Speech of Peter,
1:16-22. Verses 18-19 are editorializing by
Luke. The situation is the first meeting of the eleven disciples in Jerusalem
after the ascension, and the exigence is Peter’s perception of a need to fill
the vacancy among the disciples caused by the defection and death of Judah.
Peter bases this need on Scripture: “his office let another take” (1:20). He regards
the disciples are the official witnesses of the resurrection and apparently
feels there must be a full complement of such witnesses. He assumes leadership
in the group without opposition and faces no great rhetorical problem. The
speech thus requires little amplification. The problem is the single word “brethren”
(1:16), often used with a friendly audience. There is then a brief narration,
Luke’s inserted description of Judas’ death, the proof that action should be
taken, based on Scripture, and the conclusion drawn from the situation and the
text. Because the speech recommends an action in the (near) future, it is
deliberative. To a classicist it is somewhat reminiscent of short speeches in
the Iliad in which one of the heroes briefly describes the situation and
ends with a recommendation for action, a very natural form of rhetoric. There
is nothing unexpected in the contents of the speech. Given the knowledge that it
was Peter who took the leadership role among the disciples and given a desire
to dramatize an important event by prosopopoeia, Luke has created a predictable
result. (George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical
Criticism [Chapel Hill, N.C.: The University of North Carolina Press, 1984],
116)
To Support this Blog:
