This document was supplied for free educational purposes.
Unless it is in the public domain, it may not be sold for profit
or hosted on a webserver without the permission of the
copyright holder.
If you find it of help to you and would like to support the
ministry of Theology on the Web, please consider using the
links below:
[Link]
[Link]
PayPal [Link]
D.F Payne, “Semitisms in the Books of Acts,” W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic
History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.134-150.
CHAPTER VIII
Semitisms in the Book of Acts
D. F. Payne
I
Palestine and indeed the whole Levant, has often been acknowledged as the place where East
and West meet. Two millennia ago, those who met there were respectively speakers of
Aramaic and Greek — unrelated languages, the former Semitic, the latter Indo-European. The
New Testament, as a result, presents us with a very interesting phenomenon, in that the
writers were nearly all Semites, Aramaic speakers and of Jewish descent, heirs of a long non-
Greek culture (not in total isolation from Greek thought, to be sure) who nevertheless all
chose to pass on their priceless message in the Greek language.
It is no surprise that their command of Greek varied considerably from one writer to another;
it is perhaps somewhat surprising, on the other hand, that they all showed such proficiency in
handling Greek as they did. At any rate, the good Greek of James and 1 Peter has often served
as one reason for doubting the traditional authorship of both epistles. It is interesting to note
that The Jerusalem Bible states of 1 Peter that the “Greek is too accurate and unforced for a
fisherman from Galilee”;1 yet when discussing the Epistle of James it makes the more
appropriate observation that “no accurate estimate... can be made as to how competent first-
century Palestinians were in writing Greek”!2
The author of the third gospel and of Acts, however, was no Palestinian, if the traditional
authorship is to be accepted; the anti-Marcionite Prologue to the third gospel indicates that the
author of both books was Luke, “an Antiochian of Syria, a physician by profession”. That he
was a Gentile is often deduced from Colossians 4:10-14, where Paul distinguishes him from
“men of the circumcision”. From these early data it might reasonably be inferred that the
writer of Acts lacked both the Hebraic background and the knowledge of the Aramaic
language which characterized the great majority of the New Testament writers. One might
therefore have expected to find that Luke and Acts stood apart from all the rest of the New
Testament documents, by presenting “pure” Greek, free of all trace of Semitism. But this is in
fact far from being the case; the Semitisms
[p.135]
of Acts alone have recently necessitated a book of 200 pages for an adequate discussion of
them.3
How, then, are the clear evidences of Semitic influence to be explained? An immediate
possibility is that Luke was not after all a Gentile, but a Hellenistic Jew; Colossians 4 is not
1
The Jerusalem Bible (London, 1966), New Testament, p. 393.
2
Ibid., p. 391.
3
M. Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford, 1965).
D.F Payne, “Semitisms in the Books of Acts,” W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic
History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.134-150.
really the strongest evidence, particularly in view of the fact that the phrase “of the
circumcision” is of uncertain meaning.4 For the present writer, Colossians 4 most probably
does make Luke a Gentile; but in any case, the decision as to the background of the author of
Luke-Acts must depend on a thorough examination of those books; Colossians 4:11 cannot be
said to settle the issue. Gentile or not, as an Antiochian Luke could well have been bilingual,
for Aramaic as well as Greek was spoken in Syrian Antioch and its environs. But then we
cannot be sure of the accuracy of the Antiochian tradition, and again we are forced to study
the Semitisms themselves.
If there is uncertainty about Luke’s own cultural and linguistic background, it is at least clear
that much of his subject-matter relates to Palestine and a Jewish milieu. The whole of his
gospel, and the first half (and more) of the Book of Acts, are staged against such a Semitic
backdrop; and patently his sources (whether oral or written) for three-quarters of his work will
have been inevitably to some extent Semitic. But there is no a priori reason why later sections
of Acts, set in a Gentile environment, should exhibit any Semitic colouring at all.5 Hence the
general attractiveness of C. C. Torrey’s hypothesis that in Acts 1-15 Luke has translated an
Aramaic document for his readers.6 In fact, many of Torrey’s arguments have been virtually
overthrown; criticisms of his hypothesis have been many and various, but not least among
them is the very fact of the quantity of Semitisms to be found in Acts 16-28, where a theory
involving an Aramaic source would have little plausibility.
A thorough linguistic examination of the Book of Acts is, therefore, indispensable for any
clear understanding of the author of the book and of the sources he utilized. It also has a
bearing on the question of the historicity of Acts. If it could be established, for instance, that
the speeches of Acts are of so Semitic a character that they must derive from Aramaic
sources, then the probability of Luke’s historical reliability would be considerably enhanced.
But if the importance of the question is undeniable, the difficulties inherent in such a study are
equally beyond dispute. In the first place, how is a “Semitism” to be defined? The term is
usually applied to linguistic
[p.136]
elements (whether words, expressions, idioms, syntax, grammar or style) which are alien to
Greek and which owe their origin to either Aramaic or Hebrew. But as C. F. D. Moule has
written,
It is not always possible to determine where to draw the line between a clear, alien
“Semitism” and a term or idiom which is indeed reminiscent of a characteristically Semitic
equivalent but which is none the less good or tolerable Greek, and may, therefore, owe little
or nothing to Semitic influence. Sometimes it is only the frequency of its occurrence, and
not its actual existence, that a term or phrase owes to the alien influence.
4
That the third evangelist was Jewish has been held by A. Schlatter, E. C. Selwyn, B. S. Easton, A. H.
McNeile, B. Reicke, W. F. Albright, and E. E. Ellis. [See E. E. Ellis, “Those of the Circumcision’ and the Early
Christian Mission,” in Studia Evangelica 5 (TU 102; Berlin, 1968), pp. 390-99 Edd.].
5
The scene reverts to Palestine in 15; 21:7 - 27:3, although for the most part Paul’s company in the later
chapters was non-Jewish.
6
C. Torrey, The Composition and Date of Acts (Cambridge, Mass., 1916).
D.F Payne, “Semitisms in the Books of Acts,” W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic
History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.134-150.
