No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Acts 7.3 and Samaritan Chronology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Extract
The Speech of Stephen in Acts 7 has become a fertile ground for source criticism. It has been argued that because the speech in Acts 7 is so different from the other ones in Acts, it was likely not written by Luke himself. The suggestion that we have in this speech a verbatim account of Stephen's defence has been virtually laid to rest by scholars, with the recognition that the speech does not fit in its context as a defence against the charges levelled at Stephen (Acts 6.13–14). Enough evidence, however, of Lucan redaction has been found in Acts 7 to suggest to a number of scholars that the speech comes essentially from Luke, either as the author of the whole speech, or as the composer of the speech with use of earlier materials.
Information
- Type
- Short Studies
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996
References
1 See e.g., Klijn, A. F. J., ‘Stephen's Speech – Acts vii.2–53’, NTS 4 (1957–1958) 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Conzelmann, H., Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (HC; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 57Google Scholar.
2 See Richard, E., Acts 6:1–8:4: The Author's Method of Composition (ed. Kee, H. C. and Knight, D. A.; SBLDS 41; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1978) 22Google Scholar; but cf. Bruce, F. F., The Speeches in the Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1973) 132Google Scholar; Bock, D. I., Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology (JSNTS 12; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987) 216Google Scholar.
3 See Dibelius, M., Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (ed. Greeven, H.; London: SCM, 1956) 167–9Google Scholar; Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971) 286Google Scholar; Wilson, S. G., The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1973) 132CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Donaldson, T. L., ‘Moses Typology and the Sectarian Nature of Early Christian Anti-Judaism: A Study in Acts 7’, JSNT 12 (1981) 40Google Scholar; Holtz, T., Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas (TU 104; Berlin: Akademie, 1968) 30Google Scholar n. 4.
4 E.g., Richard, , Acts 6:1–8:4, 257Google Scholar; Townsend, J. T., ‘The Speeches in Acts’, ATR 42 (1960) 157, 159Google Scholar.
5 E.g., Hengel, M., Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 72–3Google Scholar; Marshall, I. H., The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 132–4Google Scholar; cf. also Kistemaker, S. J., ‘The Speeches in Acts’, CriswellTR 5 (1990) 31–41Google Scholar.
6 See also Roloff, J., Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981)117–19Google Scholar.
7 For a fairly complete accounting of the various views, see Richard, (Acts 6:1–8:4, 23–5)Google Scholar.
8 See Scobie, C. H. H., ‘The Use of Source Material in the Speeches of Acts iii and vii’, NTS 25 (1978–1979) 399–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The Origins and Development of Samaritan Christianity’, NTS 19 (1972–1973) 390–414Google Scholar.
9 See Holtz, , Untersuchungen, 85, 100–91Google Scholar.
10 Scobie, , ‘Use of Source Material’, 410Google Scholar.
11 Scobie, , ‘Use of Source Material’, 408–12Google Scholar.
12 Scobie, , ‘Use of Source Material’, 412–17Google Scholar.
13 Actually, Gen 12.1 implies that Abram is still in Ur when he is called: ‘Go from your country, and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.’ This apparent contradiction in the Genesis account probably has a documentary basis (see von Rad, , Genesis: A Commentary [OTL; London: SCM, 1961] 153–4Google Scholar; Westermann, , Genesis 12–36: A Commentary [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985] 140Google Scholar). Later Jewish writers apparently recognized the chronological problem in Gen 11.31–12.1 for Jub 12.22–13.3 places the call to Abraham before his migration to Haran (see Rook, J. T., ‘Studies in the Book of Jubilees: The Themes of Calendar, Genealogy and Chronology’ [D.Phil. Dissertation: Oxford University, 1983] 153, 167–8Google Scholar). The latter chronology in Jubilees, however, has caused other chronological discrepancies (see Hughes, J., Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology [JSOTS 16; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990] 245Google Scholar). For the problems encountered by the LXX at this point, see Larsson, G., ‘The Chronology of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the MT and LXX’, JBL 102 (1983) 406Google Scholar.
14 See Richard, , Acts 6:1–8:4, 147Google Scholar; Westermann, , Genesis 12–36, 139Google Scholar; von Rad, , Genesis, 181Google Scholar.
15 See Richard, , Acts 6:1–8:4, 147Google Scholar; Colson, F. H., ed., Philo (9 vol.; LCL; London: William Heinemann, 1935) 6.34–5Google Scholar n. a.
16 Wilcox, M., The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford: Oxford University, 1965) 28–9Google Scholar; see also Kahle, P. E., The Cairo Geniza (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1959) 143–5Google Scholar.
17 The SP chronology appears to be an attempt to make the numbers correspond with the placing of Gen 11.32 in the sequence (see Hughes, , Secrets of the Times, 16Google Scholar).
18 Cadbury, H. J., The Book of Acts in History (London: Black, 1955) 101–2Google Scholar.
19 Richard, , ‘Acts 7: An Investigation of the Samaritan Evidence’, CBQ 39 (1977) 196Google Scholar; Wilcox, , Semitisms, 28Google Scholar; Bruce, , The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951) 162Google Scholar; Scobie, , ‘Origins’, 393Google Scholar; see also von Rad, , Genesis, 153Google Scholar.
20 See the textual data in BHS on Gen 11.32; see also Westermann, , Genesis, 140Google Scholar.
21 This appears to be consonant with the overall chronological scheme of the SP (see Hughes, , Secrets of the Times; 16Google Scholar, Rook, , ‘Studies’, 153Google Scholar).
22 Wilcox, , Semitisms, 29Google Scholar.
23 Scobie, , ‘Origins’, 393Google Scholar.
24 Kahle, , Cairo Geniza, 144Google Scholar.
25 See Richard, , ‘Acts 7’, 197Google Scholar.
26 Wilcox, , Semitisms, 29Google Scholar n. 2.
27 See e.g., Pummer, R., ‘The Samaritan Pentateuch and the New Testament’, NTS 22 (1975–1976) 443Google Scholar; Cross, F. M., Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961) 144Google Scholar; Kahle, , Cairo Geniza, 143–9Google Scholar.
28 Richard, , ‘Acts 7’, 197Google Scholar; see also Bruce, , Acts, 169Google Scholar n. 1.
29 See the textual data in the Göttingen edition of the LXX (Wevers, J. W., ed., Genesis [Göttingen LXX 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974]Google Scholar) on Gen 11.32.
30 This theory, despite the paucity of textual evidence, remains firmly in the realm of possibility, owing to the early and widespread influence of the SP chronology. Rook (‘Studies’, 144, 156, 217 n. 37) has argued that the SP chronology antedates that of the MT, LXX and Jubilees, and was used by both the LXX translator and the writer of Jubilees in a number of instances at least (see also Pummer, , ‘The Book of Jubilees and the Samaritans’, ÉTh 10 [1979] 163Google Scholar). Hughes, J. (Secrets of the Times, 16)Google Scholar, however, argues that at this point the SP chronology derives from an exegesis of the information contained in the MT. If Hughes is right, then the SP chronology regarding the death of Terah cannot antedate that of the MT (there is, however, more involved in the Samaritan scheme in this chronology than just an exegetical summary of the MT [see Hughes, , Secrets of the Times, 16, 237–8Google Scholar; Rook, , ‘Studies’, 153Google Scholar]). As well, we should not forget the conclusion of G. Larsson (‘Chronology of the Pentateuch’, 407, 409) that the LXX chronology has come about through exegetical alterations of the MT chronology (in any case the chronological data in the LXX are very different from those of the SP for Terah's length of life and death [Larsson, , ‘Chronology of the Pentateuch’, 406Google Scholar; for a full discussion of the relationships between MT, SP, and LXX, see Rook, , ‘Studies’, 126–69Google Scholar]). Hence, while a Greek ms. influenced by SP chronology is not out of the question (perhaps belonging to the Palestinian text-type suggested by P. W. Skehan [‘The Scrolls and the Old Testament Text’, New Directions in Biblical Archeology (ed. D. N. Freedman and J. C. Greenfield; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1969) 97–8] and R. Pummer [‘New Evidence for Samaritan Christianity’, CBQ 41 (1979) 98–117; ‘Samaritan Pentateuch’, 441–3]), there is no firm evidence for it.
31 Mare, W. H., ‘Acts 7: Jewish or Samaritan in Character’, WTJ 34 (1971) 19Google Scholar; see also Bruce, , Acts, 162Google Scholar.
32 Jub 11.14–15 has a six-year period between the marriage of Terah to Edna and the birth of Abram. This would allow time enough for Haran or Nahor to be born. The Jubilees passage, however, seems to imply that Abram was first born. There is certainly nothing other than the six-year gap to indicate otherwise.
33 See on this Cadbury, H. J. and Lake, K., The Acts of the Apostles: English Translation and Commentary, The Beginnings of Christianity Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles (ed. Foakes-Jackson, F. J. and Lake, K.; London: Macmillan, 1922) 4.70Google Scholar; Dahl, N. A., ‘The Story of Abraham in Luke-Acts’, Studies in Luke-Acts (ed. Keck, L. E. and Martyn, J. L.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 143Google Scholar; Haenchen, , Acts, 278Google Scholar; see also Charley, J. W. (‘Torah’, The New Bible Dictionary [ed. Douglas, J. D.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962] 1253Google Scholar), who calls this an ‘oral slip’. The possible dependence of Acts 5.36–7 on Josephus Ant. 20.97–104, based on the parallel order of the events portrayed in the two documents, although not their actual historical order, suggested by Moffatt, J. (An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament [Edinburgh: Clark, 1911] 30Google Scholar) and others (see also Ehrhardt, A., ‘The Construction and Purpose of the Acts of the Apostles’, ST 12 [1958] 66Google Scholar; Munck, J., The Acts of the Apostles: Introduction, Translation and Notes [ed. Albright, W. F. and Mann, C. S.; AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1967] 48Google Scholar) may provide another example of Luke treating his sources in this way. Dependence of Acts on Josephus, however, is very problematic, including the necessity of assuming a very late date for Acts (see e.g., Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament [rev. ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1975] 186Google Scholar; Dibelius, , Studies, 186–7Google Scholar; Conzelmann, , Acts, 42Google Scholar), and it is equally likely that the similarities between the Antiquities passage and Acts 5 are coincidental (see Bruce, , Acts, 147Google Scholar; Hoenig, S. B., ‘Theudas’, IDB 4 [1962] 629Google Scholar). This is, however, exactly the way Hughes, (Secrets of the Times, 16)Google Scholar envisions the SP chronology coming about at this point.
34 Jubilees does work out the mathematics involved according to the particular scheme of the author, involving a series of weeks and years divisible by seven and a calendar of 364 days per year (Rook, , ‘Studies’, 167, 169Google Scholar).
35 See Sandmel, S., Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction (New York: Oxford University, 1979) 29Google Scholar.
36 de Vries, S. J. (‘Chronology of the OT’, IDB 1 [1962] 581Google Scholar) has noted that the SP does this to emphasize Abram's departure as ‘a new beginning in human history’. The date of Terah's death is certainly influenced by the overall chronological scheme of the SP, whether in placing the deaths of important ancestors in the exact years of important happenings (e.g., the flood–Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 12, 16Google Scholar), or in ordering history in relation to the founding of the Samaritan sanctuary on Mt Gerizim (see Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 237–8), or in arranging that the lifespans of the ancestors fit a particular, well-developed numerical scheme (see Rook, , ‘Studies’, 153Google Scholar).
37 Richard, , Acts 6:1–8:4, 42Google Scholar.