Ii . Hurling Dust
II. HURLING DUST
Some scholars suggest (usually tentatively) that the crowds cast dust because they lacked stones[1035] or because the soldiers’ presence[1036] deterred them from using real stones. These explanations are not impossible: people sometimes supplemented stones with dust (2 Sam 16:13; 2 Macc 4:41);[1037] Luke can use “casting” figuratively with a punning allusion to stoning (Acts 26:10). Further, stoning was indeed used for blasphemy (see discussion on Acts 7:58), and this attempt would offer a parallel with Stephen’s execution. But most ancient mobs could procure some stones when they needed them;[1038] though most stones used recently for construction in the temple area were huge and others would be too heavy to hurl, especially at someone higher than they were (Paul was at the top of the stairs), factions could, in this period, still reportedly find suitable stones to throw in the temple area.[1039]
Probably more directly relevant, tossing dust is a sign of mourning (Job 2:12). People often poured dust on their heads as a sign of mourning in both Greek[1040] and Jewish[1041] culture. Thus Achilles, mourning Patroclus, threw dust over his head, face, and tunic (Hom. Il. 18.23–25). Casting dust or earth on one’s head could be conjoined with rending clothes as a sign of mourning (2 Sam 13:19, with ashes; Josh 7:6; Job 2:12; 1 Macc 11:71), and the connection with casting off clothes here (which might also symbolize mourning over blasphemy) is significant.
Probably the dispersal of dust is also a sign of repudiation, the dust here the result of shaking out the garments they have removed, contaminated by Paul’s blasphemy.[1042] Every other use of the term κονιορτός (“dust”) in Luke (Luke 9:5; 10:11; Acts 13:51)[1043] performs this function.[1044] Because evidence suggests that it signified repudiation of Gentile defilement (see comment on Acts 13:51), this action matches well Paul’s Gentile associations here.[1045]
c. Interrogation by Flogging (22:24)
The tribune did not understand Aramaic[1046] and thus could not know that it was in fact Paul’s concern for Gentiles that had incited the crowd again (a point that would presumably not, however, be lost on Luke’s probably mostly Gentile audience). His responsibility was to maintain order; Paul’s apparent provocation of the crowd, perhaps deliberately encouraging unrest, required investigation. Although a good Greek education would normally suggest a cosmopolitan Jew rather than a low-class rabble-rouser, Lysias had just witnessed with his own eyes what appeared to be rabble-rousing. Although Luke is explicit that Lysias knew that the cries were against Paul, not against the Romans, the tribune has no reason to suppose that Paul has been supporting Roman rule in an Aramaic speech. Was Paul a revolutionary rejected by the people?
Lysias thus resumed the original plan (Acts 21:34, 37) to bring Paul into the “barracks” (παρεμβολήν)—that is, the Fortress Antonia (see comment on Acts 21:34)—which, ironically, becomes a place of refuge for Paul (23:10; cf. 23:16, 32).[1047] The Fortress Antonia could also provide a place of detention (Jos. War 1.118). Based on Josephus and other Herodian architecture, we may surmise that the Antonia could offer some pleasant quarters, though it could be made unpleasant if necessary. It was square with roughly 280 feet (86 m.) on each of its sides. The main building had two wings, “each with a courtyard enclosed by two-storied porticoes.”[1048] Ehud Netzer notes that “a bathhouse and a large reception hall” constituted the royal wing. Although most of the Antonia had two floors, “the reception hall extends to the full height of the second story.” The building’s perimeter included a third story, “forming rows of rooms on each side in between the towers.” Netzer think that these rooms once served “the king’s bodyguards or soldiers.”[1049] If this reconstruction is correct, Paul’s light custody narrated in the next chapter could have transpired in one of these rooms. At the narrative’s present juncture, however, Lysias presumably has something other than light custody in mind.
Once he had restored order, Lysias had no jurisdiction to try the case or deal with a provincial (Roman citizen or no);[1050] he could, however, investigate, and the governor might appreciate Lysias at the least handling what details he could before referring the case. (The “cause” of the unrest that eventually emerges is a Jewish religious issue rather than any guilt under Roman law [cf. Acts 23:28; 25:18, 27; 28:18, 20].) Scourging was a legally accepted method of securing information from lower-class non-Romans.[1051] Beatings with cudgels or whips constituted a normal component of the coercitio, the preliminary inquiry.[1052] Torture was routinely and most commonly used to interrogate slaves.[1053] It was permitted, however, for all non-Romans.[1054] Never approved for citizens in classical Athens or the Roman Republic, it was occasionally extended to lower-status free persons if other evidence of guilt existed and the state had compelling interest.[1055] Technically, the tribune ought to employ torture only after exhausting all noncoercive means (Dig. 48.18.prol. 1), but perhaps in his view this has already occurred (Acts 21:33–34, 39–40), even if he is following such prescriptions.[1056] (Given the uniform hostility toward Paul apparent in the crowd and the officer’s assumption that this harassed Jew was not a Roman, Lysias would not likely have to answer for this action even if other means had not been exhausted.)
Paul as yet had no formal accusers to demand a trial, but torture was still considered appropriate if Lysias harbored strong suspicions that Paul was a risk to public order (Dig. 48.18.22).[1057] The Valerian and Porcian laws had once exempted citizens from this beating entirely (cf. Cic. Verr. 2.5.63.163); they still exempted them from such torture before conviction. Thus Romans could be scourged before execution but not before trial.[1058] For a defense of Paul’s Roman citizenship, see discussions at Acts 16:22 and especially 16:37.
In a comic novel, one might escape one danger only to fall into another; Acts is not a novel, but Luke’s audience might appreciate the comic irony (not, of course, evident within the story world; cf. Amos 5:19). Paul has just escaped beating by a Jewish mob, only to be ordered beaten by his rescuer! Luke’s ideal audience will understand by this point, however, that Paul has not simply escaped one fate to suffer another, as outsiders might suppose (Acts 28:4). Paul is going to Rome (19:21).
When faced with lictors’ rods, Paul could delay announcing his citizenship (embarrassing his judges and forcing them to negotiate), but the present form of torture was far more dangerous—indeed, potentially deadly.[1059] Although meant for interrogation, this torture, which could rip the flesh of the subject’s back, could produce “crippling or death” before it was finished (Dig. 48.19.8.3; Mart. Pol. 2.1).[1060] (Although deliberate killing was not the intention of an interrogatory flogging, scourging could also be used as a means of execution.)[1061] Paul thus has reason to speak up more openly than before (Acts 22:25).
The whip (a flagrum)[1062] came in different forms. One consisted of three elements: “a handle of twisted iron metal, small iron chains and then terminated by heavy metal balls which dangled at the end of the small chain.”[1063] Another form consisted “of a leather strap, interwoven bones and small pieces of metal.”[1064] The design could be otherwise adjusted with sadistic creativity (just as crucifixion could be): “The lashes could be knotted cords or wire having bristled ends or be strung with knucklebones and lead pellets.”[1065]
d. Revealing His Citizenship (22:25)
Although Paul revealed his good Greek in 21:37, he may have saved his trump card—his Roman citizenship—for when he would absolutely need it. Saving it for after the beating in Philippi had given him the upper hand in an otherwise complicated legal situation; but the sort of flogging the soldiers are ready to inflict now is much more serious than the beating in Philippi. An official who has already had him beaten within inches of his life might be more inclined to cover up such a severe act than to apologize. Paul thus risks the revelation at this point.
I. INTERROGATION PROCEDURES
The soldiers stretching Paul out and preparing to flog him may have been a normally designated interrogation unit, low-status noncommissioned officers “designated ‘torturers’ (quaestionarii)” in Roman sources.[1066] Given the limited size of the garrison, they may have performed other functions as well but may have had more experience with this approach than did some of their colleagues. A centurion is on hand to supervise and audit the investigation;[1067] centurions were sometimes given a small body of soldiers for a special assignment, as here.[1068] This centurion supervises a very small detachment of soldiers, just like the centurion in Luke 23:47.[1069] Centurions play pivotal roles in the following chapters, attending on or protecting Paul, who is technically of higher social status (Acts 23:17, 23; 24:23; 27:1; cf. 21:32); in view of Luke 7 and Acts 10, Luke’s audience will not assume that centurions must be negative characters.[1070] Centurions had some different relative ranks, but there is no reason to suppose that the centurions involved here are particularly high-ranking ones (though the centurion at the praetorium in Acts 24:23 may have had higher privileges than the others if he belonged to Felix’s first cohort).[1071]
The soldiers would have stripped Paul before beating him (cf. 16:22–23; see comment on Acts 7:58); if his clothes were torn at all during the mob attack (21:30–32), they may have torn further at this point[1072] (a matter of less concern at this point than it would be over the next few days spent in these clothes).
They “stretched” (προέτειναν, from προτείνω, a NT hapax legomenon) Paul to beat him.[1073] Probably they tied him in that position “with thongs” (τοῖς ἱμᾶσιν), as most translations suggest (see likewise 4 Macc 9:11). It is possible to translate this dative plural as indicating that they stretched him “for thongs” rather than with them, describing the scourge, which used thongs (see earlier comment on Acts 22:24).[1074] In favor of the former translation, however, is the use in 4 Macc 9:11, where the guards, after stripping their victim, tied his hands and arms with thongs, then (in 9:12) scourged him; afterward he was stretched (κατατεινόμενος, from κατατείνω; cf. 11:18) by them on a wheel, and they dislocated his bones (9:13).[1075]
II. WHY DID PAUL WAIT SO LONG?
Technically uncondemned (here ἀκατάκριτον, the same term as in Acts 16:37)[1076] Roman citizens could not be subjected to verberatio, this extreme form of scourging.[1077] Given the severity of the flogging expected, Paul has reason to protest his citizenship before it happens (see comment on Acts 22:25). Scholars differ as to why he has not done so earlier. One factor may be that he would undercut his testimony to Jewish nationalists by affirming it in their hearing in the temple.[1078] Offering his one legal advantage in the midst of a mob scene (whether in Acts 16:22 or in 21:34; 22:22–24), where it would likely prove futile, was also not a strategic use of it; it would serve better when he could gain a reasoned hearing (as in 22:25).[1079]
Still, why does Paul wait until they have stretched him with thongs and hence have probably also stripped him naked?[1080] The suggestion that he does not know enough Latin to recognize what is happening is implausible.[1081] Even if his interrogators are communicating in Latin (which is very improbable)[1082] and even if Paul does not know much (despite living as a Roman citizen for eighteen months in a Roman colony [18:11], with plans to see Rome [19:21]),[1083] he surely knows what it means for a prisoner who is already secure to be stripped and bound. More plausible is the suggestion that Paul does not want to be hasty and offer—until forced to do so—a claim that was difficult to prove because he did not have documentation on hand.[1084] But even more likely is that Paul reserves his claim for this point especially because he has learned the value of putting hasty officials (who generally act on the assumption that a Jew is not a Roman) in an uncomfortable situation (16:37–39; see comment there).
Paul words his information diplomatically as a question, not challenging the centurion’s honor. Why does Paul merely imply his citizenship gently here instead of calling it out as some Roman citizens were known to have done? Some scholars suggest that it is to avoid undercutting his loyalty to Judaism.[1085] But would not a Jewish Roman citizen raise potential respect for Jews among these interrogators (and hence support Judaism)? More likely, Paul is low-key in his approach because he knows that some officials have disregarded citizenship claims,[1086] and if Paul has an impatient official, he is more apt to gain favor by dialoguing than by demanding. The crowd in the temple could have killed Paul with impunity for the charge of profaning the temple (see Jos. War 6.125–26; comment on Acts 21:28–29); now that he is in Roman custody, however (and the tribune is not even aware of the temple charge at this point), the tribune should grant Roman justice.
e. The Tribune’s Discovery (22:26–27)
The centurion’s report to the tribune raises a potentially embarrassing situation that must be immediately rectified. Paul has earlier identified himself as a Tarsian citizen, implying that he might clarify his mistaken identity to the crowd, but the centurion has now ordered Paul chained and flogged without allowing (or at least heeding) a further word from Paul. He has acted on the assumption that this Jew is not a Roman citizen; although the assumption might have appeared safe, since most were not, in this case he has crossed a Jewish Roman citizen. His embarrassment might resemble the embarrassment of being exposed in such prejudicial ethnic assumptions today, except that it might have even more immediate legal or political repercussions (as also in Acts 16:20–21, 38–39).
I. THE CENTURION’S ROLE (22:26)
By halting the torture and reporting Paul’s citizenship immediately to the tribune Lysias (22:26), the centurion does his superior a considerable political favor.[1087] Although a few centurions were equestrians (generally quickly promoted beyond this role), most were common soldiers promoted through the ranks;[1088] in either case, it was probably personal loyalty to a superior (or self-protection) that motivated him, rather than any class kinship with this tribune, who had achieved his office by money rather than by birth. It was not impossible for an equestrian tribune even to become friends with a cohort’s leading centurion (Pliny Ep. 10.87.1). The present centurion thus could have been on friendly terms with this tribune, who was not only an equestrian but bought his citizenship; whatever their current relationship, however, the centurion will earn the tribune’s gratitude.[1089]
Just as the centurion in Luke 23:47 testifies that Jesus is “innocent” (at first sight, a less dramatic statement than, though a likely corollary of, the Markan claim that he is God’s Son, Mark 15:39), so the centurion here testifies that Paul is a Roman. In both cases, from Luke’s perspective Roman justice should cease tormenting the accused, though this acknowledgment arrives too late in the former case. “What are you about to do?” (Acts 22:26) may be idiomatic; compare the request for a consilium’s advice, “Consider what we ought to do.”[1090]
II. THE TRIBUNE’S DIFFICULT SITUATION (22:27)
The tribune immediately asks Paul himself; “Tell me” was a good invitation for a response (cf. 8:34).[1091] Interrupting his own activities elsewhere to speak personally with the man demonstrates that the tribune takes seriously Paul’s claim and his own suddenly difficult situation. It was a crime even to bind a citizen without proper grounds (Cic. Verr. 2.5.66)—how much worse to have had him stripped and stretched out in preparation for torture!
Although he has not yet seen evidence of Paul’s citizenship, the claim is plausible for an educated citizen of Tarsus (see comment on Acts 21:37–39), a claim he has already accepted (Acts 21:39–40). The only visible sign of Roman citizenship was the bulky toga, which uncomfortably restricted the use of one left arm and which easterners rarely adopted or which they wore only for special occasions.[1092] Certainly Paul could not be expected to have worn it in the Jerusalem temple; thus the tribune lacked external means for determining Paul’s citizenship status.
Ideally one would ascertain a defendant’s status before torturing him, but Lysias had failed to do this.[1093] He had simply assumed (as had others in 16:20–21) that most Jews would not be Romans—an assumption that now confronted one of the exceptions. The narrative incidentally attests the chasm in difference of treatment between an ordinary Jew and (when the distinction was observed) a Roman citizen. Had Paul lacked Roman citizenship, he could have been treated as brutally as Jesus was in the gospel tradition.[1094] Paul’s claim is made more believable given his good Greek earlier (21:37–39); members of the elite (to whom good Greek education was available) were not all citizens, but they were more likely to become citizens than were others. Paul could not be silenced at this point, since others might be aware of his citizenship and could complain about Lysias’s behavior.
III. TESTING PAUL’S CLAIM
Paul’s claim of citizenship could be attested by a document; if a magistrate rejected its authenticity, he could produce witnesses. If all else failed, he would be treated as a Roman citizen until his claim could be confirmed in the records of Tarsus.[1095] Relatives or other sympathetic acquaintances in Jerusalem could attest it in the meantime. Since he had lived many years in Jerusalem, it is possible that official records were available from much closer proximity.[1096] In many cities, temples housed archives,[1097] and the Jerusalem temple seems no different.[1098] But since Paul was born in Tarsus, it is more certain that the records were in Tarsus, and in any case, Paul has not revealed to Lysias his past connection with Jerusalem.[1099] Penalties for claims that were proved to be false naturally were severe.[1100]
Although Felix does later inquire about Paul’s province (23:34), Luke appears to assume that Paul’s citizenship is ultimately unquestioned and hence that, at some point, friends produced the documentary or testimonial evidence that supported it, probably later in Caesarea. If Paul did carry documents at this point, they were more likely with his companions when he was visiting the temple; otherwise documents would have to be sent for (among other information for which the governor waited, 24:22).
Even if the tribune harbored doubt about Paul’s citizenship, he dared not employ torture on one who had declared his citizenship unless he could be certain that the person was not a citizen (cf. Dig. 48.18.10.6; 48.18.12).[1101] Granted, some unruly and unwise governors did so;[1102] but the tribune was not a governor, and abusing a Roman citizen could affect his career (see discussion at Acts 16:37).[1103] Even governors could suffer severely, especially if they employed torture after their victims declared their citizen status (Cic. Verr. 2.1.3.7).
Educated Romans remembered well Cicero’s In Verrem,[1104] including his denunciations of Verres for abusing citizens with punishments suited only for slaves (1.5.13; 2.5.66.169). Among Verres’s horrendous crimes was the scourging of Roman citizens (2.3.3.6; 2.3.24.59). “To bind a Roman citizen is a crime, to flog him is an abomination,” and of course, to kill him was far worse (2.5.66.170 [trans. Greenwood, LCL]). If citizenship was a rare, and hence precious, commodity in Verres’s era, it remained so in the East in Paul’s day.[1105]
Lysias did not have to be certain about Paul’s citizenship claim to act as if it were true, though false citizenship claims do not appear to have been common. If the governor found Paul’s claim false, Paul would suffer all the more for it; if true, however, it was important for Lysias not to have abused him. This meant that Lysias also would need Paul’s favor when the latter presented his own account to the governor, a matter that Lysias seeks to secure by dialoguing with the prisoner. Discovering that Paul outranks him in one sort of social status (Acts 22:28) only makes the matter worse, as the other interrogating bystanders apparently recognize (22:29). (A politically astute careerist, however, the tribune will eventually settle on exploiting his “rescue” of a Roman [23:27] just as he would have exploited his capture of the Egyptian [21:38].)[1106]
f. Citizenship by Birth, Not Purchase (22:28)
Since the tribune has breached procedure, he must now ascertain the status of the person he has offended: if it is simply another person who bought citizenship under Claudius, he is less likely to have to answer for it than if he has offended a person of higher status. Unfortunately for the tribune, Paul’s citizenship claim turns out to be more solid than the tribune’s own.[1107] Whereas the tribune acquired his citizenship (and perhaps his office) by pecuniary means, Paul was born a citizen.
I. THE TRIBUNE’S RANK
Until the period of Claudius, tribunes were normally equestrians;[1108] this tribune, however, had sufficient wealth to achieve Roman citizenship and may have used the same to help achieve his office, even if he was, as many scholars suggest, promoted through the ranks.[1109] (The primus pilus, the chief centurion out of the sixty in a legion, could achieve equestrian status and the office of tribune.)[1110] He probably bribed imperial agents to add his name to the list of new citizens, a practice that Claudius ignored. Dio Cassius indicates that Claudius bestowed citizenship freely and almost indiscriminately (Dio Cass. 60.17.5). The privilege was originally sold “only for large sums,” but “it later became so cheapened by the facility with which it could be obtained that it came to be a common saying, that a man could become a citizen by giving the right person some pieces of broken glass” (60.17.6).[1111] Claudius’s successor, Nero, cracked down on cases of corruption with the previous administration’s imperial favors (e.g., Tac. Ann. 14.50), suggesting that Luke’s portrayal fits the narrow window of time during Claudius’s rule (41–54 C.E.)[1112] or shortly thereafter. That is, even this element of the conversation may reflect genuine memories of a period before Luke composed the work.
The tribune’s name, “Claudius Lysias” (Acts 23:26), supports this picture.[1113] “Lysias” is a Greek name, suggesting that he was born in the East. “Claudius” reveals that he became a citizen between 41 and 54 C.E.; new citizens normally took the name of the emperor under whom they were enfranchised.[1114] Thus Flavii increased during the Flavian dynasty, and Caracalla’s grant of Roman citizenship to Egyptians in 212 C.E. made “Aurelius” the most common name in the papyri of that period.[1115] Despite Claudius’s clemency (or negligence), some of the new citizens refused to adopt his name later in his reign (Dio Cass. 60.17.7),[1116] but this refusal was an exception rather than the rule. That Luke nowhere draws the connection between this incident and the tribune’s name and that the tribune’s name would be preserved in the court’s official documents suggest that Luke’s information here is more likely than not historically dependable. Tribunes were normally born Roman equestrians; this one—happily for Paul (Acts 22:28–29)—was not.
Originally, legionaries, like their officers, in theory were supposed to be Roman citizens,[1117] but provincials were increasingly used in the first century.[1118] These provincials were apparently enrolled as citizens on enlistment.[1119] By contrast, auxiliaries (the sort of soldiers stationed in Jerusalem), on the whole, received citizenship only on retirement (see below). But Lysias clearly does not claim to have become a citizen simply by enrolling in the legion; he admits that he had to pay for it, whether beforehand or as an auxiliary.[1120] Under Claudius, some individual auxiliaries and sailors received diplomata, granting citizenship for themselves and their children.[1121] Thus Lysias may have come from a wealthy Eastern family, which had given him a head start in a military career as well as funds for the bribe. The noun κεφάλαιον does not automatically suggest a bribe, though its monetary sense is familiar;[1122] but this is the sense dictated by the historical context.[1123]
According to the traditional rules, one could not become a tribune unless one was an equestrian.[1124] (The minimum qualifications for achieving equestrian status were Roman citizenship, free birth, and holding four hundred thousand sesterces; scholars debate whether additional qualifications were necessary.)[1125] By the time of Claudius, however, it was possible to be promoted through the ranks, an accepted practice in this period; bribes could buy both citizenship and the tribune office.[1126] This could explain why, in the end, Lysias in many respects treats Paul as virtually a social peer.
This suggests that Lysias comes from a wealthy family with a good Greek education; he could have advanced in his position quickly with financial help. Military service was the way a local person could achieve status in the Roman Empire; Rome’s empire created status inconsistency and dissonance for provincials, so that some people of high local rank sought higher Roman rank.[1127] Because the current governor, Felix, as an imperial freedman, was not an equestrian (in contrast to most governors), Lysias had no cause for embarrassment or concern that his superior might disapprove of his status. But such an ambitious man (cf. comment on Acts 21:38) could not afford to cause offense to those who might complain to the governor.[1128]
II. MEANS OF ACHIEVING CITIZENSHIP
Apart from bribery, citizenship was normally available to certain categories of individuals:[1129]
Lysias did not “purchase” his citizenship by buying his own manumission from slavery. Freedmen were normally excluded from serving in the military.[1134] Nor could a freedman rise to equestrian status (though his children could),[1135] though it is not impossible that money and favor could have solved such a problem for Lysias, as it had for Judea’s current governor (who achieved a normally equestrian office without that status).
Would Lysias have really disclosed his bribe in front of not only Paul but a centurion and lower soldiers?[1136] He might have spoken quietly to Paul in 22:28, but 22:29 sounds as if his subordinates heard him (unless Luke has omitted Lysias’s orders to release Paul from the thongs). But corruption in securing citizenship was so endemic during Claudius’s reign as to render it an open topic of discussion, and even when Nero closed the doors to the practice, he did not revoke the grants provided by the previous administration’s corruption. Citizens remarked on the shamelessness of earlier leaders who had cheapened the privilege by selling it to whoever could afford it (Plut. Sulla 8.1–2); earlier, Athenian citizens offered analogous complaints in their day.[1137] Emperors who limited the grant were viewed favorably by Romans (Suet. Aug. 40.3),[1138] though some might understandably grant the privilege to groups (e.g., doctors or teachers) needed in Rome (Suet. Jul. 42.1). But those who had worked hard to achieve it might be proud of it, and the tribune’s subordinates might have been provincials. (Judea had mainly auxiliary cohorts.)[1139] For those shut out of normal kinship and patronage connections, a bribe was probably often seen as a legitimate alternative means of social advancement.[1140]
III. THE SOURCE OF PAUL’S CITIZENSHIP
The tribune’s assertion is an implied question about Paul’s relative status, a question that Paul, as a Roman citizen, well understands. Lysias’s emphasis on the high price he paid for citizenship might imply “that the privilege must have become cheap of late if such a sorry-looking figure as Paul could claim it.”[1141] Early in Claudius’s reign, Lysias had to pay a high price for citizenship; was Paul one of the newer citizens who had obtained the franchise cheaply toward the end of Claudius’s reign (Dio Cass. 60.17.6)?[1142] Although he wants to ascertain how Paul achieved his citizenship, it is unlikely that he risks insulting him at this point,[1143] though he may be posing a counterchallenge regarding relative honor.[1144]
Rather, the tribune is assessing the measure of political trouble he may have generated by openly shaming Paul without a hearing. Because courts evaluated the seriousness of an offense according to the relative status of the plaintiff, he needs to know whether Paul’s official citizenship status is higher or lower than his own. If Paul acquired his citizenship more recently or suspiciously than Lysias, it would reduce Lysias’s offense; if, by contrast, Paul was a citizen from birth, a civilian court would be more prejudiced against Lysias.[1145] Unfortunately for Lysias, Paul’s citizenship status is higher.
Paul’s reply, “I was born [thus]” (ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ γεγέννημαι),[1146] is not the best Greek, but it would suggest a standard Latin term that Paul and Lysias would both know: “ingenuus, the technical term for a birthright citizen.”[1147] Normally a status by birth was higher than one acquired;[1148] thus, for example, the freeborn had higher status than freedpersons.[1149] In ancient cities and regions, the native-born took precedence over foreigners (e.g., Iambl. V.P. 8.37). Citizen registries for those who received their citizenship by civilian grants or as auxiliary soldiers were on separate registers from those born citizens.[1150] Quintilian advised that Latin-speakers should speak like native-born Romans and not merely those with acquired citizenship.[1151] Paul’s claim is not insulting to Lysias[1152]—insulting a tribune or even a centurion (or, for that matter, a common soldier) would be utterly rash even were Paul not a prisoner—though speakers could use their enemies’ lower status as grounds for ridicule—for example, slave birth (Mart. Epig. 1.81) or birth to a despised people (Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.41).
If Paul was born a citizen, his parents were Romans.[1153] Few people in the East had Roman citizenship before the first century B.C.E.,[1154] but it is quite possible that Paul’s parents were born citizens as well (see comment on Acts 6:9). Scholars have offered various proposals as to how this came about. Some have suggested military service, but this would have entailed participation in the imperial cult and nonkosher rations and hence included few Jews, especially observant ones such as Paul’s family (Phil 3:5).[1155]
Others suggest that his ancestors became citizens because they somehow benefited Rome or its agents.[1156] For example, the emperor granted Josephus the honor of Roman citizenship (Jos. Life 423). Although, in the time of Claudius, there were said to be nearly six million citizens (Tac. Ann. 11.25), most were in the West.
The likeliest single proposal is that Paul’s ancestors were freedpersons (Acts 6:9). Probably they were not freed by ordinary citizens of Tarsus: only a minority of Tarsians were Roman citizens, only the freedpersons of citizens automatically became citizens, and other freed prisoners and slaves were the least likely candidates for Roman citizen status.[1157] Being freed by non-Romans in Tarsus is not, however, the only way they could have been freed. The most common source of Jewish Roman citizens was slaves freed by Roman citizens,[1158] which would be possible anywhere in the Roman world, most commonly in Rome.[1159] Such freed slaves turn up in Judea at times.[1160] Indeed, manumission was the most common method of acquiring Roman citizenship for those not born with this status.[1161] Many scholars suggest quite plausibly that Paul’s ancestors became citizens in or after the 60s B.C.E., when Jewish captives taken by Pompey began to be freed by Roman citizens.[1162] That some such freedpersons emigrated to Tarsus, Cyrene, and elsewhere is not at all surprising, though even more would have emigrated after Paul’s birth, following Tiberius’s expulsion of much of Italy’s Jewish community in 19 C.E.[1163] (See comment on Acts 6:9; 16:37.)
So long as the proper requirements of manumission were observed, a Roman’s slave, once freed, became a Roman; otherwise, the freedperson became a Latin (Gaius Inst. 1.17; cf. 1.12–16). Thousands of freed slaves became citizens every year whereas the majority of municipal aristocrats in the East found it unattainable.[1164] One satirist during Nero’s reign complained that a free person might need to sell himself into slavery to get manumitted, become a citizen, and evade taxation (Petron. Sat. 57). Some doubt that Paul would claim higher status if he was descended from slaves,[1165] but if Paul’s ancestors were captured by Pompey and freed in Rome, he could well be a third- or fourth-generation citizen. Naturally, however, Paul lacks incentive to bring up slave ancestry in this conversation, as does Luke.
g. The Tribune’s Fear (22:29)
The tribune’s fear is appropriate to the situation, and it parallels the fear of the Philippian magistrates who abused Paul and Silas without realizing their Roman citizenship (Acts 16:38).[1166] Paul’s strategy, if it was deliberate, has worked again; those who assume that Jews cannot also be Roman citizens are embarrassed by their mistake.[1167]
On the historical level, Haenchen doubts that the tribune would have been concerned; Cicero’s charges were the work of a lawyer, but governors often did as they pleased.[1168] He appears to forget, however, that tribunes were of much lower rank than governors; thus, when Caesar banished the governor Cumanus for mismanaging Judean conflicts, he handed the tribune Celer over to Jerusalem’s leaders, then had him beheaded (Jos. War 2.246–47).[1169] Governors could politically sacrifice subordinates as scapegoats even more readily (or at least less conspicuously) than emperors could. Besides, even governors frequently had to be ready to defend themselves if they offended prominent interests (see comment on Acts 24:27), and Lysias cannot yet know whether Paul has patrons or friends of rank.
It is unclear whether the tribune ordered Paul to be released from the thongs or whether the interrogators, recognizing the nature of the situation, immediately released him without needing to be asked. The text sounds more like the latter,[1170] but this might reflect Luke’s pattern of sometimes abbreviating details that were irrelevant to his point or could be assumed. Perhaps even Lysias’s facial expression could have offered the guards sufficient cue, but he probably would have signaled or spoken.
As noted above, even binding a citizen without good reason was a punishable offense (Cic. Verr. 2.5.66.170);[1171] preparing him for torture would be worse. Chains were normally intimidating (Polyb. 20.10.7–9) and humiliating (1.69.5; 38.17.2).[1172] Chains were standard in harsher forms of custody, could occur in lighter forms, and might be eliminated for a prisoner of high status.[1173] Paul’s status appears fairly high at the moment, since Roman citizens were a minority in the East in general and especially in provinces such as Judea (Acts 21:39; 22:28). Some scholars might protest that Paul remains in chains in 26:29 and 28:20, but governors, unlike tribunes, had the authority to make such decisions.[1174] The chaining in the later passages also may be of a lighter form.
Chains were no minor inconvenience. Brian Rapske points out that “iron chafed and corroded the skin over time” (e.g., Lucan C.W. 72–73; Sen. E. Controv. 1.6.2). Although this would not yet have been a problem for Paul, chains could prove painful. If attached too tightly, they served as a form of torture (Cod. theod. 9.3.1). “Prisoners could also be weighed down with such heavy chains as to exhaust or cripple them.”[1175] Given Lysias’s decision to torture Paul with a severe flogging, it is unlikely that he had shown consideration regarding the manner of Paul’s chaining.
Paul evades scourging here; it is also interesting that Luke omits Jesus’s Roman scourging in the passion narrative (contrast Mark 15:15; John 19:1), though he preserves it in a passion prediction (Luke 18:33, following Mark 10:34). A deliberate parallel between the two figures on this point is thus improbable (Jesus does not escape being flogged), but both cases are probably examples of Luke’s pro-Roman Tendenz.
6. The Divided Sanhedrin (22:30–23:10)
The chiliarch needs expert Jewish counsel before advancing Paul’s case, and he seeks it in the Sanhedrin. Whereas the high priest acts unjustly, Paul, the accused, proves a model of Scripture-quoting piety. Paul divides the council and makes apparent to the Roman officer observing the incident that the real grounds for opposing him are theological—namely, his Pharisaic belief in resurrection. The one “charge” to emerge for the Roman case file is thus that Paul is the object of prejudice for his theological convictions.
a. Introduction
Throughout Acts, Paul’s message of the gospel divides audiences (e.g., Acts 14:4), just as Jesus promised that his message would do (Luke 12:51–53). Here Paul’s message divides the Sanhedrin in a way that previous speakers (especially Jesus and Stephen) have not been able to do (partly because of his identification with the now significant Pharisaic element, as in Acts 5:34–39). By maneuvering the issue of the debate, Paul secures (although nearly at the cost of his life) a charge that will stand him in good stead before the Roman authorities.
Here we briefly examine Luke’s literary parallels with Jesus’s passion as well as issues that some scholars have raised against the plausibility of Luke’s portrayal.
I. COMPARING PREVIOUS SANHEDRIN HEARINGS
Although the introduction to Acts 22, above, treats the defense speeches at greater length, it is helpful to make some comments here about Paul’s official hearings (Acts 22 being before a crowd), with special reference to Paul’s hearing before the Sanhedrin.
Paul’s hearings in this section of Acts closely parallel those of Jesus in the Gospel.[1176] Of course, they are not identical, since Luke’s historical material also shapes his presentation, but a comparison with Mark reveals how the parallel in Acts helps structure Luke’s selection and presentation of material in his passion narrative. About half a century ago, M. D. Goulder offered essentially the following observations:[1177]
Mark
Luke
Acts
14:53: Sanhedrin (Thursday night)
22:66: Sanhedrin (dawn)
22:30–23:10: Sanhedrin
*
(15:1: Sanhedrin, Friday dawn)
—
—
15:2: Pilate (Friday morning)
23:1: Pilate
24: Felix
—
23:8: Herod Antipas
25: Festus
—
23:13: Pilate again
26: Herod Agrippa II
*
The next day (Acts 22:30) is not necessarily dawn, but given the usual Roman and aristocratic Jewish workday, it is likely that the tribune’s summons was sent out not long after dawn.
It should also be noted that Paul’s hearing before the Sanhedrin recalls those of the Jerusalem apostles (4:7–22; 5:27–41) and—when Paul was on the other side of the faith (7:58)—Stephen (6:12). A Pharisee in the Sanhedrin defended the Jerusalem apostles (5:34–39) just as Pharisees, in the end, defend an apostle here (23:9). But whereas the Sanhedrin marveled at the boldness of the less-educated Peter and John (4:13), it is a theologically trained Pharisee who stands before it in this passage (23:6).
Just as the last 23 percent of the Gospel addresses the passion (Luke 19:28–24:53), the last 24 percent of Acts addresses “Paul’s arrest, trials, and arrival in Rome.”[1178] It was good rhetoric to turn even apparent disadvantages in one’s case to one’s advantage;[1179] Luke reveals the virtue of Paul’s apparently “shameful” detention by connecting it with Jesus’s passion. The guilty are not the only ones to suffer condemnation, reproach, and death at the hands of the elite.
II. PLAUSIBILITY
Karris argues that Acts 23:1–10 is not plausible historically for the following reasons: