The Acts Seminar believes there is nothing historical in the speeches in Acts. They attribute them to Luke. Even Henry Cadbury concludes that it is “probable that these speeches are in many cases not of older vintage than the composition of the ultimate editor.”
Others have seen in some of the speeches the earliest form of the Kerygma and it is probable that behind Acts 2:14-38 there is a speech by Peter that contains this early Kerygma.
Therefore I suggest this is it:
[14] Peter addressed them,
[22] “Jesus the Nazarene, a man shown to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs
[23] this one, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, by the hands of lawless men (i.e. Gentiles) crucified and killed.
[24] Whom God raises
[33] Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God,”
[38] And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you (and your sins shall be forgiven)”.
Some of it is more probable than other parts. Verse 22 is not in the normal words that Luke uses. The Greek word for delivered up is not the normal one used in the New Testament. Verse 23 has no Judas and no involvement of the Jewish authorities and so doesn’t agree with the story as told in Luke’s gospel. The rest seems to be a toned down version of the normal claims made for Jesus. The resurrection is not stated only that God raised Jesus to his right hand in heaven (verses 24 and 33). Verse 38 seems to reflect the message that it is probable that Jesus preached plus the call for baptism which seems to be a very early Christian rite.
MrMacSon wrote:I wonder if characters like Peter reflect 2nd century scenarios more than 1st century ones.
While I might be persuaded that Acts was written in 100 CE or within a few years of this date, my argument is that these parts of the verses in Acts are unusual in that they don’t reflect the same theology we see in Luke’s gospel or even in Mark’s gospel and that the Greek words are also unusual for Luke and most New Testament authors. So these words were not created at the same time or after the gospels were written but go back to a time before the language of the gospels, the involvement of Judas and the Jewish authorities were established. And it is therefore probable they go back to the earliest tradition.
MrMacSon wrote:I wonder if characters like Peter reflect 2nd century scenarios more than 1st century ones.
While I might be persuaded that Acts was written in 100 CE or within a few years of this date, my argument is that these parts of the verses in Acts are unusual in that they don’t reflect the same theology we see in Luke’s gospel or even in Mark’s gospel and that the Greek words are also unusual for Luke and most New Testament authors. So these words were not created at the same time or after the gospels were written but go back to a time before the language of the gospels, the involvement of Judas and the Jewish authorities were established. And it is therefore probable they go back to the earliest tradition.
There are those who argue that there are layers within Luke-Acts and that they are not the product of a single author & epoch. I wonder whether your idea is helped, hindered, or unaffected by those theories?
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me，Greek hairstyle，Very beautiful，She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
gmx wrote:There are those who argue that there are layers within Luke-Acts and that they are not the product of a single author & epoch. I wonder whether your idea is helped, hindered, or unaffected by those theories?
I was reading Acts A Shorter Commentary by C K Barrett the other day and he wrote regarding “the elaborate source hypothesis put forward by M E Boismard and A Lamouille” (p xxxiii) which has at least five layers to Acts that “he finds this elaborate hypothesis … incapable of proof or of disproof, and therefore beyond serious discussion” (p xxxiv).
However with regard to Luke I do see different layers. There might be later interpolations to create harmonisation with say Matthew or John. There is Luke’s own redactional work. There is the redaction of Mark and of Q (which might have its own layers) and then there is the redaction of the earlier church. It is only once these many layers are removed that anything historical might be probable.
With Acts we don’t know how many layers there might be before we reach the Lucan redaction. In some sections it might all be Lucan. However where we think Luke is using a source we can assume that the writer of the source could have added their own redaction and before that the early Christian community could have added their redaction.
Therefore for these verses I have supposed Lucan redaction, and possible redaction in the source and of the early Christian community. The layers are a hindrance to finding anything historical but the layers can’t be ignored they have to be addressed.
[38] And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you (and your sins shall be forgiven)”.
Verse 38 seems to reflect the message that it is probable that Jesus preached plus the call for baptism which seems to be a very early Christian rite.
That's one way to look at it.
On the other hand, we also know that this message that Jesus (may have) preached was written in the Gospel of Mark as:
Mark 1:14-15
14 Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
Why would we suppose that the author of Acts has any source older than the Gospel of Mark here?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
ericbwonder wrote:The arguments for non-Lukan composition of the speeches seem arbitrary. Mere pettifogging.
This is just an arbitrary opinion. Do you not have a detailed argument against my view that in these 24 verses there is less than 5 verses which might be considered probable as going back to the historical Peter?
Peter Kirby wrote:Some interesting ideas here.
Michael BG wrote:
[38] And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you (and your sins shall be forgiven)”.
Verse 38 seems to reflect the message that it is probable that Jesus preached plus the call for baptism which seems to be a very early Christian rite.
That's one way to look at it.
On the other hand, we also know that this message that Jesus (may have) preached was written in the Gospel of Mark as:
Mark 1:14-15
14 Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
Why would we suppose that the author of Acts has any source older than the Gospel of Mark here?
I think it is safe to suppose that the author of Acts was Luke and his gospel has more than the gospel of Mark - what I call Q. Also he could use as a source the teachings of his own Christian community.
Q has John the Baptist preaching repentance
Lk 3:7-9 (par Mt 3:7-10)
[7] He said therefore to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
[8] Bear fruits that befit repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, `We have Abraham as our father'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.
[9] Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."
Q has Jesus calling for “this generation” to repent.
Lk 11:29-32 (par Mt 12:39-42)
[29] When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, "This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah.
[30] For as Jonah became a sign to the men of Nin'eveh, so will the Son of man be to this generation.
[31] The queen of the South will arise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.
[32] The men of Nin'eveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.
