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: 05 February 2009
One of the cruces interpretum regarding the Acts of the Apostles that continue to reappear in scholarly discussions is why some stories are repeated three or more times. Redaction criticism moved the solutions beyond the earlier theories of multiple sources toward a consensus of attributing repetition to Lukan redaction. One contribution from redactional approaches was the awareness of how emphasis is achieved by repeating accounts of events that are especially pivotal to the overall plot of Acts.
1 Cf. Witherup, Ronald D., ‘Cornelius Over and Over and Over Again: “Functional Redundancy” in the Acts of the Apostles’, JSNT 49 (1993) 45–66Google Scholar, especially with the bibliography on repetition as emphasis that he cites (p. 45, n. 2).
2 Kurz, William S., Reading Luke–Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993) 126, 210 nn. 3–5.Google Scholar
3 Ibid.
4 On repetitions in Acts, cf. especially Witherup, Ronald D., ‘Functional Redundancy in the Acts of the Apostles: A Case Study’, JSNT 48 (1992) 67–86Google Scholar, a study of the repeated accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts 9, 22, and 26; and Witherup, ‘Cornelius Over and Over’, which makes similar points about the repetitions of the Cornelius account.
For related narrative critical studies, see Gaventa, Beverly R., From Darkness to Light: Aspects of Conversion in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 107–29Google Scholar; and Tannehill, Robert C., The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts: A Literary Interpretation (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 2.128–45.Google Scholar
5 Witherup, , ‘Cornelius Over and Over’, 47.Google Scholar The only form of variation Witherup does not find regularly employed in Acts 10–11 is that of grammatical transformation (p. 62). His analysis is based on Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Indiana Literary Biblical Series; Bloomington: Indiana University, 1985); see esp. 3907–3.Google Scholar
6 Cf. Witherup, , ‘Cornelius Over and Over’, esp. 57, 61, 63, 64–5.Google Scholar Classic studies of functional redundancy are Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, esp. 365–440; and Savran, George W., Telling and Retelling: Quotation in Biblical Narrative(Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University, 1988).Google Scholar For redundancy in Luke–Acts, cf. Tannehill, Robert C., ‘The Composition of Acts 3–5: Narrative Development and Echo Effect’, SBLSP 1984 (Richards, Kent H., ed.; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1984) 217–40.Google Scholar For repetition in the NT and Greek rhetoric, see Nida, E. A., Louw, J. P., Snyman, A. H., Cronje, J. V. W., Style and Discourse, with Special Reference to the Greek New Testament (Cape Town: Bible Society, 1983) 22–3.Google Scholar On the importance of redundancy in ancient rhetoric, see Lausberg, Heinrich, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (2 vols.; Munich: Max Hueber, 1960) 1.310–15Google Scholar (his 1973 second augmented edition was not available to me). Redundancy is also important in oral rhetoric: see Kelber, Werner H., The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983)Google Scholar; Achtemeier, Paul J., ‘Omne Verbum Sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity’, JBL 109 (1990) 3–27.Google Scholar
