CC BY
29Resistance discourse in the book of Acts: A Critical Discourse Analysis perspective
Research Article
Philip P. Limerick
Abstract
The current paper offers a Biblical analysis from a Critical Discourse Analysis perspective. While numerous studies have analyzed the Bible from a discourse analytic perspective in general, much less has been done on critical discourse analysis in particular. Moreover, discourse analytic studies of the Bible typically consider partial books or excerpts. In the case of Acts, no study (to my knowledge) has examined the book in its entirety. To fill this gap, the current analysis involves a comprehensive scriptural discourse analysis of the entire book of Acts. The use of language in Acts that reflects dissent—resistance discourse—is examined, and common themes and discursive strategies are analyzed. The findings highlight themes such as resistance to the Roman government; resistance to the Pharisees, resistance to Satan (and evil spirits), and the discursive strategies discussed include lexical choice denoting resistance and opposition, pronominal choice to convey collectivity and solidarity, the use of legitimation strategies, and the use of metaphor. The discourse of Acts as a reflection of ideologies of social equality as well as Christo-anarchism is also discussed.
Keywords
Acts; Critical Discourse Analysis; discourse analysis; resistance
Centre College, 463 Crounse Hall, 610 W. Walnut Street, Danville, KY 40422, USA
Corresponding author:
Philip P. Limerick (Mr.), philip .limerick@ centre.edu
Received:
21 November 2022 Reviewed: 4 December 2022 Accepted: 23 December 2022 Published: 27 December 2022
UDC:
8Ï42+2-23
For citation:
Limerick, Philip P. 2022. "Resistance discourse in the book of Acts: A Critical Discourse Analysis perspective." Language. Text. Society 9 (2). https://ltsj.online/2022-09-2-limerick.
Language. Text. Society
Vol. 9 No. 2, 2022 ISSN 2687-0487
Introduction
In this paper, a Biblical analysis will be offered from a Critical Discourse Analysis perspective. The framework of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) seeks to examine "structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifested in language" and to "investigate critically social inequality as it is expressed, constituted, legitimised, and so on, by language use (or in discourse)" (Wodak and Meyer 2009, 10). While numerous studies have analyzed the Bible from a discourse analytic perspective in general, much less has been done on critical discourse analysis in particular. Moreover, while CDA research has tended to focus on the discourse of those exercising power and discrimination (e.g. racist or sexist discourse), the study of resistance discourse (similar to what Teun A. Van Dijk (2015, 75) calls 'dissident discourse') is still relatively understudied, for instance the analysis of anti-racist discourse (Dijk 2020). A major place in the Bible, among others, in which we see ample evidence of resistance discourse is in the book of Acts, a history of the original church. The type of resistance here is seen through the apostles and disciples of Jesus and is predominantly against the high priests of the Roman government (see Section 4 for the detailed discussion). The first (to the best of my knowledge) to use CDA in the study of the New Testament was Stanley E. Porter (1999). While he has several pieces of criticism toward the field of CDA, Porter (1999) also highlights some of its main advantages, both in general and for New Testament studies in particular, which include "bringing to the interpreter's attention linguistic data that perhaps would not be noticed, or would be downplayed in another context" as well as "its desire to go beyond description of linguistic practice and to engage in linguistic evaluation and explanation" (p. 68).
The current investigation is informed by previous research in (critical) discourse analysis as well as pragmatics and will address discourse structures such as lexical choice, pronominal choice (De Fina 1995, 2003), and strategies such as legitimation (Van Leeuwen and Wodak 1999) and the use of metaphor as manifested in the discursive context of Acts. Moreover, discourse analytic studies of the Bible typically consider partial books or excerpts (but see, e.g. Porter 1999's work on Philemon). In the case of Acts, no study (to my knowledge) has examined the book in its entirety. To fill this gap, the current analysis involves a comprehensive scriptural discourse analysis of the entire book of Acts.
