Peter Between Jerusalem and Antioch: Peter, James, and the Gentiles (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161518898, 9783161523557, 3161518896

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) Tobias Niklas (Regensburg)

345

Jack J. Gibson

Peter Between Jerusalem and Antioch Peter, James and the Gentiles

Mohr Siebeck

Jack J. Gibson, born 1973; 1995 BA; 1997 MDiv; 2006 MA; 2007 ThM; 2011 PhD; currently High School Bible Teacher, Grace Brethren High School, Simi Valley, CA, Adjunct Professor of Bible, Lancaster Bible College, Lancaster, PA, and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies, Hope International University, Fullerton, CA.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-152355-7 ISBN 978-3-16-151889-8 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2013 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

To My Soulmate, Marilyn Thank you for making my life a storybook story and to our precious daughter Rebekah, we can’t wait to meet you!

Preface This monograph is a slightly revised edition of my dissertation, which was accepted on 31 March 2011 by the Faculty of the Department of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School on March 31, 2011. I would first like to express my great appreciation for my supervisor Dr. Eckhard J. Schnabel. His dedication to excellence and his enduring patience is largely responsible for the production of this work. I am also thankful to my readers, Dr. David Pao, Dr. Willem VanGemeren, and Dr. Richard Averbeck. Their comments and suggestions made this dissertation far better than it ever would have been. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Dr. Jörg Frey, for accepting this thesis for publication, and to Dr. Henning Ziebritzki and his editorial staff for their able and patient assistance as I formatted this manuscript for publication. The Antioch incident of Gal 2:11–14 has fascinated me for fifteen years. Yet my study always left me wanting. The focus of scholarship on this incident has always centered on Paul. This is understandable, as our only recorded perspective is of Paul. Yet I kept circling back to Peter, trying to comprehend why he acted as he did. This study resulted in my master’s thesis of 2007, an attempt to understand the role that the Antioch incident may have played in the development of Ebionite and Nazarene Christianity. By the time I was finished, I realized I needed to do more work on the Antioch incident if I was to fully grasp what happened on that fateful day. I also realized I needed to study the person of Peter much more if I was to understand his motivations. This monograph is the culmination of this journey. I would like to thank Dr. Moyer Hubbard and Dr. Clinton Arnold of Talbot School of Theology for their guidance as I underwent this preliminary stage of my study. I praise God for the many blessings he has bestowed upon me. This includes surrounding me with loving family and friends; space permits my own mentioning a few. Jacob Rosenberg served as an invaluable sounding board throughout the writing process. Adam Johnson, Scott Harrower, and Jared Compton were all very supportive. I have the honor of being in one of the greatest families I can imagine. My parents have been fantastic examples of what it means to live a godly life; I owe everything to them! I have the most wonderfully loving and supportive wife; Marilyn has been

VIII

Preface

by my side every step of the way. And as we await the arrival of our daughter, Rebekah, we proclaim: “To God be the glory!” Simi Valley, CA, 7 July 2011 Preface Table of Contents

Jack J. Gibson

Table of Contents Preface ................................................................................................. VIII Table of Contents .................................................................................... IX

Chapter 1. Peter at Antioch ................................................................ 1 I.

History of Research........................................................................... 2 A. Baur and the Antioch Incident ...................................................... 2 B. The Antioch Incident in Recent Scholarship ................................. 4 C. Survey of Scholarship on Major Issues within Gal 2:11–14 .......... 6 1. Identity and Message of the “Men from James” ....................... 6 2. Peter’s Reasons for Withdrawing from Table Fellowship ...... 10 3. Did Paul Prevail at Antioch? ................................................. 14 II. Methodology ................................................................................... 15 III. Plan of the Thesis ............................................................................ 16

Chapter 2. The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels ............ 19 I. II.

Peter’s Background ......................................................................... 20 The Calling of Peter (Mark 1:16–18; Matt 4:18–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:40–42) ................................................................................. 21 A. Mark 1:16–18 ............................................................................. 21 B. Matthew 4:18–20 ....................................................................... 24 C. Luke 5:1–11 ............................................................................... 24 D. John 1:40–42 .............................................................................. 25 E. The Name of Peter ..................................................................... 25 F. Summary of Peter’s Characterization ......................................... 27 III. Peter Walks on Water (Matt 14:26–31) ........................................... 27 A. Summary of Peter’s Characterization ......................................... 29 IV. Confession of Peter: Mark 8:27–30; Matt 16:13–20; Luke 9:18–22; John 6:66–69) .......................................................... 29 A. Mark 8:27–30 ............................................................................. 29 B. Matthew 16:13–20 ..................................................................... 31

X

Table of Contents

C. Luke 9:18–22 ............................................................................. 34 D. John 6:66–69 .............................................................................. 34 E. Summary of Peter’s Characterization ......................................... 36 V. Peter Rebukes Jesus (Mark 8:31–33; Matt 16:21–23) ...................... 36 A. Mark 8:31–33 ............................................................................. 36 B. Matthew 16:21–23 ...................................................................... 39 C. Summary of Peter’s Characterization .......................................... 40 VI. Transfiguration of Jesus: (Mark 9:2–8; Matt 17:1–8; Luke 9:28–36) ................................................................................. 41 A. Mark 9:2–8................................................................................. 41 B. Matthew 17:1–8 ......................................................................... 44 C. Luke 9:28–36 ............................................................................. 44 D. Summary of Peter’s Characterization ......................................... 45 VII. Washing of the Disciples’ Feet (John 13:2–11) ............................... 46 A. Summary of Peter’s Characterization ......................................... 48 VIII. Prediction of Peter’s Denials (Mark 14:27–31; Matt 26:31–35; Luke 22:31–34; John 13:36–38) ...................................................... 49 A. Mark 14:27–31 ........................................................................... 49 B. Matthew 26:31–35 ..................................................................... 51 C. Luke 22:31–34 ........................................................................... 51 D. John 13:36–38 ............................................................................ 53 E. Summary of Peter’s Characterization ......................................... 54 IX. Prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:32–42; Matt 26:36–46; Luke 22:39–46) ...................................................... 54 A. Mark 14:32–42 ........................................................................... 54 B. Matthew 26:36–46 ...................................................................... 57 C. Luke 22:39–46............................................................................ 57 D. Summary of Peter’s Characterization .......................................... 58 X. Peter Defends Jesus (John 18:10–11) .............................................. 58 A. Summary of Peter’s Characterization ......................................... 61 XI. Peter’s Denials (Mark 14:54, 66–72; Matt 26:58, 69–75; Luke 22:54b–62; John 18:15–18, 25–27) ........................................ 61 A. Mark 14:54, 66–72 ..................................................................... 61 B. Matthew 26:58, 69–75 ................................................................ 62 C. Luke 22:54b–62 ......................................................................... 63 D. John 18:15–18, 25–27 ................................................................ 63 E. Summary of Peter’s Characterization ......................................... 70 XII. Peter Races to the Empty Tomb (Luke 24:12; John 20:2–10) .......... 70 A. Luke 24:12 ................................................................................. 70 B. John 20:2–10 .............................................................................. 71 C. Summary of Peter’s Characterization ......................................... 73

Table of Contents

XI

XIII. Resurrection Appearances of Jesus to Peter (John 21:1–23) ............ 73 A. Summary of Peter’s Characterization ......................................... 78 XIV. Conclusion ...................................................................................... 78

Chapter 3. The Characterization of Peter in Acts ........................ 82 I. II. III. IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

Peter in Acts Pre-Pentecost (Acts 1) ................................................ 82 A. Historicity of Acts 1 ................................................................... 87 B. Summary of Peter’s Characterization in Acts 1 .......................... 89 Peter and Pentecost (Acts 2) ............................................................ 89 A. Historicity of Acts 2 ................................................................... 94 B. Summary of Peter’s Characterization in Acts 2 .......................... 96 Peter in Jerusalem after Pentecost (Acts 3–5) .................................. 96 A. Historicity of Acts 3–5 ............................................................. 105 B. Summary of Peter’s Characterization in Acts 3–5 ..................... 107 Peter in Samaria, Lydda, and Joppa (Acts 8:14–24; 9:32–43) ........ 108 A. Historicity of Acts 8:14–24; 9:32–43........................................ 111 B. Summary of Peter’s Characterization in Acts 8:14–24; 9:32–43 .................................................................................... 112 Peter and Cornelius (Acts 10:1–11:18) .......................................... 113 A. Second Temple Judaism and Gentiles ....................................... 113 B. Peter and His Pre-Joppa Views on Gentiles .............................. 117 C. The Link between Table Fellowship and Communal Unity....... 119 D. The Transformation of Peter (Acts 10:1–48) ............................. 121 E. Peter’s Defense in Jerusalem (Acts 11:1–18) ............................ 126 F. Historicity of Acts 10:1–11:18 .................................................. 130 G. Summary of Peter’s Characterization in Acts 10:1–11:18 ......... 134 Peter’s Miraculous Escape from Prison and Its Implications for the Jerusalem Church (Acts 12:1–17) ...................................... 135 A. Historicity of Acts 12:1–17 ...................................................... 138 B. Summary of Peter’s Characterization in Acts 12:1–17 .............. 139 Conclusion .................................................................................... 140

Chapter 4. The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52.................................................... 141 I. II.

Josephus as Historian .................................................................... 143 The Evidence ................................................................................ 147 A. Herod the Great (37–4 B.C.)..................................................... 147 B. War of Varus (6 B.C.–4 B.C.) .................................................. 150 C. Judas the Galilean and the Fourth Philosophy........................... 153

XII

Table of Contents

D. Roman Prefects and Agrippa I (A.D. 6–44) .............................. 155 1. The First Four Prefects (A.D. 6–26) .................................... 155 2. Pontius Pilate (A.D. 26–36) ................................................. 156 3. Gaius, the Statue, and Petronius (A.D. 39–41) ..................... 167 4. Herod Agrippa I (A.D. 41–44) ............................................. 169 5. Conclusion .......................................................................... 170 E. Roman Procurators through Cumanus (A.D. 44–52) ................. 171 1. Cuspius Fadus (A.D. 44–46) ................................................ 173 2. Tiberius Alexander (A.D. 46–48) ........................................ 175 3. Jews in Rome and Alexandria in the 40s A.D. ..................... 182 4. Ventidius Cumanus (A.D. 48–52) ........................................ 186 5. Conclusion .......................................................................... 190 III. The Origin of the Jewish Revolutionary Movement....................... 195 A. Martin Hengel .......................................................................... 197 B. Jonathan Price .......................................................................... 207 C. Richard Horsley and John Hanson ............................................ 208 D. David Rhoads ........................................................................... 210 E. Doron Mendels ......................................................................... 212 F. Conclusion ............................................................................... 213

Chapter 5. The Antioch Incident ................................................... 215 I. Chronological Issues ..................................................................... 215 II. Peter and Paul Prior to the Antioch Incident .................................. 219 III. Peter and James Prior to the Antioch Incident ............................... 227 A. James and the Jerusalem Church .............................................. 228 B. James and Gentiles ................................................................... 235 1. Galatians 2:1–10.................................................................. 236 2. Acts 15:1–29 ....................................................................... 237 IV. Peter and Paul in Antioch (Gal 2:11–14) ....................................... 244 V. Peter’s Rationale for Withdrawing from the Gentiles .................... 252 A. Was Peter Vacillating? ............................................................. 253 B. Did the Jerusalem Agreement Obligate Peter to Withdraw from the Gentiles? .................................................................... 255 C. Did Peter Believe the Gentiles Should Be Circumcised? .......... 258 D. Was Peter Playing the Role of Mediator? ................................. 260 E. Was Peter Concerned with His Position in the Church? ............ 261 F. Was Peter Concerned about Persecution?.................................. 262 VI. The Outcome of the Antioch Incident............................................ 275

Chapter 6. Conclusion ..................................................................... 284

Table of Contents

XIII

Bibliography ......................................................................................... 287 Index of Ancient Sources ...................................................................... 315 Index of Authors ................................................................................... 332 Index of Subjects .................................................................................. 338

Chapter 1

Peter at Antioch Following the martyrdom of Stephen, a great persecution of Christians1 ensued (Acts 8:1b). Previously, the Christian church was primarily limited to Judea; with the persecution, large numbers of Christians spread throughout the surrounding provinces. Some of these Christians, all of whom were Jewish, began to evangelize Gentiles. Soon, mixed ethnic congregations began to form, the most significant of which was at Antioch (Acts 11:20– 30). Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ both worshipped and ate together. Paul and Barnabas were at least two of Antioch’s principal leaders and it served as their base for missionary travels (Acts 11:19–25; 13:1–3). Peter later arrives at Antioch (Gal 2:11–14).2 Initially, he follows the established practice in eating with Gentiles. But then some men from James come and convince him to withdraw from open table fellowship. According to Paul, this was due to a “fear of the circumcision” and was contrary to Peter’s own beliefs. The other Jewish Christians at Antioch, including Barnabas, follow Peter’s example. Paul proceeds to publicly condemn Peter’s actions, arguing that Peter’s actions imply that “Christ died in vain” (Gal 2:21b). No further details are provided for what is commonly referred to as the “Antioch incident.” But tantalizing questions remain. Who were these men from James? What was their message to Peter? What was the specific fear which led Peter to withdraw? Was Paul successful in convincing Peter? This dissertation attempts to answer these questions with the goal of establishing a stronger grasp of both the Antioch incident as well as the beliefs and motivations of Peter.

1

While the use of the term “Christian” is anachronistic prior to its introduction in Antioch (Acts 11:26) and while the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem likely used alternate titles such as “the Way” to identify themselves (Acts 24:14, which Paul uses when defending himself before Felix) or “Nazarene” (Acts 24:5, where the term is used by Paul’s accusers to describe Paul’s sect), I will regularly use “Christian” to refer to any early follower of Christ following his resurrection. 2 The exact chronology of this period of Paul’s life is controversial, especially with regards to whether the Antioch incident occurred before or after the Jerusalem council (Acts 15). This issue will be discussed in greater depth in chapter 5.

2

Chapter 1: Peter at Antioch

I. History of Research I. History of Research

This section will accomplish two tasks. It will begin with the role which the Antioch incident played in the historical reconstruction of Ferdinand Christian Baur in the first half of the nineteenth century, along with the legacy of this interpretation. It will then establish the range of interpretations on three central issues to Gal 2:11–14: the identity and purpose of the “men from James,” Peter’s reasons for ceasing to eat with the Gentile Christians in Antioch, and the outcome of the confrontation. A. Baur and the Antioch Incident In 1831, F. C. Baur presented his conception of the early church in his article on the various parties in the Corinthian church, in which he argued that early Christianity was divided into two opposing groups.3 One party, centered in Jerusalem around James (the brother of Jesus) and Peter, was legalistic and advocated the continued importance of Judaism. The second party, centered in Antioch around Paul, was universalistic and espoused the utter abrogation of the Mosaic Law and the replacement of Judaism. With his Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi (1845) and Kirchengeschichte der drei ersten Jahrhunderte (1853), Baur continued the development of his thesis. According to Baur, the discontent of the Hellenist widows over the “daily distribution” in Acts 6:1 was indicative of a deeper rift between the Hebrews and Hellenists. This schism was finalized with Stephen’s speech which Baur claimed demonstrated a complete break from the Law and Judaism.4 This speech resulted in a persecution of the church in which all were scattered “except the apostles” (Acts 8:1b). Baur claimed this persecution was perpetrated only against the Hellenistic Jewish Christians.5 3 F. C. Baur, “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des paulinischen und petrinischen in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom.” TZT 4 (1831): 61–206. Republished in Ferdinand Christian Baur, Ausgewählte Werke in Einzelausgaben (vol. 1; ed. Klaus Scholder; Stuttgart: Frommann, 1963), 1–146. 4 Ferdinand Christian Baur, The Church History of the First Three Centuries (trans. Allan Menzies; London: Williams and Norgate, 1878–79), 44–46. 5 Any specific designation for the Jewish believers in Jesus in the first decades of the church is problematic. For further discussion, see, e.g, Albertus Frederik Johannes Klijn, “Study of Jewish Christianity,” NTS 20 (1974): 419–431; Bruce J. Malina, “Jewish Christianity or Christian Judaism: Toward a Hypothetical Definition,” JSJ 7 (1976): 46– 57; Marcel Simon, Le christianisme antique et son contexte religieux: scripta varia (WUNT 23; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981) 2:598–621; Raymond E. Brown, “Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity but Types of Jewish/Gentile Christianity,” CBQ 45 (1983): 74–79; Joan E. Taylor, “The Phenomenon of Early Jewish-Christianity: Reality or Scholarly Invention?” VC 44 (1990): 313–334; Matt Jackson-McCabe, “What’s in a Name? The Problem of ‘Jewish Christianity’,” in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered:

I. History of Research

3

This led naturally to the Jerusalem church being composed solely of Hebraists. The Hellenists, on the other hand, carried their own Law-free Gospel to the Gentiles, creating a universal system in which both Jews and Gentiles lived together in complete equality. 6 Baur contended that two separate missions and two separate gospels had been officially established in Gal 2:9, with James/Peter/John leading a mission to the Jews and Paul/Barnabas leading a mission to the Gentiles, “recognising that each party had a right to go its own way, separate from, and independent of the other.”7 However, this decision “did not arise from any root of conviction in their [James, Peter, and John] minds, and was out of harmony with their religious feelings.”8 This was demonstrated when men from James came to Antioch and “reminded Peter so strongly of the principles which were so rigorously upheld at Jerusalem, that he gave up sitting at the same table with the Gentile Christians. … in drawing this distinction between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians he practically declared that he no longer recognized the latter to be on the same level with the former.”9 The refusal by Peter to acquiesce to Paul’s demand that he renew table fellowship with Gentiles resulted in Paul becoming estranged from the Jerusalem apostles, the Antioch church, and his missionary partner Barnabas. The second era of the early church, according to Baur, was characterized by attacks upon Paul and his authority by representatives of the Jerusalem church. Baur cites the parties at Corinth (with some following Paul, others Peter, others Apollos; cf. 1 Cor 3:4) as evidence of this lack of unity in the early church. And, at the time, it was uncertain which perspective would prevail. However, the Jewish revolt of A.D. 66–70 changed all of this, leading to Baur’s third era of the early church in which the Law-based Gospel became marginalized (centered in the Ebionite community of Pella, formed from those Jewish Christians who had fled Jerusalem prior to the revolt as the result of a vision) and the rise to utter dominance by the Lawfree Gospel taught by Paul and his associates.10 To understand Baur’s view of Peter’s role in the early church, it is necessary to understand how Baur interprets Acts. According to Baur, Acts

Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts (ed. Matt Jackson-McCabe; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 7–38; Oskar Skarsaune, “Jewish Believers in Jesus in Antiquity – Problems of Definition, Method, and Sources,” in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries (ed. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), 3–7. 6 Baur, Church History, 45. 7 Baur, Church History, 53. 8 Baur, Church History, 54. 9 Baur, Church History, 54. 10 Baur, Church History, 56–65.

4

Chapter 1: Peter at Antioch

should not be considered a reliable historical document.11 He draws upon the absence of the Antioch incident in Acts as evidence: The Acts of the Apostles indeed says nothing of all this [i.e., the Antioch Incident]. In a representation deviating so much from the truth as this account of the transactions at Jerusalem [Acts 15], there could indeed be no place for a scene like this; and for this reason not only does this discrepancy between the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Galatians become more apparent, but it also becomes indubitable that the silence of the 12 Acts of the Apostles with regard to so public an occurrence, is an intentional one.”

Baur contends that Acts was actually an attempt by a representative of the Pauline “camp” to create a synthesis between the Pauline and Petrine parties.13 This “compromise” book presents Paul as more “Petrine” and Peter as more “Pauline.” For example, Paul agrees, at the request of James, to pay for four Jewish Christians to take a Nazarite vow, so that the people will know that Paul honors the Jewish laws and traditions (Acts 21:18–26). He also agrees to the Jerusalem Decree (Acts 15:19–21), being willing to bring it to Antioch (Acts 15:22). Peter, on the other hand, is presented as being given a divine vision which led him to conclude that the Gentiles could be accepted into fellowship without being circumcised, proclaiming this before the entire church of Jerusalem (Acts 10–11) and then reiterating this conviction at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:7–11). Likewise, 1 Peter was written on behalf of the Pauline party, providing Paul’s letters with Scriptural authority. 14 Consequently, according to Baur, much of what is written about Peter in the canonical New Testament is not truly representative of Peter’s actual beliefs or how he influenced his segment of the early church. B. The Antioch Incident in Recent Scholarship Baur has had a pervasive influence on NT scholarship. It soon became common for the historicity of the Acts of the Apostles to be discounted, with attempts made to reconstruct a Pauline chronology on the basis of the Pauline epistles alone. One interesting, yet unlikely, thesis proposed by Johannes Munck suggests that Gal 2:11–14 occurred chronologically prior 11 In contrast, Baur views Galatians as one of four Pauline epistles (along with Romans and the two epistles to the Corinthians) which “bear in themselves so incontestably the character of the Pauline originality, that it is not possible for critical doubt to be exercised upon them with any show of reason.” In Ferdinand Christian Baur, Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teachings; A Contribution to a Critical History of Primitive Christianity (London: Williams and Norgate, 1873– 75), 1:256. 12 Baur, Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, 134. 13 Baur, Church History, 132–136. 14 Baur, Church History, 130–132.

I. History of Research

5

to 2:1–10 and that Paul placed the Antioch incident after his account of the Jerusalem agreement because it provided the clearest demonstration of his independence from the Jerusalem leadership.15 The influence of Baur’s thesis has not been limited to NT chronology; the entire field of the history of the first century church has been affected. While various elements of Baur’s overall thesis have been questioned, his analysis of the Antioch incident of Gal 2:11–14 remained accepted by much of scholarship for more than a century. It is still common for scholars to assert that this incident led to a split between Jerusalem and Paul, though many would not view this split as complete as did Baur.16 Given the significance of Gal 2:11–14 in the formulation of New Testament history, it is surprising that the incident was somewhat neglected until recently. In 1983, James Dunn wrote a 55-page article in which he observed in his introduction that “there has been remarkably little detailed work done on the incident itself.”17 Since then, this lacuna has begun to be filled;18 however, the major focus of recent scholarship has been on the topic of table fellowship within Second Temple Judaism.19 Paul and James receive significant attention; detailed analysis of Peter’s role in Gal 2:11– 14, however, is often minimal (though not entirely neglected). This is understandable, given the fact that only Paul’s account of the incident has been preserved. Joachim Gnilka is certainly correct when he writes:

15 Johannes Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (trans. Frank Clarke; 1st English ed.; Richmond: John Knox, 1959), 100–134. Cf. Gerd Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology (trans. F. Stanley Jones; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 44–89. 16 See, e.g., Craig C. Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division Within the Earliest Church (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992). 17 James D. G. Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11–18),” JSNT 18 (1983): 4. 18 Major studies on the Antioch incident include: Henricus Maria Feret, Pierre et Paul à Antioche et à Jérusalem: Le ‘conflit’ des deux apôtres (Paris: Cerf, 1955); René Kieffer, Foi et justification à Antioche: Interprétation d’un conflit (Ga 2, 14–21) (LD 111; Paris: Cerf, 1982); Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch,” 3–57; Andreas Wechsler, Geschichtsbild und Apostelstreit: Eine forschungsgeschichtliche und exegetische Studie über den antiochenischen Zwischenfall (Gal 2, 11–14) (BZNW 62; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991); Nicholas Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem: A Study in Relationships and Authority in Earliest Christianity (JSNTSup 66; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992); Jacinto Núñez Regodón, El Evangelio en Antioquía: Gál 2, 15–21 entre el incidente antioqueno y la crisis gálata (Plenitudo Temporis 7; Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, 2002). 19 E.g., Dunn, “Incident at Antioch,” 10–21; E. P. Sanders, “Jewish Association with Gentiles and Galatians 2:11–14,” in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn (ed. Robert Tomson Fortna and Beverly Roberts Gaventa; Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 170–188; Bengt Holmberg, “Jewish Versus Christian Identity in the Early Church,” RB 105 (1998): 397–425.

6

Chapter 1: Peter at Antioch

Die Rekonstruktion des Antiochenischen Zwischenfalls gerade im Hinblick auf das Verhalten des Petrus ist außerordentlich schwierig. Die wichtigsten Gründe hierfür sind folgende: Paulus spricht mit äußerster Knappheit. Er spricht mit emotionaler Anteilnahme. Er verknüpft seine damaligen Argumente mit denen, die er jetzt im Galaterbrief gegenüber seinen galatischen Gegnern vorbringt. Er erwähnt nicht die Argumente seiner 20 Kontrahenten, Petrus und Jakobus.

However, given the importance of this episode for the history of the first century church, detailed analysis of both Paul and Peter is certainly warranted, even if our conclusions regarding the latter must remain somewhat speculative. C. Survey of Scholarship on Major Issues within Gal 2:11–14 There are three issues regarding the text of Gal 2:11–14 which will be of great importance to this study. First, what was the identity and message of the men from James (2:12)? Second, why did Peter withdraw from table fellowship with the Gentile Christians at Antioch? Third, was Peter convinced by Paul’s argument? Before proceeding, it will be helpful to establish the range of scholarly position on each of these three questions. 1. Identity and Message of the “Men from James” The identity of the “men from James” (Gal 2:12) is greatly debated. There are some scholars who suggest that these individuals were not actually sent by James, but simply came from Jerusalem.21 However, the majority of scholars agree that James commissioned these men to speak on his behalf to Peter. For example, Hans Schoeps identifies “the false brothers” of Gal 2:4 with “the men from James” and with the “ardent law-observers” of Acts 15:5; in his view, they are the forerunners of the later Ebionites.22 20 Joachim Gnilka, Petrus und Rom: Das Petrusbild in den ersten zwei Jahrhunderten (Freiburg: Herder, 2002), 101. 21 Albrecht Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (2d ed. THKNT 9; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1957), 57; Hans Lietzmann, Die Briefe des Apostels Paulus, an die Galater (Tübingen: Mohr, 1971), 84; Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (12th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 83. Jost Eckert, in Die urchristliche Verkündigung im Streit zwischen Paulus und seinen Gegnern nach dem Galaterbrief (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1971), 195–196, argues that ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου should be interpreted as indicating the authority by which they came to Antioch, and not simply their geographic origin. Markus Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 72 n. 100, believes that these men were not actually commissioned by James, “but nevertheless claimed to address the Gentiles as official spokesmen of the Jerusalem church.” 22 Hans Joachim Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in Light of the Jewish Religious History (trans. Harold Knight; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 67–68, 74– 75.

I. History of Research

7

Raymond Brown suggests that “the men who ‘came from James’ (2:12) ... may even have been unconverted Jews rather than Jewish Christians.”23 August Strobel connects the men from James to the same group of Jewish Christians who were agitators in Galatia.24 Gerd Lüdemann contended that they were members of the “circumcision group” feared by Peter. 25 Lothar Wehr suggests that Peter desired to preserve the unity of the church by compelling the Gentiles to take on “signs of Jewish identity.” 26 It is likewise prevalent for scholars to see a direct connection between the Jerusalem agreement in Gal 2:9 and the goals of these “men from James”, though there is significant disagreement as to the exact nature of this connection.27 A separation motif is common amongst many scholars. For example, Walter Schmithals holds they were demanding complete separation between Jewish and Gentile Christians, afraid that Peter’s open table fellowship could lead to the complete abandonment of the Law within Jewish Christianity, and believing there should exist a strict separation between Jews and those Gentiles who did not keep the Law. 28 According to Dunn, the men from James asserted that the Jerusalem agreement demanded that Jewish Christians “live like Jews”, and that this required a 23 Raymond Edward Brown, Karl P. Donfried, and John Henry Paul Reumann, Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1973), 27 n. 58. 24 August Strobel, “Das Aposteldekret als Folge des Antiochenischen Streites,” in Kontinuität und Einheit (ed. Paul-Gerhard Müller and Werner Stenger; Freiburg: Herder, 1981), 84. 25 Gerd Lüdemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary (trans John Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 39. 26 Lothar Wehr, Petrus und Paulus, Kontrahenten und Partner: Die beiden Apostel im Spiegel des Neuen Testaments, der apostolischen Väter und früher Zeugnisse ihrer Verehrung (NTAbh 30; Münster: Aschendorff, 1996), 69. Cf. Philip Francis Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS 57; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 88; Scot McKnight, “A Parting Within the Way: Jesus and James on Israel and Purity,” in James the Just and Christian Origins (ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; NovTSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 100. Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch,” 30–31, contends that this view does not comport with the meaning of Ἰουδαΐζω (Gal 2:14) and is contrary to the preceding Jerusalem agreement (Gal 2:1–10). Cf. Sanders, “Jewish Association,” 171. 27 Günther Bornkamm, Paul (1st U.S. ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 46, argues that Paul believed Peter and James were contravening the Jerusalem agreement, but that this was not the actual intent of Peter and James. 28 Walter Schmithals, Paul and James (trans. Dorthea M. Barton; SBT 46; London: SCM, 1965), 64–69. Cf. Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 108; Charles Kingsley Barrett, Freedom and Obligation: A Study of the Epistle to the Galatians (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 13; Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 2:1003–1004.

8

Chapter 1: Peter at Antioch

separation from the ritually impure Gentile believers.29 Similarly, Magnus Zetterholm suggests that James did not believe there was any change in the status of Gentiles with the coming of Christ: they should still be considered God-fearers with the halakhic regulations regarding social intercourse between Jews and Gentiles being maintained. Hence, the men from James convinced Peter that the Jewish and Gentile Christians ought to form separate commensality groups.30 Bockmuehl proposes that James believed that since Antioch was part of the biblical land of Israel, the Jewish Christians should maintain their Jewish identity so that they would participate in the eschatological blessings upon Israel promised by Jesus.31 Gnilka, echoing the thoughts of many scholars, contends that the men from James asserted that the Jerusalem agreement meant that Peter, as an apostle to the circumcision, was responsible for making sure the Jewish Christians did not reject traditional Jewish customs, and thus should not be eating with impure Gentiles.32 Richard Bauckham suggests that the decision by Jewish Christians that separation from Gentile Christians was necessary was due to the former’s belief in the general “moral impurity of Gentiles.”33 Alternatively, a number of scholars believe the men from James were offering the Gentile Christians the option to either be circumcised and become Torah-observant or to establish a separate community apart from Jewish Christians.34 Yet still another viewpoint asserts that the men from 29

James D. G. Dunn, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 122; idem, “Incident at Antioch,” 31–32; idem, Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135; The Second DurhamTübingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism (Durham, September 1989) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 172–176. Cf. Rudolf Pesch, SimonPetrus: Geschichte und geschichtliche Bedeutung des ersten Jüngers Jesu Christi (Päpste und Papsttum 15; Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1980), 92; Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 126– 142; Regodón, El Evangelio en Antioquía, 111. 30 Magnus Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation Between Judaism and Christianity (Routledge Early Church Monographs; London: Routledge, 2003), 160–61. 31 Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches, 75–79. 32 Gnilka, Petrus und Rom, 103. 33 Richard Bauckham, “James, Peter, and the Gentiles,” in Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; NovTSup 115; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 124–126. 34 Ernest DeWitt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC 35; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921), 101–113, 257–259; Jürgen Becker, “Galater,” in Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser, Philipper, Kolosser, Thessalonicher und Philemon (ed. Jürgen Becker, Gerhard Friedrich, and Hans Conzelmann; NTD 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 27–28; Paul C. Böttger, “Paulus und Petrus in Antiochien: Zum Verständnis von Galater 2:11–21,” NTS 37 (1991): 81; John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Studies on Personalities of the New Testament; Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1997), 70;

I. History of Research

9

James desired to impose the demands of the Jerusalem Decree upon the Antiochene Gentile Christians.35 Along a different line of reasoning, Paul Achtemeier asserts that the Jerusalem decree was formulated at a conference unconnected to Gal 2:1–10 or Acts 15, did not include the presence of Peter, and that the first time Peter heard of this decree was when it was brought to Antioch by the men from James. It was Peter’s decision to abide by this Decree which led him to withdraw from eating with the Gentiles. Achtemeier also proposes that James had decided to depart from the Jerusalem agreement of Gal 2:9, because of some sort of external or internal pressure. 36 Hans Conzelmann presents a similar argument, though he identifies the Apostolic conference of Acts 15 as the meeting which officially separated Jewish Christians from Gentile Christians: the Jews should continue to keep the Law while the Gentiles should refrain. One consequence was that Jewish and Gentile Christians would not be able to eat together. The men from James, then, are simply exhorting Peter to consistently follow this principle.37 Arguing from the perspective of purity regulations in general rather than a specific ecclesiological agreement, Bruce Chilton argues that the “Jacobean circle” was proclaiming that the celebration of the eucharistic meal (which he believes was the type of meal that Peter had withdrawn from) was to be directly associated with Passover, and thus table fellowship with Gentiles during such a meal was to be strictly forbidden due to purity considerations.38 Differently, Jürgen Becker maintains that the men from Bauckham, “James, Peter, and the Gentiles,” 126; Francis B. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective (rev. and extended ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 107, specifies that circumcision was not seen by James as a means of salvation, but as “essential for full church membership” and “the solution to this marginalization” caused by the problem of shared table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. 35 E.g., David R. Catchpole, “Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree,” NTS 23 (1977): 440–443; Traugott Holtz, “Die Bedeutung des Apostelkonzils für Paulus,” NovT 16 (1974): 23. 36 Paul J. Achtemeier, The Quest for Unity in the New Testament Church: A Study in Paul and Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 52–53. Lietzmann, Galater, 108–109, agrees, specifically identifying the men from James who brought the Decree to Antioch with Judas and Silas. 37 Hans Conzelmann, History of Primitive Christianity (trans. John E. Steeley; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), 89; cf. Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem, 109; Charles Kingsley Barrett, “Paul: Councils and Controversies,” in Conflicts and Challenges in Early Christianity (ed. Donald Hagner; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1999), 54, 62–63; idem, On Paul: Aspects of His Life, Work and Influence in the Early Church (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 93–94. 38 Bruce Chilton, A Feast of Meanings: Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus Through Johannine Circles (NovTSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 102–105.

10

Chapter 1: Peter at Antioch

James represent one side of a “fight about the Law and the Gospel,” contending “the Antiochene Jewish Christians are not following the straight path of the Law “ but are instead following the Gentile Christians in using “another reference point, namely the truth of the Gospel.”39 2. Peter’s Reasons for Withdrawing from Table Fellowship Scholarship is likewise greatly divided over the reason Peter decided to withdraw from open table fellowship with the Gentile Christians. Paul describes Peter’s motivation as stemming from a fear “of the circumcision.” A survey of the relevant scholarship demonstrates that a scholar’s analysis of Peter’s motivation is largely dependent upon how this scholar identifies this group which Peter feared. Were they Jewish Christians? And, if so, should they be identified with the men from James? Or were they nonChristian Jews, specifically the Jewish population and/or leadership in Jerusalem? Those scholars who identify “those of the circumcision” with Jewish Christians tend to view Peter’s concerns as largely theological.40 For example, Oscar Cullmann contends that Peter’s missionary credentials were “dependent on the Jerusalem church” which placed him “in a particularly painful dilemma.”41 Betz suggests that Peter feared losing his power base within the Jerusalem church.42 Rudolf Pesch suggests Peter’s recognition that he had not been upholding his part of the Jerusalem agreement resulted in “a bad conscience.”43 Alternatively, while John Meier accents Peter as playing the role of the mediator, attempting to prevent any deep schism between the two sides represented by Paul and James by taking a middle road, and getting condemned by Paul for his troubles.44 Gerhard Ebeling contends that Peter experienced personal doubts about whether it was permissible to eat with Gentiles45 and George Howard insists that Pe39

Becker, “Galater,” 28. An exception is Paul Gaechter, “Jerusalem und Antiochien. Ein Beitrag zur urkirchlichen Rechtsentwicklung,” ZKT 70 (1948): 43, who identifies the circumcision group with the men from James, but contends that Peter yielded simply to bring about peace with the men from James, and not because he was convinced that these men were correct. 41 Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study (trans. Floyd V. Filson; 2d rev. ed.; LA 21; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 53. 42 Betz, Galatians, 109. 43 Pesch, Simon-Petrus, 91. 44 John P. Meier, “Part One: Antioch” in Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (ed. Raymond Edward Brown and John P. Meier; New York: Paulist, 1983), 41–42. 45 Gerhard Ebeling, The Truth of the Gospel: An Exposition of Galatians (trans. David Green; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 114. 40

I. History of Research

11

ter, Barnabas, and the other Jewish Christians were persuaded by the men from James that Gentile Christians must be circumcised.46 Vincent Smiles refers to examples from the Gospels (Mark 8:29–32; 14:29–31, 66–72; Matt 14:28–30; Luke 5:4–8; John 21:7) as establishing a pattern of “impetuosity and fickleness” which accounted for Peter’s vacillation in Antioch.47 Those scholars who identify “those of the circumcision” with nonChristian Jews lean towards a sociological explanation for Peter’s actions. For example, Gregory Dix suggests that Peter was concerned that rumors of Jewish Christians (and particularly himself) “fraternising with uncircumcised Gentiles” might lead to persecution of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem by other Jews. Hence he decided to temporarily modify his practice in Antioch.48 Similarly, Heinrich Schlier believes Peter’s fear was wellfounded because the men from James were publicly defaming Peter for his decision to eat with Gentiles.49 Francis Watson presents a similar view; though instead of being concerned about the witness to the Jews by the Jerusalem church as a whole, Peter was specifically worried “that association with uncircumcised Gentile Christians would expose him to rejection and hostility from Jews to whom he preached” especially if this was perceived as a “public endorsement of ἀκροβυστία.”50 Nicholas Taylor presents two possibilities for Peter’s decision: (1) persecution by other Jews and (2) Peter may have intended to cease eating with the Gentiles only for the duration of the visit of the men from James, so that they did not need to compromise “their own standards of observance.”51 Ben Witherington believes 46

George Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia: A Study in Early Christian Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 22–28. 47 Vincent M. Smiles, The Gospel and the Law in Galatia: Paul’s Response to JewishChristian Separatism and the Threat of Galatian Apostasy (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1998), 92–93; cf. Franz Mussner, Der Galaterbrief (HTKNT 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974), 142, who adds that Peter felt guilty because he had been recognized by the Jerusalem agreement in Gal 2:9 specifically as a missionary to the Jews. Contra Eckert, Die urchristliche Verkündigung, 197; Böttger, “Paulus und Petrus in Antiochien,” 88. 48 Gregory Dix, Jew and Greek: A Study in the Primitive Church (Westminster: Dacre, 1953), 43. 49 Schlier, Galater, 84 n. 4. Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Saint Paul: Épître aux Galates (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1950), 43, agrees: “redouta-t-il leurs réclamations, dénonciations, indignations, clameurs.” Cf. Becker, “Galater,” 28; Wechsler, Geschichtsbild und Apostelstreit, 333–335. 50 Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles, 106–107 (emphasis mine). Cf. Sanders, “Jewish Association,” 186; though Sanders does not provide any specifics for the reason James may have been worried about Peter’s reputation, suggesting instead that extensive Jewish fraternization with Gentiles was generally suspect, “since close association might lead to contact with idolatry or transgression of one of the biblical food laws.” 51 Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem, 132.

12

Chapter 1: Peter at Antioch

Peter’s actions were causing many non-Christian Jews to question Peter’s Jewishness: “Peter was being a bad witness, and acting in conflict with the character of his calling.”52 Carsten Thiede takes a different approach. He contends that the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in Antioch were eating separately before the men from James arrived. Thus, when Peter was eating with Gentile Christians, he was not eating with Jewish Christians. The message of the men from James was that Peter was reneging upon his responsibilities, outlined in the Jerusalem agreement of Gal 2:9, to minister to the Jewish believers. Paul was concerned that Peter’s actions might “cause a rift instead of allowing the gradual growing together of the whole church” as well as feared that he might lose his influence with the Gentile Christians.53 Alternatively, Robert Jewett suggests that increased nationalism may have been an underlying cause of Paul’s opponents in Galatians: Jewish Christians in Judea were stimulated by Zealotic pressure into a nomistic campaign among their fellow Christians in the late forties and fifties. Their goal was to avert the suspicion that they were in communion with lawless Gentiles. It appears that the Judean Christians convinced themselves that circumcision of Gentile Christians would thwart 54 Zealot reprisals.

In this article, Jewett does not extend his thesis to consider how this new situation may have affected the Jerusalem leadership or played a role in convincing Peter to withdraw from the Gentiles. Other scholars have made this connection;55 none, however, provide much exposition on this hypothesis. 52

Ben Witherington, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 153. Cf. Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 108. 53 Carsten Peter Thiede, Simon Peter: From Galilee to Rome (Exeter: Paternoster, 1986), 166–167. 54 Robert Jewett, “The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation,” NTS 17 (1971): 205. Paul W. Barnett, Paul: Missionary of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 147, makes a short comment which suggests he may concur: “Was it in this worrying time in Judea under Tiberius Alexander and Ventidius Cumanus that Paul’s anticircumcision policies in the Diaspora began to be called into question by conservative, nationalistically minded members of the Jerusalem church? Believers in Judea were not insulated from the events in the wider world.” Cf. Barnett, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament: A History of New Testament Times (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 172. 55 Frederick F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 130; Donald A. Carson, “Pauline Inconsistency: Reflections on I Corinthians 9.19–23 and Galatians 2:11–14,” Churchman 100 (1986): 31–32; Richard Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Dallas: Word, 1990), xciii, 74; Longenecker, Galatians, xciii, 74; G. Walter Hansen, Galatians (IVP New Testament Commentary Series; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 62–64; Withering-

I. History of Research

13

An influential voice who does attempt to expand upon Jewett’s thesis is Dunn in an article in which he appeals to Jewish nationalistic zeal as a prime factor underlying Peter’s decision in Antioch.56 However, he does not distinguish between the era of the Roman prefects prior to the reign of Herod Agrippa I (A. D. 41–44) and the era of the Roman procurators afterwards. Why did the Jerusalem leadership (and James, in particular, assuming that it was he who sent men to Antioch in Gal 2:12) decide that it was problematic for Peter to eat with Gentiles when they had previously been in accord with Peter’s declaration in Acts 11:1–18 that such action had been urged by God himself? If Dunn’s presentation of the situation in Judea is correct, the decision by Peter to perform a volte-face in the midst of an unchanging socio-political environment is inexplicable. Jost Eckert cautions that such proposals are speculative, because our sources do not provide specific pressures which may have been felt by the Jerusalem church.57 One of the goals of this thesis will be to strengthen the case that the situation in Jerusalem had indeed been altered by sociopolitical events such that Peter’s actions in Antioch now became a matter of great concern to the mission of the Jerusalem church, whereas previously it had not been nearly as significant an issue. Bo Reicke is one scholar who does attempt to answer this latter question about what may have served as the impetus for this new concern by James and Peter regarding increased nationalism. He contends that the relative political stability at the time of the Jerusalem council (which he dates to A.D. 48) allowed for a more moderate stance toward Gentiles and the Law. But with the rise of radical zealotry during the procuratorship of Antonius Felix and the resulting persecution against the Jewish Christians, it became

ton, Grace in Galatia, 155–156; Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches, 74–75, 77. Stephen Anthony Cummins, in Paul and the Crucified Christ in Antioch: Maccabean Martyrdom and Galatians 1 and 2 (SNTSMS 114; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), confusingly identifies the circumcision group with both Jewish Christians and Jewish non-Christians at various points in his argument. He initially suggests that they consisted of Jewish Christians who were concerned about the rise in Jewish nationalism and thus desired Peter to practice a Torah-observant lifestyle (pp. 176–178). However, he later writes that Peter may have been concerned with being disciplined by the local synagogue with a scourging similar to the ones Paul had suffered (p. 187). 56 Dunn, “Incident at Antioch,” 7–11, 32–35. 57 Jost Eckert, “Paulus und die Jerusalemer Autoritäten nach dem Galaterbrief und der Apostelgeschichte,” in Schriftauslegung: Beiträge zur Hermeneutik des Neuen Testamentes und im Neuen Testament, ed. Josef Ernst (Munich: Ferdinand Schoeningh, 1972), 301 n. 84. Cf. Martin Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt Against Rome, A.D. 66–70 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 7–19; Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 130–131.

14

Chapter 1: Peter at Antioch

desirable to compel the Gentile Christians to keep the Law. 58 This interpretation, however, depends upon dating the Antioch incident to A.D. 52 at the earliest, a later date than most scholars of NT chronology would accept. 3. Did Paul Prevail at Antioch? One final issue of importance regarding Gal 2:11–14 is whether Peter was convinced by Paul to return to his previous practice of eating with the Gentiles in Antioch. For much of Christian history, the consensus was that he did. Since Baur there has been a marked reversal. Most modern commentators assert that Peter continued his separation from Gentile table fellowship and that this was a primary cause for the split between Paul and Barnabas as well as the reason that Antioch is never mentioned by Paul in any of his subsequent letters.59 John McHugh points to Rom 14:1–3, 15:1 and 1 Cor 9:20–22 as evidence suggesting that Paul was later convinced that Peter had, in fact, been correct.60 Paul Gaechter concludes that Paul’s argument in Gal 2:15–21 does not indicate “the expression of the victory..., but rather proof that his defeat had left behind a festering wound in his soul.”61 On the other side of the issue, John Painter believes the evidence supports the conclusion that Paul remained connected to Antioch as a missionary, and contends that “the conclusion that Paul lost the contest arises from assumptions about the subsequent nature of Christianity at Anti-

58

Bo Reicke, “Der geschichtliche Hintergrund des Apostelkonzils und der Antiochia Episode,” in Studia Paulina: In honorem Johannis de Zwaan septuagenarii (ed. W. C. van Unnik, Jan Nicolaas Sevenster, and C. K. Barrett; Haarlem: Bohn, 1953), 179–184. 59 E.g., Lietzmann, Galater, 108; Dix, Jew and Greek, 47; Schmithals, Paul and James, 76–77; Bornkamm, Paul, 47; Conzelmann, History of Primitive Christianity, 90; Mussner, Galaterbrief, 186–187; Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 34; Meier, “Antioch,” 39–41; Taylor, Paul, Antioch, and Jerusalem, 139; Anton Dauer, Paulus und die christliche Gemeinde im syrischen Antiochia: Kritische Bestandsaufnahme der modernen Forschung mit einigen weiterführenden Überlegungen (BBB 106; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1996), 127–28; Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 159; James D. G. Dunn, Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135: The Second Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism (Durham, September 1989) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 177–179. 60 John McHugh, “Galatians 2:11–14: Was Peter Right?” in Paulus und das antike Judentum: Tübingen-Durham-Symposium im Gedenken an den 50. Todestag Adolf Schlatters (19. Mai 1938) (ed. Adolf von Schlatter, Martin Hengel, and Ulrich Heckel; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 322–327. 61 Paul Gaechter, Petrus und seine Zeit: Neutestamentliche Studien (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1958), 253.

II. Methodology

15

och.”62 In addition, Martin Karrer argues that there was no schism between Peter and Paul; the inclusion of “we” in Gal 2:15 indicates Peter’s agreement with Paul.63

II. Methodology II. Methodology

As this thesis is primarily a historical study, it will investigate primary source material to elucidate the Antioch incident in Gal 2:11–14. It will focus upon Acts, Galatians, and Josephus’ Antiquitates Iudaicorum, Bellum Iudaicum, and Vita, but will also include other biblical passages relating to Peter (particularly in the Gospels) as well as Philo’s Legatio ad Gaium and Tacitus’ Histories.64 As much of my thesis will rest upon the accuracy of the NT authors and Josephus as historians, historical accuracy will be considered throughout the thesis.65 It is often the case that only a single perspective of a debate between two or more individuals was recorded (or is extant). In such instances, a text serves as a mirror of the viewpoints of the opposing individual or group.66 This “mirror-reading” is both important and problematic. It is necessary in order to understand each party involved in a historical event, but it is often difficult to know how accurately the author of a text is re62

Painter, Just James, 72. Martin Karrer, “Petrus im paulinischen Gemeindekreis,” ZNW 80 (1989): 218; cf. Ragnar Bring, Commentary on Galatians (trans. Eric Wahlstrom; Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1961), 82; Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 2:1005. 64 Most of our knowledge about the history of first century Judea and Galilee, apart from the New Testament, comes from the works of Josephus. Philo discusses a relevant episode during the administration of Pontius Pilate in Legatio ad Gaium, 299–305. In Histories 5.9, Tacitus summarizes the entire history of Judea from its annexation by Pompey in 63 B.C. through the end of the procuratorship of Felix in A.D. 64 in a single paragraph. 65 Tessa Rajak, Josephus, the Historian and His Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); Pere Villalba i Varneda, The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus (Leiden: Brill, 1986); Ada Rapoport-Albert, Essays in Jewish Historiography (History and Theory: Beiheft 27; Middletown: Wesleyan University, 1988); Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (ed. Conrad H. Gempf; WUNT 49; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989); Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; Leiden: Brill, 1992); KlausStefan Krieger, Geschichtsschreibung als Apologetik: Bei Flavius Josephus (Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 9; Tübingen: Francke, 1994); Alexander Mittelstaedt, Lukas als Historiker: Zur Datierung des lukanischen Doppelwerkes (TANZ 43; Tübingen: Francke, 2006); Zuleika Rodgers, Making History: Josephus and Historical Method (JSJSup 110; Leiden: Brill, 2007). 66 John M. G. Barclay, “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” JSNT 31 (1987): 378. 63

16

Chapter 1: Peter at Antioch

flecting the beliefs of his opponents. Certainty is always difficult in historical studies; this is even more so when mirror-reading is required. As the Antioch incident of Gal 2:11–14 is such an example of the presentation of a debate from a single participant, circumspection will be necessary when passing judgment as to the likelihood that a particular theory is historically accurate or inaccurate. It should be acknowledged that “proof” is a relatively foreign concept to the study of history; the task of the historian is to weigh conflicting theories against one another and determine the probability of each. In the final analysis, it may be that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the labeling of any theory as certain or highly probable. But if it can be shown that one theory is more probable than its contenders, it is reasonable to prefer this theory over its alternatives. A fundamental issue which will concern this thesis involves the question of human intentionality. How does one determine the often unstated motivations of a historical individual, especially in a text like Gal 2:11–14 in which Peter himself is not the author? Three guidelines by David Fischer regarding the analysis of motivations are apropos to this thesis. First, motives are learned; they do not exist in a vacuum divorced from a person’s previous experiences. It thus becomes necessary to search a person’s past, as much as possible, to aid in our own determination of the basis of a particular motive. Second, motives are both conscious and unconscious and are pluralistic in number and nature. It should therefore be recognized that there is no single key to understanding a person’s motivation. Third, the historian should avoid the error of assuming a person has the same privilege of hindsight that the historian does.67

III. Plan of the Thesis III. Plan of the Thesis

The primary purpose of this dissertation will be to test the viability of the sociopolitical thesis of Peter’s motivations in Antioch presented by scholars such as Jewett, Dunn, Bruce, Longenecker, Witherington, and others. While it is evident that this theory has scholarly support, it has never been sufficiently investigated. In addition, the current consensus view that Paul was utterly defeated at Antioch will be challenged in light of this thesis. Chapter 2 will consider the characterization of Peter in the Gospels, focusing upon each Gospel text in which Peter plays a significant role. Chapter 3 continues the characterization analysis of Peter, focusing specifically upon the Book of Acts. In addition, Peter’s beliefs regarding 67

David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 209, 214–215.

III. Plan of the Thesis

17

Gentiles and table fellowship throughout Acts will be considered, with an emphasis upon the pivotal event in Peter’s life in this area: the Joppa vision and subsequent conversion of Cornelius and his being filled with the Spirit. Peter’s views will be compared with relevant Second Temple literature regarding Jewish beliefs concerning Gentiles salvation and table fellowship. Chapter 4 will begin with an analysis of the reliability of Josephus as an historian, particularly in the area of Jewish resistance to Roman rule. It will then proceed with an analysis of the relationship between Rome and Judea in the first century from the revolt led by Judas the Galilean in A.D. 6 to the Antioch incident (during the procuratorship of Ventidius Cumanus [A.D. 48–52]). It will be demonstrated that following Judas’ revolt of A.D. 6, there was a movement by Jewish leaders to practice a type of passive resistance. This model was successful adopted and practiced through the period of Roman prefects (A.D. 6–41) until the short reign of Herod Agrippa I (A.D. 41–44). Following Agrippa’s death, the political climate in Judea changed, as resistance became more and more violent (and which would eventually result in the Great Jewish revolt of A.D. 66–70). It was at the beginning of this tidal shift that the Antioch incident occurred. This not only substantiates the claim by some commentators on Galatians that there was a rise of Jewish nationalism around the time of the Antioch incident, but also more strongly establishes why James would have felt compelled to act at this particular moment. The central question of chapter 5 will be to the determine the reason for Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentiles, after he had so clearly advocated in both word and deed that this was acceptable for him to do. The only reason given by Paul is that Peter, after being visited by “men from James” (τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου), fears the ones of the circumcision (φοβούµενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτοµῆς). However, Peter’s views already coincided with the substance of Paul’s admonishment to him in Gal 2:15–21; hence it would be mistaken to postulate that Peter’s actions were due to any disagreement with the theological substance of Paul’s rebuke. If fear of the circumcision party did not prevent him from making his case in front of the entire Jerusalem church, why would a few men sent from James cause him to deny the direct revelation from God? His reasons, Paul declares in v. 13, were hypocritical; i.e., they did not stem from his true convictions. It is thus improbable that his rationale was theological. Rather, a more likely reconstruction is that Peter did not want to be the cause of any difficulties for his brethren in Jerusalem, whether this took the form of persecution by other Jews and/or in the attempt to share the Gospel with them, especially in light of the recent movement towards violent Jewish resistance against Roman occupation.

18

Chapter 1: Peter at Antioch

This chapter will then consider Peter’s response to Paul’s speech of condemnation. Three options will be considered. (1) Paul’s admonition failed to convince Peter to make any sort of positive response to what he says in Gal 2:15–21 (the consensus position). (2) Peter compromised; while agreeing with Paul’s argument, he also desired to aid his fellow Christians in Jerusalem. If he was able to convince the Gentiles that his actions should, in no way, lead them to embrace the Jewish faith, he would have successfully the stated concerns of Paul in Gal 2:15–21. The potential difficulty with this suggestion is that it would not have addressed another concern held by Paul: Jew/Gentile unity. Though this concern is not directly stated in Gal 2:15–21, it was of great importance to Paul (consider his famine relief efforts and the agreement of Gal 2:9). (3) Paul successfully convinced Peter to resume table fellowship with the Gentiles. This option would have addressed both concerns of Paul. However, a potential difficulty is why Paul does not mention Peter’s change of action in Galatians; this objection will need to be overcome if this possibility is to be accepted as the most probable of the three. Finally, chapter 6 will summarize the findings of this dissertation and offer suggestions for future research.

Chapter 2

The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels Before analyzing Peter’s behavior at Antioch in Gal 2:11–14 it will be beneficial to study his character. What type of person was he? In this chapter, I will examine how Peter is depicted in the Gospels. I will consider the life of Peter chronologically, considering each Gospel independently in my analysis of each individual Petrine passage. In addition, I will not focus upon questions concerning the message a gospel author may have been presenting through his depiction of Peter;1 such studies are valuable but often detract from an analysis of Peter himself. As this thesis is grounded in history, issues of historicity will be considered at the end of each Gospel section. Depending upon how one divides various passages, there are approximately 28 different pericopes in the Gospels which concern Peter. Due largely to space considerations, I will limit my deliberation to those which provide a significant insight into Peter’s character. Where appropriate, reference to secondary passages will be made. In addition, passages which refer to the disciples as a group, but not Peter in particular, will not be given individual treatment. Specifically, I will examine the following passages: 1. The Calling of Peter (Mark 1:16–18; Matt 4:18–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:40–42) 2. Peter Walks on Water (Matt 14:26–31) 3. Confession of Peter (Mark 8:27–30; Matt 16:13–20; Luke 9:18–22; John 6:66–69) 4. Peter Rebukes Jesus (Mark 8:31–33; Matt 16:21–23) 5. Transfiguration of Jesus (Mark 9:2–8; Matt 17:1–8; Luke 9:28–36) 6. Washing of the Disciples’ Feet (John 13:2–11) 7. Prediction of Peter’s Denials (Mark 14:27–31; Matt 26:31–35; Luke 22:31–34; John 13:36–38) 1 As is the case in works such as Kevin Quast, Peter and the Beloved Disciple: Figures for a Community in Crisis (JSNTSup 32; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) and Arlo J. Nau, Peter in Matthew: Discipleship, Diplomacy, and Dispraise ... with an Assessment of Power and Privilege in the Petrine Office (GNS 36; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992).

20

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

8. Prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:32–42; Matt 26:36–46; Luke 22:39–46) 9. Peter Defends Jesus (John 18:10–11) 10. Peter’s Denials (Mark 14:54, 66–72; Matt 26:58, 69–75; Luke 22:54b– 62; John 18:15–18, 25–27) 11. Peter Races to the Empty Tomb (Luke 24:12; John 20:2–10) 12. Resurrection Appearances of Jesus to Peter (John 21:1–23) I will conclude by making broad conclusions regarding the character of Peter as revealed in the Gospels. First, however, it will be beneficial to briefly discuss Peter’s background.

I. Peter’s Background I. Peter’s Background There is not a great deal of information provided in the Gospels about Peter’s background. He is from the city of Bethsaida (John 1:44) and resides in Capernaum; it is unclear when he left the former for the latter. He had a brother, Andrew, who also becomes one of the Twelve; it was Andrew who first mentioned Jesus to Peter (John 1:41). Both Simon and Andrew have Greek names “which may indicate that their family was open to hellenistic culture, and may perhaps even hint at an early knowledge of the Greek language.”2 Bockmuehl notes that, while “Peter’s origin in Bethsaida does indeed make him bilingual … his Aramaic accent is Jewish Galilean” thus suggesting “that Peter grew up fully bilingual in a Jewish minority setting.”3 He has a mother-in-law who lives with him (Mark 1:30), so it may be presumed that he is currently married (as opposed to being a widower; 1 Cor 9:5 specifically mentions Peter’s wife). The prominence of Peter is accentuated by the fact that Jesus likely lived with Peter in Capernaum, with his home becoming a center of activity (Mark 1:29–39; 2:1–12).4 He is a fisherman by trade and owns his own boat (Mark 1:16; Matt 4:18; Luke 5:3). Riesner is likely correct that 2

Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:226. Markus Bockmuehl, “Simon Peter and Bethsaida,” in The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity (ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; NovTSup 115; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 64, 82. 4 This theory is strengthened by the archaeological discovery of the probable site for Peter’s home in Capernaum, as its subsequent expansion into what was likely a church. Cf. Virgilio C. Corbo, The House of St. Peter at Capharnaum: A Preliminary Report of the First Two Campaigns of Excavations, April 16–June 19, Sept. 12–Nov. 26, 1968 (Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Minor 5; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1969). On the significance of this find for an understanding of Peter, see Rudolf Pesch, Simon-Petrus, 12–13; James F. Strange and Hershel Shanks, 3

II. The Calling of Peter

21

the Galilean fishermen in Jesus’ group of disciples belonged not to the rural lower class but to the commercial middle class. As this latter group was religiously interested, one may reckon a certain amount of education with disciples such as Peter or John despite 5 Acts 4:13.

II. The Calling of Peter (Mark 1:16–18; Matt 4:18–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:40–42) A. Mark 1:16–18

II. The Calling of Peter

Mark6 introduces Peter when Jesus calls him to be a disciple (1:16–18), though here he calls him Simon, deciding to wait to refer to the decision of Jesus to name him Peter until the appointment of the Twelve as a group in 3:16. Peter is with his brother Andrew, fishing on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus calls out to them to “Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men” (1:17). The two brothers respond by immediately leaving their nets (their profession) and following Jesus. The choice of Peter as one of Jesus’ disciples is, of course, greatly significant; it literally changes the course of Peter’s life. Unlike as was commonly true with master/disciple relationships in the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds, Peter did not choose Jesus; rather, it was Jesus who chose Peter (and the others).7 Though it is Jesus who initiates the call, it is still Peter who accepts this call.8 In doing so, he makes the conscious decision to leave behind his trade and adopt the position of a follower of Jesus (Mark 1:18). This requires at least the initial intent to place himself in a subordinate role to Jesus as his master. “Has the House Where Jesus Stayed in Capernaum Been Found?” BAR 8, no. 6 (December 1982): 26–37; Thiede, Simon Peter, 24–25. 5 Rainer Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der EvangelienÜberlieferung (WUNT 2/7; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981), 413. 6 For the sake of simplicity, the authors of the canonical Gospels will be identified as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. 7 Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 150 n. 222; Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:277. For a discussion of discipleship in Matthew particularly, see Michael J. Wilkins, The Concept of Disciple in Matthew’s Gospel: As Reflected in the Use of the Term Mαθητής (NovTSup 59; Leiden: Brill, 1988). 8 For a discussion of the possible OT background behind the call of disciples, see Pheme Perkins, Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church (Studies on Personalities of the New Testament; Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1994), 58; Christfried Böttrich, Petrus: Fischer, Fels und Funktionär (Biblische Gestalten 2; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001), 63; Joel Marcus, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005–2009), 1:183–185.

22

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

In addition, Peter is not merely accepting a subordinate position as a follower of Jesus. He is also accepting the beginning of a calling, a purpose which he realizes will shape at least his near-term future. Jesus proclaims that he will teach Peter and Andrew how to become fishers of people–to catch people as they had previously caught fish.9 It is uncertain whether they had any concept of exactly what this task would consist; perhaps there had been previous, unrecorded, conversations between Jesus and the two brothers.10 At the very least, Peter and Andrew knew that they were being called for a purpose, and in accepting Jesus’ call to follow him, they were also acknowledging their willingness to adopt Jesus’ purpose as their own. This aspect of Peter’s life being driven by a purpose will unfold in greater detail as his experience with Jesus progresses. Not only was there a purpose behind the call of Peter, there was also a definite sacrifice. They abandoned their nets and boats. They were required to reconfigure their understanding of their responsibilities for their families (as would be made even clearer by later teachings of Jesus; cf. Mark 3:31– 35; 10:28–31); even though Peter and Andrew do not abandon their home, it has been “put at the disposal of the kingdom.”11 They were required to 9

For a summary and brief analysis of the various suggestions for the background of the phrase “ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων”, see Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:275–276. Schnabel, himself, holds that Jesus originated this phrase. Cf. Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas: Word, 1989), 51. It is unlikely that the phrase harkens back to the prophetic imagery of God acting as a fisherman, e.g., Jer 16:16; Ezek 29:4; 38:4; Amos 4:2; Hab 1:14–17, (so William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes [NICOT 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 67; M. Eugene Boring, Mark: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 59, as these passages picture God as passing judgment upon evil nations, not recruiting disciples. The view of J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Ēsan gar halieis (Mk 1:16): Jesus’s Fishermen and the Parable of the Net,” NovT 22 (1980): 108–137, that this episode is a parable, and not intended to be understood as an actual event in the ministry of Jesus, should likewise be rejected. Also unconvincing is the argument by D. Rudman, “The Significance of the Phrase ‘Fishers of Men’ in the Synoptic Gospels,” IBS 26 (2005): 106–118, who, based upon an identification of the sea in the OT “with the forces of chaos,” contends that the phrase does not refer solely to making disciples, but also to activities such as confronting demonic powers or raising the dead. 10 While the text does indicate that Peter and Andrew left their nets and followed Jesus immediately (εὐθὺς), it is not clear in any of the Synoptics that there had been “a lack of preparation,” as claimed by Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 67. However, John 1:40–42 indicates that Andrew brought his brother Simon (Peter) to Jesus sometime after the baptism of Jesus. While Jesus’ call of Andrew and Peter in Mark 1:16–18 and par. could not have been the initial interaction Peter had with Jesus (John’s account makes this implausible, as does Luke’s decision to place the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law chronologically prior to the call of Peter), it would at least be correct to state that there had been little preparation. 11 Christopher D. Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative (SNTSMS 64; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 138. Cf. Warren Carter, “Matthew 4:18–

II. The Calling of Peter

23

be entirely dependent and subservient to Jesus. Sometime later, in contrast with the rich young ruler who is not willing to sacrifice his wealth (Mark 19:17–22),12 Peter is recorded as remarking: “We have left everything to follow you!”, to which Jesus responds by promising that those who have left their family “for me and the gospel” will not fail to receive a reward in the age to come (Mark 10:28–29 and par.; cf. Luke 5:11). It is this dependency upon Jesus which was the true mark of the initial faith of Peter and the other disciples.13 The existence of the Twelve is largely accepted within scholarship.14 That Jesus would have called each of the members of the Twelve follows logically from this. Differences between the individual call accounts of Peter do not necessarily imply a problem with historicity; for example, Mark may have decided to omit the catch of fish so as avoid an overemphasis upon Peter, which is characteristic of Mark’s Gospel in comparison with the other three.15 Richard Bauckham argues that Mark’s account of Peter’s call at the beginning of his Gospel (1:16) as well as his naming of Peter (and not any of the other disciples) at the end of his Gospel in 16:7 forms an inclusio around his entire story, “suggesting that Peter is the witness whose testimony includes the whole.”16 Bauckham holds this to be confirmation of Papias’ claim (quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.14) that Peter was Mark’s source for the information contained within his Gospel. If Bauckham is correct, then the fact that Mark had access to Peter himself as a source greatly increases the reliability of Mark’s description of Peter throughout his Gospel.

22 and Matthean Discipleship: An Audience-Oriented Perspective,” CBQ 59 (1997): 69– 70. 12 Peter Dschulnigg, Petrus im Neuen Testament (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996), 19. 13 This is not specifically the adoption of an itinerant life style (so Eduard Schweizer, Matthäus und seine Gemeinde [SBS 71; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974], 19–20, 147–148), though their lives will at times be characterized by this (cf. Mark 6:7–13), but rather that they subsume every plan, action, and desire to Jesus’ will, to be “single-heartedly devoted to God.” Jack Dean Kingsbury, “The Verb Akolouthein (“to follow”) as an Index of Matthew’s View of His Community,” JBL 97 (1978): 73. 14 See, particularly, John P. Meier, “The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist During Jesus’ Ministry?” JBL 116 (1997): 635–672; idem, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 3:41–47. 15 S. Oyin Abogunrin, “The Three Variant Accounts of Peter’s Call,” NTS 31 (1985): 592. 16 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 125.

24

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

B. Matthew 4:18–20 Matthew’s account of Peter’s call is virtually identical to Mark’s, with one significant addition. Whereas Mark refers to Peter solely as Simon in this passage; Matthew names him as “Simon called Peter.” This is not a change of name as much as an addition, or perhaps a nickname.17 C. Luke 5:1–11 Luke describes this foundational event in Peter’s life differently. According to Luke, Jesus tells Peter to cast his net in a certain location, after working futilely all day to catch fish.18 Peter does so, acknowledging Jesus as master (ἐπιστάτης), already demonstrating faith in Jesus,19 and then surprising himself by bringing in a net full of fish. This act demonstrates his willingness to follow a command of Jesus, despite any surrounding doubt he may have, as well as presenting Jesus’ first lesson to his new disciples: they will only succeed if they follow his directions.20 This may indicate that Luke should be followed in situating the account of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law chronologically prior to the call of Peter (4:38–41, as opposed to Matthew and Mark who place this episode after Peter’s call); for it is unlikely that Peter would have had no previous experience or knowledge of Jesus’ ability to perform miracles.21 Upon returning to shore, Luke relates that Peter “fell down at Jesus’ feet, saying, “Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man!” (5:8) Two aspects of Peter’s thinking are revealed by his spontaneous outburst. First, he acknowledges Jesus as holier than he; second he publicly declares his recognition of his own sinfulness. While, later during the ministry of Jesus, 17

Brown, Donfried, and Reumann, Peter in the New Testament, 173–175. This is made especially apparent in John, who frequently refers to “Simon Peter.” 18 Regarding the question of whether Luke 5:1–11 and John 21:1–23 record different versions of the same event, see the discussion below (pp. 77–78) on the latter passage. Jindrich Mánek, “Fishers of Men,” NovT 2 (1957): 138–141 and Charles W. Smith, “Fishers of Men: Footnotes on a Gospel Figure,” HTR 52 (1959): 187–204, both propose an entirely metaphorical reading of Luke 5:1–11, but both are unpersuasive. 19 Darrell L. Bock, Luke (2 vols.; BECNT 3; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994–1996), 1:460. 20 Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:273. 21 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003), 2:909, agrees, asserting that “the readiness of those disciples to abandon their livelihoods on the occasion depicted in Markan tradition (or to lend Jesus use of their boat in Luke) may actually make more sense historically if they had encountered Jesus on a prior occasion” as is suggested in John 1:35–42. Abogunrin, “The Three Variant Accounts of Peter’s Call,” 590, 601 n. 19. likewise agrees in principle, noting that “of the four Gospels, it is only Luke that gives the impression that Jesus’ ministry was already in full swing and that Jesus had performed many miracles before the choosing of the first disciples” (601 n. 19). However, in reality, he doubts the accuracy of Luke’s chronology.

II. The Calling of Peter

25

he does demonstrate himself to be overly-confident about his faithfulness to his master (e.g., Mark 14:27–31 and par.; John 13:33–38), one character flaw Peter does not possess is self-righteousness. Luke’s decision to place Peter’s call later in his narrative and combine it with the miraculous catch of fish may have been done “to avoid giving the impression Mark’s sequence might create: that these disciples’ decision to join Jesus was more spontaneous and unmotivated than it actually was.” 22 D. John 1:40–42 In the Johannine version of Peter’s call, Peter is a passive participant. It is Andrew who brings his brother Simon to Jesus, telling Peter he is found the Messiah. It is at this point that Jesus tells Simon that he will be called Cephas/Peter. The fact that Andrew is identified as Peter’s brother (cf. John 6:8), even before Peter himself appears in the narrative, anticipates the central role Peter will play amongst the Twelve and assumes that Peter is better known to his readers than Andrew.23 John Meier provides a strong case for the historical accuracy of the calling of the disciples. He notes that Mark and John each follow the same basic pattern. In Mark, the word “disciple” does not appear until 2:15, after he has called Peter and Andrew (1:16–18), James and John (1:19–20), and Levi (2:14). While John does mention disciples of John the Baptist (1:35, 37), he likewise does not use the term to refer to disciples of Jesus until after he has called/gathered a number of individuals (2:2). “As in Mark so in John: only after Jesus has taken the initiative in calling a number of individuals to follow him, and only after they in fact follow, do the evangelists speak of the disciples around Jesus.”24 E. The Name of Peter The meaning behind the name Πέτρος (Aramaic: ‫ )כֵּ יפָ א‬is both simple and complex. Its basic meaning is a foundation stone.25 But why this name? 22

Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (2d ed.; Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 169. The similarity between the miraculous catches of fish in Luke 5:1–11 and John 21:1–11 will be discussed later in this chapter. 23 The suggestion of scholars such as Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XII): Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 29A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966), 75, and Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (New York: Seabury, 1980), 1:311, that the adverb πρῶτος implies a sense of priority for Peter is possible. Such an interpretation of this passage, however, is unnecessary to sustain the argument that the Gospels present Peter as a primus inter pares, as will become evident as the following analysis of Peter progresses. 24 Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:51. 25 BDAG, s.v. “Πέτρα,” 809. Cf. Matt 7:24–25; Luke 6:48 which refer to the building of a house upon a “πέτρα.” For attestation of the appearance of ‫ כפא‬as a proper name, see

26

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

After all, Peter does not come across as having the firmness and resiliency of a solid rock.26 Robert Guelich contends that this indicates that Jesus never did give Simon a new nickname, but rather the name Πέτρος was given only after Easter, and gradually supplanted his original name, Simon. To explain this phenomenon, a story arose which attributed this name change to Jesus. 27 Rudolf Pesch suggests that Jesus gave him the nickname of “Precious Stone” (“Edelstein”) simply because he was an important person.28 Arthur Droge believes the name has different meanings in different Gospels; whereas in Matthew Cephas/Petros was symbolic of Peter’s “potential for ‘solid leadership’ … in the Fourth Gospel Peter is a ‘rock’ because of his obtuseness and persistent inability to understand Jesus.”29 A simpler explanation is that “Peter does not receive his new name because he is presently stout, trustworthy, or in some other way ‘rock-like,’ but in anticipation of being a rock-like fixture of the ministry.” 30 Nor is Jesus making a simple “predictive utterance” of the type of leader Peter will one day become; rather, the name is a “declaration of what Jesus will make of him.”31 Further expansion upon the meaning of this name will later be provided by Jesus following Peter’s confession of Jesus (Matt 16:18–19). 32 Finally, the giving of the nickname Πέτρος to Simon is likely historical. All four Gospels make this claim, even though they refer to it in different Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Aramaic Kepha and Peter’s Name in the New Testament,” in To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies (The Biblical Resource Series; New York: Crossroad, 1981), 112–124; Markus Bockmuehl, “Simon Peter’s Names in Jewish Sources,” JJS 55, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 58–80. Fitzmyer’s analysis of Aramaic evidence effectively counters the claim by Peter Lampe, “Das Spiel mit dem Petrusnamen, Matt 16:18,” NTS 25 (1979): 227–245, that the Semitic root ‫ כפא‬could not be identified with πέτρα. Cf. J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Thou Art the Stone, and Upon This Stone...,” DRev 106 (1988): 280–281. 26 E.g., C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark: An Introduction and Commentary (CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), 131. Though his assertion that “rock-like firmness” is not a feature of the portrait of Peter “even after Pentecost” will be rejected in chapter 3. 27 Guelich, Mark, 161. Cf. Rudolf Pesch, “The Position and Significance of Peter in the Church of the New Testament: A Survey of Current Research,” Concil 7 (1971): 26– 27. 28 Pesch, Simon-Petrus, 30. 29 Arthur J. Droge, “The Status of Peter in the Fourth Gospel: A Note on John 18:10– 11,” JBL 109 (1990): 308. 30 Brad B. Blaine, Peter in the Gospel of John: The Making of an Authentic Disciple (Society of Biblical Literature Academia Biblica 27; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 38. 31 Donald A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 156. 32 For the sake of uniformity in this study, he will consistently be referred to as Peter, even when one or more sources may use Simon or Cephas.

III. Peter Walks on Water

27

places within their Gospels. The occasion on which Jesus gave him this nickname is more complicated and will be discussed in greater depth in the discussion of Peter’s confession of Jesus below.33 F. Summary of Peter’s Characterization The decision by Peter to give up his previous way of life and agree to become a disciple of Jesus, thus willingly placing himself in a position of subservience to Jesus, presents from the outset Peter’s desire to be a faithful follower of Jesus. Further evidence of this is displayed by following the direction of Jesus to cast his nets in a certain location. In addition, Peter recognizes that he is not only positionally subordinate to Jesus, but is also morally inferior.

III. Peter Walks on Water (Matt 14:26–31) III. Peter Walks on Water An interesting combination of faith and doubt is exercised by Peter in Matt 14:26–31. After seeing Jesus walk on water, and after trembling in fear at the initial sight of Jesus whom he (along with his companions) first took to be a ghost, he boldly declares his willingness to join Jesus if commanded. Jesus does, and initially Peter does walk on water. But he is then overcome by doubt, becomes frightened, and begins to drown. He cries out for help, echoing Psalm 69:1–3. Jesus rescues him, and then characterizes Peter as being “of little faith” (cf. Matt 6:30) and asks him “why did you doubt?” France questions whether Peter’s decision to go out onto the water was wise: “Peter’s proposal might be regarded as coming rather too close to the ‘testing of God’ which is forbidden in 4:5–7.”34 However, as Peter did ask Jesus’ permission, and since Jesus responded with “Come!”, it is more likely that Jesus approved of Peter’s initial desire to exercise faith, even though Peter’s faith soon failed.35 It can be stated, however, that Peter is characteristically impulsive; he speaks without thinking. His desire to follow Jesus onto the water indicates a belief that he has sufficient faith, a belief which is demonstrated to be false. The verb διστάζω (v. 31) indicates a person who is uncertain, wavering between one or more options.36 Peter is pulled by the desire to follow Jesus and the fear of the stormy conditions which surround him. Because his faith is insufficient, he is unable to stay focused upon Jesus. 33 34

See pp. 32–33. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007),

568.

35

36

See, e.g., Keener, Matthew, 407. BDAG, s.v. “διστάζω,” 252.

28

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

While the emphasis of this passage is upon Peter’s failure, it should not be forgotten that Peter did initially show faith in Jesus. His problem was a weak faith, not a weak desire to have faith. His faith is developing, but it is still “little” (cf. the disciples’ inability to heal the epileptic child being attributed to their “little faith” in Matt 17:20).37 This event presages his later overconfidence that he will faithfully follow Jesus to his death and his denials which follow (Matt 26:33–35, 69–75).38 As a nature miracle, Matt 14:26–31 will understandably be questioned by any scholar whose world view does not allow for the supernatural to contravene natural law. While this is not the place to offer a fully-developed argument against such a presupposition, it is helpful to note here the comment by Hagner: “If we do not allow the transcendent within history, the Bible suddenly becomes a very different collection of writings, a book of parables concerning human existence rather than the account of salvation worked out in the historical process.”39 Sanders casts doubt upon the historicity of this passage by claiming that “some miracle stories may be historicizing legends. It is really true, for example, that Peter wavered in faith. He did so first when Jesus was arrested.” He then goes on to give examples in which Peter’s faith faltered, and concludes: “Peter’s inability to walk on water, according to this explanation, is only a pictorial representation of a character failing. It describes his weakness by narrating a brief legend.”40 This is an odd argument, essentially contending that Matt 14:26–31 should be rejected as historical because it is consistent with Peter’s character! Maier offers two reasons why he doubts the historicity of this passage. First, miracles of Jesus “seek to help a person in dire need or mortal danger … [and] do not focus on Jesus’ person and status or seek his self-glorification”; rather, this account is “continuous with the christology of the early church, especially with an early thrust toward high christology that tended to associate Jesus with Yahweh or to make Jesus the functional equivalent of Yahweh.”41 Second, “the OT portrayal of Yahweh enters so massively” into this account that “we have a fairly good indication that we may be 37

Wilkins, Concept of Disciple in Matthew’s Gospel, 182, contends that “little faith” refers to a failed faith; faith is an “either/or matter.” Peter did have faith for a time; it was only when he turned his focus away from Jesus that his faith failed him. But it cannot be forgotten that Peter did exercise faith; his reliance upon Jesus is growing, even though it still is far from where it needs to be. 38 W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (ICC 26; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–1997), 2:513. 39 Donald A. Hagner, Matthew (Dallas: Word, 1993–1995), 2:416–417. 40 E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Allen Lane, 1993), 158– 159. 41 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:920–921.

IV. Confession of Peter

29

dealing with a theological creation of the early church.”42 This assumes, of course, that Jesus did not desire to focus upon his own person or status or to utilize OT allusions to highlight his divinity. But what if he did? What if he had a specific desire to present himself to his disciples as more than the traditional Jewish conception of the Messiah? Maier acknowledges that the early church believed in the divinity of Jesus, but must it be assumed that Jesus was in disagreement with such a belief? Each Biblical scholar approaches a text with his/her own set of theological preconceptions, and Maier’s analysis is not immune.43 Finally, Ulrich Luz contends that the fact that Matt 14:26–31 follows the preceding 14:22–25 with “no breaks show[s] Matthew as a master of redactional creation.”44 Yet, is it not just as likely that Matthew is successful at linking these two traditional sections together? A. Summary of Peter’s Characterization Peter’s desire to follow Jesus is very evident in this passage. His failure to maintain his faith is counterbalanced by his boldness (Wiarda describes it as “faith-inspired daring” 45) to step out of the boat in the first place. This provides a significant contrast between faith and doubt which is specifically displayed by Peter wanting to follow Jesus but failing once he ceases to depend upon Jesus.

IV. Confession of Peter: Mark 8:27–30; Matt 16:13–20; Luke 9:18–22; John 6:66–69) A. Mark 8:27–30

IV. Confession of Peter

In Mark, as in each of the other three Gospels, this narrative section appears after the miraculous feeding of the 5,000. Peter displays both the positive and negative side of his boldness in his interchange with Jesus in Mark 8:27–33. In the first half of this passage (8:27–30), Peter responds to Jesus’ question regarding who his disciples believe him to be by declaring: σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός (Mark 8:29). Peter shows himself to be eager to respond verbally to Jesus and certainly recognizes the importance of his confession,

42

Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:921. For a similar rebuttal, see Keener, Matthew, 406. 44 Ulrich Luz, Matthew: A Commentary (trans. James E. Crouch; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989–2005), 2:318. 45 Timothy Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels: Pattern, Personality, and Relationship (WUNT 2/127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 92. 43

30

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

even though it will become clear that his conception of what this title means differs from that of Jesus.46 The fact that it is Peter who answers a question directed to the disciples as a group is an indication that Peter considered himself to be a leader and spokesman. It needs to be emphasized, however, that to call Peter a “spokesman” does not mean that Peter is being characterized as typical of the Twelve as a collective, thus minimizing the individuality of Peter.47 Rather, the term will be used in this thesis to highlight two aspects of Peter in the Gospels. First, it is his nature to speak first, even when Jesus is directing a question to the disciples as a group. Peter may sometimes see his role as speaking for the other disciples; but this does not necessarily mean that the other disciples agree with him or that the disciples had even yet considered the matter. Though, perhaps because Peter asserts himself so strongly, they sometimes do follow his lead (Mark 14:31; John 21:3).48 Second, the account in which Jewish tax-collectors approach Peter to inquire whether Jesus pays the temple tax (Matt 17:24–27) indicates that those outside the circle of Jesus’ followers also viewed Peter as the chief disciple, the one with the authority to act as Jesus’ spokesperson. There are also instances in which Peter is not acting as a spokesman but is simply acting/speaking on his own accord, as an individual (e.g., John 18:10–11; 21:7b). Thus, in this particular passage, while Peter does act as a spokesman for the disciples, the fact remains that it is Peter who speaks, without

46 See Géza Vermès, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1973), 130–140, for an overview of the various understandings of the title of Messiah in Second Temple Judaism. Cf. James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992). Both Oscar Cullmann, in Peter, 178–180, and Dunn “The Messianic Secret in Mark,” in The Messianic Secret (ed. Christopher M. Tuckett; IRT 1; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 126–128, argue that the reason Jesus forbade his disciples from publicizing Jesus’ prediction about his suffering, death, and resurrection was because they had a fallacious nationalistic conception of what the title meant. Marcus, Mark, 2:612, disagrees, observing that “the Markan Jesus’ prohibitions of publicity … are directed at correct evaluations of Jesus, not at incorrect ones. The prohibition, indeed, actually serves to heighten the importance of the suppressed secret” (his emphasis). 47 Many works of narrative criticism present Peter as such. See, e.g., Robert C. Tannehill, “Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role,” JR 57 (1977): 386– 405; David M. Rhoads and Donald Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 101; Jack Dean Kingsbury, Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 8–9. For a contrary perspective, see Timothy Wiarda, “Peter as Peter in the Gospel of Mark,” NTS 45 (1999): 19. 48 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 166, suggests that Peter’s “role may be less spokesman than ‘opinion leader.’”

IV. Confession of Peter

31

being urged to do so by the other disciples, contradicting the claim by Perkins that this passage “does not concern Peter as an individual.”49 Bultmann holds that this passage was a legendary resurrection appearance of Jesus to his disciples.50 The location makes this improbable; why would Mark have decided to place a resurrection appearance in Caesarea Philippi if he could have just as easily chosen a much more likely place such as Jerusalem?51 Bultmann also contends that Jesus would not have asked a question of his disciples if he already knew its answer.52 But this is illogical; students are commonly asked questions to which their teacher already knows the answer (see, e.g., Mark 3:4, 23, 33; 4:13, 40). In favor of the historical authenticity of this passage is the fact that Mark does not have Jesus unambiguously affirm his messiahship. Would it not have served Mark’s purpose better, were he inventing a passage to highlight that Jesus was the Messiah, to put these words directly into the mouth of Jesus? After all, Mark begins his gospel with the declaration that Jesus is the Messiah (1:1), but the only instances which refer to Jesus as the Messiah are by Peter in this passage and by the high priest (in question-form) in Mark 14:61. “This meager messianic content gives evidence of editorial restraint on the part of the evangelist; he has not embellished the tradition of the messiahship of Jesus, even though he may have been tempted to do so.”53 B. Matthew 16:13–20 Matthew 16:13–16 follows Mark very closely. Peter’s response is more elaborate; to Mark’s σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός, Matthew adds ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος (Matt 16:16), thus emphasizing the divine sonship of Jesus as well as his messiahship. Nothing more about Peter’s character, however, is gained by this addition, especially when it is revealed by Matthew in his

49

Perkins, Peter, 29. Rudolf Karl Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition. (trans. John Marsh; rev. ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1968), 259. Cf. Pierre Grelot, “L’origine de Matthieu 16,16– 19,” in A cause de l’Evangile: Études sur les Synoptiques et les Actes; Offertes au P. Jacques Dupont, O.S.B. à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire (ed. Jacques Dupont; LD 123; Paris: Cerf, 1985), 91–105. 51 Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT 2; Freiburg: Herder, 1976), 2:30; Hans F. Bayer, Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection: The Provenance, Meaning and Correlation of the Synoptic Predictions (WUNT 20; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 155; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 656 n. 147. 52 Bultmann, History, 257–258. 53 Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20 (WBC 34B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 2:9. 50

32

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

major addition to Mark (16:17–20) that Peter’s insight came directly from God and not as a result of his own reasoning (16:17). In Matt 16:17, Jesus addresses Peter as Σίµων Βαριωνᾶ. I will later consider the history of the Zealot movement in first century Judea and Galilee in significant depth.54 At this point in this study, it is worth noting Cullmann’s tentative suggestion that the Aramaic bar-yônâ was an Akkadian loan word which was synonymous with “terrorist” and thus that Peter belonged to the Zealot party.55 The evidence for this linguistic connection is late (b. Giṭ. 56a; b. Ber. 10a) and should therefore be rejected.56 Whereas the other three Gospels had already mentioned that Jesus had called Simon “Peter” (Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; John 1:42), it is not until this point in his narrative that Matthew records that Jesus called Simon “Peter”; it is only in Matthew that an explanation is provided for this name. Peter is told that his understanding that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God was revealed to him by God himself. Jesus further reveals to Peter (Πέτρος) that “upon this rock (πέτρα) I will build my church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it” (Matt 16:18). Regardless of whether the dominant view that Peter should be identified with the πέτρα is correct,57 or whether the πέτρα is Peter’s confession regarding Jesus as Messiah,58 or whether it refers to Christ himself,59 there is nothing to be learned about Peter’s character from this statement by Jesus. Jesus does not call Simon Πέτρος because of a steadfastness exhibited by Peter.60 Given the context, 54

See Chapter 4. Oscar Cullmann, Peter, 22. 56 Cf. Pesch, Simon-Petrus, 13. Brown, Donfried, and Reumann., Peter in the New Testament, 88 n. 203; Keener, Matthew, 426. 57 Cf. Cullmann, Peter, 206–207; Brown, Donfried, and Reumann, Peter in the New Testament, 90–93; Donald A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (ed. Frank E. Gaebelein; vol. 8; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 368–369; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:627; Wilkins, Concept of Disciple in Matthew’s Gospel, 192–193; Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (NAC 22; Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251–253; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 422– 423; Hagner, Matthew, 2:470; Keener, Matthew, 426–427; Luz, Matthew, 2:364; France, Matthew, 620–623; David L. Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 404–407. 58 Chrys C. Caragounis, Peter and the Rock (BZNW 58; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 106–113. Cf. Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 334–335. 59 This was the dominant position amongst the Reformers. See Martin Luther, Selected Writings of Martin Luther, Volume 1 (ed. Theodore G. Tappert; U.S.A.: Fortress, 2007), 297; John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (trans. William Pringle; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 186; Ulrich Zwingli, Huldrych Zwingli: Writings (PTMS 12–13; Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick, 1984), 2:276. 60 Hagner, Matthew, 2:471. The thesis of Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), that Pe55

IV. Confession of Peter

33

if Peter is indeed the πέτρα upon whom Jesus will build his church, it is because it is he to whom the Father has revealed this truth and it is upon him that Jesus’ ἐκκλησία will be built.61 Peter is a rock with a specific purpose which will come to fruition at some point in the future. But it is probable that Peter himself had no understanding as to how Jesus’ proclamation would be fulfilled. There is no contradiction in the choice of Matthew to mention the naming of Peter by Jesus later in his Gospel. Matthew has already referred to “Simon called Peter” (Matt 4:18; 10:2). He refers to him as simply Peter in 8:14; 14:28, 30; 15:15. Jesus’ statement in Matt 16:18, therefore, should be understood as an explanation of the nickname, and not the initial giving of the name itself.62 Jesus also declares that he will give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven and that whatever he binds and looses on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven (Matt 16:19). This is a significant proclamation. Peter would function as the “guardian of the teaching of Jesus” and would exert leadership over the church.63 Yet, as with his nickname, Jesus is speaking about Peter’s future role (specifically following Easter) and Peter would have had no comprehension of Jesus’ proclamation in Matt 16:18–19. Consequently, any impact of these words upon the character of Peter would not occur until after Easter. The additional special material in Matthew is heavily debated. 64 Many scholars believe that the inclusion of the term ἐκκλησία makes it unlikely that the actual wording of the passage goes back to Jesus, but that it is rather a later development after the formation of the church.65 But why would it be implausible for Jesus to use a common term for an assembly to refer to a group which would survive his death, even if it did not become a terminus technicus until after Easter? Dunn notes that the LXX uses ter is a personification of the rocky soil of Mark 4:16–17, which joyfully receives the word, but falls away after affliction or persecution comes, should also be rejected, as no such connection is made in any of the Gospels; indeed Peter does not, in fact, fall away even though he does falter at times. 61 Cf. Morris, Matthew, 423; Hagner, Matthew, 2:471; Keener, Matthew, 427. 62 Pesch, Simon-Petrus, 28. Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:224–226; Luz, Matthew, 2:362; Thiede, Simon Peter, 38; Hagner, Matthew, 2:470. Roland Minnerath, De Jérusalem à Rome: Pierre et l’unité de l’Église Apostolique (ThH 101; Paris: Beauchesne, 1995), 24– 26, 34, correctly notes that Peter would not have comprehended the full import of his nickname until after Easter, and perhaps not until Pentecost. 63 Joachim Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium II (HTKNT I/2; Freiburg: Herder, 1988), 65. Cf. Franz Mussner, Petrus und Paulus, Pole der Einheit: Eine Hilfe für die Kirchen (QD 76; Freiburg: Herder, 1976), 21; Pesch, Simon-Petrus, 143–144. 64 See Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:271–272, for a bibliographical list of sources discussing the authenticity of Matt 16:16–19. 65 E.g., Luz, Matthew 2:357; Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:231–233.

34

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

ἐκκλησία about 100 times to translate ‫קָ הָ ל‬, and thus concludes that “the likelihood cannot be excluded that Jesus did speak on occasion of the assembly of Yahweh, and that he thereby intimated his hope to gather around himself the core of a reconstituted Israel.”66 In addition, as Jesus would have been speaking in Aramaic rather than Greek, he would have used an equivalent term referring to a “community.” 67 Along with the reference to the geographical setting regarding Caesarea Philippi mentioned above,68 Davies and Allison provide five additional reasons for accepting the historicity of Matt 16:17–19: (1) Paul’s demonstration of knowledge of Peter’s commissioning in Gal 1:11–21; (2) semitisms in the passage (Βαριωνᾶ; σὰρξ καὶ αἷµα; ὁ πατήρ µου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς; πύλαι ᾅδου) (3) support for Palestinian provenance in Qumran parallels (1QH VI.26–27; VII.8–9); (4) criterion of consistency: similarity with teachings and actions of Jesus appearing elsewhere in the Synoptics (Matt 7:24–27; 11:27; 14.58; 16:17–19; Luke 6:20–22); (5) criterion of dissimilarity: the passage is not Jewish in origin, nor do “the gates of Hades,” “the keys of the kingdom,” and “bind and loose” suggest a later Christian origin.69 There is thus a sufficient basis to accept the historicity of Matthew’s addition. C. Luke 9:18–22 Luke’s account, like the first portion of Matthew’s account, is very similar to Mark’s. The location of Caesarea Philippi is omitted and Peter’s response is slightly expanded: “τὸν χριστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ” (Luke 9:20), which emphasizes the divine origin of Jesus as Messiah without making specific reference to Jesus’ divine sonship. Luke adds that Jesus was praying privately with his disciples. Luke’s characterization of Peter is identical to that of Mark. D. John 6:66–69 In John, Peter’s confession of Jesus is connected with the departure of many of those who were following Jesus (6:66). Jesus asks his disciples whether they will leave as well, thus reflecting “the deep tension of the situation.”70 Peter replied: κύριε, πρὸς τίνα ἀπελευσόµεθα; ῥήµατα ζωῆς αἰωνίου ἔχεις, καὶ ἡµεῖς πεπιστεύκαµεν καὶ ἐγνώκαµεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος

66

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 513. Hagner, Matthew, 2:465. Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:612–614. 68 See p. 31. 69 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:609–612. 70 George R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC 36; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), 97.

67

IV. Confession of Peter

35

τοῦ θεοῦ (6:68–69).71 As George Beasley-Murray observes, Peter demonstrates that his “early enthusiastic expression of faith and hope has grown to fuller faith and knowledge.”72 While a modicum of pride likely lies behind Peter’s words, Carson unduly criticizes Peter as “somewhat pretentious, as if he and his fellows are a cut above the fickle ‘disciples’ who have turned away, superior in insight. Indeed, Peter’s words might almost be taken to mean that he is doing Jesus a favour.”73 Perhaps a more accurate assessment of Peter’s reaction might be akin to the young child who earnestly desires his father’s approval as Peter attempts to assure Jesus of his faithfulness. In addition, Peter’s continued decision to remain with Jesus even in the face of adversity (cf. John 6:68–69) demonstrates consistency. Peter, here, shows himself to possess the trait of faithfulness. It is true that this faithfulness will be ultimately tested, leading to Peter’s ignominious denial of Jesus. However, as will be demonstrated below, this shows that Peter’s faithfulness is imperfect and fragile when dependent upon his own ability to maintain his faith. It is not evidence that he does not possess faithfulness to Jesus.74 Mark and John both include an account of Jesus asking his disciples about his identity, each at a pivotal point in his ministry, and with Peter responding (Matt and Luke both follow Mark for these basic details). This multiple attestation increases the likelihood that such an event did indeed occur at least once.75 The differences between the accounts (Caesarea or Capernaum; Messiah or Holy One) may be due to separate incidents, with one account actually being a reaffirmation by Peter of a previous confession of Jesus. Jesus may have been asking in John 6:67 if the Twelve will depart from him even though he has shown that he will not be the type of Messiah they had been expecting when Peter had first made his confession. In addition, the apparent reticence of Jesus to verbally claim he is the Messiah argues for historical authenticity. Surely it would have more effec-

71

Keener, John, 1:697: “John may prefer the ‘Holy One of God’ title to convey a diversity of Christological titles and roles, just as Matthew may add ‘Son of the living God’ in Matt 16:16.” Carson, John, 303–304, is less certain about John’s title being messianic, though “he could not but be the Holy One if he was to deal effectively with ‘the sin of the world’ (1:29).” 72 Beasley-Murray, John, 97. The perfect verbs πεπιστεύκαµεν καὶ ἐγνώκαµεν “are properly stative, i.e. expressing the state of the disciples’ faith and knowledge” (Carson, John, 303). 73 Carson, John, 304 n. 70. 74 See pp. 65–67. 75 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 645.

36

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

tively advanced the claim of the early church that Jesus was the Messiah if these words were placed in the mouth of Jesus rather than Peter.76 E. Summary of Peter’s Characterization The primary attribute displayed by Peter is his boldness in answering Jesus’ question, which is equally exhibited in each of the four Gospels. He does not shy away from giving his opinion, and as such shows that he considers himself to be an informal leader of the Twelve, even if the other members of the Twelve may not necessarily agree with this assumption or with what he says. Jesus’ explanation regarding the meaning of Peter’s nickname in Matthew, as well as his future role in the assembly/ἐκκλησία, does not provide any significant information regarding Peter’s character, as Peter is not yet the rock upon whom Jesus’ church will be built.

V. Peter Rebukes Jesus (Mark 8:31–33; Matt 16:21–23) A. Mark 8:31–33

V. Peter Rebukes Jesus

Following Peter’s confession, Jesus explains that it will be necessary for him to suffer at the hands of the Jewish leadership, be executed, and rise again after three days. Peter, unable and/or unwilling to accept the possibility that his master will be killed, privately rebukes Jesus. Marcus aptly describes the volatility of Peter’s actions in this scene: “Though just a few moments before, Peter had attained a pinnacle of insight into Jesus’ messiahship, he now plunges to a nadir of obtuseness by taking Jesus aside, as though to instruct him, and ‘rebuking’ him for his prophecy of doom.”77 Certainly there is no timidity on the part of Peter when he chastises Jesus,78 though this rebuke is characterized by confusion far more than defiance.79 Had Peter taken the time to consider his words, he may have realized the futility of correcting Jesus. But Peter’s boldness is not tempered by discretion. 76

Evans, Mark, 2:9. Marcus, Mark, 2:613. 78 Carson, “Matthew,” 378, contends that ἵλεώς in Matt 16:22 is a “common Septuagintalism and has the force in confrontational situations of a very strong ‘Never!’ or “Be it far from you!’ or ‘God forbid!’ Cf. Kingsbury, Conflict in Mark, 8–9. 79 Whitney Shiner, Follow Me! Disciples in Markan Rhetoric (SBLDS 145; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 263. Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels, 76, notes that there may also be an element of misplaced concern for Jesus, with Peter “urging Jesus to seek his own good.” More harshly, Cranfield, Mark, 279, contends that there is “a suggestion of patronizing about” Peter’s rebuke. Cf. Marcus, Mark, 2:606. 77

V. Peter Rebukes Jesus

37

Peter’s impulsiveness is further evidenced by the fact that he seemingly does not notice the victorious vindication which concludes Jesus’ description of his coming passion. Jesus is not only to suffer, be rejected by his people, and be put to death. He is also to be resurrected; not at the onset of the age to come, but merely three days after his death. Peter’s rebuke, however, is clearly focused only upon the first part of Jesus’ announcement. Given his propensity to speak without thinking, it is very possible that Peter heard Jesus predicting his own suffering, rejection, and death, began to mentally formulate his rebuke, and did not actually pay attention to Jesus’ final words.80 In addition, it is very plausible that Peter would not have the expectation that the messiah would suffer. While the motif of the suffering of a righteous person does exist in the Psalms, Daniel 7, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Maccabean literature,81 it is not evident that it had been greatly developed within messianic expectations in Second Temple Judaism. At the very least, there is no necessity that Peter himself would have had a view of a suffering Messiah; following his resurrection, Jesus himself needs to explain to other disciples that Scripture taught it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer (Luke 24:25–27). And Paul’s own characterization as the theology of the cross being perceived as folly to nonChristians (1 Cor 1:18–25) certainly applies to Jews as well as Gentiles. It is thus very reasonable to conclude that Peter had not previously contemplated that the promised Messiah would suffer and die. In response, Jesus turns to his disciples and rebukes Peter, ordering Peter to get behind him and return to his appropriate position as his disciple.82 By having the thoughts of man, rather than of God, Peter is shown at

80

Marcus, Mark, 2:613, notes: “The point, however, seems to be lost on Jesus’ chief disciple, the master’s prophecy of suffering and death having absorbed all his attention.” 81 James D. G. Dunn, “Messianic Ideas and Their Influence on the Jesus of History,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 378–380. Cf. Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, from Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 2:1445–1489. There also exists the concept of a slain Messiah in later rabbinic literature (b. Sukkah 52a; Tg. Zech. 9:10). Vermès, Jesus the Jew, 140, theorizes that this motif originated following the second Jewish War (A.D. 135). 82 Keener, Matthew, 433, notes that disciples literally walked behind their masters. “Thus, though Jesus ‘turned’ to confront Peter literally behind him (16:23), he now ordered him to ‘Get behind’ him figuratively (16:23), returning to a position of discipleship.” Cf. Marcus, Mark, 2:607–608, 614–615. Dennis C. Stoutenburg, “‘Out of My Sight!’, ‘Get Behind Me!’, or ‘Follow After Me!’: There Is No Choice in God’s Kingdom,” JETS 36 (1993): 178, advocates an even stronger interpretation: Jesus “intended to focus [Peter’s] attention on the necessity of unconditional obedience in disci-

38

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

this particular moment to be echoing Satan’s temptation in the wilderness that Jesus should not follow his Father’s will (Matt 4:1–11).83 Marcus suggests that Mark’s inclusion of the other disciples in 8:33 may be “an ironic comment on Peter’s imperfect discipleship; if a mathētēs (disciple) is, literally, a ‘learner,’ then Peter, despite the insight of 8:29, has not yet learned his lesson very well.”84 Alternatively, Mark may be portraying the other disciples (or, at least, some of them), as agreeing with Peter and thus also needing to be rebuked.85 And, as Perkins relates: “human beings, allied with Satan, would consider the ‘‘suffering Son of man a contradiction to Jesus’ role as Messiah. But he has just told the disciples that the Passion and Resurrection of the Son of man is God’s plan. Peter has proven unable to hear that word.”86 Haenchen contends that Jesus’ contemplation of the possibility that he may not die while praying at Gethsemane in Mark 14:36 invalidates the earlier predictions of his future death.87 As Gundry correctly rebuts: “the emotional turmoil of Jesus in 14:36 depends on a conviction that he will be killed.”88 Haenchen also argues that Peter would have responded approvingly of Jesus’ prediction of his resurrection, and therefore that Mark 8:32b is redactional.89 Yet, if the analysis provided above of Peter’s mindset is correct – that Peter was focused solely upon the first half of Jesus’ proclamation and that he perhaps did not pay attention to the latter half90 – Haenchen’s critique is nullified. William Wrede argues that Jesus’ predictions of his future suffering, death, and resurrection must have developed after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection because “Jesus cannot have known, and in particular Jesus cannot have prophesied the absolute miracle of an immediate return to life.”91 This is circular reasoning, depending upon the assumption that Jesus is not capable of knowing the future; by definition, a true prophet of God would have this ability. Even apart from this rationale is the contention by Davies and Allison that an apocalyptic prophet would have expleship. … When it comes to discipleship in the kingdom of God, there is no room for compromise.” 83 Pierre Bonnard, L’Evangile selon Saint Matthieu (Paris: Delachaux et Niestle, 1963), 248. 84 Marcus, Mark, 2:607. 85 Lane, Mark, 304. 86 Perkins, Peter, 62. 87 Ernst Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu: Eine Erklärung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1966), 361 n. 1. 88 Gundry, Mark, 449. 89 Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu, 296. 90 See p. 37. 91 William Wrede, The Messianic Secret (trans. James C. G. Greig; Greenwood, S.C.: Attic, 1971), 87.

V. Peter Rebukes Jesus

39

pected that his own martyrdom, followed by his vindicating resurrection (though, as part of a general resurrection), would be necessary. 92 And this is made even more likely given the recent martyrdom of John the Baptist (Mark 7:27).93 Hans Bayer agrees that the paucity of references to Satan in the Synoptics makes the appearance of σατανᾶ in 8:33 a piece of evidence in favor of an early tradition for this passage.94 In addition, Jesus’ characterization of Peter as Satan invokes the criterion of embarrassment: why portray Peter negatively, at a time of the writing of Mark when Peter was a prominent member of the church, unless the desire of Mark was to preserve the accuracy of the historical tradition?95 B. Matthew 16:21–23 While Luke omits this passage entirely, perhaps to limit his negative depiction of Peter, Matthew closely follows Mark. He adds the location of his upcoming suffering, death, and resurrection (Jerusalem), replaces τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in Mark 8:31 with the simpler αὐτὸν, “probably because the title, or even the circumlocution, seems weak and anticlimactic after the confession of v. 16”, and deletes καὶ ἀποδοκιµασθῆναι “because it seemed redundant in the context.”96 He provides the actual words of Peter’s rebuke (Mark only mentions that such a rebuke occurred). He omits καὶ ἰδὼν τοὺς µαθητὰς αὐτοῦ, likely to keep the focus of Jesus’ rebuke upon Peter.97 In addition, whereas Jesus had named him the rock (Πέτρος), in his rebuke he describes Peter as a σκάνδαλον to him. Jesus’ choice of terminology is certainly ironic; but it is a momentary failing on the part of Peter, not a characteristic trait. While Jesus’ rebuke must have struck Peter with great force – Jesus does not simply tell Peter he is wrong; he calls him “Satan” – his failing does not reflect poorly on his moral character as much as upon his inability to comprehend the counterintuitive teaching of his master as well as, perhaps, a supernatural influence behind his rebuke of 92 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:659–660. Cf. Rudolf Pesch, “Die Passion des Menschensohns: Eine Studie zu den Menschensohnsworten der vormarkinischen Passionsgeschichte,” in Jesus und der Menschensohn (ed. Rudolf Schnackenburg and Rudolf Pesch; Freiburg: Herder, 1975), 189–191 (though Pesch states in Simon-Petrus, 41, that Mark’s account is a creation of the early church and is not original to the life of Jesus and Peter); Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:514, 2:1468–1491; Keener, Matthew, 432. 93 Robert H. Stein, Mark (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 396. 94 Bayer, Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection, 162. 95 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:655; Evans, Mark, 2:10; Stein, Mark, 395–396; Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:236. 96 Hagner, Matthew, 2:477. 97 Hagner, Matthew, 2:478.

40

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

Jesus just as there had been behind his confession.98 The true flaw in Peter’s character revealed by his outburst is his tendency to act precipitously; he should have willingly accepted that Jesus knew better. Not only was Jesus the master of Peter, but Jesus had repeatedly demonstrated that he was no mere charlatan. In fact, Peter’s very confession of Jesus as the Messiah should have resulted in Peter accepting the proclamation of Jesus without protestation. To his credit, Peter learns his lesson. When Jesus repeats his prediction of his own passion, Peter remains quietly passive even though he still did not fully comprehend (Mark 9:31; 10:33–34 and par.). Indeed, Matt 16:17 makes it clear that this revelation did not come from Peter’s own inductive reasoning skills, but from God himself.99 Nor did this revelation include a full comprehension of the meaning behind what Peter had confessed. While no specific insight into Peter’s actual thoughts is provided, it is evident that Peter believes his identification of Jesus as Messiah does not comport with Jesus’ prediction that he will suffer and die (Matt 16:21), and that he believes he has sufficient standing amongst Jesus’ closest followers to criticize Jesus. C. Summary of Peter’s Characterization Whereas Peter’s confession of Jesus displayed his boldness, his rebuke of Jesus exposes his brashness. While he still wants to follow Jesus, he exhibits his lack of understanding regarding Jesus’ mission and impetuously speaks without giving serious consideration to the concept that the subservient position of a disciple does not permit him to rebuke his master. And just as he was the only disciple to answer Jesus’ question about his identity, so too is he the only disciple to verbally respond to Jesus’ declaration about his impending suffering, death, and resurrection.

98 Richard T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 338. 99 Hence, questions such as “How can Peter confess that Jesus is the Messiah when he and the other disciples have not been able to comprehend the significance of the feeding miracles? What allows the disciples to recognize what they have not been able to comprehend thus far?” in Frank J. Matera, “The Incomprehension of the Disciples and Peter’s Confession (Mark 6,14–8,30),” Bib 70 (1989): 165, are superfluous.

VI. Transfiguration of Jesus

41

VI. Transfiguration of Jesus: (Mark 9:2–8; Matt 17:1–8; Luke 9:28–36) A. Mark 9:2–8

VI. Transfiguration of Jesus

The rebuke of Peter by Jesus did not result in a diminishment of Peter’s position amongst the Twelve. Six days later Peter, along with James and John, is witness to Jesus’ transfiguration. Not knowing what to say due to fear, he nevertheless gives his opinion, suggesting that tabernacles be built for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah.100 Just as with his confession/rebuke, in contrast to the other disciples whom remain silent, Peter is the sole disciple who speaks. There is a positive and negative side to this attribute. He is bold and brash, zealous and impetuous. However, this is the extent to which this passage should be used to evaluate Peter’s overall character. 101 There is no indication, as Walter Liefeld indicates, that Peter said anything “horrendous” or that Peter’s confusion should be understood “as a plain admission that [Peter] was blameworthy.” 102 Nor should Peter’s comments be understood as sinfully inferring that Jesus should turn “from His destined earthly goal, the cross.”103 More accurately, Peter 100

France, Matthew, 249, observes that “Peter intends to be not just a spectator but a useful contributor to the event.” Jose B. Fugila, “The Temptation on the Mount of Transfiguration,” AJT 9 (1995): 333–334, adds that Peter was offering to help turn Jesus into a political Messiah. More unlikely is Fugila’s assertion that Peter was tempting Jesus to distance himself from the sick by setting up residence on the mountain, “an obvious recommendation to Jesus to abandon the poor and oppressed Ochlos” (334). While the idea that Peter may have been encouraging Jesus to take on a political messiahship is consistent with the type of Messiah that Peter likely assumed Jesus was planning to become, Mark 9:6 and Luke 8:33 indicate that Peter did not have a clear rationale behind his proposal. Cf. James A. Penner, “Revelation and Discipleship in Matthew’s Transfiguration Account,” BibSac 152 (1995): 204 n. 23. For an overview of various theories as to the nature of the σκηνή Peter proposed to construct, see John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGCT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 702–703. 101 Joel B. Green’s (The Gospel of Luke [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 383) negative evaluation of Peter includes the fact that he fell asleep along with James and John (Luke 9:32). However, unlike at Gethsemane, the disciples had not been instructed to stay awake nor were they chastised by Jesus in this instance. Consequently, no judgment upon Peter’s character should be gleaned from this detail. 102 Walter L. Liefeld, “Theological Motifs in the Transfiguration Narrative,” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study (ed. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 174. 103 S. Lewis Johnson, “Transfiguration of Christ,” BibSac 124 (1967): 138. Cf. Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKK 2; Zurich: Benziger, 1994), 2:37. See also Evans, Mark, 2:37, who does not even believe Peter is portrayed as ignorant; it is simply that his proposal is “inappropriate.”

42

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

was speaking impulsively in a moment of uncertainty when he might well have remained silent … [while] at the same time it hints that Peter’s desire to contribute something, to honour Jesus or further his good, was strong, leading him to propose an action even 104 though he was afraid and unsure what to do.

Peter’s outburst is ignored, perhaps because it would have minimized the uniqueness of Jesus over against Moses and Elijah.105 A voice from an enveloping cloud acknowledges Jesus as his beloved son, and instructs the disciples to listen to him. That the transfiguration had a profound effect upon Peter’s understanding of Jesus is manifested by his reference to this event in 2 Pet 1:16–18 as his evidence that he and the other apostles were not following “cleverly invented stories” but were rather “eyewitnesses to his majesty” (v. 16).106 While Jesus’ miracles were certainly impressive, the apostles themselves would later perform miracles of their own. Jesus’ transfiguration indicated to Peter that Jesus was not merely a miracle-worker, or simply a human messiah, or even a lawgiver like Moses or a prophet like Elijah. He was unique, the beloved son of God. Though Peter likely did not comprehend this entire message prior to the resurrection of Christ and the filling of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, it is evident that this understanding did eventually come to him.

104

Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels, 79. An alternative thesis is proposed by Marcus, Mark, 2:638, that Peter’s offer was both logical and appropriate due to the Mosaic connection with the building of tabernacles on Sukkot, but “Mark seems to consider it a serious error.” Yet, is it more likely that Mark accurately depicts Peter’s fear and confusion, or that Peter was able to provide a theologically-sophisticated response to an extremely extraordinary supernatural event? 105 Allison A. Trites, “The Transfiguration of Jesus: The Gospel in Microcosm,” EvQ 51 (1979): 76; Gundry, Matthew, 344; Penner, “Revelation and Discipleship in Matthew’s Transfiguration Account,” 205–206; Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels, 78–79; France, Matthew, 649–650; Turner, Matthew, 417–418. Simon S. Lee, Jesus’ Transfiguration and the Believers’ Transformation: A Study of the Transfiguration and Its Development in Early Christian Writings (WUNT 2/265; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 30, adds that Peter’s suggestion is improper because Jesus’ mission is not to stay on the mountain, but rather to descend and accomplish his mission of suffering and death. However, it should be added that this intent would not have been behind Peter’s suggestion. 106 I accept the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. See the arguments by Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (NAC 37; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 255–276; Gene L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter (BECNT'; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 139–150. Even if Peter were not the author, however, this passage would support the claim that a later Petrine community/church knew about the importance Peter had given to the transfiguration of Jesus.

VI. Transfiguration of Jesus

43

Theodore Weeden contends that the account of the transfiguration was originally a resurrection story. 107 Robert Stein convincingly refutes this theory, noting that (1) the appearance of “rabbi” in Mark 9:5 is more consistent with a pre-resurrection account; (2) a divine declaration that the disciples should listen to Jesus would be unnecessary if they had just witnessed his resurrection; (3) the fact that Jesus does not appear in a glorified form in any other resurrection appearance is a strong argument that the Transfiguration is not a displaced resurrection account; (4) the absence of the trio of disciples, Peter, James, and John, from any resurrection appearance makes this particular incident less likely to be a displaced resurrection account; (5) Peter’s offer to build tabernacles for Moses and Elijah, as well as for Jesus, makes more sense if Jesus has yet to be resurrected; (6) the Transfiguration account results in a temporary glorification of Jesus, not a permanent glorification; (7) the unique addition of Luke 9:31–33a suggests knowledge of an independent tradition from that of Mark.108 To this final point, Hagner notes that the description of Jesus’ transfiguration, in which Matthew and Luke include the shining of Jesus’ face (though each Evangelist does so using different words) indicates that they had access to another tradition.109 Likewise, Bauckham contends that 2 Pet 1:1– 18 contains an additional independent tradition of Jesus’ transfiguration.110 Marshall likewise argues that it should not be understood as a resurrection story, but rather as a historically accurate “anticipatory vision of the glory of Jesus at his resurrection or his parousia.”111 Edwards adds that the Transfiguration account “does not appear extrinsic to Mark’s narrative; it is organically linked to the preceding episode at Caesarea Philippi, and it connects the beginnings of the Gospel in the baptism with the end of the Gospel in the passion.”112

107 Theodore J. Weeden, Mark – Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 118–124. Cf. Bultmann, History, 259; Foster R. McCurley, “‘And After Six Days’ (Mark 9:2): A Semitic Literary Device,” JBL 93 (1971): 79; Walter Schmithals, “Der Markusschluss, die Verklärungsgeschichte und die Aussendung der Zwölf,” ZTK 69 (1972): 385. 108 Robert H. Stein, “Is the Transfiguration (Mark 9:2–8) a Misplaced ResurrectionAccount?” JBL 95 (1976): 90–96. Cf. Gundry, Mark, 471–475; John Nolland, Luke (WBC 35; Dallas: Word, 1989–1993), 2:493–496. 109 Hagner, Matthew, 2:490. 110 Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983), 205–212. 111 I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (1st American ed.; NIGTC 3; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 381. 112 James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark. (PNTC 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 270.

44

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

B. Matthew 17:1–8 Matthew’s account is quite similar to Mark’s. He adds that Jesus’ face shone brightly, recalling Exod 34:29–35 which describes Moses’ face as shining brightly after conversing with God on Mt. Sinai. Instead of addressing Jesus as ῥαββί (as in Mark), Matthew has Peter address Jesus as κύριε, likely because “‘rabbi’ has negative overtones in Matthew” (cf. Matt 23:7, 8; 26:25, 49).113 He places the focus of Peter’s offer to build three tabernacles more firmly upon Peter himself; whereas in Mark, Peter suggests that all three perform this task, in Matthew, he uses the first person singular. Matthew includes the phrase εἰ θέλεις to Peter’s offer, “further indicat[ing] Peter’s deference to Jesus.”114 And Matthew deletes Mark’s explanation for why Peter makes this offer, though he later refers to the fear of the disciples (17:6). Matthew also adds that Peter’s interjection was interrupted by the voice from the cloud “while he was still speaking” and adds the phrase ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα to the statement from this voice, thus connecting it to Matt 3:17 (which itself comes from Isa 42:1) and possibly “to signify Jesus as the one who is destined to bring his law to the nations (Isa 42.4).”115 Even Peter remains silent after hearing this voice, and the three disciples fall prostrate to the ground in great fear (ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα) and apparently do not raise their heads until the vision is concluded (Matt 17:8). This fear does not indicate a lack of faith;116 it is simply the natural reaction one might have in such a situation. Matthew’s addition to Mark concludes with Jesus touching the disciples reassuringly and encouraging them to arise and not be afraid. C. Luke 9:28–36 Luke’s account has greater differences from Mark than does Matthew. According to Luke, the transfiguration of Jesus occurred eight days after the confession of Jesus, rather than the six days described by Mark and Matthew. Marshall offers a number of possibilities, none of which he appears to believe to be more likely than the others.117 Whatever the reason, Luke does appear to have had access to Mark’s account; thus he must have intentionally decided to replace “six” with “eight.”

113

Nolland, Matthew, 702. Cf. Keener, Matthew, 438 n. 116, who suggests this is because “Matthew reserves the title ‘rabbi’ for the lips of Judas.” 114 Hagner, Matthew, 2:490. Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:699. 115 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:686. 116 As is suggested by Liefeld, “Theological Motifs,” 174–175. 117 Marshall, Luke, 382.

VI. Transfiguration of Jesus

45

Luke also adds that Jesus and the disciples went up the mountain to pray118 and, like Matthew, includes that Jesus’ face shone brightly. Unlike Mark or Matthew, he reveals the content of the discussion between Jesus, Moses, and Elijah – namely, Jesus’ departure (death) which would occur in Jerusalem – as well as noting that the disciples were burdened with sleep (βεβαρηµένοι ὕπνῳ) during this discussion. This latter observation by Luke should not be understood, however, to allude to the disciples’ “spiritual dullness.”119 Rather, Luke gives the sense that they were so exhausted that they could not help themselves from falling asleep. It is also possible that the verb διαγρηγορέω should be translated “to remain or keep awake”120 “in which case the sense would be that although the disciples were extremely sleepy they nevertheless managed to remain awake.”121 In addition, the disciples are not chastised for their tiredness. Thus, while the three disciples, and Peter in particular, evince a lack of understanding, this is not due specifically to their tiredness on the mountain. Instead of ῥαββί or κύριε, Luke has Peter address Jesus as ἐπιστάτα (cf. 5:5; 8:24, 45, 9:49; 17:13). No disrespect is intended here.122 Luke omits fearfulness from his explanation for why Peter spoke. Peter may also be attempting to forestall the departure of Moses and Elijah, who were “beginning to depart” (Luke 9:33), by offering to construct places for them to stay.123 Luke also modifies the proclamation from the voice in the cloud, replacing ἀγαπητός (as in Mark and Matthew) with ἐκλελεγµένος, thus making an even stronger connection than Matthew to ‫ בָּ ִחיר‬in Is 42:1.124 D. Summary of Peter’s Characterization Peter is presented in a position of prominence, being one of only three disciples to view Jesus’ transfiguration. He is also, once again, the only disciple to speak. And, just as with his rebuke of Jesus, his words are ill-considered; he continues his misunderstanding of Jesus’ mission. Yet it is still

118

Bock, Luke, 1:866, notes: “The focus on prayer is common in Luke and adds to the event’s spiritual mood.” 119 As argued by Green, Luke, 383. 120 BDAG, s.v. “διαγρηγορέω,” 227; LSJ, s.v. “διαγρηγορέω,” 392. 121 Marshall, Luke, 385. 122 Marshall, Luke, 385; Nolland, Luke, 1:222. Contra Green, Luke, 383, who contends that, though is a term of respect, it is “one that signifies a lack of understanding of Jesus’ person and mission.” 123 Marshall, Luke, 386–387; Green, Luke, 383; Nolland, Luke, 2:500–501; John Paul Heil, The Transfiguration of Jesus: Narrative Meaning and Function of Mark 9:2–8, Matt 17:1–8 and Luke 9:28–36 (AbBib 144; Rome: Editrice Pontificio istituto biblico, 2000), 209. 124 Nolland, Luke, 2:501.

46

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

evident that he desires to serve Jesus, even though his specific idea for how to do so in this instance is misguided.

VII. Washing of the Disciples’ Feet (John 13:2–11) VII. Washing of the Disciples’ Feet When Jesus prepares to wash Peter’s feet prior to the eating of the Last Supper, with the purpose of teaching his disciples the meaning of servant leadership (John 13:13–16), Peter once again speaks impulsively. He first refuses to allow Jesus to wash his feet, using an emphatic double negative (οὐ µὴ) and follows it up with εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (13:8). Peter clearly feels comfortable telling Jesus what he should and should not do. While not identical, there is a similarity to his chastisement of Jesus following the latter’s prediction of his suffering and death. In the first instance, Peter believed it was inappropriate (for whatever reason) for Jesus to consider such a fate for himself. At the Last Supper, he considers it inappropriate to allow Jesus to perform such a lowly task.125 As George Macgregor observes, “Peter is humble enough to see the incongruity of Christ’s action, yet proud enough to dictate to his master.”126 Craig Keener goes too far in contrasting Peter’s initial refusal to allow Jesus to wash his feet with Mary’s previous anointing of Jesus’ feet (12:4– 5) thus indicating that “Mary and Jesus embody sacrifice and servanthood; Judas and Peter, impending betrayal and denial.”127 First, Mary was playing the role of the servant, a role Peter believed was properly his, and not Jesus’. Second, Peter’s reaction to Jesus’ desire to wash his feet was unrelated to his later denials. This is especially indicated by Peter’s immediate reversal after Jesus’ warning that Peter will be separated from Jesus if he continues his obstinacy; Peter’s words reflect “a sudden change of heart” as he realizes that 125 Sandra M. Schneiders, “The Foot Washing (John 13:1–20): An Experiment in Hermeneutics,” CBQ 43 (1981): 83, contends that Peter was objecting “specifically to the reversal of service roles between himself and Jesus.” Cf. Rudolf Karl Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 468; Blaine, Peter in the Gospel of John, 64–66. 126 George H. C. Macgregor, The Gospel of John (MNTC; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1928), 275. The position of Graydon F. Snyder, “John 13:16 and the Anti-Petrinism of the Johannine Tradition,” BR 16 (1971): 6, that the “story of the footwashing pertains to the assimilation of ‘Jesus’ rather than humility or service … The focus is not on the humble service of Jesus but on the inability of his disciples, exemplified as usual by Peter, to receive Jesus, the Son” should be rejected, if only because there is no textual indication that Peter understood, prior to his initial refusal, that he could have no part in Jesus if he did not allow his master to wash his feet. 127 Keener, John, 2:909.

VII. Washing of the Disciples’ Feet

47

Jesus’ act is “the key to intimate fellowship” with his master.128 Peter’s “well-known overeagerness and penchant for hyperbole”129 is also depicted here, in a near-comical manner. He is like a pendulum, with polar opposite responses occurring one after another. Peter is thus shown once again to be impulsive – twice – as he acts immediately upon Jesus’ words and his own misunderstanding of these words. This is not a case, as Hartenstein contends, of Peter acting “in clear opposition” to Jesus, responding against the implication that Jesus’ footwashing demanded a reversal of hierarchy, with Peter realizing that Jesus’ example implies that the disciples are themselves being required to accept a low status rather than the high status he has come to expect. Nor is there any indication in the text that his declaration that Jesus wash his entire body was an expression for his desire for a greater honor than the other disciples would receive.130 Jesus, himself, indicates that Peter’s lack of understanding lies at the heart of his inappropriate response. He assures Peter that, though he does not understand Jesus’ actions “now” (ἄρτι), he would “after this” (µετὰ ταῦτα). The referent of µετὰ ταῦτα is ambiguous. It is, however, unlikely that Jesus is solely referring to the meaning behind the physical act of washing Peter’s feet. Rather, he is alluding to his impending sacrifice on the cross and the resultant washing of Peter’s sins that this will accomplish, and indeed, already has accomplished (cf. v. 10).131 The time in which comprehension would come to Peter is therefore most probably after the resurrection, and perhaps not until he is filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.132 Scholarship on John’s sources for 13:1–17 is varied. Some hold that there are two different traditions which John attempted to meld together, one which had a sacramentalist theme of spiritual cleansing and the other a

128

Blaine, Peter in the Gospel of John, 68. Andreas J. Köstenberger, John (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 406. 130 Judith Hartenstein, Charakterisierung im Dialog: Die Darstellung von Maria Magdalena, Petrus, Thomas und der Mutter Jesu im Kontext anderer frühchristlicher Traditionen (SUNT 64; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 161–163. Hartenstein later identifies John 13:2–11 as, without parallel, the most important scene of Peter in the Gospels (209). 131 Köstenberger, John, 406: “The verb νίπτω carries a Johannine double meaning, referring both to the washing of feet and to the cleansing from sin (cf. 1 John 1:9).” Cf. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 617. 132 Beasley-Murray, John, 233. Jesus describes Peter as “completely clean” (καθαρὸς ὅλος). A statement such as this cannot go unnoticed when evaluating Peter’s character, especially as it relates to this specific episode. 129

48

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

moralistic theme of servant leadership,133 or that John added his own material to an already existing source.134 Others disagree, claiming the entire account is a single source.135 Carson Notes that the two themes are brought together in other NT passages (Mark 8:34–35 and par.; 1 Pet 2:13–25), including a passage which immediately precedes the footwashing scene (John 12:24–26). “In short, the link is common in Christian paraenesis, and the drive toward two entirely separate narratives in John 13 correspondingly unjustified.”136 In addition, Carson strongly contends that the structural and literary unity and coherence of this passage, while not demanding the passage be historically accurate, enhances John’s “reliability as a witness to Jesus Christ.”137 Blomberg observes that “the criterion of double similarity and dissimilarity is well satisfied” by the washing of the feet of disciples by their master: “The practice emerges out of a Jewish background but takes a radical turn. A few Christians imitate Jesus later but mostly by turning the practice into the very kind of sacramental ritual against which John was protesting.”138 In addition, there may be a connection between Jesus’ declaration that Peter can have no part (µέρος) with him and Peter’s judgment upon Simon Magus that he will have no part (µέρος) in the ministry of the Holy Spirit because he attempted to purchase this gift.139 A. Summary of Peter’s Characterization Peter considers himself a disciple of Jesus and, as such, does not understand Jesus’ intent to wash his feet (the task of the disciple, not the master). This is likely true for the other disciples as well, yet only Peter has the boldness/brashness to question Jesus on this matter. His over-exuberance in subsequently asking Jesus to wash his entire body is further evidence of his desire to follow Jesus, his boldness/brashness, and his lack of understanding.

133 Marie Emile Boismard, “Le lavement des pieds (Jn 13 :1–17),” RB 71 (1964): 5– 24; Michal Wojciechowski, “La source de Jean 13:1–20,” NTS 34 (1988): 135–141. 134 Bultmann, John, 462–463; Brown, John, 2:560–562. 135 Ernst Haenchen, John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John (trans. Robert W. Funk; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 2:114; Beasley-Murray, John, 231. 136 Carson, John, 459. 137 Carson, John, 459–460. 138 Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues and Commentary (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 188–189. 139 Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel, 189.

VIII. Prediction of Peter’s Denials

49

VIII. Prediction of Peter’s Denials (Mark 14:27–31; Matt 26:31–35; Luke 22:31–34; John 13:36–38) A. Mark 14:27–31

VIII. Prediction of Peter’s Denials

Of all the teachings of Jesus, perhaps none troubled the disciples, and Peter in particular, more than their master’s prediction of their imminent scattering on the night Jesus was to be arrested. While they may have earnestly disagreed with other declarations (such as Jesus’ prediction of his own suffering and death), this prediction struck at the very heart of their faithfulness as Jesus’ disciples. Characteristically, it is Peter who speaks, but not on behalf of the other disciples as their spokesman.140 Instead, Peter brashly boasts that even if the rest of the disciples abandon Jesus,141 he will never do so. Calvin accurately describes this as the “intoxication of human presumption.”142 Peter not only honestly believes he will remain faithful to Jesus, he also believes this will be true even if the rest of his companions do not. Therefore, Peter insists he should not be included in the πάντες of Jesus, but rather should be set apart from the other disciples.143 Just as with Jesus’ prediction of his own suffering, death, and resurrection, when Peter focused only upon the first two elements (Mark 8:31–32), it appears that Peter again ignores the second half of Jesus’ proclamation, hearing only the prediction of his future denial, and not the reference to his future loyalty. 144 Jesus repeats his prediction, this time addressing Peter personally; Peter will deny Jesus three times that very night (Mark states this will occur before the cock crows twice). Characteristically, Peter “vehemently” 145 retorts that he is willing to die with Jesus, and that he will never disown him.146 Interestingly, this is the first instance in which one of Jesus’ disci140 Though, Peter’s later insistence that he will be able to follow Jesus to death if necessary “is contagious in extracting from the other disciples a similar commitment” (Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:138). The other disciples thus follow Peter’s lead, even though Peter had not initially been speaking on their behalf. 141 Gundry, Mark, 865, maintains that the indicative σκανδαλισθήσονται “suggests that Peter thinks the tripping up of his fellow-disciples quite possible,” in contrast to his confidence in his own steadfastness. Cf. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:133. 142 Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 3:220. 143 Dschulnigg, Petrus, 22. 144 Blaine, Peter in the Gospel of John, 76; Marcus, Mark, 2:972–973. 145 Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:138. Paul Joüon, “Marc 14, 31: Ό ∆Ε ΈΚΠΕΡΙΣΣΩΣ ΈΛΑΛΕΙ,” RSR 29 (1939): 240–241, contends that ἐκπερισσῶς should be taken as a superlative and translates it as: “d’une façon qui dépasse toute mesure.” 146 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:487: “Peter, crowing like a proud cock, rebuts Jesus.” France, Mark, 579, notes that Peter’s second objection to Jesus’ prediction is

50

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

ples understands that Jesus will (or, at least, may) soon die. Peter’s understanding about Jesus has grown; it is his confidence in his own ability to face adversity which is misplaced. Peter is not alone in this belief; the other disciples respond similarly. Even in this, however, Peter demonstrates the continued incomprehension of Jesus’ proclamation that he will suffer, die, and rise again, for even though Peter does understand that suffering and dying may be in Jesus’ future, he still has not grasped the resurrection (cf. John 20:9). Günter Klein rejects the authenticity of both the prediction of Peter’s denial and the actual denial accounts, attributing the origin of these stories to the waning influence of Peter, from his height as the leader of the entire Christian movement following Easter and Pentecost, to one of a “college” of pillars (Gal 2:9), to a solitary evangelist. This resulted in isolation from James and this unresolved conflict led to the development of a tradition of Peter’s denials and the prediction of these denials by Jesus.147 Yet there is no evidence for a split between Peter and James. Maier provides a strong rebuttal of Klein’s argument, maintaining that “there is no proof that Peter’s role in any of the three groups [postulated by Klein] necessitated his leaving his leadership or membership in the other groups. Galatians 2:7–9 indicates just the opposite: Peter was both an apostle and one of the three pillars; nowhere in or outside of the NT is it ever said that Peter ceased to be one of the Twelve.”148 Burton Mack contends that the evidence that Mark imagined the accounts of Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denials and the denials themselves “is overwhelming … there is nothing in the story that reflects historical reminiscence.”149 However, Mack’s basis for his claim is simply that “some story had to be told to bring the discipleship theme to a conclusion. … Peter’s denial is the only story in the passion account that brings this narrative design to a fitting climax.”150 Yet this is not evidence that the denial sequences did not occur, and he provides no direct argument against their historicity. 151

even stronger than the first; while the “scattering” of the disciples shows weakness, “a threefold denial is … apostasy. If desertion [in Peter’s mind] was unthinkable, denial must be more so.” 147 Günter Klein, “Die Verleugnung des Petrus: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung,” ZKT 58 (1961): 324. 148 Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:282. 149 Burton L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: The Gospel of Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 305–306. 150 Mack, Myth of Innocence, 305. 151 Gundry, Mark, 920.

VIII. Prediction of Peter’s Denials

51

B. Matthew 26:31–35 Once again, Matthew is very close to Mark. He adds that the disciples’ failure will occur “this very night” (Matt 26:31). In Peter’s initial protestation, he combines the emphatic ἐγὼ with οὐδέποτε. And, along with Luke and John, only a single cock crow is mentioned. C. Luke 22:31–34 Luke’s account is significantly different from that of Mark and Matthew. He only includes the interaction between Jesus and Peter, omitting Jesus’ prediction that the disciples as a group will scatter. Peter’s willingness to die with Jesus is expanded to include going to prison. Luke’s major addition involves Jesus’ revelation that Satan himself has asked to sift Peter like wheat. The trial which Peter will undergo in the hours to follow will take the form of a demonic attack. Jesus prays that his faith would not fail and then implies that his faith will indeed fail and that after he turns back that he will strengthen the brothers. This is an odd combination; Brown, Donfried, and Reumann rightly suggest that “through Jesus’ prayer the lack of faith implicit in the denials did not become a permanent failure, and Peter’s faith revived after the resurrection.”152 One final point should be made regarding the use of the double vocative, “Simon, Simon, …” in Luke 22:31. Robert Brawley contends this is not simply an indication of a pre-Lucan source, as Rehkopf argues,153 but is rather an intentional decision on the part of Jesus to highlight Peter’s upcoming failure; his denials will be the antithesis of his new nickname.154 Green agrees: “Peter’s identity and vocation as an apostle are at stake in the coming conflict” with his very faithfulness being endangered.155 De152

Brown, Donfried, and Reumann, Peter in the New Testament, 122. Cf. Adolf Schlatter, Das Evangelium des Lukas: Aus seinen Quellen erklärt (2d. ed.; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1960), 426; Nolland, Luke, 3:1072–1073. Contra Klein, “Die Verleugnung des Petrus,” 300–301, who contends that Jesus’ prayer was that Satan’s attack would have no effect upon Peter, thus indicating an independent tradition that Peter did not deny Jesus. 153 Friedrich Rehkopf, Die lukanische Sonderquelle: Ihr Umfang und Sprachgebrauch (WUNT 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1959), 94. Cf. Vincent Taylor, The Passion Narrative of St Luke: A Critical and Historical Investigation (ed. Owen E. Evans; SNTSMS 19; London: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 65; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 2 vols. (AB 28B; New York: Doubleday, 1985), 2:1421, 1424. Gnilka, Markus, 2:261, agrees as well, further specifying the source as Palestinian. 154 Robert L. Brawley, Centering on God: Method and Message in Luke-Acts (Louisville: Westminster, 1990), 142; Marc Rastoin, “Simon-Pierre entre Jésus et Satan: La théologie lucanienne à l’œuvre en Lc 22,31–32,” Biblica 89 (2008): 169. 155 Green, Luke, 772. Cf. Frank J. Matera, Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies: Interpreting the Synoptics through their Passion Stories (Theological Inquiries; New York: Paulist, 1986), 165.

52

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

spite the theological appeal of this interpretation, Brown’s insight that, with the exception of Luke 22:34, Jesus only addresses him as “Simon” (cf. also Matt 16:17; Mark 14:37; John 21:15–17) should be preferred.156 The reason for Jesus’ decision to primarily use “Simon” is obscure. It may indicate even more strongly that “Peter” was not a replacement for “Simon,” but only a nickname, with both being used somewhat interchangeably. 157 Perhaps it was only following the formation of the Church that “Peter” became his more commonly used appellation.158 If so, even this was apparently not universal, as the men sent by Cornelius are told to ask for a “Simon, who is also called Peter” (Acts 10:5, 18, 32; 11:13), and “Peter” may have been added solely to distinguish Simon Peter from Simon the tanner, in whose house Peter had been residing (Acts 10:32). On Luke 22:31–32, Meier tentatively concludes that these verses are a creation by Luke, due to how accurately they prophesy “the cushioned fall and speedy rehabilitation of Peter during his triple denial and the rest of the passion (as recorded by Luke), and how presciently it looks forward to his postresurrection ministry in the Gospel and Acts.”159 Similarly, Dibelius contends this passage is “a vaticinium ex eventu that he shall have a leading place among the disciples.”160 Fitzmyer argues that Luke is drawing upon early tradition, but one which was unconnected to the Last Supper.161 Yet, what is historically improbable about Jesus predicting that Peter would be rehabilitated and would serve as the leader of the Twelve? Of course, if one denies that Jesus had any supernatural access to future knowledge, explanations such as these are necessary. But historical doubt is required only if one approaches Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s future acts with an a priori assumption that he could not have made such predictions. Without such an assumption, any foundation for contending that this passage is not historical is undermined. And regarding Fitzmyer’s assertion, 156 Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:135 n. 33, 195. Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:226, suggests that Jesus only intended the nickname of Cephas/Peter to be used by others, and not by Jesus himself, as witnessed by traditions unique to each of the four Gospels (Mark 14:37; Matt 16:17; 17:25; Luke 22:31; John 21:15–17). 157 Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:226, suggests that Jesus may have only intended Cephas/Peter to be used by others, reflecting “Simon’s relationship to the other disciples, not to Jesus,” while he himself continued to use “Simon.” Unfortunately, there is insufficient evidence to support this conclusion. 158 Pesch’s hypothesis (Simon-Petrus, 33) that “Peter” became an official name (“Amtsname”) only after Easter is unnecessary. There is no reason why Jesus could not have given Simon this new name in anticipation of what he would become. 159 Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:240. 160 Martin Dibelius, “The Acts of the Apostles in the Setting of the History of Early Christian Literature,” in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (ed. Heinrich Greeven; London: SCM, 1956), 200. 161 Fitzmyer, Luke, 2:1421.

VIII. Prediction of Peter’s Denials

53

while Jesus certainly could have made this prediction at another time and place, there is nothing about the Last Supper which makes it implausible that Jesus made his prediction at this time. In fact, there is an inherent appropriateness about Jesus’ decision to tell Peter what would occur in the hours and days to follow immediately prior to their occurrence, as opposed to some occasion months or years earlier. D. John 13:36–38 John’s account is much briefer than any of the Synoptics. No prediction of either the disciples’ scattering is included. Instead, following Jesus’ teaching that he will only remain with them for a while and his enigmatic response to Peter’s question about where he is going, Peter asks Jesus why he cannot follow him and asserts his willingness to die for (ὑπέρ) him. Jesus responds by rhetorically asking Peter if he will die and then delivers a prediction of Peter’s three denials which is, in content, very similar to that of the Synoptics. Blaine notes that Peter’s use of ὑπέρ in vowing to die on behalf of Jesus (John 13:37) indicates that Peter “envisions giving himself over to a sacrificial death, perhaps one in which he and Jesus die together or in which he follows Jesus into the hands of the enemy.”162 Yet even though Peter is, in fact, denying Jesus’ prediction, his intention to loyally follow Jesus, even unto death, is commendable.163 Meier argues that John is relying upon an independent tradition from that of the Synoptic accounts, thus providing this pericope with multiple attestation.164 And the criterion of embarrassment certainly applies: why would the early church postulate the denials of Peter being prophesied by Jesus unless it actually occurred?

162

Blaine, Peter in the Gospel of John, 76–77. Cf. F. Lapham, Peter: The Myth, the Man and the Writings: A Study of Early Petrine Text and Tradition (JSNTSup 239; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 8 n. 13. Peter may also have had the intent of preventing Jesus’ death by sacrificing himself, which would echo his previous outburst that Jesus would surely not die (Matt 16:22). Cf. Dschulnigg, Petrus, 127; Ulrich Wilckens, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (NTD 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 218. 163 Agustí Borrell, The Good News of Peter’s Denial: A Narrative and Rhetorical Reading of Mark 14:54.66–72 (trans. Sean Conlon; University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 7; Atlanta: Scholars, 1998), 36. Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels, 80–81, contends that Peter’s “desire to be loyal to Jesus” is the dominant characteristic in this episode. Other traits, such as his confidence in his own ability and his disagreement with Jesus, “are by-products of his attempt to affirm his loyalty to Jesus; under the circumstances they are almost what love demands.” 164 Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:281. Cf. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:143.

54

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

E. Summary of Peter’s Characterization Here, again, Peter shows his desire to remain faithful to Jesus. He is both bold and brash in his declaration: bold in that he truly believes he will stand by Jesus even while the other disciples may fall away and brash in that he claims to know better than Jesus himself. This demonstrates overconfidence in himself, one which will soon be shown to be misplaced. And, as before, he is the disciple to speak; though now the others verbally follow his lead in claiming that they also will remain faithful.

IX. Prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:32–42; Matt 26:36–46; Luke 22:39–46) IX. Prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane A. Mark 14:32–42 When Jesus goes to pray at Gethsemane, though he brings the entire group of the Twelve (minus Judas Iscariot) with him, he leaves eight behind in one part of the garden, asking only the inner circle of three (Peter, James, and John) to accompany him further. Jesus then asks them to keep watch and pray with him, knowing that the next hours will be difficult for all.165 He reveals his own inner distress, essentially asking his disciples for their support. His agony should be clear to them, though their failure to stay awake for even a short period of time allows one to wonder to what extent they may have been oblivious to Jesus’ suffering, which has been hitherto completely uncharacteristic of Jesus.166 While Bock may be correct that “Jesus’ pending death has struck home and has emotionally drained them”167 it is nonetheless evident that they have failed to support Jesus at his greatest time of need. As Stein observes, “this emotional abandonment of Jesus foreshadows their literal abandonment that will soon take place.”168 Jesus wakes them up twice and rebukes them for their inability to stay awake; on both occasions they fall asleep again.169 He encourages 165 The suggestion by J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Sleeping at Gethsemane,” DRev 114 (1996): 238–241, that Jesus had simply posted Peter, James, and John as guards against the “sinners” who were coming to arrest him is unlikely. Jesus does not need guarding but the disciples do need to pray – the emphasis thus must be upon the latter. 166 Hagner, Matthew, 2:783. 167 Bock, Luke, 2:1762. 168 Stein, Mark, 663. 169 In Mark 14:37/Matt 26:40, Jesus restricts his question “Were you not strong enough to stay awake?” to Peter alone. In Mark, the verb ἰσχύω is singular; in Matt it is plural. Jesus then addresses all three disciples, that they should watch and pray. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:194–195, insightfully observes that Jesus was, in effect, responding to the earlier claim by Peter that he would remain faithful and the subsequent

IX. Prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane

55

them to watch and pray that they do not fall to temptation, and specifically that they will be able to endure the test which they will endure later that night;170 their inability to stay awake has already made it more likely that they will fail.171 The contrast between Jesus and his disciples is stark. While Jesus was preparing himself for the ordeal he knew he was about to undergo, his disciples unwisely slept rather than using the time in prayer. 172 Mark (and Matthew) blames it on weariness and a weak flesh.173 While it can be argued that Jesus does not rebuke them harshly, 174 their inability to stay awake and pray with Jesus is connected to their failure which is to come (though if John is the Beloved Disciple, his failure is far less). In addition, affirmation by the other disciples that they would as well. Jesus first speaks to Peter “as embodying the failure of all the disciples. … Peter was not strong enough to watch one hour and neither were any of the others.” Cf. Dschulnigg, Petrus, 23. 170 Stein, Mark, 663. Contra Gundry, Mark, 871–872, who views an eschatological connotation similar to that of Mark 6:13 and Luke 11:4. 171 Evald Lövestam, Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament (Lund: Gleerup, 1963, 64–67), notes that this combination of watching and praying while remaining awake at night has roots in the Psalms (42:9; 63:7; 77:3), Qumran (1QS 6.7–8), and elsewhere in the NT (Luke 2:37; Acts 16:25). 172 Werner H. Kelber, “Mark 14:32–42: Gethsemane – Passion Christology and Discipleship Failure,” ZNW 63 (1972): 186–187, argues that, based on passages such as the rebuking of Peter following Jesus’ first passion prediction (Mark 8:32–33), one of the chief characteristics of Mark’s opponents, the “Peter-Christians,” was their rejection of a passion christology. “It is this spirit,” Kelber claims, “that Mark creates the Gethsemane story and interpolates it at the threshold of the passion. Everything is done at the crossroads of Gethsemane to convert Peter and his disciples to suffering and death, but they remain unresponsive. So it is over the issue of the passion christology that Jesus and his disciples parted company.” Cf. idem, “The Hour of the Son of Man and the Temptation of the Disciples,” in The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14–16 (ed. Werner H. Kelber; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 58–60. Kelber’s theory is consonant with that of Theodore J. Weeden, “Heresy That Necessitated Mark’s Gospel,” ZNW 59 (1968): 145– 158, who contends that Mark portrays Peter in a consistently negative light so as to dramatize a dispute between Petrine and Markan Christians. Cf. Norman Perrin, What Is Redaction Criticism? (GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 53–57. For refutations of this thesis, see Thomas E. Boomershine, “Peter’s Denial as Polemic or Confession: The Implications of Media Criticism for Biblical Hermeneutics,” Semeia 39 (1987): 47–68, and Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:48–53. 173 Boomershine, “Peter’s Denial as Polemic or Confession,” 58, offers the prosaic explanation that the disciples’ weariness was due to their alcohol consumption during that night’s meal. Even if true, this would not excuse their failure to remain awake in prayer. 174 Green, Luke, 781, observes that “Luke’s portrait of [the disciples’] failure is not a damning one.” Instead, their actions are attributed to sorrow. While it is true that “Jesus himself was enabled to engage in the struggle with angelic help” this does not make it unsurprising “that the disciples were thus overcome.” Presumably, had the disciples prayed as urged by Jesus, they too would have been supported by the angels. Certainly, Jesus speaks as if they should have been able to stay awake.

56

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

there may also be an element of over-confidence being exhibited by the three disciples; they did not heed Jesus’ urging that they call upon God for assistance.175 They needed to seek fortification by God through prayer and they needed to show support to their master who was clearly in great distress. If their flesh was too weak to stay awake and pray with Jesus, how would they be able to stand by his side when he is betrayed? Bultmann concludes that Mark 14:32–42 is “an individual story of a thorough-going legendary character, which has not survived intact in Mark.”176 Cranfield, on the other hand asserts “the historical value of the section is beyond serious doubt” and the source is “probably Petrine.”177 Gundry offers a number of arguments supporting historicity: 178 (1) multiplicity of traditions referring to it (John 12:27; 14:31; 18:11; Heb 5:7–8;179 (2) the Christologically offensive strength of language used to describe Jesus’ distress; (3) the earliness of the tradition as implied by the Aramaic “Abba”180 (4) Jesus’ asking for immunity from betrayal and death instead of praying for strength to endure them (as would be expected had the episode been generated out of earlier martyrological stories);181 (5) the absence from his praying of OT phraseology such as Christians might have put on his lips; (6) Jesus proceeded only a little distance away from the three disciples; so before going to sleep they may easily have heard what he prayed, or the loudness of his outcries may have awakened them to hear what he was praying. 182 And, as Evans observes: “If the scene is a Christian creation, why not a larger inventory of dominical tradition as in John 17, for example? Dozing disciples may very well explain such meager preservation of dominical tradition.”183 In addition, the picture of sleeping disciples meets the criterion of embarrassment.

175

Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels, 85. Bultmann, History, 267–268. Cf. also Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (New York: Scribner, 1965), 182. 177 Cranfield, Mark, 430. 178 Gundry, Mark, 863–864. 179 Cf. Stein, Mark, 659; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:492; Fitzmyer, Luke, 2:1439; Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:224, 227–233. 180 Marcus, Mark, 2:976, holds that the “Abba” is reminiscent of the Lord’s Prayer, and is thus evidence that “the content of the prayer has its roots in narrative art and early Christian theology rather than historical memory.” But if it is acknowledges that Jesus would have used the term, how can its inclusion in 14:36 be evidence against the passage’s historicity? 181 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:492; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 713. 182 James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 17–20. 183 Evans, Mark, 2:408. 176

IX. Prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane

57

The criterion of embarrassment could also be seen to exist with Jesus’ desire to escape betrayal and death. Gnilka disagrees, claiming instead that Jesus is exalted in this passage by his suffering. 184 Brown acknowledges that “Christian writers have made a positive lesson of the scene, but would they have created such awkwardness for the sake of a lesson that they can only draw torturously from?”185 B. Matthew 26:36–46 Matthew’s account does not follow Mark verbatim, but there are no significant changes apart from three minor deletions and two additions. Matthew does not provide the Aramaic “Abba” in Jesus’ first prayer, does not have Jesus address Peter by name, and thus does not include “Simon,” and does not mention that the disciples did not know how to respond to Jesus after the second prayer. The two additions involve expansions of the second and third prayers of Jesus, whereas Mark only mentions that Jesus went to pray a second time and implies that a third prayer occurred. C. Luke 22:39–46 Luke’s account is more concise than that of Mark and Matthew. He does not mention any disciples by name, and tells all of them to pray that they not fall into temptation. He includes the strengthening of Jesus by an angel and the sweating of blood by Jesus. And he compacts the three prayers of Jesus into a single instance. He also mentions that the disciples’ exhaustion was due to sorrow, rather than weariness and a weak flesh described by Mark and Matthew, though the concepts are not mutually exclusive. Luke 22:41 describes the distance between the disciples and where Jesus was praying “a stone’s throw” away. Marcus asks how the content of Jesus’ prayers could have been written down by the writers of the Gospels if Jesus was prayed a distance apart from the disciples and the disciples were asleep.186 The question is valid; Brown too quickly dismisses this as a “village atheist question.”187 Yet reasonable possibilities exist. A “stone’s throw” is an inexact reference; it is indeed possible that Jesus’ prayers were quite loud (cf. Heb 5:7), thus enabling the disciples to hear Jesus prior to falling asleep, or perhaps after being awaken by Jesus’ cries.188 Alternatively, Jesus may have revealed the content of his Gethsemane prayers after his resurrection.189 184

Gnilka, Markus, 2:264. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:224 n. 12. 186 Marcus, Mark, 2:975–976. 187 Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:174. 188 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 17–20; Gundry, Mark, 864; Edwards, Mark, 435 n. 48. 189 France, Matthew, 1003. 185

58

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

D. Summary of Peter’s Characterization Peter is singled out by Jesus from among the disciples; not only is he one of three separated by Jesus from the other disciples, but it is he to whom Jesus directs his admonition regarding his inability to remain awake, even though James and John had also fallen asleep. This does not indicate, however, that he is their leader/spokesman. Peter’s failure to pray is both evidence of his lack of dependency upon God for the strength that Jesus has warned him would be needed as well as his inability to fulfill his master’s request to support him in his distress by keeping watch. Once again, he has not acted as the faithful disciple he so earnestly desires to be.

X. Peter Defends Jesus (John 18:10–11) X. Peter Defends Jesus Almost immediately thereafter, Peter demonstrates courage when confronted with the arrest of Jesus.190 Luke 22:38 records that two swords were brought by the disciples; according to John 18:10, Peter had one of these.191 He strikes with the sword, cutting off the right ear of Malchus, the servant of the high priest (John 18:10; cf. Matt 26:51; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:49–51).192 Practically, Peter’s decision is unwise given the odds that he 190 The three synoptic gospels each mention Jesus asking those come to arrest him as if he were a robber (λῃστής). Stein, Mark, 672–673, contends that Mark’s readers would have understood this term to refer to a political revolutionary. Given that the earliest date commonly given for Mark is in the 50s A.D., and since by this time (as evidenced in Josephus), this term had indeed taken on this connotation, Stein is probably correct. However, whether Jesus himself had this sense in mind is indeterminable. Cf. France, Mark, 595. 191 Gundry, Mark, 860, and Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:266–267, both suggest that since the individual who strikes off the ear of a servant is depicted in Mark as “one of those who had been standing nearby,” this person was not a disciple of Jesus (either Peter or someone else). As there is no logical necessity why this must be the case, and since the other gospels are more specific (John in particular), the identification of this individual with Peter should be accepted. Luz, Matthew, 3:419, demonstrates that swords were permitted to be carried on feast days and in self-defense and thus it was not unusual that two swords are brought by the disciples. 192 Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 2:400, disregarding the other three gospels which clearly describe the one wielding the sword as a disciple of Jesus, contends that Mark depicts the man as belonging to the group who came to arrest Jesus, accidentally (clumsily?) cutting off the ear of one of his own companions. Cf. Gundry, Mark, 860; Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:266–268. Unnecessary is the attempt by Mark McVann, “Conjectures About a Guilty Bystander: The Sword Slashing in Mark 14:47,” Listening 21 (1986): 126–135, to use reader-response criticism to propose that the person who slashes the ear of the servant of the high priest in Mark is intended to be understood as a “symbolic representative of Mark’s community,” (134) but not a person actually present at the arrest of Jesus.

X. Peter Defends Jesus

59

faces; John 18:2 notes that a “cohort” (σπεῖρα) of soldiers (which was typically composed of 600 men) has followed Judas into the garden. It may be that the choice of Malchus was not random, but rather that Malchus, as the servant of the high priest, was the religious leader in charge of the arresting party. 193 It is improbable that Peter was specifically aiming for the ear. Daube surmises that Peter was purposefully intending to mutilate the ear in order to disqualify him from priestly office just as Yochanan ben Zaccai is recorded to have done to a Sadducean high priest in t. Parah 3:8.194 However, Morris is correct that “it is more likely that Peter struck a lusty blow in the general direction of the enemy but managed to inflict only minor damage.”195 It would take a very proficient swordsman to manage to slice an ear while missing the rest of the head. Peter’s bravado in defending Jesus was thus not due to any great confidence in his own aptitude with a sword, but rather his conviction in his role as Jesus’ defender. Peter may also have believed that Jesus might perform a miracle and save both himself and his disciples; if so, then Peter’s courage is significantly lessened. Jesus, after telling Peter to put the sword away, notes that such an option indeed existed by rhetorically asking: “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt 26:53) It is noteworthy that Peter’s decision to defend Jesus is not as impulsive as many of his previous acts have been; Peter refrains from attacking until after Jesus is finished speaking to those come to arrest him. Only then does he wield his sword, perhaps indicating that Peter did not believe Jesus truly needed his disciples’ assistance, but rather that he has made a conscious decision to demonstrate his willingness to die for Jesus.196 Unfortunately, once more Peter demonstrates his lack of understanding regarding the necessity that Jesus suffer and die.197 This, however, only reveals his false expectations, not an element of his character. In fact, Peter likely believed he was proving his faithfulness to Jesus by being willing to fight for his master. He also exhibits self-control; he ceases his attack when Jesus commands him to do so. But this self-control was coupled with dismay that he once again failed to do as Jesus desired. Chagrined from Jesus’ rebuke, Peter fled with the other disciples (Mark 14:50; Matt 26:56). 193

Gnilka, Markus, 2:270. David Daube, “Three Notes Having to Do with Johanan ben Zaccai,” JTS 11 (1960): 59–62; Benedict T. Viviano, “The High Priest’s Servant’s Ear: Mark 14:47,” RB 96 (1989): 73–78. 195 Morris, Matthew, 675. 196 Blaine, Peter in the Gospel of John, 84–89. 197 Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels, 139, observes that Peter “while acting out of loyalty and devotion, fails to see his own dependence and the necessity of Jesus’ sacrifice.” 194

60

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

Meier doubts that the identification of Peter being the disciple who cut the ear off of the high priest’s servant was in the Johannine tradition because of “all these neat connections” with Peter at the Last Supper, Jesus’ arrest at Gethsemane, and his denials, but is rather “a literary and theological invention of the Evangelist, tying the Peter-material smoothly together and preparing for Peter’s triple denial.”198 Brown agrees: “if correct, the Synoptic silence about Peter’s brave action is hard to explain.”199 However, Brown does believe that the overall account of a disciple striking the servant of a high priest is likely historical; while Luke and John both mention that it was the right ear of the servant which was cut off, they use different words for ear (Luke = οὖς; John = ὠτάριον), thus indicating that Luke and John are drawing upon independent traditions.200 In addition, Brown contends that the addition of the name of Malchus, which is otherwise unattested in any of the Gospel accounts, is an indication that John is drawing upon historical tradition.201 While it cannot be determined with historical certitude that Peter was behind the sword thrust, it does make greater sense of Peter’s actions before and after the arrest of Jesus. It is not simply that Peter is being impetuous; he is carrying out his previously declared role to be faithful to Jesus and die for him. Of course, it is possible that Peter may have lost his courage and another disciple struck the high priest; but there is no reason it could not have been Peter. As to why the Synoptics did not include Peter, it is evident that there is a greater emphasis upon Peter in John’s passion account than in the other three Gospels. Only John records the footwashing episode (13:2–11), Peter’s defense of Jesus at Gethsemane (18:10–11), and Peter’s reconciliation to Jesus (21:1–23). In addition, only Luke and John record Peter’s discovery of the empty tomb, with John’s account being more detailed (20:2–10). The argument offered by Meier and Brown, that all of these references make it likely that it was John who added Peter into the arrest of Jesus account, can just as easily be turned around to contend that John specifically decided to include early historical traditions of Peter in his passion account which the other Evangelists had omitted.

198

Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:717. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:267. 200 Brown, John, 812. 201 Brown, John, 812. In agreement, but contending this argument should be extended to explain the inclusion of Peter’s name in John’s narrative as well as Malchus’ and thus indicating that John is likely drawing upon an eyewitness source, are Beasley-Murray, John, 323; Ben Witherington, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 287; Blomberg, Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel, 232. 199

XI. Peter’s Denials

61

A. Summary of Peter’s Characterization Peter again demonstrates his desire to remain faithful to Jesus; this time, he is indeed boldly willing to die for Jesus. Yet Jesus had not asked him to fight on his behalf, thus revealing Peter’s boldness to truly be brashness. Peter’s continued failure to understand Jesus’ teaching results in another public rebuke.

XI. Peter’s Denials (Mark 14:54, 66–72; Matt 26:58, 69–75; Luke 22:54b–62; John 18:15–18, 25–27) A. Mark 14:54, 66–72

XI. Peter’s Denials

Peter must have been very troubled. He had attempted to be the rock that his name signified by defending Jesus at Gethsemane, but at the moment he believed his master needed him most, he was again chastised for his choice of action. The fact that Peter quickly recovers from his fright and confusion, and has the fortitude to follow Jesus to where his master will be tried, speaks well of his temerity.202 Apart from the additional disciple mentioned by John, Peter is the only disciple to follow Jesus; the others are not heard from again until after the resurrection.203 Yet, it is notable that Peter followed from a distance (Mark 14:54), indicating “a desire to avoid trouble. Already a tension is appearing between Peter’s sense of loyalty and his fear.”204 After reaching the courtyard of Caiaphas, he is approached three times by people who accuse him of being a follower of Jesus. Each time, Peter denies having known Jesus. Peter’s denials escalate in severity. Mark depicts Peter’s first denial as Peter not knowing what the servant girl is asking, thus attempting to circumvent the question without giving a direct answer. This may indicate that Peter attempted to rationalize to himself that he was not technically 202

Thomas E. Boomershine, “Mark 16:8 and the Apostolic Commission,” JBL 100 (1981): 236; Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels, 86–87. This conclusion counters the assertion by Thomas L. Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 529, that given Jesus’ early prediction, Peter’s decision to follow Jesus constituted both “impetuosity” and “sinfulness.” In addition, while Gnilka, Markus, 2:278, is correct that true discipleship would have involved Peter following Jesus to the cross, it can be inferred that Peter, while following Jesus at a distance, was intending on being faithful to Jesus whatever the cost – or, at least, this is what he would have been attempting to convince himself. 203 With the exception of a vague comment by Luke, without mention of any specific names, who comments that “all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things” (23:49). 204 Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels, 86.

62

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

denying Jesus, although he is certainly intending the girl to assume that he does not know Jesus. With Peter’s second denial, he simply denies being one of the followers of Jesus. With his third denial, Peter begins to curse and swear (καταθεµατίζειν καὶ ὀµνύειν).205 Immediately following this third denial, the cock crows a second time (Mark does not mention a first). Remembering that Jesus had predicted these very denials just hours earlier, Peter broke down and wept.206 For Peter, “it was like awakening from an evil dream that had begun with the failure to stay awake in Gethsemane.”207 Yet, while Peter’s weeping may possibly have an element of repentance and remorse, the fact that he does not stay with Jesus, but instead flees the courtyard, is “a further manifestation of the human frailty shown by Peter … when confronted with the Passion.”208 B. Matthew 26:58, 69–75 The escalation of Peter’s denials is made even more severe by Matthew. The first Evangelist follows Mark in having Peter evade the initial question. Following the second, Peter insists he does not know Jesus, including an oath (thereby violating Jesus’ proscription against oaths in Matt 5:33–

205

Many commentators conclude that Peter was verbally cursing Jesus. Cf. Helmut Merkel, “Peter’s Curse,” in The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C. F. D. Moule (ed. Ernst Bammel; SBT 2/13; Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1970), 66–71; Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, “St. Peter’s Denial,” BJRL 55 (1973): 354; Herman Hendrickx, The Passion Narratives of the Synoptic Gospels (Manila: East Asian Pastoral Institute, 1977), 37–38; France, Mark, 622; Gnilka, Petrus und Rom, 67; Luz, Matthew, 3:456; Stein, Mark, 692; Marcus, Mark, 2:1020. Peter could have instead been calling a curse upon himself if he is lying (cf. Acts 23:12, 14, 21). Cf. Pesch, Simon-Petrus, 44; Francis Wright Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew: Translation, Introduction, and Commentary (1st U.S. ed.; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982), 524; Keener, Matthew, 655; Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels, 87 n. 69. With no object provided in the text, either is possible. Whichever interpretation is accurate, the result is the same: Peter has sunk to the deepest level of cowardice and has completely separated himself from Jesus, with this action becoming a true apostate. 206 The phrase “καὶ ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιεν” is ambiguous; Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:609–610, lists nine different interpretive options. In light of the reading in Matthew and Luke – ”καὶ ἐξελθὼν ἔξω ἔκλαυσεν πικρῶς” – and the fact that the most logical response of Peter would be to leave the location where he has committed his betrayal, it seems best to understand Mark as stating that Peter has thrown himself out of the courtyard, capturing the anguish involved in Peter’s departure in one fashion while Matthew and Luke do so differently through the addition of the adverb πικρῶς. Cf. Marcus, Mark, 2:1021. 207 Lane, Mark, 543. 208 Borrell, The Good News of Peter’s Denial, 113.

XI. Peter’s Denials

63

37) and depersonalizing Jesus as merely “the man” (τὸν ἄνθρωπον).209 “From evasion, Peter has moved to lying with an oath.”210 Matthew then again follows Mark in having Peter’s third denial include cursing and swearing. After the cock crowed (Matthew does not include that this was the second crowing of a cock), Matthew expands upon Mark’s description of Peter’s reaction to recalling Jesus’ prediction that he would deny Jesus thrice, noting that he wept bitterly. C. Luke 22:54b–62 Luke’s account of Peter’s denials does not include the escalation found in Mark and Matthew. First, Peter claims not to know Jesus. Second, he denies being “one of them.” Third, he retorts that he doesn’t know what the people are talking about. Following the cock-crowing, Luke then mentions that Jesus turns and looks at Peter (Luke 22:61). For the remainder of his account, Luke follows Matthew. Peter finds himself where he began: a sinful man (Luke 5:8). D. John 18:15–18, 25–27 John’s account of Peter’s denials is significantly different in content from the other three, though its substance is essentially the same. John includes that Peter was accompanied by “another disciple” (John 18:15; likely the Beloved Disciple), who was known to the high priest. It is he who enables Peter to enter into the courtyard. Peter’s first two denials are succinctly described by Peter answering the question if he is one of Jesus’ disciples with: “I am not.” John’s depiction of the third denial contains information not found within any of the other Gospels: a relative of Malchus challenges Peter, claiming he had seen Peter “in the olive grove.” John then relates that Peter denies Jesus a third time and concludes with the crowing of the cock; the reference to Peter’s reaction after remembering Jesus’ prediction is omitted by John. Mark and Matthew each intercalate Peter’s denials within Jesus’ trial; they mention that Peter followed Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest (Mark 14:54; Matt 26:58, with Matthew mentioning in 26:57 that Jesus was brought to Caiaphas), then relate Jesus’ trial before Caiaphas (Mark 14:55–65; Matt 26:59–68), and conclude with Peter’s denials (Mark 14:66–72; Matt 26:69–75). The intercalation in John is even more dramatic; he first discusses Jesus’ trial before Annas (John 18:12–14), then Peter’s first denial (John 18:15–18), follows this up with Jesus’ trial before 209 “The Son of Man has become to the first of the disciples an anonymous ‘the man.’” Hagner, Matthew, 2:806. 210 Nolland, Matthew, 1141.

64

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

Caiaphas (John 18:19–24), and concludes with Peter’s second and third denials (John 18:25–27). “By making Peter’s denials simultaneous with Jesus’ defence before Annas, John has constructed a dramatic contrast wherein Jesus stands up to his questioners and denies nothing, while Peter cowers before his questioners and denies everything.”211 Mark Stibbe accurately observes that, through a number of antitheses, John presents a significant contrast in 18:1–27 between Jesus and Peter, with Peter’s denials ironically occurring during Jesus’ trial.212 First, the dual response of Jesus (ἐγώ εἰµι in vv. 5 and 8) is contrasted with that of Peter (οὐκ εἰµί in vv. 17 and 25) during their respective “interrogations.”213 Second, while Peter assaulted a servant of the high priest (v. 10), Jesus is assaulted by an official of this same high priest (v. 22). Third, Peter’s denials serve as bookmarks to the trial of Jesus, with Jesus calling upon those who heard him as witnesses to what he has taught, while at that very moment Peter is immediately outside the house denying that he was a disciple of Jesus. A contrast also exists between Peter and the Beloved Disciple.214 While Peter does follow Jesus to the house of Caiaphas, Peter denies Jesus and flees. The Beloved Disciple also follows Jesus to the house of Caiaphas where, at least potentially, he may also have been recognized (the risk, at least, existed). However, no denial is recorded to have escaped his lips. Nor did he flee. Instead, the Beloved Disciple is to be found at the foot of the cross (John 19:26–27), whereas Peter, if he is anywhere close, is watching from a distance (Luke 23:49).215 As understandable as Peter’s 211

Brown, John, 2:842. Mark W. G. Stibbe, John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel (SNTSMS 73; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 97–98. Cf. Blaine, Peter in the Gospel of John, 91. 213 Cf. Walter Grundmann, “Das Wort von Jesu Freunden (Jn 15:13–16) und das Herrenmahl,” NovT 3 (1959): 65. 214 Brown, Donfried, and Reumann, Peter in the New Testament, 135–138, 141, 145; Stibbe, John as Storyteller, 98–99; Blaine, Peter in the Gospel of John, 93–98, disagrees, arguing that the Beloved Disciple’s decision to help Peter enter the courtyard and then “abandons” him there “just as the enemy closes in” (96) was irresponsible and blameworthy. However, since the narrative does not describe what happened with the Beloved Disciple (perhaps he was inside the house, observing Jesus’ trial), and since the text provides no evidence that any of the Beloved Disciple’s decisions were faulty, such a conclusion is presumptuous. The conclusion that the Beloved Disciple is presented as superior to Peter is similarly fallacious. See, e.g., Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (trans. Bernard Noble and Gerald Shinn; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 2:167. 215 Peter vividly describes the crucifixion, while declaring that he was an eyewitness of the death of Jesus, before the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:29–32) and to Cornelius (10:34–43). Cf. also 1 Pet 2:24. 212

XI. Peter’s Denials

65

failures may be, the Beloved Disciple shows through his own actions that enduring faithfulness to Jesus had been a possibility for Peter as well. A third contrast is presented between Peter and Judas Iscariot. Both showed regret for what they had done (Peter in Luke 22:62; Judas in Matt 27:3–4). But their subsequent actions were quite different. Peter returns to the other disciples and strengthens them as Jesus had predicted. Judas, on the other hand, commits suicide.216 While Peter’s failure in denying Jesus was worse than the fleeing of the other disciples,217 Perkins is correct to note that one should not ignore the fact that following Jesus to the house of Caiaphas was dangerous; Peter could not have known if the religious authorities would desire to punish Jesus’ associates as well.218 In fact, Peter predicted that the disciples would be punished alongside Jesus, when he had earlier declared his willingness to die with Jesus (Mark 14:31; Matt 26:35). And since Peter had attacked Malchus during Jesus’ arrest, it would have been logical to assume that he might be arrested for attempted murder; indeed, the presence of Malchus’ relative (John 18:26) would certainly have exacerbated Peter’s apprehension. Later, John records that the disciples were hiding in a closed room “for fear of the Jews” when Jesus appeared in their midst (John 20:19); clearly Peter’s fear was shared by the rest (recall that all had fled the scene when Jesus was being arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane) and continued for at least a few more days. Thus, Peter’s act of following Jesus evinces courage even though this courage would eventually fail him. As Böttrich observes: “Nur wer sich vorwagt, läuft auch Gefahr, zu scheitern.”219 It is appropriate here also to quote Erich Auerbach’s analysis at length: [W]hen the catastrophe (of Jesus’ arrest) came, [Peter] was more courageous than the others; not only was he among those who tried to resist but even when the miracle which he had doubtless expected failed to occur again, he once again attempted to follow Jesus as he had followed him before. It is but an attempt, halfhearted and timid, motivated perhaps by a confused hope that the miracle by which the Messiah would crush his enemies might still take place. But since his attempt to follow Jesus is a halfhearted, doubt-ridden venture, furtive and full of fear, he falls deeper than all the others, who at least had no occasion to deny Jesus explicitly. Because his faith was deep, but not deep enough, the

216

Böttrich, Petrus, 113; Mikael C. Parsons, “Christian Origins and Narrative Openings: The Sense of a Beginning in Acts 1–5,” RevExp 87 (1990): 405. 217 Fitzmyer, Luke, 2:1422. France, Matthew, 999. 218 Schlatter, Lukas, 427; Perkins, Peter, 32. Klein, “Die Verleugnung des Petrus,” 307, considers it a “psychological fantasy” that Peter would have escaped after the three accusations in the courtyard. However, it is quite possible that the people questioning Peter did not have the authority and/or instructions to arrest followers of Jesus; Peter’s fear may easily have been both real and unnecessary. 219 Böttrich, Petrus, 113.

66

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

worst happened to him that can happen to one whom faith had inspired but a short time 220 before: he trembles for his miserable life.

Carson provides an intriguing suggestion that, while Peter’s understanding of Jesus’ need to suffer and die has grown, and that therefore he too may follow in this death, “his notion of suffering is bound up with the heroism of men like the Maccabean martyrs, not with voluntary sacrifice.” 221 If so, this would explain both his eagerness to fight in the Garden of Gethsemane as well as his later denials of Jesus in an atmosphere which was completely antithetical to his vision of what suffering and dying for Jesus would entail. He may have been prepared to accept the exalted death of a martyr, but not the ignominious death of a criminal. “Loyalty with a weapon in one’s hand and hope of messianic help is not the same as loyalty when self-defense is impossible.”222 His initial thought when he pulled the sword in the Garden, therefore, may very well have included his understanding that this act might lead to his death, but it was a death he was willing to offer for the cause of his master (a thought that many freedom fighters throughout history have held). But when Jesus told him to put the sword away, his vision for what it meant to stand by his master and be willing to die for him was entirely decimated.223 His decision to follow behind the captured Jesus to the house of Caiaphas, consequently, would have been done in great confusion, with Peter struggling to understand what Jesus wanted of him. His public rejection of Jesus, then, stems as much from his consistent misunderstanding of the mission of Jesus as from any moral failure which characterizes Peter. This more nuanced manner of understanding Peter helps highlight the flaw in arguments such as that by Kim Dewey, who contends that Mark constructed this scene so as to portray Peter as Jesus’ opponent and “chief antagonist.”224 As Rhoads and Michie correctly note, “the disciples are not

220 Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. Willard R. Trask; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953), 42. 221 Carson, “Matthew,” 543–544; Nolland, Matthew, 1092. Carson believes Peter’s inclusion of δεῖ in his response indicates that he does not believe Jesus’ death is likely. This may be. If so, his readiness to fight for Jesus may demonstrate his own belief that he is Jesus’ protector; he will save Jesus from those who seek to do him harm. What is clear is that Peter does not have in mind the passive death Jesus will face. 222 Keener, John, 2:1083. 223 “[Peter] is magnificent and pathetic – magnificent because he rushes in to defend Jesus with characteristic courage and impetuousness, pathetic because his courage evaporates when Peter undoes Peter’s damage, forbids violence, and faces the Passion without resisting” (Carson, “Matthew,” 547). 224 Kim E. Dewey, “Peter’s Curse and Cursed Peter,” in The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14–16 (ed. Werner H. Kelber; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 110.

XI. Peter’s Denials

67

against Jesus. They fail at being for him. And, in a sense, those closest to Jesus fail the most.”225 It should be recalled that Jesus had told Peter that Satan would be attacking him (Luke 22:31). Jesus was able to overcome the attacks of Satan; Peter was not. And the sorrow which followed when he remembered Jesus’ earlier prediction of his failure is evidence that Peter truly did desire to be a follower of Jesus, even if he did not always succeed.226 At this moment, he was indeed uncertain about his own position as it related to Jesus; he may recall Jesus’ earlier teaching that “whoever denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God (Luke 12:9). Bultmann concludes that the account is “legendary and literary” because, he claims, Luke 22:31–32 presupposes that all of the disciples besides Peter will fall away, but that Peter will remain faithful.227 In addition, the account is too lengthy for a primitive narrative.228 Klein agrees, adding that the account originated from a group which desired to discredit Peter and thus reduce his importance in the church, and claims that Peter’s denials would not have been sufficient to prevent him from being executed alongside of Jesus – thus the historicity of the account should be discarded.229 Yet there is no evidence of such hostility towards Peter in the early church which would account for the invention of such malicious slander.230 Haenchen hypothesized that the account was developed in order to illustrate the prophecy in Zech 13:7 that all of the disciples would reject Jesus.231 Again, there is no evidence that this actually occurred. 225

Rhoads and Michie, Mark as Story, 128. Robert W. Herron, Mark’s Account of Peter’s Denial of Jesus: A History of Its Interpretation (Lanham: University Press of America, 1991), 140, adds the appropriate theological observation that “Peter could not possibly have come to an understanding of Jesus’ Person and his message without thwarting God’s plan for Jesus to die forsaken by his kinsmen.” 226 Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 218, disagrees that Peter’s weeping is evidence of repentance. “[T]he Gospel gives us no grounds for supposing that Peter’s lament signifies a change of heart, for sorrow has been experienced before by those who comprehend their failure (see, e.g., [Mark] 6:26; 10:22). The saga of Peter and the disciples ends, as did that of the rich man (10:17–22), in grieving failure.” If we limit our study of Peter to the Gospel of Mark alone, such an interpretation may be possible; though Perkins, Peter, 78 n. 62, notes “[t]his suggestion would be more persuasive if there were verbal parallels between the two stories.” However, when we broaden our scope to include the other gospel witnesses as well, such an interpretation is made infeasible. 227 Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 269. 228 Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 278. Cf. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, 214. 229 Klein, “Die Verleugnung des Petrus,” 307, 324. 230 Beasley-Murray, John, 326. 231 Haenchen, John, 2:173–174.

68

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

Klein considers it a “psychological fantasy” that Peter would have escaped after the three accusations in the courtyard.232 However, it is quite possible that the people questioning Peter did not have the authority and/or instructions to arrest followers of Jesus; Peter’s fear may easily have been both real and unnecessary. Goguel argues that Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial occurred, but Peter never actually denied Jesus, for if he had, Peter could never have achieved the high status in the church which he later did and Paul would have mentioned Peter’s denials in Galatians 2 had he known about them; therefore, Goguel concludes, the tradition about Peter’s denial was invented so as to validate Jesus’ prophecy. 233 Yet, as Davies and Allison rightly observe: “the shame of denial was undone by the resurrection appearance to Peter alone [and] Paul’s argument in Galatians is not made by observing Peter’s hypocrisy in general but his hypocrisy in a particular matter.”234 Dibelius contends that the denial of Peter was “felt in some way to be the presupposition of the Easter appearances.”235 And Linnemann suggests that the disciples recognizes that their failure to stand with Jesus was equivalent to a denial of Jesus, and that it was out of this belief that the tradition regarding Peter’s denials, which itself was not historical, arose;236 though Haenchen argues that the fact that only Peter is reported to have denied Jesus, thus distinguishing his failure from that of the other disciples, makes this thesis unlikely. 237 Brown concludes his survey of the various critical theories on the tradition history of Peter’s denials of Jesus by contending that they “tax one’s credibility more than the acceptance of the narrative as based on history.” 238 Brown asserts that Peter did indeed deny Jesus, but that the accounts as found in the Gospels are largely historically inaccurate. Instead, he claims that the memory of Peter’s denial was passed down by tradition in the early church and, over time, a narrative was imaginatively developed with the various details found in the four Gospel accounts.239 Brown’s thesis, however, does not account for why such a condemning story of Peter’s denials of Jesus would have been developed in the early church. The example Brown offers of Mao writing a poem to commemorate the long march of the Chinese army is not an accurate parallel, for Mao’s purpose was to glo232

Klein, “Die Verleugnung des Petrus,” 307. Maurice Goguel, “Did Peter Deny His Lord? A Conjecture,” HTR 25 (1932): 1–27. 234 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:544. 235 Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, 215. 236 Eta Linnemann, “Die Verleugnung des Petrus,” ZTK 63 (1966): 1–32. 237 Haenchen, John, 2:172. 238 Brown, John, 841. 239 Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:614–621. 233

XI. Peter’s Denials

69

rify a positive event in his life, not to preserve a negative event. And the Gospel accounts, as they stand, certainly paint a more damning picture of Peter than a simple statement that Peter denied Jesus would have ever done. The criterion of multiple attestation is met by the intercalation of Jesus’ trial (Mark 14:53, 55–65) into Peter’s denials (14:54, 66–72) being independently attested by John.240 Meier contends that this passage meets the criterion of embarrassment, since, apart from Judas’ betrayal, Peter’s denials are “the single most embarrassing incident involving a disciple.”241 Similarly, Beasley-Murray argues: “in our judgment it is unlikely that early preachers and teachers of the Church would have made known far and wide this story of the leading apostles’ appalling failure without special cause; the ground for his circulation surely lies in the man himself.”242 And, as Keener contends: “The criterion of embarrassment is most telling here; because the loyalty of one’s followers reflected positively on one and early Christian storytellers sought to elucidate edifying morals in their writings; the account’s survival most likely testifies to its historical verity. 243 Carson also contends that “the detail of the fire (Mark 14:54; Luke 22:55–56; John 18:18) suggests eyewitness recollection.”244 In a helpful chart, Brown lays out the similarities and differences of the four Gospel accounts on Peter’s denials, noting that John sometimes is closer to Luke while other places is closer to Mark/Matthew.245 He thus concludes that John is preserving a third independent tradition.246 While harmonization of every detail in the four accounts is certainly difficult, the fact that each Gospel lists three separate denials of Peter makes it definitely likely that Peter did indeed deny Jesus.247 As Meier concludes: “The differences we find in the designation of the individual interrogators of Peter, the precise time and placement of the denials, the number of cockcrows, and the manner in which suspense is created and then resolved may all be due to the narrative skill of oral storytellers and the evangelists.”248 Similarly, Blomberg is correct to note that it is quite plausible that Peter was asked questions by many people. “Once that is accepted, and we recall 240 Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:242–243; Evans, Mark, 2:440, 463; Marcus, Mark, 2:1021–1022. 241 Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:242. 242 Beasley-Murray, John, 326. Cf. Evans, Mark, 2:463; Luz, Matthew, 3:453. 243 Keener, John, 928. 244 Carson, John, 583. 245 Brown, John, 838–839. 246 Brown, John, 837. 247 Fitzmyer, Luke, 2:1459. 248 Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:244.

70

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

the freedom ancient writers felt to paraphrase a speaker’s words, there is nothing in the Gospels’ accounts of Peter’s denials that would have qualified as a ‘contradiction’ by the historiographical standards of the firstcentury Mediterranean world. Peter would still have replied to his accusers only three times.”249 Haenchen points out the difficulty over whose house/courtyard the trial of Jesus and denials of Peter took place: Annas’ or Caiaphas’.250 Carson notes the plausibility that the houses of Annas and Caiaphas shared the same courtyard.251 Blomberg likewise notes: “It is not impossible, as some commentators have thought, that Jesus was taken through the courtyard on the way to the wing where Caipahas lived, and that this was the occasion for Jesus to turn and look at Peter just after the third denial (Luke 22:61).”252 E. Summary of Peter’s Characterization Peter initially displays his boldness in courageously following Jesus to the courtyard of the building in which Jesus is being tried by the Jewish authorities. Yet, when given a second chance to prove his faithfulness, he denies Jesus three times. His failure to understand Jesus’ words and his failure to seek God’s strengthening at Gethsemane, has resulted in Peter renouncing his position as Jesus’ disciple.

XII. Peter Races to the Empty Tomb (Luke 24:12; John 20:2–10) A. Luke 24:12

XII. Peter Races to the Empty Tomb

Luke is the only Synoptic writer who records any information about Peter following his denials. After describing the discovery of the empty tomb by a group of women, and their return to the disciples to report that Jesus’ body was missing, Luke recounts that the disciples/apostles do not believe the women, considering their words to be a frivolous tale (λῆρος).253 Peter, however, runs to the tomb, sees the burial linens on the ground, and then 249

Blomberg, Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel, 234. Cf. Morris, John, 671–

672.

250

Haenchen, John, 2:173. Carson, John, 582. 252 Blomberg, Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel, 236 n. 340. Cf. Morris, John, 665, who adds the alternative possibility that Annas and Caipahas were simply at the same location that night. 253 On the tendency for the testimony of women to be disregarded, see Josephus, A.J. 4.219. 251

XII. Peter Races to the Empty Tomb

71

“went away, wondering to himself what had happened” (Luke 24:12b). Little about Peter’s character can be gathered by this account; while it may be that he believed the womens’ testimony regarding the empty tomb (though his decision to check it out for himself may be due more to his impetuosity than his trust in the women), it is clear that Peter does not believe that Jesus has risen from the dead. And he may not even be considering this as a possibility. B. John 20:2–10 John’s account is much more detailed. He also records the discovery of the empty tomb, though he mentions only Mary Magdalene (John 20:1). John has Mary mention her discovery only to Peter and the Beloved Disciple.254 Peter and the Beloved Disciple run to the tomb.255 Interestingly, while John records that the Beloved Disciple arrived at the tomb prior to Peter (John 20:4), and though he looks inside and sees the burial clothes lying by themselves, he waits and allows Peter to enter first, perhaps indicating his acknowledgement of the position of Peter amongst the disciples, with the Beloved Disciple showing deference to Peter. Finally, even if it is true that, while the Beloved Disciple experienced a faith-epiphany regarding the resurrection of Jesus (John 20:8), Peter does not,256 this is not indicative of John negatively portraying Peter. Rather, it 254

For a summary of the various suggestions for the identity of the Beloved Disciple, see Grant R. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 151. For the view that John portrays Peter as subordinate and inferior to the Beloved Disciple, see R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Foundations and Facets; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 119–121; Arthur H. Maynard, “The Role of Peter in the Fourth Gospel,” NTS 30 (1984): 531–548; Adele Reinhartz, Befriending the Beloved Disciple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John (New York: Continuum, 2001), 126–127. For a refutation of this view, see Blaine, Peter in the Gospel of John, esp. 186–190. 255 Bultmann, John, 685, suggests a metaphorical reading of this passage, in which Peter represents Jewish Christianity and the Beloved Disciple Gentile Christianity. Peter enters the tomb first, just as Jewish Christianity was first; the Beloved Disciple was faster than Peter, just as the faith of the Gentiles was greater than the Jews. Apart from the problems inherent with viewing an entire passage as divorced from history and inserted solely to make a theological point about the history of the early church, Peter and the Beloved Disciple are not presented by the fourth evangelist as rivals, but rather as companions. Blaine, Peter in the Gospel of John, 106, correctly observes that “it is no more helpful to think of BD as the winner of the race to the tomb than it is to think of Peter as the winner of the race into the tomb.” Cf. also Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:242–243. For a rebuttal to the view that Mark, in particular, is attacking Peter or a later Petrine party, see Ernest Best, “Peter in the Gospel According to Mark,” CBQ 40 (1978): 547– 558. 256 John records that after entering the tomb, the Beloved Disciple “saw and believed.” Whether this indicates that the Beloved Disciple believed in the resurrection or

72

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

would be more accurate to interpret John as portraying both disciples positively in different ways. Wiarda’s description is apt: “Peter is shown to be one who acts boldly, who influences others, and who is stimulated to action by anything affecting Jesus. The beloved disciple is portrayed as specially close to Jesus and specially perceptive.”257 Regarding this passage, C. H. Dodd writes: “I cannot for long rid myself of the feeling (it can be no more than a feeling) that this pericope has something indefinably first-hand about it. It stands in any case alone. There is nothing quite like it in the gospels. Is there anything quite like it in all ancient literature?”258 Bultmann claims that, into the tradition of Mary discovering the empty tomb, the Evangelist inserted a narrative of Peter and the Beloved Disciple, which are symbolic representatives of the competition between Jewish and Gentile Christianity.259 Yet, as already noted, the passage does not depict the Beloved Disciple as operating against Peter, but rather in conjunction with Peter.260 Brown provides a detailed account for why he believes this passage to be a patchwork of three sources.261 Carson provides both a succinct summary and trenchant analysis: His work leads to a startling conclusion: the editors were simultaneously (a) devout Christians who were nevertheless entirely nonchalant about their cavalier handling of sources, including the knowing creation of narrative without historical referent; (b) so unusually stupid that they never noticed the seams and warts they regularly introduced simply in the women’s testimony of the empty tomb is largely immaterial to this study, for the text does not indicate anything regarding Peter’s belief. Bultmann, John, 684, concludes that Peter must have also believed because, otherwise, “it would have had to be expressly stated that Peter did not believe.” Contra Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII–XXI): Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 29B; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966), 987, 1005, who contends that the Beloved Disciple is presented by the fourth evangelist as the first disciple to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, though he recognizes the difficulty in harmonizing this interpretation with v. 9, in which “they” did not understand that Jesus would rise again. Brown further argues that an explicit contrast between Peter and the Beloved Disciple is presented (2:1004–1007); however, this requires the evidence to be stretched much too far. For example, Brown claims that “naturally the Beloved Disciple outdistances Peter – he loves Jesus more” (2:1007). Cf. Dschulnigg, Petrus, 131–132. Carson, John, 638, agrees that the Beloved Disciple believed in the resurrection, contending that the emphasis of 20:9 should be placed upon not understanding that the Scriptures themselves taught the necessity of Jesus’ resurrection. 257 Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels, 115. 258 C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (1st pbk. ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 148. Cf. Ridderbos, John, 629–630. 259 Bultmann, John, 685. 260 Ridderbos, John, 631. 261 Brown, John, 2:998–1004.

XIII. Resurrection Appearances of Jesus to Peter

73

into original sources which were until then characterized by remarkable unity; and (c) so slavishly deferential to the sources they received that they felt obligated to insert whole chunks of them intact, even when doing so introduced inconsistencies into the account. 262 These are too many impossible things to believe before breakfast!

There is much about this passage which commends it to be viewed as historical. Its appearance in Luke and John provides it with multiple attestation. Dunn writes: “the report here may rest on the independent testimony of ‘the one whom Jesus loved’ (20:2), who seems to have been a source for some at least of John’s Gospel. What gives it more weight is the confirmatory testimony in Luke 24: not simply 24:12, but also the reference back in 24:24: ‘Some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said; but him they did not see.’”263 C. Summary of Peter’s Characterization Though Peter has denied Jesus, he has not abandoned the company of Jesus’ disciples; he is thus already beginning to fulfill Jesus’ prediction that he would strengthen them. When the report of the empty tomb reaches the disciples, most refuse to believe it, but Peter runs to the tomb. This demonstrates his tendency to act decisively. Yet there remains a lack of understanding on the part of Peter, who, after seeing the empty tomb, does not recognize that Jesus has risen from the dead.

XIII. Resurrection Appearances of Jesus to Peter (John 21:1–23) XIII. Resurrection Appearances of Jesus to Peter People are affected by experiences, and Peter’s viewing of the empty tomb, along with his multiple encounters with the resurrected Jesus, could not have failed to have a significant impact on his mindset. Indeed, Jesus appears to Peter before any of the other disciples (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5),264 again acknowledging the role Peter will have in strengthening and leading the other disciples (Luke 22:32).265

262

Carson, John, 634. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 834. 264 For the suggestion that this appearance came to Peter in the form of a vision, see Caroline P. Bammel, “The First Resurrection Appearance to Peter: John 21 and the Synoptics,” in John and the Synoptics (ed. Adelbert Denaux; BETL 101; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 620–631. 265 Thiede, Simon Peter, 92. For a discussion on the possible rationale as to why the particulars of this unique appearance to Peter were not included in the Gospels, see Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives, 225–227. 263

74

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

Over the past few years, Peter has seen the power of God acting in multiple, mighty ways. It began with Jesus directing Peter to a large catch of fish (Luke 5:4–7); it ended with the same (John 21:5–7). The account in John begins with Peter taking the lead in convincing six of his fellow disciples to come fishing with him. Though relatively insignificant, Peter is already involved in strengthening the others (Luke 22:32); the simple act of giving people who are grieving something to do can be very helpful.266 While some scholars may opine that Luke and John have independently drawn upon different variants of the same miracle account, it would have been a very appropriate manner for Jesus to greet his disciples, performing the same miracle as when he first called some of them. Initially, only the Beloved Disciple recognizes Jesus.267 Peter, once again acting impulsively and with great exuberance, shows “his zealous love for Jesus” by jumping into the water and swimming to shore. 268 Following breakfast, Jesus spoke directly to Peter (John 21:15–17). Prior to the restoration of Peter in John 21, it is unlikely that Peter had any specific understanding as to his future calling. He had been a disciple of Jesus, attempting to follow him as best he could (which often was not that great!). But he did not have a sense of the position for which Jesus was preparing him. This begins to change with his conversation with Jesus. Carson claims that Jesus establishes Peter’s “salvation-historical primacy” in the founding of the church.269 And indeed he did; though the full extent of what this would mean for his life would only be revealed to Peter gradually. At this point, it is sufficient that Peter understand the basics. He is given responsibility over Jesus’ flock. Jesus begins by asking Peter: “Do you love me more than these?” Many different suggestions have been offered by scholars as to the antecedent of 266

Lutz Simon, Petrus und der Lieblingsjünger im Johannesevangelium: Amt und Autorität (Frankfurt: Lang, 1994), 172. Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels, 113 n. 150, incorrectly interprets Peter’s decision to go fishing in a negative light. Matt 28:7–10 and Mark 16:7 both indicate that they were to go to Galilee, where the disciples would see Jesus. And as they had not yet been commissioned (Matt 28:18–20; Acts 1:8), their decision to fish should not be understood as irresponsible. 267 Beasley-Murray, John, 400, notes: “The failure of the disciples to recognize Jesus can be attributed to “the mystery of Jesus in his resurrection state.” Contra Brown, John, 2:1091, who wonders “how in John xxi Peter could go through the same situation and much of the same dialogue a second time without recognizing Jesus!” 268 Keener, John, 2:1229. Cf. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives, 179; Schnackenburg, John, 3:356; Thiede, Simon Peter, 93. Conversely, D. H. Gee, “Why Did Peter Spring into the Sea? (John 21:7),” JTS 40 (1989): 488, contends that Peter jumped into the sea “because he was ashamed and did not wish to face him.” If this was his intent, however, why did he swim to Jesus, as is implied by the phrase: “the other disciples followed in the boat”? 269 Carson, John, 678.

XIII. Resurrection Appearances of Jesus to Peter

75

“τούτων.”270 Perhaps the best proposal is that of Blaine: “No matter how Peter elects to translate the words, his answer must be that his love for Jesus is unsurpassed and unsurpassable.”271 Peter replies that he does; Jesus responds with: “βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία µου.” A second time, Jesus asks if Peter loves him. Peter again replies that he does; Jesus responds with “ποίµαινε τὰ πρόβατά µου.” A third time, Jesus asks if Peter loves him. This grieves (λυπέω) Peter, likely because he understands the connection between denying Jesus three times and being asked if he loves Jesus three times. Peter also demonstrates true understanding of Jesus in his answer to Jesus’ third question by appealing to his master’s superior knowledge: “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Peter has finally learned that he cannot follow Jesus by means of his own strength. Instead of relying upon his own affirmation of his love for Jesus, he relies upon Jesus’ knowledge. It is this dependency which Jesus has been teaching him to embrace ever since he first called Peter; the lesson has now been learned. And Jesus responds with “βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά µου.” There are three pairs of words which have caused various scholars to assert Jesus was making certain distinctions. The first pair (ἀγαπάω /φιλέω) has often been understood to refer to Peter being unable or unwilling to affirm a stronger type of love (ἀγαπάω), settling for the lesser type (φιλέω).272 This position has recently been largely rejected.273 At the very least, it is clear that Jesus does not chastise Peter for his choice of words, even if the difference was indeed made by Peter, and not by John for rhetorical, stylistic purposes. The second pair (βόσκω/ποιµαίνω) is also commonly seen as significant. Keener, while acknowledging the two terms are synonymous, suggests there may be different nuances provided by the two terms, with βόσκω (21:15, 17) focusing upon the feeding of sheep and ποιµαίνω (2:16) referring to the totality of duties of a shepherd.274 Philo (Det. 8.25) makes such a distinction: “Those who feed (βόσκω) supply nourishment … but those who tend (ποιµαίνω) have the power of rulers and governors.” The latter term is used in Matt 2:6 in the context of a shepherd ruling Israel (cf. 2 Sam 7:7; Ps 2:9). Such a distinction is not certain, however, as the LXX translates the Hebrew verb ‫ ָר עָ ה‬with both Greek terms; it is thus possible for Peter and Jesus to have used the same Hebrew or Aramaic term and John to have used both Greek verbs “to express the fullness of the pastoral 270

For a list of possibilities, see Köstenberger, John, 597. Blaine, Peter in the Gospel of John, 164. 272 See, e.g., Kenneth L. McKay, “Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15–17,” NovT 27 (1985): 319–333. 273 See, e.g., Carson, John, 676–677; Keener, John, 2:1235–1236. Cf. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives, 184. 274 Keener, John, 2:1236–1237. Cf. Minnerath, De Jérusalem à Rome, 41. 271

76

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

task assigned to Peter.”275 Regardless, the general sense is clear: Peter is to be the overseer of Jesus’ flock, taking care of their needs. Blaine suggests that the third pair (ἀρνίον/πρόβατον) is an analogy between lambs/sheep and novitiates/seasoned believers.276 Minnerath sees a more general distinction, with the two terms referring simply to the diversity of believers.277 Once again, it does not much matter whether Jesus intended to make such a distinction, for Jesus’ overall commissioning of Peter is to take responsibility over all of Jesus’ sheep.278 Peter had previously proclaimed his willingness to die for Jesus (Mark 14:31 and par.). He then failed to do this very thing, denying Jesus instead. Jesus now reveals to Peter that he will indeed be martyred (John 21:18). To his great credit, Peter does not flinch or argue with Jesus. He accepts it,279 asking only whether this fate would be shared by the Beloved Disciple to which Jesus responds that Peter does not need this information (John 21:21–22). And, again, unlike in previous instances, Peter accepts this. He has learned that, while questions are acceptable, he must accept and be satisfied with whatever answer Jesus provides. Jesus concludes, appropriately, with the first words he spoke to Peter: “Follow Me.” That Peter has truly comprehended the responsibility given to him by Jesus in John 21:15–17 is made clear in his first epistle.280 He writes to the elders as a fellow-elder that they are to shepherd the sheep of God among them (ποιµάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑµῖν ποίµνιον τοῦ θεοῦ; 1 Pet 5:2; cf. Acts 20:28). Just as in John 21, there is a clear sense of responsibility over the sheep of the “Chief Shepherd” (ἀρχιποίµην; 1 Pet 5:4); he earlier reminded his readers that they “were continually straying like sheep” (just as Peter had done) “but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls” (1 Pet 2:25). In addition, while Peter had failed to remain watchful (γρηγορέω) against temptation in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt 26:40– 41), he appears to have learned from this mistake as well, as he exhorts the 275

Brown, John, 2:1104, makes this observation, concluding that we should “be dubious about attempts to find a sharp distinction between them.” 276 Blaine, Peter in the Gospel of John, 166–167. 277 Minnerath, De Jérusalem à Rome, 41. 278 The question which has pitted Catholic and Protestant scholars against one another – Does Jesus, in John 21:15–23, choose Peter to be his Vicar or is Peter simply primus inter pares among the other disciples/apostles? – is not relevant to this study. Regardless of which position is adopted, it remains true that Peter understood that Jesus was commissioning him to be the spiritual overseer of Jesus’ flock (regardless of whether the other apostles were intended to serve in an identical capacity). This will have profound implications for the following chapters in Peter’s self-understanding of his role in the church. 279 And, assuming 2 Peter was indeed written by Peter as I believe, he continues to accept this fate (cf. 2 Pet 1:14). 280 Thiede, Simon Peter, 94–95.

XIII. Resurrection Appearances of Jesus to Peter

77

readers of his first epistle to remain watchful (γρηγορέω) against the temptations of the devil (1 Pet 5:8).281 It is the conclusion of many scholars that chapter 21 is an addendum attached to the Gospel of John.282 There is much plausibility to this theory; John 20:30–31 does indeed appear to serve as the conclusion of the Gospel itself. Haenchen, for example suggests that the Beloved Disciple had died and some Christians believed Jesus had promised to return prior to this time; this false impression needed to be corrected and, consequently, John 21 was appended to the Gospel.283 Yet, Haenchen’s thesis only accounts for vv. 22–23; the remainder of the chapter largely concerns Peter. Ridderbos notes that this final chapter contains both words and expressions that are unique to the fourth Gospel and others that are consistent with it; consequently, “style can probably not settle the issue.”284 The content of this final chapter, however, does connect it to the rest of the gospel. For example, it contains reference to previous passages concerning Peter and the Beloved Disciple and the threefold question/answer of Jesus/Peter is reflective of the threefold denials of Peter. “This suggests that this final chapter is intended to bring into sharper profile the figures of Peter and the beloved disciple in the resurrection drama, especially in connection with the role they were to play in the church.” John 21 should therefore be viewed “as the completion of his narrative, albeit as a striking … addition to a provisionally concluded whole.”285 Regardless of what one concludes about the authorship of John 21, however, neither position necessarily affects its historicity. If John wrote it, its authenticity can still be challenged. If John did not write it, the author may still have been drawing upon a historically accurate source. One point already mentioned is that 1 Peter shows familiarity with the discourse between Jesus and Peter; multiple attestation thus applies. Brown contends that Luke and John have independently preserved different accounts of the miraculous catch of fish, asking why Peter would not have recognized Jesus after his resurrection when a very similar event had occurred previously (Luke 5:1–11).286 Böttrich agrees, contending that John records the original event, with the statement by Jesus that Peter and 281

Lövestam, Spiritual Wakefulness, 60–64. E.g., Beasley-Murray, John, 395; Haenchen, Acts, 2:229–230. 283 Haenchen, Acts, 233. 284 Ridderbos, John, 656. Cf. Carson, John, 665–666. 285 Ridderbos, John, 656. Cf. Morris, John, 758; Carson, John, 666–668. 286 Brown, John, 2:1089–1092. Cf. Rudolf Pesch, Der reiche Fischfang, Lk 5, 1–11/Jo 21, 1–14: Wundergeschichte, Berufserzählung, Erscheinungsbericht (KBANT; Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1969); Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:560–562; François Bovon, L’Evangile selon saint Luc (CNT 3; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1991–2009), 1:171; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:897– 899. 282

78

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

the other disciples would be “fishers of people” fits better in a post-Easter context.287 Patrick Madden makes a similar argument with Matt 14:22–36 and John 21:1–13, contending that the former is a displaced resurrection narrative.288 In response to this view, Ridderbos contends that separating out verses from a hypothetical resurrection account leaves “too little left … to speak of a conceivable situated narrative, and its significance is sharply reduced.”289 And Carson notes that the amount of ‘common dialogue’ is greatly over-estimated. It amounts to no more than the command to let down their nets. If the disciples are not expecting Jesus to appear, and do not recognize the man on the shore, it is hard to see how Jesus’ exhortation to throw the net on the starboard side greatly differs from advice contemporary sports fishermen 290 have to endure: ‘Try casting over there. You often catch them over there!’”

Schnackenburg’s observation is insightful: “The separation between tradition and what is editorial in Jn 21:2–13 is especially difficult and has not yet led to a satisfactory solution.”291 The very lack of agreement regarding what is original and what is added by Luke, or what is part of one tradition and what is part of another tradition, casts serious doubt on the thesis that the passage is not an originally cohesive whole. A. Summary of Peter’s Characterization The last time Peter saw Jesus was immediately after the three denials. Peter’s reaction upon seeing Jesus following his resurrection is to jump into the water and swim for shore. Despite his previous failure, Peter still desires to be Jesus’ disciple. And Jesus clearly demonstrates that, this failure notwithstanding, he still intends for Peter to be a major figure in the church.

XIV. Conclusion XIV. Conclusion In some ways, Peter is a type; he is presented by the gospel writers as both a positive and negative example of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. “Peter is a man of extremes, an example and warning written large for the instruction of subsequent disciples.”292 But this is not their sole purpose in 287

Böttrich, Petrus, 55–58. Patrick J. Madden, Jesus’ Walking on the Sea: An Investigation of the Origin of the Narrative Account (BZNW 81; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 105, 116–139. Cf. Luz, Matthew, 2:318. 289 Ridderbos, John, 657. Cf. Marshall, Luke, 199–206. 290 Carson, John, 671 – his emphasis. 291 Schnackenburg, John, 3:345. 292 France, Matthew, 999. 288

XIV. Conclusion

79

discussing Peter so frequently, nor should it be concluded that events in the life of Peter were created simply to provide the readers of the Gospel such an example. In addition, inasmuch as his behavior may have been typical of the other disciples as well, he is also portrayed as an individual in his own right.293 What composite picture of Peter’s character is painted in the Gospels?294 The most predominant trait is the two-sided attribute of brashness/boldness. Positively, “Peter is shown to be the one who acts boldly, who influences others, and who is stimulated to action by anything affecting Jesus.”295 It is Peter who steps out on the water. It is Peter who declares Jesus to be the Messiah. It is Peter (along with the Beloved Disciple) who runs to the empty tomb. It is Peter who encourages the disciples following Easter. In his comparison between Peter and the Beloved Disciple, Blaine writes: If BD’s specialty, for a lack of a better term, is faithful perception, which allows him to discern the presence or power of the Lord in the midst of darkness and despair (20:8; 21:17), Peter’s is faithful praxis. He wields a sword with as much zeal as a fishing net, publicly confesses Jesus as the revealer of God’s word, serves as the spokesman and leader of Jesus’ disciples (before the resurrection [6:68–69] and after [21:4, 11]), minis296 ters to Jesus’ “sheep,” and suffers martyrdom.

On the other side, Peter’s brashness often gets him into trouble, as he impulsively acts without thinking. This problem is exacerbated by his consistent lack of understanding regarding Jesus’ teachings. This is why he rebukes Jesus for suggesting that he would suffer and die. This is why he inappropriately suggests that tents be constructed for Jesus, Elijah and Moses. This is why he refuses the washing of his feet, and then, seconds later, asked Jesus to wash his entire body. This is why he attacks Malchus at Gethsemane. Another trait evidenced in Peter is his overconfidence in his own ability to remain faithful to Jesus. When walking on the water, he removes his attention from Jesus, becomes fearful, and begins to drown. When told he would deny Jesus, he boldly proclaims his faithfulness; later, in the courtyard, he becomes fearful and does exactly as Jesus had predicted. Wiarda astutely observes that a pattern can be discerned in Peter’s interactions with Jesus. Peter intends to do something positive on behalf of Jesus, with a certain understanding of what is or is not appropriate, only to 293

Luz, Matthew, 2:366–367; Hartenstein, Charakterisierung im Dialog, 171–172. There is a consistency throughout the four Gospels in how Peter is characterized. Apart from an analysis of the individual passages, this more general observation is additional evidence in favor of the historicity of Peter’s portrayal. 295 Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels, 115. 296 Blaine, Peter in the Gospel of John, 189. 294

80

Chapter 2: The Characterization of Peter in the Gospels

be corrected by Jesus or proven wrong.297 This concept of “reversed expectations” fits in nicely with what has been observed. His repeated failure to act as a faithful disciple is not due to a lack of desire, but a lack of understanding combined with his brashness and over-confidence in his own ability. Special consideration should be given to Peter’s denials as it relates to our overall understanding of Peter’s character. Are they evidence of a tendency for Peter to vacillate in the face of adversity? While his denials are certainly censurable, they are in no way surprising. Many true Christians have denied Christ when faced with imminent danger and, unlike Peter, they were filled with the Spirit at the time of their denial. Peter’s denials should not be excused, but neither should they be seen as characteristic of how Peter will necessarily act in the future when faced with similar trials (cf., e.g., Acts 4:1–31; 5:17–42). Indeed, his denials must be understood in their proper context. Peter does not betray Jesus for money, as did Judas. He does not deny Jesus out of spite or disillusionment with his master’s teachings. When he proclaims his intent to remain faithful to Jesus, he is quite serious. He greatly desires to follow Jesus, and believes he would continue to do so. He even accepts the possibility of his own death. He brings along a sword to Gethsemane to protect Jesus, and when he courageously takes up his sword, he knows that he might be about to prove his faithfulness to Jesus through his own death. Jesus’ chastising of his attempt to save him by force must have shattered Peter’s own perception of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. He is sure he was doing the right thing; when he discovers Jesus did not desire to be saved, he is devastated. Even so, he follows Jesus to the courtyard of Caiaphas, still attempting to remain faithful, but unsure what this entails. Along with his previous failure to follow Jesus’ advice to spend the night in prayer, Peter has set himself up for failure. And fail he does. Yet this failure does not sum up everything about Peter’s character. As is true of everyone, he had good nights and bad nights. This night was very bad; there had been previous nights (and days) in which he had shown himself to be a faithful disciple. Davies and Allison thus wrongly describe Peter as not being “completely human, as complex and inconstant creatures who resist easy caricature.”298 There is indeed a complexity to Peter; the internal struggle of Peter to be a faithful disciple of Jesus, while clumsily failing time after time, but continually persevering and growing, shows him not only to be very human, but admirable as well. It is perhaps his constant exuberance which prevents him from leaving Jesus. He stumbles 297 298

Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels, 34–45. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:550.

XIV. Conclusion

81

and falls, but gets back on his feet. His denials are perhaps his most human act of all; without reliance upon the Spirit (he was neither filled with the Spirit as yet, nor had he prayed in the Garden as Jesus had strongly urged), the flesh is indeed weak, even when his own spirit is willing. Throughout Peter’s interaction with Jesus, there has been a significant impact of the role of the supernatural in his life. Peter’s confession was from the Father. His rebuke of Jesus is directly connected with Satan. His denials result from Satan’s temptation of Peter. The failure of Satan to completely cause Peter to fall away is attributed to Jesus’ prayer, as is Peter’s strengthening of the brothers after his restoration. This will become significant in the further analysis of Peter’s characterization, and the change which will be exhibited within Peter as he exhibits remarkable growth following his restoration in John 21:15–17 and the events which follow as recorded in the Book of Acts. More than any individual in the New Testament, Peter is depicted as a character that truly does change over time. He will indeed become the Rock.299

299 Peter’s change is, in many ways, depicted even more fully than Paul’s, if only because we are provided with far more information about Peter’s life before he became a leader of the Christian church than we are about Paul’s.

Chapter 3

The Characterization of Peter in Acts Brown echoes the opinion of most scholars when he writes that many of Peter’s actions “fit his impetuous character.”1 But does this continue postEaster? Is the Peter who is a leader of the Christian church2 in Jerusalem similar to the Peter who was a disciple of Jesus? Or is his character affected by the events which occur following the resurrection of Jesus, such as his restoration by Jesus in John 21:15–19, his development as a central leader of the early church, and Pentecost? This analysis will be essential if Peter’s actions in Antioch (Gal 2:11–14) are to be adequately evaluated. In addition, Peter’s view of the Gentiles, and what his role vis-à-vis Gentiles should be, will need to be comprehended. Thus, this chapter will continue the characterization study of Peter, concentrating on Acts 1–12, as well as consider the issue of Gentiles as it appears in Luke’s text. It will also consider issues of historicity throughout.

I. Peter in Acts Pre-Pentecost (Acts 1) I. Peter in Acts Pre-Pentecost The Book of Acts begins with the resurrected Jesus spending his final days with his disciples prior to his ascension. Among other actions, Jesus engages in table fellowship with them (Acts 1:4), 3 one which will assume 1

Brown, John, 2:812. The terms “Christian” and “church” are somewhat problematic when discussing the first century movement centered around Jesus Christ. Uniformity in terminology took a while to develop. However, in order to discuss any historical movement, it is necessary to choose terminology and use it consistently. As such, I will use the terms “Christian” and “church” to describe those who followed Jesus Christ subsequent to his resurrection. See further Brown, “Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity,” 74–79; JacksonMcCabe, “What’s in a Name?” 7–38; James D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem: Christianity in the Making, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 4–17. In addition, the question of the role Peter played in the leadership of the Christian church will be discussed at greater length in chapter 5. 3 The specific term used here is συναλίζω rather than the more typical συνεσθίω, but has the same general concept of eating together. Cf. Darrell L. Bock, Acts (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 59; Eckhard Schnabel, The Book of Acts (ZECNT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 73. 2

I. Peter in Acts Pre-Pentecost

83

great importance for the church and later serve as the context for the controversy between Peter and Paul in Gal 2:11–14. Jesus also foretells the nature of a life-changing event which will occur “not many days from now” (Acts 1:5). Whereas John baptized with water, they will be baptized with the Holy Spirit (cf. Mark 1:8 and par.; Isa 32:15; 44:3–5; Ezek 11:19– 20; 36:25–26; Joel 2:28–32). This baptism will impart them with power (δύναµις) and they will be given the task of being his witnesses (µάρτυρες4) “in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8; cf. Luke 24:47–49). In the parallel passage in Matthew, this commission includes making disciples everywhere they go, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that Jesus has commanded them (28:18–20).5 David Pao convincingly argues that the phrase ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς in 1:8 should be understood in “theopolitical terms” referring to “the inclusion of the Gentiles within the people of God,” rather than purely being understood as specifying a certain geographical location (cf. Is 49:6).6 Jesus himself did intend for the gospel to be spread throughout the world to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. A relevant question for this study is whether Peter and the rest of the followers of Jesus comprehend this expansion of the people of God. There is no a priori reason to assume this is

4

Cf. Num 35:30; Deut 17:6–7; Isa 43:10–12; 44:8–9. Witnessing will become a major theme throughout Acts, appearing 24 times in either noun or verb form. 5 Richard N. Longenecker, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 9 (ed. Frank E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 256, notes: “All that follows in Acts is shown to be the result of Jesus’ own intent and the fulfillment of his express word.” 6 David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (Biblical Studies Library; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 93–95. Similarly, Thomas S. Moore, “‘To the End of the Earth’: The Geographic and Ethnic Universalism of Acts 1:8 in Light of Isaianic Influence on Luke,” JETS 40 (1997): 396–398, concludes that the phrase “denotes both geographical and ethnic universalism.” Differently, Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 43, contends “the outline is salvationhistorical rather than geographical” while Daniel R. Schwartz, “The End of the ΓΗ (Acts 1:8): Beginning or End of the Christian Vision?” JBL 105 (1986): 669–676, and E. Earle Ellis, “‘The End of the Earth’ (Acts 1:8),” BBR 1 (1991): 123–132, hold to a specific geographical reference. Schnabel, Acts, 78–80, emphasizes a geographical universalism by identifying “the ends of the earth” with Scythia in the north, Spain in the west, Ethiopia in the south, and India/China in the east. Alternatively, other scholars interpret the phrase as referring a specific ethnic group such as the Diaspora Jews (such as Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “Election of Matthias, Acts 1,15 ff.,” in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper [ed. William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder; New York: Harper, 1962], 186–187) or the Gentiles (such as Jacques Dupont, The Salvation of the Gentiles: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles [trans. John R. Keating; New York: Paulist, 1979], 18–19).

84

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

so. They often did not understand Jesus’ teaching (e.g., Mark 8:17–18, 32– 33; 9:32). It may be that the same is true here as well. Indeed, the disciples may have recalled previous statements by Jesus which could be interpreted to mean that there should not be a specific mission to the Gentiles. Matthew relates an instruction by Jesus to his disciples that they are not to go to the Gentiles (10:5–6). Later, when a Gentile woman attempts to speak to Jesus, the disciples implore Jesus to send her away, possibly indicating that they did not contemplate a Gentile mission (Matt 15:23). Jesus appears to confirm this understanding, when he tells the Gentile woman that he was “sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). While the account closes with Jesus commending the great faith of the woman, it would be understandable if the disciples believed that Jesus, in Acts 1:8, intended them only to go to fellow Jews. This issue will be further considered as this chapter proceeds. One element which is not a renewal of the disciples’ characteristic misunderstanding of Jesus exhibited in the Gospels is their questioning of Jesus regarding whether this is the time he will be restoring the kingdom (Acts 1:6).7 This is a very legitimate question; they correctly recognize that, at some point, Jesus will reconstitute the kingdom. They simply are inquiring whether this will occur immediately. Jesus does not chastise them; instead, he informs them that they do not need to know specific dates and times (Acts 1:7). The disciples, Peter included, accept Jesus’ decision not to fully answer their question without objection, an acquiescence which has not been previously characteristic of Peter. Coupled with the unique role of feeding and tending his sheep (John 21:15–17), these words of Jesus cannot be underestimated for their effect upon Peter. Peter has been given a very specific calling; he is to be a leader of Jesus’ church with the mission of witnessing about Jesus Christ throughout the entire world, a “missionary ministry for which there were no precedents and no models anywhere in the first century.” 8 Following the ascension of Jesus (Acts 1:9–11), the disciples (Peter, as usual, is named first) return to Jerusalem as instructed by Jesus in 1:4 and “devot[e] themselves with one accord to prayer” (Acts 1:14). The periphrastic imperfect phrase, ἦσαν προσκαρτεροῦντες ὁµοθυµαδὸν, stresses the continual nature of the prayer. This is a marked improvement from the 7

That Acts 1:6 demonstrates the disciples’ lack of understanding is the view of David Hill, “The Spirit and the Church’s Witness: Observations on Acts 1:6–8,” IBS 6 (1984): 16–17. For the alternative position, see John A. McLean, “Did Jesus Correct the Disciples’ View of the Kingdom?” BibSac 151 (1994): 218–219; David Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (PNTC; Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 2009), 109; Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, 95. 8 Schnabel, Acts, 101; cf. idem, Early Christian Mission 1:536–545, for lack of evidence of contemporary Jewish proselytizing.

I. Peter in Acts Pre-Pentecost

85

last time they were told to wait and pray when Peter, James, and John failed to stay awake at Gethsemane (Mark 14:37–41 and par.). During this period, Peter also takes the initiative to reconstitute the Twelve by suggesting the disciples appoint a replacement for Judas.9 “Peter takes an important step in strengthening and encouraging the community of believers (cf. Luke. 22:32) when he follows the lead of Jesus and interprets the scriptures for them.”10 Peter has, in essence, taken over the role of the interpreter of Scripture which Jesus had previously held;11 indeed, the similarity of Peter’s introductory words ἔδει πληρωθῆναι (Acts 1:16) to those from the last time Jesus interpreted the Scriptures for his disciples (δεῖ πληρωθῆναι; Luke 24:44) show that he is following the example of his Master.12 Peter, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus act as co-partners in this process. It is Peter who recognizes that the betrayal of Judas was prophesied by the Holy Spirit (Ps 69:26). Peter then is depicted as understanding the will of the Spirit, once again through his understanding of Scripture, that Judas should be replaced (Ps 109:8). Peter then establishes the requirements for this new member of the Twelve: he must have been a disciple of Jesus from Jesus’ baptism of John to the ascension, as well as a witness to the resurrected Jesus. The disciples then pray, asking Jesus (lit. “the Lord”; cf. v. 21: “the Lord Jesus”) to show them whom he has already chosen to replace Judas through the casting of lots.13 This marks a significant change 9

Nelson P. Estrada, From Followers to Leaders: The Apostles in the Ritual of Status Transformation in Acts 1–2 (JSNTSup 255; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 178–186, contends that Peter’s speech regarding the replacement of Judas was “designed to argue that the responsibility for the arrest and death of Jesus falls on Judas alone and that the Eleven should not be held accountable for what Judas had done” (179) and that Judas’ replacement would have honor and integrity. “Thus, when Matthias is eventually enrolled into the Twelve, the apostles as a group have finally redeemed themselves” (185). However, as there is no indication in the text that any of the other 120 believers (Acts 1:15) believed that the Eleven should be held responsible for Jesus’ death, Estrada’s suggestion is superfluous. 10 Peterson, Acts, 120; cf. Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986–1990), 2:21. 11 Peter is frequently portrayed in Acts as an authoritative interpreter of Scripture (Acts 1:20; 2:17–21, 25–28, 34–35; 3:22–25; 4:11). 12 Tannehill, Luke-Acts, 2:20. 13 On the casting of lots, cf. Lev 16:8; Num 26:55; Jonah 1:7–8; 1QS 5.3; 6.16. Both William A. Beardslee, “Casting of Lots at Qumran and in the Book of Acts,” NovT 4 (1960): 245–252, and John F. Brug, “Acts 1:26 – Lottery of Election,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 95 (1998): 212–214, suggest that the phrase ἔδωκαν κλήρους αὐτοῖς should be interpreted as the disciples each casting a vote for their preferred candidate as opposed to the “casting of lots” in which the individuals’ names are placed on stones into a cup and then shaken until one falls out. Even if true, 1:24 indicates the belief that the

86

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

in Peter. He has moved from one who consistently has difficulty understanding the words and will of Jesus to one who exerts leadership amongst his fellow disciples because he understands the words and will of the Spirit. He is already beginning to be the “rock” which Jesus said he would become (Matt 16:18).14 This is the only time a member of the Twelve was replaced; James, son of Zebedee, is not replaced after he is killed by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2). This is not indicative that the Twelve only functioned as a leadership core of the early church for a short period of time.15 Nor does it demonstrate a deficiency in the appointment of Matthias, with the later decision not to replace James a “perhaps better – positive decision.”16 Judas is replaced not because he died, or even because he committed suicide, but because he was deposed of his apostolic ministry when he betrayed Jesus (Acts 1:25).17 It was Jesus’ clear intent that a group composed of exactly twelve disciples be formed. Israel was to be reconstituted and twelve apostles, symbolizing the twelve tribes, were necessary. 18 “Jesus’ meaning [of the Twelve] would have been defeated and its symbolic strength dissipated, if during the actual establishment of the messianic realm by the transmission of the Holy Spirit only eleven disciples instead of the full twelve would have been present.”19 actual choice has already been made by God, even if this choice is made known through a process akin to voting. 14 Schnabel, Acts, 95, notes that while “Luke does not relate Jesus’ words regarding Peter’s role as ‘rock’ on which he will build his new community, … Peter’s initiative and action in 1:15–26 indicate that this is exactly the role he fulfills.” 15 Alfons Weiser, “Die Nachwahl des Mattias (Apg 1,15–26): Zur Rezeption und Deutung urchristlicher Geschichte durch Lukas,” in Zur Geschichte des Urchristentums (ed. Gerhard Dautzenberg and Josef Blank; QD 87; Freiburg: Herder, 1979), 109. 16 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 154. 17 Philippe H. Menoud, “Les additions au groupe des douze apôtres, d’après le livre des Actes,” RHPR 37 (1957): 75; Annie Jaubert, “L’élection de Matthias et le tirage au sort,” in Studia Evangelica VI (ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone; TUGAL 112; Berlin: Akademie, 1973), 279; Arie W. Zwiep, Judas and the Choice of Matthias: A Study on Context and Concern of Acts 1:15–26 (WUNT 2/187; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 179. 18 Rudolf Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte (EKKNT 5; Zurich: Benziger, 1986), 1:91; Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, 123–126. 19 Paul Gaechter, “Die Wahl des Matthias (Apg 1, 15–26),” ZKT 71 (1949): 325; Rengstorf, “Election of Matthias, Acts 1,15 ff.,” 188; Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1:91. David John Williams, Acts (NIBC 5; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1990), 38, similarly contends that the sin of Judas “was an apostasy from his apostolic office, and therefore a threat to the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise and the whole plan of God.” Williams also argues that the reason why James was not replaced was because, after the bestowal of the Spirit at Pentecost, “the faithful Israel would have come into existence, and the promise of God would have reached fulfillment” (39). This may well be an additional reason,

I. Peter in Acts Pre-Pentecost

87

However, this group was not formed solely for the purpose of leading the church following Jesus’ ascension. Jesus promised in Matt 19:28 and Luke 22:30 that the Twelve would sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.20 When Judas apostatized, he gave up his place on one of these thrones and thus needed to be replaced. But death did not cause James, son of Zebedee, to relinquish his throne and therefore there was no need to replace him.21 A. Historicity of Acts 1 Regarding the historicity of the first chapter of Acts, I will focus upon Acts 1:15–26, as it is the only passage in this first chapter which directly affects the analysis of the character of Peter.22 Haenchen doubts the historicity of though had another member of the Twelve apostasized, it may have been necessary to choose another replacement; otherwise Jesus’ promise that the Twelve would sit upon twelve thrones would be unfulfilled. 20 Estrada, From Followers to Leaders, 176–178, disagrees that the appointment of Matthias is intended to be a fulfillment of Luke 22:30. However, it is possible to conclude that Judas needed to be replaced whereas James did not without resorting to a specific fulfillment. Rather, Peter simply understood that it was necessary that there be twelve members of the Twelve because Jesus had promised that at some point in time, there would be twelve apostles sitting on twelve thrones. Estrada also objects that Jesus was silent on replacing Judas. But Jesus may simply have been allowing Peter to take the lead, thus establishing Peter more firmly as the leader of the Twelve. Estrada’s final challenge – there was no need for such strict criteria – is even more problematic, as there was indeed a strong basis that a “witness” of Jesus, as the Twelve were to be, actually witnessed the entirety of the ministry of Jesus. 21 C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952), 58 n. 1; Alfred Wikenhauser, Die Apostelgeschichte (4th ed.; RNT 5; Regensburg: Pustet, 1961), 33; Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972), 82; Frederick F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts (rev. ed.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 109; Craig A Evans, “The Twelve Thrones of Israel: Scripture and Politics in Luke 22:24–30,” in Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 170. An additional thesis, that Peter recognized that the Twelve represented the restored Israel, is also possible and could be maintained simultaneously along with the above explanation. See, e.g., Max Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 301; Andrew C. Clark, “The Role of the Apostles,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 173–181. 22 On the overall accuracy of Peter’s speeches in Acts, see Paul W. Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 210; Marion L. Soards, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994); Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 116–120; Peterson, Acts, 23–25, 27–29; Charles Kingsley Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the

88

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

the choosing of Matthias, creating “a living scene” which brings the prominence of the twelve apostles, and Peter specifically, to the forefront.23 Barrett agrees, concluding that, while Luke may have access to a vague tradition about Matthias, “nothing in the speech can come from Peter himself.”24 This conclusion is unlikely. As Dunn notes: “The oddity of the event from Luke’s own perspective is … a positive indicator that he was drawing on tradition here.” So too is the fact that James is not chosen; had Luke invented an account of choosing a replacement for Judas, James would have been a more obvious choice.25 Similarly, Pervo correctly notes that if Luke was not drawing upon tradition, he could have had Jesus choose the successor for Judas rather than Peter.26 Also in favor of the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it “deals with a single event which seems to have no further importance for the continuity of events as Luke deliberately relates them in Acts.”27 Matthias plays no role in the remainder of Luke’s work.28 There is even less reason to include the actual name of the individual not chosen (Joseph Barsabbas). The casting of lots to determine the will of God only appears here.29 The Twelve do not retain their central position of leadership in the church.30 Had Luke invented the account, why include so many elements which were

Acts of the Apostles: In Two Volumes. (ICC 34; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 1:30–33; John R. W. Stott, The Message of Acts: The Spirit, the Church & the World (Bible Speaks Today; Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 69–72; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 87–98. For the most influential work critiquing their authenticity, see Martin Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography,” in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (ed. Heinrich Greeven; London: SCM, 1956), 138–185. The critique by Haenchen in Acts, passim, of the use of the Old Testament by Luke in the speeches of Peter, as relying upon the LXX and not the Hebrew, does not demonstrate these speeches are Lukan constructions. Peter could have had relied upon the LXX himself or made the same arguments from the Hebrew, with Luke deciding to quote the LXX because of his own audience (Witherington, Acts, 125). 23 Haenchen, Acts, 163. Cf. Lüdemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts, 45. 24 Barrett, Acts, 1:94. Cf. Jürgen Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte (2d ed. TNT 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 29–34. 25 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 154. 26 Pervo, Acts, 49. 27 Rengstorf, “Election of Matthias, Acts 1,15 ff.,” 180. 28 Bock, Acts, 79. 29 Barrett, Acts, 1:94, suggests that Luke inserted the drawing of lots in order to emphasize the divine choice of Matthias. But this argument only explains why Luke may have invented this part of the story once it is already assumed that such an invention took place; it is not, itself, an argument against historicity. 30 Lüdemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts, 43–44.

II. Peter and Pentecost

89

no longer relevant when he wrote Acts? It is far more likely that he is drawing upon early tradition. B. Summary of Peter’s Characterization in Acts 1 Peter demonstrates that his restoration by Jesus is complete. He listens to Jesus, asking questions, but not disputing his instructions. He takes on a central leadership role, directing the other disciples in prayer following Jesus’ ascension. He is an authoritative interpreter of Scripture and takes the initiative in guiding the disciples to choose a replacement for Judas. He is becoming the rock (Πέτρος) which Jesus had predicted he would become, and is strengthening the other disciples as Jesus had foretold.

II. Peter and Pentecost (Acts 2) II. Peter and Pentecost There are two important elements to the account of Pentecost for evaluating the character and calling of Peter: (1) the effect the indwelling of the Holy Spirit would have had upon all the believers, including Peter, and (2) the boldness exhibited by Peter in the speech of Acts 2:14–41. In his review of Max Turner’s Power from on High, James Shelton asserts: “It is not clear how the experience of the disciples after Pentecost was significantly different from that of the witnesses and followers of the infant Jesus.”31 While it is impossible to ascertain the actual internal experience of the Spirit which Peter and the other disciples underwent, there is indeed substantial evidence for a change in the disciples after Pentecost, and most particularly in Peter. The analysis of Peter which follows in this chapter shows a remarkable metamorphosis in his leadership ability, his understanding of the will of God and of Scripture, and his courage to proclaim the Word of God in the face of persecution. What accounts for this transformation? It is true that his actions regarding the addition of Matthias have already demonstrated some measure of progress towards fulfilling Jesus’ promise that he would become a “rock.” It is also evident that Jesus believed the coming of the Spirit would be an important element in enabling the disciples to fulfill their role as the leaders of the early church (John 16:5–15). There has been much scholarly discussion regarding the consequences of being filled with the Spirit according to Luke. 32 It is unnecessary here to 31 James B. Shelton, review of Max Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts, Pneuma 21 (1999): 165. 32 See Nikolaus Adler, Das erste christliche Pfingstfest: Sinn und Bedeutung des Pfingstberichtes Apg 2, 1–13 (NTAbh 18; Münster: Aschendorff, 1938); James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of the New Testament Teaching on

90

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

provide a detailed analysis of the array of viewpoints.33 Whether one believes that receiving the Spirit is a donum superadditum which follows salvation and bestows confirmation (Adler) or is the Spirit of prophecy and missionary empowering (Lampe, Menzies), or is a necessary component of conversion (Dunn), or is some combination of these options (Kremer, Shelton, Haya-Prats, Turner), it is undeniable that Luke presents Peter as being a true disciple of Jesus (and thus having underwent a soteriologically-complete salvation experience) as well as having the Spirit of prophecy, missionary empowering, and the confirmation of his own status as a Christian. Thus, regardless of which pneumatological view is taken regarding the work of the Spirit in Acts, it can be concluded that Peter was greatly and positively affected by being filled with the Spirit. This will be further demonstrated as this analysis of Peter’s character in Acts proceeds. In 2:14–40, Peter delivers the first of multiple kerygmatic speeches recorded in Acts.34 It is not necessary to evaluate the entirety of Peter’s Pentecost sermon in order to reflect upon what this speech in general tells us about Peter’s character and calling. Peter directly addresses the confusion of the crowds regarding the disciples speaking in other languages. That Peter would be the member of the Twelve to take such initiative is not surprising; he had frequently been the first disciple to speak in the Gospels. But there is a significant difference; whereas previously his outbursts had been characterized by a lack of understanding, his Pentecost sermon exhibits profound discernment regarding the nature of what had just occured, the mission of Jesus, and the significance and Scriptural foundation of Jesus’ death and resurrection for those who believe. Jesus had intimated that this knowledge would be granted to the disciples with the coming of the Holy Spirit; he had promised that the Holy Spirit would “teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:26). And prior to his ascension, he had told them the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentacostalism Today (SBT 15; London: SCM, 1970); Gonzalo Haya-Prats, L’Esprit force de l’Église (Paris: Cerf, 1975); Jacob Kremer, Pfingstbericht und Pfingstgeschehen: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Apg 2, 1–13 (Stuttgart: KBW, 1973); Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit: A Study in the Doctrine of Baptism and Confirmation in the New Testament and the Fathers (London: Longmans, 1951); Robert P. Menzies, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology: With Special Reference to Luke-Acts (JSNTSup 54; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991); James B. Shelton, Mighty in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991); Turner, Power from on High. 33 Cf. Turner, Power from on High, 38–79, for an excellent overview of the literature. 34 The others are Acts 3:12–26; 4:8–12; 5:29–32; 10:34–43. In Acts 2:14, πρῶτος was inserted prior to ἐπῆρεν in Codex D, likely intended to give primacy to Peter (Pervo, Acts, 75 n. 11). While the original autograph likely does not include this word, the context does reflect that Peter is acting as the leader of the Twelve.

II. Peter and Pentecost

91

they would receive power through the Holy Spirit to be his witnesses (Luke 24:47–49; Acts 1:8). All of this has begun to be fulfilled with Peter’s sermon. Peter’s boldness is made even more impressive by the fact that he is proclaiming that Jesus is the Messiah less than two months after Jesus had been crucified in this same city of Jerusalem. Peter must have known the risk he was taking, a risk which would be repeatedly confirmed in the days, months, and years to come. Yet this did not deter him, not even from publicly placing the blame for the death of God’s Messiah directly upon his audience (Acts 2:23, 36)35 and specifically upon the “lawless men” (ἀνόµων). The latter may simply refer to the Romans,36 but may also refer to the Jewish leadership through (διά) whose hands Jesus was delivered.37 Pentecost has changed Peter, but his characteristic boldness remains. 38 The only difference is that this boldness has now been combined with understanding, thus eliminating (or, at least, minimizing) the negative side of this trait (brashness). And Peter’s boldness as a witness of Christ pays dividends as over 3,000 members of the audience were baptized that day. Two specific phrases from Peter’s Pentecost sermon are important for this thesis. The first is found in Acts 2:17 where Peter quotes Joel’s prophesy in 2:28 that in the last days God will pour out his spirit on “all flesh” (πᾶσαν σάρκα). Commentaries on Joel tend to interpret this passage as particular to Israel. Leslie Allen states that the “elaboration of the term (all flesh), as well as the whole context of ch. 3, makes it clear that Joel is referring to the community of Judah. … It was obviously in this sense that Peter understood it in his exposition of the passage in Acts 2, especially in light of the amazement expressed at the ‘gentile Pentecost’ in Acts 10:45.”39 James Crenshaw agrees: the expression “can mean ‘everyone,’ without ethnic or gender restrictions (cf. Isa 49:26 and Sir 8:19), but the context indicates that Joel uses it in a more restrictive sense, all Judahites, 35

For other instances in which Peter places the blame for the death of Jesus upon his audience, see Acts 3:13–17; 4:10–11, 27–28; 5:30. Peter also places the blame for the death of Jesus upon the Jews in Acts 10:39–40, though he is speaking to Gentiles (Cornelius and his relatives and friends) in this particular instance. Jack T. Sanders, The Jews in Luke-Acts (London: SCM, 1987). 256, 317, concludes that this motif that Luke was anti-Jewish. The difficulty with this interpretation is that Luke is not the only witness to the Jews being responsible for the death of Jesus; cf. Mark 14:1, 10–14, 43, 53, 55–65; Matt 26:3–5, 47, 57–67; 27:12, 18, 20–23, 25; John 18:3, 12–13, 19–23, 28–30; 19:6–7, 12, 15. In addition, Peter’s purpose was not to denigrate his audience, but to move them to repentance, and did so successfully (cf. Acts 2:37). 36 E.g., Bruce, Acts, 70; Stott, Acts, 75. 37 Bock, Acts, 121. 38 Bock, Acts, 64. 39 Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 98.

92

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

just as Zech 12:10 limits the outpouring of a compassionate spirit to David’s descendants and residents of Jerusalem.”40 Pao agrees that Joel 2:28–32 “probably points to the Diaspora Jews in the context of Joel, [but that] one is justified in understanding this phrase as pointing to the universal mission in the context of Acts 2.”41 Walt Kaiser likewise argues that the phrase “should be taken as universal, applying to Jew and Gentile alike.”42 Yet while Luke is likely intending his readers to understand Peter’s proclamation as referring to a mission to Jews and Gentiles, Peter himself may not grasp the full implications of what he is saying. Nor is it likely that his original audience, the Jews listening to Peter preach on Pentecost, perceives this either. John Strazicich writes: The apostle (Peter) does not yet understand the universalistic interpretation of ‫ כּ ָ ל ־ בּ ָ שׂ ר‬. It is obvious that, for him, ‘all flesh’ has a distinctive Jewish interpretation, since on the Day of Pentecost he is addressing his own nation, which includes many proselytes. … the universalization of the gospel is finally revealed to Peter in Acts 10, where he is surprised to learn that the gospel and gifts of the Holy Spirit are also bestowed upon the 43 Gentiles who believe.”

Bruce agrees: “Luke probably sees in these words an adumbration of the worldwide Gentile mission, even if Peter himself did not realize their full import when he quoted them on Pentecost.”44 Likewise, Schnabel: “And even later [Peter] will understand that ‘all flesh’ includes also Gentiles who believe in the Lord Jesus (Acts 11:15–18).”45 A helpful observation is provided by James Meek, who notes: In their immediate contexts, Peter cites these texts to establish the proclamation about Jesus, not to address the Gentile mission, which had not yet begun. The speeches of Acts, however, have two audiences: in the narrative, Peter addresses these sermons to Jewish audiences in Jerusalem; through the narrative, Luke addresses his readers. What may be 40 James L. Crenshaw, Joel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 24C; New York: Doubleday, 1995), 165. Cf. Thomas J. Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah (Chicago: Moody, 1990), 71–72. 41 Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, 232. Cf. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 1:125. 42 Walter C. Kaiser, “Promise of God and the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit,” in The Living and Active Word of God: Studies in Honor of Samuel J. Schultz (ed. Morris A. Inch and Ronald F. Youngblood; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 119–120. Cf. Dupont, The Salvation of the Gentiles, 16; Tannehill, Luke-Acts, 2:27, 134; Hubertus van de Sandt, “The Fate of the Gentiles in Joel and Acts 2: An Intertextual Study,” EThL 66 (1990): 56–77. 43 John Strazicich, Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel: Appropriation and Resignification in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity (Biblical Interpretation Series 82; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 278–279. 44 Bruce, Acts, 68. Cf. Daniel J. Treier, “The Fulfillment of Joel 2:28–32: A MultipleLens Approach,” JETS 40 (1997): 13–26. 45 Schnabel, Acts, 136.

II. Peter and Pentecost

93

of little importance to, or escape the notice of, one audience may be important to the other. While there is no indication in the narrative that Peter’s original audience attended to the implications of these citations for Gentile ministry, Luke’s Gentile readers might well be expected to see themselves in the apparently universal language of these cita46 tions.

The second relevant phrase in Peter’s sermon appears in Acts 2:39: “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself. The phrase “far off” (τοῖς εἰς µακράν) is similarly taken by many scholars as applying to Gentiles. Kaiser writes: “to describe someone as belonging to ‘those who were afar off’ was merely a circumlocution for saying ‘Gentiles.’”47 Yet, is this what Peter intended when he delivered his Pentecost sermon? Had he grasped the expansion of the kingdom of God as including Gentiles as well as Jews, as inferred by Jesus in Acts 1:8? This is possible. It is certainly probable that this phrase was, at the very least, later understood both by Luke and by Peter to more broadly apply to Jews and Gentiles alike (cf. Acts 22:21).48 It is also likely that Peter would have been willing to accept a Gentile who took the initiative to come to the Christian church and ask to join, just as Jews in general would welcome a Gentile who came to a synagogue and asked to become a Jew. This would, of course, involve an acceptance of the Law, including circumcision. Yet this is different from Peter recognizing that God desired a Gentile mission to be undertaken. To apply Acts 1:8 to the Gentiles would require an intentional active mission to the Gentiles on the part of the apostles. Yet, as will be shown, Peter’s later vision at Joppa and his encounter with Cornelius (Acts 10) was unanticipated by Peter. It does not appear that Peter was considering a mission to the Gentiles, which would have involved such practical matters as eating with them. Thus, while τοῖς εἰς µακράν could possibly refer to Gentiles, it is more likely that Peter understood it to refer to Diaspora Jews who are not present in Jerusalem at Pen46

James A Meek, The Gentile Mission in Old Testament Citations in Acts: Text, Hermeneutic, and Purpose (London: T&T Clark, 2008). Meek is, here, referring to both the citation of Joel 3:1–5 in Acts 2:17–21 as well as the citation of Gen 22:18 in Acts 3:25. However, in his analysis of Acts 2:17–21, Meek asserts that Peter did intend to refer to Gentiles (107–112). 47 Kaiser, “Promise of God and the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit,” 120. Cf. Richard F. Zehnle, Peter’s Pentecost Discourse: Tradition and Lukan Reinterpretation in Peter’s Speeches of Acts 2 and 3 (SBLMS 15; Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), 124; Barrett, Acts, 1:156–157; Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, 230–231; I. Howard Marshall, “Acts,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. Gregory K. Beale and Donald A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 543. 48 J. Bradley Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts (Macon, Ga.: Mercer, 1988), 102–103.

94

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

tecost, in contrast to those who were physically present to hear his message.49 Hermeneutically, I believe that the references plenior viewpoint of Elliott Johnson is very helpful for elucidating this passage.50 The authorial intent of Peter, when referring to those who were far off in Acts 2:39, did not extend to Gentiles. A further reference, however, was intended by God when he inspired Peter to give this speech, which was fully comprehended by Luke when he wrote Acts, and which was understood by Peter after his meeting with Cornelius. While Peter may very well have anticipated the possibility of Gentiles being included in the church, a specific mission to the Gentiles was not intended by his use of Joel 3:1–5. A. Historicity of Acts 2 In his analysis of Pentecost, Haenchen begins with the assumption that it is unreliable, and therefore attempts to determine the rationale behind Luke’s composition of this pericope.51 However, he does not actually argue against the passage’s historicity apart from unsubstantiated claims such as “there is of course nothing sensory about the Spirit.”52 Yet is God incapable of sending the Spirit without providing physical sensations for the audience? Pervo similarly asserts that the account is confusing and concludes that “a redactional solution almost leaps from the page: Luke had a story about ecstatic speech that he transformed, either out of a distaste for glossolalia or to expound universalism, or both, into a linguistic miracle focusing upon what was heard.”53 Yet why would it be assumed that Peter would not preach if given the opportunity, unless, that is, all such speeches of Peter are discounted as unhistorical? Barrett surmises that “it can hardly be supposed that it occurred to those who were [present] that they should write down a carefully differentiated account of events” and then proceeds to claim that Luke composed the en49 Stephen G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS 23; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 219. Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 63; Rebecca I. Denova, The Things Accomplished Among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts (JSNTSup 141; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 169–175. 50 Elliott Johnson, “Author’s Intention and Biblical Interpretation,” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible (ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus; Grand Rapids: Academie, 1984), 409–437. 51 Haenchen, Acts, 173–175. 52 Haenchen, Acts, 174. 53 Pervo, Acts, 59–60. Cf. Lüdemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts, 54.

II. Peter and Pentecost

95

tire pericope.54 However, such a pivotal moment in the lives of those who experienced the coming of the Spirit would not have easily disappeared from their memories. In addition, the repetition of the filling of the Spirit in the experience of the early church (Acts 8:17; 10:44) would have accentuated the remembrance of this first filling of the Spirit. In contrast to these skeptical scholars, Dunn comments that the eschatology and christology of Peter’s Pentecost sermon are “primitive”; regarding the latter topic, he writes: “given that at the period of Luke’s writing christology was much more developed, it must be judged unlikely that Luke was attempting to promote these emphases.”55 He also notes that the “ecstatic experience, visions, prophecy and amazing healings (miracles) … which so typified the movement must have begun to appear for the first time at some stage. … That there was such an experience, recognized as experience of God’s Spirit and shared by those who became the initial leaders of the movement, is highly probable.”56 There is also independent attestation of Pentecost. John relates Jesus’ promise that the Spirit will be sent following his departure from the disciples (John 14:15–19).57 Similarly, Dunn observes that concepts within the Pentecost account (the coming of the Spirit of God as the “fulfilment of prophetic hope, reference to the outpouring of the spirit in Joel, being baptized in the Spirit, the primacy of Jerusalem) also occur in Paul.”58 A significant potential difficulty involves John 20:22, which many exegetes believe refers to a different Pentecost-type event which occurs prior to Jesus’ ascension. Fitzmyer suggests Luke dramatized this tradition, placing it in the context of Peter’s proclamation, thus emphasizing “the presence of the Spirit to the apostles through visible and audible signs.”59 Carson provides a detailed overview and analysis of the various interpretations and concludes that the problem is actually with translations of the verse itself, which tend to imply that Jesus breathed the Spirit into his disciples.60 Instead, John 20:22 should be translated: “And with that he breathed, and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’” and should be interpreted to mean that “this is a symbolic act that anticipates the future imminent bestowal.”61 In addition, as noted by Köstenberger, Peter’s decision to go 54 Barrett, Acts, 1:109–110; Alfons Weiser, Die Apostelgeschichte (ÖTNT 5; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1981–1985), 1:78–79. 55 James D. G. Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles (1st U.S. ed.; Narrative Commentaries; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1996), 91. 56 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 164–165. 57 Witherington, Acts, 130 n. 5. 58 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 165–167. 59 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 232. 60 Carson, John, 649–655. 61 Carson, John, 652–653.

96

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

fishing in John 21:3 does not make sense if the Spirit had been imparted in John 20:22.62 Finally, while it is true that it is difficult to imagine where in Jerusalem Peter may have given a speech that thousands could have gathered to hear him,63 Luke does not actually state that all of the three thousand persons who were baptized that day (Acts 2:41) were simultaneously present at the giving of the speech(es) in 2:16–40. It is certainly plausible that a couple hundred persons gathered at the outset, with more coming and going throughout the day. Peter, or other members of the Twelve, could have repeated the general content of his sermon multiple times that day, with Luke condensing it into a single telling for the purposes of his narrative. B. Summary of Peter’s Characterization in Acts 2 The effect of Pentecost upon Peter is immediately evident. His prior boldness, depicted in the Gospels, remains; the brashness which often accompanied this boldness does not. His understanding, though not yet complete (specifically, regarding the Gentile mission), is profoundly presented in his Pentecost speech as he powerfully preaches the Gospel to the Jews of Jerusalem, leading many to become followers of Jesus themselves. There is no indication of pride on the part of Peter. With the exception of his statement that the disciples are not drunk, there is no emphasis upon himself. His focus is, instead, entirely upon Jesus. This is impressive for one who has just taken upon himself the mantle of leadership for the community of disciples of Jesus.

III. Peter in Jerusalem after Pentecost (Acts 3–5) III. Peter in Jerusalem after Pentecost Demonstrating that the event of Pentecost “brought about a dramatic transformation in Peter,”64 Peter continues to audaciously proclaim Jesus publicly. Sometime after this formative event, while walking with John to the Temple for prayer, 65 a lame man asks for alms (Acts 3:3).66 Peter addresses 62

Köstenberger, John, 589 n. 7. Haenchen, Acts, 188, Pervo, Acts, 74, though Schnabel, Acts, 167, notes that, “in antiquity, large crowds were regularly addressed in the open.” 64 Martin William Mittelstadt, The Spirit and Suffering in Luke-Acts: Implications for a Pentecostal Pneumatology (JPTSup 26; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 94. 65 Whether this indicates that Luke was emphasizing that the two disciples continued to act as observant Jews (so Dunn, Acts, 40; Bruce, Acts, 83; Barrett, Acts, 1:177; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 277; Witherington, Acts, 173; Peterson, Acts, 167) is uncertain. They may have continued to offer sacrifices at the Temple, as not every sacrifice was related to atonement (thanksgiving sacrifices, for 63

III. Peter in Jerusalem after Pentecost

97

the man, offering him not money, but healing.67 Following the exuberant praising of God by this man, and the resulting astonishment of the onlookers, Peter takes this opportunity to preach. Once again, he directly places the blame for the death of Jesus, “the Holy and Righteous One,” the “Prince of Life,” upon his audience (Acts 3:13–15). He mitigates the blame somewhat by acknowledging that both his Jewish audience and the Jewish leadership put Jesus to death out of ignorance (Acts 3:17). However, to walk into the Temple, the heart of the power of the Jewish leaders, and to accuse them of killing God’s Messiah shows how far Peter had come from his denials only weeks earlier. This is especially apparent given the fact that Peter and John decide to heal this man without an actual request for healing. Presumably they have walked past various sick individuals previously without healing them; their decision to heal a man at one of the gates to the Temple was intentional. Peter’s earlier boldness in proclaiming Jesus at Pentecost is not an isolated affair with Peter not having given adequate forethought as to the correct action. He has had time to reconsider his previous words, and specifically chooses to deliver them again at the Temple, following a very public act of healing. In addition, Peter turns the attention away from any “power or piety” which might reside in himself and John and focuses it instead upon God, emulating the example provided by Jesus (Acts 3:12).68 One intriguing phrase in Peter’s Acts 3 sermon needs to be considered here: “It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed’” (3:25). This recall of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12:1–3) does have a universalist tone, with Peter making example, might still have been considered appropriate). On the other hand, they may have simply been entering the Temple Mount in order to commune with their fellow Christians; Acts 5:12 (cf. 2:46) indicates that the portico of Solomon was one location where they met to pray and it is at this place (3:11) where Peter delivers his call for repentance to the Jews in Acts 3:12–26. In addition, the Temple Mount would be the logical place to go in order to witness to Jews about their need for repentance; they may have chose this specific time because of the number of Jews who were likely to be present. Cf. Schnabel, Acts, 192. 66 Haenchen, Acts, 198 n. 11, contends that the lame man being brought to the Temple at such a late time of day (ninth hour = 3 p.m.) detracts from this passage’s authenticity; he should have already been there. This is overly skeptical, as there is nothing which would logically preclude such a possibility; perhaps the person who was responsible for bringing him to the Temple was too busy to do so earlier. 67 While John is introduced at the beginning of the account, and while Peter includes John by the use of plural verbs, Peter does act as the spokesman of the two and perhaps even as the leader of the pair, though this last point is not clear. 68 John T. Squires, The Plan of God in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS 76; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 98.

98

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

this even clearer by replacing Genesis’ φυλαί (LXX) with πατριαί, while linking it with the near-sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham through the inclusion of the phrase ἐν τῷ σπέρµατί σου, which appears verbatim in Gen 22:18 LXX and the replacing of ἔθνη with πατριαί (cf. also, Gen 18:18). The question, as with Acts 2:17, 39, is whether Peter is including a specific mission to the Gentiles. Jervell contends that this passage “can only be understood as the inclusion of Gentiles in the promises to Israel” and that “the apostles clearly understood that they were called and commanded to world mission,” a mission which included both Jews and Gentiles.69 More modestly, Schnabel observes: “without becoming explicit, this quotation alludes to the later universal mission to the Gentile peoples … Peter’s statement implies a subtle reference to the expansion of the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus, Israel’s Messiah, to the Gentiles.”70 A different perspective is reflected by Meek, who maintains that “the expression πᾶσαι αἱ πατριαὶ τῆς γῆς (‘all the families of the earth’) appears to reflect adaptation of the [OT] citation to include Peter’s Jewish audience by substituting the more neutral πατριαί for ἔθνη (lest the latter be understood as a reference only to Gentiles). The focus in Peter’s speech is on fulfillment of the promise to Israel.”71 Similarly, Bock argues that the term (πατριαί) has ambiguity without yet pointing to the full universality of the message’s scope, which clearly is Luke’s ultimate intention given the story line of Acts. Peter may be anticipating Israel’s vindication as leading to universal kingdom rule and blessing that involves the families of earth as opposed to the direct route to the nations 72 opened up in Acts 10.

Just as with Acts 2:17, 39, it is my opinion that, in Acts 3:25, Peter does not fully comprehend how his proclamation will later be understood. Insofar as Gentiles are intended to be included by Peter in the reference to the Abrahamic covenant, he is not speaking of a specific, intentional mission to the Gentiles. Any notion of Gentiles participating in Christian community, based upon the divine promises made to Abraham, would have been no more developed than for any typical Jew, Christian or non-Christian, living in Jerusalem. Just as there is no indication of a non-Christian Jewish mission to Gentiles in the first century, especially one originating in Jerusalem, neither was Peter contemplating a mission to the Gentiles. However, such a mission, and thus such an application of the Abrahamic covenant, was intended by Luke, and was likely understood by Peter following the Cornelius incident. Thus, Peter’s intended meaning was limited princi69

Jervell, Luke and the People of God, 57–58. Schnabel, Acts, 220. Cf. Peterson, Acts, 185; Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, 233. 71 Meek, Gentile Mission, 224. Cf. Marshall, “Acts,” 549. 72 Bock, Acts, 181. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 188. 70

III. Peter in Jerusalem after Pentecost

99

pally, and perhaps even solely, to Jews (both in Israel and in the Diaspora), while a dual reference flowed from Peter’s intent: the first to Jews (understood by Peter in Acts 3) and the second to Gentiles (only later understood by Luke and Peter). Peter and John continue to preach for some time. Acts 3:1 notes that they came upon the lame man at the ninth hour of prayer (3:00 in the afternoon). They were still addressing the crowds when it was evening (ἑσπέρα); according to Schnabel, this was between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m.73 It is not unreasonable that Peter would have considered the high likelihood of being arrested for such an overt condemnation of the Jewish leadership. Yet he and John do not present their message quickly and then leave; instead, they preach for hours in the Temple, and continue to do so even as the “priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees” approach them with “hostile intent”74 (cf. Acts 4:26). It is these very authorities whom Peter has accused of killing God’s Messiah. In addition, the Sadducees are particularly upset at Peter’s teaching of the resurrection of the dead “by means of (the story of)” 75 Jesus and his own resurrection – a resurrection which the Sadducees rejected in general (cf. Luke 20:27; Acts 23:8).76 They may also be concerned that the apostles’ teaching would be “politically, socially, and religiously destabilizing to their relatively good relationship with Rome.”77 This boldness (παρρησία; Acts 4:13; cf. 4:29, 31) in their preaching results in Peter and John being arrested and imprisoned overnight. The next morning they are brought before multiple members of the high-priestly class, including Annas and Caiaphas (Acts 3:5–6). If there was any doubt about Peter’s willingness to publicly witness to Jesus, it would be eliminated here. He tells the very individuals who had convicted Jesus not long before that they had wrongly put Jesus, the Messiah, to death, and that salvation only comes through Jesus (Acts 4:10–12). Peter is thus courageously attacking their positions as both leaders and teachers. Not only was their decision to execute Jesus worthy of condemnation, what they taught fellow Jews about salvation is also wrong. 78 Acts 4:13 states that the religious leaders marvel upon observing the boldness (παρρησία) of Peter and John, understand that they were ἀγράµµατοι and ἰδιῶται, and then recognizing that these men had been with Jesus. The first term – ἀγράµµατοι – is a NT hapax and does not ap73

Schnabel, Acts, 234. Schnabel, Acts, 233, notes that the verb ‘to approach’ (ἐφίστηµι) “implies here hostile intent.” Cf. BDAG, s.v. “ἐφίστηµι” 3, 418; Acts 4:26; 17:5. 75 Barrett, Acts, 1:220. 76 On the sect of the Sadducees, cf. Josephus, B.J. 2.164–166; A.J. 18.16–17. 77 Bock, Acts, 186. 78 Dschulnigg, Petrus, 96. 74

100

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

pear in the LXX. Thomas Kraus notes that in multiple non-literary papyri, the term is used formulaically by a scribe who writes on behalf of someone “who was incapable of writing”79 but could also refer to any person who was deemed to have lack of knowledge of a specific language, though might be literate in another.80 A reference from Philo also helps explicate the range of meaning for this term. In Det. 18, he writes: “For just as it is our business not to practice music unmusically or grammar ungrammatically (γραµµατικὴν ἀγραµµάτως), … but to practice each art in the way which that art requires, so neither is it our business to practice … any other virtue-governed knowledge in a spirit of ignorance.”

According to Philo, certain activities or virtues should only be undertaken if certain prerequisites are met. Though it is possible for an ignorant person to practice virtue-governed knowledge, he shouldn’t. Though it is possible for persons untrained in music to practice music, he shouldn’t. And though is possible for a person without training in the skills required to be a scribe (γραµµατεύς) to carry out the practices of a scribe, he shouldn’t. To do so would be viewed as doing so ungrammatically (ἀγραµµάτως). In fact, it is possible that the non-literary papyri also do not necessarily refer to a person who is incapable of writing, but one who is untrained in the skills necessary to compose legal documents. The second term – ἰδιῶται – is less controversial; the scholarly consensus is that it refers to “any layman in contrast to a specialist, no matter what area of life is concerned.”81 When combined with ἀγράµµατοι, it becomes clear that the surprise of the Jewish leaders is not that Peter and John cannot write (after all, the two apostles were speaking, not attempting to write; so how would they have any knowledge of their writing capabilities?), but rather that they are formally untrained in the Scriptures as they themselves are.82 The Jewish leaders are reluctant to punish Peter and John. Jeremias suggests that the Sanhedrin was incapable of punishing Peter and John because they were uneducated and thus could not be held responsible for their actions until they had been warned to desist.83 A simpler explanation 79

Thomas J. Kraus, “‘Uneducated’, ‘Ignorant’, or Even ‘Illiterate’? Aspects and Background for an Understanding of ΑΓΡΑΜΑΤΟΙ (and Ι∆ΙΩΤΑΙ) in Acts 4.13,” NTS 45 (1999): 434–435. Cf. LSJ, s.v. “ἀγράµµατος,” 14. 80 Kraus, “Uneducated,” 440–442. Cf. BDAG, s.v. “ἀγράµµατος,” 15: “lacking in legal proficiency.” 81 Kraus, “Uneducated,” 436. Cf. BDAG, s.v. “ἰδιώτης,” 468; LSJ, s.v. “ἰδιώτης,” 819. 82 Cf. Witherington, Acts, 195; Barrett, Acts, 1:233–234; Fitzmyer, Acts, 302; Peterson, Acts, 194; Bruce, Acts, 102 n. 25; Schnabel, Acts, 243: “amateurs.” 83 Joachim Jeremias, “Untersuchungen zum Quellenproblem der Apostelgeschichte,” ZNW 36 (1937): 208–213.

III. Peter in Jerusalem after Pentecost

101

is presented in the text: the word of the healing of the lame man had spread and the populace was praising God because of it (with 5,000 people responding to Peter’s call and believing; Acts 4:4). Indeed, the man himself is standing in their presence (Acts 4:14) and they could hardly deny this miracle; nor do they desire to publicly punish the men responsible for it in light of this current swell of support for Peter and John. They instead order the apostles to cease preaching about Jesus. Peter and John refuse to be intimidated, vowing to continue their witnessing. At this, the two apostles are released, immediately return to their fellow Christians and praise God for their deliverance, and all are “filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness” (Acts 3:31).84 Once again, Peter has demonstrated sustained courage in the face of opposition from the Jewish leadership. Unlike Luke’s readers, he cannot know if he will continue to be released; as far as he knows, each time he preaches could be his last. Yet, he perseveres and sets an example for the rest of the church. Luke next presents an event which focuses upon Peter’s position as a leader of the infant church (Acts 5:1–11). It had become the practice of wealthier converts to sell their property and donate the proceeds to the church for the use of those who were in need (Acts 2:45; 4:34–35). One married couple, Ananias and Sapphira, sold some property, but kept a portion of the profit for themselves.85 Peter first confronts the husband, and 84

Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “To Speak Thy Word with All Boldness: Acts 4:23–31,” Faith and Mission 3 (1986): 80, observes that witnessing with boldness epitomizes the response to persecution by the early church in Acts. 85 J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Ananias, Sapphira, and the Right of Property,” DRev 89 (1971): 195–196, suggests that Ananias was attempting to sell Sapphira’s ketubbah, and that she would only give him permission to sell this piece of land if he agreed to withhold a portion of the price just in case this new Christian movement failed. However, there is no indication in the text that the piece of land is Sapphira’s ketubbah. In addition, according to Second Temple Jewish marriage law, the authority to sell the ketubbah rested with the husband, not the wife. And, in the event of a divorce, the husband was required to pay the value of the ketubbah, even if it had come in the form of land and even if he had already sold it. Cf. Léonie J. Archer, Her Price Is Beyond Rubies: The Jewish Woman in Graeco-Roman Palestine (JSOTSup 60; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 235; Tal Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), 89–94. Thus, Sapphira’s approval would have been completely unnecessary. An alternative view is proposed by Brian Capper, “The Palestinian Cultural Context of Earliest Christian Community of Goods,” in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (ed. Richard Bauckham; BAFCS 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 337–341, who argues that there existed an inner circle within the Christian community which engaged in communal sharing of goods which Ananias and Sapphira desired to join. While it is certainly possible that not all Christians in Jerusalem sold all they had, there is no indication in Acts that there was any official subsect similar to that described in the Qumran Rule of the Community, as Capper contends. There may have been some level of influence by Essene converts (Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:425), and there were

102

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

then the wife. He notes that it was not a requirement that they sell their property or give the proceeds to the church (Acts 5:4). Their sin was not withholding some of the proceeds of the sale; Peter, instead, accuses Ananias of allowing himself to be tempted by Satan and lying to the Holy Spirit.86 Ananias dies immediately. A few hours later, Sapphira comes before Peter who pointedly asks her if they had received a given amount for their land, giving her the opportunity to admit the truth (such a question would have been superfluous to Ananias, who had just set the money at Peter’s feet).87 Her affirmation confirms that she had commiserated with her husband in this deceit. Peter charges her with putting the Spirit to the test and prophetically declares that she will die.88 She likewise dies instantly. Whether the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira were due to natural causes or divine judgment is immaterial; their deaths are clearly viewed as a consequence of their sin.89

certainly similarities between the Christian and Qumran communities, but the thesis that there this influence was substantial, resulted in the Qumranization of the church is highly doubtful (such is the thesis of Christian Grappe, D’un Temple à l’autre: Pierre et l’Eglise primitive de Jérusalem (EHPhR 71; Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1992), 52–69, 253–308; contra Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:720). 86 Dunn, Acts, 63; Bruce, Acts, 113; Peterson, Acts, 210; Witherington, Acts, 216; Schnabel Acts, 284. Contra David Hamidovic, “Le remarque énigmatique d’Ac 5,4 dans la légende d’Ananias et Saphira,” Bib 86 (2005): 408, who argues that the sin consisted of lying and embezzlement. Barrett, Acts, 1:262, contends that Acts 5:4 contradicts 4:34, “the plain meaning of which is that all who owned land sold it and brought the proceeds – the whole proceeds – to the apostles.” Yet 4:34 does not state that new converts were required to sell their property and give the proceeds to be redistributed by the apostles, but simply that they did. For example, Luke relates in Acts 12:12 that the mother of John Mark owned a house. 87 Pervo, Acts, 134, is unduly negative about such an interpretation: “Trick questions are not an acceptable means of eliciting repentance.” However, this was not a trick question; Sapphira could have chosen to tell the truth. 88 Peter is not presented by Luke as the judge and executioner in this scene, but only as the prophet who proclaims how God himself will judge her. In support of this conclusion Böttrich, Petrus, 176, notes that, unlike in other instances in Acts when Peter performs a miraculous act, Peter does not use the phrase “in the name of Jesus” (cf. Acts 3:6, 16; 4:10, 30; 9:34) in association with his proclamation regarding Sapphira’s imminent demise. Rather, Peter’s role in Acts 5:9 is to “recognize, announce, and interpret the connections.” Cf. Dschulnigg, Petrus, 97. 89 Scholars are fairly split on whether the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira had natural or divine causes. For the former, see Derrett, “Ananias, Sapphira,” 197–198; Witherington, Acts, 216. For the latter, see Bruce, Acts, 114; Bock, Acts, 223–224, 226; Peterson, Acts, 211–213. Pervo, Acts, 131, states that Peter “pronounced effective curses” upon Ananias and Sapphira; however, Luke makes no such claim.

III. Peter in Jerusalem after Pentecost

103

Robert O’Toole correctly identifies the central theme of this passage as Peter’s statement that they are lying not to the apostles but to God.90 Just as was the case after the Israelites had first received the Torah and a man gathering wood on the Sabbath was ordered by Moses to be stoned to death (Num 15:32–36), and just as was the case after they had entered the Promised Land and Achan took booty from Jericho after the people were ordered not to (Josh 7:16–26),91 so too does Peter recognize that an example must be made of those who would publicly sin before God in order to show the seriousness of such sin. Of course, it cannot be known for certain if Peter has these particular examples in mind. But Peter does understand that his role as the rock of the church requires him not only to show kindness, but firmness and discipline as well, especially during this initial phase. Peter would likely have recognized that a mere proclamation of the Gospel would not lead to mature disciples. Regardless of how modern readers may judge the harsh judgment of Ananias and Sapphira, it does have its intended effect: “And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things” (Acts 5:11). This account is in direct contrast to the previous description of Barnabas’ generosity. Both laid money at the feet of the apostles (Acts 4:37; 90

Robert F. O’Toole, “‘You Did Not Lie to Us (Human Beings) but to God’ (Acts 5,4c),” Bib 76 (1995): 189. 91 Bruce, Acts, 110; Witherington, Acts, 213. The verb νοσφίζοµαι is used to describe both Aachen withholding loot from Jericho (LXX of Josh 7:1) and Ananias and Sapphira withholding a portion of the proceeds in Acts 5:2. The parallel between Acts 5:1–11 and the account of Achan has significant differences as well, notably the fact that the money withheld by Achan never belonged to him and Achan was stoned by the community. Cf. Bock, Acts, 220. Witherington, Acts, 214, and Williams, Acts, 110, both offers the divine punishment upon Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10:1–5 as an additional parallel, but this is also problematic, as the sins themselves are different. A third parallel may be between the sin of Ananias and Sapphira and Judas’ earlier betrayal of Jesus (Schuyler Brown, Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke (Anbib 36; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 106–107). Both sins were committed under the influence of Satan; both were due to greed, and both led to death, though the means of death was different. A fourth analogy is identified by Daniel Marguerat, “La mort d’Ananias et Saphira (Ac 5:1–11) dans la stratégie narrative de Luc,” NTS 39 (1993): 222–224, who contends that the account of Ananias and Sapphira is a midrash of the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3; it was the church’s original sin. It is for this reason, he contends in a separate article, that this should not be seen as normative, but belongs solely to the time of the origins of the church (Daniel Marguerat, “Terreur dans l’Église: Le drame d’Ananias et Saphira [Actes 5:1–11],” FoiVie 91 [1992]: 88). Cf. Pervo, Acts, 135. For a solid refutation of Marguerat’s thesis, see O’Toole, “You Did Not Lie to Us,” 201–202. Instead of attempting to find a specific parallel, it is more accurate to understand the account of Ananias and Sapphira has typical of how sin is treated at the outset of a particular phase in God’s salvation-historical plan; there is no need for Luke to have based his account on any single instance in the OT.

104

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

5:2). Barnabas’ gift is laudable, but the deceit which lies behind the gift of Ananias and Sapphira results in the death of both, with Sapphira literally falling dead at the feet of Peter (Acts 4:10). Selling one’s property to be used by the community demonstrates oneness of heart (Acts 4:32); Ananias allows his heart to be filled with Satan (Acts 4:3).92 An additional contrast exists between being filled with the Spirit (Acts 2:8; 4:8, 31; 6:3, 5, 8, 7:55; 9:17; 11:24; 13:9) and being filled with Satan.93 Following the account of the divine judgment upon Ananias and Sapphira, Luke relates that “at the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people” (Acts 5:12). Among these miracles may have included the healing of the sick simply by Peter’s shadow falling upon them as he passed by. 94 At least, this was the expectation of the crowds who gathered along the path Peter took, hoping that his shadow would heal them (Acts 5:15).95 Even if the crowds’ hope was unfounded, and Peter’s shadow did not heal them, this verse demonstrates that Peter had gained a reputation for having the ability to heal. In addition, the early Christians continued to meet at the portico of Solomon on the Temple Mount (Acts 5:12) which suggests that many of these healings were taking place in the center of power of the Jewish leadership. Predictably, Caiaphas and his fellow members of the Sadducees react, arresting the apostles as a group. That night, an angel frees the apostles and instructs them to return to the Temple. They do so at dawn and the Jewish leaders awaken to find the apostles continuing their teaching at the Temple. Once again, the apostles are arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin. Echoing the previous declaration of Peter and John (Acts 4:19–20), the apostles refuse to cease witnessing about Jesus, proclaiming they must obey God rather than human beings. Peter is highlighted by Luke—“Peter and the apostles answered” (Acts 5:29)—though this does not necessitate the conclusion that Peter is the leader of the Twelve. That Peter’s previous 92

Tannehill, Luke-Acts, 2:79; Fitzmyer, Acts, 323. Bock, Acts, 222. 94 Pieter W. van der Horst, “Peter’s Shadow: The Religio-Historical Backgrounds of Acts V. 15,” NTS 23 (1977): 204–212, contends that the shadow was viewed to be an extension of the person and that “Luke uses this concept of shadow in order to extol Peter’s healing power.” Cf. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 1:207. 95 Codex Bezae adds ἀπηλάσοντο γὰρ ἀπὸ πάσης ἀσθενείας ὡς εἶχεν ἕκαστος αὐτῶν (“For they were being set free from every sickness, such as each of them had.”) E has a similar statement, though with entirely different words. See Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, Third Edition (London: United Bible Societies, 1975), 330. Barrett, Acts, 1:276, observes that the difference in wording between D and E shows “that it was felt in more quarters than one that the miracle needed to be brought out” and therefore neither reading should be taken as original. 93

III. Peter in Jerusalem after Pentecost

105

declaration that the Jewish leaders, and the people in general, are responsible for the execution of God’s Messiah has made an impact is made clear by the Jewish leadership’s own complaint that the apostles “intend to bring this man’s blood upon us” (Acts 5:28). Of course, this is what the crowds had proclaimed at Jesus’ trial before Pilate (Matt 27:25). Peter accepts the accuracy of this charge, directly accusing them of putting Jesus to death, the Prince and Savior who came “to grant repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:30–31). While many want to execute the apostles, Gamaliel, a Pharisee, urges them to reconsider. He reasons that if God supports the apostles, it would be a mistake for the Jewish leadership to put them to death. On the other hand, if God is not on their side, then like the revolutionaries Theudas and Judas the Galilean, their movement would come to nothing. The rest of the Council takes Gamaliel’s advice, have the apostles flogged and then release them, again ordering them to stay silent. And, again, the apostles continue witnessing about Jesus the Messiah “in the Temple and from house to house” (Acts 5:42). A. Historicity of Acts 3–5 The healing of the paralytic in Acts 3:1–10 has multiple parallels with the account of Jesus’ healing of a paralytic in Luke 5:1–11 and Paul’s healing of a paralytic in Acts 14:8–18. Lüdemann contends that “since the healing stories in Acts 3 and 14 are so formally and linguistically similar, one must have been the source of the other.”96 However, similarities do not necessarily mean a single source; there is nothing which logically precludes Jesus, Peter, and Paul from each healing a paralytic and Luke structuring his accounts of these healings so as to highlight parallels. Dibelius contends that the missionary speeches of Acts 2, 3, and 5 are the “type of Christian sermon [which] seems to have been customary in the author’s day (about A.D. 90)”; however, his only argument is that he would not have included similar sermons “if he had not considered it as a type common to all Christians.”97 This does not preclude the possibility, of course, that it would have been just as appropriate for sermons to contain such vital information in the early church as well. Dibelius also claims that the agreement in Peter’s sermons “is so great that the question arises as to whether the author possessed something of this constantly recurring outline in written form.”98 Yet would it not be as likely that Peter himself would have included similar material each time he delivered an evangelistic sermon? In addition, Tannehill details five sig96

Lüdemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts, 62. Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography,” 165. 98 Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography,” 165. 97

106

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

nificant differences of content between Peter’s Pentecost and temple speeches, along with two areas in which the content is similar but the wording is different; “thus, the two speeches are complementary” but they are not identical.99 Zehnle argues that these differences suggest that Luke is drawing upon early Christian tradition.100 As with Peter’s Pentecost speech, Dunn observes that the Temple speech “has a distinctively primitive ring, particularly the titles used of Jesus. … The fact that he has evidently made an effort to uncover and use such material is a clear indication that he felt under some constraint in formulating such speeches.”101 Luke shows specific knowledge about Jerusalem and the temple (e.g., the Beautiful Gate and Solomon’s Colonnade).102 Hemer notes that Solomon’s Colonnade is mentioned in two different passages in Acts (3:11 and 5:12), which he offers as an example of the linking of “incidentals in different sections of the book, which seem to derive from different categories of source material.”103 In addition, Peter’s reference to the prominence of the Sadducees within the Temple (4:1; 5:17) demonstrates knowledge of pre-A.D. 70 Jewish politics.104 And mention is made of the unspecified John and Alexander among the high priest’s party, names which are unnecessary to the account and thus provide additional historical veracity to the passage.105 Regarding Acts 5:1–11, Conzelmann opines that “no historical kernel can be extracted” from Acts 5:1–11.106 Weiser only allows for the possibility of the death of Ananias and Sapphira, and discounts the remainder of the episode.107 Lüdemann disagrees, maintaining that the tradition of Ananias and Sapphira originates in the early church, with these members of the community being “anathematized and ostracized” by Peter.108 While he is uncertain as to the nature of the “sin” is, or whether the penalty was indeed death, he does believe that whatever the sin, death was mandated by “sacred law.” And while Haenchen argues that the tradition ended at verse 6

99

Tannehill, Luke-Acts, 2:58. Zehnle, Peter’s Pentecost Discourse, 71–94. 101 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 91–92. 102 Lüdemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts, 62. 103 Hemer, Book of Acts, 190. 104 Hemer, Book of Acts, 175. 105 Hemer, Book of Acts, 207. 106 Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 37. 107 Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 1:147–148. 108 Lüdemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts, 81. 100

III. Peter in Jerusalem after Pentecost

107

with verses 7–11 later added by Luke,109 Marguerat notes that redundancy is a “characteristic of popular rhetoric.”110 Bruce highlights the account of Acts 5:1–11 as an “example of Luke’s honesty as a narrator” and contends that Luke should be commended for not omitting “a discreditable story … as he might have done.”111 Fitzmyer is uncertain about the passage’s historicity, but does note that the specificity of names makes it likely that some truth lies behind this tradition.112 Very improbable is the suggestion by Philippe Menoud who argues that Ananias and Sapphira were the first two Christians to die and, as the early Christians believed Christ had abolished physical death and that the parousia was imminent, it was assumed that these two must have committed some heinous sin.113 Weiser attempts to reconstruct the original tradition, thus acknowledging that there is historical accuracy behind Acts 5:1–11, even though he believes Luke adds the shared guilt and death of Sapphira.114 Many commentators on Acts 5:36 claim that Luke has made an error. Josephus, in A.J. 20.97–98, describes the uprising of a Theudas during the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus from A.D. 44–46. Yet Caiaphas is removed from the high priesthood in A.D. 37. In addition, Luke has Gamaliel place the uprising of Theudas prior to that of Judas the Galilean (A.D. 6). Peterson notes that as there were four bandits called Simon and three called Judas during a short period of time, “there could certainly have been more than one Theudas.”115 B. Summary of Peter’s Characterization in Acts 3–5 While Peter is still Jesus’ servant, he has now taken over many of Jesus’ roles in the community. He continues to boldly proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and does so in the Temple courts, in plain view of the Jewish leadership. When arrested, he insists upon continuing to preach, undaunted by any threats or punishments that the Jewish leaders may dole out. No sign of the unfaithfulness which accompanied his denials is to be found; he 109

Haenchen, Acts, 1:241. Daniel Marguerat, The First Christian Historian: Writing the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ (trans. Ken McKinney, Gregory J. Laughery, and Richard Bauckham; SNTSMS 121; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 156. 111 Bruce, Acts, 131. 112 Fitzmyer, Acts, 35. 113 Philippe H. Menoud, “La mort d’Ananias et de Saphira (Actes 5,1–11),” in Aux sources de la Tradition Chrétienne: Mélanges offerts à M. Maurice Goguel (ed. Oscar Cullmann; Bibliothèque théologique. Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1950), 146–154. 114 Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 1:143. 115 Peterson, Acts, 225 n. 66. Cf. Hemer, Book of Acts, 162–163; Schnabel, Acts, 315– 316. 110

108

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

believes it is the will of God that he preach, and so he does. Also like Jesus, he has repeatedly acted as an authoritative interpreter of the Scriptures and has healed a lame man. With Ananias and Sapphira, he demonstrates knowledge of the inner thoughts of others and makes prophetic predictions which are immediately fulfilled.116 Of course, a significant difference remains: Peter depends upon Jesus. He heals by the name of Jesus, not by his own power (Acts 3:6, 12, 16; 4:10). His boldness is made possible by being “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 4:8); he inspires the believers as a whole to seek strength in prayer, depending upon God for continued boldness (Acts 4:29–31), and not, notably, for protection. And Peter recognizes that his own denials had needed to be forgiven, and were forgiven, just as his audience’s denying (ἀρνέοµαι) of Jesus (Acts 3:13–14) must and can be forgiven (Acts 3:19).117 Therefore, though he follows the example of Jesus’ leadership, he does so only while remaining a disciple of Jesus. He is not the master. To use the language of 1 Peter 5:1–4, Peter recognizes himself as a shepherd (ποίµνιον), but Jesus as the Chief Shepherd (ἀρχιποίµην). This is a significant distinction for this study. Peter views himself as implementing Jesus’ will, not following his own will. He will persist in proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, even if it conflicts with what may appear to be a more expedient choice.

IV. Peter in Samaria, Lydda, and Joppa (Acts 8:14–24; 9:32–43) IV. Peter in Samaria, Lydda, and Joppa Luke does not specifically mention Peter in connection with Stephen or the resulting persecution (Acts 6:1–8:3) nor in his discussion of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26–30). It is improbable that he was completely absent from these events. He was certainly involved in the appointment of seven men to assist in the daily distribution of food to the Greek-speaking Jewish Christians (Acts 6:1–6) and Paul relates in his epistle to the Galatians that he met Peter in Jerusalem (1:18). 116

O’Toole, “You Did Not Lie to Us,” 188. Tannehill, Luke-Acts, 2:57–58, succinctly observes that Peter “is trying to convey the new and revolutionary understanding that removed his own blind ignorance when he was instructed by the risen Christ. Futhermore, Peter accuses the Jerusalem Jews of having “denied” Jesus yet is himself a reformed denier. Peter’s record suggests that he knows something of the need and possibility of repentance and can speak to his audience from this experience.” Cf. Dennis Hamm, “Acts 3:12–26: Peter’s Speech and the Healing of the Man Born Lame,” PRSt 11 (1984): 207. 117

IV. Peter in Samaria, Lydda, and Joppa

109

As a result of the persecution which followed the martyrdom of Stephen, Philip (one of the Seven appointed in Acts 6:5) travels to the city of Samaria and preaches to its inhabitants about the Messiah. Philip performs multiple signs and healings, with many believing and being baptized. When the Twelve hear what Philip is doing, they sent Peter and John to investigate. After arriving, the two apostles pray and the Holy Spirit fills these new Samaritan believers. With “the acceptance extended by the formal delegation of the Jerusalem apostles signif[ying] the acceptance of the Samaritans into the restored people of God,”118 the second part of the Great Commission (Acts 1:8) is beginning to be fulfilled. The involvement of Peter and John was not required, as Thiede contends, “to pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit” which occurred after these two apostles laid hands upon the Samaritan believers.119 The Spirit is not dependent upon the presence of certain individuals. Rather, the delay of the Spirit’s filling of the Samaritans until the arrival of Peter and John was so that Philip’s Samaritan mission would not be seen as independent, but rather as directly connected with the Jerusalem Christian church. “The result is a cooperative mission in which an established church affirms and contributes to the establishment of new churches.”120 This does not minimize Philip’s own work, as Haenchen suggests,121 but was necessary so that the churches established by Philip were not viewed as unconnected with Jerusalem. Likely, it was for this visible demonstration of unity that God withheld the imparting of the Spirit upon the Samaritan believers. The Gospel was expanding beyond previous boundaries, from the Jews to the Samaritans, and it was essential for representatives of the Twelve to both see this expansion with their own eyes as well as return to testify regarding the work of the Spirit before the rest of the Christian community. Although he does not yet know it, Peter is also being prepared for a further expansion to the Gentiles which will occur shortly thereafter. Peter’s leadership within the church is also emphasized. Schnabel observes that Peter “had an unique salvation-historical role” as the first disciple to proclaim Jesus as Messiah (Luke 9:20), thus being appointed the “foundation stone” of the church. In addition, “he is the ‘typical’ disciple, with regard both to his responsibility and to his failures.” Consequently Peter’s role in the expansion of the Gospel to the Samaritans can be di118

Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, 129. Thiede, Simon Peter, 131. Cf. Dschulnigg, Petrus, 102. 120 Tannehill, Luke-Acts, 2:104. Cf. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 1:275. Schnabel, Acts, 411, agrees, adding that such an official confirmation by the leadership of the Jewish Christian church in Jerusalem was important due to the long-standing animosity which had existed between Jews and Samaritans. 121 Haenchen, Acts, 304. 119

110

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

rectly linked to Jesus’ declaration that Peter would be given the “keys of the kingdom”; it is he who “shares the ‘power of the keys’ with the church.”122 One of these Samaritan believers was a magician named Simon. Following the filling of the Holy Spirit, he asks to purchase the power of imparting the Holy Spirit on others from Peter and John. Peter harshly rebukes Simon and urges him to repent. Simon is here contrasted with Peter; whereas Peter consistently gives credit to the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 3:6, 13, 16; 4:10; 9:34; 10:48), Simon claims “to be someone great” (Acts 8:9) and appears to have desired the ability to impart the Spirit to others to further promote himself. Other healings of Peter are also recorded by Luke. On what was likely a tour of Christian communities perhaps established by Philip (Acts 8:40), Peter heals two individuals who themselves were probably Christians, a paralytic named Aeneas in Lydda (Acts 9:32–35) and a devout woman named Tabitha in Joppa (Acts 9:36–42). In both instances many who saw and heard about these healings were converted. The very fact that he considered it important to visit other Christian churches shows his understanding that his pastoral responsibility for Jesus’ flock is beginning to extend beyond Jerusalem itself, though Dunn is correct that it does not appear that Peter had “yet taken the plunge or caught up with Philip in readiness to engage in pioneer mission work.”123 Lydda and Joppa were both predominantly Jewish cities; in contrast to Philip, Peter’s journey appears to have been intended to remain apart from non-Jewish territory. 124 It is unlikely that Caesarea would have been an intended destination for Peter. In Joppa, Peter stayed at the house of Simon the tanner. Simon’s profession may be of relevance to Peter’s imminent vision regarding the concept of clean and unclean. There are indications that the profession of tanners was itself unclean (cf. m. Ketub. 7:10; b. Pesaḥ 65a; b. Qidd. 82b).125 However, Chris Miller rightly notes: “As long as the tanner avoided the carcasses of animals that had died on their own, he would be as clean as any other Israelite. Thus, while the tanner may have been on the lower end of the social scale, he was not a religious out-

122

Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:396. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 382. 124 Martin Hengel, “The Geography of Palestine in Acts,” in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (ed. Richard Bauckham; BAFCS 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 59–63. 125 Martin Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 93; Witherington, Acts, 333; Peterson, Acts, 328. 123

IV. Peter in Samaria, Lydda, and Joppa

111

cast.”126 Peter’s decision to lodge with a tanner is not indicative that he “had come part of the way towards meeting with people regarded as ritually unclean and eating with them.”127 Rather, it shows that Peter had learned from Jesus’ example of accepting and ministering to the outcasts of society, and, if for no other reason, the acrid smells that came from the home of a tanner would have made Simon the tanner a person few people wanted to visit.128 It is possible, however, that its close proximity to Gentile territory may have made it more likely that Peter considered the relationship between Gentiles and the Gospel.129 A. Historicity of Acts 8:14–24; 9:32–43 Dunn makes an important historical point regarding the lack of certain Petrine traditions in Acts (specifically, the Stephen episode with the resulting persecution of 6:1–8:3 and Paul’s visit to Jerusalem in 9:26–30). Had Luke regularly added material to the traditions he found, it would have been logical for him to insert Peter into these two sections; the fact that he does not is further confirmation that Luke is remaining faithful to these traditions. This is especially apparent if Luke had knowledge of Galatians 1:18, which specifically mentions Paul meeting Peter, yet does not specifically name Peter in his description of Paul’s stay in Jerusalem (Acts 9:26–30).130 Regarding Acts 8:14–24, the attribution of the Samaritan mission to Philip and not to one of the Twelve is evidence that Luke is drawing upon historical tradition. Had he simply invented the passage, why not have Peter and John initiate this mission?131 And, as Witherington observes, if it is acknowledged that the author of Acts (Luke) was one of Paul’s companions in the “we” passages, then Luke would have met Philip himself (Acts 21:8–10), and therefore Luke’s “source” may have simply been his own personal notes taken from this encounter.132

126

Chris A. Miller, “Did Peter’s Vision in Acts 10 Pertain to Men or the Menu?” BibSac 159 (2002): 304. Cf. Schnabel, Acts, 471, who agrees, but acknowledges that tanners “were often scorned.” 127 Peterson, Acts, 328. 128 Miller, “Did Peter’s Vision in Acts 10 Pertain to Men or the Menu?” 304. 129 Witherington, Acts, 330: “Peter was traveling in increasingly more Hellenized territory, and so we should not be surprised that it was in this sort of locale that the question of Gentiles and the Christian faith seems to first have arisen in a significant way” Cf. Bock, Acts, 376–377; Hilary Le Cornu and Joseph Shulam, A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Acts (Jerusalem: Academon, 2003), 1:542–543. 130 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 378. 131 Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 1:199. 132 Witherington, Acts, 280.

112

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

Regarding Acts 9:32–43, the inclusion of personal names (Aeneas, Tabitha, Simon the tanner) is a strong indication of tradition.133 Regarding Simon in particular, the fact that Luke uses the same name as Peter’s original name is best explained by Luke following his sources, rather than inventing a name. For why would he have chosen a name which could be easily confused with Peter? 134 And the fact that Luke refers to Lydda and Joppa, which were populated largely by Jews in the mid-first century, as opposed to other cities on the coastal plain which were more predominantly Gentile, makes it unlikely that Luke simply chose two cities in which to locate this narrative.135 Pervo contends that “whatever source Luke had for the story of Tabitha did not derive from an earlier period [than the world of the Apostolic Fathers and the Pastorals], for it presumes communities that have bodies of widows.”136 Yet there is no reason to assume that Luke is connecting Tabitha with an order of widows. It is just as likely that she was simply ministering to various widows, regardless of whether she was a widow herself or part of any official organization.137 B. Summary of Peter’s Characterization in Acts 8:14–24; 9:32–43 Once again, Peter is depicted as a key leader in the church, who goes with John to verify Philip’s mission to the Samaritans. The establishment of unity between the Jerusalem and Samaritan Christians is important to Peter; it will become even more significant when Peter is led by God to include the Gentiles as well. Peter demonstrates his integrity in his refusal of a bribe from Simon and his public condemnation of him for making the offer. And he demonstrates his care for the sheep with whom Jesus has entrusted him with his tour of local Christian communities outside of Jerusalem and his healing of Aeneas and Tabitha.

133

Pervo, Acts, 252 n. 6; Conzelmann, Acts, 76, appears to agree with this general assessment, noting that “in ancient miracle stories names are almost entirely lacking. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 381, adds to this point the name of Aeneas as well as the specific locations of Lydda, Sharon, and Joppa. 134 Barrett, Acts, 1:486. Contra Lüdemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts, 1237 n. 7. 135 Hengel, “The Geography of Palestine in Acts,” 59–61. 136 Pervo, Acts, 254. 137 Witherington, Acts, 333.

V. Peter and Cornelius

113

V. Peter and Cornelius (Acts 10:1–11:18) V. Peter and Cornelius To this point, the specific issue of Gentile salvation has not emerged. Though Jesus had at times ministered to Gentiles, there is no evidence that any of them had become his disciples. Though it is true that there are examples of Gentiles “believing” (e.g. the nobleman of John 4:53), this is different from becoming a disciple of Jesus. The nobleman, for example, returned to his household, and no mention is ever made of him again. The same is essentially true in Acts prior to Cornelius; while it is not impossible that the Ethiopian eunuch was a Gentile, his interaction with the Christian community was limited to a brief encounter with Philip.138 There was thus no precedent for a Gentile converting to the Gospel of Christ and joining the community of His disciples. In addition, as discussed above,139 such passages as Acts 2:17, 39; 3:25 may have been retrospectively understood by Luke to infer that God’s plan of salvation would include the Gentiles qua Gentiles. But Peter’s understanding was not yet this developed; as will be discussed in the ensuing pages, it would require a direct intervention by God for him to recognize that they should be made equal partners in the kingdom of God. And it is only because of this realization that an intentional mission to the Gentiles became possible. A. Second Temple Judaism and Gentiles At this point in Jewish history, Gentiles were broadly considered impure and unclean; scholars are, however, in disagreement as to whether it was universally held within Second Temple Judaism that a Jew would become impure by associating and/or eating with a Gentile. Philip Esler strongly argues that this was indeed the case.140 Others caution against a monolithic understanding of this issue, contending instead that there was wide vari138

Tannehill, Luke-Acts, 2:134–135, contends that “the episode of the Ethiopian eunuch undermines the view that the narrator wishes to make Peter responsible for the first gentile convert.” While it is true that the fact that “references to the eunuch worshiping in Jerusalem and reading Scripture do not make him a Jew” (134 n. 15), neither is there any contextual affirmation that he is a Gentile. Had Luke desired to focus upon the Ethiopian eunuch’s identity as a Gentile, he could have easily done so; the fact that he does not leaves the matter ambiguous. Cornelius is the first individual specifically identified as a Gentile, to be converted; this must be understood as intentional on the part of Luke. Cf. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts, 171. As to Luke’s reason for including this episode, Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, 141–142, argues that the emphasis should be placed on the man’s status as a eunuch rather than his Ethiopian origin, “as a sign that points to the place of the outcasts [which included eunuchs] in the reconstituted people of God” (141) thus fulfilling Isa 56:3–5. 139 See pp. 91–94, 97–99. 140 Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, 73–86.

114

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

ance amongst Jews, with some avoiding Gentiles entirely and others adopting a much more liberal stance.141 Some intertestamental literature does suggest that many Jews did eat with Gentiles. Judith “took what her maid had prepared and ate and drank” with Holofernes, the commander of the Assyrian army (Judith 12:19; NRSV). And while Tobit was adamant about not eating with the Gentiles, he characterizes himself as the exception to the rule: “everyone of my kindred and my people ate the food of the Gentiles” (1:11; NRSV). In addition, Gentiles were allowed within the outer court of the Temple. While this did not involve table fellowship, it did involve association between Jews and Gentiles. L. Ann Jervis suggests that “the population density of the ancient city and the closeness of village life would have made social contact between Jew and Gentile inevitable.”142 Jervis also observes that those Jews who were involved in city affairs would have needed to engage in table fellowship with Gentiles. She pointedly offers the example of the synagogue of Sardis, upon which are inscribed names of men (presumed to be Jewish) who had performed various vows, some of whom were members of the bouletarion, and two of which were citizens of Sardis.143 However, while this may have been true for a metropolitan center such as Antioch or Sardis, it was likely not true in areas which were primarily populated by Jews, such as Jerusalem and Galilee. As Peter and James are far more accustomed to these Jewish-dominated areas, while likely having spent little time in Gentile-dominated areas, observations about Jew-Gentile fellowship in the Diaspora are not as relevant in evaluating their views regarding fellowship with Gentiles. In addition, there is ample evidence that many Jews strongly objected to Jews associating or eating with Gentiles. While there was no actual Jewish halakhah which declared the Gentiles to be impure, they “were treated as 141 Stephen G. Wilson, Luke and the Law (SNTSMS 50; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 69–70; Peter J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature 1; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 230–236; Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 117–122; Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches, 56–61; E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE. (London: SCM, 1992), 265–267; Le Cornu and Shulam, Acts, 1:574–578; Clinton L. Wahlen, “Peter’s Vision and Conflicting Definitions of Purity,” NTS 51 (2005): 506–508. 142 L. Ann Jervis, “Peter in the Middle” in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity (ed. Stephen G. Wilson and Michel Desjardins; Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier, 2000), 48. Cf. Paula Fredriksen, “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2,” JTS 42 (1991): 554. 143 Jervis, “Peter in the Middle,” 49.

V. Peter and Cornelius

115

impure.”144 Thus do Jesus’ accusers refuse to enter the Praetorium in Jerusalem, the residence of the Roman governor, “so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover” (John 18:28). Similarly, both Juvenal and Tacitus record that Jews regularly refused to associate with Gentiles.145 This attitude is likewise evidenced in Jub. 22:16: “Keep yourself separate from the nations, and do not eat with them; and do not imitate their rituals, nor associate with them.” Nowhere was this isolation more profound than engaging in table fellowship with Gentiles. Interestingly, there is no prohibition in the Mosaic Law against eating with a Gentile. The Law simply forbids a Jew from eating certain foods. But since Gentiles were associated with uncleanliness, and often ate nonkosher food, this led many Jews to decide to abstain from eating with Gentiles entirely. In addition, many Jews who may have countenanced interaction with Gentiles in public places would have held eating at the same table with a Gentile to be taboo, with eating in the actual house of a Gentile being doubly prohibited (m.’Ohal. 18:7). Jacob Neusner characterizes the Pharisees as a “table-fellowship sect”146 and concludes that, of the 341 rabbinical rulings in this period, “no fewer than 229 directly or indirectly pertain to table-fellowship, approximately 67% of the whole.”147 According to b. Sanh. 104a, any Jew eating with a Gentile would bring exile upon his children. In essence, the Pharisees had concluded that in the eating of ordinary meals they must observe the biblical laws “as if one were a temple priest.”148 While the above evidence from the Mishnah and Talmud is late, it may very well be an accurate depiction of daily life in first-century Judea and Galilee. Utilizing the social-scientific work of Fredrik Barth, Philip Esler makes the compelling observation that, in order for an ethnic group to survive intact in another society, there must be some areas in which social intercourse is permitted and others where it is forbidden.149 This explains 144 Sanders, Judaism, 75. Cf. Gedalia Alon, “The Levitical Uncleanness of Gentiles,” in Jews, Judaism and the Classical World (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977), 146–189; Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, 84–85. 145 The Law of Moses “tells them not to show the way to anyone except a fellow worshipper and if asked, to take only the circumcised to the fountain” (Juvenal, Sat. 14:104). “They will not feed or intermarry with gentiles … [t]hey have introduced the practice of circumcision to show that they are different from others” (Tacitus, Hist. 5.5). 146 Jacob Neusner, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1973), 80. 147 Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (vol. 2; Leiden: Brill, 1971), 297. 148 Neusner, From Politics to Piety, 83. 149 Philip Francis Esler, Galatians (New Testament Readings; London: Routledge, 1998), 78–92.

116

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

the evidence for interaction between Jews and Gentiles in business transactions, for example, while still maintaining that there existed a strict prohibition against open table fellowship.150 Esler likewise insists that participation in the Eucharist with Gentiles would have been highly problematic for Jewish Christians, as it involved the sharing of vessels (and the food and drink on/in these vessels) with those who were ritually unclean.151 However, the view that vessels became unclean after being touched by ritually unclean hands had been rejected by Jesus (Mark 7:1–23). More complex is the prohibition against any uncircumcised male from sharing in the Passover festival (Exod 12:43–49). As the Eucharist was directly associated with Passover, a law-observant Jew could object to eating this specific meal with Gentiles. There is also a tendency within Jewish writings to link Gentiles with idolatry, and that avoidance of the latter required avoidance of the former.152 Leviticus 20:26 states that there must be a distinction between clean and unclean animals for God has “set you apart from the peoples to be mine.” Daniel and his friends exhibit this behavior when they refuse to eat anything but vegetables (Dan 1:8–16; cf. Esth 14:17), thus avoiding the consumption of meat sacrificed to idols. Similarly, Tobit abstained from eating the food of the Gentiles, “because I was mindful of God with all my heart” (1:12). This connection between food and idolatry can also be seen in the second century B.C. Letter to Aristeas (128–143), which claims that the dietary laws were given by God specifically to keep the Jews separate from the other nations. Likewise, in Joseph and Aseneth (thought to be composed sometime between the first century B.C. and second century A.D.), Joseph initially eats at his own table and refuses to kiss Aseneth because she had eaten “from their [idols’] table bread of strangulation and drank from their libation a cup” (8:5), but reverses this practice once she converts to Judaism. As Bauckham concludes: Entering a Gentile’s house was to enter the Gentile’s sphere of life, where Gentile ways prevail, where all of life is implicated in idolatry, where immoral practices are routine. …

150 B. Shab 150a discusses such provisions for business relationships between Jews and Gentiles. Although a later text, there must have been similar provisions in the first century, especially in metropolitan cities where Jews would be practically obligated to interact with Gentiles on certain occasions. 151 Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, 73–86; idem, Galatians, 101; idem, The First Christians in Their Social Worlds: Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation (London: Routledge, 1994), 63–64, 68. 152 Gordon J. Wenham, “The Theology of Unclean Food,” EvQ 53 (1981): 9–15; E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London, SCM, 1990), 272–283; Bauckham, “James, Peter, and the Gentiles,” 110.

V. Peter and Cornelius

117

[C]ontamination by proximity is likely, even inevitable, even though the contamination is 153 not, as in the case of ritual impurity, conveyed by physical contact.”

Thus, there were a variety of positions amongst Jews regarding table fellowship with Gentiles, with no single position held by every single firstcentury Jew. Bockmuehl is likely correct that the view of any particular Jew depended “on one’s halakhic stance and perhaps one’s geographic location.”154 Jews who lived in predominantly Gentile areas would have found it difficult not to accommodate to some degree; those Jews who lived in a city such as Jerusalem, where Gentiles were a minority, would have had fewer occasions to confront such an issue. It remains to be seen how Peter himself would have viewed Gentiles prior to his Joppa vision in Acts 10. B. Peter and His Pre-Joppa Views on Gentiles While Peter certainly would have had come into contact with Gentiles in his youth (either in the Gentile town of Bethsaida or in Capernaum which was situated just across the border in Galilee), such interaction had probably been limited in the years leading up to his vision at Joppa. While Jesus did occasionally visit “Gentile lands” (Mark 7:24–8:26), healed the daughter of a Gentile woman (Mark 7:24–30; Matt 15:21–28) and praised a centurion’s faith (Matt 8:5–13), he, with Peter following him, focused the majority of his ministry amongst the Jews. And there is no indication that Peter interacted with Gentiles following Easter and Pentecost until his vision at Joppa. It does appear that Peter understood Jesus’ emphasis upon associating with unclean Jews (sinners, sick and dying, woman with a blood discharge) as evidenced by his own healing of the sick in Acts;155 but any teaching by Jesus that Gentiles should likewise be associated with was not entertained by Peter until his vision at Joppa. Barrett claims that the only difficulty incurred by a Jew who ate with a Gentile was that the former would become ritually unclean by contact with the latter.156 However, Peter’s statement does not allow this interpretation; if such association only led to temporary defilement, Peter would have simply considered eating with Gentiles to be one thing amongst many in the Law which made a person temporarily unclean (such as touching a woman during her period of menstrual impurity: Lev 15:20) and for which the Law provided means to become cleansed. Also, Jesus had already 153

Bauckham, “James, Peter, and the Gentiles,” 112. Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches, 58. 155 Daniel J. Scholz, “‘Rise, Peter, Kill and Eat’: Eating Unclean Food and Dining with Unclean People in Acts 10:1–11:18,” Proceedings – Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 22 (2002): 50–55. 156 Barrett, Acts, 1:515. 154

118

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

demonstrated to Peter that eating with those deemed to be unclean and common (such as sinners and tax-collectors) was permissible. There thus existed for Peter an additional barrier to eating with a Gentile. The key, here, is to recognize that the impurity of Gentiles was moral, not ritual, as ritual impurity only applied to Jews.157 And herein lay a significant myopia in Jewish beliefs about Gentiles; they assumed that all Gentiles were immoral simply by being Gentiles. There was seemingly no consideration given regarding a different status for Gentiles who were not idolatrous, but were rather God-fearers, practicing such pious acts as praying to the God of Israel and giving alms as was practiced by Cornelius (Acts 10:2).158 If such Gentiles were not morally impure, how could they be considered unclean? And can they still be considered common/profane?159 Yet, given Peter’s initial statement to Cornelius – “You are well aware that it is against our law (ἀθέµιτος160) for a Jew to associate (κολλάο161)

157 Jonathan Klawans, “Notions of Gentile Impurity in Ancient Judaism,” AJSR 20 (1995): 285–312; Bauckham, “James, Peter, and the Gentiles,” 91–93; Schnabel, Acts, 490, 492, 496. Contra Alon, “Levitical Uncleanness of Gentiles,” 146–189; Dunn, “Incident at Antioch,” 18. 158 On God-fearers, cf. Josephus B.J. 2.462–3; 7:45; C. Ap. 2.282; Witherington, Acts, 341–344; Irina Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting (BAFCS 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 51–126. Bruce, Acts, 217, asserts without evidence that “even a moderately orthodox Jew would not willingly enter the dwelling of a Gentile, Godfearer though he were.” This may have been true, but it is difficult to know what, if any, distinction was made between God-fearing Gentiles and the traditional pagan Gentile. 159 Bauckham, “Peter, James, and the Gentiles,” 101, contends that “logically such righteous Gentiles [who have repented of idolatry and other immorality characteristic of Gentiles] would be pure, both ritually and morally, but still profane.” Bauckham also notes that the fact that Cornelius’ piety did not change the understanding of Jewish law for either Peter or the Jerusalem church “suggests that in the land of Israel there was, in fact, no general recognition of a category of righteous Gentiles occupying a third position” (114). 160 The meaning of the term ἀθέµιτος is unclear. According to Wilson, Luke and the Law, 69: “It refers basically to an action which defiles the divine order (θέµις) of the universe rather than the law (νόµος). Thus it can refer generally to anything which is ‘godless’ or ‘abominable’ (1 Pet. 4:3; Did. 16:4; 1 Clem 63:2; II Macc. 10:34; Jos. Bell. I.84, 659; VI.209) but is frequently used to describe an act contradictory to Jewish law (II Macc. 7:1; Jos. Bell. I.650; II.131; IV.99, 205; Vit. 26; Ap. II.119).” Wilson suggests that the term refers to “a matter of ingrained custom and practice, rather than the result of legal prescription” (70). An intermediary option – that the term referred to halakhic interpretations of the Law which were viewed as binding upon those who accepted these interpretations – is also possible. Regardless of which option is chosen, it remains clear that, prior to his vision, Peter had believed a righteous Jew should not associate or eat with Gentiles. Bauckham, “Peter, James, and the Gentiles,” 108, opines that “while ἀθέµιτος is rare in the Septuagint (3 times in 2 Maccabees, once in 3 Maccabees) and in

V. Peter and Cornelius

119

with a Gentile or visit him” (Acts 10:28a) – it is apparent that regardless of how other Jews may have thought about interacting with Gentiles, it had been Peter’s conviction that Gentiles should be avoided. This is not just a matter of what food Cornelius may have served; while it would have been possible for Cornelius to have food purchased at a kosher market, Peter would not have known this in advance (and he does not inquire) and Cornelius was still a Gentile. In addition, Cornelius was either an active or retired Roman officer who would have been obligated to participate in pagan rituals.162 Peter may thus be politely stating “that he should not be consorting with an officer of the Roman army and his friends, who would likely be defiled by adultery, despite their piety and despite their good reputation among local Jews.”163 C. The Link between Table Fellowship and Communal Unity The importance of mixed table fellowship cannot be overstated. “The act of eating was the primary activity in which all members of the [ancient] household participated.”164 As Mary Douglas relates: “If food is treated as a code, the message it encodes will be found in the pattern of social relations being expressed. The message is about the different degrees of hierarchy, inclusion, and exclusion, boundaries and transactions across the boundaries.”165 Applied to Jewish food laws, this means that any separation in the area of table fellowship would result in the establishment of the superiority of the Jewish Christian community over the Gentile Christian community and a boundary between the two which would be an irreconcilable barrier to unity. Table fellowship was an integral part of many organizations in the Greco-Roman world. Philosophical discussions were often directly associthe New Testament (Acts 10:28; 1 Pet 4:3 only), it may be significant that most of these few occurrences concern ways in which Jews were distinguished from Gentiles.” 161 Kολλάο does not have the simple sense of interacting with someone, but rather “to join closely together, bind closely, unite; to be closely associated, cling to, attach to” (BDAG, s.v. “κολλάο,” 556). 162 To cite just one example, this was made very clear to the Jews in Jerusalem when military standards bearing the images of the emperor were brought into Jerusalem (B.J. 2:169; A.J. 18.55). 163 Schnabel, Acts, 497; cf. Bauckman, “Peter, James, and the Gentiles,” 100–102, 113, who adds that God-fearers who resided in Israel carried the additional onus of potentially defiling the land. 164 David W. Pao, “Family and Table Fellowship in the Writings of Luke,” in This Side of Heaven: Race, Ethnicity, and Christian Faith (ed. Robert J. Priest and Alvaro L. Nieves; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 186. 165 Mary Douglas, “Deciphering a Meal,” in Myth, Symbol, and Culture (ed. Clifford Geertz; New York: Norton, 1971), 61.

120

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

ated with formal banquets, such as described in the Symposia of Plato and Xenophon.166 According to Plutarch: “A guest comes to share not only meat, wine, and dessert, but conversation, fun, and the amiability that leads to friendship.” (Quaest. Conv. 612D)167 Table fellowship was equally important in Second Temple Judaism.168 As Dennis Smith observes: “In the Greco-Roman world … more often than not the central social activity that served to exemplify group identity and solidarity was the communal meal. The same was true in the case of several Jewish groups that had an identifiable and separate social identity.” 169 Blomberg makes a similar contention that is even more relevant to the discussion at hand: in Second Temple Judaism, “table fellowship could create intimate friendship, so it was increasingly reserved for those whom a person deemed the right kind of companions, who ate the right kinds of food.”170 Commensality is also a significant theme in the Gospels, and Luke in particular, with a special emphasis upon eating with those considered unclean and unholy. 171 The Last Supper was especially impactful upon the disciples in that it became a regular meal of remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ.172 Eating at the same table would be a focal point of Christian community in the early church as well. Following Pentecost, Luke describes that the followers of Jesus “were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” and “breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart” (Acts 2:42, 46). The breaking of bread in Acts 2 is likely reminiscent of the symbolic breaking of bread during the Last Supper (Mark 14:22; Matt 26:26; Luke 22:19).173 Heil ob166

Dennis E. Smith, “Table Fellowship as a Literary Motif in the Gospel of Luke,” JBL 106 (1987): 614–616. Cf., idem, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 13–131. 167 Cf. Philo, Contempl. 57, 64. 168 Jacob Neusner, “Two Pictures of the Pharisees: Philosophical Circle or Eating Club,” ATR 64 (1982): 525–538; Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, 133–172. 169 Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, 267. Cf. idem, “Table Fellowship,” 633. For a discussion of table fellowship within specific Jewish groups, such as the Pharisees, ḥaverim, Essenes, and Therapeutae, see idem, From Symposium to Eucharist, 150–159. 170 Craig L. Blomberg, “Jesus, Sinners, and Table Fellowship,” BBR 19 (2009): 44. 171 Mark 2:13–17; 14:3, 12–31; Matt 8:11–12; 9:11; 11:19; 22:1–14; 26:6–7; Luke 5:27–32; 7:34, 36–39; 12:36–37; 13:29; 14:1, 7–24; 19:1–9; 22:30; 24:30, 35; John 12:2. 172 Mark 14:12–31; Matt 26:20–35; Luke 22:14–38; John 13–17; cf. 1 Cor 10:16–17; 11:23–34. 173 Philippe H. Menoud, Jesus Christ and the Faith: A Collection of Studies (PTMS 18; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978), 87–89; Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, 253; Barrett, Acts, 2:165; Fitzmyer, Acts, 271; Witherington, Acts, 160–161. Contra Haenchen, Acts, 584, who views these as common meals. But even if Luke is not referring specifically to the celebration of the Eucharist in Acts 2:42–47, Paul clearly describes that these

V. Peter and Cornelius

121

serves that this commensality of Acts 2:42–47 “presents the audience with an ideal of meal fellowship that accords with Jesus’ teaching against the kind of meal fellowship that serves oneself by promoting individualistic honors and social reciprocity (Luke 14:7–14).”174 This is a unifying act; rich and poor eat together at the same table. Indeed, the first difficulty in the early church arose over the distribution of food to widows of Greekspeaking Jews, who presumably ate in different homes from those of the Aramaic-speaking members of the Twelve (Acts 6:1–3). And Paul would eat with Gentiles frequently (Acts 16:14–15, 25–34; 18:7–11). D. The Transformation of Peter (Acts 10:1–48) While praying on the roof of the home of Simon the tanner in Joppa, Peter receives a divine vision.175 A sheet of animals of all kinds (presumably both kosher and non-kosher) descends from the sky and a voice orders Peter to “Kill and eat.” Peter demurs: “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean (κοινὸν καὶ ἀκάθαρτον)” (Acts 10:14).176 His refusal is reminiscent of the impulsiveness of his previous protestations to various statements of Jesus (Mark 8:32 and par.; Mark 14:29, 31 and par.; John 13:8), and is in contrast to Cornelius who accepts his own vision without provision.177 It is also characteristic of prominent Jewish heroes such as Daniel who would not eat the meat or wine of Nebuchadnezzar or Tobit who refused to eat the bread of the Gentiles (Dan 1:8– 16; Tobit 1:10–13). Peter thus may have believed he was being tested and the correct response was to refuse to eat foods he believed were unholy and unclean.178 meals were taking place (1 Cor 11:20–30) and there is no reason to believe they would be any less important in Antioch as in Corinth. 174 John Paul Heil, The Meal Scenes in Luke-Acts: An Audience-Oriented Approach (SBLMS 52; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 240. Cf. Alan C. Mitchell, “The Social Function of Friendship in Acts 2:44–47 and 4:32–37,” JBL 111 (1992): 266– 272; David Lertis Matson, Household Conversion Narratives in Acts: Pattern and Interpretation (JSNTSup 123; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 111–112. 175 Roloff’s suggestion that the voice was “a demonic temptation” which Peter felt obliged to disobey (Apostelgeschichte, 169) is belied by Peter’s identification of this voice as κύριε, a term of respect that Peter would be unlikely to give to an entity he believed to be evil. 176 Notably, this is the first discussion in the Luke-Acts corpus over the issue of clean and unclean, as Luke does not include Jesus’ own challenge of these laws (cf. Mark 7:1– 23). Luke perhaps concluded that his “orderly account” would be best served by introducing it here instead (see Dunn, Acts, 132). 177 Ronald D. Witherup, “Cornelius Over and Over and Over Again: ‘Functional Redundancy’ in the Acts of the Apostles,” JSNT 49 (1993): 49. 178 Witherington, Acts, 350; Bock, Acts, 389.

122

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

Peterson accuses Peter of failing “to evaluate the challenge (of keeping kashrut) in the light of Jesus’ practice and teaching (cf. Mk. 7:1–23; Mt. 15:1–20).”179 While it is indeed apparent that Peter has not reconsidered whether the Mosaic food laws are still applicable, this does not fully explain Peter’s false understanding. Even had he determined that kosher laws were abrogated, this would not itself have been sufficient to have allowed him to associate and eat with Gentiles; the fact that Gentiles ate unclean foods was not the sole reason why many Jews believed contact with Gentiles was forbidden. Rather, the contemplation of a specific Gentile mission required Peter to be convinced of three beliefs: (1) the eating of unclean foods was acceptable; (2) associating with Gentiles was acceptable; (3) Gentiles could be saved apart from the Law. Regarding the first of the above statements, it is often asserted that the vision was only about Gentiles, and not about food.180 After all, visions/dreams in Scripture are often metaphorical, and not specifically about the actual elements in the visions/dreams (e.g., Joseph’s various dreams). In addition, Peter’s statements about the meaning of the vision regard Gentiles and not food (10:28, 34). However, Peter could not consider Gentiles clean if he did not also consider the food Gentiles ate to be clean. The two are inextricably linked.181 J. Julius Scott rightly applies two of Hillel’s hermeneutical principles: (1) Qal waḥōmer: the cleansing of foods by God (less important) also applies to people (more important) and (2) Kĕlāl ûpĕrāt ûpĕrāt ûkĕlāl: the cleansing of foods by God (a particular part of the system which sustained Jewish distinctiveness) applies equally to people (system as a whole).182 Peter’s transformation of his views regarding Gentiles is not instantaneous, but occurs progressively. In response to Peter’s declaration that he has never eaten anything unholy or unclean, the voice proclaims: “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy” (Acts 10:15). This is repeated three times, perhaps recalling the triple denials (Mark 14:66–72 and par.) and triple restoration of Peter by Jesus (John 21:15–19). Peter is initially unsure as to the meaning of this vision. The Spirit instructs Peter to “accompany without misgivings” (Acts 10:20) messengers sent by a Gentile, a centurion and devout God-fearer named Cornelius. Deciding to leave the 179

Peterson, Acts, 330. Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte (KEK 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998); Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 1:286; Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 170; Miller, “Did Peter’s Vision in Acts 10 Pertain to Men or the Menu?” 181 Cf. Joseph B. Tyson, “The Gentile Mission and the Authority of Scripture in Acts,” NTS 33 (1987): 627–628; Witherington, Acts, 340 n. 44, 354; Tannehill, LukeActs, 2:136–137. 182 J. Julius Scott, “The Cornelius Incident in the Light of Its Jewish Setting,” JETS 34 (1991): 481. 180

V. Peter and Cornelius

123

next day, Peter invites these Gentile messengers inside, receiving them as guests (ξενίζω) – the implication being that he ate with them (Acts 10:23). As Thiede notes: “Peter’s companionship with the Gentiles is thus furthered step by step: before he is the guest of a Gentile household himself, he has already given hospitality to Gentiles.”183 While eating with Gentiles in a Jewish home was not as problematic as doing so in a Gentile home,184 the juxtaposition of the vision with the divine command to accompany the Gentile messengers strongly suggests that Peter is already beginning to comprehend that God is revealing to him that he should be willing to associate with Gentiles.185 This included, though was not limited to, eating with Gentiles.186 The fact that Cornelius was a God-fearer may have made Peter’s decision somewhat easier,187 especially since his devoutness would ameliorated the uncleanliness of Cornelius normally due to the idolatry of a Gentile. But Peter nonetheless acknowledges that Jewish mores prohibit his association with Cornelius, despite the fact that he is a God-fearer, thus demonstrating that Cornelius’ piety was insufficient to completely remove the barrier which existed between Jew and Gentile sharing a table together; the cleansing of God was still required. When the group arrives at the home of Cornelius in Caesarea, Peter exemplifies his self-understanding as a servant of Jesus by refusing to accept homage from Cornelius, reserving such actions for God alone, as Jesus had himself instructed (Luke 4:8).188 As Robert Brawley remarks, “Peter’s selfdesignation anticipates the equality of human beings from the divine perspective.”189 As already mentioned, Peter then notes that both he and Cornelius are aware that it is unlawful “for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him” (Acts 10:28a). He explains to Cornelius that the reason he came without raising any objection was that “God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean” (Acts 10:28b). By acknowledging that his perspective has been changed on the issue of associating/visiting with a Gentile (ἐπʼ ἀληθείας καταλαµβάνοµαι, “truly I am coming to realize”: Acts 10:34), he implies that this had been his belief previously. Peter has indeed been convinced that the Gospel has broken 183

Thiede, Simon Peter, 144. Peterson, Acts, 332; Bock, Acts, 392. 185 Barrett, Acts, 1:512. 186 Bock, Acts, 390. 187 Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 309. 188 Fitzmyer, Acts, 461. Barrett, Acts, 1:513, suggests that Cornelius believed that Peter was an angel. 189 Robert L. Brawley, Centering on God: Method and Message in Luke-Acts (Louisville: Westminster, 1990), 141. 184

124

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

down the social barrier which had been erected between Jew and Gentile; both Gentiles and the food served by Gentiles have been cleansed by God through the removal of “their status of being unclean on account of their diet and idolatry.” 190 He puts his past firmly-held beliefs aside, eats with Cornelius and proceeds to witness to him and his relatives and friends. Previously, in the Gospels, when Jesus uttered a statement which was counter to Peter’s own thinking, Peter typically verbally disagreed with Jesus. This time, while there is an initial refusal to eat the food in the vision, once it becomes clear to Peter that it is the will of the Spirit that he associate with and eat with Gentiles, not calling unholy what God has cleansed, Peter alters his own beliefs without an objection. In the middle of his recitation of the Gospel message, the Spirit interrupts Peter, coming upon these Gentiles in a manner very similar to what occurred with the apostles in Acts 2. The Spirit’s action is both spontaneous and unexpected by Peter and his Jewish companions.191 No human, Peter included, is necessary to bring about the coming of the Spirit; Peter’s presence is not required for Cornelius, but rather for Peter himself. The filling of Cornelius and his relatives and friends with the Spirit is visibly obvious to Peter and his own companions (described in Acts 10:45 as “circumcised believers”; i.e. Jewish Christians). Luke records that these Gentiles speak in tongues and extol God (Acts 10:46), just as had occurred in Acts 2:1–6. This is indeed a “Gentile Pentecost” – the Spirit’s recognition of the Gentiles as Gentiles.192 Peter acknowledges that they had received the Spirit “just as we did,” so how could baptism be withheld? The final element of Peter’s transformation has taken place.193 He had already been convinced that it was the will of the Spirit that he should be willing to freely engage in table fellowship with Gentiles, thus eliminating the social barrier between Jew and Gentile. He now proceeds to baptize Cornelius and his relatives and friends, proving that he has also become convinced that the soteriological barrier between Jew and Gentile has been termi190 Schnabel, Acts, 498. Of course, a Gentile could still be defiled by idolatry. However, this would not be due to his ethnicity, as a Jew could likewise be defiled by idolatry, but rather to his practice of paganism. Peter’s new understanding is that Gentiles are not to be viewed as impure and unholy solely because they are Gentiles. Cf. Acts 10:34– 35, where Peter acknowledges that it is the person in every nation who fears God and does what is right who is acceptable to God. 191 Barrett, Acts, 1:529. 192 Bruce, Acts, 264; Fitzmyer, Acts, 460; Witherington, Acts, 134–135, 354, 360; Turner, Power from on High, 380; Bock, Acts, 400. 193 Of course, the “conversion” of Peter is of a different type from the “conversion” of Cornelius; the latter regards the salvation of the first Gentile, while the former regards an alteration of mindset about the status of Gentiles.

V. Peter and Cornelius

125

nated: salvation can come to the Gentiles without the intercession of the Law.194 It is noteworthy that Peter does not even address the issue of circumcision, either with Cornelius or in Jerusalem; Peter clearly does not believe it is necessary. It should be assumed that, as a God-fearer, Cornelius was uncircumcised; otherwise the discussion of clean and unclean in Acts 10–11 is misplaced. Being a God-fearer, however, does make the movement from only associating with Jews to associating with Gentiles easier for Peter. Witherington is correct to call Cornelius a “bridge figure” as well as a test case, paving the way for evangelism of Gentiles as a whole, outright pagans as well as sympathetic God-fearers, by eliminating the barrier of commensality between Jew and Gentile.195 Following the Spirit’s dramatic demonstration of the acceptance of the household of Cornelius by God, Peter stays with Cornelius for “a few days” (Acts 10:48), with the obvious implication that Peter ate in the home of a Gentile. As Peterson rightly notes: “This was further indication that he recognized them as fellow Christians, in the same relationship with the Lord Jesus, now truly ‘made clean’ by faith.”196 Regardless of whether Cornelius served kosher food (such food would have been available in Caesarea and, being a God-fearer, Cornelius was almost certainly familiar with Jewish customs197), when Peter returns to Jerusalem, he is not criticized for specifically disobeying dietary laws, but instead for eating with uncircumcised men (Acts 11:2–3). The difficulty, in the minds of Peter’s detractors, went beyond the exact menu Cornelius would have been serving. Cornelius was a Gentile, and thus by nature “unclean.” This would have made the entire experience of Peter entering Cornelius’ house and eating his food an unclean act. In Acts 10:41, Peter relates that the risen Christ had appeared “to us (Peter and the other witnesses) who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.” “By accepting the hospitality that includes meal fellowship from Cornelius, Peter is extending to this gentile assembly the meal fel194 Le Cornu and Shulam, Acts, 1:586, suggest that the baptism of Cornelius and his relatives and friends presents a difficulty. They reference the act of proselyte ablution in Second Temple Judaism, claiming that “the evidence suggests that ablution was customary practice in order to purify the proselyte from gentile uncleanness.” And since Peter’s vision had declared that no person was unclean, “Cornelius’ subsequent ‘immersion’ must also be re-examined.” However, as baptism was necessary for Jews who accepted Jesus, it is clear that the purpose of baptism was not to cleanse a person from the ritual impurity of being a Gentile. Rather, a difference should be understood to exist between proselyte ablution in Second Temple Judaism and baptism in Christianity. 195 Witherington, Acts, 354 n. 111. 196 Peterson, Acts, 341. 197 Barrett, Acts, 1:533.

126

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

lowship he shared with the risen Jesus as one of those who ate and drank with him.”198 As the followers of Christ participated in the breaking of bread after the original filling of the Spirit (Acts 2:42–47), so too is it likely that participation in such meals is implied by Acts 10:48 after this “Gentile Pentecost.” In Acts 2:42–47, Luke is likely referring to the celebration of the eucharist. For Peter to have excluded the Gentiles from participation in eucharistic meals would have been inconsistent with his newly-found understanding regarding God’s acceptance of Cornelius and his companions.199 Yet even if it is rejected that Acts 2:42–47 and 10:48 involve the eucharist, it is nevertheless apparent that for Peter to have refrained from eating with Gentiles would have resulted in a significant barrier to Gentile evangelism and Christian unity. First, there would be far fewer opportunities to witness to Gentiles as meals were a time of fellowship. Jesus himself gained a reputation for eating at the homes of people who are sick; i.e., those who need to hear Jesus’ message (Mark 2:15–17 and par.; cf. Matt 26:6; Luke 7:34; 9:5–7; 15:2). Second, it would have been impossible for Gentiles to ever feel completely accepted by those who were unwilling to share table fellowship with them. They would have remained in the same position with Christianity as they were with Judaism: God-fearers who were still on the “outside.”200 It is this reality which makes it unlikely that Peter had contemplated an intentional mission to the Gentiles prior to his vision at Joppa and encounter with Cornelius. The willingness to eat with persons was an essential and integral part of any such mission. Failure to accept an invitation to someone’s house would invariably serve as a barrier to successful evangelization. It is only with Peter’s divine epiphany that this barrier is torn down, allowing for an intentional mission to the Gentiles to proceed. E. Peter’s Defense in Jerusalem (Acts 11:1–18) Peter is only one individual, albeit an important one in the early church. The leaders still back in Jerusalem were of the same mind as Peter had 198

Heil, Meal-Scenes, 255; Cf. Beverly Roberts Gaventa, From Darkness to Light: Aspects of Conversion in the New Testament (OBT 20; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 109. 199 Matson, Household Conversion Narratives in Acts, 116; Heil, Meal Scenes, 257; Gaventa, From Darkness to Light, 121. Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, 96, notes that it “is not simply the broad task of baptizing Gentiles, but also that of initiating Christian communities where Jews and Gentiles share common eucharistic meals.” 200 Le Cornu and Shulam, Acts, 1:583, note that “godfearers were still regarded as Gentiles and thus as a source of levitical impurity.” This view would have been implied as still remaining had Peter considered the Cornelius and his relatives and friends unclean and refused to eat with them.

V. Peter and Cornelius

127

been prior to this incident. Luke uses διακρίνω to describe the reaction of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 11:2), thus implying a sense of “doubt and hesitancy rather than open, negative criticism”201 as well as indicating that they believed Jews should remain separate from Gentiles. Later in the passage, Peter declares that no distinction (διακρίνω) may be made between Jew and Gentile (Acts 11:12; cf. 15:9) which itself echoes the command by the Spirit that Peter should meet the messengers sent by Cornelius and not discriminate (διακρίνω: Acts 10:20). This repetition of διακρίνω connects the reaction of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem to what God recognizes would be the initial reaction of Peter in Joppa when Cornelius’ messengers arrive. Regarding the command by the Spirit, Clinton Wahlen wonders whether this may be an intentional double entendre;202 this is likely correct both in Acts 10:20 and 11:2. Peter needed to be warned against doubting and discriminating between persons in Acts 10:20. The Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were doubting and discriminating between persons in Acts 11:2 and warned against this by Peter in Acts 11:12. It is important to recognize that the charge against Peter was not that he had witnessed to Gentiles; presumably this would have been acceptable as long as purity laws were maintained. Nor did the accusation relate to his baptism of uncircumcised believers; though upon reflection, some Jewish Christians would indeed take issue with this decision (Acts 15:1). Their difficulty was rather that Peter had entered the house of an uncircumcised man and eaten at his table.203 Matson emphasizes the fact that Peter begins his defense before the Jerusalem church with a recounting of his own vision regarding food, and not (as Luke does in Acts 10) with Cornelius’ vision, thus suggesting “that Peter is directly justifying his eating with Gentiles. … If Peter has enjoyed indiscriminate table-fellowship in the house of Cornelius, it is because God has told him it is now proper for him to kill and ‘eat’ (11:17).”204 The group which questioned Peter is literally “those belonging to the circumcision” (οἱ ἐκ περιτοµῆς: Acts 11:2). Marshall criticizes the RSV’s translation of “circumcision party,” correctly stating that, since this is the first time circumcision has ever been an issue, there would have been no cause for such a group to form.205 Indeed, it is probable that many more 201

Thiede, Simon Peter, 148. Wahlen, “Peter’s Vision and Conflicting Definitions of Purity,” 515. 203 Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, 93. 204 Matson, Household Conversion, 119 – emphasis his. 205 I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary. (1st American ed.; TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 195; cf. Barrett, Acts, 1:636– 637; Bock, Acts, 406; Schnabel, Acts, 507–508. Contra Wilson; Luke and the Law, 50; Bruce; Acts, 267; Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (ed. Daniel J. 202

128

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

Jewish Christians in Jerusalem would have objected to Peter in Acts 11:2 than would later insist upon Gentile circumcision in Acts 15:1, with many being convinced to reject such a requirement by Peter’s testimony regarding his vision at Joppa and the Spirit coming upon these Gentiles. This same phrase is used to describe Peter’s companions in Acts 10:45; they are astonished, but there is no indication in the text that they were part of a more law-centered group in the church.206 It was, rather, this episode which led to the formation of a group of Jewish Christians composed of those who were not convinced that the Spirit’s actions with regard to Cornelius and his relatives and friends necessarily implied that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. Throughout his summary, Peter never makes mention of Cornelius by name, perhaps highlighting the broader implications of this incident. Barrett notes that the article τοῖς in Acts 11:18 refers to the Gentiles as a group of people and is not limited solely to the household of Cornelius.207 Peter is implying that this is not to be considered a single exception to the rule, but an entirely different way of approaching Gentiles with the message of Jesus Christ.208 Peter’s defense rests upon his declaration that his decision to associate with, eat with, and baptize Gentiles was endorsed by God, specifically making reference to the Spirit three times (Acts 11:15, 16, 17). Therefore, any opposition against what Peter did in Caesarea would be opposition against God. Matson observes “how the twin issues of ‘entering’ and ‘eating’ are closely linked in the minds of Peter’s accusers at 11:3” and concludes that “Peter makes table-fellowship an integral element of gentile salvation. If Peter is to speak the word of salvation to Gentiles, Peter must ‘enter’ the house of Cornelius, which implies that he may now ‘eat’ there as well.”209 This reinforces the conclusion that Peter understood the vision to be about food as well as persons; while the latter may be saved without the abrogation of the food laws, Peter could not engage in meal fellowship with Cornelius if the prohibition against eating with Gentiles (and thus

Harrington; SP 5; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1992), 197; Minnerath, De Jérusalem à Rome, 74; Witherington, Acts, 362 n. 137; Peterson, Acts, 343; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 399; E. Earle Ellis, “The Circumcision Party and the Early Christian Mission,” in Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (ed. E. Earle Ellis; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 116–117. I will later contend that the phrase οἱ ἐκ περιτοµῆς can have an interpretation beyond Jewish Christians; see chap. 5 where I claim that Paul uses the term to refer to non-Christian Jews in Gal 2:12. 206 Barrett, Acts, 1:529, 536. 207 Barrett, Acts, 1:543. 208 Bock, Acts, 408; Witherup, “Cornelius Over and Over and Over Again,” 57. 209 Matson, Household Conversion, 122, 122 n. 156.

V. Peter and Cornelius

129

eating the food prepared by Gentiles) was maintained.210 Whereas separation from the Gentiles had previously been necessary for the Jews (Lev 20:24–26), now that the salvation was extended to Gentiles apart from the Law, this separation became a barrier which needed to be destroyed, including those wooden planks (such as food laws) which made up this barrier. Luke also records that the disciples praised God, noting that they “fell silent” and proclaimed that “God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:18). This is a clear acknowledgement that they agree that the filling of the Spirit of the household of Cornelius is indicative that they are saved by God. It is unclear whether Peterson is correct that this is a concession that Peter was correct to stay and eat with a Gentile by the response to his speech.211 It may be that this particular issue is unresolved yet laid aside in light of the startling revelation that Gentiles had also been filled with the Spirit. However, regardless of whether some individual Jewish Christians may not yet have been convinced that eating with Gentiles was desired by God, Peter certainly believed this was so. Haenchen argues that Luke, in this passage, “virtually excludes all human decision,” instead presenting the reader with a “series of supernatural interventions in the dealings of men … [with] such compelling force that all doubt in the face of them must be stilled.”212 He then criticizes Luke, contending that “here faith loses its truth character of decision, and the obedience from faith which Luke would have liked to portray turns into something utterly different: very nearly the twitching of human puppets.”213 Such a view, however, does not accurately describe the content of the text. Human action is indeed essential: Cornelius responds to his vision (Acts 10:7–8), Peter responds to the command of the Spirit (Acts 10:21–23), after recognizing that God does not show favoritism, Peter enters the house of Cornelius and begins to preach the Gospel to those present (Acts 10:34–43), after the Gentiles are filled with the Spirit, Peter orders them to be baptized (Acts 10:47–48), when he returns to Jerusalem, he defends his actions (Acts 11:4–17), and the members of the Jerusalem church rejoice and accept that God has granted repentance to Gentiles (Acts 11:18). This passage is, in fact, replete with human action.214 210 Schnabel, Acts, 492, 497–498. Barrett, Acts, 1:509, is also correct that “if the revelation of the vision did not introduce a new order which now allows Peter to eat the food of Gentiles, his report in 11:4–11 does not answer the criticism of 11:3.” 211 Peterson, Acts, 349. 212 Haenchen, Acts, 362 – his emphasis. 213 Haenchen, Acts, 362. 214 Tannehill, Luke-Acts, 2:128–132.

130

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

With this episode, the full implications of the universal nature of the gospel message become evident to Peter. He recognizes that his personal ministry was to be directed primarily towards Jews (Gal 2:7) and that, while God has used him as the initiator of the Gentile mission, it is appointed to others (such as Paul and Barnabas) to be the apostles to the Gentiles.215 Yet Peter would continue to recognize the validity of an intentional mission to the Gentiles and one which did not require the Gentiles to become Jewish (Acts 15:7–11; Gal 2:7–9).216 F. Historicity of Acts 10:1–11:18 Conzelmann makes the sweeping judgment that “all passages in this chapter (10) which elevate the singular story into one of principle may be assigned to Luke.”217 Such a thesis, however, cannot be substantiated, for it assumes definitionally that no account can be historical if it contains details which are later used to develop principles for a community. Are Winston Churchill’s memoirs on World War II, which contain multiple discussions of the principle that democracy is superior to fascism, historically unreliable simply for this reason? A much more favorable position is advocated by Pesch, who argues that “the artistic composition is not primarily the work of Luke, but generally speaking goes back to the prelukan tradition.”218 Dibelius concludes that the original account of Cornelius was a simple conversion story told for the purpose of edification, with all elements of the difficulties of a Jew associating and eating with Gentiles being added by Luke, noting that a Gentile would not have been easily accepted into the early church.219 Yet had this been the case, Paul would have been to make reference to them in his attacks against the Judaizers.220 In addition, as the central figure in the story is Peter rather than Cornelius, it is unlikely that the original tradition was a conversion story about Cornelius.221 And since

215

Tannehill, Luke-Acts, 2:141–142. The possible exception to this conviction is in Gal 2:14, in which Paul characterizes Peter as compelling the Gentiles to judaize. This passage will be considered at length in chapter 5. 217 Conzelmann, Acts, 80. 218 Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 1:333. 219 Martin Dibelius, “The Conversion of Cornelius,” in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (ed. Heinrich Greeven; London: SCM, 1956), 120–122. Cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 80; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 1:253–262; Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts, 172–174. 220 Haenchen, Acts, 361. 221 Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 165; Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 1:333. 216

V. Peter and Cornelius

131

Peter’s vision is integral to the account, it too must have been part of the original tradition.222 Lüdemann claims that Luke erred in placing the Italian cohort in Caesarea (10:1) at this time as it was not constituted until A.D. 69 and was stationed only in Syria.223 Hengel disagrees that such an objection can be substantiated; “it may be an anachronism but need not necessarily be so. Auxiliary cohorts could be posted anywhere in the Roman empire according to need. … A centurion could also be appointed for administrative or other political or police duties, and not just for army service.”224 In addition, Cornelius may have been retired, with the soldier of Acts 10:7 being a “favoured subordinate who had chosen to retire with him.”225 An odd criticism is raised by Barrett, who suggests that a better choice than Cornelius could have been made for marking “a notable step in the extension of the Gospel to the world outside Judaism.” Cornelius is simply, Barrett claims, too close to Judaism; “the conversions of persons such as those described in 1 cor. 6, 9, 10 might have been more impressive.”226 Assuming Barrett is correct, would this not be evidence for the general historicity of this passage, because Luke did not make “a better choice”? And if Luke is describing a historical event, why should he change the religious background of Cornelius simply to make his account “more impressive”? Haenchen objects that, since Peter could have killed and eaten a clean animal in the vision, his response in 10:14 is unintelligible.227 Yet Peter may have understood the instructions “Kill and eat” to imply that he was supposed to eat everything in the sheet; the possible objection that it may have been physically impossible for him to eat this much food is counterweighed by the fact that this is a vision. Haenchen also purports that the vision implies the abrogation of the food laws, yet there is no evidence that the Jerusalem church, or Peter himself, ever adopted this.228 As already mentioned, whether the food laws 222 Inge Lönning, “Paulus und Petrus: Gal 2:11ff. als kontroverstheologisches Fundamentalproblem,” ST 24 (1970): 1–19; Klaus Haacker, “Dibelius und Cornelius: Ein Beispiel formgeschichtlicher Überlieferungskritik,” BZ 24 (1980): 234–251; Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 165–166; Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 1:333. 223 Lüdemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts, 145. Cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 81. 224 Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 203 n. 111. 225 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 390. 226 Barrett, Acts, 1:493. 227 Haenchen, Acts, 361; cf. Barrett, Acts, 1:493. 228 Haenchen, Acts, 361–362. Cf. Barrett, Acts, 1:493.

132

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

were abrogated by the vision is challenged by many scholars. And, even if the vision does imply that the food laws no longer apply, this does not mean that the Jewish Christians would have been obligated to eat food that had previously been unclean. All that would have been required is that they be willing to eat such food if served to them, presumably by a Gentile. And since there were few, if any, Gentile Christians in the church of Jerusalem itself, this likely never became an issue for them. As for Peter, his willingness to eat with Gentiles in Caesarea and Antioch implies that the food laws, and the corresponding belief that eating with Gentiles was forbidden, were no longer a barrier for engaging in open table fellowship with Gentiles. Dibelius claims that a difficulty exists with Peter entering Cornelius’ house twice (10:25, 27).229 However, it is possible that 10:25 describes Peter entering into a courtyard through a gateway, while 10:27 depicts him entering into the house of Cornelius itself.230 Alternatively, Fitzmyer suggests that the initial phrase Ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν τὸν Πέτρον should be translated “As Peter was about to enter.”231 Barrett claims that the Acts 11 meeting makes the Acts 15 council superfluous; no requirements are placed upon Gentiles becoming Christians in Acts 11 so why must the church decide if circumcision is necessary?232 However, all that is actually agreed upon in Acts 11 is that “God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life” (11:18); by this they imply that Peter’s decision to baptize these Gentiles was correct (11:17). The question of circumcision is never raised in Acts 11; thus, how can it have been decided here? Rather, Acts 15 was “merely a further step toward assimilating the new group smoothly into the church.”233 Thomas Philips claims that the letters of Paul do not agree with Acts, in that “Acts claims the Gentile mission began with Peter, a claim … that is difficult to reconcile with Paul’s letters” and that “Acts strongly implies that Paul’s Gentile mission required Peter’s approval, an implication that Paul most certainly would have rejected.”234 Yet there is nothing in Paul’s letters which assumes that Paul was the originator of the mission to the Gentiles; only that Paul’s authority for this mission comes directly from God himself. Also, even Paul acknowledges that his Gentile mission would have been “run in vain” had the Jerusalem pillars not ruled in favor of 229

Dibelius, “The Conversion of Cornelius,” 113. Haenchen, Acts, 350. 231 Fitzmyer, Acts, 460–461. 232 Barrett, Acts, 1:494–495; cf. Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, 95–96. 233 Bock, Acts, 382; cf. Gaventa, From Darkness to Light, 121. 234 Thomas E. Phillips, Paul, His Letters, and Acts (Library of Pauline Studies; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009), 154. Cf. Perkins, Peter, 118–120. 230

V. Peter and Cornelius

133

Gentiles not needing to be circumcised (Gal 2:2b); not because Paul personally needed their approval, but because he recognized his mission would be irrevocably damaged had the Jerusalem leaders proclaimed that Gentiles should be circumcised. Philips also argues that Paul’s letters and Acts differ in how the personal relationship between Paul and Peter are presented; he provides only Gal 2:11–14 as support for this contention.235 But as Luke does not even mention the Antioch incident, such a conclusion is unjustified. Given a consideration of all the NT evidence, the Antioch incident is an exception to the good (if geographically distant) relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders, and even Gal 2:11–14 can be characterized as the chastisement of one colleague by another.236 According to Esler, the most serious obstacle to accepting the historicity of this passage is that it is inconsistent with Peter’s later attitude in Gal 2:11–14.237 This assumes that Peter’s theological beliefs concerning Gentiles changed after the men from James arrived in Antioch (Gal 2:12), a position I will firmly reject in chapter 5. In addition, Esler claims that Paul would not have characterized Peter as “the apostle to the circumcision” and himself as “the apostle to the uncircumcision” (Gal 2:7) if Peter had initiated the Gentile mission.238 However, the same claim would then apply to why Peter and John were not considered apostles to the Samaritans since they were central to the establishment of the Samaritan mission (Acts 8:14–17). The reason why Paul claims what he does is that, at the time he makes the statement, Peter is focused on evangelizing Jews and Paul is focused on evangelizing Gentiles. Turner agrees in principle that if Luke intended Peter’s vision should be understood as an abrogation of the food-purity laws, it would make acceptance of the historical reliability of this passage very difficult. However, Turner concludes from this that the vision should therefore instead be interpreted as “enigmatic, with the intended reference of its symbolism unstated (and so unclear), then we can understand how its implications for both the literal question of food purity and for the associated question of the ‘purity’ of people would need to be interpreted with care, and could be subject both to dispute and to revision” by the church in general and Peter specifically. 239

235

Phillips, Paul, His Letters, and Acts, 154. See pp. 219–243 for further discussion on the relationship between Peter, James, and Paul. 237 Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, 95. 238 Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, 95. 239 Turner, Power from on High, 379. 236

134

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

Multiple internal arguments can be presented in favor of the historicity of this passage. First, the criticism against Peter regards table fellowship (the issue at stake in Gal 2:11–14) and not salvation apart from circumcision (the issue at stake in Acts 15). Paul assumes that Peter has previously come to the conclusion that eating with Gentiles is acceptable (see, further, chap 5), and thus serves as independent confirmation that an incident similar, if not identical, to what is recorded in Acts 10:1–11:18 actually occurred in the life of Peter.240 Second, the rebuke of Peter fits the criterion of embarrassment; why would Luke invent a scene in which the church so harshly criticizes its main leader?241 Third, as suggested by Dunn, the order of the filling of the Spirit preceding baptism rather than the normal pattern of baptism preceding the Spirit is an additional argument in favor of the passage’s overall accuracy; it would not have behooved Luke to have invented an unusual precedent.242 G. Summary of Peter’s Characterization in Acts 10:1–11:18 Peter exhibits significant courage throughout this entire episode.243 He is willing to reconsider and disregard his assumptions about the moral impurity of Gentiles, even though he knew that his fellow believers in Jerusalem, which included many close companions, shared these assumptions. He could not know how his decision to associate, baptize, eat with, and stay with Gentiles would be received when he returned to Jerusalem. After he did return and found significant opposition, Peter did not moderate his newly acquired beliefs. He could have simply contended that the incident with Cornelius was exceptional with no broader implications flowing from it. Instead, he boldly declares that it is the will of the Spirit that the Jewish Christians cease considering the Gentiles to be unclean by default. No partiality must exist, and this extended to a new willingness to associate and eat with Gentiles.

240

Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 1:335; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 1:262; Dunn, Acts,

133.

241

François Bovon, “Tradition et rédaction en Actes 10:1–11,18,” TZ 26 (1970): 34– 35; Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 1:334. 242 Dunn, Acts, 133–134; idem, Beginning from Jerusalem, 386–387. Dunn also refers to nine different primitive features of Peter’s speech, though he concludes that this speech is a compilation of early traditions of preaching and those sections which emphasize a universal dimension in 10:34–35, 36c, 39 (Beginning from Jerusalem, 94–96). Cf. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:707. 243 Schnabel, Acts, 474, 513.

VI. Peter’s Miraculous Escape from Prison

135

VI. Peter’s Miraculous Escape from Prison and Its Implications for the Jerusalem Church (Acts 12:1–17) VI. Peter’s Miraculous Escape from Prison Some time following the Cornelius incident, Herod Agrippa I puts James, the brother of John, to death, as well as arrests “some who belonged to the church” (Acts 12:1–2). After hearing that his action “pleased the Jews” (Acts 12:3), Agrippa next arrests Peter. Agrippa’s decision to persecute the church was very likely associated with his desire to placate the Sadducean priesthood; previous interactions with the Sadducees make it clear why they would have extolled Agrippa’s decision (Acts 4:1; 5:17).244 But why did the Jewish populace also approve of the execution of a Christian leader? Previous attempts to take punitive action against members of the Twelve had been decidedly unpopular (Acts 4:21; 5:26) and the preaching and healings by the Twelve had been very well-received by the Jewish population of Jerusalem (Acts 2:41, 47; 3:10–12; 4:4, 16, 21, 5:12–16). The martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:54–60), coming after the speeches and healings of Peter in Jerusalem (Acts 2–5), likely had some influence on this change of heart, though there is no specific notice taken by Luke of any such popular dislike of the apostles.245 But Luke characterizes Agrippa as deciding to arrest Peter because his previous decision to execute James pleased his subjects, and not that he arrested James because he knew this act would please them. Thus, it appears that Agrippa was uncertain about the public reaction which suggests the popular antagonism towards the Christians was relatively recent. While Luke does not specify the reason for this popular mood change, Luke’s storyline makes it likely that it had something to do with the expansion of the Gospel to the Gentiles and, particularly, Jewish Christians engaging in open table fellowship with Gentiles. In Caesarea, Peter eats with Cornelius. This is viewed as highly troubling by the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem (Acts 11:2–3); it is reasonable to conclude that the non-Christian Jews of Jerusalem would have been at least as equally disturbed and probably even more so. While Luke does not indicate that these nonChristian Jews would have known about what occurred in Caesarea, the fact that the news about Cornelius had reached “the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea” (Acts 11:1) makes it likely that many 244

Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years (Louisville: Westminster, 1997), 248–249. 245 While a great persecution (διωγµὸς µέγας) did afflict the church immediately following the martyrdom of Stephen (8:1), Luke specifically indicates that the apostles were not forced to leave Jerusalem and does not make any mention that the general population of Jews was agitating against the Twelve.

136

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

non-Christian Jews would also have become aware of this development. Luke then relates that the church of Antioch (Acts 11:19–21) was composed of Jewish and Gentile believers and that Barnabas, an official emissary of the Jerusalem church, approved of what was occurring there. It is therefore very plausible that at least one fundamental reason for the shift by the general Jewish populace away from their previous approval of the Christian leadership was due to the latter’s decision to fellowship with Gentiles and include them within their communities as Gentiles.246 Another possible reason for this popular shift, which may easily have existed alongside the disapproval of the recent openness to Gentiles, is the recent political upheaval in Judea. Herod Agrippa I ruled as king over Judea from A.D. 41–44; immediately prior to his ascension, Caligula had attempted to defile the Temple. The combination of the reunification of Herod’s kingdom and the outward piety of Agrippa created a “mounting national fervor” in which “any dissidence could be seen, at popular level not least, as some kind of threat to the bandwagon which was beginning to roll.”247 Any acts which suggested a disloyalty to traditional Jewish customs and traditions, such as an embracing of Gentiles, could very well have upset many Jews, especially those in Judea itself.248 Following his arrest, Peter is able to escape with the help of an angel. Peterson notes that, at the time of his rescue, Luke “highlights the fact that Peter was sleeping (κοιµώµενος as a present participle emphasizing a continuing state of sleep). This suggests that he had some confidence about his 246 Böttrich, Petrus, 171; Bruce, Acts, 247–248; Rainer Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (trans. Doug Scott; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 123. Contra Daniel R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (TSAJ 23; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990), 122–124, who contends Agrippa executed James and arrested Peter for political reasons because, Schwartz claims, James and Peter were associated with the Zealots; yet, there is no textual indication that there was any such connection nor that the early Christians were preaching violent rebellion. Cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch, 247. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 122–123, is less certain of this connection, though he acknowledges that “it could help to explain why James the brother of Jesus was not targeted – perhaps because of his already known devotion to the traditional ways.” The argument by Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 123, and Grappe, D’un Temple à l’autre, 253–308, that there was a desire amongst the Jewish Christian church to replace Peter with James, and that Agrippa’s decision to arrest Peter was associated with this controversy (cf. Thiede, Simon Peter, 148), is unsubstantiated by the text. There is no indication, either in Luke or Paul, that any conflict existed between Peter and James. While Agrippa may have decided to arrest Peter because nonChristian Jews, and particularly the Jewish religious hierarchy disapproved of Peter, is historically plausible; that he was acting on behalf of Judaizing Christians is not. Cf. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:720. 247 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 408. 248 Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, 240–241.

VI. Peter’s Miraculous Escape from Prison

137

future.”249 It does not necessarily mean that Peter believed he would be freed; after all, James had already been executed. But it does indicate that, at the very least, he was confidently facing death. It is noteworthy that Peter’s arrest occurs during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Acts 12:3), the beginning of which was Passover. Not only was Jesus crucified around this same time of the year, it was also the anniversary of Peter being fearful of the possibility of being arrested, tried, and executed and thus denying Jesus. Yet whereas Peter had fallen away before, he has now repeatedly demonstrated his faithfulness.250 Perkins notes: “Peter’s boast that he was ready to go to prison and die with Jesus (Luke 22:33) has been tested and proven true.”251 Nor is Peter’s deliverance accomplished by any of his own efforts. As Barrett correctly observes: “Everything turns upon God’s gracious initiative, exercised through an angel. Peter is fast asleep, and contributes nothing more than sheer incomprehension and incredulity.” 252 He is completely dependent upon God, the position in which he should have been approximately a decade earlier when he instead depended upon himself to remain a faithful disciple of Jesus. Upon his escape, his first thought is to inform the other disciples that he has been freed. He proceeds to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, and after a comical interchange with a servant girl, Rhoda, he describes “how the Lord had led him out of the prison,” thus once again giving the credit to God and taking none for himself, and tells them to “report these things to James and the brethren.” Luke then records that Peter “left and went to another place (ἕτερον τόπον)” (Acts 12:17). There has been much discussion regarding the identity of Peter’s destination,253 yet no location can be determined with any degree of certainty. It is clear that Peter recognizes that Jerusalem is no longer safe for him, but this has never deterred him from openly preaching within the city. Thus, it is unlikely that his reason for departing was to simply escape Jewish persecution.254 Had he believed God desired him to continue to preach in Jerusalem, he would have done so, just as he had already demonstrated multi249

Peterson, Acts, 363. Scott Cunningham, ‘Through Many Tribulations’: The Theology of Persecution in Luke-Acts (JSNTSup 142; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 236–237, notes a number of verbal connections between Luke’s accounts of the trial of Jesus and the deliverance of Peter. 251 Perkins, Peter, 90, though it is unclear whether she is referring to the historical Peter or only Luke’s portrayal of Peter. 252 Barrett, Acts, 1:570. 253 For analysis on various historical and modern views regarding Peter’s destination after leaving Jerusalem, see Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:721–728. 254 As attested by, e.g., Cullmann, Peter, 39; Bock, Acts, 429. 250

138

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

ple times in the past. More plausibly, Peter has determined that the time is right for him to proceed to the next stage in his ministry. He has already branched out from Jerusalem with his coastal plain visit to Lydda and Joppa. He now decides that his missionary responsibility (as indicated in Gal 2:7–9) requires him to make another journey. 255 Many scholars assert that the specific mention of James in Peter’s instruction to tell others that he is leaving serves as a strong indication that Acts 12:17 denotes a shift of leadership from Peter to James.256 This possibility will be discussed at greater length in chapter 5. It is sufficient here to note that there is no evidence in this passage that James assumes a position of authority over Peter. Rather, Peter’s role has changed; he has now left Jerusalem as a missionary and the day-to-day operations of the Jerusalem church are left to James.257 A. Historicity of Acts 12:1–17 The martyrdom of James and the imprisonment of Peter are likely rooted in historical fact. Dunn observes that “the brevity of [Luke’s reference to the martyrdom of James] may point more to Luke’s conscientiousness as a historian, in recording only the bare information that he had been able to pick up.”258 Dunn also maintains that “there is no reason to doubt that Peter was imprisoned; it fits too closely in a historical sequence beginning with the execution of James and ending with the death of Agrippa to leave much room for doubt; and the final savagery against the guards (12:19) is also consistent with what we know of the arbitrary powers exercised by rulers in these days.”259 The escape of Peter is likely historical as well. Hengel and Schwemer offer a naturalistic explanation for the miraculous account of Peter’s escape, suggesting that a member of the “anti-Herodian and anti-Sadducean opposition, say from Pharisaic circles, underlie[s] this ‘liberation.’ … The whole narrative has very earthly features, like the powerful blow with which Peter is awoken and the precise orders that he has to get ready to travel quickly.”260 While I agree with the latter point that there is a certain 255

Dunn, Acts, 159. E.g., Cullmann, Peter, 40–41; Haenchen, Acts, 391; Fitzmyer, Acts, 489; Robert W. Wall, “Successors to 'the Twelve' According to Acts 12:1–17,” CBQ 53 (1991): 630; Richard Bauckham, “James and the Jerusalem Church,” in The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting (ed. Richard Bauckham; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 432–441. Thiede, Simon Peter, 153, suggests that Peter appointed James his successor “when he must have been expecting certain death.” 257 Witherington, Acts, 388. 258 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 406. 259 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 410. 260 Hengel and Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch, 407 n. 1315. 256

VI. Peter’s Miraculous Escape from Prison

139

quaintness about this account, this does not by itself indicate the lack of supernatural intervention. In fact, had Luke replaced political intrigue with a divinely-enabled escape, such “earthly features” would not be expected.261 The levity of this account is an indication of its historicity. Luke’s description of Peter’s arrival at the home of the mother of John Mark is also likely historical. As with Acts 9:32–43, the personal names of Mary, John Mark, and Rhoda are further indication that Luke was drawing upon eyewitness sources.262 The phrase in Acts 12:17 – “Tell these things to James and the brethren” – is viewed by Haenchen as a Lucan addition: “such specific reference to a person who plays no part is foreign to the legend. Here Luke the historian is advising us that – in the interim at least – James has taken over the leadership of the congregation.”263 However, there is no reason to believe that James had no importance in the church; in Acts 15 he plays a significant role and Paul, in Gal 1:19, notes that James was one of two apostles he saw in his initial visit to Jerusalem.264 Similarly, Dunn argues: “The final mysterious note of Peter’s departure ‘to another place’ (12:17) was hardly Luke’s contrivance (he locates Peter in Jerusalem only three chapters later, 15.7–11); instead it must be part of the score/script which Luke inherited and may reflect the early formation of the story when it was still important to maintain secrecy about Peter’s whereabouts.”265 B. Summary of Peter’s Characterization in Acts 12:1–17 For the third time, Peter is recorded by Luke to have been arrested. He cannot know if he will be let free (either by Agrippa or by supernatural assistance); after all, James has already been put to death. But he is still able to sleep soundly, confident that whatever happens, he will remain faithful to his Master.

261

Haenchen, Acts, 390, observes: “the taciturn angel has to prod [Peter] in the ribs … to wake him. ‘Get up, quick!’ he says. Now this shows that the account did not originate with Luke, who always has heavenly beings use dignified and, as far as possible, biblical language (cf. the angel’s word to Cornelius in 10.4).” 262 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 410. Cf. Lüdemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts, 161; Barrett, Acts, 1:570–571. 263 Haenchen, Acts, 391. 264 Lüdemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts, 160. 265 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 410. Cf. Schnabel, Acts, 540–541.

140

Chapter 3: The Characterization of Peter in Acts

VII. Conclusion VII. Conclusion The Peter of Acts is a very different figure than the Peter of the Gospels. Rather than consistently exhibiting a lack of understanding, he is now the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. Whereas Peter had previously critiqued statements of Jesus which he did not understand or did not accord with his own beliefs, he accepts God’s direction to extend the Gospel to the Gentiles and to fellowship openly with them. And while Peter had exhibited confidence regarding his own ability to remain faithful to Jesus at the Last Supper, a confidence which proved very quickly to be misplaced, Peter demonstrates his loyalty to Jesus on multiple occasions in Acts, a loyalty which is characterized by dependence upon God and not upon himself. “Any failures shown by the apostle during Jesus’ lifetime have been eradicated by his post-Resurrection transformation.”266 Also important to this study are Peter’s views regarding Gentiles. Prior to the Cornelius incident, Peter does not have a universal perspective which allows for the salvation of Gentiles in any manner different than how it has been previously, in which Gentiles are saved by becoming Jewish proselytes. Yet after Peter witnesses the filling of Cornelius and his friends with the Spirit, his beliefs are radically changed. Not only is he convinced that Gentiles could come to faith in Christ apart from circumcision, he recognizes that it is of significant importance that he be willing to engage in open table fellowship with Gentile Christians. This conviction must be recalled when his actions at Antioch are discussed in chapter 5.

266

Perkins, Peter, 89.

Chapter 4

The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52 In chapters 2 and 3, I discussed the characterization of Peter in the Gospel and Acts as well as Peter’s views regarding the Gentiles. Before proceeding to an analysis of the Antioch incident itself, it will be important to establish the situation in Judea at the time of the incident,1 specifically with regards to a key question: What was the nature of Jewish resistance to Roman rule during the first century A.D.? In chapter 5, I will contend that events in Palestine prompted James to send a delegation to Antioch to request that Peter refrain from participating in open table fellowship with the Gentile Christians. The Jewish resistance movement, which had previously been characterized by nonviolent diplomacy, was rapidly shifting to one of active violence against Rome. This transformation was a return to the type of resistance which had characterized Palestine in the years between the death of Herod the Great and the removal of Archelaus as ethnarch of Judea, Samaria, and Edom (4 B.C.–A.D. 6). It was this transition, I will argue, along with other events in the mid 40s A.D., which motivated James to call upon Peter to refrain from a practice which the latter apostle had so vigorously defended before the Jerusalem church as the will of the Spirit (Acts 11:1–18). This thesis is not supported by the majority of the current literature. Modern scholarship is divided into roughly two camps. The first has been spearheaded by Samuel G. F. Brandon, Richard Horsley, and Martin Hengel.2 While these scholars differ as to the influence of the Jewish 1

The specific date of the Antioch incident will be discussed at length in chapter 5. Samuel G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity (New York: Scribner, 1967); Richard A. Horsley, “Ancient Jewish Banditry and the Revolt against Rome, AD 66–70,” CBQ 43 (1981): 409–432; idem, “The Zealots: Their Origin, Relationships and Importance in the Jewish Revolt,” NovT 28 (1986): 159–192; idem, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987); Richard A. Horsley and John S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus (New Voices in Biblical Studies; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988); Martin Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D. (trans. David Smith; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989); idem, “Zeloten und Sikarier: Zur Frage der Einheit und Vielfalt der jüdischen Befreiungsbewegung 6–74 n 2

142

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

revolutionary movement upon the ministry of Jesus, they are similar in their insistence that this Zealot movement, begun by Judas of Galilee during the tenure of Archelaus, was dominant in Judea up to, and including, the Jewish revolt of A.D. 66–70. The second camp, led by scholars such as Morton Smith, Doron Mendels, and David Rhoads,3 contends that the Jewish revolutionary movement which precipitated the Jewish revolt did not originate until only a few years prior to the onset of hostilities, approximately a decade after the Antioch incident. Thus, if either of these two positions is accurate, the proposed catalyst which propelled James to ask Peter to modify his association with Gentiles would need to be found elsewhere. Contrary to both sides of the debate, I contend that the fourth philosophy of Judas the Galilean, which emphasized the need to actively resist Rome in order to establish the sole rule of God, did indeed come into existence around A.D. 6 and was preserved throughout the decades leading up to the Jewish War. However, the mere perpetuation of a philosophy does not necessitate that it successfully seized the hearts and minds of the people as a whole. I assert that Judas’ philosophy was preserved by the remnants of his band, most notably by his children. While they may have continued to attempt to convince others of the superiority of an active resistance over a passive resistance, they were largely unsuccessful throughout the era of the Roman prefects (A.D. 6–41), primarily because the alternate mode of passive resistance succeeded in convincing the prefects to acquiesce to the demands of the Jewish leadership. The turning point was the appointment and quick death of Agrippa. While his ascent to the throne would have solidified the belief that passive resistance was the preferable means by which to confront Rome, the decision by Claudius to return to direct Roman rule following the death of Agrippa greatly damaged this idea. The death of Agrippa thus provided the catalyst to those Jews who had preserved the philosophy of Judas, presenting them with an effective casus bellum in their attempts to persuade others to discard a passive resistance in favor of an active resistance. This is substantiated by the history of the period of the Roman procurators (A.D. 44–66), in which there is a steady movement towards violent insurrection which first shows signs of Chr.,” in Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (ed. Otto Betz and Klaus Haacker; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 175–196. 3 Morton Smith, “Zealots and Sicarii: Their Origins and Relation,” HTR 64 (1971): 1– 19; idem, “The Troublemakers,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3: The Early Roman Period (ed. William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 501–568; David Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 6–74 C.E.: A Political History based on the Writings of Josephus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976); Doron Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism (New York: Doubleday, 1992).

I. Josephus as Historian

143

being accepted by the general Jewish populace during the administration of Cumanus (A.D. 48–52). This chapter will proceed in three sections. The first will consider the reliability of Josephus as a historian, especially as it relates to those passages which indicate a conflict between Jews and Rome. The second will focus on the history of Palestine from Herod the Great to the administration of the Roman procurator Cumanus (A.D. 48–52). Cumanus is intentionally chosen as the terminus ad quem because it is during his tenure that the Antioch incident occurs. Only the history prior to the Antioch incident is relevant; events which occurred in Palestine after Cumanus would, of course, not have been known to James or Peter at the time of his decision. The third part of this chapter will evaluate the various theories about Jewish nationalism in the first century in light of Palestine’s history, as well as providing justification for why the position summarized above should be preferred.

I. Josephus as Historian I. Josephus as Historian If the self analysis of an ancient historian was the only necessary criterion for determining the reliability of an ancient document, the works of Josephus would pass admirably. In a number of places in his texts, Josephus champions his own qualifications as a historian for the events surrounding the Jewish War. He claims his primary concern is to present the truth: “my work is written for lovers of the truth and not to gratify my readers” (B.J. 1.30).4 He notes that he was an eyewitness to many of the events of Bellum judaicum; for those events in which he was not an eyewitness, he had access to those who were, notably Agrippa II. 5 It is, of course, very self-serving for Josephus to extol his own virtues.6 He clearly desires people to accept his account over those written by oth4

Cf. B.J. 1.16, 30; 7.455; A.J. 1.4; 8.56; 14.3, 28; 20.157; Vita 40, 336–337, 339, 361, 385; C. Ap. 1.3, 6, 24, 42, 46, 47, 154, 214, 217; 2.287, 296. For an excellent study of Josephus’ description of his historical methodology, see Villalba i Varneda, The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus, 272–279. 5 B.J. 1.1–3, 13–15, 22; A.J. 1.2–4; Vita 362–366; C. Ap. 1.47–56. Josephus claims that the utilization of sufficient eyewitness sources is vital for a historian (Vita 41, 342, 344), something for which he criticizes Justus of Tiberius (Vita 357–358) and others (B.J. 1.1; C. Ap. 1.45). 6 This was also typical of many contemporary writers. See Shaye J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 8; Leiden: Brill, 1979), 24–33, for a detailed comparison between Josephus and other Greco-Roman historians such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Diodorus of Sicily, and Plutarch. Cf. also James S. McLaren, Turbulent Times? Josephus

144

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

ers, particularly the history by Justus of Tiberius.7 Nor is his self-aggrandizement limited to his status as a historian. He is likewise vain about his own abilities as a general.8 Scholars are united in describing Josephus’ biases. With regards to Bellum judaicum and the sections of Antiquitates judaicae which relate to the first century A.D. (books 17–20), these can be condensed into three categories: his relationship with Vespasian and Titus, his desire to defend the Jewish people, and his attempt to explain the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple as the will of God. Josephus owed Vespasian much. After prophesying that Vespasian would become emperor following his capture at Jotapata (B.J. 3.345–408), Josephus was utilized by the Roman general as an interpreter and negotiator with the Jewish rebels at Jerusalem. Following the conclusion of the war, he was brought to Rome by Vespasian, given Roman citizenship, and provided with a house and pension (Vita 422–423). Josephus eventually wrote a history of the war, perhaps even commissioned by Vespasian himself.9 In light of all this, Josephus had great inducement to portray the Roman leadership during the war in the best light as possible. However, as Martin Goodman observes, Josephus presented himself as choosing to write; he was not forced to do so.10 Hence, his own personal convictions are just as important for evaluating his works. While Josephus wants to avoid placing any blame upon his patrons, he also does not want to denigrate his fellow countrymen. He takes great care in focusing the responsibility for the war upon a very small group of Jewish rebels known as the Zealots.11 Yet while it may be true that Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE (JSPSup 29; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 59 n. 20. 7 Vita 40, 357–360. On Justus of Tiberius, see Tessa Rajak, “Justus of Tiberius,” CQ 23 (1973): 345–368; idem, Tessa Rajak, “Josephus and Justus of Tiberias,” in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (ed. Louis Feldman and Göhei Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), 81–94. 8 B.J. 3.142–144, 193–202, 340; 436–437; 5.541–542. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 91–100, is likely correct when he asserts that Josephus desired to distance himself from the other revolutionaries even though he was himself one of the generals. 9 Richard Laqueur, Der Jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: Ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage (Griessen: Münchow, 1920), 126–127; cf. Hengel, Zealots, 10. 10 Martin Goodman, “Josephus as a Roman Citizen,” Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period (ed. Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers; SPB 41; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 329–338. Cf. McLaren, Turbulent Times, 57–59. 11 Josephus claims that “while the ship of state was thus laboring under the three greatest of calamities – war, tyranny, and faction – to the populace the war was comparatively the mildest; in fact they fled from their countrymen to take refuge with aliens and obtained at Roman hands the security which they despaired of finding among

I. Josephus as Historian

145

has shaped his narrative so that the majority of the Jews are exonerated, it is also the case that when he includes details which do not further such aims, the reliability of the passage in question is strengthened. A theological presupposition also lies behind Josephus’ writings. Likely addressing the question of how God could have allowed such a catastrophe to take place,12 Josephus concludes that God turned against his people, Jerusalem, and the temple because of the impiety of the rebels (A.J. 20.1). In light of this, Per Bilde contends that Josephus desired to urge the Jewish people “to reject the militant nationalism and Messianism as it was maintained and practiced by the rebellious groups before, during and after the War”13 and to instead submit themselves to Roman rule. However, the influence of this particular bias upon Josephus’ writings is largely limited to his explanation for why Rome was successful in the Jewish War. It does not significantly impact the period prior to its outbreak. There are numerous contradictions within and between the various works by Josephus. This has been another reason to cast doubt upon the reliability of Josephus as a historian.14 Insofar as such inconsistencies affect the primary concern of this chapter (i.e., the nature of Jewish opposition to Roman rule), it will be important to consider whether it is possible to determine which text preserves a more accurate depiction of the event. Steve Mason, in particular, presents a very pessimistic judgment about our ability to determine the historical accuracy of much of Josephus, espe-

their own people” (B.J. 4.397; cf. B.J. 2.449, 525; 5.28–29, 53, 265, 442–444; unless otherwise noted, all Greco-Roman translations are from the Loeb Classical Library). McLaren, Turbulent Times, 57, notes that “it was possible to remain a loyal Jew throughout the war – the test lay in recognizing the will of God, that victory lay with the Romans.” 12 Per Bilde, “The Causes of the Jewish War According to Josephus,” JSJ 10 (1979): 73–75; Hengel, Zealots, 10–11. 13 Bilde, “The Causes of the Jewish War,” 77. Josephus asserts: “[M]y intention was not so much to extol the Romans as to console those whom they have vanquished and to deter others who may be tempted to revolt” (B.J. 3.108; cf. B.J. 1.4–5; 2.388–389). 14 For those who strongly doubt the historical accuracy of Josephus, see McLaren, Turbulent Times, 65–67; Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 144– 173; Per Bilde, Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works and Their Importance (JSPSup 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 161–162, 176–179. For those who consider Josephus to be generally historically reliable, see Hengel, Zealots, 15; Seán Freyne, Galilee, from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E.: A Study of Second Temple Judaism (University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 5; Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1980), 83–89; Uriel Rappaport, “Where Was Josephus Lying – In His Life or in the War?” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (ed. Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers; StPB 41; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 279–289.

146

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

cially with respect to first century Judea.15 While he acknowledges that it is possible to draw plausible conclusions regarding those narratives within Josephus’ texts for which independent literary accounts or archaeological evidence exists, most episodes for which Josephus is our sole source (which compose the majority of material within Bellum judaicum and Antiquitates judaicae) contain no data which can be declared historically reliable. This is because the modern historian, according to Mason, is only able to study material which can be checked against independent sources. Most of our first century material from Josephus should be characterized as tradition, rather than history. “Where Josephus provides our only account(s) of episodes in Judean history, we still know nothing about them, but only that he said what he said.”16 Mason likens our study of Josephus with an analysis of Ridley Scott’s film Gladiator. Both are, Mason claims, “work(s) of art” which have “a basis in past reality”; but apart from independent sources “we cannot get beyond the art, to know whether the characters portrayed really existed or to what extent they matched the reality.”17 At one level, Mason is correct. Any attempt to verify the historicity of an event for which only a single source exists is impossible. Certainly, it can be wished that more than mere remnants of other contemporary accounts, such as those written by Nicolaus of Damascus and Justus of Tiberius, were still extant. It must be acknowledged at the outset of any study which depends primarily upon a single source that the information is only as solid as the messenger. However, Mason’s analysis is unduly minimalist.18 While a historian must recognize the problem inherent in using Josephus, this does not mean that the task is hopeless. External evidence is not the only means by which the veracity of a text can be analyzed. It is also possible to consider internal evidence, making judgments upon the likelihood that Josephus is accurately portraying a certain event. In addition, if all evidence which cannot 15

Steve Mason, “Josephus as Authority for First-Century Judea,” in Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories (ed. Steve Mason; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009), 7–44; idem, “Contradiction or Counterpoint? Josephus and Historical Method,” RRJ 6 (2003): 145–188. 16 Mason, “Josephus as Authority,” 42. 17 Mason, “Josephus as Authority,” 39–40. Mason’s analogy is seriously flawed, ignoring issues of genre, intent, audience, and temporal proximity. There is a significant difference between a movie script intended to entertain people living in an entirely different country and century, and a document intended to be taken as historically accurate by people living soon after the events described (especially in the case of B.J.) and who had a vested ethnic and emotional interest in understanding the era being described. 18 For a more balanced analysis, see McLaren, Turbulent Times, 48–126.

II. The Evidence

147

be verified by independent sources is discarded, would not the vast majority of ancient history be beyond the scope of historians to study? Perhaps the best advice for the historian who relies on Josephus is provided by Jonathan Price, who cautions against both extremes. Rejecting everything that is not completely provable by concrete external evidence … is unnecessary; for this approach forgets that effective apology and propaganda must be based to some extent on recognizable fact, and denies the validity of internal controls, such as details that contradict propagandistic motifs. At the other extreme, accepting everything Josephus wrote unless decisively disprovable is also an untenable approach, for it mistakenly seeks to resolve rather than learn from the many contradictions, ignores omissions, and treats the historian as a faithful chronicler of events whose personal involvement with his material or desire to pursue certain well-announced themes had no distorting effect.19

The current study, and particularly this chapter, focuses upon asking a single question: is Josephus’ depiction of Jewish resistance against Roman rule characterized by active or passive opposition? Following the methodology laid out above by Price, it should be expected that any exaggeration or fabrication should advance Josephus’ desire to place the blame for the Jewish War upon the Zealot party. Thus, whenever Jewish opposition in a certain episode is presented by Josephus as passive, it is likely that the description of this opposition is historically accurate. Only when Josephus portrays Jewish opposition as violent might some doubt be warranted.

II. The Evidence II. The Evidence The following section will consider the history of Palestine from Herod the Great to Ventidius Cumanus. It will focus particularly upon the instances of Jewish resistance to its overlords, both Herodian and Roman, and will evaluate the nature of this resistance. A. Herod the Great (37–4 B.C.) According to Josephus, during the siege of Jerusalem Titus remonstrates to the Jewish rebels that they had “never ceased from revolution” from the time that Pompey “reduced you by force” (B.J. 6.329). This is, however, not entirely accurate. The quarter century after Pompey’s desecration of the Temple did see attempts by the Hasmoneans to regain control, but following the Roman Senate’s appointment of Herod as a client-king, Jewish resistance was minimal. This was largely due to Herod’s iron grip over his kingdom, which included the prohibition of citizens meeting to19

Jonathan Price, Jerusalem Under Siege: The Collapse of the Jewish State, 66–70 C.E. (Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 3; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 182–183.

148

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

gether, as well as certain policies intended to appease the disaffected amongst the Jewish population, such as the remittance of taxes (A.J. 15.365). Though Herod was certainly a despised ruler,20 he was also greatly feared. Before discussing the reign of Herod in depth, however, an earlier incident in his life is particularly relevant to this study. One of the first decisions Herod’s father Antipater made after being appointed governor (ἐπίτροπος) of Judea was to appoint his son as magistrate (στρατηγός) over Galilee. Herod immediately proceeded to capture and put to death the brigand-chief (ἀρχιλῃστής) Hezekiah (B.J. 1.204; A.J. 14.159). Josephus records that the Sanhedrin protested the execution of Hezekiah because they desired to reserve the death penalty for themselves (A.J. 14.167). Given the fact that Hezekiah is described by Josephus as a ἀρχιλῃστής, whereas λῃστής is Josephus’ normal term, Hengel is likely correct to assume that Hezekiah was an important individual.21 But it is not apparent that Hezekiah was not a “real robber”; nor is Hengel’s assertion established, which he does not document from Josephus himself, that Hezekiah “gathered an armed force around him with the approval of the Sadducees in Galilee in order to form a counterbalance to the increasing strength of the Edomite Antipater and his sons.”22 The only description provided by Josephus is that Hezekiah “was ravaging the district on the Syrian frontier” (B.J. 1.204; cf. A.J. 14.159). This is not the action of a leader whose primary goal was to resist the intrusion of a Roman-appointed, nonHasmonean ruler. Had this been the case, his raids would not have been carried out on border towns, but against symbols of foreign rule (e.g, A.J. 17.151–155; 20.164, 208). In fact, Josephus does not attribute any political intentions to Hezekiah. Rather, the Syrians are described by Josephus as admiring Herod for giving them “peace and the secure enjoyment of their possessions” (A.J. 14.160).23 There is no substantive evidence to support Hezekiah being anything other than the leader of a band of thieves interested in financial gain. After becoming king, Herod successfully rid Galilee of other bandits (A.J. 14.413–430; B.J. 1.304–313). Hengel contends that these λῃσταί

20

At his death, Herod ordered the murders of prominent Jewish leaders on the day he died, so that there would be mourning associated with his own death (A.J. 17.176–179; B.J. 1.660). Cf. The Assumption of Moses 6:2–6. 21 Hengel, Zealots, 314. 22 Hengel, Zealots, 315; cf. William R. Farmer, “Judas, Simon and Athronges,” NTS 4 (1958): 150–152; Francis Loftus, “Anti-Roman Revolts of the Jews and the Galileans,” JQR 68 (1977): 82; Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 63. 23 Likewise, in B.J. 1.205, Herod is praised by the Syrians as “the restorer of their peace and possessions.”

II. The Evidence

149

“were rebels against the legitimate ruler”24 which had taken refuge in the Galilean countryside. Hengel provides no internal evidence for this conclusion; he simply assumes that the “disturbances were an expression of a deep longing for freedom in Galilee”25 and the result of a refusal to recognize an Idumaean as king. There is some evidence that could be brought forth from Josephus to support such an inference. Josephus relates that Herod desired “to prevent any insurrection in favour of Antigonus” (B.J. 1.303). In addition, at least one altercation between Herod’s army and the λῃσταί appears to have been a set piece battle: “under the enemy’s bold attack the left wing of [Herod’s] line gave way, but when he appeared in person with a compact body of men, he put to flight those who had before been victorious, and rallied those of his men who were fleeing” (A.J. 14.416). Yet Josephus provides no connection between Antigonus and λῃσταί. Nor should it be assumed that only those intent on the political overthrow of the government would be involved in a battle with Herod. Contrary evidence to Hengel’s theory can also be presented. Josephus’ description of the activity of the λῃσταί is not that they were inciting their fellow Galileans to revolt, but rather that they “were inflicting on the inhabitants [of Galilee] evils no less than those of war” (B.J. 1.304; cf. A.J. 14.420–430). These λῃσταί may have been disenchanted with the rule of Herod, but if so, they took their frustrations out upon their countrymen. Regardless of their political beliefs, and Josephus provides us with no indication of what they may have been, their actions were those of organized thieves and highwaymen who lived in the hills. In addition, immediately after discussing the suppression of the λῃσταί in Galilee, Josephus proceeds to record Herod’s suppression of a rebellion (νεωτεροποιία) by the Hasmonean Antigonus, including the killing of many “rebels” (οἱ ἀποστάντα) (A.J. 14.431–491; B.J. 1.314–357), and ending in the execution of Antigonus. Nowhere in this account of Antigonus’ revolt does Josephus use the term λῃσταί. Given the close textual proximity of Josephus’ description of these two episodes, such a difference in word choice is significant. Josephus did not consider the λῃσταί to be rebels. After Herod gained control of his kingdom, he was resolute in solidifying his rule. He established sentries throughout the land, with the purpose of stamping out the slightest spark of rebellion (A.J. 15.295). Despite his firmness, there were occasional acts of resistance. On one occasion, ten Jews conspired to attack the theatre in Jerusalem, hoping to perhaps kill Herod himself. The plot was discovered in advance, the men were cap24 25

Hengel, Zealots, 316. Hengel, Zealots, 317.

150

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

tured, tortured, and executed. These men are not, however, identified with any organized ideological group. During the final year of Herod’s life, two prominent interpreters (ἐξηγηταί) of the law, Judas and Matthias, aroused a group of Jewish youths to pull down a golden eagle which had been placed over “the great gate of the Temple, as a votive offering” by Herod (A.J. 17.15).26 Forty of the young men, along with Judas and Matthias, allow themselves to be captured without resistance, and are summarily executed. The followers of Judas and Matthias vandalize property, but then they “courageously awaited the attack” by an officer of the king. Similarly, Judas and Matthias “thought it inglorious to give way on his [the officer of the king] approach.” (A.J. 17.157) They then declare to Herod that “with pleasure we will endure death or whatever punishment you may inflict on us because we shall be conscious that death walks with us not because of any wrongdoing on our part but because of our devotion to piety” (A.J. 17.159). While it is certainly likely that this event inspired later Jewish revolutionaries, and would play a substantial role in the War of Varus which would follow the death of Herod, I will argue throughout this chapter that this was not an example of the type of active and violent resistance which would characterize either Judas the Galilean and his “fourth philosophy” or the Zealot movement. Instead, it is characteristic of a passive resistance which dominated Jewish resistance to Roman rule during the era of the prefects (A.D. 6–41). Consequently, Hengel’s opinion that under Herod’s rule “the foundations were laid for the emergence of the radical freedom movement which later came to call itself the Zealot movement”27 is overstated. Only one element (martyrdom) of the Zealot movement would have been buttressed by the actions of Judas and Matthias. B. War of Varus (6 B.C.–4 B.C.) It is not until after the death of Herod that a policy of active resistance to Roman rule is formulated (though it is likely founded on the much earlier resistance by the Maccabeans to Seleucid rule). 26

Abraham Schalit, König Herodes: Der Mann und sein Werk (SJ 4; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969), 734, offers two suggestions for the significance of the eagle: a symbol of Herod’s kingship or of imperial Rome. Differently, Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (New York: Pantheon, 1953), 129, suggests the eagle signified God or the power of God. Regardless of its intended representation, Gideon Fuks, “Josephus on Herod’s Attitude towards Jewish Religion: The Darker Side,” JJS 53 (2002): 242, is correct that “it is quite clear from Josephus that for some Jews [the eagle] was religiously offensive.” 27 Hengel, Zealots, 324.

II. The Evidence

151

According to Herod’s will, his son Archelaus was to succeed him as king. However, Archelaus knew he would need to journey to Rome for his father’s will to be confirmed. Before he could depart, however, he announced his intent before the Jewish populace to “treat them better than they had been treated by his father” (B.J. 2.3). Inspired by Archelaus’ speech, they immediately begin to entreat him to reduce taxes, abolish duties, and liberate prisoners. Archelaus assented. However, later that evening, a group of Jews whom Josephus claims were “bent on revolution” gathered at the Temple and bemoaned the execution of Judas and Matthias and called for the deposition of the current high priest, Joazar.28 Believing this group had violent intentions, Archelaus sent in a cohort to restrain the leaders; a riot ensued and most of the soldiers were killed, with the commanding tribune barely escaping with his life. The victorious Jews returned to performing their sacrifices “as if nothing serious had happened” (B.J. 2.12). Archelaus, however, sent his entire army onto the Temple Mount, killing more than three thousand. Soon thereafter, Archelaus departed for Rome (where he would only be confirmed as ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Edom). After Archelaus left Judea, the procurator of Syria, Sabinus, came to Judea. Sabinus proceeded to demand that the guardians in charge of the various citadels throughout the land hand over these fortifications to him. He also greedily began searching for royal treasures, desiring to appropriate them for himself. When the feast of Pentecost began in 4 B.C., “a countless multitude” descended upon Jerusalem (where Sabinus and his men were searching for treasure) and besieged the city. Sabinus ordered his soldiers to attack the masses, with many being “either slain or dispersed in panic. The Roman soldiers proceeded to plunder four hundred talents from the Temple treasury. Undeterred, the Jews reorganized their numbers and continued the siege. Meanwhile, with Herod still out of the country and discontent against the actions of Sabinus growing, revolutionary fires began to spring up throughout the countryside. Two thousand of Herod’s veterans rose up against Achiab, Herod’s cousin. Judas, son of the same Hezekiah who had been executed by Herod prior to the latter’s ascent to the throne, raided the royal arsenals and used these weapons to attack “other aspirants to power” (B.J. 2.56) with the goal of gaining wealth and establishing himself as king, “a prize that he expected to obtain not through the practice of virtue but through excessive ill-treatment of others” (A.J. 17.271–272). Simon, a royal slave, and Athronges, a shepherd, also declared themselves as kings and led their own rebellions. Hengel is likely correct that these men were 28

James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 414–416.

152

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

“messianic pretenders.”29 Josephus notes that “these men were making the whole of Judaea one scene of guerilla warfare” (B.J. 2.65) filling the country with “brigandage” (A.J. 17.285). Varus, the governor of Syria,30 brought his legions to Judea and quickly put down these uprisings: “Those who appeared to be the less turbulent individuals he imprisoned; the most culpable, in number about two thousand, he crucified” (B.J. 2.75). This included Simon and Athronges; Judas, however, avoided capture. William Farmer, following Kaufmann Kohler,31 suggests that Hezekiah was a member of the Maccabean royal family, and that his son, Judas’, claim to royalty was based upon this family connection.32 Rudolf Meyer, depending upon rabbinic traditions (y. Soṭah 24c; b. Sanh. 94a, 99a), contends (1) these passages were specifically referring to the arch-brigand Hezekiah and (2) they indicate that this Hezekiah was considered by many Jews to have been the Messiah.33 However, it is more likely that the “king of Judea” in y. Soṭah 24c refers to the son of Ahaz who ruled over Judah in the 8th century B.C (2 Kgs 18–20; 2 Chr 29–32). Hengel considers it “not unlikely” that Judas had messianic aspirations, though does not view the same to have been true for his father, Hezekiah. 34 While possible, there is not sufficient evidence to verify this supposition. These two years were certainly rife with violent resistance against Roman rule. Hengel accurately notes that these insurrections “were fragmented and lacked unity.”35 The only consistent principle was that each revolutionary leader desired power for himself. He also observes that there was a significant difference between how city-dwellers and men of 29

Hengel, Zealots, 328–329; cf. Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 12. The governors of certain provinces, Judea included, were of the equestrian order and were subordinate to the governor of a more significant province from the senatorial order. For example, when Julius Pelignus, governor of Cappadocia, sent auxiliary forces to recover Armenia from Rome without authorization, Ummidius Quadratus, governor of Syria, sent a legion to restore order (Tacitus, Ann. 12.49). Tacitus specifically describes that Judea was attached to the province of Syria following the death of Agrippa (Ann. 12.23). As Judea continued to have its own governors, this statement by Tacitus indicates the subordination of the governor of Judea to the governor of Syria. 31 Kaufmann Kohler, “Zealots,” in Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1905), 12:639–643. 32 Farmer, “Judas, Simon, and Athronges,” 148–152. Cf. Shimon Applebaum, “The Zealots: The Case for Reevaluation,” JRS 61 (1971): 159–161; Freyne, Galilee, from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 67–68, 215–216. 33 Rudolf Meyer, Der Prophet aus Galiläa: Studie zum Jesusbild der drei ersten Evangelien (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970), 70–73. 34 Hengel, Zealots, 293, 314; contra Richard A. Horsley, “Menahem in Jerusalem: A Brief Messianic Episode among the Sicarii – Not ‘Zealot Messianism’,” NovT 27 (1985): 334–348, who disputes the claim that there were any messianic tendencies within the Zealot movement. 35 Hengel, Zealots, 329. 30

II. The Evidence

153

the countryside reacted towards Roman rule: while the latter violently revolted, the former was passive and tractable, far more willing to submit to the rule of Rome and seek to address its concerns by passive dialogue.36 This period is also in stark contrast to the incident of the golden eagle in the final year of Herod, in which the perpetrators of the vandalism placidly allow themselves to be captured and executed (A.J. 17.157). It might be presumed that random discussions amongst various Jews occurred, debating whether an active or a passive model of resistance was preferable. Certainly, there would have been those who advocated each approach. One of the most influential champions of active resistance would be Judas the Galilean. C. Judas the Galilean and the Fourth Philosophy After Herod’s death, some Jews appealed to Augustus to have Herod’s kingdom combined with the province of Syria so that they would be directly ruled by a Roman governor (B.J. 2.80–92; A.J. 17.300). Augustus demurred, deciding instead to divide the kingdom into three parts between three of Herod’s sons: Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip. Archelaus proved correct those Jews who had appealed to Augustus; Josephus records that when Archelaus returned to Judea as ethnarch, he treated his subjects “with great brutality” (B.J. 2.111). Archelaus continued in power until A.D. 6, when he was removed by Augustus who decided to institute direct rule after all. Rhoads observes: “Many people welcomed direct Roman rule with the idea it would give the Jews greater autonomy than they had had under the Herodian vassal kings.”37 Augustus appointed Coponius to be prefect of Judea, over which Quirinius, legate of Syria, ordered a census be taken for the purpose of establishing a tax base. Josephus describes how “a Galilean, named Judas, incited his countrymen to revolt, upbraiding them as cowards for consenting to pay tribute to the Romans and tolerating mortal masters, after having God for their Lord” (B.J. 2.118).38 36

Hengel, Zealots, 328–239; cf. B.J. 2.73. Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 51. 38 Josephus does not provide sufficient evidence to determine whether this Judas is the same as the Judas who led the uprising in Sepphoris following the death of Herod (B.J. 2.56). J. Spencer Kennard, “Judas of Galilee and His Clan,” JQR 36 (1946): 281 and Hengel, Zealots, 331, believe they are the same individuals. In disagreement, contending they are differing persons, are: Heinz Kreißig, Die sozialen Zusammenhänge des Judäischen Krieges, Klassen und Klassenkampf im Palästina des 1. Jahrhunderts v.u.Z. (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike, 1; Berlin: Akademie, 1970), 115; Freyne, Galilee, from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 218; Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 47–51; Eliezer Paltiel, “War in Judaea – After Herod’s Death,” Revue belge de philology et d’histoire 59 (1981): 135–136; Fausto Parente, “Flavius Josephus’ Account of the Anti-Roman Riots Preceding the 66–70 War, and Its Relevance for the Reconstruction of 37

154

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

Most particularly in Antiquates judaicae, Josephus’ depiction of Judas the Galilean is notably more polemical than is customary in his works.39 Judas proclaimed that this tax amounted to “downright slavery” and he therefore “appealed to the nation to make a bid for independence” (A.J. 18.4). In Bellum judaicum, Josephus portrays him as a “sophist” who founded one of four “philosophies” (2.118).40 This school is described as similar to the Pharisees, “except that they have a passion for liberty that is almost unconquerable, since they are convinced that God alone is their leader and master. They think little of submitting to death in unusual forms and permitting vengeance to fall on kinsmen and friends if only they may avoid calling any man master” (A.J. 18.23–24; cf. B.J. 2.433).41 Moreover, they did not stop at passive martyrdom, proclaiming that “with high devotion in their hearts they stood firm and did not shrink from the bloodshed that might be necessary” (A.J. 18.5). Judas’ school, which he began with a Pharisee named Saddok, is accused by Josephus of “planting the seeds of those troubles” (A.J. 18.9) which eventually led to the Jewish War; “the zeal which Judas and Saddok inspired in the younger element meant the ruin of our cause” (A.J. 18.10). Scholarship regarding the fourth philosophy begun by Judas and Saddok is immense, and will be considered in greater detail later in this chapter. It is sufficient at this stage to reiterate the contention, raised at the beginning of this chapter, that Judas’ fourth philosophy was unsuccessful at convincing the general populace until the years following the death of Jewish Eschatology during the First Century A.D.,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 16 (1984): 188–191, contend they are not. For rabbinic traditions (y. Ber. 5a = Lam. Rab. on 1:16; Eccl. Rab. on 1.11) which suggest that they are the same individuals (specifically, that Hezekiah was the father of Judas who was the father of Menahem), see Hengel, Zealots, 295–297, 333; Shimon Applebaum, “Judaea as a Roman Province,” ANRW 2.8: 381–382. 39 James S. McLaren, “Constructing Judaean History in the Diaspora: Josephus’s Accounts of Judas,” in Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire (ed. John M. G. Barclay; Library of Second Temple Studies 45; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 90–108, uses this factor to argue that Judas the Galilean was not an actual historical character, but rather was constructed by Josephus specifically for the purpose of creating a scapegoat for the Jewish revolt of A.D. 66. Cf. Gunnar Haaland, “What Difference Does Philosophy Make?” in Making History: Josephus and Historical Method (ed. Zuleika Rodgers; JSJSup 110; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 267–269. 40 The other three were the Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees. 41 In B.J. 2.118, Josephus states that Judas’ fourth philosophy was “peculiar” and unlike any of the other sects. This contradicts his claim in A.J. 18.23 that they are similar to the Pharisees. Smith, “The Troublemakers,” 506–509, 541–546 convincingly argues that the latter option should be preferred because “originality is rare” and the people would have been unlikely to follow Judas and Saddok “if what they were saying was mostly novel.” Cf. David M. Goodblatt, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 90–91.

II. The Evidence

155

Agrippa (A.D. 44). A continuation of the analysis of first-century Judea will facilitate the establishment of this thesis. D. Roman Prefects and Agrippa I (A.D. 6–44) Following the removal of Archelaus, Augustus decided to place Samaria, Judea, and Edom under direct Roman rule. This continued uninterrupted until Caligula appointed Herod Agrippa I as a client-king. Agrippa’s reign, however, lasted only three years. 1. The First Four Prefects (A.D. 6–26) Josephus’ exposition on the history of Judea during the initial four prefects (A.D. 6–26) is scanty. In Bellum Judaicum 2.117–118 he only mentions the revolt by Judas the Galilean at the onset of Coponius’ term. Antiquitates Judaicae is somewhat more detailed, but not significantly. Josephus makes reference to a desecration of the Temple by a group of Samaritans during Coponius (A.J. 18.30), the bequeathal of Jamnia, Phasaelis, and Archelais by Salome to Julia during Marcus Ambivulus (A.J. 18.31), the fact that Augustus died and was succeeded by Tiberius during the administration of Annius Rufus (A.J. 18.32–33), and the appointment of four different high priests between A.D. 15–26 by Valerius Gratus (A.J. 18.34–35).42 Apart from an oblique reference by Tacitus to a request in the province of Judea for the lowering of the tribute in the year A.D. 17 (Ann. 2.42), nothing more about this period is mentioned by Josephus or any other extant source. Even if Mary Smallwood’s suggestion that the brief terms of the high priests during Gratus “may indicate trouble of some kind,”43 it is certainly not evident that there was any violent incident perpetrated by Jews who were sympathetic to the philosophy of Judas the Galilean, or any other movement which would dominate the Judean political landscape in the decade prior to the Jewish revolt of A.D. 66. Although it is possible that a minor incident would have been unknown to Josephus, it is unlikely that any significant violent episode of Jewish resistance to Roman rule would have escaped his notice. And the desire of Josephus to cast a majority of the blame for the Jewish revolt upon the brigands which he associates with Judas the Galilean makes it equally unlikely that, had Josephus known of such an event, he would have decided to exclude it from his account. It is thus safe to conclude that this 42 These high priests were Ismael ben Philabi (A.D. 15–16), Eleazar ben Ananus (A.D. 16–17), Simon ben Camith (A.D. 17–18), and Joseph Caiaphas (A.D. 18–37). Cf. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 424–436. 43 E. Mary Smallwood, “High Priests and Politics in Roman Palestine,” JTS 13 (1962): 22.

156

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

initial period of direct Roman rule (from A.D. 6–26) was relatively quiet following the quelling of Judas’ rebellion in A.D. 6. 2. Pontius Pilate (A.D. 26–36) The first Roman prefect to be discussed at any length by Josephus is Pontius Pilate. During his administration, there are a number of incidents which clearly demonstrate antagonism between Rome and her Judean subjects. The evidence, however, does not support Hengel’s claim that the actions of Pilate confirmed Judas’ demand “that a clear choice had to be made between the rule of the emperor and that of God.”44 Rather, as I will demonstrate, the Jewish reaction to Pilate was characterized by successful and peaceful appeals to Pilate by Jewish leaders who worked with Pilate rather than demanding that the Jewish people reject Pilate’s leadership. The first episode involved the decision of Pilate to send a certain Roman cohort into Jerusalem to be stationed at the Antonia fortress, whose military standards had the effigies of Augustus and Tiberius upon them (A.J. 18.55–59; B.J. 2.169–174). The Jews took great offense at this action due to the Torah prohibition against images. A “throng” (πληθύς ) of Jews went to Caesarea and insisted that the standards be removed. For five days, they remain passively insistent upon Pilate relenting. On the sixth day, Pilate still refused to yield and placed armed troops around the Jewish delegation, threatening the crowd with death, whereupon the Jews “casting themselves prostrate and baring their throats, declared that they had gladly welcomed death rather than make bold to transgress the wise provisions of the laws” (A.J. 18.59). Taken aback by such a display of ardor, Pilate capitulated and immediately had the standards removed.45 Specifically, observes Helen Bond, the reader of Josephus “learns that the Jews do have the ability to change events, that a passive willingness to die and trust in God can save both them and their ancestral laws.”46 There is no support for Brandon’s contention that “the fact that … no reference is made to the Zealots reasonably excites suspicion as to whether Josephus has given the full story.”47 Rather, Brandon merely assumes without evidence that the Zealots were behind the protest. 44

Hengel, Zealots, 104; cf. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 79–80. Whether Pilate knew he was subverting Jewish customs is debatable. Carl H. Kraeling, “The Episode of the Roman Standards at Jerusalem,” HTR 35 (1942): 265, argues that he did not. E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (SJLA 20; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 161, believes it likely that he did. Either way, the Jews probably believed that Pilate understood the implications of his decision, and therefore the moderation displayed in their protest is even more noteworthy. 46 Helen K. Bond, Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (SNTSMS 100; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 58. 47 Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 70. 45

II. The Evidence

157

The second incident during Pilate involved the building of an aqueduct to improve the water supply of Jerusalem. Pilate used funds from the Corban, the Temple treasury (A.J. 18.60–62; B.J. 2.175–177). The Mishnah (m. Šeqal. 4.2) would later include a provision that the Corban could be used for the upkeep of “the city wall and the towers thereof, and all the city needs” – a provision which would include the city’s water supply. 48 It cannot be known whether this provision originated prior to this incident. Either way, a large contingent of Jews came before Pilate’s tribunal to protest the use of the Corban for this aqueduct. Pilate anticipated this reaction and had inserted a number of his soldiers within the crowd, disguised and armed with cudgels. Upon a signal by Pilate, these soldiers proceeded to use their weapons upon the crowd. Many Jews were killed, either as a result of the beating or by being trampled. Regardless of whether this Mishnaic law regarding the use of the Corban existed at the time, or whether the Jewish crowd was aware of it, it is apparent that they were disturbed by the use of these funds by the Roman authorities.49 The previous pillaging of temple funds by Crassus in 54 B.C. (A.J. 14.105) and Sabinus in 4 B.C. (A.J. 17.264) would have only served to exacerbate the anger of the populace.50 However, there is no basis for contending that they intended to be violent.51 The crowd was instead agitated but otherwise peaceful; it was Pilate who initiated the altercation. The extent of the Jewish reaction was the hurling of “insults and 48 Paul L. Maier, “Pilate in the Dock: For the Defense,” BRev 20 (2004): 28. Maier points out that Pilate must have had the consent of the temple priests to use the Corban; had Pilate or his soldiers entered the Temple themselves to confiscate the funds, this desecration would not have gone unrecorded. It is possible, however, that the priests would have been compelled to hand over these funds and not been forthcoming to the crowds about their role; the fact that Pilate had the authority to remove the high priest from his position could very well have been a contributing factor. Cf. Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 163 n. 65; VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 431. 49 Jean Juster, Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain: Leur condition juridique, économique et sociale (Paris: Geuthner, 1914), 384, suggests that it was the physical handling of the temple funds by Pilate (or other non-Jews acting on his behalf) which angered the Jews. 50 James S. McLaren, Power and Politics in Palestine: The Jews and the Governing of Their Land, 100 BC-AD 70 (JSNTSup 63; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 86–87, notes that the Jewish protest did not begin until after the construction of the aqueduct had already started and Pilate had arrived in Jerusalem. He argues that this suggests that only some of the Jews were upset while the Jewish leadership was supportive of Pilate’s decision to use the Corban to help offset the costs of the aqueduct. Otherwise, the Jewish leadership could have journeyed to Caesarea (where Pilate normally dwelled) to protest as soon as they heard that Pilate was intending to use the Corban. McLaren’s interpretation is made more likely if the account in A.J. 18.60, which indicates that only some of the Jews were participating in the rioting, is accurate. Cf. Bond, Pontius Pilate, 87–88. 51 As does Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 76.

158

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

abuse of the sort that a throng will commonly engage in” (A.J. 18.60). In fact, Josephus specifically states that these Jews were unarmed (A.J. 18.62); clearly they had not gone before Pilate with the intent to engage in violence, but rather were attempting to plead their case as they had during the previous incident with the standards. Given the fact that the Jewish protest was not spontaneous, with the Jews deciding to wait until Pilate arrived in Jerusalem,52 the lack of weapons indicates that the participants were not anticipating the outbreak of violence, and certainly were not planning to initiate any altercations. It is significant that these first two incidents involved the Jerusalem temple, as would many other events up to, and including, the Jewish War of A.D. 66. Mendels argues that the temple moved from being a “religiopolitical center” during Judas the Galilean’s uprising in A.D. 6 to a predominantly “religiospiritual” center until A.D. 66 when it returned to being a religiopolitical center under the influence of the Zealots and Sicarii.53 Mendels, however, perceives a distinction between the political and religious which would not have been made by the Jews of the first century.54 The third episode of passive resistance to Pilate is recorded by Philo,55 and concerned a number of gilded shields which Pilate dedicated to Tiberius and placed in Herod’s Jerusalem palace (Legat. 299–305).56 While 52

Bond, Pontius Pilate, 87. Bond, 86, suggests that the aqueduct, as is often the case with building projects, exceeded the expected cost, and that Pilate withdrew money from the temple treasury on multiple occasions which began to affect the funds necessary for the daily sacrifices. If true, this may also have accounted for the delayed reaction on the part of the Jews. Cf. also Jean-Pierre Lémonon, Pilate et le gouvernement de la Judée: Textes et monuments (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1981), 168. 53 Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, 288–294. Contra Hengel, Zealots, 206–224. 54 For a focused study upon the religious aspect of the temple during this period, see Helmut Schwier, Tempel und Tempelzerstörung: Untersuchungen zu den theologischen und ideologischen Faktoren im ersten jüdisch-römischen Krieg (66–74 n. Chr.) (NTOA 11; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989). 55 Bond, Pontius Pilate, 29, argues that Philo’s “interest in characterization and strongly emotional language marks Philo’s writings as ‘pathetic history.’” While Bond is correct that Philo’s depiction of Pilate as cruel and vindictive may be questioned as not comporting with the evidence either in Josephus or in Philo himself, his description of the Jewish leaders using diplomacy should be trusted, especially as it accords with Josephus’ representation of the Jews’ relationship with Pilate. 56 A few scholars identify the standards affair in Josephus with the shields affair in Philo. See Francis H. Colson in Philo (ed. Francis H. Colson and George H. Whitaker; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929), xix–xx; Daniel R. Schwartz, “Josephus and Philo on Pontius Pilate,” Jerusalem Cathedra 3 (1983): 26–45; McLaren, Power and Politics in Palestine, 82 n. 1; Heinrich Graetz, Geschichte der Juden: Von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,

II. The Evidence

159

even Philo seems to question whether these shields contained anything contradictory to the laws of the Jews, the “multitude” (οἱ πολλοί) appealed to Pilate to remove these objects. When Pilate refused, the Jewish leaders (four sons of Herod the Great) who had been appointed by the Jewish crowd threatened to send an embassy to Tiberius. Eventually, they did send letters to Tiberius, who rebuked Pilate and ordered the shields to be taken to Caesarea and placed in the temple of Augustus. Once again, the Jewish response to a perceived attack on their customs by a Roman governor was both passive and, as with the standards incident, successful. Brandon argues that the problem of the Jewish leaders rested with the dedicatory inscription which, he presumes, contained “some reference to the divinity of the emperor.” As this contradicts the fourth philosophy’s prohibition against calling any man “Lord”, Brandon concludes that “we may reasonably infer therefore that the teaching of Judas of Galilee had taken deep root in the Jewish mind.”57 However, Brandon’s thesis is negated when it is recognized that the Jewish leaders specifically called Tiberius “lord” (δεσπότης: Legat. 301). There may indeed have been an objecttion to the wording upon the shields which may have accounted for the objection of the Jews; Gideon Fuks suggests that the inscription may have included Tiberius’ title, filius divi Augusti. But, if so, the issue would have involved worship, not lordship.58 Three other events during Pilate’s tenure as prefect should also be mentioned. In Luke 13:1–2, Jesus responds to some “Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.” However, this event is not de1998), 3:285–286. Most contend that the two accounts should be understood as separate incidents. See, e.g., Antony D. Doyle, “Pilate’s Career and the Date of the Crucifixion,” JTS 42 (1941): 190; Paul L. Maier, “Episode of the Golden Roman Shields at Jerusalem,” HTR 62 (1969): 111; Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 166; Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome, 33; Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 67. As both accounts present the Jews as diplomatically appealing to Pilate, this issue is not relevant to this particular study. 57 Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 74. 58 Gideon Fuks, “Again on the Episode of the Gilded Roman Shields at Jerusalem,” HTR 75 (1982): 503–507. Cf. Bond, Pontius Pilate, 38–41. Alternatively, Maier, “Episode of the Golden Roman Shields,” 117–118, suggests that the controversy rested in a misunderstanding on the part of the Jews as to the type of shield which had a religious connotation in Roman mythology. The ancile, a small, oval shield, purportedly fell from heaven during the reign of King Numa Pompilius (e.g., Plutarch, Numa, 13). However, Philo recorded that Pilate used a clipeus, which had no religious significance. Whatever Pilate’s intent, Lémonon, Pilate et le gouvernement de la Judée, 217, correctly concludes that “pour les Juifs, ils évoquaient tout un contexte païen et la mise en honneur, sur une terre juive, d’objets qui d’ordinaire comportaient des images de dieux ou d’hommes divinisés. In addition, as Lemonen notes, Tiberius agreed that the shields were offensive to the Jews and ordered them to be removed to Caesarea.

160

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

scribed in any other source, and therefore no conclusions can be drawn as to the underlying cause of this tragedy. In addition, as Hengel rightly concludes, it cannot be known whether these particular Galileans were members of the Zealot party, and thus this passage does not help elucidate the first century portrait of Jewish resistance to Roman rule.59 Two elements of the trial of Jesus are relevant to this study. The first relates to the reaction of the Jewish leadership to Pilate’s initial attempts to release Jesus.60 They are not violent; rather they reason with the governor and successfully convince him to execute Jesus. The second pertinent aspect of Jesus’ trial to this study is Barabbas, who is described variously as a δέσµιος (Matt 27:16), as µετὰ τῶν στασιαστῶν δεδεµένος (Mark 15:7), and a λῃστής (John 18:40).61 Both Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 describe him as participating in a στάσις and committing murder (φόνος ). Hengel characteristically suggests that Barabbas was associated with the Zealots, noting it was commonplace for Zealots to carry out political murders.62 Significantly, however, the texts offered by Hengel as support for the committing of political murders are limited to Judas’ insurrection in A.D. 6 (A.J. 18.7), the murders by the Sicarii beginning during the administration of Felix between A.D. 52–60 (B.J. 2.256–257), and the plot to murder Paul in Acts 23:12–13 (also during Felix).63 Yet Hengel provides no evidence that this tactic was being utilized at the time of Barabbas, nor is there any reason to assume that the murder committed by Barabbas 59 Hengel, Zealots, 59, 338; Matthew Black, “Judas of Galilee and Josephus’s ‘Fourth Philosophy’,” in Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (ed. Otto Betz and Klaus Haacker; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 53. Likewise, Brian C. McGing, “Pontius Pilate and the Sources,” CBQ 53 (1991): 435 n. 63, observes that “considerable effort and ingenuity have been expended in trying to explain the incident, but it is all guesswork, and none of the numerous theories is noticeably more convincing than the rest.” For a somewhat outdated analysis of the various theories regarding this incident, see Josef Blinzler, “Die Niedermetzelung von Galiläern durch Pilatus,” NovT 2 (1957): 29–49. 60 For Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 342, to contend that the two swords of Luke 22:35–38 are substantiation that Jesus was attempting to launch a Zealot uprising is correctly described by Matthew Black, “Not Peace but a Sword,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day (ed. Ernst Bammel and Charles F. D. Moule; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 290, as reading “too much into such scraps of evidence.” 61 I assume, here, that the account of Barabbas, including the tradition of releasing a prisoner during Passover, is historical. Cf. Gundry, Mark, 934–935; Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:811–814. If it is not, of course, this episode would have no bearing on the existence and influence of a revolutionary party at the time of Jesus. 62 Hengel, Zealots, 341; Ben Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 391 n. 137; Köstenberger, John, 406; Marcus, Mark, 2:1029. 63 Hengel, Zealots, 341.

II. The Evidence

161

was specifically that of a prominent government official. In addition, even if Barabbas was a follower of Judas’ fourth philosophy and was attempting to establish the sole rule of God in Judea, the fact that he is not mentioned by Josephus and that no further violence occurs during Pilate’s tenure (apart from the Samaritan insurrection, which would not have involved associates of Judas the Galilean) implies that such a movement was unsuccessful in convincing even a significant minority of Jews to prefer their solution to dealing with the Romans over that of the current Jewish leadership. Finally, it is not certain that Barabbas was involved in a revolt against Rome. Many biblical commentators assume, without offering any argument, that στάσις should be understood as an insurrection, one which Josephus simply did not mention.64 Στασιαστής (occurring only in Mark 15:7), therefore is taken as “revolutionary.” For στάσις, BDAG provides multiple options, including “uprising, riot, revolt, and rebellion” and defines στασιαστής as “a factious pers. who causes public discord, rebel, revolutionary.”65 An additional definition which should perhaps be considered is “rioter”: one who causes public discord in the form of a riot, as opposed to a rebellion.” Elsewhere in the NT, στάσις is certainly not used in the context of a rebellion. And in these instances, it is likely that the people responsible (or believed to be responsible) for instigating the στάσις would likely have been considered στασιασταί. For example, when Paul and Barnabas were in danger of being accused of starting a στάσις, the fear of the Ephesian officials was not that a rebellion would occur, but that a riot would ensue; consequently, they would probably have considered Paul and Barnabas to be στασιασταί (Acts 19:40; cf. Acts 24:5). The same would likely have been true with the Pharisees and Sadducees who debated the resurrection in Acts 23:7–11. Similarly, it is possible that Barabbas (along with, perhaps, the two λῃσταί crucified with Jesus) was guilty of committing murder during a riot (CEB, NCV) rather than an overt insurrection (NASB/KJV/ESV/NRSV) or uprising (NIV)66 64 E.g., Ezra P. Gould, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark (ICC 27; New York: Scribner’s, 1896), 285; Gundry, Mark, 934–935; Bock, Luke, 2:1829; Evans, Mark, 2:481; Witherington, Mark, 391; Stein, Mark, 701. Marshall, Luke, 860, I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC 3; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 860, prefers “riot,” while offering “uprising” and “revolt” as alternatives; however, he offers no argument why “riot” should be preferred. 65 BDAG, s.v. “στάσις,” 940. Cf., similarly, Gerhard Delling, στάσις, TDNT, 7:568– 571; LSJ, s.v., “στάσις,” 1634. On the use of terminology in Josephus, see Table 2 on pp. 202–203. 66 Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:686–687, 796–797; Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 65–66. Contra Marcus, Mark, 2:1029.

162

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

and that Mark 15:7 should therefore be translated as: “But there was one called Barabbas, who had been imprisoned with the rioters, who had committed murder during the riot.” At the very least, if Barabbas was indeed involved in a revolt, this would be the only time στάσις is used this way in the NT.67 In addition, even if it is granted that Barabbas was an insurrectionist, and not merely a participant in a riot, this still does not indicate that he was a Zealot, or that there was an influential revolutionary movement in Judea at the time of Jesus. First, if he was inciting revolution, he could just as plausibly been a member of an independent resistance group. Second, if a revolt did occur and was connected to a Zealot movement which was successful at exerting its influence on the Judean populace, it would have made sense for Josephus to include it, as it would have furthered his goal of placing the blame for A.D. 70 upon the revolutionaries. As he does not mention it, it either did not occur or was too minor to warrant its inclusion. Third, Pilate’s decision to offer Barabbas to be released is difficult to explain if he was a leader of a popular revolutionary movement. Three options present themselves: (1) Barabbas was a revolutionary who was popular with the people, (2) Barabbas was a revolutionary who was unpopular with the people, or (3) Barabbas was not a revolutionary leader at all, but merely an ordinary murderer. If Barabbas was popular with the people, why would Pilate have offered him as an option for release? Certainly, a Roman governor would have believed that Jesus was a lesser threat than a proven revolutionary leader. In addition, if the gospel writers are to be trusted, Pilate is offering Barabbas along with Jesus as an attempt to release Jesus without upsetting the crowd, which implies that Pilate believed it more likely Jesus would be chosen over Barabbas. Thus, given Pilate’s apparent belief that the crowds would choose to release Jesus instead of Barabbas, it is improbable that Barabbas was considered to be a hero who was fighting for their freedom; if he was a revolutionary, he was likely unpopular. As it has already been demonstrated that there is no a priori reason to assume he was a revolutionary, the third option is at least equally likely, if not more so: Barabbas was simply an ordinary murderer, with no ties to any organized insurrection against the Roman government. In the final analysis, therefore, Witherington is correct. Even while agreeing with Hengel that Barabbas was connected with the Zealot movement, he acknowledges “whether we should call [Barabbas] a zealot or not

67

The other two appearances of στάσις in the NT are Acts 15:2, referring to the disagreement between Paul/Barnabas and those teaching circumcision was necessary for salvation, and Heb 9:8, which discusses how “the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing (στάσις).

II. The Evidence

163

depends on one’s analysis of the zealot movement.”68 The account of Barabbas does not itself serve as evidence for or against the existence of the Zealots and is certainly not confirmation of an influential Zealot movement. The final event during Pilate’s administration which relates to this study involves a Samaritan who had convinced a mob of his countrymen to follow him to Mt. Gerazim, upon which their temple had stood before being destroyed by John Hyrcanus in c. 129 B.C. This Samaritan promised to uncover the buried sacred vessels which had been deposited by Moses. 69 Pilate blocked the “great multitude” (µεγάλῳ πλήθει) from ascending Gerazim with a detachment of cavalry and infantry. A “pitched battle” ensued, resulting in a victory by Pilate’s forces, and the execution of the leaders. Some of the survivors sent a delegation to Lucius Vitellius, the legate of Syria, characterizing Pilate’s actions as an unjustified slaughter. Vitellius decided to recall Pilate, ordering him to return to Rome to defend himself before Tiberius (A.J. 18.85–89). This final event in the administration of Pilate, which involved Samaritans rather than Jews, is notable for being the only instance of armed violence on the part of Pilate’s subjects at any time during his administration. Another item of interest which should be discussed, although not related to Pilate himself, is the identity of certain disciples of Jesus, and whether an argument can be made for a connection between the Zealots and Jesus. In Luke 6:15, one of the Twelve is called Σίµωνα τὸν καλούµενον Ζηλωτὴν; in Acts 1:13, he is simply called Σίµων ὁ ζηλωτής, and in Mark 3:18 and Matt 10:4, he is called ὁ Καναναῖος. Καναναῖος is a transliteration of the Aramaic qan’ān (zealot).70 The pertinent question for this study is whether Simon was a member of the Zealot party, or whether his appellation was simply indicative of his possessing great zeal (cf. Acts 21:20; 22:3; 1 Cor 14:12; Gal 1:14; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet 3:13). Either is possible, and scholarship is mixed as to which should be preferred.71 68

Witherington, Mark, 391 n. 137. Isaac Kalimi and James D. Purvis, “The Hiding of the Temple Vessels in Jewish and Samaritan Literature,” CBQ 56 (1994): 683–684 dispute that such a tradition would have existed, as the Samaritans believed Moses died on Mt. Nebo without ever entering Canaan. Contra Marilyn F. Collins, “Hidden Vessels in Samaritan Traditions,” JSJ 3 (1972): 112. 70 BDAG, s.v. “Καναναῖος,” 507. 71 Scholars who contend that Simon had been associated with a Zealot party include: Hengel, Zealots, 392–394; Marshall, Luke, 240; Bruce, Acts, 43–44. Bock, Luke, 545– 546, contends that Simon was a “nationalist Israelite before joining up with Jesus” but may not have been affiliated with any specific party. Those who assert that ὁ ζηλωτής refers solely to a character trait include: Frederick J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity (London: Macmillan, 1920), 425; Marcus J. Borg, “Currency of the Term ‘Zealot’,” JTS 22 (1971): 507–508; Lane, Mark, 136; Rhoads, Israel in 69

164

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

Other disciples of Jesus have also been associated with a revolutionary Jewish party. Friedrich Schulthess, based upon the textual variant of D in Matt 10:4 (Σκαριώτης rather than Καναναῖος), hypothesized that Judas, the disciple who betrayed Jesus, was a member of the Sicarii.72 Other proposed options include “man from Kerioth”73 and a derivation from the Aramaic, šeqar, ‘falsehood.’74 Given that the father of Judas, Simon, is given the same appellation in John 6:71; 13:26, it is likely that the term refers to Judas’ hometown, but this cannot be definitively determined. Constantin Daniel also connects Nathaniel to the Sicarii, contending that the fig tree (συκή) of John 1:48 should be understood to be a wordplay on σίκα (= the Latin sika). He presents a similar argument linking John the Baptist to the Zealots, using a wordplay on “reed” in Matt 11:7. 75 The suggestions regarding Judas, Nathaniel, and John the Baptist are much more speculative than that of Simon, and proportionately less likely. Yet even if the name of any of these three four individuals has a connection to the Zealot or Sicarii parties, nothing of importance is added to this study, as this would not indicate that either of these revolutionary groups was influential in the years between A.D. 6–44. The scholar for whom this issue is of greatest significance is perhaps Brandon, who likewise argues that Simon was a member of the revolutionary party of Judas the Galilean and concludes that Jesus’ decision to include Simon amongst his close circle of disciples indicates that Jesus, while not being a member of the party himself, was in basic agreement with its principles.76 This included Jesus’ decision to use violence as a means of achieving his goals, as evidenced by his use of a whip in the temple and the arming of his disciples prior to leaving for Gethsemane.77 Brandon also contends that the altercation in the temple was part of the upRevolution, 87; Nolland, Luke, 1:271; Christoph Mézange, “Simon le Zélote était-il un révolutionnaire?” Bib 81 (2000): 505. France, Mark, 162–163, remarks that by the time Matthew was written, the term had acquired a nationalistic sense. However, depending upon the identity of Matthew’s intended audience, it is possible that a short-lived, unsuccessful party designation would have become widely known outside of Palestine itself. 72 Friedrich Schulthess, “Zur Sprache der Evangelien,” ZNW 21 (1922): 250–258; Oscar Cullmann, “Der zwölfte Apostel,” in Vorträge und Aufsätze, 1925–1962 (ed. Oscar Cullmann and Karlfried Fröhlich; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966), 214–222; Constantin Daniel, “Esséniens, zélotes et sicaires et leur mention par paronymie dans le NT,” Numen 13 (1966): 92–93; Marcus, Mark, 264–265. 73 Morris, Matthew, 243 n. 5; Hagner, Matthew, 2:266; France, Matthew, 378. 74 Charles C. Torrey, “The Name ‘Iscariot’,” HTR 36 (1943): 51–62; Marshall, Luke, 240; Nolland, Luke, 1:371. 75 Daniel, “Esséniens, Zélotes et Sicaires,” 97–99. The fact that the Sicarii are not mentioned by Josephus until the A.D. 60s makes this identification particularly unlikely. 76 Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 355. 77 Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 355 n. 3.

II. The Evidence

165

rising led by Barabbas and that the two thieves crucified alongside Jesus were therefore his fellow-compatriots.78 Brandon deviates somewhat here from Robert Eisler, who had not only argued that Jesus had led a revolt, but that he had been successful in seizing the temple, only later to be deposed by the Romans.79 In order to account for the far more moderate picture of Jesus presented in the Gospels, Brandon argues that they were written by members of the post-70 Gentile-dominated church, who sought to minimize the zealotic tendencies of Jesus, which had been adopted by the Jewish Christians and led to the latter’s participation and eradication during the Jewish revolt of A.D. 66.80 Brandon also offers an argument from silence as further evidence for Jesus’ close affinity to the Zealots. The Gospels are replete with condemnations of other groups within first century Judaism, most especially the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the absence of any similar pronouncements against the Zealots, Brandon argues, is inexplicable.81 This view, however, assumes that the Zealots held as prominent a role in Palestinian Jewish society as did the Pharisees and Sadducees at the time of Jesus, and this is exceedingly unlikely. In addition, William Klassen correctly criticizes Brandon’s contention that the mere existence of a Zealot amongst the Twelve would not indicate concurrence between the ideologies of Judas and Jesus, any more than Jesus’ choice of a tax-collector demonstrates that Jesus was in favor of taxation.82 Simon’s appellation is intended to describe something about Simon alone, not about those with whom he associated.83

78

Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 356. Cf. ibid., 322–354; Oscar Cullmann, The State in the New Testament (New York: Scribner, 1956), 16. Daniel, “Esséniens, Zélotes et Sicaires,” 96, concludes the Pharisees’ charge that Jesus was inciting rebellion (Luke 23:14) indicates that Jesus was a “secret Zealot.” 79 Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist: According to Flavius Josephus’ Recently Rediscovered ‘Capture of Jerusalem’ and the Other Jewish and Christian Sources (London: Methuen, 1931), 480–506; Paul Achtemeier, Quest for Unity, 1. 80 Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 206–09, 216–17, 221–82. 81 Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 200–201. For a rebuttal, see Geoffrey M. Styler, “Argumentum e silentio,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day (ed. Ernest Bammel and Charles F. D. Moule; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 101–107. 82 William Klassen, “Jesus and the Zealot Option,” CJT 16 (1970): 16–17. 83 Heinz Kreißig’s thesis that Jesus and his disciples set themselves up as counteragitators (Gegenagitatoren) against the party begun by Judas and Saddok should also be discarded. In Die sozialen Zusammenhänge des Judäischen Krieges, Klassen und Klassenkampf im Palästina des 1. Jahrhunderts v.u.Z., 121. While it is true that Jesus was primarily based in Galilee, there simply is not sufficient evidence to establish any connection, positive or negative, between Jesus and the followers of Judas.

166

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

Following the departure of Pilate, Vitellius journeyed to Jerusalem during the Passover and announced the remittance of agricultural taxes for the inhabitants of the city along with the return of the priestly vestments into the custody of the priests instead of being kept by the prefect in the Antonia (A.J. 18.90–95). Such acts would have been received with great approval by the Jewish people, again limiting any popular influence that the remaining followers of Judas may have had.84 Later, Vitellius acquiesed to a plea by Jewish leaders not to march his army through Judea on the way to attack Aretas, king of Petra.85 He instead agreed to march around Judea and then went to Jerusalem to offer a sacrifice. “When he arrived there, he was greeted with special warmth by the Jewish multitude” which proceeded to swear an oath of good will (εὔνοια) to Gaius following the death of Tiberius (A.J. 18.123).86 Tacitus summarized Judea under the reign of Tiberius as “quiet” (Hist. 5.9). Price objects that Tacitus simply did not have access to accurate information from Judea; otherwise he would not have described the situation in this manner.87 However, from the perspective of Rome, Tacitus’ description was very valid. A “quiet” province would not have been one in which a governor faced no problems, but rather one in which revolts were averted. While Pilate upset many within Judea, Tiberius would have been satisfied with a prefect who maintained a relative peace in such a historically volatile province.88 It was only when a revolt did occur, by the Samaritans, that he was ordered removed by Tiberius. Hence, 84 Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 62, notes: “The cooperative response to Vitellius indicates the stability of the nation and the desire for a peaceful relationship with the Romans.” Cf. Philo, Legat. 230–232. Vitellius also removes Caiaphas as high priest. It is unclear why this removal took place or whether it was popular or unpopular with the Jewish people. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 435, notes that it was not due to disapproval of the high priestly family of Annas since Caiaphas’ successor was his brother-in-law, Jonathan. Given the fact that Caiaphas had been high priest for an inordinately long period of time (Caiaphas served for 18 years; in the previous 18 years, there had been five different high priests), Vitellius may have simply determined that it was time for a change, but that a significant change was not warranted, and so replaced Caiaphas with a family member. 85 This battle never actually took place because Vitellius’ authority to act as governor of Syria ended with the death of Tiberius and ascension to the imperatorship by Gaius (A.J. 18.124). 86 Mézange, “Simon le Zélote,” 501, observes: “Ce calme serait inimaginable si les partisans de la Quatrième Philosophie avaient été présents ou avaient eu une quelconque influence sur la population, eux dont le mot d’ordre était de ne pas accepter d’autres maîtres que Dieu et surtout pas l’empereur romain païen divinisé qui remettait en cause la souveraineté de Dieu sur Israël.” 87 Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 6; cf. Hengel, Zealots, 337. 88 Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, 296.

II. The Evidence

167

Tacitus provides independent support for Josephus’ description that there was an absence of popular uprisings in Judea under Pilate. 3. Gaius, the Statue, and Petronius (A.D. 39–41) The final, and most severely divisive, event during the era of the Roman prefects was Gaius’ directive that a large military contingent escort Publius Petronius, the new legate of Syria, into Jerusalem and place an image of the emperor inside the Temple (A.J. 18.257–309; B.J. 2.184–203)89. He commanded Petronius to use force to subdue the Jews if they protested. While Petronius wintered with his army at Ptolemais, “tens of thousands of Jews” traveled to his camp to petition him “not to use force to make them transgress and violate their ancestral code” (A.J. 18.263). Consistent with their previous dealings with Pilate, these Jews proclaimed: “If you propose at all costs to bring in and set up the image, slay us first before you carry out these resolutions. ... In order to preserve our ancestral code, we shall patiently endure what may be in store for us …” (A.J. 18.264, 267). Josephus records that Petronius recognized that “there would be great slaughter” if he proceeded to carry out Gaius’ command. The Jews were not actually contemplating taking up arms themselves, but rather declared that they would “‘die sooner than violate our laws.’ ... falling on their faces and baring their throats, they declared that they were ready to be slain” (A.J. 18.271; cf. B.J. 2.197; Philo, Legat. 209, 229–233). They continued these supplications for forty days, neglecting their fields even though it was planting season (A.J. 18.272; Vita 71; Philo, Legat. 248–253, 257). Like Pilate before him, Petronius was impressed by the “incomparable devotion of this people to their religion and their unflinching resignation to death” (B.J. 2.198). Josephus does mention an argument by Aristobulus, brother of Herod Agrippa, Helcias the Elder, and other influential Jewish leaders that the failure to plant crops would result in “a harvest of banditry, because the requirement of tribute could not be met” (A.J. 18.274). It is indeed possible that these Jewish leaders remembered the actions of previous brigands such as Judas the Galilean. As will be demonstrated later in this chapter, there is good reason to conclude that a policy of active resistance was germinating under the surface amongst certain groups, and perhaps that the followers of Judas the Galilean continued to desire to take up the sword against Roman rule. But it is clear from Josephus’ account that the philosophy which had succeeded in convincing the Jewish masses was one 89

Gaius was incensed that, alone among all the subject peoples of the Roman Empire, the Jews refused “to honor [Gaius] with statues and to swear by his name” (A.J. 18.258). This was after Gaius’ began to believe himself to be divine and require his subjects to honor him as such. Cf. Suetonius, Cal. 22; Dio Cassius, Hist. 59.4.4.

168

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

of passive resistance.90 It had been successfully utilized on multiple occasions during Pilate, and was adopted in this instance as well. And, again, it was successful in that Petronius was convinced to send a letter to Gaius advocating that the order be rescinded. Thus, Brandon’s argument that the Zealots’ “apparent absence from any participation in the events of A.D. 39–40 … is so remarkable as to cause suspicion”91 is falsified by the very fact that the tactics used by the Jewish leadership were quite different from those utilized by the Zealots two decades later. Regardless of whether a group of Jews in Palestine dedicated to active resistance against Roman rule existed at the time of Gaius, the political philosophy which had repeatedly proved successful was one of passive diplomacy. A much more plausible argument is presented by William Farmer, who contends that there is a direct connection between the readiness to die for the Law during the Maccabean era and the Roman period.92 With regards to the Gaius incident, Farmer particularly relies upon Philo, who wrote that the Jews were willing to die “to preserve their own customs and laws” (Legat. 210).93 He then contrasts this sentiment to Josephus’ portrayal of “the pious Jew as passive in his resistance to Rome … [with] active resistance to Rome inspired by self-seeking revolutionaries.”94 Yet, there is no contradiction between Josephus and Philo here. Per Bilde correctly observes that in both Josephus and Philo there exists a tension between “conflict motives and more peaceful motives.”95 It is indeed probable that had Gaius lived and succeeded in having a statue placed in the Jerusalem temple, violence would have inevitably ensued. But the Jews were willing to first allow their leaders to attempt to convince Gaius to desist. And when Gaius died before his plan could be implemented,96 this would likely have been interpreted by the Jews as providential; God had intervened on behalf 90 Contra Hengel, Zealots, 341, who contends that this episode “may have strengthened the position of the Zealots.” The successful conclusion of the affair suggests the opposite. 91 Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 65. 92 William R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus: An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), 65–68; cf. Jan Willem Van Henten, “Noble Death in Josephus: Just Rhetoric?” in Making History: Josephus and Historical Method (ed. Zuleika Rodgers; JSJSup 110; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 195–218. 93 Cf. A.J. 18.270; Tacitus, Hist 5.9. 94 Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus, 62. 95 Per Bilde, “Roman Emperor Gaius (Caligula)’s Attempt to Erect His Statue in the Temple of Jerusalem,” ST 32 (1978): 81. 96 Josephus’ two major works differ on the details of how the crisis was averted (B.J. 2.184–203; A.J. 18.261–309), but both agree that Gaius’ death was crucial. See Schwartz, Agrippa I, 77–89.

II. The Evidence

169

of their leadership who had advocated passive resistance. And this belief would have been even more firmly substantiated soon thereafter when Judea achieved a measure of self-rule following Claudius’ appointment of Agrippa as king of Israel. Finally, John Lightley is certainly correct when he concludes that, though danger was averted, the attempt by Gaius to place his statue in the Jerusalem temple “left an indelible impression on the mind of the people.”97 Tacitus remarked that even after Gaius’ death, “the fear remained that some emperor might issue an identical mandate” (Ann. 12.54). While the common Jew would have recognized the successful diplomacy of the Jewish leadership, they will have also remembered their anger at the possibility that their beloved temple would be defiled. And any Jews who had previously decided to take up arms to defend this temple if the attempts to handle the situation peacefully had failed would be more likely to make this same decision if the Jewish leadership was ever perceived to fail in the future. Thus, while violence itself was avoided, the possibility of future violence was heightened,98 though these fears were likely temporarily alleviated following the appointment of Agrippa, grandson of Herod the Great, as king. 4. Herod Agrippa I (A.D. 41–44) While Agrippa may not have been privately concerned with following Jewish practices, publicly he appeared very sensitive to the concerns of his people (A.J. 19.291–299, 328–331). Upon his initial arrival in Jerusalem following his ascension to the throne, Agrippa offered sacrifices, including the dedication of a golden chain given to him by Gaius. Whereas the high priests during the era of the Roman prefects had primarily come from the family of Annas, Agrippa appointed Simon Cantheras, a son of Boethus. The significance of this choice would not have been lost on the Jewish populace; the high priest Joazar who had been removed by the first Roman procurator, Coponius, had also been a son of Boethus (A.J. 18.3).99 He also remitted the household tax, an act which would surely have ingratiated himself with his subjects. And unlike his grandfather, Agrippa was described by Josephus as having “a gentle disposition” and was “proportionately more generous and more compassionate” to his fellow Jews than to Greeks. (A.J. 19.330) He regularly engaged in acts of purification and sacrifice, “scrupulously observ[ing] the traditions of his people” (A.J. 19.331). Additionally relevant is the execution of James, son of Zebedee 97

John W. Lightley, Jewish Sects and Parties in the Time of Jesus (London: Sharp, 1925), 368. 98 Cf. Hengel, Zealots, 106. 99 Schwartz, Agrippa I, 70; VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 443–444.

170

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

and the arrest of other Christians which pleased the Jewish populace and his subsequent arrest of Peter (Acts 12:1–3), already discussed in chapter 3. Not only did the Jews have their own king who publicly embraced their beliefs and upheld their laws, the emperor Claudius also favored the Jews. He posted an empire-wide edict that Jews in every province should be allowed to “observe the customs of their fathers without let or hindrance” (A.J. 19.290).100 This edict was tested in the Syrian city of Dora when a golden image of Claudius was placed in the local synagogue; the Syrian legate Petronius denounced the act, referred to Claudius’ edict, and ordered those responsible arrested (A.J. 19.300–311). In his letter to the leaders of Dora, Petronius cautioned against any action which might lead to revolt (A.J. 19.309–310). Hengel notes that this incident, along with the episode of Gaius and the golden statue, demonstrates that the Jews were willing to fight for their customs to be upheld.101 However, it is also true that the Jews had learned from past experiences that an appeal to the appropriate Roman authorities would often resolve the situation peacefully. They might fight when they had no other option, but violence was also to be avoided if their Jewish leaders could convince the Romans to respond favorably to their concerns. Hence, the Dora episode is another in a long string of instances in which the policy of passive resistance and diplomatic appeals to Rome succeeded, marginalizing any Jew who may have been advocating the alternative of armed aggression. 5. Conclusion Analyzing the entire period from Coponius through Agrippa, there is thus no evidence of any violent revolutionary activity. Rather, protests were typically spontaneous and passive. Even during the Jewish protestations against the use of the Corban to pay for the Jerusalem aqueduct, it was Pilate who initiated the violence against the crowds; prior to his decision to intersperse disguised armed soldiers amongst the crowd, the multitude were merely verbally clamoring against Pilate. Neither is there any evidence of any revolutionary group, whether associated with the followers of Judas the Galilean or otherwise, actively inciting the Jews to rebel. And, with the sole exception of the aqueduct affair, each instance of passive diplomacy by the Jews was effective at achieving their goals. Petronius did acknowledge the possibility of brigandry during the attempt by Gaius to 100

For a discussion on this edict, see Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World: The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius (TSAJ 74; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 328–342. 101 Hengel, Zealots, 215.

II. The Evidence

171

place a statue of himself in the temple, but this potential was not realized at this time. Had there been a group of revolutionary bandits actively engaged in attempts to overthrow Roman rule, or inciting other Jews to join them in such an endeavor, it would have behooved Josephus to have mentioned them; after all, a clear purpose of Josephus was to place much of the blame for the rebellion upon such revolutionary parties. And it is unlikely that significant acts of violence would have been so quickly forgotten. Hence, it is very probable that no revolutionary group, including one associated with Judas, was successfully active between A.D. 6–44.102 However, it would be presumptuous to assume that the sentiment initiated by Judas did not survive his death. As will be seen, his call to the sole rule of God and a revolt against Rome would reappear in the decades to follow. In addition, some of his descendants would play a significant role in the Jewish revolutionary movement of the 50s and 60s.103 Combined, these two facts suggest that Judas’ revolutionary spirit was nourished throughout these intervening years by a number of devoted followers. Either their attempts to convince their fellow countrymen to follow them were so unsuccessful as to go unnoticed, or they patiently awaited an appropriate time to resurface. If the latter is accurate, their forbearance was soon rewarded. E. Roman Procurators through Cumanus (A.D. 44–52) Mendels summarizes the Jewish sentiment towards the reign of Agrippa: “In the days of Agrippa, Jewish kingship took on a fresh dimension not found since the Roman occupation. He became the symbol of Judaism in Palestine.”104 However, when Agrippa died three years after his ascension to the throne, the hopes of many Jews were crushed. Upon Agrippa’s death, Claudius initially intended to appoint Agrippa’s son as king (later known as Agrippa II). However, the emperor was convinced by some of his advisors that the son was too young (though he was sixteen years old), and so instead decided to designate Cuspius Fadus as procurator (A.J. 19.362–363). The effect this decision had upon the Jewish people cannot be underestimated. For years they had successfully protested disagreeable Roman actions. Then, they were granted the status of a client kingdom, with a popular countryman appointed to rule over them. Though they did not have their independence from Rome, the rise of Herod Agrippa I would have been seen as a significant step in this direction. The 102 See Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 63–65. See ibid. pp. 66–68 for a good analysis by Rhoads regarding the question of why Judea was relatively peaceful during this period. 103 See pp. 180–181, 206–207. 104 Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, 221.

172

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

installation of Fadus as procurator would have likewise been interpreted as a step backwards. In addition, Galilee and Perea had been taken from Antipas and given to Agrippa by Caligula after Antipas had asked for the title of king for himself. After Agrippa’s death and the subsequent decision to make the land previously ruled by Agrippa into a Roman province, Galilee was included. Thus, whereas only Judea and Samaria had been under direct Roman rule prior to Agrippa, now the entire land of Israel, including Galilee, was to be ruled by Roman governors. Brandon accurately observes: “In retrospect, it would seem that the brief interlude of Agrippa’s reign served only to make the Jews more bitterly conscious of the ignominy of their position as a subject people and so to render more certain and more fatal their eventual revolt.”105 It may not be coincidental that the first instance of active resistance after Judas’ insurrection in A.D. 6 occurred in Galilee shortly after it came under direct Roman rule. While Freyne agrees with Hengel that the followers of Judas were able to successfully establish mountain strongholds in Galilee and survive through the reign of Antipas (4 B.C. – A.D. 39), he notes that there is no evidence of serious dissent towards Antipas’ rule; rather it was characterized by great stability, especially in comparison to the troubled province of Judea.106 The relative calm in Galilee was probably due, at least in part, to the lack of direct rule by Rome. The recombination of these regions under a single ruler with Agrippa, and then the quick return of not just Judea, but Galilee as well, to direct Roman rule, would have likely had a severe impact on the Jews of Galilee.107 The conclusion by Uriel Rappaport that Galilee was not “anti-Roman”108 is only accurate prior to A.D. 44; following Agrippa’s death, the Galilee was the source of multiple instances of anti-Roman sentiment as well as the source for many of the armed fighters during the Jewish revolt. As much as the previous split of Herod’s kingdom into disparate parts 105

Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 99. Cf. Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, 252; Mézange, “Simon le Zélote,” 503–504. 106 Freyne, Galilee, from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 67–69. Cf. Morten Hørning Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and Its Socio-Economic Impact on Galilee (WUNT 2/215; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 124–126. 107 Freyne, Galilee, from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 220, compares the peaceful agricultural strike during the affair regarding Gaius’ statue in the Galilee to the violent clash between Galileans and Samaritans under Cumanus, noting that only the latter exhibits “Zealot-type tendencies.” 108 Uriel Rappaport, “How Anti-Roman was the Galilee?” in The Galilee in Late Antiquity (ed. Lee I. Levine; New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 95–102.

II. The Evidence

173

would have weakened any influence that a group of revolutionaries in one area would have had upon another, the re-unification of these provinces would have heightened any such influence. That such influence was exerted may be demonstrated by Josephus’ claim that it was the Galileans who persuaded “the multitude of the Jews to betake themselves to arms, and to regain their liberty, saying, that slavery was in itself a bitter thing, but that, when it was joined with direct injuries, it was perfectly intolerable” (A.J. 20.120). This statement appears to be borrowed directly from the call by Judas and Saddok that “taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery” and that they should “assert their liberty” (A.J. 18.4). It is thus likely that there existed a group of Jews connected in some way to the teachings of Judas. Coupled with the significance of his family both before and after this event, it is also likely that these Jews were also connected to, or at least gained some of their inspiration and leadership from, the family of Judas. Whether this indicates that a formal organization survived throughout the decades following Judas’ death cannot be definitively determined; but it is probable that the flame of Judas was never extinguished and was ready to be blown into a full conflagration when the situation was right. My departure from scholars such as Hengel, then, is not that Judas’ fourth philosophy had no influence prior to the Jewish revolt, but that its significance was not felt until after the death of Agrippa. As has already been suggested it is possible that Judas the Galilean’s group, and his policy of active resistance, continued throughout the early first century A.D., but that their viewpoint was not adopted by the majority of the Jewish people. When the alternative policy of passive resistance was successfully implemented, there would have been no reason for Jews to reject it. When they became a semi-independent kingdom, this alternate policy would have been largely validated. But when the kingship was lost, and Judea returned to the status of a Roman province, those Jews who advocated a more active resistance would have had a much greater chance of convincing their fellow countrymen to join them. Such a transition would not have necessarily taken place immediately; a movement from one political philosophy to another may occur gradually. But if the previous model (passive resistance) begins to fail, the alternate (active resistance) may become more appealing. And this is exactly what steadily began to occur in Judea following the resumption of direct Roman rule. 1. Cuspius Fadus (A.D. 44–46) The first procurator, Cuspius Fadus, began his short term by using force to confront a border dispute between Peraea and Philadelphia (A.J. 20.2–3). He then proceeded to capture and execute the arch-brigand (ἀρχιλῃστής ),

174

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

Tholomaeus, who had been active in Idumaea. Josephus remarks: “From then on the whole of Judaea was purged of robber-bands, thanks to the prudent concern displayed by Fadus” (A.J. 20.5). It is unclear how serious this problem of robber-bands was; Josephus had not mentioned them previously. Though there was at least one active bandit prior to Agrippa (B.J. 2.235 describes a twenty-year career of Eleazar ben Dinai, which must have begun sometime in the 30s), it does not appear that there was a widespread threat of bandits between A.D. 6–44. Fadus also attempted to renew the policy of having the priestly vestments kept in Roman custody except during festivals (A.J. 20.6–14).109 The previous decision by Petronius to return them to the priests was a major victory for the Jews; the removal of this right was a troubling precedent. The chief priests petitioned Fadus and Longinus, the new Syrian legate, to allow a delegation of Jews to ask Claudius directly if he would allow the priests to keep their vestments throughout the year. Fadus and Loginus assented, and Claudius granted the priests’ request. This would be the final occasion in which the policy of passive resistance was successfully implemented. Claudius next agreed to another petition which favored the Jews. He granted Herod of Chalcis, brother of Agrippa, authority over the Temple and the selection of the high priests (A.J. 20.15–16). Previously, it had been the Roman governors (and Agrippa when he had been king), who had removed and selected the high priests. Claudius’ decision to grant this authority to a member of the Herodian family may not have been viewed as absolutely ideal by the high priests (they likely would have preferred the decision rest with the priestly families), but it was certainly better for a Herod to make these decisions than a Roman procurator. The final significant act during Fadus regarded “a certain imposter named Theudas” who “persuaded the majority of the masses to take up their possessions and follow him to the Jordan River” (A.J. 20.97–99). He called himself a prophet and promised to part the Jordan River. Theudas was clearly modeling himself after Joshua, and may have been planning a “re-conquest” of Judea, i.e., a rebellion, although it may be significant that Josephus calls him a prophet and not a λῃστής, thereby distinguishing Theudas from political revolutionaries such as those associated with the family of Judas the Galilean.110 Fadus preempted any intentions by Theu109

Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, 299, correctly views Fadus’ action as involving “the religious autonomy of the Jews, not their political autonomy.” 110 Cf. Smith, “The Troublemakers,” 515. See also Parente, “Flavius Josephus’ Account of the Anti-Roman Riots,” 200–205, who contends that Theudas was not attempting an armed revolt, but rather desired to hasten the coming of the kingdom of God by reenacting the crossing of the Jordan river.

II. The Evidence

175

das, sending his cavalry to attack the assemblage, killing many, including Theudas. 2. Tiberius Alexander (A.D. 46–48) Josephus has little to say about the next procurator, Tiberius Alexander. He notes the onset of a famine and the execution of two sons of Judas the Galilean (A.J. 20.100–104). Yet these two events likely had a much greater impact than the space given to them by Josephus might suggest. Goodman argues that “much of the social tension in Judea lay in the growth and nature of the Judean economy, which fueled class hostility of increasing intensity.” 111 While Goodman overemphasizes the economic causes of the Jewish revolt of A.D. 66–70, Price’s objection that “there is very little evidence for growing economic problems, even less for a general crisis, in first-century Judaea” underestimates the economic situation in Judea and Galilee during the decades prior to the revolt. Judea and Galilee were largely agricultural, with tenant farmers and prohibitive debt prevalent.112 These were common themes of Jesus’ parables.113 The gap between the rich and poor would have been very apparent to both classes. That this resulted in significant discontent amongst the debtor class is clearly evidenced by the fact that one of the first acts of the Jewish rebels at the outset of the revolt in A.D. 66 was the destruction of all debt records (B.J. 2.427). Peter Brunt concludes that “the revolt of 66 was almost as much directed against the native landlords and usurers as against the heathen rulers.”114 The economic situation during the mid-40s A.D. was only exacerbated by the famine which began the year of Agrippa’s death and continued into the procuratorship of Tiberius Alexander (A.D. 46–48); the most likely dates for this famine are A.D. 44–46.115 Josephus does not describe the 111

Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea, 51. Cf. the Marxist interpretation of Heinz Kreißig, “A Marxist View of Josephus’ Account of the Jewish War,” in Josephus, the Bible and History (ed. Louis H. Feldman and Göhei Hata; SBS 63/64; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 265–277. 112 Cf. the study of the size of landholdings by Shimon Applebaum, “Josephus and the Economic Causes of the Jewish War,” in Josephus, the Bible and History (ed. Louis H. Feldman and Göhei Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 246, who concludes that “a considerable part of the country was composed of large estates and that another part, far from negligible, consisted of royal or imperial domain. Either category meant that the cultivators were tenants, with all that the status implied.” 113 Matt 18:24–25; 20:1–16; 21:33–41; 25:14–28; Luke 7:41–43; 16:1–6. 114 Peter A. Brunt, Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 272. 115 Orosius, Historiarum Adversum Paganos 7.6.9, dates the famine to the fourth year of Claudius (A.D. 44). Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 132–33, suggests that the famine lasted even longer, perhaps “beyond A.D. 48”; he bases this upon the fact that Josephus

176

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

conditions which resulted from the famine during Tiberius Alexander’s tenure, though he does state that “many were perishing from want of money to purchase what they needed” (A.J. 20.51). He does, however, provide details about an earlier famine in 17 B.C. during the reign of Herod the Great. While the parallels between the two famines are likely not exact, we should expect some congruity between them; consequently, an analysis of the earlier famine may shed some light on the situation during the latter.116 Josephus relates that the famine in 17 B.C. resulted in diseases (νόσοι) and pestilence (λοιµικός). This “death of those who perished in this manner deprived the survivors of their courage also” and when the remainder of food that they had stored for themselves were eaten, “there was no hope of relief left, for their bad situation gradually became worse than they had expected” (A.J. 15.300–302). Food cost four times the normal amount (A.J. 3.320).117 Josephus’ account of the effects of famine parallels a similar account in the second century A.D. physician Galen. In his De alimentorum facultatibus (On the properties of foodstuffs), Galen discusses “the important part played in the genesis of diseases by the consumption of unhealthy foods” during famines; country-dwellers in particular resort to eating “twigs and shoots of trees and bushes, and bulbs and roots of indigestible plants; they filled themselves with wild herbs, and cooked fresh grass” (6.749). Whether Galen’s description perfectly matches the situation in Judea during the famine of A.D. 44–46 cannot be determined. But it is likely close.118 In addition, as Garnsey and Saller observe, “subsistence or near-subsistence peasants were clearly vulnerable [in a famine], especially tenants burdened by both rent and tax, but also owner-occupiers forced to raise cash-crops in order to pay tax, in the process undermining their subsistence base and exposing themselves to the instability of market forces.”119 This refers to a famine during the tenures of both Claudius and the high priest Ishamel ben Phiabi (A.J. 3.320). Yet ben Phiabi served as high priest from A.D. 59–61, while Claudius died in A.D. 54. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 453, is likely correct that Josephus “wrote Ishmael when he should have written Elionaeus” (emphasis his), high priest between A.D. 43–45. 116 Cf. Jack Pastor, “Josephus as a Source for Economic History: Problems and Approaches,” in Making History: Josephus and Historical Method (ed. Zuleika Rodgers; JSJSup 110; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 340–344. 117 Cf. Jack Pastor, Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine (London: Routledge, 1997), 154. 118 Peter Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 26, 28. 119 Peter Garnsey and Richard P. Saller, The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture (London: Duckworth, 1987), 98.

II. The Evidence

177

would certainly have been the case in Judea and Galilee during the mid40s. An account by Dio Chrysostom also sheds some light on the situation in Judea and Galilee during this famine. One of the speeches preserved by Dio relates a grain riot which had ensued due to the rising price of grain in Prusa, Bithynia, with an angry mob attacking the property of Dio and an unnamed neighbor (Dio Chrysostom, De tumultu 1-14). For some unexplained reason, the mob is turned aside. The next day, Dio speaks at a public meeting to protest his mistreatment. He lists several complaints against himself by the mob. Though his family has a long history of the granting of benefactions, though he has acted fairly towards his neighbors, and though, unlike others, he has not produced grain “and then put it under lock and key, raising the price,” he is criticized for not lending money for the purchase of grain, for having built a large house and shops (adding to the perception that he has the financial wherewithal to assist others during this famine) and is treated as if he “had murdered your children and your wives.” The mob sought to stone him and burn his property. 120 For similar acts of violence to not have occurred during the famine in Judea and Galilee is highly unlikely. The most common means by which relief came during a famine was the purchase of foodstuffs from other provinces, principally from Egypt. The Roman prefect of Egypt controlled where surplus Egyptian grain was sent. Certain provinces were given priority. For example, a second century A.D. letter to Ephesus relates that “if, as we pray, the Nile provides us with a flood of the customary level and a bountiful harvest of wheat is produced among the Egyptians, then you will be among the first after the homeland [to receive its surplus].”121 Garnsey notes that this ranking system “must have left the ordinary cities of the eastern Mediterranean at several further removes from the grain they needed in emergencies.”122 Even if a province was permitted to acquire excess grain, they still had to pay for it. Consequently, it was incumbent upon wealthy benefactors to finance such purchases.123 For example, during a famine in 24 B.C., Herod the Great financed a large purchase of Egyptian grain by converting the gold and silver ornaments in his palace into coins. Not only did Herod 120

For similar reactions by a mob towards the wealthy during a food shortage, see Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.15; 1.23; Suetonius, Vesp. 4.3 On the speech, see Christopher P. Jones, The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (Loeb Classical Monographs; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978), 19–25. 121 Quoted in Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply, 255. 122 Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply, 257. 123 Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply, 260–261. For the difference between benefactors and patrons, see Jonathan Marshall, Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors: Roman Palestine and the Gospel of Luke (WUNT 2/259; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 45–53.

178

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

need to come up with the funds; it was also necessary for him to use his friendship with the prefect of Egypt, Petronius, to be given priority over other provinces (A.J. 15.305–315). Herod’s munificence resulted in a significant change of mood towards him by the general public from one of “hatred” to a belief that Herod truly cared “for them in their need” and “was regarded as full compensation” for all his previous alterations of the “customs and royal practices” (A.J. 15.315–316). An analysis of a list of benefactors who used their own funds to pay for large supplies of grain reveals that such individuals routinely were residents of the same cities and provinces to which they offered their patronage.124 A notable exception is the Judean famine during the procuratorship of Tiberius Alexander. Josephus does mention a benefactor who purchased foodstuffs to alleviate the suffering of the public during the famine, but she is not a member of the Jewish leadership. In fact, she is not even Jewish. Rather, she is a foreign queen, Helena of Adiabene, who is also a recent convert to Judaism. Upon hearing about the famine in Judea, she distributed a substantial gift of corn from Egypt and figs from Cyprus to relieve the famine in Judea. By doing so, she “left a very great name that will be famous forever among our whole people for her benefaction (εὐποιΐα)” (A.J. 20.53). Jack Pastor highlights the difference between Tiberius Alexander and Herod; with the former not using his previous connections with Egypt as its previous epistrategos (district governor) to procure grain while the latter had done so.125 Yet it is improbable that the Jewish people would have expected their Roman governor, a Jewish apostate, to help them in their time of need. If they were to look to any persons to alleviate their distress, it would have been wealthy Jews living in Judea, especially their Jewish leaders. Their passive, non-violent resistance and negotiations with their Roman overlords had succeeded in advancing their cause on numerous occasions; it would be unusual had they not looked to their Jewish leaders to assist them during the famine. Yet these very Jewish leaders failed to assist them. Nor is it likely that wealthy Jews suffered greatly from the famine. While they would have needed to pay greater prices, food was available for purchase, probably from merchants and hoarders. When Izates, son of Helena, sends additional aid, he does so by providing money to be distributed to the people (A.J. 20.53). Had food been unavailable for purchase, such aid would have been unhelpful.126 Therefore, it is probable that while the general Jewish populace suffered greatly because of the famine, the Jewish 124

Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply, 262–266. Pastor, Land and Economy, 155. 126 Cf. Pastor, Land and Economy, 154.

125

II. The Evidence

179

leaders likely did not. This disparity would have made a significant impact on how the Jewish people viewed their leadership. This failure on the part of the Jewish leaders to provide food during a famine is cited among other examples by Goodman as evidence that the Jewish ruling class did not value euergetism.127 The contrast between their current Jewish leaders and their recent Herodian rulers (Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, and Agrippa I128) could not be greater. Given the fact that Agrippa had ruled only a couple years earlier, his euergetism is especially relevant. Josephus observes that Agrippa “was by nature generous in his gifts, … took pleasure in conferring favours and rejoiced in popularity, … had a gentle disposition and was a benefactor (εὐεργετικός) to all alike” (A.J. 19.328–330). Compared to Agrippa’s generosity, the lack of benefaction by the Jewish leadership during the famine of the mid-40s would have been very conspicuous. The Talmud preserves a specific condemnation of the first-century A.D. high priests: Woe to me from the House of Boethus: Woe to me from their staves! Woe to me from the House of Hanin (Annas) Woe to me from their slanders! Woe to me from the House of Katharos (Cantheras) Woe to me from the calumnies of their pens! Woe to me from the House of Ishmael ben Phiabi Woe to me from their fists! For they are High priests, Their sons-in-law are Temple trustees, Their sons are treasurers And their slaves beat the people with sticks (b. Pesaḥ. 57a). These four high priestly dynasties accounted for sixteen of the 23 priests from 30 B.C. to A.D. 64, thus depicting the majority of the Jewish high priestly leadership during this period as known for oppressing the poor. The first of the two high priests during the famine was Elionaeus ben Cantheras, one of those referred to in the above Talmudic passage. Such oppression of the poor is confirmed by Jesus’ own statements against lenders when he warns his listeners to pay their debts expeditiously so that they are not thrown into prison (Matt 5:25–26; Luke 12:58–59). Such a lack of generosity would have been even more palpable during a famine, making it less likely that the Jewish leadership would retain the support of its popu-

127

Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea, 126–128. Cf. Marshall, Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors, 125–173, for a detailed discussion of the Herod family’s benefaction. 128

180

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

lace when dealing with other significant matters, such as actions by their Roman governors. If the Jewish people were not having their needs met by the Jewish leadership, it is plausible that they may have looked elsewhere for advocates, and particularly in the direction of the followers of Judas the Galilean. Horsley and Hanson observe that “famine . . . is one of the special economic circumstances almost certain to result in an upsurge of bandit activity – especially in the case of the Jewish peasantry already bearing the burden of double taxation, alien rule, and occasional provocations.”129 While Morton Smith is generally correct that a famine would produce multiple groups of bandits, and not “the growth of a single, organized, ideologically motivated party,” 130 Hengel is still justified to note that “Josephus explicitly stressed that it also prepared the way for Zealotism.”131 In addition, as noted by Bockmuehl, famines “had a high symbolic value in the ancient world and could serve as dark premonitions of impending judgement … Judaea’s intermittent crises of food supply between 44 and 49 are well attested and would have done much to encourage the apocalyptically inclined.”132 That such followers of Judas the Galilean were still active is made probable by the crucifixion of James and Simon, the sons of Judas who “had aroused the people to revolt against the Romans while Quirinius was taking the census in Judaea” (A.J. 20.102). It is unlikely that Josephus would have mentioned the event, or the lineage of these individuals, had there not been some direct link to Judas’ insurrection. Paltiel suggests that the crucifixions of James and Simon were the result of these two sons of Judas the Galilean renewing their father’s outcry against the poll tax.133 While the limited data provided by Josephus does not allow us to determine the specific details surrounding the execution of these two sons of Judas, it is indeed plausible that James and Simon had attempted to foment a rebellion. That Josephus does not mention any success on their part makes it unlikely that Price is correct that “organized rebellion” continued during Tiberius Alexander’s term.134 Had such a rebel129

Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 67. Morton Smith, “Zealots and Sicarii,” 140; Horsley, “Ancient Jewish Banditry,” 418–419. 131 Hengel, Zealots, 346; cf. A.J. 18.8. 132 Markus Bockmuehl, “1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 and the Church in Jerusalem,” TynBul 52 (2001): 28. 133 Eliezer Paltiel, Vassals and Rebels in the Roman Empire: Julio-Claudian Policies in Judaea and the Kingdoms of the East (Collection Latomus 212; Bruxelles: Latomus, 1991), 274. 134 Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 7. Price, ibid., 8 n. 24, also uses the phrase “armed rebellion” to describe the situation which existed under Tiberius Alexander. 130

II. The Evidence

181

lion actually occurred, it would be unlike Josephus not to mention it. It is far more plausible that any attempt by James and Simon to follow in their father’s footsteps was thwarted by Tiberius Alexander before it became a significant problem. On the other hand, it is also true that the economic situation in Judea and Galilee was severe enough that many people would have been sympathetic towards supporting a potential rebellion.135 And given the lack of benefaction from wealthy Jewish families, many of whom made up the Jewish leadership, it is even more likely that the Jewish people would have considered alternate advocates. Thus, the most likely historical reconstruction is that James and Simon were encouraging rebellion and that the authorities, perhaps Roman and Jewish alike, recognized that given the economic malaise, their agitation might very well be successful, and so acted expeditiously to quell future violence. And the executions of James and Simon would not have served to lessen the number of Jews who privately agreed with their violent philosophy of resisting Roman rule; rather, it is more likely it would only have strengthened their beliefs that violence would in fact be necessary, especially given the fact that within only a few years, violence would indeed be accepted as the preferred response by a large percentage of the Jewish people. That Tiberius Alexander would move decisively against the Jews, despite being a Jew himself, is demonstrated later in his career as well. At one point during his tenure as prefect of Egypt during the principate of Nero, a large group of Greeks attacked Jews who had gathered at one of Alexandria’s theatres. Tiberius Alexander initially sought to calm the passions of the Greeks. However, after failing to do so, he ordered two Roman legions to slaughter the Jews and plunder their homes throughout the Jewish quadrant of the city, leaving 50,000 dead (B.J. 2.489–498). Thus, not only did the Jewish leadership not provide for the people during the famine, the Jews were also governed by an individual who could only buttress the claims of those who promoted violent resistance to Roman rule, especially given the fact that he was an apostate Jew.136 135

Peter Schäfer, The History of the Jews in Antiquity: The Jews of Palestine from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest (trans. David Chowcat. Luxembourg: Harwood, 1995), 114. 136 Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 258–259, remarks that “though Alexander had abandoned Judaism himself, he had grown up in a practising Jewish family, and his knowledge of his people’s customs, observances and prejudices enabled him to avoid giving offence by either voluntary or involuntary infringement of the Law.” While Smallwood may be correct that Alexander’s background provided helpful insight in how he should govern, the Jewish people certainly would have seen his apostasy as further evidence that they were ruled by ungodly men. Cf. Arnaldo Momigliano, Claudius, the Emperor and His Achievement (trans. W. D. Hogarth; new ed.; Cambridge: Heffer,

182

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

3. Jews in Rome and Alexandria in the 40s A.D. While hostility to Roman rule in Judea and Galilee was growing in the mid-40s A.D., the situation of Jews in Rome and Alexandria had begun deteriorating at the beginning of this decade. Soon after becoming emperor in A.D. 41, Claudius issued a decree against the Jews in Rome. Concerned with their increasing population, but determining there were too many to expel entirely from the city, Claudius instead ordered the Jews to refrain from holding meetings, though allowing them to continue to practice their customs in general (Dio Cassius, Hist. 60.6.6).137 In the same year, Claudius also issued an edict in Alexandria which permitted Jews to keep their ancient customs unhindered (A.J. 19.279– 291). Yet, as Smallwood and Slingerland both correctly note, this is not evidence that Claudius was pro-Jewish.138 Rather, this edict is one amongst many in which Claudius reversed decisions of his predecessor Caligula (Dio Cassius, Hist. 60.3.5–5.1) and, in this instance, restored a previous edict by Augustus (A.J. 16.162–165). That Claudius was advocating tolerance towards Jews, rather than advocating a pro-Jewish policy, is evidenced by the edict itself. Claudius insisted that the Jews treat his “kindness” to them “in a more reasonable spirit (ἐπιεικέστερος139), and not to set at nought the beliefs about the gods held by other peoples but to keep their own laws” (A.J. 19.290). He also warned both the Jews and non-Jews of Alexandria “to take the greatest precaution to prevent any disturbance arising after the posting of my edict” (A.J. 19.285). These phrases imply that Claudius was not advocating in favor of the Jews as much as promoting mutual toleration for various religious beliefs. In addition, he had significant concerns about whether Jews, as well as non-Jews, could be trusted to act peacefully. Similarly, in a letter by Claudius to the Alexandrians, Jew and Greek alike, the emperor wrote that “unless you put a stop to this ruinous and obstinate enmity against each other, I shall be driven to show what a benev1961), 69; Martin Goodman, “Judaea,” in Cambridge Ancient History, Vol 10: The Augustan Emprie, 43 B.C.–A.D. 69 (ed. K. Bowman, Edward Champlin, and Andrew Lintott; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 752. 137 Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 170, argues that “the context in Dio sooner suggests that this prohibition against assembly involved more than politically motivated, conspiratory assemblies” but also included “assembl[ies] for religious purposes” (i.e., worshipping in synagogues on the Sabbath). 138 Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 246; H. Dixon Slingerland, “Suetonius Claudius 25:4 and the Account in Cassius Dio,” JQR 79 (1989): 211. Contra Bockmuehl, “1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 and the Church in Jerusalem,” 22, who contends that these edicts demonstrate that Claudius “favoured the Jews.” 139 “Not insisting on every right of letter of law or custom, yielding, gentle, kind, courteous, tolerant.” BDAG, s.v. ἐπιεικής.

II. The Evidence

183

olent prince can be when turned to righteous indignation.”140 While the right of Jews to observe their customs, which had been bestowed upon the Jews by Augustus, was upheld, Claudius ordered them “not to agitate for more privileges than they formerly possessed.” This included not advocating citizenship for all Alexandrian Jews, as well as refraining from bringing in Jews from other provinces, “a proceeding which will compel me to conceive serious suspicions; otherwise I will by all means take vengeance on them as fomenters of what is a general plague infecting the whole world.”141 This final phrase, describing the universality of the plague of the Jews, suggests that Claudius did not view the troubles in Alexandria in isolation, but rather was concerned with Jews throughout his empire, certainly including Rome and Judea.142 Given these edicts, it appears that Claudius’ decision, also in A.D. 41, to appoint Agrippa as king of Israel was done as a favor to his friend rather than from any conviction that the Jews should be treated well. Momigliano may be correct that Claudius’ decision not to expel the Jews from Rome at this time was at least partially out of deference for Agrippa, and that after Agrippa’s death, “the Jews were without a protector of such influence.”143 Indeed, it is unlikely that Jews, either in Israel or the Diaspora, would have viewed Claudius favorably. At most, he remained a foreign ruler who could not be trusted, even though he was an improvement over Caligula. After all, Agrippa had also been a friend of Caligula’s, and this had not prevented this emperor from planning to erect a statue in the Jerusalem temple; the Jews did not have any reason to believe that the friendship of Agrippa with Roman emperors would guarantee that they would be allies of the Jews. Therefore, the Jews already had substantial cause to distrust Claudius when, in A.D. 49, the emperor issued another edict against the Jews of 140 Quoted in Arthur S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar, Select Papyri: In Five Volumes (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1934), 2:85–86. Schwartz, Agrippa I, 99– 106, argues that this is not a separate letter/edict from those mentioned by Josephus, but rather Josephus provides an edited version of the original which would be more palatable for his Jewish readers. However, Josephus’ account does have an authenticity when it comes to Claudius desiring to undo the controversial decisions of Caligula and return to the more conservative ways of Augustus and Tiberius. Cf. Josiah Osgood, Claudius Caesar: Image and Power in the Early Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 78. 141 Quoted in Hunt and Edgar, Select Papyri, 2:86–87. Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 249–250, notes: “It was a statesmanlike and impartial solution … at the same time, the tone of the letter betrays an irritation [towards Jews] absent from the more formal language of the edict.” 142 Osgood, Claudius Caesar, 78. 143 Momigliano, Claudius, 32. Cf. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 171; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 506; Osgood, Claudius Caesar, 77.

184

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

Rome, this time expelling them from the city entirely (Suetonius, Claud. 25.4; Dio Cassius, Hist. 60.6.6).144 According to Suetonius, the catalyst for this decision was a riot involving a man named Chrestus; this is probably indicative of an altercation between Christian and non-Christian Jews in Rome concerning whether Jesus was the Messiah/Christ. Botermann maintains that only Jewish Christians were expelled from Rome,145 though acknowledges that it is an “aggravation of Claudius’ restrictive Jewish policies.”146 Smallwood argues that only the instigators of the “Chrestus riot” would have been expelled from Rome, concluding “the exaggeration in the Acts can be disregarded as a misunderstanding by St Luke.”147 Schnabel disagrees, noting that “the comment of Suetonius is general and suggests that everybody connected with the disturbances was evicted from Rome.”148 Smallwood’s reticence in accepting the historical accuracy of Luke is particularly puzzling given the fact that she asserts that the majority of Jews had been expelled from Rome by Tiberius’ order in A.D. 19.149 As it had occurred once before, only 30 years earlier, it is certainly plausible that such an action would be carried out again. And while this edict only directly impacted Roman Jews, Jews throughout the Roman Empire, and in Judea and Galilee in particular, would have taken close note of this event. Such anti-Jewish action would certainly have made it much more difficult for those Jewish leaders who advocated a passive resistance to continue to maintain that this methodology was both preferable and effective. In addition, it is likely that Claudius’ primary motivation in expelling the Jews from Rome was to prevent proselytizing. While Suetonius does not specifically mention proselytism, a simple riot would not have sufficed to lead Claudius to take such severe action. It is probable that this particular riot stemmed from non-Christian Jews agitating against Christians attempt to convert other Jews, and perhaps Gentiles as well, just as had been

144

Claudius’ primary intent appears to have been to restore conservative Roman religion by promoting the worship of Roman gods and restricting the intrusion of foreign religions. On his general religious policy, see Vincent Mary Scramuzza, The Emperor Claudius (Harvard Historical Studies 44; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940), 144–156; Momigliano, Claudius, 20–38; David Alvarez Cineira, Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Claudius und die Paulinische Mission (Herders biblische Studien 19; Freiburg: Herder, 1999), 187–216. 145 Helga Botermann, Das Judenedikt Des Kaisers Claudius: Römischer Staat und Christiani im 1. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1996), 77. 146 Botermann, Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius, 114. 147 Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 216. 148 Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:810. 149 Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 201–210.

II. The Evidence

185

the cause of many other riots relating to Christian missionary activity.150 Given the fact that the previous expulsion of Jews from Rome by Tiberius was due to proselytization (A.J. 18.81–84), and given Claudius’ concern to promote Roman religion, it is probable that Claudius’s reason for expelling the Jews from Rome was also out of concern for proselytism. This harsh action by Claudius would make non-Christian Jews even more likely to agitate against Christian Jews who attempted to convert others and most especially Gentiles, as they would have recognized that the emperor would be especially concerned with whether non-Jews were converting to a nonRoman religion. A date of A.D. 49 for the Claudian expulsion of Jews from Rome is not universally accepted. Some scholars prefer the date of A.D. 41, equating it with the edict of Claudius in Dio Cassius preventing Roman Jews from meeting together.151 Alternatively, Slingerland argues that no suggested date during Claudius’ tenure as emperor is “more or less probable for the expulsion(s) of Roman Jews.”152 However, it is improbable that such disturbances between Christian and non-Christian Jews would have arose as early as A.D. 41.153 In addition, early church tradition places Peter in Rome in A.D. 42 (Eusebius, Eccl. hist. 2.14.6; Jerome, Vir. Ill. 5), and it would be odd that as prominent a Jewish Christian as Peter would be permitted to visit Rome only a year after the Jews were expelled from this city due to riots resulting in a dispute regarding whether Jesus was the

150 E.g., in Pisdian Antioch (Acts 13:50), Iconium (Acts 14:5), Lystra (Acts 14:19), Thessalonica (Acts 17:5–8), and Ephesus (Acts 19:28–41). Cf. Scramuzza, Claudius, 151–152; Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 206–210; Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:809–11. Momigliano, Claudius, 33–35, notes that it is only when there is no threat of proselytism that Claudius rules on behalf of the Jews, such as when he supported the request that the priestly vestments remain with the high priest after the procurator Fadus demanded they be surrendered to him. 151 See, e.g., Menachem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Vol. 2: From Tacitus to Simplicius (Fontes ad res judaicas spectantes; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980), 116; Lüdemann, Paul, 163–171; idem, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts, 122–124; Levinskaya, Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting, 5:171–177, Schwartz, Agrippa I, 94–96. 152 H. Dixon Slingerland, “Suetonius Claudius 25.4, Acts 18, and Paulus Orosius’ Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII: Dating the Claudian Expulsion(s) of Roman Jews,” JQR 83 (1992): 144; idem, Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 160; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 129. 153 Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 171–172. Cf. Momigliano, Claudius, 31–32; Robert Jewett, A Chronology of Paul’s Life (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 36–38; Botermann, Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius, 44–140; Smallwood, Jesus under Roman Rule, 212–215; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 505–507.

186

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

Christ.154 Also, Claudius’ edict in Dio Cassius expressly states that the Jews were not expelled from Rome, in complete contradiction to the content of Claudius’ edict in Suetonius. All of this suggests a later date for the edict in Suetonius. A fifth century Christian historian, Paulus Orosius, provides some assistance in determining when this second edict by Claudius was issued, specifying that it occurred in the ninth year of Claudius (A.D. 49) (Historiarum Adversum Paganos 7.6.15). Orosius’ historical accuracy is somewhat questionable, given that he falsely attributes this datum to Josephus, who does not mention either of Claudius’ edicts against the Jews of Rome. Fortunately, additional corroboration is provided by Luke in Acts 18:2. Luke records that Aquila and Priscilla had recently (προσφάτως) come to Corinth, “because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome,” where they met Paul. Paul’s own arrival in Corinth occurred eighteen months prior to his trial before Gallio, who was briefly proconsul of Achaia in A.D. 52. This places Paul’s arrival in Corinth in late-A.D. 49 or early A.D. 50 which corresponds well with Aquila and Priscilla being recently expelled from Rome in A.D. 49. There were therefore two major reasons for Jews in Judea and Galilee to become increasingly aggressive in their reaction to Roman rule. First, with Judea and Galilee losing their semi-independence in A.D. 44 following the death of Agrippa, there was a growing disconnect between the Jewish leadership and the people, as seen in the failed revolt of Theudas, the crucifixions of James and Simon, and a severe famine which was only alleviated by a foreigner and not the Jewish leaders themselves. Second, the emperor Claudius had shown himself to be very distrustful of the Jews. While his friend Agrippa lived, the Jews in Judea, at least, enjoyed some protection. But they lost their protector upon his death, and there was nobody else to fill this gap. While they previously had looked to their other leaders to act in this role, it becomes clear during the administration of Ventidius Cumanus (A.D. 48–52) that their trust in these leaders had already dissolved. 4. Ventidius Cumanus (A.D. 48–52) At one of the Passover festivals during his procuratorship, perhaps as early as A.D. 49, Cumanus feared that the festival of Passover might serve as an occasion for rebellion and decided to station a company of soldiers on the

154 Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 172, observes that “whatever the truth may be concerning this tradition, those who passed it on were in any event not familiar with any prohibition preventing foreign Jews from staying in Rome during this period.”

II. The Evidence

187

porticoes of the Temple.155 On the fourth day of the festival, one soldier insulted the masses by uncovering his genitals; the Jewish people declared this to be blasphemous. Some among the crowd specifically blamed Cumanus, believing he had prompted the soldier’s action. Cumanus initially “admonished them to put an end to this lust for revolution and not to set disorders ablaze during the festival” (A.J. 20.109). However, the people continued to insult Cumanus, with “some of the more hot-headed young men and seditious persons in the crowd” starting a fight and hurling stones at the soldiers (B.J. 2.226). After Cumanus responded by deploying reinforcements, the Jews panicked and attempted to flee, with many being trampled to death.156 It should be noted that these soldiers were not primarily Roman. Rather they were auxiliary units drawn from Caesarea and Sebaste (Samaria). The latter city had been demolished by the army of John Hyrcanus more than a century earlier. The former was primarily a Gentile city. Both had reason to be antagonistic towards the Jews.157 Rappaport concludes that the “searing hatred for Jews” of the Sebastian and Caesarean auxiliaries “contributed significantly to the outbreak of the [Jewish] revolt.”158 Soon thereafter, a second incident of violence occurred when some brigands attacked a slave of Caesar on the road to Bethhoron, about ten miles northwest of Jerusalem (A.J. 20.113–117; B.J. 228–231). Cumanus, concluding that the surrounding villagers should have taken it upon themselves to arrest these brigands, sent troops to bring the inhabitants before him in chains, “so that he might exact vengeance for their effrontery (A.J. 20.114). One of the soldiers came across a copy of the Torah, tore it into pieces, and burned it.159 “At that the Jews were roused as though it were their whole country which had been consumed in the flames” (B.J. 2.230) and they rushed to Caesarea to appeal to Cumanus to punish this particular soldier. After Cumanus, worried about a popular revolution, acquiesced and executed this soldier, the Jews withdrew. This event is the first in155 It is unclear which year this episode occurs. Josephus relates that Cumanus’ decision to order a regiment to be stationed at the Antonia fortress during Passover was what previous governors had done (A.J. 20.107). This may suggest that this event should be dated towards the beginning of Cumanus’ administration. 156 A.J. 20.112 records the number of deaths as 20,000; B.J. 2.227 as 30,000. 157 Cf. A.J. 19.356–359, which describes the hateful reaction towards Agrippa by the residents of Caesarea and Sebaste following the king’s death, despite “the kindnesses he had bestowed on them” (356). 158 Uriel Rappaport, “Jewish-Pagan Relations and the Revolt against Rome in 66–70 C.E.,” Jerusalem Cathedra 1 (1981): 94. Cf. Moses Aberbach and David Aberbach, The Roman-Jewish Wars and Hebrew Cultural Nationalism (New York: St. Martin’s, 2000), 75. 159 On the severity of the destruction of a sacred text, see Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus, 52–54.

188

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

stance in Josephus’ entire corpus that presents an action subsequent to Judas the Galilean’s rebellion which was similar to it. If it is not anachronistic to call any violent action against Roman rule “Zealotic”, the assault upon this royal slave is then the first Zealotic attack recorded in any of the sources since Judas was killed.160 On another occasion, a group of Galileans traveling to Jerusalem through Samaria were attacked and killed (A.J. 20.118).161 Some leaders of the Galileans appeal to Cumanus to seek justice for these murders. Cumanus refuses (Josephus accuses the governor of being bribed: A.J. 20.119), after which the leaders “urged the Jewish masses to resort to arms and to assert their liberty; for, they said, slavery was in itself bitter, but when it involved insolent treatment, it was quite intolerable” (A.J. 20.120). The similarity between this proclamation, and that of Judas the Galilean, should not go unnoticed. If these revolutionary leaders were not directly associated with Judas, they certainly were echoing his teachings. Josephus relates that “those in authority” (presumably, religious leaders in Judea) attempted, in vain, to convince the people to refrain from violence, offering “to induce Cumanus to punish the murderers” (A.J. 20.120). The masses ignored this appeal, and instead enlisted the assistance of the brigands Eleazar ben Dinai, “who for many years had had his home in the mountains” (A.J. 20.121), and Alexander.162 They then proceeded to ravage some Samaritan villages.163 Cumanus retaliated by moving against the Jews, killed many, and took many more captive. The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem continued to urge passivity, putting on sackcloth and ashes, and entreating the Jews to imagine their country being ravaged, their Temple burned, and their families enslaved. Their advice was heeded, and the Jews dispersed with the brigands returning to their camps. Yet, “from that time the whole of Judaea was infested with bands of brigands” (A.J. 20.124).164

160

Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 71; Aberbach and Aberbach, The Roman-Jewish Wars, 53. 161 For an analysis of the several contradictions regarding this event in B.J. and A.J., see Moses Aberbach, “Conflicting Accounts of Josephus and Tacitus concerning Cumanus’ and Felix’ Terms of Office,” JQR 40 (1949): 1–14. 162 According to B.J. 2.235 (= A.J. 20.159), Eleazar ben Dinai’s career as a bandit had lasted twenty years when he was captured by Felix sometime during his tenure as procurator (A.D. 52–60). 163 On the brief reference to Eleazar, and his description as a murderer, in rabbinic tradition (m. Soṭah 9:9a), see Hengel, Zealots, 349–350. 164 This is the only episode between A.D. 6–66 which is discussed in any detail by a non-Jewish author. Tacitus (Ann 12:54) places responsibility for the incident upon the maladministration of Cumanus. Cf. Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 266 n. 30.

II. The Evidence

189

The Samaritans, believing that the Jews’ response was unjustified, appealed to the new Syrian legate Quadratus. Quadratus heard the case, concluded that the Samaritans had initially been responsible, and then crucified both the leading Samaritans involved in the attack as well as the Jews who had been captured by Cumanus. He also ordered the high priest Ananias and the captain Ananus and their followers to be chained and sent to Rome to defend themselves before Claudius. Cumanus is likewise ordered to report to Rome. Quadratus’ decision to punish Ananias is somewhat puzzling, as it is likely that they were among the leaders of Jerusalem who have been urging restraint. Quadratus may have simply decided that these individuals, because of their position of leadership, were culpable of any actions perpetrated by Jews, regardless of whether they supported these actions; Moses Aberbach suggests that “Quadratus suspected them of neglect in calling a halt to the disorders” and points to the fact that Ananias’ younger son, Eleazar, was a chief leader of the Jewish rebellion in the late 60s A.D.165 Regardless of Quadratus’ rationale, which in any case he probably did not share with the Jews themselves, might the observance by the Jewish populace of the arrest of a leading Jew advocating nonviolence have caused them to doubt even further whether this was the correct path to follow? In the end, Claudius, due to the influence of Agrippa the Younger, ruled in favor of the Jews. But it is still significant that, for the first time since the uprising by Judas the Galilean, an appeal to passive resistance was ignored by the populace, and a violent response followed instead. This unwillingness of the average Jew to trust the Jewish leadership to successfully negotiate with Rome continued through the Jewish revolt; like with the Samaritan-Cumanus affair, it was Jews from the countryside which took up arms and the Jerusalem leadership which failed to convince them to desist. It is evident from this episode that there had indeed been brigand activity in the past, and that they could be called upon to support a popular uprising against a perceived enemy. However, this is the first time that such a decision is recorded by Josephus; previously the people had been content to allow their Jewish leaders to engage passively with their Roman rulers. It is also notable that Josephus marks this event as the point in which “Judea was infested with bands of brigands” (A.J. 20.124; cf. B.J. 2.239).

165

Moses Aberbach, “Conflicting Accounts of Josephus and Tacitus,” 10–11.

190

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

5. Conclusion In a 1975 article, Paul Barnett argued against the description of A.D. 6–73 as uniformly unstable and rife with violent revolutionary activity. 166 He notes that while Judea was characterized by increased revolutionary violence after A.D. 44, the period of A.D. 6–41 was relatively calm. He attributes this difference to both the policies of Augustus and Tiberius and the fact that the high priesthood was dominated by a single family (Ananus/Annas). While I agree with Barnett’s thesis, due the brevity of his article, much more evidence and argumentation can be presented. While Claudius does allow the high priest to maintain custody of the vestments, this is overshadowed by his decision not to allow Judea and Galilee to remain as a client kingdom, by the several edicts against Jews in Rome, and by the condemnatory language towards Jews in the edict to the Jews in Alexandria. In addition, the effectiveness of the Jewish leaders with regards to dealing with their Roman overlords has significantly diminished. This is evidenced by the emergence of both bandits and messianic claimants immediately following the resumption of direct Roman rule with Fadus as procurator. Indicative of substantial discontent amongst the populace, these two groups “formed the two faces of a single coin.”167 The executions of sons of Judas the Galilean, who had likely been attempting to convince the Jewish populace to violently resist Roman rule prior to Agrippa, is additional evidence that Tiberius Alexander, at least, viewed them as potential threats to peace in the region. Along with the failure of the Jewish leaders to provide for the populace during the famine of the mid-40s A.D., it appears that there existed in Judea and Galilee a climate of increasing popular discontent. From Claudius to his procurators, Roman rule had become more oppressive. With the trust of the Jewish populace in their traditional leadership crumbling, and the increasing willingness of their governors to use violence against them,168 the views of the surviving followers of Judas the Galilean gained 166

Paul W. Barnett, “Under Tiberius All Was Quiet,” NTS 21 (1975): 564–571; cf. Menachem Stern, “The Herodian Dynasty and the Province of Judea at the End of the Period of the Second Temple,” in The World History of the Jewish People. Vol. 7, The Herodian Period (ed. Michael Avi-Yonah; London: Allen, 1975), 126. Also, Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea, 96: “Josephus failed to mention the (fourth) philosophy in the detailed narrative of events after A.D. 6 not because he suppressed its vital role but because it was in practice of marginal importance.” Cf. Haaland, “What Difference Does Philosophy Make?” 278–279. 167 Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 257. 168 The scholarly view on the effectiveness of the Roman procurators of Judea, including Fadus and Tiberius Alexander, is very negative. Momigliano, Claudius, 37, concludes that they “did not understand the character of the people they governed, affronted them and allowed their soldiers to do the same; but when disturbances broke out they

II. The Evidence

191

greater appeal. While it took a few years for the transition from passive to active resistance to occur, the violence during Cumanus did not occur in a vacuum; they were rather the product of a series of events which had gradually but effectively convinced the Jewish populace that violent reactions to Roman rule was preferable to the previous methodology of passive negotiations. One way to demonstrate the shift which occurred amongst the Jewish populace, from active resistance between 4 B.C.–A.D. 6, to passive resistance from A.D. 6–44, back to a gradual acceptance of active resistance following the death of Agrippa in A.D. 44, is to consider how Josephus and Philo characterize the reaction of the crowds to the decisions of their Roman overlords. Throughout the period in question, the Jewish leadership is uniformly passive. While revolutionary-minded Jewish rebels are absent in the relevant texts for much of the first-century, it may be safely assumed that any remnants of the group begun by Judas the Galilean (and other rebels that may have been lurking in the background) would have desired a more active mode of resistance. Determining the model preferred by the general populace will indicate which of these two extremes was successful in convincing the people of their respective positions.169 Table 1 catalogues the relevant terms in Josephus and Philo in relation to those instances in which these ancient writers record an instance of Jewish resistance to Roman rule. As can be seen, through the revolt of Judas the Galilean, the general populace (in bold-faced type) is mixed as to whether they should follow the peaceful model advocated by the Jewish leadership or the violent model espoused by the rebels. Following the failure of Judas’ revolt, the Jewish people regularly follow the peaceful example of their Jewish leadership, even in those instances in which there is no record of certain Jewish leaders specifically sending a delegation of their could not repress them properly, because their measures were hampered or even reversed by the government in Rome. … By giving the Jews the impression that they were at once arrogant and weak, the Roman rulers helped to prepare the way for the revolt [of A.D. 66].” Likewise, Schäfer, The History of the Jews in Antiquity, 114, concludes: “This last period before the outbreak of war is characterized by a progressive deterioration in the internal political situation, so that war became almost inevitable. The (seven) procurators were almost all incompetent, concerned only to exploit the province financially and, it would sometimes seem, to injure intentionally the national and religious feelings of the Jews.” And Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135) (ed. Géza Vermès and Fergus Millar; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973), 1:455: “It must be thought, from the record of the Roman procurators to whom, from now on, public affairs in Palestine were entrusted, that they all, as if by secret arrangement, systematically and deliberately set out to drive the people to revolt.” 169 McLaren, Power and Politics in Palestine, makes a similar study, but focuses solely upon the Jewish leadership.

192

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

own to the relevant Roman official. The one exception to this is Pilate and the Samaritan incident, which does not involve Jews at all. It is not until after the death of Agrippa that the active model of resistance begins to gain in ascendancy, but even here, it is gradual. And the public reaction is still mixed; there are still some segments of the Jewish population which prefer the passive model. Table 1: Attitudes of Leaders and Populace towards Roman Rule (populace in bold) Incident

Reference

Greek

English

Archelaus (B.J. 2.1–13; A.J. 17.206–218)

B.J. 2.4

πλῆθος

Multitude

B.J. 2.8; A.J. 17.206

τοὺς νεωτερίζοντας

the innovators

Initially peaceful, became violent

B.J. 2.9; A.J. 17.214– 216

οἱ στασιασταὶ

the rebels

Violent

B.J. 2.10–13 B.J. 240

πλῆθος τοὺς παρακινοῦντας

Multitude the ones inciting

Violent Violent

B.J. 2.43, 45; A.J. 17.254 B.J. 2.80; A.J. 17.300, 301, 304

πλῆθος

Multitude

Violent

Πρέσβεις

Ambassadors

Peaceful

B.J. 2.81; A.J. 17.301 A.J. 18.3

πλῆθος

Multitude170

Peaceful

Ἰωαζάρος

Joazar

Peaceful

A.J. 18.2–3

Ἰουδαῖοι

Jews

Peaceful

War of Varus (B.J. 2.39–79; A.J. 17.250– 298) Appeal to become part of Syria (B.J. 2.80–92; A.J. 17.299–320) Judas of Galilee (B.J. 2.117– 118; A.J. 18.1– 10, 23–25)

170

Peaceful/ Violent Peaceful

This “multitude” of Jews consisted of those who lived in Rome, not in Palestine.

193

II. The Evidence Incident

Reference

Greek

English

Judas of Galilee

B.J. 2.118; A.J. 18.4

Ἰούδας

Judas

Peaceful/ Violent Violent

B.J. 2.118 B.J. 2.172

ἐπιχώριος πλῆθος

Countrymen Multitude

Violent Peaceful

A.J. 18.57

Πληθύς

Crowd

Peaceful

B.J. 2.175– 177

πλῆθος

Multitude

Legat. 300

οἱ πολλοί

Multitude

Peaceful intent, though turns violent due to Roman response to crowd Peaceful

Legat. 301

Πρεσβεία

Embassy

Peaceful171

A.J. 18.85

Πληθύς

Crowd

Violent172

A.J. 18.86

πλῆθος

Multitude

Violent

A.J. 18.88 A.J. 18.121

Βουλή οἱ πρῶτοι

Peaceful Peaceful

A.J. 18.123

πλῆθος

Council the principal men Multitude

A.J. 18.124 B.J. 2.192, 193, 196, 199, 201; A.J. 18.284

Πληθύς πλῆθος

Crowd Multitude

Peaceful Peaceful

Pilate and the standards (B.J. 2.169–174; A.J. 18.55–59) Pilate and the aqueduct (B.J. 2.175–177; A.J. 18.60–62)

Pilate and the shields (Philo, Legat. 299– 305) Pilate and the Samaritans (A.J. 18.85–88)

Vitellius and the aborted war against Aretas (A.J. 18.121– 124) Gaius and the Statue (B.J. 2.184–203; A.J. 18.257–309) 171

Peaceful

Those appealing to Pilate threatened to send an embassy directly to Tiberius if Pilate did not relent and remove the shields from Jerusalem. They instead sent letters of supplication to Tiberius, who proceeded to chastise Pilate. It is notable that the Jews had decided that if diplomacy with Pilate failed, the next step would be diplomacy with the emperor as opposed to attempting to resolve the situation violently. 172 Josephus describes the Samaritans as being “armed” (ἐν ὅπλοις). While it is probable that they hoped they would not need to use their weapons against Pilate’s soldiers, it is notable that in the other incidents involving Pilate, the Jews were always unarmed.

194

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

Incident

Reference

Greek

English

Gaius and the Statue

A.J. 18.263, 270

πολλαὶ µυριάδες

Many tenthousands of Jews

A.J. 18.274

Πληθύς

Crowd

Peaceful

B.J. 2.193

οἱ γνώριµοι

well-known

Peaceful

B.J. 2.199 A.J. 20.7, 8, 10, 12

οἱ δυνατόι Πρέσβεις

the powerful Ambassadors

Peaceful Peaceful

B.J. 2.225; A.J. 20.108, 111 B.J. 2.225

πλῆθος

Multitude

Non-violent protest

οἱ ἧττον νήφοντες τῶν νέων

The less selfcontrolled of the young men Robbers

Violent (riotous)

Fadus and the Vestments (A.J. 20.6–14) Cumanus and the blasphemous soldier (B.J. 2.223– 227; A.J. 20.105–112) Cumanus and the attack on Caesar’s servant (B.J. 2.228–231; A.J. 20.113–117)

Cumanus and the Galilean/ Samaritan dispute (B.J. 2.232–246; A.J. 20.118–136)

Peaceful/ Violent Peaceful

Violent

B.J. 2.228

λῃσταί

A.J. 20.113

τῶν ἀφεστώτων ἐπὶ νεωτερισµῷ

those inciting revolt

Violent

B.J. 2.230; A.J. 20.116 A.J. 20.119

Ἰουδαῖοι

Jews

Peaceful

οἱ πρῶτοι

the principal men

Peaceful (failed for first time)

A.J. 20.120

πλῆθος

Multitude

Violent

A.J. 20.123

οἱ πρῶτοι

the principal men

Peaceful

A.J. 20.123

οἱ ἀφεστώτες

those inciting revolt

Convinced by principal men to revert to being peaceful

III. The Origin of the Jewish Revolutionary Movement

195

Thus, while the Galilean/Samaritan incident in A.D. 51 was the first actual example of a widespread popular approval of a more violent reaction to Roman rule, the foundation for this violence had begun to be laid immediately following the arrival of Fadus in A.D. 44. It should not be surprising that it took some years for sentiment to swing from a passive model of resistance to a more violent one; such changes in a population often do not happen overnight. It is unlikely that the entire populace would suddenly lose faith in their leaders and transfer their trust to people who survived by preying upon the countryside, especially as Josephus often describes the people as fearing these bandits.173 The Galilean/Samaritan incident was the result of increasing discontent with Rome’s treatment towards the Jews throughout the Roman Empire, direct Roman rule in Judea and Galilee, and decreased faith in their own leaders. Even in A.D. 51, likely only a significant minority of Jews supported the decision to appeal to the brigands Eleazar and Alexander, with an ever-increasing percentage rejecting the more moderate policy of nonviolence over the subsequent years, culminating in the popular endorsement of the Jewish rebellion in A.D. 66.

III. The Origin of the Jewish Revolutionary Movement III. The Origin of the Jewish Revolutionary Movement Having analyzed the relevant history from a chronological perspective, it is now possible to more judiciously consider the various theories as to the origin of the Jewish revolutionary movement(s) in first-century Judea. No scholarly consensus currently exists, with variations of answers to two different issues characterizing this broad divergence: the origin of the Zealots and whether or not the Zealots and Sicarii refer to the same organization. John W. Lightley dates the organization of a Zealot party to the reign of Herod the Great.174 Hengel identifies the Zealots with the fourth philosophy of Judas the Galilean,175 along with equating the Zealots and

173

For people fearful of bandits rather than supportive of them, see B.J. 2.581; A.J. 17.285; Vita 77–78, 206, 210, 244. Cf. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 211–212. 174 Lightley, Jewish Sects and Parties, 330. Oscar Cullmann, Jesus and the Revolutionaries (trans. Gareth Putman; New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 74–76, agrees, likewise dating the Sicarii to this time and identifying them with the Zealots. Importantly, neither Lightley nor Cullmann provide any primary source documentation for these claims. 175 Hengel, Zealots, 62–64, 82–89; cf. Cullmann, The State in the New Testament, 17; Samuel G. F. Brandon, “The Zealots, the Jewish Resistance against Rome, A.D. 6–73,” History Today 15 (1965): 635; Applebaum, “The Zealots: The Case for Reevaluation,” 159; Ben Witherington, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 81–88.

196

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

Sicarii;176 though elsewhere Hengel suggests that the fourth philosophy should be considered “a tendency rather than a constituted party” with the various parties being “independent from the very beginning” with the influence of Judas the Galilean “limited exclusively to certain doctrines and views.”177 Günther Baumbach asserts that only the Zealots were associated with Judas the Galilean; the Sicarii were a different party altogether.178 Schürer takes the opposite position as Baumbach, equating the fourth philosophy with the Sicarii, and not the Zealots, 179 though he argues that all revolutionary groups, including the Zealots, likely drew ideologycally upon the teachings of the fourth philosophy. Price views the Zealots as a splinter sect of the Sicarii which broke away immediately prior to the Jewish revolt. Solomon Zeitlin likewise argues that the Zealots and Sicarii should be distinguished from one another. He contends the Sicarii were the followers of Judas the Galilean’s fourth philosophy, were opposed to the rule of either the Romans or the high priests, and eventually were forcped to flee with Eleazar ben Jair to Masada. The Zealots, on the other hand, were non-ideological, composed of the priestly class, and interested only in defending Jerusalem against the Romans.180 Jackson and Lake date the beginnings of both groups to A.D. 66.181 Marcus Borg concludes that the term “Zealot” can only be used prochronistically of the Jewish resistance movement prior to A.D. 66, though he agrees with Farmer and Hengel that there was “widespread religiously inspired resistance to Rome” throughout the first century until the Jewish revolt of A.D. 66.182 Rhoads denies that Judas founded any sect; nor was there any organized resistance group prior to the mid-40s A.D., Zealot, Sicarii, or otherwise. Instead, Josephus, per176

Hengel Zealots, 48–49, 88, 144–145, 380–404; cf. idem, “Zeloten und Sikarier.”; cf. Godfrey R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls: The Problem and the Solution (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 246–248; Cullmann, The State in the New Testament, 17; Valentin Nikiprowetzky, “Sicaires et Zélotes: Une Reconsidération,” Semitica 23 (1973): 51–64. Daniel, “Esséniens, Zélotes et Sicaires,” 89, considers the Sicarii to be an extremist wing of the Zealots. 177 Hengel, Zealots, 82–83. 178 Günther Baumbach, “Zeloten und Sikarier,” TLZ 90 (1965): 241–246. 179 Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, 1:602; Horsley, “Ancient Jewish Banditry,” 409–412. Smith, “The Troublemakers,” 506–509, 541–546, agrees, though he does not believe that the name for this group “Sicarii” existed until after Agrippa. Cf. idem, “Zealots and Sicarii,” 1–19. See additionally Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 17, who acutely observes that “the modern literature [on the Zealots] ridiculously dwarfs the little evidence available.” 180 Solomon Zeitlin, “Masada and the Sicarii,” JQR 57 (1966–67): 251–270. Smith, “Zealots and Sicarii,” 15, disputes this claim. 181 Foakes-Jackson and Lake, Beginnings of Christianity, 1:421; Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 190–207. 182 Borg, “The Currency of the Term ‘Zealot,’” 511.

III. The Origin of the Jewish Revolutionary Movement

197

haps unintentionally, “retroject[ed] the sect to the time of Judas” so that he “could give greater scope to this ‘innovation’ as a cause of the later war.”183 Mark Brighton, concerned solely with the Sicarii, asserts that this group originated during the time of Felix, and had no connection to Judas’ fourth philosophy. 184 An outdated view was expressed by Cecil Roth, who identified the Zealots with the Qumran community, and specifically Menahem, son of Judas, with the Teacher of Righteousness.185 In addition to these viewpoints, the question of whether the term ζηλωταί was the name of a particular revolutionary party or merely a descriptive adjective is also debated. Scholars such as Schürer, Hengel, and Price, drawing upon a connection with ‫קנא‬, contend for the former;186 Smith for the latter.187 Rather than focusing upon every scholar, I will be selective and concentrate on Martin Hengel, Jonathan Price, Richard Horsley and John Hanson, David Rhoads, and Doron Mendels, referencing other scholars where appropriate. A. Martin Hengel Hengel’s Die Zeloten (1961; ET 1989) is still the seminal work on the Jewish revolutionary movement in the first-century Judea. He argues that this movement was (a) founded by Judas the Galilean in A.D. 6, (b) unified around the family of Judas the Galilean until the last years leading up to the Jewish revolt in A.D. 66, and (c) active and influential throughout the period of A.D. 6–66. As Josephus desired to place the blame for the Jewish revolt largely upon their shoulders, and as the term “Zealot” was considered highly honorable (having its roots in Phineas’ zealous execution of a 183 Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 52–59. Even if Josephus was correct that Judas founded a sect, Rhoads claims, “Josephus’ silence [about such a group] suggests the probability that [it] was quiescent until the mid-forties” (59). 184 Mark Andrew Brighton, The Sicarii in Josephus’s Judean War: Rhetorical Analysis and Historical Observations (Early Judaism and Its Literature, 27; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 52–54. 185 Cecil Roth, The Historical Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959), 80; idem, “The Zealots and Qumran: The Basic Issue,” RevQ 2 (1959): 81–84; idem, “The Zealots – A Jewish Religious Sect,” Judaism 8 (1959): 33–40; Driver, The Judaean Scrolls, 356–358. Robert Eisenman, “‘Sicarii Essenes,’ ‘The Party of the Circumcision,’ and Qumran,” in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Florentino García Martínez and Mladen Popović; STDJ 70; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 247–260, following Hippolytus in his Haer. 9.26.2, identifies the Zealots/Sicarii with both a sect of the Essenes and “the party of the circumcision” in Gal 2:12. 186 Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 1:604; Hengel, Zealots, 62; idem, “Zeloten und Sikarier,” 182–185; Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 18–19. 187 Smith, “Zealots and Sicarii,” 7–8.

198

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

law-breaker in Num 25:7–13), Josephus instead chose to primarily use the derogatory term λῃστής (bandit/thief) to describe the members of this revolutionary party. 188 It is his third claim upon which much of the weight of his overall thesis rests. If Hengel cannot provide evidence that the Zealots were indeed active and influential throughout the period of A.D. 6–66, his case is greatly weakened. Josephus never directly links the “fourth philosophy” of Judas to the Zealots. Nor does the fact that his children take up his banner of revolutionary zeal decades later, following the death of Agrippa, demonstrate that they had been active revolutionaries prior to Agrippa, as evidenced by the fact that Judas’ sons are not mentioned in Josephus’ narrative until A.D. 47. And as has been demonstrated in the analysis of Jewish resistance to Roman rule in Judea, particularly during the era of A.D. 6– 44,189 this is a difficult thesis to substantiate, especially as no such revolutionary party is attested to throughout this period. Hengel’s repeated attempts to offer an explanation for why Josephus did not mention the Zealots, or any other revolutionary group, as prominent and instrumental in every significant conflict between Jews and the Roman prefects between A.D. 6–41, is largely a fallacious argument from silence. He follows Adolf Schlatter’s suggestion190 that the Zealots were a secret society which did not publicly expose their plans and views.191 Instructively, Hengel begins his historical survey section entitled ‘From Pilate until the Death of Herod Agrippa I’ with: “Josephus is also silent about the activity of the Zealots in this period,”192 thus admitting that he has no evidence to support his contention while continuing to maintain that the Zealots were dominate during this era. Even if Hengel were correct that the Zealots continually, throughout the first century, gained followers from the dispossessed peasant farmers in the Judean and Galilean countryside,193 it is nevertheless the case that there is no evidence of Jewish violence against Roman rule in the years between Judas the Galilean’s insurrection and the death of Agrippa. Significantly, the texts cited by Hengel in support of his assertion that Judas’ teachings were adopted by Jewish peasants refer solely to events between A.D. 59–

188

Hengel, Zealots, 45, 66. Cf. Brandon, “The Zealots, 634–640; idem, Jesus and the Zealots, 46. 189 See pp. 155–171. 190 Adolf Schlatter, Geschichte Israels von Alexander dem Großen bis Hadrian (3d ed.; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1925), 263. 191 Hengel, Zealots, 84. 192 Hengel, Zealots, 341. 193 Hengel, Zealots, 335.

III. The Origin of the Jewish Revolutionary Movement

199

70,194 and not to the previous decades. This is likewise true of Hengel’s contention that the “small-scale war” of “Judas and his followers” involved “surprise attacks against small detachments of Roman troops and officials and high-ranking persons who were travelling and incursions into the estates of rich Jews and into non-Jewish territory” though the time period is somewhat broader (A.D. 50–70).195 Thus, despite his claim that the Zealots/Sicarii were active from A.D. 6–66, the evidence from Josephus provided by Hengel himself suggests that there was no organized Jewish resistance group (at least, one which was active and influential) until sometime after the death of Agrippa. It should also be remembered that the data from the Gospels was demonstrated above to be equivocal at best.196 This tendency to make broad statements about the entire period of A.D. 6–66, but to only include evidence from after A.D. 44, is not limited to Hengel. Schürer similarly offers the attack on the royal slave under Cumanus as the first instance of violence after declaring: “during the years A.D. 6 to 66 the fourth philosophy gained more and more adherents.”197 And Brandon contends that the period from Judas the Galilean and Cumanus was replete with violent Jewish reaction to Roman rule and accounts of brigands conducting “resistance operations” without providing any such evidence.198 However, even if Hengel is correct that Josephus used λῃστής and ἀρχιλῃστής as appellations for the Zealots, and that the appearance of these terms serve as confirmation of the existence of the Zealot party throughout A.D. 6–66, the evidence still fails to support Hengel’s thesis. Hengel himself admits that “in individual cases, it is often hardly possible to determine whether Josephus is referring to the Zealots or only to ordinary highwaymen when he speaks of λῃσταί.”199 It should be acknowledged that Shaye Cohen’s assertion that λῃστής refers “primarily to common highwaymen motivated by monetary gain as opposed to revolutionary fervor”200 is overstating the case. In his well-documented study of banditry in the Roman Empire, Thomas Grünewald presents examples which indi194 Specifically, B.J. 2.265 = A.J. 20.187; B.J. 2.427; Vita 66; B.J. 4.414; 7.412, 438. (In Hengel, 335 n. 119). 195 Specifically, B.J. 2.228 = A.J. 20.113; B.J. 2.232–246 = A.J. 20.118–136; B.J. 2.264–265; A.J. 20.172; B.J. 7.254; A.J. 20.2, 5, 121–122; B.J. 2.234–235; Vita 105; Dio Cassius, Hist. 66.4–5. In Hengel, Zealots, 38, 337, 346–347. Hengel, 328, also refers to an attack on a Roman military convoy during the actual insurrection led by Judas (A.J. 17.291; B.J. 2.71), but lists no similar occurrences between Judas and Cumanus. 196 See pp. 159–165, as well as below: pp. 200, 205. 197 Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 1:601. 198 Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 107. 199 Hengel, Zealots, 44. 200 Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 211.

200

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

cate that the term could indeed have political overtones. However, he argues, in general, latrones, the Latin equivalent of λῃσταί, are a special category of robbers as evidenced by their use of weapons (vis armata), through their forming of bands (factions, homines armati coactive) and through their aim of plunder (spoliare) with malice aforethought (dolus malus). In brief, therefore, latrones are those who, as armed brigands, commit particularly serious crimes.201 Yet there is nothing inherently political behind their violence. Hence, a λῃστής should only be considered a revolutionary bandit if the context indicates the existence of political motivation. Hengel rightly acknowledges that the appearance of λῃστής in the Gospels does not necessarily indicate the existence of revolutionary bandits.202 With the exception of Barabbas, they are presented as simple thieves, who preyed upon defenseless travelers, or are indeterminate as to the nature of the bandit (economic or revolutionary). 203 This sense of λῃστής is later confirmed by the jurist Ulpian (referenced by Justinian in his Digesta 12.4.5.4), who remarked that one of the greatest risks in traveling on the open roads was being killed by bandits (latrones).204 Hengel does, however, attempt to draw connections between Jesus and the Zealots. While he discounts that any of Jesus’ parables refer specifically to the Zealots,205 he asserts that the attempt by certain Pharisees to trap Jesus by asking him whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar (Mark 12:13–17 and par.) was intended to ascertain whether he was connected to Judas’ movement. “They therefore asked him the question which would make a true ‘Zealot’ confess his Zealot conviction if he did not want to deny it … in other words, to prove that he was a political revolutionary.”206 Similarly, when Jesus was being arrested and asked his adversaries why they have come out as a λῃστής (Mark 14:48 and par.), Hengel suggests the term might refer to a Zealot; i.e. Jesus was asking whether they believed he was a member of the Zealot party. 207 Yet, this is also pure 201 Thomas Grünewald, Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Reality (trans. John Drinkwater; London: Routledge, 2004), 16. 202 Hengel, Zealots, 29, 338–341. 203 In Luke 10:30, 36, it is λῃσταί who attack the man who was treated by the Samaritan; in John 10:1, 8, a λῃστής is a sheep-rustler, paralleled with a thief (κλέπτης). Apart from Barabbas (John 18:40) and possibly the two thieves on the cross, who are probably though not certainly connected with Barabbas (Matt 27:38, 44//Mark 15:27), the only other appearances of λῃστής are indeterminate: Matt 21:13//Mark 11:17//Luke 19:46; Matt 26:55//Mark 14:48//Luke 22:52. 204 Cf. Grünewald, Bandits in the Roman Empire, 20. 205 Hengel, Zealots, 338–339. 206 Hengel, Zealots, 339–340. 207 Hengel, Zealots, 340. Cf. Luz, Matthew, 3:421; Evans, Mark, 2:425; Marcus, Mark, 998; contra Nolland, Luke, 3:1029; Bock, Luke, 2:1772; France, Mark, 594–595.

III. The Origin of the Jewish Revolutionary Movement

201

speculation especially since, apart from the singular example of Simon the Zealot, which is itself problematic, neither the term nor the underlying philosophy advocated by Judas appears in the Gospels. Hengel also states that Pilate’s actions against the Temple “constituted a confirmation of the Zealots’ view that it was impossible to combine recognition of imperial rule with the holiness of the Jewish faith. [This] probably at least partly contributed to strengthening the new party.” 208 Yet, not only does Hengel not provide evidence that the Zealot party gained strength during this period, these incidents demonstrate that it was indeed possible to acknowledge Roman rule while maintaining the Jewish principles of purity. After all, each time the Jewish leadership made demands, Pilate acquiesced. While they certainly did not desire to be ruled by Rome, they worked with him. Nor did they seek to proclaim the sole rule of God. The very absence of this central principle of Judas’ fourth philosophy during this time period controverts Hengel’s proposition. A more serious difficulty for Hengel is the absence of the terms themselves; Josephus, in his narrative following the revolt of Judas the Galilean, with two exceptions, does not use λῃστής, λῃστήριον, or ἀρχιλῃστής until after the death of Agrippa (though see the note on B.J. 2.253 in Table 2 below). The same is true with ζηλωτής , σικάριοι, νεωτερίζοντες, στασιαστής, and ἀπόστασις. Στάσις does occur in the context of the aqueduct incident during Pilate, but as was discussed above, this should be understood as a riot, not a revolt.209 There is thus a prominent gap in revolutionary activity, including that of bandits, between A.D. 6–44.210 The verb νεωτερίζω and its corresponding participle νεωτερίζοντες provide an interesting case study. Fadus’ initial decision to take custody of the priestly vestments in A.D. 44 was overturned by Longinus in order to prevent the Jews from rebelling (A.J. 20.7). Similarly, Cumanus beheaded the soldier who desecrated a copy of the Torah so that the Jews did not rebel (A.J. 20.117; cf. B.J. 2.224). The first time an incipient rebellion is recorded is the Samaritan/Galilean episode later during the tenure of Cumanus (A.J. 20.129); Josephus records how Quadratus’ quick decisionmaking, including the removal of Cumanus, prevented this desire to rebel from carrying over to the Jews celebrating a festival in Jerusalem (A.J. 20.133). Thus, while there was always the fear of a revolt (which is to be expected of a governor of a newly-formed province), this fear was not actualized until the end of Cumanus’ procuratorship. 208

Hengel, Zealots, 337–338. See pp. 161–162. 210 Brent D. Shaw, “Tyrants, Bandits and Kings: Personal Power in Josephus,” JJS 44 (1993): 204; Grünewald, Bandits in the Roman Empire, 95–98; Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:687–693. 209

202

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

Table 2: Earliest Appearances of Relevant Terms in B.J. and A.J. after A.D. 6 with Respect to Judea and Galilee Term

Source

Date

λῃστής λῃστής λῃστήριον ληστήριον ἀρχιλῃστής ἀρχιλῃστής Σικάριοι ζηλωτής ζηλωτής Στασιαστής Στάσις Στάσις Στάσις ἀπόστασις ἀπόστασις

B.J. 2.125 B.J. 2.228 A.J. 18.7 A.J. 20.5 B.J. 2.253 A.J. 20.4 B.J. 2.254 B.J. 2.444 A.J. 20.47 B.J. 2.267 B.J. 2.269 A.J. 18.62 A.J. 20.105, 109, 112 B.J. 2.260 A.J. 20.130, 135

Indeterminate211 A.D. 48 Indeterminate212 A.D. 44 A.D. 32–52213 A.D. 44 A.D. 52–60 A.D. 66 A.D. 41–44 A.D. 59214 A.D. 60 A.D. 26–36 A.D. 48215 A.D. 52–60 A.D. 51216

211 In B.J. 2.125, λῃστής occurs in the context of Essenes needing protection against brigands. A specific revolutionary party is not implied, but rather those who were willing to waylay helpless travelers. In addition, as with A.J. 18.1–7, this passage is unattached to a specific event, instead being part of the description of the different “philosophic sects.” It is thus impossible to determine when, during the first century, the Essenes feared being attacked by bandits. Thus, the first usage of λῃστής which can be dated does not occur until B.J. 2.228 (A.D. 48). 212 It is unclear from the context (A.J. 18.1–10) whether Josephus is claiming these bandits were operative during or associated with Judas’ revolt, or whether he is referring to the actions of bandits immediately prior to the Jewish War. 213 Cf. A.J. 20.161. The only case which can be made for the existence of a λῃστής during the period of Roman prefects (A.D. 6–41) is the twenty year career of Eleazar ben Dinai, who was captured by the procurator Felix sometime between A.D. 52–60, and therefore began sometime between A.D. 32–40 (assuming we are to take Josephus’ twenty years as exact). This was the same Eleazar who was recruited to assist those Galileans who desired to take revenge against the Samaritans during the tenure of Cumanus in A.D. 51 (B.J. 2.235). 214 B.J. 1:10 also refers to the στασιαστής, but Josephus is here writing about the Jewish War itself. 215 Apart from the reference to στάσις in relation to the aqueduct incident during Pilate, this is the first occurrence of the term in Josephus after A.D. 6 with respect to Judea or Galilee. 216 This is the first instance since the failed uprising of Judas the Galilean that the term ἀπόστασις is used of Jews actually revolting, as opposed to the fear that they may revolt, such as is the case in A.J. 18.88, 118, 252, 302.

III. The Origin of the Jewish Revolutionary Movement Term

Source

Date

νεωτερίζοντας

A.J. 20.129

A.D. 51217

203

Intriguingly, of the four terms which occur in Josephus prior to A.D. 6 (ζηλωτής and σικάριοι do not), each appears in the context of either the War of Varus (4 B.C.) or Judas the Galilean’s revolt (A.D. 6): λῃστής (B.J. 2.57), ἀρχιλῃστής (B.J. 2.56; A.J. 17.271), νεωτερίζοντας (B.J. 2.8), στασιαστής (B.J. 2.9; A.J. 17.214), ἀπόστασις (B.J. 2.39, 73, 80, 118; A.J. 17.250, 253, 295, 297; 18.4) and στάσις (B.J. 2.10, 11; A.J. 17.212, 251; 18.8). This makes their near-absence from the period of A.D. 6–41 all the more problematic for the views of those scholars, such as Hengel, who advocate that the revolutionary Jewish movement was strong throughout the first century. Rather, it appears evident that the revolutionary flame, palpable prior to A.D. 6, was limited to at most a small flicker after Judas the Galilean’s failed revolt, until it received new life following the death of Agrippa. Thus, while Parente is correct that the term “Zealot” “may be used not wholly improperly for terming the whole and multiform movement that led to the war against the Romans,”218 and that it is not necessary to narrowly limit the term only to those Jewish revolutionaries who specifically appropriated the term for themselves such as is argued by scholars such as Smith,219 it is nevertheless the case that there is simply no evidence of any such revolutionary activity between the deaths of Judas the Galilean and Agrippa.220 Hengel’s argument that the later revolutionary parties share an ideological similarity with Judas the Galilean’s “fourth philosophy” is far better substantiated. The essence of Judas’ teaching was that God alone should rule the Jews (B.J. 2.118; A.J. 18.23) and that the paying of taxes to Rome was tantamount to slavery (A.J. 18.4). This teaching is echoed in the later calls for freedom from Rome prior to and during the Jewish revolt of A.D. 217

This is the first instance of νεωτερίζοντας which was actualized, and not mentioned in the context of a Roman governor acting so as to prevent the possibility of a revolt. 218 Parente, “Flavius Josephus’ Account of the Anti-Roman Riots,” 197 n. 41. 219 Smith, “Zealots and Sicarii,” 1–19. 220 A later comment by Hengel, Zealots, 83, suggests that even he is uncertain about the active nature of the Zealots between A.D. 6–44: “The [zealot] movement has a clearly recognizable history. This history began with the foundation of the movement during the census conducted under Cyrenius, that is, in 6–7 A.D., reappeared (before 48 A.D.) at the time of the crucifixion of two of Judas’ sons by Tiberius Alexander …” (my emphasis). However, the fact that Hengel regularly mentions the Zealots in connection with events during the era of Roman prefects makes this statement incongruous with the totality of his argument.

204

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

66. For example, Josephus writes that the “true beginning of our war with the Romans” was when Eleazar, the son of Ananias the high priest, convinced the people to cease the daily temple sacrifices to the emperor (B.J. 2.409). Since the emperors were deemed to be divine (though sometimes not until after their deaths), Hengel reasonably suggests that Exodus 22:19 was the rationale behind Eleazar’s call: “Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.” Another example of the emphasis upon the sole rule of God and refusal to be enslaved comes at the very end of the war. Eleazar ben Jair, the Masada commander and a descendant of Judas, is recorded by Josephus to have proclaimed: Since we, long ago, my generous friends, resolved never to be servants to the Romans, nor to any other than to God himself, who alone is the true and just Lord of mankind, the time is now come that obliges us to make that resolution true in practice. And let us not at this time bring a reproach upon ourselves for self-contradiction, while we formerly would not undergo slavery, though it were then without danger, but must now, together with slavery, choose such punishments also as are intolerable; . . . it is still in our power to die bravely, and in a state of freedom, which hath not been the case of others, who were conquered unexpectedly. (B.J. 7.323–325; cf. B.J. 7.410, 418)

Hengel also points to the Shemoneh Esreh, or “Eighteen Benedictions”, which likewise reflects the sentiment that only God should rule the Jews. The tenth benediction blows “the great shophar for our freedom,” the eleventh asks that God “restore our judges as in former times and our counselors as in the beginning and reign over us – you alone”, and the twelfth calls upon God to uproot “the kingdom of the arrogant”221 which Hengel interprets as referring to Rome.222 It is uncertain, however, when the Shemoneh Esreh reached their final form, and whether the phrases quoted above would have been in circulation throughout the first century.223 Hengel surmises that Judas’ “message had a deeper effect than any other doctrine had ever had on Palestinian Judaism during the first century A.D.”224 If one considers the tragedy of the Jewish revolt of A.D. 66 to be the most significant event in first-century Palestine, then in an important sense, Hengel is correct. However, it would not have been apparent to the average Jewish individual that Judas’ message was influential until it began to be adopted in large numbers sometime after the death of Agrippa. Hengel’s attempt to connect the doctrine of the sole rule of God to the pe221

Translations from David Instone-Brewer, Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament. Vol. 1, Prayer and Agriculture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 99. 222 Hengel, Zealots, 108. 223 See, e.g., Instone-Brewer, Traditions of the Rabbis, 1:95–117; cf. idem, “The Eighteen Benedictions and the Minim before 70 CE,” JTS 54 (2003): 25–44. 224 Hengel, Zealots, 91.

III. The Origin of the Jewish Revolutionary Movement

205

riod before Agrippa is particularly unsuccessful. As examples, Hengel offers the incidents with the standards and the shields during Pilate and the intent by Gaius to place a statue of himself in the temple.225 However, these episodes did not concern the rule of Rome rather than God, but rather the worship of a Roman emperor over God. While the aniconic nature of the shields makes the Jewish protest enigmatic, the images upon the standards were, and Gaius’ statue would have been, in direct contravention of the commandment against idols. This prohibition against idols was nothing new; it had been ingrained within the minds of Jews for centuries. These protests would have occurred even if Judas the Galilean had never existed; his emphasis upon the sole rule of God is therefore not evidence that Judas’ philosophy was active prior to Agrippa. Hengel further appeals to the references in the Gospels which equate pagans and Gentiles with tax-collectors (e.g., Matt 18:17) for support of his contention that there was a Zealotic influence over the people’s attitudes towards taxation: “This formula in the Gospel of Matthew can … be regarded as a norm for the Zealot ideas and arguments that were widely known among the people.”226 While there is no doubt that the Jews were upset about taxation,227 the first century Judean or Galilean tenant farmer who was concerned with heavy debts would not have needed a follower of Judas to convince him to protest. Nor would such an objection be limited to Judas’ declaration that payment of taxes to Rome was unworthy of a Jew who proclaimed God as Lord. It would not even need to encompass this declaration at all; it could simply involve the hardship caused by high taxes regardless of whether a foreign ruler had imposed them; immediately following the death of Herod, the Jews appealed to Archelaus to ease (though not eliminate) their taxes which had been so heavy during the rule of his father (B.J. 2.4). Hengel suggests that the fourth philosophy, begun by Judas, originated as a subsect of the Pharisaic house of Shammai. Not only did a Pharisee, Saddok, assist Judas, but “in the period preceding 70 A.D., the Shammaites, because of the high value that was placed on ‘zeal’ within Pharisaism, were in the ascendancy.” But following the war, it was the Hillelites who “assumed the leadership of the people.” Hengel surmises that it eventually developed into its own party, explaining why Josephus labels it as a fourth sect, though “good relationships were maintained with the Shammaite wing of the Pharisees.”228

225

Hengel, Zealots, 104–106. Hengel, Zealots, 139. Cf. Daniel “Esséniens, Zélotes et Sicaires,” 96. 227 Cf. Tacitus, Ann 2.42, which details a Judean appeal for a reduction of taxes. 228 Hengel, Zealots, 334. 226

206

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

This view, however, ignores much evidence from the first century. First, as has been demonstrated, the prevailing response of the Jewish leadership prior to Agrippa was passive resistance. If Hengel is correct that the Shammaites dominated the Pharisaic party pre-A.D. 70, we should expect more evidence of Judas’ philosophy being practiced than can be ascertained from the sources. Second, the concept of zeal within first-century Pharisaic thought was not limited to gaining independence from Roman rule. On the contrary, the available evidence does not present this as being a concern at all. In Jacob Neusner’s extended table on the content of the traditions from the houses of Shammai and Hillel in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Beraitot, there is not a single tradition relating to the sole rule of God over Israel, which was the one distinguishing belief which separated it from the Pharisees (A.J. 18.23). Rather, these traditions dealt exclusively with everyday issues about how to live righteously, such as the maintenance of purity, correct keeping of the Sabbath, and provisions relating to marriage and divorce.229 The very fact that the houses of Shammai and Hillel could agree with following the traditions of their elders and yet disagree with the manner in which these traditions should be observed, suggests that our question regarding the fourth philosophy of Judas the Galilean is not whether this group existed throughout the first century, but whether it exerted any significant influence. One strong argument in favor of Judas’ fourth philosophy surviving after his death is convincingly provided by Hengel, who rightly notes that Judas’ family tree was very significant amongst those Jews who would follow a philosophy of active resistance against Roman rule.230 Even if Hengel wrongly concludes that the ἀρχιλῃστής Hezekiah was not the father of Judas, multiple descendants of Judas did play an important role in later decades. His sons James and Simon were crucified under the Roman procurator Tiberius Alexander, another son (or grandson), Menahem, proclaimed himself as the messiah, and was murdered at the outset of the

229

Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions, 2:344–353. Hengel, Zealots, 331–332; cf. Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 1:600–601; Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 52; Applebaum, “The Zealots,” 160–161; Smith, “The Troublemakers,” 507–508; Schäfer, The History of the Jews in Antiquity, 112. The importance of the family connection between Judas of Galilee and later revolutionary leaders is valid regardless of whether the arch-brigand Hezekiah (B.J. 1.204; A.J. 14.159) is the father of Judas the Galilean or only of the Judas which led the insurrection in 4 B.C. (B.J. 2.56; A.J. 17.271–272). Contra Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 74 n. 63, who argues unconvincingly against the significance of the family connection between Judas the Galilean and James, Simon, Eleazar, and Menahem. 230

III. The Origin of the Jewish Revolutionary Movement

207

Jewish revolt in A.D. 66 (B.J. 2.433–441),231 and another descendant of Judas, Eleazar ben Jair, was the leader of the Zealots who committed suicide atop Masada (B.J. 7.253).232 However, such a genealogical connection between the later revolutionaries (assuming this is an accurate designation for Simon and Jacob as it is for Menahem and Eleazar) and Judas the Galilean only demonstrates the existence of such a group. This is not sufficient to establish that the Zealots were influential in Jewish society throughout the time period in question. B. Jonathan Price Price takes a similar stance as Hengel on the status of the revolutionary movement throughout the first century in Judea. For example, Price writes that “during the 130 years preceding the rebellion, disorder and defiance were more frequent than peace, internal divisions and struggles constant. ... Rebellion against the Romans had become an entrenched, even respected habit by 66 C.E.”233 However, Price’s brief description of the years leading up to the Jewish revolt evinces an alternative conclusion. During the period of the Roman prefects, prior to Agrippa, Price only mentions the insurrection of Judas the Galilean, “the disturbances under Pilate,” and the aversion of rebellion following Gaius’ attempt to have a statue erected in the Jerusalem temple. Yet, as has already been demonstrated, apart from Judas’ rebellion, there were no rebellious acts by Jews during this period. Price then contends that, following the death of Agrippa, “revolutionary groups re-emerge in the sources.”234 This is in spite of the fact that the sources contain no evidence of revolutionary groups during this period apart from the brief mention of Judas’ fourth philosophy. Price’s analysis of the administrations of Fadus and Tiberius Alexander has already been critiqued; it is sufficient to reiterate that Price uses descriptions such as “armed rebellion”235 where Josephus provides no such indication. Price also argues that the general populace was supportive of these groups, “for there is no sign that [they] opposed, avoided, or [were] ever indifferent to the revolutionary movements” and that during festivals, “revolutionary groups usually took it 231

Josephus describes Menahem as being the son of Judas the Galilean (B.J. 2.433). Given the fact that sixty years separate the death of Judas and Menahem, many scholars assume that Menahem was actually Judas’ grandson. E.g., Hengel, Zealots, 332 n. 105. 232 Although Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 51, suggests that since B.J. 2.447 records the name of Eleazar’s father as Jair and Judas as being from Gamala (A.J. 18.4), Josephus was attempting to distinguish Eleazar from the family of Judas. 233 Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 2–3. 234 Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 6. 235 Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 8 n. 24.

208

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

upon themselves to organize and lead the popular protest.”236 Yet once again, Price’s analysis is unsupported by the evidence; until Cumanus there is no intimation that the average Jew felt anything towards groups advocating revolution. This is supported by the examples offered by Price himself, which are limited to the procuratorships of Cumanus, Felix, Albinus, and Florus.237 And, while only specifically reflecting the people’s sentiment towards the bandits in the mid-60s, Josephus describes how he convinced the multitude (πλῆθος ) to pay money to the robbers, because it was better to give a little willingly rather than be plundered. Clearly, at least at this point in time, the λῃσταί were not viewed as the protectors of the people, but rather their potential enemies. Price then engages in his own argument from silence: he contends that just as there would be no record of Judas the Galilean’s death without B.J., so too “we may assume continuity in other more poorly documented cases: the many different revolutionary groups active before the war were the same as, or the forerunners of, the many groups that congregated in Jerusalem on the eve of the rebellion.”238 Price allows for no possibility of independent development of groups. The only argument which could connect Judas’ fourth philosophy to later revolutionary activity, which Price does not offer, is Hengel’s claim that the genealogical link between Judas and his sons demonstrates continuity. C. Richard Horsley and John Hanson Horsley and Hanson likewise present a picture of frequent violent revolts in Palestine during the first century A.D. After describing the uprisings in 4 B.C. and A.D. 6, they summarize the period as a cyclical pattern of popular violent response to Roman oppression.239 However, they provide scant evidence for such an assessment, furnishing only a single example of such violent reaction: the riot which ensued following the public indecent exposure of a Roman soldier (B.J. 2.224–227; A.J. 20.105–112). Yet even this sole incident does not support their conclusion; rather, as Josephus describes it, the trampling of thousands of Jews occurred after the mere appearance of Cumanus’ reinforcements caused the crowd to panic and at236

Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 14. Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 14, 14 n. 45. 238 Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 15. 239 Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 36–37. Cf. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 107, who summarizes the period between A.D. 6–52 as “tell[ing] only of Roman maladministration and the reaction, often violent, of the Jews. Moving in and out of this sorry tale are those whom he calls ‘brigands,’ but who were in fact, as we have seen, patriots who conducted resistance operations from strongholds in the mountainous desert country.” For a balanced critique of Horsley and Hanson, see Terence L. Donaldson, “Rural Bandits, City Mobs and the Zealots,” JSJ 21 (1990): 25–30. 237

III. The Origin of the Jewish Revolutionary Movement

209

tempt to flee through narrow exits. There is no description of a “brutal suppression of the protestors”; nor is their contention that “Roman officials rarely heeded Jewish protests and appeals” supported by the evidence provided.240 They refer to Pilate’s “ruthlessly repressive rule”241 and then mention two events in which Pilate was convinced to back down from his previous intentions (the standards and shields affairs). They also refer to Gaius’ attempt to have a golden statue erected within the Jerusalem temple; but this is yet another incident in which a Roman official (Petronius) did respond very positively to the protests made by the Jewish leadership. Later in their analysis, Hanson and Horsley present a much more accurate description of the situation in first century Palestine: “At least from the time of Cumanus, the Roman governors became increasingly callous and intransigent.”242 Likewise, they note that “banditry increased sharply around the mid-first century” largely as a result of the famine which occurred during the procuratorship of Tiberius Alexander. Their own presentation of the evidence demands this conclusion that the period of active oppression by the Roman procurators did not occur until after Agrippa; however it completely belies their initial claim to a cycle of violent Jewish protest and brutal Roman repression which they claimed characterized the entire period between the death of Herod and the outbreak of the Jewish War of A.D. 66. Horsley also contends that social banditry in Galilee and Judea was not ideologically-driven. He approvingly cites Eric J. Hobsbawn who concluded that “social banditry, through a protest, is a modest and unrevolutionary protest.”243 While Horsley is correct that Jewish bandits were not particularly concerned with creating “a new order of equality” between rich and poor, it is nevertheless impossible to analyze the phenomenon of first-century Jewish banditry without acknowledging the influence that previous revolutionary movements (most notably, the successful Maccabean revolt) would have had upon the consciousness of any firstcentury Jew who believed themselves to be oppressed. In addition, given the fact that it was indeed the λῃσταί who were the leaders of the Jewish revolt, it is difficult to uphold Horsley’s assertion that Hobsbawn’s general conclusion about banditry (especially in a work focused specifically on the

240

Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 37. Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 38. 242 Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 41. 243 Eric J. Hobsbawm, Primitive Rebels: Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movement in the 19th and 20th Centuries (New York: Norton, 1959), 24; cited by Horsley, “Ancient Jewish Banditry,” 422. 241

210

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

19th and 20th centuries, as the subtitle indicates) should be applied to this specific instance of first-century Jewish banditry. 244 Terence Donaldson, drawing upon a different element of Hobsbawn’s work, points to the examples of urban mob violence as a means by which the Zealots can be understood.245 Applied to the period immediately prior to the Jewish revolt, Donaldson’s thesis has some merit. For the period of A.D. 51–66, he is correct that “there is a close and decisive relationship between the crowd and the rebels. The rebels are part of the crowd, and take advantage of popular gatherings to engage in violence.”246 However, this analysis does not apply to the period of A.D. 6–44, when every example of public protest was conducted peacefully by the Jews (though the Roman response was sometimes violent, as with Pilate and the aqueduct incident). Donaldson, himself, acknowledges this: “these gatherings … were essentially non-revolutionary in their intent. The crowd … was simply using the only means at its disposal to protest injustice and to press for a return to the status quo.” Only, Donaldson contends, when the situation deteriorated to the extent where “such a return was no longer possible” were “the self-conscious and deliberate proponents of revolution” able to exploit the crowd for “its revolutionary potential.”247 D. David Rhoads Against such scholars as Hengel, Hanson, Horsley, and Price, David Rhoads takes a completely antithetical approach to the Zealots and the method in which Jews resisted Roman rule in the first century. 248 Rhoads contends that the individual outbursts of Jewish protest prior to the brief reign of Agrippa were entirely spontaneous and nonviolent. “There is no evidence of a small group or sect urging the nation to revolt.” He also argues that there were no bandits during this period, or at least that they was limited to individuals supporting themselves economically through brigandage. He acutely observes that, given Josephus’ bias of placing much of the blame for the revolt upon the violent revolutionaries, his silence about 244

Horsley, “Ancient Jewish Banditry,” 424, discounts Josephus’ claim that bandits were among those inciting the Jews to revolt (B.J. 2.264). See also Doron Mendels, “Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities, the ‘Fourth Philosophy,’ and the Political Messianism of the First Century C.E.,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed. James Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 264. For a critique of Horsley’s application of Hobsbawn’s model of social banditry to first century Judea, see Grünewald, Bandits in the Roman Empire, 92–95. 245 Donaldson, “Rural Bandits, City Mobs, and the Zealots,” 30–40. 246 Donaldson, “Rural Bandits, City Mobs, and the Zealots,” 39. 247 Donaldson, “Rural Bandits, City Mobs, and the Zealots,” 38–39. 248 Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 63–68.

III. The Origin of the Jewish Revolutionary Movement

211

such matters between A.D. 6–44 “points to the relative lack of conspiratorial revolutionary activity during this period.”249 However, Rhoads also overstates his case. The fact that there was no “conspiratorial revolutionary activity” between A.D. 6–44 does not indicate that the bandits were completely non-existent, or that the ideology of Judas the Galilean was not kept alive by his surviving followers. Rhoads acknowledges, but unduly minimizes, the familial connection between Judas and James, Simon, Menahem, and Eleazar. He surmises that “it may be that only in the turmoil of the fifties and sixties were there enough followers motivated by Judas’ teaching to have merited their recognition as a sect.”250 All Josephus’ silence about Judas’ followers between A.D. 6–48 indicates, according to Rhoads, is that they were not considered significant enough during this period to warrant his attention. Thus, only “in a limited sense was Judas the Galilean one of the formulators of the later national call for freedom from the Romans. This was perhaps the basis on which Josephus claimed that Judas’ teaching was a major cause of the later war.”251 But, it should be remembered, Jesus and his followers were also largely ignored. Rhoads himself anticipates this objection, and responds that Josephus was writing a political history, not a religious one; hence his silence of the Christians is not surprising while one should not expect the same regarding the followers of Judas.252 Yet, if they were not actively carrying out violent attempts to overthrow Roman rule, but were instead content to remain in Galilee, there would have been no reason for Josephus to mention them. It is thus unnecessary to agree with Rhoads that “Josephus may have retrojected the existence of the later sect of Sicarii back to the time of Judas for apologetic purposes.”253 Instead of being “inactive”254 during the years between the deaths of Judas and Herod, Judas’ followers should instead be characterized as subdued and patient, waiting for the opportune moment to act – a moment which came in A.D. 44 with the reversion of Judea to direct Roman rule, along with Galilee experiencing this state of affairs for the very first time. While it took seven years to gain sufficient popular support, and though two of Judas’ sons, James and Simon, were executed, Judas’ followers were eventually successful in their goal in convincing the Jewish populace to follow a more violent course of action. 249

Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 65. Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 57. 251 Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 60. 252 Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 58. 253 Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 57. 254 Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 58. 250

212

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

E. Doron Mendels Mendels also comes close to my own position that the revolutionary movement begun by Judas the Galilean in A.D. 6 survived his death and endured throughout the following decades, but only began to influence the Jewish populace following the demise of Agrippa, though more evidence could be offered to solidify this thesis. He writes: the wish for a violent struggle for liberty was only latent most of the time. The death of Agrippa I in 44 C.E. nourished the frustrated nationalists, who started to act against Roman governors in Palestine; these actions culminated in the Great War of 66–70 C.E. … Resistance forces were quiet for years, until they were saturated with frustration. Only 255 then did they resort to physical violence.

Mendels places much emphasis upon the differing views amongst firstcentury Jewish groups regarding the Land. 256 Pompey’s conquest of Israel in 63 B.C. led to two different reactions amongst Jews. The first consisted of those Jews for whom controlling the Land ceased to be a central concern. Combined with a diminution of nationalism, this group was characterized by a shift to more mundane matters, unconcerned with the reestablishment of an independent Jewish nation. The second comprised those Jews for whom strong nationalism and messianic hope remained prominent. Mendels further subdivides this later group in two: the revolutionary Zealots and the moderate Pharisees. While both desired independence, the means by which they attempted to realize their aims were different. He supports his position by noting that while the Pharisees were initially supportive of the revolt in A.D. 66, following the defeat of a Roman legion, soon thereafter it was only the revolutionary parties who continued to fight until their utter defeat. In addition, prior to A.D. 66, the Pharisees as a whole were opposed to violence against Rome as a means of gaining independence. Mendels offers the Testament of Moses as an example of a moderate Pharisaic text which commends Jews to practice passivity and allow the fate of the Jews and the Land to be directed by God. Such a view accords with Josephus’ description of the Pharisees as teaching that “the Land could not be at present the political basis of the Jewish nation.”257 Rather, the people should wait upon God to purify the land through his promised Messiah. 255 Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, 266; cf. Mézange, “Simon le Zélote ,” 497–502. 256 Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, 243–266. 257 Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, 266; cf. David Rhoads, “The Assumption of Moses and Jewish History: 4 B.C.–A.D. 48,” in Studies on the Testament of Moses: Seminar Papers (ed. George Nickelsburg; Septuagint and Cognate Studies 4; Cambridge, Mass.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973), 53–58.

III. The Origin of the Jewish Revolutionary Movement

213

Where I disagree with Mendels is when the revolutionary parties were successful at gaining the support of the general populace. According to Mendels, the uprisings in 4 B.C. and A.D. 6 “were the last aggressive acts of these Jews until the sixties of the first century. More spiritual and religious circles led the opposition against Rome when any such opposition was needed.”258 However, as detailed above, the evidence suggests a slightly earlier point at which the shift occurred.259 It is with the Galilean/Samaritan episode during Cumanus that the influence of the religious leaders in Jerusalem over the Jewish people began to wane with the decision by a large portion of these people to instead place their trust in the more violent means of revolutionary bandits. F. Conclusion The following timeline should therefore be preferred: 4 B.C.–A.D. 6 Significant influence over the Jewish populace by violent revolutionaries. A.D. 6 Jewish populace chooses passive leadership of the high priest Joazar over violent revolutionary model of Judas the Galilean. 6–41 Jewish populace support passive diplomacy model, which proves successful every time it was utilized.260 41 Claudius prohibits Jews in Rome from meeting together. 41 Passive diplomacy model bears fruit in the decision to appoint Agrippa as king. 44 Passive diplomacy model cast into doubt as Judea reverts to Roman province, and Galilee falls under direct Roman rule for the first time. 44 Jewish leadership convinced Cuspius Fadus to allow the high priests to retain possession of their vestments, the last successful use of diplomacy to influence the Roman governors. 44–46 Famine strikes Judea. James and Simon, sons of Judas the Galilean, were also executed sometime in this period. 44–51 Jewish populace gradually shifts from passive diplomacy model to violent revolutionary model. This movement was

258

Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, 293. See pp. 171–195. 260 Diplomacy was not attempted with the aqueduct incident, likely because the Jewish leadership permitted Pilate to use the Corban for its construction. 259

214

49 51 51–66

261

Chapter 4: The Nature of Jewish Resistance to Roman Rule from A.D. 6–52

largely influenced by the fourth philosophy of Judas the Galilean.261 Claudius orders the expulsion of Jews from Rome. Galilean/Samaritan incident: First instance in which significant percentage of the Jewish populace rejects the passive diplomacy model of the Jerusalem leadership. Movement away from passive diplomacy model to the violent revolutionary model escalates, culminating in the Jewish revolt in A.D. 66.

Valentin Nikiprowetzky, “Josephus and the Revolutionary Parties,” in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (ed. Louis Feldman and Göhei Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), 226–227, is correct that “it is far from certain that all future revolutionary parties were just offshoots of Judas’ movement. More likely, he had spread a sort of activist charisma that inspired each of the various parties.” However, considering the genealogical connection highlighted by Hengel and the emphasis on the sole rule of God, it is likely that one of the most prominent early influences was indeed the continuation of the teachings of Judas by his descendants, and thus one of the initial, if not the first, revolutionary group was essentially a revival of Judas’ fourth philosophy.

Chapter 5

The Antioch Incident In Gal 2:11–14, Paul confronts Peter in one of the most intriguing, and most debated, interchanges between two individuals in Scripture. A survey of New Testament history texts shows the importance of this short narrative on the various theories regarding the first-century Christian church. Unlike many analyses of this event, this chapter will focus largely upon Peter himself, mainly leaving aside discussions about Paul, e.g., his reasons for including this passage in Galatians, its place in his overall argumentation, and its role in understanding Pauline theology. Because of this, I will not consider in any depth Gal 2:15–21; these verses are essential for understanding Paul’s argument, but do not help elucidate the central question of this chapter: Why did Peter cease eating with the Gentiles? In order to approach a full understanding of Peter’s mindset, it will first be necessary to deal with some preliminary issues. First, where does the Antioch incident fit into the chronology of the early church? Second, what was Peter’s prior relationship with Paul and James, especially regarding the question of Gentiles in the church? I will then proceed to analyze the Antioch incident itself. Finally, I will consider its outcome.

I. Chronological Issues I. Chronological Issues Scholarship on the Antioch incident is typically concerned with two chronological issues: (1) Did the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 occur before or after the Antioch incident? (2) When did the Antioch incident occur? The major issue for determining whether the Jerusalem council predates or postdates the Antioch incident is the relationship between Gal 2:1–10 and Acts. Is the Jerusalem meeting described by Paul to be connected with the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27–30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15:1–29?1 The scholarship on this matter is immense.2 My own belief is 1 Wechsler, Geschichtsbild und Apostelstreit, 320, overly complicates matters by placing Peter’s visits to Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea after the Gal 2:1–10 meeting in Jerusalem.

216

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

that Paul’s discussion of his visit to Jerusalem in Gal 2:1–10 is his own recounting of the Jerusalem council of Acts 15. I will not, however, proceed to defend this position for one very important reason. While this question is central to the majority of interpretations of the Antioch incident, as evidenced in the first chapter, and which will become further apparent as this present chapter progresses, I am convinced that my interpretation of the Antioch incident can be maintained regardless of whether the Jerusalem council occurs before or after the Antioch incident. As such I will entertain both possibilities in this chapter, leaving it an open question, thus demonstrating that one does not need to hold to a certain position on the chronological relationship between Galatians and Acts in order to accept my thesis. The date of the Antioch incident is of much greater significance to this study. While Paul provides chronological data in Gal 1:18 and 2:1, interpretation of this data is greatly debated. In Gal 1:18, Paul relates that he visited Jerusalem µετὰ ἔτη τρία. As time was measured inclusively, including both the first and last year in calculations, this could refer to anywhere between two and three years (specifically in “the third year”).3 Unfortunately, he does not specify whether this is 2–3 years after his conversion4 or 2–3 years after his return to Damascus in Gal 1:17.5 In Gal 2:1, 2 Identifying Gal 2:1–10 with Acts 15 are, e.g., Barrett, Acts: 2:xxxviii–xxxix; Robert H. Stein, “The Relationship of Galatians 2:1–10 and Acts 15:1–35: Two Neglected Arguments,” JETS 17 (1974): 239–242; Jewett, A Chronology of Paul’s Life, 89–93; Lüdemann, Paul, 77–78; Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem, 52–54; Moises Silva, Explorations in Exegetical Method: Galatians as a Test Case (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 129–139; Hengel and Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch, 206–207; Mark D. Nanos, “The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem According to Gal 1 and 2,” in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 199–234; Ian J. Elmer, Paul, Jerusalem and the Judaisers: The Galatian Crisis in Its Broadest Historical Context (WUNT 2/258; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 86–104; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 446–454. Opposing this view, arguing that Gal 2:1–10 should instead be identified with Acts 11:27–30 are, e.g., Frederick F. Bruce, “Galatians Problems 1: Autobiographical Data,” BJRL 51 (1968): 292–309; idem, Galatians, 43–56; Witherington, Acts, 441–443; Longenecker, Galatians, lxxiii–lxxxiii; David Wenham, “Acts and the Pauline Corpus II: The Evidence of Parallels,” in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke; Vol. 1 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Exeter: Paternoster, 1993), 236–238; Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 2:987– 992; Bauckman, “Peter, James, and the Gentiles,” 135–139. 3 Schlier, Galater, 59; Longenecker, Galatians, 37; J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 182 n. 236; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 501. 4 Jewett, A Chronology of Paul’s Life, 52; John Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul (New York: Abdingdon, 1950), 68; Fung, Galatians, 73; Martyn, Galatians, 181. 5 Lüdemann, Paul, 61–64.

I. Chronological Issues

217

Paul states that he again visited Jerusalem διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν. Once again, there is a difficulty. Is this inclusive of Gal 1:186 or consecutive to it?7 Thus the Jerusalem meeting of Gal 2:1–10 occurred anywhere from 13–14 years (if inclusive) or 15–17 years (2–3 plus 13–14, if consecutive) after Paul’s conversion or his return to Damascus. Complicating matters further is the date of Paul’s conversion. Most scholars date it very soon after Jesus’ crucifixion – usually a year to eighteen months later.8 However, there is no unanimity on the date of Jesus’ crucifixion. The two most commonly suggested dates are A.D. 30 and 33. This provides a range of dates from A.D. 43–50 for the Jerusalem council (or slightly later if Paul is dating Gal 1:18 from his return to Damascus). An early date in this range would place it during Herod Agrippa’s reign, in which case none of the later developments towards a violent Jewish nationalism in the late 40s would be applicable in attempting to explicate Peter’s rationale at Antioch. On the other hand, if the Jerusalem decree is placed towards the end of this range, the events during the administrations of Fadus, Tiberius Alexander, and Cumanus may be very relevant. Fortunately, it is possible to narrow this range by calculating backwards from Paul’s judgment before Gallio, procurator of Achaia (Acts 1:12–16). Gallio’s term of office extended from July 1, A.D. 51 to June 30, A.D. 52.9 Following the Jerusalem council of Acts 15:1–29, Paul and Barnabas deliver the decree to Antioch, teach and preach there, and µετὰ δέ τινας ἡµέρας (an indeterminate, but presumably relatively short period of time) they decide to return to the churches they had planted earlier (Acts 15:30, 35–36). The pair split because of John Mark and Paul chooses Silas to accompany him on another missionary journey (Acts 15:37–41). This journey, which included travel through the provinces of Syria, Cilicia, Galatia, Asia, Macedonia, and Achaea (Acts 16:1–18:10), has been estimated as taking anywhere between one and four years. 10 Complicating the calculations somewhat is the statement by Luke that Paul stayed in Corinth 6

Knox, Chapters, 68; Longenecker, Galatians, 45; Hemer, Book of Acts, 262. Jewett, A Chronology of Paul’s Life, 52–53, contends the usage of ἐπειτα in Gal 1:18, 21; 2:1 indicates a consecutive sequence of events. In addition, Jewett notes that Paul’s use of διά in Gal 2:1 is meant to express “the nuance that Paul had not been in contact with the Jerusalem leaders through the entire fourteen year period” (53). Cf. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 7–8; Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 126–127. 8 Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 64–74. 9 Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 206. 10 Jewett, A Chronology of Paul’s Life, 59–61, calculates a minimum of 91 weeks and a maximum of 201 weeks for Paul’s journey. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 515, allowing for a shorter stay at the various locations, suggests one to two years as an alternative minimum and maximum for the length of Paul’s journey. 7

218

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

for 18 months (Acts 15:11); only after this remark does Luke record Paul’s judgment before Gallio. However, it is not necessary to date this latter event to the end of Paul’s stay in Corinth as Acts 18:18 relates that Paul stayed in Corinth for a while longer, which means that his judgment before Gallio occurred at some indeterminate time during these eighteen months. Thus, while no precise time interval can be determined between the Jerusalem council and Paul’s trial before Gallio, it was likely around 2–4 years. This would place the Jerusalem council between A.D. 47–49 (and possibly slightly earlier or later).11 If Gal 2:1–10 is identified with Acts 15, then the Antioch incident would have occurred at some point afterwards.12 The length of this time is indeterminate (ὅτε; Gal 2:11); however, as Barnabas and Paul still appear to be partners in Gal 2:14, the confrontation between Paul and Peter must have predated the beginning of Paul’s second missionary journey, thus indicating that Gal 2:11–14 almost certainly occurred very soon after the Jerusalem council, probably within a few months.13 On the other hand, if Gal 2:1–10 is identified with the famine visit of Acts 11:27–30, with the Antioch incident occurring between this event and the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, Gal 2:11–14 could theoretically be dated any time between A.D. 44 (the earliest date for the famine visit of Paul and Barnabas14) and the Jerusalem council. As the majority of scholars who 11

So Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 512 (A.D. 47–48); Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 196 (A.D. 48); Hengel and Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Jerusalem, 205 (A.D. 48/49); Lüdemann, Paul, 172 (A.D. 47 or 50); Jewett. A Chronology of Paul’s Life, 99 (A.D. 51). Contra Alfred Suhl, Paulus und seine Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Chronologie (SNT 11; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975), 57–70, who proposes a date of A.D. 44 for the Jerusalem council. Cf. Wilhelm Pratscher, Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und die Jakobustradition (FRLANT 139; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987), 42–59, who dates the Jerusalem council a year earlier (to A.D. 43). 12 However, a few scholars believe the chronology of Gal 2:1–10 and 11–14 should be switched, with the Antioch incident preceding Paul’s Jerusalem meeting. See Zahn, Galater, 110–111; Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, 74–75, 100–103; Lüdemann, Paul, 75; André Méhat, “‘Quand Kephas vint a Antioch …’ que s’est-il passé entre Pierre et Paul,” LumVie 192 (1989): 29–43. For a critique of this position, see Jacques Dupont, “Pierre et Paul á Antioche et á Jerusalem.” RSR 45 (1957): 42–60, 225– 239. Absent any textual indication, it is more natural to accept Paul’s chronology, especially since Paul appears to be providing a biographical account in chronological order in his first chapter. 13 E.g., Holtz, “Der Antiochenische Zwischenfall,” 347. Differently, Reicke, “Der geschichtliche Hintergrund,” 175–176, who argues that the Antioch incident occurred several years after the Jerusalem meeting and directly connects it to Paul’s arrival in Antioch in Acts 18:22 in A.D. 53/54. However, this is unlikely given what appears to be the strong connection which still exists between Paul and Barnabas in Gal 2:14. 14 This date of A.D. 44 would assume that the three year (Gal 1:18) and fourteen year (Gal 2:1) timespans were concurrent, and that Paul’s conversion should be dated to A.D.

II. Peter and Paul Prior to the Antioch Incident

219

place the Antioch incident prior to the Jerusalem council hold that the latter was a direct response to the former, the Antioch incident should be dated (under this reconstruction of events) closer to A.D. 47–49 (the possible range for the Jerusalem council) than to A.D. 44.

