Sie sind auf Seite 1von 87

The Pre Marquette

Lecture in Theology
2002

Septuagintal Midrash
in the
Speeches of Acts

Luke Timothy Johnson

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data


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

2002
Marquette University Press
Milwaukee WI 53201-3141
All rights reserved.

Manufactured in the United States of America


Member, Association of American University Presses

Foreword
The annual Pre Marquette Lecture in Theology
commemorates the missions and explorations of
Pre Jacques Marquette, S.J. (1637-75). The 2002
lecture is the thirty-third in the series begun in 1969
under the auspices of the Marquette University
Department of Theology.
The Joseph A. Auchter Family Endowment Fund
has endowed the lecture series. Joseph Auchter (18941986), a native of Milwaukee, was a banking and
paper industry executive and a long-term supporter
of education. The fund was established by his children as a memorial to him.

Luke Timothy Johnson


A native of Park Falls has returned to the state of his
birth to give our Pre Marquette Lecture for 2002.
Professor Johnson has come to us from the Candler
School of Theology at Emory University, where he
is the Robert W. Woodruff Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins. He has built his distinguished career on the effort to interpret the Bible as
a living resource given by God to the Church, an
effort that has borne an amazingly rich and varied
harvest of reflection on the New Testament and the
origins of the Christian movement.
In 1966, Professor Johnson earned his Bachelor of
Arts degree in Philosophy from Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans, Louisiana. He went on to earn

iv

Luke Timothy Johnson

his Masters of Divinity from Indianas St. Meinrad


School of Theology in 1970 and, in the same year,
his Masters of Arts in religious studies from Indiana
University. Six years later, Yale University awarded
Professor Johnson his Ph.D. in New Testament,
after he had completed a now published and influential dissertation entitled The Literary Function of
Possessions in Luke-Acts. In the meantime, he had
already begun his teaching career, having lectured at
St. Meinrad during his last year of study there, the
next year at St. Joseph Seminary College, and at
Gonzaga College in the summer of 1973. Upon
finishing his degree at Yale Divinity, Professor
Johnson became an assistant and then associate
professor there. In 1982, he moved to Indiana
University, where he became a full professor in
1988. Since 1992, he has occupied his current chair
at Emory.
Along the way, many have recognized and rewarded Professor Johnsons scholarship and teaching. The Lilly Endowment awarded him three
research grants in the mid 1980s, allowing him to
pursue his work on the contemporary use of the New
Testament. Phi Beta Kappa selected Professor
Johnson as a visiting scholar for 1997-98, and last
year he was a Henry Luce III Fellow in Theology.
His two-year term as Senior Fellow of the Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Religion at Emory
will expire in 2003. Over the years, Professor Johnson
has received awards for his distinguished teaching
from the students and administration of Indiana
University, from the National University Continuing Education Association, and twice each from the

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

Candler School of Theology and Phi Beta Kappas


Emory Chapter. In 1999, Marquettes neighbors at
Nashota House awarded him the Doctor of Divinity
honoris causa.
The word prolific hardly does justice to Professor
Johnsons scholarly output. Since 1969, he has
authored twenty books (including The Future of
Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A Constructive Conversation, co-authored with Marquettes own William
Kurz, S.J., and soon to be published by Eerdmans).
He has written thirty-one scholarly articles and
twenty-five encyclopedia articles, and reviewed 150
books. His work as editor of Teaching Religion to
Undergraduates: Some Approaches and Ideas from
Teachers to Teachers (1973) bore witness early on to
what would prove an enduring interest in pedagogy.
But the scholarly community knows Professor
Johnson best for his exegetical works on the New
Testament. Since 1991, he has published two commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles and one each on
James, Romans, Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles.
He saw the Korean translation of his preaching
guide to the Pastoral Epistles come out in 1999.
These works developed as the natural fruit of reflections represented by many articles and book reviews
Professor Johnson has been writing on the exegesis
of these parts of the New Testament since the early
seventies.
But because his intellect can not find complete
satisfaction in the necessarily narrow focus of the
commentary form, he has since the early eighties
consistently produced works of New Testament
exegesis with what one might call a wide-angle lens.

vi

Luke Timothy Johnson

The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation


came out in American and English editions in 1986,
was revised twelve years later, and came out in
Korean in 2000. Professor Johnson has written
articles on the authority and literary diversity of the
New Testament books, as well as on the New
Testament concepts of God, salvation, witness, and
proselytism and on the anti-Jewish rhetoric in the
New Testament. He wrote Imagining the World
Scripture Imagines, a 1998 article in Modern Theology which L. G. Jones and J. J. Buckley also included
in their volume Theology and Scriptural Imagination,
published that same year. Professor Johnsons article
on the status of the Jewish Bible after the Holocaust
will appear in the forthcoming Reading the New
Testament after the Holocaust.
Since 1995, this interest in the larger issues of New
Testament interpretation has led Professor Johnson
to participate in the heated public controversy over
the respective roles of historical inquiry and of the
Churchs faith in learning who Jesus really was and
what he really said and did. He has presented his
positions to the literate general public in Bible
Review, Commonweal, The Christian Century, and
other such organs. At the same time, he has developed his scholarly case in articles and books, most
notably The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the
Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional
Gospels (1996) and Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of
the Gospels (1998). Forthcoming articles and a book
will testify to his continuing interest in the way
various methods of interpretation can contribute to
the renewal of biblical scholarship.

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

vii

His hope for that renewal comes from a deep


motivation visible to anyone who reviews Professor
Johnsons energetic and fruitful career. Since 1977,
he has spoken to church congregations, bishops
meetings, and academic gatherings in at least twentyeight states and the District of Columbia, in Bangkok,
Winnipeg, in Windsor, Ontario, in Dublin and
Oxford. His scholarship, as well as popular articles
and lectures and his encyclopedia contributions,
have all focused on making available to todays
readers the Bibles spiritual power to move and guide
people toward the God of Jesus Christ. Marquette
Universitys Department of Theology is confident
that Professor Johnsons reflections will help those
who hear or read them to give greater honor and
glory to that same God.
Joseph G. Mueller, S.J.
Feast of the Annunciation

Septuagintal Midrash in
the Speeches of Acts
The longest and literarily most self-conscious of
early Christian compositions is the two-volume
work made up of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of
the Apostles, now universally known as Luke-Acts.1
It takes up a full quarter of the New Testament
canon, and represents Christianitys deliberate entry
into the literary discourse of the Hellenistic world.
Although some scholars still argue for the separation
of the two volumes,2 most correctly consider them
not only the work of the same author but two
interrelated parts of a single literary endeavor. The
full consequences of that judgment for interpretation, however, are less seldom realized.3
The importance of Luke-Acts for anyone wishing
to come to grips with the most successful of Jewish
heresies ought to be obvious. Luke has provided the
only narrative framework for the earliest stages of the
Christian movement, a narrative that in its odd
combination of verifiable information and fictional
shaping resists easy reduction to any single genre
from antiquity. A claim can reasonably be made that
the second volume resembles a Hellenistic novel,
though the same can scarcely be said of the Gospel.4
An argument can also be mounted that the two

Luke Timothy Johnson

volumes together approximate certain forms of


Hellenistic biography, the sort that tells of a philosophical founder (Jesus) and his school (the apostles),
though that definition leaves out of account the two
most important characters in the narrative, God and
Israel.5 The best case can be made that Luke-Acts is
a form of apologetic history in which Gods fidelity
to Israel is defended and demonstrated through the
course of a narrative which with great purposefulness tells events in sequence (Luke 1:3).6 Luke uses
his narrative to construct the aetiological myth of
Gentile Christianity,7 and does so with such compelling simplicity that even until our own era, readers were convinced that things happened the way
Luke said they did, indeed had to have so happened:
of course Gentiles are the authentic realization of
Gods people!
In the process of constructing his narrative, Luke
also managed to define nascent Christianitys relationship to the larger world. Luke portrayed Christians relation to the Greco-Roman empire and
culture that this movement would eventually, if
nevertheless unexpectedly, subsume. Luke also delineated Christianitys relationship to the Judaism
that, at the time of Lukes writing, was itself emerging from the complex rivalries and the internecine
conflicts of the first century, and from the harrowing
purification of the Roman war, as a more unified and
Pharisaically defined claimant to represent Gods
chosen people. Lukes narrative is completely at
home in the symbolic world of Torah. Jesus and his
followers are depicted as prophets standing in the
line of Moses and Elijah;8 individual scenes and

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

entire stretches of narrative alike can be read as


echoing scriptural examples.9 At the same time,
many of Lukes scenes, from birth stories to prison
escapes to deaths of tyrants, find a parallel in Hellenistic novels and histories,10 and if Lukes heroes can
be called prophets, so also their depiction strongly
resembles that of Greco-Roman philosophers.11 It
is, indeed, the way in which both cultural forces are
so much in evidence and so intricately intertwined
that forms one of the abiding mysteries about this
otherwise open-faced and determinedly nonironic
writing. They are each so much in evidence that an
entire reading of Luke-Acts is theoretically possible
from the side of Judaism or of Hellenism without
taking the other dimension into account. They are
so inextricably connected, however, that bracketing
out one or the other cultural element leads to interpretations that fail to match the richness of Lukes
literary texture. It is natural to ask how to account for
this remarkable cultural synthesis.
Asking that question, we are reminded how little
progress scholarship has made in reaching agreement on the basic introductory questions concerning Luke-Acts. What sort of writing is it? Why was
it written? Who wrote it? When was it composed? I
have already noted the debate over genre. There is an
even wider range of opinion concerning date, authorship, and purpose.12 It is possible to date LukeActs as early as the year 85 in the first century or the
middle of the second century without losing academic credibility.13 The fact that so many theories
continue to flourish simply proves the resistance of
Luke-Acts to the habitual methods of historians.14

Luke Timothy Johnson

Trying to reconstruct a Lukan community from


the themes of this composition that might in turn
provide a framework for understanding those themes
is frustrated by the historical sweep of Lukes narrative, and even more by its literary artistry.15 This
does not mean that we cannot ask questions of
historical placement concerning this writing, but it
means that we must ask them more obliquely and
circumspectly, working through the literary dimensions of the text rather than working around them.16
In fact, the more adequate posing of such a historical
question is one of the goals of the present essay.
I propose to investigate the aspect of Luke-Acts in
which the mingling of Hellenistic and Jewish elements is perhaps most visible and puzzling, in an
activity that is of particular importance for the
process of messianic self-identification. My focus is
the way Luke shows the first Christians interpreting
the texts of Scripture that form the common symbolic world of messianist and non-messianist Jews of
the first century, as well as their most obvious field
of contention.17 And I investigate this scriptural
interpretation as it is found in the speeches of Lukes
second volume, the Acts of the Apostles. I will start
with what is generally known and accepted, before
approaching what is less certain and therefore open
to more possibilities, moving steadily toward a question for which I do not yet have the answer.

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

Current Perspectives on
the Speeches in Acts
The last century saw a major shift in the way that
scholars view the many speeches found in the Acts of
the Apostles.18 No longer is it presumed that such
speeches report the actual words of historical characters, or even a sample of primitive preaching. The
conventional wisdom now is that the speeches of
Acts are entirely the work of Luke the author. C. H.
Dodd undertook the last credible effort to salvage
the so-called missionary speeches as historical evidence. He did not claim that the speeches of Acts
were verbatim reports, but that they contained a
kernel of proclamation derived from the earliest
preachers and providing the basic framework for the
Gospels. Dodd observed not only that the speeches
by Peter and Paul shared certain consistent elements, but that Paul also alludes to these same
elements when he speaks of the kerygma (proclamation). From these two observations, Dodd argued
that a comparison of the Pauline epistles with
the speeches in Acts leads to a fairly clear and certain
outline sketch of the preaching of the apostles in the
first generation.19 He further considered that the
speeches of Peter and Paul in Acts 10 and 13 provide
the framework for the composition of the narrative
Gospels, most obviously the Gospel of Mark.20
Dodds work was already something of a conservative reaction to a growing scholarly opinion that
Actsabove all in its speechescontained little of
genuine historical value.21 It was rather easy work for
scholars like Ulrich Wilckens to respond to Dodd

Luke Timothy Johnson

with two devastating observations: first, analysis of


diction and themes makes clear that the speeches
represent the same outlook as the narrative in which
they are found; second, the reason why Lukes
missionary speeches match the outline of the Gospel
of Mark is that Luke himself was using Mark as a
source when he composed his own Gospel.22
As with so much in the study of Acts, the basic
impetus for the shift in perspective came from the
pioneering literary analyses of Henry J. Cadbury and
Martin Dibelius.23 They took the approach, which
then seemed daring but now appears commonsensical, of placing the speeches of Acts within the
comparative literary context of Greco-Roman culture, and specifically within the conventions of
Hellenistic historiography. This broader framework
of literary and cultural comparison revealed, as it so
often does, that the writers of the New Testament
were writing according to the rhetorical types and
tropes of their day. Such analysis made it clear that
Luke used speeches in the same way and for the same
purposes as other Hellenistic historians.
In Persian Wars 7.818, Herodotus presents a
series of speeches exchanged by Xerxes and Artabanus
concerning the advisability of the Persians undertaking a war of revenge and conquest against the
Greeks.24 Far from being a report of an actual
conversation, these exchanges are rather rhetorical
exercises in which Herodotus supplies what he regards as the machinations and motivations of historical figures. Xerxes works hard to persuade his
fellow Persians to undertake the expedition, and his
discourses are full of language concerning divine

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

guidance and the will of God. Likewise in his


Peloponnesian War 2.3646, Thucydides has the
statesman Pericles deliver a long funeral oration over
the slain Athenian heroes. Much of the speech is an
encomium of the city of Athens, its history, its
distinctive laws and customs, and its virtues: as a
city we are the school of Hellas. The slain warriors
had done battle for a city with such attributes, and
so died these men as became Athenians.25
Similarly, the Jewish historian Josephus places
King Agrippa before a crowd of Jewish insurgents to
deliver a lengthy argument on the futility of engaging in rebellion against Rome (BJ 2.345401).26
Prominent in his discourse is the argument that
Romes success in arms everywhere in the world is
proof that resistance against its armies is futile.
Josephus has the king say, The only refuge, then,
left to you is divine assistance. But even this is ranged
on the side of the Romans, for without Gods aid, so
vast an empire could never have been built up (BJ
2.390). Josephus also reports his own standing upon
the walls of the doomed city to implore his countrymen not to continue their suicidal resistance to the
Roman siege (BJ 5.376419). While being derided
by his listeners and dodging missiles thrown at him
by them (BJ 5.375), Josephus delivered himself of a
lengthy, highly detailed, rhetorically polished, historical recital and political analysis, the upshot of
which was, Quit while the quittings good!
Herodotus, Thucydides, and Josephus all followed
the conventions of Hellenistic historiography. They
gave their characters idealized speeches to deliver
even in unlikely circumstances, to show what should

