The tribune lacked authority to gather the Sanhedrin.

The tribune lacked authority to gather the Sanhedrin.

Although all three of these observations are technically correct, they do not render the narrative implausible. First, even assuming that none of the Sanhedrin was drawn to the previous day’s commotion in the temple courts (though most would have lived in the upper city and the Sanhedrin’s meetings were nearby), by now word of a riot and charges surrounding it would have reached its members. They were, after all, Jerusalem’s municipal aristocracy. The leading priests also were particularly connected with the administration of the temple.

This would be the case whether or not Paul’s identity was known (though his speech as portrayed in 22:3–21 should have revealed it to any who had known of him, and some, in Luke’s view of Paul’s background, had; cf. 22:5; 26:4–5). Further (relevant to Karris’s first two points above), the Romans expected the municipal aristocracy to keep order. The highest Roman representative in Jerusalem would want local advisors on a matter of local law, and many members of the Sanhedrin would probably be meeting regularly anyway for other business (see fuller comment at Acts 22:30). The current high priest, Ananias, was known for being pro-Roman (see comment on Acts 23:2) and would probably prefer to work with the tribune, a cooperation Lysias would likely count on.[1181]

Third, there are good reasons Paul does not defend himself on these charges, all relevant and plausible within Luke’s narrative world and certainly not implausible historically. He uses the occasion to preach, as Jesus commanded his followers (Luke 21:12–15) and told Paul (Acts 9:15).[1182]

Luke also presents Paul here as a smart rhetorician in the way he shifts the charges, just as Paul was when he claimed citizenship after a beating, thereby forcing magistrates to negotiate (16:37–40), and when he divided the Areopagus (17:18–32).[1183] The account simultaneously provides Paul with a plausible legal strategy (though Paul’s first attempts at strategies in 23:1, 3, may fail).[1184] By shifting the focus to purely Jewish religious charges, Paul ensures that the outcome of the one, mostly spontaneous, Jewish examination will provide the Romans with charges that are not genuinely actionable (23:29; 24:20–21).

b. Bringing Paul before the Sanhedrin (22:30)

The tribune had planned to question Paul (22:24); now it is the Sanhedrin that he hopes will provide answers. If Paul is not here before “kings and governors” (Luke 21:12; contrast 25:23), he is nevertheless before a very august body—the same body before which he once apparently approved of Stephen’s condemnation (Acts 6:12; 7:58).

I. PLAUSIBILITY?

Conzelmann complains that the picture here “is historically impossible”: the tribune who feared because he put him in chains (22:29) now releases him only the next day (22:30).[1185] But 22:29 is clear that Lysias did release Paul from chains; the incongruity between releasing him and keeping him bound in the span of two verses would hardly be lost on Luke, the author, more than on Conzelmann. Once Paul claimed Roman citizenship, Lysias had to remove his chains; unlike governors (26:29), he could not keep a citizen in chains, and certainly not before receiving formal charges.[1186]

Although Lysias released Paul from chains, he could hardly “release” him from custody altogether; charges would likely be filed, and Lysias dared not release a man currently suspected, rightly or wrongly, of crime.[1187] (Roman citizenship did not release one from the necessity of a trial; it merely invited trial before punishment.) Lysias retained him, under better conditions and without chains, in the Fortress Antonia; its accommodations would not all be available to a person in detention, but it “was furnished as lavishly as a palace with baths, courtyards, and quarters for a large number of troops.”[1188] The next day, in 22:30, he releases him from the immediate custody of guards;[1189] Paul is obviously unguarded, which turns out (to Lysias’s astonishment) to endanger him.

Even in 22:30, ἔλυσεν cannot mean complete release from custody, since Lysias stations him in the midst of the Jewish tribunal to obtain more information. But the tribune escorts Paul personally to the Sanhedrin, undoubtedly with a number of guards (a necessity; see comment on Acts 21:38), but without bringing guards inside; he has to summon soldiers from some distance when trouble breaks out (23:10).[1190] Although he may have wished during the commotion that he had brought guards into the chamber, he deferred to the local senate and its guards, and also may have shown Paul this courtesy to hint to the Sanhedrin that he was inclined to treat the prisoner with respect.[1191] Certainly this is lighter custody than merely being unchained! (Lysias himself does not intervene when Paul is struck [23:2]. Although this could mean that even he was not present, his ability to intervene soon after [23:10] suggests that he simply chose not to intervene unless the situation demanded intervention for the sake of Paul’s safety in a more extreme way.[1192] Lysias probably hoped that bringing Paul before members of Jerusalem’s elite might build some rapport; intervening was likely to provoke further discord.)

Conzelmann likewise objects to the implausibility of the tribune handing Paul the Roman citizen over to Jewish authorities rather than interrogating him himself.[1193] But allowing local leaders to evaluate the situation was standard Roman procedure, meant to determine the facts of the case.[1194] Romans normally tried only those who were formally accused, and Lysias does not yet have a formal accusation, which normally came to Roman administrators from the local municipal authorities.[1195] (Yet to release one who is likely to be so accused, potentially allowing him to disappear, would be politically inept.) Lysias cannot try Paul on a capital offense,[1196] but he must collect whatever evidence will be forwarded to the governor if Paul is to be sent for a trial.

If by now Lysias has heard the claim that Paul profaned the temple (21:28–29), he might also wish to determine whether it is appropriate to hand Paul over to the Sanhedrin for a Jewish trial.[1197] Lysias assumes that the Sanhedrin can explain the view of those crying against Paul in 21:33–34; perhaps by this point some in the Sanhedrin have even informed Lysias of their view of the case. If the Sanhedrin produces a strong case against Paul, it would certainly reduce the tribune’s embarrassment for having chained him prematurely; otherwise, he will need to argue that he rescued Paul (23:27). In any case, Lysias lacks the authority to try a Roman;[1198] he gathers the Sanhedrin merely as advisors for a preliminary inquiry.[1199]

II. ORDERING THE SANHEDRIN’S APPRAISAL

Some scholars doubt that Lysias could order the Sanhedrin to gather. Without the governor’s consent, even the high priest lacked authority to convene a Sanhedrin to decide a capital case (Jos. Ant. 20.202). But this is presumably a regular gathering of the Sanhedrin, the local senate and city council, not a capital trial. The Jerusalem cohort’s tribune had considerable responsibility and power,[1200] and he certainly could invite[1201] the Sanhedrin to give advice on the case,[1202] expecting compliance especially if any temple violation (Acts 21:28–29) is in view.

Some suggest that this is an unofficial meeting that he calls, with merely representatives of the Sanhedrin, perhaps in his own home or some other Roman-friendly venue;[1203] if so, Luke has apparently obscured this with his πᾶν τὸ συνέδριον. More likely, many members[1204] of the Sanhedrin were meeting in the morning for regular business anyway,[1205] and Lysias simply is ordering this to be an issue before them. They would prefer to meet in their own chamber; further, had he summoned them to the Antonia, Paul’s being taken back there in 23:10 would make no sense. If they were not in the council chamber, soldiers would be closer at hand, presumably deterring or more quickly stopping the violence of 23:10.

Lysias would want a Jewish perspective on a potential troublemaker denounced by a Jewish crowd, and the local aristocrats were the interpreters of the people for Rome. Roman policy expected the Sanhedrin, like other local aristocracies, to arrest troublemakers itself; Lysias would see it as the Sanhedrin’s job to at least advise him on this matter. The only explicit purpose for his demand is to determine the precise charge (23:28). Further, it was understood that the Sanhedrin acted with the governor’s consent (Jos. Ant. 20.202);[1206] the tribune would constitute his chief representative in his absence.[1207] In any case, the Sanhedrin would likely comply and, given the subject, would likely wish to have a say.[1208]

Nor would it be difficult for a body of the Sanhedrin, many members of which undoubtedly met regularly anyway, to assemble. Local senates could often respond quickly when summoned.[1209] Whether its members met in their regular meeting place is unclear (and precisely where the place was is debated; see comment on Acts 4:5), but certainly they were in a location to which Roman soldiers could have access without incurring a capital sentence themselves (Acts 23:10). It was probably near (but outside) the temple and the Antonia, in any case (see comment on Acts 23:10). Rabbinic tradition suggests that their meeting place was in the Royal Porch adjacent to the temple; this is probably equivalent or close to Josephus’s Xystus.[1210] If so, they were a short distance from the Fortress Antonia, where Paul had been kept.[1211]

III. STATIONING PAUL AMONG THEM

Lysias stations Paul in the Sanhedrin’s midst (ἔστησεν εἰς αὐτούς).[1212] The Sanhedrin would be familiar to Paul, though many of its members (a large proportion of whom would have been elders) must now be different than when he was young (despite the appeal of 22:5).

Even in the narrative world, the gathering could not have been comfortable for Paul, who would know about the Sanhedrin’s previous confrontations with Jesus’s followers, especially the one at which he himself was apparently present (6:12, 15; 7:58). Given Luke’s parallelism, it is useful if Paul, like Jesus, the apostles, and Stephen, has a hearing before the Sanhedrin. A Sanhedrin of elders (consisting of aristocratic priests and scribes) assembled at daylight (Luke 22:66) to interrogate Jesus, then condemned him on the basis of his confession of his identity (22:67–71; cf. Acts 23:6–9). This condemnation led to Jesus’s being brought to Pilate (Luke 23:1), just as Paul must be brought to Felix (Acts 23:33). Likewise, the Twelve faced the Sanhedrin’s displeasure (4:15; 5:21, 27, 34, 41).

This is not to suggest that Luke simply invents the correspondences; ancient historians preferred to emphasize them by reporting (and sometimes more explicitly noting) them rather than by inventing them (see the commentary introduction).[1213] Thus there are differences (not all present condemn Paul; the Sanhedrin does not deliver him directly to the governor). Still, although Luke did not invent Paul’s hearing, he certainly uses it to good purpose.

Although Luke finds Pharisaic support in the Sanhedrin (and the Pharisaic element was certainly no larger than Luke portrays), he portrays it as otherwise a relatively hostile audience. It was good rhetoric to claim that a trial’s setting was against the defendant (e.g., Cic. Balb. 1.1–2); such claims implicitly ratcheted up the standard demanded of opponents’ arguments.

c. Conflict with the High Priest (23:1–5)

Paul’s initial claim in support of his innocence (Acts 23:1) is interrupted by an illegal and unethical action of the corrupt high priest (23:2), inviting a piously biblical rebuke from Paul (23:3). When others hypocritically accuse Paul of violating biblical protocol (23:4), he claims (perhaps feigns) ignorance (23:5). (This might be a clever yet obvious insult, as if he does not owe straightforward answers to those who have shown themselves more committed to power than to truth.) His behavior, however (along with the mistreatment he suffers), may win some sympathy in advance from the fairer-minded Pharisees (23:6), who are probably also grieved by the high priests’ abuse of power. At each point that he speaks, Paul labors to present his fidelity to God and his law (23:1, 3, 5–6).

I. PAUL’S CLAIM OF GOOD CONSCIENCE (23:1)

Luke’s term for looking intently or staring (ἀτενίζω) is one of his favored words (twelve of fourteen uses in the NT).[1214] Some scholars suggest that it refers to spiritual discernment, citing 13:9 and 14:9,[1215] but while Paul may be reading his audience, supernatural discernment does not fit the context well here (nor in most Lukan instances, e.g., Luke 4:20; 22:56; Acts 3:4, 12).[1216] It does fit the gaze preceding a judicial speech.[1217] It might be relevant that it is difficult (at least in the handful of modern cultures I consulted) for a person to look at one’s audience directly if one is lying, unless one is a skillful liar (though ancient rhetorical training probably did produce its share of skillful liars). Some have suggested that Paul’s gazing at the council fits the later reported practice of bringing among the judges the witness or the accused who was testifying (m. Sanh. 5:4).[1218]

Paul almost certainly is speaking Greek here. First, most of Jerusalem’s aristocracy—who would be primarily represented in its municipal assembly, the Sanhedrin—would be fluent in Greek (see discussion on Jerusalem’s languages at Acts 6:1). Second, Paul needs a dialogue that the tribune can understand well enough (in contrast to Acts 21:40–22:21) to use in his defense. Third, neither the term “conscience” (συνείδησις) nor the concept behind it existed in Hebrew or Aramaic.[1219]

(1) Honorable Self-Claims

Self-boasting was inappropriate except under compulsion (see comment on Acts 22:3), but among the exceptions, a legal setting could compel one to establish one’s positive character. Paul’s claim to have lived in good conscience may anticipate others’ charges that he has not done so. Anticipation was a good rhetorical strategy in cases where the audience is hostile to or prejudiced against the speaker (Rhet. Alex. 29, 1437a.1–6), as appears likely here.

It is no coincidence that Paul opens the case with a claim to good character. The issue of character (ēthos) often decided legal cases, since it established the probability of the charges accurately reflecting the defendant’s behavior. (If, for example, Fannius was a rogue and Roscius an honorable person, it is unlikely that the latter in fact cheated the former [Cic. Rosc. com. 7.21].) Opponents regularly vilified elements of opponents’ character most likely to enrage the judges (such issues as whether or not they served in the military; Isaeus Dicaeog. 46). (For ēthos, see further comment on Acts 24:11.)

Thus, in a legal dispute, one must “examine the characters of the respective claimants” (Isaeus Nicost. 27 [trans. Forster, LCL]).[1220] Paul’s claim to have lived in good conscience until that time was a familiar sort of forensic argument; a person never before charged, or at least convicted, might be presumed more likely innocent.[1221] Thus, in one novel, a character admits that some evidence seems against him, but protests that he has lived his entire life without being subject to accusation before (Char. Chaer. 5.7.2). In another court setting, the counsel of an old man who had lived honorably since childhood was respectable (Aeschines Tim. 181).[1222] To accuse people who are of known virtuous character can ultimately reflect badly on the accuser (e.g., Cic. Vat. 10.25–26).

The classical writer Xenophon notes that when a disciple urged Socrates to prepare his defense, the philosopher responded that his entire life of virtue had prepared it (Mem. 4.8.4);[1223] if therefore he died now, people would remember him honorably but his accusers as shameful (4.8.9–10).[1224] Although we might consider Paul’s claim in Acts 23:1 boastful, boasting was considered appropriate in a defense of one’s character (how much more one’s life); the Paul we know from the letters also boasted when “compelled” to do so (2 Cor 12:11; cf. Phil 3:4–6, another appropriate circumstance).[1225]

(2) Good Conscience

Paul’s “living” in good conscience might imply his loyalty to his people; although πολιτεύομαι can mean simply “live,” it can also imply “live as a citizen”;[1226] the only use in Paul’s extant writings appears in a letter to Christians in a Roman colony (Phil 1:27), a letter where Paul elsewhere plays on the high-status citizenship that some of them have (3:20). The Maccabean literature often applies it to living by the law and customs of one’s people (2 Macc 6:1; 11:25; 3 Macc 3:4; 4 Macc 2:8, 23; 4:23; 5:16; cf. Esth 16:15 LXX). Interrupted from pursuing this forensic rhetorical approach, which is based on personal integrity, in Acts 23:1, Paul resumes it before the governor’s court in 24:16.

The term “conscience” is rarer in the LXX, becoming common only in the first century B.C.E.[1227] Jerusalem’s aristocrats would have been familiar with the Greek term συνείδησις, to which Paul appeals here (as would likely Felix in 24:16).[1228] Josephus uses the term generally for moral awareness;[1229] Philo, in nearby Alexandria, uses it in a manner resembling that of Greek philosophers.[1230] The conscience also appears in other Hellenistic Jewish texts;[1231] its guilt might seem unbearable.[1232]

Paul’s phrase here, a “good conscience” (συνειδήσει ἀγαθῇ), was a fairly common one (1 Tim 1:5, 19; 1 Pet 3:16, 21), including in its equivalent Latin form.[1233] Fronto is conscious (conscius) that he has never committed any dishonorable or criminal behavior (Nep. am. 2.8).[1234] Some ancients averred that a guilty conscience was itself a punishment;[1235] for some, it might be a person’s only guide.[1236] Speakers and writers often spoke of behavior before men and God (or gods; e.g., Sall. Philip. 15; Luke 2:52). Since God alone knows the heart (1 Kgs 8:39; see comment on Acts 1:24; 15:8), his testimony was most important. Something like conscience could function as both accuser and judge of the person swearing falsely in Philo Decal. 87.[1237]

Συνείδησις is a familiar Pauline term in the NT, in Romans (Rom 2:15; 9:1; 13:5) and the Corinthian correspondence (1 Cor 8:7, 10, 12; 10:25, 27–29; 2 Cor 1:12; 4:2; 5:11),[1238] though it is important also in Hebrews (Heb 9:9, 14; 10:2, 22; 13:18) and 1 Peter (1 Pet 2:19; 3:16, 21). The claim in 2 Tim 1:3, that Paul (soon facing execution) serves God with clear conscience like his ancestors, is similar to the claim here (cf. somewhat less directly 2 Cor 1:12, in a different kind of apologetic context). Paul apparently believed that he acted blamelessly, at least with respect to outward observance of the law, even before his conversion (Phil 3:6; cf. 1 Tim 1:13).[1239]

II. ANANIAS ORDERS PAUL STRUCK (23:2)

(1) Ananias

From a literary perspective, Ananias continues the hostile role filled by Annas and Caiaphas earlier (4:6; Luke 3:2), but historically Ananias may have been more corrupt. Ananias is the correct priest for this date; his priesthood ran from about 47 to 58 or 59 C.E., and he continued to wield power afterward.[1240] He was the son of Nedebaeus, appointed by Herod of Chalcis about 47 C.E., about the time when Cumanus became governor of Judea (Jos. Ant. 20.103). In 52,[1241] Cumanus mishandled a conflict between Judeans and Samaritans, and the Roman legate of Syria, Quadratus, sent both Ananias and Cumanus (along with others) for trial by Claudius (War 2.243; Ant. 20.131–32). Although several commentators suggest that Ananias was replaced in 52, most recognize that this does not accord with the rest of our evidence from Josephus.[1242] Through Agrippa II’s influence, the Jewish delegation was exonerated, and Cumanus and the Samaritans punished (War 2.245–46; Ant. 20.134–36). When Ananias returned to Jerusalem after these events, he would have been at the height of his popularity.

Still, Josephus could be clearer about Ananias’s retention of power; like the Gospel writers, he employs “high priest” for chief members of high-priestly families, including former high priests, and so it is not always clear whether he speaks of the current holder of the highest office. Early in Felix’s tenure, in Ant. 20.162, Jonathan[1243] holds a high-priestly office (which he apparently shared in some sense with Ananias, War 2.240, 243); Jonathan dies in Ant. 20.163–64; War 2.256, and Ananias still holds high-priestly rank in Ant. 20.205 (cf. War 2.426, 429) after other high priests have ruled. Most scholars think that Agrippa II installed Ishmael son of Phabi in 58 or 59 C.E. (Ant. 20.179);[1244] the high priesthood then went to Joseph (20.196), Ananus (20.197–203), and Jesus son of Damneus (20.203).

Ananias was so powerful, however, that he remained influential long after being replaced; he used his hoarded wealth to influence the governor Albinus (Ant. 20.205, 209) and bribe allies when other aristocratic priests later clashed (20.213). Our evidence from Josephus suggests that he is acting high priest now, although Luke, like Josephus, would presumably employ the same language if Ananias simply happened to be the former high priest most interested in the case.

Luke portrays Ananias as wicked and exploiting the use of violence (Acts 23:2). Josephus concurs:[1245] Ananias exploited his wealth to get his way both with Roman officials and with his own people (Ant. 20.205, 213), and he used force to gain more wealth at the expense of poorer priests (20.206–7).[1246] As Bruce complains, Ananias “was one of the most disgraceful profaners of the sacred office.”[1247] His courting of Roman power[1248] did not endear him to the nationalist freedom fighters, and in 66 C.E. the Sicarii burned his palace (along with that of Agrippa II; War 2.426).[1249] At that time, most of the aristocratic priests hid themselves in vaults (2.428), and Ananias fled to a palace (2.429). He hid in an aqueduct (2.441), but Josephus claims that the son of Judas the Galilean (2.433; on Judas, see comment on Acts 5:36–37) found and killed him (2.441–42).

Perhaps Lysias does not intervene at the minor expression of violence in Acts 23:2 for the same reason that even nations with generally positive human-rights records cooperate with known repressive dictatorships;[1250] as normally practiced, diplomacy requires overlooking many faults and selecting the battles to be fought. When his prisoner’s life appears in danger, however, he is forced to intervene (23:10); the tribune would have to answer for this unconvicted Roman citizen’s safety and hence would have to draw the line there.

(2) Corruption among the Aristocratic Priests

After a history of Christian anti-Judaism, some interpreters take offense at any criticism of the high priests, as if such members of the elite represented the best in Jewish piety. The issue was abuse of power, however, not a matter of ethnicity or geography; the former is a pervasive fault in many societies, and Jerusalem was no exception.

Ancient Jewish sources regularly criticize the high priests of this period for abuse of power,[1251] and Josephus, a contemporary source who sometimes defends the high priests, is our most eloquent witness to the corruption that power bred. In the time of Felix, high priests became so audacious that they sent their own servants to the threshing floors to seize the tithes that would have gone to poorer priests, which led to the death of some of the latter in poverty (Jos. Ant. 20.181). Later (in 20.206) we read of another aristocratic priest seizing their tithes; his bold servants would beat those who refused to comply.[1252] Early rabbinic sources confirm the corruption of various high-priestly houses, including the house of Ishmael ben Phiabi (oppressing with fists).[1253]

After Claudius cleared Ananias and his colleagues but banished Cumanus, Claudius sent Felix as the new governor (War 2.247; Ant. 20.137); that Felix was sent to replace a governor exiled for antagonizing leaders such as Ananias may be one reason he is later loath to antagonize the high priests (Acts 23:35; 24:22), despite Lysias’s testimony (23:27–30) and Paul’s strong argument (24:10–21).[1254] It is possible that Agrippa eventually replaced Ananias (Jos. Ant. 20.179), however, precisely because of a failure to conciliate Felix adequately (20.177–78), shortly before Felix himself was replaced (20.182) toward the end of Paul’s detention in Caesarea. That the high priesthood apparently remained corrupt even at that time (cf. Acts 23:14–15; 25:3) should not surprise us; Ishmael and the high priests contended with other Jerusalem aristocrats (Jos. Ant. 20.180) and, like Ananias, exploited the poorer priests (20.181).[1255]

(3) Blows to the Cheek

That Ananias orders Paul struck may violate the law (Acts 23:3) but fits what is known of Ananias’s behavior and of human behavior in general. When Thersites reviled Agamemnon, ruler of the host, Odysseus beat him (Hom. Il. 2.265), and when Thersites cried (2.266–69), the Achaians laughed at him (2.270). A general might strike a soldier for lack of discipline (Xen. Anab. 5.8.12–13).[1256] When a later rabbi learns that he has erred in his teaching, he gladly and humbly submits to a lashing (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:3), although this story may be simply a homiletic illustration. Sadducees were known for dealing exceptionally harshly with offenders (Jos. Ant. 20.199), in contrast to Pharisees (13.294; cf. Acts 5:34–39).[1257]

Any sign of disrespect for the high priest could naturally result in such a slap (cf. John 18:22).[1258] But such behavior was nevertheless coercive and inappropriate in a court setting.[1259] Thus Aelius Aristides declares that oratory is as far from tyranny as persuasion is from force (Def. Or. 307, §99D; also 311, §101D). Luke uses Q tradition that condemns Christian leaders who abuse and “beat” (same Greek term) fellow Christians (Luke 12:45; cf. Matt 24:49).[1260] The term is also the same as used for the multitude beating Paul (Acts 21:32; cf. 18:17), implicitly linking the high priest with the mob’s behavior.

The slap on the cheek was a humiliating insult (Job 16:10)[1261] and happened to true prophets (1 Kgs 22:24; 2 Chr 18:23), to the Suffering Servant (Isa 50:6, though this is tearing the beard), and to the judge of Israel (Mic 5:1); the Lord would also strike the wicked thus (Ps 3:7). The Jesus tradition claims that Jesus was slapped (Mark 14:65; John 19:3), including—in John—at the order of the high priest (John 18:22);[1262] if Luke knew of this portrayal, he omits it (though including a beating by Levite temple police, Luke 22:63) despite the useful parallel it would afford with Paul.

Under traditional Roman law, an insulting blow and, in more recent Roman laws (stemming from the late republic), even severe psychological insults constituted punishable offenses.[1263] This was true also in Jewish law, which required compensation.[1264] Indeed, earlier ancient Near Eastern societies typically provided legal recourse for this offense within the lex talionis regulations.[1265] Even so much as lifting one’s hand, even if the blow was not completed (and its completion is not depicted in Acts 23:2–3), could be viewed as wicked.[1266]

III. PAUL’S REBUKE (23:3)

Announcing that God will strike the person who commanded Paul struck follows the traditional Jewish argument of divine punishment fitting the crime.[1267] “God is going to strike you” may resemble the invocation “May God strike you,” reportedly often used in court adjurations to secure testimony, yet reckoned as a curse.[1268] If cursing an ordinary person incurred flogging, cursing a judge demanded even harsher punishment (cf. 23:4).[1269] Nevertheless, Paul should not be judged guilty, since he is responding to illegal abuse.[1270] He also may not be offering a curse in the strictest sense but pronouncing judgment (see comment below).[1271] Judicial rhetoric regularly returned charges (see comment on Acts 24:19–20); Paul may be returning the charge of lawbreaking here for the benefit of those hearers who were genuinely pious and probably also for the tribune.[1272]

(1) Paul’s Demand for Justice

Justice demands a fair and unprejudiced hearing, as forensic rhetoric regularly pointed out (Rhet. Alex. 19, 1433b.19–23). When Paul protests that Ananias sits (κάθῃ)[1273] to judge him, he uses the second person singular. This complaint might rest on the high priest’s authority to convene the Sanhedrin for judgment (Jos. Ant. 20.200),[1274] but this suggestion is unlikely: Paul either does not recognize or pretends not to recognize Ananias’s role as high priest (Acts 23:5). Much more likely, he refers to Ananias’s act of prejudging the case’s outcome in 23:2. Whatever his specific office, Ananias is obviously part of the ruling class of priests, but Pharisees strictly forbade judging alone.[1275] Technically, this is not a formal trial, but because this hearing may influence Paul’s fate, he can use terms such as “judge” and “trial” (23:6).[1276]

Luke’s audience would likely appreciate Paul’s refusal to be intimidated. Sometimes alien suppliants were reduced to entreaties;[1277] by contrast, philosophers averred that one lost one’s freedom not by exile but by fear to speak the truth freely.[1278] A Jewish sage about to be beaten could demand how the person who ordered it could do so without scriptural warrant.[1279] Luke portrays Paul as unintimidated;[1280] he has often spoken before people of high status throughout the eastern Mediterranean world, both favorable and unfavorable, and knew from the beginning of his calling that he would do so (9:15).

Ancient literature praised those courageous enough to confront tyrants;[1281] often they were sages[1282] or their followers[1283]—for example, the reputed defiance of Demetrius the Cynic.[1284] (See further discussion of opposition to tyranny at Acts 12:23.) Because Socrates did not fear death, he never spoke sycophantically to any (Max. Tyre 3.7).[1285] Witty retorts to such violence as has occurred here also appear as praiseworthy in the Greek school tradition.[1286] Most relevant is that biblical prophets, such as Elijah, refused to be intimidated by kings (Sir 48:12); God wanted his true prophets to denounce injustice (Ezek 22:28–30).

Moreover, Paul already knows that these leaders can err seriously (Acts 13:27; cf. Luke 24:20). Jesus pronounced judgment against Israel’s religious leaders and called them names (Luke 11:39–52; 20:16–19, 46–47). Jesus also anticipated injustice from the Sanhedrin (9:22; 20:14–16; 22:67–68). Although other municipal aristocracies dealt harshly with those they saw as troublemakers, many nonsectarian Judeans (and probably especially Diaspora Jews) would have found the gospel tradition’s portrayal of Jerusalem’s leaders as shocking, just as Romans were scandalized to learn of Verres’s abuse of office (though such abuses were probably fairly common).[1287]

Ananias’s perspective within the narrative world is quite different. Persons of reputation did not usually welcome reproofs; they were accustomed to respect and assigned criticism to the motive of envy.[1288] The high priest’s later implacable hostility to Paul (Acts 24:1; cf. 25:2) is not surprising; he avenges a perceived affront (and certain challenge) to his own honor in 23:3.

(2) Appeal to the Torah

Paul cites the law as forbidding such mistreatment, perhaps thinking of Lev 19:15’s warning against unjust judgment,[1289] and later Pharisaic (cf. Acts 23:6) safeguards against prejudging an unconvicted defendant.[1290] In contrast to the high priest in 23:2, the law demanded that innocence be presumed until a defendant was convicted of guilt[1291] (cf. Deut 22:27). Although this is the only use of the verb παρανομέω in the NT, it was a serious charge in Jewish tradition[1292] and probably bears a sense similar to the enacting of ἀνομία, except that the former conveys more plainly deliberate transgression of the law.[1293] Whatever else Sadducees may have doubted, they claimed to affirm the law of Moses (Jos. Ant. 13.297). On trial for lawbreaking (Acts 21:28), Paul, following forensic rhetorical convention, reverses the charge against an opponent.[1294]

By appealing to the law here and in 23:5 (and implicitly in 23:1, 6), Paul is underlining his own orthodoxy.[1295] In 23:4 his appeal to orthodoxy is rebuffed, and he seeks to recover lost ground and honor in 23:5, until he arrives at a more successful strategy in 23:6 (the Pharisaic faction will appreciate his more particularly Pharisaic orthodoxy).[1296] Paul may imply that he is a better Jew (by standards of the law) than is Ananias, a lackey appointed by Roman favor (23:1, 5–6); indeed, it is likely that Paul, as a trained Pharisee, knew the law better than Ananias did.[1297] Certainly Luke presents Paul as adhering to the law better than the high priest.[1298] Even recently converted Greeks would be able to understand the picture; for example, Socrates, though accused of disbelieving the gods, believes in them more than do any of his accusers (Plato Apol. 35D).

(3) Insult, Curse, or Prophecy?

Insults were common in ancient rhetoric,[1299] though in principle defamatory ones could be actionable.[1300] Thus Cicero calls Marc Antony the stupidest of people (Cic. Phil. 2.12.29),[1301] and Paul calls interlocutors foolish (1 Cor 15:36; Gal 3:1).[1302] Even had Sallust’s father otherwise lived a perfect life, one writer argues, “he could not have inflicted a greater injury upon his country than begetting such a son.”[1303] Such rhetoric often made opponents the butt of humor; sometimes a good-natured opponent might smile (Xen. Cyr. 2.2.16), but usually they responded with hostility to the public diminution of their honor (Plut. Cic. 27.1).

Paul is not, however, practicing rhetorical insults (despite the qualified apology in Acts 23:5); he is pronouncing judgment (cf. Luke 11:39–52). After the high priest orders Paul struck (Acts 23:2, using τύπτειν; cf. 21:32), Paul warns that God will strike (also τύπτειν) him: it is you whom God will strike, he replies. “May God strike you” seems to have been a Jewish curse formula.[1304] The line between pronouncing judgment and cursing could be thin (cf. Mark 11:21, omitted in Luke). But to the extent that a distinction should be drawn (see comment on Acts 5:5), Paul pronounces judgment (cf. Acts 13:11) predictively (present active indicative of μέλλω) and does not explicitly curse (one would more likely expect the optative),[1305] as if his words actually will cause the priest’s demise.[1306]

Although presumably few in Luke’s audience would know Ananias’s individual fate, they would probably know that Jerusalem’s demise included the end of the high priesthood. Luke himself might know that Ananias was murdered in September 66, likely less than a decade (probably much less) after Paul confronted him.[1307] (Ananias probably did outlive Paul by a year or two, but from Luke’s perspective Paul dies a martyr and Ananias a sinner.) Like most of the aristocratic priests (Jos. War 2.428), Ananias was reduced to hiding (2.441), but the rebels found and slew him (2.441–42).

Paul probably alludes to the whitewashed wall of Ezek 13:10–15 (and 22:28), where the prophets have plastered over Israel’s sin with a false veneer of God’s favor.[1308] Homeowners sometimes used whitewash and plaster on walls facing streets.[1309] One who was assumed righteous outwardly but was not genuinely righteous was like the tombs of Luke 11:44,[1310] a hypocrite (6:42; 12:1, 56; 13:15; 20:20).[1311] Even where the term ὑποκριτής was not used, the idea was considered reprehensible;[1312] those who pretended righteousness and judged others merited harsher punishment (cf. Thucyd. 3.67.2).

Some scholars suggest that the “striking” also alludes to God striking Israel in Deut 28:22, which, however, does not contain one of the LXX’s forty uses of τύπτω. Among those uses, the wicked “strike” the innocent (Exod 2:11; Deut 27:24; 2 Sam 4:7; Isa 58:4; 4 Macc 6:8, 10; 9:12), including prophets (1 Kgs 18:4), and God judges by “striking,” whether the nations (Exod 8:2; 2 Macc 3:39) or Israel (2 Sam 24:17; Ezek 7:9). Scholars think of Deut 28:22 because rabbis used it as the basis for the idea of the predictive curse.[1313]

(4) Answering One’s Abuser

Why does Paul answer his abuser? The Lukan command (from Q) to give the aggressor one’s other cheek (Luke 6:29, using τύπτω, as here) is probably hyperbole,[1314] as Luke’s example here probably suggests. Though Paul complies with the heart of its true demand, that is, for nonresistance,[1315] he does not embrace the shame of the blow.[1316] Jesus also taught disciples to not judge (6:41–42) and, most relevant, to bless persecutors and pray for them (6:28; cf. Matt 5:44; Rom 12:14; 1 Thess 5:15; 1 Pet 2:23);[1317] although Paul might not curse (he may simply pronounce judgment), neither does he bless. This may suggest that Paul’s behavior (as a mostly[1318] reliable character) qualifies Luke’s expectations for Luke 6:28–29 (just as his portrait of the early believers’ economic sacrifices [but not absolute poverty, including homelessness] in Acts qualifies the more graphic hyperbole of passages such as Luke 3:11; 12:33; 14:33 for the average believer). Luke may expect nonviolence but not absolute nonresistance.[1319]

Whereas Paul waits until necessary to protest his mistreatment by Gentile authorities (Acts 22:25; cf. 16:37), he is ready to confront it more quickly with those who claim to follow the law. Perhaps Paul follows Jesus’s example of respect for the Roman authorities as appointed by God (Luke 20:25) and Jesus’s and Peter’s example of a more confrontational approach with the chief priests (20:1, 16–19; Acts 4:19–20; 5:29–32; cf. John 19:11). Whereas Jesus denounced the sins of Pharisees, scribes, and others in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 11:39–52; 20:46–47), he denounced the chief priests mainly in parables (20:15–19). Perhaps he avoided clearer denunciations out of respect for their office or to delay the hour of his execution, but they recognized nonetheless that he was addressing them (20:19).

Paul’s words also may draw attention to the blow in case the observing tribune, perhaps standing at some distance (Acts 23:10 is clear only on the distance of the troops), has not seen it. Some scholars suggest that Paul’s failure to respond would have portrayed him to the tribune as a low-class person or slave rather than as a Roman citizen;[1320] Paul can hardly hope for continued light treatment from Lysias if Paul fails to protest abuse from his own people. Further, his abuse as a Roman citizen would invite the tribune’s attention.[1321] That the high priest ordered a Roman citizen struck would not have commended the former to the tribune,[1322] who will have to file his own report (cf. 23:29). The aristocracy avoided punishment or criticism for much that would be counted illegal under Roman law, but only if Rome looked the other way. The more instances of the Sanhedrin’s violation of proper procedure Paul can accumulate for the watching tribune, the stronger Paul’s case later.

IV. GOD’S HIGH PRIEST (23:4–5)?

The council members rebuff Paul’s attempted display of orthodoxy (23:4); the point of order Paul raises seems lost on them (suggesting, as noted above, that the leaders could be corrupt; cf. 24:26). The irony would not be lost on the members of Luke’s audience: those who think themselves rulers of God’s people and guardians of his cult sit in judgment over God’s true apostle. This irony might reinforce the audience’s own courage to face analogous religious or social misunderstandings of their own self-identities.[1323] If Paul answers ironically in 23:5, as many argue, then he is simply highlighting the irony of those rulers’ own condemnation, answering in kind.

Speaking abusively of a magistrate (23:4) was forbidden not only in Israelite (Exod 22:27 [22:28 ET], in view here) but in other cultures’ laws (Lysias Or. 9.6, §114). Respect for rulers was engrained in the Jewish wisdom tradition as well as law (Prov 24:21; Sir 41:17; 4Q417 1 I), and also respect for priests (Sir 7:29–31). Later rabbis maintained that it was right to apply corporal discipline to a high priest, but out of respect for his office they would not remove him from the priesthood (y. Sanh. 2:1, §2).

(1) Citing the Law (23:5)

Both Paul’s attempts to establish his law observance (Acts 23:1, 3) have been rebuffed (23:2, 4); Paul seeks to reestablish it in 23:5, though it is only in 23:6 that he discovers, or is able to make use of, a satisfactory strategy. It is possible that the murmured responses to his confronting Ananias, or to the abuse of him, or to his appeals to Scripture help him to identify the Pharisaic element in 23:6 unless (as is possible) distinctive apparel should have done so.

Paul’s apology and appeal to Scripture for submission reestablish his credibility in the law (for Scripture citation formulas, see comment on Acts 1:20). It coheres not only with the principle in Rom 13:1–7 (though, both in the letters and in Acts, Paul seems particularly ready to apply it to the Roman government)[1324] but with a range of voices urging submission.[1325]

By counting the high priest as a ruler of the people, Paul might even appeal beyond Ananias’s current rank to respect for the pre-Roman, Maccabean tradition of priestly authority.[1326] He does not, of course, speak of a king or chief ruler; he has been demonstrating his respect for Rome, and any undermining of Rome’s superior authority would have supplied Paul’s enemies with the evidence they needed to secure his execution (cf. Luke 23:2).[1327] “Ruler” was a general term used for anyone in the ruling establishment,[1328] and in any case, Jesus provides Paul with a model of balancing competing authority claims (Luke 20:25).

(2) Failing to Recognize the High Priest

If Paul claims that he did not recognize the high priest, he can appeal to the issue of intention to exonerate himself from the charge.[1329] If he means the claim facetiously, it nevertheless could satisfy the letter of the law, to which his accusers have appealed since his accusers have ignored the law’s intention by allowing him to be struck.[1330] But in what sense does Paul not “recognize” him?[1331]

Paul’s failure to recognize the high priest constitutes, indeed, the chief interpretive difficulty in this verse. Barrett, who thinks the cause of this failure difficult to decide, shows that most of the options are improbable. For example, since the high priest normally would preside, it seems unthinkable that Paul would not know that Ananias was the high priest. He also doubts that Paul would be ironic here, since Paul backs up his words with Scripture.[1332]

Some think that Paul genuinely failed to recognize the high priest.[1333] Although the high priest would preside at a meeting of the Sanhedrin, Paul may have started speaking before Ananias began presiding (contrast Acts 23:1 with 7:1). Some argue that Paul’s earlier visit (inferred from 18:22) was probably in the summer of 52 C.E., when Ananias was being tried by Claudius in Rome.[1334] But even if Ananias was present in Jerusalem at Paul’s previous visit, we have every reason to doubt that Paul would have come near to him! Certainly Ananias was not the high priest whom Paul had known; and if Paul had known him years earlier, they were now both more than two decades older, and he had known him in a quite different capacity.

Would not Ananias be wearing the distinctive garb of the high priest, some object? Some doubt that he would wear it or sit in his special place for an informal meeting called by the tribune.[1335] This is more likely a regular meeting of the Sanhedrin than an “informal” meeting; nevertheless, he would not wear the cumbersome ephod outside his temple duties,[1336] and possibly the entire high-priestly family wore distinctive, expensive robes not readily distinguishable from one another. Paul has long lacked contact with Jerusalem’s aristocratic priests (even if he visited Jerusalem in 18:22), and one might not recognize a leader if his clothing was changed (1 Sam 28:8; 1 Kgs 22:30–33).

If the Mishnaic picture of the Sanhedrin’s seating is correct, the high priest’s seat would be distinctive and obvious if he was sitting there; but we cannot be sure that the Mishnaic picture was correct and that it applied to this venue near the Xystus as well as to the chamber of hewn stone.[1337] That he “sits in judgment” (Acts 23:3) may simply indicate that he has sought to prejudge Paul by himself and illegitimately. That whitewash suggests pretense need not support the claim that Paul knows that Ananias is the high priest, or substantiate even his knowledge (not disputed) that Ananias is at least one of Israel’s leaders. The image does not refer specifically to leaders in Ezek 13:10–14; although it does so in Matt 23:27, Luke’s parallel passage omits the reference to whitewash. (It is not impossible that Matthew’s language reflects Q and that Paul and/or Luke know that wording, thus choosing that image from the prophets rather than another; but whether Luke omits the image from Q or Matthew adds it cannot be determined at this remove.)

Some commentators’ supposition of Paul’s nearsightedness here, without any such indication from Luke, must remain, as Conzelmann notes, a comic explanation.[1338] The claim, based on Gal 4:15, that Paul historically had eye troubles is not a plausible reading of that text; the giving up of eyes to show affection was a common enough figure of speech.[1339] If Ishmael was already currently high priest (with the Talmud, according to some scholars; less likely but not impossible) and Ananias merely retained the title from holding the office before, Paul might refuse to grant the title or might not recognize one no longer wearing the priestly vestments.[1340]

(3) Ironic Lack of Recognition?

With Calvin and Augustine, a majority of modern commentators appear to think that Paul does in fact know that Ananias is the high priest and that Paul is simply being sarcastic here.[1341] The high priest would preside in such meetings and might wear distinctive apparel (though not, as already argued, his high-priestly garments). Further, Paul speaks of him as “sitting to judge” (Acts 23:3). Perhaps most important (though often overlooked) is that he issues orders that those standing near Paul obey (23:2). Even if they were Levite temple guards, the speaker exhibits some distinctive rank without fear of serious contradiction from others present.

This proposed use of irony is entirely plausible. Irony was a common rhetorical trope, used to communicate a meaning opposite to the words’ normal sense (Rhet. Alex. 21, 1434a.17–32);[1342] it could be employed in pretending to demean oneself while exalting opponents (21, 1434.27–29). Obvious sarcasm was, admittedly, rhetorically dangerous when one faced one’s judges (see comment on Acts 7:51–53).[1343] A speaker could use figured speech to soften his words without avoiding them;[1344] he could speak with deliberate ambiguity to prevent certainty regarding his intention (e.g., as to whether he expresses surprise or disdain).[1345] Yet if Paul recognizes that the high priest is already his implacable enemy, such sarcasm might help him with fairer-minded elements of the Sanhedrin (especially his fellow Pharisees) more than it would hurt him with his adversaries.

Thus (in this view) Paul pretends that he did not recognize Ananias as high priest so that he may imply that Ananias is not behaving like one or (less likely) that the current high-priestly line, controlled by political rulers, is illegitimate. His words in Acts 23:3 were deliberate contempt of court, and now he reinforces this contempt by questioning Ananias’s authority.[1346]

In this view, that Paul backs up his words with Scripture might simply heighten the irony. He is not apologizing but implicitly criticizing the high priest while he shifts from the issue of Ananias’s unworthiness to the respect due his office.[1347] It is difficult to be certain that the high priest would have caught the hint of further criticism without the benefit of modern commentators, but it is not impossible that Luke’s audience would have. The strongest argument favoring this view is the weakness of the alternative—and vice versa.

I believe that it is also possible that Paul feigns ignorance to insult not the high priest alone but the entire proceeding. He has responded appropriately and biblically to an illegal action of the high priest; those standing nearby ignore the high priest’s illegal action and charge Paul with breaching Scripture. Given their clear bias in favor of power rather than truth, Paul may be saying, “Since you are interested only in formal, enforceable rules and not in truth or justice, I can play by those rules, too. I am innocent by virtue of ignorance—though only in pretense, exploiting the rules as you do.” Such a response would constitute an act of rhetorical παρρησία (see comment on Acts 4:13), a rebuke of corrupt members that might appeal to others present who were alienated by such actions.

On balance, it is more likely that Paul would have known Ananias to be high priest than not (despite the uncertainty of the sarcasm interpretation). Historically, the high priest’s seating, role, and probably expensive (though not sacerdotal) garb would have identified him clearly, and so, if Luke accurately reports Paul’s words, he may have meant them ironically. Yet many members of Luke’s first real audiences may not have had sufficient knowledge of the Sanhedrin to envision all these points;[1348] some might suggest that Luke’s audience would have simply inferred from Paul’s words that Paul had not recognized the high priest, whatever Luke’s original intention. Even the narrative, however, reveals Ananias’s distinctive authority, which suggests that Paul knew his identity; Luke’s earliest real audiences, and probably his ideal audience, would have moved more in this direction. Probably Paul’s words are ironic; nevertheless, Luke, although probably clear in his own mind, could have been clearer for his audience.[1349] One can thus venture a probable position while agreeing, in the final analysis, that Barrett’s caution, though not very helpful, is not imprudent.[1350]

d. Dividing the Council (23:6–9)

In a master stroke of strategy, Paul “divides and conquers” the Sanhedrin by identifying with one (albeit probably the minority) faction over an issue that Rome will regard as purely theological. He can draw on the ēthos he has been building (through his use of Scripture and his victimization by the corrupt leadership). Although his strategy proves effective, it also proves dangerous: after Paul divides the council, he is nearly “divided” himself (23:10).

I. A PHARISEE (VERSUS SADDUCEES) (23:6–7)

Paul’s “crying out” (also 24:21) suggests that this part of his speech would prove unwelcome and that he wants to make certain that the Pharisees hear before his voice can be drowned out with clamor; given his previous treatment for speaking (23:2), he may have only one opportunity to speak before his enemies realize what he is trying to do and counter his claim. For a discussion of Sadducees, see comment on Acts 4:1; on Pharisees, see comment at Acts 5:34–39.

(1) Paul’s Partisan Politics

Paul had begun to advance an argument based on his personal integrity (23:1) and fidelity to the law (23:3); though these arguments could appeal to Pharisees, both attempts were aborted. Now he takes advantage of party politics, emphasizing his party connections with some of those present (who would also value integrity and fidelity to the law). Partisan ideology separated Pharisees from Sadducees, and Paul appeals to this partisan loyalty here.[1351] “I am a Pharisee” resembles some ancient party slogans.[1352] Like Jesus (Luke 23:50), Paul would find some pious allies in the Sanhedrin.

Paul sought to establish his orthodoxy in Acts 23:1 and 3 but was rebuffed in 23:2 and 4. Obviously the Sadducean aristocratic priests[1353] are already biased against him; but he employs a more nuanced strategy in 23:6, where he will find some allies among those not predisposed to such bias. He must act with political prudence, because there is no chance of an unprejudiced hearing.[1354] His fellow Pharisees will also be sensitive about chief priests’ prejudices. Here we see a strategy used by Paul in ministry elsewhere in Acts and in his writings: he begins by appealing to common ground, at least with those with whom he can find it (e.g., 14:15).

Orators were trained how to deal with prejudiced juries (e.g., Hermog. Issues 34.10–14). Prudently answering an interrogator’s challenge in court could shame the interrogator himself (Pliny Ep. 1.5.5–6). Finding common ground (here, with the Pharisees) was an important strategy; thus, for example, Cicero characterizes the opponents as supporters of Clodius (who is by now disliked by the audience, Mil. 2.3). One who was charged could countercharge, appealing to a higher principle (valued by the audience), which one could now claim was the real cause for the accusations (Aeschines Tim. 1–2). One could appeal to the jury by emphasizing the unfair hostility of one’s opponents (Dion. Hal. Lysias 24), as Paul emphasizes the hostility of the Sadducees here. The Pharisees, who would have tended to be fairer minded, could not but have noticed and resented the high priest’s high-handed abuse of Paul in Acts 23:2, who had also sought to prejudge the case without their input.

Unable to persuade the entire assembly, Paul must gain at least some allies.[1355] Paul here practices the sort of tactic exemplified in Caesar’s famous military principle Divide et impera (“Divide and conquer”).[1356] In the same period, Josephus likewise divided a multitude, using city rivalry to win over some people to his side (Jos. Life 139, 142–44; War 2.604–9); he presents himself as clever by his use of such “stratagems” (War 2.604, 611). Many recognized that friends, once divided, became easy prey for enemies (Hom. Il. 1.255–58; Babr. 44.7–8; 47), but this recognition did not stop partisan strife (see comment on Acts 15:25). Portraying an assembly as divided (Acts 14:4) reflected reality, but it was rarely intended to be flattering.[1357]

Whether the priestly aristocracy is aware of the full charges against Paul or not, it will soon learn of them, and if the Asian Jews remain in town, they could be summoned as witnesses. If the priestly aristocracy charged Paul with profaning the temple, Paul would lack defenders among the Jewish leaders whose word carried weight with the Roman government. But Luke portrays Paul as outwitting his opponents because he understands both Jerusalem’s leadership and Rome’s use of initial hearings to establish the charges. Paul in effect changes the subject of debate and hence the outcome of the initial hearing, protecting himself with regard to Roman law at future hearings. For Paul, the real issue at stake is what lay behind the Asian Jews’ charge: Paul preaches the risen Christ, and preaches him to the Gentiles. From a Pharisaic standpoint, however, what separated his Christian position from the view of the Sadducees was, fundamentally, the resurrection (4:4). Those who accepted resurrection could, at least in principle, accept Paul’s testimony that he had met the risen Christ, and hence could accept the rest of his testimony that rested on that claim.

Paul’s strategy is especially brilliant because he manipulates the outcome of the preliminary inquiry before the Sanhedrin. He plays particularly to Lysias, by leading the Sanhedrin’s members to fight over what would arouse them but provide no charges under Roman law.[1358] Even if this ploy did not lead directly to Paul’s freedom, it would establish a legal precedent in his favor in Lysias’s report, a precedent Paul later cites in 24:20–21. Such precedents were not binding on governors, but they would shift prejudice in his favor. Luke thus portrays Paul as clever—more clever than his opponents. (Such cleverness was viewed as a virtue—for example, in many Greek traditions about Odysseus[1359] and in Jewish tales about Solomon.)

(2) Plausibility

Luke’s picture, though certainly “Lukan,” is not as historically implausible as modern readers might suppose, for all its drama. Pervo charges that the Sanhedrin proves as indecorous as pagan lynch mobs and the mob in the temple; thus, he argues, Luke portrays all opponents of the Christian movement as malicious.[1360] He is right to note the literary parallel with other Lukan mob scenes but neglects the important feature here that the Pharisees favor Paul; not everyone wants to kill him.[1361] Further, we need not sanitize the Sanhedrin as if none of its leading aristocrats, like many municipal aristocrats elsewhere, ever wanted anyone killed; Josephus is clear otherwise (see comment on Acts 23:14).

Pharisaic support for Paul here may not be permanent and fits Luke’s Tendenz,[1362] but it also fits the period described. After 70 C.E., the Sadducees quickly became irrelevant; in the gospel traditions depicting an earlier period, the Pharisees were usually not yet supportive (though again Luke provides exceptions, e.g., Luke 7:39; 11:37; 13:31).[1363] By this period, though, Pharisees may have viewed the Jewish Christians as allies, since they were fellow lawkeepers. When a high priest executed James by extrajudicial means just a few years after Paul’s hearing,[1364] Josephus claims that those most concerned about the laws protested vigorously (Ant. 20.201–2); his description here best fits what he elsewhere writes about the Pharisees (War 2.162; Life 191; see comment on Acts 15:5). The Sanhedrin need not have consisted only of Pharisees and Sadducees even in this period,[1365] but since even Sadducees accommodated the popularity of the Pharisees with the multitude (Ant. 18.17), it may have been politically expedient for those who resented the Sadducees to profess an affinity for Pharisaism.[1366]

Luke nowhere else portrays the division between Pharisees and Sadducees in the council (or even provides indication, apart from Acts 5:34, of Pharisees in the council). But other sources indicate that there were some Pharisees (see comment on Acts 5:34–39), though they were never dominant, and their presence would increase the legitimacy of the council with the people. The proportion of Pharisees in the municipal aristocracy may have grown along with Agrippa I’s support for Jewish nationalism[1367] and with the further growth of nationalism in the years that followed.[1368] The Sadducees, who had more reason to be loyal to Rome, nevertheless would have retained majority control.[1369] Although both recognize Sadducean political dominance in the Sanhedrin, Luke may emphasize Sadducean influence among the elite priests more than Josephus does.[1370]

More important, the present scene is not too surprising when we recognize that within two years of the scene described here, the high-priestly faction (mostly Sadducees) and other aristocrats influential with the people (perhaps some were Pharisees) began clashing not only with words but with hurled stones (Jos. Ant. 20.180). Even more than a century earlier, Sadducees and Pharisees had vied for political power and sought to discredit each other (e.g., 13.293–94).[1371] Later texts often portray disputes between Pharisees and Sadducees, preserved in the aggrieved Pharisaic sages’ communal memory.[1372] They might cry out against each other (m. Yad. 4:7); Pharisaic tradition also denounced Sadducean women as being as unclean as Samaritan women (m. Nid. 4:2). In some of these stories, God might execute judgment against an unsubmissive Sadducee (b. Yoma 19b, bar.).

The primary public accusation against Paul played on nationalist sympathies (Acts 21:28), and the Sadducees disliked the early Christian movement (Acts 4:1–2); leading Pharisees may have been caught between these same ideologies as Paul was.[1373] The Sadducees might accuse the Pharisees of nationalist sympathies themselves; although, in his earlier War, Josephus emphatically distinguished revolutionaries from his other three “sects” (War 2.118–19), in his later Antiquities, after hostile feelings had settled, he admitted that the revolutionaries were like the Pharisees in every aspect except that only the revolutionaries wanted to overthrow human government (Ant. 18.23). After all, one of the revolutionary movement’s intellectual architects was a Pharisee (18.4).[1374]

The Pharisees have apparently heard reports about Paul’s speech (Acts 23:9; cf. 22:6–9, 17) but are suspicious of Sadducean dominance and hence of the charges; the day after the riot, presumably at the Sanhedrin’s first meeting afterward, its members are probably not all well informed. (The high priest may succeed in uniting them more fully—or at least negotiating their cooperation—after Paul is no longer present to defend himself [24:1, 15].)

Given their predilection not to trust the high priesthood, their sensitivity to being the minority among the aristocracy on the resurrection issue, and perhaps the unthinkable character of the calumny that a Pharisee would have profaned the temple,[1375] the Pharisees want to give Paul a fairer hearing than their opponents are ready to offer. Paul could have undoubtedly demonstrated his Pharisaism academically if called on to do so, but such a demonstration proves both unnecessary and, given his limited opportunity to speak, impossible.

(3) Pharisaic Commitment to the Resurrection

Of all the points at which Pharisees and Sadducees were opposed, their divergent views on the resurrection were among the most fundamental.[1376]

“Hope and resurrection” here functions as a hendiadys[1377]—hence, “hope of the resurrection,” as articulated clearly in 24:15 and implied (from the prior passages) in 26:6–7; 28:20.[1378] The Maccabean literature emphasized the resurrection “hopes” (2 Macc 7:14, ἐλπίδας). Although Paul’s unity with Pharisees on the resurrection question was significant in the context of the Sanhedrin, it was not particularly unusual in the broader context of Judaism; the Pharisees apparently represented popular opinion on this point (Jos. Ant. 18.15–17; cf. 13.298; Heb 6:2).[1379]

Some scholars suggest that resurrection might be implicit in Ps 49:15; Hos 6:1–3; 13:14; or (more likely, in my opinion) Isa 26:19;[1380] if it may function as part of Israel’s corporate resurrection (as I think likely), it may also appear in Ezek 37:5–14. But it becomes particularly explicit in Dan 12:2.[1381] Not all streams of early Judaism clearly articulate a doctrine of bodily resurrection.[1382] As noted, the Sadducees denied it (Jos. Ant. 18.16–17; War 2.165);[1383] rabbinic texts, which on this point probably represent the populist Pharisaic consensus, complain about the offensiveness of such a denial.[1384] The view became common in Palestinian Judaism (2 Bar. 42:8; 50:2), including Greek-speaking Palestinian Judaism (2 Macc 7:9, 11, 14, 22–23, 29; 12:43; 14:46).[1385] God’s raising the dead probably also appears in some Qumran scrolls.[1386] Clearly, the Pharisees and their probable successors in the rabbinic movement[1387] affirmed the doctrine of the bodily resurrection,[1388] almost equating belief in it with belief in the afterlife.[1389]

Widespread attestation, especially in Judea, indicates that the doctrine was much more widely held than among the Pharisees. It was a widespread feature of Judean common Judaism (e.g., Pss. Sol. 3:12; 15:12–13; 1 En. 22:13),[1390] as the widespread use of Daniel (especially in the LXX) would almost require (Dan 12:2). The second benediction of the Amidah undoubtedly was recited beyond Pharisaic circles. Some scholars also argue that the use of ossuaries for secondary burial in the first century may support the widespread character of belief in the bodily resurrection,[1391] although this argument is open to question.[1392] (Compare also the graffito in Greek at Beth She‘arim: “Good fortune in your resurrection.”)[1393] Sanders contends that nearly all Palestinian Jews but the Sadducees affirmed the doctrine;[1394] certainly it appears to have been a strong majority.

The belief was probably less widely held initially in the Diaspora, though some evidence for it there exists.[1395] Hellenistic works such as Wisdom of Solomon emphasized only immortality (Wis 3:4; 4:1; 6:18–19; 8:13, 17; 15:3; contrast Sir 17:30). Yet some Hellenistic Jewish writers, while accommodating the idea to Hellenistic notions of immortality (e.g., Ps.-Phoc. 105) and the language of deification (Ps.-Phoc. 104), also allude to the doctrine of bodily resurrection (Ps.-Phoc. 102–4). Perhaps after rabbinic Judaism consolidated its influence, the doctrine of a literal, bodily resurrection also became standard in much of the Diaspora.[1396] Paul’s contention with the Corinthian Christians might reflect not only pagan Greek but also some first-century Hellenistic Jewish aversion to discussion about the resurrection;[1397] although many Diaspora Jews would affirm the resurrection, it was probably most widespread in Palestine, to the east, and among the least hellenized communities in the first century.

Following the typical Hellenistic Jewish approach of making Judaism acceptable to Greeks, Josephus transforms the Pharisaic resurrection doctrine into Pythagorean reincarnation,[1398] but he retains a clear distinction between Pharisees and Sadducees on eschatology. Pharisees affirm the immortality of righteous and unrighteous souls and that the righteous pass into new bodies; Sadducees deny an afterlife (Jos. War 2.163–65).[1399] His picture of the resurrection is clearer (though he avoids a controversial, explicit mention of the body) in his later Ant. 18.14, again in contrast with the Sadducees (18.16). Second-century rabbis from the Pharisaic tradition excluded from the coming world those who denied that the law taught the resurrection of the dead (m. Sanh. 10:1).[1400] Later rabbis even denied that those who affirmed the two ages would be counted as Abraham’s seed (Gen. Rab. 53:12). Few today doubt that early Judaism was diverse;[1401] resurrection appears to be one of the more volatile areas of disagreement.

Would Paul’s original Asian Jewish accusers (Acts 21:27) have been hostile to him for his convictions about the resurrection? This suggestion is not impossible: although resurrection belief characterized not only Pharisaism but much popular Judean expectation, lack of such belief characterized not only Sadducees (such as the high priest) but also many Diaspora Jews. (As already noted, 1 Cor 15 suggests that Paul contended with such skepticism even in some of his churches.)[1402] Paul’s claim is also useful rhetorical strategy; defendants (and plaintiffs) often complained that their opponents were biased against them. Some might identify themselves with a respected cause; although a property dispute is at the heart of the case, Apuleius claims that he is defending not only himself but philosophy.[1403] Associations of resurrection belief with morality also suggest Paul’s integrity and introduce an irony: they are judging him (23:6) for his belief that God will judge all (cf. Rom 14:10).

Certainly Luke’s portrayal of Paul emphasizing the resurrection is plausible. Although Jesus’s resurrection is a theme in Luke’s speeches, explaining Paul’s custody in terms of his favor for Gentiles (cf. Acts 22:21–22) would provide a much better center for Luke’s apologetic speeches for Paul than his insistence on resurrection (24:21). Moreover, it is certain that Jesus’s resurrection was central to Paul’s message (Rom 4:24–25; 8:34; 10:9–10; 14:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:4, 14–19; 2 Cor 5:15) and preaching (1 Thess 1:10), even if Paul emphasizes the saving role of Jesus’s death more often than Luke does.[1404] Paul also closely connects believers’ resurrection with that of Jesus (Rom 6:4–5; 8:11; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:12–13, 16, 20–23, 48–49; 2 Cor 4:14; Phil 3:10–11; 1 Thess 4:14).

Paul may speak here of being “judged” (κρίνομαι, Acts 23:6; 24:21) as if a trial rather than a preliminary hearing were in view.[1405] His words need not mean this (the verb has a broad semantic range), but if he does intend this meaning, we should keep two points in mind: first, a dramatic hyperbole of this character would underline his predicament and his accusers’ treachery; and second, the hearing’s outcome would likely have direct consequences for any Roman trial that would follow. Reducing the case to a matter of antipathy over doctrine (as Peter sought to reduce another case to dishonorable discomfort over a benefaction, 4:9) would force the case to be thrown out of any unbiased Roman court (23:29; securing such lack of bias would be the next problem, 24:27; 25:9). Meanwhile, Paul is being “judged” for the hope of the resurrection, but, like other Pharisees, presumably expected those who denied that hope to be judged by God (cf. 24:15).[1406]

(4) Son of Pharisees (23:6)

Paul’s claim to be a “son of Pharisees” could well be intended figuratively, as a disciple (cf. Luke 11:19, 48); the title often meant this.[1407] As a Pharisee, Paul probably would have belonged to a group of associates who shared his ideals.[1408]

That he means it literally, however,[1409] is also possible, at least for one generation. His parents apparently approved his being taught by Gamaliel as a young man (Acts 22:3); although this approval would not necessarily make them Pharisees (Gamaliel was widely respected), their approval would be consonant with the position that they were Pharisees if textual evidence (such as the present verse) is construed as supporting this position. Some scholars suggest that Paul’s family may have been Pharisees in Tarsus, having settled there after these sects developed in Judea in the second century B.C.E.[1410] But we have sparse evidence for Pharisees persisting outside Palestine, and it is much more likely that Paul’s entire family moved to Jerusalem in his childhood (see comment on Acts 22:3) and that the father, already a conscientious keeper of the law, became a Pharisee there.[1411] (Even if we could be sure that his father was a Pharisee, however, we should not infer a longer Pharisaic lineage from the generalizing plural “Pharisees” here.)

The value of an honorable descent claim at this point reinforces the possibility that Paul intends the claim literally, even if the plural is a generalizing one. Paul’s claim to honorable descent would suit normal conventions of rhetoric (establishing ēthos, as he began to do in 23:1). Good orators knew how to exploit information to the advantage of their position.[1412] Epideictic rhetoric emphasized, where possible, a person’s virtuous upbringing or ancestry.[1413] One should be honored on account of honorable ancestors (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 46.2–4). Thus Luke notes that Elizabeth was of the daughters of Aaron (Luke 1:5) and emphasizes the piety of John’s and Jesus’s parents (e.g., 1:6; 2:41); Paul himself emphasizes that he could boast in his pure ancestry, were such a matter worthy of boasting (Phil 3:5). Likewise, challenging another’s ancestry characterized many insults (see, e.g., Luke 3:7);[1414] for example, the angry loser in a debate might, without evidence, accuse the other’s mother of sexual immorality.[1415]

Mediterranean honor conventions ran deeper, however, than mere use in encomia; they also affected court disputes. Thus some who were widely held to be guilty were acquitted because of respectable family ties (Val. Max. 8.1.abs.9–10). Honorable characteristics or achievements were more readily noticed if they ran in one’s family;[1416] it was counted virtuous to follow the model of ancestors provided they were virtuous (Pliny Ep. 5.8.5). One’s children, parents, or spouse could shame the entire family.[1417]

Attacking Demosthenes, Aeschines contrasts his own honorable ancestors, freeborn defenders of Athenian democracy, with Demosthenes, who pretends to be a patriot but in fact has Scythian, indeed, “barbarian,” blood.[1418] If one’s ancestry did not count in one’s favor, an orator offering praise would note that he was praising the person, not his ancestors; by contrast, if attacking opponents, one should wield their ancestry against them.[1419] Thus one from an evil family was more readily presumed evil; the defendant’s brother, charges Lysias, was executed for crimes (Or. 13.65–66, §135).[1420] Even Egyptian priests had to come from pure lineages.[1421] Likewise, in Plato’s ideal city, birth to parents not guilty of major crimes was a prerequisite for priestly offices.[1422]

(5) Paul’s Pharisaism Claim (23:6)

What should we make of Paul’s Pharisaism claim historically? Precisely because the resurrection was at the heart of the Christian message, Sadducees who became Christians would have had to surrender their theological identity (cf. 4:1–2); Pharisees, however, could continue to affirm their Pharisaism while following Christ (15:5).[1423] Paul may be seen as identifying with the zeal of his people also in the activities of 21:26, which brought him to the current situation. But few would dispute that the Paul of Acts could make this claim with integrity; it is the consonance of the Lukan portrait with the Paul of the letters that is more controversial. As Bornkamm objects, “To the end of his life Luke’s Paul continues to be an orthodox Jew and Pharisee; for Christ’s sake the real Paul gave up the Law as a means of salvation.”[1424]

The contrast, however, may stem from reading the epistolary Paul too narrowly through the eyes of the half-millennium-old Catholic-Lutheran conflict that has shaped much of the reading of the epistles.[1425] To Paul, orthodoxy was fidelity to the message of the law and the prophets, which testified to justification by faith (Rom 3:21).[1426] Some would argue that the law as a means of salvation was never a part of his Pharisaism to begin with;[1427] at the very least, this was not a central question in first-century theological conflicts between Pharisees and Sadducees. By contrast, debates over the resurrection were central, and this was at the heart of Paul’s message (1 Cor 15).

Paul affirms his Pharisaism on the basis of genuinely shared eschatology here, not on the basis of the law.[1428] Nevertheless, he would have agreed with Pharisees on the law’s authority, if not always its application.[1429] Paul notes that he could boast in being a Pharisee concerning the law (Phil 3:5) and also in being blameless in the law (3:6). “A Pharisee concerning the law” undoubtedly referred to his meticulous understanding of the law (Jos. War 1.110, 162; Life 191). Clearly some points in which he once boasted remain true (e.g., he is a Benjaminite, Phil 3:5; Rom 11:1); his letters indicate that he retains his knowledge of and interpretive skill in the law.

Neither in his letters nor in Acts does Paul claim to be a Pharisee when addressing the churches; but this would not rule out his addressing Pharisees thus, and his letters render plausible that he would have done so. Although it would be difficult for Jews in the Diaspora, such as Paul, to continue to follow Pharisaism strictly, Paul was willing to become as “under the law” to those “under the law” (1 Cor 9:20), which would surely include identifying with Pharisees—as he was specially equipped to do (Phil 3:5)—when it was advantageous for the gospel. Thus many scholars outside the older German Protestant critical line of interpretation have found Paul’s claim to be a Pharisee more agreeable.[1430] As Ramsay put it more than a century ago, Paul still embraced his highest Pharisaic ideals; his new faith “was not the negation, but the completion, of his early ideals; it turned his youthful dreams into realities. He was not less of a Jew after he became a Christian: he only came to know better what Judaism really was.”[1431]

II. ANGELS AND SPIRITS (23:8–9)

Whereas the Sadducees denied angels or spirits—or at least something regarding them (perhaps related to immortality)—the Pharisees affirmed these. Thus the Pharisees can allow that some spirit (perhaps a postmortem apparition) spoke to Paul, whereas the Sadducees cannot. The hearing has become a doctrinal dispute divided along partisan lines. Just as the Stoics were apparently more open to Paul than were the Epicureans (see comment on Acts 17:18, 32), so are the Pharisees more than the Sadducees (but still more so than the Stoics; Paul appears to the Pharisees at least temporarily as one of their own).

(1) Sadducean Skepticism (23:8)

Luke’s explanation in Acts 23:8 represents good literary form. Rhetoricians could speak of two persons or entities divided, then proceed to explain each in turn, distinguishing what they did with a μέν . . . δέ construction.[1432] Characteristic of the Sadducees, for Luke, is their denial of resurrection, angel, and spirit.[1433] Luke’s audience already knows that the Sadducees doubt the resurrection (Luke 20:27; cf. Acts 4:2).

By this point in Acts, most hearers who have continued listening through Luke’s earlier accounts will recognize the error of Sadducean doctrine. Whereas the Sadducees doubt the resurrection, the informed reader knows better (Luke 24:13–43; Acts 1:3). The reader who takes the view that Luke denies Sadducees’ belief in angels also recognizes the Sadducees’ error, having witnessed their intervention in Acts 5:19; 8:26; 12:7–11, 23.

Can Luke mean that the Sadducees doubted the reality of all angels, which explicitly appear in the Pentateuch? Josephus allows that the Sadducees accepted the law of Moses (Ant. 13.297), which was believed to include the Pentateuch’s narratives,[1434] where angels were abundant.[1435] Further, the Sadducees studied Greek philosophy, but they prided themselves in resisting the inroads of its common view on the soul’s immortality (18.16) and so might resist innovations against the Pentateuch. Finally, if Luke denies that the Sadducees believed in angels, he stands alone in reporting it, and if such an unusual report was true, one would expect other sources to mention it.[1436]

Many scholars suggest that the Sadducees simply rejected the developed angelology of the Pharisees.[1437] Undoubtedly they did reject it, but Luke’s denial seems more complete than this (apparently denying angels no less than the resurrection). Some argue that the Sadducees rejected specifically the developed form of angelology that treated angels as messengers of apocalyptic revelations (they appear frequently in apocalypses), a rejection consistent with Sadducean eschatological beliefs; they thus object to Paul’s claim of a revelation from a heavenly being (cf. Acts 23:9).[1438] Although this view makes sense of the context (better than rejecting developed angelology in general), the angelic role of messengers in apocalyptic texts[1439] reflects a standard function (and meaning) of angels in the Torah itself; it thus could leave us with the same problem as Sadducees’ wholesale rejection of angels would.

Others argue that Luke refers here not to angels in general but to the resurrection body. Thus the Sadducees reject the resurrection body, whether as angels or spirits.[1440] Grammatically, one can read “neither angel nor spirit” as a unit distinct from “resurrection”; this makes better sense than reading three units here, since the Pharisees affirm “both” (ἀμφότερα).[1441]

We certainly do possess clear evidence for the belief in “angelic” resurrection bodies (1 En. 104:3–4; 2 Bar. 51:10; cf. 2 En. 22:8–10);[1442] even in the Diaspora, some articulated similar views (Ps.-Phoc. 102–4).[1443] Further, Luke writes in the Pauline stream of early Christianity, and Paul, articulating the resurrection doctrine for Corinthian Christians, conceded that the resurrection body is of a different nature from the earthly body (1 Cor 15:35–49). He noted different kinds of earthly flesh (different species, 15:39) and of heavenly bodies (15:41); resurrection bodies may be types of heavenly bodies (15:40; cf. 15:47–49), which, in Jewish thought, could make them like angels. Many viewed stars as angels,[1444] and a significant tradition believed that angels were made of fire,[1445] as stars also were.[1446] In any case, they would not be flesh (15:50–54); but many would not have viewed angels as bodily.[1447] (See fuller discussion at Acts 12:15.)

Luke’s own data complicate the picture slightly.[1448] Certainly, Luke compares resurrection bodies to angels—significantly, when addressing Sadducees (Luke 20:36; cf. Mark 12:25). But a resurrection of “spirit” would appear more problematic for Luke. Jesus’s resurrection body, which is necessarily linked with the future resurrection of his followers (as Paul assumes even in Acts 23:6; cf. Phil 3:21), is emphatically not simply “a spirit” (Luke 24:37, 39). Luke is describing here a Pharisaic view, not his own, and Paul’s Pharisaic resurrection doctrine need not have coincided with the understanding of all other Pharisees. But if the Pharisees did not hear something about angels or spirits in Paul’s claim, why would it be an issue here?

Is it possible that a resurrection of “spirit” and an “angelic” form were two available alternatives and that Luke prefers the latter?[1449] Yet even when employing Pythagorean language, Josephus portrays the Pharisees as affirming that the righteous enter new bodies (σῶμα, War 2.163), and since immortality of the soul was widely accepted, it is difficult to imagine what a “resurrection” made of “spirit” would be or who would have taught it. Paul’s “spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44) does not mean this,[1450] and if Paul did mean this, he would be identifying it with an angelic body (cf. 15:41–42).[1451] Luke may well know of a wider range of views, especially Diaspora adaptations of the resurrection doctrine (which some might impute to Pharisees as Josephus does), than we do,[1452] and so this remains a possible interpretation. Or perhaps “neither angel nor spirit” means “neither angelic resurrection nor even immortality” (the latter also a major point of contention between Pharisees and Sadducees, Jos. Ant. 18.14–16).

A third view, contending that Luke refers to the intermediate existence between death and resurrection, may make more sense of the immediate context.[1453] This view accounts for the Pharisees’ belief in “both” and better accounts for the recurrence, in the very next verse (Acts 23:9), of the “spirit or angel” that, they allowed, could have spoken to Paul (it being unlikely that they believed that the risen Jesus had done so). The scholars who hold this view argue that the Sadducees rejected a popular belief that people become angels after death (1 En. 39:4–5; Pr. Jac. 19). This view is not as well attested in early sources as the association of angels with the resurrection, and so it is other factors that would carry the bulk of the weight for this position. A key distinction between Pharisees and Sadducees, for Josephus, is their view of the soul’s immortality: Pharisees expect posthumous rewards and punishments in the underworld, then “eternal imprisonment” for wicked souls and “a new life” for the righteous (Jos. Ant. 18.14 [LCL]) whereas “the Sadducees hold that the soul perishes along with the body” (18.16 [LCL]).[1454]

Luke’s audience is not as culturally sophisticated in Hellenism as Josephus’s is, but Luke may follow a similar Hellenistic Jewish approach to contextualizing such Palestinian concepts. He elsewhere speaks of some believing in angels of the deceased (Acts 12:15; see comment there), though he might envision angels who assist them (Luke 16:22; cf. Matt 18:10; Heb 1:14).[1455] Perhaps Sadducees reject angels as agents of continuing revelation whereas the Pharisees, in the immediate context, are open to accepting Jesus as such (Acts 23:9). But whereas Paul believes that Jesus is risen (making relevant the comparison of angels and resurrection bodies, Luke 20:36), the Pharisees in Acts 23:9 would be thinking of a postmortem apparition, since they believed (excepting Christian Pharisees, 15:5 and 23:6) in intermediate immortality in the present and the resurrection only at the end. Like the Pharisees but in contrast to the Sadducees, Luke also affirms intermediate immortality (Luke 23:43).

The strongest argument against this position (though not completely compelling) is the greater quantity of Jewish evidence associating angelic form with the resurrection. Possibly, angelic form relates to the resurrection, and spirits to the intermediate state. But Luke may not be concerned for fine distinctions between the intermediate state and the resurrection at this point;[1456] although Jesus associates angels only with the resurrection (Luke 20:36), others apparently associate them with the postmortem state (Acts 12:15). Those others may not reflect the narrator’s reliable perspective, but neither do all the views of the Pharisees do so (23:8–9).

(2) Pharisaic Tolerance for Apparitions (23:9)

The Pharisees “rose” to speak, as was appropriate protocol (see, e.g., Xen. Anab. 5.1.2, 5; 6.4.12; 6.6.11; comment on Acts 1:15; another Pharisee in Acts 5:34). Their “verdict,” “We find no evil in this man” (οὐδὲν κακὸν εὑρίσκομεν), accords not only with Paul’s opening claim (Acts 23:1) but with verdicts favoring Jesus: Pilate “found nothing” deathworthy in him (οὐδὲν εὑρίσκω, Luke 23:4); he “found” (εὗρον) no guilt “in this man” (ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τούτῳ, 23:14; cf. Acts 26:32); he denied that this man (οὗτος) did “evil” (κακόν), and “found in him nothing” (οὐδὲν . . . εὗρον ἐν αὐτῷ) deathworthy (Luke 23:22). The same innocence claims are echoed in Acts 25:25; 26:32 and, again among Jewish leaders, in 28:21.[1457] Despite the cultural shame attached to bonds, Paul is as innocent as Jesus was, and when he eventually is executed, he becomes the victim of politics, not justice.

By allowing that an “angel” or a “spirit” had spoken to Paul,[1458] the Pharisees presumably heard, or more likely have by now heard of, Paul’s public claim that Jesus spoke to him (22:7–8). Although they would not affirm that Jesus has risen (the resurrection belonged to the end of the age; unless we should think of them as Pharisaic believers in Jesus, as in 15:5!), they would not reject the possibility of apparitions (see comment on Acts 16:9–10). Most likely they think in terms of a postmortem “angel” (12:15) or “spirit” (Luke 24:37–39).[1459] They apparently believed in continuing revelations through spirits.[1460] Sadducees dominated the Sanhedrin and often used their power to dominate (see comment on Acts 4:1); the Pharisees knew, however, that they represented the voice of the people and would have been sensitive to the people’s voice (especially on such a key doctrine) being repressed. At the suggestion that the resurrection is the real issue, they are ready to speak, not trusting the high priests.

Given the portrayal of Pharisaism elsewhere in Luke-Acts, some scholars think that Luke pokes fun at them here[1461] (as he does with philosophic schools in Acts 17:18). But Pharisees are ambivalent characters for Luke; they do not embrace the gospel message (except for believing Pharisees in 15:5) but are far more well meaning than the priestly aristocracy (see comment on Acts 5:34; 15:5).[1462] The present scene fits Luke’s parallelism among central characters: as a Pharisee rescued the Jerusalem apostles from the mostly Sadducean Sanhedrin (5:34–40), so now Pharisees rescue the apostle to the Gentiles from the same revered body. But Luke is also interested in showing that the Christian message is part of the ancient faith of Israel.[1463] By setting Christian belief in resurrection in the context of the Jewish philosophic schools (as Josephus portrays them),[1464] he emphasizes that Jesus’s followers belong to an intellectually respectable tradition (respected at least by some in the empire).[1465]

e. Danger and Intervention (23:10)

After Paul divides the Sanhedrin (23:6–9), he is nearly “divided” himself in 23:10. The Sanhedrin’s initial confusion finally resembles the book’s mob scenes (with crowds confused or disagreeing on issues) in 19:32 and 21:34, humorously wrecking even the decorum of the noble Sanhedrin. The primary difference between this occasion and Luke’s mob scenes in 19:32 and 21:34 is that in this case Paul has some supporters, albeit perhaps temporary or noncommittal ones (cf. 24:9).[1466]

I. VIOLENCE IN AUGUST ASSEMBLIES

This just-mentioned literary observation need not deny the plausibility of genuine contention over Paul, whose views (if his letters and Acts are indications; cf., e.g., Rom 3:8; 15:31; Gal 1:13–14; 2:9) were likely more influential and controversial than modern readers intuitively assume. This contention would be especially likely if he persuaded the Pharisees, already suspicious of Sadducean dominance, that he was being targeted for Pharisaic views. Shouting scenes occur even in the Roman senate in histories (e.g., Diod. Sic. 40.5a.1) and eyewitness accounts (Pliny Ep. 6.5.4–5).[1467] On one particularly raucous occasion, when the senate was allegedly wilder than traditional citizen assemblies, partisans rushed forward supporting their candidates, mingling with crowds in the center of the hall (3.20.3–4).[1468] Intervention by officials was common in mob scenes (e.g., Acts 19:35–41; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.48.1), though not always successful.

As noted above, Jerusalem’s aristocrats did come to blows sometimes during this period; for example, members of the elite traded not only insults but stones (Jos. Ant. 20.180); on a later occasion, after Festus’s procuratorship, two factions of aristocratic priests opposed each other, and the conflict degenerated into throwing stones (20.213).

We should not, however, think such violence the normal course of affairs even in typically raucous courtroom settings (cf. Acts 18:17).[1469] Luke does not indicate the extent or duration of the conflict, except that Lysias believed that he had reason to fear danger to Paul and intervened before the latter suffered serious injury (cf. earlier 21:31–32); neither the narrator nor any other character in the narrative confirms (or disconfirms) Lysias’s fear.

II. TEARING APART

Luke’s vivid description, however, provides intriguing dramatic effect. The language of “tearing apart” (διασπασθῇ, “would be rent”) is vivid (cf. Mark 5:4; Judg 14:6; Hos 13:8), and we might think of the action of his enemies. Tearing a person apart was a recognized Roman (though not Jewish) punishment—for example, by horses (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.30.6) or by releasing two trees tied together (Plut. Alex. 43.3).[1470] The Sanhedrin lacked capital authority in this period,[1471] however, and would certainly not have sought to exercise a reasoned judicial execution in front of the tribune. More to the point here, hostile mobs sometimes tore people apart;[1472] in the most extreme case, ancient storytellers applied the same image to frenzied maenads who recognize their deed only afterward.[1473]

Perhaps more likely, “they” refers to the divided assembly, conveying the image of some seeking to pull Paul to safety while others seek to drag him to punishment. Ancient writers repeated scenes of rival lovers each tugging their beloved in different directions till the person died[1474] or nearly died.[1475] On other occasions, grateful crowds could, in their zeal to honor a person, nearly tear him apart by their force (Polyb. 18.46.11–12; Livy 33.33.1–2); a mob might also be thought to tear apart people who drew too close while they were contending for free food or money (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 74.8). Whether Luke portrays the activity of Paul’s enemies or the competition between sides (or leaves the former ambiguous so as to allow the image of the latter), he clearly presents a disordered mob scene.

III. CALLING FOR SOLDIERS

Intervention in the affairs of Jerusalem’s highest court would not be politically expedient, but Lysias must protect a Roman citizen, especially one that he himself introduced into this setting.[1476] Lysias might have had some troops on hand outside the council chamber. Although he would not have expected Paul to suffer violence at the hands of Sanhedrin members themselves, he had to protect him from potential attacks of mob violence en route. That Lysias “sends down” soldiers recalls for the hearer that this is the second time that the chiliarch has ordered Paul’s rescue from physical abuse (21:31–32). That he sends the soldiers “down” to rescue Paul might suggest that he summons many again from the Fortress Antonia (see comment on Acts 21:32; 22:30), or it may simply suggest that they watch from a higher location than the seats in the council chamber.[1477] Rabbinic tradition speaks of the Sanhedrin meeting in the Chamber of Hewn Stone in the temple but moving, a generation before the temple’s destruction, to the Royal Porch; Josephus places the council chamber near the Xystus, on the southwest of the Temple Mount (War 5.144).[1478] Together the evidence probably suggests a site adjacent to the temple proper.[1479] The Xystus adjoined the western side of what is now called Wilson’s Arch; this was outside the temple proper but on the southwest part of the Temple Mount, part of the Royal Portico on the south side of the temple.[1480]

The Antonia (the “barracks” of this verse) was also on the Temple Mount and so could provide ready access for reinforcements.[1481] The most direct route between the Antonia, on the northwest, and the likeliest site of the council chamber, near the Xystus (Jos. War 5.144), on the southwest, would be alongside the west side of the Temple Mount. But this site of the council chamber was more than a thousand feet (even as the crow flies) to the south of the Antonia,[1482] requiring probably at least two minutes for summoned reinforcements to arrive even if they were prepared to be summoned. Yet if Lysias has some troops with him (and he would have some, at least for his own safety’s sake; cf. Acts 21:38), it is likely that he has more than a handful of guards available. Luke’s στράτευμα could refer to a large force (cf. 1 Macc 9:34; 2 Macc 5:24; 8:21; 12:38; 13:13; Jos. Ant. 13.131); Luke can use this term for smaller contingents (Luke 23:11; cf. 4 Macc 5:1), but in the immediate context, even such a contingent might admit two hundred troops (cf. Acts 23:27 with 21:32).

That Lysias has to rescue Paul a second time prepares him not to underestimate the threat on the next potential occasion (23:23). By conflating the current rescue with his previous (unintentional) one (21:32–35), Lysias can justify his later claim to Felix to have rescued Paul on the basis of his Roman citizenship (23:27). Although confinement for the accused’s protection was less common than to detain a prisoner for punishment, it was practiced (e.g., Tac. Hist. 1.58, 71).[1483] Ironically, the place of Roman detention again becomes a place of refuge for Paul.[1484] The ironic contrast between Roman protection and the Sanhedrin’s corruption fits both Luke’s apologetic and his emphasis on the Gentile mission. It also fits his optimistic approach to Gentile culture; nonbelievers of all sorts are able to show kindness or act justly (Acts 27:3; 28:2).

7. Paul Escapes Jerusalem in Roman Custody (23:11–35)

Ironically, it is partly Paul’s Roman custody that brings about his safe escape from Jerusalem and ultimately facilitates the fulfillment of his plan to visit Rome (Acts 19:21; Rom 1:13; 15:23–25). This account warrants close attention in Luke’s narrative, given the level of adventure (useful for holding attention in a narrative work). Although Luke was probably not present on this occasion, he would certainly have access to the basic account from Paul once he and Paul (and, initially, presumably most of the other coworkers who had accompanied Paul to Jerusalem) reunited in Caesarea.[1485]

Luke portrays Paul’s enemies as true enemies of Roman justice and order (in contrast to Paul). Yet God is with Paul (as announced in Acts 23:11) and works through both Paul’s Jewish nephew and Roman authorities to rescue Paul.[1486]

a. Jesus’s Assurance and Direction (23:11)

Between the crisis of 23:10 and the new crisis of 23:12, the Lord relieves Paul’s tension (and Luke relieves the reader’s) with a revelation. As in 19:21, Luke shows that Paul’s plan to visit Rome is part of the Lord’s plan; if Luke’s audience knows that Paul was condemned and died there, he wants to assure them that it was not a meaningless tragedy or failed strategy any more than Jesus’s crucifixion had been. That Paul would witness there “as” in Jerusalem (23:11) does not automatically imply his rejection (any more than it implies mob violence), only his faithful testimony; but Luke’s audience presumably knew the ultimate outcome. At the same time, against what Paul’s detractors in Luke’s day may have been protesting, the Lord wanted Paul to speak about him in Jerusalem (21:13–14), despite the reaction, and in Rome (27:24), despite his ultimate execution. Contrary to familiar ways of thinking, witness can be important for God’s plan even when it is ignored or rejected (28:26–27; Luke 21:12–14; Isa 6:9–12).

Perhaps in contrast to critics who derided Paul’s captivity, Luke three times uses δεῖ, implying divine necessity, for Paul’s journey to Rome; first, at the plan’s conception (19:21; paralleling Jesus’s plan in Luke 9:51), then in the Lord’s encouragements to remember the plan in the face of dangers here (Acts 23:11) and in 27:24.[1487] Paul also has night visions in 16:9 and 18:9 and, in different words, in 27:23. The instance in 16:9 is unusual in the NT by not specifying the Lord or an angel as the agent of guidance, but in 27:23–24, an angel encourages Paul in the face of danger not to fear, because he will speak before Caesar. The closest parallel to the present text is 18:9, where the Lord himself admonishes Paul in the face of coming hardship not to be afraid but to keep speaking. The courage in 18:9 helps Paul before Gallio (18:12) as the present encouragement will help him before Caesar. Greeks might think of Socrates’s “divine leading” in prison, though his, Rapske suggests, stemmed from “intuition and philosophical reflexion rather than revelation.”[1488]

Luke uses a characteristic Lukan expression (eighteen of twenty-one uses in the NT) for the Lord’s presence with Paul (ἐπιστάς, from ἐφίστημι); it is occasionally used in angelic revelations (Luke 2:9; 24:4; Acts 12:7) and other unexpected appearances (Acts 10:17; 11:11).[1489] The Lord confirms what Paul apparently already knew. Paul “witnessed” at Jerusalem in 22:1–21; though Jerusalem would not accept his testimony (22:18), he needed to witness there (22:15; cf. 9:15; 26:17). Yet he had earlier felt that if he survived Jerusalem (20:22–24; 21:13), he should visit Rome (19:21).

b. The Plot to Assassinate Paul (23:12–15)

Although Luke does not mention the Lord’s direct intervention in 23:12–35, he implies his intervention by the promise of 23:11.[1490] The parallels with earlier narratives also assure Luke’s ideal audience that God is in control: God repeatedly foils premature plots from Jesus’s or Paul’s own people. The high priests plot against Jesus (Luke 22:2), aided by his own wayward disciple (22:3–6), just as Paul faces collaboration between the priesthood (Acts 23:14–15) and popular forces (23:11–12) here.[1491] In 9:23, the “Jews” plotted against Paul (as here, 23:12); but in 9:24, he discovered the plot (as here, 23:16), and in 9:25, allies helped him escape (as here, 23:23–24).[1492] When “the Jews” plotted in 20:3, he traveled a different way. Only the present passage provides further detail on how the plot was discovered (23:16–17).

I. THE CONSPIRACY (23:12–13)

Paul’s night revelation (23:11) was timely, because opposing forces were already in motion the next morning, making preparations for the following day.[1493] Luke reiterates the plot four times in 23:12–35, thereby emphasizing the danger Paul faces and increasing the narrative’s suspense.[1494]

(1) “The Jews’ ” Conspiracy (23:12)

Despite Luke’s wording (cf. 25:24), “the Jews” or “Judeans” here does not represent all Judeans—even by Luke’s accounting, they are just more than forty (23:13), and some Judeans explicitly favored Paul (23:16; cf. 23:6–9).

This negative (but deliberately not universal) use of “the Jews” (by no means Luke’s only use; Luke 23:51; Acts 10:22, 39; 13:5; 18:2; 19:33; 21:20–21; 22:12; 25:10) predominates in passages emphasizing hostility (Acts 9:22–23; 12:3; 13:45, 50; 14:2–5; 16:3; 17:5, 13; 18:12–14, 28; 20:3, 19; 21:11, 27; 22:30; 23:20, 27; 24:9, 27; 25:2, 7–9). Some neutral uses (13:43; 14:1; 17:1; 18:5, 19) are quickly followed by references to hostility, but this is not always the case (17:10, 17). It is important for us not to read centuries of ethnic usage back into these texts but to recognize that some Jews used the phrase derisively of other Jews.[1495] Thus Paul can speak of his Judean opponents without expecting offense to Agrippa (26:2–3) or the leaders of Rome’s Jewish community (28:19).

Although Luke’s term for the gathering of Paul’s enemies (συστροφή) does not always refer to secretive meetings (he uses it for public disorder in 19:40; cf. 3 Macc 5:41), it was appropriate for secret plots and conspiracies (2 Kgs 15:15; Ps 63:3 LXX [64:2 ET]; cf. Amos 7:10). In either case, it normally connoted disorderly or seditious activity.[1496] Such activity is clearer from the term “conspiracy” (συνωμοσίαν) in Acts 23:13.[1497] In times of unrest, even leaders (cf. 23:15) might participate in such conspiracies.[1498] As here, conspirators were most safely bound together—to prevent defectors and betrayal—by oath.[1499]

Connected with plans for murder, the conspirators’ refusal here to eat or drink becomes a false fast (1 Sam 14:28–30; Isa 58:3–5)[1500] as opposed to the positive fasting in Luke 5:35; Acts 13:2; 14:23. Their vow also contrasts starkly with Paul’s honorable involvement with vows in Acts 18:18 and 21:23–26 (cf. also what appears to be Jesus’s vow of abstention in Luke 22:16–18; Mark 14:25).[1501]

Perhaps most dramatically, they take on the role of “assassins,” for which Lysias originally seized Paul (Acts 21:38); not Paul but his opponents fit this category (for the rhetorical strategy of returning charges, see comment on Acts 24:19). And the high priests (who according to Josephus were themselves targets of such assassins) apparently make common cause with these conspirators to be rid of Paul (23:15; cf. 22:5; 26:12). Josephus is clear that others reckoned such assassins (at least those who generally acted in the temple) impious (Ant. 20.165).

(2) The Oath (23:12)

Swearing not to eat or drink (m. Šebu. 3:1), at least for a period of time or until a condition had been fulfilled, was a common vow of abstinence (as in Luke 22:16–18, above).[1502] As in the present situation, people sometimes used oaths to produce resolve, as when one city’s fifty leaders swore to destroy their women, children, and wealth rather than let the Romans take them.[1503] Mutual oaths were also common in plots,[1504] since any one person’s failure could doom all the fellow conspirators. Greek and Roman vows promised something to a deity if the deity granted one’s request (cf. 1 Sam 1:11).[1505] Keeping vows was pious;[1506] breaking them was wicked.[1507]

The essential point of sealing an agreement with an oath was to call deities or a deity to witness,[1508] thereby implicitly (or explicitly) calling down the deity’s vengeance[1509] if one dishonored his or her name[1510] by breaking the oath. This could be the case both with assertory oaths (declaring the truth of one’s statement) and with promissory oaths such as vows.[1511] Thus people often explicitly placed a potential curse against themselves, calling for the gods to punish them if they spoke falsely or broke their word.[1512] Like others, Jewish people also invoked curses when swearing, sometimes explicitly;[1513] R. Tarfon, for example, came to be reputed for his regular exclamation “May I bury my children if . . .”[1514] (According to later tradition, he did have to bury his children.)[1515] Curses against others are very common in antiquity,[1516] but the self-cursing here is more appropriate and serves the narrative purpose (cf. 1 Sam 14:44), just as Stephen’s enemies may ironically condemn themselves as worthy of death in Acts 7:56–60.

At times, swearing devolved into simple exclamations or casual promises, such as (for examples in Fronto’s correspondence) “by Zeus,”[1517] “by the gods,”[1518] or “by Hercules.”[1519] Gentiles swore by various deities,[1520] by the Styx (Ovid Fasti 5.250),[1521] by the divinized emperor,[1522] or by heroes (Philost. Hrk. 16.6; 25.5). People swore in the marketplace,[1523] in courts,[1524] and in their treaties in the presence of deities.[1525] (Even deities were thought to swear; thus Cupid swears by his weapons, by his mother Venus, and by Caesar’s head.)[1526] Paul also invokes God’s witness (Rom 1:9; 2 Cor 1:23) and invokes the Lord when charging hearers (1 Thess 5:27; cf. 2 Tim 4:1).

At least some circles of early Christianity rejected oath taking; this may go back to at least one stream of the Jesus tradition (Matt 5:33–37; 23:16–22; closely paralleled in Jas 5:12),[1527] radicalizing some ideas already circulating in common Judaism.[1528] This reflects one ideal of virtue among some philosophers, such as the Pythagoreans,[1529] also valued elsewhere.[1530] Some groups of Essenes may have also avoided oaths altogether,[1531] except their initiatory oath for joining the sect.[1532] Josephus may offer such a claim merely to further his parallel of the Essenes with the Pythagoreans, but if his claim is accurate, Essenes’ motives were probably analogous to what we find in the Jesus tradition.[1533] It is possible that Luke’s audience would view negatively the practice of oath taking itself (though making exceptions for some kinds of vows, Acts 18:18; 21:23–26), but because Luke does not include the saying found in Matthew, we cannot be sure. An oath to kill Paul, of course, would not pass Luke’s moral muster, in any case.

The term (ἀναθεματίζω) for the conspirators’ “curse” on themselves here (23:12, 14, 21) reflects not just any oath but an ἀνάθεμα—that is, the oath includes an explicit (rather than implicit) and severe curse on themselves.[1534] The LXX regularly employs ἀναθεμ- terms for devoting things to destruction, that is, for the herem (most of the twenty-nine occurrences, e.g., Lev 27:28; Deut 7:26); it applied to slaughtering even people under this curse.[1535] Failing to carry out this curse brought under its judgment those who kept the cursed items (Josh 7:12–13; 22:20). Peter anathematizes himself (Mark 14:71); Paul anathematizes apostates (1 Cor 16:22;[1536] Gal 1:8–9)[1537] and perhaps nearly anathematizes himself (though Rom 9:3 is not strictly a curse).

Gentiles were familiar with similar kinds of oaths restraining one from or committing one to violence (e.g., Cic. Sest. 7.16; 37.79). Nevertheless, Dunn rightly points out the irony for the informed reader: these terrorists condemn themselves to death[1538] (here by dehydration).[1539] Although they may not have died literally, Luke indicates, on a figurative level, what they deserve morally (as he probably does with Stephen’s false accusers in Acts 7:58). The term ἀναθεματίζω could also apply to the ban of (essentially) excommunication from the community (Ezra 10:8),[1540] but the usual sense is presumably the one in view here: they have invoked a curse of divine judgment against themselves. Moralists recognized that wicked oaths should be abandoned (Philo Spec. Laws 2.12–13).[1541]

We should not suppose that the conspirators literally dehydrated or starved. Later rabbis ruled that those unable to fulfill their vows because of constraint should be released from them (m. Ned. 3:1, 3).[1542] If one broke one’s vow for whatever reason, one should bring an atonement offering to the temple (m. Šebu. 3:1). Someone who swore an impossible oath could be beaten immediately for breaking it and hence released from it (y. Sukkah 5:2, §1). Presumably already in the first century arrangements could be made for being released from a vow. In any case, their vow was meant for an urgent task only. They might expect their hunger to urge them on in the very short run (Prov 16:26);[1543] but after a day without eating, they would be less able to strike effectively (1 Sam 14:24–30), and dehydration would affect them far more severely and immediately than lack of food.

(3) The Plot’s Participants (23:13)

Although forty might not outnumber Paul’s guards (cf. Acts 21:32; 23:23), they could prove sufficient for a lightning attack with an unarmed Paul as their single nonnegotiable target, especially if the attackers were not primarily concerned with their own survival.[1544] Even thirty skilled soldiers constituted a good number for surprise attacks (cf. Iambl. V.P. 31.189); King David had had a special elite unit that averaged this number (2 Sam 23:13–24; 1 Chr 11:11–25; 12:4, 18; 27:6), and this seemed a reasonable start for a robber band.[1545] Detachments of fifty soldiers were normally significant if one did not expect an opposing army (1 Kgs 19:13; 2 Kgs 1:9–14; 15:25). Some bands of robbers in the wilderness would be larger,[1546] but a larger body of men might appear too obvious together in the temple when approaching the guards.

Probably most of these men are younger; Paul’s nephew may have heard the report from other members of his generation (Acts 23:17) or from someone in the Sanhedrin. If the young man came to Jerusalem for Torah schooling as Paul had, he might have learned of the plot among peers zealous in Torah study, young and unmarried (though perhaps not all of them, since Luke does not specify their youth as he repeatedly does the nephew’s). (Paul’s nephew probably had other sources, however; see comment on Acts 23:15.) Youth was often associated with rashness.[1547] Judas the Galilean had particularly incited the young to revolution (Jos. Ant. 18.10); it was the Jewish youth in Caesarea most ready to react to hostility violently (War 2.290); and some younger priests were more prone to violence or overt revolt than their elders.[1548]

Whereas some nationalists may have viewed Paul’s embrace of Gentiles as a threat to Jewish identity (especially when distorted through false accusations in Acts 21:21, 28), Luke presents this embrace of Gentiles as a greater way to Jewish survival (see comment on Acts 22:22). Luke would affirm that God welcomes Gentiles as full members into his people through submission to Jesus, Israel’s rightful king. (Though disagreeing with Luke about Jesus, most Jewish thinkers through history would also welcome Gentiles to worship the one God.)[1549]

II. ARISTOCRATIC COMPLICITY (23:14–15)

The nationalist assassins anticipate the cooperation of aristocratic priests to help them eliminate a common enemy. This information is helpful to Luke in discrediting the charges of political subversion leveled against Paul, instead turning the charges against his high-status accusers.

(1) Chief Priests and Assassins (23:14)

That the planned assassins gain access to the chief priests is significant; they are not wilderness brigands though they will act like them (cf. 21:38).[1550] That they explicitly invite the high priests and elders to help them commit murder (or, more politely, assassination) means that Luke, writing after 70 C.E., is ready to tell a more brutal story than most Roman officials who sought to cultivate allies among the elite before 66 dared publicly admit cognizance of (23:30; 24:22–23, 27).

From Luke’s perspective, members of the priestly elite remain at least as corrupt in this generation as those who opposed Jesus by means of Rome in Luke 22–23. Although we cannot verify Luke’s accuracy at this remove, his report is compatible with what we know from Josephus of some members of the Jerusalem elite of that generation. Again, such an observation is neither surprising nor restricted to Jerusalem or even the first century. In many countries even today, leaders literally get away with murder, never publicized and often not known or believed by any but close confidants of the victims.[1551] Even when such claims are not true, the indignation stoked by some corruption, repression, or violence lends credibility to other, severer atrocity reports.

Although such behavior was against everyone’s “rules,” this was how many aristocrats acted not only in Rome or Hellenistic towns but in Jerusalem as well.[1552] Many critiqued the corruption of the chief priests in this period;[1553] see comment on Acts 23:2. Even though Josephus contends that few Jews of rank really wanted war (Life 21–22),[1554] he reports some aristocrats with revolutionary sympathies.

Thus Josephus’s accounts of the last years before Jerusalem’s fall are full of deadly intra-Jewish intrigues, not only from the “rabble” (as he would see it) but among aristocrats as well.[1555] For example, Josephus claims that Simeon ben Gamaliel (the son of our Gamaliel in Acts 5:34 and 22:3) bribed and persuaded the high priests to attack Josephus, using both Pharisees and priests as agents (Jos. Life 192–93, 196–98, 216). More relevant still is that Josephus believes that a Jewish aristocrat, the friend of a high priest, arranged for the high priest’s assassination by bandits (Ant. 20.163).[1556] Likewise, some of the Zealot leaders were also from aristocratic families (War 5.6), though many of their followers were peasants from the countryside; a notable son of the current high priest Ananias himself displayed revolutionary sympathies, helping to provoke the war (2.409).[1557]

Rome sometimes viewed the leading priests as responsible for activities of the brigands (Ant. 20.131). The association may have been true of some leaders without being true of many others. Some of the chief among the elite at times acted without the approval of the rest of the municipal elite, although the latter disapproved (Life 309). For that matter, Josephus thinks that Roman authorities were sometimes in collusion with the robbers as well.[1558]

Luke might have agreed with the characterization that those who resort to violence and assault rather than due course of law know that they are wrong (Lysias Or. 23.12, §167). The assassins in the story world presumably would have insisted on a different reading: some must resort to violence when they cannot obtain a fair hearing by law against Paul the Roman citizen. They are far more certain of Paul’s guilt than of Rome’s cooperation with their quest for justice; by contrast, although Luke has more confidence in the Roman system, he sees Felix’s failure to release Paul as cooperation with the forces of unrest.

(2) Further Interrogation (23:15)

“Investigate more carefully” reflects standard legal language.[1559] As negatively as deception[1560] and treachery[1561] were normally viewed, they were common features of the political maneuvering by some of the Jerusalem elite in this period, and also of the revolutionaries.[1562] The chief priests had every reason to make this request, with or without a plot:[1563] in the initial preliminary inquiry, Lysias had come away with only a religious charge unrelated to profaning the temple, and this would surely secure Paul’s acquittal before a Roman judge (Acts 23:28–29). To escape another inquiry before the Sanhedrin was thus to Paul’s long-term advantage; the plot to kill him, ironically, will become the vehicle for his escaping such an inquiry (23:20–23, 30).

To “bring him down to you” presumably means to bring Paul down from the Antonia to the council chamber, which was probably fewer than 1,500 feet away.[1564] The route ran through or near the outer court of the temple, however, where many could gather without suspicion and the conspirators could therefore be ready to overpower Paul’s Roman guards (assuming that he now had some in closer proximity to him, in contrast to 22:30)[1565] by a surprise attack sufficient to kill Paul. In a conflict with the Romans, some would likely die in the process, but having a single target, they might well prove successful. Paul’s attackers in 21:30–32 and 23:10 had been unarmed, but these assassins do not intend to make the same mistake. Those willing to fast until death (23:12, 14) would not shy away from a suicide attack; it is another irony of the narrative that Paul’s escape ensures their safety as well (cf. 27:24, 42–43).

Ambushes were a common practice of wilderness bandits (e.g., Jos. War 4.538);[1566] an effective ambush in the short space of time walking from the Antonia to the council chamber would require careful planning and coordination, especially if Paul had Roman auxiliary guards. If the conspirators are milling about in the temple’s outer court as they await Paul and his escort, their weapons will be concealed, just like those of the Sicarii whom Josephus denounces (see comment on Acts 21:38).

Because Acts 23:14 mentions the chief priests and elders, it is possible that the Sadducees have explained the case more thoroughly to the Pharisaic members and won them over in the intervening day. It is unlikely, however, that Luke expects us to suppose that the Pharisees would have readily assented to a murder plot.[1567] (Pharisees might, however, find plausible such behavior on the part of Sadducean deniers of future resurrection and judgment; see comment on Acts 24:15.) It may be that the assassins approach some key leaders, who might decide to speak for the council without informing all the Sanhedrin (particularly those who defended Paul the previous day, 23:9) of the plot (though all might eventually be informed that Paul was being brought in, 23:15). That Luke is not explicit about the council’s consent might mean that his source knew only of the conspirators’ plans and was not privy to the chief priests’ response (cf. 23:20), but Luke certainly believes that they would participate (25:3). Given what Luke reports about Paul’s past work with the aristocratic priests (9:1–2; 22:5; 26:10), Paul would have taken such a threat quite seriously. Indeed, Paul is a threat to the aristocratic priests: he has already publicly incriminated their group once (22:5) and may do so before the governor (26:10); although some nationalists might view the priests’ cooperation favorably (cf. 23:12–13), the governor certainly would not.

Given Paul’s previous social connections (9:1), it is reasonable that his relatives might retain some connections within the Sanhedrin; if any sympathetic Sanhedrin Pharisees who knew Paul’s family discovered the plot, they might have leaked the information to this nephew (23:15). Luke speaks of the Sanhedrin condemning Jesus (Luke 22:66–71), while recognizing that some members disagreed (23:50–51). Leaks of plots were common; see discussion of leaks at Acts 23:16. As a youth himself, the nephew would have been more likely than most others to hear from those involved in the plot, which may have included many youths (Acts 23:12–13), but given his relationship to Paul, it is more likely (and ἀκούσας comports well with this) that he obtained the information indirectly; youths were more apt to be sent on missions such as this (cf. 2 Sam 17:17–21).

c. Paul’s Nephew Leaks Word of the Plot (23:16–22)

God’s providential preservation of Paul through many “plots” (Acts 9:24; 20:3, 19) is repeatedly evident, though this is the most detailed leak scene. That Luke should detail this one is understandable not only because it is in the more detailed custody narrative, which takes place during the years that Luke had regular access to Paul, but because the enemies implicated in the plot are Paul’s high-status accusers.

I. LEAKING WORD OF THE PLOT TO PAUL (23:16)

Providentially, the son of Paul’s sister hears the plot and leaks word of it to Paul.

(1) Paul’s Nephew

This is Luke’s only mention of one of Paul’s relatives in Jerusalem, but it comports with his portrayal of Paul as a Jerusalemite.[1568] Some scholars doubt that Paul’s sister lived in Jerusalem, since she is “not otherwise mentioned”; in this case, the nephew would likely be a student there, as Paul had been.[1569] But to depend on her lack of mention is an argument from silence; the narrative focuses on the nephew because he is the one who brings the news. Indeed, given his youth, the nephew might be more likely to know Paul if the entire family stayed there (if one or both of his parents remained alive). If Paul began studies there early in his youth, as 22:3 suggests and the majority of scholars now accept, it was probably with some or much of his family, naturally including his sister, who would have married there.[1570]

Beyond Luke’s report, we can only speculate about Paul’s relatives in Jerusalem. Romans 16:7 is not likely to help. If “kinsmen” in that passage refers to relatives he would have known before his conversion, then Paul had other Christian relatives, some of them Christians before him.[1571] The term συγγενής could include distant kin (such as distant cousins or others of the same clan) rather than just immediate family;[1572] but Paul seems to use it too often in Rom 16 for designating coworkers for him to be using it also to specify close relatives or even fellow Benjaminites (at least seven coworkers in two cities, in 16:7, 11, 21), and he uses it at least once for all his people (9:3). Thus the term probably refers simply to Jewish believers who are in Rome.[1573]

Relatives normally shared a bond of loyalty (see comment on Acts 9:17; 15:37), and this might be true of Paul’s family members whether or not they shared Paul’s faith.[1574] Mediterranean culture generally recognized that kin ties ought to create some loyalty (e.g., Aeschylus Prom. 39; Tac. Hist. 2.60).[1575] In general, treating relatives badly was viewed as shameful behavior;[1576] for example, some ancients emphasized that marriage and child rearing ought not to diminish the sibling affection that preceded them (Val. Max. 5.5.pref.). Likewise, when the mother of Datames learned that her nephew wished to kill her son, she warned her son in time for him to flee (Corn. Nep. 14 [Datames], 2.4–5). When Johanan ben Zakkai sought to escape Jerusalem, he secured the help of his nephew, though the nephew was a revolutionary.[1577]

In the case of Paul’s relatives, this was not necessarily an easy decision. Even in court, a person’s supporters risked the attacks of his opponents;[1578] helping Paul could be risky. Whether or not they were believers in Jesus, they would face some hostility on account of their “erring” relative; not without reason, many nonbelieving relatives of believers did reject disciples (Luke 18:29; 21:16). Many people in antiquity did emphasize the demands of state over friendships (Xen. Hell. 4.1.34) and state religion over family feeling (Deut 13:6–11; Val. Max. 1.1.10).[1579] The ultraorthodox Qumran sect also apparently disciplined members for loving blood relations (4Q477 2 II, 8).[1580]

In this case, however, kin ties proved helpful. Greek readers would have viewed a nephew as a close relative. In earlier Athens, nephews might share an inheritance (with the sister, Isaeus Apollod. 22), could be closer than cousins (Apollod. 44), were often adopted by the childless (Apollod. 43), and sometimes might live in the same home (cf. one’s sister and nieces, Lysias Or. 3.6, §97).[1581] A Roman might treat his nephews as his own children, especially when their father was deceased (e.g., Pliny Ep. 2.18.4).[1582] In times of war and intrigue an uncle and nephew might rise or fall together (Tac. Hist. 2.48; Plut. Otho 16.2). Moreover, even if a particularly careful protective custody limited immediate access from Paul’s companions or leaders in the Jerusalem church, a young relative would have a better chance (especially if he, too, was a Roman citizen).

(2) The Leak

Leaks were common, and Paul’s relatives may have been well connected to receive them (like Josephus’s). If Paul studied with Gamaliel I (Acts 22:3), a member of the Sanhedrin (5:34),[1583] and if Paul was born a Roman citizen (22:28), had access to the high priest (9:1), and was known to the leaders (26:4–5), he probably had well-to-do, citizen relatives. Some of these may have heard of the plot from members of the Sanhedrin, though we cannot be sure that the most likely sympathetic Sanhedrin members (23:9) would know of the plot (23:14; all might soon know of the invitation, 23:15).

It is even possible (though not as likely) that one of the conspirators betrayed the secret deliberately.[1584] If drafted by comrades, he might not have felt safe to decline once he knew the secret, and hence entered the agreement falsely; later teachers felt that one could vow falsely to murderers, robbers, or tax collectors (m. Ned. 3:4).[1585]

However we envision the source (from the conspirators or the Sanhedrin), large conspiracies are difficult to keep hidden, and secrets often become known.[1586] Further, there is no question that leaks were common in this period.[1587] To prevent Jews from learning of the plot against them, Damascus Gentiles refrained from informing their own wives, many of whom, according to Josephus, had Jewish sympathies (War 2.560–61). More analogous to the situation here is that Romans sometimes lamented the loss of the discretion of their own supreme council in earlier eras (Val. Max. 2.2.1a). Josephus attests leaks from the Sanhedrin: when the Sanhedrin plotted against him, his friend Jesus son of Gamala was present at the council and so warned Josephus’s father, who warned Josephus (Life 204).[1588]

If any member of the forty or a knowledgeable member of the Sanhedrin told a relative of Paul’s—whether knowing the person to be such or not—Paul’s nephew might hear of it and go to Paul the same day. Given Jerusalem’s size and the urgency of the plot, however, Luke probably expects us to infer, from the nephew’s hearing the news, God’s providential oversight over Paul here (Acts 23:11). Later critics might protest about Paul’s execution; Luke emphasizes instead all the deliverances that preceded it.

↑ Back to top