Acts III

15:1 Luke is making a consciously politic effort to not embarrass anybody here.

15:5 You can't teach an old dog new trick. I wonder if Nicodemus was one of these.

15:7-11 I can find no fault with this speech of Peter's. His reasoning is not only sound, but loving, and outside of the box. It goes beyond what was necessary for the moment.

15:14 When did Peter take the name "Simeon" as opposed to "Simon"? Is this a nuance of translation?

15:19 "I have reached the decision"? What role does James have here, exactly? Is he the chairman of this board? A John Hancock?

15:20 Here's an interesting question: why these 4 things? Fornication seems pretty obvious, as does the idol proscription. So what was the big deal with blood? Was it a nod to the Jews, for whom that would simply be beyond the pale? Alternately, is there some theological significance that was invented for this occasion?

15:21 This is a seeming non sequitir. I can think of two ways to take it: firstly, James could mean that Moses is no longer a source unique to the Jews. Contrariwise, he could mean that The Jewish Law has had its chance (and, as mentioned by Peter, no one could keep it anyway).

15:24 This letter is very carefully written. It indicates that the elders in Jerusalem did not agree with those who made Gentiles get circumcised (without saying it), but this is manifestly misleading.

15:36 This has often been cited in my experience as an example of the candor of the Bible, as a way of strengthening its authority. I'm not so sure of that. It's not a particularly candid account, neither is it neutral. He in whom authority was vested came away looking rather like the more high-minded of the two.

16:1 This is a nice moment to introduce Timothy from a literary perspective. We just finished reconciling the Jews and the Greeks, and voila! Ecce Homo!

16:3 Whatwhatwhat? I thought we resolved that question! This reflects rather ill on Paul. Yes, I perceive this to be a cowardly move.

16:6-7 Is there a difference between the Holy Spirit in v6 and the Spirit of Jesus in v7?

16:10 Wait, who is "we"? Is Timothy narrating now? I though Luke wrote this. I've looked four times and not found a skipped quotation mark . . . it definitely seems that Luke is traveling with them now.

16:15 How could she be judged faithful to the Lord? She just heard about him. Faith is momentary, but faithfulness requires a bit more time.

16:18 this account certainly refutes any idea that the source of a vision can be told by its fruitage. This was clearly the work of what Luke considers a demon, and yet it offered two beneficial fruits: wealth, and, more to the point, a direct witness to Paul's party.

16:28 Paul's behavior here is different than Peter's in a similar situation. Why did he linger?

16:37 This explains the former. Paul very astutely set the magistrates up. Why the earthquake, then, becomes the question. A bit extreme if it was only for the salvation of one guard and his household.

17:12 This is the second passage that makes special mention of the women. It is less remarkable that Greek women were persuaded, but Jewish women were definitely not used to making such decision for themselves, or acting as their own agents.

17:16 I know a little how he feels here. To this day, the sight of a cross still give me metaphorical mono.

17:18 This might have been a refreshing change of pace for Paul, to argue with a new set of people and develop a new set of arguments.

17:23 Possibly the most brilliant piece of rhetoric in the Bible.

17:25 This might touch on the source of Paul's rather strong reaction to the idols in the city: not that they were irreligious, but that they were insulting.

18:2 It's tempting to conflate these two with Aquila and Prisca from earlier. Is it possible that the timeline is just a little revised, and that they are the same?

18:4 What kind of Greeks would he find in a synagogue? Is he still catering to the Jews?

18:6 If so, it would appear that he has changed his mind here.

18:9 Perhaps it was necessary to give Paul this message because of his itinerant tendencies. He certainly seemed to leave Athens in a hurry.

18:17 Why, I wonder. What was the transgression of the Sosthenes?

18:23 Paul was terribly peripatetic during this period, and it was only in Corinth that he was told to linger. What was it about the Corinthian Character that merited a such a long stay from Paul, and more written communication too?

18:24 Now this Apollos is an interesting character. What did his role end up being in the congregation? Although this passage is filled with praise for him, no mention is made of his being divinely inspired.

19:3 This embellishes the character of Apollo. What were his motivations? Was he one of John's original disciples? Did the baptism of John really have no access to the Holy Spirit?

19:9 This is the first mention in Acts of The Way, I think. I forget which of the Gospels it was that refers to it. Clearly, it was about this time in the story that the term came into use, so the Gospel in question was written during Paul's travels, which makes me think it was probably Luke.

19:12 Belief in holy relics is not so silly after all, by this account--the fingers of the saints, the sarirae of monks, may actually have some power. This begs questions such as how long did the power of Paul's kleenex last? Did it require some conscious blessing on his part? Are there any around today? Are they still powerful? Why is there no mention of Jesus' kleenex curing the sick?

19:15 which event certainly mythbusts a certain flavor of Christian who claim the Jesus' name alone is good for something.

19:20 In a way, it was not only the word of the Lord that grew mighty, but also The Word of the Lord.

19:37 This doesn't seem entirely true. They clearly proclaimed that Artemis--or her image at lest--had not power. wouldn't that make them blasphemers in their eyes?

20:3 Dang, that's a long trip, presumably through the Hellespont and Anatolia. He had been protected up until this point, why waste so much time? Did he receive another warning?

20:5 His retinue is growing. Will he end up with 12?

20:6 this is eight, counting Luke who is now speaking in the first person again.

20:7 Here's another parallel with Jesus' narrative. I think there's something to this line of reasoning.

20:11 Three parallels in this verse alone: the upper room, the resurrection, and the breaking of bread. none of them significant enough on their own to make the point, but together?

20:18, so Paul did not go through Anatolia after all. I'm confused about his actual route.

20:22 A fascinating turn of phrase: captive to the Spirit. I don't recall its use anywhere else. Is this not altogether pleasant for him?

20:17 Did the Apostles come up, or was this just the local elders?

20:36 A moving and believable speech. I wonder why he chose Ephesus to deliver it. Did he just happen to be here when he received the testimony of his imminent death?

21:8 As mentioned earlier, Philip is one of those interesting characters about whom only enough is revealed to pique the interest. What is meant here by calling him "one of the seven"?

21:13 Wow the echoes of Jesus' last days are super loud here.

21:20 I wonder whose decision it is here not to capitalize the word "law". Is this reflective of the original Greek, or is it an arbitrary distinction made by the publishers. Which question gives rise to the even larger one of why "The Lord" is capitalized elsewhere.

21:26 This purification ritual does not ring any bells. It is especially weird that Paul is asked specifically to go through the rite with four other men, and to "pay for the shaving of their heads." What does this ritual mean to the Jews? Should it be considered a cowardly concession to those who will clearly not be appeased?

21:37 I like how much power language carries through this passage. It is Paul's use of Greek that gets the tribune's attention, and his use of Hebrew that shushes the crowd.