Darrell J. Doughty
Drew University, Madison, NJ
JHC 4/1 (Spring 1997), 3-54. Brief notes from the original text have been absorbed into the main text; but the original numbering has been retained for longer notes. Page numbers from the original text are provided in brackets. The basic works cited are listed at the end. Copyright © Institute for Higher Critical Studies, 1997
PDF Version. Requires Acrobat Reader
More is at stake for such interpretations, however, than the reliability of what Luke tells us. For Corinth is thought to have been the center of Paul's missionary enterprise in Achaia, a community which he founded, where he worked for a number of years, to which he wrote two magnificent epistles, and where the wondrous epistle to the Romans flowed from his pen. For such interpretations, therefore, the crucial issue finally has to do not merely with the historicity of what we read in Acts, but whether our traditional assumptions about Paul and Christian origins in Corinth are confirmed by what Acts presents.
I doubt very much that there is any basis in Acts 18 for an affirmative answer to this question. A critical analysis of this material shows that the depiction of Paul in Acts 18 as the founder of the Christian community in Corinth is not only Luke's own construction, but is also an imaginative apologetic rewriting of earlier traditions having quite different views of Christian beginnings in Corinth - and the same is true for Luke's portrayal of Paul's work in Ephesus. To see this, however, we need to read Acts in a different way than is usually done.
By "sources" I refer to actual written documents. And the term "redaction" refers to the writer's appropriation and literary modification of written sources. Such modifications can involve insertions, elaborations, rearrangements, or more radical transformation of the presupposed source. But one can meaningfully speak of "redaction" only where written sources have been employed. And only where redactional modifications can be identified can it be concluded that a written source is in fact presupposed. On the other hand, by "tradition" I refer in general [5] to all the other information that Luke had at his disposal, not only "oral traditions" concerning earliest Christian times, but all kinds of things that he may have learned from others, or perhaps discovered for himself, or that he simply took for granted, including "traditions" that Luke did not agree with and endeavors to repudiate. In this same way, I also use "tradition" to refer to what might have been presupposed by Luke's sources. In no case, however, do I mean to imply that what was mediated by "tradition" is necessarily historical.
When I describe specific material - whether a redactional insertion or an entire passage - as "Lukan composition," I refer to material that, at least in its present form, is entirely Luke's own creation. Lukan composition does not exclude the use of traditional elements and motifs. Nor does it exclude the use of written sources that have been transformed into what are now entirely new stories - in which case composition-criticism becomes an extension of redaction-criticism.2 In a wider sense, however, the way Luke creatively modifies, arranges, and orders all his diverse materials is also "composition." From this perspective, the entire book of Acts is a Lukan composition, the final product Luke's own literary creativity. There is, therefore, not a single item in Acts that is not an element of Lukan composition. So what we will be doing in this study is perhaps best understood as composition criticism.3
AS WE OBSERVED, most interpretations of Acts assume that what Luke presents is basically reliable, or even if he was fudging a bit on the historical margins, that Luke at least made use of historically reliable sources of some kind,4 even if the [6] precise nature of these sources can no longer be determined.5 Then a peculiar development takes place. The primary task for such interpretations becomes the demonstration that such assumptions are valid. And the agenda now pursued is not historical criticism, but apologetic historicizing.
With regard to the historical reliability of what Luke relates, of course, it makes no difference at all that such information may have been derived from written sources -even if such sources were in the form of first-person accounts and made explicit claims to be eye-witness reports. Whatever information might be deemed to derive from such sources would still have to be critically evaluated on its own merits.6 But this problem does not really arise for such studies. For the only material these interpretations attribute to a presupposed source (or tradition) is that which they already believe to be historical because it coheres with what they take for granted about the history of earliest Christianity, usually on the basis of what we supposedly find in the Pauline writings. Such studies are not really concerned with historical source material that might differ from what Luke relates or from what we find in the Pauline writings, and might therefore reflect a different view of early Christianity, or the Pauline writings, than is commonly assumed. This is something very different from historical criticism.7 But it has important consequences for how we understand, or fail to [7] understand, what Luke presents, and for what we might learn from Luke about early Christian history.
What such interpretations offer is apologetic historicizing. Beginning with the assumption that much of what Luke relates is basically reliable, and being primarily concerned with demonstrating the validity of this assumption, they interpret what Luke presents to mean what it must mean to make this assumption valid. The first question asked is whether what we find in Acts can be confirmed by what we read in the Pauline writings; and then they search the Pauline writings to discover what Luke must mean if he is to agree with Paul.8 Such interpretations, however, do not allow Luke to speak for himself, in his own words. Especially when Luke appears to be relating historical information, they do not imagine that what he presents might be entirely determined by his own agenda, or that Luke's sources might reflect a history different from that which we might take for granted. In this regard, modern advocates of literary criticism rightly criticize practitioners of historical criticism for searching for history behind the written text but not paying attention to what the text itself says and means. It is not really historical criticism that they have in view, however, but merely a pretender.9
[8] Such interpreters do not perceive what they are doing as apologetic in character, nor is it usually perceived in such a way by others. They are only doing what almost all biblical scholars have been doing for the past century, and is now generally regarded as "historical criticism," no matter how uncritical it may be in practice.10 Ever since the paradigmatic work of scholars such as Lightfoot and Zahn, Pauline studies has been essentially an apologetic enterprise whose primary task is to demonstrate that the Pauline writings cohere with one another, thus confirming their presumed authenticity and providing a secure biblical basis for Christian theology.11 As an essential part of this task, what is related in Acts must also be shown to cohere with what we find in the Pauline writings. But even more, it must also be demonstrated that, apart from his own "theological" tendencies, Luke's depiction of early Christian history as such is basically reliable - i.e., his conception of early Christianity as a movement beginning with the original apostles in Jerusalem, established throughout the world by the missionary work of Paul, and characterized, at least in the beginning, by the absence of diversity and conflict.12 All this is at stake in Acts 18. But it can be perceived [9] only by an investigation that doesn't simply buy what Luke wants to sell.13
The writer of Acts certainly made use of written sources. But attempts to disclose Lukan source material are skewed by the search for historically reliable information in these sources. Redaction-critical analysis is fully able to discern the presence of written source material behind specific passages, and perhaps even disclose what the original content of such material might have been.14 But the primary purpose of redaction-criticism is to clarify the historical significance of what Luke himself relates. It endeavors to discern the nature of Luke's presupposed sources, not to demonstrate their historical credibility, or the historical reliability of what Luke tells us, but to understand the meaning of what Luke presents with reference to his own historical situation. In this sense, redaction-criticism resembles literary criticism. It asks many of the same questions and employs many of the same methods. Like literary criticism, redaction-criticism asks how Luke's original readers would have understood what he presents-and in our study we will frequently ask how Luke's readers would have understood what he relates, in contrast to "informed" readers like ourselves. But redaction-criticism then asks how such an understanding was motivated by Luke through manipulation of his presupposed sources. And this then enables the critical historian to ask why Luke would have done such a thing, and what was really at stake from a historical perspective.16
[10] If all we are concerned about when we read Acts is the historical reliability of what Luke tells us, or the historical reliability of items excavated from his presupposed sources, and if an attribution of reliability is based only on what we ourselves already take for granted, we will never discover, or even look for, anything that differs from what we think we know. This is why interpreters so readily historicize what they read in Acts - because it protects us from things that we might rather not know. But the consequence is an unacceptable apologetic demarcation of what we might discover about early Christian history by a critical reading of what Luke relates, without assuming in advance that Luke can only say things, or that his sources can only reveal things, that cohere with our own assumptions about early Christian history.