7 Witherup, , ‘Cornelius Over and Over’, 54,Google Scholar notes that when the viewpoints of various characters in the story match those of the implied author spoken by the narrator, this reinforces the primary ideological point of view from which all others are evaluated. He refers to the classic discussion of Lanser, Susan S., The Narrative Act: Point of View in Prose Fiction (Princeton: Princeton University, 1981).Google Scholar For the expressions extradiegetic and intradiegetic as related to the Greek term for narrative, diegesis [σι⋯γ⋯σις, as denoting a narrator from without [extra] or from within [intra] the narrative, see Kurz, , Reading Luke–Acts, 206, n. 107Google Scholar; cf. Rimmon–Kenan, Shlomith, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (New Accents; New York: Methuen, 1983) 91–5, 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 See esp. Kurz, William S., ‘Hellenistic Rhetoric in the Christological Proof of Luke–Acts’, CBQ 42 (1980) 186Google Scholar; Kurz, , Reading Luke–Acts, 98–9, 125–6, 128–31, 204Google Scholar n. 82, 211 n. 14; Cadbury, Henry J., The Making of Luke–Acts (London: SPCK 1968 [1927]) 185–90Google Scholar; Aune, David E., The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Library of Early Christianity; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 125–8.Google Scholar
9 Quintilian 3.8.49 (LCL 1.502–3) [emphasis is in the original translation]. In a different setting, Quintilian comments about the power of ‘impersonation, or πρоσωπоιΐα’ [fictiones personarum, quae πρоσωπоπιΐαι dicuntur]:
By this means we display the inner thoughts of our adversaries as though they were talking with themselves (but we shall only carry conviction if we represent them as uttering what they may reasonably be supposed to have had in their minds) [quae cogitasse eos non sit absurdum]; or without sacrifice of credibility we may introduce conversations between ourselves and others, or of others among themselves, and put words of advice, reproach, complaint, praise or pity into the mouths of appropriate persons [et suadendo, obiurgando, querendo, laudando, miserando personas idoneas damus]…
For my own part, I have included both [fictitious and real persons] under the same generally accepted term [prosopopoeia], since we cannot imagine a speech without we also imagine a person to utter it [Nam certe sermo fingi non potest, ut non personae sermo fingatur] (Quintilian 9.2.30–2, LCL 3.390–3). The texts from Quintilian and from Dionysius of Halicarnassus were noted by John Lilley in early drafts of his Marquette University 1994 Ph.D. dissertation, ‘The Narrative Presentation of Ethical Paradigms in Dionysius's Roman Antiquities and Luke–Acts’, ch. 2, ‘Literary Theory: Modern and Ancient’. They include Quintilian 3.8.49–54; 6.1.26, 39–42; 9.2.29–37; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On Literary Composition § 20 (LCL 198–200; W. Rhys Roberts, tr.; London: MacMillan, 1910).
10 Theon Peri Prosopopoiias, Progymnasmata in Rhetores Graeci (ed. Spengel, L.; 3 vols.; Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1854) 2.115.Google Scholar
11 E.g., Conzelmann, Hans, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 72–3Google Scholar; Schneider, Gerhard, Die Apostelgeschichte 2: Kommentar zu Kap. 9,1–28,31 (HTKNT 5.2; Freiburg: Herder, 1982) 2.21–1.Google Scholar
12 Kurz, , Reading Luke–Acts, 126.Google Scholar
13 See Rimmon-Kenan, , Narrative Fiction, 74–7Google Scholar on focalization as position relative to the story, i.e., external or internal to the story.
14 Cf. Kurz, , Reading Luke–Acts, 126–31.Google Scholar The term ‘omniscient’ can be misleading, especially when related to the theological axioms of God's omniscience and biblical inspiration as Meir Sternberg does (cf. Poetics, pp. 84–99,179–85). But it has become a standard term in literary studies and most scholars have a common understanding of the limits of its claims.
Besides the differing kinds of knowledge available to the main and character narrators respectively, the rhetoric of persuasion also contributes to different emphases, as D. Mar–guerat noted in his 1994 SNTS response to an earlier version of this article. The information provided by the character narrator is often selected according to what is more effective toward persuading his or her audience.
