Immediate context

The speech at Miletus falls into the so-called ‘third missionary journey’ of Paul (Acts 18.23–21.17), and within that section into the journey to Jerusalem. The intention of Paul to go to Jerusalem is noted in 19.21, following on a summary statement (19.20), although the journey itself does not begin until 20.3. At that point, the intention is to go from ‘Greece’ (? = Corinth) to Syria via Macedonia.

The journey develops as Paul visits Philippi (20.6), Troas (20.6–12), Assos (20.13), Mitylene (20.14) and Miletus (20.15). At Miletus Luke notes that ‘Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia; he was eager to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost’ (20.16). This, in Luke's understanding, is why Paul then sends to Ephesus for the elders to come to Miletus and addresses them there, rather than going to Ephesus itself. The meeting with the elders then takes up 20.18–38, and the journey resumes, on to Cos, Rhodes and Patara (21.1), and then Syria (21.2–6). They then travel by ship along the coast to Ptolemais (21.7) and Caesarea (21.8–14), where several days are spent. Finally, the group travels on to Jerusalem (21.15–17).

During the journey two motifs may be noted which will affect our understanding of the Miletus episode, namely the focus on Jerusalem and the sense of divine constraint.

Introduction

What is Luke seeking to accomplish by the use of the Miletus speech? A key clue is provided by parallel material in his first volume. Because Acts is to be read as the follow-on to the Gospel, a reading strategy which looks for links commends itself over against a strategy which atomises material and isolates individual speeches or incidents, as classical form and redaction criticism sometimes do.

The context in Acts

We have noted that there are significant individual verbal links with Paul's Ephesian ministry (Acts 19), but otherwise our speech seems to form something of an island in the sea of Acts. There are no clusters of parallels with 20.17–38 elsewhere in Acts, which is not greatly surprising, for this is the only recorded address given by Paul to Christians in the book. Conceptual parallels come only as the action develops in the remainder of the journey to Jerusalem in Acts, although even these are sketchy.

Parallels in Luke's Gospel

Three longer passages in the Gospel invite consideration: 22.14–38; 12.1–53; 21.5–31. In particular, 22.14–38 and 21.5–31 represent possible candidates for an Abschiedsrede in Luke. In addition there are four brief passages (7.38, 44; 9.2; 10.3; 13.32f) where interesting verbal parallels occur, often with words found in Luke-Acts only in the relevant passage in Luke and the Miletus speech.

Luke 22.14–38

This is the clearest candidate for a ‘farewell discourse’ in Luke's Gospel, and the parallels with the Miletus speech are rich and suggestive.

The study of the portrait of Paul in Acts has a long history; it has been investigated by virtually every modern scholar who has written substantially on Acts. Two particular issues gave rise to this study: how far the portraits of Paul in Acts and the Pauline epistles are compatible, and what knowledge Luke has of the Pauline epistles. In both of these debates Paul's Miletus speech (Acts 20.18b–35) is pivotal.

On the one hand, it is the only Pauline speech in Acts given to a Christian community – in other words, it is addressed to an ‘epistle-like’ situation, by contrast with other Pauline speeches, which are evangelistic or apologetic. It is therefore a key ‘test case’ for the compatibility of the two portraits of Paul, for it offers the opportunity to compare Luke's and Paul's dealings with Christians and, in particular, the understandings of Christian leadership which are presented.

On the other hand, the speech's language and ideas are widely recognised as paralleling the language and ideas of the Pauline epistles. This raises the question of the relationship between the speech and the epistles: are the epistles the source for the speech, directly or indirectly, or is Luke utilising independent Pauline tradition or composing freely?

In order to orientate ourselves, we shall consider the state of play in these debates and highlight the contribution which studying the Miletus speech can make to them.

Introduction

What constitutes a valid parallel? This question has been debated often in biblical scholarship, famously provoking Sandmel's warning that a parallel does not necessarily imply dependence of one upon the other, or of both upon a common source. This chapter will explore issues raised by this exercise and outline our approach.

We shall notice the widely recognised use of parallelism by Luke and discuss what kind of ‘unity’ the Gospel and Acts might have. Then we shall consider criteria for parallels, and outline how we shall seek parallels within the Lukan Doppelwerk, including some consideration of the strategy for listening to the texts which is involved. Finally, we shall consider the application of this method to parallels between Acts and 1 Thessalonians, offering an explanation of our limitation to one letter (rather than a wider Pauline letter-group), and discussing the application of criteria for parallels to this comparison.

Parallelism in Luke-Acts

We shall not repeat the work of a number of competent surveys of the history of research of this topic. Rather, we shall briefly discuss three key approaches to parallels within Luke-Acts – those of Rackham, Goulder and Talbert – to show that parallelism in the Lukan writings is widely recognised.

Rackham

Rackham is not the first to remark on the parallels within Acts, but he works the parallels out in considerable detail and presents them with particular clarity.

Our detailed study is ended, and the time has come to summarise and discuss the implications of our results – as well as to consider what avenues future research on questions raised in this study might follow.

Review and summary of results

We began by observing the importance of the Miletus speech for two interlocking debates (chapter 1): concerning the relationship between the portrait of Paul found in Acts and that derived from the epistles; and concerning whether Luke knew the Pauline epistles. We also reviewed the history of scholarship on this speech – a ‘set piece’ for most modern critical approaches to Acts. We set out to examine the speech in its Lukan contexts (within Acts and in relation to the whole of Luke-Acts), and to consider potential parallels in 1 Thessalonians. Our aim was to see how Lukan and how Pauline the speech is.

We then outlined our method (chapter 2), and discussed how parallels are to be recognised. We acknowledged the inevitable subjective element in seeking parallels, but sought a measure of objectivity by using a hierarchical approach, beginning with lexical parallels (including cognate words and compounds) before considering synonyms, conceptual parallels, and parallel styles of argumentation. We saw ‘clustering’ of such parallels in particular passages as likely to be significant. We explained our decision to focus on one Pauline letter, by contrast with traditional approaches which compare the Miletus speech with a wider Pauline letter-group.

Introduction

How Pauline is the Miletus speech? We shall now consider this question by evaluating possible parallels to the speech in one Pauline letter. Several scholars have drawn attention to the numerous parallels in the Pauline letters to individual points in the speech, but a systematic comparison ofthe speech with an individual letter has not previously been made.

Why 1 Thessalonians?

At first glance the Miletus speech and 1 Thessalonians look different; in particular, the eschatological material in the letter (1 Thess. 4.13–5.11) has no obvious parallel in the speech, and the letter is about five times the length of the speech. In addition, the occasions of the two appear different: the Miletus speech has a strong ‘farewell’ colouring, which 1 Thessalonians lacks, as a pastoral letter from the founders of a church to their converts. So why consider this letter for possible parallels to the Miletus speech?

First, since our concern is to see how Pauline the speech is, it is vital to work with a document which is acknowledged to be from the hand of the apostle. As we shall see, this is not in dispute for 1 Thessalonians. This concern eliminates two obvious candidates for parallels, namely Ephesians and 2 Timothy, since the authorship of both is disputed. In both case one natural link is with Ephesus, and 2 Timothy has a ‘farewell’ sense similar to the Miletus speech.