Projeto de Pesquisa Análise exegética de Atos 2,1-13: a descida do Espírito Santo em Pentecostes
1. Descrição do Projeto de Pesquisa
1.1. Situação do projeto dentro de seu horizonte temático
Dentro do horizonte temático, como se situa o projeto?
1. Introduction: The Pentecost Episode in Recent Discussion
In his 1971 monograph entitled Peter’s Pentecost Discourse,1 Richard Zehnle affirmed that Peter’s speech in the second chapter of Acts is ‘the finest mission discourse composed by Luke’,2 and serves as a ‘keynote address’,3 a programmatic statement of sorts, setting forth the Lucan theology to be unfolded throughout the rest of Luke’s ‘second treatise’. The widespread recognition of the significance of Peter’s speech for our understanding of Acts has motivated an important number of recent studies,4 ranging from source-critical analyses to linguistic and sociological ones. Regardless of the methodological angle chosen, however, discussion of this episode has centred primarily on the issue of its unity and coherence, or lack thereof: Are the two apparently different types of speech (namely the ‘ecstatic’ speech resembling the glossolalia of 1 Cor. 14 [v. 4] and the language miracle [vv. 6–13]) indicators of two different sources behind this episode?5 Is the apparently undeveloped Christology of the speech evidence of an early tradition which Luke has, hesitantly but faithfully, preserved?6 Lastly, is the entire speech sufficiently connected to the Pentecost event that precedes it?7 Like the previous chapters, the present chapter is part of my investigation of clause structure and, more specifically, the transitivity choices made by the author of Acts. My aim is to shed light on such issues as cohesiveness, coherence, and, above all, foregrounding strategy, that is, the systematic, purposeful utilization of various linguistic means to highlight those elements of the narrative of Acts 2 that are most significant to the writer’s overall literary purpose(s). My starting point is the text of the Pentecost episode as we have it;8 consequently, the debate over sources and the exact nature of the speech miracle(s) will be entered into only insofar as it touches upon linguistic or literary matters.
In previous chapters I have noted in explicit terms the significance of participant reference and transitivity patterns for understanding Luke’s compositional design. Though both these issues are largely ignored in the scholarly discussion of the shipwreck episode (Acts 27), the story of Stephen’s arrest, defense and martyrdom (Acts 6–7) and the episode of Paul’s arrest and defense (Acts 22), the greater perspicuity of these features of language in Acts 2 has provoked remarks of varying depth and usefulness from commentators and other researchers.9 Insightful as several of these discussions appear to be, a fuller, more systematic and explicit treatment of the data is needed, in particular, one carried out within the framework of a modern linguistic method. Thus, my findings concerning transitivity choices such as ‘agent’ and ‘medium’ in the present episode need to be understood and interpreted in relation to Luke’s choices from the same network elsewhere in Acts, as well as the choices Luke did not make, though these were equally open to him, given the Greek language system.
DOUBLE VISION IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY LUKAN STUDIES
Without excluding the significant contributions of their predecessors,1 Henry J. Cadbury and Martin Dibelius may arguably be regarded as the seminal figures in Lukan research for this century. Each of these men, by virtue of his distinctive perspective concerning Luke as author, historian, and theologian, framed lines of future inquiry that have continually intersected but seldom truly converged. Cadbury’s approach was primarily comparative and literary, finding its locus in questions of style and genre; Dibelius’s approach was essentially organic, emphasizing the historical and theological development of kerygmatic tradition. Played in these rather different interpretive and stylistic keys, it is perhaps not surprising that the relative values that each assigned to Luke’s role as author, historian, and theologian were also at variance.
