Part 102
Act III Scene 4: Paul's Third Missionary Journey
(18:24-21:16)
Paul's return to Antioch at 18:22 provides a convenient marker to divide the 'second' from the 'third' missionary journeys, though there is little to suggest more than the briefest of visits before he is off on the road again (18:23). Much of this section is spent on consolidation of the churches already planted; this must in fact have been the period when Paul was writing many of the letters (e.g. the Corinthian correspondence) which show him deeply engaged in dealing with the pastoral problems that were arising in the churches he had founded (cf. 2 Cor 11:28). Acts shows us little of all this, preferring to focus on the evangelistic work which we glimpse in the background of the epistles (e.g. 2 Cor 2:12). Luke does give us a vignette of Paul the pastor, however, in the farewell speech to the Ephesian elders (20:18-35). Tlus section also charts Paul's growing awareness of his final destination, as the narrative moves inexorably towards its climax in Jerusalem, and points beyond that to Rome. (18:24-8) Interlude: Apollos in Corinth Luke's almost exclusive focus on Paul inevitably gives an oversimplified picture of a church whose expansion is becoming ever more complex. Here a rare interlude gives us a glimpse of an independent missionary at work within the Pauline sphere. As an Alexandrian Jew, Apollos was a member of one of the largest Jewish communities in the ancient world, with a complex and wellestablished tradition of philosophical hermeneutics of which Philo is the best-known proponent: cf. i Cor 1:12; 3:4-9; 4:6; 16:12, where it is clear that Apollos (perhaps because he displays some of the 'wisdom' that Paul lacks) has gained a following within the Corinthian church. The instruction (katechlsis) Apollos has received (v. 25) is sufficiently Christian to be called 'the way of the Lord', but it stops short at the
(though not certain) that the Gallic incident took place at the end of the eighteen months (v. n), but we still do not know
ACTS 1052
key attributes of Luke's portrait of Paul. Here he is characterized as a miracle-worker of such 'extraordinary' charismatic power (v. n) that it can be transmitted via skin-contact with inanimate objects (v. 12, cf. 5:15; Lk 8:44). Unusually in Luke's narrative, God is the subject ofthe first sentence here (v. n): it is important for Luke to underline that Paul's spiritual power does not come from himself but is a direct divine endorsement of his mission. The point is made in dramatic form with the episode of the sons of Scaeva (v. 14), itinerant Jewish exorcists who try (as Simon Magus had done with Peter in 8:19) to annex this charismatic power for themselves (v. 13). This episode has a particular appositeness in Ephesus, which was associated with certain magical formulae (the Ephesia
'baptism of John' (ACTS 19:3). Priscilla and Aquila (who presumably heard Apollos in the synagogue) provide whatever further instruction is needed; but Luke does not state how the 'accuracy' of Apollos' teaching needed to be supplemented, and there is no suggestion that Apollos' baptism was inadequate. An already well-developed network of interchurch communications (v. 27) facilitates Apollos' visit to Corinth. There Apollos' rhetorical gifts are well used in public debate with the synagogue (v. 28).
(19:1^7) The Disciples of John The focus shifts back to Paul, the solitary charismatic leader and apologist, who is making his way back to Ephesus via the 'interior regions' (v. i), i.e. presumably down from the Galatian uplands via the Lycus valley. Somewhere (in Ephesus?) he finds a mysterious group of'disciples' (v. i) who have not heard of the Holy Spirit and know only of John's baptism (w. 2-3). The episode gives Paul a parallel scene to Peter's Samaritan Pentecost (8:15—17): like Peter, he lays hands on the disciples and they receive the Holy Spirit (v. 6). The two passages give us the same sequence of events in Christian initiation: baptism 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' (v. 5; cf 8:16), then laying-on of hands followed by the reception ofthe Holy Spirit (v. 6; cf. 8:17). What is different here is the starting-point: the baptism of John the Baptist, the forerunner who points the way to Christ (cf. 13:24-5) can hardly be disowned by Christians, but it is not sufficient on its own: as a 'baptism of repentance' (v. 4), it was, like John himself, purely preparatory to Christian baptism (cf. 2:33,38). This gives Luke a coherent theology, but it leaves us with a puzzle: why was Apollos not compelled to be baptized? Does Luke intend us to understand that he was already 'burning with the Spirit' (18:25, NRSV 'with burning enthusiasm')? Luke's interest in orthopraxy is strictly limited; his agenda here may partly be to incorporate disparate Ephesus traditions into the overarching portrait of Paul which is his main focus.
Grammata or 'Ephesian Letters') which had the power to ward off evil spirits (Trebilco 1994: 314-15). Luke makes the point clearly that Christian miracle is totally distinct from this widespread syncretistic activity: real evil spirits (and Luke believes that they exist) respond not to names, however exalted, but to the power of God working through his legitimate representatives (v. 15). Despite the humour, there is a serious point being made here, integral to early Christian propaganda: as everywhere in Acts, it is the name ofthe Lord Jesus, not of any missionary or apostle, that is 'glorified' (v. 17). The scene may also have an exemplary function for Christian readers: magical practice is not an option for Christian believers (w. 18—19).
(19:21—2) Paul's Travel Plans This phase of Paul's mission is drawing to a close, and Luke now begins to interleave into his narrative hints of his final destination. The plan to revisit the churches in Macedonia and Achaea (Philippi, Beroea, Thessalonica, Corinth) reverberates through the pages of Paul's letters to the Corinthians, which were probably written about this time: cf. i Cor 16:5-8; 2 Cor 1:16. The voyage was always intended to culminate with a visit to Jerusalem, and by the time Paul writes Romans (from Corinth) we know that he was planning to go on from Jerusalem to Rome (Rom 15:22—5). It is noticeable that Luke here, like Paul but unlike his own normal practice, uses province names rather than city names to describe Paul's destinations. Erastus (v. 22) may be the same as the Corinthian Christian of Rom 16:23. But why did Luke never mention the collection for the poor of Jerusalem on which Paul lavished so much time and attention at this stage in his ministry (Rom 15:25—8; 2 Cor 8—9), and which was the chief motive for his visit to Jerusalem (i Cor 16:1—4)? Lucan hindsight may be at least part ofthe answer: Paul's visit to Jerusalem turned out disastrously different from his expectations, and his prophetic sense that he 'must' see Rome (v. 21; Luke's 'must' [dei] normally conceals a reference to the divine will) is fulfilled in ways that Paul clearly did not envisage when he wrote the Epistle to the Romans.
(19:8—10) Paul Preaches in Ephesus A compressed summary passage (completely ignoring any previous Christian activity in Ephesus) now shows Paul repeating in the province of Asia the patterns of preaching and apologetic which have characterized his mission across Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaea. He joins the synagogue (v. 8) in order to campaign publicly for the messianist interpretation of the Scriptures in which he believes: this is a campaign of dialectical argument and persuasion (v. 8) which lasts for three months and wins some success. But he fails to carry the whole community with him, and as opposition grows he decides to move out, taking with him the 'disciples' (v. 9, i.e. those who have accepted his teachings) to set up a rival school of scriptural interpretation in a nearby lecture-hall: the Western text (D) adds the circumstantial detail of his regular teaching hours (NRSV marg.). From this base the whole of Asia is evangelized (v. 10): this is typical Lucan hyperbole, but it fits Paul's own highly stylized and province-based view of his mission (Rom 15:19). Note again that the highly public 'leaving' ofthe synagogue (v. 9) does not mean the cessation of preaching to Jewish individuals ('both Jews and Greeks', v. 10).
