Did Pentecost happen?A scattering of opinions:
Gerd Lüdemann says: ‘Certainly the report of Acts about the events of Pentecost is, in the present form, unhistorical’ (Das frühe Christentum, 54)
Hans Küng says: ‘Did such a Pentecostal assembly take place historically? Given our sources, that can no longer be decided, but it is quite possible’ (Credo, 128)
Ben Witherington III says: ‘It is not convincing to argue that Luke invented the notion of the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost’ (The Acts of the Apostles, 130, fn. 5)
Wolfhart Pannenberg says: ‘Defining the historical core of the event is difficult in view of the many layers that seem to have been imposed in the process of handing down and in Luke’s editing. Most exegetes are inclined to assume that at the first Jewish Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection the disciples could have had an experience of collective enthusiasm that came to expression in ecstatic speech. But it is hard to say anything more precise ... It is appropriate, then, to evaluate the Lukan story of Pentecost above all as a theological statement about the relation between the church and the Spirit that has found expression in Luke’s reworking of the older tradition’ (Systematic theology, 13-14, 15)
I H Marshall is of the opinion: ‘It all happened, guv, right down to the last details’ (not an exact quote)
R. F. Zehnle: ‘Happened? Naah, none of it’ (not an exact quote)
Chris Tilling personally thinks that a couple of Germans have recently put the ball in the court of those who fundamentally distrust Acts as credible history, namely Rainer Riesner (Paul’s Early Period) and Eckhard Schnabel (Early Christian Mission). Besides, a methodological scepticism, as some would have it, that must have every detail independently verified for it to be history is hardly fair. Nevertheless, aspects of the narrative, the dating scheme, and Peter’s speech, are likely not entirely historical.
What do you think?
20 comments:
Well if Gerd Lüdemann says it's not historical then it can't possibly be!
Seriously though, I think it's a bit like the resurrection in that if you deny its historicity then you're left with more questions than answers. The ecstatic and charismatic experiences of the early church would, I think, require a Pentecost-type event for their pneumatology to make sense.
Interesting post Chris. I see no reason to doubt the historicity of the event itself (granting, maybe, certain details as you pointed out).
It certainly gives a nice parallel account to the Tower of Babel (which I think is perhaps more in doubt as a historical fact than Pentecost). I don't suppose that is why many NT scholars tend to doubt the historicity of Pentecost, is it?
Personally, I think Pentecost happened much as Luke describes it - his sources being actual participants - but that sounds rather conservative on my part, doesn't it? ;-)
Great post Chris. Something big happened that day, with thousands converting. Why make up something to explain it. For now, I'm going to believe it happened. I've gotten used to the idea that several OT stories are metaphors and analogies. I'm not ready to embrace the idea that Peter went on a Dale Carnegie publick speaking course and rouse the disciples with a great speech.
I haven't studied this question at all, so I have more questions than answers.
If Acts 2 is unhistorical, then when did the Holy Spirit come in the experience of the first disciples?
Elsewhere in the New Testament, the Holy Spirit is communicated to one individual at a time, typically in association with baptism and the laying on of hands. What, then, happened in the case of those who were already followers of Jesus during his earthly ministry?
There is no suggestion that they received the Holy Spirit before Christ's resurrection. John 7:39 seems to capture a historical fact, "as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified".
Obviously the resurrection had a huge psychological impact on the disciples. Did the Spirit come immediately after the resurrection, when their hearts were filled with a renewed conviction that Jesus was God's chosen?
The only indication of such a history is found in John 20:22; but John makes no mention of any manifestation of the Spirit on that occasion.
Otherwise, we are left with Luke's account:
(1) Jesus was raised, but a gap of several weeks passed before the Church had any experience of the Holy Spirit; and
(2) when the gift of the Spirit came, it came not to individuals, but to a group of believers en masse.
I think the second point must be historical. If the Holy Spirit came to a single individual — Peter, say — that individual must then have communicated the Spirit to the others. Surely that would have left some trace on the record!
Thus it is plausible to affirm, with both Luke and John, that the Spirit came in a group setting. Whatever the date and physical setting may have been — that occasion was "Pentecost".
I guess I've talked my way 'round to affirming, Yes, it's historical.
The devotional reality, or even liturgical reality, of Pentecost isn't dependant on historicity. Especially for those of us who have had Pentecost-ish experiences in liturgical settings. Those things mark you and sweep you up into the story that has been told and is being told by Luke and the Church. I don't doubt the historicity, but if it were all of a sudden disproven it would not effect my experience. Makes me think of Paul meeting Jesus in the Last Temptation - "My Holy Spirit wouldn't have disappointed us at Pentecost".
The quest for the historical Holy Spirit perhaps?
I'll go conservative with t.b. Vick on this one-the use of Babel language is but a rhetorical device, which I see causing no reason to question the historicity of Acts. So here is my take: I have little doubt that Pentecost didn't literally happen as described by Luke in Acts 2, but I also have no doubt that it happened as Luke presents in Acts 2. How's that for ambiguous?