Obviously, too, this problem is complicated by the question of how far the generally
understood, secular koin» had unconsciously absorbed and, so to speak, naturalized what
were originally alien elements from Semitic populations.7
Generally speaking, one would require a reasonable quantity of Semitisms before deciding
that a particular passage was clearly influenced by or translated from a Semitic language. All
too often, features of New Testament Greek which appeal to one scholar as clear Semitisms
tend to be disallowed by the next scholar.8
A second difficulty is occasioned by the very vagueness of the term Semitism. In theory, the
New Testament documents and manuscripts might have been influenced by classical Hebrew,
by contemporary spoken Hebrew, or by several contemporary dialects of Aramaic — Judaean,
Galilean, Antiochian among them. Strictly speaking, therefore, one ought to look for
Hebraisms, Aramaisms, and Syriacisms, and then subdivide these categories still further; but
in practice relatively few acknowledged Semitisms can be neatly pigeon-holed in such a
fashion. The dialects of Aramaic did not differ too radically from one another; and Hebrew,
though a different language, is very closely akin to Aramaic. Moreover, our materials for
distinguishing distinct Aramaic dialects are still much scantier than we could wish, despite
recent discoveries of importance.9
A further complication is caused by New Testament textual variations. As is well known, the
text of Acts preserved in Codex Bezae (D) is almost an editio altera of the book, as compared
with the TR or the Westcott and Hort text. Both in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, moreover,
the D text exhibits far more Semitisms than can be found in other textual traditions. A good
case can be made for viewing many of these additional Semitisms as original; it is rather more
likely that in the course of transmission some
[p.137]
alien elements in Greek were removed than that Aramaic-speaking scribes deliberately or
unconsciously recast the Greek which they were copying into a more Semitic mould. Even so,
some caution must be observed. Wilcox very properly stresses the importance of the
“eclectic” method of textual criticism, and adds that “textual criticism and judgment on
Semitism must proceed hand in hand”.10 The simple view that the Western text gives us more
or less the original text of Acts11 is now even less likely than it was, since E. J. Epp has
demonstrated the scope and extent of theological reinterpretations in D.12 Some of the
Semitisms of D may well be secondary; but Epp’s most convincing examples are those where
there is variation in vocabulary, and it would not be easy to find theological motives for mere
7
C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-book of New Testament Greek2 (Cambridge, 1959), p. 171. Moule’s chapter on
“Semitisms” [pp. 177-91] is a useful introduction to the subject in general.
8
See especially M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts3 (Oxford, 1967), chapter 1, for
examples. Wilcox’s recent list of significant Semitisms, for all his cautious treatment, would be reduced by J. A.
Emerton (cf. his review of Wilcox in JSS 13 [1968], pp. 282-97). For a critical appraisal of Black’s work, see J.
A. Fitzmyer’s review of the 3rd ed. in CBQ 30 (1968), pp. 417-28.
9
Cf. Black, op, cit., chapter 3.
10
Op. cit., p. 185.
11
Cf. A. C. Clark, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford, 1933).
12
E. J. Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (SNTS monograph 3.
Cambridge, 1966).
D.F Payne, “Semitisms in the Books of Acts,” W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic
History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.134-150.
syntactical and grammatical variations, which in no way affect the general sense of the
passages concerned.
In the scrutiny of the Semitisms of Acts, then, difficulties abound on every hand; but the
greatest of them all is to assign the source of the individual Semitisms. If source-criticism of
documents has been characterized as “guess-work”, how much more so the source-criticism
of single words and phrases! A wide variety of possibilities has to be taken into account. First,
there are “naturalized” Semitisms, that is to say, local Aramaisms which had long since
affected the Greek spoken in any bilingual area (such as Antioch). Koine Greek in general
shares some features with Semitic languages which would not have been tolerated in classical
Greek, and it may safely be assumed that in bilingual areas the local Greek dialect will have
had an Aramaic colouring over and above such common features. Secondly, there are
“Biblicisms”, or Semitisms due ultimately to the influence of the Old Testament. These might
take the form of direct quotations from the Scriptures, or of allusions to the Old Testament, or
simply of a style and phraseology borrowed from it. Thirdly, we find a certain ecclesiastical
vocabulary owing more to the Palestinian and Jewish environment in which the church was
born than to the Greek world into which it moved so rapidly. Fourthly, there may be a residue
of Semitisms most naturally attributed to sources, written or oral, which were available to
Luke. The Semitisms of Acts, accordingly, require to be analysed and distributed between
these various categories. The importance of this analysis is evident in the observation that
Hebraisms will time and time again belong to the category of Biblicisms, whereas Syriacisms
would probably derive either from the “naturalized” Semitisms of the Antioch region or else
from documents or living traditions of this same area.
[p.138]
II
Academic study of the Semitisms of Acts (as indeed of the Gospels too) may be said to have
proceeded in three phases: observation, conjecture, and analysis. Observation and amassing of
appropriate material obviously must be the first step towards a scholarly discussion of the
phenomena; and this process still continues. The second stage, that of conjecture, has been
traced back by Wilcox as far as 1857, when a particularly interesting variant reading (in Acts
3:14) was discussed by W. W. Harvey in the light of a possible Semitic background.13
Harvey’s discussion may be termed conjectural in one respect; he guessed at the Semitic
(specifically, Syriac) verbs which he thought to underlie the two Greek verbs, ºrn»sasqe and
the variant ™barÚnate. But it was not long before much greater conjectures were being built
upon such foundations; in 1893, for example, F. H. Chase utilized this conjecture of Harvey’s,
among others, to argue for a strong influence by Syriac versions upon D (which reads
™barÚnate).14
In the case of Torrey in particular, we find a sweeping conjecture (i.e., of a literally-translated
document behind Acts 1-15) based largely upon conjectural evidence. The type of Semitism
which most appealed to Torrey was what might be termed “hidden” Semitisms; that is to say,
instances where the Greek does not immediately strike the reader as owing something to a
13
W. W. Harvey, Sancti Irenaei... adversus Haereses (Cambridge, 1857), vol. 2, p. 55. Cf. Wilcox, op. cit., pp.
1 f.
