Introduction To The New Testament

From Chapel Hill, WUNC-TV, in cooperation with the extension division of the University of North Carolina, presents Introduction to New Testament Literature, a course offered for three semester hours college credit. The instructor of the series, Dr. Bernard Boyd, is chairman of the Department of Religion at the University of North Carolina. And now, here is Dr. Boyd. Good evening. I believe I'm going to begin our little lecture this evening by making you a promise. I know now quite well that last time I spoke much too rapidly and perhaps on occasions with too much zeal, because driving home from the studio, I was completely wearied, and it occurred to me that you were doubtless about as tired as I was. There seemed so much that had to be said, and I wanted, if possible, to catch up with where we belong in the course, and maybe that's one way I can excuse it. But we'll try to take it a bit more casually this evening. One or two preliminary remarks. I do not believe I have yet gotten around to saying a word of thanks to the many of you who have been writing letters, uh so many of them indicating approval of the way we are trying to to run the course. Some of you disagree with my point of view, but that and that, of course, is quite okay. The thing that really impresses me is is that every single letter that I have received has been a kind one, and that means a great deal to me. Mr. Barry told me that several of you spoke to him about that assignment that you have coming up soon, and wanted a little bit of further explanation as to what I had in mind. It has to do, you remember, with a comparative study of the three different accounts which Luke Luke gives us of Paul's famous conversion. And those accounts you will recall are in chapter 9 and in 22 and in 26. Now, this is what I have in mind. I think suppose this is your sheet of paper. I think if I were you, I would divide it that way, have three columns. And then of course at the top you would put Acts 9 and then 22 and then 26. And you would study carefully those the three accounts in those three chapters and the things that are alike in each of the three chapters, I think I would indicate. And the things that are unalike. For instance, the voice out of heaven on on each occasion, is it Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It's in one of the accounts, the phraseology differs a bit. I would make note of that. Did everybody fall down on the ground or did just Paul fall to the ground? Did everybody see the vision Paul saw or did he see it alone and the others were simply dumbfounded in the sudden realization that something quite inexplicable was taking place? I think almost surely I would begin by pointing out the difference in the occasion. I don't want to do your assignment for you, but I do want you to understand what I want you to to work at. I would point out that in chapter 9 there is Luke's historic write-up of that event, an objective description as best he can do it, of the fact that a certain man named Saul on a certain occasion had an experience that transformed his life. And then chapter 22 is an occasion when Paul himself is telling others about the experience that transformed his life. But when he's telling other others of it in chapter 22, he is standing, you recall, on the fortress of Antonio's steps, uh before a howling mob of people who have been incensed because they think he has violated one of their strongest prohibitions, that having to do with the bringing of a Gentile within the temple precincts. They're angry. He hasn't done it, of course, but uh they have been led to believe that he has. They're angry at him, and facing that kind of hostile audience, he makes the great speech that we have in 22. Now, in 26, there is much the best known of all. That's the one that he makes in defense of his life in such regal surroundings when he addresses himself to King Agrippa. Those three accounts, and I want you to to experience to experience the business of of comparing three different accounts with within one particular document of a one particular event. Now, mind you, you are not to be disturbed by any any differences that you may find. Luke knew of all three accounts. He put them all in. If there were differences, he knew of those differences, and it is a credit to his his um integrity as a historian that we have the record just the way we have it. Get to work on it, please. As I recall, it's due before very long. Now, I believe that's all the preliminary information that I had in mind to suggest this evening. I think it's time for us to get to work. We finished last time by first having outlined the book, suggesting that now we are beginning to look at the document itself, and suggesting that the thing that really gets it going is Luke's conviction that a group of people were joined together, bound in close allegiance because of a common surety that there was a resurrection fact. And I told you about their waiting in Jerusalem, and I told you of the certain demands for effective waiting. And then there is the very brief description or reference to the fact of ascension. And now Luke's about ready to go. It's an interesting thing, a little bit anomalous. We are often saying that this book of Acts is about the most dramatic book in all the Bible. Very often when people ask me, "Well, now all right, you've gotten me interested. Where do I start studying in the Bible?" Very often my reply is, "I recommend that you start with Acts." I read that book, find out the history of this the the origins of this thing which is still a uh a rather significant force in our present culture. Get excited about that. Then study the gospel narratives of the personality responsible for all of it, and so on. And we're always talking about the intensely dramatic book of Acts. Well, it is. But Luke has a certain problem. He wants to tell tell Theophilus certain bits of information. Above all, he wants to tell Theophilus that this church is a going enterprise, and that nothing can possibly stop it. But in order to do it effectively, Luke feels, and we certainly agree that he was wise. Luke feels that there is certain information of a fundamental and basic nature that a Theophilus or any other reader ought to have before he can really begin the dramatic um delineation of the early history of the church. And so it's his job to get it all said before he can really get going. And that's why the first section of Acts is in a very real sense less impressive, less dramatic, less exciting than the rest. Now, when we have made our way to 8:3, let us say, if we're using for convenience sake that little outline I gave you last time based upon the first the eighth verse of the first chapter, uh when we have gotten through 8:3 and get to 8:4, that's when well, as the fellows would say, that's when the book gets into high gear. It gets going. But until that time, uh Luke is concerned with furnishing us bits of information often apparently not related essentially one to the other with no especial concern to chronology, but information we've got to have in order for us adequately to interpret the the series of exciting events which he will get to when he has finished seven of his chapters. The job that that faces him right at the start, just as soon in as in chapter one, he is presented the historical background, is of course trying to decide how he's going to tell about the onrush of the spirit in this experience that's called Pentecost that got the church going. That's going to be a job. It seems almost as though he wants to to put it off a little bit longer while he, humanly speaking, uh gets his thoughts together, formulates his plans. As he gives us a paragraph indicative of the apostolic concern that then they are no longer 12, simply 11. One had betrayed. Judas was no longer with them. No longer the the the magic circle of 12, but now 11. One is missing. Something must be done. And so they begin to make decision as to how they can best fill that vacancy, do something about that empty seat yonder in the apostolic group. And you remember they check the available possibilities. The church is quite democratic even from its very beginning. They are aware of the certain demands of the apostolic group and they find out that there are two people who apparently fill the bill. They qualify. They can among other things most importantly say that they with their own eyes saw the risen Lord. That was the demand of apostolic apostleship. Well now, they've got it down to two and they can't decide which one of the two. And so we are told that they cast lots and the lot falls upon Matthias. He becomes the apostle to take Judas' place. Well now, we don't hear of him anymore and basing their argument on silence, which is always a rather dangerous thing to do, more than just a few scholars through the years have opined that really it was a rather impatient group of apostles and we had just been important pointing out you know the imperative necessity of patience. Why in the world didn't they wait? Why didn't they look the field over? Why were they so anxious to to get again that that magical number of 12 and as it were almost get anybody just so we've got 12 again? Because they have decided we don't need a Matthias anymore. Apparently he didn't pan out. Apparently he wasn't influential, didn't do much.