As the first historian of Christianity, Luke's reliability is vigorously disputed among scholars. The author of the Acts is often accused of being a biased, imprecise, and anti-Jewish historian who created a distorted portrait of Paul. Daniel Marguerat tries to avoid being caught in this true/false quagmire when examining Luke's interpretation of history. Instead he combines different tools - reflection upon historiography, the rules of ancient historians and narrative criticism - to analyse the Acts and gauge the historiographical aims of their author. Marguerat examines the construction of the narrative, the framing of the plot and the characterization, and places his evaluation firmly in the framework of ancient historiography, where history reflects tradition and not documentation. This is a fresh and original approach to the classic themes of Lucan theology: Christianity between Jerusalem and Rome, the image of God, the work of the Spirit, the unity of Luke and the Acts.

Résumé Le cadre de cet article est double : d’une part, il s’agit de se prononcer sur le traitement historico-critique du miracle auquel procède J. P. Meier et d’autre part de présenter comment l’analyse narrative aborde les récits de miracle. En d’autres termes : comment le miracle résiste-t-il à l’épreuve du feu (critique historique) et comment le récit de miracle s’expose-t-il au regard du lecteur (analyse narrative) ? L’enquête historique de Meier fait conclure avec une haute vraisemblance à une activité thaumaturgique de Jésus de Nazareth, mais ses résultats factuels sont modestes ; cette déception tient à la nature même du miracle, qui relève du signifié plutôt que du signifiant de la pratique de Jésus, l’historien se fixant sur le signifiant. La démarche narratologique a montré comment le récit qualifiait de miracles, à l’intention du lecteur, les gestes de Jésus ; dire « miracle » est donc un effet du texte, qui relaie la parole du témoin.

No abstract

The article addresses the problem of the reception of Paul: how does the construction of the image of Paul in the Deuteropauline letters (Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians), the Pastoral letters, the Acts of the Apostles and the apocryphal Acts of Paul relate together? The difficult question of the relationship between Paul in his letters and Paul in Acts is treated first. A typology of the reception of Paul is proposed following three poles: documentary (his letters), biographical (his life) and doctoral (his permanent authority for the Church). The conception that Paul's letters were the only regulation for the memory of Paul in the first century isdenied. This three poles typology is applied to some topics of the Pauline tradition: the status of the apostle, the suffering of the apostle, and his teaching. It is possible to observe finally how the writings which honor the memory of the apostle have interpreted these topics by working out a feature present in the writings of the apostle.

No abstract