Luke Timothy Johnson

have been said on such occasions, and to interpret


for the reader of the history the deeper meaning that
the mere recital of events never could.
In his treatise How to Write History 58, Lucian of
Samosata says that the writing of speeches enables
the historian to play the actor and show [his or her]
eloquence.27 This is just what Hellenistic historians
did. The real audience for their speeches was not the
characters in the story they were telling, but the
audience who heard their stirring words being read
aloud in the present. Thucydides tells us of his own
practice: I have put into the mouth of each speaker
the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as
I thought he would be most likely to express them,
while at the same time I endeavored, as nearly as I
could, to give the general import of what was actually said (Peloponnesian War 1.22.1). This is exactly
what we find Luke doing as well.28 All the speeches
in Acts are Lukes speeches. When he has Peter
address the crowd at Pentecost (2:14-36), Stephen
address the threatening Sanhedrin (7:2-53), or Paul
speak to the Athenian philosophers (17:22-31),
Luke composes their speeches as samples of the sort
of rhetoric that would have been appropriate in each
circumstance. Lukes speeches, in short, contain not
only his language but also his perceptions.29 Do
some of his speeches in the first part of Acts seem to
have a particularly primitive feel to them?30 This is
one more example of Lukes chameleon-like literary
skill. As Eduard Pluemacher has shown, archaizing
in language is a thoroughly Hellenistic stylistic device.31

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

Once the breakthrough was made to seeing Lukes


speeches as his own compositions, scholars could
make other observations about the form and function of these discourses. Slowly, attention moved
from an exclusive preoccupation with the so-called
missionary speeches to the other discourses that
reveal even further aspects of Lukes rhetorical versatility. Jerome Neyrey, for example, has shown how
Pauls apologetic speeches in Acts 22-26 conform to
the conventions of ancient forensic discourse.32 Even
earlier, William S. Kurz had shown how Luke had in
his speeches practiced the rhetorical ideal of
prosopopoiia in the speeches of Acts.33 As Lucian of
Samosata advised the would-be historian, the language of speeches should suit his person and his
subject (Hist. conscr. 58).34 Luke has a superb grasp
of the principle. When Paul, for example, addresses
the Jewish congregation in the synagogue of Antioch
of Pisidia (13:16-41), he sounds virtually identical
to Peter addressing the crowds at Pentecost (2:1436). But when Paul speaks before the philosophers
on Mars Hill in Athens (17:22-31), he sounds much
more like Dio Chrysostom than he does Peter;35 his
diction and argument alike are those of the GrecoRoman philosopher.36 And as Jacques Dupont demonstrated many years ago, when Paul bids farewell to
the Ephesian elders at Miletus (20:17-35), his language hauntingly evokes that of Pauls own letters to
his churches.37 More recently, Earle Hilgert has
tested the speeches of Acts against the rhetorical
canons of appropriateness (to prepon) and genuine contests (alethinoi agones) and finds that they
meet both standards impressively.38

10

Luke Timothy Johnson

My own work on Lukes speeches has focused


primarily on their narrative functions. I have argued
that Luke does not place his speeches randomly but
rather strategically, in order to provide his readers at
key moments with an interpretation of the story that
he is narrating. In this sense, his speeches are a form
of authorial commentary, placed in the mouths of
characters. The most impressive example is Stephens
speech (Acts 7:2-53), whose long recital of the
biblical story concentrates on the figure of Moses
(7:17-50). He structures the story of Moses as two
visitations of the Prophet to the people for their
salvation (7:25). In the first visitation, his fellowIsraelites do not understand and reject him (7:2328), so that he is forced to flee in exile (7:29). But
while in exile, he encounters God (7:30-34) and is
sent back to visit the people a second time with great
power, working signs and wonders (7:35-38).
Those who reject the Prophets second visitation are
themselves sent into exile (7:39-50). By structuring
the Moses story in this fashion, Luke anticipates the
double visitation of Jesus to Israelthe first time
leading to rejection, the second time in the power of
the spirit through the apostlesand at the same
time provides his readers with an interpretive key for
his entire two-volume composition.39
In the Gospel as well as in Acts, the speeches that
Luke puts in the mouth of his characters fulfill
similar interpretive functions, if in less obvious
ways. The programmatic character of Jesus inaugural speech at Nazareth in 4:16-30 is recognized by
all.40 Even Jesus parables can serve to interpret the
narrative context in which they are embedded.

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

11

The three parables of the lost sheep, coin, and son in


Luke 15:3-32 are clearly meant to provide a parabolic commentary on the narrative setting in 15:12. Even more strikingly, the Lukan kingship parable
in 19:12-27 provides a response to the narrative
situation posed by 19:11, but also an interpretation
of the narrative to follow.41
In these observations on Lukes speeches, I have
emphasized his own freedom of composition (especially in Acts, where he was unconstrained by the
Jesus tradition) and the thoroughly Hellenistic character of his compositional habits. These two aspects
of the speeches in Acts help to sharpen the question
that needs to be posed concerning the interpretation
of Scripture that we find within them. Before considering these elements in combination, however, it
is necessary rapidly to review some standard points
concerning Lukes use of Scripture in general.42

Lukes Use of Scripture in General


As in other early Christian writings, proof from
prophecy is an important weapon in Lukes apologetic armory.43 His narrative shows that the events of
Jesus birth, ministry, death and resurrection are all
in fulfillment of Torah. As Jesus says to his followers at his last supper, I tell you, this Scripture must
be fulfilled in me, And he was reckoned with
transgressors, [Isa. 53:12], for what is written about
me has its fulfillment (Luke 22:37). But Luke
extends and refines the argument from prophecy.44
He extends it by including not only the life, death,
and resurrection of the Messiah, but the develop-

12

Luke Timothy Johnson

ment of the messianic community as well: Scripture


interprets stages in the churchs life and growth (e.g.,
Acts 3:24; 13:40; 15:15). It is characteristic of Luke
that he delays citing the rejection saying from Isaiah
6 that Mark and Matthew use in the parable discourse (Mark 4:12; Matt. 13:14-15) until the very
end of his narrative, in Acts 28:25-27. His narrative
seeks to show the things brought to fulfillment
among us (Luke 1:1), and the demonstration includes showing how texts of Scripture find their telos
in the recent past or even the present of his readers.
Luke also refines proof from prophecy by avoiding
the sort of lockstep correlation of text and event
favored by the Gospel of Matthew. Matthews formula citations serve as authorial commentary on
his narrative. He typically recites a story about Jesus,
following it with the expression this happened in
order to fulfill the saying of the prophet and an
explicit citation from Scripture.45 In this manner,
Matthew brings Jesus miraculous conception, place
of birth, escape from King Herod, hometown, teaching in parables, working of miracles, and betrayal
and death under the umbrella of messianic meaning
offered by Torah.46 Luke avoids such repeated formulas and the attachment of specific texts to specific
events. In the Gospel, indeed, he is fonder of general
summation than of direct citation, as when the risen
Jesus opens his followers eyes to the meaning of
Scripture: Was it not necessary that the Messiah
should suffer these things and enter into his glory?
And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he
interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things
concerning himself (Luke 24:27). Luke also refines

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

13

the notion of prophecy fulfillment in the way his


narrative echoes and alludes to Scripture because he
uses diction and even shapes his stories in order to
evoke Scriptural precedents.47
Still, Luke does quote Scripture extensively to
show, as Jesus also told those followers, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the
Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled (Luke
24:44). In the Gospel we find some fifteen direct
citations from Scripture.48 They are introduced variously,49 and by various characters.50 More significant
is the fact that, with the single exception of the
citation from Isa. 40:3-5 in Luke 3:4-6which is
taken over and expanded from Mark 1:2-3all the
citations in the Gospel occur in spoken discourse
rather than in narrative exposition. In his Gospel,
Luke consistently interprets through the speech of
his characters, a practice he continues even more
elaborately in his second volume. Before turning to
that practice, which is the real focus of this essay, it
is necessary to consider one more preliminary but
truly critical question. What version of Scripture
does Luke have his characters cite and interpret?
Like many other Jews of the first century in the
diaspora and in Palestinewriters like Aristobulus,
Josephus, Philo Judaeus, and Paul of TarsusLuke
used the Greek translation of Torah that had been in
existence some 300 years when he set about composing Luke-Acts, a translation known as the Septuagint
(LXX). Although that simple designation camouflages a host of critical questions, the LXX at the very
least distinguishes a recognizable version of the Old
Testament that was widely read for generations

14

Luke Timothy Johnson

before the first century, was regarded by at least some


of its readers as divinely inspired, generated several
rival Greek versions, and gave rise to a substantial
Hellenistic Jewish literature.51 There is no reason to
suspect in the case of Luke, as there sometimes is
with Matthew, that his citations from the LXX are
deliberately altered because of the influence of the
Hebrew (hereafter, MT for Massoretic Text).52
Rather, as Jacques Dupont has demonstrated in a
brilliant set of essays, Lukes use of scriptural citations relies on the specific nuances of the LXX, to
such an extent that the MT would have been useless
for his purposes.53 I offer three brief examples.
In Peters first address to the assembly of Jesus
followers gathered before Pentecost, Luke shows
him fulfilling Jesus command to strengthen his
brethren when he had turned (Luke 22:32). His
discourse concerns the need to replace the traitorous
Judas in order to fill out the symbolic number of the
Twelve before the bestowal of the Holy Spirit that
constitutes the restoration of Israel (Acts 1:16-25).54
Peter cites two passages from the Psalms with reference, respectively, to the death of Judas and the need
to replace him.55 The Scripture, he begins, had to be
fulfilled (1:16). His first citation is from the LXX of
Psalm 68:26, which reads, Let his dwelling place
become deserted and let there be no one dwelling in
it (genetheto he epaulis autou eremos kai me esto ho
katoikon en autei, Acts 1:20). The citation has only
minor modifications from the LXX, which in turn is
close to the MT of Ps 69:25.56 Luke has the text do
double duty, referring at once to Judass death on the
farm he had purchased with his betrayal money and

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

15

to the vacancy in the apostolic office his death thus


created.
But then, Luke has Peter add another citation
immediately and with no transition, this one from
LXX Psalm 108:8: Let another take his office (ten
episkopen autou labeto heteros).57 The passage works
effectively to provide scriptural warrant for the election of Matthias as Judass successor in the circle of
the Twelve, especially since office (episkope) reinforces the second nuance of epaulis. The Hebrew of
Psalm 109:8 (peqdat yqh. ah
. er) can certainly
include the meaning, let another take his magistracy/overseership (e.g., 2 Chron. 23:18; 2 Kings
11:18), but the most natural translation is surely that
given by the RSV: May his days be few, may
another seize his goods.58 The LXXs ten episkopen
autou labeto heteros (let another take his office),
however, works wonderfully for Lukes purposes,
especially since the resonances of episkope with ecclesiastical leadership are already well established for
Lukes readers, as we know from Acts 20:28.59
A second example of Lukes reliance on the specific nuances of the LXX is not a direct citation but
an allusion. In Peters speech at Pentecost (2:14-36),
after he recites the facts of Jesus rejection by lawless
people, he shifts to the proclamation of Jesus
resurrection, the event that precipitates the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (2:1-5), the proper understanding of which Peters discourse purports to
offer.60 Peter says, Him God has raised! He has
loosed the pangs of death, because he could not be
held by it (Acts 2:24).61 However accustomed we
may have become to the phrase pangs of death, it

16

Luke Timothy Johnson

is nevertheless odd, especially when found as the


object of the verb to loose (lyo). Why is it odd?
Because the Greek term pangs refers particularly
to the agony or throes of birth, thus, birth pangs.62
How does it come to be connected to the experience
of death?
The expression appears in the LXX of 2 Samuel
22:6, in the song of David, odines thanatou ekyklosan
me (the pangs of death have encircled me). In the
corresponding LXX Psalm 17:5, we again find odines
thanatou (pangs of death) and odines hadou (pangs of
hades). What Hebrew expression is the LXX translating? In 2 Samuel 22:6, the MT has hebl
sel, in
.
Psalm 18:5 it has hebl
ma

wet,
and
in
18:6,
once
.
more, .hebl sel. Now the Hebrew verb habal (to
bind or pledge)63 has two noun forms, each pointed
differently. Pointed as hebel,
it means cord/rope/
.
line, and this is the meaning that makes the most
sense of 2 Samuel 22:6, the cords of death have
encircled me, and of Psalm 18:5 and 6, the cords
of death encompassed methe cords of Sheol entangled me. Pointed as .hebel, however, the Hebrew
also has the sense of pain or travail, such as is
experienced at birth (e.g., Job 39:3; Isa. 66:7).
Clearly this is the pointing assumed by the LXX
when it translates hebl
. e as odinai. By choosing this
less obvious way of translating the Hebrew, the LXX
(perhaps inadvertently) has also created a profound
paranomasia: the cords of death are also the birth
pangs of death, so that death itself can be read as the
beginning of a new life, an understanding obviously
congenial to Christian readers, who might, even
unconsciously, carry over this nuance in speaking of

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

17

the death and resurrection of Jesus. Yet, how strange


that Luke retains something of the other reading in
his choice of verbs: God has loosed these pangs, an
expression that is odd for pangs but appropriate for
cords. Note also because he could not be held
(krateisthai) by it, an expression that works poorly
for pangs but perfectly for cords. But that the pun
appears at all depends entirely on the translation
choice made by the LXX.
The third example of Lukes dependence on the
specific shades of meaning in the LXX is the citation
of the prophet Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-17.64
The passage is of tremendous importance in Acts,
occurring as it does in the midst of the depiction of
the watershed event that has come to be called the
Jerusalem Council. This meeting decided that the
Gentile mission was legitimate and, even more startling, that Gentile converts did not need to practice
the ethoi (customs) of the Jewish ethnos (nation) in
order to be full-fledged members of the people of
God, since both Jews and Gentiles were saved by the
same principle of faith.65 The decision is not made all
at once but only after considerable debate.66 It is
concluded by the citation of Amos, which James (the
leader of the Jerusalem church) declares to be conforming to this reality (15:15).
The first part of Lukes citation from Amos is
virtually the same as both the Greek of the LXX and
the MT. According to the RSV translation, in that
day, I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen
and repair its breeches and raise up its ruins, and I
will raise it up straight. This part of the citation
serves as a proof-text for understanding the Jewish

18

Luke Timothy Johnson

messianists as the restored Israel. In the Jerusalem


church, God had raised up the fallen tent of David.67
But Lukes citation from Amos continues, so that
the rest of humanity might seek the Lord, and all the
nations on whom my name has been invoked, says
the Lord who is doing these things. When we
consult the LXX, we discover the words the Lord
(ho kyrios) are absent. The LXX has simply, the rest
of humanity might seek. Luke apparently has supplied the proper object of the seeking. What is even
more striking, however, is the LXXs having that
they might seek (ekzetesosin) at all. In the MT of
Amos 9:12, there is instead this: that they may
possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who
are called by my name, says the Lord who does this
(RSV).
How did the LXXand from the LXX, Luke
derive the rest of humanity seek from the Hebrew
possess the remnant of Edom? The answer is fairly
simple. It appears that the LXX translators read the
Hebrew before them as yrsu (from yaras, possess)
as yidrersh (from daras, seek), and they read edom
(Edom) as adam (humanity). The MT of Amos
envisaged a restored Davidic dynasty in an expansionist mode. The LXX changed it to a restored
people that attracts humanity to itself. It is this sense,
rooted entirely in the LXX but impossible in the
Hebrew, that Luke has James exploit as a text that
prefigures the attraction of the Gentiles into the
restored people of God that is the Christian movement.

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

19

Textual Problems of Biblical Citations


Recognizing how thoroughly Lukes application
of Scripture depends on the LXX rather than on the
MT only confirms the truth known to us at least
since Justin Martyrs Dialogue with Trypho. In disputes between Jews and Christians over the fulfillment of prophecy nothing but frustration can be
expected because the two parties are, quite literally,
reading two different Bibles.68 The last example also
reminds us of the difficulty of determining what is
going on in any given citation from the LXX. I noted
earlier that Luke added the words the Lord,
which were lacking in the LXX. But were they? One
manuscript of the LXX (A), in fact, does contain
those words. Likewise, at the very end of James
citation, there is great confusion. The Hebrew concludes simply with declares the Lord who will bring
this to pass. The LXX follows closely, but adds a
word: says the Lord God who does these things
(legei kyrios ho theos ho poion tauta). Not to be
outdone in expansion, Luke seems to have James add
another phrase, known from eternity (gnosta ap
aionos, Acts 15:18). Are these words simply added by
Luke and intended to be read as though from Amos?
Is it a composite citation, linking a phrase from Isa.
45:21 to the text from Amos?69 Or are we meant to
read these last words, not as part of the citation, but
as part of James comments following the citation?
The wild fluctuation in the NT manuscript tradition for Acts 15:18 probably reflects an equivalent
confusion in the minds of scribes concerning what
the phrase was meant to be. The possibilities for

20

Luke Timothy Johnson

readers today are multiple, and made even more


complicated by the text-critical problems distinctive
to Acts.70
The citation from Joel 3:1-5 at the beginning of
Peters Pentecost speech (Acts 2:17-21) serves as a
good illustration of the technical problems presented by Lukes citations. Lukes version can be
translated this way: It will happen in the last days,
says God: I will pour out from my spirit upon all
flesh, and your sons and daughters will prophesy.
Your young men will see visions. Your old men will
dream dreams. Indeed, I will pour out from my spirit
in those days upon my men servants and women
servants, and they will prophesy. I will provide
wonders in heaven above and signs on earth below,
blood and fire and a cloud of smoke. The sun will be
changed into darkness and the moon into blood
before the great and manifest day of the Lord arrives,
and everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will
be saved. The citation is very close to the LXX. But
there are three significant differences between Luke
and the LXX. First, the LXX has after these things
(meta tauta) in agreement with the MT, whereas
Luke has in the last days (en tais eschatais hemerais,
2:17). Second, Luke has and they will prophesy
(kai propheteusousin) in Acts 2:18 in addition to the
one already present in Joel 3. Rather than the LXXs
wonders in the heaven and on earth below, Luke
has in 2:19 wonders in heaven above and signs on
earth below, adding the adverb kato (below), as well
as the substantive semeia (signs). Observing the
differences is the easy part. Assessing them is difficult.71

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

21

The first problem is establishing the Lukan text


itself. In the case of Acts, this means taking into
account not only the usual display of alternative
readings, but also the systematically alternative textual tradition offered by Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis
(D) and lesser representatives of the so-called Western Text.72 The recent tendency in New Testament
text criticism has been toward eclecticism, which
means refusing to follow a single tradition as standard, but rather trying to assess every single reading
on the grounds of external attestation as well as the
classic rules involving brevity and difficulty.73 Not
surprisingly, scholars come up with quite different
readings in specific cases, depending on how they
weigh the various factors.
In the case of the Joel citation, where we find clear
differences between a printed edition of the LXX (in
my case, Rahlfs) and the critical text of the New
Testament (in my case, the twenty-seventh edition
of Nestle-Aland),74 what factors need to be considered? On one hand, it is possible that Luke had a
version of the LXX that we do not have and that his
version was influenced by (a) the MT, (b) a targumic
reading or series of readings, or (c) a text that has a
prehistory in liturgical or apologetic use. On the
other hand, the variations could be due to New
Testament copyists who wanted to conform Luke to
the LXXbut then, what version of the LXX was
available to them? or who deliberately made changes
because of a tendentious interest, as Eldon Jay Epp
has demonstrated was the case with Codex Bezae
Cantabrigiensis.75

22

Luke Timothy Johnson

If we make the judgmentas I have in this case


that Luke himself deliberately made the alterations
to the Joel citation that we observe in the Greek text
of the New Testament, such judgment must rest on
the cumulative force of the following factors. First,
the reading in question is well attested by the New
Testament manuscripts and can reasonably be accepted as the original one on the grounds of ordinary
textual criticism. Second, either the reading is not
found in the manuscripts of the LXX available to us,
or, if it is found there, the reading is best accounted
for by scribes adopting it under the influence of the
New Testament. Third, the reading in question can
be shown to advance the literary and religious interests of the New Testament author who has used the
citation. In Lukes citation of Joel, each of these
criteria is met.76 The last criterion is met resoundingly. Luke makes the gift of the Holy Spirit a
fulfillment of a divine oracle (God says), an eschatological event (in the last days), one that is
emphatically prophetic in character (they shall
prophesy), and one that is demonstrated by signs
and wonders like those associated in the biblical
tradition above all with Moses. Luke has thus made
the Joel citation a key passage for understanding not
only Pentecost but also the entire course of his
narrative in Acts.77
Even at the risk of boring my readers beyond
endurance, I have chosen to pay some attention to
text criticism. It is important to remind ourselves
what a complex tangle of considerations are involved
in the analysis of ancient biblical citations. Quick
and grandiose conclusions are not warranted. In-

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

23

deed, certainty is seldom available. In these matters,


slow approximation is the norm, and movement is
by means of the gradual accumulation of probability. I also want to indicate by the particular example
of the Joel citation, that the evidence strongly supports the view that Luke considered himself to have
the freedom to amend the biblical text in such
fashion. However great the authority of the LXX, it
appears, the exousia (freedom/authority) given by
the Spirit is even greater.78

Modes of Scriptural Interpretation


in Acts
Luke does not confine himself to a single mode of
citing and interpreting Scripture, but uses a variety
of interpretive methods.79 It is the range and character of his interpretive methods that present the most
fascinating and yet puzzling aspect of Lukes use of
the LXX. My approach to this puzzle seeks a middle
ground between two tendencies in scholarship. Older
studies on Lukes use of Scripturelike those of
Bruce, Doeve, Bowker, and Cerfaux are often full
of helpful insights concerning technical questions
and possible parallels to the traces of midrashic
style seen in Acts.80 But they rarely get around to
asking what Luke as author might have had to do
with those parallels and traces of style. In such
analyses, Lukes use of Scripture becomes the last
stronghold for the conservative position that regards
Acts as essentially a repository for tradition. In sharp
contrast, some newer studieslike those of Wagner
and especially Brawleyare exceptionally strong at

24

Luke Timothy Johnson

revealing Lukes creative contributions as an author,


but pay relatively less attention to the ways in which
his interpretations are enmeshed in Jewish methods.81
My goal is to take both aspects with full seriousness first by treating his scriptural interpretation
within speeches as fully his own work, reflecting his
literary and religious preoccupations, and second by
comparing his interpretation as such with Jewish
practice. I turn, then, to a rapid consideration of
several modes of scriptural interpretation found
within the speeches of Acts.

Stephen before the Sanhedrin


(Acts 7:2-53)
Two of the speeches in Acts present a character
reviewing in public the history of Israel. Before the
synagogue congregation in Antioch of Pisidia (Acts
13:16-41), Paul offers a very rapid sketch of events
from the Exodus to David (13:17-22) then leaps
forward to the time of Jesus. The recital contains
some verbal echoes of the LXX,82 but not much
more. I will return later in the essay to a closer
analysis of the latter part of Pauls speech. Of quite
a different character is the second example, Stephens
speech before the Sanhedrin. It is the longest speech
in Acts, all the more dramatic because delivered
before a Jerusalem leadership (6:12-15) that has
already indicated its emphatic rejection of the messianic claims being made by an upstart Galilean
community gathered in the name of Jesus.83 The
speaker has been certified as a prophet by Lukes

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

25

literary depiction of him as a man filled with the


Holy Spirit who works signs and wonders among the
people (6:5, 8, 10). He finishes his speech by accusing the leadership of resisting the Holy Spirit and
killing the prophets (7:51-52). Their subsequent
execution of Stephen proves his accusation.84
Scholars have long puzzled over the way the speech
seems not to respond to the ostensible charges made
against Stephen that brought him to trial in the first
place.85 Far from having Stephen launch into a
formal apologia that discusses these charges in order
to demonstrate his innocence, Luke has him begin a
lengthy recital of biblical history, from the time of
Abraham to the exile.86
The recountal is sufficiently lengthy to enable
comparisons between Stephens speech and other
retellings of the biblical story found in ancient
Jewish literature roughly contemporary to Luke.
There are a sufficient number of these compositions
to consider them a separate class of writing, composed by individuals or groups who sought by means
of such a reworking of the biblical tradition to
propagate or defend a specific perspective on that
tradition:87 Josephuss Jewish Antiquities; Philo
Judaeuss works On Abraham, On Joseph, and On
Moses; Pseudo-Philos Biblical Antiquities; the Book
of Jubilees; and the fragmentary Genesis Apocryphon
from Qumran; as well as the fragments of Artapanuss
On the Jews.88 Each of these narrative retellings of the
biblical story covers some of the same figures and
incidents as does Stephens speech. A point-bypoint comparison among them is illuminating. We
have several such narratives, as well as the basic text

26

Luke Timothy Johnson

(either the MT or the LXX) that each was using. We


can thus make responsible judgments concerning
the kind of selection and shaping in which each
account engaged and, on that basis, also make fairly
secure deductions concerning the concerns and interests at work in each version. It is easy to see in the
case of Philo, for example, that his biographies of
Abraham, Joseph, and Moses serve both to highlight
those aspects of the biblical text that can be read
philosophically and to portray the ancient heroes
as models of philosophical virtue in the Greek mode.89
In contrast, the Genesis Apocryphon and Book of
Jubilees, both preserved in the library of the Jewish
community at Qumran, focus on and elaborate
those aspects of the text that support a particular
ideological and cultic agenda favored by the sectarians.90
When we compare the rewriting of the Scripture
story in the Stephen speech to these other compositions, what do we find? First, in terms of fidelity to
the text of Scripture, Lukes Stephen is less like
Josephus and Philo, who follow the Bibles story line
but freely transpose it into their own diction, than he
is like Jubilees and Biblical Antiquities, which tend to
interweave parts of the biblical text and their own
contributions in what might be broadly called a
targumic style.91 Luke does not rewrite the story in
his own words. Instead, as Earl Richard has demonstrated, Luke shows remarkable fidelity to the diction of the LXX; it truly is Scriptures words that
he uses in his own version of the story, a feat all the
more remarkable given the abbreviation involved.92

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

27

In a second point of comparison, Lukealso in


the manner of the targumsamplifies elements of
the Biblical story and fills in its gaps by means of
haggadic traditions. Moses earliest years provided
the opportunity for such elaboration in the same
manner that the childhood of Jesus provided one for
the writers of apocryphal infancy gospels. Thus,
LXX Exodus 2:3-4 says that Moses was hidden by
his mother after his birth. This is followed closely by
Jubilees 47.3 and Jewish Antiquities 2.218. Philo has
Moses secretly nursed at his mothers breast (Life
of Moses 1.9),93 and Pseudo-Philos Biblical Antiquities 9.12 has Moses mother, Jocha, bed him for three
months in her womb! Stephen says that he was
nurtured (anetraphe) for three months in his fathers
house (Acts 7:20). Though not an elaborate expansion, it represents a filling of the gap not unlike
that in the other rereadings. Similarly, LXX Exodus
2:21 says that Moses became as a son to
Pharaohs daughter. Josephus supplies the name
Thermuthis to the daughter (AJ 2.224), whereas
Jubilees 47.5 calls her Meris, and Artapanus adds
that she was barren (frag. 3 Charlesworth), a fact that
Philo, in turn, develops psychologically (Life of
Moses 1.12-15). Once more, Stephens trope is simple
yet effective: she raised him as her own son
(anethrepsato auton heautei eis huion, 7:21). The
characterization is richer and more intimate than the
biblical account, yet more restrained than some of
the other rereadings.
The LXX Exodus contains nothing about Moses
education in the house of Pharaoh. Yet the lives of
great figures require legendary elaboration where the

28

Luke Timothy Johnson

historical record fails.94 Josephus provides a sketch of


a childhood challenge to Moses, says that he was
educated with the utmost care (AJ 2.233-35), and
provides an extensive recital of Moses adult activities before his encounter with his countrymen (AJ
2.238-53). Philo pays particular attention, as we
might expect, to Moses education, stressing that he
was instructed by Greek, Assyrian, Chaldean, and
Egyptian teachers, and that he progressed especially
in moral virtue (Life of Moses 1.21-31). Such cultural
assimilation is opposed by Jubilees 47.9, which insists that Amran, [his] father, taught [him] writing
and says nothing further of Moses education at
Pharaohs court. Similarly, Pseudo-Philos Biblical
Antiquities 9.16 says that Moses mother maintained
his Hebrew name of Melchiel. Cultural competition
reaches a climax in Artapanuss On the Jews (frag. 3
Charlesworth), which makes Moses himself the
teacher of Orpheus and the source of everything
worthwhile in Egyptian culture. Stephens version
again hits a middle point between these extremes:
he was educated in all Egyptian wisdom (7:22).
Like the parallel versions, Stephens speech fills in
what the biblical account omits, but it does so more
succinctly and pointedly. In 7:20-22 Lukeit is his
speech, rememberprovides the classic biographical triad of birth, nurture, education (genesis,
trophe, paideia), as he does also for Paul in Acts
22:3.95 And by focusing on wisdom, he emphasizes
the link between Moses and Jesus, as he does also by
an equally brief summary concerning Jesus in Luke
2:52: Jesus made progress in wisdom and stature
and in favor both with God and people.96

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

29

Thirdly, compared to the other retellings of the


Scripture story we are considering here, Luke is
unusual in his strong editing of the story, which is all
the more evident because of the brevity of his account. Like Philo, Luke focuses particularly on the
three figures of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses. He
focuses, however, not on their display of innate
virtue, but on the way in which they carry forward
the promises of God. And in the case of both Joseph
and Moses, Luke has edited his account in such
fashion as to show how each fits into a pattern of
twofold sending and rejection, so that these biblical
exempla point forward to the twofold sending and
rejection of the prophet Jesus.97 By this editing of the
biblical narrative, Luke not only reinforces the fundamentally prophetic character of Scripture and its
heroes, but by doing this supports the ideological
position of his community that Scripture is best
understood when read as pointing toward the risen
prophet Jesus: This is the Moses who said to the
Israelites, God will raise up for you a prophet from
your brethren as he raised me up (Acts 7:37). And
he does all this entirely within the tight limits set by
the text of the LXX itself, whose wording he consistently employs. In this sense, the rereading of Scripture in Stephens speech can legitimately be
designated a sort of septuagintal targum.