sary questions for historical criticism to pursue. But this can only be done after we critically evaluate what Luke relates. The entire presentation of Acts is Lukan literary composition. Luke was perfectly capable of transforming stories or even creating stories of his own to serve his purposes - perhaps merely the entertainment of his intended readers, or perhaps, more seriously, to promote his own historical apologetic agenda, or both at the same time. In any case, we cannot assume that anything Luke relates is merely incidental.17 There is not a single bit of material in Acts, regardless of what may have been its original source, whose meaning is not now subservient to Luke's own hermeneutical program. In every individual case, only after Luke's own agenda has been explored can we consider the historical value of what he tells us. But the historical value of what Luke tells us does not necessarily have anything to do with its intrinsic historical reliability. What we will learn, first of all, is what was important for Luke and for the brand of Christianity he represents. Then we can ask about what might have been going on in early Christian history that Luke may not have wanted us to know about.
[11] In what follows, I will employ redaction-criticism and composition-criticism to provide such a reading. I will pursue this as far as I can. In some instances I might go a bit too far. But the real point here is methodological: i.e., how to read a Lukan text in a way that is both historical and critical. I hope the trip will be as exciting for the reader as it has been for me.
THE STORY of Paul's arrival in Corinth in Acts 18:1-3-its present form and most of its content-is entirely Lukan composition. L�demann is correct, of course, when he observes (Acts, 196) that "a redactional tone" does not necessarily mean that the information related is not reliable.18 Contrary to Conzelmann, however, details such as those found here can certainly be invented. So the historical significance of such details must be established. And this can be done only after we determine what their significance might have been for Luke himself.
To begin with, let us consider Luke's depiction of Paul's arrival in Corinth. To be sure, if the writings to the Corinthians attributed to Paul, which assume that he was the founder of the Christian community in that city, are authentic, one would have to assume that Paul arrived in Corinth from somewhere. But the report of Paul's arrival in Corinth from Athens in Acts 18:1 is a typical Lukan redactional transition.20There is no need to assume that Luke derived this from some hypothetical "itinerary source."21 [12] To portray a missionary journey of the great apostle, passing through all the famous cities in Macedonia and Achaia later associated with his name, and, after a stopover to preach to pagans in Athens, culminating at Corinth, all the writer would have had to do is look at a map.22
The claim is often made, however, that Paul's journey from Thessalonica to Corinth via Athens is confirmed by what we read in 1 Thess 3:1-6.23 But Corinth is not even mentioned in 1 Thess 3, and everything else related in Acts regarding the journey of Paul from Thessalonica to Corinth conflicts with what is related there. According to Acts, Paul and his cohorts fled from Thessalonica to Beroea (17:10), where, for some reason, Timothy and Silas stayed behind while Paul himself went on to Athens (17:14f). But in 1 Thess 3:1 Timothy is said to have been with Paul in Athens, that he was sent back from there to Thessalonica, and that he has now rejoined the apostle - although it is not said where.24 Moreover, Silas is not mentioned in 1 Thess 3. So we would have to [13] assume that he remained with Paul in Athens (hence the plural in 3:1) and then moved with Paul to wherever he is now thought to reside (3:6).25 One can certainly harmonize this diverse information in various ways.26 But one cannot claim that such conjectures "confirm" what we read in Acts 18:1.27 The only concrete evidence we have for a journey by Paul from Athens to Corinth is what Luke tells us in his own words.
Evidence for the dependence of 1 Thess on Acts would be the language in 1 Thess 3:2: kai epempsamen Timotheon... eis to st�rizai humas kai parakalesai. The word st�rizein ("establish") is used in Acts 14:22; 15:32, 41; 16:5; 18:23 (also 1 Pet 5:10; 2 Pet 1:12). The verbs st�rizein and parakalesein appear together in Acts 14:22 and 15:32. On the other hand, st�rizein (or epist�rizein) appears elsewhere in the Pauline writings only in Rom 1:11f (cf 16:25). Assuming that the writer of 1 Thess used Acts as a source would also explain the reference to persecution by "the Jews" suffered by the "churches of God in Judea" (1 Thess 2:14-15), which reflects very much what we learn from Acts (8:1; 11:49; 13:50!). The vague reference to the persecution suffered by the Thessalonians from their "own countrymen" could be derived from Luke's story of Paul in Thessalonica (Acts 17).30 The reference to Paul having been "driven out" by the Jews simply summarizes Paul's usual experience according to Acts. And the idea that Paul "worked night and day" to support himself (1 Thess 2:9) would also derive from Acts.
