We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
The repeated elements in the mission speeches of Acts have attracted considerable attention. Some scholars believe that these repeated elements reflect a pattern of early Christian preaching; 1 others see in them a pattern of Lukan theology.2 Narrative criticism, the study of biblical narratives in light of literary theories of narrative,3 suggests that past study should be balanced by a different approach. It suggests that we should investigate the functions of the individual speeches within their narrative settings. Despite the repeated themes, the speeches differ significantly in emphasis and function. These differences relate to the narrative setting in which each speech is found, and the setting influences the speech more profoundly than is commonly recognized. It is illuminating to think of each of the speeches as an action in the unfolding narrative plot. In speaking, Peter acts to influence a particular audience at a particular point in the plot. This action and the hearers’ decision about how to respond will determine
1 See Dodd, C. H., The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (Chicago/New York: Willett, Clark & Co., 1937) 19–49Google Scholar; Dibelius, Martin, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London: SCM, 1956) 165–6, 184Google Scholar; idem, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (4th ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1961) 15–16.
2 See Wilckens, Ulrich, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte (WMANT 5; 3rd ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1974)Google Scholar; Schweizer, Eduard, ‘Concerning the Speeches in Acts’, Studies in Luke–Acts (ed. Keck, Leander E. and Martyn, J. Louis; Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 208–16Google Scholar. Jacques Dupont also recognizes the strong role of the Lukan author in forming the speeches but remains cautiously open to the presence of pre-Lukan tradition. See Nouvelles études sur les Actes des Apôtres (LD 118; Paris: Cerf, 1984) 61–96.Google Scholar
3 On narrative criticism as a method, see Rhoads, David and Michie, Donald, Mark as Story (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982)Google Scholar; Culpepper, R. Alan, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983)Google Scholar; Moore, Stephen D., Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge (New Haven/London: Yale University, 1989)Google Scholar; Tolbert, Mary Ann, Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989)Google Scholar; Tannehill, Robert, ‘Narrative Criticism’, A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. Coggins, R. J. and Houlden, J. L.; London: SCM, and Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990) 488–9Google Scholar. My application of narrative criticism to Luke–Acts may be found in The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts: A Literary Interpretation (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986, 1990).Google Scholar
4 Martin Rese, in studying the statements about Jesus’ death and resurrection in the Acts speeches, rightly notes that the ‘Grundschema’ is not simply repeated but varied according to the situation. He cautions against neglecting ‘diese situationsbezogenen Differenzierungen’. See ‘Die Aussagen über Jesu Tod und Auferstehung in der Apostelgeschichte - Ältestes Kerygma oder lukanische Theologumena?’, NTS 30 (1984) 344Google Scholar. I agree and hope to explain more fully the contextual functions of these variations. Isolating the common pattern from the narrative settings of the speeches encourages the idea that these speeches are really directed to a general audience, including the readers of Acts. However, the reading experience is truncated if we do not recognize that the individual speeches are actions within particular situations and produce particular effects. Although Acts as a whole may have significance for its readers, the speeches are not made directly to them. Readers experience a speech along with its situation and result in the narrative, which are part of the total reading experience and rightly affect one’s understanding of a speech's significance.
5 Paul’s synagogue speech in Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13.16–41) could also be included at this point.
6 On the significance of reviews and previews in Luke–Acts, see Tannehill, , Narrative Unity, 1. 21.Google Scholar
7 See Luke 24.26–27, 44–46 with Acts 2.25–36; 3.22–26; 4.11; 5.30; 13.32–37.
8 See Luke 13.32–35; 19.11–27, 41–44; 20.9–19; 23.27–31.
9 On the ironic aspect of the death and resurrection of Jesus in Luke–Acts, see Tannehill, , Narrative Unity, 1.282–4, 288–9Google Scholar; 2.37.
10 See the appeal to Ps 2.7 in Acts 13. 33, which takes the place of Ps 110.1 in Acts 2.34–35.
11 The introduction to Paul’s speech provides little information except that Paul is speaking in a diaspora synagogue. The speech in Antioch of Pisidia can be taken, in most respects, as Paul’s standard speech to diaspora Jews.
12 Peter is speaking to Jews ‘from every nation under heaven’, but these Jews have been ‘dwelling in Jerusalem’, according to 2.5. They serve a dual function in the narrative. On the one hand, they represent Judaism as a whole, which is here being told about its Messiah; on the other hand, they are distinct from other Jews because they were present when Jesus was condemned and crucified and bear some responsibility for these events. The speech also has a dual function. It calls a specific group to account for what they have done; it also initiates the mission to Israel asa whole.
13 See Poetics, 1450a.
14 That is, ‘in ignorance (κατὰ ἂγνοιαν)’; see 3.17. Aristotle also notes the role of ‘ignorance ($$$ἂγνοια)’ in the tragic plot (Poetics, 1453b–4a). On the tragic aspect of the story of Israel in Luke–Acts, see Tannehill, Robert, ‘Israel in Luke–Acts: A Tragic Story’, JBL 104 (1985) 69–85.Google Scholar
15 Note that the speech in 2.14–36 begins and ends by referring to what the audience must now know through Peter.
16 See further Tannehill, , Narrative Unity, 2.30–1.Google Scholar
17 See Acts 2.38, 40; 3.6, 16; 4.7–12, 17–18, 30; 5.28, 31, 40–41.
18 Charles Cosgrove notes that the divine δἐῖ, revealed through Scripture, functions, in part, ‘as an imperative, a summons to obedience’. See ‘The Divine $$$δἐι in Luke–Acts’, $$$νοντ 26 (1984) 183.Google Scholar
19 See 3.15 and perhaps 3.22, 26. Some scholars also interpret ‘glorified his servant’ in 3.13 as a reference to Jesus' resurrection and exaltation. See, e.g., Roloff, Jürgen, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) 74.Google Scholar
20 Acts 3.13 may allude to Isa 52.13, but there is no citation. The prophets are mentioned in 3.25. Again there is no prophetic citation.
21 See Tannehill, , Narrative Unity, 2. 58.Google Scholar
22 The pronoun in 3.26, although not nominative, is still emphatic because of its position.
23 See Tannehill, , Narrative Unity,1. 34–7Google Scholar on the Benedictus and 2. 14–7, 55–6 on Acts 1.6 and 3.19–21.
24 The conclusion of the Pentecost speech (2.38–40) has a comparable function but is briefer.
25 Dennis Hamm sees a very close relation between the speech and the healing, for he understands the healing to be symbolic of the restoration of Israel and the speech to be an interpretation of the healing. See ‘Acts 3:12–26: Peter’s Speech and the Healing of the Man Born Lame’, Perspectives in Religious Studies 11 (1984) 199–217Google Scholar. The healing does have a symbolic aspect, but this is more clearly revealed in 4.9–12 than in the temple speech.
26 See Tannehill, , Narrative Unity, 1. 262–74Google Scholar. Reminders of the passion story in Acts 4–5 help to underscore the difference in the apostles’ behaviour. See Tannehill, , Narrative Unity, 2. 68–72.Google Scholar
27 Repetitive patterns (parallel sequences of events) in Luke–Acts have been studied by Talbert, Charles in Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke–Acts (SBLMS 20; Missoula: Scholars, 1974)Google Scholar. There is a complex set of parallels in Acts 4–5 and between these chapters and other parts of Luke–Acts. See Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2. 63–77.
28 See Tannehill, , Narrative Unity, 2. 39–40.Google Scholar
29 The active purpose of God working through repentance is also presented in 3.26 if the verb in the infinitive construction is transitive: ‘God sent him as a source of blessing for you in turning each from your wicked ways’.
30 The statement that ‘God exalted him as leader and saviour’ in 5.31 resembles the statement in 2.36 that ‘God made him both Lord and Messiah’, although the titles differ. The titles in 5.31 summarize affirmations about Jesus in Acts 3–4, for the title ‘leader (ὰ$$$χηγὸς)’ was introduced in 3.15 and salvation through Jesus was emphasized in 4.12. ‘The God of our fathers’ in 5.30 also repeats a phrase from 3.13. These observations add to the evidence for the summary function of 5.30–32.
31 See ‘Kerygma und Evangelium bei Lukas (Beobachtungen zu Acta 10. 34–43)’, ZNW 49 (1958) 223–37.Google Scholar
32 As was done in the Revised Standard Version.
33 Burchard, Following Christoph, ‘A Note on ‘PHMA in JosAs 17:lf.; Luke 2:15, 17; Acts 10:37’, υοντ; 27 (1985) 293.Google Scholar
34 A universal perspective also appears in 10.42, for Jesus is ‘judge of the living and the dead’, i.e., judge of all persons.
35 See, however, Burchard, ‘Note on PHMA’, 290–4; Schneider, Gerhard, Die Apostelgeschichte (HTKNT 5; Freiburg: Herder, 1982) 2. 75Google Scholar, n. 149.
36 Note that the proclamation of forgiveness of sins in Jesus' name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem, is part of what ‘is written’, according to Luke 24.46–47. Acts 10.43 rests on the same interpretation of Scripture. On the Christology and interpretation of Scripture behind Luke 24.46–47, see Dupont, , Nouvelles études, 37–57.Google Scholar
37 Wilckens cites the absence of repentance or conversion in the speech as evidence that the missionary proclamation has here been turned into ‘Gemeindepredigt’. See ‘Kerygma und Evangelium’, ZNW 49 (1958) 237Google Scholar. However, the reference to ‘forgiveness of sins’ in 10.43 presupposes that the Gentiles addressed are also involved in sin, and the whole Cornelius story is summarized in 11.18 by the statement ‘Then God has given repentance unto life also to the Gentiles’. Dupont states that outside Jerusalem forgiveness of sins is related to faith, as in 10.43, rather than repentance. See Nouvelles études, 76. Acts 26.18–20, however, shows that faith for Gentiles includes repentance.
38 Although 10.43 refers to the witness of the prophets, it also indicates the content of the message given to the apostles, as Luke 24.46–48 shows.
39 The Areopagus speech differs markedly, but it does not represent the full missionary message. Rather, it suggests the special preparation necessary with those not yet ready to understand ‘Jesus and the resurrection’ (17.18). To comprehend the Lukan message, it would be necessary to bring Gentiles to the level of Cornelius'; understanding. Cornelius not only knows about Judaism and supports it with gifts (10.2) but also knows something about Jesus. See ‘you know’ in 10.37. In the context of the Lukan narrative, it is not strange that Cornelius should have some knowledge of Jesus, for the narrative emphasizes the spreading fame of Jesus, reaching as far as ‘the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon’ (Luke 6.17; see also Acts 26.26). See Busse, Ulrich, Die Wunder des Propheten Jesus (FB; 2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1979) 348–50Google Scholar; Tannehill, , Narrative Unity, 1. 85–6.Google Scholar
40 The quotation from Amos in Acts 15.16–17 implies a similar view of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah whose reign will include the Gentiles.
41 The underlying concern could arise from some combination of the following: 1) criticism of the church from outside because it is not being faithful to Judaism; 2) the author's own fear that the church is losing its Jewish heritage and the scriptural context of its message; 3) a desire to keep the mission to the Jews alive and to avoid presenting the church and its message in ways that create additional obstacles for this mission. Many would judge the last concern to be foreign to Luke–Acts. See, however, Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2. 286–90, 328, 350–3.Google Scholar