Furthermore, in the way of theoretical perspectives, we will see through the scriptural analysis that one may apply the lens of what is called Christo-anarchism to Acts, that is the intersection of Christianity/Christ and anarchism (Van Steenwyk 2012). It is outside the scope of this article to exhaustively define or debate all of the complex nuances of anarchism but, essentially, anarchism can be defined as "contrary to authority" or the "principle under which a collectivity—a group of people— may be conceived without rule" (Van Steenwyk 2012, 16). Thus, Christo-anarchism, simply put, involves Christians, in the way of Christ and his love, seeking to remove oppressive social relations (Van Steenwyk 2012). Van Steenwyk (2012) asserts the following, which eloquently summarizes the notion of Jesus as an anarchist:
Traditional kingship (with absolute power, hoards of wealth, and power over the weak) has nothing to do with Jesus; it's something Jesus rejected. Traditional kings demand allegiance and servitude, but Jesus offers liberation—from suffering, sickness and death, exclusion, persecution, and sin. Jesus is a "king" who serves the "least of these", and who finally receives torture and execution to bring freedom to others. (p. 12)
Additionally, this author provides a more detailed definition of Christo-anarchism, which is the following:
Christo-anarchism refers not only to the insight that Jesus' vision of the [un]Kingdom of God has anarchic (anti-domination) implications, but also the assumption that, only by nurturing practices centered on the presence of the Living Christ, can we move from domination to non-domination, from death to life, from oppression to liberation, and from alienation to love. (Van Steenwyk 2012, 65)
We will observe how the context of and discourse used in Acts is illustrative of this notion as it applies to Jesus, the apostles, the Roman government, and other groups. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: First, some background will be provided concerning previous discourse analytic studies of the Bible, including the book of Acts in particular. Then, the methodology employed for the current analysis will be outlined followed by the analysis and discussion of the findings. Finally, the study is summarized with a conclusion as well as ideas for future research.
Literature review
Discourse analysis and the Bible
One of the first projects to embark on the study of the Bible from a discourse analytic framework was David Alan Black, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen Levinsohn's (1992) edited volume entitled Linguistics and New Testament interpretation: Essays on discourse analysis. This volume includes methodologically focused analyses such as constituent order in copula clauses (Callow 1992) and the study of synoptic criticism and Markan grammar (Black 1992) as well as applied investigations to particular texts, such as discourse structure in Galatians (Parunak 1992), thematic development in Corinthians (Callow 1992), and imperative forms in Romans (Miller 1992). Another volume, that of Porter and Carson (1995), covers both overviews of studies and methods in discourse analysis and the New Testament as well as specific studies of Philippians, such as constituent order (Levinsohn 1995) and cohesion shifts (Guthrie 1995). Furthermore, the work of Porter and Reed (1999) is notable in that it presents investigations that employ a broad range of different discourse analytical methods in studying the New Testament. In doing so, these authors center the results rather than any one particular method, stating that "we wish to illustrate how discourse analysis, no matter what model is being used, is often at its best when it is reading texts rather than theorizing about its method (Porter and Reed 1999, 16) (see also Reed 1997 for an exhaustive discourse analysis of Philippians). More recently, Todd A. Scacewater (2020) offers several chapters that report on discourse analytical studies of the New Testament, each chapter analyzing a different book. Like Porter and Reed (1999), these studies approach discourse analysis from varying methodologies.
