No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2013
This narrative-critical study of Acts proposes that Luke has deliberately arranged events so that the discussion about circumcising baptised Gentiles is postponed for as long as possible. When the issue does surface, it is raised by a delegation of second-wave Christians from the sect of the Pharisees. These factors combined give the impression that circumcision of Gentiles, a matter long settled by Luke's own day, had never been original, favourable or sanctioned by God or the apostles. By portraying the movement to circumcise Gentiles as belated, extrinsic and pernicious, Luke's representation of difference in the church resembles that of later heresiologists.
1 Preuschen, E., Die Apostelgeschichte (HZNT 4.1; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1912) 69.Google Scholar
2 Zeller, E., The Contents and Origin of the Acts of the Apostles, Critically Investigated (trans. Dare, J.; London: Williams & Norgate, 1875–6) 278Google Scholar, finds it curious ‘how little the idea of Gentile conversion took root in Jerusalem’, so much so that Peter, in Acts 15, refers to the Cornelius episode ‘as something quite forgotten’. See the similar expressions of incredulity by Rackham, R. B., The Acts of the Apostles (2nd edn; London: Methuen, 1904) 162Google Scholar; Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (trans. Wilson, R. McL.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1971) 463Google Scholar; Pervo, R. I., Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009) 368.Google Scholar
3 Barrett, C. K., The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 1 (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994) 543.Google Scholar
4 So Witherington, B. III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998) 453Google Scholar, who notes that ‘perhaps as many as ten years had gone by’.
5 A scenario disregarded by Haenchen (Acts, 463) as ‘intrinsically impossible’.
6 Most notably, Wilson, S. G., Luke and the Law (SNTSMS 50; Cambridge University Press, 1983) 73CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Witherington III, Acts, 362 n. 137; Stählin, G., Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962) 158.Google Scholar
7 E.g. Hengel, M., Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (trans. Bowden, J.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 95–8.Google Scholar
8 James gives no indication of desiring Law observance for Gentiles in Acts 21.20–5. Although he takes pride in the fact that Jewish believers remain steadfast to the Law, from Gentiles he expects only what is required by the apostolic decree. See further Thiessen, M., Contesting Conversion: Genealogy, Circumcision, and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 E.g. Roloff, J., Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) 230Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, J. A., The Acts of the Apostles (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998) 538–9Google Scholar; Haenchen, Acts, 463.
10 The relationship between the Apostles, the elders and ‘those from the circumcision’ with whom Peter contends in Acts 11.1–18 will be discussed below.
11 Plunkett, M. A., ‘Ethnocentricity and Salvation History in the Cornelius Episode’, in Society of Biblical Literature 1985 Seminar Papers (ed. Richards, K. H.; SBLSP 24; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985) 465–80Google Scholar.
12 So Plunkett, ‘Ethnocentricity’, 465–79; Pettern, M., ‘Luke's Great Omission and his View of the Law’, NTS 42 (1996) 51Google Scholar. Thiessen (Contesting Conversion, 124–40) likewise contends that social intercourse is the principal concern.
13 So Martyn, J. L., Galatians (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 234–40Google Scholar, among the countless others including RSV, NAS, NRSV (‘faction’), NIV (‘group’), NET (‘those who were pro-circumcision’). Ellis, E. E., Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1978) 117Google Scholar, proposes that the term in Titus 1.10, as in Gal 2.12, is ‘best understood of a faction of Jewish Christians’.
14 So Witherington III, Acts, 362 n. 137; Roloff, Apostelgeschicthe, 175; Stählin, Apostelgeschichte, 158; Johnson, L. T., The Acts of the Apostles (SP 5; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1992) 200–1Google Scholar; Foakes-Jackson, F. J., The Acts of the Apostles (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1931) 97Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., The Book of Acts (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988) 220.Google Scholar
15 Dix, G., Jew and Greek: A Study in the Primitive Church (London: Dacre, 1953) 42–4Google Scholar; Longenecker, R. N., Galatians (WBC 41; Dallas: Word, 1990) 73–5Google Scholar; Schmithals, W., Paul and James (trans. Barton, D. M.; London: SCM, 1965) 66–8Google Scholar; Reicke, Bo, ‘Der geschichtliche Hintergrund des Apostelkonzils und der Antiochia Episode’, in Studia Paulina: in honorem J. de Zwann (Haarlem: Erven F. Bohn, 1953) 176–7Google Scholar. Munck, J., Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (trans. Clarke, Frank; London: SCM, 1959) 106–9.Google Scholar
16 Dix, Jew and Greek, 42–3; notwithstanding the view of Esler, P. F., ‘Making and Breaking an Agreement Mediterranean Style: A New Reading of Galatians 2:1–14’, Biblical Interpretation 3.3 (1995) 285–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who contends that, in view of ancient Mediterranean pact making, the circumcision faction would have been out for revenge following their humiliation in Jerusalem.
