This article appears in Ethics in Acts (ed. Thomas E. Phillips; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005).  This rough draft is not for citation.

Paul as a Role Model in Acts:

The “We”-Passages in Acts 16 and Beyond

Thomas E. Phillips
 

            In a recent issue of ZNW, A. J. M. Wedderburn examined the “we”-passages in Acts and began by noting that the “long debated problem” concerning “the phenomenon of the “we”-passages in the Book of Acts” shows “little sign of reaching a consensus or a satisfactory conclusion.”  For Wedderburn, this unresolved problem was particularly significant for NT scholarship because its resolution had significant “implications for the authorship of this work [Acts], and therefore, however indirectly, for the trustworthiness and credibility of the information given there and thus in turn for the role that this work can or should play in the reconstruction of the history of the earliest church.”[1]  As he surveyed the existing explanations for the presence of the “we”-passages within Acts, Wedderburn was concerned not only to explain why these passages appear in Acts but also to “explain why the ‘we’ occurs so infrequently.”[2]  By supplementing familiar questions about the “we”-passages with a new concern for the frequency of these occurrences, Wedderburn significantly advanced the conversation. 

            For his part, Wedderburn explained the infrequency of first person narrative by appealing to the constraints of tradition.  He suggested that the “we”-passages reflect the recollections of a traveling companion of Paul’s (perhaps Luke, or perhaps an otherwise unknown figure).  Interestingly though, Wedderburn did not regard the first person narration as the work of the traveling companion himself (neither through authorship of Acts nor through some sort of ancient diary).  Rather the “we”-passages were produced by a disciple of Paul’s fellow traveler.  For Wedderburn, the “we”-passages were produced by “a pupil second-hand, the pupil of that pupil who had accompanied the apostle on some of his travels.”[3]  By employing a literary technique similar to the deutero-Pauline authors’ assumption of Paul’s identity, the author of Acts assumed the identity of his mentor (who had been a disciple of Paul). 

            Wedderburn then explained the infrequency of the “we”-passages by arguing that the author of Acts was limited by existing traditions about the traveler’s known whereabouts.  The “we”-passages appear infrequently because the author of Acts is geographically limited by existing traditions. 

            Even though Wedderburn’s proposal has significant explanatory value, his proposal, like most competing theories about the “we”-passages, investigates the first person narrative only as a historical problem.  His proposal addresses only questions related to the origin, authorship, and historical reliability of these traditions.  While such questions are interesting and important, they are not the only interesting and important questions.  Literary and narrative questions can also be interesting and important—even though they have not often been asked in regard to these “we”-passages.  Therefore, in this article, I want to ask a previously neglected narrative question: what is the literary effect of the “we”-passages within the narrative of Acts?  Specifically, I want to ask a temporal question: what is the significance of the temporal location of the first person narration in Acts?

            As I proceed to investigate the effect of the first person narration within Acts, I will advance two theses.  First, I will argue that the presence of first person narrative places the narrator (and the implied author) of Acts in post-apostolic times with Paul, the post-apostolic witness to the gospel, and that this temporal framework enables Paul to become the primary role model for the readers of Acts.  Second, I will argue that this understanding of the temporal framework of Acts enables the reader to historicize many of the traditions about the apostles, particularly the troubling traditions about the community of goods (2:44-45; 4:32-35).

The Temporal Location of the Narrator of Acts

            In the most widely accepted text of Acts, the “we”-passages appear for the first time after Acts 16:10.[4]  After introducing this first person narration into the story, the narrator makes intermittent appearances in the narrative (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-29; 28:1-16).[5]  Although various scholars have suggested that the first person narration appears when the author draws upon a written first person source,[6] narrates sea voyages,[7] or imitates Homer,[8] none of these explanations is—as Wedderburn noted[9]—entirely convincing.  Although the precise rationale for the timing of the narrator’s subsequent appearances and disappearances from Acts remains elusive, the appearance of the “we”-passages in only the second half of Acts is significant.  All of the narrator’s participation in the narrative occurs after the apostles’ disappearance from the narrative.

