Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] Did Luke know Paul's letters?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Antti V J Mustakallio <amustaka AT cc.helsinki.fi>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Did Luke know Paul's letters?
  • Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:44:53 +0300 (EET DST)


Jim West wrote:
---
not to be a gadfly- but could someone change the subject line so it
doesn't
say, "did Luke KNEW Paul's letters". It gives me the palsy when I see it.

;-)

thanks
---

I am responsible for the paralyzing subject line, so I felt necessary to
act. Sorry Jim and all the native speakers! For me writing English is not
exactly daily bread so even gross solecisms like that may not necessarily
stick out like a sore thumb always. I add my summary to this email so that
it can be the base for future conversation. Now the discussion may
continue lithely.


Antti Mustakallio


> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul
>
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page