British New Testament Society

Semitisms have long been detected at Acts 2.44 and 47 in phrases employing the Greek adverbial phrase epi to auto. Both uses were related by Max Wilcox, with substantial argumentation, to the unusual use of the Hebrew adverb yachad as a substantive designating 'the community' in the Rule of the Community from Qumran (1QS). Richard Bauckham has recently raised objections to this commonly accepted semitism in his contribution to The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Post-Biblical Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. James R. Davila (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah XLVI, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003). This paper considers Bauckham's objections, and argues in particular: 1) that the analogy to the Acts usage observed in the Apostolic Fathers does not support, as Bauckham argues, that Acts betrays a normal Greek usage, but rather reveals a similar unusual usage determined by specifics from the environment of early Christianity; 2) that Bauckham's case overlooks the complex test-critical problems of both Acts 2.44 and 47, which support Wilcox's case rather than his own; and 3) that the state of knowledge concerning the origins of the community practices which were unusual to the church of Acts 2-6 supports the likelihood of linguistic usages deriving from Jewish communitarian property-sharing practice such as we find in the Rule of the Community.

This paper draws on part of a PhD thesis accepted by the University of Newcastle which examined and compared Luke's presentation of men and women of high and low status. It uses the concept developed by Peter Rabinowitz of the 'intended reader', that is, the ideal reader for whom the author intended the two-volume work. That reader will have shared Luke's knowledge of the Septuagint, and of the economic and social situation and recent history of the time when the work was written. The thesis defines high and low status using the major social and economic classifications current at that time, and shared by Luke and the intended reader, namely the elites, the πενητες and the πτωχοι.

The more important opponents of Jesus and the apostles were the Roman governors, the chief priests and the rulers of the house of Herod, all being of the elites, but many of the opponents in Acts were πενητες. This paper examines Luke's presentation of those men (they were all men), namely: Judas; Ananias; Simon Magus; Bar Jesus; the owners of the slave girl with a spirit of divination; the sons of Sceva; and Demetrius. It identifies two significant features common to Luke's presentation of these men and argues that these features can help us to understand aspects of Luke's presentation of the Pharisees, πενητες who opposed Jesus in the Gospel, including Jesus's rebuke about Mammon.

This symposium will discuss the relationship of Luke and Acts, led by three speakers:

Dr Michael Bird (Highland Theological College) will introduce the seminar by providing an overview of where the debate is since Parsons and Pervo's protest in Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts in 1993, including some attention to what difference the view we take on the 'unity' question makes to the way we read and interpret Luke and Acts.

Dr C. Kavin Rowe (Duke University) will speak around issues raised by his stimulating article ‘History, Hermeneutics and the Unity of Luke-Acts’ in JSNT 28.2 (2005) 131-57, the responses by Luke Johnson and Markus Bockmuehl (both in the same issue of JSNT) and subsequent discussions.

Dr Andrew Gregory (University of Oxford) has provided this title and abstract:

'The Reception History of Luke and Acts and the Unity of Luke-Acts'

My title is deliberately open ended, but depends on two major assumptions. One is that Luke and Acts each appears to have had a distinctive reception history of its own, often as if they were two separate works. The other is that there are clear indications in the text of Luke-Acts which suggest that it is a unified narrative consisting of two volumes that one author composed in such a way that readers who read and interpret each volume in the light of the other will gain a fuller understanding of both volumes.

Juxtaposing these assumptions raises questions about how one relates to the other, not least the question of whether the majority of the readers of Luke and of Acts have-for whatever reason-read these texts as two discrete books or as elements within two discrete divisions of the New Testament canon rather than as two volumes of one narrative whole. I shall consider examples of different readers who have treated Luke and Acts in each of these ways and shall ask to what extent their various reading strategies are of importance in assessing the unity of Luke-Acts.

Acts 3:22-23 is one of only two places in the New Testament in which the prophecy from Deuteronomy 18:15f concerning a future prophet is quoted directly. In doing so the Lucan narrative presents the author's answer to the question: Who are the true people of God? The answer is found in the way he utilises and adapts the prophecy from Deuteronomy. Those who listen to Jesus, the Prophet like Moses, continue to be what they have always considered themselves to be-the people of God. Those who reject Jesus, the Prophet like Moses, and refuse to listen to him fail to heed the divine imperative autou akousthe 'listen to him' and are excommunicated from the people of God. This is shown through the intensification of the threat for failing to listen to the Prophet like Moses from one of being called to account by God to one of 'cutting off' from the people. Response to the Prophet like Moses was therefore critical, and the function of Deuteronomy 18:15-18 takes its place within the Lucan paradigm of 'the falling and rising of many in Israel' (Luke 2:34). Through the speech in Acts 3 Luke presents the stark contrast to the Jews - a contrast that went to the heart of their identity as the people of God.

In Acts 25:10, Paul appeals to Caesar while standing before Festus. It is because of this appeal that Paul is actually sent to Rome for a decision by the Emperor. The precise legal context of this appeal has not always been correctly understood, most notably perhaps by the influential classical scholar A.H.M. Jones (The Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate [Oxford: Blackwell, 1972]). Jones argued that Paul's biographer did not understand the process of provocatio correctly, as such an appeal could only be launched after a verdict.

There are several inscriptions, ranging from the early Principate to the second century AD, which provide parallels to and throw light on Paul's appeal to Caesar. The key is to understand that Paul's appeal was made in the provinces and not in Rome. Neither was it made in order to overturn a verdict, but in order to be tried by a court in Rome. This last request was not uncommon in the provinces and it is worthwhile to see the various practices in different provinces. By tracing the development in the Roman imperial policy regarding requests for a trial in Rome it will appear that the situation in Acts fits well into the actual practice of the Roman judicial system.