Prayer in Time of Persecution


(Acts 4:24-30)
We find a very different sort of scriptural interpretation in the prayer of the apostles after their first

30

Luke Timothy Johnson

experience of persecution by the Jerusalem authorities. Although the prayer is not formally a discourse,
it is surely a speech act, and one whose obvious
literary function is to interpret for the reader the
meaning of the story that unfolds around it.98 What
is the meaning of this part of Lukes narrative?
Having established, by his description of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the common life of
the first community, that the church was indeed the
restoration of Israel, 99 Luke turns his attention to
the question of the leadership over this people. The
first arrest and warning not to preach in the name of
Jesus (4:1-22) corresponds to the first rejection of
both Moses and Jesus. The response to this prayer
for power with an overwhelming outpouring of the
Spirit (4:31) corresponds to the empowerment of
both Moses and Jesus by God: This empowerment
is manifested precisely in the signs and wonders
that the apostles do among the people and their
authoritative role in the sharing of possessions (note
the repetition of laying at the apostles feet in 4:35,
37 and 5:2).100 The subsequent arrest and interrogation of the apostles serves the narrative by revealing
two things: first, the official leadership of the people
rejects even this second sending in power
Gamaliels advice shows ironically that he doesnt
get itand second, the balance of power over
Gods people Israel has in any case effectively shifted
to the apostles.101
Grasping the narrative flow in this part of Acts is
the best way of solving the problem presented by
Lukes obscure introduction to this scene (4:23-24):
when they had been released, they went pros tous

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

31

idious and told them everything the chief priests and


elders had said. Those who heard it lifted a common
voice to God. The appropriate translation of hoi
idioi (literally, their own people) is critical to determining who performs the speech act reported by
Luke and who, therefore, is subsequently empowered a second time by the Holy Spirit to work signs
and wonders. Against a substantial body of opinion
that considers their friends (as the RSV renders the
phrase) to be the rest of the community of believers
(those described in 4:32 as plethos ton pisteusanton),102 I agree with Jacques Dupont that the narrative logic demands the identification of these
associates (as I translate the phrase) with the other
apostles.103 This identification alone makes sense of
the second empowerment and the second sending of
the Twelve to do signs and wonders among the
people (5:1-16) before their climactic confrontation
with the official leadership (5:17-42) and their transmission of authority to others (6:1-7).
The prayer begins with a remarkable invocation
that may function as prayer but certainly also functions as a reminder to the reader of certain important
realities: Master! You are the creator of the heaven
and the earth and the sea and all the things that are
in them. You are the one who saidthrough the
mouth of David, your servant, our father, through
the Holy Spirit . The opening invocation reminds readers of Gods sovereign power; even though
events may seem to indicate otherwise, God is working out Gods plan. The awkward piling up of
phrases in the second clause results from Luke trying
to assert several important truths at the same time.104

32

Luke Timothy Johnson

While David is both Gods servant (we shall see the


development of this theme a bit later) and their
ancestor (father), more importantly, when David
spoke, it was God speaking through [his] mouth
because the Psalmist was a prophet whose prayers
were composed through the Holy Spirit. The text
that Luke subsequently cites from LXX Psalm 2:1-2,
with no editorial emendations, is to be understood
as a divinely inspired text with a prophetic significance: Why were the nations arrogant and the
peoples making silly schemes? The kings of the earth
drew up their lines, and the rulers gathered together
against the Lord and against his anointed one.
What follows is even more astonishing than the
opening reminder to God of what the prophet/
psalmist had said through Gods own inspiration.
The prayer now offers God an interpretation of what
the Psalm (and, we assume, God) really means: For
in this city, they did truly gather together against
your holy child Jesus whom you anointed: Herod
and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples
of Israel, in order to accomplish everything your
hand and will had determined would happen. Luke
offers an interpretation in which the words spoken
in the past by the prophet find their real significance
in contemporary events. Specifically, the gathering
together105 of the leaders against Jesus the
anointed106 that led to his apparent destruction but
paradoxically worked out Gods plan.107 Not content with a general assertion, however, Luke then
offers a point-by-point fulfillment of the Davidic
prophecy, with each element in the Psalm finding its
contemporary equivalent: Pilate = the ruler; Herod

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

33

= the king; the procurator/soldiery = the nations/


gentiles; the Jews = the peoples.
In effect, Luke offers a mode of scriptural interpretation quite distinct from the targumic retelling of
the narrative found in the Stephen speech. But just
as examples of such retellings are attested at Qumran,
so is this mode as well, in the style of interpretation
scholars have come to identify as pesher.108 In such
interpretation, the text of Scripture (at Qumran, in
Hebrew) is strictly maintained, and the elements in
the text are aligned with events or personages having
to do with the history of the community. The
fragmentary commentary on Habakkuk (1QpHab),
for example, offers an interpretive comment on this
text from Habakkuk 2:7: the violence done to
Lebanon shall overwhelm you and the destruction of
the beasts shall terrify you, because of the blood of
men and the violence done to the land, the city, and
all its inhabitants. The interpretation goes as follows:
The interpretation of the word (pesher) concerns the Wicked Priest, to pay him the reward
for what he did to the poor. Because Lebanon is
the Council of the Community, and the animals are the simple folk of Judah who observe
the Law the city is Jerusalem since in it the
Wicked Priest performed repulsive acts and
defiled the Sanctuary of God. The violence
against the country are the cities of Judah which
he plundered of the possessions of the poor
(emphasis added).109

34

Luke Timothy Johnson

The same sort of pesher interpretation was applied


at Qumran to the Psalms, which were read as prophetic of the life of the community in exactly the
same way that the prophets were. The commentary
on Psalm 37 (4QpPsalms Pesher), for example, contains this passage: The wicked person spies on the
just person and tries to kill him. Yahweh will not
relinquish him into his hand, or permit them to
convict him when he is judged (Ps. 37:32-33). Its
interpretation concerns the Wicked Priest, who
spies on the just man and wants to kill him and
the law which sent him; . Wait for Yahweh and
observe his path and he will promote you, so that you
inherit the earth, and you shall see the destruction of
the wicked (Ps. 37:34). Its interpretation concerns
the community of the poor who will see the judgment of evil, and with his chosen one will rejoice in
the true inheritance.110 The parallel between these
passages and Acts 4:23-31 is precise and remarkable.
As at Qumran, the text is applied as prophetic to the
specific experiences of the community and its
founder. As at Qumran, these experiences involve
the dual rejection of the founder and the community
members (the poor). As at Qumran, hope is placed
in the vindication to be accomplished by God. And,
as at Qumran, the interpretation involves making a
point-by-point identification between characters and
events in the prophecy and the characters and events
in the communitys shared story.
That Luke is in truth using a pesher method here
is shown by the fact that he not only makes no
alteration in the text of the Psalm that he cites, but
also that his fidelity to that text forces him to a

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

35

locution that he otherwise nowhere employs. It is


Lukes set practice to use the singular laos (people)
when referring to Israel as a religious entity (the
people of God).111 That consistent usage may account for the presence of the singular laos in some
manuscripts for Acts 4:27, rather than the plural
laois. The plural reading is better attested and is also
the harder reading, since Luke, especially in his
passion account, tried to remove the presence of the
people from the action against Jesus, so as to fix
blame on the leaders.112 Luke does, however, report
the charge against the people as a whole, who, out
of ignorance, rejected Jesus in his first visitation
(Acts 2:23, 36; 3:13-14). Why, then, the plural
peoples of Israel in the present passage? Two
reasons suggest themselves. First, the plural enables
Luke to involve individual Jews in the death of Jesus
(such as the leaders), as he does individual Gentiles,
without jeopardizing the special place of the people
as the religious designation for Israel. Second, and
more decisive, I think, the plural allows Luke to
respect the precise form of the citation demanded by
the pesher-style interpretation. I will comment in my
conclusions on the startling fact that Luke is here
carrying out with the LXX a mode of interpretation
that is found elsewhere only applied to the MT, and
that in a single Palestinian community.

Midrashic Argument on the


Resurrection (Acts 13:32-37)
A third example of Lukan interpretive method is
found in Pauls synagogue sermon in Antioch of

36

Luke Timothy Johnson

Pisida.113 The subject is the identification of Jesus as


Messiah through his resurrection, in contrast to
David. This is, in fact, a recurrent preoccupation in
Luke-Acts and provides an opportunity to observe
how Luke works out a scriptural argument across
several disparate speeches.114
We meet the theme first in a speech of Jesus. In
Lukes Gospel, Jesus challenges the Scribes claim
that the Messiah would be Davids son: For David
himself says in the book of the Psalms, The Lord
said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I put
your enemies as a footstool for your feet. David
therefore calls him Lord, so how is he his son? (Luke
20:42-44).115 We recognize the citation as LXX
Psalm 109:1, a favorite Christian proof-text for the
resurrection and enthronement of Jesus.116
Its most famous application also occurs in LukeActs, in Peters sermon to the crowd gathered by the
Pentecost experience. This time it comes at the end
of a more elaborate scriptural argument. After the
citation from Joel in 2:17-21, Peter announces that
Jesusa man who had worked signs and wonders
among them but had been put to death by lawless
peoplehad been raised by God. God had loosed
the pangs of death, for he could not be held by it
(2:22-24). Peter then initiates a scriptural argument
by an explicit citation from LXX Psalm 15:8-11,
which he introduces with these words: For David
said about him (eis auton) (2:25). In this context,
this introduction can only mean that David spoke
about Jesus the Nazorean (2:22). Peter then quotes
the Psalm: I have seen the Lord before me always,
because he is at my right hand, so that I not be

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

37

shaken. My heart has been glad because of this, my


tongue has rejoiced. More than that, my flesh will
dwell in hope because you will not abandon my life
to Hades, nor will you let your holy one see corruption. You have made known to me the paths of life,
you will fill me with gladness in your presence. The
entire passage from the Psalm could be exploited for
Peters purposes. We notice that the Psalmist claims
to have seen the Lord before [him] always, which
suggests an intimate and permanent presence with
God. We catch the echo of Psalm 109:1 in the phrase
at the right hand. The singer has known the paths
of life and has had gladness in [Gods] presence.
Perhaps most telling, we also see that the one so
blessed with the presence of God is characterized as
your holy one (ton hosion sou), a designation that
will recur later.
C. H. Dodd had the basic insight that many New
Testament citations carry with them associations
from their original context and that these associations are as important to the meaning and function
of the citation as the actual words quoted. Richard
Hays, in the case of Pauls letters, and Robert Brawley,
in the case of Luke-Acts, have developed this insight
into a rich appreciation of allusions and echoes
implicitly present in such explicit citations.117 What
has now come to be called intertextuality, however,
is simply another way of saying midrash, for the same
thick web of associative thinking is present in both.
The line from Psalm 15 on which Peter builds his
argument is you will not abandon my life to Hades,
nor will you let your holy one see corruption. Peter
quickly establishes that the line cannot apply to the

38

Luke Timothy Johnson

David who composed the Psalm, since he was dead


and buried. Peter can appeal to his audiences own
experience: Everyone knew where Davids tomb was
in Jerusalem (Acts 2:29). Then Peter applies what we
will come to understand as the fundamental principle of messianic (that is, Christian) midrash: that
all of the texts of Torah point forward to a future
fulfillment; that is, they are essentially prophetic in
character. He argues, Since [David] was a prophet
and knew that God had sworn to him by an oath that
he would seat one of his descendents upon his
throne, he looked ahead and spoke concerning the
resurrection of the Messiah.118 Peter then applies
the specific words of the Psalm, for neither was he
left in Hades nor did his flesh see corruption (2:3031). Peter appeals to two experiences. The first is his
audiences knowledge of the tomb of David, proving
his death; David cant possibly be the one who did
not see corruption (2:29). The second experience is
the witnesses experience of the resurrection and
enthronement of Jesus: God raised this Jesus, of
which we are all witnesses (2:32). The Psalm
therefore refers not to David himself but to Jesus the
Messiah, not to the ancient kings enjoyment of
Gods presence during his human life, but the eternal enthronement of the resurrected one to the
right hand of God (2:33). Yet, this Messiah is also
one of his descendents (2:30), and Peters argument also alludes to the promise of an eternal
dynasty made to David himself: he swore by oath
(2:30).
Peter thus makes allusion to another passage of
Scripture in which God swore by oath to David

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

39

concerning an enduring dynasty, namely the oracle


of the prophet Nathan to David in 2 Samuel 7:1216. We know that this passage was used as a messianic prophecy also at Qumran (see 4Qflorilegium
1.7-13).119 The Nathan oracle is embedded also in
another Psalm, LXX 131:11, whose language may
have helped shape Lukes (Peters) own: homosen
kyrios toi Dauid aletheian kai ou me athetesai auten,
ek karpou tes koilias sou thesomai epi ton thronon sou
(The Lord swore a true oath to David, and he will
surely not set it aside; one out of the fruit of your
loins I shall set upon your throne). Peters phrase in
2:30, ek karpou tes osphyos autou (out of the fruit of
your loins) seems derived from this passage. It may
be worthwhile, therefore, to note that LXX Psalm
131:11 is immediately preceded by this verse: For
the sake of David your servant, do not turn away
from the face of your anointed one (heneken Dauid
tou doulou sou me apostrepseis to prosopon tou christou
sou). This verse can be read as though David and
your anointed one/your Christ were two different
figures. The plea do not turn away from the face,
furthermore, can be seen to have a fulfillment in the
line from LXX Psalm 15:8, cited earlier in the
speech, I have seen the Lord before me always.
Peter brings this part of his argument to a climax
with a simple opposition. David did not ascend
into heaven, he declares, yet he himself says, The
Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I
put your enemies as a footstool for your feet (Acts
2:34-35). Psalm 109:1, which began Lukes midrashic
argument concerning Jesus and David in the Gospel
(Luke 20:41-42), now serves as a prophecy spoken

