© October 1998
Many scholars think that Luke is most untrustworthy in the speeches of Acts. They point out that the speeches are all in the same general styple, a style that is found in the narrative portions of Acts. And they claim that the theology of the speeches is distinctively Lukan, rather than Petrine, Pauline, or whatever. It is therefore concluded that Luke has followed the Thucydidean model1 and put on the lips of his speakers the sentiments that he felt were appropriate for the occasion.
Several responses to this accusation are necessary. First, as we noted above, Thucydides claims that only when he did not have information available did he not report what was actually said. Some other ancient historians were far more free in inventing speeches, but there is no a priori reason to compare Luke with them instead of with those who did seek accuracy in recording speeches (e.g., Polybius; see 12:25b.1,4). Second, uniformity of style in the speeches means only that Luke has not given us verbatim reports but has paraphrased in his own words. This is likely in any case, since any of the speeches were probably translated by Luke from Aramaic. It is also likely that lmost al the speeches Luke reports were much longer than the summaries he has given us. But paraphrases and summaries of speeches can still accurately convey their contents. Third, it is alleged there are differences in the theology of the speeches. Peter's speeches in Acts 2 and 3, for instance, contain formulations of Christology (e.g. Acts 2:36) and eschatology (e.g., Acts 3:19,20) that fit very well the early days of the church and that differ from the formulations found in the speeches of Paul in Acts 13 and 17. In no case can it be shown that the theology or sentiments expressed in the speeches are inappropriate for the occasion or impossible for the speaker. On the positive side, the fidelity of Luke to his sources in the Gospel (Mark, Q) suggest that he has been equally faithful to his sources in Acts. This argument is often contested. It is argued that Luke would have much greater respect for the words of Jesus than for the words of the apostles. But there is little to suggest that Luke would have made such a distinction. He claims to have the intention of instilling in his readers the certainty of the things you have been taught (Lk.1:4) and there is every reason to think that he has sought for accuracy in recording what people actually said, in Acts as much as in the Gospel.2
NOTES:
1 Describing his procedure in writing his history of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides says: As to the speeches that were made by different men, either when they were about to begin the war or when... engaged therein, it has been difficult to recall with strict accuracy the words actually spoken, both for me as regards that which I myself heard, and for those who from various sources have brought me reports. Therefore the speeches are given in the language which, as it seemed to me, the several speakers would express, on the subjects under considerations the sentiments most befitting the occasion, though at the same time I have adhered as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said.
2Carson, Moo, Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Zondervan, 1992), p.209B.
Many scholars think that Luke is most untrustworthy in the speeches of Acts. They point out that the speeches are all in the same general styple, a style that is found in the narrative portions of Acts. And they claim that the theology of the speeches is distinctively Lukan, rather than Petrine, Pauline, or whatever. It is therefore concluded that Luke has followed the Thucydidean model1 and put on the lips of his speakers the sentiments that he felt were appropriate for the occasion.
Several responses to this accusation are necessary. First, as we noted above, Thucydides claims that only when he did not have information available did he not report what was actually said. Some other ancient historians were far more free in inventing speeches, but there is no a priori reason to compare Luke with them instead of with those who did seek accuracy in recording speeches (e.g., Polybius; see 12:25b.1,4). Second, uniformity of style in the speeches means only that Luke has not given us verbatim reports but has paraphrased in his own words. This is likely in any case, since any of the speeches were probably translated by Luke from Aramaic. It is also likely that lmost al the speeches Luke reports were much longer than the summaries he has given us. But paraphrases and summaries of speeches can still accurately convey their contents. Third, it is alleged there are differences in the theology of the speeches. Peter's speeches in Acts 2 and 3, for instance, contain formulations of Christology (e.g. Acts 2:36) and eschatology (e.g., Acts 3:19,20) that fit very well the early days of the church and that differ from the formulations found in the speeches of Paul in Acts 13 and 17. In no case can it be shown that the theology or sentiments expressed in the speeches are inappropriate for the occasion or impossible for the speaker. On the positive side, the fidelity of Luke to his sources in the Gospel (Mark, Q) suggest that he has been equally faithful to his sources in Acts. This argument is often contested. It is argued that Luke would have much greater respect for the words of Jesus than for the words of the apostles. But there is little to suggest that Luke would have made such a distinction. He claims to have the intention of instilling in his readers the certainty of the things you have been taught (Lk.1:4) and there is every reason to think that he has sought for accuracy in recording what people actually said, in Acts as much as in the Gospel.2
NOTES:
1 Describing his procedure in writing his history of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides says: As to the speeches that were made by different men, either when they were about to begin the war or when... engaged therein, it has been difficult to recall with strict accuracy the words actually spoken, both for me as regards that which I myself heard, and for those who from various sources have brought me reports. Therefore the speeches are given in the language which, as it seemed to me, the several speakers would express, on the subjects under considerations the sentiments most befitting the occasion, though at the same time I have adhered as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said.
2Carson, Moo, Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Zondervan, 1992), p.209B.
Comments
Post a Comment