What Is The Status Of Paul In Acts

Paul the Urbane Elitist?

There has been an open season on “the Paul of Acts” since Lentz’s succinct rubbishing in 1993 that he was altogether “too good to be true.”1 The groundwork for this analysis was laid at least a generation ago, in Bornkamm’s 1971 study on Paul:

It is little wonder that Acts has come to be regarded in all essentials as the source for Paul's life, the letters being utilized only for his teaching. The result is that the usual picture of Paul in the church's tradition has derived the vast majority of its features from Acts. Present day research rules out this traditional way of treatment. Its foundations have been shaken by the clear evidence that Luke's own history is to be understood primarily as a document of his own time, the post-apostolic age...By the time Acts was written, all these matters were largely things of the past, settled and forgotten, accurate memory of them had faded, some of the tradition had been suppressed...2

Many of these scholarly contours (“Present day research rules out… vast majority derives from Acts … a document of the post-apostolic age…. suppressed tradition”) have eroded so much that the contemporary landscape is quite unrecognisable as that painted by Bornkamm in those far-off days. But like the mosquito trapped in Jurassic amber, Lentz’s thesis gives birth again to the dinosaur once imagined forever extinct. According to Lentz, it is quite improbable that a Jew of strict Pharisaic background would have held, let alone been proud of, Roman citizenship and citizenship of the city of Tarsus. Lentz dismisses it all as spin. It’s all an idealisation, an advert for Christianity, suggesting high social status and abundant moral virtue for Paul

1John C. Lentz, Luke's Portrait of Paul (SNTS Monograph, 77), Cambridge University Press, 1993. A tiny sampling of more recent developments: Edward Adams, "Constructing the World: An Exegetical and Socio-rhetorical Analysis of Paul's Uses of 'World' and 'Creation'," Tyndale Bulletin 46.2 (1995): 381-384. Martin Hengel, "Paul in Arabia," Bulletin for Biblical Research 12.1 (2002): 47- 66. Stanley E. Porter, "Understanding Pauline Studies: Part 1," Themelios 22.1 (1996): 14-25. Stanley E. Porter, "Understanding Pauline Studies: Part 2," Themelios 22.2 (1997): 13-24. Mark A. Seifrid, "Blind Alleys in the Controversy over the Paul of History," Tyndale Bulletin 45.1 (1994): 73-95. Mark A. Seifrid, "The 'New Perspective on Paul' and its Problems," Themelios 25:2 (February 2000): 4-18. Paul Woodbridge, "Did Paul Change His Mind?" Themelios 28.3 (2003): 5-18. Paul F.M. Zahl, "Mistakes of the New Perspective on Paul," Themelios 27:1 (Autumn 2001): 5-11. 2Bornkamm, Paul: .xv F.F. Bruce, "Is the Paul of Acts the Real Paul?" Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 58 (1975-76); Nils Alstrup Dahl, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977 and G.Bornkamm,.Paul ET D M G. Stalker, New York, Harper & Row, 1971. in order to attract to Christianity the “right kind of people,” the high-ranking citizen who would recognise in Paul the classical virtues that he wanted for himself. You too can have muscles like mine. Like using a picture of James Bond to sell your somewhat battered Aston Martin. In contemporary parlance, Luke’s report has been sexed up.

Lentz has been followed –almost slavishly- by a line of head-shaking detractors, accepting the point as fully made and suggesting refinements. An “assured result” which makes you a little wary. So how would Paul have been perceived by those who first read or heard Luke-Acts? Jerome H. Neyrey’s opinion on this matter occurs in his paper, “Luke’s Social Location of Paul: Cultural Anthropology and the Status of Paul in Acts.” 3

It is our hypothesis that Luke has positioned Paul in the retainer level of the social strata common in ancient cities. As such, Luke portrays him in the employ of upper-strata elites; he states that Paul was educated to perform as a citizen at home in both the public courts and the halls of political power. Luke consciously presents him as an urbane person, at home in the great cities of the empire, the client of the elites, and a very honorable person. This sort of information simply cannot be gleaned from Paul’s letters and would appear to be at variance with the presentation of himself in those documents. But such seems to be the Lukan rhetorical aim in his presentation of Paul’s social location.