(19:23-41) Demetrius the Silversmith Before the journey begins, however, a final detailed and dramatic scene makes a fitting closure to Paul's active missionary period. It is, like so many others in Acts, a scene of civic disturbance (tarachos, v. 23) which almost brings the city to the dangerous state of stasis
(rioting, v. 40), a state which above all others civic authority desired to avoid. The disturbance (naturally) was not Paul's fault: this time the culprits are a guild of silverworkers who feel that their livelihood is threatened by the success of Paul's
(19:11—20) Magic and Miracle The summary ofthe Ephesus mission is enlivened by two dramatic scenes that display other
io53 ACTS
mission (w. 24-7). For the monetary motive, cf. 16:19; but on
again here after Paul has spent the Passover season in Philippi (v. 6).
this occasion Paul has incurred the wrath of a powerful guild who are able to draw on a combination of civic pride and religious devotion to one of the most powerful cults in the ancient world (Trebilco 1994: 316-38). The silversmiths' guild of Ephesus is known from inscriptions; several ancient texts speak of the powerful position of such trade associations and their potential for civic disturbance (ibid. 338-42).
(20:7—12) Troas There is a constant feeling in this section that the narrator knows more than he troubles to reveal. Clearly there is a church in Troas, though its founding (probably because it was independent of Paul) has not been recorded: cf. 2 Cor 2:12—13, which also implies that there were believers in Troas. The meeting 'to break bread' on the first day of the week (v. 7) implies some kind of liturgical gathering; cf. ACTS 2:42. Since for most Christians Sunday was a working day, early practice was to meet on Saturday night or early on Sunday morning (cf. Pliny, Ep. 10.96.7). It is simplest to read this as an evening gathering, after work for some (perhaps including Eutychus: his name was a common slave name), which begins with an extended teaching session from Paul (v. 7), includes the 'breaking of bread' and a communal meal (v. n), and finishes at dawn. The detail of the lamps (which created smoke and fumes) provides some explanation for Eutychus' sleep (v. 8); the fact that this was a third-storey room suggests a working-class insula or apartment block rather than the atrium of a villa or town house. Paul's prompt action to save the boy recalls the miracles of Elijah and Elisha (i Kings 17:21—2; 2 Kings 4:34—5); the description of the boy as 'dead' (nekros, v. 9) implies that Luke intends us to see this as a real miracle, not just a lucky escape (v. 10). (20:13-17) Journey: Troas to Miletus One of the most striking differences between the geographical perspectives of Paul and Luke is the latter's passionate interest in sea travel contrasted with Paul's almost complete lack of nautical vocabulary. This very detailed journey section illustrates the point well. It adds almost nothing to the plot and could have been summarized in a dozen words: but the profusion of technical sailing terms ('set sail', 'take on board') and redundant place-names adds a vivid touch of colour to the narrative, which becomes a virtual travelogue of the eastern Aegean. Maybe Paul actively preferred land travel (v. 13) ? The decision to 'sail past Ephesus' (v. 16) does not imply that Paul had any control over the destination of the ship on which he had taken passage, but that he had decided not to break his journey there (Ephesus still had a port in Roman times). The reason Luke gives is pressure of time (v. 16); this would make all the more sense if the main motive for Paul's journey was to accompany the collection to Jerusalem (Rom 15:25; Rom 15:31 already betrays some anxiety on Paul's part about the reception of this gift). As in v. 6, the we-narrator reckons time in terms of Jewish festivals. At Miletus, however, there is time enough (perhaps while waiting for a ship to cover the next section of the voyage) to send for the 'elders' of the church at Ephesus (v. 17; cf. ACTS 14:19-23). (20:18-38) Paul's Speech to the Ephesian Elders This is the only direct speech in Acts in which Paul addresses Christian believers, and thus the only speech which strictly parallels the epistles. It has a strongly valedictory flavour, best matched in the prison letters (whether authentic or pseudonymous: cf. esp. Phil 3; 2 Tim 3-4). There are, however, already anticipations of this mood in Rom 15, and some parallels with the autobiographical sections of 2 Cor 10-12.
Luke's vivid picture of the unruly mob rushing into the theatre (v. 29) can be paralleled in both factual and fictional accounts of civic life in this period. The theatre (which has been excavated) was built in the third century BCE and enlarged under the emperors; it seated about 20,000, and was the natural site both for regular assemblies (v. 24) and for informal meetings (ibid. 348—50). Paul's own part in this episode is small, but Luke makes it clear that his personal courage is not in doubt (v. 30). The Asiarchs (v. 31: NRSV 'officials of the province of Asia') are members of the city's social elite, prominent in public events and benefaction: their existence at this period was long thought to be an anachronism, but is now confirmed by extensive epigraphic evidence. The identity of Alexander (v. 33) is unclear, but his intervention serves to underline the racist undertones of the riot (v. 34). The 'town clerk' (v. 35) is probably the grammateus ton. demou, a title well attested by contemporary inscriptions as a leader and spokesperson for the assembly. The claim that the cult statue 'fell from heaven' (v. 35) appears elsewhere in the ancient world (often of meteorites), but is not otherwise attested for Ephesus. The charge of temple robbing (hierosulia) and/or blasphemy against the pagan gods (v. 37) was one that Jewish writers in the diaspora were sedulous to avoid (cf. e.g. Jos. Ant. 4.207; Ag. Ap. 2.237; Phil°» Spec. Leg. 1.53); it is one to which Paul's denunciation of idolatry leaves him open (v. 26; cf. 17:29), and Luke takes this opportunity to rebut it. The town clerk's reference to proconsuls (v. 38; generic plural: there was only one at a time) lends powerful support to his appeal for calm (v. 40): Greek cities in the Roman empire were left in relative autonomy to run their own internal affairs, but the one crime that could be guaranteed to incur imperial displeasure was civic disorder.
(20:1—6) Journey: Ephesus to Troas via Macedonia The planned journey (19:21) now gets under way. The point at which Paul is about to leave Corinth for Jerusalem by sea
(v. 3) may be the point at which Romans 15:25 was written. The change of plan coincides with a change of pace: the list of associates (v. 4) suddenly gives this journey a ceremonial flavour, and with the reappearance of the we-narrator (w. 56) we are counting by days rather than months. From this point on, the narrative of Paul's penultimate voyage slows down as travel once again becomes an event to be savoured. Paul's companions come from almost all the areas covered by the mission so far. For Sopater cf. (probably) Rom 16:21; for Tychicus Col 4:7; Eph 6:2i;2 Tim 4:12; Titus 3:12. Aristarchus and Gaius have been mentioned in passing in 19:29 (though the names are not uncommon, and the Gaius of Rom 16:23 is
almost certainly a Corinthian); cf. also Col 4:10. Since the we-narrator was last heard of in Philippi (16:17), it is a natural inference that he was left behind there and is picked up
ACTS 1054
heading in the direction of Caesarea at 8:40. His prophetic daughters (v. 9) do not actually utter any warnings to Paul, but their presence adds to the authority of the group of local people (v. 12) who warn Paul against proceeding to Jerusalem. Most prominent among these is Agabus, an itinerant charismatic from Jerusalem who acts out a classic piece of prophetic symbolism (v. n) as a warning to Paul; he must be the same as the one mentioned in 11:28, though Luke makes no crossreference. The scene climaxes with a joint appeal from the local Christians and Paul's travelling companions (v. 12); Paul is moved but unshakable in his resolve to persist with his journey whatever the cost (v. 13). There is a distinctly Socratic flavour about this scene, heightened by the presence of the women and by the we-narration that echoes that of Plato's Phaedo, 1170-1. Paul is being presented as a martyr, exhibiting a properly philosophical courage like that of Socrates in the face of death: his friends, like those of Socrates, can only acquiesce in the divine will (v. 14; cf. Socrates' last words: 'If so it is pleasing to God, so let it be': Epict. Diss. 1.29.18-19).
(1) The opening section of the speech (w. 18-27) consists of a review of Paul's mission: although ostensibly concerned only with Asia (v. 18), it may stand as a paradigmatic review of the whole mission, just as 13:17-41 stands as a summary of Paul's whole message to the Jewish diaspora and 17:22-34 of his message to the Greeks. The mood is sombre, with a very Pauline stress on trials and tears (v. 19) rather than on the victories over opposing spiritual forces that Luke has highlighted: for 'humility' (taptinophrosune) cf. Phil 2:3, and for the general sentiment i Cor 4:10—13; 2 Cor 4:7—12; 11:23—9. Th£
only positive achievement Paul highlights is the completeness of his proclamation of the gospel (w. 20-1, 27); Rom 15:17-19 makes a similar claim, though Paul there boasts only of preaching to Gentiles. This completeness absolves Paul of his prophetic responsibility (expressed in the very Lucan language of v. 26: cf. 18:6). And the reason he needs to make this claim now is that his 'course' is almost finished (v. 24; cf. 13:25; 2 Tim 4:7; Phil 3:12—14 uses a similar metaphor but with different words). Paul expresses here a strong prophetic sense that his life is drawing to a close (w. 22-5): it is hard to read v. 25 as anything other than a prediction of his own death, written at a time when Luke and his readers knew precisely what fate awaited Paul in Jerusalem and Rome.
Act Four: Paul the Prisoner (21:17-28:31)
Act IV Scene i: Paul on Trial: Jerusalem (21:17-23:22)
(2) The second part of the speech (w. 28-35) consists of paranaesis, practical advice to the church in a manner familiar from the epistles, especially the later, 'catholic' epistles. The shepherding metaphor ofw. 28—9 strongly recalls i Peter 5:2— 3, though episkopoi (overseers) is Pauline (cf. Phil 1:1) and may reflect the fluid terminology of Paul's day better than Luke's term 'elders' (v. 17). The repeated counsel to 'watch' (w. 28, 31) is a constant feature of early Christian paranaesis from Paul onwards (cf. i Thess 5:6; i Cor 16:13), but me warning against the inroads of false teachers (w. 29-30) is more characteristic ofthe later epistles (cf. e.g. i Tim 1:3—11; Titus 2:1). The address closes with a commendation to the grace of God (v. 32) and a final hortatory example (w. 33-5): Paul's own practice of working with his hands is put forward as an incitement to charitable giving and mutual support within the community. The final words cite an otherwise unknown saying of Jesus that may have been passed down in the oral tradition: it fits well with Luke's general interest in encouraging wealthier Christians to support the poor.
The final quarter of Acts is devoted to a Pauline trial narrative, a structural parallel to the passion narrative of Jesus which closes the gospel. Paul the travelling missionary becomes— as the narrative has predicted—Paul the prisoner, the 'chained' Paul of the prison epistles. Luke exploits the dramatic possibilities of the situation to the full, unleashing a flood of direct speech which builds up to a vivid presentation ofthe case against Paul and of his own answer to it. The first scene is set in Jerusalem: Paul unintentionally sparks a riot in the temple (21:27—36), is rescued by a Roman tribune (21:37— 40), and attempts to present his case to the crowd (22:1—21), then to the Sanhedrin (23:1-10). But the gradual unpacking of Paul's Roman status (22:22—30) signals a move to the next stage of the drama, where Paul is taken to Caesarea for his own protection (23:11—22).
(21:17—26) Arrival: Paul Meets James The visit begins innocuously enough, with a warm welcome from the 'brothers' (v. 17) and a more formal debriefing with the leaders of the Jerusalem church (v. 18). Paul's detailed report on the success of his Gentile mission (v. 19) is greeted with enthusiasm; Luke makes it clear that since the decisions ofthe Apostolic Council (see ACTS 15:22-9), James and the Jerusalem leadership have no problem with the admission of Gentiles to the church (v. 25). But there is a threatening shadow from another quarter: the growing number of Jewish believers are troubled, not about what Paul tells the Gentiles, but about what he tells the Jews. Rumours are spreading that Paul's gospel involves inciting Jewish believers to abandon 'Moses' (i.e. the Jewish law), especially the ongoing practice of circumcision and the distinctive Jewish 'customs' that define Jewish identity in the diaspora (v. 21). This is what concerns those who are 'zealous for the law' (v. 20; cf. ACTS 5:17), and it is not a problem about the past (are Jewish Christians saved by the law?) but about the future (should Jewish Christians go on keeping the law?): as so often, it is in the rituals surrounding the birth of children that crucial questions of identity crystallize. James suggests
(3) The framework ofthe speech (w. 36—8) reinforces the sense of impending tragedy that marks this final journey to Jerusalem. Emotions, so much a feature ofthe Greek novel, are surprisingly rare in Acts, but here we have a vividly drawn scene that reveals an unexpected facet of Luke's hero, his ability to inspire and share affection.
(21:1—16) Journey: Miletus to Jerusalem The we-narrator resumes the tale, giving it his customary wealth of detail: the itemized stages ofthe voyage, and the redundant detail of ships and cargoes, give the narration both a pragmatic realism and an indefinable sense of pathos. The group of disciples in Tyre (v. 3) is otherwise unknown; their prophetic warning (v. 4) and solemn farewell (v. 6) exemplify and reinforce the tone of Paul's address (cf. 20:23). Ptolemais (v. 7) provides another group of believers offering hospitality and support. By the time the party reach Caesarea (v. 8) they are re-entering more familiar territory: Philip the evangelist was last seen
ACTS
educated Greek (v. 37): with all the insulted pride of Greek citizenship at being taken for an Egyptian, he claims to be 'a citizen of no mean city' (v. 39: RSV brings out the understated elegance of the Greek phrase; cf. Eur. Ion, 8). Whether Paul, as the son of an observant Jewish family (Phil 3:5), could actually have held full Tarsian citizenship is disputed; but Luke uses both polis and polites in a variety of non-technical senses (e.g. Lk 1:26; 19:14), and Paul may well have regarded himself as a polites of the Jewish community of Tarsus in this wider sense (Legasse 1995: 366—8). For the tribune, used to the complexities of civic status in the eastern empire, Paul's use of Greek is sufficient for the moment to establish common ground. When Paul turns to address the crowd again, however, it is his Jewishness that comes to the fore: 'in the Hebrew language' (v. 40) almost certainly means Aramaic, the spoken language of Palestine (Fitzmyer 1998: 701).
that Paul should demonstrate publicly that he himself remains an observant Jew by sponsoring and joining four men who are going through the procedures of a nazirite vow
(w. 23-4), and he agrees to do this (v. 26; cf 18:18). The same issue arises here as over the cirumcision of Timothy (see ACTS 16:1—5): is this action unthinkable for the Paul of the epistles (as some have suggested) or does it fall under the rubric of being 'all things to all people' (i Cor 9:22)? (21:27-36) Paul in the Temple James's fateful advice unwittingly precipitates the crisis he is trying to avoid. Paul's visibility in the temple over the seven days of his purification period (v. 27) brings him to the attention of some 'Jews from Asia', presumably like himself visiting the city for the festival of Pentecost: these may be members of the community in Ephesus with whom Paul had been disputing over a two-year period before his final journey (19:8—10). They perceive Paul's gospel as a direct attack on the Jewish people, the law, and the temple, a general charge which the following chapters will do their best to answer; but they also add the more specific charge
(22:1-21) Paul's Temple Speech This is the first in a series of apologetic speeches ('defence', 22:1; Gk. apologia) made by Paul in this final section. Language and address are designed to stress the speaker's commonalty with his audience (w. 1-2), and his opening words emphasize that he, like them, is a 'zealot for God' (v. 3) with a strict seminary education rooted in Jerusalem (which was presumably where he learnt to speak Aramaic). Both statements are consistent with Paul's own claims about his education in Gal 1:13-14; some scholars have argued that 'this city' refers to Tarsus, but this seems to make less sense of Paul's argument here. As in Gal 1:13 and Phil 3:6, the touchstone of Paul's 'zeal' is his persecution of the church (v. 4). The high priest at the time of Paul's arrest (v. was not the same as the one in office at the time of his visit to Damascus, but there may have been some continuity in the membership of the Sanhedrin.
(guaranteed to cause maximum disturbance among the volatile crowds at a festival season) that Paul has brought an uncircumcised Gentile into the holy place (v. 28). This was a serious charge which would have incurred the death penalty: Jewish religious law was in this respect backed up by all the weight of Roman authority. Inscriptions surviving from the temple precinct (cf. Fitzmyer 1998: 698; cited Barrett 1994-
9: ii. 1020) show that visitors to the temple were clearly warned at the barrier separating the Court of the Gentiles from the inner courts that any non-Jew entering the enclosure did so at his own risk. Paul would have known this perfectly well, and Luke makes it clear that he had not in fact broken this regulation (v. 29). But the misapprehension is enough to arouse 'the whole city' (v. 30), and temple security lock the inner courts against Paul, a symbolic irony that would not have been lost on Luke's readers: time and again, in Luke's presentation, it is not Paul himself but his Jewish audiences who close the doors against him. But the riot continues in the larger Court of the Gentiles, and Paul is in real danger of being lynched (w. 31—2, 35—6). He is rescued in the nick of time by the commander of the Roman garrison stationed in the Antonia fortress, which overlooked the temple and was designed precisely to quell religious riots such as this (cf. Jos. J.W. 5. 243—5). Luke's vivid use of detail adds to the dramatic realism of the scene.
Paul's retelling of his own conversion story overlaps with Luke's version of the story in ch. 9. The very fact that the story is repeated in such detail is an indication of its importance for Luke; but there are also intriguing differences that shed an interesting light on Luke's practice as a narrator. Clearly he sees no difficulty in the fact that the retold story is slightly different each time. Variation in detail was a stylistic virtue in the ancient rhetorical schools; and, as with Peter's retellings of the Cornelius episodes, each retelling brings to the fore a further aspect of the event's inner theological significance. Here Paul gives us a little more background detail about Ananias (v. 12), relevant to his claim to be working within a framework of observant Judaism. Ananias' message to Paul (v. 14) also stresses continuity with Judaism: the one who sent Ananias was 'the God of our ancestors', and Jesus is described as 'the Righteous One' (cf. 3:13-14; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15). The significance of baptism (to which Luke has earlier alluded briefly without explanation) is here made explicit (v. 16): it is to do with cleansing from sin, and calling on the name of Christ. Paul now adds an episode of which Luke's earlier narrative (9:26-30) has told us nothing. A visionary experience of Christ (significantly located in the temple, v. 17) warns Paul of his danger in Jerusalem (v. 18) and gives him a direct commission to go 'far away to the Gentiles' (v. 21). This is more explicit (and closer to Gal 1:16) than 9:15-16, where Ananias is told only that Saul has been chosen to bring the
(21:37—40) Paul and the Tribune This scene effectively dramatizes the tussle over identity that overshadows the final scenes of Paul's career. Paul has been shut out (literally, v. 30) from the religious centre of his own people and is now in the hands of Roman authority. As readers, we know that Paul can in fact lay claim to a status that opens doors in the Roman world (16:37); but the tribune does notknowthat, and his instinct is to treat Paul as a native troublemaker on a level with other oriental insurrectionists (v. 38). Josephus tells of an Egyptian prophet who led a revolutionary crowd to assemble outside Jerusalem and wait for the city to fall (Jos. J.W. 2.2613; Ant. 20.169—72). He dates this incident to the procuratorship of Felix (which is the time of Paul's visit), so the tribune's allusion could be to the same figure. But Paul effectively undercuts the assumption by addressing the tribune in
ACTS 1056
confusion: clearly Paul is safer for the moment in Roman custody (v. 10).
name of Christ 'before Gentiles and kings and the people of Israel' (a promise that seems in context to have more to do with martyrdom than with preaching). (22:22-9) Paul ^e Roman The mention of Gentiles proves too much for Paul's audience, who resume their riotous behaviour at this point (w. 22-3). The tribune decides to remove Paul to the barracks for further interrogation: the examination of witnesses by torture (v. 24) was routine practice in both Greek and Roman judicial systems. Leaving it to the last possible moment, Paul decides that it is time to reveal a little more of his status (v. 25), and produces consternation and dismay among the soldiers and minor officials into whose hands he has fallen (w. 26-9). See ACTS 16:35-40 for the relative protection offered by the status of Roman citizen. The question of Paul's citizenship is hotly disputed (see Legasse 1995: 368—72). Paul's claim to be free-born (v. 28) means that his status goes back at least to his father's generation, possibly earlier, to the period of the civil wars, when Roman generals granted citizenship to a number of individuals and associations in the Greek East who had supported their cause. The contrast with the tribune (whose name we discover in 23:26 to be Claudius Lysias) may be a sly dig at the growing laxity of citizenship grants, which were widely reported to be freely available for money in the time of Claudius (Dio Cassius, 60. 17.5-6). But the essential point is that Luke's whole plot falls apart at this point without Paul's Roman citizenship, which is the motive force to get him to Rome; it is hard to imagine that Luke's readers, even as late as the 8os or gos, would not have been familiar with the broad outlines of the story. Luke is quite happy, as we have seen, to present an account of historical events that is fictionalized in detail (e.g. in the attribution of direct speech), or to create 'type' scenes to represent what he considers to be the essential historical truth of a complex situation, but it is not plausible to suppose that the whole episode of Paul's appeal to Caesar is free invention: and the appeal is only possible if Paul had citizen status. (22:30-23:10) Paul before the Sanhedrin The only way the tribune could 'order' the Sanhedrin to meet (22:30) was in an advisory capacity, in order to help him determine whether or not Paul had a case to answer in Jewish law. The high priest Ananias (23: 2; cf 24:1) is Ananias son of Nebedaeus, appointed by Herod of Chalcis in 47 CE, and replaced in 59 (Jos. Ant. 20.103, I3I> J79> 2O5)- Paul's exchange with him is difficult to explain, however, even within the terms of Luke's own interests: Barrett (1994-9: ii. 1062) says of this passage, 'There is historical material behind this paragraph, but it is deep and remote.' Luke's account of the hearing does not follow exact judicial procedures, but it does convey some of the atmosphere of corruption and factionalism that pervades Josephus' account of the procuratorship of Felix. Paul is able to exploit this factionalism to his own advantage (w. 6—8), and Luke highlights a positive response to Paul from at least some within the Pharisaic party. The point at issue (at least the only one that interests Luke) is the same as the question that exercised Gamaliel in 5:39: has Paul received a genuine divine revelation (v. 9)? The fact that some Pharisees are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt is worth recording, but the net result of the hearing for the tribune is simply deeper
(23:11—22) Plots and Counterplots Paul receives private reassurance at this point that the confusing things that are happening to him are part of God's plan (v. n)—perhaps the first inkling that his 'witness' in Rome will not be as missionary but as prisoner. Meanwhile, 'the Jews' (by which Luke means those who are opposed to Paul) decide to get rid of Paul by assassination if judicial means will not avail (w. 12—15). Th£ wealth of dialogue and circumstantial detail with which this story is told is reminiscent of the Greek novels, but the ambush is not in itself implausible, and the hitherto unsuspected presence of Paul's nephew (v. 16) provides a possible source for Luke's privileged information about the conspirators. The net result is that Paul gets a high-quality escort to Caesarea (w. 23-4), and the next stage of his gradual transfer into the Roman sphere of authority takes place with dramatic (and secret) efficiency.
(23:23—30) Paul Sent to Caesarea The numbers of Paul's military escort (w. 23-4) seem excessive and may be exaggerated
(though cf. Jos. Ant. 20.160-6, 185-8; J.W. 2.253-65 on th general disorder and danger on the roads at this period). Manuscripts disagree on some of the details (perhaps through a desire to improve on the purely secular detail of Luke's story), and the word translated 'spearmen' is a rare word whose meaning is unclear (which suggests that there may be good tradition behind this: it would not have been difficult for Luke to write more clearly if he were composing freely). 'Felix the governor' (v. 24) is named for the first time here. H was a freedman, brother to the imperial secretary Pallas (Jos. J.W. 2.247, Ant. 20.137), and was appointed by Claudius to the
procuratorship of Judea £.52; he was widely regarded as cruel and corrupt (cf. Tac. Hist. 5.9), and was indicted by the Jews of Caesarea after his retirement from office (Jos. Ant. 20.182) Despite his unpopularity, he remained in post until c.6o when he was replaced by Festus (Jos. J.W. 2.271; Ant. 182 Luke's note that Claudius Lysias 'wrote a letter to this effect' (v. 25) is revealing: there must have been a letter, and Luke knows roughly what it would have said, but he makes no claim to be reproducing a genuine document verbatim. The tribune tells the story in a way more flattering to himself (v. 27), but otherwise repeats for the governor's benefit what we already know.
Act IV Scene 2: Paul on Trial: Caesarea (23:31-26:32)
The second phase of Paul's trial begins with his transfer to Caesarea. A formal hearing before Felix, with speeches for the prosecution and the defence (24:1—27) ends inconclusively, and Felix decides to defer his decision and keep Paul in custody. Matters comes to a head when Festus arrives in the province and the proceedings are reopened (25:1—12).
Sensing that Festus favours sending him back for trial in Jerusalem, Paul is compelled to appeal to Caesar; the remainder of the scene is little more than a coda, with Paul displayed as a curiosity before Festus' guests, but this final hearing allows Paul to make one of his longest and most impassioned speeches before an influential patron of diaspora Judaism.
ACTS
hurried and compressed. The speech quickly moves from selfdefence against the immediate charges to a more general affirmation of Paul's whole ideology (cf. Phil 1:7, which shows the same slide). 'The Way' which Paul follows is in fact presented in Acts as a 'sect' of Judaism, that is as a legitimate interpretation of the ancestral traditions (v. 14), and one that has significant continuity with the beliefs of the other 'sect' to which Paul (and many of his accusers) belong, the Pharisees (cf. 23:6; 26:5)—especially the belief in resurrection (w. 15, 21). In this context, finally, Luke's Paul does appear to mention the collection for the poor of Jerusalem (v. 17: and cf. Rom. 15:25-7 for Paul's own liturgical angle on this). (24:22^7) Felix Defers Judgement Prosecution and defence have made their presentations, but Felix refuses to be drawn into making a judgement, initially on the pretext of waiting for the tribune's report (v. 22); but no more is heard of this. The narrative pace begins to slow down: 'some days later' (v. 24) is one of the vaguer Lukan time-indicators. Paul now settles into the pattern that will control his life through the rest of the book. He is in custody (v. 23), but has a degree of'liberty'; like all ancient prisoners, he is reliant on his 'friends' (lit. his own) for the daily necessities of food and clothing (cf. Jos. Ant. 18.203-4 on me conditions of Agrippa's imprisonment in Rome). Like all ancient prisoners, too, he is now totally dependent on the whim of the governor for the pursual of his case. Each time Paul is summoned by the governor (w. 24, 26), he must have hoped that things were moving forward; but Felix has no interest in bringing the case to a speedy conclusion (v. 27). Luke's rather cynical evaluation of Felix's motives (v. 26) is matched by the general estimate of Felix found in Tacitus and Josephus (ACTS 23:23—35); Josephus records a similar complaint later of Albinus (Jos. Ant. 20.215). On the one visit that is recorded in more detail (w. 24—5), Paul comes across as a model philosopher, trying in vain to influence a corrupt governor for good. Felix's adulterous relationship with Drusilla is known from Jos. Ant. 20.141-3. According to custom, Paul might have hoped to be released at the end of Felix's term of office (v. 27), but Felix deliberately leaves the case for his sucessor. (25:1-12) Paul Appeals to Caesar Josephus confirms that Felix's successor in the province of Judea was Porcius Festus (Jos. J.W. 2.271; Ant. 20.182-8), and that his arrival was heralded by a flurry of official activity. Festus himself seems to have been keen to clean up the ongoing brigandage problem left by his predecessor; he may also have been eager to avoid the kind of action brought against his predecessor by the Jewish community in Caesarea, who took the opportunity to send a delegation to Rome to complain about Felix's 'misdeeds against the Jews' (Jos. Ant. 20.182). In this atmosphere, keeping on the right side of the Jewish authorities (w. 2, 9) was obviously in the new governor's interests, but it was equally important to act with all propriety in relation to Rome: Festus' decision to play safe with the case of the troublesome Roman citizen Paul by referring the case to Rome makes a lot of sense. The sense that Paul is here under the protection of the Roman imperial authorities is very strong in this section: it was in fact one of the major roles of the emperor in this period to act as a final court of appeal for provincials
(23:31-24:9) The Speech for the Prosecution Caesarea is about no km. from Jerusalem by road, and Antipatris (23:31) is about half-way, at the point where the hill-country road intersects with the road running north from Lydda along the coastal plain. Paul is kept in Herod's praetorium (23:35), and some scholars have suggested that the Epistle to the Philippians could have been written from there (cf. Phil 1:13), in place of the traditional origin in Rome. The delegation from the Sanhedrin acts promptly (24:1), this time bringing a professional rhetor (NRSV 'attorney') to make a formal rhetorical presentation on their behalf; this is a subtle reaction to the change of venue for the hearing, which is now much more in the Roman sphere than the Jewish. Rhetorical presentation of a case by trained orators was very important in both Greek and Roman legal proceedings. Tertullus' speech, though short, displays many of the formulations known from contemporary speeches (Winter 1993: 315-22). The opening exordium (w. 24) uses a range of honorific titles and compliments similar to those of papyrus petitions found in Egypt, stressing the characteristics of the governor that make him competent to try the case ('your foresight', 'your customary graciousness') and his success at maintenance of the peace (plausibly read as an allusion to Felix's recent putting down of the insurrection led by the Egyptian: see ACTS 21:37-40). The narratio or 'statement of the case' (w. 5-6) is abbreviated but recognizable. The charge of being an 'agitator' (v. 5: lit. causing civic discord, staseis) is calculated to impress any Roman governor, especially one presiding over a province rapidly degenerating into stasis (Josephus' word for the state of civil war which ushered in the Jewish Revolt). Similar accusations were laid against Alexandrian Jews in 41 CE in a letter of Claudius that accuses them of'stirring up a common plague throughout the world'
(Barrett 1994-9: ii. 1097). The more precise charge of profaning the temple (v. 6) was, as we have seen, a serious breach of a Jewish religious law which the Romans were pledged to uphold. On 'sect' (v. 5) see below on ACTS 24:14; the name 'Nazoreans' (NRSV marg.) occurs several times in LukeActs and is probably best treated as a variant for Nazarenos
(Fitzmyer 1998: 254).
24:10—21 The Speech for the Defence Paul, like Tertullus, uses the popular 'many'-formula in his opening words
('many years'), though, as compliments go, this is factual rather than fulsome. His most serious self-defence (apologia, v. 10) focuses on events in Jerusalem: in the short time he has been in the city, Paul has not been involved in disputes or riots in synagogue or temple (v. 12). The fact that he has done precisely this across the diaspora is irrelevant, because it is outside the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin: and as Luke has demonstrated, Roman governors outside Judea have shown no inclination to follow up complaints against Paul from local Jewish communities (cf. ACTS 18:12-17). Only in Judea, where Jewish law has the status of a local civic code upheld by Roman authority, is Paul in any danger: and there, as Luke takes pains to show, no offence against the law can be proved against him
(v. 13). 'Twelve days' (v. n) is puzzling, since Luke's account seems to imply a longer period, but he may be simply adding the seven days of the vow (21:27) t° me five in Caesarea (24:1); Luke certainly seems to imply that the whole period of Paul's imprisonment and trial in Jerusalem, like that of Jesus, was
ACTS 1058
case against Paul (25:14—27) and Paul's own self-defence (26:1—29). It also allows him to demonstrate the fulfilment of the prophecy that Paul would have to testify 'before kings' (9:i5)-
who felt they were not getting justice from local magistrates. Only here, in all his defence speeches (apologia, v. 8) does Paul explicitly say that he has not committed any crime against the emperor: the main thrust of his defence is that no offence against Jewish law can be proved against him. Transferring the case to Jerusalem, as Festus threatens (v. 9), was in effect extraditing a Roman citizen for trial on a capital charge under a different legislative authority; if both parties agreed (v. 9), this was perfectly in order. But Paul rejects the offer, and
(26:1-11) Paul's Speech (i): My Former Life Like the speech before Felix, Paul's speech can be analysed according to the canons of contemporary rhetoric (Winter 1993: 327—31). It begins with a standard captatio benevolentiae, congratulating his auditor on his expert ability to judge the case (w. 2-3). He then moves into a reprise of his own life-story, explaining at greater length than we have yet seen his former life in Judaism (cf Gal 1:13—14). No mention of Tarsus here (that was to impress a Roman tribune); the whole emphasis is on Jerusalem, and in particular on Paul's Pharisaic piety (w. 4-5; cf. 23:6, Phil 3:5—6) and his persecution of the Christians (w. 9—11; cf. Gal 1:13; Phil 3:6; i Cor 15:9). Since Luke is not imparting any new information here, we need to ask what is the rhetorical function of this lengthy section, not only within the dramatic setting in the narrative but also on the reader. It is striking how much of the rhetoric here is devoted to demonstrating Paul's fidelity to the Jewish religion (w. 6-8): far from being a mere ruse to split the audience (as it was in 23:6), the hope of the resurrection is integral to Paul's beliefsystem, as it is, he argues, to the ancestral beliefs of his audience.
(just to make sure) appeals over the procurator's head to the higher court of the emperor, as Roman citizens were entitled to do (v. 10). Legally, Paul was perfectly within his rights; interestingly, however, Luke seems to feel he needs to protect his hero against the more philosophical imputation that he is making this appeal because he is afraid to face death (v. n). This may be another Socratic touch: the ideal Cynic, according to Epictetus (Diss. 3.22.55-6), will not appeal to any Caesar or proconsul in order to escape a flogging.
(25:13—27) Agrippa and Bernice The stage is now effectively set for Paul's last journey to Rome: Paul has appealed to Caesar, and Festus has agreed to transfer his case to Rome (v. 12). But Luke takes the time, before he goes, to give Paul another long set-piece speech, one of the longest in the book, and his final and most impassioned apologia. In a sense this is the speech we would expect Paul to make in Rome, before the final tribunal that tries his case; but Luke is either unwilling or unable to show us any trial scene in Rome, or even to tell us what is the denouement of the trial (see ACTS 28:23—31). Instead, Paul has one last chance to make a statement of his case (in effect, a defence of his whole career), not before Festus (who has already heard all he needs to know, and who in any case has relinquished his jurisdiction to a higher court) but before the Jewish king Agrippa II and his sister Bernice (v. 13). In itself Agrippa's visit to Festus, and Festus's decision to let Paul speak before him, is perfectly plausible: Festus may well have felt that the king's expertise would be useful to him in drafting his report on the case (v. 27). Agrippa II (son of the 'Herod' of ch. 12, Agrippa I) was now consolidating his holdings in the region (Jos. J.W. 2.247, 252) an(^ becoming a significant power-broker, both with Rome and with the Jewish community worldwide; Josephus (ibid. 2.245, cfalso Ant. 20.135) shows hi™ acting as spokesperson for a Jewish delegation in Rome a few years earlier, and later has him visit Alexandria to congratulate Tiberius Julius Alexander on his accession to the prefecture of Egypt (Jos. J.W. 2.309), much as Luke has him do here for Festus (Alexander was a previous procurator of Judea and Bernice's brother-in-law). Bernice was the sister of Agrippa (and also of Drusilla, Felix's wife); she was at this stage widowed and living at her brother's court in an ambiguous relationship (Jos. Ant. 20.145). She took an active part in Jewish affairs and is shown by Josephus alongside Agrippa in his final, disastrous attempt to hold back the forces of revolt in Jerusalem in 66 (Jos. J.W. 2.344). Th£ scene, then, as Luke describes it, is historically realistic; but by choosing to give it the full dramatic treatment, Luke has turned it into a characteristic type-scene, parallel to the Nazareth pericope in Lk 4:16—30, which allows him to sum up both the Roman failure to find a
(26:12-23) Paul's Speech (2): The Heavenly Vision Luke has already twice told us the story of Paul's conversion, once as narrator (9:1—18) and once in Paul's own words (22:6—16): as with Peter's vision, functional redundancy is an indicator of rhetorical importance. Here again there are slight variations in the telling: Luke does not think it important to repeat every detail of the story in exactly the same way (but as in the gospels, the keywords of the pericope tend to be the most stable in repetition: compare w. 14-15 with 9:4-5; 22:7-8). The addition of 'in the Hebrew language' (v. 14) shows that Luke has not forgotten (even if his readers have) that this is an address to a Greek-speaking audience, whereas the previous speech in which the same events are recounted was in 'Hebrew' (or Aramaic; see ACTS 21:40). Does Luke feel it necessary to apologize, in this Greek context, for the barbarous name 'Saul', which he gives in its Semitized form? If so, it is all the stranger that the heavenly voice is expanded here to include a proverbial saying ('It hurts you to kick against the goads') which is not found in 9:4 or 22:7, and which is best paralleled in Greek literature (cf. esp. Eur. Bacch. 794—5). Paul's divine commission, which in earlier accounts had come via Ananias (9:15-16) or in a trance (22:17-21) is here compressed into his initial revelation (w. 16—18). These verses contain the strongest and clearest statement in Acts of Paul's own understanding of his commission to bring the gospel to the Gentiles: cf. Gal 1:15-16. 'To serve and testify' (v. 16: hupereten kai martura) recalls Luke's description of the ultimate sources of the apostolic tradition he reports (Lk 1:2). The mission is described (v. 18) in prophetic terms strongly reminiscent of Isa 42:6-7; 49:6 (already quoted at 13:47) and anticipating the close of the book (see ACTS 28:23—31). The controlling image is visual rather than verbal (cf. 'proclaim light', v. 23): Paul's calling is to 'testify' (v. 22), but the primal experience to which he is testifying is conceived not as word but as
1059 ACTS
vision (v. 16), and it is a 'heavenly vision' which, as in the days of the patriarchs (7:2, 30) ultimately compels obedience (v. 19). (26:24-32) Paul's Speech (3): Challenge to Agrippa The speech closes with a lively piece of dialogue which adds a touch of comic irony to the scene. The contrast between 'madness' (v. 24) and 'sober truth' (v. 25) is a philosophical one, designed to point up the contrast between the calm rationality of Luke's hero and the bluff incomprehension of the magistrate set to hear his case. In a sense, however, it is also a challenge to the reader of the type set by Gamaliel's conundrum at 5:38—9; and Luke points this up by turning the end of Paul's speech into a direct challenge to Agrippa, w. 269). Any reader who shares Agrippa's knowledge (i.e. any reader who knows and believes the Jewish Scriptures) must be persuaded: and the end of the speech makes it clear that the real object of Paul's persuasive rhetoric is not exoneration but conversion: 'all who are listening' to Paul (v. 29) are invited to 'become a Christian' (v. 28). Given Agrippa's role in assisting Jewish delegations to present their case in Rome (ACTS 25:13— 27), Paul's attempt to enlist the king to his cause may not have seemed unreasonable (Josephus is still trying to do the same 40 years later: Jos. Vita, 362—6). Within the secondary world of the narrative, however, Paul's appeal simply has the effect of reinforcing his innocence: both Festus and Agrippa are convinced that he has committed no crime (w. 31-2).
grain ships (cf. v. 38) that plied across the Mediterranean to Rome, supplying the city with grain from its 'bread-basket' in Egypt. Ancient ships did not cross the open sea any more than they had to: navigational instruments were primitive, and most mariners preferred to keep within sight of the coastal landmarks that were described in the periploi or seafarers' guides. Luke's painstaking account of the first stages of the voyage seems to highlight the difficulty Paul experiences in setting out in this new, westerly direction: the winds are against them (w. 4, 7), they make slow progress (v. 7), each stage is accomplished 'with difficulty' (w. 7, 8). As a result, by the time they reach Crete, the sailing season is almost over (v. 9: note again the we-narrator's penchant for dating by the Jewish liturgical calendar). There was no obvious reason why the ship's master should heed the advice of a Jewish prisoner who had (presumably) little seafaring experience (w. 10-11); Paul's words are prophetic, though whether from common sense or from supernatural insight, Luke does not say.
(27:13—26) Storm Winds off Crete Paul's landing at Fair Havens, on the southern coast of Crete (v. 8), is still pointed out to visitors; the small bays on this rocky coast would not be suitable for a large ship to shelter from winter storms, so the decision to make for a better harbour was apparently reasonable (v. 12). But the manoeuvre has been left too late, and the ship is caught by a violent offshore wind (lit. a typhoon wind, v. 14): its name, Euraquilo (NRSV 'north-easter', v. 14) appears on a Roman wind-rose found in N. Africa. Roman ships, having a single large sail, were very difficult to turn into the wind (v. 15); the danger of being driven on to the sandbanks of the Syrtis, off the coast of Africa (v. 17) was very real. This passage abounds with nautical technicalities which have been found to make sense in terms of ancient navigation; though highly dramatic, the account is realistic and contains no supernatural elements. The only miraculous aspect of the story, so far as it goes, is Paul's self-possession and courage (w. 21-6). This narrative (unlike some ofthe more sensational shipwreck accounts from ancient literature) contains no record of divine intervention, simply a dream recounted by the hero, who believes (and persuades his fellow-passengers to believe) that it is a promise of survival (v. 23). For readers who know their Bibles, this is a kind of reversal ofthe Jonah story: Jonah's disobedience to God brought his ship into danger (Jon 1:12), whereas Paul's obedience will ensure safety for his (v. 24). (27:27-38) Up and Down in Adria The 'sea of Adria' is not the modern Adriatic but the open sea between Crete, Sicily, Italy, and N. Africa: the novelists call it the Ionian Sea. Josephus speaks of being shipwrecked in the same area with a ship's company of 600 (Jos. Vita, 15). The pattern of soundings (v. 28) and landmarks (w. 39,41) fits the traditional identification of Paul's landfall as St Paul's Bay on the island of Malta, though others have been suggested. Anchoring by the stern
Act IV Interlude: Storm and Shipwreck
The narrative now enters its final phase, a kind of dramatic postlude after the rhetorical climax of the speech before Agrippa. Paul has appealed to the power of Rome, and that power now envelops him ('transferred', lit. handed over, 27:1). The temple doors have been shut (21:30); the final appeal to Jerusalem has failed, and Paul is now effectively shut out from the city in which he was reared (26:4). The prophecy that he will bear witness in Rome (23:11) will be fulfilled, but very differently from the way Paul himself may have envisaged his visit to the centre of the empire (20:21). The final scene of the book will be set in Rome: but first, the transition is accomplished by a meticulously described sea-voyage which succeeds in gratifying the sensationalist tastes of the readers of ancient novels while retaining an obstinately pragmatic realism.
(27:1—12) Along the Coasts of Asia Minor The we-narrator reappears at this point (v. i). Paul has at least two companions from among the party who accompanied him from Macedonia, including Aristarchus (v. 2) and the unnamed narrator. The centurion Julius (v. i) is otherwise unknown, but inscriptions attest to the presence of an 'Augustan cohort' of auxiliaries in Syria during most of the first century. Paul is not important enough to warrant military transport, however; like most travellers, Julius and his small party of prisoners are expected to find what ships they can that are going in the right direction. For this first section of the voyage, the we-narrator shows his customary appetite for nautical detail; he notes the irrelevant point that the first ship Julius picked for the coastal voyage came originally from Adramyttium (up the Aegean coast towards the Troas, v. 2), and that the second came from Alexandria (v. 6). This was almost certainly one of the huge
(v. 29) is feasible for ancient ships, and makes sense in the circumstances. Paul's authority is growing all the time; the centurion is by now much more inclined to listen to Paul than to the sailors (w. 30—1). And his final intervention is directed at the 'salvation' ofthe whole ship's company: at one level, the advice to take some sustenance (v. 33 'without food', Gk. asitoi,
ACTS 1060
praenomen, and gives us little indication of his family. His title ('leading man', lit. first man) is attested from inscriptions as a Maltese title. Paul performs a miraculous healing on Publius's sick father (v. 8: reminiscent of Jesus' healing of Peter's mother-in-law); as in the gospels, other islanders start to come for healing (v. 9), proof, if any were needed, that the God whom Paul serves (27:23) is still with him. Far from demeaning Paul, the whole shipwreck incident has served to load him with honour (v. 10).
can mean 'without appetite') is a piece of practical advice aimed at helping them all to survive having to swim to shore (v. 34), but the Greek word soteria (salvation) also allows the story to be read at a symbolic level. This must be also the key to Paul's action in breaking bread and 'giving thanks' (v. 35); this is not a Christian eucharist in any formal sense, but the language elsewhere in Acts always has these connotations, and it is hard to believe they are completely absent here. (27:39-44) All Safe to Land Improved visibility in the morning suggests to the experienced sailors the risky strategy of casting off the anchors (clearly they believe the ship is past saving) and running the ship ashore (w. 39-40). Some unexpected underwater barrier prevents this (v. 41); the ship starts to break up some way out from the beach. 'Ran the ship aground' (v. 41) is the most literary phrase in the whole account: Luke here uses the Homeric and classical Greek word nans (ship), while elsewhere he has used the more pragmatic and colloquial ploion (boat) and skaphos (dinghy); the verb used here (epokello) is also Homeric. Since Homer was the staple text for Greek primary education, it is likely that any writer educated to Luke's level (whether Greek or Jewish) would know enough of Homer's characteristic diction to fall into it naturally on occasions where the subject-matter seemed to call for it, as here: storm and shipwreck are frequent events in Homer's Odyssey. But the phrase, even if it is used unconsciously, illustrates the extent to which Luke's hero is now moving out of the biblical world and invading the seas of classical mythology. Paul's thoroughly realistic voyage is also an epic journey into the unknown, across stormy seas which, for Greek and Jewish readers alike, always had some of the symbolism of chaotic forces beyond human control; the same psalm which speaks of God as 'the hope of all the ends of the earth' sees a symbolic equivalence between the 'roaring of the seas' and the 'tumult of the peoples' (Ps 65:5—7). In this sense Luke's relieved conclusion (v. 44) is both a simple statement of fact and a subdued paean of victory. (28:1-10) Miracle on Malta The westernmost point of Paul's epic voyage, appropriately enough, has a desert island feel to it: the 'natives' (v. 2) are barbaroi in Greek, the standard term for non-Greek speakers (though readers of the Greek novels would be more inclined to look for them in the east than in the west). The native language on Malta was in fact Punic, as the island had been colonized from Carthage. Like the Lycaonians of 14:11, they are portrayed as kindly but superstitious folk, taking Paul's imperviousness to snakebite as an indication of divine status (v. 6). But in fact the Greek novels show that the islanders' attitude to shipwreck survivors was as common among sophisticated Greek readers as among 'barbarians'. In Chariton's Callirhoe (a novel which is roughly contemporary with Acts), Theron the pirate, saved from shipwreck, claims to be especially favoured by the gods; when his crimes become apparent, the narrator points up the moral that Theron was actually saved because of his impiety, so as to suffer just punishment (Callirhoe, 3.4.9—10).
Act IV Scene 3: Paul in Rome (28:11-31)
After the drama of the shipwreck, there is almost an air of anticlimax about the book's final scene, which is both sombre and open-ended. Paul reaches Rome, which is where he has been headed (one way or another) ever since 20:21. But we never find out what happened when his case was heard before the emperor, or even if it was ever heard. The final verses of the book give us an ambivalent portrait of Paul the prisoner, preaching the kingdom to all comers (w. 30—1), but never free of the custodial presence of Roman authority (v. 16). The bulk of the final scene is taken up with a debate with the Jewish community in Rome (w. 17—28); only after failing to win acceptance for his message there does Paul finally turn 'to the Gentiles' (v. 28). (28:11-16) Journey: Malta to Rome A final detailed journey section brings Paul's party to Rome with the we-narrator's customary attention to the ceremonies of voyaging. Malta was not as far from the sea-lanes that tied together Mediterranean civilization as it had seemed; the party have no trouble picking up a passage for their onward journey on an Alexandrian ship wintering on the island (v. n). There is a touch of irony about the note on the ship's figurehead: the 'Twin Brothers' (i.e. Castor and Pollux, the Gemini or Dioscouri) were favourites with sailors and, according to Lucian, play a starring role in every good shipwreck tale (Lucian, On Salaried Posts, 1—2). Here their role is purely decorative: Paul does not need the help of pagan deities to get him through the storm. The ship calls in to ports along the east coast of Sicily and the 'toe' of Italy (w. 12—13), both ancient Greek foundations which feature prominently in the plots of ancient novels and comic plays; but for the final stages of the journey, the atmosphere is wholly Roman. Luke prefers the Latin name Puteoli to the
Greek Dicaearchia (cf Jos. Vita, 16); the Forum of Appius and the Three Taverns are staging-posts along the Appian Way a few miles out from Rome. There is an odd feeling of homecoming about this last stage: far from being the 'ends of the earth' (1:8), Rome is a place where there are already 'brothers' (NRSV 'believers', v. 15) who come out to give Paul a ceremonial escort along the Appian Way. There is something slightly shocking about the reminder (v. 16) that after all, Paul is still a prisoner, with his liberty of action strictly curtailed.
(28:17—22) Paul's Reception in Rome The final scene of Acts shows us not Paul the pioneer missionary, preaching to the pagans of Rome as he had to the philosophers of Athens (ch. 17), but—as so often in Acts—Paul the faithful Jew, pleading with the leaders of the Jewish community in Rome to give his gospel a fair hearing. And, significantly, a fair hearing is what he gets: this scene is markedly more irenic than those in Jerusalem, and shows no sign of the animosity that Paul has
Despite appearances, Malta is not an uninhabited island: the castaways are soon taken in by a local landowner with the Roman name of Publius (v. 7); this is a common Roman
io6i ACTS
(1993(7), 'Acts and Ancient Intellectual Biography', in Winter and Clarke (1993), 31-63. Barrett, C. K. (1994-9), '^le International Critical Commentary: Acts (2
been arousing in Asia Minor (21:27-8). Paul himself stresses his common interest with the leaders of the community
('Brothers', v. 17), and hastens to reassure them that his appeal to Caesar does not imply any disloyalty to 'my nation' (v. 19)— a suspicion that would naturally arise in a Rome which was accustomed to receiving rival delegations from the home country seeking justice or redress at the emperor's hands. Getting the local community on his side before word arrived from Jerusalem (v. 21) could make a lot of sense for Paul's case; but it also implies (as we saw in Pisidian Antioch) that neither Luke nor Paul sees 'the Jews' as a monolithic social or religious system: hostility in one part of the system does not by any means automatically imply that there will be hostility in others. In fact the Roman Jews have a remarkably openminded attitude to Paul and his message (v. 22): it is a 'sect' which is 'spoken against' (v. 21, cf Lk 2:34), but they want to make up their own minds about it (v. 22). Paul's stance is the same as it has been all through his trial: the 'hope of Israel' recalls his words to Agrippa (26:6—8), but also takes the reader much further back to the opening chapters of the gospel and the faithful old people in the temple 'waiting for the consolation of Israel' (Lk 2:25—38).
vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Bauckham, R. (1995) (ed.), The Book of Acts in its First-Century Setting,
iv. Palestinian Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Brooke, G. J. (2000), 'Florilegium', in Schiffman and VanderKam
(2000), i. 297-8. Bruce, F. F. (1990), The Acts of the Apostles: the Greek Text with
Introduction and Commentary, 3rd edn. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Dodd, C. H. (1936), The Apostolic Preaching and its Development (Lon-
don: Hodder & Stoughton). Falk, D. (1995), 'Jewish Prayer Literature and the Jerusalem Church in
Acts', in Bauckham (1995), 267—301. Fitzmyer, J. A. (1981), The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, (AB New York:
Doubleday, 1981).
(1998), The Acts of the Apostles, (AB New York: Doubleday). Gill, D. (1994), 'Achaia', in Gill and Gempf (1994), 433-53. Gill, D., and Gempf, C. (1994) (eds.), The Book of Acts in its First-
Century Setting, ii. Graeco-Roman Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Hansen, G. W. (1994), 'Galatia', in Gill and Gempf (1994), 377—95. Horsley, G. H. R. (1994), 'The Politarchs', in Gill and Gempf (1994),
419-31. Jewett, R. (1979), Dating Paul's Life (London: SCM). Johnson, L. T. (1992), The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina, 5 (College-
(28:23—31) Paul's Last Words Paul has one day to win over the local community: Luke does not tell us what he said, but we can legitimately infer that it was a repetition of the argument that the whole of Acts has been setting out in dramatic form
ville, Minn.: Liturgical Press). Legasse, S. (1995), 'Paul's Pre-Christian Career According to Acts', in
Bauckham (1995), 365-90. Levinskaya, I. (1996), 'God-fearers: Epigraphic Evidence', in I. Levins-
(v. 23). The result is not wholly negative (some are 'convinced', v. 24), but it is inconclusive: the final state of the community is described as 'disharmony' (v. 25, 'disagreed': Gk. asymphonoi). Paul's strategy all through Acts seems to have been to win over entire communities for his messianist interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures, and it is this strategy—not the offer of salvation to individual Jews—that finally seems to have run out of steam. Luke has saved up for this point in his narrative (w. 26—7) the sombre prophecy from Isa 6:9—10 that informed much early Christian reflection on the Jewish rejection of Jesus (Lindars 1961: 159-67); compare Luke's citation in the parable of the sower (Lk 8:10) with Mk4:i2; Mt 13:14-15. It is a verse addressed by a prophet to his own people, and it records, not the threat of divine judgement, but the tragic failure of 'this people' to take advantage of the proffered 'salvation' (v. 28: the word picks up earlier allusions to Isaiah's wider vision (ACTS 26:12—23) as well as taking the reader back to Simeon's prophecy in Lk 2:30). It is probably fair to regard this as the real conclusion to Acts; the final two verses form a brief coda, recording Paul's continued witness to 'all who came' (by implication Jews as well as Gentiles, v. 30) over a two-year period: hardly triumphalist, but quietly confident that the proclamation of the gospel will go on into an uncertain future 'with all boldness and without hindrance' (v. 31).
kaya (ed.), The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting, v. Diaspora
Setting, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Lindars, B. (1961), New Testament Apologetic (London: SCM). Liidemann, G. (1984), Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronol-
ogy (London: SCM). Meyers, H. (1992), 'Synagogue', ABDvi. 251-63. Mitchell, S. (1992), 'Galatia', ABD ii. 871. Nobbs, A. (1994), 'Cyprus', in Gill and Gempf (1994), 279—89. Porter, S. E. (1994), The "We" Passages', in Gill and Gempf (1994),
545-74Powell, M. A. (1991), What Are They Saying About Acts'? (New York:
Paulist). Rapske, B. (1994), 'Acts, Travel and Shipwreck', in Gill and Gempf
(1994), 1-47. Riesner, R. (1995), 'Synagogues in Jerusalem' in Bauckham (1995),
179-210. Schiffman, L. H., and VanderKam, J. C. (2000) (eds.), The Encyclope-
dia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols., New York: Oxford University Press). Scott, J. M. (1994), 'Luke's Geographical Horizon', in Gill and Gempf
(1994), 483-544. Steudel, A. (2000), Testimonia', in Schiffman and VanderKam
(2000), 936-8. Sterling, G. in Schiffman and VanderKam (2000), i. 5—7. Trebilco, P. (1994), 'Asia', in Gill and Gempf (1994), 316-38. Winter, B. (1993), 'Official Proceedings and Forensic Speeches in Acts
24-26', in Winter and Clarke (1993), 315-22. Winter, B. W, and Clarke, A. D. (1993) (eds.), The Book of Acts in its
First-Century Setting, i. Ancient Literary Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Witherington III, B. (1998), The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-