Public beating in Philippi
We can also place Paul’s Thessalonian ministry securely in the larger context of this “missionary journey”:[2375]
Public beating in Philippi
1 Thess 2:2
Acts 16:22–23
Successful but persecuted ministry in Thessalonica
Phil 4:15–16; 1 Thess 1:1, 5–6
Acts 17:1–10
Paul in Athens
1 Thess 3:1
Acts 17:15–34
Paul in Achaia with his companions
2 Cor 1:19; cf. 1 Thess 3:6
Acts 18:1–18, esp. 18:5
One point that requires special examination for both correspondences and contrasts is treated at Acts 17:15 (“Flight to Athens”), below.
II. RELOCATING TO THESSALONICA (17:1)
It is unclear why Luke describes the details of travel here when such detail is normally reserved for itineraries in the “we” sections.[2376] It makes sense, however, for a partly Macedonian ideal audience. Moreover, Luke must bring the missionaries to Thessalonica somehow, and he summarizes their travel fairly sparingly (as in, e.g., 13:13–14; 14:24–25). Ancient itineraries attest the route and explain the distances recounted in this verse. As Paul and his companions travel westward on the Via Egnatia, they travel thirty-three miles (more than some 50 km.) to Amphipolis, then twenty-seven miles (40 km.) farther to Mygdonian Apollonia and thirty-five miles (some 50 km.) more to Thessalonica.[2377] Ancient sources recognize Amphipolis and Apollonia as stations between Philippi and Thessalonica.[2378] If Luke mentions these as overnight stops, it provides three stages of roughly equal distance (some 30, 27, and 35 mi.).[2379] The first two stages had a slight incline uphill, but the third day was “almost exclusively downhill.”[2380]
The journey to Thessalonica is about a hundred miles, but if the missionaries were able to travel quickly despite their wounds (16:22–23), they may have paused only in the major stopping centers en route that Luke mentions and made the journey in three days.[2381] On the other hand, it was no longer early in the morning (as it was in 16:35) when they left Philippi (despite the urgency of their departure, 16:39–40), and they may have been traveling on foot and been weakened by their wounds. (No dramatic healing is reported.) These factors could invite delays. Nevertheless, because accommodations were better in the towns, the same wounds might encourage them to expedite their journey to accommodate these stops. If they traveled this quickly, it might mean that they were able to rent mules or horses,[2382] perhaps from a monetary gift from Lydia and others in Philippi (16:40); for help from believers in Philippi soon after this time, see Phil 4:15–16. Perhaps they may have stopped to rest for a day or more in these towns along the way.
(1) Amphipolis
Amphipolis was known to be near Philippi; Marc Antony had prepared here for his battle at Philippi in 43 B.C.E. (Appian Bell. civ. 4.14.107).[2383] Athenians founded it on an apparently well-traveled location called “the nine roads” (Strabo 7 frg. 35).[2384] Excavations reveal a considerable measure of religious diversity and syncretism there in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.[2385] Amphipolis is “505 feet above the east bank of the Strymon River overlooking the sea, which is 3 miles to the south.”[2386] People in the city or traveling on the Via Egnatia would readily see the Lion of Amphipolis, built in the late fourth century B.C.E., in the valley by the bridge where the Strymon curves.[2387] One excavated Roman villa, from the second or third century C.E. (after the revival of Greek culture), contains numerous mosaics from Greek mythology.[2388] Excavated sanctuaries include an early one to the Muse Clio and another to Attis, apparently a Phrygian import.
This city, too, was strategic;[2389] since 168 B.C.E. it was the main city in the province’s first (eastern) district, out of four districts (Strabo 7 frg. 47).[2390] It was a free city under the Romans (Pliny E. N.H. 4.10.29), and excavations have shown the high quality of walls and buildings.[2391] Though not a coastal town, it was estimated as only twenty stadia (ca. 2.5 mi.) inland on the Strymon (Strabo 7 frg. 35), and this location established its commercial importance. It acquired its name from being built on both sides of the river.[2392]
For now at least, however, Paul and Silas merely “traveled through”[2393] this strategic location. The term διοδεύω itself does not require us to think that they did not preach there (Jesus preaches in Luke’s [and the NT’s] only other use of the term [Luke 8:1], though apparently he did not stay long), and Luke might simply compress the material. Macedonia was mostly rural,[2394] but Amphipolis and Apollonia should have had enough people to start a new church. Yet the missionaries might also wish to place some distance between themselves and Philippi before risking trouble again, and Thessalonica would appear a more promising destination.
(2) Apollonia
Apollonia was twenty-seven miles past Amphipolis, considered a day’s journey past Amphipolis by ancient travelers (Livy 45.28).[2395] It was also farther inland than Amphipolis, as Pliny the Elder notes (N.H. 4.10.29). Strabo declares that this Apollonia[2396] was right after Amphipolis (Strabo 7 frg. 35), between the mouths of the Strymon and the Nestus rivers (7 frg. 33).[2397] Although Apollonia was once thought a way station, it is now usually estimated to have had a population of about ten thousand.[2398]
Some scholars suggest that Amphipolis and Apollonia lacked synagogues; Thessalonica, however, certainly had one (Acts 17:1), and this would fit Paul’s pattern of starting with the Jewish community and its Gentile adherents.[2399] Others, however, argue that Apollonia was so large that it must have had one or more synagogues.[2400] In any case, Paul and Silas had sufficient reason to target the major city of Thessalonica and leave considerable distance between Philippi and their next place to begin significant public ministry.