Neyrey’s conclusion is to divide the Paul of Acts from the Paul of the letters, as Lentz does, and to introduce lingering doubts about Luke’s ability to be truthful about anything. All spin, you see. This, after all, is Luke’s “rhetorical aim.”

So how does Acts characterise Paul? Neyrey places Paul near the top of the social classes just below rulers and the governing class. Paul is considered, here, to be a type of personal retainer responsible for mediating relationships between the governing elites and the common people. In order to support this argument, Neyrey reminds the reader of Paul’s early role as ambassador for the Jerusalem Pharisees as well as his extensive education

3J.H.Neyrey in B. Witherington III, History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 251-79. The full article is found at http://www.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/location.html under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Not only does Paul go forth bearing letters of authorization, but he also acts as a “bailiff” during the time when he was responsible for persecuting the Christians. We are asked to note how comfortable Paul is among the top people as depicted by Luke. Paul interacts with two Judean governors, discourses with a client king, dialogues with both Stoics and Epicureans in Athens, and he is entertained as a personal guest of Publius, “the chief man of the island”, after the shipwreck in Acts 28:8-9, “Paul is a very honorable person of relatively high social status, who associates with the elites of his world and is trained to perform suitably at that level of society.”4

The second point that Neyrey makes about Paul’s social status has to do with the city Paul is said to be from as well as the cities within which he resides throughout the course of events in Acts. Neyrey begins by analyzing Paul’s birthplace of Tarsus and we are reminded that Luke includes the comment that Tarsus was “no mean city” (21:39). There is a strong case made that one’s prestige and standing were greatly determined by the city of one’s birth. Building from this place of origin we are introduced to the importance of other cities where Paul spent time such as Antioch, Ephesus, and Corinth. Neyrey presents evidence that all of these cities were admirable, honourable, and important during this period of history. Neyrey spends much of his time in this section describing these other three cities and concludes “we can discern how Luke portrays Paul as travelling to and residing in provincial capitals … Thus Paul is presented as a citizen of the world.”

Finally, the strongest of the three arguments, is the Roman citizenship of Paul. Luke does make issue of Paul’s Roman citizenship (16:37; 22:27- 28). Roman citizenship, we are told, “was particularly rare among the population of the eastern Mediterranean in this period, and so, as F.F. Bruce remarked, ‘…the few Roman citizens, whether Greek or Jews by birth, would constitute a social elite.’” Not only does Paul carry the mark of Roman citizenship but Luke draws particular attention to Paul’s “appeal to Caesar”

4 http://www.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/location.html where Paul wields his citizenship in the face of opposition. Lentz shakes his head sadly:

(a) Only a very small fraction of cases ever came before the emperor; (b) the various laws concerning trials favored those of high social status; (c) Paul’s appeal to Caesar is not a legal protest against the abusive authority of a local magistrate, which is the normal rationale for a change of jurisdiction; and (d) numerous historical examples of change of jurisdiction all involve persons of high rank and status.”

Thus Lentz concludes that an appeal to Caesar or to higher legal authority was common for persons of “high social status and reputation, or with personal ties to the emperor.” People like Paul? Not really. It’s just “too good to be true.” It is worth considering here that -as Lentz admits- the legal apparatus for such an appeal did exist. Like Britain’s blasphemy laws – as Mary Whitehouse proved –they could still be invoked in civil cases. And was it necessarily Paul’s sole intention to come before the emperor himself or simply to escape the stalemate of his imprisonment?

