Corpus-Paul

[Antti V J Mustakallio <amustaka AT cc.helsinki.fi>]

Richard Fellows asked me to give a summary of arguments in the
dissertation dealing with the topic. Well, here it comes.

The author of the dissertation is Heikki Leppä and the title is "Luke's
Critical Use of Galatians". Leppä states the purpose of his study in a
following way: "...to determine the relationship between Acts and Gal 1
and 2." (32) Then he splits the problem: "1) Did Luke know Paul's letters
to the Galatians? 2) Did Luke use the letter? 3) If he did, how did he use
it? 4) Can we find parallel uses of sources? 5) What was Luke's purpose in
writing the way he did?" (32)  According to Leppä "the only way to show
that someone has known some source that they do not mention is to show
verbal agreement." (32) One has to find "same words together or the same
words in the same context. It is even better if the agreement is
verbatim." (33) Finding agreements means also that Luke has used, in a way
or another, the letter. For question 2 no universal solutions can be found
in Leppä's opinion. Leppä's treats question 4 by using Mark as a
comparison material of Luke's style of using sources. Question 5
speculates about Luke's motives and tendencies in the "ecclesiastical"
situation of his time.

I will summarize only Leppä's treatment of the first question for this
time. This is because I would not like to present his arguments in too
condensed a form. I also think that already the first question is
interesting enough for a little discussion. If our talk seems to be
fruitful I am happy to write more.

Leppä finds following verbal agreements between Luke-Acts and Galatians.

1) Paul employs the word SUMPARALAMBANW only in Gal. 2:1, when he mentions
that he and Barnabas took Titus with them to Jerusalem. The same word
occurs three times in Luke-Acts: Acts 12:25, Acts 15:37 and Acts 15:38.
The word occurs only four times in the NT, and it is used only in
connection with Paul and Barnabas taking a companion with them on a trip.
Leppä shows that SUMPARALAMBANW is quite a rare word: three times in LXX,
two times by Philo and two times by Josephus. Then he notes that Luke had
other opportunities to use the word (Lk 2:5 and 16:3) but in those cases
it is absent. According to Leppä, the most natural explanation of Luke's
use of the word is that he had Gal 2:1 in his mind. (35-37)

2) The expression 'hOI EK PERITOMHS' is used five times in the NT. Paul
uses it twice: Gal 2:13 and Rom 4:12. Luke uses it twice also: Acts 10:45
and 11:2. The expression is rare. It is not found in the literature of the
first and second century B.C. During the first century AD it is used twice
by Dioscorides Pedanius and later Justin Martyr. The contexts of Acts 11:2
and Gal 2:12 are quite similar and the meaning of the expression is
exactly the same. Leppä thinks that it is likely that Luke got it from
2:12: "He could use several other expressions, which were more typical of
him. But when he uses the same rare expression as Paul, he uses it in the
same special way in a situation very similar to Paul's. One more quite
clear fingerprint of Paul." (37-39)

3) In Gal 1:13, 24 and Acts 9:21 one can find the word PORQEW. These are
the only occurrences of the word in the NT, and they are used in
connection with precisely the same situation. The sense in which Paul uses
the word is peculiar. Leppä is on the opinion that this indicates Luke's
use of Gal. (40-44)

4) There is the phrase 'ZHLWTHS hUPARCWN' in Gal 1:14 and Acts 22:3. These
two words are written also in Acts 21:20 but separately. A genitive
construction is also added in each case: Paul used TWN PATRIKWN MOU
PARADOSEWN, Luke employed TOU QEOU (22:3) and TOU NOMOU (21:20). The
Pauline phrase 'TWN PATRIKWN MOU PARADOSEWN' has the parallel 'TOU PATRWOU
NOMOU' in Acts 22:3 just before 'ZHLWTHS hUPARCWN'. The word PATRIKOS is a
hapax legomenon in the NT. Luke uses the word PATRWOS thrice: about the
law (Acts 22:3), about God (Acts 24:14), and about Jewish customs (Acts
28:17). In addition Paul employed the word IOUDAISMOS and Luke used
IOUDAIOS in both verses. The expression 'ZHLWTHS hUPARCWN' is very rare:
these are the only instances in ancient Greek literature from the third
century B.C. to the third century A.D. In both verses Gal. 1:14 and Acts
22:3 Paul explains his past, and his education as a Jew is an issue. Leppä
writes: "Those scholars who assume that Luke neither knew Paul personally,
nor knew his letters, should answer the question: 'Is Luke using Pauline
language without ever hearing him in person or knowing his letters?' If
the answer is affirmative, the next question would be: 'How is this
possible?'" (44-47)

5) There is a verbal agreement between Acts 13:2 and Gal 1:15: the word
AFORIZW and KALEW / PROSKALEW. Luke uses the verb AFORIZW besides Acts
13:2 twice, Lk 6:22 and Acts 19:9, but in Acts 13:2 he employs the word in
a special meaning similar to Paul's usage in Rom 1:1 and Gal 1:15.
According to Leppä, this is again a kind of case where Luke had several
opportunities to use the verb, but he did not. "If the word AFORIZW was
commonly used in this meaning, it is difficult to see why the usade was
limited to Paul and Barnabas only. This points in the direction that it
was not commonly used in this meaning when Acts was written. This
indicates that it does not come from Paul through oral tradition, but
through his letters." (47-49)