40

Luke Timothy Johnson

by David himself to be fulfilled by the resurrection


and enthronement of Jesus to the right hand
(2:33). Peter can therefore conclude his speech,
Therefore, let the whole house of Israel know for
certain that God has made him both Lord and
Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified (Acts 2:36).
Given the perspectives shaped by Peters (and Lukes)
conviction and experience, this declaration has been
supported by the prophetic texts of Scripture.
Before turning to Pauls speech in Acts 13, it may
be useful to pause for clarification. At one level, I
have been tracing a fairly simple argument running
across several of Lukes speeches both in the Gospel
and Acts. Texts of the Psalms that refer to an
anointed one (Christ) manifestly did not find a
realization in the historical figure of David and must
therefore point forward to the Messiah (anointed
one = Christ). Specifically, the resurrection and
enthronement of Jesus (demonstrated by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit) fulfill the promise of
God that there would be an eternal Davidic dynasty.
It should be obvious, however, that this argument is
carried by a premise that few of Peters hearers and
only some of Lukes potential readers will grant: that
Jesus the Nazorean is in fact now resurrected from
the dead and living as powerful Lord in the presence
of God, enthroned at his right hand. But even
those who may not be willing to grant that premise
are able to recognize that it organizes a complex set
of textual details into a form of argument shaped by
association. The presence of the same word in disparate passages of Scripture enables connections to
be made between other words which otherwise

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

41

might not have been seen as related. These new


associations, in turn, can trigger still others, so that
a thick, if loose, tapestry of meaningful connections
is constructed, whose only substantive link is the
original experiential premise.120
With this clarification in mind, we can turn at last
to Pauls sermon at Pisidian Antioch. I noted earlier
how Paul begins his speech with a rapid recital of
biblical history up to David (Acts 13:16-22). Paul
moves quickly through the judges and Saul (13:2021), and says, having removed him [Saul], he raised
up for them David to be king. To him also he bore
witness. He said, I have found David son of Jesse to
be a man after my own heart. He will perform all my
desires (13:22). Luke here has Paul weave together
something of a mixed citation from LXX Psalm
88:21, (I have found David my servant) and 1
Samuel 13:14 (The Lord seeks a man after his own
heart), with son of Jesse added for clarity. After
this initial citation concerning David, Pauls speech
leaps across the centuries directly to Jesus: From the
seed of this man, according to promise, God brought
to Israel Jesus as a savior (Acts 13:23). The terms
seed (sperma) and promise (epangelia) evoke
other Christian interpretations concerning the heritage of Abraham, notably Galatians 3:15-18.121 But
the allusion here is almost certainly again to the
Nathan oracle in LXX 2 Samuel 7:12: I will raise up
(anasteso) your offspring (sperma) after you, who
shall come from your body, and I will establish his
kingdom forever.
Luke next has Paul briefly recount the Jesus story
from the baptism of John to the cross and resurrec-

42

Luke Timothy Johnson

tion (13:24-31), concluding with an assertion that


connects the kerygma to the earlier biblical recital:
This promise made to the fathers God has fulfilled
for their childrenusby raising Jesus (ten pros
tous pateras epangelian genomenen hoti tauten ho theos
epepleroken tois teknois hemin anastesas Iesoun)
(13:32-33). Paul follows this declaration with the
citation of three Scripture passages in rapid sequence. The first is introduced at once: So also it
stands written in the second Psalm, You are my son,
I have begotten you today. This is a direct and
unaltered citation from LXX Psalm 2:7. Its import
is clear: what was taken as a declaration of divine
filiation for the Davidic dynasty through earthly
enthronement is here applied to the resurrection and
enthronement of Jesus as Gods son. More striking
is that Luke here has Paul quote from the same Psalm
whose first verse was quoted explicitly by all the
apostles in their prayer in time of persecution, and
was then subjected to a pesher-style interpretation
(Acts 4:25-26). It is as though we are invited, through
the medium of Lukes speeches, to read with Peter
and Paul all of Psalm 2 with a messianic perspective
shaped by the death and resurrection of Jesus, so that
the Anointed One rejected by the rulers in Psalm 2:1
is also the begotten son of God of Psalm 2:7,
through the resurrection. Something more than
single-verse proof-texting is at work in these Lukan
speeches.
The third passage cited by Paul in 13:35 is also
familiar to us: Therefore he also says in another
place, You will not give your holy one to see
corruption. We recognize this quotation from

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

43

LXX Psalm 15:10 because it is part of the longer


passage (Psalm 15:8-11) cited by Peter in his Pentecost speech (Acts 2:25-28). Paul here gives the verse
the same decisive application that Peter had earlier:
For David, having served in his own generation, fell
asleep. He was gathered to his fathers, and he saw
corruption. But the one whom God has raised has
not seen corruption (Acts 13:36-37). Once more,
there is the contrast between the mortality of David
and the incorruptible life of resurrection. In this
case, Davids mortality is even further emphasized
by Lukes use of four discrete statements: a) he served
[only] in his own generation; b) he fell asleep; c) he
was gathered to his fathers; d) he saw corruption.
Of greatest interest to us in this sequence, however, is the second citation, which has not been used
earlier, and which forms in this argument what
might be called a midrashic middle term. Paul says,
And to show that he raised him up from the dead
no longer to return to corruption, he spoke this way,
doso hymin ta hosia Dauid ta pista (Acts 13:34).
The citation is very difficult. I have left it for the
moment in Greek because how to translate it is one
of the problems. With the exception of the verb doso
(I will give), which appears to have been supplied by
Luke, the rest of the words (hymin ta hosia Dauid ta
pista) derive from the LXX of Isaiah 55:3. But what
does it mean?
The LXX of Isa 55:3 handles the Hebrew is an
unexpected way. The MT has (in the RSV translation), I will make with you an everlasting covenant,
my steadfast, sure love for David. The LXX (in
contrast to Luke) retains I will make with you an

44

Luke Timothy Johnson

everlasting covenant (kai diathesomai hymin diatheken aionion), but its translation of the remainder
of the statement, though intelligible, has a strange
effect. The LXX has translated the Hebrew hasede
(mercy/mercies) with the neuter plural hosia, and
the Hebrew haneemanm (enduring) with the
neuter plural pista. Each choice makes sense, at least
mechanically. The Greek adjective hosios is usually
used to translate the Hebrew hasid,
(holy one/pious
.
one), whether singular or plural.122 But so far as I can
tell, this is the only time it is used to render the plural
hased,
which is formed from the noun hesed
(mercy),
.
.
usually rendered by the LXX as eleos.123 Likewise, the
Greek adjective pistos is regularly used to translate
aman,124 but again, Isaiah 55:3 is the only occasion
when it is found in the plural neuter pista. The
combination of terms, therefore, is unusual and
opens up interpretive possibilities that were not
present to the same degree in the Hebrew. It is not
at all clear that Gods showing steadfast, sure love
for David to you (plural) could be exploited
messianically.
The degree to which the LXX can be so exploited
depends on how the odd combination ta hosia ta
pista is to be understood. And here is where scholars
divide.125 In my view, the phrase is best understood
in the context of ancient Greek usage for a variety of
divine sanctions, in which hosia can refer to the
things declared holy by the gods as opposed to those
things declared just by humans (dikaia).126 The only
other instance of hosia in the LXX, in fact, bears this
sense: in Deut. 29:18 (19), it is used to translate
when such a one hears the words of these sanctions

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

45

(Jewish Publication Society translation of wehaya be


s amo et dibr haalah).127 Whether consciously or
not, the LXX enabled later readers to see ta hosia
Dauid ta pista as the divine oracles spoken to David,
most notably in 2 Samuel 7:12-16. I therefore
translate, I will give to you the holy and faithful
things said to David.
Now, this midrashic middle term establishes the
hermeneutical warrant for applying to the Messiah
Jesus the passages of Scripture originally spoken to
David. This is made possible by a two-fold connection established by the LXX translation. First, the
mistranslation of mercies by divine decrees
and the application of these to a later generation (the
hymin [to you] is plural, and Isaiah is obviously later
than David), makes the point of reference for the
prophets statement all of the Davidic promises. But
the choice of hosia also provides the possibility for a
more complex word linkage, forging an even closer
connection to the Messiah.
We note that some form of hosios (holy) links three
of the four passages in Pauls speech. Paul cites LXX
Psalm 88:21 in Acts 13:22. The immediate context
for I have found David in that Psalm is: Then you
spoke on the mountain to your holy ones (tois hosiois
sou) and you said, I have given timely help to the
mighty one. I have lifted up (hypso sa) an elect one
(eklekton) from my people. I have found David my
servant (ton doulon mou). With a holy oil (elaioi
hagioi) I have anointed him (echrisa auton) (LXX
Ps. 88:20-21). This cluster of terms provides a
perfect opening for messianic appropriation. Then,

46

Luke Timothy Johnson

in the citation from Isaiah 55:3, we have noted the


phrase ta hosia Dauid ta pista. Finally, in the citation
from LXX Psalm 15:10, you will not let your holy
one (ton hosion sou) to see corruption. Luke himself
supplies a still further link between the passages, by
introducing Isaiah 55:3 with the verb doso (I will
give), which is lacking in the LXX, thus matching
the same verb used in the citation of LXX Psalm
15:10, doseis (you will not give).
In this final example, three aspects of Lukes
scriptural interpretation in his speeches have reappeared in a particularly impressive way. First, we
have seen how his use of Scripture relies on the
specific readings of the LXX rather than the MT.
Second, we have observed that his argument takes
place not only within the confines of a single speech
but across several: in the case of David and Jesus, we
have traced the basic argument from the saying of
Jesus in the Gospel, to Peters Pentecost discourse, to
the prayer of the community in persecution, to
Pauls sermon at Antioch of Pisidia. Third, we have
recognized Lukes interpretation as a kind of haggadic
midrash that depends on word association as well as
on elements in the context of citations that may be
as influential as the parts made explicit.128

Conclusions
This essay has touched on a number of aspects of
Lukes interpretation of Scripture within the speeches
of Acts, and, although the treatment of them was
necessarily superficial, it nevertheless allows the following six conclusions.

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

47

(1) Luke has placed his scriptural interpretation in


his speeches, which virtually all contemporary scholars recognize as his own creations. There is therefore
every reason to thinkwhatever antecedent traditions may have been available to himthe interpretations of Scripture found within the speeches are
also entirely his own. The various characters who
interpret Scripture are interpreting for Luke, wearing the various masks he assigns them.
(2) Analysis demonstrates that Lukes engagement
with the LXX is neither superficial nor random. His
citations and allusions reveal an intense engagement
with multiple intertextual connections. It is reasonable to suppose, as Brawley suggests, that Luke
expected his readers to have a reading competence
sufficient to catch these allusions and echoes.129 It
has become clear as well that the full force of Lukes
exposition is rarely obvious within a single speech.
Rather, through the entire set of speeches in Acts, a
sort of midrashic argument is constructed. The
argument is properly called messianic (or
Christological), so long as that term is understood to
include the messianic community of the church, as
well as Jesus the Messiah, under the umbrella of
Torah.
(3) An essential element of Lukes argument,
furthermore, is hermeneutical in the strict sense of
the term. The issue is not so much whether Scripture
refers primarily to Christ or the church, or even to
God,130 so much as whether Scripture is to be read
prophetically in order to be properly understood. It
is not at all an accident that Pauls final defense
speech before Festus the Roman Procurator, King

48

Luke Timothy Johnson

Agrippa, and Bernice concludes with this assertion:


I stand here testifying both to small and great,
saying nothing but what Moses and the prophets
said would come to pass, that Christ must suffer, and
that by being the first to rise from the dead, he would
proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles (Acts 26:22-23). The bluff Roman administrator, confused by all this messianic arcana, interrupts
Paul in a loud voice: You are raving, Paul! Your
great learning has turned you to madness! (26:24).
Paul responds by turning to Agrippa, who was
nominally a Jewish ruler: The king understands
these things (26:26). He means that these are
matters of scriptural interpretation that all Jews
would grasp. Then Paul turns directly to Agrippa,
speaking with boldness, and asking the most pertinent question: Do you believe, King Agrippa, in
the prophets? I know that you do believe! (26:27)
The king, being no fool, responds in turn, You are
persuading me to play the Christian a little (en oligoi
me peitheis christianon poiesai).131 Yes, that is precisely Lukes argument: to read Torah essentially as
prophecy about the Messiah is already to play the
Christian a little bit!
(4) As an interpreter of the LXX, Luke uses a
variety of modes of interpretation. Most striking,
however, is that he lacks entirely any trace of the
allegorical interpretation so favored by other Hellenistic Jewish interpreters, like Philo, Aristobulus, or
Aristeas, whose text likewise was exclusively the
LXX.132 Instead, his methods resemble those found
among Palestinian Jews whose text was Hebrew
rather than Greek: targum, pesher, haggadah. I am

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

49

speaking here not so much about technical rules of


interpretation as about characteristic interpretive
instincts. In Stephens speech, we see a retelling of
the biblical story that is entirely based on the LXX
yet most resembles Jubilees and the Genesis
Apocryphon. In the prayer of the Apostles, we find a
reading of LXX Psalm 2 that most is like the Pesher
on Psalm 37 at Qumran. In the speeches of Peter and
Paul we find a midrashic argument that is haggadic
in style.
(5) There naturally arises a question about where
to place Luke, the most thoroughly Hellenistic of
early Christian writers (above all in his composition
and use of speeches), within the spectrum of firstcentury biblical interpretation. Among his Jewish
near-contemporaries, the most stunning parallels
are in the Qumran Scrolls, where we also find the
targumic rewriting of biblical history, the pesher
interpretation of Psalms, and the intricate messianic
florilegium. And at Qumran as well, we find midrash
applied specifically to the communitys experience
as the fulfillment of prophecy in the last days.133
Among his New Testament colleagues, Luke most
resembles Paul of Tarsus, another interpreter of the
LXX whose methods are more those of the Scribe
than of the Sophos,134 although even Paul makes use
of allegory (Galatians 4:21-31).
(6) If we choose to regard Lukes speeches simply
as repositories for midrashic arguments worked out
before he wrote,135 then the most logical hypothesis
concerning the origin of his septuagintal midrash is
that of Lucien Cerfaux, who argued for the essentially Hellenistic character of the first Jerusalem

50

Luke Timothy Johnson

community.136 Certainly, from the earliest days of


the Christian movement, apologetics on the basis of
septuagintal midrash had begun. But if we take
seriously Lukes own creative shaping of scriptural
interpretation, especially, as we have seen, across the
span of several speeches, then we might also want to
reconsider another frequently discarded tradition:
Pauls own self-designation as a Pharisee (Phil 3:5),
and Lukes depiction of him as having studied at the
feet of Gamaliel according to the strictness of our
ancestral law (Acts 22:3).137 This connection enables us to recognize that in his letters Paul used
properly midrashic methods on the version of Torah
the messianists had made their own, the LXX.138
This same connection helps us to understand that
Luke was not only Pauls admirer but also (as tradition long held) his companion and disciple, one of
those making up, even in Pauls lifetime, the Pauline
School.139 These solutions might sound overly
simple and concrete. But the evidence we have
examined at least demands that we recognize that
the compartments separating competing schools in
first-century Judaism were not entirely watertight.
Indeed, the evidence shows that methods we consider proper for the study of the Hebrew Bible
within the proto-rabbinic and sectarian groups were
shared also by competitors in the messianic tradition, but applied to the Greek version of Scripture.
Close attention to the literary dimensions of LukeActs, finally, raises a number of other questions for
which answers are yet to be found. The first is
historical. If, in fact, Luke belongs with Paul and
James and the author of Hebrews to the early and