Stanley E. Porter focuses upon the depiction of Paul in the book of Acts from literary-critical, rhetorical, and theological perspectives, among several others. The essays within this volume examine various topics related to the Paul of Acts such as the extent to which the “we” passages of Acts should function as a source regarding Paul, and the theology and perspective of these passages in terms of their portrait of him. Porter analyzes the Acts passages that deal with Paul and the Holy Spirit and the question of whether Paul is an epistolographer or rhetorician. He examines Paul’s missionary speeches and apologetic speeches in Acts. Porter also looks at Acts 21 and Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem before he closes with an analysis of some common conceptions and misconceptions of the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the letters. Even the Catholic theologian, Jerome Murphy O'Connor, remarked in his own recent book of Paul, where he relied (correctly) mainly on the authentic Pauline epistles, that he had in the past read and used Acts in his early works with "naivety".5

5Jerome Murphy O'Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996): vi Even further down the line of this assured result of modern scholarship is the position taken in G.F.Downing’s recent paper “Paul’s Drive for Deviants.”6 Not a title to be lightly chosen. Much as Lentz did a decade before, Downing uses Paul’s letters to denigrate the Paul of Acts. This time, however, the plan operates in reverse. To a bizarre extent, Downing emphasises the negative and dishonourable aspects of Paul’s self- characterization in the letters, and then applies the picture to Acts. The resulting incoherence offers a new opportunity for denigration.

Paul is everywhere presented in Acts as an outstanding orator. He defended himself with eloquence in front of Tertullus (Acts 24:1-21). Through his mastery of public speaking, Paul was able to keep a tumultuous Jewish crowd silent for some time (Acts 21:40-22:21). As Haenchen remarked:

Whether he speaks before Jews or Gentiles, governors or philosophers (Acts 17:22-31), he is never at a loss for the right word. He is a born orator, imposing himself with the eloquence of Demosthenes.7

Yet the picture we get from Paul's own letters is the exact opposite. Paul himself recounted his opponents' critique of him: II Corinthians 10:10 “For they say, "His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account."” That Paul did not provide a direct counterargument against this may mean that the criticism was bang on target. Thus by the time Luke-Acts was written, Christian tradition (or Luke himself) had morphed Paul the great missionary to the Gentiles into Paul the great orator! Downing insists that “Paul himself allows he had no such ability” (361). He cites 2 Cor 10:10 as though that settles the matter. Is that an adequate response? No matter what Paul thought of himself. A bit on the diffident side. That’s not the whole story. Downing fails to give any account of Luke’s evidence. The phrase that offers rebuttal is the response of the Iconium crowd “Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker.”

6G.F.Downing, “Paul’s drive for Deviants” NTS 49.3 (July 2003) 360-371. 7 Haenchen 113 On Paul as a preacher in Acts, Malherbe has offered a much more nuanced view8

Downing continues “He would have been very unlikely to have held civic crowds spellbound unless he had deployed the full expected resources of Greek classical allusions.” (361). What is the evidence for this remark? I suggest that there are other categories of public speaker. Was Demetrius a public speaker deploying the full expected resources of Greek classical allusions? Yet the evidence is that he held a crowd spellbound with his ideas. Why not Paul? And again, this is precisely the evidence that is suggested by Acts and –implicitly-by sections of the letters. It is true that Paul did not rate his oratorical skills highly, that he didn’t deploy the full expected resources etc etc. But that’s just what he admits in 2 Cor 10:10. In fact the Mars Hill

Perhaps the Paul is a little closer to Demetrius than to Cicero, but the circumstances were different .

Downing (361) “There is little value, I would argue, in suggesting his ‘charisma’ as explanation. In Weber’s original model ‘charismatic’ refers to leadership within an existing group, and is not relevant to the stage before a group has formed.” Uh? It is worth noting, perhaps, that Paul did not have access to Weber’s formulations and may not have held himself bound to Weber’s conclusions. “In a weaker and more popular sense ‘charismatic’ is only another way of saying Paul was persuasive – it still fails to explain how or why.” (361) Emphasise the “extraordinary miracles” of Acts 19. Exorcism Of course, it’s all a matter of terminology. What does charismatic mean? Here again connections between the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the letters “When I came to you, I did not do so with persuasive words but in the demonstration of the Spirit’s power”. Here’s an interesting contrast between charismatic=persuasive and charismatic meaning miracle-working or something more? Paul explicitly denies the epithet “persuasive”. That’s exactly what he wasn’t. He replaces it with “demonstration of the spirits power.” And that’s what Acts shows in Acts 19. Sure he argued and argued for years, but it was the miracles that hit the headlines. Doesn’t that deserve