Finally, and specifically pertaining to critical discourse analysis, Porter (1999) examines the book of Philemon in terms of social problems, power relations, and ideology, among other aspects, drawing from Fairclough and Wodak's (1997) principles of CDA. Regarding social problems, he discusses slavery in the context of Oneimus as a slave of Philemon. Using person-reference or pronominal choice analysis, Porter (1999) highlights the frequent and consistent nature of the firstperson singular indicating that Paul is the primary writer of the letter as well as the consistent use of the second-person singular to the addressee, which is most likely Philemon. According to Porter (1999), this now creates a complex social dynamic of three people within the context of the social organization of the church. Returning to the context of slavery, the author underscores that Oneimus was with Paul, but Paul sends him back to Philemon with hopes that Oneimus can be restored to Paul. Thus, this shows a linguistic analysis, but within the social and political context, a practice integral to Critical Discourse Analysis. Moreover, Porter (1999) analyzes Philemon in terms of power relations,
arguing that different discourse features signal Paul's power and higher position than those to whom he writes while in other instances signal a solidary relation. For instance, Paul characterizes himself using the phrases "fellow-worker" and "brother", evoking a solidary or same-level relationship with his addresses. In contrast, Porter notes the hierarchical language of Paul, overtly stating his authority to give orders to his recipients as well as referring to himself as a prisoner of Christ Jesus and using the phrase "in Christ" as in one who has authority in Christ. Porter (1999) argues, "For Paul, it would appear that this is a position of strength, as if the Lord Jesus were observing all that is said and hoped to be done in the letter" (p. 59). Concerning ideology, Porter (1999) notes the context of slavery (specifically the case of Onesimus) as well as Church-social relations, arguing that, for Paul, Church business takes precedence over slavery and that Paul is setting forth a "small-scale and individual revolution" (p. 62). Essentially, then, Paul's ideology is that of desiring Christian servanthood and brotherhood (for Onesimus) and an end to Onesimus being enslaved. In fact, in my view, Paul's discourse regarding his ideology could be considered resistance discourse in this particular context.
The following section outlines a brief context for the Book of Acts and also discusses previous discourse analytic scholarship on Acts, the book of focus for the present study.
The book of Acts
The book of Acts, presumed to be written by the apostle Luke (Marguerat 2002; Dunn 2016), is considered to be a second volume of Luke's gospel and it presents the establishment and history of the New Testament church in Jerusalem.1 As such, the main theme is the witnessing and evangelizing of the apostles, as reflected in Jesus' statement to the apostles in Acts 1:8: "...and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth". Moreover, Acts is very much a defense of Jesus and the Gospel and a resistance to various actors, including Jews, Gentiles, and the Roman government, who were opposed to the Gospel and the name of Jesus, often resulting in persecution of the apostles (Bible Study Tools 2022).
There have been a number of discourse analytic studies on the Book of Acts (e.g. Martin-Asensio 1999; Klutz 1999; Read-Heimerdinger 2002, 2020, 2022) For instance, Martin-Asensio (1999) investigates the Stephen story (Acts 6-7) in relation to participant reference and to syntactic foregrounding. Regarding the former, Martin-Asensio discusses the various person-reference forms such as full explicit subject, abbreviated explicit subject, non-explicit subject, and non-subject (i.e. object) reference. The author argues that these reference forms align with the relative importance of different characters in the Stephen episode (e.g. explicit subjects indicate more important characters than non-explicit subject or object referents). Along with the reference analysis, this researcher also underscores the general lack of agency attributed to certain characters, such as Stephen himself, by pointing out that clause-types that encode mental/verbal processes and processes of being are much more frequent than those encoding processes of doing (i.e. active agency). Martin-Asensio draws similar conclusions for the other characters analyzed, Joseph and Moses, maintaining that "the writer is focusing on the status of these three men as relatively passive victims of unrighteous opposition, who nonetheless bear the seal of God's approval and are blessed and chosen by him" (1999, 250). Concerning syntactic foregrounding, the author points to particular structures that serve to highlight the main theme, namely the Greek adjectival demonstrative pronoun ovro^ 'this' as well as the complement-subject-predicate clause type.
Moreover, Klutz (1999) analyzes foregrounding, situational context, and relevance in Acts 19:13-20, in which Jews attempted to cast out evil spirits in Ephesus. Regarding foregrounding, the author showcases certain linguistic features such as repetition, verbal aspect, and word order, among
1 There is no direct evidence of Acts' authorship, but there is a wide consensus in the literature that it was written by Luke.
others, and how they are used to give prominence to certain elements in this particular part of Acts. For instance, he argues that certain verbs in the present, imperfect, and perfect aspects serve to underscore participants or processes carried out by participants. Klutz explains when discussing verse 16, for example, that "by choosing the perfect tense-form where another tense of the same verb or even an adjective could have been selected, the narrator heavily emphasizes that the itinerants not only failed to expel the spirit and help the poor man, but actually lacked power to prevent themselves from falling victim to the malevolent being" (1999, 264). Regarding situational context, the author highlights, for example, that the text preceding the one under analysis is important in understanding the contrast between Paul's healing ministry and the failed, non-divinely inspired attempts of the Jewish itinerants. Klutz emphasizes, then, the integral nature of the co-text, or the text that both precedes and follows the text under analysis.
Furthermore, Read-Heimerdinger (2002) provides a contrastive analysis of two versions of Acts: The Codex Bezae and the Alexandrian manuscripts. She considers features such as prepositions, articles, connectives, and word order, among others. For instance, among many other features, she contrasts the use of the Greek connectives for 'but/and', Kai in the Alexandrian tradition to that of 5 s in the Codex Bezae, maintaining that the former version is much more cohesive, clear, and comprehensible than the latter due to the forcefulness of 5 s relative to Kai. More recently, Read-Heimerdinger (2020, 2022) carries out more exhaustive discourse analyses of Acts focusing on grammatical features and the importance of their contexts upon interpreting Luke's use of the Greek language.
The next section will address the methodology employed for the current investigation. In contrast to the discourse analytic studies discussed above that analyze very specific grammatical structures (e.g. verb tense/aspect, demonstratives, connectives, word order, etc.) in selections of Acts, the current study offers a broader analysis of discourse properties used in the text as whole. Furthermore, it takes a critical stance and investigates these discourse properties in relation to their political context, in particular to the structures of—and resistance to—domination, power, and control exerted on the apostles.
Material and methods
A thematic analysis and an investigation of common discursive strategies in the Book of Acts within the broader topic of resistance discourse was employed using Bible Gateway with the New International Version of the Bible.2 In line with the framework and goals of Critical Discourse Analysis discussed in the Introduction, special attention was paid to power relations, control, and social inequality as reflected in language use. The investigation was guided by the following research questions:
(1) What are the major themes in the Book of Acts related to resistance discourse?
(2) What discursive strategies are employed by the apostles in engaging in resistance discourse?
Results and discussion
The following major themes related to resistance discourse emerged from the thematic analysis, which will be discussed throughout this section: Resistance to the Roman government; resistance to the Pharisees, resistance to Satan (and evil spirits); anti-capitalist, anti-individualistic, and anti-classist
2 https://www.biblegateway.com/
discourse. The discursive strategies analyzed include the following: lexical choice denoting resistance and opposition, pronominal choice to convey collectivity and solidarity as well as individualization (Martín-Rojo 1997; De Fina 1995, 2003), the use of legitimation strategies (Van Leeuwen and Wodak 1999), and the use of metaphor (Kuczoc 2018; Lemke 2021).
Because they rejected Jesus, and in order to remain in power and to retain their prestige, the Roman government did not want the gospel to be further spread, and thus admonished against speaking in the name of Jesus. This is clear in Acts 4, where in response two of Jesus' apostles, Peter and John, resist by saying they will not listen to the political leaders because of their undeniable experiences in the spiritual realm:
(1) 17 "...But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them to speak no longer to anyone in this name." 18 Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, "Which is right in God's eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! 20 As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:17-20)3
Discursively, the use of the first-person plural pronouns we and us signal a collective identity and solidarity for Peter and John (Martín-Rojo 1997; De Fina 2003; Lerner and Kitzinger 2007; Dijk 2015). That is, they see themselves as part of a group (of apostles) who stands in opposition to the Romans by listening to God (and not the Roman leaders) and speaking of Jesus rather than staying silent. Additionally, the notion of legitimation in discourse (Van Leeuwen and Wodak 1999) also comes into play in the context of (1). Van Leeuwen and Wodak (1999) have proposed four main categories or sub-types of legitimation in discourse: (a) Authorization: justification by reference to authority (i.e. person, tradition, custom, or law); (b) Moral evaluation: referring to value systems; (c) Rationalization: referring to knowledge claims or arguments; and (d) Mythopoesis: reference to narratives/stories from the past or future. Thus, speakers may appeal to authorities, morals, arguments, or stories in their text and talk to justify and legitimize their perspectives or actions. In the context of Peter and John, they employ the strategy of authorization in appealing to authorities (God) in saying "which is right in God's eyes?". Moreover, in referring to what they have seen and heard, mythopoesis is used to legitimize their Christian perspectives and actions to obey God and continue using Jesus' name.
The high priests wanted to maintain power and control, even at the expense of the oppressed. By contrast, Peter and John side with the poor and the sick. Despite the authority of the government, they continue to speak the name of Jesus (among other acts), and by doing so, help the oppressed be restored to health:
(2) 10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. (Acts 4:10)
We again see the discursive strategy of legitimation to appeal to the name of Jesus and to justify the power of his name in healing the man. Additional evidence of their stance against oppression is that they sold their possessions to provide money for those in need. This action reflects their attitude opposing the classist discourse and behavior of the high priests:
(3) ...For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. (4:34-35)
3 All Biblical excerpts were taken from the New International Version (NIV). Language. Text. Society (2022), Vol. 9, No. 2 © 2022 Limerick, P.
Moreover, we see anti-individualistic (in favor of collective) discourse when some who had sold their possessions kept the money for themselves instead of sharing it. In particular, Ananias and Sapphira kept their money, and were then scorned by Peter (Acts 5:3-4):
(4) 3 Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land ? 4 Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God."
Peter's discourse here reflects a resistance to Ananias's individualistic actions. Also, in relation to money, Peter emphasizes that the gift of God cannot be bought, it is beyond worldly things, it is supernatural:
(5) 18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money 19 and said, "Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit." 20 Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. (Acts 8:18-21)
In the above passage, we observe discourse against exchanging money for the gift of God, and instead in favor of a right heart unto God. Peter is holding God high above materialistic things. This passage also illustrates anti-capitalist discourse as the Spirit of God cannot be bought and sold. Peter discursively resists Simon and excludes him from the ministry due to such materialistic attitudes.
Below, we see resistance once again, and to the Sadducees, this time expressed and acted upon by an angel of the Lord, when he broke the apostles out of jail and told them to go out and tell the people about their new life (example 6). Another instance of the Lord breaking Peter out of prison is in Acts 12, this time showing resistance against King Herod, who put him in prison (example 7)
(6) 17 Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18 They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19 But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 20 "Go, stand in the temple courts," he said, "and tell the people all about this new life." (Acts 5:17-20)
(7) 7 Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. "Quick, get up!" he said, and the chains fell off Peter's wrists. (Acts 12:7)
Furthermore, resistance to the government is particularly clear in the following passage in which Peter and the other apostles are very explicit about not obeying human beings (those who crucified Christ), and rather following God:
(8) 29 Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than human beings! 30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. (Acts 5:29-30)
We again see the use of the pronoun we to express solidarity and collectivity among the apostles.
Another notable example of resistance to the government, this time on the part of the Lord, is in Acts Chapter 9, in which the chief priests sent Saul to arrest people in Damascus, but God ends up
restoring Saul on the road to Damascus and has Ananias go get him and restore his sight. Saul is then converted and begins preaching in the name of Jesus (Acts 9:1-20). Then, in Chapter 10, Peter continues preaching and baptizes Cornelius and those in his house after they received the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:44-48). Peter shows no signs of stopping and is persistent and resistant in continuing to spread the Gospel. The Gospel was then further spread in Chapter 11 at the Church of Antioch (11:1926), in Cyprus (Acts 13:4-12), and Pisidian Antioch where "[t]he word of the Lord spread through the whole region" (Acts 13:49). All of this Gospel teaching by the apostles was again a strong form of resistance discourse since it was seen as illegitimate and was opposed by the government.
Another form of resistance discourse in Acts is against the Pharisees, who were adamant that the Gentiles needed to be circumcised to be saved (Acts 15:5). Countering this idea, Peter emphasized that salvation was through faith in God and not the strict Law of Moses:
(9) 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are. (Acts 15:9-11)
In this passage, Peter highlights that, while the Pharisees were trying to discriminate against the Gentiles, God showed no discrimination. He then challenges the Pharisees' attempt to test God and impose impossible burdens. Finally, and most explicitly, Peter demonstrates discourse of protest and resistance with the lexical choice "no!" and with the contrastive first-person plural pronoun "we" along with the verb "believe" to underscore and distinguish the apostles' collective belief in resistance to the Pharisees' belief, again using legitimation (authorization) to justify their belief.
Moreover, in Acts 16, Paul and Silas encounter a female slave who was engaged in fortune-telling. She kept telling the people that Paul and Silas were God's servants who were preaching salvation. However, the apostles recognized her discourse as reflecting a spirit living inside of her, and Paul commanded it to leave (Acts 16:18). In this sense, we see a type of resistance discourse against a spirit (Satan). In this case, it is Paul who employs legitimation in his command to Satan.
(10) 18 [...]. Finally Paul became so annoyed that he turned around and said to the spirit, "In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!" At that moment the spirit left her. (Acts 16:18)
Furthermore, although they were ultimately thrown in jail by the Roman authorities, we see a very powerful form of resistance discourse by means of "praying and singing hymns to God" (Acts 16:28), the very thing that they were put in jail for in the first place. The effects of their resistance were remarkable: an earthquake that God used to open the prison doors and release them from their chains.
Paul protests again to the officers when they receive news that they can leave the prison. Their resistance this time is due to the fact that the Romans threw them into prison without a trial but now want someone else to escort them out:
(11) 37 But Paul said to the officers: "They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens, and threw us into prison. And now do they want to get rid of us quietly? No! Let them come themselves and escort us out." (Acts 16:37)
The lexical choice of "no" with the exclamation point suggests a forceful and resistant discourse against the officers and, especially against the Roman authorities who sentenced them to jail.
As we know from the Book of Acts, Paul and his teachings were often rejected by certain Jews. In one instance, in the city of Corinth, they even abused Paul, who resistantly and bluntly asserted his protest to them (Acts 18:6):
(12) But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles." (Acts 18:6)
Paul is overtly communicating that the Jews are guilty with the metaphorical phrase "blood be on your own heads" and makes a contrast with himself (I am innocent). Paul then states his intention to stop interacting with the Jews and to see the Gentiles instead.
Later, in Acts 23, Paul comes before the Sanhedrin. He demonstrates resistance discourse against their violence toward him by calling out their hypocrisy. Specifically, his lexical choice of "whitewashed wall" employs the discursive strategy of metaphor to call Ananias a hypocrite. Paul then specifies the hypocrisy by very directly stating that "you sit there to judge me [...] yet you yourself violate the law".
