Ii . Civic Pride
II. CIVIC PRIDE
When Paul addresses Judeans, he simply admits being born in a foreign city (22:3), but he dwells on it at greater length with a Gentile who may better appreciate the point.[531] Where a person was from was one of the first questions people asked of each other when meeting.[532] Most people valued patriotism and love for country.[533]
Further, people prided themselves on their cities of origin.[534] Pindar claims that loyalty to his home city of Thebes obligates him to praise it first (Isthm. 1.1–6), basing this practice on the honor due a parent (1.1, 5). The supposed decline in emphasis on the Greek city-state in the fourth century B.C.E. was purely Athenian propaganda;[535] likewise, despite the universalizing influence of Alexander’s conquests in many respects, civic cults remained prominent in the Hellenistic era.[536]
In the Roman period, with less emphasis on regional loyalties under the empire, cities were major objects of loyalty.[537] People often sought favors for their home cities, following traditional rules of benefaction (e.g., Pliny Ep. 6.18.1–3); even aristocrats who disagreed among themselves on other points respected such acts of civic loyalty (Symm. Ep. 1.64). Since Apuleius’s city was refounded by veterans, he noted, “we have been a most splendid colony” (Apol. 24). Philosophers could critique cities for going too far with their civic pride (Heracl. Ep. 9), but even many philosophers understood it.[538] People love their native lands not because of greatness, Seneca the Younger opines, but because they are their own (Ep. Lucil. 66.26).[539] The earlier Stoic Zeno asked that the name of his home city be inscribed along with his name (Diog. Laert. 7.1.12).[540] For many philosophers, however, the entire world was their city or fatherland,[541] though this claim need not justify (except perhaps for Cynics)[542] neglect of their own city.[543]
Cities were often rivals, vying with one another for honor.[544] Larger cities boasted in their superiority; cities quarreled “over whose temple to Zeus or whose amphitheater was the bigger.”[545] They competed in games; they might vie to equip the fastest horses for such games (Plut. Alc. 12.1); travelers debated which city’s heroes were greater (Babr. 15.5–9); cities even quarreled over who had the better orators (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.8.490). Romans felt that they had conquered the Greeks because of the latter’s intercity rivalry (Hdn. 3.2.8), but they complained that such rivalry had spread throughout the East, continuing to weaken the empire long after Paul’s day (3.2.7–8). Sometimes, however, civic rivalry could be put to good use, motivating achievement (cf. 2 Cor 9:2).[546]
Such rivalries were well known in Asia Minor,[547] often leading to moralists’ corrections when they became out of hand.[548] Tarsus, indeed, is specifically attested as engaging in such displays of pride and rivalry. A generation after Paul, other prominent cities of Cilicia vied for more rights, with Tarsus insisting on keeping such functions centralized in Tarsus.[549] Cities could be branded with particular traits (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 32.92), and Tarsus was no exception. Tarsians boasted because they thought that their city was “great” and because it had fertile land and a river flowing through the city and was Cilicia’s capital (33.17). Yet the rival Cilician towns just east of Tarsus reviled it (33.51; 34.10, 27, 43); if all their neighbors detest them, Dio Chrysostom suggests, perhaps it is because Tarsus really does abuse its prominence (34.10, 14, 27).[550] In Tarsus’s case, the rivalry was not only with other cities but among Tarsians themselves (34.17–20). Dio calls on Tarsus to abandon strife with surrounding, lesser cities of Cilicia (34.47). What good, he asks, did jealous rivalry do for Athens and Sparta (34.49–51)?
Epideictic rhetoric provided occasion for conspicuous display of such city pride, often by the rivalry of comparison. Cities were often subjects of speeches of praise, just as individuals were.[551] One should praise a city by comparing it favorably with others (Men. Rhet. 2.3, 386.12–13); where one’s city is superior, one should dwell on the point, but where it is inferior, one should pass over this quickly (386.15–18). Delegates could boast to rulers that “our city” is “not inferior in glory or extent or beauty to any of those of your subjects” (2.12, 422.11–12);[552] Athens might be great, but the speaker’s city is not inferior (2.14, 426.30). It was appropriate to compare one’s city (i.e., using synkrisis) to some glorious city, such as Athens or Rome, to augment local status (427.1–3), concluding that one’s city is “not inferior to the greatest” (427.3–4). A speaker leaving a greater city for a lesser one should explain why he was doing so (2.15, 433.28–29).
Such an emphasis on civic pride also led to mention of a person’s city as one of the grounds for praising him. A later rhetorician instructed orators praising an emperor to start with his city or country (2.1–2, 369.18–370.8) even before commenting on his family background (370.9–28).[553] The “honor rating” of a person’s birthplace reflected on the person’s status.[554] There were limits to this practice, of course. Against those who thought birthplace in a famous city a requirement for happiness, Plutarch opines that it is no more crucial than the beauty of one’s mother (Demosth. 1.1); virtue, unlike some skills, takes root anywhere (1.2–3).[555] Nor does vice stem from growing up in a small fatherland (1.3). Paul may be boasting in Tarsus; Luke certainly boasts in it for him, and not in this passage alone (Acts 9:11, 30; 11:25; 22:3).