14
F. H. Chase, The Old Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezae (London, 1893).
D.F Payne, “Semitisms in the Books of Acts,” W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic
History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.134-150.
Semitic language, but which on investigation suggest that the best explanation of the Greek is
nevertheless some Semitic Vorlage, either because the Greek does not appear to say what one
would expect, or because of textual variants difficult to explain on the basis of corruption or
deliberate alteration of the Greek. In a number of cases of this sort, Torrey sought and found
(to his own satisfaction, at least) Aramaic words which might have been mistranslated or
misread.
Two such “hidden” Semitisms discovered by Torrey in the Gospel of Luke may be mentioned
briefly. In Luke 1:39 a strangely vague expression occurs, e„j pÒlin 'IoÚda, “to a city of
Judah”. The form 'IoÚda rather than the more usual 'IoÚda…a in itself suggests a Semitic
source here; and Torrey plausibly conjectured that the Greek pÒlij here represented an
ambiguous Semitic word, the Hebrew medînāh or its Aramaic equivalent, which Luke ought
to have translated “province”.15 An example of a misreading rather than a simple
mistranslation could be the o„kodome‹te, “you build”, of Luke 11:48 as opposed to uƒo… ™ste,
“you are sons”, of Matthew 23:31; the Aramaic word for “builders” is bānîn, for “sons”
benmn, and the two words would be indistinguishable in an unvocalized
[p.139]
document.16 These two examples have Black’s strong support; indeed, he describes them as
“brilliant” discoveries by Torrey.17 Similar examples from the Book of Acts tend to be more
controversial; one or two are discussed below.
Some of Torrey’s alleged mistranslations in Acts may survive criticism, and it must be
admitted that no type of Semitism is quite so convincing as an apparent mistranslation; it is
perhaps the only convincing evidence of a Semitic source document. But the fact remains that
all such evidence is conjectural; we do not know what sources Luke used, far less do we know
the precise wording of those sources.
The conjectural approach to the whole question reached its high watermark with Torrey. Not
only was his methodology questionable, but even more so his attempt to force all the
Semitisms he found in Acts into a single category, the pigeon-hole of “Aramaisms” due to a
source document. Torrey’s critics were from the first able to point out defects in his methods
and conclusions, and in doing so they were obliged to be more thoroughly analytical than
he.18 Thus study of the Semitisms of Acts progressed into the analytical stage; the important
article of H. F. D. Sparks, “The Semitisms of the Acts,”19 deserves special mention in this
connexion, for its careful and persuasive critique of Torrey’s work on the subject. Torrey’s
alleged “mistranslations” were shown to lack cogency in many cases; he had sadly neglected
the influence of the LXX, in Acts 1-15 and indeed the later chapters too; he had paid even less
attention to the Semitisms in Acts 16-28; and finally he had failed to account satisfactorily for
the “incontestable unity of Acts”.20
15
C. C. Torrey, HTR 17 (1924), pp. 83-89.
16
C. C. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels (London, n.d.), pp. 103 f.
17
Cf. Black, op. cit., pp. 12f.
18
A notable example (by J. de Zwaan) appears in BC, vol. 2, pp. 44-64.
19
In JTS N.S. 1 (1950), pp. 16-28.
20
Ibid., p. 21.
D.F Payne, “Semitisms in the Books of Acts,” W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic
History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.134-150.
All of these criticisms by Sparks were legitimate and remain valid. Nevertheless, he too
showed a tendency to look for a single pigeonhole, in his case the “Biblicism”. While
allowing for some influence on Luke by Aramaic and “Semitic-Greek patois” speakers, he
opined that “most [Semitisms]... are his own ‘septuagintalisms’”.21 He concluded his article
by depicting Luke as an artist and a dramatist, and asked “What more appropriate language...
than the language of the Bible could anyone possibly choose as the main medium through
which to present the manifestation of the Mystery?”22 Thus with Sparks too the element of
conjecture is present, alongside his analytical work.23
But four years before the publication of Sparks’s article, there had already appeared a major,
thoroughly analytical, treatment of the whole subject, in Matthew Black’s book, An Aramaic
Approach to the Gospels and
[p.140]
Acts.24 As the title indicates, the author was careful not to isolate Acts from the other relevant
New Testament documents, and this feature in itself adds to the weight and validity of his
analysis. On the other hand, the work is not too easily used by the student who is interested
solely in the: Book of Acts; moreover, as the title again shows, Black’s purpose was to
examine Aramaism as such, not Semitism in general. Hence the need for and value of the
recent book by Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts.25
Black felt the need to re-examine the Semitisms of the gospels and Acts in a thorough,
scientific and impartial fashion, eschewing pure conjecture as far as possible, and also to
remedy the deficiencies of earlier study in two respects, namely linguistic and textual. In the
first place, Aramaic words had been confidently placed on the lips of Jesus with very scant
regard for the fundamental question, which dialect of Aramaic did Jesus in fact speak?
Dalman had not overlooked the importance of this question, to be sure, but he had probably
been wrong in the answer he gave to it.26 There is considerably more information on Aramaic
dialects available today than there was when Dalman wrote. Black’s work is probably most
important, therefore, when it relates to the ipsissima verba of Jesus; but similar questions must
be asked and answered about any postulated Aramaic source documents, for the gospels or
Acts. As for the textual question, Black stressed the need to scrutinize all the text-types, and
particularly that exemplified in Codex Bezae, rather than to rely exclusively on one text (in
practice, usually that of Westcott and Hort); the relevance of this issue to the Book of Acts
needs no arguing. In fine, Black’s work exhibits a breadth and depth of treatment which are
essential to a study of the subject if it is not to lead to facile and mistaken conclusions. He has,
moreover, kept his work fully up-to-date, with a carefully revised third edition in 1967.
One important point which emerges from the history of the study of Semitism in Acts is that,
for all the detailed work that is obviously requisite, broad perspectives must always be kept in
21
Ibid., p. 26.
22
Ibid., p. 27.
23
He analysed with sonic care three specimen passages, Acts 4:23-31; 7:54-8:1; 9:36-43.
24
First edition 1946. It had its precursors, e.g., W. F. Howard’s appendix on “Semitisms in the New
Testament” in J. H. Moulton and W. F. Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1929).
Howard’s treatment offers relatively little material relating directly to Acts, however.
25
Oxford, 1965.
26
See discussion in Black, op. cit., pp. 6, 18-28.
D.F Payne, “Semitisms in the Books of Acts,” W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic
History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.134-150.
view; successive critics of Torrey and his predecessors have constantly opened up fresh
perspectives. The work began, of course, by locating and collating possible examples of
Semitism to be found in Acts — a task within the powers of any Semitist able to read Greek.
But the alleged Semitisms required analysis; and it demands a competent Hellenistic Greek
scholar to isolate “Septuagintalisms” and special koine usages which are shared with some
Semitic language, and a very well equipped Semitist to distinguish dialectal variations within
Aramaic. The distribution of the Semitisms was important too.
[p.141]
Sparks demonstrates, in a scrutiny of three specimen passages from Acts, how Semitisms and
typical Lucanisms are interwoven — a serious embarrassment for the literal-translation
hypothesis. Here the New Testament expert plays his part. Then Black drew fresh attention to
the relevance of New Testament textual criticism; so also has Epp, more recently, if in a rather
different way. Wilcox has shown that Old Testament textual criticism is also relevant; and
further, he pays some attention to “liturgical and apologetic factors” and brings patristic
evidence to bear on the subject. Recent work on the topic has also shown the value of
statistical analysis.27
III
The complexity of the whole question may now be shown by some examples. Two cases of
alleged mistranslation, first isolated last century, are still allowed by Black to possess “a high
degree of plausibility”. They appear in Acts 2:47 and 3:14 respectively.28 In the former
passage we read that the early church at Jerusalem was held in favour by all the “people”
(laÒn); but Codex Bezae reads “world” (kÒsmon). The two Greek words are obviously quite
dissimilar, but in the Semitic languages the differences are slight, “world” having just one
extra 1etter.29 E. Nestle accordingly maintained long ago that here was one clear trace of a
Semitic original lying behind the early part of Acts.30 Torrey agreed and found a further
Semitism in the verse (the phrase ™pˆ tÕ aÙtÒ, to which we shall return later). Black noted
that a theological motive might equally explain the D text, which might represent the attempt
of a scribe “to magnify the impression made by these early converts on the ‘whole world’”.31
Epp goes further, firmly rejecting the Nestle/Torrey hypothesis; he has shown that many of
the peculiar readings of Codex Bezae are attributable to an anti-Judaic motive, and Acts 2:47
is no exception. The word laÒj in Acts regularly refers to Israel specifically, and was
therefore deliberately eschewed by the anti-Jewish editor and reviser of the text at this point.32
The other example of which Black concedes the plausibility is far more complex; it is the
textual variant of Acts 3:14 to which Harvey first drew attention. Peter accused his hearers in
the temple courts of “denying” Jesus in the presence of Pilate, according to most MSS
27
Cf. K. Beyer, Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament,2 Bd.1, Teil 1 (Göttingen, 1968); R. A. Martin,
“Syntactical Evidence of Aramaic Sources in Acts I-XV,” NTS 11 (1964-65), pp. 38-59.
28
Black, op. cit., pp. 13 f.
29
In Hebrew, “people” is ‘m, “world” ‘im. The Aramaic is comparable.
30
B. Nestle, “Some Observations on the Codex Bezae”, Exp., series 5, 2 (1895), pp. 235-40.
31
Op. cit., p. 13.
32
Epp, op. cit., p. 77.
D.F Payne, “Semitisms in the Books of Acts,” W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic
History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.134-150.
(½rn»saqe); but Codex Bezae reads “oppressed” (™barÚnate). Harvey, as we have seen,
found the solution in Syriac; he conjectured that the majority reading was
[p.142]
a translation of k-p-r, while the Bezan variant rendered k-b-d. Nestle argued for Hebrew rather
than Syriac.33 Torrey preferred an Aramaic solution, his conjectural roots being k-d-b and k-b-
d respectively.34 But it is unfortunate for all three hypotheses that the Semitic root k-b-d
appears to denote irritation rather than oppression.35 Rendel Harris and Ropes inclined to think
that the Latin New Testament supplied the clue to the variants;36 if either was right, Semitisms
are ruled out here. Epp once again points out that the Bezan text is patently more anti-Judaic
than the majority reading, and again views it as a deliberate theological reinterpretation,
owing nothing to underlying Semitisms.37 A simpler suggestion is that the D reading is merely
a stylistic improvement, which avoids repetition of the Greek word ½rn»saqe.38
The other alleged Semitism in Acts 2:47, the phrase ™pˆ tÕ aÙtÒ, raises quite different
questions. There is not the same problem of variant readings; it is simply a question of what
the phrase means.39 (It looks as if Codex Bezae reinterpreted it, by appending the phrase ™n tÁ
™kklhs…v Torrey noted that the Greek phrase ought to mean “together” or “in the same
place”, and proceeded to emphasize the inappropriateness of such a sense in Acts 2:47. He
accordingly seized upon an underlying Aramaic lah»daÈ as the explanation. Etymologically this
meant “into one” (hence the Greek rendering), but in contemporary Judaean Aramaic in fact
meant “greatly”. Luke should therefore have said, “The Lord added greatly day by day to the
saved”.40 But was Luke, ex hypothesi, such an incompetent translator? As W. F. Howard
pointed out tersely, “Such a blunder is not likely on the part of one who could give the right
rendering in 6:7”.41 Black went on to challenge the Aramaic basis of Torrey’s contentions; the
Greek phrase would be the equivalent (if Torrey were right) of kah»daÈ, not lah»daÈ.42 Equally
damaging to Torrey’s case is the fact that nowhere else in Acts could the phrase mean
“greatly”.
The immediate alternative explanation would appear to be that we have here a
Septuagintalism; the LXX frequently renders Hebrew yah»ad or yah»daŠw (“together”, “with
one accord”) by ™pˆ tÕ aÙtÒ. But as has been suggested above, the “Biblicisms” category of
Semitisms is as liable to misuse as any other. Thorough examination of New Testament and
patristic documents reveals that the Greek phrase regularly means more
[p.143]
33
In his article, op. cit.
34
Documents of the Primitive Church (New York and London, 1941), p. 145.
35
Cf. Wilcox, op. cit., pp. 140 f.; Black, op. cit., pp. 13 f.
36
Cf. Wilcox, op. cit., pp. 139 f. for details and references.
37
Epp, op. cit., pp. 51-53.
38
Cf. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts (NIC; Grand Rapids, 1954), p. 86 n.
39
There are a number of variant readings, but they all seem to be attempts to clarify the sense; cf. Wilcox, op.
cit., p. 93 n.
40
Torrey, The Composition and Date of Acts, pp. 10-14.
41
In Moulton and Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 2, p. 473. The Greek word in Acts 6:7 is
sfÒdra.
42
Op. cit., p.10.
D.F Payne, “Semitisms in the Books of Acts,” W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic
History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.134-150.
than merely “together” or “with one accord”; it is almost a technical term, denoting “in church
(fellowship)”;43 but such a sense does not arise directly from Old Testament or LXX usage.
Qumran studies have almost certainly cleared up the difficulty: the Qumran documents often
use the Hebrew term yah»adù to denote the (Qumran) community, and the Lucan phrase
prostiqšnai ™pˆ tÕ aÙtÒ seems to be a literal rendering of a Hebrew expression, h’sp lyh»d.44
By whatever route, the Greek phrase owes its origin to a living Hebrew tradition.45
IV
Few of Torrey’s alleged mistranslations have escaped criticism. The instance he himself felt
to be most weighty was 2:47, where, as we have seen, his view has proved untenable. The two
instances Black selected as particularly plausible have been rendered more dubious by Epp’s
researches.46 Even so, there may still survive one or two mistranslations. To decide the
plausibility or probability of them is a very subjective matter, and different scholars will come
to different conclusions. F. F. Bruce, for example, finds two of Torrey’s cases persuasive, and
allows the possibility of several more.47 Wilcox seems to concede the possibility of eighteen
instances, though all of them he describes as “weak”.48 A distinction has to be made between
mistranslation of a Semitic document and a debt to Semitic phraseology; the discussion above
of ™pˆ tÕ aÙtÒ sufficiently shows this, for while Torrey’s view of a mistranslation is
untenable, the phrase is nevertheless based on Semitic usage. Wilcox is dubious about the
presence of actual mistranslations in Acts, but he is far from denying Semitism altogether.
Black, for his part, is inclined to find instances of mistranslation of the ubiquitous Aramaic
particle de at least twice in Acts.49
What of the Biblicisms category? Wilcox has demonstrated that this has been overpressed in
one or two ways. In the first place, the simple fact that a Semitic idiom in the Greek text of
Acts can be paralleled, exactly or approximately, from the LXX does not automatically make
the usage a Biblicism; much depends on the frequency or significance of the LXX parallel.
For instance, the over-literal rendering of the Hebrew expression baŠh»ar be (“to choose”) by
™klšgesqai ™n is rare in the LXX, the correct Greek idiom (™klšgesqai + accusative) being
far more common; for that reason, we ought not to class it as a Septuagintalism
[p.144]
when we meet the phrase in Acts is 15:7.50 As for Septuagintal parallels bearing a different
connotation from the Acts usage, exemplified by ™pˆ tÕ aÙtÒ, they are plainly irrelevant.
There are also, on the other hand, a number of genuine Septuagintalisms in Acts which seem
to have been mediated to Luke through church usage. Wilcox instances the phrase ™n tÍ
43
The AV rendering is thus justified, and seems preferable to that of RSV or NEB.
44
1QS v. 7. Cf. Black, op. cit., p. 10 n.
45
See full discussion of Acts 2:47 in Wilcox, op. cit., pp. 93-100.
46
I.e., Acts 2:47 (the kÒsmon-laÒn variation) and 3:14. Both are discussed supra
47
Acts 3:16; 4:25. Cf. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles2 (London, 1952), ad loc.
48
Op. cit., pp. 153 f.
49
1:17; 7:39. Cf. Black, op. cit., p. 92.
50
Cf. Wilcox, op. cit., pp. 62 f.
D.F Payne, “Semitisms in the Books of Acts,” W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic
History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.134-150.
kard…v (Acts 5:4), a Semitism, but one which is only thrice found in the LXX; the
explanation of its use by Luke may well be the importance to the early church of the story of
David and the bread of the Presence,51 a narrative which in the LXX contains this same Greek
expression at 1 Reigns 21:13.52
In the second place, the undeniable fact of the use of the LXX made by Luke in Acts must be
balanced by other evidence. It is remarkable that of the actual citations from the Old
Testament by Luke, a significant number do not seem to be drawn verbatim from the LXX, as
one might have I expected, if Luke depended so heavily on the LXX. Wilcox has found
citations having affinities with the MT or with other textual traditions, as against the LXX.
Thus in Acts 7:16 par¦ tîn uƒîn 'Emmèr is closer to the MT of Joshua 24:32 than is the
par¦ tîn 'Amorra…wn of LXX;53 while the ¹goÚmenon of 7:10 is not represented in MT or
LXX of Genesis 41:41 ff., but is the equivalent of the s-r-k-n of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.54
Even more interesting, if inconclusive, is the case of 15:16 ff., where James is depicted as
citing Amos 9:11 f. Sparks makes great play of this passage, emphasizing that it presents the
LXX text, which here “not merely diverges from but contradicts the Hebrew in the interests of
universalism”.55 The divergence from the MT is beyond dispute — “the rest of men” is
patently not the same thing as “the remnant of Edom” — but contradiction seems too strong a
word.56 One can also set the LXX against the Targum and the Peshitta. But even so, it may
not be without significance that the first few words of the citation in Acts 15:16 are totally
different from the LXX:
Acts: met¦ taàta ¢nastršyw kaˆ ¢noikodom»sw t¾n skhn»n....
LXX. ™n tÍ ¹mšrv ™ke…nV ¢nast»sw t¾n skhn»n....
If one looks for anything akin to the Acts reading, the nearest text is the partial quotation of
Amos 9:11 found twice in the Qumran literature; it begins with the Hebrew whqymwty, “and I
will raise up”, which seems to require a preceding verb.57 To this small piece of evidence
Wilcox can add only one point: both of the Qumranic citations, like Acts, prefix the words of
the prophet with the introductory formula “as it is written.”
[p.145]
This point, at first sight insignificant, is well taken. J. A. Fitzmyer has listed no fewer than
seventeen introductory formulae used in Acts to prefix old Testament citations, and has found
parallels for the great majority of them in the Qumran texts.58 It is at least clear that for the
first part of this particular citation Acts does not follow the LXX, and that in general it would
be a mistake to lean too heavily on the LXX or to neglect the Qumran literature in any
linguistic scrutiny of the Book of Acts. One may reasonably expect that the Dead Sea Scrolls
will shed more light on the diction of Acts as research progresses. Fitzmyer opines that “the
51
Sam. 21; cf. Mk. 2:25 f.; Matt. 12:3 f.; Lk. 6:3 f.
52
Cf. Wilcox, op. cit., pp. 62 f.
53
Ibid., p. 31.
54
Ibid., p. 27f.
55
Op. cit., p. 20.
56
Cf. Bruce, op. cit., p. 298.
57
CD vii. 16; 4QFlo 1.30. Cf. Wilcox, op. cit., p.49.
58
Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, “Jewish Christianity in Acts in the Light of the Qumran Scrolls”, in L. E. Keck and J. L.
Martyn (eds.), Studies in Luke-Acts (New York and Nashville, 1966; London, 1968), pp. 233-57.
D.F Payne, “Semitisms in the Books of Acts,” W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic
History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.134-150.
influence of Qumran literature on Acts is not so marked as it is in other New Testament
writings (e.g. John, Paul, Matthew, Hebrews)”.59 Nevertheless he has drawn attention in his
article to three idioms or technical terms common to the Qumran scrolls and to Acts, namely,
“the Way” (used absolutely),60 “the fellowship”,61 and “the congregation”.62 If these terms
had not precisely identical connotations for the two communities, the Qumran sect and the
infant Christian church, nevertheless the usage is similar enough to warrant our viewing the
expressions as Semitisms in Acts.
A salutary warning against over-pressing Septuagintal influence on Luke is also to be found in
the statistical count of K. Beyer.63 Most of his investigations to date are concerned with
conditional constructions, and it may be that further research will produce different results;
but he has shown that the syntactical usages so far examined reveal over twice as many
typically Semitic constructions in Acts as there are comparable Septuagintal constructions.
The third gospel exhibits an even greater preponderance of Semitic constructions — 422
examples as against 23 “Septuagintalisms”. In fact, both Luke and Acts have a considerably
higher ratio of Semitic as against Hellenistic Greek constructions than any other New
Testament book except Matthew (which has the highest proportionate quantity of Semitisms
of all).64 It is a pity, however, that Beyer’s statistics relate to books as a whole, and so make
no differentiation between different sections or subsections of Acts.
R. A. Martin has endeavoured to remedy this deficiency in Beyer’s statistics by sampling
three specific aspects of the syntactical data of Acts 1-15, and weighing one section against
another. He concludes that at least thirteen passages are based on Aramaic sources, since they
reveal syntactical marks of translation Greek as opposed to those of original
[p.146]
Greek works.65 The possibility exists that other passages too owe much to Aramaic sources;
but if so, the Semitic elements in them have been more thoroughly eliminated in translation
and editing.
V
That there are Semitisms in Acts is in the last resort undeniable, whatever their origins and
sources. Wilcox has isolated a number of what he calls “hard-core” Semitisms, that is to say,
words and expressions in Acts which cannot be explained on the basis of koine Greek or of
textual corruption. Luke’s indebtedness to the LXX was profound, but it was by no means his
only influence. Other Old Testament textual traditions were known to him; Semitic idioms
common in the contemporary church (or what Wilcox calls “liturgical and apologetical
factors”) affected his diction; and there is no good reason to doubt that he had access to
59
Ibid., p.253.
60
Hebrew drk, Greek ÐdÒj.
61
Hebrew yh»d, Greek koinwn…a.
62
Hebrew hrbym, Greek tÕ plÁqoj.
63
In his Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament.
64
See the table in Beyer, op. cit., p. 298.
65
Art. cit. The passages are: 1:15-26; 2:1-4; 4:5-12, 23-31; 5:17-42; 7:1-53; 9:10-19a, 19b-30, 31-43; 10:26-
43; 11:1-18; 12:1-25; 13:16-41.
D.F Payne, “Semitisms in the Books of Acts,” W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic
History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.134-150.
traditions or documents couched in, or translated from, a Semitic language. The resulting
Seniitisms can be seen here and there in the vocabulary, word-order, grammar, syntax and
idioms of Acts — whatever may be said of mistranslations. However, such Semitic elements
in Luke’s writing must not be pressed to support conclusions which they will not bear. Sparks
emphasizes, after analysis of his specimen passages, that Lucanisms surround the Semitisms.
Wilcox too, on the basis of his more full analysis, asserts that his survey shows that “in almost
every case the material in which they [“hard-core” Semitisms] are embedded has a strongly
Lucan stamp”.66 This fact is probably fatal to such a theory as Torrey’s, although it could
perhaps be argued that the presence of Lucanisms merely serves to show that Luke himself
translated and recast the hypothetical source document(s).67
Of special interest is the question of the distribution of Semitisms in Acts. Torrey’s view that
they were scattered liberally throughout Acts 1-15 but were so rare as to be negligible in the
remaining chapters, was exaggerated in both respects, though it has to be admitted that the
preponderance of Semitisms is in the first half of the book. (This fact is not surprising, in view
of the subject matter and locale, if Acts has the slightest claim to historical accuracy.) What is
now evident is that time and again the Semitisms are to be found in the speeches of Acts.
Black, for instance, finds examples of casus pendens — confined to the speeches;68 some
examples of asyndeton in the D text — many of them in the speeches;69 two instances
[p.147]
of mistranslation of Aramaic de — both in speeches;70 a few cases of the use of a proleptic
pronoun, especially in the D text — mainly in speeches;71 several examples of the indefinite
use of ¥nqrwpoj (=tij) — nearly always in direct speech;72 and two instances of a Semitic
prepositional idiom — both in speech.73 Wilcox’s investigations have a similar result, and be
concludes, “Luke used, or rather seems to have used, some kind of source-material for certain
parts at least of the speeches in Acts.”74 Fitzmyer’s list of seventeen introductory formulae are
without exception located in direct speech; even if the distribution of this feature is not sur-
prising (since citations of Scripture are more natural in speech than in narrative), one must
still ask where they came from. Finally, of R. A. Martin’s thirteen subsections of Acts 1-15
which show indebtedness to Semitic source material, eight consist, in their entirety or almost
so, of direct speech.
Recent study of the language of the Book of Acts, therefore, has done little to undermine the
arguments set forth in F. F. Bruce’s monograph, The Speeches in the Acts of the Apostles,75
where considerable emphasis was laid on the Aramaic substratum of the speeches. Summing
66
Op. cit., p. 177.
67
A translator, after all, is bound to utilize his own favourite vocabulary so far as his material permits; and his
selection from the documents would be determined by the relevance of their contents to his own themes and
purposes.
68
Op. cit., pp. 53 ff.
69
Ibid., p. 59.
70
Ibid., p. 92.
71
Ibid., pp. 99 f.
72
Ibid., p. 106.
73
Ibid., p. 117.
74
Op. cit., p. 177.
75
London, 1944.
D.F Payne, “Semitisms in the Books of Acts,” W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic
History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.134-150.
up, he wrote, “We need not suppose that the speeches in Acts are verbatim reports.... But I
suggest that... the speeches reported by Luke are at least faithful epitomes.”76 The Lucanisms
and Septuagintal diction must of course be taken into account too, but the Semitic substratum
is not to be discounted.77 The argument that Luke used a Semitic type of Greek where he
considered it to be appropriate sounds very reasonable; but the obstinate fact remains that
where we are in a position to check his stylistic policy, i.e., where he has utilized and adapted
Marcan material, he has tended to eliminate Semitisms (while admittedly leaving many
untouched); he has certainly not created many. It is not at all clear why Luke should think
“Semitic” Greek appropriate for the speakers in Luke 1 f. and in Acts, but feel otherwise
about the words and deeds of Jesus.78
Outside the speeches of Acts, some narrative sections appear to contain a greater Semitic
element than others, and Wilcox draws attention to the fact that in general they are passages
having a close connexion of some sort with Antioch.79 So far as the linguistic evidence goes,
it thus tends to support the tradition that Luke was an Antiochene, and also the general
historical reliability of these sections.
[p.148]
VI
We may be sure that research into the Semitisms of Acts will continue, and that Wilcox’s
contribution will not close the topic. Without doubt, other scholars will reject some of his
Semitisms or add to their number. But it will be interesting to see what new avenues of
exploration will yet be opened up. It seems to the present writer that an important need is a
quantitative and qualitative analysis of New Testament Semitisms, balancing one writer
against another, and also paying close attention to the total diction of each individual author.
As it is, Dr Wilcox’s book cannot provide these wider perspectives. There are of course older
works, such as de Zwaan’s useful chapter in The Beginnings of Christianity, entitled “The use
of the Greek language in Acts,”80 taken in conjunction with Lowther Clarke’s “The use of the
Septuagint in Acts”;81 but there is now an urgent need to up-date these treatments. Beyer’s
Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament represents an important first step in this direction.
It is all too often assumed that outside influences upon an author have only positive effects;
but possible negative effects, if fewer in number and more difficult to pin down, may be
equally important. Fitzmyer’s article draws attention to the relevance of this mode of inquiry
to our topic: he suggests that in at least two respects in the book of Acts Luke may have
deliberately avoided Semitic, specifically Qumranic, terminology. The “poor” of Jerusalem,
so much a matter of concern to Paul, are nowhere in Acts described as ptwco… — the obvious
word for them, one would have thought. More remarkable, the term ™p…skopoj appears but
once in the whole book; the sole occurrence of it is in 20:28, on Paul’s lips, when he
76
p. 27.
77
As it would appear to be in the article “Concerning the Speeches in Acts” by E. Schweizer in Keck and
Martyn, op. cit., pp. 208-16.
78
Cf. E. B. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (Century Bible, new ed. London, 1966), p. 3.
79
Op. cit., pp. 178 f.
80
BC vol. 2, pp. 3-65.
81
Ibid., pp. 66-105.
D.F Payne, “Semitisms in the Books of Acts,” W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic
History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.134-150.
addressed church leaders far from Palestinian soil. Fitzmyer thinks it not irrelevant that the
Hebrew equivalents of these nouns, respectively 'bywnym and mbqr, were common technical
terms among the Dead Sea sect. Did Luke feel that such terms, even in Greek, might have
unfortunate connotations for his readers? Or was it his sources which avoided such
terminology? There is clearly room for further inquiry of this sort.
If it could be demonstrated that Luke was indeed sensitive to the possible connotations of
words like ptwco… and ™p…skopoj, then this fact would tend to militate against the view that
he knew nothing but Greek.82 There is no obvious reason why a writer ignorant of Hebrew
and of Palestinian Judaism should avoid such terminology.
While one swallow does not make a summer, nor two missing swallows a winter, this
suggestion of Fitzmyer does point us in a new direction,
[p.149]
namely that of semantics. To what extent, we may ask, does the vocabulary of Acts consist of
Greek words carrying Semitic overtones? Here is a question scarcely touched on by Black or
Wilcox. Their treatment of Semitisms in vocabulary is almost entirely restricted to
transliterations of Semitic words (e.g. 'Akeldamac) and to idioms (e.g. ™klšgesqai ™n). The
only interesting word, from a semantic point of view, discussed by Wilcox is the „dièthj of
Acts 4:13; he suggests that this noun has its “rabbinical” rather than its native Greek
connotation.83
It is not my purpose here to enter into the debate which was raised by J. Barr in his important
book The Semantics of Biblical Language,84 and to which D. Hill’s recent Greek Words and
Hebrew Meanings85 made a contribution of no little value. Both writers would agree, at least,
that the New Testament documents in general do betray thought-forms and concepts alien to
the Greek world, and owing much to the Septuagint. The question whether the distinctive
ideas lie chiefly in the vocabulary itself or in the sentence structure and in the actual
statements made is not particularly relevant to our present purpose. The latter writer, however,
has usefully reminded us that words like “righteousness”, “life” and “spirit” tended to be
employed in different ways in the Hebraic world and in the Greek one, and that the Greek
terms used first in the LXX and subsequently in the New Testament inevitably reflect Hebraic
rather than Greek usage. That being so, we may well ask how far Luke’s handling of
vocabulary reveals a Hellenistic, and how far a Semitic, background. If he were a Gentile and
made little use of source material, we might expect to find a much less Semitic cast of thought
and expression than if he were a bilingual Jew making great use of Semitic source documents
(to talk in terms of extreme positions). Such a study might conceivably show merely that Luke
(whoever he was and whatever documents were available to him) was deeply influenced by
the language of the LXX, as indeed he was; but different results might reveal themselves. We
82
Cf. Moule, op. cit., p. 171.
83
I.e., “an ordinary person” rather than “private person”; cf. Wilcox, op. cit., p. 101. Cf. also Bruce,
Commentary on the Book of the Acts, p. 102 n. This case may be a special one, however, for the equivalent
Semitic word (both Hebrew and Aramaic) is hdywt», itself a loan-word from the Greek. In bilingual areas it is
scarcely likely that 'idièthj and hdywt» would have borne subtly different connotations.
84
London, 1961.
85
SNTS monograph 5. Cambridge, 1967.
D.F Payne, “Semitisms in the Books of Acts,” W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic
History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.134-150.
noted earlier that the phrase ™pˆ tÕ aÙtÒ in Acts had more affinity with Qumran vocabulary
han with either Hellenistic Greek or LXX usage; similar results might possibly emerge from a
thorough semantic investigation of the vocabulary of Luke/Acts.
So far as Acts is concerned, Dr. Hill’s study sheds relatively little light on this problem. In any
case, soteriological terms (to which Hill’s attention is restricted in his monograph) will have
been common currency in the early church, in quasi-technical senses, drawn from and based
on the LXX; therefore, no early Christian is likely to have used them in a purely
[p.150]
Hellenistic sense.86 It is intriguing, nevertheless, that of the terms examined by Hill,
ƒl£skomai and cognates never occur in Acts, lÚpron and cognates only once, zw¾ (a„ènioj)
rarely, d…kaioj and dikaiosÚnh seldom; and that all of them are found only in direct
speech,87 and may therefore derive from Luke’s sources. By contrast, pneàma is of course
ubiquitous in Acts. The rarity of the other terms may mean anything or nothing. The Book of
Acts is largely narrative in character, and thus would have little use for abstract and
theological terminology except in the speeches; the Spirit, on the other hand, was no abstract,
passive Being in Luke’s view of the matter!
Modern linguistic science might suggest another method of approach to the vocabulary of the
New Testament, namely the study of “semantic fields”. This approach has been pioneered for
Old Testament Hebrew by T. Donald, in an article where he examined the implications of the
various Hebrew words associated with folly in the Wisdom literature of the Old Testament,
assessing in particular the overtones of culpability carried by the differing terms.88 It is
conceivable that comparisons of semantic fields in Hebrew or Aramaic with their counterparts
in Greek would throw some light on Luke’s use of vocabulary. But a great deal of basic
research would need to be done before any effective comparative work became possible.
It is a privilege and an honour for me to have the opportunity of offering this slim tribute to
Professor Bruce, who first introduced me to the Greek text of Acts, who first taught me three
of the Semitic languages, and whose friendship and guidance I value increasingly with the
passing years.
© 1970 The Paternoster Press. Reproduced by kind permission of the publisher.
Converted to PDF by Robert I Bradshaw in May 2005.
[Link]
86
This applies to other common terms too, such as ™kklhs…a. It is difficult to accept the view of E. M.
Blaiklock that in Acts 7:38 ™kklhs…a “bears its Greek connotation” and “views Israel through the eyes of Greek
city organization” (The Acts of the Apostles, TNTC, London, 1959, ad loc.). In the LXX, ™kklhs…a commonly
renders Hebrew qāhāl, and this is surely the background here. The previous verse cites Dt. 18:15; and Dt. 18: 16
immediately goes on to refer to “the day of the assembly” (LXX ™kklhs…a).
87
The sole exception is the occurrence of dikaiosÚnh in 24:25; but here too the word is probably so to speak
between quotation marks.
88
Cf. T. Donald, “The Semantic Field of ‘Folly’ in Proverbs, Job, Psalms and Ecclesiastes,” VT 13 (1963), pp.
285-92.