(3) Thessalonica
Historically, we know that Paul traveled to Thessalonica after Philippi (1 Thess 2:2) and that he went soon after to Athens (3:1; Acts 17:10–15); probably we can add that he went to Corinth afterward (2 Cor 11:7–9).[2401] Naturally, even if we lacked these details, the fact that Paul evangelized these areas would lead us to expect this basic sequence based on geography.
Thessalonica was a very strategic city by Paul’s day.[2402] Even beyond other factors (such as putting as much distance as possible between himself and denunciations in Philippi), its size and influence would have made it attractive from the standpoint of missions strategy.[2403] We know less about ancient Thessalonica than about Philippi because it is difficult to excavate, having been continuously inhabited since its foundation in 316 B.C.E.[2404] At any rate, it became one of the most prominent Mediterranean ports and trade centers shortly after its founding.[2405] It was both famous (Strabo 7 frg. 20) and the most populous Macedonian city by this period (7.7.4). Many of the following estimates are generally held to be much too high for the first century, but they are useful for comparing the relative size of Mediterranean cities.[2406] Thessalonica was not one of the giant cities, such as Rome (with as many as a million inhabitants on a frequent estimate) and Alexandria (sometimes estimated at six hundred thousand), but with Smyrna it followed close after the second tier of cities (Carthage and Antioch, each with some half million, and Ephesus, with four hundred thousand, on the highest estimates), with more than two hundred thousand inhabitants on the highest estimates. More-conservative estimates run from forty thousand to sixty-five thousand,[2407] but these figures remain substantial. Although several other cities had more than seventy-five thousand inhabitants, most cities had only about twenty thousand, about one-tenth of Thessalonica’s highest-estimated population.[2408]
Thessalonica was also a self-ruled free city with its own coins and no Roman garrison;[2409] this “free” status was a significant privilege, though less than being a Roman colony would be. Previously already one of the four administrative centers of Macedonia (Amphipolis was another; 7 frg. 47), it was now the provincial capital, where the proconsul resided.[2410] As Macedonia’s largest port[2411] and as a city lying close to the center of the Via Egnatia land route connecting east and west, Thessalonica was an important commercial center. Along with Corinth in Achaia (on another strategic east-west route), it was one of the two most prosperous mercantile cities in Greece.[2412] Its Greek character probably provided Paul and Silas easier access to its people than they had in Roman Philippi; its large population would also give them more opportunities to find members for the nucleus of a church.
Thessalonica was not only strategic but on the Via Egnatia, the crucial route west from eastern Macedonia;[2413] if heading west, the missionaries had to at least travel through it. Many scholars think that Paul intended to take this route westward toward Rome until political realities (see Acts 18:2) made this objective impossible, and it is possible, though Luke omits it, that Paul did journey westward on the Via Egnatia as far as Illyricum (Rom 15:19) at this time; perhaps a delay before returning would explain why it took his enemies in Thessalonica time to learn that he had arrived in Beroea (Acts 17:10).[2414] (Luke’s narrative, however, makes it easier to accommodate the visit to Illyricum in the period in 20:1–2; see comment on Acts 17:10.) Although Paul and Silas stayed in homes where they could (see comment on Acts 16:15), in Thessalonica they may have been forced to spend at least the first few days in inns.[2415] Then again, Jason (17:7) or other members of the Jewish community may have taken them in immediately. Perhaps likeliest of all in light of ancient hospitality and benefaction customs, their friends in Philippi may have provided them contacts in Thessalonica (cf. 16:40).[2416]
Jewish synagogues are well attested in Greece;[2417] Philo mentions Jews in Macedonia (Embassy 281). There is also more specific epigraphic evidence for the Jewish community in Thessalonica, though little of it can be securely dated early.[2418] If the ninth-century Jewish quarter reflects the earlier site, the Jewish community seems to have been located between the forum and the temple of Dionysus,[2419] suggesting (possibly relevant in view of Acts 17:5–6) that this community was near the center for the city’s political and legal activity.[2420] Samaritans are also attested in Thessalonica, though the sources derive from the fourth century or later;[2421] for Gentile cults, see comment on Acts 17:4. (Christianity also came to flourish in Thessalonica, as elsewhere.)[2422]
That Paul went to synagogues fits the pattern of his ministry in Acts (13:5, 14; 14:1; 17:10, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8), continuing that of Jesus (Luke 4:44).[2423] Luke also reports a pattern in which Paul typically encounters opposition from some (Acts 14:2) or many (13:45, 50; 18:6; 19:9) members there, though even in the latter cases many believed (18:7–8; 19:9; cf. also 14:1; 17:4). No opposition is reported in the synagogues in 17:10–12, 17 (cf. also 16:12). The local variations in the pattern probably indicate that Luke, like other historians, looks for patterns in his historical sources without conforming every instance in his sources to fit the pattern.
