Actual Author Research Articles

Paul's Abschiedsrede in the Acts of the Apostles

In the introductory essay to a collection of studies on Luke-Acts published in 1966, W. C. van Unnik says that the twovolume work has become “one of the great storm centers of New Testament scholarship.” Old questions are being raised afresh and old answers face fresh review. Among the old questions is that of the sources used by Luke in the writing of Acts. However, the only study of recent vintage referred to by van Unnik is that by Jacques Dupont, The Sources of the Acts (1964). There are no essays in the Keck-Martyn volume itself which deal specifically with the question. Without disputing the importance of other questions (text, style, and especially theology), the sparse attention given of late to source-criticism of the speeches of Acts is not entirely felicitous. One essay does treat the speeches (Eduard Schweizer, “Concerning the Speeches in Acts,” 208-16), but only those in the first seventeen chapters and only in terms of their structural identity. Schweizer's opening remark is interesting: “Ever since Martin Dibelius' essay about this subject, it has been more and more widely recognized that the speeches are basically compositions by the author of Acts who, to be sure, utilized different kinds of materials for particular passages” (208). The question of the sources of the speeches is a difficult one, and any suggested answers are, at best, tenuous. It is however the premise of this essay that further work in the area is warranted, possible, and of contributory value to the rest of Lucan scholarship, a conclusion drawn from an analysis of two of Paul's speeches in Acts: his address to the mob of Jerusalemites (22:1-21) and his Abschiedsrede or parting address to the Ephesian elders at Miletus (20:18-35).

The Origins and Development of Samaritan Christianity

After the account of the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem (chapters i to vii), the Book of Acts tells in viii. 1 f. of a dispersion of the Church throughout Judaea and Samaria, followed by a Christian mission to Samaria, led by Philip. It is frequently held that the author of Acts gives an indication of the outline he intends to follow at Acts i. 8 where the risen Christ tells his apostles, ‘You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses [1] in Jerusalem; [2] in all Judaea and Samaria; and [3] to the end of the earth.’ The first section, the witness in Jerusalem, occupies Acts i–vii; Acts viii and ix deal with the witness in Judaea and Samaria; while with the narrative of Peter and Cornelius in Acts x the emphasis shifts to the Gentile mission for the remainder of the book.

Saul, Paul and the Silver Spoons from Sutton Hoo

IN an article in SPECULUM XLII (1967) R. E. Kaske has drawn attention to the disparity of the lettering on the pair of silver spoons from Sutton Hoo inscribed in Greek +Saulos and +Paulos and has suggested that the crudities of the lettering in +Saulos could be a deliberate device to represent unregenerate man contrasted with the straight-forward lettering of +Paulos, the converted apostle, or, more simply, the inept copying by a native craftsman of the Byzantine inscription +Paulos. The present writer would like to draw attention to a subject which relates to the first suggestion but is more patristic than archaeological and then to conclude with some remarks on the uses to which these spoons might have been put. It is clear from the New Testament that St Paul did not change his name from Saul on his conversion to Christianity but the notion that he did has been (and still is) widely believed. It is proposed to outline what may be called the Saul-toPaul legends and the theories advanced to explain the change of names as they are found in the writings of the early Christian fathers and to show that the Sutton Hoo spoons also illustrate one part of these legends. The change of names occurs in Acts of the Apostles xiii 9, which begins 2av)Xos 5U, o Kal llav)Xos KTX (Vulgate, Saulus autem, qui et Paulus etc.). This is the first time the name Paul is used and Saul does not recur after this verse in Acts or indeed anywhere in the Epistles. On the other hand Paul is still called Saul after his visit to Damascus and there is nothing in Acts to suggest that the change of names first occurred after his vision on the road to Damascus or at his baptism there by Ananias afterwards. The context of Acts xiii 9 is Paul's first important halt on his first missionary journey. At Paphos, at the court of the proconsul of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus, whom he afterwards converted, he is about to denounce Elymas the sorcerer. A great deal has been written to try to explain why the change of names occurs at this particular point. Although we cannot be certain of the correct answer it seems easiest to assume that Paulus was one of the tria nomina he had from birth as a Roman citizen and that Saul was his Jewish name. Such dual nomenclature was common in provinces of the Roman empire and there are many other instances in the New Testament.' Up to his journey to Cyprus Paul had been a Hebrew among Hebrews preaching mainly in synagogues. He was now embarked on a series of missionary journeys mainly among gentiles in the Roman empire where his Roman name was more useful. When Sergius Paulus asked him his name he would surely have replied, am Saul and I also am called Paul. Luke, the author of Acts, in changing his name on this occasion

"Luke" and Paul

THAT THE AUTHOR of Luke-Acts had no knowledge of the Pauline epistles is assumed today as axiomatic by most New Testament critics. Modern introductions either ignore the matter or dismiss it with a sentence. To question the truth of the axiom is to risk the charge of belonging to the lunatic fringe of criticism. The Tiibingen school took the dependence of Acts upon the Pauline letters for granted, in Sabatier's happy phrase, as une sorte de these qui n'a pas besoin de demonstration. Zeller assumed it without argument. Overbrook cited Acts 9: 19-30; 15: 1-33; 18: 24-28 as sufficient evidence. Jacobsen' sought at some length to prove the first twelve chapters of Acts were built up from I Corinthians and Galatians; II. Schulze 2 argued Paul's speech at Miletus was verbally dependent upon Paul's letters, particularly I Thessalonians. W. Soltau 3 examined all the speeches of Acts and concluded the speech at Ephesus (Miletus) depended upon I Thes. 2-4; at Athens upon Rom. 1: 11, 14; and the socalled Apostolic Decrees were based on or reflected I Cor. 6 and 8-10. Weizsicker had earlier devoted several pages to the contention that the narrative (in Acts 15) is in the main taken from the letter to the Galatians is supported by the circumstance, the picture given by it is distinct in all those features which it has in common with the letter, but wherever it goes beyond its authority, it is either confined to generalities, or seeks to make the common element clear in the style of an expositor. 4 In the reaction to the Tiibingen reconstruction of early Christianity the pendulum swung to an equal extreme. Among other discredited views was this, the author of Acts had used the epistles. Apparently it was not felt it was necessary to argue the point. To be sure, Sabatier wrote a twenty-five page article,5