In his Beginning at Jerusalem, James Dunn collects a number of elements which make up a “Hellenist Tradition” in Acts 6-8 (243-4). Dunn’s point is to show that Luke had a cohesive source for this section Acts since the material found here is markedly different than Acts 1-5. I agree with his evidence and think that Luke had a source for this section on Hellenistic ministry. In the following I summarize a few of Dunn’s points with some expansions.
- As I observed in a previous post, language is an obvious difference. Diaspora Jews in Jerusalem for a pilgrimage may have gathered in the Synagogue rather than the Temple to read and study Scripture in Greek.
- There is dissension in the church. Luke has repeatedly highlighted the unity and “one-mindedness” of the early community in Jerusalem, but now there is a serious rift between the two groups.
- The Deacons are elected to their role by the Apostles. There is no indication of divine appointment, as was the case when Judas was replaced in chapter 1.
- The Deacons appear to be active in the Synagogue (6:9) rather than the Temple. The Apostolic mission was based in the Temple courts.
- Stephen is attacked by other Hellenists in the synagogue, not the Temple authorities. Specifically, Stephen is accused of repeating Jesus’ threat to destroy the Temple. More than that, Stephen is “changing the customs Moses delivered.” The Apostles are not accused of anything like this, rather they appear to be conforming to the Traditions since they continue to worship in the Temple.
- There is a clear negative Temple-motif in Stephen’s speech (7:46-50 especially). This negative view of the Temple is not found in Peter’s sermons or the ministry of the Apostles.
- God protected Peter and John when they were arrested, not so Stephen. He is lynched by an angry mob for his sermon in Acts 7. In contrast to the large number of converts after Peter’s sermons, Stephen has no converts and creates such tensions that even greater opposition develops.
- I would add to this list that the ministry of Philip is Samaria is considerably different than the Apostolic mission. Peter and John are no longer preachers in the Temple, but elders who guard the Gospel against corruption. The Spirit moves beyond Jerusalem and a non-Apostle works miracles in Samaria.
What should we make of this evidence? While this anticipates my next post, I think that what we have here in Acts 6-8 is another strand of the early Jesus movement. The crowds which hear Peter preach in Acts 2 and 3 included both Hellenists and Hebraists, to use the language of Acts 6:1. While Luke is at pains to highlight the unity of the community in Acts 1-5, he does not hide the fact that there was some factionalism along cultural lines from the very beginning.
I do not think this a bad thing, the Gospel is going to be far more than a Jewish messianic sect. Luke has already told us the Gospel would go out to the whole world, beginning with Jerusalem and the diversity of Jewish belief and practice.
Is there more in Acts 6-8 that helps to support Dunn’s suggestion that this material is a drawn from a “cohesive source” that describes Hellenistic, Jewish ministry?