17 Schmithals, Paul and James, 66; Longenecker, Galatians, 74.
18 Dix, Jew and Greek, 43–4; Longenecker, Galatians, 74.
19 Schmithals, Paul and James, 67.
20 Longenecker, Galatians, 73–4.
21 Schmithals, Paul and James, 67.
22 That the Jerusalem church did face such pressure from zealous Jews ca. 50 ce and responded with a campaign of Judaisation has been argued by Jewett, R., ‘The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation’, NTS 17 (1971) 198–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23 It is not clear in Gal 2.11–14 whether Paul is referring to Eucharist meals, ordinary meals, or both. For the range of views, see respectively Schlier, H., Der Brief an der Galater (KEK 7; 10th edn; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1949) 83Google Scholar; De Witt Burton, E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921) 104Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., The Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982) 129.Google Scholar
24 Pervo, Acts, 284.
25 Hanson, R. P. C., The Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 119–20Google Scholar, declares that ‘the discussion in 11:1–18 is about circumcised or uncircumcised persons’ because ‘the subject of table-fellowship was involved with the subject of food regulations, and both with the subject of circumcision’. See, too, Wilson, S. G., The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (Cambridge University Press, 1973) 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26 So Parsons, Mikeal C., Acts (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008) 156Google Scholar; Conzelmann, Hans, Acts of the Apostles (trans. Limburg, J., Kraabel, A. T., and Juel, D. H.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 86.Google Scholar
27 Pervo, Acts, 284. On Luke's use of Paul's letters, see below n. 46.
28 On the absence of the expression prior to Justin, see Ellis, Prophecy, 116. Marcus, Joel, ‘The Circumcision and the Uncircumcision in Rome’, NTS 35 (1989) 67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar, contends that πɛριτομή and ἀκροβυστία may have been epithets thrown at one another by Jews and Gentiles prior to Paul, but he excludes οἱ ἐκ πɛριτομῆς from such usage.
29 Pervo, Acts, 373. See also Barrett, Acts, 713–14. Dibelius, M., Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (trans. Ling, M.; ed. Greeven, H.; London: SCM, 1956) 115Google Scholar, contends that ‘the words . . . are certainly spoken with a particular intention and with slight exaggeration, in order to stress the fact that the decision came from God some time ago and was made known to the first of the apostles’.
30 I do not mean to suggest that the groups described in 15.1 and 15.5 are identical, as though the ‘some men from Judea’ had returned to Jerusalem and renewed their objection. But Luke gives every indication that these two groups are related. Both are Judean, no doubt from Jerusalem, and both register the same concern, even if the first group couches it in terms of salvation and the second in terms of necessity. Presumably circumcision (and Law observance) is necessary for salvation, although see Parsons (Acts, 210), who suggests that the concern in 15.1 is the salvation of Gentiles while in 15.5 it is social mixing of Gentiles with Jews. For the view here, see Johnson, Acts, 260. The two groups are even linked grammatically, as Luke uses the indefinite pronoun to describe them both. On the resemblance of the two groups, see the suggestion of Fitzmyer (Acts, 545).
31 Indeed, this contrast probably belies the frequent assertion that the group in 15.5 is the same as that in 10.45 or 11.2. See, for example, Wilson, Luke and the Law, 72; Witherington III, Acts, 362 n. 137; Stählin, Apostelgeschichte, 158.
32 Sanders, J. T., The Jews in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 85Google Scholar. See also Tannehill, R., The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 67Google Scholar; Witherington III, Acts, 232–4.
33 Johnson, Acts, 99–103, 260.
34 Johnson, Acts, 103.
35 So Pervo, Acts, 574: ‘Paul engages in what admirers would have labeled a deft political maneuver and detractors, a cheap lawyer's stunt.’
36 Indeed, the apostles and elders insist in their letter to the Gentiles of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia (15.24) that the advocates for circumcision have been operating without their approval.
37 See von Staden, H., ‘Hairesis and Heresy: The Case of the haireseis iatrikai’, in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 3 (ed. Meyer, B. F. and Sanders, E. P.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 76–100, esp. 96–8Google Scholar; Iricinschi, E. and Zellentin, H. M., ‘Making Selves and Marking Others: Identity and Late Antique Heresiologies’, in Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity (ed. Iricinschi, E. and Zellentin, H.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 3–5Google Scholar; Simon, M., ‘From Greek Hairesis to Christian Heresy’, in Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition: In Honorem Robert M. Grant (ed. Wilken, R. L. and Schoedel, W. R.; Théologie historique 54; Paris: Éditions Beauchesne, 1979) 101–16.Google Scholar
38 Simon, ‘From Greek Hairesis to Christian Heresy’, 104.
39 AJ 13.171; 18.11; BJ 2.119, 166; Life 1.10.
40 Pace Mason, Steve, Josephus and the New Testament (2nd edn; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003) 288–91Google Scholar, who argues that Luke borrows from Josephus' description of the philosophical ‘schools’ within Judaism and legitimates the Christian ‘way’ by describing it as one such school. For more on Luke's use of αἵρɛσις, see Pervo, R. I., Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 2006) 168–9.Google Scholar
41 So Pervo (Acts, 371), who notes that ‘Luke thereby characterizes [the Judean visitors to Antioch] as dangerous outside agitators’.
