Loading...I return now to the seemingly simple but inordinately complicated question I received that has led to this short thread over the past week or so on Luke’s understanding of why Jesus died. In the thread so far (in case you haven’t read it) I’ve argued that Luke (author of both the Gospel and Acts) did not have a doctrine of atonement. He certainly thought that Jesus had to die: but Jesus’ death is not what brought a reconciliation with God (= salvation) per se. It made people realize their personal guilt before God, leading them to repent. Because they repented, God then forgave them. Jesus’ death, in other words, was a motivation to return to God, it was not a bloody sacrifice that took away sins.
With that as background: here again is the question.
QUESTION:
Although the gospel of Luke doesn’t have an atonement message, what are your thoughts about Acts 20:28 [were Paul is recorded as saying:]
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood?
This sure sounds like it has atonement implications.
RESPONSE:
As I earlier indicated, I don’t think think I have ever addressed this thorny issue on the blog, and only once in writings, in my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Here is what I say about it there, trying to argue that in fact even though it seems to be endorsing a view of atonement it probably doesn’t. (This is written for an academic audience, but it should be perfectly accessible.)
******************************
Acts 20:28 is the one passage that is frequently treated as an exception to Luke’s understanding of the death of Jesus. In fact, the passage is an exception only in appearance. For even here the notion of atonement does not emerge from the text but has to be imported into it.
In his farewell address to the Ephesian elders, the Apostle Paul urges them to “pastor the church of God, which he obtained through the blood of his Own.” The phrasing is enigmatic and, as we have already seen, has led to several interesting textual modifications. Despite its ambiguity (“His own blood”? “The blood of his unique [Son]”?) the phrase almost certainly refers to Jesus, whose blood God used to acquire an ekklesia (=church). But even here, I must point out, the text does not speak of Jesus’ self-giving act as an atoning sacrifice for sin, but of God’s use of Jesus’ blood to acquire (NB, not “redeem”) the church.
And so, strictly speaking the thrust of the allusion is not
Join the blog and you can read the rest of this post. Membership is inexpensive, every penny goes to charity, and you get a lot of bang for your buck (or pop for your penny). So it’s all good! Click here for membership options
In my humble interpretation perhaps Luke (who we think is a physician) is a Gentile. In such he does not see/consider the sacrificial implications of Jesus’s death as would a Jew.
Being a physician perhaps he had more of a scientific mind than spiritual. Myself also a medical provider can understand how this could be the case. One tends to look for cause and effect over spiritual notions.
When I read the book of Acts I can see the symbolism far clearer than any true historical accuracy.
Question, why do you think they make it a point to let us know Luke was a physician? And did physician in biblical time mean the same as today as far as diagnosis and treatment of a physical or mental disease.
I don’t think there’s any evidence to suggest that the author of Luke was a physician. That used to be argued (and still is in some circles), but the evidence was shown to be non-existence back in the 1920s (by a British NT scholar named Cadbury, on a book devoted to the issue).
I note that you state that investigations suggest there is no evidence that Luke was a doctor. Colossians 4:14 identifies ‘Our dear friend Luke, the doctor’. Therefore do you believe that Colossians has got it wrong or are you saying that the Luke of the gospels is not that person? What are the other arguments which can be put forward to show that this traditional idea about Luke is baseless, please?
I’m saying that the person mentioned in Colossians is never mentioned inthe books of Luke and Acts and there is nothing in those texts to suggest tperson wrote them and very good reasons for thinking he did not.
Further to my query re Luke as physician I note that Adolf von Harnack has written a defence of this claim set out as six areas of evidence. Are you familiar with his arguments? I find them well considered. I am, so far, unable to track down Cadbury who, you say, gives counter points of view.
Yup, it’s a classic. Harnack was flippin’ *brilliant*, arguably the most erudite historian of early Chrsitainity in modern times. But he often pushed arguments that were too weak to convince. Cadbury’s book (later) dispels the whol matter really convincingly.
Is there any other ancient Christian literature that aligns with Luke’s theology and reason of Jesus’ death or does he stand alone?
That’s an excellent question; off hand I can’t think of other authors who do not consider Jesus’ death an atnement for sin. Maybe someone else on the blog has a candidate? (For some we just don’t know – -including a number of the NT authors, such as James)
So “Luke” has traditionally been identified as someone close to Paul, or at least who represents a pro-Paul spin on the history of the early Church, esp. in Acts (e.g. playing down doctrinal differences between Peter, James, and Paul). So does Luke then really not identify with Paul’s mission or theology? If Luke’s soteriology is a decidedly non-atonement one, does he just misunderstand Paul? Disagree with him? Try to alter his actual views? Or did he possibly not know much about the historical Paul or his writings and was not aware that his own views diverged significantly from those of Paul?
My sense is that Luke is a huge fan of Paul who understands him differently from how Paul portrays himself in his letters; I doubt if Luke knew of these letters, but he probably was in a church that celebrated Paul and took his teachings in a direction different from the apostle himself (as *usually* happens, if today is any guideline!) I don’t think he knew Paul, just the stories about him in his community.
Even if the questioned verses in Luke (from the last supper) are original rather than an addition, would there necessarily be a contradiction?
I get that the idea that Jesus’ death is an atonement for sins and the idea that it ought to compel people to repent are different, as are the notions that either leads to salvation. But are they mutually exclusive? People read 1 Corinthians and ask whether belief in Jesus’ death/resurrection and “works” are necessary for salvation. Paul indicates that works (of the law) are insufficient, and that belief in Jesus’ death/resurrection (an atonement) is fundamental, yet he later indicates that this alone is also insufficient. Could Luke agree that Jesus’ death was an atonement, but place less emphasis on this because he thinks repentance is also required and overlooked (much like the idea that faith without works is dead)? You argue that there is no indication in Luke that Jesus’ death is an atonement, but that would be untrue if the verses you question were indeed original.
I’d say they are technically different, but that doesn’t mean everyone sees them as different. Modern people don’t as a rule, until it’s explained, and I’d assume that’s pretty much the same for antiquity. But I don’t know. The main point, though, for Luke, is that he *does* do away with all the atonement language in Mark and completely avoids in in the apostolic preaching in his second volume. So I’d say that he at least seems to see the difference.
Soteriology was transformed from the message of John the Baptist and Jesus, in his early mission, from the idea that repentance would bring the kingdom of God, preparing the way. After the death of John, Jesus began declaring himself to be Messiah and the kingdom has come, intensifying the zealotry. However, Jesus had only moderate success and his first mission ended in Crucifixion, because Israel remained sinful. Jesus died “because of” (hoti) our sins. After the Resurrection, the Crucifixion was repurposed that Jesus died for, “on behalf of,” (hoti) our sins. There was an added element developed that the Messiah had to die and be raised to prove he was truly the Messiah, demanding our obedience, which I think is the primary gospel of Paul. By proving that he was the Messiah, Jesus converted the true people of Israel, forming the Church.
So much of Christian doctrine rests on such a tiny Greek word, “hoti.” Has anyone discussed this in depth?
It’s not hoti but Huper.
Yes, thank you, I cannot recall where I saw that construction, although it made an impression.
So is it just a coincidence that the line from Isaiah 53:12 that Luke quotes “he was numbered with the transgressors” is immediately followed by the line “he bore the sins of many and was handed over for their sins”? Or was Luke aware that this came up next?
Was he aware that this confirmed Matthew/Mark/John/Paul’s view of the crucifixion and would negate his own plan of removing all references to an atonement soteriology?
It’s not a coincidence that Isaiah says those words next and it’s not a coincidence that precisely those are the words that LUke chose not to quote. And he would not have known Matthew, John, and Paul’s view of salvation, but he would have known Mark’s; that’s why he changed it.
But why would Luke chose to add “he was numbered with trangressors” to Mark/Matthew.
Doesn’t this function as an indicator for what mark/matthew mean when they say “they son of man goes as has been written but woe to him who hands him over?”
It means he was surrounded by criminals, as he is in Luke.
So then its just a coincidence that “he was numbered with the transgressors” is followed by the very soteriology Luke is trying to remove from Mark/Matthew?
I’m not sure what you’re asking. I think I’ve made my point repeatedly. The passages in Isaiah 53 that can be used to support the idea of a substitutionary atonement are never quoted by Luke; if he wanted his readers to see Jesus’ death as an atonement, he would have quoted the relevant passages instead of deciding not to do so. That needs to be taken along with the fact that when Mark, his source, uses atonement language, he gets rid of it.
I don’t think we’re making any progress on this topic, so let’s move on to other things!
” That needs to be taken along with the fact that when Mark, his source, uses atonement language, he gets rid of it.”
It is interesting to note that in the whole of isaiah 53 language associated with atonement is missing.
“Deut. 30, he says “interestingly, the word ‘atonement’ doesn’t appear in Deut.30”, as if this point were relevant, This has probably occurred to you at some point, but do you know where else none of the words “pardon”, “forgiveness”, nor “atonement”, – the familiar “selicha, mechila, and kappara” – nor any derivative of them appear even once? Isaiah 53”
the reason why luke removes it from his source is because luke knew mark misused isaiah 53.
Ok sorry – just one more. I dont think it can be coincidence that the quote Lukes adds comes just before the atonement passage in Isaiah 53, and that he must be adding it to Matthew/mark for his readers to know where they can find what has been “appointed for the son of man” mentioned by them.
Then if luke 22.19-20 is original rather than luke removing sacrificial atonement from matthew/mark he has combined two instances of it into one passage.
I too believe that Luke did not see Christ’s death as an atonement, but rather a revelation, to the despondent conditions the Pharisees were holding in the face of those they saw as sinners, merely by their appearance. If by chance, they happen to be born with or developed handicap issues, unless those visual imperfections, (which were seen as proof of their sins), didn’t heal back to being whole again, forgiveness was never going to be given.
This was the reason for Jesus’ teachings in the first place. He accepted his fate alone so his followers would be spared. Don’t you agree his dying on the cross, revealed the pure wretchedness of their own faith rulers and was Luke’s point, on how he wrote of Jesus’ death?
I agree he was intent to blame the Jewish leaders and even the Jewish people for crucifying their own messiah; but I don’t think he ever puts in in terms of them having inadequate faith. He thinks that it shows how guilty they are before God — this is the length to which they have gone — and that this recognition should lead to repentance and forgiveness.
Bart,
Regarding your upcoming book on Christian Charity – although this would turn the book down a philosophical avenue, at least for awhile, I was wondering if you had thought about having a chapter
called something like: “When it disappears” that explores the times in history like the treatment of
Jews, the slave trade, treatment of Native Americans, when the concept of Christian Charity was missing in action. Some of the other materials I’ve read, heard on Christian Charity were informative but so one sided as to have a rah! rah! look how great! feel.
I couldn’t help but think – but why does this beautiful behavior tragically so often disappear on a grand scale like in the 3 examples given.
TY have a good weekend!
SC
Yup, I am. Not sure yet. I’m tempted in particular to talk about the Prosperity Gospel in modern times as a very odd development in Christain thinking.
MOre to your point, in my prospectus I’m starting off — I think — by talking about how easy it is to catalogue the failures of Xty: suppression of other religions; anti-semitism; pogroms; Crusades; Inquisitions; justification for slavery; etc…. But there is also a *good* side to consider, even if it was not consistently carried out….
I would be very interested to hear what you have to say about the Prosperity Gospel in modern times.
Related interest would be your thoughts on tithing. A pentecostal church I attended many years ago insisted that if you were tithing on your net rather than your gross income, you were cheating God (using the story of Ananias and Sapphira).
So based on this explanation, the blood of Jesus is “motivation” as you say, or in other words, conviction. “… the cognizance of guilt that leads to repentance.” I was initially struggling to understand how this was not atonement, but that sentence helped it click. Shifting my thinking to read Luke without the context of Paul’s letters is really key. “Only if his hearers repent when confronted with Jesus’ blood will they be saved from spilling their own.” So, Jesus’ blood is meant to convict others of their guilt and lead them to repentance, while also warn of the price for not repenting.
I just want to say, I joined the blog as a member just this week, and have very much enjoyed reading these posts. Thank you, Dr. Ehrman! I look forward to many more! ( And reading many old posts as well)
Unrelated, but what is your opinion on Matthew 5:29-30 and other similar passages found in the synoptics about sinning by “eye, hand and foot”. What did the authors mean by hand? Are they condemning masturbation, or groping, or what?
I don’t think they mean anything in particular. Anything you do that can hurt another leads to divine displeasure. (You can shoplift; punch someone in the mouth; or … lots of things)
Hi Dr Ehrman!
In response to the overturning of Roe v Wade, and how so much anti abortion rhetoric is supposedly biblically based, are you going to post anything abortion related by any chance?
Thank you!
I’m debating whether to deal with it or not. If I do, I will need to keep my personal views out of it, and just talk about what the Bible actually has to say about the matter….
Please do so!
Thank you. On a warm afternoon in Glasgow – warm for Scotland even in July – this thread has been fascinating.
Is it correct to say that you and other critical NT scholars think Jesus is best understood as as a prophet, specifically an apocalyptic prophet-rather than as, eg, a moral teacher or atoning sacrifice? To what degree can we understand Jesus through our understanding of OT prophets? What would be a couple of the major similarities and differences?
I ask because, despite your skepticism about the gospels telling us what Jesus was like as a person, I keep asking myself that. Maybe there’s not enough “historical” material about Jesus to answer that question but it would be interesting to see what “answer” emerges from taking at face value what the gospels say about Jesus.
Anyway, when I try to do the latter, I’m struck by the portrayal of Jesus as a powerful, commanding, and authoritative figure. The common emphases on his moral teaching and compassion and on his victimization as an atoning sacrifice, seem to overshadow that.
If Jesus’s character as a prophet should be considered central, wouldn’t power and authority be consistent with that?
Different historical scholars have very different views of how best to understand Jesus and his message. MYview is that yes, he is best portrayed as an apocalyptic prophet predicting that the kindgom was soon to arrive in power and people needed to repent in preparation for it. That doesn’t mean he was right, or authorized by God, or inherently powerful. By “prophet” I just mean someone who understood himself to be called and commissioned by God to deliver a message.
Hi Bart,
I have been contemplating your posts about Luke on the death of Jesus, and I am looking at Paul’s speech in Acts 20:28:
“Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.” (NRSVUE)
First, all alternate manuscripts include something along the lines of “obtained with the blood.”
Second, this verse implies some view of the atonement. Do you agree? disagree?
Third, unless this is scribal addition while we assume that the author Luke also wrote Acts, then obviously the author of Luke wrote this. Do you think that the author of Luke wrote this? or do you think that this is a scribal addition? (such textual criticism is beyond my experience)
Bests,
James
Yes, this is the verse this short thread is heading for.
Fascinating, Bart; but might I suggest a fruitful linkage between your observation here, and your ongoing discussion of ‘charity’ in early Christianity?
As David Downs has pointed out – with particular reference to early Christian readings of Luke 11:41;
“..practices of mercy were both a key aspect of early Christian distinctiveness and one reason that people were willing to bear the cost of becoming Christian, either because their material needs were met or because of the promise of eschatological reward/atonement for sharing with those in need (or both, if the categories of recipient and donor were relatively fluid)”.
If Downs is correct; then Luke does have a doctrine of atonement: “So give for alms those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you”, and this atonement comes from a commitment to atoning (sacrificial) almsgiving . This sacrificial giving then links back to Jesus giving of himself in death (Acts 20:28).
If so, then Luke’s reworking of Mark could be to remove the (false) implication ” ..all for sin could not atone; thou must save and thou alone.” There is no conflict between atonement through present offering alms, and atonement from the past offering of Jesus’s death
As Downs, and Garrison before him, and others, ahve argued, patristic authors do talk of charity as brinigng “redemption” and as an “atonement” etc. — but it’s not clear how it works. You could imagine it in substitutionary terms — I sacrifice something of my self for you. But in that case the atonment comes to the one performing the sacrifice (who gives of their own selves/resources), not to the one for whom it was done (the recipient). And certainly no one would argue that Jesus’ atoned for himself by giving of himself. so it does seem different. But you could also argue that redemptive giving meant something like a Do ut des: I’m giving (to others) so that you (God) will give to me. That is, God will forgive the sins of those who give — which of course became the later standard doctrine. Sorry, I’m rambling a bit! But my major point is here at the end: I don’t think we can appeal to Patristic readgins of Luke 11:41 to know what it means doing historical exegesis.
Thanks Bart;
Might I suggest that we can see how atonement ‘works’ for Luke (and how Luke differs from Matthew) in Luke’s account of debt-forgiveness to the woman of ill-repute (Luke 7, 41-50), as compared to Matthew’s treatment of debt-forgiveness in Matthew 18: 23-35)? Whereas for Matthew, granting and withholding forgiveness is a one-way action of God’s grace and justice; for Luke there are debts both ways – from the woman to Jesus and from Jesus to the woman (as it is Jesus, in Luke, who commands God’s forgiveness). Forgiveness of each-way debts is stated as reciprocally dependent; the greatness of Jesus’s command is dependent on the greatness of the woman’s repentance (as expressed through her acts of mercy to him); and the greatness of the woman’s love is dependent on the greatness of the sins Jesus has commanded to be forgiven.
Which brings us back to the crucifixion; as it is only in Luke that Jesus commands forgiveness from the cross (Luke 23: 34), and only in Luke that the penitent thief (in terms that prefigure the speeches in Acts) responds in penitence and acts of mercy, and is explicitly assured of atonement (Luke 23: 43).
These are good points. The idea of “they don’t know what they’re doing” in connection with forgiveness of course is an important Lukan motif (you may know Eldon Epp’s work on that). But I don’t understand why we would call it atonement. We are talking about repentance-forgiveness now, and my point is that these are different concepts, even if people blur them in their heads. So far as I can tell Luke doesn’t blur them (he deals with repentance-forgiveness), nor does Paul (who deals with atonement).
Perhaps two issues of confusion here:
– ‘repentance-forgiveness’, as against ‘atonement’; as different (though related) principles in the LXX scriptures, in the gospel writers and in early Christianity;
– ‘atonement’ in the LXX, as against ‘the atonement’ in post-reformation protestant discourse. Further complicated, in that a sub-set of that discourse rejects the LXX texts as scripture.
I propose that Luke 23:43 “..today you will be with me in Paradise” is intended by Luke to be a statement of ‘atonement’, not simply an assurance of forgiveness – which Jesus has already commanded in Luke 23:34. The recipients of Jesus’s command may be unclear, but Luke clearly includes the taunting criminals, as yet unrepentant (Luke 23:33).
Downs comment:
“In Christian theology the term “atonement” is usually focused on the reconciliation wrought through the Christ-event, with “atonement for sin” typically located in some connection with Jesus’ death and/or resurrection. It should be clear, however, that “atoning almsgiving” in this book does not refer to any particular theory or model of “the atonement” but instead refers to almsgiving as a means by which sin is dealt with in some way.”
So from Sirach 3:30 “As water extinguishes a blazing fire, so almsgiving atones for sin”.
On Luke 23:43 — I don’t think Jesus is explaining the efficacy of his own death for the criminal. He’s not saying that he will go to paradise *because* Jesus is dying. The mode of his arrival is left open. But I don’t think forgiveness is otiose in lithg of 23:34: the reference is almost certainly to those who are crucifying him. In the history of interpretation, of course, going back to the second century, that was interpreted as “the Jews,” and given the rest of Luke’s Gospel, I’d say that’s probably right.
Downs: that quotation simply shows that he is not concerned to differentiate between forgiveness and blood-sacrifice: he’ll be using atonement as a broad term that covers everyting. THat’s fine. But it doesn’t mean that forgiveness and blood-sacrifice as ways of dealing wiht sin are the same thing. Luke has one; Paul has the other; Downs is consideirng both.
Downs adopts an understanding of atonement as “a reconciled state of ‘at-one-ness’ between parties formerly alienated in some manner”, which in theological discourse specifies alienation of humanity from God due to the power of sin.
Implying forgiveness and atonement differing in Luke in two key respects:
– forgiveness is retrospective, atonement is prospective;
– forgiveness is personal – between a wronged party, and a wrongdoing party; atonement is also societal and structural.
So; adopting the sin/debt metaphor, ‘forgiveness’ corresponds to release from historic debt; while ‘atonement’ corresponds to release from future vulnerability to debt from unresolved personal and structural incapacities.
This is illustrated at Luke 11, 37-44 (another meal with a Pharisee). In Luke 7 Jesus encountered a woman who was ‘unclean’ outside; but cleansed from the power of sin inside due to repentance and atoning acts of mercy. This time Jesus encounters several Pharisees who are ‘clean’ on the outside, but full of greed and wickedness on the inside. They should repent and seek forgiveness for their past sins (which are many; Luke 11:42); but to be ‘clean’ must *also* remedy their continuing inner filthiness, through applying almsgiving in atonement (Luke 11:41).