The specific mention of Tarsus signals to the tribune and reminds Luke’s audience that Paul derives from a prominent city; Tarsus was “a worthy object of 1st century civic pride.”[556] Tarsians were proud of their ancestral home and its attainments,[557] including the famous contributions of the imperial teachers Athenodorus and his successor, Nestor.[558] With deliberate exaggeration, some who praised Tarsus called it the greatest metropolis (OGIS 578.7–8).[559] Tarsus apparently had a notable Jewish community.[560] For a much more detailed discussion of Tarsus, see comment on Acts 9:11. A postcolonial analysis of Paul’s Tarsian claim, in the context of a charge that he belongs to a less-respected part of the empire, could reasonably highlight Paul’s imitation of imperial status categories. In view of the skillful deployment of Greco-Roman forensic rhetoric in Acts 24:10–21, however, we should balance that observation with the recognition that Paul’s life is at stake here and that he is making selective rhetorical use of advantages. He is not prescribing ethics to congregations, and even in Luke’s portrayal of Paul, which emphasizes his advantages, Paul does not normally flaunt them.[561]
III. COULD PAUL HAVE BEEN A TARSIAN CITIZEN?
Some scholars have questioned whether Paul, as a Jew, could have been a citizen of Tarsus. Lentz, in particular, questions whether Paul could claim to be a strict Pharisee yet hold citizenship in Tarsus.[562] Full citizenship, he claims, “implied loyalty to the local gods”;[563] but while this was the Alexandrian Greek perspective on citizenship, it is not certain that all cities shared it (Alexandrian Jews certainly did not). Even in Alexandria, some Jews were likely citizens, and Jewish people were also apparently citizens of some cities in Asia Minor.[564] It is uncertain whether Paul was a Pharisee before migrating to Jerusalem (see discussion on Acts 23:6), and civic benefactions or wealth could earn citizenship for families in some cities. Moreover, although Lentz argues (undoubtedly rightly) that Jews, as a class, were not citizens of Greek cities,[565] he himself does not rule out exceptions: “Only a minority of highly Hellenized and presumably wealthy Jews possessed the citizenship and appreciated the status and prestige commensurate with the honor.”[566] Exceptions are likely more common than he believes, but there is no reason to suppose that Paul could not be exceptional in any case. Paul may have left Tarsus young, yet he did not come from an average Jewish family; only a minority of Jews could have an impact on the Roman world the way Paul did, and these would normally have been those of high status with access to Hellenistic education.
Others suggest that Luke means only that Paul was a resident, not a citizen, of Tarsus (not implausible in view of Luke’s sometimes imprecise language about cities and towns); if Luke uses the terminology technically, it is argued, it is highly unlikely, since citizens “went through the ephebate education in Greek literature” whereas Paul shows no sign of such education.[567] But if Paul’s father was a citizen and enrolled Paul in special Jewish schooling or sent him abroad very young, would Paul not retain his citizenship?
Jewish people throughout most of the empire were loyal to the cities where they lived as well as to their ancestral homeland, Jerusalem.[568] Nevertheless, their distinctive status as an ethnic community (with special laws) made it rare for them (or other foreigners) to be citizens of Greek cities, enjoying “political equality (ἰσοπολιτεία)” with natives.[569] Exceptions occurred, however, where special constitutions existed, and Tarsus may have met these special conditions through its refounding by a Seleucid ruler;[570] some more concrete evidence may also point this way for Tarsus (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.34).[571] Jews in Tarsus would not have become citizens as a group, but individuals could purchase citizenship in most cities; the primary requirement in Tarsus was five hundred drachmas (Dio Chrys. Or. 34.21–23), equivalent to two years’ income for a day laborer.[572]
Luke does not claim that all Jewish people in Tarsus were citizens; he implies only that some individuals attained it. Tarsus may have been parsimonious with its grants of citizenship, even to linen workers born locally (Dio Chrys. Or. 34.21);[573] but the case could easily be different for persons of prominence. Paul’s father could hardly have afforded a prominent Jerusalem teacher such as Gamaliel (Acts 22:3)[574] unless the family was fairly wealthy and prominent,[575] and cities might admit citizens by vote (Char. Chaer. 8.8.13–14), especially if they were prominent benefactors.[576] Property qualifications were also required in Tarsus,[577] and again, a family without means would hardly be able to provide for tertiary study. Paul’s family also already had Roman citizenship (see comment on Acts 16:37; 22:28), which provided more status in the Greek East than it would have afforded in Rome.
In contrast to the skepticism of some scholars about Jewish citizens of Gentile cities, noted above, many places did allow Jews to be local citizens.[578] For example, Ephesian Jews apparently became citizens of Ephesus without compromising their customs (Jos. Ant. 12.125–26). Some scholars doubt as propaganda Josephus’s claims that Jews held citizenship in some Greek cities.[579] Admittedly, it seems surprising that he does not more often repeat his claim for Antioch (12.119) and that Jews retained citizenship in Ionia despite local objections (12.125–26), but Josephus reaffirms precisely these claims, which could be checked, in apologetic intended to be read by enemies as well as friends (Ag. Ap. 2.37–39).[580]
Some Jews in Rome were Roman citizens (Philo Embassy 155–57; though Roman citizenship is a special case); the common existence of Jewish citizens of Rome has already been discussed above (see comment on Acts 6:9; 16:37). Inscriptions from Sardis, Antioch, and elsewhere indicate Jews as prominent local citizens; religious requirements for civic cults could be waived if Jews met the property requirements.[581] Moreover, Luke knows that Paul is a Jew, and he would hardly invent a claim for him (a Jew with citizenship in a Gentile city) that was a known impossibility. Finally, there is little reason for Luke to invent Paul’s Tarsian citizenship; although it provides him with more status with the tribune than being a typical Jerusalemite would have (providing some apologetic value), Luke does not exploit it as he does Paul’s Roman citizenship.[582] Nor is Tarsus central in his narrative; in pure invention, Corinth, Ephesus, and especially Rome would have served better.
IV. WHY NOT ROMAN CITIZENSHIP HERE?
Some scholars suppose Paul’s citation of his Tarsian citizenship before his Roman citizenship represents a narrative blunder by Luke. But some scholars argue that in the first-century East, city loyalties took precedence in some sense, a role accorded the larger imperial identity only in the next century.[583]
More important, Paul has good reason to delay mention of his Roman citizenship for the most strategic moment—a strategy he learned or discovered effective in Philippi at the latest (Acts 16:37–39; see comment on Acts 22:25–28).[584] (Use of his Roman citizenship was a calculated gamble, but the gamble’s odds might prove better later.) Further, if Paul wishes to speak to the people, mentioning his Roman citizenship could alert the officer to the possibility that there might be trouble (of a different sort than he had earlier anticipated). Paul does not want to miss a striking opportunity to address this crowd, even if it costs him dearly (see 21:13; cf. 19:30; 20:24). And most important, his Roman citizenship is not yet directly relevant to the present situation. It is not germane to his request to speak to the people as his Jewishness is (21:39–40), nor does it answer the question about his Greek speech as his Tarsian citizenship would (21:37).
Others doubt that one could be both a Tarsian and a Roman citizen and hence question one or the other of Luke’s claims for Paul. But this doubt wrongly reads earlier customs into the first century. In Cicero’s time, granted, Romans could not share both Roman citizenship and that of another city (Balb. 12.29),[585] though citizens of Greek states could be enrolled in more than one (12.30). But dual citizenship became firmly established by the reign of Claudius; although this common practice would be too late for Paul to be “born a citizen” (Acts 22:28),[586] legal precedents appear as early as Augustus’s reign (FIRA 1.55, 68)—that is, the era when Paul was born.[587] (Augustus required that “provincials who have obtained Roman citizenship should continue to undertake liturgies in their home cities”;[588] some instances of dual citizenship appear even before the time of Augustus.)[589] After Pompey, Rome often granted citizenship to individual members of the municipal elites.[590] Indeed, in Alexandria, only citizens of the city normally qualified for Roman citizenship.[591]
Although Tarsus was not a colony (being a colony would have made its citizens Roman citizens), it was a free city[592] and hence boasted some status, and some of its people became Roman citizens.[593] Within Tarsus’s aristocracy was a smaller aristocracy “of Roman citizens, viz., the families which had raised themselves so conspicuously in the city by wealth or by high office or, as was usually the case, by both, as to be admitted into the governing class of the Empire.”[594] Any family that could achieve Roman citizenship in a city such as Tarsus could also hope to achieve Tarsian citizenship.[595]
This is, however, only a portion of Paul’s background (as Lysias will soon recognize from Paul’s use of Aramaic, Acts 21:40). To be “from” Tarsus merely affirms that he was born there;[596] Paul’s stronger connections with Jerusalem, by contrast (22:3), will not help his case with the tribune. From here until 22:29, F. S. Spencer finds several geographic connections;[597] taken together, these help to define some significant locations in the course of Paul’s life in Acts: Tarsus (21:39; 22:3), Jerusalem (22:3, 17–20), Damascus (22:5–6; this seems less central to Paul’s ministry), and Rome (22:25–29).
h. Addressing the Crowd in Aramaic (21:40)
Paul’s willingness to speak to the crowd (21:39) that has just abused him (particularly as “brothers and fathers” [22:1], though most did not know what the commotion was really about), when it cannot in fact help him with the tribune, displays virtue: both love for his people Israel and the desire to calm the crowd and restore order. Both of these elements are valuable for Luke’s apologetic. They also fit Luke’s Christian ethics (see Luke 6:22–23, 27–29) and make good sense of Paul’s character in Acts; certain that he had to go to Jerusalem (19:21; 20:22) and prepared to die there if necessary (21:13), Paul knew he had a mission. Unless deterred by allies (9:29–30; 19:30–31), Paul was normally ready to keep speaking even in the face of danger (20:24).
I. PLAUSIBILITY
Some scholars challenge the historical plausibility of the scene that begins here. Karris’s list of proposed implausibilities (to which I respond below) is fairly complete:[598]
He mentions additional literary problems in the following speech, which will be treated below at the introduction to that speech.
Some doubt that a man just beaten would speak at such length (and longer had he not been cut off, 22:22). Yet the beating was interrupted quickly (21:34), and even after a severe beating, the Paul we know from Acts would have spoken as effectively as possible (cf. 16:25).[599] (For what it is worth, in subsequent history, wounded or beaten preachers have been known to keep speaking during a mob setting.)[600] The mentioned location, the “stairs,” is accurate; these stairs connected the Fortress Antonia, with its Roman garrison above the temple courts, with the outer court below; see further comment on Acts 21:31–32. (Soldiers undoubtedly remained on the stairs to prevent the crowd from reaching Paul.)[601]
A more serious problem is why the tribune would let a man whom the mob was just trying to kill address the crowd.[602] Some suggest that Paul’s social status was higher than the tribune’s;[603] although this point may be true, the tribune does not know it yet (22:27–28). The likeliest reason the tribune allows Paul to address the crowd is that he believes that Paul will be able to calm them by clarifying his identity.[604] The crowd is still crying out (21:36), and Paul’s initial signal and words, probably conjoined with the tribune’s apparent support, initially fulfill the expectation that he can calm the crowd (21:40–22:2). The tribune believes that Paul can calm the crowd because he has learned that Paul is not, in fact, as some supposed, the Egyptian prophet or a Sicarius (21:38) but a good Greek-speaker from Tarsus (21:39). The unrest surrounding Paul appears to be a case of mistaken identity, which Lysias hopes that Paul will clear up, helping him to restore order. In the end, Paul’s speech will disappoint him (22:22–24), leading initially to harsh treatment of Paul—though unknown to the tribune, it is Paul’s favorable remarks about Gentiles that provoke the resumption of the riot (22:21). Far from being a subversive voice against Rome, Paul is a leading Jewish advocate of reconciliation.
Some scholars are understandably skeptical about some of Luke’s stage handling. Would the crowd become quiet simply because the man whose life they sought now wishes to speak?[605] Certainly the setting serves Luke’s literary purposes, and Luke (and presumably his source) selects which elements to narrate. The crowd that quiets when Paul wants to speak erupts afresh when Luke reaches the speech’s climax[606] (though Paul’s speech is technically still in its narratio). More broadly, Paul’s quieting of the crowd confirms Luke’s picture of Paul as an effective speaker and parallels Paul with the other major figures of Luke’s account. Jesus (Luke 19:47; 20:1; 21:37–38) and Peter (Acts 3:11–12; 5:21; cf. 2:14, 46) both taught persuasively in the temple; Paul must now have his opportunity.[607] The portrayal also fulfills Paul’s compulsion to testify to the people of Jerusalem (21:13; cf. 22:15; 23:11), though this is not his first occasion to do so (9:28; 26:20).[608] But while Luke’s portrayal is useful to him—why else would he narrate it in detail?—is it also historically plausible (as historical writing was ideally supposed to be, at a minimum)?
Some charge that Paul’s ability to calm an urban mob resembles that of heroes in novels: weighty people could quiet crowds.[609] But this approach works in novels because novels on this point emulate real life (or at least historians’ portrayals of it; e.g., Jos. Ant. 4.35).[610] When a crowd interrupts Dio Chrysostom’s speech with a tumult, Dio knows how to answer them (Or. 46.10). (Elsewhere in Acts, people of high status in particular circles do quiet their circles [Acts 12:17; 19:35; 21:14].)[611]
The comparison, however, whether supporting or opposing the scene’s plausibility, proves irrelevant: nothing about Paul’s own position makes him weighty. Indeed, he has been in chains (21:33), which were a mark of shame (see comment on Acts 21:33).[612] Perhaps also relevant though less important, even if Paul had been beaten only briefly (21:32), his hair may have been disheveled,[613] and perhaps some of his clothing was torn. Appearance was not important to philosophers, but it belonged to the orator’s arsenal of persuasive factors known to affect popular audience receptivity.[614]
Although appearance and rank could secure a disorderly audience’s silent attention (Tac. Hist. 3.20), here it is likely the authority of the tribune, whose partial release of Paul and apparent permission enable him to speak (Acts 21:40).[615] When the soldiers quit moving Paul toward the Antonia and allow him to motion from the top of the stairs, the crowd would naturally assume that the Romans have learned something that it did not know.
As Dunn notes, “In a day when public oratory was the principal means of disseminating information and canvassing public support for policy, the tradition of crowds giving a hearing to speeches would be well established.”[616] Granted, crowds were sometimes hard to quiet (Diod. Sic. 18.67.1) and sometimes refused to listen to anyone favoring their opposition (Acts 19:33–34; Diod. Sic. 18.67.2). They often shouted people down, and the crowd will soon do so with Paul in this narrative (Acts 22:22). But the narrative as it stands is plausible: members of the crowd cannot but have noticed that their own spokespersons have interpreted Paul’s role in various manners (21:34), apparently sometimes as a revolutionary nationalist (21:38) on the opposite end of the political spectrum from a Hellenist temple-defiler (21:28).
If ancient speakers sometimes quieted crowds (and they did), there is no reason to argue that this could not be such an occasion: presumably the crowd can observe that the tribune is allowing Paul to speak, which suggests that Paul is not thought to be an incendiary nationalist. Between their own confusion as to Paul’s identity and the tribune’s cue, enough of the crowd’s members may be so curious as to reduce the volume sufficiently for Paul to begin. Once he speaks Aramaic, they quiet further (22:2) because now he speaks with authority that the local Judeans respect (and not what one would expect from someone whom Greek Jews accused of defiling the temple). Luke, like other ancient authors, mentions hand motions both as a way for speakers to seek attention because of the noise (12:17; 19:33) and as rhetorical gestures (13:16; 26:1; see comment on Acts 13:16).[617] Although the gesture for silence could be in view here (as in 12:17), it might be the gesture for the beginning of a speech: “the thumb and first two fingers extended, with the fourth and fifth fingers folded into the palm of his hand.”[618]
Paul may have spoken loudly. Our modern experience should not lead us to doubt how well the most effective orators could make themselves heard. Benjamin Franklin was astonished to discover that on a clear day more than thirty thousand people could hear George Whitefield at one time and that people could hear him from a much greater distance than is in view here.[619] We have many such reports from the days before microphones and public-address systems, including from antiquity; granted that historians may have invented the content of many generals’ speeches to their armies, they hardly invented the custom that generals did speak to them (see further comment on Acts 2:14–15). Demosthenes allegedly practiced declaiming at a roaring seafront to prepare him for the noise of Athenian assemblies.[620] At the very least, such accounts recognize that speakers needed to project their voices if crowds were to hear them. If someone wishes to argue that speakers in fact never made themselves heard, one must explain how historians expected any urban residents to take seriously their pervasive depictions of such speeches, wonder why large assemblies met or masses of people attended dramas, and so forth.
Speaking from the top of the stairs, Paul was in a favorable acoustic position. If those in front could hear and grew more quiet, the hush could spread across the audience just as the noise had (John Wesley also quieted hostile crowds).[621] If this were not possible, noisy crowds would never have heard anyone. In the final analysis, though, even Paul cannot keep the crowd quiet for a full speech (22:22).
II. PAUL’S LINGUISTIC VERSATILITY
By indicating that both Paul’s Greek was sufficient to impress the tribune and his Aramaic sufficient to impress the crowds, Luke emphasizes Paul’s intellectual acumen and linguistic versatility. (That Luke himself appreciated such skills is evident in the first chapter of Luke-Acts, where he moves from elegant Greek in his preface to evoking biblical language in the following scenes.) This is the first time that Luke informs the reader that the Roman citizen Paul, though from a Hellenistic synagogue (6:9), does not speak only Greek. Readers now learn that Paul has an ability that Stephen and most other Hellenists presumably did not (8:25 is probably not an exception). As with his explicit revelation only in 16:37 that Paul is a Roman citizen (though many might infer this from his name), Luke brings forth new qualifications of Paul as needed, supplying the impression (like the rhetorical function of polysyndetic lists)[622] of a mere sample of a potentially more extensive catalogue of proficiencies. This is not to imply that Luke fabricates such proficiencies; if Paul in fact grew up in Jerusalem (22:3), he stood a good chance of learning the local language as well as Greek.[623] His work in Scripture probably included study of Hebrew, which would greatly simplify acquisition of Aramaic. This supposition fits Paul’s own claims—whatever else he might mean by “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Phil 3:5), it may well include linguistic implications.[624]
Paul’s language will draw the crowd’s attention and counter any impression of being a hellenizing apostate.[625] Now having been accused by some of the conflicting voices (Acts 21:34) of being a Jewish nationalist associated with the Egyptian Jewish revolutionary or the assassins (21:38), Paul may dissociate himself from the original charge of having defiled the temple by bringing in a Gentile (21:38).
This is not to say that the dangerous Sicarii had numerous sympathizers in Jerusalem, only that the conflicting accusations could arouse the crowd’s curiosity as to what sort of person has really been apprehended. With accusations from opposite ends of the accommodation spectrum, he plays to the nationalists with fluent speech in Aramaic (21:40), an emphasis on zeal like their own (22:3), and his mention of other law-keeping protagonists (22:12).[626] This holds the audience’s attention while he preaches about Christ, until his emphasis on the Gentile mission (22:21) revives the original suspicions (21:28; 22:22). Meanwhile, it is likely that his Asian Jewish accusers, who question his commitment to Israel (21:27–28), can neither understand nor refute what he is saying. More than likely, they spoke only Greek.[627]
III. HEBREW OR ARAMAIC?
What language is Paul speaking here (cf. also 22:1; perhaps 26:14)? When Luke speaks of “the Hebrew language,” scholars debate whether he refers to Hebrew or to the Semitic language spoken by Hebrew people for more than half a millennium (including in most of the biblical book of Ezra).
Some suggest that Hebrew may in fact be meant.[628] There are some serious reasons to favor this position; it is easier to explain Paul’s fluency (as one trained in Torah) in Hebrew than in Aramaic, and “the Hebrew language” does sound more like Hebrew, since Luke could have said “the Judean tongue” for Aramaic.[629] Supporters of the use of Hebrew here have argued that Hebrew was widely used in addition to Aramaic in the first century;[630] some even contend that it was the first language of Palestinian Jews, Aramaic being reserved for talking with Gentiles.[631] Hebrew certainly did continue as a living language for scribal activity (witness most Qumran scrolls and Mishnaic Hebrew).[632] A large number of religious and literary documents were originally written in Hebrew.[633] Some Qumran sectarians apparently expected God to convert Gentiles eschatologically, so that they would speak Hebrew (4Q464 3 I, 8–9).[634]
Even later Aramaic sources contend that Hebrew was the original language of the world;[635] Palestinian Amoraim thought that God used the Hebrew language when creating the world.[636] It was also “the language of the sanctuary”;[637] whoever resided in the holy land and spoke the holy language (Hebrew) belonged to the coming world.[638] Rabbis expected fathers to teach their children Hebrew, at least for Torah study,[639] and the Aaronic benediction would be in Hebrew.[640]
The idea that Jesus therefore used Hebrew with the scribes[641] or even taught his own disciples in Hebrew[642] need not, however, follow; still less would it follow that Paul spoke to crowds in Hebrew. Did Jesus first teach his disciples to speak Hebrew, or did he instruct them in the vernacular? And although Jesus probably could read Hebrew (at least Luke assumed so; see Luke 4:16–19),[643] this is a far cry from choosing to debate in it; Jesus’s recorded public debates were not internal classroom exercises of scribal schools but generally public challenge-riposte exchanges.[644] Knowledge of Aramaic would make good Hebrew easy to learn for those who studied it, but ability to communicate in Hebrew required special training beyond the normal ability to recite Torah. Those who spoke Aramaic and knew some Hebrew (certainly including the Shema and other basic prayers) might well understand much of the Torah service;[645] that many did not understand all of it, however, is suggested by the later use of vernacular Targumim (and translation into Aramaic as early as Neh 8:8).[646] And again, the more common recognition knowledge of a language is not the same thing as fluency to debate or offer orations in it.
In favor of Paul’s speaking Hebrew is that as a Hellenist student of Scripture, he might not have learned the local Aramaic but would have had to study Hebrew. Yet if Paul settled in Jerusalem while young (Acts 22:3) and was linguistically proficient, he might well have acquired Aramaic;[647] and against his speaking to the crowd in Hebrew is the likelihood that it would not have understood him (apart from words here and there). Aramaic was not only the mother tongue of many Palestinian Jews in this period but the lingua franca of Babylonia and also rural Syria, from which some visiting Diaspora Jews came.[648] Probably only a fairly small elite was fluent enough in Hebrew to converse in it.[649]
IV. ARAMAIC USE
Aramaic was the dominant language for the masses in Jerusalem.[650] Material from Masada indicates that bilingualism (and even trilingualism) was common, but Aramaic was the common tongue for most Judeans, though Hebrew could be used in priestly and purity matters.[651] Some of our evidence for the use of Hebrew reflects a new emphasis of the third century C.E., which appears to have been intended as a challenge to widespread use of Aramaic.[652] Even Greek composition in Judea reflects abundant Aramaisms, especially for scribes and translators whose Greek was weaker.[653] The well-educated in Jerusalem, of course, would be fluent in Greek.[654]
Aramaic was the diplomatic language of Israel in dialogue with Mesopotamia before the exile (2 Kgs 18:26; Isa 36:11), and the dominant language of Israel before the Hellenistic period;[655] many Qumran scrolls appear in Aramaic (despite the prejudice for Hebrew),[656] and Babylonian Jewry, who affected Palestinian Judaism just as the Mediterranean Diaspora did, used Aramaic.[657] Throughout western Asia, it remained the vernacular of peoples (especially in rural areas or in small towns) whose first language was not Greek or a small local language.
Despite similarities between Hebrew and Aramaic (which would make much Hebrew intelligible to those taught to recite it and those who heard it regularly in the synagogues), Aramaic paraphrase was provided[658] to make the Hebrew Bible more intelligible.[659] Some scholars argue that Greek translations were probably initially somewhat more popular in Judea than Aramaic ones, although Aramaic was preferred in Babylonia.[660] In any case, Hebrew was probably the sacred and literary language whereas Aramaic remained the vernacular for the masses in Jewish Palestine.[661]
Moreover, whenever this or analogous phrases for “Hebrew” language appear in the NT with Greek transcriptions, the words transcribed are Aramaic rather than Hebrew where we can tell the difference.[662] Admittedly, these examples are not Lukan (they are Johannine), but early Jewish Christianity (John being more Judaic than Luke) should provide Luke’s closest analogy here. Mark does not employ the term, but he often includes recollections of Jesus’s Aramaic as if these are the holy ipsissima verba of the Lord rather than merely earlier translations of Syrian or Galilean followers of the Lord. See further discussion, including regarding Greek and Aramaic inscriptions in greater Judea, at Acts 6:1.
Although I do not find compelling most of the usual historical questions raised by scholars against the historicity of some of this narrative’s details, another historical question concerned me as a modern Western reader: how could Paul have shifted so readily into Aramaic (or, for that matter, Hebrew) after speaking almost exclusively Greek for so many years? Conceivably he had continued to use Hebrew in study (and perhaps mentioned it in teaching, but this is more questionable historically),[663] but with most Diaspora Jews over the years, he would have been speaking only Greek. Friends who grew up genuinely bilingual or trilingual, however, assure me that my concern reflects the fact that I unfortunately grew up monolingual, learning languages primarily in an academic setting.[664] Paul is also recounting his own story, which he may have offered before in Aramaic-speaking Syrian settings as well as among Greek-speakers; he is not formulating a new discourse.
Further, Paul and his colleagues apparently taught some basic Aramaic phrases to his churches (Rom 8:15; 1 Cor 16:22; Gal 4:6) and may have had occasion to use some Aramaic over the years,[665] and he had likely been speaking Aramaic frequently since entering Jerusalem, including with the four Nazirites. Once a person has begun using a language again (sometimes even those languages learned as adults), much of it returns to memory.[666] The narrative is thus not incoherent, but it does suggest that Luke’s Paul probably learned Aramaic early in life. This would be consistent with Luke’s claim that he began his studies in Jerusalem at a young age (Acts 22:3). Whereas adults might well associate only with those who speak their language, children can learn language by immersion like native speakers. If, therefore, we accept Luke’s claim about Paul’s education in Jerusalem, the claim that he addressed the crowds in Aramaic is, though not demonstrable, entirely plausible, especially if he had been back in Judea for several days.[667]
Excursus: The Defense Speeches of Acts 22–26, Especially 22:2–21
The defense scenes of 22:1–26:32 (including courtroom scenes in Acts 24–26) are of a different texture from much of what precedes in Acts. The purpose for the shift is not to supersede the earlier portrayal of Paul as a wonder-worker, as some scholars have argued,[668] but to focus on the legal aspect of Luke’s apologetic at the point in his story where it becomes historically most appropriate.
The earlier arrests, arraignments, and accusations in Acts (e.g., 16:19–21; 17:5–9; 18:12–17) merely pave the way for Paul’s long custody here (though Luke did not invent such difficulties; 2 Cor 11:23). Apparently, some of Luke’s contemporaries were scandalized by Paul’s long custody; if he was innocent, why did not God deliver him (cf. Acts 28:4; Luke 23:35, 37, 39, 44–47)? Acts replies that in many earlier cases, God did deliver him;[669] if God afterward used captivity to permit him to testify before Jewish and Gentile rulers (Acts 9:15; 25:12; 26:2, 7, 13, 19, 26–27), no one should complain that God was not with him because of his (possibly later) lengthy Roman custody and execution. Moreover, the oft-noted parallels with Jesus’s trial[670] would reinforce for Christian hearers, who respected Jesus and recognized God’s purpose in Jesus’s trial and his passion, that Paul was following Jesus’s path (cf. Stephen in 7:59–60), not facing divine punishment or abandonment.[671]
Some scholars have argued that this section of Acts is Luke’s fiction; they base this view either on their skepticism about Paul’s Roman citizenship[672] or on the fact that a lengthy defense can appear in a largely novelistic work (i.e., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4).[673] Evidence has already been presented above that Paul was in fact very likely a Roman citizen, as many other scholars have also argued (see comment on Acts 16:37). The comparison with Apollonius in Philostratus’s work is useful in revealing ancient literary tastes, but tastes for courtroom drama could be satisfied in political biography or history as well as in novels.
A number of comparisons to novels are valid,[674] but often because novels depict social reality and their patterns merely exemplify what was expected of literary reports of court scenes. For example, traits such as accusation, opening the court, and paired speeches[675] befit any full narrative of the most common court procedures.[676] The novels reveal some judicial practice, but this is also what interested readers would expect in any judicial narrative.[677]
Thus, for example, Josephus’s Antiquities includes Herod’s speech against his sons and their defense (Ant. 16.92–120), Antipater’s speech and Nicolaus’s counterspeech for Archelaus (17.230–47),[678] and Nicolaus’s defense of Herod (16.338–50, esp. 16.342–50). Knowing Josephus’s practice elsewhere, we may suppose that he elaborated the content of the speech events but that there were in fact forensic speeches on this occasion addressing the sorts of issues Josephus’s speeches address.[679] Other historians also include set speeches in forensic contexts—for example, Tacitus’s rendition of defense speeches before the Senate (e.g., Tac. Ann. 4.34–35; 6.5), a debate over the execution of slaves (14.42–45, esp. 14.43–44), a debate over a treason charge (14.48–49, esp. 14.48), a senator’s denunciation of a defendant (15.20–22, esp. 15.20–21), and so forth. Because of Tacitus’s focus, the setting of judicial speech, where it occurs, is often the senate; because of Acts’ focus (partly on Paul’s defense) and because it is written at a more popular level than were elite histories, forensic speeches concerning Paul are natural elements.[680]
Acts is not a novel, freely inventing Paul’s hearings.[681] Instead, there is good reason to believe that Luke has shaped historical substance, rather than his imagination, in these chapters (see comments on the passages in question). This section of Acts is more detailed than most others for the same reason that Paul’s brief ministry in Philippi is treated in greater detail than his substantially longer ministry in Corinth: it is from a section of Acts where the author of the “we” material was nearby (Acts 20:5–28:16).[682]
Some view the defenses as primarily evangelistic, not primarily political apologetic.[683] But while Paul’s intention in the narrative world is partly evangelistic (24:25; 26:27–29), part of Luke’s purpose in including the speeches for a probably Christian audience (cf. Luke 1:4) seems to be to offer them tools for defending themselves against widely circulated slanders.[684] Luke seeks to vindicate Paul (and thus “his” Gentile or Diaspora Christian movement)[685] against misconceptions: though Jesus, Peter, and Paul were executed, they challenged only corrupt Judean leadership (now discredited, in any case, by the war) and did not seek to subvert the peace of the empire.[686]
Paul has more confidence in receiving justice and fares better with the Romans than did Peter and others with aristocratic courts earlier (and certainly than Jesus in Luke 23:16–25).[687] Paul’s status as a citizen and the educational prowess he demonstrates (including knowledge of Roman law and confidence in the face of it) mark him as a person of higher status, automatically favored in the Roman judicial system.[688] Within the narrative world, Paul may have developed this confidence and strategy after his success in Philippi (Acts 16:37–39) and especially in Corinth (18:13–15, with Gallio).[689] Luke’s own narrative apologetic simply develops the apologetic approach already offered by Paul within the narrative.[690]
The apologetic speech to Jerusalem (22:2–21) and another to King Agrippa II (26:2–29) frame the section concerning Paul’s trials. Whereas most speeches before Acts 20 are deliberative and evangelistic, these speeches are clearly forensic (especially those in the explicit legal contexts of Acts 24–26).[691] Some scholars make a strong case that Luke addresses the apology to a Jewish audience. Nevertheless, even Luke’s emphasis on Paul’s fidelity to his Jewish heritage would be relevant for a Roman audience concerned with the status of their faith as a tolerated religion (see this commentary’s introduction, Keener, Acts, 1:450–57, esp. 450).[692] An apology to Romans is thus likelier,[693] accounting for the parallel with Jesus’s trial[694] and the regular declarations of Paul’s innocence by officials.[695] Luke-Acts is certainly not a mere court brief, but it provides Luke’s Christian audience with resources to carry forward their defense.[696]
Two major themes in the apologetic are that Paul does not teach apostasy from Judaism in the Diaspora (21:22, 28) and that he is not a revolutionary (24:5).[697] (Given the polarized expectations of some Judeans before 70 C.E. and some Romans afterward, avoiding both alternatives simultaneously might appear quite a feat, but probably the majority of Jews saw themselves as avoiding these extremes.)
Rhetorical criticism provides particularly useful insights into the defense speeches in these chapters. Although there has recently been a reaction (probably an overreaction) against the use (and sometimes, admittedly, excess) of rhetorical criticism in interpreting Paul’s letters, it is hard to deny its value for speeches, even if they are written speech summaries.
Spontaneous speeches—for example, that in 22:3–21—might not be expected to display as many formal rhetorical traits as more formal defense speeches, such as those in 24:10–21 and 26:2–29. Nevertheless, ancient rhetorical principles provide an objective basis from which to begin comparisons with other ancient speeches. Paul, after all, calls even his initial speech in 22:1 a “defense” (ἀπολογίας) and hence a forensic defense speech (as in 25:16).[698]
More than three decades ago Fred Veltman pointed out that Paul’s defense speeches in Acts fit the basic form of all ancient defense speeches (though they often lack conclusions when, like many ancient defense speeches, they were interrupted).[699] The basic form is not particularly unexpected or enlightening: the speech’s narrative setting; the introduction; the body (answering charges and claiming innocence); the conclusion (reaffirming innocence); and the closing narrative and verdict.[700] But it is difficult to find a more detailed consistent pattern, since ancient defense speeches, in practice, exhibit considerable variety.[701]
Speeches do not always follow the forms prescribed in rhetorical handbooks,[702] but these forms are more objective than the sort of chiastic outline one scholar has ingeniously proposed for 22:3–21:[703]
A Paul comes from the Gentile world to Jerusalem (22:3).
B Paul persecutes Christians (22:4–5a).
C Paul moves from Jerusalem to Damascus (22:5b).
D Paul has a vision on the road to Damascus (22:6–11).
E Ananias restores Paul’s sight (22:12–13).
F Ananias tells Paul of his mission (22:14–15).
E′ Ananias urges Paul to receive baptism (22:16).
D′ Paul has a vision in Jerusalem (22:17–18a).
C′ Paul is commanded to leave Jerusalem (22:18b).
B′ Paul speaks of his former days as a persecutor (22:19–20).
A′ Paul is sent from Jerusalem to the Gentiles (22:21).
Some elements of the proposed chiasmus are more persuasive (e.g., B, D) than others (e.g., E), but the asymmetry of D (22:6–11 vs. the much briefer 22:17–18a) invites caution. One danger in many proposed chiastic structures is that the points chosen for comparison and other points chosen for omission are often dictated by the objective of finding a chiasmus whereas themes are sometimes repeated in texts without such neat organization. Suggested rhetorical outlines provide a more objective starting point.
More recently Jerome Neyrey has listed more-detailed formal parallels, illustrating how closely Acts’ speeches fit handbook examples of defense speeches.[704] He offers the following concluding table of comparisons:[705]
A. Exordium
Acts 22
Acts 23
Acts 24
Acts 26
1. Appeal to judge
—
—
—
2–3
2.
Ēthos
of speaker
4–5
1
—
4–5
B. Statement of facts
1. Main question
—
6
10–20
6–7
2. Justifying motives
10, 14–15
—
—
16–20
3. Point for the judge’s decision
—
6
14–15, 21
6–8
C. Proof
1.
15
—
—
16
2. Τεκμήριον
6–10
—
—
12–18
3.
6, 9, 11, 13
—
—
13
4. Corroborating witnesses
5, 9, 12–15
—
—
5, 12–13
5. Probabilities
7–10 (epiphany)
—
—
14–16 (epiphany); 16–18 (prophetic commissioning)
Others have also addressed the rhetorical character of these speeches. Witherington, for example, points to the natural stress on ἦθος (ēthos) and the centrality of Paul’s character.[706] Hogan compares defense speeches in the novels and, most usefully, Quintilian.[707] Quesnel finds the exordium in 22:3–5 and the narratio in two parts in 22:6–21.[708]
My own analysis will focus less on outlines and more on rhetorical strategies (some of which overlap with those above), which will be treated at the relevant passages in the commentary. I have tried to draw less on the formal rhetorical handbooks in favor of illustrating more broadly from actual rhetorical practice.
4. Paul’s Defense in the Temple (22:1–21)
Paul here establishes his pious Judean credentials and gains a hearing for his encounter with Jesus. Even these credentials and his revelatory claim, however, cannot compensate for his interest in Gentiles, which—in the context of the charge (21:28) and the current climate in Jerusalem—provokes the riot’s resumption. In addition to observations immediately below, see the introduction to Acts 22:6–11, which treats several issues (including autobiographic elements of Paul’s speech in more detail).
a. Introduction
The speech portrays Paul as speaking extemporaneously (possibly in contrast to the anticipated situations in Acts 24–26), fulfilling Jesus’s promise that the Spirit would give his disciples the words (Luke 12:12; 21:15) and warning them not to premeditate how to “defend themselves” (12:11; 21:14).[709] Although the narratio—the only part that Paul is able to finish or mostly finish—might require the least preparation, extemporaneous speech was highly prized,[710] and a number of orators regarded it as particularly difficult.[711] Extemporaneous speech would be all the more difficult when not using one’s strongest language.
Some prominent orators, such as Demosthenes (Plut. Demosth. 8.3–4; 9.3), refused to speak extemporaneously. For those unaccustomed to it, a single interruption or applause or the appearance of malice could discomfit an extemporaneous speaker (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.26.614), but Paul clearly has experience in this skill (e.g., Acts 14:14–17). See further discussion at Acts 14:14. Narratives could exalt a sage by revealing his ability to defend himself extemporaneously at a hearing (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.30).
I. SOURCE AND PLAUSIBILITY
What is Luke’s source for the speech in Acts 22:3–21? Unless Luke (or, in other views of authorship, his eyewitness companion of Paul) left immediately after meeting James and the elders (21:18–25), not waiting for Paul and presumably the rest of the delegation to head north, he remains in Jerusalem on the day of this riot. It is highly doubtful that Luke or other members of the Gentile congregations’ delegation accompanied Paul to the temple, however, given both the nature of his primary mission there (21:21–26) and the need to guard against such charges as actually arose (21:28–29). Even had Luke been present, it seems unlikely that he would have understood a speech in Aramaic.
Nevertheless, Luke should have had access to the substance of the original speech. The “we” source leaves Judea with Paul about two years later (27:1),[712] and it is far more likely that Luke (or, again, his source) stayed during those two years than that he returned home, only to visit Judea again just in time for Paul’s suddenly announced voyage to Rome.[713] Paul’s friends were free to visit him during the period that he remained in detention in Caesarea (24:23). Thus Luke would have had access to Paul’s version of the events; following the normal practice of ancient historians, Luke would have then composed a speech based on Paul’s oral summary.[714]
Those who doubt the narrator’s presence in Acts 22–26 because he is not mentioned make too much of the silence;[715] he remains implicitly present in the background, though not in every scene (including not during the scenes in 21:26–23:35, which were probably even inaccessible to him directly if he was a Gentile). In the explicit “we” material, the narrator does not appear as part of the action, except for the travel itself; he remains in the background even when explicitly present, because the story he recounts is about Paul, not about himself. (Indeed, he scrupulously avoids the first person singular, alluding to his presence only along with others, except in Luke 1:3.) If the narrator vanishes where he is not mentioned, he fell overboard after Acts 27:29 (except for the summary mention of 27:37), only to wash up on the same shore as the ship’s other survivors in 28:1. His “presence” in the background implies not his actual presence at every scene narrated between mentions of the “we” but that he had direct access to the main actor during a period when the events remained fresh.[716]
Some have observed literary problems with this speech:[717]