42 Daube, D., Ancient Jewish Law: Three Inaugural Lectures (Leiden: Brill, 1981) 22–32Google Scholar; Cohen, S. J. D., ‘Was Timothy Jewish? Patristic Exegesis, Rabbinic Law, and Matrinlinear Descent’, JBL 106 (1985) 251–68Google Scholar. For further consideration of this position, see Bryan, C., ‘A Further Look at Acts 16:1–3’, JBL 107 (1988) 292–4.Google Scholar
43 The most compelling argument, as noted by Pervo (Acts, 388), is that Luke mentions the Gentile identity of Timothy's father in v. 3, as though this identity was determinative of the way in which Timothy would have been viewed. Accordingly, Conzelmann (Acts, 125) acknowledges that Luke should have mentioned Timothy's Jewish mother in v. 3 rather than his Gentile father. Among those who still contend that Luke sees Timothy as a Jew, see Levinskaya, I., The Book of Acts in its Diaspora Setting (BIFCS 5; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdamans, 1996) 15–17Google Scholar; Parsons, Acts, 222; Johnson, Acts, 284; Bruce, Book of Acts, 304; Witherington III, Acts, 474–5. Following Horn, F. W., ‘Der Verzicht auf die Beschneidung im frühen Christentum’, NTS 42 (1996) 479–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Thiessen (Contesting Conversion, 121–2) contends that Timothy's status is ambiguous.
44 John Chrysostom views the circumcision of the Gentile Timothy similarly. See Cohen, ‘Was Timothy Jewish?’, 255; Garroway, J., ‘The Law Observant Lord: John Chrysostom's Engagement with the Jewishness of Christ’, JECS 18 (2010) 613.Google Scholar
45 The apostolic status of Paul in Acts is a long-standing interpretive issue. The criteria for apostleship set forth in Acts 1 – namely, that the number of apostles must be twelve and that each of the twelve must have participated in Jesus' ministry – precludes Paul from being considered an apostle; yet, Paul and Barnabas are called apostles in Acts 14.4, 14. For a discussion of this problem and the various proposals for resolving it, see Clark, A. C., Parallel Lives: The Relation of Paul to the Apostles in the Lucan Perspective (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2001) 136–49Google Scholar; Klein, G., Die Zwölf Apostel: Ursprung und Gehalt einer Idee (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961)Google Scholar; Tyson, Joseph B., Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 2006) 70–2.Google Scholar
46 The use of Paul's letters by Luke is another long-standing interpretive issue. The consensus that Luke did not use them has been seriously put to the test in recent years. The starting point for discussion in this regard is now Pervo (Dating Acts, 51–147), who draws upon the contributions of Enslin, Morton, ‘Once Again, Luke and Paul’, ZNW 61 (1970) 253–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Walker, W. O. Jr, ‘Acts and the Pauline Corpus Reconsidered’, JSNT 25 (1985) 3–23Google Scholar; Goulder, M. D., ‘Did Luke Know Any of the Pauline Letters?’, Perspectives in Religious Studies 13 (1986) 97–112Google Scholar; Aejmelaeus, L., Die Rezeption der Paulusbriefe in der Miletrede (Apg 20:18–35) (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987)Google Scholar; H. Leppä, ‘Luke's Critical Use of Galatians’ (PhD diss., University of Helsinki, 2002).
47 Gager, J., ‘Where Does Luke's Anti-Judaism Come From?’, in Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity (ed. Iricinschi, E. and Zellentin, H.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 207–11.Google Scholar
48 The use of Josephus by Luke is yet another controversial matter. For the most recent and compelling argument in favour, see again Pervo, Dating Acts, 149–99.
49 Fredriksen, P., ‘Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2’, Journal of Theological Studies 42 (1991) 532–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For similar views, see Dunn, J. D. G., Beginning From Jerusalem: Christianity in the Making, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009) 438–46Google Scholar; Räisänen, H., Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 256–63.Google Scholar
50 Campbell, D. A., The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009) 154–8Google Scholar. As a forerunner of this view, Campbell credits Donaldson, T. L., Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle's Convictional World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997).Google Scholar
51 Bauer, W., Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (trans. Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins; ed. Kraft, R. and Krodel, G.; 2nd edn; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971 [1934]) xxiii.Google Scholar
52 W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, xxiii.
53 Pervo, Acts, 373. See above, n. 29.
54 For a related, but different, notion of Luke as a proto-heresiologist, see Tyson (Marcion and Luke-Acts), who argues that Acts (and canonical Luke) were completed around the time Marcion came to prominence and aim to empower proto-Orthodox Christians in the controversy with Marcion and his followers. Tyson is of course reformulating the position put forth by his teacher, Knox, John, in Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1942).Google Scholar