15 See Kurz, , Reading Luke–Acts, 126–31Google Scholar, esp. 131; cf. Sternberg, , Poetics, 75–6, 130, 245–6, 380–2, 389–91, 413–18, chart pp. 432–3Google Scholar; Savran, , Telling and Retelling, 13–15.Google Scholar
16 On the narrator's version as authoritative, see Kurz, , Reading Luke–Acts, 126–31.Google Scholar On correlation between the Lukan and biblical narratives, see pp. 10–11, 46–7; Johnson, Luke Timothy, ‘Luke–Acts, Book of’, ABD 4.406Google Scholar, esp. 408; Dahl, Nils A., ‘The Story of Abraham in Luke–Acts’ in Studies in Luke–Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (ed. Keck, Leander and Martyn, J. Louis; Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 152–3.Google Scholar
17 See Kurz, , Reading Luke–Acts, 126, 131, 210Google Scholar n. 5. This does not preclude the fact that in the Peter–Cornelius event, the repeated narrations by the characters can actually present more fully the meaning of an incident that was initially experienced by Peter as confusing. Thus (developing a suggestion by David Moessner in the 1994 SNTS Luke–Acts seminar), there is a major progression in knowledge from Acts 10.20 and 11.12, where the Spirit is reported to have ordered Peter to accompany the Gentiles without discriminating (10.20 μησ⋯ν σιακριινμη⋯ννоσ, 11.12 μησ⋯ν σιακριναντα), to 15.8–9, where Peter reports that God did not discriminate between clean and unclean peoples in giving Gentiles the Holy Spirit καθὼςκαι ⋯μῖν και о⋯θ⋯ν ςι⋯κρινην μηταξὺ ⋯μ⋯ν τη και αύτ⋯ν καθαρρισαζ καρσιας α⋯τ⋯ν.
18 Since the main narrator is reliable in the sense of accurately reflecting the viewpoints of the implied author (those aspects of himself the real author allows to surface in the text), this sheds light on the implied author's positive ideological position towards the Jews as God's people. Cf. the debate in Tyson, Joseph B., ed., Luke–Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Essays (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988).Google Scholar
19 Cf. note 14. But note the increasing development of insight in and through later repetitions observed by Tannehill, , Narrative Unity, 2.130–3.Google Scholar
20 For an explanation of the term focalization as a variation on ‘point of view’, see Rimmon-Kenan, , Narrative Fiction, 71–85.Google Scholar
21 On showing and telling points of view, see Martin, Francis, compiler and ed., Narrative Parallels to the New Testament (SBLRBS 22; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988) 10–11.Google Scholar
22 See Kurz, , Reading Luke–Acts, 210–11Google Scholar n. 9 and the references there to double visions in primary and secondary sources.
23 At my presentation of this material 2 August 1994 at the SNTS meeting in Edinburgh, Robert Tannehill pointed out the different order in which the events are narrated, corresponding to the different order in which Peter experienced them. He and Mikeal Parsons noted that Peter's increasing awareness of the meaning of the earlier events moves the plot along and approximates the implied author's perspective more closely than the narrator's initial version had. For evidence and debates about the kind of order implied in καθηξ⋯ς in Acts 11.4 (cf. Luke 1.3), see esp. Völkel, Martin, ‘Exegetische Erwägungen zum Verständnis des Begriffs καθηξ⋯ς im lukanischen Prolog’, NTS 20 (1973/4) 289–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar (esp. 294 and 298); and Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Gospel according to Luke (I–IX): Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 28; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981) 1.298–9, 301–2.Google Scholar
24 See note 15 above. The rhetoric of persuasion can also lead to emphases based more on convincing an audience than on simply relating facts.
25 The focus of the narration by the character Peter is exclusively on God's action of giving the Spirit, not on his preceding speech. This exclusive focus on God's action serves his rhetorical purpose of persuading Jewish Christians by answering their objections to his eating with the uncircumcised (11.3). By emphasizing God's intervention exclusively, he persuades them, ‘“Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life”’ (11.18 RSV). The opposite emphasis on Peter's instrumentality is stressed in Peter's report to the ‘Jerusalem Council’: ‘Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe’ (15.7 RSV). The main contributors of these suggestions during the 1994 SNTS discussion were David Moessner, Camille Focant, Daniel Marguerat, and Max Turner.
26 See esp. Ong, Walter, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (New Accents; New York: Methuen, 1982) chap. 3,CrossRefGoogle Scholar ‘Some Psychodynamics of Orality’, 31–77; chap. 4, ‘Writing Restructures Consciousness’, 78–116. Ancient rhetoric and historiography encouraged rewriting the words of previous speakers in one's own style. See esp. Cadbury, , Making of Luke–Acts, 156–68.Google Scholar