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

51

generative period of creative scriptural interpretation, what are the implications for our understanding of earliest Christian history? On one side, we
need to deal with the way that, through his speeches
as well as his narrative, Luke has himself constructed
a powerful version of that history. On the other side,
if Luke is writing shortly after the career of Paul and
shares his hermeneutical methods (except allegory),
we may need to reevaluate the frequent understanding of Luke as writing from a perspective dramatically different from Pauls. The evidence from the
interpretation of Scripture in Lukes speeches suggests that their perspectives, at least on this critical
point, are not so disparate as sometimes supposed.
The second question is theological. Given the fact
that Scripture for Lukeand for all the New Testament writerswas not the Hebrew but rather the
Greek LXX, how should we think about western
Christianitys long estrangement from the LXX?
The Eastern Church continues to use the LXX as its
Old Testament, and all Christian theology through
Augustine was based squarely on the Greek Old and
New Testament. But since Jeromes Vulgate, the
West has based its translations on the Hebrew. Yet
the implications of this shift have never adequately
been addressed theologically. The seamless
intertexture of Luke-Acts and the rest of the New
Testament no longer exists. Indeed, the patterns of
New Testament citation, allusion, and argument
from Scripture no longer appear evident or even
credible. It is perhaps time to honestly face the
question whether the LXX is really the Christian
Old Testament.140

52

Luke Timothy Johnson

A third question, perhaps the most important, has


to do with our shared life of discipleship in the
church. To what extent does Lukes way of interpreting Scripture serve as example and legitimation
for our own? It is daunting to realize how deeply and
thoroughly both he and his readers were involved in
the imaginative world of Scripture. Luke suggests
that it is impossible to speak the good news, impossible to tell the story of Jesus, without using the
words of Scripture. But even more challenging is
Lukes assumption that Gods Holy Spirit continues
to work in the lives of believers. Luke thinks that the
Spirit continues to lead them into new and surprising experiences of God, continues to open their eyes
to meanings of Scripture that study alone could
never have yielded. Luke believes further that Gods
Spirit continues to guide the church in its process of
discernment and decision making, if Christians trust
this same Holy Spirit. Letting the Spirit work in us
this way requires not scholarship but the obedience
of faith.141

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

53

Notes
1. The designation took hold because of the influence of the
classic study by H. J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts
(New York: MacMillan, 1927), which anticipated virtually
all lines of subsequent research on this composition.
2. See M. C. Parsons and R. I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of
Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).
3. It remains a remarkable fact that among the major commentary series, there is a single author for both volumes only in
one: L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, Sacra Pagina, no. 3
(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991) and The Acts of the
Apostles, Sacra Pagina, no. 5 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press,
1992). The other major treatment of both volumes from the
perspective of their literary unity is R. C. Tannehill, The
Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 2 vols. (Philadelphia and
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 198690).
4. See especially R. I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary
Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1987).
5. For Luke-Acts as biography, see C. H. Talbert, What is a
Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1977); D. L. Brown and J. L. Wentling, The
Conventions of Classical Biography and the Genre of LukeActs: A Preliminary Study, in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives
from the Society of Biblical Literature, ed. C. H. Talbert (New
York: Crossroad, 1984), 63-88.
6. For Luke-Acts as a Hellenistic history, see G. E. Sterling,
Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts, and
Apologetic Historiography, Novum Testamentum Supplements, no. 64 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992); D. W. Palmer,
Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph, in The Book
of Acts in Its First Century Setting, vol. 1, The Books of Acts
in its Literary Setting, ed. B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 1-30; J. T. Squires, The
Plan of God in Luke-Acts, Society for New Testament
Studies Monograph Series, no. 76 (Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press, 1993). On the importance of Lukes Prologue

54

Luke Timothy Johnson

to the Gospel for determining his purposes, see R. J. Dillon,


Previewing Lukes Project from his Prologue, Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 205-27.
7. See Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 9-10.
8. For a short summary and bibliography, see L. T. Johnson,
The Christology of Luke-Acts, in Who Do You Say That I
Am: Essays in Christology in Honor of Jack Dean Kingsbury,
ed. M. A. Powell and D. R. Bauer (Louisville: Westminster/
John Knox Press, 1999), 49-65.
9. Biblical imitation as a feature of one passage is analyzed by
T. L. Brodie, Towards Unravelling Lukes Uses of the Old
Testament: Luke 7:11-17 as Imitatio of 1 Kings 17: 17-24,
New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 247-67. Imitation as a
factor in the construction of a narrative sequence is found in
C. F. Evans, The Central Section of Lukes Gospel, in
Studies in the Gospels, ed. D. E. Nineham (Oxford: Blackwell,
1955), 37-53, and D. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet: The
Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel
Narrative (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989).
10. Many of these parallels are found in Pervo, Profit with
Delight, and E. Pluemacher, Lukas als hellenistischer
Schriftsteller, Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments,
no. 9 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1972). For
Hellenistic features in Lukes birth account, see C. H.
Talbert, Prophecies of Future Greatness: The Contribution of Greco-Roman Biographies to an Understanding of
Luke 1:5-4:15, in The Great Helmsman, ed. J. L. Crenshaw
and S. Sandmel (New York: KTAV, 1980), 129-141.
11. Among many other features can be noted the manner of
speech and travel by Jesus and his followers (see Luke 9:17; 10:1-12; Acts 17:16-34), the practice of teaching at meals
(11:37-52; 14:1-24; 22:14-38), the establishment of a common life (Acts 2:41-47; 4:32-37), and boldness in proclamation in the face of opposition (Luke 12:8-12; 21:10-19; Acts
4:13-22).
12. For a sketch of representative positions, see R. Maddox, The
Purpose of Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982).
13. For the early date, see Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 2-3, and for
the late date, see S. G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

55

Mission in Luke-Acts, New Testament Studies Monograph


Series, no. 23 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973).
14. One can contrast the range of views concerning the basic
issues in Luke-Acts with the relative unanimity concerning
the circumstances of Matthews compositionleaving aside
the heated issue of the demographic makeup of the Matthean
church. See, e.g., J. A. Overman, Matthews Gospel and
Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), and A. J.
Saldarini, Matthews Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1994).
15. See L. T. Johnson, On Finding the Lukan Community: A
Cautious Cautionary Essay, in 1979 SBL Seminar Papers,
ed. P. Achtemeier (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979),
87-100.
16. I applied this approach to the Letter of James, in L. T.
Johnson, The Social World of James: Literary Analysis and
Historical Reconstruction, in The Social World of the First
Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks, ed. L. M.
White and L. O. Yarbrough (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1995), 180-97.
17. For Torah as the shared symbolic world of all Jews in the
first century, and for the conflicts over its interpretation in
Christianitys first generation, see L. T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, 2d ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 10-16, 43-91, 128-29.
18. Leaving aside lesser verbal exchanges and declarations, we
find significant speech acts ascribed to Peter alone (2:14-36;
3:12-24; 10:34-43; 15:7-11) and with unnamed others
(4:8-12; 4:23-31; 5:28-32), Stephen (7:2-53), Paul (13:1641; 14:15-18; 17:22-31; 20:17-35; 22:1-21; 24:10-21; 26:223), James (15:14-21), Gamaliel (5:35-39), the Ephesian
Town Clerk (19:35-40), and the advocate Tertullus (24:28).
19. C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Development
(New York: Harper and Row, 1936), 31.
20. Apostolic Preaching, 46-55; he concludes, It is surely clear
that the fourfold Gospel taken as a whole is an expression of
the original apostolic preaching (55).

56

Luke Timothy Johnson

21. Skepticism concerning the historicity of Acts is characteristic of German scholarship, in sharp contrast to the optimistic positivism of much British scholarship. The German
approach is exemplified by the great commentary by E.
Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, trans. B. Noble et al.
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971); the more conservative
British approach is represented by F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the
Apostles (London: Tyndale Press, 1951), and C. J. Hemer,
The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, no. 49
(Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989).
22. U. Wilckens, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, no. 5 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961).
23. H. J. Cadbury, The Speeches in Acts, in Additional Notes
to the Commentary, ed. K. Lake and H. J. Cadbury, vol.5 of
The Beginnings of Christianity, ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and
K. Lake, part 1, The Acts of the Apostles, (London: MacMillan
and Company, 1933), 402-27; M. Dibelius, Paul on the
Areopagus, The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography, and Literary Allusions in the Speeches of Acts, all
in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. H. Greeven, trans.
Mary Ling (London: SCM Press, 1951; reprint, Mifflintown,
Pa.: Sigler Press, 1999), 26-77, 138-85, 186-91.
24. Herodotus, trans. A. D. Godley, Loeb Classical Library
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1926).
25. Thucydides, trans. C. F. Smith, Loeb Classical Library
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1928).
26. Jewish War, trans. H. St. J. Thackery, Loeb Classical
Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1927).
27. Lucian of Samosata, How to Write History, trans. K.
Kilburn, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
Univ. Press, 1959).
28. F. F. Bruce recognizes this in principle in The Significance
of the Speeches for Interpreting Acts, Southwestern Journal
of Theology 1 (1990): 20-28, although in practice, he emphasizes the reportage dimension of the speeches in Acts.
29. In The Speeches of Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns
(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 12,

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

57

Marion Soards accepts this premise and pushes further to


argue that Lukes speeches in Acts achieve the unification
of the otherwise diverse and incoherent elements comprised
by Acts. Through the regular introduction of formally
repetitive speeches, Luke unified his narrative . This is an
important observation, and close (though not identical) to
the point I will make concerning the midrashic argument
that runs through several speeches.
30. See, e.g., R. Zehnle, Peters Pentecost Discourse, Society of
Biblical Literature Monograph Series, no. 15 (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1971), and J. A. T. Robinson, The Most
Primitive Christology of All? Journal of Theological Studies,
n.s., 7 (1956): 177-89.
31. Pluemacher, Lukas als hellenisticher Schriftsteller, 32-79.
32. J. Neyrey, The Forensic Defense Speech and Pauls Trial
Speeches in Acts 22-26: Form and Function, in Luke-Acts:
New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature, ed. C.
H. Talbert (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 210-24; see also
F. Veltman, The Defense Speeches of Paul in Acts, in
Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. C. H. Talbert (Danville, Va.:
Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978), 24356, and P. Schubert, The Final Cycle of Speeches in the
Book of Acts, Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968): 15383.
33. W. S. Kurz, The Function of the Christological Proof
from Prophecy for Luke and Justin (Ph.D. diss., Yale
University, 1976).
34. For further insight into the rhetorical ideal of prosopopoiia,
see S. K. Stowers, Romans 7:7-25 as a Speech in Character
(Prosopopoiia), in Paul in his Hellenistic Setting, ed. T.
Engberg-Peterson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 180202.
35. See Dio Chrys. Or. 12 (Discourses, trans. J. W. Cohoon,
Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ.
Press, 1932]); Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 311-21.
36. See D. L. Balch, The Areopagus Speech: An Appeal to the
Stoic Historian Posidonius against Later Stoics and the
Epicureans, in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in
Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. D. L. Balch et al.

58

Luke Timothy Johnson

(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 52-79, and J. Neyrey,


Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy, Ibid., 118-34.
37. J. Dupont, Le Discours de Milet. Testament pastorale de
Paul? Actes 20,18-36 (Paris: Cerf, 1962).
38. E. Hilgert, Speeches in Acts and Hellenistic Canons of
Historiography and Rhetoric, in Good News in History:
Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, ed. E. L. Miller (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1993), 83-109.
39. See L. T. Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in
Luke-Acts, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series,
no. 39 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 70-78, and
The Gospel of Luke, 17-21.
40 See, e.g., H. Anderson, The Rejection at Nazareth Pericope
of Luke 4:16-30 in Light of Recent Critical Trends, Interpretation 18 (1964): 259-74.
41. L. T. Johnson, The Lukan Kingship Parable (Luke 19:1127), Novum Testamentum 24 (1982): 139-59.
42. A great deal of good work has been done on the subject.
Among others, see J. A. Fitzmyer, The Use of the Old
Testament in Luke-Acts, in Society of Biblical Literature
1992 Seminar Papers, ed. E. Boring, (Missoula, Mont.:
Scholars Press, 1992), 524-38; V. McCracken, The Interpretation of Scripture in Luke-Acts, Restoration Quarterly
4 (1999): 193-210; D. Bock, The Use of the Old Testament in Luke-Acts: Christology and Mission, in Society of
Biblical Literature 1990 Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull
(Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1990), 494-511; D. E.
Johnson, Jesus against the Idols: The Use of Isaianic
Servant Songs in the Missiology of Acts, Westminster
Theological Journal 52 (1990): 343-53; C. A. Kimball,
Jesus Exposition of Scripture in Luke 4:16-30: An Inquiry
in Light of Jewish Hermeneutics, Perspectives in Religious
Studies 21 (1994): 179-202; C. A. Evans and J. A Sanders,
Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in
Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993); M. L. Strauss,
The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and Fulfillment in Lukan Christology, Journal for the Study of the New
Testament Supplement Series, no. 110 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1995); C. A. Kimball, Jesus Exposition of

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

59

the Old Testament in Lukes Gospel, Journal for the Study of


the New Testament Supplement Series, no. 94 (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1994); R. L. Brawley, Text to Text
Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts, Indiana
Studies in Biblical Literature (Bloomington: Indiana Univ.
Press, 1995).
43. Analysis of Luke-Acts from this perspective began with P.
Schubert, The Structure and Significance of Luke 24, in
Neutestamentlich Studien fr Rudolf Bultmann, ed. W. Eltester
(Berlin: E. Toepelmann, 1957), 165-86, was taken up by N.
A. Dahl, The Story of Abraham in Luke-Acts, in Studies
in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Paul Schubert, ed. L. E. Keck
and J. L. Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), 16586, and a number of his students; see R. Karris, Missionary
Communities: A New Paradigm for the Study of LukeActs, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979): 80-97. C. H.
Talbert rightly warns against exaggerating the importance
of this motif as a single interpretive lens, in Promise and
Fulfillment in Lukan Theology in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature (New York:
Crossroad, 1984), 91-103.
44. See Johnson, Gospel of Luke,15-16.
45. For Matthews style of citation, see R. H. Gundry, The Use
of the Old Testament in St. Matthews Gospel. Novum Testamentum Supplements, no. 18 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967),
and K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the
Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968).
46. Matt. 1:22; 2:5, 15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14, 35;
21:4; 27:9.
47. This sort of haggadic midrash is most obvious in the birth
stories; see R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, enl. ed.
(Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1993); see also the studies
by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, Luke and Scripture: The
Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1993).
48. Exod. 20:12-16/Deut. 5:16-20 (Luke 18:20); Deut. 6:4/
Lev. 19:18 (Luke 10:27); Deut. 6:13 (Luke 4:8); Deut. 6:16
(Luke 4:12); Deut. 8:3 (Luke 4:4); Isa. 8:14-15 (Luke
20:17); Isa. 40:3-5 (Luke 3:4-6); Isa. 53:12 (Luke 22:37);

60

Luke Timothy Johnson

Isa. 56:7/Jer. 7:11 (Luke 19:45); Isa. 61:1, 2; 58:6 (Luke


4:18-19); Mal. 3:1 (Luke 7:27); Ps. 31:5 (Luke 23:46); Ps.
91:11-12 (Luke 4:10-11); Ps. 110:1 (Luke 20:41); Ps.
118:22-23 (Luke 20:17); Ps. 118:26 (Luke 19:37).
49. E.g., it is written (Luke 4:4; 4:8; 4:10; 4:16; 19:45),
where it was written (4:16), about whom it is written
(7:27). The most elaborate introduction is David himself
says in the Book of the Psalms (20:41); for the full range of
these introductions, and for the parallel Hebrew constructions found at Qumran, see Fitzmyer, Use of Old Testament in Luke-Acts, 524-37.
50. Most are in the mouth of Jesus, but passages ofScripture are
cited also by the devil (4:10), the crowds (19:37), and the
lawyer, in response to Jesus question, What is written in
the law? What do you read there? (10:26).
51. For an overview of critical issues and bibliography, see M.
K. H. Peters, Septuagint, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary,
ed. D. N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 5:10931104; E. Tov, The Septuagint, in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in
Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. M. J. Mulder,
Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum,
vol. 2, part 1 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 161-88.
52. See Stendahl, School of St. Matthew and Its Use of Old
Testament, 97-142.
53. The essays appear in J. Dupont, Etudes sur les Actes des
Aptres, Lectio Divina, no. 45 (Paris: Cerf, 1967):
LUtilisation apologtique de lAncien Testament dans les
discours des Actes, 245-82; LInterprtation des Psaumes
dans les Actes des Aptres, 283-308; La Destine de Judas
prophtise par David, 309-20; Ressuscit le troisime
jour, 321-36; TA HOSIA DAUID TA PISTA (Actes 13,
34 = Isae 55,3), 337-60; LAOS EX ETHNON, 361-66.
See also Les Discours de Pierre dans les Actes et le Chapitre
xxiv de lEvangile de Luc, in LEvangile de Luc, ed. F.
Neirynck, Biblioteca Ephemeridum Theologicarum
Lovaniensium, no. 32 (Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1973). Two
of the essays are available in English: Messianic Interpretation of the Psalms in the Acts of the Apostles, and Apolo-

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

61

getic Use of the Old Testament in the Speeches of Acts, in


J. Dupont, The Salvation of the Gentiles: Studies on the Acts
of the Apostles, trans. J. Keating. (New York: Paulist Press,
1979), 103-28 and 129-60.
54. On the passage, see C. Masson, La Rconstitution du
collge des Douze, Revue philosophique et thologique, 3d
ser., 5 (1955): 193-201; J. Jervell, Luke and the People of God
(Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972), 75-112;
J. Dupont, La douxime Aptre (Actes 1:15-26). A propos
dune explication rcente, in The New Testament Age, ed.
W. C. Weinrich (Macon, Ga.: Mercer Univ. Press, 1984),
1:139-45.
55. See the structural analysis of the passage in relation to the
two citations in Dupont, La Destine de Judas, 309-20;
see also the discussion of the passage by G. J. Steyn,
Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and
Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum, Contributions to
Biblical Exegesis and Theology, no. 12 (Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1995), 38-63.
56. Genetheto he epaulis auton eremomene kai en tois skenomasin
auton me esto ho katoikon. Luke has changed the plurals of
the LXX to the singular (to fit the citation to Judas), used the
pronoun in place of the LXXs their tents, and reversed the
word sequence in the second phrase.
57. The citation matches the LXX, with one exception: Luke
replaces laboi with labeto, which is consistent with the thirdperson imperatives in the first citation. Lukes combination
of texts here has no known precedent; see T. Holtz, Untersuchungen ber die Alttestamentliche Zitate bei Lukas, Texte
und Untersuchungen, no. 104 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
1968), 46.
58. Since this sense of peqda h as store or things laid up is
found elsewhere only in Isa. 15:7, the LXX translators may
simply have been woodenly consistent.
59. Paul tells the elders in Miletus, to pneuma to hagion etheto
episkopous poimainein ten ekklesian tou theou.
60. In contrast to the role of the prophetes in glossolalic cults,
which was to interpret the speech that had been uttered

62

Luke Timothy Johnson

ecstatically, the prophet Peter interprets the event; see


Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 53-56.
61. Hon ho theos anestesen lysas tas odinas tou thanatou kathoti
ouk en dynaton krateisthai auton hyp autou.
62. Hom. Il. 11.271 (trans. A. T. Murray, Loeb Classical
Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1924]);
Eur. Supp. 920 (Suppliants, trans. A. S. Way, Loeb Classical
Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1912]);
Joseph AJ 2.218; Isa. 37:3; 1 Thess. 5:3.
63. See, e.g., Exod. 22:25; Deut. 24:6; Prov. 20:16.
64. I find unconvincing the argument of H. van de Sandt, that
the Amos text is essentially a replacement of one in
Deteronomy, in An Explanation of Acts 15:6-21 in the
Light of Deuteronomy 4:29-35 (LXX), Journal for the
Study of the New Testament 46 (1992): 73-97.
65. For Lukes understanding of circumcision as a custom
appropriate to the Jewish nation but having no salvific value
either for them or for Gentiles, see S. G. Wilson, Luke and
the Law, Society of New Testament Studies Monograph
Series, no. 50 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983);
for the significance of the idea of the people of God, see
especially N. A. Dahl, A People for His Name (Acts
XV.14), New Testament Studies 4 (1957-58): 319-27.
66. For the narrative development through which Luke prepares for the climactic decision making, see L. T. Johnson,
Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the Church
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996).
67. See the discussion in Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 183-93.
68. Dialogue with Trypho 66-77 (Ante-Nicene Fathers: The
Writings of the Fathers down to 325, vol.1, ed. A. Roberts et
al. [1885; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994]).
69. LXX Isa. 45:21 has hina gnosin hama tis akousta epoiesen
tauta ap arches. The allusion is possible but difficult to
prove.
70. For a succinct statement of the issues with respect to Acts,
see J. A. Fitzmyer, S.J., The Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Bible,
vol. 18C (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 66-79.
71. For discussion of the textual issues in detail, see Johnson,
Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, 41-46; Holtz,

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

63

Alttestamentliche Zitate bei Lukas, 5-14; Zehnle, Peters


Pentecost Discourse, 28-33; M. Rese, Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas, Studien zum Neuen
Testament, no. 1 (Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969), 48-49;
Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in Context of Petrine and Pauline
Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum, 64-100.
72. For an argument in favor of the Alexandrian text, see J. H.
Ropes, The Text of Acts, vol. 3 of The Beginnings of Christianity, part 1, The Acts of the Apostles (London: Macmillan and
Company, 1926), ccl-cclxxv; the Western tradition is favored by A. C. Clark, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1933), xxii and following, and more
recently, the case has been made that Luke is involved in the
composition of both text versions; see M. E. Boismard, The
Text of Acts: A Problem of Literary Criticism? in New
Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis:
Essays in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger, ed. E. J. Epp and G. Fee
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 147-57.
73. In the case of Acts, see G. Kilpatrick, An Eclectic Study of
the Text of Acts, in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory
of R. P. Casey, ed. J. Birdsall and R. Thomson (New York:
Herder, 1963), 64-77, and A. Klijn, In Search of the
Original Text of Acts, in Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. L. Keck
and J. L. Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 103-10.
74. A. Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece
juxta LXX interpretes (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
1979), first published in 1935; B. and K. Aland et al., ed.,
Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. rev., (Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993), based on the edition of
Eberhard and Erwin Nestle first published in 1898.
75. E. J. Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, New Testament Studies Monograph Series, no. 3
(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1966).
76. See Johnson, Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts,
41-45, and more recently, Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in
Context of Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum,
91-100; see also C. A. Evans, The Prophetic Setting of the
Pentecost Sermon, Zeitschrift fr Neuentestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 (1983): 148-50.

64

Luke Timothy Johnson

77. The prophecies spoken by characters within his narrative


are used by Luke in a distinctive way, that is, programmatically, as ways of interpreting the subsequent flow of the story
he is telling. See Johnson, Literary Function of Possessions in
Luke-Acts, 15-18, and for Peters Speech in this light, see
Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 53-56.
78. R. B. Hays correctly makes the same point with respect to
Paul, in Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven:
Yale Univ. Press, 1989), 173-78.
79. This point is made strongly and correctly by C. H. Talbert,
Promise and Fulfillment in Lukan Theology, 93.
80. F. F. Bruce, Pauls Use of the Old Testament in Acts, in
Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in
Honor of E. Earle Ellis, ed. G. Hawthorne and O. Betz
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 71-79; J. Doeve, Jewish
Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, Van Gorcums
Theologische Bibliotheek, no. 24 (Assen, Netherlands: Van
Gorcum, 1954), 115-16; J. Bowker, Speeches in Acts: A
Study of Proem and Yelammedenu Form, New Testament
Studies 14 (1967-68): 96-111; L. Cerfaux, Citations
scripturaires et tradition textuelle dans le Livre des Actes,
Aux sources de la tradition chrtienne. Mlanges offerts
Maurice Goguel, Bibliothque thologique (Paris: Delachaux
et Niestle, 1950), 43-51.
81. J. Ross Wagner surveys the ways Ps. 118 may have been read
in the Jewish context, but devotes his attention to the ways
Luke exploits Ps. 118 throughout his narrativean analysis
not unlike the one that concludes the present essay; see
Psalm 118 in Luke-Acts: Tracing a Narrative Thread, in
Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel:
Investigations and Proposals, ed. C. A. Evans and S. A.
Sanders, Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Supplement Series, no. 148 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1997), 154-78. Likewise, Brawley, Text to Text Pours
Forth Speech, acknowledges technical questions and parallels in Jewish literature, but he focuses mainly on the rich
intertextual effects Luke achieves with his readings of Scripture.

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

65

82. Compare 13:18 and Deut. 1:31; 13:19; 7:1; 13:21 and 1
Sam. 10:21-24.
83. In the sequence from 4:1 to 5:42, Luke shows the ordinary
populace and the official leadership of the people responding to the proclamation of Jesus as Christ and Lord in
dramatically different ways. The ordinary people respond
positively, while the leadership rejects the apostles message
and authority. See Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 75-104.
84. Ibid., 142-44.
85. False witnesses first accuse him of blasphemous words
against Moses and God (6:11). Then, before the council
they say that Stephen speaks against this holy place and the
law (6:13). Finally, this is explicated by 6:14 as, Jesus the
Nazorean will destroy this place and change the customs
that Moses handed down to us.
86. Among many studies devoted to the speech, see C. K.
Barrett, Old Testament History according to Stephen and
Paul, in Studien zum Text und Ethik des Neuen Testaments,
ed. W. Schrage, Beihefte Zeitschrift fr die Neuen Testament, no. 47 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986), 57-69; J.
Bihler, Die Stephanusgeschichte, Mnchener Theologische
Studien, no. 1, Historische Abteilung, no. 30 (Mnchen:
Max Huebner, 1963); J. Dupont, La Structure oratoire du
discours dEtienne (Actes 7), Biblica 66 (1985): 153-67; J.
Kilgallen, The Stephen Speech: A Literary and Redactional
Study of Acts 7,2-53, Analecta Biblica, no. 67 (Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976); D. Sylva, The Meaning
and Function of Acts 7:46-50, Journal of Biblical Literature
106 (1987): 261-75; J. E. Via, An Interpretation of Acts
7:35-37 from the Perspective of Major Themes in LukeActs, in Society of Biblical Literature 1978 Seminar Papers,
ed. P. J. Achtemeier (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press,
1978); 209-23.
87. See G. W. E. Nicklesburg, The Bible Rewritten and
Expanded, in The Jewish Writings of the Second Temple
Period, ed. M. E. Stone, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad
Novum Testamentum, vol. 2, part 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1984), 89-156.

66

Luke Timothy Johnson

88. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, trans. H. St. J. Thackery,


Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ.
Press, 1930); the Genesis Apocryphon and Book of Jubilees are
available in F. G. Martinez, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls
Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, trans. W. G. E.
Watson, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); the Book
of Jubilees, Pseudo-Philo, and Artapanus are all available in
J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
vol. 2 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985).
89. See E. J. Goodenough, An Introduction to Philo Judaeus, 2d
rev. ed. (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1963); S. Sandmel,
Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction (New York: Oxford
Univ. Press, 1979); P. Borgen, Philo of Alexandria, in
Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M. E. Stone
(Compendium Rerum Iudicarum ad Novum Testamentum, vol. 2, part 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 23382.
90. See O. S. Wintermute, Jubilees, a New Translation and
Introduction, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:35-50.
91. On targums, see D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara, ed.,
The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context,
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements,
no. 166 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994); A. D.
York, The Targum in the Synagogue and the School,
Journal for the Study of Judaism 10 (1979): 74-86.
92. E. Richard, Acts 6:1-8:4: The Authors Method of Composition, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, no.
41 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978).
93. Philo, On the Life of Moses, trans. F. H. Colson, in Philo, vol.
6, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ.
Press, 1935]).
94. Compare, for example, the Infancy Gospels of James and
Thomas, ed. Ronald F. Hock, Scholars Bible, vol. 2 [Santa
Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 1995] and Pseudo-Callisthenes
Life of Alexander of Macedon 1.13-19 (ed. and trans. E. H.
Haight [New York: Longmans, Green, 1955]).
95. See examples in Pl. Cri. 50E, 51C (Plato, vol. 1, Euthyphro,
Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, trans. H. N. Fowler, Loeb
Classical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press,

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

67

1914]); Philo Life of Moses 21; Flaccus 158 (trans. F. H.


Colson, in Philo, vol. 9, Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1941]).
96. The phrase chara para theoi used of Jesus in Luke 2:52 also
corresponds to the phrase asteios toi theoi used of Moses in
Acts 7:20.
97. See E. Richard, The Polemical Character of the Joseph
Episode in Acts 7, Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979):
255-67, and Johnson, Literary Function of Possessions in
Luke-Acts, 70-76.
98. A. A. Trites, Some Aspects of Prayer in Luke-Acts, in
Society of Biblical Literature 1977 Seminar Papers, ed. P. J.
Achtemeier (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 5977.
99. See, in particular, Jervell, Luke and the People of God, 75112; D. Hamm, Acts 3:1-10: The Healing of the Temple
Beggar as Lukan Theology, Biblica 67 (1986): 305-19, and
J. Schmitt, LEglise de Jrusalem, ou la restauration
dIsral, Revue des sciences religeuses 27 (1953): 209-18.
100. For the narrative development, see Johnson, Acts of the
Apostles, 75-104; for the significance of the second description of the sharing of possessions for that narrative development, see Johnson, Literary Function of Possessions in
Luke-Acts, 191-211.
101. Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 93-104.
102. See, e.g., E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 226; O.
Bauernfeind, Die Apostelgeschichte, Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 5 (Leipzig: A.
Deichertsche, 1939), 79; K. Lake and H. J. Cadbury,
English Translation and Commentary, vol. 4 of The Beginnings of Christianity, part 1, The Acts of the Apostles, 45; and
recently, R. Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech, 100.
103. J. Dupont, La Prire des aptres persecuts (Actes 4,2331) in Etudes sur les Actes des Aptres, Lectio Divina, no. 45
(Paris: Cerf, 1967), 521-22; see also Johnson, Acts of the
Apostles, 82-93. Notice that Luke makes a decisive transition
to the assembly of believers in 4:32, and places the apostles
in its midst.

68

Luke Timothy Johnson

104. Note the similarity to the grammatical awkwardness in


Acts 3:16, where Luke wants to assert both the power at
work in the name and the necessity of faith in the name.
105. Luke picks up the aorist verb synechthesan from the Psalm
(Acts 4:26) and repeats it in his application (4:27); the
application gains plausibility from the fact that Luke used
the same verb (synagein) in his own narrative (4:5; 22:66).
106. The use of Christos in the Psalm (Acts 4:26) could justify
translation as the Messiah. It was so understood by the late
rabbinic Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 2. Lukes use of chriein
(to anoint) in Acts 4:27 (whom you anointed) also
reminds us of the way in which Luke understands Jesus
messiahship as an anointing by the Holy Spirit (Luke
4:18; 9:20; Acts 10:38).
107. On this theme, see especially Squires, The Plan of God in
Luke-Acts.
108. For pesher interpretation, see D. Dimant, Pesherim,
Qumran, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 5:244-51; W. H.
Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, Society of
Biblical Literature Monograph Series, no. 24 (Missoula,
Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979).
109. 1QpHab XII, in Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 202.
110. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 205.
111. See, e.g., Luke 1:68, 77; 2:32; 7:16; Acts 3:12; 4:1; 6:8;
13:15.
112. Johnson, Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, 11521.
113. For treatments of the speech, see among others, Strauss,
Davidic Messiah, 148-80; M. F.-J. Buss, Die Missionspredigt
des Paulus im Pisidischen Antiochien (Stuttgart: Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1980); J. Dupont, TA HOSIA DAUID TA
PISTA, 337-59; R. P. Gordon, Targumic Parallels to Acts
xiii, 18 and Didache xiv, 13, Novum Testamentum 16
(1974): 285-89; J. J. Kilgallen, Acts 13,38-39: Culmination of Pauls Speech in Pisidia, Biblica 69 (1988): 480506; R. F. OToole, Christs Resurrection in Acts 13:
13-52, Biblica 60 (1979): 361-72; A. Schmitt, Ps 16:8-11
als Zeugnis der Aufertstehung in der Apg., Biblische Zeit-

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

69

schrift, n.s., 17 (1973): 229-48; Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in Context of Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta
Apostolorum, 159-202; Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth
Speech, 108-23.
114. See, e.g., Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 337-56.
115. Unlike Matt. 22:41, which explicitly identifies the interlocutors as Pharisees, and Mark 12:35, which identifies
them as Scribes, Luke 20:41 has only how do they say,
leaving the identity of the referent to be inferred from his
previous exchange with some Scribes (Luke 20:39-40).
116. In addition to the explicit citations in Matt. 22:44, Mark
12:36, and Luke 20:42, see Acts 2:34; 1 Cor. 15:25; Heb.
1:3 and 13, as well as allusions in Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62;
Luke 22:69; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 8:1;
10:12.
117. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Substructure
of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952); R. B.
Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul; Brawley, Text
to Text Pours Forth Speech, 4-8, 37-40, 127-40.
118. See D. Juel, The Social Dimensions of Exegesis: The Use
of Psalm 16 in Acts 2, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43
(1981): 543-56, and his Messianic Exegesis: Christological
Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988).
119. For the text, see Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated,
136; for discussion, see Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 43-45.
120. It is possible to discern in Lukes argument certain of the
interpretive rules (middoth) that were codified among scribal
interpreters already in the first century. For the seven Rules
of Hillel, see the Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 37 (Aboth de Rabbin
Nathan: The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan, trans. J.
Goldin, Yale Judaica Series, no. 10 [New Haven: Yale Univ.
Press, 1955]). Rules such as gezerah shewa (inference from
analogy of expression) and binyan av (induction from texts
with features in common), however, were intended mainly
to control the serious business of halachic midrash. In the
case of haggadic (non-legal) interpretationthe sort Luke
is doingpractice is much more freewheeling. For an
introduction, see R. Kasher, The Interpretation of Scrip-

70

Luke Timothy Johnson

ture in Rabbinic Literature, in Mikra, vol. 2, part 1, 54794.


121. See Ph.-H. Menoud, Justification by Faith according to
the Book of Acts, in Jesus Christ and the Faith, trans. E. M.
Paul (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1978), 202-27.
122. See, e.g., LXX Deut. 33:8; 2 Sam. 22:26; Ps. 4:3; 11:1;
15:10; 17:25.
123. See, e.g., LXX Gen. 24:12; Deut. 7:9; Josh. 2:14; Ps. 12:5;
20:7; 31:10; Isa. 54:10; Dupont, TA HOSIA DAUID TA
PISTA, 343-44, suggests that the LXX translators mistook
the noun for the adjective.
124. See, e.g., LXX Num. 12:7; Deut. 32:4; Ps. 88:37; Isa.
49:7.
125. Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 165-73, provides a good summary of the major positions: (a) the phrase refers to Davids
holiness or piety; b) it refers to the Messiahs resurrection;
(c) it refers to salvation blessings; (d) it refers to the covenant
promises to David. This last is Strausss position, and it is
very close to the one I adopt here. See also Steyn, Septuagint
Quotations in Context of Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the
Acta Apostolorum, 177-82. Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth
Speech, 116-18, makes the interpretation of the troublesome
phrase depend heavily on the context of Isa. 55.
126. See Euthphr. 6E, 12D (Plato, vol. 1, Euthyphro, Apology,
Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, trans. H. N. Fowler); Leg. 861D
(Plato, vol. 10-11, Laws, trans. R. G. Bury, Loeb Classical
Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1926]);
Polyb. Histories 22.10.8 (6 vols., trans. W. R. Paton, Loeb
Classical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press,
1976-80]). See also the inscription found at Cnidus in
Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. W. Dillenberger, 3d
ed. (Leipzig, 1915-24), 1199.
127. The NRSV has all who hear the words of this oath.
128. Perhaps the most impressive example of the hidden
textual premise is the line from LXX Joel 3:5b that Luke
does not have Peter quote in his Pentecost speech. After the
line, and everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will
be saved, the LXX continues, hoti en toi orei Sion kai en
Ierousalem estai anasoizomenos kathoti eipen kyrios kai

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

71

euangelizomenoi hous kyrios proskekletai (because on Mount


Zion and in Jerusalem, there will be a remnant, just as the
Lord said, and they will be preached the good news, those
whom the Lord summons). That Luke was well aware of the
verse is suggested by Peters use of whomever the Lord our
God summons in 2:39. And the combination of Jerusalem/
remnant/proclaiming good news, all in the future, would
seem to provide the perfect theme for the restoration of
Israel that Luke develops in Acts 2-4. This seems to be one
of the cases where Luke chooses to leave the key verse
inexplicit, leaving it to his readers competence in intertextual
recognition to pick up the intended allusion. For discussion,
see Dupont, Apologetic Use of the Old Testament in the
Speeches of Acts, 151-52, and Brawley, Text to Text Pours
Forth Speech, 88.
129. Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech, 125.
130. Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech, 126.
131. For the translation and discussion, see Johnson, Acts of the
Apostles, 439-40.
132. See Philo, Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis II., III, trans.
F. H. Colson and G. W. Whittaker, in Philo, vol. 1, Loeb
Classical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press,
1929]); Letter of Aristeas 128-71 (trans. R. J. H. Shutt, in
Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:7-34; Aristobulus frag. 2,
4, 5 (trans. A. Yarbro Collins, in Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, 2:831-42).
133. N. A. Dahl, Eschatology and History in Light of the
Qumran Texts, in Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of
Christological Doctrine, ed. D. H. Juel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 49-64.
134. See E. E. Ellis, Pauls Use of the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1981); C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, ed., Paul and the
Scriptures of Israel, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplements, no. 83 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1993); R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of
Paul.

72

Luke Timothy Johnson

135. Dupont takes the position that Luke took over earlier
interpretations, in Apologetic Use of the Old Testament,
151-52.
136. L. Cerfaux, La premire Communaut chrtienne
Jrusalem (Act. ii, 41-v, 42), Ephemerides theologicae
lovanienses 16 (1939): 5-31.
137. Still worth reading is W. C. van Unnik, Tarsus or Jerusalem: The City of Pauls Youth (London: Epworth, 1962).
138. For Pauls complex argument in Galatians 3, for example,
see N. A. Dahl, Contradictions in Scripture, in Studies in
Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977)
159-77, and T. Callan, Pauline Midrash: The Exegetical
Background of Gal. 3:19b, Journal of Biblical Literature 99
(1980): 549-67.
139. For my position concerning the Pauline School as active
in all of Pauls correspondence, see L. T. Johnson, The
Writings of the New Testament, 2d ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999) 261-78, and The First and Second Letters
to Timothy, Anchor Bible, vol. 35A (New York: Doubleday,
2001), 81-99.
140. This issue is discussed in my forthcoming book, cowritten with William S. Kurz, The Future of Catholic Biblical
Scholarship: A Constructive Conversation (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans).
141. See L. T. Johnson, Scripture and Discernment. For the
understanding of faith as response to the continuous selfdisclosure of God in the common fabric of human experience, see L. T. Johnson, Faiths Freedom: A Classic Spirituality
for Contemporary Christians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1990).

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

73

THE PRE MARQUETTE LECTURES IN THEOLOGY


1969 The Authority for Authority
Quentin Quesnell
Marquette University
1970 Mystery and Truth
John Macquarrie
Union Theological Seminary
1971 Doctrinal Pluralism
Bernard Lonergan, S.J.
Regis College, Ontario
1972 Infallibility
George A. Lindbeck
Yale University
1973 Ambiguity in Moral Choice
Richard A. McCormick, S.J.
Bellarmine School of Theology
1974 Church Membership as a Catholic and Ecumenical Problem
Avery Dulles, S.J.
Woodstock College
1975 The Contributions of Theology to Medical Ethics
James Gustafson
University of Chicago
1976 Religious Values in an Age of Violence
Rabbi Marc Tannenbaum
Director of National Interreligious Affairs
American Jewish Committee, New York City
1977 Truth Beyond Relativism: Karl Mannheims Sociology of
Knowledge
Gregory Baum
St. Michaels College

74

The Pre Marquette Lecture Series

1978 A Theology of Uncreated Energies


George A. Maloney, S.J.
John XXIII Center for Eastern Christian Studies
Fordham University
1980 Method in Theology: An Organon For Our Time
Frederick E. Crowe, S.J.
Regis College, Toronto
1981 Catholics in the Promised Land of the Saints
James Hennesey, S.J.
Boston College
1982 Whose Experience Counts in Theological Reflection?
Monika Hellwig
Georgetown University
1983 The Theology and Setting of Discipleship in the Gospel of
Mark
John R. Donahue, S.J.
Jesuit School of Theology, Berkeley
1984 Should War be Eliminated? Philosophical and Theological
Investigations
Stanley Hauerwas
Notre Dame University
1985 From Vision to Legislation: From the Council to a Code of
Laws
Ladislas M. Orsy, S.J.
The Catholic University of America
1986 Revelation and Violence: A Study in Contextualization
Walter Brueggemann
Eden Theological Seminary
St. Louis, Missouri

The Pre Marquette Lecture Series

75

1987 Nova et Vetera: The Theology of Tradition in American


Catholicism
Gerald Fogarty
University of Virginia
1988 The Christian Understanding of Freedom and the History
of Freedom in the Modern Era: The Meeting and Confrontation Between Christianity and the Modern Era in a
Postmodern Situation
Walter Kasper
University of Tbingen
1989 Moral Absolutes: Catholic Tradition, Current Trends, and
the Truth
William F. May
Catholic University of America
1990 Is Marks Gospel a Life of Jesus? The Question of Genre
Adela Yarbro Collins
University of Notre Dame
1991 Faith, History and Cultures: Stability and Change in
Church Teachings
Walter H. Principe, C.S.B.
University of Toronto
1992 Universe and Creed
Stanley L. Jaki
Seton Hall University
1993 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Some Contemporary Issues
Gerald G. OCollins, S.J.
Gregorian Pontifical University
1994 Seeking God in Contemporary Culture
Most Reverend Rembert G. Weakland, O.S.B.
Archbishop of Milwaukee

76

The Pre Marquette Lecture Series

1995 The Book of Proverbs and Our Search for Wisdom


Richard J. Clifford, S.J.
Weston Jesuit School of Theology
1996 Orthodox and Catholic Sister Churches: East is West and
West is East
Michael A. Fahey, S.J.
University of St. Michaels College, Toronto
1997 Faith Adoring the Mystery: Reading the Bible with St.
Ephrm the Syrian
Sidney H. Griffith
Catholic University of America
1998 Is There Life after Death?
Jrgen Moltmann
Eberhard-Karls Universitt
Tbingen, Germany
1999 Moral Theology at the End of the Century
Charles E. Curran
Elizabeth Scurlock University Professor of
Human Values
Southern Methodist University
2000 Is the Reformation over?
Geoffrey Wainwright
2001 In Procession before the World: Martyrdom As Public
Liturgy in Early Christianity
Robin Darling Young
2002 Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts
Luke Timothy Johnson

The Pre Marquette Lecture Series

77

About the Pre Marquette Lecture Series


The Annual Pre Marquette Lecture Series began at
Marquette University in the Spring of 1969. Ideal
for classroom use, library additions, or private collections, the Pre Marquette Lecture Series has received international acceptance by scholars,
universities, and libraries. Hardbound in blue cloth
with gold stamped covers. Uniform style and price
($15 each). Some reprints with soft covers. Regular
reprinting keeps all volumes available. Ordering
information (purchase orders, checks, and major
credit cards accepted):
Marquette University Press
1444 U.S. Route 42
P.O. Box 388
Ashland OH 44903
Order Toll-Free (800) 2476553
fax: (419) 2816883
Editorial Address:
Dr. Andrew Tallon, Director
Marquette University Press
Box 1881
Milwaukee WI 53201-1881
phone:
fax:
internet:
web:

(414) 288-7298
(414) 288-3300
andrew.tallon@marquette.edu
www.marquette.edu/mupress/

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen