftheNewTestament.W.WardGasquedesignatesthefirst
critic of the reliability of Acts as Wilhem Martin Leberecht de Wette
(1780–1849).1 The problem emerged when the Lucan portrait of Paul
was compared with the information given in the letters of the apostle
(Acts 9. 1–30; 15. 1–35 compared with Gal. 1. 13 – 2. 21). De Wette
arguedthatLuke’sinformationispartlyfalse,partlymiraculousandpartly
incomplete.
Butthiswasonlythebeginning.Notlongafter,deWettewasfollowed
bythewaveofTu¨bingen-schoolcritics(Tendenzkritik)whoimposedtheir
readingofaconflictualhistoryofChristianity,whereLukeplayedtherole
ofmediator.FerdinandChristianBaur(1792–1860),thebrilliantinitia-
torofthishistoricalparadigm,situatedthehistorianLukeatthecritical
momentwhenthestateofChristianityrequiredasynthesisbetweenthe
PetrinetendencyandthePaulineheritage.BaursawinActs
the apologetic attempt of a Pauline author to orchestrate the
bringingtogetherandthereunionofthetwopartiesfacetoface.
Luke makes Paul appear as Petrine as possible and Peter as
Paulineaspossible,bythrowingasmuchaspossibleareconcil-
iatoryveiloverthedifferencesthat,accordingtotheunequivo-
calstatementofPaulinhislettertotheGalatians,hadwithout
adoubtseparatedthetwoapostles,andbyplungingintoforget-
fulnesswhattroubledtherelationshipbetweenthetwoparties,
1 W.W.Gasque,HistoryoftheInterpretation,1989,pp.24–6.