(13) At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. 3 Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!" (Acts 23:2-3)
Finally, perhaps the most extensive case of resistance discourse is seen in the final chapters of Acts, in which Paul is brought before various leaders (e.g. King Agrippa) to defend his case. Paul was sent to be killed, but he asserts many powerful words in defense of Jesus and the gospel. He essentially gives his testimony of finding hope and learning the truth about Jesus and his promises on the way to Damascus. Discursively, Paul conveys an individualized and personalized experience in choosing the pronouns me and I. (De Fina 1995, 2003). Further, he resists against the accusations of the Jews and their outrage and surprise that Paul talks of Jesus rising from the dead, explaining that this is what the Jews' own teachings predicted:
(14) But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— 23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles. (Acts 26:22)
Conclusion
The apostles saw themselves as part of a larger group with which they expressed solidarity and collectivity with first-person plural pronouns (Martín-Rojo 1997; De Fina 1995, 2003). They also employed legitimation strategies such as authorization and mythopoesis (Van Leeuwen and Wodak 1999) often to justify their beliefs and actions and to underscore their faith and reverence for Jesus. We observed such rhetorical devices in their resistance discourse against the Romans, the Pharisees, and Satan. From a broader perspective, one could view these discourses as anti-individualistic, anti-capitalist, and anti-classist in that they reflect the apostles' beliefs and actions of sharing with the poor, lack of concern for buying or selling things, and the importance of doing their ministry collectively as a group. Furthermore, as stated in the Introduction, one could apply a Christo-anarchist lens to the
scriptures illustrated above. The apostles' resistance to authority, domination, and oppression as well as their advocacy of social equality is in alignment with Christo-anarchy. For instance, the apostles equally shared their money as well as their labor (Van Steenwyk 2012). Moreover, in Acts 5 (and other places) where we saw the resistance against the Romans' authority, I am in agreement with Van Steenwyk (2012) that this context reflects anarchist practices on the part of the apostles since they emphasize that it is through the Lord Jesus, not the government, by which their obedience is expressed, and that people are healed and saved. Further, the resistance to authority was not only practiced by the apostles, but, crucially, by the Lord Himself. Jesus' breaking the apostles out of jail and dissenting against both the Sadducees and King Herod also heavily supports Van Steenwyk's (2012) view of Christo-anarchy.
Before concluding, it is important to note some limitations as well as suggestions for future work: The current study focused on one translation of the Bible. To gain a more profound understanding of Acts discourse, it would be useful to study the original Greek text as well as to compare different translations to explore potential discrepancies in the nature of the linguistic phenomena and discursive strategies discussed here. Future directions of investigation could include many other areas as well, such as the following: a focus on the discourses of authority and domination by the Romans, a macroanalysis of the context of social class and race/ethnicity of the actors involved, a microanalysis of particular grammatical structures throughout Acts (e.g. word order, verb tense/aspect, imperative forms) or an investigation of resistance discourse in other books of the New Testament (e.g. Luke) or the Old Testament.4 In particular, it would be interesting to further explore the intersection of discourse and social class in order to understand the discourse properties of potential classist and anti-classist discourse as well as the common themes that emerge under this umbrella, both in the Book of Acts and beyond.
References:
Bible Study Tools. 2022. Available at https://www.biblestudytools.com/acts/. Accessed October 11, 2022.
Black, David Alan. 1992. "Discourse Analysis, Synoptic Criticism, and Markan Grammar: Some Methodological Considerations." In Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, edited by David Alan Black, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen H. Levinsohn, 90-98. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press.
Black, David Alan, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen H. Levinsohn, eds. 1992. Linguistics and New Testament interpretation: Essays on discourse analysis. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press.
Callow, John C. 1992. "Constituent Order in Copula Clauses: A Partial Study." In Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, edited by David Alan Black, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen H. Levinsohn, 68-89. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press.
Callow, Kathleen. 1992. "Patterns of thematic development in 1 Corinthians 5: 1-13." In Linguistics and New Testament interpretation: Essays on discourse analysis, edited by David Alan Black, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen H. Levinsohn, 194-206. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press.
De Fina, Anna. 1995. "Pronominal choice, Identity, and Solidarity in Political Discourse." Text—Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 15 (3): 379-410. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1995.15.3.379.
De Fina, Anna. 2003. Identity in Narrative: A Study of Immigrant Discourse. Studies in Narrative 3. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dijk, Teun A. van. 2015. "Critical Discourse Studies: A Sociocognitive Approach." In Methods of critical discourse studies, edited by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 63-85. London: Sage.
Dijk, Teun A. van. 2020. Antiracist discourse in Brazil: From abolition to affirmative action. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Dunn, James D. G. 2016. The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing.
4 An intriguing question is whether the book of Luke, being written by the same presumed author of Acts, would contain similar discursive strategies of resistance. I thank the reviewer for raising this question. This issue will be left for future research.
Fairclough, Norman, and Ruth Wodak. 1997. "Critical discourse analysis". In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction: 'Discourse as social interaction', edited by Teun A. van Dijk, 258-284. London: Sage.