NOW LET'S EXAMINE Luke's account of the arrival of Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth in v. 2. This is also Lukan composition.31 Aquila was certainly a Jew. And the information [15] that Aquila's family home was in Pontus may derive from tradition (Weiser, 484; L�demann, 198). But the explicit identification of Aquila as "a Jew" is Luke's own work.33 The phrase 'Ioudai onomati 'Akulan ("a Jew named Aquila") is a typical Lukan construction (cf. 5:1, 34; 8:9; 9:10, 11,12, 33, 36; 10:1; 11:28; 12:13; 16:1, 14; 17:34; 18:7, 24; 19:24; 20:9, 10; 27:1; 28:7), particularly at the beginning of a new story (5:1, 34; 8:9; 9:10, 33; 10:1; etc.). In Acts 5:1 there is a very similar introduction of "a man named Ananias with his wife Sapphira." And the description of Apollos in Acts 18:24 as "a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria," who "came to Ephesus" is almost identical to the description of Aquila in this story. References to "Italy" ( Italia) appear elsewhere in the NT only in Acts 27:1, 6 and Heb 13:24. The word prosphat�s ("recently") appears only here in the NT. But L�demann observes (Acts, 196) that with this word "Luke is making clear the chronological relationship between the arrival of Aquila and Priscilla and that of Paul." So the reference to Aquila's "recent arrival from Italy" is probably also Lukan composition.35
The association of the arrival of Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth with the edict of Claudius having expelled "all the Jews" from Rome is Lukan composition. It reflects Luke's tendency to associate Christian history and world history.36 [16] The phrase dia to diatetachenai Klaudion... ("because Claudius commanded...") is again a typical Lukan construction (dia + acc. + inf.) (Weiser, 484; L�demann, 195). Luke's previous association of Claudius with Christian history in 11:28, which would at best have had meaning only for an "informed reader,"38 probably prepares for this more significant connection. It is also prepared for in v. 1 by Luke's explicit identification of Aquila as a Jew, and provides another opportunity for Luke to identify Aquila and Priscilla as Jews. Schmithals observes that the statement that Claudius drove all the Jews out of Rome "corresponds with Luke's apologetic tendency to portray Jews as riotous, but not Christians."39 All things considered, therefore, there is no reason at all to think that the connection of the edict of Claudius with the arrival of Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth, and thus with Paul's own arrival in that city, derived from any presupposed source or "tradition."40 This is entirely Luke's creation.41 There is no historical basis here [17] for Pauline biography.42 The question we need to ask is what significance this connection had for Luke.
Preoccupied with a search for reliable history concerning the early days in Corinth and Ephesus presupposed by Luke's account, it is easy to ignore or misread the meaning of Luke's own story. Haenchen observes (Acts, 143) that "the interest which the author obviously takes in Aquila and Priscilla shows that they were so important for the history of the Christian mission that Luke could not overlook them. Such things Luke does not say outright but simply indicates by the manner of his presentation." Let's consider "the manner" of Luke's presentation more carefully.
Even though the story in vv. 1-3 is entirely Lukan composition, there are nevertheless indications that he created this story on the basis of an earlier written source. The complicated character of v. 2, for example, is not a sign that "various traditions have been forced together" (L�demann, Acts, 198), but is the result of Lukan redactional insertions - i.e., the reference to Aquila "having recently arrived from Italy" (prosphat�s el�luthota apo t�s 'Italias) and its association with the edict of Claudius. Careful analysis, however, discloses a good deal more redactional activity. Already in v. 2 we are told that Paul "found" (heur�n) Aquila and Priscilla, and then "went to them" (pros�lthen autois), for which no real motivation is given.45 The word heurisch� is often used by Luke, particularly in such contexts (cf. 9:33; 11:25f; 13:6; 19:1; 28:14). But it normally refers to "finding" something (or someone) after a search (cf. 11:26; 12:19; 17:6,27; 19:1; 27:6), or to "come upon" something by chance (cf. 9:33; 10:27; 13:6; 17:23; 28:14). In either case, [18] however, one does not first "find" someone and then "go to visit" them. Such redundancy is an indication of redactional activity. And since heurisch� is a favorite Lukan word, the phrase pros�lthen autois ("he went to visit them") probably derived from Luke's source material.
The phrase kai dia to homotechnon einai ("because he had the same trade") in v. 3aa is again a typical Lukan formulation (dia + acc. + inf.). If Paul's meeting with Aquila and Priscilla derived from Lukan source material, the information that Paul "went to them" (pros�lthen autois) at the end of v. 2, was probably directly followed by "and he stayed with them" (kai emenen par' autois ) in v. 3ab.46 The intervening reference to their common trade thus provides Luke's own reason for Paul's having stayed with Aquila and Priscilla. The source material has been entirely reworked by Luke in v. 3 to make this point. The entire focus here on manual labor is the product of Lukan redaction.47 The phrase kai �rgazeto ("and he worked") reflects Luke's view that Paul always supported himself by manual labor (cf. 20:34). The phrase �san gar sk�nopoioi t� techn� ("for they were tentmakers by trade") seems tacked on at the end of v. 3, and is probably Lukan elaboration. The implication is that, at least in this instance, Paul worked as a "tentmaker." But Priscilla and Aquila seem to be primarily in view (cf. M-O'Connor, 261). And they are intentionally depicted by Luke as wandering tradespeople-not Christian missionaries.
The historical question that preoccupies interpreters of this passage is whether Aquila and Priscilla were already Christians when they arrived in Corinth.49 In fact, Luke did everything he [19] could to prevent any such assumption. In v. 2 he explicitly identifies Aquila as "a Jew," and tells us that the only reason for Aquila's recent appearance in Corinth with his wife Priscilla is that they had been expelled from Rome along with "all the Jews." One would assume that they came to Corinth to pursue their work as tentmakers (v. 3b). In Luke's version of the story their common vocation now provides the reason why Paul found lodging with Aquila and Priscilla, and it is without doubt intended to deter the idea - which so many interpreters read into the text anyway - that Aquila and Priscilla were Christians when Paul first met them.50 In the original story of Paul's lodging with Aquila and Priscilla, however, it probably was assumed that Paul sought them out and stayed with them because they were Christians.
L�demann tells us that "Luke imagines Aquila and Priscilla as Christian teachers" (Acts, 198).51 No one can know, of course, what Luke imagined; but what would his intended readers have assumed? Nowhere does Luke clearly identify Aquila and Priscilla as Christians, let alone as Christian teachers. They are certainly not pictured here as missionary co-workers of Paul.52 Schmithals's suggestion (Apg, 169) that they followed Paul to Ephesus for business reasons is what any reader would assume from Luke's own story.53 [20] Luke's portrayal of Aquila taking a vow and shaving his head (v. 18) indicates that he observes the "customs of the Jews" in a serious way.54 When they all arrive in Ephesus, Aquila and Priscilla go to work, while Paul goes to the synagogue to preach (v. 19). And since Luke has related nothing to the contrary, the reader would also assume that in v. 26 Apollos must go the synagogue in order to meet Priscilla and Aquila because, from Luke's perspective, they are still Jews (Schille, 374; cf. 363). In vv. 27ff., Luke then portrays a Christian community - evidently separated from the synagogue56 - in which Aquila and Priscilla seem to have no part.57 Aquila and Priscilla are portrayed by Luke as Jews, not Christians (Pereira, 58).58 We should not attempt to correct Luke's account on the [21] basis of what we think was really the case. We should rather ask why Luke portrays Priscilla and Aquila in this way.
Many scholars perceive that Luke may be fudging the truth in this passage to promote his own interests. But they do not pursue very far the historical implications of this. Haenchen remarks, as an aside, that "it would fit poorly into the Lucan historical picture if he had to admit that there were Christians in Corinth before Paul" (Acts, 553, n 4).59 But what "historical picture" is at issue here? Weiser explains that Luke does not mention that Aquila and Priscilla were Christians because he wants to establish Paul as the founder of the Christian community in Corinth (Apg, 490). But why was it important to establish this? Conzelmann observes in a similar way that "Luke, of course, eliminates any such trace of an earlier Christian presence in Corinth because Paul must appear as the founder of the congregation," but he then hastens to assure us that "in fact Paul was the founder of the congregation" (Acts, 159). Whether Paul was in fact the founder of the Christian community in Corinth, however, is precisely what is at stake for Luke. And that he manipulates his material to make Paul appear as the founder suggests that the answer to this question was probably not as clear in Luke's own time as it seems to most interpreters today. The real problem for Luke, however, did not have to do merely with what may have taken place in ancient times, but with his own time. And with regard to Priscilla and Aquila, the problem had to do not with Corinth, but with the situation in Ephesus!
Significantly the issue concerning Paul as founder of Christian communities is also present in Luke's account of Paul's mission in Ephesus. Luke's depiction in v. 19 of Paul's brief trip to Ephesus and his preaching in the synagogue identifies Paul as [22] "the first Christian preacher in that city."62 In v. 20 Luke implies that Paul's preaching found a positive response. Consequently, he later portrays a flourishing Christian community, separated from the synagogue (see above, n. 56), able to provide Apollos with credentials for his work in Achaia (v. 27). All this establishes Paul as the founder of Christianity in Ephesus. Perceiving Acts primarily as a potential source for reconstructing earliest Christian history, a question scholars raise is whether Luke's story of Apollos in 18:24-28, and in particular the reference to Christian "brethren" in v. 27, presupposes a source depicting the presence of a Christian community in Ephesus prior to Paul's arrival.64 This is improbable. For the scene in vv. 27f. is entirely Lukan composition (Weiser, 508; Schille, 374f.).65 Such historicizing obscures the fact that the problem for Luke had to do not merely with what took place in the early days, but with the contested situation in Ephesus in Luke's own time.
In Luke's own time Ephesus was a hotbed of heterodoxy.66 This situation is clearly reflected by Paul's farewell speech to the [23] Ephesian elders in Acts 20:17-35, where he warns that after his departure "fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise people speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them" (vv. 29f.).67 Presupposed here is the "orthodox" conception of Christian history, according to which in the beginning all Christian communities were subservient to apostolic teaching - represented by Paul - and that false teachers and schismatics only appeared later. Elaine Pagels observes: "Christians in the second century used Luke's account to set the groundwork for establishing specific, restricted chains of command for all future generations of Christians. Any potential leader of the community would have to derive, or claim to derive, authority from the same apostles."68 Luke's concern was to establish this "groundwork" by portraying Paul's work in Ephesus, the most important city in Asia, as the crowning achievement of the great apostle's missionary enterprise. But this was a formidable task. For Luke seems to have possessed no actual traditions to support his claim regarding Paul's foundational work in Ephesus.69 And the only story he did know about the early days in Ephesus contested this claim. But Luke did the best he could with what he had.
Apart from Acts, we have no traditions at all associating Priscilla and Aquila with missionary work in Corinth. As we have seen, their arrival in Corinth portrayed in 18:2 is entirely Lukan composition. And all the other evidence we have associates Priscilla and Aquila with Ephesus. In 1 Cor 16:19 it is assumed that Paul is with them in Ephesus (cf. 16:8); and since the [24] reference here to their having a house church in Ephesus goes beyond the information in Acts, this could derive from an independent tradition.70 Regardless of whether Romans 16 is regarded as a letter to Christians in Rome or in Ephesus, the reference in Rom 16:3f to Priscilla and Aquila having "risked their necks" for Paul probably also associates the couple with traditions concerning the apostle's "affliction" in Ephesus (cf. 2 Cor 1:8f; 1 Cor 15:32). If Rom 16 was directed to Christians in Rome, we would have to conclude that Priscilla and Aquila eventually left Ephesus and returned to Rome.71 But there is no reason to regard this information as more reliable than the view in 2 Tim 4:19 that when Paul was brought to Rome in chains (1:16f), Aquila and Priscilla were still with Timothy in Ephesus.72
I would suggest, therefore, that Luke's presupposed source material in Acts 18:1-3 originally related a visit by Paul with Priscilla and Aquila in Ephesus. From our analysis of Lukan composition in vv. 1-3, it is very probable that Luke's source material originally referred to Paul's arrival in Ephesus, where Aquila and Priscilla had already established a house church (1 Cor 16:19), and where Paul sought them out and stayed with them because they were Christians. But Luke marvelously relocates this story to Corinth, identifies Aquila and Priscilla as still Jews at the time of Paul's own arrival in Corinth, and has Paul stay with them because they practiced the same trade. Since Christian tradition associated Priscilla and Aquila with Ephesus, Luke had to deal with their presence there in some way (vv. 18f.). But from Luke's narrative one would assume that the only reason they followed Paul to Ephesus was to practice their trade in that city.73 They are [25] not portrayed by Luke as missionary co-workers with Paul.74 And their appearance in the synagogue, even though the Christian community seems to have separated from the synagogue (vv. 27), assumes that they were still Jews. In contrast to Luke's source material, there is no indication that Priscilla and Aquila ever had a house church in Ephesus. And since they are not mentioned when Paul returns to Ephesus (19:ff), one would simply assume that by then they had left the city to ply their trade elsewhere. There would be no reason at all to think that Aquila and Priscilla ever became Christians, let alone founders of a Christian community in Ephesus. Very ingenious!
APART FROM ACTS, the only reference we have associating Apollos with Ephesus (1 Cor 16:12) strangely emphasizes only his reluctance to visit the Corinthians, with no implication that he had ever been in Corinth before, let alone that he might have powerfully worked in their midst.75 In Luke's time, however, the situation in Corinth was just as contested by Christian heterodoxy as it was in Ephesus.76 And Luke would certainly have been familiar with traditions raising up Apollos as a competitor with Paul for followers in Corinth. As Pereira observes, "1 Corinthians makes it sufficiently clear that Apollos enjoyed a great deal of prominence in the Corinthian church... [26] In 1:12 Apollos appears as the focus of partisan loyalty... At least by one group Apollos was considered on a par with Peter and Paul, the two 'heroes' of Acts" (Ephesus, 31; also 79). Moreover, reading 1 Cor 3-4 against the grain, one would suspect that there were conflicting views about who "planted" and who "watered" in Corinth.78 Beneath the surface, Luke's description of Apollos as "an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures... informed concerning the way of the Lord" may reflect even his own awareness of traditions magnifying Apollos' reputation as an early Christian missionary. But Luke could permit no competitors with Paul and the apostolic tradition he represented. So he treats Apollos much like he treated Priscilla and Aquila, only in reverse, and a bit more severely, since Apollos was a more difficult figure to dispense with.
The introduction of "a certain Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria" in v. 24 is a typical Lukan formulation, in the same way as his introduction of "a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus" in v. 2,79and, as we will see, has the same purpose. The phrase kat�nt�sen eis Epheson ("came to Ephesus") is also a Lukan formulation (cf. 16:1; 18:19; 21:7; 25:13; 27:12; 28:13).80 There is no reason to assume that this information derives from a tradition concerning Apollos that was "rooted in Ephesus."81 The connection of Apollos with Ephesus is Luke's own fabrication. Luke has Apollos appear in Ephesus instead of Corinth, where he really made his reputation. He appears out of nowhere. We are not told where he directly came from or why he came to Ephesus. It is often assumed that Apollos was depicted in Luke's source material as an independent, itinerant missionary, wandering from place to place, and even that this depiction may be historically accurate.82 But it is only Apollos' lonely and mysterious appearance on the scene in Luke's own story that gives us this impression. The idea that the "original apostles" constituted a churchly [28] community from the beginning, with many co-workers and supporters, while those outside the official church worked alone, is a later Christian conceptualization.
Some interpreters believe that the description of Apollos in vv. 24-25b as "an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures, informed concerning the way of the Lord, and fervent in spirit, who spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus" must derive from pre-Lukan source material, which was qualified by Luke's redactional elaboration in 25c, that Apollos "knew only the baptism of John," and the insertion of v. 26, where Apollos receives "more accurate" instruction from Priscilla and Aquila, all of which portrays Apollos as a kind of "quasi-Christian."83 In fact, however, while traditions portraying Apollos as an eminent Christian missionary may be in the background, the entire description of Apollos in vv. 24ff. is Lukan composition.
| The basic argument for Luke's use of a presupposed source was set forth by Ernst K�semann:84 "This narrative is in itself contradictory and incredible. Apollos is portrayed here first as inspired by the Spirit, secondly as being accurately instructed in the history of Jesus, thirdly as a teacher of the Church... But none of these things is compatible with the statement that he was only acquainted with the baptism of John..." (143). "It is utterly inconceivable that anybody could be well informed about Christian origins without being aware of the line of demarcation between Jesus and his community and the Baptist and his baptism; that anybody could be 'inspired by the Spirit' without seeing that the advantage of the Christian over the disciple of the Baptist lay precisely in his being endowed with the Spirit... From these facts we can draw only one conclusion: 18.25c must be regarded as a Lucan fabrication." (144) From a literary (or narrative) perspective, however, it makes little difference whether such things are "compatible" or "conceivable" in the minds of informed and expert readers like ourselves, but only whether such things are compatible with the perspective of Acts and would have been conceivable for the readers of Acts. Most such interpretations assume, at least implicitly, that Luke's supposed source material must have [29]reflected some reliable information concerning Apollos, and then read meanings into the text, based on what we know (or think we know) about Christian origins,85 without first reading Luke's own narrative to find out what the meaning might be on his own terms. All too often, particularly in the investigation of Acts, so-called "redaction criticism" is far more concerned with uncovering the history assumed to be contained in Luke's source materials than with the picture of Luke's own time reflected in what he himself relates. This concern even leads interpreters to imagine presupposed sources where none exist. In this particular case, the material commonly regarded as pre-Lukan tradition in fact has many characteristics of Lukan composition. The description of Apollos as "an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures" could simply follow from Luke's depiction of him as a "native of Alexandria" (cf. Conzelmann, 157). Pereira observes that the phrase dunatos en... appears elsewhere in the NT only in the Lukan description of Jesus as "powerful in deed and word" (Lk 24:19) and of Moses as "powerful in his words and deeds" (Acts 7:22) (Pereira, 78). The reference to Apollos "speaking and teaching" (elalei kai edidasken) is a typical Lukan formulation (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8f; 20:7, 9; 24:12, 25) (Conzelmann, Theology, 224; Pereira, 54-56).88 The expression "the things concerning Jesus" ( ta peri tou 'Ihsou) has a precedent in Luke 24:19, where the disciples relate "the things concerning Jesus of Nazareth" (ta peri 'I�sou tou Nazar�nou). The phrase h� hodos ("the way") referring to the content of Christian preaching is typical for Luke (9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22; also 16:17), even if it has a different connotation here with reference to Apollos (see Pereira, 51-54). [30] Pereira has shown that Luke closely associates Apollos with John the Baptizer, and that in this light the information concerning Apollos related in vv 24-26 constitutes a coherent picture in Luke's own terms (Pereira, 61-65). In Lk 3:4, for example, the reference to John proclaiming "the way of the Lord" (citing Isa 40:3) probably refers to Jesus.91 That Apollos is said to be "informed concerning the way of the Lord," therefore, need mean no more than that he was well informed about what Jesus "did and said" (Acts 1:1).92 Pereira observes that when Luke tells us that Apollos knew "only the baptism of John," he does not portray Apollos as an actual