Chronology

The Chronology of Acts 6

One of the frustrations of studying Acts is Luke’s tendency to offer only a few chronological clues for the events after the resurrection until the death of Herod in Acts 12. To complicate matters, Luke presents the story thematically in the early chapters, creating an overlapping chronology. The events of chapters 2-5 are a unit with a clear conclusion. Chapters 6-8 probably do not following immediately, but take place at about the same time. The difference is in the social and cultural location of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Luke does not say there is a shift from the Aramaic speaking Apostles to the Greek-speaking Hellenists. As I read Acts, the activities of Peter and John are more or less parallel to that of Stephen and Philip in the months after Pentecost.

Deacons Acts 6 Angelico,_niccolina_17The situation in Acts 6:1 occurs after Pentecost, although there is nothing to indicate how long. The Jesus movement is “living in common,” selling property and distributing food to the poor members of the community. The phrase “In these days” is used by Luke occasionally to signal significant stages in the story. In Luke 6:12 the phrase appears before the appointment of the 12, and in Acts 11:27 it appears as a reference to the prophets going from Jerusalem to Antioch.

The preaching of Stephen at least must pre-date Paul’s conversion since he is instrumental in the death of Stephen. Luke places his section on Philip between the introduction of Saul / Paul in 8:1 and his conversion story in chapter 9 in order to create narrative tension. The reader only knows there is a great persecution and the Hellenistic Jews have been forced out of Jerusalem.

Given these factors, James Dunn suggests that Stephen’s ministry began no less that 18 months after the resurrection (Beginning at Jerusalem, 257).  Perhaps this range can be narrowed a bit.  I am inclined to think that the appointment of the Deacons must have taken place fairly early since there are thousands of followers of Jesus after the two sermons Acts 2 and 3.  Luke tells us that the initial crowd included Diaspora Jews from every part of the Empire.  This means the group which turns to Jesus as the Messiah in Acts 2 and 3 undoubtedly included people from the Diaspora who were visiting Jerusalem for Passover and Pentecost. Some of these people chose to remain in Jerusalem rather than return home after accepting Jesus. This explains the need for believers live in common almost immediately (2:42-47).

How does this compressed chronology effect the way you read Acts? What changes in your perception of the persecution if there is only a matter of months between Pentecost and Stephen?

Reading the New Testament: Chronological or Canonical?

Marcus Borg has an interesting article in the Religion section of the Huffington Post today on the chronology of the New Testament. It seems to me there has been more interest in a “chronological Bible” lately, with several new Bibles appearing with the order of the books sorted by chronology rather than by traditional canon.

Borg makes several excellent points on how reading the New Testament will effect the way were understand Christian origins.

First, he says that “beginning with seven of Paul’s letters illustrates that there were vibrant Christian communities spread throughout the Roman Empire before there were written Gospels.” This is a great point, since the earliest unmediated witness to Christian thinking about Jesus are the Pauline letters. While Borg only accepts seven of the letters of Paul as authentic, he is correct to see this as the “earliest window” into Christianity. Reading 1 Thessalonians and Galatians is to see the struggles of the earliest Christians as the interpreted Jesus’ death on the Cross and the struggle to understand what Jesus means in the present age.

In order to make this point Borg must discount the historicity of the speeches of Acts here, which is why I said “unmediated.”  Certainly we have a speech of Peter at Pentecost, but it comes through another author (Luke) at least thirty years later, probably more.  Luke reported speeches accurately, in my view, but he also reported speeches which served his theological agenda.  Paul remains the earliest Christian voice we have.  (Borg does not mention the letter of James as an early voice since he dates the book well into the 80’s.)

Second, putting the Pauline letters first will force us to see the Gospels differently. They are “not the source of early Christianity but its product.” For Borg, the three synoptic Gospels are written after Paul’s ministry was over and Christianity had spread throughout the Empire.  (This is the consensus view of the dating of the gospels.)  While the content of the gospel was certainly present before the Synoptic Gospels were written, the theology present in the Matthew, Mark and Luke/Acts certainly reflects a time when Pauline Christianity was the dominant understanding of Jesus. While I am less confident about Borg’s dates for the Synoptic Gospels nor am I satisfied with separating them from the traditional authors, his point is nevertheless important.

Third, Borg points out that even within the three Synoptic gospels, placing Mark first “demonstrates that early Christian understandings of Jesus and his significance developed.” This is a standard view of the synoptic problem: Mark write first and was later supplemented by Matthew and Luke. As Borg says, they added to and “modified” Mark to reflect their theological concerns. Again, a fair point and one I can accept, although I do not think the modifications were as radical as implied by Borg.

Fourth, Borg again follows consensus and places John late in his chronology. Reading “John separated from the other Gospels and relatively late in the New Testament makes it clear how different his Gospel is.” Borg correctly points out that the gospel is rich with “metaphorical and symbolic language” which functions as a “witness” of the theology of John’s community. I think that this is also quite acceptable, although I would also include the letters of John and Revelation at this point as well.

Fifth, Borg states that “realizing that many of the documents are from the late first and early second centuries allows us to glimpse developments in early Christianity in its third and fourth generations.” This is perhaps the most difficult of his points to accept, since I am not willing to date anything in the New Testament in the second century. He is correct, however, that the later books are second or third generation Christianity. This is not a radical idea, since even in Hebrews 2:1 the writer of that letter heard the Gospel from others. The writers of the New Testament live at the end of the “first generation” and are writing their books as a legacy of tradition to the second and third generations.

I find it fascinating that Borg considers the trajectory from the earliest to the latest books as a trajectory of accommodation with culture: “[The books] reflect a trajectory that moves from the radicalism of Jesus and Paul to increasing accommodation with the cultural conventions of the time.” In Galatians the issues is the proper way to obey God, should Gentiles keep the Law or not? By Revelation, people are not even thinking about keeping the Jewish Law and wondering if it is permissible to participate in pagan festivals or “sin that grace my abound.”

This continues well into the early centuries of the church, and is repeated every time there is a call back to the original sources (the Reformation, the Great Awakening, etc.) Reading the books chronologically highlights the theological trajectory of the New Testament documents, but also highlights the struggles the church of all ages faces.