Corpus-Paul

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

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Richard Fellows wrote:

> Thanks for your summary, Antti. You and Leppä may like to look at Walker's
> article, "The Timothy-Titus Problem Reconsidered" (Expository Times 92,
> 1981). He finds verbal parallels between the account of Titus in Gal 2:1-5,
> and that of Timothy in Acts 16:1-3.

        Thank you for a reference. Walker's article is included
in the bibliography of Leppä's dissertation.

> The problem that I have with Leppä's study is that it seems to limit itself
> to Galatians. I find it hard to believe that the author of Acts would have
> known Galatians but not the other letters. Acts has accurate information
> about Paul's Aegean period(s), and the 'we' passages travel around the
> Aegean and to Rome. Furthermore, Luke, whom tradition specifies as the
> author, is associated in Paul's letters with Paul's missions in the Aegean
> or further west. For these reasons I think it is unlikely that the author of
> Acts would have known Galatians but not Rom, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, 1 Thess, Phil, or
> Phm. So my question is: are there similar verbal parallels between Acts and
> the other letters? If not, why not?

        I am not sure are you suggesting that the absence of verbal
parallels between Acts and the other letters would prove Luke's ignorance
of Gal. I think that in the case of Gal it would be better to react
somehow to Leppä's textual arguments first. If we are able to discredit them,
fine. But if we have to admit that Luke probably knew and used Gal, then
we may begin to ponder how it is with the other letters. I consider Gal
to be a good place to start. However, I gladly admit that your question
about other verbal parallels is a good one. I would like to add also that
Leppä seems to be assured that the author of Luke-Acts surely know other
letters too.
        Some scholars have examined the question about verbal parallels
between Luke-Acts and the other letters. Leppä gives some attention to
them. Andreas Lindemann is on the opinion that Luke employed Rom and 2
Cor as a historical source (Paulus im ältesten Christentum, Mohr 1979).
H. Schulze (TSK 73, p. 119-125, 1900) and W. Soltau (ZNW 4, p. 128-154, 1903)
have studied Paul's speech at Miletus and demonstrated that Luke had used the
Pauline epistles, especially 1 Thess when writing the speech. Following
these short articles Lars Aejmelaeus (my mentor, BTW) argues in one of his
monographs that Paul's letters were only one source to Luke: the farewell
speech was composed from his letters and his journeys from a travel diary
(Die Rezeption der Paulusbriefe in der Miletrede [Apg 20:18-35], Helsinki: 
AASF
B 232, 1987). J. B. Orchard argued that there are similarities
between Lk and 1 Thess (Biblica 19, p. 19-42, 1938). Michael Goulder tries
to demonstrate that Luke knew 1 Cor and 1 Thess (Luke: A New Paradigm,
JSOT Press, 1989). Check out also Barbara Thiering's "The Acts of the
Apostles as Early Christian Art" (in Essays in Honour of G. W. Thatcher,
p. 139-189, 1967) and William O. Walker's important article "Acts and the
Pauline Corpus Reconsidered" (JSNT 24, p. 3-23, 1985). Recent study by
Barbara Shellard may also be worth reading (New Light on Luke, Its
Purpose, Sources and Literary Context, JSNTS 215, Sheffield Academic
Press 2002). In that book she gives reasons why Paul in the Acts differs
from the Paul we know from his letters so much that many critics assume
that Luke did not know Paul's letters.

Ed Tyler wrote:
---
Why does Leppä feel that so many of these Pauline expressions could not
be transmitted through an oral tradition?  I don't dispute his
conclusion, because I think that Luke's use of terms like AFORIZW would
argue for his familiarity with Pauline thought and that the most likely
way for Luke to achieve this familiarity would be reading the text.  But
I cannot see why these things could not have been transmitted orally as
well.
---

Against alleged Luke's usage of oral reports Leppä has two ways to argue.

First, in some cases of verbal similarities he tries to reduce the
possibility of oral tradition. For example, about the word AFORIZW Leppä
says the following: "In Acts 13:2 Luke employs the word AFOWIZW in a
special meaning similar to Paul's usage in Rom 1:1 and Gal 1:15. Again
Luke had several opportunities to use the word, but he did not. If the
word AFORIZW was commonly used in this meaning, it is difficult to see why
the usage 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." (49) Another example is Leppä's
treatment of ZUGOS which is used in Acts 15:10 and Gal 5:1. Leppä refers
to commentaries by Conzelman and Haenchen who underline that Acts 15:10
represents neither Jewish nor Pauline theology. If they are right, then
Luke is repeating not Paul's theology, but his words. Because oral
tradition tends to carry theology rather than just words, this indicates
that Luke's source was not oral tradition but the letter. (Personally
I am not convinced about this). Still one example: SUMPARALAMBANW
and 'hOI KAI POIEW' are that kind of expressions that have grave
difficulties with surviving in oral tradition. SUMPARALAMBANW is quite a
rare word. One would easily replace it with some more ordinary
expression. That would probably have happened if Luke has gotten his
information through oral transmission. But, Luke uses it, and moreover,
the contexts in Gal and Acts are very similar. 'hOI EK PERITOMHS' is
also a rare Pauline expression. This one would probably be replaced in
oral tradition too. But Luke employs it in a similar kind of context
than that in Gal.

Leppä's second way to answer the question is to show how Luke used Gal in
his writing of Acts. Summarizing this, however, would take so long a time,
that I will leave it for another occasion. It is pity in a way because I
consider that to be the most interesting part of the whole show.

I have not made up my mind yet about this case - this is why I wanted to
raise the question. Nevertheless, I think that Leppä's thesis is pretty
persuasive one, and it will set some sort of a challenge to research.
In any case, the question about Luke's knowledge of Pauline corpus is
quite central one.

Antti Mustakallio