6) After Paul left Jerusalem he went to Syria and Cilicia: 'THS SURIAS KAI
THS KILIKIAS' (Gal 1:21). In Acts these two areas can be found together
twice: Acts 15:23 and 15:41. Luke's use of these words in these verses is
closely related to Paul's story in Gal 1-2. In both cases in Acts
something is misplaced. In Acts 15 neither place is expected. This is
because in Acts the conflict took place in Antioch, and it seemed to be a
local incident. Barnabas and Paul travel to Jerusalem to solve the
problem. Then the Apostolic Decree was not sent only to Antioch but also
to Syria and Cilicia. This is surprising. If the conflict was limited to
one congregation, the answer to a wider audience would need an
explanation, which Luke does not provide. Leppä thinks that to most
plausible solution is that these places came from Luke's source. He also
stresses that Antioch is mentioned in Gal 2:11, so all the places to which
the decree was addressed are mentioned in the letter. There is a
geographical problem in Acts 15:41 according to Leppä. He thinks that Luke
uses Syria and Cilicia together in a situation where Syria fits poorly;
Paul would probably have mentioned only Cilicia if he had kept a travel
diary. Because of this Leppä thinks that there is a reason to assume that
Luke had a source which was not a travel diary. Neither Paul nor Luke tell
very much of what Paul did in Syria and Cilicia. Luke's Paul simply goes
through the area. Leppä cites Morton Enslin: "In sum, the important fact
appears to me to be that Luke not only has no detailed account of these
years in and about Tarsus, but that surprisingly enough he makes this bare
reference. Had he had any details, from any of the sources he is presumed
to have had available, would he not have given them? Would he have chanced
to make so laconic a reference had not Paul done precisely the same
thing?" Leppä concludes that Luke's use of THS SURIAS KAI THS KILIKIAS
points in the direction that there is a literary dependence between Gal
1:21 and Acts 15:23, 41. (49-52)

7) Leppä gives notices that Luke employs the word ZUGOS (Acts 15:10) in
the same uncommon manner as Paul does in Gal 5:1. He asks: "Does this
indicate that he took both the word and its usage from the letter?"
(52-53)

8) There is a similarity of phraseology between Gal 2:10 (hO KAI ...
POIHSAI) and Acts 11:30 (hO KAI EPOIHSAN). The expression 'hO KAI' is used
as an object of the verb POIEW besides the two pericopae only once in the
NT: Acts 26:10. Leppä notes that 'hO KAI' is "a very 'Pauline' phrase in
NT", and emphasizes that Luke employs it once when he is talking about
action close to what Paul described in Gal and other time when he is
putting the words in Paul's mouth. In addition to this, there are same
characters in Acts 11:30 and Gal 2:9-10. (54)

9) In Acts 11:3 the word AKROBUSTIA is a hapax legomenon in Luke's text.
The verse is about Peter coming to Jerusalem. Paul employs the word 16
times. In Gal he uses it three times. Gal 2:7 is the only time when Paul
used this word in connection with Peter. Of all Paul's usage Luke's use of
the word resembles most his use in Gal 2:7. The word is also used in LXX,
but it does not mean uncircumcised person there. It is exclusively Pauline
way to use the word referring to an uncircumcised person. Eph 2:11 is
illuminating. The author explains the word AKROBUSTIA to his readers. It
seems that he assumes that his readers do not commonly use the word. The
construction 'ANDRES AKROBUSTIAN ECONTAS' (Acts 11:3) is not Pauline but
it is not typically Lukan either. He uses the word EQNOS 43 times in Acts
and could have used it here also. This indicates that AKROBUSTIA comes
from a source. This hapax legomenon word does not prove literary
dependence. But, he employs the expression 'hOI EK PERITOMHS' and the rare
verb SUNESQIW in the very same context. Leppä writes: "Three unusual words
or expressions in a closely related context is far stronger evidence. The
probability that all these details are just random isolated incidents is
quite small." (55-57)

10) Final observation by Leppä is that Paul writes in Gal 3:19 'DIATAGEIS
DI' AGGELWN' and Luke in Acts 7:53 'DIATAGAS AGGELWN". Both instances are
about angels being present when the law was given. Paul did not mention
anything about God's role in giving the law. Stephen did not mention God
either. Leppä writes and cites Enslin again: "That the two authors
employed the same phrase with opposite function points to the literary
dependence: 'Nor is it to be overlooked that while Paul uses the phrase to
disparage the law, Luke uses it as an additional reason for its dignity.
This suggests not aaurate knowledge of Paul's thought but secondary
acquaintance with his writing which he failed to understand." (57-59)

Leppä thinks that many of words and expressions mentioned can hardly
survive in oral tradition (SUMPARALAMBANW, hO KAI POIEW, PORQEW). He
thinks that if words like AKROBUSTIA and 'hOI EK PERITOMHS' had become a
part of the oral tradition of Paul's teaching, Luke would have used them
much more. Furthermore, Leppä points that Luke employs Pauline words in
the same - far from usual - way as Paul: PORQEW, ZUGOS, AFORIZW. (59-61)

After all this Leppä is on the opinion that we have significant textual
evidence suggesting that Luke had known Paul's Letter to the Galatians.


Antti Mustakallio
Ph.D student

Department of Biblical Studies
University of Helsinki
Finland