New Testament Studies

http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS

Additional services for New Testament Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

‘A People for his Name’

N. A. Dahl

New Testament Studies / Volume 4 / Issue 04 / July 1958, pp 319 ­ 327

DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500011723, Published online: 05 February 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0028688500011723

How to cite this article:

N. A. Dahl (1958). ‘A People for his Name’. New Testament Studies, 4, pp 319­327
doi:10.1017/S0028688500011723

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS, IP address: 129.215.149.92 on 15 Nov 2012

 SHORT STUDIES 319
ancient teaching, the first Passover in the desert was celebrated by the
mingling of the blood of both. Hence Lev. xvii. 11: 'For the life of the flesh
is in the blood' is paraphrased 'Life is in the blood of the Passover; life is in
the blood of circumcision.'1
Bearing all these facts in mind, it becomes evident that the whole structure
of the Pauline theology of baptism is strictly related to the contemporary
Jewish doctrine of circumcision. The conjunction of baptism and sacrifice was
not due to Paul's own insight, but sprang directly from a traditional Jewish
belief. Just as Paul's Jewish contemporary entered into the Covenant by
means of circumcision, so also the Christian, by means of baptism, entered
into the New Covenant concluded by the death and resurrection of Christ.
In other words, by relating baptism to the sacrifice of Christ's redemption,
Paul merely christianized the Jewish 'sacrament' of circumcision.
It is evident that the link between baptism and the death of Christ, far
from being a simple reminder of the moral obligations of Christian life, is as
organic as the connexion between circumcision and covenantal sacrifice. In
this perspective, it may be of value to reread Rom. vi. 3-4, and Col. ii. 11-12:
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were
baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death,
so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might
walk in newness of life.
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by
putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried
with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the
working of God, who raised him from the dead.
G. VERMES

'A PEOPLE FOR HIS NAME'

( A C T S xv. 14)

In his short study AAOS 'El 'EGNCON, N.T.S. in, no. 1 (Nov. 1956), 47-50,
Dom Jacques Dupont has drawn attention to the opening passage in the
speech of James at the conference held in Jerusalem: "6 0e6s tTTEOKtyaro
ACC[3ETV kf; IQvcov Aocdv TCJJ 6v6ucm ccCrroO. The biblical style of the phrase,
recognized by Dom Dupont, seems to make it likely that we have here just
one more example of the 'septuagintalising' style in the Lukan writings. The
quotation from Amos ix. 11-12', following in Acts xv. 16-17, is no doubt
taken from the Septuagint; neither the Hebrew text nor the Targum is
capable of an interpretation which would make the quotation serve the
purpose of the speech. The conclusion seems to be inevitable and definitive,
1
Cf. Exod. R. xix. 7; Mekh. on Exod. xii. 6 (ed. Lauterbach, 1, 33-4).

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 15 Nov 2012 IP address: 129.215.149.92

320 SHORT STUDIES
even if it is not stated in plain words: the whole speech, v. 14 as well as vv. 16-
18, is a composition of Luke, based upon the Greek Bible. It is obvious that
this conclusion, if correct, would also have some bearing upon the question of
tradition and composition in the other speeches in Acts.
For scholarly research it is an advantage, whenever it is possible, to reach
some definite results which can serve as a base for further argument. But
only too often it turns out that even conclusions which seem to be well estab-
lished have some weak point, so that it remains possible to argue also for the
contrary opinion. This happens to be the case even with regard to Acts xv. 14.
Dom Dupont has found here an allusion to Deut. xiv. 2: oi £§EA£5crro wipios
6 0e6s aou yevkaBca aCrrcp Aoc6v irepiouaiov ATT6 TT<5CVTCOV TCOV £©VGOV, and
similar passages like Deut. vii. 6 and Exod. xix. 5 and xxiii. 22 (LXX). The
expression Accdj Tcp 6v6ucm OCOTOU is, however, not to be found in any of
these texts. The words ' for His name' have, as Dom Dupont points out,' un
son tres biblique'; but whereas the phrase OTKOS TC«} 6v6uorn OOJTOU is fre-
quently used in the Septuagint, there is—if I am not mistaken—no instance
to be found in which Acc6s TC«3 6v6uom OCUTOO occurs. That ra 6v6ucrri otCrroO
should have been introduced in order to replace Trspioucrios in the Old
Testament text is an explanation which is not impossible, but obviously the
weakest and most strained point in Dom Dupont's argument. Yet his explana-
tion might, perhaps, after all have recommended itself, if it had not been for
one fact: the phrase 'a people for His name', which is found neither in the
Hebrew Bible nor in the Septuagint, is a standard idiom of the old Palestinian
Targum.
The following examples are found in the fragments edited by P. Kahle,
Masoreten des Western, 11 (Beitr. z. Wiss. v. A. u. N.T., 3. Folge H. 14), Stuttgart
1930, or in the 'Fragment Targum' ( = Targum Jerushalmi II) as found in
the old editions of the Hebrew Bible1 and in M. Ginsburger, Das Fragmenten-
thargum (Berlin, 1899):
Exod. vi. 7, frag. D, ed. Kahle, p. 24: Vip nvb 'W'? pDIV tnDRl. 'And I shall
set you apart as a holy people for My name.'
Exod. xix. 5, frag. F, ed. Kahle, p. 56: K^filX *?3» nVllO yfl f a'an QVb VSVb pinni.
'And you shall be unto My name a holy people, beloved as a treasure above all
nations; (for all the earth belongs to the name of the Lord; and to My name you
shall be kings and priests and a holy nation.)' The same, with some variant readings,
also in the 'Fragment Targum'.
Deut. xxvi. 18, frag. D, ed. Kahle, p. 27: |» n^lO—p [ a ^ n OS?1? WKV*? 'inn1?
1081K. ' (The Word of the LORD has become king over you on this day,) that you
should be for His name a people beloved as a treasure above the nations.' The
'Fragment Targum' here has the plural form, tra^an, 'beloved ones'.
Deut. xxvi. 19, frag. D, ibid.: . . .H rPOP1?. . . ' [That you should be a holy people]
for the name of the LORD.'
1
I have used the edition from Basel 1618-19. For translation into English I have made use of
J. W. Etheridge, The Targums, 1-11 (London, 1862-5).

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 15 Nov 2012 IP address: 129.215.149.92

 SHORT STUDIES 32I
To these examples from the fragments of the old Palestinian Targum can be
added one from Pseudo-Jonathan (ed. M. Ginsburger, Berlin, 1903), Lev. xxvi.
12: WTJ? NOW1? ""a®1? pnn JinNl. 'And you shall be a holy nation for My name.'
In general Pseudo-Jonathan does not use the phrase 'a people for His
name', but prefers one of two other expressions, both of which are used in
Deut. xiv. 2: ' For you are a holy people before the LORD your God ('n QTj?
x), and in you the LORD your God delighted, that you should be to Him
a beloved people above all the peoples who are upon the face of the
earth.' The same variation is found in Deut. vii. 6, and also in Targum
Onkelos, to the usage of which Pseudo-Jonathan has in most instances been
made to conform. The construction with DTp is the most common one in
Onkelos, and is the standard form used in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets.
It occurs in the Fragment Targum Exod. xix. 6, Cod. Par. 110, ed. Ginsburger,
p. 39, but a comparison with frag. F, ed. Kahle, and also with the older prints
proves that 'mp has here replaced an older 'DP1?. In Targum Pseudo-Jona-
than and, more consistently, in Targum Onkelos and the Targum to the
Prophets this exchange has been carried through. More occasionally we find
also the rendering "" mp wowa DSJ1?, 'a people ministering before the LORD',
II Kings xi. 17 (II Chron. xxiii. 16).
The simplest rendering, the use of the same expression as in Hebrew, ' a
people for Him', is in Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan not much less frequent
than the construction with DTj?; it is found also in Deut. iv. 20, 34; xxvi. 18; in
Pseudo-Jonathan even in xxix. 12. It is seldom used in the Targum to the
Prophets or to the other Scriptures; I have noticed II Sam. vii. 23; I Chron.
xvii. 21, 22. In the Fragment Targum the same expression is found in Deut.
iv. 20 and 34 (cf. Ginsburger, p. 86). As far as I see, no example occurs in the
fragments edited by Kahle. At the present stage it will hardly be possible to
say whether even this construction has taken the place of an older form with
OS?1?, or whether two types of rendering, 'for His name' and 'for Him', were
alternatively used in the old Palestinian Targum tradition. The publication
of the newly discovered complete manuscript of the Palestinian Pentateuch
Targum 1 will probably bring more clarity, presupposed that the manuscript
has not suffered too much from the influence of the later form of standard
versions.
Even in the texts available to me there may be some examples of the con-
struction which have escaped my notice. In any case, the material gathered
here must be representative, and allows for the conclusion that the phrase ' a
people for His (My, the LORD'S) name' is a standard idiom in the old Pales-
tinian Targum, where it is regularly used to render the Hebrew V? (*V, nmnl?)
OS1?. There is also sufficient basis for the further assumption that even
where we have no direct evidence, the old Palestinian Targum tradition will
1
See M. Black, 'The Recovery of the Language of Jesus', N.T.S. m, no. 4 (July 1957), 305-14,
and 'Die Erforschungder Muttersprachejesu', Theol. Lit.-Zeit. ucxxn, no. 9 (Sept. 1957), esp. 660-4.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 15 Nov 2012 IP address: 129.215.149.92

322 SHORT STUDIES

have been to use the expression ' a people for His name' in cases where 'a
people for Him' is in the later, standardized Targums rendered by ' a people
before Him'. 1 Under these circumstances it is not easy to assume that the1
Lukan phrase Accds TQ 6VOUOCTI CCUTOO should have been created quite inde-
pendently on the basis of the Septuagint, without any connexion with the
Aramaic idiom. The question of aramaisms in Acts and that of tradition and
redaction in the speeches have still to be considered once more !2
Dom Dupont has arrived at his conclusion, that Acts xv. 14 is based upon
the Greek Bible, by observing the differentiation made between Acc6s and
?9VT| in the phrase Aoc6s ^ £9vcov. The Hebrew text in Deut. vii. 6 and xiv. 2,
on the contrary, uses the same word for Israel and the nations Vsa nblO D»
Q'SSn. It can be added that the Palestinian Targum in its agreement with the
Septuagint testifies to the existence of a Hebrew text which even in Exod. xix.
5 read n'jlO Dl> and not only tr»vn VDO nV)O. A differentiation is, however,
as has already been pointed out by Paul Winter,3 found also in Hebrew in
the passage Deut. xxvi. 18, 19: «np D». . .D"llirrl?3 bv yvW. . .n"?10 QV1? V?. . .
. The old Palestinian Targum Jiere renders DS? by OS and c u n by
Moreover, the expression rraiN |» is added in Deut. xxvi. 18, which is
thus made to conform to the parallel passages in Exod. xix. 5 and Deut. vii. 6
and xiv. 2. On the other hand, the differentiation between DV and fTBlN is
also extended to Exod. xix. 5. The newly discovered manuscript will, perhaps,
show whether this also holds good for Deut. vii. 6 and xiv. 2.
The rendering of the words DV and ""U in the Targums is, in general, a
somewhat puzzling problem. The older custom seems to have been to use
Aramaic 05? for Hebrew DP and to render Hebrew ""is by N»1N. In some cases
the plural *C»1N is, like SQvn in the Septuagint, also used to render the plural
D'DSJ. For some reason or other, this custom of translation was later on
given up, and «"•»»» became the regular translation of O'tt, and the common
term for the Gentiles. For some time the word KBlN seems to. have become a
term of higher dignity; at least that is how it is used in Pseudo-Jonathan^
Deut. iv. 34: OS? lift KDlfDa n»l« TV1? KanD'a1?, 'to separate for Himself by lot
a nation from among another people'; NaiX can even be used to render OV
as in Lev. xxvi. 12 (see above) and Deut. xxix. 12: nT"i3 rials'? rrV, 'to Him
a select nation'. In Targum Onkelos, however, XBlN seems only to be used as
a rendering of the corresponding Hebrew word KBN.4 It must be laid upon
1
Further examples, not referred to in the text, are: Deut. xiv. 21; xxvii. 9; xxviii. 9; I Sam. xii. 22;
II Sam. vii. 24; Jer. vii. 23; xi. 4; xiii. 11; xxiv. 7; xxx. 2s; xxxi. 1, 33;xxxii. 38; Ezek. xi. 20; xiv.
11; xxxvii. 23, 27; Zech. viii. 8.
1
According to New Testament Abstracts, 1 (1957), i8gf., M. Wilcox, 'The Old Testament in Acts
1-15', Australian Bibl. Rev. v (1956), 1-41, has found affinity to Aramaic and Samaritan sources in
Acts xiii. 22 and 11; vii. 3, 5, 10b, 4 and 32, and affinity to TM in vii. 16 and viii. 32. The article has
not been accessible to me.
* 'Miszellen zur Apostelgeschichte, 2, Acta 15, 14 und die lukanJsche Kompositionstechnik',
Evangelische Thcologit, xvn (1957), 399-406.
' According to E. Brederek, Konkordanz turn Targum Onkelos (ZAW Bh. 9), Giessen, 1906, the word
is only used in Gen. xxv. 16 and Num. xxv. 15.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 15 Nov 2012 IP address: 129.215.149.92

 SHORT STUDIES 323
specialists in this field to make a fuller investigation and find an explanation
of the curious change of usage. For my present purpose it is sufficient to point
out that in New Testament times a distinction could be made in Aramaic be-
tween Israel as xay and the other nations as icaiN, even in passages where no
corresponding distinction was made in the Hebrew text. This is also confirmed
by the use of niaiN, especially DVwn niaiN, in Mishnaic Hebrew; it.is likely that
the use of this term for the Gentile nations has been influenced by correspond-
ing use of the Aramaic word N'aiN. A new Hebrew term for the nations was
needed, because QTI was easily understood as a plural of the secondary
singular *n = a Gentile, individual man.
As Acts xv. 14 is reminiscent of the old Targum, and 'for His name' the
Targumic rendering of 'for Him', ra 6v6uorti CCOTOO cannot be an equivalent
of n"?JD = TTEpiouaios. There is, then, no full correspondence between Acts xv.
14 and those Old Testament texts in which nVjO is a most characteristic expres-
sion. Still less is there any trace to be found of the regular Targumic render-
ing of this expression, nViJO 771 a^an (p*an, N'a'an). Accordingly, other
texts can be just as relevant as those adduced by Dom Dupont. The construc-
tion Aa|3elv. . .Accov may, for example, be compared with Exod. vi. 7: Ar|youcci
luocuTcp OuSs Acc6v euoi; Deut. iv. 20: i/uas 8E lAapev 6 8e6s. . .sTvai au-rcjb
Aa6v f-yxAnpov; and Deut. iv. 34: Aoc|3elv EOCUTCO I6vos £K ueaov EQVOUS. The
Targums in these cases render rraV by BHD, Exod. vi. 7 frag. D, cf. Deut. iv. 34
Pseudo-Jonathan, or by "na Deut. iv. 34, Ginsburger, p. 86: TOB1? Vsra1?
NaiN UB NOW ri"1'?, 'coming to select for Himself a nation from among a
nation' (the early prints of the Fragment Targum have ^aa 1 ?, ' to announce
for Himself'!).
The number of similar texts indicates that Acts xv. 14 is modelled upon the
general pattern rather than upon any individual passage. Only the phrase' a
people for His name' seems to be a specific Targumic idiom. Of special
interest is the application of this stereotype phraseology to the eschatological
future, as it is found in the books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah. The
closest parallel to Acts xv. 14 seems to be Ezek. xxxvi. 24, 28: DDriN Tins'?
D»V "b DnTll. . .trurrja; LXX: KOCI Ariyoucci uuas he. TCOV E9VOOV. . .KCCI ICTEOOE
UOI els Aa6v; Targum: avb 'Btp pnm. . .N-aas? T3a psrv anpJO, 'and
I will bring you near from among the nations. . . and you shall be a people
before me'. The whole passage, Ezek. xxxvi. 24-8, is known to have had much
influence upon New Testament doctrine of baptism and the church; cf. also
Ezek. xxxvii. 21-3. But the most interesting parallel to Acts xv. 14 is, after all,
Zech. ii. 15 (11) where it is stated that even Gentiles shall become a people of
the Lord: DS1? 'V vm Ninn ova mrr Vs D'aT D'U lV?ll; LXX: KOCI Kon-afeu^ovTai
IQVTI iToAAd ITTI T6V nupiov EV TTJ r|HEpqc iKEfvT), Kal ?aovTai oturcp EIS Aa6v;
Targum: D»V 'aip pn-1 K^nn «n»3 "1 na» V» ftno paa» pSOWl, 'and many
peoples shall be added to the people of the LORD at this time, and they shall
be a people before Me'. If, as there is good reason to do, we assume that here

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 15 Nov 2012 IP address: 129.215.149.92

324 SHORT STUDIES
too *n~lp has replaced an older <l»tt>1?, we have a statement which comes very
close to Acts xv. 14; converted Gentiles are to be 'a people for My name'.
The conversion of Cornelius, adduced by Peter as precedent, is by James
taken as a proof that this promise is being fulfilled. As to the content, Amos
ix. 11-12, as interpreted in the Septuagint, is a variant of the theme which
has found classical expression in Zech. ii. 14-17 (10-13).
If Acts xv. 14 is understood as an allusion to Zech. ii. 15, the argument in
xv. 14-20 becomes clear and lucid. The interpretation of the Old Testament
cannot be said to be artificial, if only the premises are accepted. The scheme
of reasoning remains determined by the Jewish hope for a conversion of
Gentiles who would join the faithful Israel in the Messianic age. Even the
possible further allusion to Exod. xix. 5 and similar passages is not so strange as
it may appear to us; the way in which the fathers entered into the covenant
at Sinai was in Judaism thought to provide the pattern for the proselytes who
were to be added to the people. In Acts xv. 14 we find the same type of
reasoning; we have not yet reached the stage where the churches of the
Gentiles claim to be the people of God to the exclusion of the Jewish nation.
According to Luke, God's promises to Israel have been fulfilled in Jesus the
Christ, and Gentiles who believe in Him are given a share in the hope of
Israel; by refusing to believe in the Apostles' preaching the majority of the
Jews have, on the other hand, disinherited themselves of this fulfilled hope.
This Lukan interpretation of the history of missions comes close to the idea
that the church is the true 'Israel', the new 'people of God'; but it cannot be
identified with it. In the Lukan writings 'IapariA remains the name of the
Israelite people, and E8vn means always non-Israelites and never non-Christian
Gentiles only. With the two exceptions Acts xv. 14 and xviii. 10 the word
Aocds is in its use limited to Israel.
Accds has not always the full theological meaning 'the people of God' in its
contrast to the Gentiles; in many cases Luke simply uses it as a synonym for
6x^05, = 'people' in the collective, unspecified sense of this word. But this
'vulgar' usage is only found in contexts where the people in question is a
crowd of Israelites. This fact seems to have been overlooked by Strathmann in
his article on Aoc6s (Theologisches Worterbuch zum N. T. ed. G. Kittel, iv, 29-57);
in consequence, the difference between a 'vulgar' and a 'specific' usage is
overstressed. The facts are, that not only is the 'specific' use of Aa6s derived
from the Septuagint, but also the more' vulgar' use of the word is controlled by
its influence. The word £io<Ari<x(a can in Acts be used in a completely profane
sense (xix. 32, 39, 41), but Accos is not. This word never occurs in those narra-
tives which are located outside Palestine, if not in direct speech and referring
to Jews. As Strathmann (op. cit. p. 49) has already observed, the word is also
missing in the 'central section' ('Reisebericht') of Luke ix. 51-xviii. 14. The
reason for this must be that Jesus is here supposed to travel in Samaria, out-
side the area where the Actos is to be found. It can be added that the con-

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 15 Nov 2012 IP address: 129.215.149.92

 SHORT STUDIES 325
stancy of usages proves that, in writing irXfjOos TTOAU TOU AOCOG &TT6. . . TTIS
irapaXiou TOpou Kai ZiScovos (vi. 17), Luke must have Jews living in these
areas in view; he thus gives a more limited interpretation to the TTOAU TrAfjGos
in Mark iii. 7-8.
Not even in the Septuagint is there any such clear distinction between a
'vulgar' and a 'specific' usage as assumed by Strathmann. His main point is
that OS? = Acc6s 'seiner Hauptverwendung nach nicht "Volk" im Sinn von
"Volksmenge", "Bevolkerung", "Leute", sondern Volk im Sinne von
Volkerschqft, volkischer Verband ist' {op. cit. p. 33). Indeed, the plural D'ias? =
Accof is often used as a synonym of 0vn = I9vnJ and the singular frequently
means Israel as a totality. But these facts are hardly any sufficient basis for the
statement of Strathmann. Whereas "1U broadly speaking can be said to
mean ' nation'—or ' people' in the ' national' sense of this word—D» is a term
which has in itself a less precise sociological meaning, as has also the Greek
Acc6s. In several contexts the two words can be used as synonyms, 'not dis-
tinctly different' from each other (Kohler, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros
(Leiden, 1951), p. 710). But in general they cannot be substituted for one
another. The most obvious difference is that US in a great number of its
occurrences is used in the construct state or with a suffix, whereas VU only in
few cases is determined by a genitive.1 An 'am is somebody's 'am, not only
when it means 'kinsmen from father's side' (Kohler, he. cit.), but also when it
has a more comprehensive meaning. A man's 'am is the social unit to which
he belongs, or the social unit which belongs to him, as the clan to its leader,
the army to its chief or the people to its king. Frequently 'am means the citi-
zens, the social unit belonging to a town or a country. Where the word is used
in the absolute state, it often stands for the common people seen as a social
unit of its own over against the rulers, commanders or priests.
In accordance with this general use of the two words, it is quite natural that
the expression' God's nation' is very seldom used, whereas' people of the LORD '
is found all over the Old Testament. Psalm cvi. 5 yv, and Zeph. ii. 9 *ii are
rare exceptions. It is obvious that the use of 'am YHWH and not goy YHWH
as the sacred name of Israel is the root, and not the consequence, of the
tendency to speak of Israel as 'am and of other nations as goyim. As to the
term 'am YHWH it seems, further, to be evident that originally it did not
mean 'the people' in the sense of 'the nation of YHWH', but much more:
the social unit which belongs to YHWH, adheres to him and is dependent
upon, him, his kinsmen, companions, followers, worshippers, and the soldiers
1
To this simple, but fundamental observation, not even the best study on *U and DP, known to
me, has paid sufficient attention: L. Rost: 'Die Bezeichnungen fur Land und Volk im A.T.', Fest-
schrift Otto Procksch (Leipzig, 1934), pp. 125-48. Rost concludes by the following definition: ''1J
bezeichnet die Gesamtbevolkerung eines Territoriums, DV die Mannschaft eines Volkes als die
Zusammenfassung der verheirateten.auf eigener Scholle sitzenden Vollbiirger mit dem Recht zur
Dienstleistung im Heerbann, zur Teilnahme an der Rechtssprechung und zur Ausiibung des Kultes'
(p. 147). The word 01, like the term fixn DV, certainly often can have this meaning, but this is a
specific, technical use, rather than the basic meaning of the word.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 15 Nov 2012 IP address: 129.215.149.92