III. MINISTRY IN THE SYNAGOGUE (17:2–4)
As elsewhere, Paul begins in the synagogue (see comment on Acts 13:5), engages in debate, and finds Jewish and God-fearing adherents as well as opponents.
(1) Three Sabbaths of Ministry (17:2)
Historically, Paul was apparently in Thessalonica long enough to work (1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:7–8)[2424] and to receive more than one offering from the church in Philippi, several days’ journey away, supporting his spreading of the gospel in their regional capital (Phil 4:15–16; we may imagine the merchant Lydia and others with at least some means).[2425] By itself this data would not require us to suppose that Paul stayed significantly longer than the three Sabbaths mentioned here,[2426] though they push the probability strongly in this longer direction.[2427] Three weeks would not allow time to build a customer base for his work, but it is not impossible that Paul began such work before being quickly expelled. Transients desiring to settle and work temporarily even in Egyptian villages needed to first acquire “temporary permits from the local collector of the tax on their occupation.” (This requirement was so pervasive that prostitutes sometimes received one-day permits for a fee.)[2428]
Harder to accept in a mere three weeks is that Paul was apparently able to appoint leadership before he left (1 Thess 5:12)[2429] and was also there long enough to deposit significant elements of Jesus tradition (4:15–5:7; 2 Thess 2:1–12, esp. 2:5–6, 15),[2430] though perhaps not long enough so that all remembered and understood them (cf. 2 Thess 2:2).
Most scholars thus suggest that Luke has compressed a longer period of ministry in Thessalonica.[2431] Many of these scholars note that Luke himself does not claim that Paul spent only three weeks in Thessalonica but that he reasoned only three weeks in the synagogue (Acts 17:2). This may allow some preliminary time to become acclimated to this relatively large city (cf. 16:12–13), as well as significant time after (perhaps) needing to leave the synagogue (cf. 18:7, 11; 19:8–9). His departure from the synagogue is not narrated, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that he was forced to leave the synagogue sometime before the opposition became strong enough to provoke a public backlash (17:5). Paul also could reason in a synagogue while working at his trade (18:3–4), though with the help of his coworkers he could devote more of his time to preaching (18:5).
Some argue that Paul in Acts gives speeches in town after town, like the itinerant sages (such as the Cynics) or charlatans condemned in Lucian’s Peregrinus or Did. 11–13. They contrast this with the epistolary Paul’s intimacy with the Corinthian Christians and others (e.g., 1 Cor 4:14–21; 2 Cor 6:11–13; 12:14–19).[2432] But this portrait caricaturizes Luke’s portrayal of Paul; Paul stays in Corinth eighteen months (Acts 18:11) and Ephesus two years (19:10), and certainly in the latter develops great intimacy with the believers (20:36–38). Luke certainly implies Paul’s intimacy with believers elsewhere (e.g., Acts 21:4, 12). Luke, however, probably does play on the model of the wandering sage, just as Paul himself adopts peristasis catalogues to portray himself (albeit in something less than even disjointed narrative) as a wandering sage (1 Cor 4:11; 2 Cor 11:25–26). Both Paul and Luke draw on a legitimate aspect of Paul’s ministry (namely, that it was sometimes itinerant, following the sort of model established in the Jesus tradition in Mark 6:7–13; Luke 9:1–6; 10:4–11),[2433] though Paul develops it by hyperbolic example and Luke by emphasizing only highlights in various locations before moving on.
Luke specifically mentions the “Sabbaths” not to delimit Paul’s entire stay in Thessalonica but to delimit his synagogue ministry there, because that was when the local synagogue community gathered. Evidence suggests that normal synagogue attendance was mostly limited to Sabbaths and feast days in the first century.[2434]
(2) Dialogue in the Synagogue (17:3)
That Paul “reasoned” or “dialogued” with the Jews in the synagogue suggests the sort of dialogical method found in Plato and other philosophers,[2435] used widely also in early Judaism.[2436] (Some of the Jewish examples include dialogues against pagan philosophers,[2437] even “Epicureans.”)[2438] That Paul reasoned from the Scriptures “as was his custom” probably particularly recalls Jesus reading Scripture on the Sabbath “according to his custom” (Luke 4:16, employing the identical Greek phrase). Some scholars suggest that Paul had brought the Scriptures with him, in the newly emerged codex form rather than unwieldy scrolls.[2439] But even in codex form, these documents would be too expensive, and probably bulky, to transport.[2440] The text does not claim that he paused to look up all the references (though in Beroea his listeners must have examined scrolls to find what he had said, Acts 17:11), but presumably a synagogue selected by Paul in a large city such as Thessalonica would have its own Scripture scrolls.
For explaining Jesus’s death and resurrection from the Scriptures (17:2–3; cf. Luke 24:25–26; Acts 26:23), Luke probably assumes at least the same texts implied in Luke 24:46—namely, those summarized in his other samples of Scripture exposition: the pattern of God’s rejected messengers (Acts 7:35–37) and possibly Isa 53:2–3, 8–9 (cf. Acts 8:32–33) support the Messiah’s death whereas Pss 2:7; 16:10–11; 110:1 and Isa 55:3 would be used to support his resurrection (Acts 2:22–36; 13:16–41).[2441]
The participle παρατιθέμενος in 17:3, translated “proving” or “giving evidence,” probably carries its conventional rhetorical sense of providing evidence.[2442] Luke reports Paul’s premise, that Christ must suffer and rise, and the conclusion of his argument: Jesus is the Christ. This argument assumes the intermediate minor premise (in syllogistic logic)[2443] that Jesus suffered and rose; although Paul would have had to make the latter premise explicit in preaching, Luke is within proper rhetorical form to leave it implicit. Syllogisms with an element left implicit were often called enthymemes.[2444]
(3) Jewish and Gentile Converts (17:4)
A number of people were “persuaded,” reflecting an important emphasis in Luke’s narrative world[2445] and in the apologetic function of his own work. Paul likewise persuaded others publicly in the synagogue in Ephesus (19:8); perhaps the closest parallel is Paul’s attempted persuasion of both Jews and Greeks in the Corinthian synagogue (18:4). Some who were hostile to his message viewed his “persuasion” as a threat (19:26), but Paul continued to work to “persuade” even in the closing scene of the book (28:23–24). Those who were persuaded “joined” (προσεκληρώθησαν) with Paul and Silas; that is, it was a matter not simply of intellectual assent but of adherence to the new way. Paul’s correspondence with the Thessalonian church confirms that many were converted (1 Thess 1:5–10), a persuasion that Paul attributes to God’s Spirit.[2446]
The significant Gentile component in the church is apparent in 1 Thess 1:9, where many converts turned from idolatry.[2447] At the same time, the Thessalonian correspondence includes allusions to ideas that would be barely intelligible to Gentiles lacking any familiarity with some Jewish eschatological thought (1 Thess 4:14–17; 5:13; 2 Thess 1:7–8; 2:1, 3–10); Paul also distinguishes believers from Gentiles, whose ways they should not emulate (1 Thess 4:5), as if even the Gentile believers recognize that they have converted to a new way of life. These points may well imply at least some Jewish believers in the community who could explain such elements to others (if Paul is yet aware of how foreign such words would sound to Gentiles unfamiliar with Judaism).[2448] This is what we find in Acts 17:3–4, although Luke, consistent with his purposes throughout Luke-Acts, emphasizes the Jewish component both of the church and of the opposition. It is thus an overstatement to suggest that Luke’s account contradicts 1 Thessalonians, where most converts are Greek.[2449] The overstatement nevertheless points up a fairly consistent emphasis of Luke’s (see also comment on Acts 17:5).
Thessalonian Gentiles worshiped an assortment of deities, of the sort found in most of Greece with a few more exotic foreign deities attracted by the city’s port (in addition to Judaism).[2450] The Egyptian cult of Sarapis (Latin Serapis), associated with the goddess Isis, is particularly well attested in the city and was probably several centuries old there by this point.[2451] We even have an account of the founding of the city’s Serapion (Latin Serapeum).[2452] There is evidence for the cult of Dionysus;[2453] there is also evidence for the cult of Cabiri from Samothrace, although this cult was very different in Thessalonica and may not have come directly from Samothrace.[2454]
(4) The Leading Women (17:4)
The phrase “the leading women” employs the word πρώτων; that is, they are of the “first” rank, a term Luke elsewhere uses to indicate the elite (Luke 19:47; Acts 13:50; 28:7, 17; cf. 16:12).[2455] His use of πείθω probably suggests conversion and faith rather than merely interest (cf. Acts 18:4; 19:8, 26; 28:23–24), though Luke uses the term other ways as well (e.g., 21:14; 23:21).[2456] Most Eastern cities, even outside the direct Greek sphere, had hellenized local elites.[2457] Throughout the empire, municipal aristocracies thrived on inherited (or sometimes earned) wealth and exercised local political power as decurions on local town councils.[2458] Social deviation was considered more dangerous among men of this class than for others because the elite influenced by their example (Cic. Leg. 3.14.32). Despite expectations of social conformity especially for this class, we know of wealthy devotees of foreign cults,[2459] and an inscription reveals high-status Roman citizens engaged in the worship of Egyptian gods in Thessalonica.[2460] Whatever the criticisms of Judaism in Greco-Roman paganism (see comment on Acts 16:20), Egyptian cults were also widely ridiculed,[2461] yet they had wealthy adherents in Thessalonica.
Luke has literary reason (cf. Luke 1:3) to emphasize the conversion of aristocrats and other people of influence (Acts 13:7–12), including some wealthy women (Luke 8:2–3; Acts 17:34).[2462] The poor could minister to the rich (cf. Socrates in Max. Tyre 1.9), but the examples of rich converts would especially encourage higher-status members of Luke’s ideal audience.[2463] If Luke’s language is pressed fully (with προσεκληρώθησαν implying divine allotment),[2464] he may emphasize that “the conversion of such groups was not a matter of course (see [Acts] 13:50!).”[2465]
Such interests explain Luke’s consistent mention of such converts where they are available for mention (not in every city), but do not imply that Luke simply invented them. The emphasis on manual trades in the Thessalonian church suggests that most of the church was working class (1 Thess 4:13), but this no more excludes some high-class members (or continuing sympathizers) than does the mention of labor in 1 Cor 4:12 for Corinth (cf. Rom 16:23). The term employed for the quickly formed authorities of 1 Thess 5:12 may imply patrons and patronesses.[2466] Women could be patronesses (see comment on Acts 16:15), even of cities.[2467] Further, high-status Macedonian women tended to be more independent than Greek women.[2468] Haenchen wonders why these women whose sympathies Luke claims proved unable to prevent persecution,[2469] but women had less influence than men of the same rank, and defending speakers was all the more difficult when the charge was that of stirring unrest.[2470] Aristocratic women could exercise some influence (cf. Cic. Verr. 2.4.61.136), but men of the same class could circumvent it; elsewhere we know of men circumventing their wives’ Jewish sympathies (Jos. War 2.560–61), and Luke in any case does not claim that Paul converted all or even the majority of aristocratic women.
Many of the leading women may be God-fearers (cf. Acts 13:50; 16:13–14), though Luke’s grammar does not require us to include them in the “God-fearing Greeks” just mentioned. As mentioned above, some aristocrats were attracted to “foreign” cults, even some very maligned ones. We know that more women than men were attracted to Judaism[2471] and that their number included some women of status (e.g., Jos. Ant. 20.195).[2472] Contrary to many expectations (based on segregation in the temple and in later orthodox practice), early synagogues do not appear to have had means to segregate genders, at least not in any clear architectural way.[2473]
IV. JEWISH AND GENTILE OPPOSITION (17:5)
The backlash from the unpersuaded members of the Jewish community provides a contrast both with the positive Jewish reception in Beroea (Acts 17:11) and the anti-Jewish persecution by Gentiles in Philippi (16:20–21). Whether from Jews or Gentiles, God’s servants must expect opposition from any side (cf. Acts 4:27; 1 Cor 1:23; 2 Cor 11:24–26). The apostles endure opposition as a necessary cost of their mission; without proclaiming, they would face no opposition, but they would also not start new churches.[2474]
(1) Extrinsic Historical Evidence
On the historical level, there can be no question that the hostility was severe in Thessalonica and that it also continued after Paul left (Acts 17:13). The believers there received the word amid affliction (1 Thess 1:6); Paul preached there amid hostility (2:2). Facing hostility from their fellow Thessalonians, the believers there became imitators of the Judean churches that had faced the situation of some being killed and others being driven out for their witness (2:14–15). Paul’s inability to safely return there is attributed to Satan hindering him (2:18). Paul was worried about their perseverance in faith (3:5), because they were continuing to endure affliction in his absence (3:2–3;[2475] 2 Thess 1:5). Some had died (1 Thess 4:13), though lack of praise of their martyrdom weakens the suggestion by some scholars that these believers died martyrs’ deaths.[2476]
What was the source of opposition? First Thessalonians emphasizes Paul’s local opposition there, perhaps because the largest threat to the church was now the opposition of public officials (especially before current politarchs finished their terms). This is opposition “from your countrymen,” as the churches of Judea received it from theirs (2:14). This may be primarily Gentile opposition, but it does not rule out Jewish involvement.[2477] Paul’s digression[2478] about Judean hostility and God’s wrath, especially that they hindered “us” from preaching to Gentiles, makes much more sense if relevant to the local situation.[2479] The Gentile mission was a mainly Diaspora phenomenon, although opposition to it was not restricted to the Diaspora (cf. Gal 6:12). Luke’s combination of Jewish hostility to the Gentile mission and serious restrictions coming from the Gentile authorities (Acts 17:8–9) adequately coheres with Paul’s description.[2480]
(2) Luke’s Narrative Purposes
Although Luke’s source is historical, his emphasis here fits his consistent apologetic emphasis throughout Luke-Acts. It is not Paul who stirs sedition here, any more than Jesus really stirred unrest (Luke 23:5). Rather, it is consistently Paul’s opponents, whether Gentile (Acts 16:19–22; 19:24–29) or Jewish (14:2, 5, 19; 17:13; 21:27–36), who stir up unrest. (This neatly sidesteps the question Romans might ask—namely, why unrest happens wherever Paul goes; Romans might view him as at least a catalyst for disturbances and would prefer civic stability to his freedom to evangelize at the risk of antagonizing other groups.) Following the standard rhetorical convention of reversing charges against accusers, Luke subverts the charge against Paul in 24:5. In the wake of events of Claudius’s reign, Gentiles would find the charges against Jews and Christians plausible historically; in the wake of 70 C.E., such accusations might appear even more serious to Luke’s audience.[2481] (Luke’s concern about the hostility of the Thessalonian Jewish community did not, however, extend to all Jews, even in Macedonia. Note the explicit contrast in 17:10–12: Beroean Jews acted more nobly than Thessalonian Jews.)[2482]
The Jewish accusation provides narrative balance; on this journey, Paul is twice accused by Jews (17:5–7; 18:12–13) and twice by Gentiles (16:19–21; 19:24–27), with charges sometimes accepted (16:20–23; 17:5–9) and sometimes rejected (18:14–17).[2483] Nevertheless, the occasions lack perfect symmetry. Although the accusers here are Jewish, Thessalonica’s Jewish community at this point may have been neither large nor influential, and so Jewish accusers would need to stir Gentile support for their claims.[2484]
In view of the incitement of the mob (see comment below), the claim of 17:5 thus serves an ironic function for Luke (especially clear in view of 24:5): those who accuse Paul of stirring unrest are themselves its authors. Even in Thessalonica itself, the informed reader sees that it is those who accuse Paul of stirring unrest (17:6) who themselves prove guilty of this behavior (17:5).[2485] Theophilus (Luke 1:3) and other persons of status would also be interested to note that whereas “lowlifes” opposed the gospel (Acts 17:5), many nobles in 17:4 accepted it.[2486]
(3) Stirring a Mob (17:5)
The imputed motive of “envy” is frequent in ancient sources,[2487] including for Jewish leaders (Acts 5:17) or other Jewish accusers (13:45) in Acts (see full discussion at Acts 5:17); the biblical prototype is Joseph’s brothers’ jealousy of him (ζηλώσαντες, 7:9), linked to the behavior of “our ancestors” (7:11–12).[2488] (We should not think here of Paul’s positive purpose for Israel’s jealousy in Rom 10:19; 11:11, 14.)
By forming a mob,[2489] their opponents are able to lend credibility to the claim that the missionaries foment (or at least facilitate) unrest. Ancient literature, both historical and fictitious, speaks of idlers in the marketplace as easily stirred for rabble-rousers’ political agendas.[2490] This portrait partly reflects literature’s frequent aristocratic disdain for demagogues (see comment on Acts 4:21) but probably also depicts social reality. Idlers sitting in a marketplace (ἀγορά) would not be difficult to exploit,[2491] and such idlers were in the marketplace.[2492] Luke calls them ἀγοραῖοι, those who spent most of the day in the marketplace; usually these people were marginalized, unemployed day laborers.[2493] The term, when used more generally, means “loafer” or “lowlife rabble”;[2494] sometimes it also connotes still more fully, as here, “malcontents” or “agitators.”[2495] Some ancients complained about “the idle, disorderly, . . . fickle mob” easily exploited by demagogues (Max. Tyre 27.6 [Trapp, 228]).[2496] Others also associated such debased persons with loiterers in marketplaces.[2497] (Luke’s “certain wicked people” is more explicit.)[2498]
The old Greek agora of Acts 17:5 is attested in an inscription of 60 B.C.E., found near the forum, the presumed site of 17:6, but we cannot be certain that the inscription was in situ.[2499] Since the rabble may have left the market for Jason’s house anyway (although this is specified clearly only for those who aroused them, 17:5), it would not make much difference for the story whether the agora was near the forum or not. The forum, where the politarchs will be found (17:6), stands in the center of the current city of Thessaloniki.[2500]
Although Thessalonica as a whole had a strong economy, the resources were inequitably distributed. The unemployment rate was high, and much of the urban proletariat lived off the frumentatio, the public grain dole from the city or wealthy benefactors.[2501] The church itself included artisans (1 Thess 4:11), perhaps won when Paul worked among them (2:9), and perhaps even some poorer members (2 Cor 8:2–4) who needed to avoid depending on others’ support (cf. 2 Thess 3:12).[2502]
Idlers in the marketplace, however, were neither artisans nor hardworking farmers in the countryside (though unemployed day laborers were not all idle deliberately).[2503] Few ancient readers held a high opinion of those who simply sat and criticized without doing much work (Polyb. 29.1.1–3);[2504] idleness[2505] and laziness[2506] were universally condemned. Wealthy citizens who worked hard in public affairs (or at least attended social functions) held a low opinion of other people of means who wasted time gossiping in public locations (Pliny Ep. 1.13.2).[2507] Some in the Thessalonian church may have shared the temptation of economic dependence on others to at least some degree (cf. 1 Thess 4:11–12; 2 Thess 3:6–12).
That Luke reports this exploitation of the unemployed “rabble” paints Paul’s opponents in a very bad light for Luke’s urban ideal audience. Higher-status hearers in particular would recognize the danger of such means of vilifying the apostles. Thus one Greek historian complained that Aristodemus used the basest, “the filthiest and the most unprincipled of the citizens” to slay the aristocracy (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.8.3). For many high-status hearers, few things appeared more dangerous than mob rule (e.g., Philo Decal. 155).[2508]
(4) Attempted Prosecution (17:5–6)
The frequent accusations from various sources remind us of how litigious ancient urban society really was[2509] as well as how often justice must have miscarried.[2510] The elite were always at a great advantage in the courts (cf. Jas 2:6); for example, a prosecutor might prove unable to win against a powerful defendant (P.Ryl. 119, from 54–67 C.E.; P.Fouad 26.21–24; Cic. Caecin. 73), and witnesses’ reliability was regularly evaluated by their wealth (Juv. Sat. 3.136–44).[2511]
Roman administration was insufficiently staffed to initiate investigations against private individuals; it waited for accusers (delatores) to bring charges against them.[2512] Thessalonica did not depend on Roman administration or law, but accusers were also the primary mover of cases in Greek traditions (as one may confirm by surveying the classical forensic orators). Paul’s accusers could have acted in “the spirit of the imperial loyalty oaths” by searching for Paul, reporting his allies, and even pursuing him to Beroea (17:5–9, 13).[2513] Deceptive accusers were, however, widely despised,[2514] and Luke’s informed audience would so view enemies of his protagonists. Emperors often overlooked the political rhetoric of philosophers,[2515] since barely anyone took their stronger political claims seriously;[2516] these charges, however, would make the missionaries difficult to overlook.
