Bibliografia per a aprofundir en el tema

One account of the advent of the Gentile mission is given to us in Acts 10:1-11:18, which describes Peter’s conversion of Cornelius, a Roman centurion of the Italian Cohort stationed at Caesarea. Luke reports how Peter, during a missionary tour of the coastal towns of Lydda and Joppa (9:32-43; 10:9), accepts an invitation of hospitality from the household of Cornelius, whom he subsequently visits (10:24-28), evangelises (10:34-43) and, following a spontaneous outpouring of the Spirit, baptises (10:44-48). Returning to Jerusalem, Peter is forced to justify his behaviour by recounting the miraculous events that led to Cornelius’ conversion (11:1-18). On hearing Peter’s defence, his erstwhile detractors conclude: “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life” (11:18).

Similarly when Paul and Barnabas travel from Antioch to Jerusalem to consult with the apostolic authorities there, Peter again appeals to his experience with Cornelius to support the legitimacy of the Gentile mission at Antioch (15:7-13). This threefold recounting emphasises that what is being reported here with the Cornelius incident is not just another conversion story, but the very origins of the Law-free mission to the Gentiles – a subject that will dominate the subsequent chapters of Luke’s story. However, the consensus opinion held by commentators on Acts is that the Cornelius story can hardly be historical, at least in present form.¹⁹²

It has often noted that the Cornelius episode is replete with numerous literary features and legendary motifs that are unique to Luke. F. Watson, who is prepared to dismiss the story as a clear Lukan creation on this basis alone, has catalogued several of

191 Some scholars argue that the Hellenists initiated the Gentile Mission prior to their expulsion from Jerusalem; see Esler, Community and Gospel, 157-159; and Räisänen, Jesus, Paul and Torah, 166-168. However, a close reading of the Lukan narrative suggests that the Hellenists had not previously approached the Gentiles, either during their time in Jerusalem or in the initial stages of their missions beyond the city. Luke makes no mention of a Gentile mission in Jerusalem or Palestine, and that is what we might expect. For surely, the Law-free mission to non-Jews would have only developed later, when the dispersed Hellenists embarked on their missions in the more culturally mixed environments of Syria, Phoenicia, and Cyprus.

192 See, for example: Haenchen, Acts, 357-363; Conzelmann, Acts, 78-86; Lüdemann, Early Christianity, 124-133; and Esler, Community and Gospel, 95-97.

these traits.¹⁹³ First, there is the figure of Cornelius who is but one of a series of devout centurions populating the pages of Luke (7:1-10; 23:47) and Acts (27:1-3, 30-32, 42-44), testament to Luke’s concern to demonstrate the generally favourable attitude of the Roman authorities to the new Christian movement. Second, the motif of divine guidance given through the agency of angels and visions is also typical of Luke (Lk 1:11-20, 26-38; 2:9-14; 24:2-7; Acts 1:10-11; 5:19-20; 7:55-56; 8:26; 9:3-6, 10-12; 12:7-11; 16:9-10; 18:9-10;

23:11; 27:23-24). Finally, the description of the descent of the Spirit on Cornelius and his household and their subsequent gift of glossolalia is clearly composed to mirror the reports of the events of Pentecost and similar outpourings of the Spirit in Acts (2:1-13; cf. 4:31;

8:14-17; 19:1-7). These considerations force us to suspect that the Cornelius episode is a Lukan literary construct.

Still it could be argued that despite Luke’s creative work, the story of Cornelius’

conversion may contain some reliable historical information. Luke may have exaggerated, embellished, and conflated earlier traditions concerning Peter’s vision and the conversions of certain individual Gentiles who joined the movement in its initial phase – that is, in the period prior to the advent of the large-scale mission to the Gentiles.¹⁹⁴ After all, Cornelius is described in terms reminiscent of a God-fearer (10:2, 22) which, as we saw in the Introduction, refers to that category of Gentiles who had attached themselves to the Jewish synagogue and adopted some Jewish customs and faith-practices. It is often assumed that many if not all the earliest Gentile converts to Christianity were probably either proselytes to Judaism or God-fearers. As individuals with a pre-existing affinity for Judaism and an established relationship with Jewish synagogues, one might see them as the most likely candidates for any mission amongst the Gentiles. Moreover, C. C. Hill makes the point that nowhere in Acts 10:1-11:18 does Luke say that Cornelius and his family joined the community in Jerusalem.¹⁹⁵ Cornelius, like other individual Gentiles who converted to the Jesus movement in its initial stages, were seen as exceptional cases that posed no more

193 Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 23-25.

194 This is the view taken by M. Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London: SCM Press, 1956), 121-122. His arguments are rehearsed anew by S. G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS 23;

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 172-173. Cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 80. Others who accept that the Cornelius story contains a kernel of historical truth include Hengel, Acts, 92-98; Lüdemann, Early Christianity, 132-133; Dunn, Partings, 72-73, 125; Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 122-125; and Barrett, Acts, 1:496-498, 535.

195 Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 123; and Dunn, Partings, 125.

threat to the essential Jewish character of the movement than they did formerly as God-fearers and proselytes attached to the Jewish synagogues.

There are certain problems with this proposal. First, it is important to note that Peter accepts Cornelius into the movement without first insisting that he and the other male members of his household submit to circumcision. The whole thrust of the Lukan account of Peter’s vision and the miraculous outpouring of the Spirit on the Gentile converts, as well as Peter’s later problems with the circumcised brothers of Judea, serves to stress this point. Second, as we noted above, Luke’s purpose is not just to note the extraordinary character of this event, but to signal the initiation of the Law-free Gentile mission per se.

Cornelius is presented by Luke, not as the exception to the Jerusalem’s current Law-observant faith-practice, but as the first instance of a new Law-free policy on the part of the Jerusalem church with regard to the Gentile converts (Acts 11:18; cf. 15:7-11), which will later be ratified at the Jerusalem Council (15:13-29). Such is the radical nature of this departure that Luke’s Cornelius story seems incredible, especially in the light of our preceding reconstruction of the constituency and faith-practice of the earliest apostolic community. If our foregoing conclusions concerning the Law-observant Jerusalem community are correct, then we must assume that any change of policy that allowed the admission of uncircumcised Gentiles would have been unthinkable, particularly at this early stage in the development of what appears to be a thoroughly Jewish movement.

Finally, this incredible development is one that appears even more improbable if we are to accept that Peter was the primary advocate for this change of policy. Any line of argument that credits Peter with initiating a mission to the Gentiles, or even playing a part in admitting individual, uncircumcised Gentiles to the movement, seems unlikely when we consider all that we know of Peter and the Jerusalem church in both Acts and the letters of Paul. Most importantly, the notion that Peter would have taken the revolutionary step of admitting an uncircumcised Gentile to the movement stands in contradiction to the primary evidence of Paul in Galatians (2:1-10). While Paul admits that Peter and the other “Pillars”

James and John were not opposed to the Gentile mission, he mentions nothing of Peter’s prior engagement with that mission. In point of fact, Paul asserts that it was widely accepted that Peter was commissioned to exercise his apostolic ministry exclusively amongst the Jews (2:7-8). The import of this statement cannot be blunted even if we

contend that Luke has simply placed the Cornelius story too early in the chronology of events, prior to rather than after the Apostolic Council.¹⁹⁶ There is no indication in Galatians (2:1-10) that, as result of Paul’s consultation with the Pillars at Jerusalem, there was to be any modification of procedure in the future. Paul seems to have understood the agreement forged at Jerusalem in terms of a strict demarcation of the mission field. He would go to the Gentiles, while Peter and by extension the Jerusalem church would continue as before to focus on the Jews in Palestine. Any attempt to argue for an historical core to the Cornelius story by affirming a role for Peter in the Gentile mission, albeit limited, ultimately founders on the evidence in Galatians 2:1-10.¹⁹⁷ With this observation and the other points noted above in mind, we can only concur with the conclusion of F.

Watson that Luke has probably created the Cornelius story de novo. Moreover, it is likely that Luke inserted it into the narrative at this point to vindicate the Gentile mission by bringing it under the apostolic authority of Peter and the Jerusalem church, rather than attributing it to the questionable authority of Paul or, more importantly at this stage, the Hellenists.¹⁹⁸