disciple of John, i.e., as one who had actually been baptized with John's baptism, but only as a person who "was acquainted with John's baptism, what it meant..." (Pereira, 56f.). In Acts 13:24 we are told that John "preached a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel." But in Acts 10:37 a distinction is made between "the baptism that John preached" and "the proclamation of the word throughout all Judea," which began "after" that (meta to baptisma ho ek�ruzen 'I�ann�s).94 Like John, Apollos is associated by Luke with a stage in salvation history before "the good news of the kingdom of God is preached" (Lk 16:16; cf. Acts 10:37). He preaches a "way of the Lord" (Lk 3:4; Acts 18:25) that is not yet "the way."95 This depiction of Apollos is Luke's own fabrication. Just as in the case of Priscilla and Aquila, preoccupied with historical tidbits that might be scavenged from Luke's story, [31] comentators speculate about whether Apollos was a Christian when he arrived in Ephesus. In v. 25 Apollos is referred to as "fervent in the Spirit" (ze�n t� pneumati), and appealing to the parallel in Rom 12:11, where this phrase refers to Christian life in the Spirit, most take for granted that Apollos is represented by Luke, or Luke's source material, as some kind of Christian.96 But there is no reason to transpose a meaning from Romans into Acts. Lukan tradition did not limit the work of the Holy Spirit to Christian personalities.97 Similarly, Apollos is also portrayed by Luke as "speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus." But this does not necessarily identify him as a Christian teacher. In Lk 24:19f the "things concerning Jesus of Nazareth" (ta peri 'I�sou tou Nazar�nou), related by the brethren on the Emmaus road, include the knowledge of Jesus as "a prophet mighty in word and deed before God and all the people" and how he had been condemed to death and crucified, but not that he was the in fact the Christ - until this was explained to them by the resurrected Jesus (vv. 25ff.). The intended readers of Acts would have assumed that the content of Apollos' preaching was more or less the same.98 The identification of Apollos as "a native of Alexandria" makes the reader immediately aware that the brethren in Jerusalem had never laid their hands on him. And that Apollos knew only the baptism of John tells us that Apollos did not know the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" (cf. Lk 3:16; Acts 11:16). Luke thus separates Apollos from the apostolic tradition deriving from the events in Jerusalem.99 The reader might surmise that Apollos had been informed in Alexandria about the "things concerning Jesus." But the reader would also understand not only that Apollos had missed the special instruction Jesus gave his disciples following [32] his resurrection (Acts 1:3; 10:41f.), but also that Apollos did not even know about the resurrection, since only the apostolic "witnesses" make this known (Acts 1:21f), and there is no reason to assume from Luke's narrative that Apollos had ever encountered such people.100 In contrast to "the things concerning the kingdom of God," which Paul preaches in Ephesus (19:8; 20:25), "the things concerning Jesus" preached by Apollos belong to the past (Acts 1:1).101 In the same way as John, Apollos belongs to a time that is not yet the "kingdom of God" (cf. Lk 7:28; 16:16; Acts 10:37).102 Luke's portrayal of Apollos' meeting with Priscilla and Aquila in v. 26, where they provide "more accurate" instruction concerning the "way of God," does not increase his stature.103 Given the previous statement that Apollos "spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus" (v 25b), the usual assumption is that reference here is to remedial instruction in the Christian faith.104 [33] But this is doubtful. How could his already "accurate" teaching be improved? As we have seen, Priscilla and Aquila are conceived here simply as Jews. Luke is careful, therefore, not to say that Priscilla and Aquila provided remedial instruction concerning the "way of the Lord" or about the "things concerning Jesus." Instead he describes the content of their instruction as "the way of God," which characterizes it as Jewish teaching.105 In the same way as Aquila and Priscilla, Apollos himself has been explicitly identified by Luke as "a Jew" (v 24),106 which explains why he first steps up in the synagogue teaching, albeit imperfectly, "the way of God" (v. 26). From Luke's story, the reader would simply assume that all we have here are Jews talking with one another about Jewish things.107 Luke's historical fiction has a serious apologetic purpose, but it also intended to entertain. That Apollos, although already "well versed in the scriptures," must receive remedial teaching from Jews in the synagogue not only deflates his [34]reputation as a learned teacher, but is also a fine example of Lukan satirical humor.108 Apollos next appears interrelating with the Pauline Christians in Ephesus and Corinth (vv. 27f.).109 The usual assumption is that Luke thereby integrates Apollos into Pauline Christianity.110 But even though Luke enjoyed telling conversion stories (Acts 9:17-19; 10:44-48; 16:13-15; 16:25-34), having depicted Apollos up to now as a Jew, he refrains from saying that he actually became a Christian.111 That the Christian brethren encourage Apollos when he wants to move on the Achaia, and supply him with a letter of reference, does not necessarily mean that he had become a Christian. Luke's primary concern is to get Apollos out of town before Paul returns, so that their paths never cross, and also to remedy the traditions associating Apollos with Corinth. When Apollos finally arrives in Achaia - significantly, Luke does not say Corinth112 - we are told that he only "assisted" (sunebaleto) the disciples there by confuting the Jews, "showing by the [35] scripture that the Christ was Jesus" (18:28).113 But this is not actually Christian proclamation. Elsewhere, appeals to scripture by Christian missionaries show that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and die, and then rise from the dead (Acts 17:2f.; cf. 2:22-36; 3:18-25; 13:26-37; 26:22f.; also Lk 24:45f; 1 Cor 15:3f.).114 Luke's portrayal of Apollos is vague.115 Given what Luke has related thus far, however, there is no reason to assume that Apollos' appeal to scripture here concerned anything more than the messianic significance of what Jesus did and said (cf. Lk 4:16-22; 7:18-23; Acts 2:22). Even here Apollos seems to be portrayed as similar to John the Baptist, preparing the way for the Christian message of salvation (Pereira, 59f.). Then Apollos disappears from Christian history in the same way as he arrived. So far as anyone would know from Acts, Apollos was never heard from again in Christian circles. Luke did the same thing to Apollos, therefore, that he did to Priscilla and Aquila.117 First of all, he has Apollos appear in Ephesus, instead of Corinth, where tradition remembered him as a competitor with Paul. Secondly, in the same way as Priscilla and Aquila, Luke depicts Apollos as a Jew - as a learned interpreter of scripture, to be sure, and even as well-informed concerning the things that Jesus did and said, but nevertheless as a Jewish teacher of things that other Jews might understand and debate.118 The problem presented by Apollos with regard to Paul as the founder of apostolic Christianity in Corinth, however, was more challenging than that presented by Priscilla and Aquila with [36] regard to Ephesus. And Luke's solution involved sterner measures. Luke entirely severed Apollos not only from Paul but from the Christian movement as such. As Luke tells the story, by the time Apollos appeared in Ephesus, as a Jewish teacher of scripture, Paul had already established thriving Christian communities in both Corinth and Ephesus; when Apollos finally ventured to Achaia, where he merely assisted the Christian cause by controverting Jews, he did so with a letter of introduction from the Pauline brethren in Ephesus; but Apollos never really preached in Corinth at all, and Apollos and Paul never crossed paths.119 All this is entirely Luke's remarkable invention.120 The only problem with Pereira's otherwise impressive analysis is his assumption that reflected here is the actual Sitz im Leben des Paulus rather than problems in Luke's time. From a historical-critical perspective, this is a fundamental methodological error. For whatever else may be reflected by the presentation of an ancient writing, directly and primarily present are concerns in its own time. Pereira perceives, for example, that the strange way Luke treats Priscilla and Aquila may have something do with whether Paul was "the sole missionary and founder of the Ephesian church." (58). But he does not pursue this question; and above all he does not pursue what significance this might have had for Luke's own time. In a similar way we are told that Luke's interest in "putting Apollos in his proper place," reflects the fact that "in Paul's own time there must have been a... tendency in the churches of Asia and Achaia to extol the figure of Apollos too much to the detriment of Paul" (78). But Pereira does not consider that this might have been a problem in Luke's time. Pereira asks, "Why is Luke silent about the factions in the Corinthian church?" (79). But he does not consider the possibility that Luke's entire account of Paul in Corinth (and Ephesus) may address this issue. [27] Pereira's own answer, that "these (factions) arose only after Apollos had worked there for a period of time with success," and thus had no real place in Luke's account of the earliest of Paul's missionary work, only accepts what Luke wants us to believe, namely the orthodox view that Paul's apostolic hegemony in Christian congregations was only challenged by false teaching and schisms appearing after him. It does not consider the possibility that the entire purpose of Luke's presentation may be to promote this view. In brief, the problem is that in the Pauline writings and Acts we find three different views concerning how Paul's missionary work was financially supported. In Phil 4:16f. we are told that Paul's work in Thessalonica and Corinth was underwritten by the Christian community in Philippi; and 2 Cor 11:9 similarly relates that Paul's work in Corinth was supported by "brethren who came from Macedonia."123 In Acts, however, there is no reference at all to Paul's mission anywhere being supported by distant churches. Acts 20:34 implies, on the contrary, that throughout his ministry Paul worked to support not only himself but also his coworkers.124 This same view is implied by the affirmation "We labor working with our own hands" in 1 Cor 4:12,125 and by 1 Thess 2:9, where it is said that Paul "worked day and night" so as not to burden anyone. Finally, in 1 Cor 9 we are told that Paul makes no use of his "apostolic right" (v 15), but preaches the gospel "free of charge" (v 18), which probably refers to the apostles' right to be supported by the local community in which they are preaching, instead of "working for a living" (v. 6).126 To harmonize these views, therefore, it is explained that in Corinth Paul supported himself by manual labor for a while, until [38] Timothy and Silas arrived with financial support from Phillipi. At the same time, however, in order to account for what we read in Acts 20:34 and 1 Cor 4:12 (and 1 Thess 2:9), we are told that the support from Macedonia was only supplemental, and that Paul continued work as a tentmaker during his ministry in Corinth.127 And finally, to explain how Timothy and Titus arrived in Corinth with support from Philippi, it is necessary to convolute even more the already confusing information found in Acts and the Pauline writings regarding the travels of Timothy and Silas and Paul from Thessalonica to Corinth (which we explored above) by imagining that Timothy and Silas made a detour from Thessalonica to Philippi before rejoining Paul in Corinth - a journey that is reported nowhere in either Acts or the Pauline writings.128 Such speculative exercises serve only the interests of Christian apologetics. Not only are they unnecessary for understanding the story Luke presents, they are contrary to what Luke actually tells us.129 Instead of attempting to find room in Acts 18:5 for Paul's reception of financial support from Macedonia, the first question the historian should pursue is why the writer of Acts portrays Paul doing manual labor in Corinth (18:3) and later emphasizes that this was his general practice (18:3; 20:34). [39] But this would call into question some things found in the Pauline writings. The attempt to harmonize these diverse views, therefore, is finally an endeavor to preserve the assumed authenticity of the Pauline writings. Once this assumption is given up, and these writings are recognized to be second-century redactional compositions, the historian processes this information in a different way.130 With regard to tradition history, the question whether traveling missionaries should support themselves by their own labor, or receive support from communities in which they worked (cf. 1 Cor 9:15, 18, and v. 6), probably arose very early, with different answers given in different places. On the other hand, the view that Paul's mission in Achaia was supported by the church in Phillipi (Phil 4:16; 2 Cor 11:9), or the suggestion that his mission in Spain might be supported by the church in Rome (Rom 15:24), would reflect a later time when it was common practice for wealthy urban churches to underwrite extended missionary enterprises in distant lands. References in the Pauline writings to Paul's manual labor (1 Thess 2:9; 1 Cor 4:12) verisimilarly backdate these writings to the time in which they were supposedly written, and may derive from Acts. References in these writings to Paul's mission being supported by the Philippians would reflect the views of other writers who were either unfamiliar with Acts, and simply took for granted that the practice in their own time had always existed, or who, in contrast to Acts, wanted to promote their own practice by Pauline precedent. Most interpreters explain that the word suneicheto in v. 5 implies that from this point onward Paul ceased working as a tent-maker and became "fully occupied" with preaching131 - i.e., that Paul now began to preach every day, not just on the Sabbath. But the imperfect tense basically refers to a continuing action in the past. And an "uninformed" reader, knowing nothing about stories of Paul's mission being supported by the brethren in Philippi, but having just been told that Paul had been preaching in the synagogue every Sabbath (v. 4), would simply assume [40] from v. 5 that when Timothy and Silas arrived in Corinth, they found Paul still intensely occupied with preaching in the synagogue.132 And this is exactly what Luke intends. The depiction of Paul's preaching in vv. 4-6 is entirely Lukan composition (Weiser, 484f.; L�demann, 196), pervaded with Lukan language and concepts.134 If Luke had wanted to say that Paul now began preaching on weekdays in the marketplace, he was certainly capable of saying so (see 17:17; 19:9). On the contrary, however, Luke tells us in v. 5 that when Timothy and Silas arrived in Corinth they found Paul fully occupied with "testifying to the Jews" (5b), which must be his same preaching in the synagogue referred to in v. 4. Only after his dramatic announcement - "From now on I will go to the Gentiles" (v 6b) - does Paul leave the synagogue and begin to preach to Gentiles somewhere else (vv. 7-11). Since the account of Paul's preaching in the synagogue in vv. 4-6 is entirely Lukan composition, we should focus our attention [41] on the meaning of what Luke himself tells us. Luke's account in v. 4 of Paul teaching every Sabbath in the synagogue to Jews and Greeks has the appearance of incidental information. At first glance, there is nothing remarkable here.135 Luke often portrays Paul arguing with Jews in the synagogue. A closer look, however, indicates that the matter may be more interesting. Only here does Luke depict Paul as teaching the synagogue on "every Sabbath" (kata pan sabbaton) - i.e., not only one or two times (Acts 13:1-46), or even three times (17:2), and not only now and then, but continually, presumably many times,136 to both Jews and Gentiles. This kind of information may not be merely incidental. Verse 4 requires careful inspection. Luke's story would make sense even without this scene, and it has the appearance of a Lukan insertion.137 Contrary to Conzelmann, however, what Luke relates in v. 4 is not really "schematic" for Paul's preaching first to Jews (vv. 5-6) and then to Gentiles (vv. 7-8) (Conzelmann, 151f.; also L�demann, 196). This scheme is indeed present in vv. 5-8. But v. 4 presents a different picture, in which Paul is preaching already to both Jews and Gentiles in the synagogue. Luke refers elsewhere, of course, to the presence of "God-fearers" (phoboumenoi) in the synagogue when Paul preaches. But Nowhere else does Luke explicitly refer to Paul preaching to Gentiles (ethn�) in the synagogue.139 Luke seems to emphasize [42] here that in Corinth Paul preached to both Jews and Gentiles from the very beginning.140 When Luke relates, therefore, that when Timothy and Silas finally arrived in Corinth they found Paul intensely occupied with teaching in the synagogue, the reader is very aware that Paul had been already preaching for some time to both Jews and Greeks. And the critical reader suspects that Luke is making another slippery move. Timothy and Silvanus (Silas) were remembered in Christian tradition as having preached alongside Paul in Corinth (2 Cor 1:19), and could have been regarded therefore as competitors with Paul as founders of the Christian community in Corinth. But Luke's portrayal of Timothy and Silas arriving late in Corinth, after Paul had been intensely engaged in preaching for some time, establishes the fact that when the great apostle planted the seeds of Christian faith in that city Timothy and Titus were not yet on the scene. And it was really their own fault. For it was not Paul's idea that they should remain behind in Beroea (17:14). When they did, Paul ordered them to come to him as soon as possible (17:15), and then waited for them in Athens (17:16). It seems very probable, therefore, that the account of Silas and Timothy staying behind in Beroea (Acts 17:14), for which no reason is given, but which allows Paul to put on a one-man show in Athens and to initiate the Christian mission in Corinth by himself, is Luke's way of neatly disposing of Silas and Timothy as possible competitors with Paul. Again, since we cannot assume that what Luke relates is merely incidental, we must investigate what Luke did with this source material. The phrase kai metabas ekeithen ("and he left there") at the beginning of v. 7 is a redactional transition that refers to Paul's departure from the synagogue, where his preaching had just been rejected by the Jews (v 6). David Matson observes that the juxtaposition of the Jewish synagogue and the Christian house church as "two competing institutions" is a Lukan construction.142 In Luke's version, the continuation, "and he entered the house of a certain man named Titius Justus," implies that Paul co-opted the house of Titius Justus as a new base of operations.143 The idea that when Paul left the synagogue there just happened to be a house available right next door where he could continue his preaching is Luke's own explanation of how Paul came to meet Titius Justus. Whether Paul actually stayed with Titius Justus, however, is left significantly vague.144 And we again begin to read what Luke relates with caution. [44] Luke's source material portrayed Paul preaching in Corinth, converting and baptizing "many Corinthians." But Paul may not have been portrayed there as founding a Christian community in Corinth. Christian tradition seems to have remembered Titius Justus as an important figure associated with the Corinthian community in its early days. In Luke's source material he would have neen portrayed as leader of a house church in Corinth when Paul arrived on the scene. And it was probably related that Paul resided with Titius Justus because he was a Christian (just as many interpreters assume must have been the case with Priscilla and Aquila). But Luke avoids saying that Paul actually moved in with Titius Justus; and the identification of Titius Justus as merely a "God-fearer" would be a Lukan revision. If Titius Justus was already a Christian at the time Paul arrived in Corinth, and perhaps even a leader of a house church, this would again have been disturbing for Luke's conception of Paul as the founder of Christianity in Corinth. So Luke transformed Titius Justus into a simple God-fearer, and, as in the case of Apollos, neglected to mention that he ever became a Christian.145 And the reader now "knows" that if there was ever a church in his house, it was established by Paul. It is not clear that the item concerning the conversion of Crispus in v. 8 was a piece of the story of Paul and Titius Justus. It looks more like an insertion by Luke derived from an independent tradition, which had been preserved because it concerned a leader in the synagogue, and may have been the only tradition Luke knew relating an early conversion in Corinth.146 The baptism of Crispus by Paul is referred to in 1 Cor 1:14; but he is not [45] identified there as having been a "ruler of the synagogue," nor is it said that "all his household" were baptized. The inclusion of "all the household" in Acts 18:8 may be a Lukan enhancement.147 But, as we noted, the identification of Crispus as a "ruler of the synagogue," does not fit well in Luke's own story, and probably derives therefore from the presupposed tradition. Crispus would thus appear as an early Christian convert in Corinth in two seemingly independent sources: 1 Cor 1:14, where he is mentioned first among those whom Paul baptized in Corinth, and Luke's own source, where he was described as a "ruler of the synagogue." Crispus was also remembered in Christian tradition, therefore, as an important figure associated with the Christian movement in Corinth in the early days. Given what we have discovered about how Luke works, however, one may at least wonder whether the portrayal of Crispus in Acts 8:8 as a convert of Paul's might also be a bit of Lukan revisionism - that was then taken over by the writer of 1 Cor 1:14ff.
|