Their opponents sought to bring the missionaries forth into the δῆμος, the citizen body as a popular assembly with judicial and legislative authority.[2517] The δῆμος was appropriate to a free city such as Thessalonica, where city officials were not directly under Roman oversight.[2518] Aristocrats believed that a δῆμος was easily exploited, since democracy depended on the unlikely virtue of the masses.[2519] However many weeks Paul and Silas had been in Thessalonica, they had probably not yet completely healed from their wounds from the most recent public “assembly” riot.
Before a hearing was possible, however, the accusers had to bring the object of accusation to trial.[2520] Others in antiquity sometimes evaded or, better, postponed hearings for some time by ignoring a summons.[2521] Such behavior could, however, also lead easily to one’s condemnation (Epict. Diatr. 2.2.19–20) or to a heavy fine (Aeschines Tim. 46, noting a thousand drachmas in classical Athens). Unable to locate Paul, these accusers instead produce Jason, a local householder with much at stake. Attacking an opponent’s supporters was common practice (e.g., Tim. 193–95). Dragging the accused before a court was the most assured way to ensure their appearance (Acts 6:12; 18:12; cf. 17:19),[2522] though sometimes, as on this occasion, the primary target proved fortuitously unavailable (again in 19:29).
(5) Jason (17:5–9)
Luke mentions Jason as if he were already known, perhaps because Luke may write for a partly Macedonian audience[2523] or perhaps because he has again condensed material overzealously.[2524] Jason, as Paul’s host, may have provided for Paul’s work (cf. 1 Thess 2:9) but probably, at the least, also provided for his home (hence the explicit mention of the “house” here).[2525] Perhaps this house became Paul’s base of operation after he faced opposition in the synagogue, analogous to Acts 18:6–7, though Luke does not state this.[2526] Jesus had instructed his missionaries to depend on household hospitality (Luke 9:4; 10:5–8).
These arrangements are comfortable and contrast with others that would have been available for those without ethnic or personal connections. The lowest-status artisans often lived in the rear of their shops and sometimes even on the street.[2527] Cynic philosophers deliberately lived in public, begging and sleeping under temple porticoes; Paul’s arrangements help distinguish him from Cynics.[2528] Some scholars argue that Paul, who labored with his hands (Acts 18:3; 20:34–35), may have also sought to avoid the appearance of being a household client, the danger attached to a teacher’s long stay in a patron’s household.[2529] Luke, however, does not report how long Paul depended on local hospitality; in some especially trustworthy cases (e.g., 18:3), it may have been longer than the normal expected duration of hospitality (i.e., a week).[2530]
“Jason” was a Greek name famous for its association with the leader of the Argonauts.[2531] But it had long been a frequent name for Jewish people,[2532] perhaps with an unstated Jewish equivalent.[2533] Jewish accusers could more easily seize Jason with impunity if he was a member of their own resident-alien community[2534] (though anti-Jewish sentiment was likely weaker here than in Philippi, 16:20–21), though they could arraign him, in any case, in their role as delatores. That Paul would be staying with a sympathetic Jewish host, especially in a city where he had spoken in the synagogue, is more likely than not. That Jason became or remained Paul’s host after Paul’s Sabbath dialogues and the rise of his Jewish opposition (17:2, 5) suggests that he also had become a follower of Jesus at some point in the process.[2535]
Many scholars identify this Jason with Paul’s “relative” (meaning at least fellow Jew) in Rom 16:21.[2536] Though the name for Jews was not so uncommon that we must suppose that a Jewish-Christian Jason in Corinth must be the same person as the Jason here, some secondary support points in this direction. In a letter written during Paul’s stay in Corinth in Acts 20:2–3, Paul mentions him next to Sosipater (Rom 16:21), who is probably the Sopater of Beroea who was there at the same time (Acts 20:4).[2537] If “relative” means more than “fellow Jew,” depending on which of Paul’s ancestors received the citizenship grant, he might have been able to have distant Diaspora relatives with Greek names.[2538] But the latter point is at best speculation and on the whole quite unlikely, since the term used for “relative” might mean simply someone from the same tribe or nation, especially given Paul’s usage of the term in Romans (though its use in Rom 16:7, which refers to believers possibly already from the early Jerusalem church, might have a slightly stronger claim to a narrower sense). Converts from Thessalonica apparently include Aristarchus and Secundus (Acts 20:4; 27:2); Aristarchus, at least, seems to have been Jewish (Col 4:10).[2539]
V. DENUNCIATIONS IN COURT (17:6–9)
The accusers arraign Paul’s host and some converts on charges more serious than those in Philippi—namely, of sedition and treason against the emperor (Acts 17:6–7). The Gentile charge against the missionaries in Philippi is that they are Jews undermining Roman customs; here fellow Jews charge them with disloyalty to Caesar (cf. a similar apologetic irony in John 19:12–15). But as in Philippi, the authorities’ response seems to be political accommodation of mob sentiment; they act on conventional charges, but their handling of the matter does not suggest that they envision any real threat of social subversion. Although the empty rhetoric of the opposition is useful for Luke’s apologetic, it also reflects accurately the way many cases were conducted in antiquity, even without mob support.
(1) The Authorities (17:6)
Although the proconsul governing the entire province of Macedonia resided in Thessalonica, the officials would not need to involve him; Thessalonica administered its own local affairs as a free city within the province. Thus the city’s “politarchs” (πολιτάρχας, 17:6, 8) held considerable authority, overseeing administration and police matters; it was they whom Rome would hold responsible for keeping peace and stability in the city.[2540] The title “politarch” was rarely used for magistrates outside Macedonia, but it is common in Macedonian inscriptions and is well attested in Thessalonica.[2541]
Given the term’s rareness in extant literature,[2542] it seems likely that only one who traveled to Macedonia and had some sort of business with local officials would readily learn the title. Confirming Luke’s use of the plural, Thessalonica had five politarchs under Augustus and six under the later Antonines.[2543] From the early first century C.E. until late in the second century, the number in Thessalonica seems to have varied between three and possibly as many as seven (IG 126, 133, 137).[2544] They convened the city council (βουλή) and the citizen assembly (ἐκκλησία) and introduced the motions into each. “When a decree was passed, the politarchs set their seal on the papyrus copy,” and it was deposited in city archives, probably in the agora.[2545]
(2) The Charge of Sedition (17:6)
Slanders against minorities, including Christians, were common in the first and second centuries;[2546] they were also directed against Paul (Rom 3:8; 2 Cor 6:8). The Jesus movement was spreading more quickly even than Luke, limiting his focus at this point to the Pauline mission, can chronicle, and Paul speaks of proleptically propagating the gospel to all the world (Rom 15:19; Col 1:23);[2547] but here we are dealing with hyperbole. Hyperbole such as “stirred up[2548] the inhabited world” appears regularly in ancient literature (cf. Acts 24:5);[2549] it would be mentally acknowledged as hyperbole while emotionally inciting greater feeling in a crowd.
A late and probably fabricated document accuses Jews of “wishing to stir up the entire world [ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην]” (CPJ 2:78–79, §156c). More relevant is that the popularity of pagan charges against Jews as stirrers of unrest under Claudius (esp. P.Lond. 1912, from 41 C.E.) would provide a popular hearing for such a charge among Gentiles. In the wake of Claudius’s expelling Rome’s Jews (or some of them) in 49 C.E., possibly for some debate about the identity of the Messiah, officials may have been especially wary about some Roman Jews coming their way.[2550] The irony of the charge is that it is some Jews here who bring it against other Jews. Any traveling teachers, including pagan philosophers, not accountable to a local government were potential threats to the stability of the Roman order.[2551]
The charge of causing unrest[2552] would prove plausible to those who knew the history of riots or hostility following Paul’s activity (Acts 13:50; 14:5, 19; 16:19–22). Given the few days’ distance between Philippi and Thessalonica, word of Paul’s troubles in the former may have reached the latter,[2553] though it is possible that it would not have; given the relatively small and supportive Jewish community in Philippi, Thessalonian Jews would not likely receive word from coreligionists there. Luke’s apologetic irony is that it is not Paul here but his accusers who stirred up a mob (17:8; cf. again in 17:13, with the same verb). This irony reinforces Luke’s apologetic (see comment on Acts 24:5).
(3) The Charge of maiestas (17:7)
Treason was the one offense the exhortation to commit which was a criminal act.[2554] Treason, or maiestas, was a broad category of offense that could cover a wide variety of crimes.[2555] Such acts as killing hostages without the emperor’s command, or a governor refusing to surrender his province to his successor, constituted treason.[2556] More relevant here, “internal treason or sedition” included “assembling a mob” (as Paul’s opponents do in Luke’s account, though not directly against the state) to attempt, for example, to make another king.[2557] There is no clear line between “sedition” and full-fledged treason; the former might be easier to prove, but the latter was an even more dangerous charge if it could be made to stick.[2558]
The charge of treason is also dangerously plausible in Paul’s case.[2559] The eschatological content of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, probably recalling some of Paul’s instruction while in Thessalonica (1 Thess 5:2; 2 Thess 2:5, 15), could easily enough be construed as predicting a new ruler and the timing or signs of his reign; the emperor had already decreed that such predictions constituted treason, a charge local magistrates would be quick to investigate.[2560] Witherington cites elements in Paul’s message to Thessalonian Christians that would support the charge of subversion:[2561]