8 A.J.Malherbe, “Conversion to Paul’s Gospel,” in A. the word charismatic? Paul acts 19 extraordinary miracles Miracles Elymas 13:4-12Speech Pisidian Antioch (rather similar to Stephen), Iconium plus miracles So should we give up Paul for Lentz? I don’t think so. We may argue here for a more rounded perspective that is suggested –quite humbly- in a little book entitled The Disappointments of St. Paul in His Missionary Endeavour,9 Gloria Patmury outlines Paul's life and ministry and discusses his bodily and mental afflictions, the Jewish opposition he faced, and "disappointments from within" on problems with his co-workers and churches. The key point of interest in the present discussion is Patmury’s starting point of Acts 9:16: “I will show him how much he must suffer for my sake.” One might even develop this argument and propose this as the keynote of the life that follows10 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name," that caught my eye. It does seem odd. On the one had Saul is God's chosen instrument. On the other hand he is going to suffer because of this role. You would expect, on a human level, that God's chosen instrument would live a life of God given luxury. When one country sends an ambassador to another, the ambassador is given a very luxurious lifestyle, partly as reward for doing a very difficult job, partly as a way of showing his parent country's status. An ambassador in a big luxurious embassy, with hundreds of staff, must come from an important country. On the other hand, God's ambassadors suffer - and it's not just Paul who suffered as God's ambassador, the other apostles, the prophets, and Christ himself all suffered. Following God leads, to a greater or lesser extent, to persecution. Now, an all powerful god, like our God, could easily organise things so that the faithful never suffered because of their beliefs. I suggest that that doesn't happen for a variety of reasons, not just because people would follow Christ for the wrong reasons - material reasons, not spiritual ones - not just because it hasn't worked in the past - the Children of Israel grumbled about the manna rather than thanking God for it. Good can come from the sufferings of the faithful, as it so often did in the life of Paul. Turn to

9Gloria Patmury, The Disappointments of St. Paul in His Missionary Endeavour, Asian Trading Corporation 1992. 10David Alan Black, "Paulus Infirmus: The Pauline Concept of Weakness," Grace Theological Journal 5.1 (1984): 77-93. Acts 16, verses 22 to 43: “The crowd joined in the attack against Paul and Silas, and the magistrates ordered them to be stripped and beaten. After they had been severely flogged, they were thrown into prison, and the jailer was commanded to guard them carefully. Upon receiving such orders, he put them in the inner cell and fastened their feet in the stocks. About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing…”

Look at what Paul was able to gain from this experience. He had a very positive impact on his fellow prisoners - it seems reasonable to assume that he persuaded them to stay even after the prison door was opened. More than that, Paul's example lead to the baptism of the jailer and his family. Although it was a pretty grim experience, Paul was able to use his imprisonment to further his role as God's chosen instrument to carry His name before the gentiles. As we know, Paul's experiences lead him to Rome, and the book of Acts concludes with:

For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.

Once again, Paul was able to use his imprisonment to further his role as God's chosen instrument. Perhaps Luke’s perspective is a whole lot subtler than Lentz would have us think: rather than admiring the sleek debonair Paul moving with the top people, maybe Luke’s subtext is quite different: “If we have the right frame of mind and the right outlook we can always use our circumstances to preach to those around us, and it is almost easiest to do this when things aren't going well. It would be difficult to preach if you could only say "I live in a big house and I have a huge income and I am confident that I will always be comfortable because the Lord is my shepherd and I shall not want." Even though that may be true, it can come across as smug, alienating people rather than interesting them in your faith. People may think that you are only faithful because God has been good to you, just as they thought about Job.” Also, supremely in Paul’s case, difficulty in our lives develops faith. Consider Paul's life in 2 Cor 11:23-27, where he gives a brief summary of the physical hardships he has endured:

I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. I have laboured and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked.

How did Paul benefit from these experiences? He provides the answer to that question at the start of 2 Cor 1:8-11:

We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about the hardships we suffered in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life. Indeed, in our hearts we felt the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead. He has delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. On him we have set our hope that he will continue to deliver us, as you help us by your prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gracious favour granted us in answer to the prayers of many.

There is a fundamental flaw in the arguments of Lentz and Neyrey. They do not take sufficient account of all the evidence. Or rather, account is only taken of the evidence that bolsters their specific case. This allows the conclusion that the historicity of Acts can be impugned because of the unlikelihood of its characterization of Paul. However, other evidences must be weighed in to the balances.

Luke’s portrait of Paul includes “warts and all.” Paul’s introduction into the narrative as “one giving approval to [Stephen’s] death” (Acts 8:1) scarcely does him any credit. The charge made in 8:3 is substantiated time and again by Paul himself both in Acts and in his own letters. Downing has his own –rather bizarre- counterpoint to his unjustified denial of Paul’s speaking ability. Strange picture of Paul barring a scarred back.

And he was stoned, sharing the fate of a convicted criminal. What kind of a model of an upper class mover and shaker is that? (14:19)

Warts and all includes the disagreement about John Mark so sharp that Paul and Barnbabas broke fellowship over it. Is this the action of a two-dimensional Disney hero?+

And here, obvious connections between Epistle and Narrative cannot be ignored simply because they do not fit the prevailing view.

And the figure of Paul as Israel’s destructive champion, according to Ananias in 9:13,14 is modulated somewhat by the prophetic declaration that “I will show him much he must suffer for my name” (9:16). Paul’s account in 2 Cor and Gal as one who bears the marks of Jesus on his body does not fit well into Lentz’s presentation of high status.

Paul saw it as par for the course that God had directed him on “We must go through many hardships to enter then kingdom of God” (14:22) IN 15 the Jerusalem believers acknowledged that they had risked their lives 15:26

What about the honour/ dishonour factor involved in leading the Gentiles into the kingdom, that Jewish preserve? 15:12

Curious. Lentz emphasises all the plus sides of Paul in Acts. Ignores the warts and all. And then concludes that it is too good to be true. No one could be this wonderful. True enough. Downing notes all the negative side of Paul in the letters and then applies the characterization to the Paul of Acts The net result is to suggest a lack of historicity. I recall, with pleasure, the elegant simplicity of Ramsay’s introduction Luke the Traveller. The question: was Luke a historian of any kind? We must face the facts boldly. If Luke wrote Acts, his narrative must agree in a striking and convincing way with Paul's: they must confirm, explain and complete one another. It is not my object to assume or to prove that there was no prejudice in the mind of Luke, no fault on the part of Paul; but only to examine whether the facts stated are trustworthy, The critic must study Luke's method, and not judge him according to whether he writes exactly as the critic considers a history ought to be written. The action attributed to individuals is compatible with the possibilities of human nature. .11

A suffering Paul not only fits the catalogue of disaster that follows as a theme a lot more truly that the suave sophisticated urbane elitist. It roots the story of Paul into the story of Jesus12 It ties in the story of Acts with the story of the letters –get used to it It picks up the catorgorizing theme of 1:8 You shall be my witnesses…I will show you how much you must suffer It provided the seed of the ensuing martyrologies and the romances such as Acts of Paul. What happened to the lifestyles of the rich and famous character? He never got a mention in later apocryphal stories. Why not? Because that wasn’t the point of the precursor. Luke works as a playwright. He introduces a new character with a character note. Peter –a little different since in gospel “Peter stood up among the brethren.” Philip Saul snorting Paul suffer for my name. Paul is characterized as one who suffers. One of the most consistent features in the portraits of Saul of Tarsus in the Acts of the Apostles and in the letters accredited to Paul, is the fervent zeal of his youth. The zeal of the young Saul has been dealt with in several studies, drawing on the issue of zealotry in Palestine, but the conclusions reached are rather diverse. The present study suggests that the often overlooked phenomenon of zealotry in the writings of Philo of Alexandria should also be considered. The material from Philo does not support the view

11 W.M. Ramsay, St. Paul The Traveller. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1895; The Cities of St. Paul: Their Influence on His Life and Thought. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1907. 12 R.F.O’Toole, “How Does Luke Portray Jesus as Servant of YHWH”, Biblica 81 (2000), pp. 328- 346; Joop F.M. SMIT, «Epideictic Rhetoric in Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians 1–4» , Vol. 84(2003) 184-201 that the early zealots formed any consistent movement or party, but that they were vigilant individuals who took the Law in their own hands when observing cases of gross Torah transgressions

Before getting into specific matters concerning Acts and Paul, there are a few general areas that need to be covered. Witherington's detailed study corresponding with the objections of Haenchen [With.AA, 430ff; Haen.AA] will serve as our outline. He finds these areas where it is commonly asserted that Luke has distorted Paul:

1. Personal differences. Paul makes much of his status as an apostle, where Luke only calls him one twice, both times in chapter 14. Luke portrays Paul as a miracle worker and a speechmaker; Paul himself makes little of his own miracles and is more of a letterwriter than a speechmaker.

It is hard to see why these are problems. Part of what confuses critics is their inability to differentiate between the genre and purpose of Acts versus the Epistles. In the former, no one is accusing Paul of manufacturing apostolic credentials, and the problem of his credentials, by Luke's perspective, has already been solved; in the latter, he is addressing that problem specifically. In the former, the miraculous is reported as part of his missionary work; in the latter, he is always years past his missionary work with the congregations in question, and there is no need to bring up the miracles he has performed -- which, in any event, not even Acts says were performed in every city Paul visited. (Also cited is Paul's Roman citizenship; we will discuss that below.) In any event, the letters and Acts certainly do not contradict each other, and they certainly comport well in showing Paul to be an educated "man of the world", a loyal Jew, and one whom others have strong feelings about. (It should also be noted [contra Kn.CLP, 77] that the charge that Paul was a poor speaker was made by opponents who compared him to Apollos, an outstanding speaker by all accounts...and thus can hardly be taken as evidence that he wasn't capable of some decent speaking himself!) Along the same lines, Luke is charged with "toning down" Paul, not showing him to be as much of a controversialist as the Epistles indicate. This we grant in good stead, but find it hardly problematic. Luke writes from the perspective of hindsight, as one who has seen the problems come to their conclusion, and he is (like any historian) writing tendentiously, and wants to show an overall harmony in the church, at the same time not seeing any need to break open old wounds long since healed. He doesn't cover over problems completely, of course, but the critics simply need to appreciate what point of view Luke is writing from -- and not assume dishonesty from the start. This may also be, we may add, the reason why Acts may not mention Paul's letter-writing activity, if any reason must be given: Paul's letters were for the sake of reproof and correction, and to bring them up would bring attention to the controversy, pain, and problems the letters were associated with.

In all of this, we suggest, along with Walker [Walk.APC], that the real reason why critics are wont to see conflict between Acts and the Pauline epistles is that they are following uncritically an overreaction to the efforts of the Tubingen school of criticism, which assumed that the author of Acts knew about Paul's epistles, and was actually trying to counter them by "rehabilitating" Paul! This ridiculous thesis led to an extreme reaction which maintained that the author of Acts knew nothing about Paul or his epistles; and now, finally, we are getting to the point where a moderating view is emerging, and we will see the fruits of that research as this essay progresses. (Whether Luke knew of Paul's letters is another discussion; there are some, including Walker and Goulder [Gou.DL], who think that Luke knew of at least some of the letters, at least 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians, and they find this evidence not in Acts, but in Luke's Gospel!)

2. Theological differences. Unlike the above, this matter is "more thorny and difficult to assess," and we will look at it within the context of individual passages. Generally, though, the charge is usually along the lines that the Paul of Acts seems much more observant of Jewish law than the Paul of the Epistles. It should be noted generally, though, that Luke's Paul also violates conventions of the Jewish law regularly (staying in the houses of Gentiles quite often!), so that the gap is not as wide as critics suggest. 3. In closing, one should not demand too much from Acts, or from any single document; inevitably, where there is such a long history to be covered in such a short space, things get left out - and we don't need the suggestion of conspiracy to know why. Polhill points out that one "would never guess Paul's emphasis on justification as found in Galatians from reading 1 Corinthians." [Pol.AA, 26] Likewise, let us not accuse Luke of malfeasance simply because he omits something that we personally think he should have included.

And Saul was there, giving approval to his death. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.

In even these three verses, which mark the first appearance of the man we call Paul here in Acts, critics have found various issues to sink their teeth into. The Hellenist persecution. Verse 1 has been used since the time of F. C. Baur and beyond [Conz.AA, 61] as evidence of some core division in the church between the Palestinian and Hellenist "factions" of early Christianity. Supposedly, this verse is evidence that the Hellenist wing of the church, with its idea of Jesus as divine, was the one in big trouble, whereas the Jerusalem church, which wasn't a great deal different from regular Jews, and did not believe Jesus to be divine, was left alone. Thus, the apostles could stay safely in Jerusalem without fear of persecution. Critics, however, miss a very subtle point in this verse. It does not say that the Apostles were not persecuted; it only says that they were the only ones who did not leave Jerusalem. [Bck.BAPS, 428-9] This does not mean that the rest of the Jerusalem church was not persecuted, and it does not even necessarily mean that the Apostles were not persecuted. One of two options is possible: Either they were persecuted, and they decided to withstand the pressure; or, they may indeed have escaped persecution - in that regard, Witherington [With.AA, 278n] observes that we cannot apply here the modern notion of "kill the head to destroy the body". Even if they were despised, holy men who were able to perform miracles, especially healing miracles, might be left alone out of awe or respect. (It is perhaps significant, in this light, that while Paul reports in his letters that he persecuted the church, he nowhere says that he persecuted the Apostles.) Thus the foundation upon which the Baur hypothesis stands is merely thin air.

Our next points of major contention do not arrive until Paul's speech to the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch - and it is at this point that we may discuss one of the biggest bones of contention for Acts as a whole, the authenticity of the speeches.

Quite simply, one need only read the speeches aloud to realize that Luke is not offering a transcript of everything that was said; at the same time, he is not simply writing out of his imagination either. Rather, as Dunn [Dunn.AA, 178] points out:

Here, as usual, Luke's intention was not to present the sermon Paul actually delivered...but to provide in cameo form (a perfectly rounded miniature which would take a little over three minutes to deliver) and indication of what Paul said on the occasion.

We may be fairly sure that Paul took more than three minutes to make his speeches! At the same time, Luke had a limited amount of space to work with - and thus, as we would expect, we find that the speeches of Paul, while not sounding exactly like Paul does in his letters, are at least "Pauline" with Lukan rhetorical touches (taken from the patterns set down by rhetoriticians like Quintillian - With.AA, 407ff; Wnt.BAAL, 299), and this quite out of necessity, and in line with the techniques of the time, where Tacitus, for example, considered simple transcription to be both pedantic and unworthy of serious historical writing, which also kept in mind strategies, tactics, and results. Critics commonly accuse Luke of inventing words for Paul's mouth, but this really does no justice to Luke. He could hardly have compressed the complexities of Paul's thought into such a small space. We are only warranted in charging invention IF what Luke writes somehow directly contradicts what Paul writes, and this is what we do not find at all. (It should also be noted that a difference in what Paul preaches in Acts, and what is recorded in his letters, may be accounted for to some degree by the fact that most of his Acts speeches are missionary speeches, whereas his letters are all to Christians! In this regard, it is interesting that Paul's only Acts speech to Christians - Acts 20 - is the place where even critics admit that Paul sounds most like he does in his letters!)

Thus, for example, consider the objection of Haenchen [Haen.AA, 411], who, noting 1 Cor. 15, asserts that "the real Paul would not have appealed to the Christophanies before the Twelve without referring to his own vision." Perhaps, perhaps not: Paul had a reason to appeal to his own vision in 1 Corinthians (see our reply to Robert Price), whereas in P. Antioch, he did not. One might just as well say that the "real Paul" would not engage a whirlwind treatment of the OT, either, but that is beside the point! Luke is not striving for transcription here, but summary; not verba, but vox. To object that he has failed to cover every single point that we think Paul might have is to misunderstand the literary technique in use. However, that granted, we may agree that a full transcript of the speech would probably have shown Paul appealing to his own experience as well as that of the others. [Bruc.AA, 309]

Other than that, the only claim I have found that Luke here directly contradicts Paul is found in Conzelmann [Conz.AA, 106], who thinks that vv. 38-9, where Paul speaks of "forgiveness of sins" and the law, is non-Pauline, for it modifies the "understanding" of the word "justification" to a non-Pauline sense. Dunn, a little more perceptive of what Luke is doing, recognizes that, while this verse "reads oddly as a report of Paul's view of the law" [Dunn.AA, 178], it is not so far off that it could not serve as a highly summarized report. It is not proper to speak of this as "un-Pauline", but rather as "incompletely Pauline". Or as Johnson notes of the speech as a whole [Jns.AA, 237]: It "may not be Paul, but is, after all, not a bad simulacrum." (On the other hand, not all agree with Conzelmann: Polhill [Pol.AA, 305] considers the thought to be thoroughly Pauline, and Dunn finds some parallels with Col. 1:14, Eph. 1:7, and Rom. 4:7, even though he asserts that the concept behind the speech has not been fully grasped. However, neither Polhill nor Conzelmann really give a detailed justification for either position.)

Now for some minor objections. Witherington notes [With.AA, 406] that some object to verse 15's use of "rulers" in the plural, saying that synagogues only had one ruler; however, this is countered not only by Mark 5:22, but by the possibility that (as with the high priest) the title could be retained by former rulers of the synagogue, or by both a husband and wife over a synagogue.

Next, Haenchen [Haen.AA, 414] objects to the story in that he sees "no real call" for jealousy on the part of the Jewish synagogue leaders. May I say that like many liberal scholars, Haenchen has a notoriously cardboard view of human personality! There would be plenty of "cause for jealousy" -- the sight of Gentiles being saved by a Jewish Messiah [Pol.AA, 307]; the attention that Paul was getting in the city, after the Jewish leaders had been there for years with little effect [Kist.AA, 493]; or, even a jealousy over a loss of distinctiveness [Dunn.AA, 183] having perceived themselves as being the chosen people of God. Any of these, singularly or together, could have incited jealousy.

Finally for this section, we note a minor and rather silly objection from Haenchen [Haen.AA, 415], who alleges that Luke had no real perception of the distance between Perga and Antioch, a distance of 100 miles or so, because he reports the journey between the two cities in such short order (!). I suppose that Haenchen wants a full report of all the rocks and trees that Paul and Barnabas evangelized on their way? This area was a barren wasteland in the Taurus mountain range, filled with bandits and subject to flooding; what Luke could report of this journey would likely not be of much use in his report of the growth of the church and the Pauline mission!

 Is anything that Paul is reported to have said at variance with his theology in his letters? The conclusion is not the same, but at the same time, there is no contradiction with Romans 1:18-25, the most often cited parallel. [Pol.AA, 316] Barnes [Barn.PJZ] adds the interesting note that Paul's speech here has a number of affinities to the words of Johanan ben Zakkai, in the Deuteronomy Rabbah 7:7, which suggests that both he and Paul learned the same formulaic proof as a typical approach when explaining Judaism to Gentiles.

 Finally, some critics question the validity of the account in vv. 21-8, in particular the appointment of elders. Conzelmann decries this practice as "un- Pauline" [Conz.AA, 112], while Haenchen comments that the "genuine Paulines" (letters) show no such organizing. This is related in part to the controversy in the Pastorals on this subject; here we need only recall that: