New Testament Studies

http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS

Additional services for New Testament Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Speeches and Dialogue in Acts

G. H. R. Horsley

New Testament Studies / Volume 32 / Issue 04 / October 1986, pp 609 ­ 614

DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500014247, Published online: 05 February 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0028688500014247

How to cite this article:

G. H. R. Horsley (1986). Speeches and Dialogue in Acts. New Testament Studies, 32,
pp 609­614 doi:10.1017/S0028688500014247

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS, IP address: 129.215.149.92 on 18 Nov 2012

New Test. Stud. vol. 32, 1986, pp. 609-614

SHORT STUDIES

SPEECHES AND DIALOGUE IN ACTS

It is almost de rigueur for those commenting upon the speeches as a dis-

tinctive element in Acts to refer to Thucydides 1.22, that memorable
programmatic statement in which the greatest of the historians from anti-
quity revealed part of his hand, at least, about his creative technique. 1
The speeches are recreations of the sort of things which would have been
said appropriate to the particular occasion. It hardly needs to be said, of
course, that where recollections of an actual speech provided a basis,
Thucydides' version was no more than a pr6cis; nor need the point be
laboured that at the level of stylistic convention these passages of direct
speech are a literary device to provide variatio for the narrative. Not only
do we. find single speeches, but also the use of speech and counter speech
in debate sections (such as that between Nikias and Alkibiades in bk. 6
when the Athenians are weighing up whether or not to invade Sicily); and
with these may be contrasted other passages where 'equal time' is not
allocated in a debate to figures towards whom Thucydides feels antipathy
(e.g. Kleon in the Sphakteria debate of 425/4, Thuc. 4.17-22). Thucy-
dides' approach provided the yardstick for subsequent Greek and Roman
historians - even when they consciously rejected it - but only Polybios of
extant writers even came near to his achievement.2
What of the author of Acts? He has embraced the convention of formal,
set speeches and, whatever other motives he had for doing so (see below),
this is to be seen as one way he chose to display his literary craftsmanship.
As in Thucydides - though no conscious debt to him is to be inferred - set
speeches are allocated very largely to those who are particularly prominent,
viz., Peter and Paul as against Perikles, Alkibiades, Nikias, and Kleon.
Stephen as the exception in Acts is a minor figure within the overall
framework of the book, into whose mouth has been placed the lengthy
confutation of the Jews - because he is the first to be martyred at their
hands? Likewise, Thucydides allocates speeches to a few minor figures
(Pagondas, Diodotos). Yet although precis was accepted as the convention
for speeches, and is in any case demanded by the need for balance in the
work, 3 a set speech which can be read aloud in five minutes is rather too
patently unreal. Furthermore, the fifth-century conception of the nexus
between history and tragedy (with the latter's 'willing suspension of dis-
belief carrying across to the former in such aspects as speech length)
underwent marked change in the Hellenistic period, frequently appearing

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 18 Nov 2012 IP address: 129.215.149.92

610 G. H. R. HORSLEY
as a complete mutation with attempts to write 'tragic history'. Practitioners
of this approach sought to make their appeal through colourful, emotive
description and phraseology, as a result of which 'trivialities ousted serious
topics'. 4 Again, Polybios stood out against the tide.
That the author of Acts was generally sober and restrained in his presen-
tation of his material is not in serious doubt. But that he was also con-
cerned to veil the unreal brevity of space which he could afford to allocate
to the speeches is evident from his adoption of a device which, if noticed
before, has not been emphasized sufficiently to draw attention to the care
he has taken both to ensure the coherence of his work and to avoid im-
balance between narrative and discourse. Of the ten set speeches of reason-
able length (judging this by the criterion of the overall size of Acts) eight
are either interrupted or concluded with a statement from the author that
the speaker had more to say in similar vein. The two speeches allowed to
run their course can be accounted for. The relevant passages may be listed
briefly to establish the point.
2. 40 erepois re Xdyois -nXeioaiv bvenapwpaTO, KTX. This interruption
is different in kind from the rest because the author intervenes
overtly.
4. 1-3 \a\oi)vT<jjv 8e avrdv . . . iireorqoav adroit; oi tepetc . . . /cat iire'Pa-
Xou at)roic rd<; xeipa? x-ox ideuro ei? Tr\pr\ow . . .
7. 54 dKoiiovres 8e ravra. . . efipvxov TOVS 686VTCL<; eir' avrov. Stephen
continues talking a little more, then is finally stopped: 7. 57-58,
. . . &pnr\oav onodvixabbv eir' avrov, tcai . . . tXtdofioXovv.
10. 44 en XdkovvTOS TOV Ue'rpov rd p'rinara ravra ene'ireoev rb irvevfia rd
dytou em irduTCu; TOUC dKOvovras rbv \6JOU. Cf. 11. 15 where Peter
recounts the incident to others: iv 8e TU> dp^aadai fie \d\elv 4n-
eneoevTdiruevna KT\. This provides a particularly striking example
because the interruption does not come from opponents.
13. 42 Paul is given a hearing to the end on this first occasion in the syna-
gogue at Pisidian Antioch, but by the next Sabbath the opposition
is organized and Paul and Barnabas do not get such an easy recep-
tion (13. 45-46, 50-51). Paul's speech in ch. 13 is the 'exception
proving the rule' about the conscious use by the author of a device
to cut the speeches short; and it is exceptional because, like Peter's
Pentecost speech, it is the first one by one of the two individuals
who provide the main focus for Acts.
17. 32 duovoavTes 8e dudoraotv veKpdv oi neu ixXevafav KTX. Although
not so unequivocal an interruption in medias res as the others, it
was very likely intended as such by the author, because Paul is
clearly leading up to identify the man raised from death with Jesus
(cf. 17. 18).
20. 36 Kal ravra ebroov . . . ovv irdoiv avrok irpoor}v%aTO. The use of an