Guthrie, George H. 1995. "Cohesion shifts and stitches in Philippians." In Discourse analysis and other topics in Biblical Greek, edited by Stanley E. Porter and D.A. Carson, 36-59. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Klutz, Todd. 1999. "Naked and wounded: foregrounding, relevance and situation in Acts 19.13-20." In Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey Reed, 258-279. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Kuczok, Marcin. 2018. "The biblical metaphors of sin: a cognitive-semantic perspective on the English version of the Bible." Linguistica Silesiana 39: 171-186. https://doi.org/10.24425/linsi.2018.124576.
Lemke, Werner E. 2003. "Circumcision of the Heart: The Journey of a Biblical Metaphor." In A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller, edited by Brent A. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen, 299-320. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781575065366-023.
Lerner, Gene H., and Celia Kitzinger. 2007. "Extraction and Aggregation in the Repair of Individual and Collective Self-Reference". Discourse Studies 9(4): 526-557. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607079165.
Levinsohn, Stephen H. 1995. "A discourse study of constituent order and the article in Philippians." In Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek, edited by Stanley E. Porter and D.A. Carson, 60-74. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Marguerat, Daniel. 2002. The first Christian historian: Writing the 'Acts of the Apostles'. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 121. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Martín-Asensio, Gustavo. 1999. "Participant reference and foregrounded syntax in the Stephen episode." In Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey Reed, 235-257. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Martín-Rojo, Luisa. 1997. "The politics of gender: Agency and self-reference in women's discourse." In Political Linguistics, edited by Jan Blommaert and Chris Bulcaen, 231-254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Miller, Neva F. 1992. "The Imperativals of Romans 12". In Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, edited by David Alan Black, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen H. Levinsohn, 162-182. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press.
Parunak, H. Van Dyke. 1992. "Dimensions of discourse structure: A multidimensional analysis of the components and transitions of Paul's Epistle to the Galatians." In Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, edited by David Alan Black, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen Levinsohn, 207-239. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press.
Porter, Stanley E. 1999. "Is critical discourse analysis critical?: An evaluation using Philemon as a test case." In Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey Reed, 47-70. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Porter, Stanley E., and Donald Arthur Carson, eds. 1995. Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 113. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Porter, Stanley E., and Jeffrey Reed, eds. 1999. Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Read-Heimerdinger, Jenny. 2002. The Bezan text of Acts: A contribution of discourse analysis to textual criticism. Journal for the study of the New Testament 236. London; New York: Sheffield Academic Press.
Read-Heimerdinger, Jenny. 2020. "Discourse analysis of the book of Acts." In Discourse analysis of the New Testament writings, edited by Todd A. Scacewater, 159-192. Dallas, TX: Fontes Press.
Read-Heimerdinger, Jenny. 2022. Luke in His Own Words: A Study of the Language of Luke-Acts in Greek. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Reed, Jeffrey T. 1997. A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate Over Literary Integrity. Journal for the study of the New Testament 136. Sheffield Academic Press.
Scacewater, Todd A., ed. 2020. Discourse analysis of the New Testament writings. Dallas, TX: Fontes Press.
Van Leeuwen, Theo, and Ruth Wodak. 1999. "Legitimizing Immigration Control: A Discourse-Historical Analysis." Discourse Studies 1 (1): 83-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445699001001005.
Van Steenwyk, Mark. 2012. That Holy Anarchist: Reflections on Christianity & Anarchism. Minneapolis: Missio Dei.
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer. 2009. "Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and methodology." In Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.), edited by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 1-33. London: Sage.
Acknowledgments
There are no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article and this research had not any external financial support.
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author, with publication rights granted to the journal.
This open access article is distributed under a custom license: freely available to download, save, reproduce, and transmit for noncommercial, scholarly, and educational purposes; to reuse portions or extracts in other works—all with proper attribution to the original author(s), title, and the journal. Commercial use, reproduction or distribution requires additional permissions.
