Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:53:22.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Son of Man Saying in Stephen's Witnessing: Acts 6.8–8.2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

P. Doble
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Of all the special-L Son of Man logia, that in the Stephen-unit (Acts 6. 8–8. 2) is the most important for an understanding of Luke's work. The whole account is properly a unity, and the legion's meaning emerges from the meaning of the whole. For reasons which are merely noted at this stage, some interesting features of the unit are ignored in this discussion. For example, in the following paragraphs there is no examination of Luke's sources for his speech. Whatever they once were, the sources have been worked over so thoroughly that they are now linguistically and conceptually indistinguishable from the rest of Lk-Acts. Similarly, whatever form of Christian theology underlay those sources is not now available for the reconstruction of a stage in Christian history. Some writers have detected links between Stephen and the Samaritans, the Qumran writings, the Letter to the Hebrews or the community for which John the Evangelist wrote. None of these is discussed here, because Luke made this unit his own, functioning in the way he intended, achieving his purposes for his age.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , January 1985 , pp. 68 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

[1] This note originated in a study of Luke's use of the Son of Man sayings.

[2] See Cadbury, H. J., The Making of Luke-Acts (SPCK, 1958) 218–38Google Scholar; Dupont, J., The Sources of Acts (ET DLT, 1964Google Scholar); Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles (ET Basil Blackwell, 1971Google Scholar); O'Neill, J. C., The Theology of Acts (SPCK, 1970), esp. 78–93Google Scholar; Kilgallen, , The Stephen Speech, Analecta Biblica 67 (Rome Bib. Inst. Press, 1967), Appendix, 121 ff.Google Scholar

[3] Kilgallen, , Speech, 3–26Google Scholar; Haenchen, , Acts, 291Google Scholar; see also Brown, S., ‘The Role of the Prologues in Determining the Purposes of Luke-Acts’, in Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. Talbert, C. H. (T. and T. Clark Ltd., 1978).Google Scholar

[4] Haenchen, Contra, 295.Google Scholar

[5] O'Neill, , The Theology of Acts, 80–7, also demonstrates that the speech fits Luke's theological pattern.Google Scholar

[6] The view taken here of Luke's purpose in writing agrees with Conzelmann's description of Luke as a theologian, but dissents from his assessment of Lukan eschatology. This view owes much to Hiers, R. H., ‘The Problem of the Delay of the Parousia in Luke-Acts’, NTS 20.2, 01 1974, 145 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Franklin, E., Christ the Lord (SPCK, 1975Google Scholar), chap. 6; Talbert, C. H., ‘The Redaction Critical Quest for Luke the Theologian’, in Jesus and Man's Hope, ed. Buttrick, D. G. (Pittsburgh Theol. Sem., 1970) 171–222.Google Scholar

[7] E.g. Teacher, prophet, Son of Man.

[8] E.g. Lord and Christ.

[9] E.g. Rackham, R. B., The Acts of the Apostles (Methuen, 1901) xlvii.Google Scholar

[10] Lk 9. 31.

[11] Talbert's sequence appears on p. 182 of ‘Redaction Critical Quest’: that set out above is an adaptation of Talbert's work, cf. Franklin, op. cit. Chapter 1.

[12] This unfashionable position has been argued earlier on grounds not dissimilar from those occupied by Robinson, J. A. T., Redating the New Testament (SCM, 1976) 86–117.Google Scholar

[13] The various possibilities have been discussed by Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke (Paternoster Press, 1978) 657–9. ‘The view taken here is that both Jesus’ earthly ministry and his ascended state are comprised in ‘the days of the Son of man’.Google Scholar

[14] Luke's comprehensive use of ρ`ήματα is instructive. His redaction of Mk 9. 32 reveals that his additions were probably stimulated by Mark's use of the word. While the word appeared only twice in Mark's Gospel, Luke had been freely using it before its first appearance in his source. Before that point Luke's dominant use is to indicate revelation, an oracle, particularly a fulfilled oracle, or the event which fulfilled the oracle. The revelation may be through: i. Transactions between humans and angels: Lk 1. 37 (which is an oracle within an oracle, cf. Gen 18. 14); 1. 38; 2. 17, 19, 29; Acts 5. 20; ii. The bestowal of God's oracular gift, Lk 3. 2; iii. Oracular sayings of Jesus: Lk 2. 50, 51; 5. 5(?); 7. 1; 17. 34; 20. 26(?); 24. 8; Acts 11.16; iv. Events that fulfil divine oracles: 1. 65; 2. 15; 24. 11. Acts 5. 32 must refer to the events which constitute the apostolic κηρύγμα, themselves the fulfilment of God's plan. Acts 6. 11, 13 are instructive because they parallel Jeremiah's oracles against the ‘holy place’ and are threatening fulfilment (see Jer 7).

v. Christian oracles: Acts 10. 22, 37, 44; 13. 42; 26. 25. Acts 2. 14 also probably belongs here.

vi. The exception to this seems to be Acts 16. 38.

It is this kind of evidence which leads the reader to suppose that when Luke used ρ`ήματα he had the notion of prophetic oracles in mind.

[15] O'Neill, , op. cit., 78Google Scholar, has offered other grounds for holding that this speech is of prime importance: it is longer than any other; it marks the end of action confined to Jerusalem; it is the occasion for Saul of Tarsus' first appearance.

[16] Franklin, , op. cit., 28–41Google Scholar, has argued the case for this statement.

[17] A community to whom Luke's argument would prove convincing was a community well-acquainted with scripture.

[18] While Kilgallen, , op. cit., 98Google Scholar, has recognised the Wisdom roots of δ δίκαιος, Luke's debt is both broader and deeper than this, probably because he shared Wisdom's perspective on Israel's history.

[19] Lindars, Barnabas, New Testament Apologetic (SCM, 1961) 36 ff.Google Scholar

[20] Others had found the passage of christological interest. Rev 12. 5 appears to have made use of Is 66. 7.

[21] Contra Kilpatrick, G. D., ‘Again Acts 7:56: Son of Man?’, Theol. Zeit. 34 (4, 1978) 232.Google Scholar