Thursday, December 10, 2009

It’s funny when you notice things that scribes noticed as well.

I was reading through Acts and came across Acts 9.23-25:

23 When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, 24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, 25 but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.  (Acts 9:23–25, ESV)

I thought, “huh. Didn’t realize Saul had disciples.” Here’s the Greek of v. 25:

25 λαβόντες δὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ νυκτὸς διὰ τοῦ τείχους καθῆκαν αὐτὸν χαλάσαντες ἐν σπυρίδι. (Ac 9.25, NA27)

Then I looked at the NA27 apparatus to see if there were variants here. Other people have thought the same thing I did, and figured they needed to fix it.

Some MSS simply remove αὐτοῦ thus removing the issue with “his” (“and the disciples took him by night”). Others change οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ to αυτον οἱ μαθηταὶ, thus making explicit the formerly implicit object “him” in “took him by night” and removing the “his” from “his disciples”). Note that the text behind the KJV follows this latter option: “Then the disciples took him by night”.

Ain’t this fun?

Post Author: rico
Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:14:53 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [4]
Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:44:40 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Hi Rick. Yes, and it is even more interesting when we note that Paul has supposedly only just been converted, so I think it's a chronological clue. Some observations on my blog here: http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/chronological-clue-in-acts-925.html

Cheers
Mark
Thursday, December 10, 2009 7:05:08 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Yes, it was the chronology that surprised me too -- he's still referred to as "Saul" and he has disciples? Thanks for the link!
Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:16:14 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
The "chronological clue" is that Paul has made a (2-3 year) visit to Arabia, which Luke chooses not to mention, and has gained disciples there. It is appropriate that Luke should write "HIS" disciples because in Arabia he was, presumably, preaching alone rather than as a part of a team. These disciples cannot have been from Damascus because Paul would than have been well known in Christian circles as a convert and the believers in Jerusalem would not have suspected him (Acts 9:26).

We need to remember that Luke is always careful not to provide ammunition to opponents of the church, so he avoids giving any hint that the Christians were trouble makers. Thus, he is silent about the trouble that Paul got into with Aretas and indeed avoids all mention of Paul's stay in Arabia (where presumably Paul had first got into trouble with these civil authorities). Luke's decision not to mention Arabia explains why he does not record the conversion of the "his disciples".

Rick, the observations that you and Mark Goodacre make about "his disciples" are good, but I am not convinced by Mark's attempts at a radical chronological displacement.
Richard Fellows
Friday, December 11, 2009 1:27:10 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
never seen this as well. Interesting, and it fits the Early Judaism paradigm: Jesus, Hillel, Shammai, Gamliel and Paul all had disciples. But now what should we understand under Paul's disciples? Were they inner circle closely trained followers vis-a-vis the general populous of converts he addressed in the Asia, Greece, Roman congregatians? Eg would Timothy, Apollos, Priscilla, Aquilla be considered disciples?
Stefan
Comments are closed.