"As to the speeches which were made either before or during the war, it was hard for me, and for others who reported them to me, to recollect the exact words. I have therefore put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them, while at the same time I endeavored, as nearly as I could, to give general import of what was actually said."
Here are two interpretative considerations for the speeches in Acts. They are:
- Luke's own composition
- Summaries (read out loud Peter's speech in Acts 2 and time yourself)
This is of course different than assuming we are reading a verbatim report of what was actually said by any of Luke's apostolic speakers.
2 comments:
Too bad they didn't have You-Tube in the first century so we could know EXACTLY what was said.
That is the truth. And in view of that, isn't it amazing how many people take them as literal history. As an English teacher and a lover of literature, I find it difficult to find a piece of writing that does not in some way reflect its time and culture. Further, nearly every piece has an agenda behind it, albeit a genuine, forthright one.
Post a Comment