Cadbury assigned his highest values to Luke as author and historian. With respect to Luke’s skill as an author, it was Cadbury who argued that the speeches, letters, and canticles were all Lukan,2 Cadbury who noted and defined a distinctive Lukan style and vocabulary,3 and Cadbury who observed that Luke had introduced certain unifying themes serving literary as well as theological ends.4 Furthermore, because of Luke’s double prologue and the numerous instances of parallelism between the Gospel and Acts, he was convinced that Luke intended a unified work: Luke-Acts.5
In Cadbury’s opinion, however, all of this acknowledged literary creativity was within the acceptable limits of the style and methods of Greco-Roman historians, particularly the style and methods of the rhetorical historians. Indeed, even though he readily acknowledged that the quality of Luke’s sources was less reliable than that of the better historians of antiquity, his detailed analysis of Luke’s incorporation and adaptation of his Markan source was meticulously carried out, primarily to illustrate the considerable degree to which Luke’s use of sources paralleled generally accepted Greco-Roman historical method.6
In Cadbury’s mind, the importance of Luke as historian was closely related to the importance of Acts as “the only bridge we have across the seemingly impassable gulf that separates Jesus from Paul, Christ from Christianity, the gospel of Jesus from the Gospel about Jesus.”7 Somewhat surprisingly, therefore, although he ultimately concluded that Luke-Acts “is nearer to history than to any other familiar [Greco-Roman genre] classification,” Cadbury emphasized that this did not imply that its author should be considered as “a successor to Polybius or a precursor of Eusebius.”8 Indeed, in this respect he echoed the sentiments of one of his contemporaries, Karl Ludwig Schmidt;9 while emphasizing that Luke had considerably more literary interests, skills, and ambitions than the other evangelists, Cadbury also argued that Luke’s work was prevented by the nature and quality of its sources from fully rising above the category of popular literature. Whatever his reservations concerning the quality of Luke’s sources, however, Cadbury’s classification of Luke-Acts as history not only conveyed his assurance of its underlying evidential value to the New Testament historian but also his assumption that Luke’s primary intention was to transmit faithfully the traditions of the past.
Pentecost is the day on which Jesus pours out God’s Spirit upon the apostles and believers gathered in Jerusalem. The Greek word for Pentecost literally means “the fiftieth,” that is, the fiftieth day after the Passover, or, in this case, after Jesus’ death. Since Jesus had appeared to His disciples after His resurrection “during forty days” (Acts 1:3), it has only been about ten days since His ascension (the “not many days from now” of His promise to them in 1:5). Luke relates the event in Acts 2:1–41 by first describing it and those individuals attendant upon it. Then he records Peter’s response to those who mocked the disciples with his quoting the prophecy of Joel. This leads to Peter’s presentation of the gospel, his declaration of Jesus as “both Lord and Christ” (v. 36), and ultimately his offer of that gospel to them. From all these events we can draw significance for today.
Not only does the book of Acts provide an antidote to the recent neglect of the church by portraying vital communities of faith; and not only does Acts speak a word of challenge to particular historic expressions of the church in North America; Acts also addresses a number of issues and themes that are of particular interest in our time. These include, but are not limited to, the role of women in the church and as ministers of the gospel; the place of possessions in the lives of believers and in the community of faith; matters of sexuality and their bearing on Christian discipleship; conflict and decision-making in the church; and leadership for the church.
In the case of Acts, Christian readers meet in an acute form the question of how far what the NT authors say is ‘universal’ and relevant for all Christians everywhere at all times, and how far Luke is simply describing what happened, without necessarily implying that he wants his readers to do the same. For example, it is debated whether the early church were right or wrong to appoint Matthias (1:15–26).
Acts is unique in that it is pre-eminently the history of the work of the Holy Spirit in the church. The key to the meaning of Acts lies in two themes from Jesus’ closing ministry among his disciples. The first, prior to his death on the cross, is his promise of ‘another Counsellor’, who would lead the disciples into ‘all truth’ (John 14:16; 16:13).
The Contemporary Relevance of Acts
With its pattern of early church message, life and mission, Acts can serve as a sheet anchor in the choppy seas of contemporary life. It models a way of communicating the gospel message which constructively engages other worldviews while maintaining integrity. It bristles with confidence that the Christian message can withstand the close scrutiny of public inquiry. This gives us courage in a secularized culture, where religious faith is not welcome in the “public square.”
Reception by the Early Church
Acts appears to have been received later than most books of the New Testament, beginning in the middle of the second century. While subapostolic fathers such as Clement of Rome and Ignatius alluded to Acts, the first definitive reference dates to around AD 155 in the First Apology of Justin Martyr (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 50.12; Polhill, Acts, 21). A few decades later, Acts appeared in the works of Irenaeus (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 3.14.1) and in the Muratorian Fragment. From that time onward, Acts was referenced regularly in the writings of the church fathers and was accepted into the canon without issue.
The existence of pseudepigraphal and spurious Acts-type texts (more than 17, including the Acts of Barnabas and the Acts of Andrew) demonstrates the importance of Acts in the early church. John Chrysostom, however, fretted that popular audiences often overlooked Acts, presumably in favor of the Gospels or the Letters (John Chrysostom, Hom. Act. 1; Hom. princ. Act., 3). Writing in the late fourth century, Chrysostom calls Acts a “strange dish,” considering it too plain for elites and too peppery for average people (Chrysostom, Hom. princ. Act., 3).
Interpretation
Reading Acts as History
One question that arises in the study of Acts involves the type and extent of its content. How accurate is the historical account presented in Acts? Was the book written primarily in the interest of preserving a historical record of events or to offer a theological explanation of them? Prior to modern criticism, readers understood Acts simply as a history of the early church, without much differentiation of the type and quality of its history. However, as modern critical methods were adopted in the field of history, biblical scholars began to question whether Acts should be considered true history-writing or something else. (The “something else” need not be viewed as un-historical, even if it fails to meet the critical standards of modern historiography.) Consideration of these questions over the last century has resulted in little clarity about Acts as a work of history. The debate depends a great deal on the meaning of the term “history,” which conveys various ideas depending on the context.
Unlike modern histories, which tend to reconstruct events in detail, Acts provides only brief sketches of the time period it covers. Assuming that Luke was the author, he likely relied on sources for the first 20 years of the account; then, as a possible traveling companion of Paul, he would have been an eyewitness to roughly the last 10 years of what he records. The opening of Acts lacks the formal introduction that was typical in ancient historiography (compare Thucydides, Peloponnesian War, 1.1.1). For this reason, it is hard to say whether ancient readers would have seen Acts as a work of history. During later periods, however, Acts came to be almost universally regarded as a historical work.
With the rise of modern criticism, scholars emphasized “scientific” approaches to history—a shift that had major implications for assessing Acts. In the early 19th century, as rigid, modernist ideas began to be applied to the study of the Bible, scholars began to compare the details in Acts with the details in Paul’s letters. The record of Acts was found wanting, which led to growing skepticism about the book’s overall accuracy. During the 19th century, German critics from the Tübingen school argued that Acts was less a history and more a soft-shelled harmonizing by Luke of the factions of early Christianity following Paul and Peter. By the end of the 19th century, skepticism about Acts’ historical reliability began to eclipse the traditional view. In 1919, the most withering criticism of the historicity of Acts came from Franz Overbeck, who argued that Luke’s work was so problematic that it amounted to a falsification of the truth and a textual blunder of epic proportions (Overbeck, Christentum und Kultur, 7). Overbeck’s conclusion was rooted in his particular theory of history, which was limited to the black-and-white reconstruction of facts (Marguerat, First Christian Historian, 2). Overbeck’s work significantly influenced the study of Acts in the 20th century, and debates continue over the book’s value for historical information and scholarship.
Since Overbeck’s time, two major events have reenergized the study of Acts as history. First, the meaning of “history” has evolved in scholarly discourse outside biblical studies. Overbeck’s limited theory of history would not gain traction today as it did a hundred years ago. Second, scholars have produced more modest and nuanced proposals addressing the historical quality of Acts. One of the most important implications is that Acts is now treated like other ancient historiography (all of which would be problematic for Overbeck’s ideas). This approach supports reading Acts as a work of history while recognizing that the author’s purpose went beyond recording data points.
Several facets of Acts point to the author’s historiographical intention. Examples include:
• Luke’s stated purpose in the prologue of his Gospel (Luke 1:1–4);
• the use of the first-person perspective in Acts’ “we” passages, which effects to present the text as an eyewitness account (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16; Maddox, Purpose, 5; compare Campbell, “We” Passages, 90);
• a style and vocabulary similar to those used in ancient historiography (van Unnik, “Éléments artistiques”);
• rhetorical features that are representative of ancient history-writing (Rothschild, Luke-Acts, 96–98);
• the Luke-Acts multibook approach, which is typical of ancient historiography (Witherington, Acts, 7).
PENTECOST
Sacred Scripture
OT Eze 36:25–27, Joe 3:1–2, Ex 23:16, 34:22, Le 23:15–17, 21, Nu 28:26, Dt 16:9–10, 16, 2 Ch 8:13, 1 Ki 18:38–39, Sir 48:1
NT Mt 28:19–20, Lk 1:17, 3:16, 12:49, Jn 14:26, Ac 2:1, 3–4, 1 Th 5:19
Church Teaching
Catechism CCC 731–732, 1076, 1287, 726, 696, 767, 2623; Glossary “Pentecost”; Index “Pentecost”
Papal Encyclicals Dom. et Viv. 30
Vatican II SC 6, LG 2, AG 4–6, LG 4, AG 2
Liturgy
Roman Missal PrTm, Pent
Ecclesiastical Writers
St. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 41
See also: Holy Spirit; Church; Charism
Quais são os estudos existentes sobre o tema?
Quais são as questões pertinentes?
2. Objetivos Gerais e Específicos
2.1. Objetivos Gerais
2.2. Objetivos Específicos
3. Justificativa
4. Metodologia da Pesquisa
a. A Speech Act in Three Aspects
Ordinary language philosophy makes the point that ‘speaking a language is engaging in a (highly complex) rule-governed form of behavior’.88 In other words, speaking is doing; speaking is an action.89 This action is complex, for it includes not just the sign, word, or even the sentence, but how the sign or sentence is used in the speech act.
1.2.4. Intertextual Studies
Other studies approach Luke-Acts narratologically via intertextuality.106 Robert Brawley takes up the matter of intertextuality in Luke-Acts in Text to Text Pours forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts.107
THE WRITINGS OF LUKE HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED AS THE STORM CENTRE of modern New Testament study.1 With his two-volume work spanning the ministry of Jesus and the development of the early church, Luke figures in most of the problems of contemporary New Testament science. What can we know of the ministry and teaching of Jesus? Can we reconstruct the preaching and life of the early church? How did the mission of the church develop? What is the real significance of Paul in the general growth of the church? What is Luke’s own version of the Christian faith, and how does his understanding of it compare with that of other leading writers in the early church? And what is the historical place of Luke—is he the faithful reporter of early traditions or is he refashioning the story of Christian origins in order to justify the “early catholicism” thought to be typical of his own era in the sub-apostolic church?
There is no doubt that the story of the coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost is of profound importance to Luke and his view of the Church; with its setting (Jerusalem) and timing (Pentecost), and its arresting beginning (Acts 2:1), it takes a commanding position at the head of the body of his second volume (2:1–13). Moreover, all the followers of Jesus are involved (1:14–15; 2:1, 4) and it is testified by two witnesses.1 Luke also offers a commentary on it (2:14–36) and refers back to it as a model or template for later followers of Jesus (10:47; 11:15–16). The effect is to elevate the story to a significance in his narrative that rivals Easter.
However, the Acts 2 story presents us with a puzzle. If, as Luke portrays it, the coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost was such a significant event—arguably on a level with the significance of the resurrection—why has no other New Testament writer told us about it? An examination of this and other stories in Acts, and other documents in the New Testament, reveals an interesting solution to this puzzle. Importantly, for the purpose of this chapter, this also helps increase our understanding of Luke’s view of the coming of the Spirit in relation to the Church.