The narrator and the apostles have different temporal locations in Acts.  The narrator never participates in the narrative with the apostles.  Beginning with the prefaces (the earliest first person narration in Luke-Acts), the narrator maintained a temporal distance between himself and the events being narrated.  In the preface to the third gospel, the narrator self-consciously separated himself from the earlier “eyewitnesses” and “servants of the word”[10] whom the narrator credits with handing down the accounts “to us” (Luke 1:1-4).  As William Kurz has observed, the narrator of Luke-Acts assumed the role of the first person histor in the preface of Luke, but shifted to the role of omniscient third person narrator as soon as he completed his preface in the gospel.  The narrator maintained this distance from narrative events throughout the gospel, but then briefly returned to the role of histor in the early verses of Acts (1:1-2).  After the preface of Acts, the narrator again shifted back to the role of omniscient third person narrator through the first half of Acts.[11]  With the exception of the prefaces, the narrator distances himself from the events in the narratives until—but only until—Paul’s “Macedonian call” (Acts 16:6-10).  Then, in the story of Paul’s Macedonian call, the narrator began to participate in the events which he narrated (16:10ff), explaining how Paul’s vision of a Macedonian man led “us” to realize the need to preach in Macedonia and how “we” traveled to Macedonia and stayed there for some days (16:10-12).  At this point, therefore, the narrator temporarily steps out of the role of omniscience third person narrator and moves back into the previously abandoned role of first person histor.

As a literary analysis, this investigation is interested in the effect of the narrator’s choice to enter the narrative at this relatively late point in the narrative of Luke-Acts.   What is the literary effect of the narrator carefully excluding himself from three fourths of Luke-Acts and then including himself within the final quarter of his narrative?  The answer is, I believe, that the narrator identifies with the temporal location of Paul and of the reader.

Paul, the narrator’s occasional travel mate, dominates the last half of Acts where the narrator participates in the events being narrated.  As has often been noted, the author of Acts is quite reluctant to include Paul among the apostles (cf. 14:4,14).  The reason for this reluctance is that the ministry of apostleship is limited to those with a particular relationship to the “previous events,”[12] that is, to those who have both walked with the pre-crucified Jesus and witnessed his resurrection—as did the original twelve and Judas’ potential replacements, Joseph and Matthias (1:1-2, 21-22).[13]  In the language of Luke’s preface, Paul was not an “eyewitness,” even though he would eventually become a “servant of the word.”  Because Paul was not an eyewitness to the historical ministry of Jesus, the preferred title for him in Acts is “witness” rather than “apostle.”[14]  

Although Paul frequently interacts with the apostles in Acts, he is excluded from sharing in their unique authority.  In fact, he is even required to “go up to Jerusalem to the apostles” in order to get their approval for his message (15:2).  Regardless of how the historical Paul would have viewed his implied subordination to the twelve (cf. Gal. 1-2), the Paul of Acts is excluded from full apostolic authority in spite of his considerable contact with the apostles.  Acts’ reluctance to grant Paul apostolic authority stems from Acts’ textual strategy of placing Paul in a post-apostolic temporal location within the narrative.  Of course, Paul is not post-apostolic in the sense that his ministry completely postdates the ministry of the apostles.  Rather Paul is post-apostolic in the sense that his ministry begins after the closure of apostolic ranks, a closure which took place with Matthias’ election as Judas’ replacement. 

Paul’s identification as non-apostolic and post-apostolic is important because his traveling partner (whose identity—Wedderburn would have us believe—was assumed by the narrator of Acts) is completely post-apostolic in the narrative.  On the one hand, the narrator, like Paul, was not qualified for the ministry of apostleship.  The narrator, like Paul, did not have the required relationship to the “previous events.”  The narrator, like Paul, had not walked with the historical Jesus.  On the other hand, the narrator, unlike Paul, had not even participated in apostolic times.  Paul had participated in apostolic times.  Whereas Paul, unlike the narrator, entered the narrative after the closure of apostolic ranks and was post-apostolic in that limited sense, the narrator entered the narrative after the apostles had passed entirely from the narrative.  The narrator was therefore fully post-apostolic. 

As the protagonists of the first half of Acts, the apostles dominate the first half of Acts.  They receive instructions from the Holy Spirit (1:2), add Matthias to their ranks (1:26), provide instructions to the new believers (2:37), perform wonders and signs (2:43; 5:12), serve as witnesses to the resurrection (4:33), assign names (4:36), are arrested (5:18), defend the faith before the Jewish council (5:29), are flogged (5:40), lay hands on the deacons (6:6), show hospitality to the newly converted Saul (9:27), and preside over the “apostolic conference” (15:1-29). 

In spite of their prominence in the first 15 chapters of Acts, the apostolic conference of Acts 15 serves as their swan song in the narrative.  After sanctioning the Gentile mission in this apostolic conference, the apostles fall completely out of the narrative.  Their influence spills over into the subsequent narrative as the final “decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem” were disseminated to the Christian communities (16:4).[15]  However, despite this brief reference to the apostles’ earlier activity, their physical presence disappears from the narrative immediately after the apostolic conference.

The narrator’s entry into the narrative only after this conference is significant because the apostolic conference of Acts 15 marks a generational change within the Christian community.  The apostles (and Barnabas) stand on one side of this generational change.  The narrator stands on the other side.  The narrator never shared the stage with the apostles, because the apostles belonged to a different—a previous—historical era.  The narrator did not position himself as a witness to apostolic history, but rather positioned himself as a witness to post-apostolic history.  In this way, the narrator shares a common temporal location with his readers.  The readers, who are separated temporally from the earlier apostles, are able to identify with the narrator’s post-apostolic temporal location.[16]  The narrator identifies temporally with his post-apostolic readers.  By the use of first person narrative, the narrator completely separates himself from the time of the apostles.[17]  

            The readers, both real and implied, stand with the narrator in post-apostolic times.  The key figure is Paul, the only major character (besides Philip the deacon[18]) to stand in both apostolic and post-apostolic times.  Since the readers, like the narrator, were entirely post-apostolic, they needed a role model for their post-apostolic times, but they also needed reassurance that their role model had apostolic sanction.  The narrator, due to his lack of apostolic sanction, could not supply the needed reassurance, but Paul could.  Paul, as a post-apostolic figure with apostolic experience and approval, fit the bill perfectly—and Paul became the role model for Acts’ post-apostolic readers.  Paul’s post-apostolic status ensured his relevance to the readers; his interaction with the apostles ensured his credibility to the readers. 

 By having the non-apostolic Paul active in both apostolic and post-apostolic times, the narrator was able to position Paul as a post-apostolic witness with apostolic sanction.  In this way, the narrator was able to have it both ways.  Paul could stand with the narrator in post-apostolic times and thus be relevant to the post-apostolic times of the reader.  And yet, Paul could enjoy apostolic sanction and thus also provide an authoritative role model for post-apostolic Christian witnesses.  I, therefore, propose that the temporal framework of Acts portrays the apostolic conference (Acts 15) as a transitional point within early Christian history.  The events which precede the conference belong to apostolic history and the events which follow the conference belong to post-apostolic history.  The continuity between these two eras is provided by the character of Paul.  Paul stands in post-apostolic times with the narrator and readers, but he has also participated in apostolic times and has received apostolic sanction.  Paul, therefore, has the correct temporal location to serve as an apostolically sanctioned, but post-apostolic, role model for the post-apostolic readers of Acts.

Ethics and the Temporal Framework of Acts: The Community of Goods

            If the preceding analysis of the temporal framework of Acts is essentially correct and the “we”-passages place the narrator of Acts within the same post-apostolic temporal location as the readers of Acts, and if the analysis is likewise essentially correct to suggest that Paul provides the primary role model for these post-apostolic readers, then the question easily follows: What difference does it make?  How does Paul differ as a role model from the apostolic role models who preceded him?  Employing Paul as a role model makes a significant difference in at least one area—economic life.  The apostles participated in a short-lived collectivist community of goods that has troubled interpreters for generations.  The apostles lived in a community where individuals often sold their goods and donated the proceeds to the apostles who distributed the revenue among community members who held all things in common (2:44-45; 4:32-35).  While operating under the presumption that the apostles serve as the primary role models in Acts, generations of readers have struggled to understand how such an idealistic model should be interpreted and appropriated.  However, if Paul—and not the apostles—is deemed one’s primary role model in Acts, the normative status of the community of goods becomes less troublesome.  In the following analysis, this article will briefly survey the troubled history of interpretation of these traditions, and then explain how an appreciation for the temporal framework of Acts enables one to offer a coherent and plausible reading of these passages.

The Community of Goods as an Unresolved Problem

            Under the influence of historical criticism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, historical questions typically preceded (and often overwhelmed) normative questions.  Therefore, throughout much of the twentieth century, readers typically began their investigations of the community of goods by attempting to discern the origin and historical reliability of these traditions.  The results of such investigations tended to reflect the fundamental differences within Lukan scholarship on questions of historicity.  On the one hand, many readers could discern almost no historically reliable information within these traditions, regarding them as “a mere ideal.”[19]  Although the ideals promoted through this depiction of the Jerusalem community were seldom dismissed as insignificant, and, indeed, were often regarded as highly significant for understanding the identity and self-understanding of early Christianity as portrayed in Acts, these traditions were typically interpreted so that the social and economic structures contained within them provided normative lessons about Christian love or the identity or unity of the church rather than providing normative lessons about proper social and economic structures for the Christian community. [20] 

On the other hand, among readers who believed that they could discern some significant measure of historically reliable information within these traditions, the subsequent concern often became explaining why the community of goods was apparently so short-lived.  One interpretive trend tended to explain the brevity of the community of goods by regarding these arrangements as a failed experiment which was motivated by religious enthusiasm and eschatological expectation.[21]  Among such readers, this social and economic experiment was sometimes regarded as noble, but its failure ensured that its specific structures were never regarded as normative for subsequent Christian communities.  Another interpretive trend suggested that the brevity of the community of goods resulted from the brevity of the historically unique (and temporary) social and religious situation which created the need for the community of goods within the Jerusalem community.[22]  Among such readers, the social and economic structures of the community of goods were obviously not normative outside of their original early first century Jerusalem context.  Only the “spirit of self-denial,” and not the “details” of the community’s social and economic structures, was regarded as normative in such readings.[23]

Both interpretive traditions, therefore, negated the normative status of the social and economic structures of the community of goods.  One tradition denied the historicity of the traditions and interpreted them as historical fiction in the service of more important theological ideals.  The other tradition acknowledged various degrees of historicity behind the community of goods traditions but interpreted them either as a failure, which was unworthy of emulation, or as a temporary arrangement, which was impossible to emulate because of the Jerusalem community’s unique and unrepeatable social and religious context. 

The only notable resistance to these scholarly traditions of negating the normative status of the social and economic structures of the community of goods came from communistic and socialist interpreters.  Not surprisingly, however, under the pressures of both political and academic scrutiny, these communistic historical reconstructions and the normative claims derived from them have held little persuasive power for the majority of critical readers of Acts. 

            For contemporary readers, the question, therefore, becomes: If, on the one hand, scholarly negation of the normative status of the social and economic structures of the community of goods has been based upon such extratextual considerations as (1) the perceived lack of historicity behind the traditions, or (2) the supposed failure of the practices within the traditions to sustain their original community, or (3) the supposed historical uniqueness of the community described in the text, and if, on the other hand, scholarly affirmation of the normative status of the social and economic structures of the community of goods has been rooted in an anachronistic application of Marxist ideology, is there any guidance within the text of Acts itself to assist in determining the normative status of these traditions?  I believe that such guidance does exist and that Acts provides this guidance by employing a temporal framework that historicizes the traditions associated with the community of goods.

Placing the Community of Goods in the Temporal Framework of Acts

             The temporal framework of Acts, which places the narrator and Paul in post-apostolic times, has profound implications for the way in which one understands the normative status of the unusual social and economic structures of the community of goods.  The temporal framework that has history turn a page after the apostolic conference enables the reader to determine the normative status of the social and economic structures of the community of goods traditions in Acts.  “Back then,” in the time of the apostles (particularly Peter as their primary representative), things were different, and communitarianism was the appropriate norm.  “But now,” in the time of the narrator (and Paul), that once appropriate norm has been relegated to by-gone apostolic times—and as a community structure that appears only in the early chapters of Acts, the community of goods was emphatically an institution associated with apostolic times in Acts.  Only the apostles and the deacons appointed by the apostles were qualified to distribute resources within the community of goods (4:35; 5:1; 6:1-7). 

After the apostolic era, however, readers, who stand with Paul and the narrator in post-apostolic times, should imitate their role model: the reliable witness, Paul.  And how was Paul’s economic life characterized?  Although the parallels between Peter and Paul in Acts have long been noted,[24] it is the differences between Peter and Paul that have attracted the attention of interpreters of issues of wealth and poverty in Acts.[25]  In Acts, the economic status of Peter and Paul, the two main characters in the book, is portrayed quite differently.[26]  On the one hand, Peter participates fully in the Jerusalem community of goods (2:37-47; 4:32-37).  Peter is apparently without significant financial resources of his own (3:6) and he never serves as a benefactor in his own right.  In spite of Peter’s self-proclaimed poverty and his apparent inability to serve as a benefactor in his own right, the appropriateness of the community of goods in the time of apostolic activity is affirmed by Peter’s role as the primary agent in charge of distributing benefactions within the community (4:32-35; 5:1-11).[27]  On the other hand, Paul never engaged in a community of goods.  In fact, Paul claimed to have supported both himself and his traveling companions (20:34).  Whereas Peter, as an apostle, had gifts laid at his feet, Paul, as a post-apostolic witness, insisted that he was a benefactor in his own right (20:35), not merely an agent in charge of the community’s benefactions.  In fact, the Paul of Acts is a self-supporting benefactor who claims to have gone to Jerusalem primarily to give offerings and alms to his people (24:17).[28]  While in Jerusalem, Paul apparently had access to significant financial resources because he could underwrite the considerable costs associated with the fulfillment of a Nazarite vow (21:23-26).[29]  These financial resources apparently traveled with Paul, because Felix found reason to hope for a bribe from Paul (24:26) and, as William Ramsay, noted, “a rich Roman official did not look for a small gift.”[30]  Paul was even able to support himself financially throughout his expensive two year imprisonment in the city of Rome (28:30).[31]  In light of all these factors, Luke Johnson is undoubtedly correct to suggest that the author of Acts “knew of Paul’s being in possession of considerable funds.”[32]  

Some scholars have accounted for this difference between the characterization of the economic lives of Peter and Paul by suggesting the presence of sociological maturation and increased institutionalization within early Christianity.[33]  The different characterizations may, to some degree, reflect the differences between actual economic and social realities present in the lives of Peter and Paul.  However, when subjected to a literary analysis conducted at the level of the narrative in Acts, these differences in economic characterization coincide with the differences in the temporal locations of Peter and Paul.   First, Peter’s apostleship and his participation in the community of goods are historicized as events in long gone apostolic times, resulting in the negation of the normative status of the social and economic structures of the community of goods traditions.  Then, Paul’s post-apostolic life and his participation in the normal economic affairs of the Greco-Roman world provide a role model for the post-apostolic readers of Acts.

As the post-apostolic role model for the readers of Acts, Paul worked hard at his vocation; he handled his own finances and was even financially independent.  He was not greedy.  In fact, he was generous.  The Paul of Acts insists,

I coveted no one’s sliver or gold or clothing.  You know for yourselves that I
            worked with my own hands to support myself and my companions.  In all this I
            have given you an example that by such work we must support the weak (20:33-
            35a, NRSV). [34] 

According to Paul’s claims in Acts, he essentially participated in the normal social and economic structures of a diaspora Jew within Greco-Roman society.[35]  The social and economic structures of the community of goods are historicized and their normative status is confined to the previous apostolic era.[36]  The social and economic structures of the community of goods were appropriate to the times of apostolic activity, but were supplanted by the post-apostolic practices exemplified by Paul. 

