Tuesday, July 6, 2021

The Quest for Certainty and the Climax of the Book of Acts

Sunset at Waskesiu Lake, 23 May 2021
There is a humorous quality to the Roman tribune’s repeated attempts to find out the truth—literally, the “certainty” (τὸ ἀσφαλές; to asphales)—of the charges against Paul in Acts 21-23. First, there is too much of an uproar in the Temple (21:34). Then Paul’s speech to the crowd in the Temple sparks another riot, so the tribune decides on torture. Βut Paul is a Roman citizen, so he orders the Sanhedrin to meet because he wants to get to the bottom of the matter—the certainty (τὸ ἀσφαλές) of what he was accused by the Jews (22:30). Something similar happens in Caesarea when the Roman governor Festus explains to King Agrippa that he still does not have “anything certain” (ἀσφαλές τι) to write to the emperor about Paul (25:26).

If I may indulge in a bit of speculative word association, I am tempted to suggest that the references to “certainty” are clues. Αccording to Luke 1:4, Luke wrote to convince Theophilus of the “certainty” (ἀσφάλειαν) of the things about which he had been instructed. Are these speeches why Luke wrote Acts? Are the things about which Luke wants to convince Theophilus (and his other readers) embedded in these often ignored chapters?

Brown bear by Waskesiu Lake, 22 May 2021

For other reflections on the possible purposes of Acts, see these posts.


3 comments:

Gerry said...

Hi David

To what might the references to “certainty” give a clue ?
The “certainty” that Luke refers to may be verbally connected to those speeches but thematically they are not the same…are they ?
Whilst all are to find “certainty” in their respective contexts, Luke’s finding of “certainty” for Theophilus is positive and based on what he, Theophilus, already knows.
Whilst the speeches are negative and neutral in that they flow from an enquiry by the Roman Tribune on the one hand as to find the “certainty “ of what Paul is accused before he can punish him, and on the other hand by Festus who has nothing “certain” to say about Paul.
How can we say that embedded in those speeches may be what Luke wanted Theophilus to be convinced of ?
Festus had nothing “certain” to say so there is nothing to be convinced of in that.
Why would Luke want to convince Theophilus that Festus had nothing “certain” to say of Paul or that Tribune wanted to be convinced before meting out punishment ?

As you are no doubt well aware, verbal concordance does not always a connection make .

Maybe I’ve totally misunderstood you David and I apologise if that be the case.

Best regards
Gerry

d. miller said...

Thanks for your comment, Gerry. You are quite right that the verbal links may mean nothing in this case. I am intrigued, though, partly because there are other reasons why the final eight chapters of Acts seem to me to be crucial for understanding the purpose of the book as a whole. I would take the uncertainty of the Roman authorities as a humorous contrast with the certainty that Luke conveys to Theophilus and company by the way in which he narrates Paul on trial. The Romans misunderstand--and so Festus has nothing certain to say at the end of it all--but if we have been reading carefully, we will see that Paul's defense speeches reinforce major themes that Luke has been developing throughout Acts.

Gerry said...

Thanks David

You make a fair point about the contrast between the uncertainty of the Roman authorities and the certainty that Luke wishes to convey to Theophilus.
And the idea of the reinforcement of major themes in Paul’s defence speeches is also a fair comment.

As for the last eight chapters being crucial for understanding the purpose of the book, I don’t really know if they do, but I wonder if we overlook what appears to be the clearly stated purpose of Luke in his first long sentence .

Kind regards
Gerry