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 18 Nov 2012 IP address: 129.215.149.92

 SPEECHES AND DIALOGUE IN ACTS 61 1
interruption device normally presupposes some hostile listeners -
that is why 10. 44 is so striking. On the occasion here at Miletos
Paul is among known friends. The fact that this speech belongs to
one of the 'we' passages (cf. 21. 1) may be an additional reason
why this speech is allowed to run its course, although the Jerusalem
speech in ch. 22 appears to have a 'we' context as well (21. 17-18)
- yet see below.
22. 22 rjicovov 5e avrov &xpi TOVTOV TOV Xoyov tcai inripav TT\V <j)U)vf)v
avTibu XeyovT€<;- alpe dirb Trjs 777c rbv TOVOVTOV, KT\. Paul's speech
here in ch. 22 shows the authorial hand of the writer as nowhere
else; for after making explicit that Paul addressed the crowd in
Hebrew (21. 40, 22. 2) the speech is given in Greek that is by no
means to be distinguished from the others in Acts as translationese.
It is the author writing a summary speech in Greek, including the
sort of subject matter he either knew Paul to have used or surmised
he would have done. Whether the 'we' at 21. 17-18 implies the
author's presence for this speech is less than certain. The first per-
son plural forms do not resume again until 27. 1 -although there
is no particular occasion where this would appear appropriate - by
which time more than two years had elapsed (24. 27).
24. 22 dve$d\ero 8£ auroijc d $17X1^. The governor cuts the debate short
(and cf. 24. 25 where the private discussion with Paul is broken
off suddenly); but we may note that in the debate the author has
allowed twice the space for Paul's speech than is granted to Ter-
tullus.
26. 24 ravra 5£ amov diroXoyovnevov 6 QTJOTOC; neydXri rrj Qaivrj <t>r\otv
juau'ft, riauXe, KTX.
The interruption device occurs frequently enough to be considered as
deliberately employed by the author, 5 although it is not used mechanically
(as 10. 44 shows) nor on every possible occasion. The exceptions (13. 42;
20. 36) may readily be accounted for, in the terms suggested above. It is
to be seen largely as a stylistic conceit to help smooth over the brevity of
the set speeches within the context of Acts. Given the length of Stephen's
speech, however, it is pertinent to ask whether at another level this inter-
ruption feature was used by the author as a way of showing that the
Preaching was rejected by Jews: is it then part of the content of what is
being conveyed in Acts, and not merely a stylistic feature? This may be
possible, but is unlikely given that less than half the interruptions - even if
we include the sequel to Paul's ch. 13 speech - are caused by Jews. While
not wishing to play down considerations of the author's historical and
theological purpose, there is some danger of imbalance in the view6 that
stylistic considerations alone may not constitute a sufficient reason why
an ancient writer may have organized his material in a certain way.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 18 Nov 2012 IP address: 129.215.149.92

612 G. H. R. HORSLEY

II

A second feature which may be observed about the use of direct speech in
Acts is by its nature less clear-cut, and any conclusion based on it must be
more tentative.
If extended narrative punctuated by occasional set speeches is the basic
format for the Greek and Roman historians, there remain other ways to
instil variety into the text through speech material. Reported speeches are
prominent in some of these writers, of whom Livy is a notable case. But
our concern here is with direct discourse. Other types of this in Acts are
very abbreviated speeches, dialogue, and single comments. None of these
elements is distinctive to Acts, but when comparison is made with some of
those writing history, biography and romance - and even making allow-
ance for some distortion when the differing scope of each work is scaled
in relation to Acts - we can discern how very much more use is made of
direct speech in Acts. As with the interruption device for speeches, the
frequent recourse to oratio recta is to be attributed at least in part to a
concern for stylistic variety.
The table below indicates those authors and works (or part works)
checked for the amount of direct speech they contain. Their length rela-
tive to Acts is given in col. A. Col. B lists formal 'set-piece' speeches
(counting those grouped in debate form as one speech). Those in Acts
which are so categorized here have been discussed in the earlier note.
Length is not the main criterion for this category (see n. 3 above). Under
col. C are listed passages of dialogue, regardless of the length, but not
formal debate speeches (included under B); also counted into the col. C
tally in view of their infrequency, are statements by a single speaker
which are too brief for B and too long for D. In Acts the passages thus
categorized here are 1. 4-8; 4. 7-12, 16-17, 19-20; 4. 24-30 (though this
passage does not exactly fit into any category); 5. 28-39; 8. 19-24; 8.
30-38; 11. 3-18; 21. 19-25. Col. D lists the total of very brief comments
by a single speaker, of up to c. three lines in length, e.g. 3. 6; 5. 3-4, 8-9;
13. 10-11; 28. 4. The last column offers a total of cols. B-D, i.e. of all
passages of direct discourse. The bracketed figures in columns B-E pro-
vide a total for the particular work when scaled to the size of Acts. Such
scaling inevitably produces some distortion, and the artificiality of these
scaled-down tallies means that no more than a generalized conclusion can
be based on them. The totals are themselves open to some degree of
variation, since not every reader is likely to agree where one passage of
direct discourse ends and the next begins. Nevertheless, the proportions
of direct speech in these other works is sufficiently disparate when com-
pared with Acts to allow a conclusion of a general nature to be drawn.
The presence of superior pluses and minuses beside a number in the table

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 18 Nov 2012 IP address: 129.215.149.92

 SPEECHES AND DIALOGUE IN ACTS 613
indicates that the proportion is a little more than/less than the number.
A B C D E
Length
relative 'One-
to Acts Speeches Dialogue liners' Total B-D

Acts 1:1 10 8 20 38

I. HISTORY
Herodotos 9:1 15(1%) 90(10) 57(6%) 162(18)
Thucydides 8%:1 27(3+) 10(1+) 8(1) 45(5%+)
Xenophon, Anab. 4:1 21(5 + ) 51(13") 25(6+) 97(24+)
Polybios, I-V 7+:l 2(%") 3(%") 12(2") 17(2%)
Sallust.Gzf. +Jug. 2%-: 1 6(2%) 2(1) 4(2") 12(5)
livy, I-V 6":1 11(2) 52(9") 39(6%) 102(17)
Josephus, BJ 6:1 15(2%) 3(%) 48(8) 66(11)
Tacitus, Hist. 4+:l 6(1%) 304) 4(1) 13(3%)
Tacitus, Ann. 5%:1 8(1%) 44(7+) 67(12') 119(20%+)

II. BIOGRAPHY
Suetonius, A ug. 1:1 - - 38(38) 38(38)
Plutarch, A lex. 1 y3:1 - 11(8+) 50(37) 61(45)
Plutarch, Caesar 1:1 - 8(8) 17(17) 25(25)
Plutarch, Demetrius %:1 - 8(110 6(8) 14(19)
Plutarch, Pompey l l / 5 :l - 6(5) 21(17%) 27(22%)

III. ROMANCE
Longus,Z)ap/inu &
Chloe 1%:1 5(4) 26(21) 15H2) 46(37)

The biographies listed above were all chosen because their length approxi-
mated closely to that of Acts. Acts is clearly set apart from them by its
use of 'lengthy' set-piece speeches. Less obviously, but no less truly, it is
to be distinguished from these works in the use of short dialogue and 'one-
liner' comments. For in every case in Plutarch and Suetonius these passages
are included as 'quotable quotes', memorable apophthegmata, or in order
to provide a punch line to some incident. The function of direct speech of
this length in Acts is different: almost nowhere7 does it occur to cap off a
passage or episode.
If Acts appears to have many more set speeches pro rata than the his-
torians and Longus this may possibly reflect something distinctive, viz.,
that the Preaching is itself the subject of Acts. Yet the potential for dis-
tortion in the scaling-down of the tallies must not be forgotten; the col. B
total for Thucydides, for example, does not reflect the full number of
speeches in his work because of his penchant for debate sequences.
On the basis of this data it is reasonable to conclude that the compara-
tively heavy, and diverse, use of direct discourse in Acts is likely to be due
to the author's stylistic concern to lighten the narrative, and vivify it. A
more detailed and comprehensive analysis is needed to test this claim.8
G. H. R. HORSLEY

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 18 Nov 2012 IP address: 129.215.149.92

614 G. H. R. HORSLEY

NOTES
[1] The following may be mentioned merely as a representative range: E. M. Blaiklock, Tyndale
NTComm. (1959) 19;F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (19522) 18; M. Dibelius, 'The Speeches
in Acts and Ancient Historiography', in his Studies in the A cts of the Apostles (E.T., 1973) 140-3;
F. G. Downing, NTS 27 (1981) 545 n. 7, 549 n. 13; W. W. Gasque, A History of the Criticism of
the Acts of the Apostles (1975) 127 (for further references see his index, s.v. Thucydides); R. P. C.
Hanson, New Clarendon Bible Comm. (1967) 36; I. H. Marshall, Luke, Historian and Theologian
(1970) 72; W. Neil, New Century Bible Comm. (1973) 44; J. W. Packer, Cambridge Bible Comm.
(1976) 30-1; G. Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte I (1980) 97 n. 78; A. Weiser, Die Apostelge-
schichte (1981) 30. Among recent commentaries Schneider's treatment of the speeches (95-124) is
easily the most useful. For a bibliography on the Thucydidean speeches - a minor industry in itself -
see W. C. West's list (to 1970) in P. A. Stadter (ed.), The Speeches in Thucydides (Chapel Hill,
1973) 124-65.
[2] See the concise discussion, with references to Polybian passages, in F. W. Walbank, Polybius
(Berkeley, 1972) 43-6.
[3] Proportional to the overall size of Acts the speeches do fit in well, with the exception of
Stephen's speech, the only one to approximate to the length of the set speeches in Thucydides.
[4] Walbank, Polybius, 34-40 (the quotation occurs on p. 34), in which Polybios' criticism of
other historians is surveyed. For the debate over 'tragic history* see Walbank, BICS 2 (1955) 4-14;
id., Historia 9 (1960) 216-34; C. O. Brink,PCPS 6 (1960) 14-19.1 have not seen N. Zegers, Wesen
und Ursprung der tragischen Geschichtsschreibung (Diss. Cologne, 1959) referred to by Walbank,
Polybius, 34 n. 15.
[5] Only one speech is interrupted in Thucydides, and this instance (2. 72) takes the form of a
counterbalancing speech in reply by Archidamos to the Plataian envoys. This disparity serves to
underscore how consciously the author of Acts has employed the device, and may be suggestive
of stylistic innovativeness.
[6] Implied most recently by R. Maddox, The Making of Luke-Acts (Edinburgh, 1982) 1-2. It
should not be denied that content may play some part as well as style: thus several of the inter-
ruptions occur when the speaker mentions resurrection (4. 1-3; 17. 32; 24. 22; 26. 24), while
another ground of objection is preaching to Gentiles (22. 22, cf. 7. 54; 26. 24). In this note, how-
ever, style as a feature has been deliberately emphasized at the expense of content to draw atten-
tion to my view that it is rarely given sufficient weight.
[7] Acts 11. 18 and 18. 6 may be examples of such a rounding-off, and a small number of other
passages could arguably be regarded similarly.
[8] These two notes have benefited from being scrutinized in draft by C. K. Barrett and E. A.
Judge, to both of whom warm thanks are due.

New Test. Stud. vol. 32,1986, pp. 614-620

LUKE'S USE OF XAPI2

In his recent study of the view of conversion to be found in the Lukan

writings, J. W. Taeger has pronounced confidently against the view that
Xdpt? is for Luke a power.1 In doing so he sets himself over against U. Wil-
ckens who sees x<ipt? in Luke as that power of God which works conver-
sion in the human heart.2 Taeger appeals back to H. Conzelmann3 for a
strong connection between xapis in Luke and the Old Testament use of
hnn, and understands xapvs as (the concrete expression of) God's gracious-

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 18 Nov 2012 IP address: 129.215.149.92