That’s fine. I’m not too worried about the terms per se. My point is that Luke did not see Jesus’ death as a blood sacrifice that covered sins and thus brought redemption/reconciliation; he thought redemption/reconciliation happened when someone repented for their sins and God forgave them.
Agree completely on your first point; not sure about the second.
Luke did not see Jesus’s death as an atoning blood sacrifice; where Paul certainly had. But Paul is the one that was out-of-step here, as none of the LXX presentations of atonement – in Daniel(Th), Sirach and Tobit – incorporated a blood sacrifice. Reviewed from the perspective of Reformation discourses of justification, Luke’s and Paul’s atonement views appear contradictory. Downs’s point is that no such contradiction was apparent in the early church:
“That none of the promoters of atoning almsgiving in the second and third centuries show any hint that the idea contradicts or undermines the confession that atonement for sin is found in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus should not be viewed as a sign of the theological incoherence of these patristic voices.”
Which brings us back to Acts 20: 18-35. As Luke writes, Paul charges the Ephesian elders to guard over a church ‘obtained by blood’ (v28); but that then leads on to an injunction to atoning almsgiving (v35). Seeking interpersonal forgiveness is not enough; full reconciliation from the power of sin requires commitment to atoning actions, both personal and structural.
hello Prof. Ehrman,
In light of Luke’s claim that he was trying to draw from as many sources and traditions as possible in the hope of reconstructing an authentic story (leaving out what Mark had missed but without the extra embellishments of Matthew- thinking of the Beatitudes here), do you think his avoidance of an atoning death interpretation might have something to do with the traditions that were handed down from Jesus’ followers who remained in Galilee, perhaps completely unaware their beloved prophet had made such an ill-fated trip to Jerusalem? Would it not therefore matter more that their salvation, their admission into the coming kingdom, depended simply on doing as Jesus had advised, rather than any knowledge of his sacrifice or resurrection for that matter, unavailable to them?
I do think he is standing in a different line of tradition, but it’s hard to know how to locate the different lines geographically. Mark is the one that emphasizes Galilee; in Luke it’s all about Jerusalem. But I don’t think Luke was living in either location; his own community appears simply to have had a different theological understanding of Jesus’ death.
I have a question-i think [ill use 2 cmt]
in 1 COR 11:23-25 Paul seems to be in harmony with the synoptic account of the Last Supper which Paul says he received[?]. if u read 1 Cr 5:6-8 Paul says Christ is our Passover lamb and so your mind goes to John’s account. Maybe Paul wouldn’t try to be historical in chapter 5. Thoughts?
Are you asking if Paul thought that Jesus was on the day indicated by John, rather than the day indicated by the Synoptics? It’s a good question. It’s an interesting idea. I’d say that Paul never links Jesus’ death as the Passover lamb chronologically with what he knows about Jesus’ last words at the meal on the night he was betrayed. I wish Paul had given us some indication of when he thought which things happened in sequence with how much time passed between them. (I assume that he thought Jesus was killed the day after he was betrayed, though I guess I”ve never thought about it before…)
Prof Ehrman,
In your works, you have demonstrated the various forms of Christian groups (Docetists, Marcionites, Ebionites, etc.) that existed in the early phase of the Christian movement – My questions are:
Q1. Does Luke’s soteriology which clearly stands at odds with the Atonement (which appears to be the ‘orthodox view’) represent a form of Christian community just like the groups above?
Q2. Most importantly – what could have been the Lukan reasons for their rejection of the Atonement soteriology and replacing it with the theology that the death of Jesus was a miscarriage of justice and it only brought us to the point of been aware of our own sins and seeking penance’
1. I don’t think it represents a community, but my sense is that groups of people held to this view. 2. Most people agree with the theological views they have been taught and argue against other views, not knowing that the other is older. As people talked about the significance of Jesus’ death in teh early years, different ones probably had different interpretations, some of which seemed better to some people than others, just like today…
Very interesting and insightful post. I think that the “a priori assumption” of the speeches in Acts as Luke’s own constructions blinds us to the obvious: Luke attributes this speech to Paul out of all people! Meaning, at the very least Luke might be trying to convey the kind of thing he thinks Paul would have said (or perhaps did say, filtered through his own perspective). So- should we therefore be surprised if he indeed uses Pauline concepts? That’s why I’d be way more inclined to go with the “he unwittingly reproduced an undigested fragment of tradition” theory.