In Acts, this image of Paul as a self-supporting and generous person with a considerable amount of his own money serves a normative function.  The image of Paul is offered as an example for post-apostolic readers who stand with the narrator and Paul.  The contrasting image of Peter as one who lived within the community of goods which was sustained by the generosity of others and as one who possessed no economic resources of his own is historicized and its normative status is negated.  The continuity between these two contrasting images is maintained by the apostolic sanction of Paul and of his message in Acts 15.   The social and economic practices of Paul may be different than those of the apostles, but the post-apostolic Paul could be trusted because he had been commended by the apostles.   Peter stands in apostolic times and the unusual social and economic implications of the traditions associated with him are historicized by the narrator’s and reader’s temporal identification with Paul in post-apostolic times.  Understanding the temporal framework of Acts—and especially its placement of Paul and the narrator in post-apostolic times with the reader—become the key to understanding the text’s historicizing of the much discussed community of goods.

Conclusion

            In this article, I have suggested the “we”-passages in Acts—regardless of their origin—provide the literary context for understanding the temporal framework of Acts.  Specifically, I have suggested that the “we”-passages in Acts provide a temporal framework that places the narrator of Acts and Paul, the protagonist of second half of Acts, in post-apostolic times with the reader.  I have also argued that an examination of the history of scholarship on the community of goods traditions in Acts highlights the need for an investigation into the normative status of the social and economic structures of these traditions and that the matter should be investigated on the basis of the text itself, not on the bases of extratextual or ideological presuppositions.  Finally, I have suggested that the temporal framework of Acts historicizes the stringent social and economic structures of the community of goods, negating their normative status.  In regard to social and economic issues, the post-apostolic witness Paul, not the apostle Peter, serves as the role model for the post-apostolic readers of Acts.

Appendix

            No problem in Lukan studies is more significant and yet more perplexing than the problem of the textual history of Acts.  The two manuscripts traditions were once labeled “Alexandrian” and “western” with the longer western text being widely dismissed as containing a series of later additions.  For example, Ernst Haenchen’s classic commentary deems it “probable that the original text of the Lucan work is not far different from” from the best Alexandrian texts[37] and Hans Conzelmann could confidently assert the “superiority” of the Alexandrian text.[38]  Although more restrained confidence in the priority of the Alexandrian text continues to be voiced within scholarship,[39] leading textual critics are now both increasingly defending earlier dates for the western text[40] and also suggesting the need to revise the system dividing manuscripts into distinctively Alexandrian and western traditions.[41]  Although the relationship between the textual traditions cannot be solved here,[42] we should briefly note how the differences between “we”-passages in the Alexandrian and western traditions affect the temporal structure of Acts in each (loosely defined) textual tradition.

            In the western tradition, as represented by Codex Bezae, the “we”-passages begin with Acts 11:28 and thus appear to render the argument made in this article untenable for the (typically western) texts which contain this variant.  Still, even in Codex Bezae (and the western texts which parallel it), the “we”-passages continue to serve as a means of identifying the narrator with the readers and the Pauline witness.  The alternative location of the first “we”-passages in the western tradition does not alter the basic temporal framework of the narrative.  Rather the alternative location of the first “we”-passage simply corresponds to other theological changes in the western text.  In the Alexandrian text, the two primary character types are apostles (Peter and the twelve) and non-apostles (Paul and the narrator).  In the Alexandrian tradition, the narrator is temporally located with the second group, non-apostles like Paul.  In the western text, the two primary character types are Jews and gentiles.  In the western tradition, the narrator is temporally located with the second group, the gentiles.

            Nearly a generation ago, Eldon Epp observed the “anti-Judaic” tendencies of the western text.[43]  More recently, scholars have also noticed the diminished respect for the apostles[44] and the increased attention to Paul’s growing identification with the gentile mission[45] in the western tradition.  By locating the first “we”-passage at 11:28 (after  the conversion of Cornelius and Peter’s vision forbidding him to exclude the gentiles), the narrator of the western tradition is identifying with gentile believers instead of identifying with the Jewish believers.  For the (presumably gentile) readers of the western texts, the narrator’s temporal identification with the later gentile church (instead of the earlier Jewish church) functions in much the same way as the Alexandrian narrator’s temporal identification with the later Pauline ethos (instead of the earlier apostolic ethos).  The presence of the first person narrative at 11:28 in the western text is, therefore, consistent with the anti-Jewish and pro-gentile tendencies of the western text.  The temporal framework of the western text is similar to that of the Alexandrian—even though the temporal categories become Jewish versus gentile, rather than apostolic versus post-apostolic.