Hi Steve,
‘if you deny its historicity then you're left with more questions than answers’ – I agree, yes.
Hi Todd,
but that sounds rather conservative on my part, doesn't it?
Sounded like a screaming Fundie having a grumpy day!
Hi Jason, nice to hear from you.
‘Why make up something to explain it?’ To make the Christian story sound better! But I think there must be an historical kernel – otherwise indeed, why make it up!
Hi Q,
Nice lot of questions!
‘The only indication of such a history is found in John 20:22.’
You may be interested to read what Dunn has to say about this association.
‘Thus it is plausible to affirm, with both Luke and John, that the Spirit came in a group setting.’
Yes, indeed. Nice thoughts.
Hi Frank,
‘I don't doubt the historicity, but if it were all of a sudden disproven it would not effect my experience.’
I know what you mean.
Hi Michael,
:-)
P.S. I’ve only just discovered your blog – via Ben, and I’m very much enjoying it.
Hi Derek,
Ambiguous is good with me!
It seems strange to leave the work of the Spirit out of the picture when we are discussing the historicity of Luke's account of Pentecost. Is not the inspiration of the NT one of the concequences of Pentecost? John 16:13 points us in that direction.
Maybe the Holy Spirit, who was poured out upon the Church on the Day of Pentecost, so guided Luke as he wrote his account of the event, that what he wrote was true and accurate? But, then again, if Pentecost didn't happen, the Bible isn't inspired anyway!
I'm with Howard Marshall on this one, but with a Welsh rather than cockney accent. Would the historical Howard Marshall really say "guv"?
'‘It is not convincing to argue that Luke invented the notion of the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost’
John 20:21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
What are the chances of two, independet authors both inventing a story of the disciples becoming empowered by receiving the Holy Spirit?
Pretty slim, surely.
'Obviously the resurrection had a huge psychological impact on the disciples.'
As much as seeing Moses return from the dead, walk the earth, and presumably never die again.
The disciples went back to their old jobs of fishing after the resurrection. So the resurrection made less impact than whatever impelled them to give up fishing.
Interesting point, Steven, thanks. Th eJohannine community presumably was the later, and yet one would ask why, if it was dependant on a Pentecost tradition, why it was left so unelaborated. Surely the Johannine community was not so cut off from the christian world around them, that it was not known that the tradition was more extensive (cf. Bauckham ed. The Gospels for All Christians.
"The disciples went back to their old jobs of fishing after the resurrection. So the resurrection made less impact than whatever impelled them to give up fishing." Would seem to be an example of enthymatic logic, and I'm not sure the hidden premise works. Thanks for your comments.
The Gospel of John has the giving of the Holy Spirit long before Pentecost.
Luke may well be dependent upon Josephus for information, which would mean that the Pentecost story only appeared quite late.
Acts 2 has lots of problems with it, not least the quote of verse 31 'nor did his flesh experience corruption'. I can't find that in the LXX.
"The Gospel of John has the giving of the Holy Spirit long before Pentecost"
Yes, I meant in terms of when the accounts were written, rather than in a salvation-history chronology.
I agree that Acts has some problems, but I'm not sure how the authors usage of the Psalmic material in v 31. is evidence if this (it is Psalmic material isn't it?!, I forget)
What Psalmic material in verse 31?
There is no word for 'flesh' in the Greek of Psalm 16:10.
Converting Jews by misquoting their scriptures is not usually as successful as portrayed in Acts 2
Just as a follow up, the LXX of Psalm 15:10n (notice that the Psalm numbers differ in the LXX) reads 'diaphthora', which means destruction, being killed, rather than mere corruption.
see Psalm 15(16) , where you can plainly see 'psyche' (soul), rather than 'flesh'.
So the Psalm Peter is quoting from is speaking of God saving his Holy One from dying.
Hi Steven,
"Converting Jews by misquoting their scriptures is not usually as successful as portrayed in Acts 2"
But the way they handled, and expected their scriptures to be handled in practice, was a good deal more flexible than many of us moderns can appreciate! This aspect of Peter's speech doesn't strike me as unlikely.
Can you give non-Christian examples of Jews putting in words into verses which lack them?
I agree that it is not at all unlikely that Christians will alter scriptures to make them say what they want them to say , but it is unlikely that it would work as a conversion tactic.
Hi Steven,
I'll look a few up, but I'm a bit busy now - I'll let you know when I post some.
But don't think that the LXX was the single authoritative version, as if they could all check against a known single LXX, like a KJV, to test the exactitude of a quote. Besides, I'm not even sure that v. 31 is trying to allude to the Psalm in such a way as to say 'look, here it is here, proof' - that is merly a modern paradigm we put on the NT texts. It looks like something similar to Qumran Pesharim to me. Nevertheless, I'll post some that change the text in due course when I get a bit more time to look em up!
All the best,
Chris
Post a Comment