326 SHORT STUDIES
of his wars. If this is taken as the starting-point, the following history of the
term becomes easily understandable; Israel was the 'am YHWH before it
became a nation (Judg. v. 11, 13!). If'Israel' is taken to be the name of the
league of tribes settled in Cana'an, 1 it might even be that the 'am YHWH
existed before it was identified with ' Israel'. If, as it has too often been done,
we start with the assumption that 'am means 'a people' in a national sense
(German: 'ein Volk', Norwegian: 'et folk', and so on), the whole semantic
development and, possibly, also the history of Israel become confused. It is
just the lack of precision which makes the English word 'people' an apt
translation; the term 'volkisch' has connotations which should better be
avoided.
The sociological vagueness of the term D», which gets its precise meaning
from the context, is to a large extent taken over by Aa6s in the Septuagint, the
Greek word Xocds being in itself a sociological term with a rather fluid
meaning. In the Lukan writings this fluidity is still to be found or even
increased; Aocos can stand for Israel as a totality, but also for any group of
Israelites present at a specific place and moment. In many cases it is difficult
to say what the precise meaning is, because no high degree of precision has
been intended by the author.
If we return now to the two single instances in which Accds in Acts is used of
non-Israelites, it is manifest that in xviii. 10 Accos. . .TTOAUS means 'a great
group of people' and not ' a big nation'; God has much people in Corinth,
there are many who will become Christians. Acts xv. 14 should be inter-
preted in a similar way: God has made provision to take a group of people
out of the Gentile nations and make them his own. The point is not that this
group is 'a people' in the sense of'a nation' or 'a cultural unit', but that it
now belongs to God in the same way as Israel does, or, rather: as Israel should
do. This idea, as we have already seen, conforms to that of Zech. ii. 15 (11)
and similar passages, and differs from the application of Exod. xix. 5-6 and
parallels to the Christian church, made in Tit. ii. 14; I Pet. ii. 9; Rev. i. 6;
v. 9-10. In these passages, all of them composed in a liturgic-homiletical style,
the redemption in Christ is seen as the eschatological 'Exodus' and as the
establishment of a new covenant through the sacrificial death of Christ; the
Church of Christ is the new covenant people of God. The whole idea is dif-
ferent in Acts xv. 14, where the status of Israel as people of God is not ques-
tioned ; it is only said that in addition to the people to whom the promises were
given, God has also taken 'from Gentiles people for His name'. The collective
'people' is here perhaps a less misleading translation than 'a people'.
The interpretation of the conversion of Gentiles to the Christian faith in
terms of the fulfilment of prophecies like Zech. ii. 14-17 seems to represent an
early type of Christian doctrine about church and missions. Luke can make
James state that' God has made provision to take from the Gentiles a people
1
Cf. M. Noth, Geschichte Israels (Gottingen, 1950).

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 15 Nov 2012 IP address: 129.215.149.92

 SHORT STUDIES 327
for His name', without being guilty of any anachronism. The use of a
Targumic expression, in fact, makes it likely that the statement made in
Acts xv. 14 must have robts which go back to early Jewish Christianity. None
the less, Acts xv. 14 is good Lukan theology; even elsewhere in Luke-Acts the
conversion of Gentiles is seen as a fulfilment of God's promises to Israel:
Luke ii. 29-32; Acts ii. 39; iii. 25; xiii. .47, etc.
Luke presupposes the Pauline mission to the Gentiles, and interprets the
existence of the Gentile churches in a way which comes close to the view
stated by Paul in a passage like Romans xv. 7-13. But Luke has no deeper
understanding for the more profound theological issues which the admission
of Gentiles included for Paul. The report of the conference in Jerusalem given
in Acts xv does not harmonize too well with the Apostle's own understanding
of the event (Gal. ii); in some respects it seems to come closer to the view held
by his adversaries in Galatia.1 Luke belongs to the post-Pauline church. To
him the mission to the Jews has, in general, been a failure; the salvation of
God, promised to Israel, is now sent to the Gentiles, who have become heirs
of Israel's hope. This is a variant of the common outlook of Gentile Christianity
in post-apostolic times; but Luke formulates it in his own way, and cannot be
regarded as representative for early catholic thought ('Fruhkatholismus'),
which is much more characterized by the idea that the Gentile church is'
'Israel', 'the people of God', by virtue of the new covenant. Luke's concep-
tion of the admission of Gentiles is, rather, the personal view of the author,
who, as a historian, in a post-Pauline age draws upon traditions from early
Jewish Christianity, and, as a biblical theologian, interprets the missionary
history of the Apostolic age in the light of the Old Testament prophecies.
N. A. DAHL

AFTERTHOUGHTS ON THE TERM

'DIPSYCHOS'
Ten years ago, in a second article on this term in the Journal of Biblical
Literature,2 I recorded what I all too optimistically described to Robert H.
Pfeiffer, then editor, as my 'last word' on the subject. Little could I have
guessed that before that very year was over documents would begin to come to
light which might require reconsideration of such a rash remark. Recently
the concept expressed by this rare Greek adjective has been reviewed in a
fresh way, in a study of certain ideas and expressions contained in the Dead
Sea Scrolls, by Wallace I. Wolverton.3 In this postscript, I must content
1
Cf. O. Linton, 'The Third Aspect', Studia Theologiea, ill (1949), 79-95.
1
J.B.L. LXVi (1947), 211-19.
* 'The Double-Minded Man in the Light of Essene Psychology', A.T.R. XXXVIII (1956), 166-75.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 15 Nov 2012 IP address: 129.215.149.92