II. Peter and Paul Prior to the Antioch Incident II. Peter and Paul Prior to the Antioch Incident Luke places Peter and Paul in the same context on only a single occasion: the Jerusalem council where both speak publicly before the church regarding the status of the Gentiles (Acts 15:7–12). Luke depicts the two as unified that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised. Peter’s own contribution in Acts 15:7–11 amounts to a reiteration of his address before the Jerusalem church in Acts 11:1–18, adding that the hearts of the Gentiles have been cleansed by faith (Acts 15:9), thus further elaborating upon his previous contention that a Gentile Christian should not be considered ritually unclean, while concluding that God makes no distinction between Jew and Gentile and that Gentiles can be saved apart from the Law. 15 Regardless of whether Acts 15 predates or postdates Gal 2:11–14, Peter is shown to maintain his views regarding Gentiles which were revealed to him in Caesarea.16 Apart from the Antioch incident itself, Paul provides a little more information than Luke regarding his own interactions with Peter (Gal 1:18; 2:7–10).17 In Gal 1:18, Paul relates that he went to Jerusalem ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν. The verb ἱστορέω refers to making someone’s acquaintance.18 In 31. Allowing for inclusive dating, this would provide a terminus a quo of A.D. 44. Of course, if Paul was converted later than A.D. 31, and/or if the two timespans in Galatians are consecutive, the terminus a quo would be some years later. 15 Bauckham, “James, Peter, and the Gentiles,” 130–135, compares the phrases of Peter’s statement in Acts 15:7–11 and paul’s argument throughout Galatians and concludes that Peter fundamentally agreed with Paul’s argumentation in Galatians. 16 Witherington, Acts, 454, observes that “the Peter we hear in this speech sounds something like Paul in his emphasis on grace and faith as the means of salvation for all.” 17 While there are many pertinent issues relating to these two passages, I will here focus only upon those which reveal something about Peter himself. Other matters which relate to the interpretation of the Antioch incident (Gal 2:11–14) will be considered later in this chapter as appropriate. 18 James D. G. Dunn, “The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem According to Galatians 1 and 2,” in Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (1st American ed.; Louisville: Westminister John Knox, 1990), 110–113. Cf. Josephus, B.J. 6.81; Plutarch, Thes. 30; Pomp. 40; Epictetus Diatr. 2.14.28; 3.7.1. Phillips, Paul, His Letters, and Acts, 142, suggests that “Peter was a major force behind the successful integration of Paul and his ideas into the established Christian communities” as well as “instrumental in integrating Paul and his idea of (relatively) law-free Gentile inclusion

220

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

this particular context, it also likely includes Paul seeking to gain information about the ministry of Jesus and the early beginnings of the church. Hengel contends that the reason Paul only met Peter and James from amongst the apostles was due to his controversial theological views and missionary practices.19 This is, however, an argument from silence; there is no indication that the Jerusalem church had such difficulties with Paul at this early date. Taylor rightly notes that if the Jerusalem apostles did have such a disagreement with Paul, it would have behooved them to all meet with Paul, the better to convince or impose their authority upon Paul.20 It is much more likely that the concern associated with Paul’s previous persecution of the church was still acute (cf. Acts 9:26), with only Peter and James initially agreeing to meet with him. It is also possible that Paul would have later met with a larger number of the apostles had his visit not been cut short by an attempt on his life (Acts 9:29). One important attribute of Peter is revealed by this episode: his quickness to forgive and embrace someone who had once been an enemy of the church. Paul also describes a second meeting in Jerusalem with Peter, along with James and John. The purpose for this visit was to confront the views of certain false brethren whom Paul depicts as subverting the “truth of the gospel,” most likely through the teaching that Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. Paul characterizes the three Jerusalem apostles, Peter included, as being highly respected and pillars of the church (Gal 2:6, 9). Peter is specifically described as being entrusted with the gospel to the circumcision (περιτοµή), in contradistinction to Paul being entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcision (ἀκροβυστία) (Gal 2:7). Smiles maintains that James, Peter, and John are amongst the false brethren of Gal 2:4, but that Paul does not name them in this context “because of the potential harm to Paul’s case.”21 He bases his contention upon Gal 2:4 being an anacoluthon; this suggests “evasiveness while not wishing to deceive.”22 However, Peter, James, and John are not secreted in, as is the case with the false brethren. And, as Longenecker correctly argues, the subject of Gal 2:4 is implicit, with the concept of the exertion of presinto the established Christian communities.” Assuming the Cornelius incident is dated prior to Paul’s initial visit to Jerusalem (which would require a reordering of chapters 9– 11 of Acts), this is a plausible hypothesis. Hengel and Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch, 147–149, suggest that this influenced moved in the opposite direction, with Paul, as a scribally trained missionary to the Gentiles, having a significant effect on the views of the Jerusalem church which influenced the freer attitude of Peter towards the Law as well as the apostolic decision at the Acts 15 council. 19 Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, 86. 20 Taylor, Paul, Antioch, and Jerusalem, 82. 21 Smiles, The Gospel and the Law, 79. 22 Smiles, The Gospel and the Law, 79.

II. Peter and Paul Prior to the Antioch Incident

221

sure in the verb ἀναγκάζω in 2:3 being carried over. Therefore, Gal 2:4 should be understood as an elaboration upon the situation in which Titus was not compelled to be circumcised.23 Paul then relates an agreement reached between the three pillars (James, Cephas/Peter, and John) and himself and Barnabas. This agreement involves three elements. One is a request by the Jerusalem pillars that Paul and Barnabas “remember the poor,” of which the Antiochene apostles are already in full concurrence. The interpretation of this element is straightforward; the other two are more complex.24 The first of these regards the pillars’ extending of the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas. Esler refers to various passages in which the phrase “give right hands” occurs in the context of a person in a superior position giving his right hand to a subordinate; Esler maintains this is not “an expression of balance and amity between the two parties” but “rather, James, Cephas and John condescend to Paul and Barnabas by acting as if they are in a superior position to them in a conflict and are graciously offering a cessation of hostilities.”25 While there are instances in which it is the superior giving the right hand (2 Kgs 10:5; Ezra 10:19; Ezek 17:16; 1 Chron 19:24; 2 Chron 30:8; Lam 5:6; 1 Macc. 11:66; 2 Macc. 11:26; A.J. 18.326), there are other passages in which it is the subordinate giving the right hand (1 Macc. 6:58; 11:50, 62) In addition, there are examples in which the phrases δεξιὰς λαβεῖν and δεξιὰς διδόναι are both given, with a mutual giving and receiving of the right hand (1 Macc. 13:50; 2 Macc. 13:22; 14:19); while these passages do involve an agreement between a superior and a subordinate, the fact that the right hand is both given and received by the same individual negates Esler’s argument that the giving of the right hand always moves from superior to subordinate. Finally, in Xenophon’s Anabasis 2.328, there is an example of the giving of the right hand between individuals for whom neither is the superior over the other. Alternatively, the three pillars may simply be acting as if they are leaders in the Jerusalem church, which indeed they are. It is not necessary to read condescension into their attitude, though Paul may have a rhetorical purpose for how he describes them (“reputed to be pillars”) so that his audience is willing to accept his own authority as originating directly from God. In addition, this is not just any giving of the right hand. It is specifi23

Longenecker, Galatians, 50. Cf. Betz, Galatians, 90–91. It is the opinion of some scholars that the purpose of this meeting was to initiate the Gentile mission and establish parameters for its execution and therefore that the Lukan assertion that the Gentile mission had already been proceeding is incorrect. See Stanley D. Toussaint, “The Chronological Problem of Galatians 2:1–10,” BibSac 120 (1963): 338–339; Catchpole, “Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree,” 442. 25 Esler, Galatians, 132–133. 24

222

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

cally the right hand of fellowship (κοινωνία). Mutuality is inherent within this term, with individuals caring for one another. 26 The second element to this agreement involves some type of division between the two groups: Paul and Barnabas to the nations (εἰς τὰ ἔθνη), and the three pillars of James, Peter, and John to the circumcision (εἰς τὴν περιτοµήν). The nature of this division is debated, with three primary views being represented in scholarship. One view is that it denotes a geographic separation of mission fields, with the Jerusalem pillars restricting their mission to Israel and Paul/Barnabas to the Diaspora.27 Holmberg’s defense of this interpretation demonstrates its difficulty. While he claims that the agreement “implied division of the missionary responsibility into two geographically distinct areas,” he asserts that “it seems to have been aimed rather at separating Christian Jews and Gentiles from one another than at uniting them as a single body of believers.” Yet although they allowed that “Antiochene non-circumcision missionary practice among Gentiles could continue,” the pillars did not consider the implications this concession would have on Jewish Christians.28 In addition, surely James, Peter, and John would have been familiar with the difficulties faced by Diaspora Jews living amongst Gentiles. In addition, had they not already received reports that Jews and Gentiles were eating with one another at Antioch? After all, this church had been established at least a decade earlier, and they had specifically sent Barnabas as their representative. Are we to assume that Barnabas never reported back to Jerusalem regarding this development, especially if it were unanticipated? Also, this agreement only involves two missionaries outside of Jerusalem. If this agreement were geographical in nature, why would the Jerusalem pillars place the entire missionary task of evangelizing the Diaspora in the hands of only two men, especially when it is almost certain that there were other missionaries operating outside of Israel proper? And cer26

Cf. Acts 2:42; 2 Cor 6:14; 8:4; Phil 1:5; Heb 13:16; 1 John 3:3, 6, 7. Cf. BDAG, s.v. “κοινωνία.” Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 144, notes that the aspect of fellowship changes what might otherwise have been understood as an act between non-equals to “a symbol of partnership” between equals. Cf. Betz, Galatians, 100; Longenecker, Galatians, 58; Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 2:995. 27 Schlier, Galater, 56; Mussner, Galaterbrief, 122–123; Frederick F. Bruce, “Paul and Jerusalem,” TynBul 19 (1968): 11; Odo Haas, Paulus der Missionar: Ziel, Grundsätze und Methoden der Missionstätigkeit des Apostels Paulus nach seinen eigenen Aussagen (Münsterschwarzacher Studien 11; Münsterschwarzach: Vier-Türme-Verlag, 1971), 49–50; James M. Scott, Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of Paul’s Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians (WUNT 84; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 151–157. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, 112, also interprets this agreement as geographic, though he includes Syria and Cilicia within the Jerusalem sphere of influence. 28 Holmberg, Paul and Power, 21–22.

II. Peter and Paul Prior to the Antioch Incident

223

tainly there is no indication that Peter intended to return and confine his missionary activity to Israel alone. On the contrary, Paul relates in 1 Cor 9:5 that “the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas” were involved in missionary journeys just like himself and Barnabas. And even were Peter to limit his evangelism efforts to synagogues, he would have come into contact with Gentile God-fearers. In addition, Paul places Peter in Antioch only a couple of verses later, and has no difficulty with Peter’s presence in the city. The second explanation given for the nature of this agreement is an ethnic division of mission fields.29 Yet this option is as problematic as a geographic demarcation. It was Paul’s custom to first preach in synagogues (Acts 17:2–4; cf. 13:5, 14–43; 14:1; 17:10–12, 17; 18:4; 19:8; 20:21).30 While it may be argued that he partly did so because of the Gentile Godfearers he might find there, his messages led many Jews to accept Christ as well (Acts 13:43; 14:1; 17:4; 18:2, 8; 19:1–7). In addition, such a decision would have been pragmatically impossible to implement. How could missionaries to the Jews and missionaries to the Gentiles carry out parallel, simultaneous missions, preaching the gospel of Christ, but not intersect in any manner whatsoever?31 Perhaps the most difficult problem for holding that the agreement was ethnic in nature is that the Jerusalem meeting of Gal 2:1–10 was specifically designed to confront what was occurring in the ethnically-mixed church of Antioch. Yet, had an ethnic division between Jew and Gentile been entailed by this agreement, would Paul have accepted it without res29 Schmithals, Paul and James, 45–50; Betz, Galatians, 100; Pesch, Simon-Petrus, 81; Gerd Lüdemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 37; Frederick F. Bruce, “Conference in Jerusalem – Galatians 2:1–10,” in God Who Is Rich in Mercy: Essays Presented to Dr. D.B. Knox (ed. David Knox; Homebush West, NSW, Australia: Lancer, 1986), 203–206; Hengel, Der unterschätzte Petrus, 88–89; Martyn, Galatians, 213–216; Painter, Just James, 66. 30 Wolfgang Reinbold, Propaganda und Mission im ältesten Christentum: Eine Untersuchung zu den Modalitäten der Ausbreitung der frühen Kirche (FRLANT 188; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 200–202, maintains that Paul would have only spread his message by means of private lessons with disciples and random interactions with people on the streets, and not through public speeches. Cf. L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, Paul the Missionary (CBET 34; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 232–233. As Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 2:1325, aptly notes: since Paul viewed himself as an apostle with a specific calling to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, “it is a case of special pleading to assume that he would have relied on accidental encounters in his quest to share his faith with others.” 31 This is, in fact, the exact suggestion of Schmithals, Paul and James, 54, who theorizes that the Jerusalem agreement indicated that both the Jerusalem church and Paul would be carrying out parallel missions in the same locations, so that when Paul was evangelizing the Gentiles in one city, a Jewish missionary from Jerusalem would be evangelizing the Jews in this same city.

224

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

ervation, especially given his willingness to publicly condemn Peter for acting in such a way that the church of Antioch became ethnically separate in Gal 2:11–14? Legrand offers a modified viewpoint which incorporates both ethnic and geographical elements, without being identical to either, arguing that “when dividing the spheres of the mission the Jerusalem assembly and Paul as well thought of regions which were ethnically judaized or non-judaized.”32 The non-judaized world, given to Paul and Barnabas, was composed of (partially) Syria, Cilicia, Macedonia, and Achaia, with the Judaized world encompassing both Israel and the eastern and southern regions of Parthia, Elam, Mesopotamia, Egypt and Libya, which Legrand characterized as composing the Diaspora.33 As Schnabel rightly notes, there is no reason to hold that these eastern and southern regions as containing a greater percentage of Jews than those in Asia Minor and Greece. Nor does Peter later restrict himself to such regions; in fact, he is ministering in those regions Legrand classifies as “non-Judaized.”34 A third possible interpretation of the nature of the Jerusalem agreement is that each gospel being preached had a different theological content, with the gospel to the circumcision requiring observance of the law and the gospel to the uncircumcision being devoid of any such requirement, with an acknowledgement that neither group of apostles would infringe upon the other’s ministry. 35 Yet would Paul have concurred with such an arrangement, especially as he earlier in his epistle to the Galatians insists that only one gospel exists (Gal 1:6–7)? As Schnabel correctly notes: “the emphasis that both apostolic missions depend on the power of God confirms that the participants … acknowledged both the basic theological unity and the practical, specific unity of the early Christian mission.”36 It is clear that many Jewish Christians continued to follow traditional Jewish customs, including the circumcision of their children (cf. Acts 21:21). As there is no basis for holding that the Jewish Christians would have believed this was sufficient for salvation (adult Jews still needed to accept Jesus as Israel’s Messiah), such a practice would not necessarily controvert the truth of the Gospel. Paul’s willingness to participate in a 32 Lucien Legrand, “Gal 2:9 and the Missionary Strategy of the Early Church,” in Bible, Hermeneutics, Mission: A Contribution to the Contextual Study of Holy Scripture (ed. Tord Fornberg; Uppsala: Swedish Institute for Missionary Research, 1995), 36. 33 Legrand, “Gal 2:9,” 38–39. 34 Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 994. 35 Taylor, Paul, Antioch, and Jerusalem, 112–115; Jerry L. Sumney, “Paul and ChristBelieving Jews Whom He Opposes,” in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts (ed. Matt Jackson-McCabe; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 66; Dschulnigg, Petrus, 166. 36 Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 2:996.

II. Peter and Paul Prior to the Antioch Incident

225

Nazirite vow in order to demonstrate that he is not teaching Jews that they should not circumcise their children (Acts 21:26) shows that he has no problem with Jews living as Jews, as long as it did not cause adult Gentiles to believe circumcision was necessary in order for them to be part of the community of God.37 However, Murphy-O’Connor’s position that the Jerusalem agreement only meant that Paul and Barnabas were not required to circumcise Gentile converts, but that other missionaries could do so, would not have been accepted by them.38 Such a concession would have departed from the truth of the Gospel which Paul was absolutely determined to uphold. A slightly different perspective is propounded by Painter who maintains that the different missions involved “demands made as a precondition of the gospel”39; namely, that Paul and Barnabas would not require circumcision while the three pillars would, regardless of whether they were evangelizing Jews or Gentiles. Thus, the two gospels themselves were irreconcilable. James understood this dichotomy to entail that “full fellowship between the two missions was not possible”; there was no “equality between the two missions which allowed freedom of full relationship between Jewish and Gentile believers.”40 Paul did not approve of such a required separation which is why, Painter suggests, Paul questioned the authority of “the supposed pillars” (Gal 2:9). If this view is correct, however, then Peter would also have disapproved, supporting Paul against James, as demonstrated by his earlier insistence that fellowshipping with Gentiles was the will of God (Acts 10:1– 11:18) and his later practice of eating with Gentiles in Antioch (Gal 2:12). Indeed, nowhere is there any evidence that James, Peter, and John taught a different gospel than did Paul and Barnabas; the only difference between the two groups was that the former was primarily evangelizing Jews while the latter was primary evangelizing Gentiles.41 Were this not the case, and it was agreed that the three pillars would teach a Law-based gospel, why 37

The fact that Luke does not relate an entirely harmonious relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem church is evidence of the essential historicity of this account. And the “we” of v. 17 indicates that Luke was an eyewitness. Cf. Lüdemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity, 58–59; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 96. 38 Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 143. 39 John Painter, “James and Peter: Models of Leadership and Mission,” in The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity (ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; NovTSup 115; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 172. Cf. Ebeling, Truth of the Gospel, 104. 40 John Painter, “Who Was James? Footprints as a Means of Identification,” in The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission (ed. Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 32. 41 Schlier, Galater, 81; contra Wehr, Petrus und Paulus, 53–56.

226

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

then would Paul have accused Peter of hypocritically living like a Gentile in Gal 2:12–13?42 And since the content was the same, there is no need to understand this agreement as strictly delineating spheres of influence; neither the Jerusalem nor the Antiochene apostles would have had any reason to object to a member of the “other group” evangelizing someone in their area of responsibility since nothing substantially different would be taught. It is possible that a mutual understanding existed whereas the Law would play a greater role in the daily lives of the predominantly Jewish congregations of Judea. But even Paul agreed that there is nothing wrong with following the Law as long as it is not a substitute for Christ; in fact, believers are to “remain in that condition (circumcision or uncircumcision) in which he was called” (1 Cor 7:20; Acts 21:26).43 It is no more imperative that Jews “Gentilize” than it is for Gentiles to judaize. The Law would only become a potential hindrance when strictly Law-observant Jewish Christians and Law-free Gentile Christians attempted to form a unified congregation. Yet, as will become clear, this was not the issue in Gal 2:11– 14; the Jewish Christians of Antioch were comfortable eating with their Gentile brethren, as was Peter when he arrived. Thus, while there were likely some mixed Jew-Gentile congregations which struggled with differing views on purity issues, there is no basis for claiming this was a problem in Antioch, at least until the arrival of the men from James (Gal 2:12). It remains to be seen if this became an issue after their arrival. If the Jerusalem agreement of Gal 2:9 did not involve geography, ethnicity or the content of the gospel, what did it concern? Some scholars opt for a somewhat ambiguous and open-ended answer. Verseput concludes that it involved the establishment of the status quo.44 Fung suggests that it refers to each group utilizing “the particular approach and emphasis appropriate” to the individual audience, whether Jewish or Gentile, and do so without rivalry or competition.45 These are indeed possible readings. I believe a more helpful and nuanced explanation is proffered by Dunn, who suggests that the preposition εἰς in Gal 2:9 should be understood as a dative of advantage (“with reference to”). The agreement would therefore be 42

For further discussion, see pp. 248–251. Contra Strobel, “Das Aposteldekret als Folge des Antiochenischen Streites,” 87, who contends that Paul’s fight was against any adherence to the Law by Jewish Christians: “Das Gesetz ist in seiner Totalität abgeschafft.” 44 Donald J. Verseput, “Paul’s Gentile Mission and the Jewish Christian Community: A Study of the Narrative in Galatians 1 and 2,” NTS 39 (1993): 50–51. 45 Fung, Galatians, 98–100. Cf. Longenecker, Galatians, 58: “two different missionary strategies amidst an acknowledged doctrinal unity.” 43

III. Peter and James Prior to the Antioch Incident

227

more general than a division of missionary responsibility – an agreement between representatives of Antioch and Jerusalem respectively, that Paul and Barnabas should represent, or act for, or be responsible for the Gentile converts, while the pillars should repre46 sent, or act for, or be responsible for, the Jewish disciples.”

This perspective has two advantages. First, it provides a specific difference in responsibility between the two parties without appealing to the problematic demarcations of geography, ethnicity, or theology. Second, it sets the stage for why a difference of opinion may have arisen in Antioch between Peter and Paul which does not necessarily involve theological disagreement: they may both have had legitimate concerns about the group over which they had responsibility.

III. Peter and James Prior to the Antioch Incident III. Peter and James Prior to the Antioch Incident A peripheral yet important character in the confrontation between Paul and Peter at Antioch is James, brother of Jesus. Paul records that τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου come to Antioch, precipitating the crisis in some manner (Gal 2:12). The purpose of their visit will be considered later in this chapter; it will be sufficient at this point to determine whether these individuals were sent by James himself. If James was not responsible for the arrival of these men, then it is improbable that Peter’s reason in ceasing to eat with the Gentile Christians at Antioch was related in any way to the views of James. If, on the other hand, these men were in fact sent by James, then James’ position in the Jerusalem church and his views on the Gentiles become very relevant to this study. Bornkamm contends that James was not responsible for their arrival, claiming instead that they were operating on their own accord, and that Paul only refers to their point of departure; Paul would have directly identified them as representatives of James had they been sent by him.47 Such a position is made somewhat more likely if it is concluded that the Antioch incident preceded the Jerusalem council; in such a reading, Acts 15:24 may indicate that the arrival of the men from James in Gal 2:12 are to be identified with those who had unsettled the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, yet had not been sent by James.48 Yet, why mention James at all if it was not believed that he was connected in some way to their arrival? Had Paul desired to simply refer to 46

172.

Dunn, Galatians, 111; idem, Beginning from Jerusalem, 458; cf. Böttrich, Petrus,

47 Bornkamm, Paul, 33. Cf. Oepke, Galater, 84; Schlier, Galater, 83; George, Galatians, 175–176. 48 Fitzmyer, Acts, 565.

228

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

men who came from Jerusalem, and not claiming the authority of James, clarity would have favored an alternate phrase such as τινας ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύµων. This is made more likely given the fact that James has already been mentioned twice in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians in connection with Paul and Peter (1:19; 2:9). Alternatively, if they were simply claiming to come from James, but did so without James’ approval, Paul could have stated this fact, thus further negating the strength of their position (whatever this position is concluded to be), as he could eliminate James as a potential source of authority for his Galatian opponents. It is also noteworthy that while the ψευδαδέλφοι of Gal 2:4, Paul’s Galatian opponents (Gal 5:12), and Paul’s opponents at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:1, 5) all advocated that the Gentile Christians be circumcised, no such demand is made or implied by the actions of Peter and the other Antiochene Jewish Christians following the arrival of these men from James. The issue in Gal 2:14 – table fellowship – is not a prime concern of any of these other groups. On the other hand, as will be argued below,49 the issuance of the decree by James is at least partly motivated by the issue of table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians, making it even more likely that the concern regarding table fellowship in Gal 2:14 derived from James rather than any group advocating circumcision.50 Absent any evidence that these men were not speaking on behalf of James, the position that they were indeed sent by James should be maintained. Two other questions regarding James are thus also relevant to this discussion. (1) What was his position in the church, especially with respect to Peter? (2) What were James’ views on the Gentiles? A. James and the Jerusalem Church The men who come to Antioch in Gal 2:12 are sent by James. But did James have any authority over Peter that could be used to compel him to accept whatever message he sent to Peter? Painter maintains that James had been the authoritative leader of Jesus’ followers even prior to Pentecost.51 He lists three early noncanonical Christian sources which indicate 49

See pp. 240–241. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 2:1104. 51 Painter, “Who Was James?” 10–65; idem, “James and Peter,” 143–209; idem, Just James, 42; Scot McKnight, “Parting within the Way,” 99. While not specifically advocating that James was in a position of authority over Peter, Frederick F. Bruce, Peter, Stephen, James, and John: Studies in Early Non-Pauline Christianity (1st American ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 92, presents a somewhat similar line of argumentation when he cites Gal 2:11–14 as evidence that “even when Peter was away from Jerusalem he was aware of James’s influence and respected his wishes.” 50

III. Peter and James Prior to the Antioch Incident

229

that James occupied a prominent position in the early church. According to the Gospel of Thomas 12 Jesus himself appointed James to be the leader of the disciples. Fragment 7 of the Gospel of the Hebrews depicts James as the recipient of Jesus’ first resurrection appearance (in contradistinction to 1 Cor 15:552); Painter contends that this scene likewise “authorises the leadership of James on the basis of the foundational resurrection appearance.”53 According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.1.2–5), Clement of Alexandria writes that James “was the first … to be elected to the episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church” and that, following Jesus’ ascension, Peter, James and John chose James to be bishop of Jerusalem rather than claim preeminence for themselves. Regarding this final reference, Painter acknowledges that the phrase ‘after the ascension’ is imprecise “and may imply a period of leadership by the triumvirate led by Peter” as well as noting that James’ appointment is dependent upon these three members of the Twelve.54 The Clement passage also anachronistically assumes that the hierarchical system which existed at the time of Clement was identical at the time of James. It is not evident that the bishop of Jerusalem, if such an office existed and if James was the first to fill this position, necessarily had authoritative jurisdiction over every single Christian, and particularly over the Twelve; it may have been limited in some sense to Jerusalem itself. In addition, even if Jesus did appear first to James as indicated by the Gospel of Hebrews, this does not in itself demand that James was considered the leader over the entire church. This leaves the brief reference in the Gospel of Thomas which is not, in my opinion, sufficient to counteract the testimony of Luke in Acts which provides far more information. Though Painter insists that Acts 12:17 indicates that James was already the leader of the church when Peter requested that his miraculous escape from prison be reported to “James and the brethren,”55 the fact that James plays absolutely no role in Acts prior to 12:17 makes this a very difficult argument to substantiate. In every instance in which a leadership decision is made, it is Peter and/or the Twelve 52 Painter, “James and Peter,” 188–191, argues that Paul combined two rival traditions of Jesus’ appearances, one which attributed the initial appearance of Jesus to Peter (1 Cor 15:5–6) and another to James (1 Cor 15:7). Cf. also Adolf von Harnack, “Die Verklärungsgeschichte Jesu, der Bericht des Paulus (1. Kor. 15,3ff), und die beiden Christusvisionen des Petrus,” SPAW 5 (1922): 63–68; Pratscher, Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und die Jakobustradition, 29–31, 37–43. 53 Painter, “James and Peter,” 149. 54 Painter, “James and Peter,” 152. 55 Painter, “Who was James?” 31: “We should understand Peter’s message [in Acts 12:17] in the context of his report back to James, the leader of the Jerusalem church. Nothing is more natural than that Peter should report to the leader.” Cf. idem, “James and Peter,” 155.

230

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

who are depicted at the forefront (Acts 1:15; 5:3–9; 6:2; 8:14). This does not mean that James was entirely unimportant in these early years of the church. But the fact that there is no record of him acting in an authoritative position over the Twelve prior to the arrest of Peter in Acts 12:17, or in any other early Christian source including the Gospel of Thomas, makes Painter’s thesis very tenuous. Other scholars agree that James was the leader of the Jerusalem church by the time of Gal 2:1–10 and Acts 15. However, rather than having been in authority from the outset as argued by Painter, they contend either that Peter transferred leadership of the church to James in Acts 12:1756 or that there was a natural change of leadership over time following Peter’s departure.57 If indeed there was a leader over the entire church, such assertions would have some validity. After all, while Peter does present his opinion that Gentile believers should not need to follow the Mosaic Law (15:7–11), it is James (using the first person singular: ἐγὼ κρίνω) who makes the final proclamation (15:19).58 Painter contends, “given that Peter is present, had his leadership been interrupted by his enforced departure, we might have expected the reassertion of his leadership at this crucial gathering in Jerusalem”; since Peter does not do so, this is further evidence of James’ authority over the Jerusalem church.59 According to Painter, Peter is not presented by Luke as the leader over the entire church; if such a position existed, it was apparently occupied by James by the time of the Jerusalem Council. Yet, as I will argue below, the existence of such a position should itself be questioned.60

56

Günter Klein, “Galater 2, 6–9 und die Geschichte der Jerusalemer Urgemeinde,” in Rekonstruktion und Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (BEvT 50; München: Kaiser, 1969), 90–128; Lüdemann, Paul, 120 n. 78. Roy Bowen Ward, “James of Jerusalem in the First Two Centuries,” in ANRW II/26.1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992), 783. 57 Wehr, Petrus und Paulus, 59; Dunn, “The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem,” 110–113, 126–128. Martin Hengel, “Jakobus der Herrenbruder – der erste ‘Papst’?” in Glaube und Eschatologie: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 80. Geburtstag (ed. Erich Grässer and Otto Merk; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 98–100, points to the shift in order in Gal 1:18–19 (where Peter is mentioned before James) to Gal 2:1–10 (where James is mentioned before Peter) as a change in leadership. Cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch, 253. Klein, “Galater 2, 6–9 und die Geschichte der Jerusalemer Urgemeinde,” 282–286, argues that the sequence of names in Gal 2:9 corresponds to the order of precedence when Paul wrote Galatians, though not necessarily at the time of the Jerusalem meeting itself. 58 Barrett, Acts, 2:729 notes: “ἐγὼ is pointless if not emphatic: This is what I say” (emphasis his). 59 Painter, “Who Was James?” 32. 60 See pp. 232–235.

III. Peter and James Prior to the Antioch Incident

231

An alternate thesis, which is of significant relevance to this thesis in that it places James in conflict both with those represented by Peter and by Paul, is argued by Robert Hann. He contends that James did ascend to a position of authority over the Jerusalem church but that this occurred over the objection of the Twelve; the fact that negative passages regarding the brothers of Jesus (e.g., Mark 3:31–35 and John 7:5) were remembered is evidence that Jesus’ disciples were critical of James’ lack of credentials.61 However, the same observation could also be made of the disciples themselves, and Peter particularly. Hann further argues that James owed his ascendancy to the priestly and Pharisaic members of the church, due to his own reputation for strict law observance.62 While it is indeed likely that James did follow the Law according to strict guidelines,63 this does not necessarily mean that he had the backing of only of a certain segment of the church or that he supported those Jewish Christians who insisted that all members of the church, including Gentiles, strictly observe the Law. Other scholars point to Gal 2:11–14 as evidence that James was in a position of authority over the entire church. This passage, writes Painter, “supports the view that James remained located in Jerusalem providing leadership for the Jerusalem church while Peter and Paul were occupied in the leadership of the two missions” and that James was directing both missions as demonstrated by the fact that both Peter and Paul were obligated to “report back to James and the Jerusalem church.”64 Similarly, Holmberg states that the successful influence of men from James during the Antioch incident indicates that Jerusalem had the authority to intervene in affairs in other churches such as Antioch.65 While Gal 2:11–14 will be discussed in much greater depth later in this chapter, it is worth noting that this argument begs the question of James’ leadership. The subordination of Peter to James is not demanded by the fact that the men who come to Antioch in Gal 2:11 were sent by James. Nor is it necessitated that Peter was obligated to obey James’ instructions 61

Robert R. Hann, “Judaism and Jewish Christianity in Antioch: Charisma and Conflict in the First Century,” JRH 14 (1987): 344 n. 15. 62 Hann, “Judaism and Jewish Christianity in Antioch,” 344. Cf. Elmer, Paul, Jerusalem and the Judaisers, 84–85. 63 Historical tradition names James “the Just” thus implying he was a faithful observer of the Law. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23.1–19. Roy Bowen Ward, “James of Jerusalem,” RestQ 16 (1973): 82, disagrees that this tradition originates during the life of James, theorizing instead that that “the Just” was affixed to James as a “martyr title” sometime after his death. 64 Painter, “Who Was James?” 35, 58. Cf. Frederick F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Pbk. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 154, who similarly contends that Peter was “bound to obey” directives issued by James. 65 Holmberg, Paul and Power, 34.

232

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

even if he were influenced in some sense by the message from James brought by these men. It is just as plausible that Peter was influenced by the content of the message and not solely by the identity of the person who sent it. It is clear that James played a significant role in the early church. This role may have even predated Peter’s departure from Jerusalem in Acts 12:17. His inclusion amongst the pillars in Gal 2:9 certainly indicates a prominent position by the late-40s A.D. The visit between James and Paul in the mid-30s A.D. also suggests that James was an individual of importance, even if he did not occupy an official “position” in the early church. His status as a brother of Jesus would certainly have enhanced his prestige.66 Farmer expands on this line of reasoning by appealing to 1 Cor 9:5, which describes that certain members of the community – apostles, the brothers of Jesus, and Cephas – have the right to take a believing wife along with them; James, being both an apostle and a brother of Jesus, was thus a member of two privileged groups.67 It is also relevant that James shares with Peter and Paul the distinction of being granted an independent appearance of the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:5–8).68 Such a unique experience would likely have been interpreted as a mark of distinction amongst the early Christian believers, though this would not have necessarily resulted in these men being given a specific leadership position in the church.69 The primary difficulty with each position which contends that James, at some point in time, was in a position of authority over the entire church, including over Peter and the other apostles, is that they all assume the existence of a hierarchical, episcopal system of church government which did not likely exist in the earliest years of the church. Neither Peter nor James can rightly be described as the highest authority. In Acts 1:12–26, while it is Peter who makes the case for a replacement for Judas as well as the requirements for such an individual, it is the believers as a whole who pro66 Bauckham, “James and the Jerusalem Church,” 68: “There was probably a widespread sense that, like the royal family in any ancient court, it was appropriate that the relatives of the king should hold major offices in the kingdom.” 67 William R. Farmer, “James the Lord’s Brother, According to Paul” in James the Just and Christian Origins (ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; NovTSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 140. Though with no textual evidence to support his claim, Farmer also suggests that James acted as the representative of Mary who, as “possibly the most influential voice in the early church … most likely would have exercised her influence in ecclesial conferences through that male member of her family to whom her crucified son had appeared in his risen glory” (141). 68 Pesch, Simon-Petrus, 72; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 210; Farmer, “James the Lord’s Brother,” 137. 69 Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 308.

III. Peter and James Prior to the Antioch Incident

233

pose Joseph Barsabbas and Matthias and cast lots to determine who would be added to the Eleven. While it is Peter who speaks during the episode with Ananias and Sapphira, Luke indicates that the money was placed at the feet of the apostles, and not solely at the feet of Peter (Acts 5:2). It is also the Twelve who appoint the Seven in Acts 6:2. It is the Jerusalem apostles who send Peter and John to Samaria after hearing about the ministry of Philip (Acts 8:14). Neither does Luke in his Gospel present Peter as the leader over the other members of the Twelve. It is true that it was often Peter who spoke during Jesus’ ministry, rather than the other disciples. But, as was noted in chapter 2, he should not be understood as the official spokesman of the disciples.70 And he certainly did not exert authority over them, nor does Jesus claim that he would in the future. Luke relates Jesus’ prophecy that Peter would strengthen the other disciples (22:32), but this cannot be equated with Peter being their authority. And at the Jerusalem council, while James does provide his own judgment as to a decree being sent out to Gentile Christians (Acts 15:19), it is the apostles, brethren, and elders which sent out the decree to the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (15:23), noting that they do so unanimously (ὁµοθυµαδόν; 15:25).71 At no place is James declared to be the leader of the council, though he is certainly a leader. It is important to note here that none of the recipients of the decree outside of Jerusalem would have any notion from the wording of the decree itself that James had any more to do with this decree than the other apostles and elders. Rather, the recipients of the decree were to follow its stipulations because of the authority of the apostles and elders as a group, and not because of the judgment of any single individual. Thus, the question about whether Peter or James was the leader of the Jerusalem church misses the point. There were many leaders of the church, which included, but was not limited, to these two men. They all acted in unison, without exercising authority over one another. Peter was certainly the “public face” of this group (with John sometimes accompanying him), but there is no evidence that any other members of the Twelve answered to 70

See pp. 30–31. BDAG, s.v. “ὁµοθυµαδόν.” At one point, Painter, “James and Peter,” 157, appears to acknowledge this; he acknowledges that even in Acts 15 and 21 “the sole leadership of James is not explicit. More likely James was one of a group of leaders amongst whom, from the beginning, he stood out as the leading figure and dominant influence.” However, the remainder of his writings does not reflect this distinction. In addition, while it may be argued that James was more of a leading figure than Peter in Acts 15, this does not mean that he exerted any “dominant influence” over Peter. Of course, Acts 21 sheds no light on the relationship between James and Peter, as Peter does not appear in the narrative. 71

234

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

him. And though he may have exerted significant influence over the others, this was done as one equal to another, and not as a position of formal authority which could be passed on to someone else. Peter’s influence was similar to that exercised during the ministry of Jesus; while he had not been the official spokesman of the disciples, the other disciples often deferred to him – not as a result of any special authority granted to him but because of the boldness of his personality. It can be demonstrated, however, that though he did not become the central authority in the church either before or after the departure of Peter from Jerusalem, and though he was not a member of the Twelve, James had become a person of prestige at least by the time of Peter’s departure from Jerusalem in Acts 12:17. After stating that he had journeyed to Jerusalem to visit Peter, Paul relates that he saw no other apostles apart from Peter and James (Gal 1:18–19), thus depicting James as an apostle (cf. 1 Cor 15:5–7).72 It is likely that James increased in influence over the first decade, so that by the time Peter was arrested and escaped in Acts 12, and perhaps followed in his departure from Jerusalem by some or all of the other surviving members of the Twelve, it made sense for Peter to request that James be informed about what has occurred.73 This may especially have been appropriate if other members of the Twelve had already begun their own missionary journeys. But this is no way makes James the authority over Peter. Eventually, this leadership group was extended to include James and the elders. By Acts 15, and perhaps even by Acts 12:17, James had risen to a similar position as Peter – though he was not officially over the other leaders of the church, he was exerting significant influence. Thus, if James did influence Peter, it would have been due to his arguments, not because Peter viewed himself to be subservient to James. Peter, in fact, never relinquished his official position as a member of the leadership of the church, which is why he is able to continue in such a position in Acts 15, not only providing his own input but also being one of the senders of the decree (v. 22). And even while Peter’s influence in Jerusalem itself had waned somewhat while James’ had proportionately increased due to Peter’s absence from Jerusalem, this should not be understood as a preference of James over Peter, but simply an acknowledgement of the reality that absent leaders are not as influential as 72 Contra Walter Schmithals, The Office of Apostle in the Early Church (trans. John E. Steely; Nashville: Abingdon, 1969), 65, who argues that Paul did not desire to describe James as an apostle. 73 Reidar Hvalvik, “Jewish Believers and Jewish Influence in the Roman Church until the Early Second Century,” in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries (ed. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), 67; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 210.

III. Peter and James Prior to the Antioch Incident

235

present leaders. Yet, this would only have resulted in an increase in James’ influence over the Jerusalem congregation in general and not over Peter specifically. 74 Thus, James was not in a position of authority over Peter when the latter was in Antioch in Gal 2:11–14. If Peter was convinced to follow a message sent by James, it would be because of the content of the message, and not the identity of the sender. B. James and Gentiles What were James’ views of the Gentiles? What did he believe regarding the requirements for their salvation? And how did he expect them to live their daily lives? One scholar who asserts that James insisted that all followers of Jesus strictly keep the Law is L. Ann Jervis, who characterizes James as the leader of an influential Pharisaical sect which demanded law observance.75 She suggests that, while Jesus’ disregard for the Pharisaic restrictions on table fellowship led to Paul’s and others’ willingness to include gentiles both in the faith and at the table, the incident at Antioch shows that in the first generation of the Christian movement the influence of the Pharisees was compelling. It may be, also, that Jesus’ own regard for and contentions with the Pharisees gave his followers reason to take the Pharisees seriously, or that the New Testament’s anti-Pharisaic rhetoric reflects the beliefs of only some of Jesus’ fol76 lowers.

Yet while there were certainly some early Christians who sympathized with Pharisaical teachings regarding the Law (e.g., Gal 2:4; Acts 15:5), there is no indication that James was their leader.77 Nor is it likely that James would have disregarded Jesus’ frequent rebuke of the Pharisees regarding their strict adherence to the Law (e.g., Matt 12:1–14; 23:13–26; Mark 2:23–28; 7:1–13, 19), unless one completely discounts the historicity of every single such passage in the Gospels. The Gal 2:1–10 and Acts 15:1–29 accounts have also been used by scholars to claim that James believed Gentiles needed to place themselves under the authority of the Law.

74

Cf. Witherington, Acts, 388; Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:433–434. Jervis, “Peter in the Middle,” 51–53. 76 Jervis, “Peter in the Middle,” 53. Similarly, Jürgen Becker, “Galater,” 28, maintains that the men from James represent one side of a “fight about the Law and the Gospel,” contending “the Antiochene Jewish Christians are not following the straight path of the Law “ but are instead following the Gentile Christians in using “another reference point, namely the truth of the Gospel.” 77 Ward, “James of Jerusalem,” 179–180. 75

236

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

1. Galatians 2:1–10 The agreement reached in Jerusalem as described by Paul (Gal 2:1–10) has already been discussed. The “three pillars” agreed that Paul and Barnabas were intended by God to be apostles to the Gentiles, responsible for representing their interests. Another relevant issue from this passage concerns whether the three pillars should be identified with the false brethren (ψευδάδελφοι) of Gal 2:4 who attempted to compel Titus to be circumcised. If this were the case, the likelihood that Peter and James were attempting to do the same at Antioch in Gal 2:11–14 is greatly increased. Lüdemann maintains that the Jerusalem pillars, including Peter, must have agreed at the outset of the Jerusalem meeting in Gal 2:1–10 that Gentile Christians needed to be circumcised; otherwise, how could the “false brethren” (Gal 2:4) have believed they would be able to compel Titus to be circumcised?78 Yet the very opposite argument could just as easily be advanced: how could Paul have believed Titus would not be compelled to be circumcised? Neither the beliefs of the “false brethren” nor Paul nor anyone other than the pillars themselves require the pillars to have held any given belief regarding Gentile salvation. Given the fact that Peter did not compel Cornelius and his household to be circumcised, it is highly implausible that he believed Titus should be. Even more damaging to Lüdemann’s thesis is that neither Peter nor the men from James attempt to compel the Gentiles to be circumcised. Peter’s decision at Antioch is to withdraw from open table fellowship with Gentiles; he does not actively attempt to persuade them to be circumcised. His actions are significantly different from those of the “false brethren” of Gal 2:4; the intentions are not the same and thus the “false brethren” and the Jerusalem pillars should not be equated.79 Watson provides a similar argument as Lüdemann, asserting that, as it was the purpose of the men from James in Gal 2:12 to compel the Gentiles to be circumcised, there was no reason why James would not have attempted to do so earlier. The difficulty faced by the Jerusalem leaders, contends Watson, was that what had initially been a reform movement within Judaism had become a sect apart from it; the rejection of the majority of Jews of the gospel of Jesus Christ led them to conclude it was now time to instead preach to Gentiles. Yet as they did not desire to completely abandon their mission to the Jews, it was necessary that Gentile converts 78 Lüdemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity, 36. Similarly, Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 455, argues that the Jerusalem pillars attempted to persuade Paul to allow Titus to be circumcised, but then “recognized the force of Paul’s counter-arguments” that Titus should not be compelled to do so. 79 Cf. Longenecker, Galatians, 51; Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 2:1004.

III. Peter and James Prior to the Antioch Incident

237

become law-observant.80 However, in order to justify his thesis, Watson is required to discount Paul’s account of the Jerusalem meeting of Gal 2:1– 10 as “thoroughly tendentious” while Luke is presenting an idealized, conflict-free perspective of the early church. 81 Yet, why accept the historicity of Gal 2:11–14 but reject the historicity of Gal 2:1–10? 2. Acts 15:1–29 Use of this passage to describe James’ views on the Gentiles assumes that Luke has provided an accurate account of the Jerusalem council. The historicity of this passage has been questioned by many scholars.82 Did Luke rely upon sources for his account of the Jerusalem Council? Did he utilize the rhetorical technique of προσωποποιϊα, in which an author composed a speech and placed it in the mouth of a character in a narrative? The classical historian Charles W. Fornara cautions against too quickly concluding that an ancient author has indeed done this: “we are not entitled to proceed on the assumption that the historians considered themselves at liberty to write up speeches out of their own heads. … such a procedure would have been contrary to convention and not, as all too many moderns seem to suppose, a convention in its own right.”83 Witherington concludes that Luke did not do this in the case of Acts 15, pointing to the differences between Peter’s speech in Acts 2–3 and Acts 15:7–11.84 If the meetings of Acts 15 and Gal 2:1–10 should be identified with one another, this would count as multiple, independent attestation of the event’s historicity. And even if the two meetings should not be equated, there is a consistency in the beliefs of the various parties in Acts and Galatians. In both accounts, there is one group which desires to compel Gentiles to be circumcised (Acts 15:1; Gal 2:3–4). In both accounts Paul is op80

Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles, 52–53. Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles, 52, 54. Cf. Elmer, Paul, Jerusalem, and the Judaisers, 93–94, 100–106, who writes: “what we know of the Hebrew remnant at Jerusalem and their leader James” (103), also rejects Gal 2:1–10 and Acts 15, as Paul would have demanded a completely law-free gospel; James and the Jerusalem church would have insisted upon strict adherence to the entire Law of all converts, Jew and Gentile alike, including, but not limited to, circumcision. Later in his monograph, he follows Watson in discarding Luke’s account of Cornelius on the basis that “what we know of Peter and the Jerusalem church in both Acts and the letters of Paul” makes it unlikely that Peter would have been the initiator of the Gentile mission; Luke created the account de novo (70); cf. Watson, op. cit., 25. 82 E.g., Martin Dibelius, “The Apostolic Council,” in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (ed. Heinrich Greeven; London: SCM, 1956), 93–101; Haenchen, Acts, 462–464; Fitzmyer, Acts, 552–554; Pervo, Acts, 369–370. 83 Charles W. Fornara, The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 154–155. 84 Witherington, Acts, 456. 81

238

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

posed to this group. (Acts 15:2; Gal 2:5). And in both accounts, Peter and James are in accord with Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:7–9, 13–21; Gal 2:7– 9). Thus, even if the two accounts depict different events, they are complementary to one another, strengthening the case of historicity for both. It is certainly plausible, and indeed even very likely, that the Jerusalem church would have met to discuss this matter, which was of significant concern to both those desiring Gentiles to be circumcised and those insisting they should not be compelled to do so. To have not addressed this controversy directly in some manner would have been counterproductive to the unity of the church and to have done so solely in a private venue would have been ineffective at solving this dilemma. The fact that James relies upon the LXX of Amos 9:11–12 (Acts 15:16– 18) is not an indication of inauthenticity. Bauckman offers an extensive argument, based upon the application of first-century Jewish hermeneutical methodology, that Luke has faithfully preserved the exegetical foundation by which James endorsed the Gentile mission of Paul and Barnabas.85 In addition, there is no definitive reason why James could not have used the LXX, or that he would have been unfamiliar with it. Hengel provides several lines of evidence that the Greek LXX was being used in Judea: (1) the Judean provenance of the Greek translators of the LXX as recorded in the Letter of Aristeas; (2) it was probably used in the synagogue of Theodotus; (3) fragments of Greek translations of the OT text as well as Greek legal texts have been discovered at Qumran, the Wadi Murrabba’at, and Nahal Hever.86 In addition, not only were there Greek speaking Jewish believers in the church (cf. Acts 6:1), but the members of the Antiochene church would also have spoke Greek; use of Greek at the conference, and thus the LXX, would have been appropriate for both groups.87 It is also questionable whether Luke would have invented the decree of Acts 15:20. Had no such decree been known by his audience, Luke would then be contending that all of his Gentile Christian readers were disobeying the will of God by not keeping these few stipulations. Such a decision on the part of Luke is highly unlikely given his pro-Gentile perspective. 85

Bauckham, “James, Peter, and the Gentiles,” 156–178. Cf. Jostein Ådna, “James’ Position at the Summit Meeting of the Apostles and the Elders in Jerusalem (Acts 15),” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (ed. Jostein Ådna and Hans Kvalbein; WUNT 127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 139, who argues that “Acts 15:16–18 reflects an independent, Hebrew text tradition, which has contained both points of correspondence and divergence in relation to the mutually independent versions of Amos 9:11–12 MT and the Vorlage of the LXX.” 86 Martin Hengel, The ‘Hellenization’ of Judaea in the First Century after Christ (London: SCM, 1990), 21. 87 Witherington, Acts, 457; Ådna, “James’ Position,” 127–128. Contra Haenchen, Acts, 448; Pervo, Acts, 376.

III. Peter and James Prior to the Antioch Incident

239

And if it were known by his audience, it could not have originated with Luke. Even scholars such as Dibelius acknowledge that the decree was historical, noting the address to Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia as evidence of a written source.88 On the contrary, its inclusion implies that this decree was still in effect when Acts was written.89 Therefore, while it is indeed likely that Luke is summarizing the statements of the participants in the Jerusalem Council in his own words, it should be accepted that Luke is recording an actual conference and that his depiction of the views of Peter and James are accurate. What does James’ speech in Acts 15:13–21 reveal about his view on the Gentiles? First, James affirms what Peter has just said in vv. 7–11, regarding “how God first concerned himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name” (15:14). The main verb in this sentence is ἐπισκέπτοµαι, which often refers to God’s miraculous intervention in history.90 The term for “people” is λαός, which is a term typically used by Luke specifically of Israel being a people of God.91 Now, James asserts, the Gentiles believers are also a people which have been taken (λαβεῖν) by God. Already, James is intimating the conclusion he will later in this passage make explicit: the Gentiles can be saved apart from the law of Moses, for if they are saved as Gentiles, the law which was given especially to Israel is not applicable to them. James next appeals to Amos 9:11–12, along with allusions to Hosea 3:5 and Jeremiah 12:15–16, as further support. The greatest significance of this quotation to this study is in Acts 15:17 where James relates Amos’ predicts that the Gentiles will seek the Lord over whom the Lord’s name is invoked. A clear connection is between made by James between Amos 9:12 and what he has just proclaimed in v. 14: that God has taken a people for his name (Acts 15:14b).92 James is thus declaring that Gentiles being saved as Gentiles is not an entirely new revelation; it had been predicted centuries earlier. Chilton contends that James is arguing that while Gentile believers may remain Gentiles, this results in them being separate from Israel; since the Temple (“David’s tent”: 15:16) is “the natural place to worship God and acknowledge Jesus” the Gentiles must be kept separate from the restored house of David which was to be involved in sacrifice in the inner courts of 88

Dibelius, “The Apostolic Council,” 99. Haenchen, Acts, 471–472; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 467–468. 90 Gen 21:1; 50:24–25; Exod 3:16; 4:31; Luke 1:68, 78; 19:44; T. Levi 16:15; 1 En. 25:3. Cf. BDAG s.v. “ἐπισκέπτοµαι.” 91 Luke 1:17, 68, 77; 2:32; 7:16, 29; 20:1; 22:66; 24:19; Acts 2:47; 3:23; 4:10; 5:12; 7:17, 34; 13:17. 92 Ådna, “James’ Position,” 149–150. 89

240

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

the Temple.93 The rules established by James in Acts 15:19–21, consequently, were simply intended to allow Gentiles to demonstrate that they honor the Law. James was therefore insisting “upon the integrity of Scripture, even at the cost of separating Christians from one another.”94 Such a view, however, is contrary to Peter’s reference to the baptism of Cornelius which included Peter eating with Gentiles. Are we to believe that Peter decided that James was correct, over against the revealed will of God? And does Luke’s reference to Barnabas and Paul being appointed to take this letter to the churches of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia indicate that they, also, agreed with James that Gentile believers should be kept separate from Jewish believers? As unlikely as is Peter’s acquiescence that James’ interpretation of Scripture countermands a vision of God, it is even more unthinkable that Paul would have agreed to this. In addition, it is not necessary that the booth (σκηνή) in Acts 15:16 be understood to refer to the literal Temple. Rather, it may very well refer to the eschatological temple, about which a strong Jewish tradition existed which the Messiah would build.95 And this eschatological temple corresponds to the church which Jesus had prophesied he would build “after three days” following his death (Mark 14:58; cf. Matt 16:18),96 a church which includes Jew and Gentile alike as Jew and Gentile. James next issues his judgment that “we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19). The trouble referred to by James is to be found in the reason for the Jerusalem council itself: must Gentiles obey the law of Moses in order to be saved (Acts 15:5)? To keep the law was accurately termed “trouble” by James; had this not been the case, more God-fearers would have become full proselytes. It was certain stipulations in the law, such as circumcision and the food laws, which made full conversion for a Gentile God-fearer so difficult. Finally, James issues a decree, in which he places upon the Gentiles four stipulations: that they are to refrain from fornication, the eating of 93 Bruce Chilton, “James in Relation to Peter, Paul, and the Remembrance of Jesus,” in The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission (ed. Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 144. 94 Chilton, “James,” 145. 95 2 Sam 7:13; 1 Chr 17:12; Zech 6:12–13; Ps. Sol. 17:30; Sib. Or. 5:414–433; Tg. Isa. 53.5; Tg. Zech. 6.12–13. Cf. Richard Bauckham, “James and the Gentiles (Acts 15.13–21),” in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts (ed. Ben Witherington; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 156–159; Sabine Nägele, Laubhütte Davids und Wolkensohn: Eine auslegungsgeschichtliche Studie zu Amos 9,11 in der jüdischen und christlichen Exegese (AGJU; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 192–214; Ådna, “James’ Position,” 154–159. 96 Jostein Ådna, Jesu Stellung zum Tempel: Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischen Sendung (WUNT 2/119; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 111–153.

III. Peter and James Prior to the Antioch Incident

241

food which has been sacrificed to idols or has been strangled, and from blood. These requirements are derived from Leviticus 17–18, which provided obligations to be required of sojourners dwelling amongst the Jews in Israel and thus were the principles which “were most often regarded as constituting the moral impurity of Gentiles.”97 Providing continuity between the speeches of Peter and James, Bauckham accurately contends that the logical implication of the hearts of the Gentiles being purified by faith (15:9) is that they should refrain from committing those acts which characterized impure Gentiles. The issuance of this decree creates an additional problem with Chilton’s argument provided above.98 If the Gentiles and Jews were not to associate with one another, what need was there for Gentiles to follow any purity laws of Moses?99 After all, the clear result of implementing such a decision would be the development of two entirely separate bodies of believers. In addition, the decree itself does nothing to promote separation; on the contrary, mixed churches of Jews and Gentiles could easily interpret James’ proclamation that unified table fellowship is acceptable as long as Gentiles adopt its provisions. Adherence to the decree thus has two purposes. First, it impresses upon Gentile believers the need to be morally pure. Second, it facilitates open table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers, since the adoption of the principles of the decree by Gentile believers will demonstrate their moral purity to Jewish believers who might otherwise suspect their Gentile brethren to be engaged in idolatry and immorality. Bauckham concludes: By explicitly applying the prohibitions of Leviticus 17–18 to them it is made unequivocally clear that they are expected to avoid the impurities which would otherwise impede fellowship between Jews and Gentiles in the church. … This means that the question of eating with Gentiles was not an issue which the meeting left undecided, so that it was only faced when the certain persons from James later came to Antioch 100 (2:11).

Consequently, it should be concluded that James and Peter are in complete agreement regarding the Gentiles. In fact, the stronger the argument for 97

Bauckham, “James, Peter, and the Gentiles,” 120; idem, “James and the Gentiles,” 172–178; idem, “James and the Jerusalem Church,” 459–462. 98 See. p. 240. 99 Haenchen, Acts, 470, correctly observes that Luke was describing “a living tradition” when he related the existence of the Jerusalem decree; if the decree were not being practiced by at least some Gentile Christians, Luke would then have been characterizing the entire Gentile wing of the early Christian community as being disobedient to the will of the Spirit. This can also be offered as an argument for the historicity of the decree: what purpose would Luke have had in inventing a decree which obligated Gentiles to follow even a small portion of the Law? 100 Bauckham, “James, Peter, and the Gentiles,” 121, 122.

242

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

James strictly observing the Law in his own daily life, the more impressive is his assertion that the Gentiles are not required to adopt the majority of the provisions of the Law. It is plausible that, given James’ daily practice, those advocating circumcision of the Gentiles may have expected James to be sympathetic to their position. Indeed, Hengel may be correct that James was personally close to many of them.101 If so, this may be the reason he provides his own judgment (ἐγὼ κρίνω). While those advocating circumcision of the Gentiles already knew the position of Paul and Barnabas, and strongly suspected that Peter would support this position (given his public defense of his actions in Casearea), it is possible that James’ opinion was not as widely known. His opinion is of prime importance not because he is the chief authority in the church, but, possibly, because he is the unknown factor. Thus, the predominant sense in Acts 15 is not one of the hierarchal rule of James over the church, but rather of ὁµοθυµαδόν, in which Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James, the apostles, and the elders all play a significant role.102 Nor is this picture of accord amongst the apostles limited to Luke; Paul likewise depicts the apostles as being in harmony with one another (Gal 2:9). One further issue regarding the Jerusalem council is relevant to this discussion. Would Paul have accepted the provisions of its decree? Many scholars believe he would never have done so. 103 Yet an analysis of the teachings of James and Paul demonstrate that not only would Paul have supported the decree given by James, but he would have done so for exactly the same reason. After giving both the Scriptural justification for his decision and the provisions of the decree itself, James notes that Moses is known and preached in the synagogues (Acts 15:21). The most plausible explanation for this observation is that James presumes that most, if not all, of the Gentiles are familiar with the Law, likely because many had been Godfearers associated with the synagogues before becoming Christians. As such the Gentiles know that the Jews believe certain acts are immoral to both Jew and Gentile alike, namely, the prohibitions contained within Lev 17–18 to the “sojourner who dwells among you.” While it is not necessary to advocate a strictly geographical understanding such as Bockmuehl,104 it may very well have been applied to any Gentiles who were living in com101

Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, 95–96. Brown, Donfried, and Reumann, Peter in the New Testament, 50. 103 E.g., Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 108–109; Strobel, “Das Aposteldekret als Folge des Antiochenischen Streites,” 93; Minnerath, De Jérusalem à Rome, 213; Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, 115–116. 104 Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches, 61–70, 75–79. 102

III. Peter and James Prior to the Antioch Incident

243

munity with Jews. Nor is it necessary to assume that no Gentile-only congregations existed; only that the congregations of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:23) were mixed. James is telling the Gentiles that, because they are eating with Jews in mixed fellowship, it is necessary for them to eat and live in such a way so that the Jews believe their Gentile brethren to be acting morally; to do otherwise would be counterproductive for unity. 105 Similarly, Paul instructs his readers in 1 Cor 10:14–33 that they should not eat food sacrificed to idols, partly because this brings them into participation with demons (10:22–24), and partly because of the conscience of the person who sees a Christian knowingly eating such food (10:28–29). Nor did Paul tolerate πορνεία (1 Cor 6:13b–20; 1 Thess 4:3–8). The other two prohibitions of the decree – refraining from food that was strangled and blood – are not directly covered by Paul elsewhere in his letters, but he may easily have applied his exhortation in 1 Cor 10:28–29 to these two as well. “In short, Paul, like James, insists that pagans flee idolatry and immorality and the temple context where such things are thought to be prevalent.”106 Consequently the Jerusalem decree promulgated by James is not antithetical to the beliefs of Paul. And while it is true that Paul does not refer to the decree in Galatians, this does not indicate his disapproval of it, even if it had been issued prior to the Antioch incident itself. Paul’s reason for not mentioning the decree may simply be due to the fact that they had yet to receive it and thus were unaware that it existed. They were not among the original addresses of the decree and it would not be delivered to the Galatian churches until Paul’s second missionary journey (Acts 16:4–6), potentially after Paul wrote this letter.107 Since there is no other textual evidence which indicates that James’ views on the Gentiles were significantly different during the interval between Peter’s speech before the Jerusalem church in Acts 11:1–18 and the Jerusalem council of Acts 15:1–29, there is no basis for contending that the message sent by James in Gal 2:12 would have contained a theological rationale which would not comport with his declaration in Acts 15:13–21. Rather, James’s views on the Gentiles would have been favorably shared by Paul. Both believed that Gentile Christians should not be compelled to be circumcised or to follow the law of Moses.

105

Contra Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 107–108. Witherington, Acts, 465–466. 107 Thiede, Simon Peter, 163. 106

244

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

IV. Peter and Paul in Antioch (Gal 2:11–14) IV. Peter and Paul in Antioch The Antioch incident (Gal 2:11–14) has been widely interpreted in modern scholarship. Barrett calls it “the most celebrated and complicated historical problem in the whole epistle – perhaps in the whole of the New Testament.”108 Before interacting with individual theories, it will be helpful to consider the text itself, in order to present the various interpretational difficulties in this passage. Certain important exegetical issues will be set aside for the moment so that they may be dealt with at length in the following section. I will base my exegesis upon the following translation of the Greek text: 11

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was condemned. 12 For before certain men from James came, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he ceased and separated himself fearing those of/from the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also joined him in hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not walking straightly (living rightly) in accordance with the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas in front of all: “if you being a Jew live like a Gentile rather than like a Jew, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live as Jews?

Paul begins by declaring that, after Peter (lit. Cephas) came to Antioch, he publicly opposed Peter because he was condemned (καταγινώσκω) (Gal 2:11). Peter’s reason for coming to Antioch is unknown. Certainly he was aware that the congregation was composed of both Jewish and Gentile believers; he would have been one of those who sent Barnabas to Antioch upon hearing that the Gospel had been preached to Gentiles in this city (Acts 11:22). Paul’s judgment of Peter as being condemned is extraordinarily harsh. Josephus consistently uses the term for a person who has been condemned to death by God or a judge (e.g., B.J. 1:635; 2:135; 7:154, 327). It is also frequently used in Greek literature to refer to the condemnation of a criminal.109 It is noteworthy that καταγινώσκω is in the passive; it is Peter’s own actions which condemn him. Paul next describes Peter’s action for which he is condemned (2:12). Initially upon his arrival in Antioch, Peter had been participating in open table fellowship with the Gentile believers. The imperfect συνήσθιεν denotes that Peter’s act of eating with Gentiles was not a single instance. It was his normal practice. It should be recalled that this is not the first occasion in which Peter eats with Gentiles; he had done so previously in the

108 109

Barrett, Freedom and Obligation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 10. LSJ, s.v. “καταγινώσκω.”

IV. Peter and Paul in Antioch

245

household of Cornelius (Acts 11:2).110 These meals were likely both common, ordinary meals as well as eucharistic meals; there is no reason why Peter would have decided to partake in one type but not the other, even if the assertion of some scholars that there was a difference between the two is accepted.111 Jervis insists that to identify these meals as eucharistic is an argument from silence; after all, in 1 Cor 11:17–34, Paul explicitly refers to the Lord’s Supper and appeals to the principle of social harmony. Since he does not do either in Gal 2:11–14, Jervis argues, the Antiochene meals in question must have been ordinary. 112 Yet are we to believe that eucharistic meals were not practiced in Antioch, or that these meals, and only these meals, were practiced in separate communities without Paul ever making an issue of this until Peter’s arrival in Antioch? In addition, if Peter was

110 It is instructive that the majority of scholars give little or no consideration to Peter’s interaction with Cornelius when discussing his actions in Antioch. Even when the former episode is mentioned, it is usually done so in passing, and not as part of an analysis of Peter’s motivations at Antioch. See, e.g., Bruce, Galatians, 129; Longenecker, Galatians, 73; Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 152. Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles, 62, argues that the Cornelius account was a Lucan invention because of Peter’s actions in Antioch. Cf. Dibelius, “The Apostolic Council,” 95. A notable exception to this tendency to minimize the Cornelius episode in discussions of the Antioch incident is Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 472, in which he contends that “if there is any allusion to the Cornelius tradition (Acts 10–11), then Peter was going back on the revelation given to him regarding the acceptability of Gentiles to God (Acts 10.28), which could help explain the charge of hypocrisy (Gal. 2.13).” 111 For scholars who agree that the meals in question in Gal 2:12 involved both common and eucharistic meals, see Pierre Bonnard, L’Épître de Saint Paul aux Galates (2d ed.; CNT 9; Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1972), 49; Bruce, Galatians, 129; Christoph Heil, Die Ablehnung der Speisegebote durch Paulus: Zur Frage nach der Stellung des Apostels zum Gesetz (BBB 96; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1994), 135–136; Pesch, Simon-Petrus, 89; Robert Jewett, “Gospel and Commensality: Social and Theological Implications of Galatians 2.14,” in Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker (ed. L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 241–248; Cummins, Paul, 169. Other scholars disagree. Schlier, Galater, 83, and Bornkamm, Paul, 45, assert that Peter was only participating in the Lord’s Supper with Gentiles. Burton, Galatians, 104, contends that these were only ordinary meals. It is also possible that there was no distinction made between the two; Ridderbos, Galatians, 96, notes that 1 Cor 11:20 indicates that the celebration of the Eucharist coincided with ordinary meals. Though even if this was the case in Corinth, there is no necessity that uniformity of practice existed at such an early stage in the church. Cf. I. Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 110–111; Otfried Hofius, “Herrenmahl und Herrenmahlsparadosis: Erwägungen zu 1 Kor 11,23b–25,” in Paulusstudien (WUNT 51; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 216–223. 112 Jervis, “Peter in the Middle,” 47.

246

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

participating in both common and eucharistic meals, there would have been no reason for Paul to specifically mention the Lord’s Supper. It should also be emphasized that Paul’s primary emphasis does not relate solely to the Eucharist; it would not matter if only common meals are in question. Paul is primarily concerned with maintaining the equality of Jew and Gentile in the community of God; separation, by its very nature, implies inequality, regardless of the context.113 Whether these meals involved Gentiles following certain precepts (such as the Noachide laws114) or whether table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles in Antioch involved a complete departure from any Jewish laws115 is immaterial; Paul clearly had no difficulty with whatever was being practiced. It is apparent, however, that these meals did not involve strict observance of dietary laws.116 Dunn correctly notes that the terms ἰουδαΐζειν (2:14) and ἁµαρτωλός (2:15) do not make much sense if such strict law-observance was being followed in Antioch by Gentiles.117 It is evident from the text, however, that some food which would otherwise have been considered non-kosher was being served, and was being eaten by Peter; in this context, living like a Gentile (ἐθνικῶς: Gal 2:14) likely includes eating foods that only Gentiles, or non-kosher Jew, would eat. Yet it is also probable that many Jews would not have eaten certain foods even if they were convinced that it was no longer unlawful to consume them, if only because they were not accustomed to them. Even a person who agrees that all foods are acceptable to be eaten by God will not necessarily eat every item served at a feast. Nor is it necessary that foods previously considered to be unclean were required to be served. Those who have spent their entire lives finding a certain food to be unclean (and thus uneatable) would likely not desire to eat this food, even if they understood that there was nothing unlawful with doing so. Indeed, common courtesy would likely have led the Gentile Christians to serve foods that both they and their fellow Jewish brethren enjoyed. This practical (as opposed to ethical) compromise may have resulted in both Jews and Gentiles freely agreeing to abide by certain customary practices in menu-choice. Such a 113

Smiles, The Gospel and the Law, 98–101. E.g., Dunn, “Incident at Antioch,” 223–226. Though Bauckham, “James and the Gentiles,” 174, observes that the concept of the Noachide laws as binding on all peoples is a later rabbinic development. 115 E.g., Bruce, Galatians, 129; Fung, Galatians, 107; Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 153; Regodón, El Evangelio en Antioquía, 107; Elmer, Paul, Jerusalem, and the Judaisers, 108. 116 As argued by Howard, Paul, 25; Betz, Galatians, 112; Mark D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 348– 350. 117 Dunn, “Incident at Antioch,” 224–225. 114

IV. Peter and Paul in Antioch

247

compromise would not have resulted in a falsification of Paul’s claim that Peter had lived like a Gentile,118 as long as the reason for such a compromise was not based upon an ethical need for the Antiochene community to follow the Mosaic Law, but was rather a practical matter of serving a variety of food that all would have enjoyed.119 At some point, some men from James (τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου120) arrived in Antioch. It is safe to assume that the men from James did indeed bring a message to Peter; their simple presence would not have been sufficient to cause Peter to cease eating with the Gentiles. Nor would there have been any reason to specifically mention James if he did not know and support the content of this message. Consequently, though syntactically either option is possible, it is best to connect ἐλθεῖν with ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου rather than with τινας.121 One major issue is therefore the content of this message. A second is the reason for Peter’s fear of “the circumcision.” Both of these issues will be considered at length later in this chapter. The terms used to describe Peter’s departure from eating with the Gentile Christians are ὑποστέλλω and ἀφορίζω. This first term is often used in connection with military withdrawals to a position of safety; 122 suggesting that Peter did not publicly explain and defend his rationale; had he done so, a term of retreat would not appropriately characterize Peter’s actions. The verb ἀφορίζω is likely linked to the Jewish concept of separating

118

As asserted by Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 153 n. 199. Mark D. Nanos, “The Myth of the ‘Law-Free’ Paul Standing Between Christians and Jews,” SCJR 4 (2009): 11–12, goes too far in insisting that both Jewish and Gentile believers at Antioch were entirely following Jewish dietary laws. He is correct that the food is not the primary issue; had Peter continued to eat non-kosher food but done so apart from the Gentile Christians, Paul would not have altered either his argument or his characterization of Peter’s actions. But the fact that food is not at the center of the controversy does not necessarily imply that the food must have been fully kosher. 120 46 P contains the singular τινά rather than the plural τινάς, yet as it has no other textual support, it should be rejected. Longenecker, Galatians, 63, conjectures that “probably τινά is an accommodation to ἦλθεν of the latter half of v 12, which appears to be an early scribal error.” Donald W. B. Robinson, “The Circumcision of Titus and Paul’s ‘Liberty’,” ABR 12 (1964): 40–41, prefers τινά and suggests it should be understood as neuter plural (“certain things”), which refer to the contents of the Jerusalem decree of Acts 15:28–29. However, this would require that Peter was not present at the Acts 15 meeting (or else he would not be convinced to alter his practice in Antioch by the appearance of this decree). Cf. Enno Edzard Popkes, “‘Bevor einer von Jakobus kam…’: Anmerkungen zur textkritischen und theologiegeschichtlichen Problematik von Gal 2, 12,” NovT 46 (2004): 253–264, who asserts that only a single individual came to Antioch from James. 121 Mussner, Galaterbrief, 139; contra Bonnard, Galates, 50. 122 Polybius, Hist. 1.16.10; 6.40.14; 7.17.1; 10.32.3; 11.21.2; Plutarch, Crass. 559; Demet. 912. Cf. LSJ, s.v., “ὑποστέλλω.” 119

248

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

themselves from the nations,123 though whether Paul is using this term rhetorically or Peter is specifically intending to separate himself so as to maintain the purity of the church remains to be seen. After Peter withdrew and separated from the Gentiles, the rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch, including Barnabas, did so as well (2:13). Their reason for joining Peter is not provided by Paul. They may have agreed with Peter’s own reason, or may simply have felt obligated to follow the lead of such a prominent apostle. The fact that Barnabas also “was led astray” would have been particularly difficult for Paul, as this was his missionary companion. Some scholars argue that the verb συναπάγω carries with it a sense of irrationality, thereby suggesting that Barnabas’ own reason for following Peter’s lead was irrational.124 However, of the only other two usages of συναπάγω in the NT, while one involves being led astray by the error of the wicked (2 Pet 3:17), the other refers to a person associating with the humble (Rom 12:16). Similarly, the more general απάγω can have both a positive or negative sense (cf. Matt 7:13–14). Thus, while συναπάγω in Gal 2:13 is certainly to be understood negatively in this context, there is not necessarily a sense of irrationality attached to it.125 Consequently, all those who withdrew from the Gentiles (Peter and the other Jewish Christians, including Barnabas) may have indeed believed they had a rational reason for doing so. Despite this possibility of their decision being rational, however, Paul nevertheless characterizes the actions of the Jewish believers, Barnabas included, as συνυποκρίνοµαι, with this attribute being likewise imputed to Peter by the prefix συν-. This term connotes that they were playing a role rather than acting according to personal conviction. Appropriate to this discussion is the statement by Epictetus: “For example, whenever we see a man halting between two faiths, we are in the habit of saying, ‘He is not a Jew, he is only acting the part (ὑποκρίνοµαι)’” (Diatr. 2.9.20). Peter and the other Jews were only acting Jewish in their decision to withdraw and 123 Cf. Lev 20:26, which is directly connected to the discussion of separating clean and unclean animals. See also Isa 56:3; Ezra 10:11; Neh 9:2; 10:28; 13:3; Let. Aris. 151– 152; 2 Bar. 42:5; Jub. 22:16, as well as Heil, Die Ablehnung, 138–139; Bauckham, “Peter, James, and the Gentiles,” 125; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 472, appropriately highlights Jub. 22:16: “Separate yourself from the Gentiles, and do not eat with them, and do not perform deeds like theirs. And do not become an associate of theirs. Because their deeds are defiled, and all their ways are contaminated, and despicable, and abominable.” 124 Betz, Galatians, 110; Longenecker, Galatians, 76; Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 157. 125 According to LSJ, συναπάγω is to “lead away with or together.” Likewise, BDAG defines the term as causing “someone in conjunction with others to go astray in belief” and in the passive, as in Gal 2:13, to be led or carried away τινί by someth. or to someth. A sense of irrationality is not attributed to συναπάγω by either lexicon.

IV. Peter and Paul in Antioch

249

separate from the Gentiles. This was not necessarily, however, an “act of manipulation” on the part of Peter;126 as it is unknown how much the others understood Peter’s reason (whatever this reason is determined to have been) and assented to it. Paul supports this accusation in 2:14, where, in reaction to his recognition that Peter and the other Jewish Christians were not living rightly (ὀρθοποδέω) in accordance with the truth of the Gospel (τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου), he rhetorically asks Peter (Cephas): “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles (ἐθνικῶς) and not like the Jews (Ἰουδαϊκῶς), how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews (ἰουδαΐζειν)?” His description of their action as not living rightly (lit. not walking straightly) contrasts their present hypocrisy with τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. Earlier in Gal 2:4, Paul had contrasted τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου with the attempts of false brethren (ψευδαδέλφοι) to subjugate the Gentiles to the Law. For Paul, eating with the Gentiles is not the better of two good choices, but the only possible choice in the current situation. The truth of the Gospel has been perverted by the actions of Peter and the other Jewish Christians. They all needed to be confronted; Paul accomplishes this by chastising Peter publicly (“in the presence of all”). In addition, the anarthrous form of πάντων suggests that the entire church of Antioch, including the Gentile Christians, was present.127 Paul pointedly notes that Peter had been living as a Gentile, not as a Jew.128 The adverbs ἐθνικῶς and Ἰουδαϊκῶς refer to living according to Gentile or Jewish customs respectively. Dunn is probably correct that they are not termini technici, but are instead relative terms which “do not imply a pattern of behavior precisely defined or widely agreed among Jews.”129 It is, however, likely that in this particular context, ἐθνικῶς does not solely pertain to his willingness to eat with Gentiles; if he otherwise lived according to Jewish practices, Paul’s chastisement would be inaccurate and

126

Betz, Galatians, 110. Longenecker, Galatians, 77. 128 An alternative interpretation of Gal 2:14 is propounded by Böttger, “Paulus und Petrus in Antiochien,” 80–81, who maintains that to live as a Gentile is to live the sinful life of the heathens; Paul is therefore paradoxically stating that Peter had been living a life without God, which is characterized by his decision to live according to the Law. Yet since the change of action which Paul is criticizes involves Peter no longer eating with Gentiles, for Böttger’s thesis to be valid, it would be necessary to conclude that Paul believed the simple act of eating with Gentiles involved the embrace of a sinful life apart from God. 129 Dunn, “Incident at Antioch,” 220. 127

250

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

thus carry little force.130 In such a case, it would have made more sense for Paul to simply argue that Peter believes it is proper to eat with Gentiles. It is therefore apparent that Peter has changed dramatically since his encounter with the Cornelius. He is not simply altering his dining practices for the sake of unity with Gentiles, but has generally adopted, and continues to adopt, a lifestyle which is far more typical of a Gentile than a Jew,131 though not one which necessarily rejects every distinctively Jewish custom or practice.132 This conclusion is strengthened by the present tense of the verbs ὑπάρχω and ζάω which indicate the continual aspect of Peter living as a Gentile and not as a Jew; his decision to withdraw and separate from the Gentiles is not combined with a complete renewal of a Jewish lifestyle. And unless the Jewish Christian community has gone further than Peter and fully rejected any Gentile practices, it should be understood that neither they nor Peter are now living entirely according to Jewish customs; the only significant change is that they are eating apart from their Gentile brethren.133 There were other ways in which Peter had adopted a lifestyle more characteristic of Gentiles than Jews and which he has not abandoned as a result of the message from James. It can only be speculated as to what these changes involved: dress, the rejection of certain halakhic practices, and the continued eating of non-kosher food are all possibilities. This does not mean that Peter has decided that the observance of any Jewish custom is against the will of God (one could still do so if one chooses – there is no indication that Peter is against Jewish Christians following Jewish dietary laws or having their children circumcised), but only that it is no longer the demand of God that Jews must observe every Jewish custom. It is this conviction and practice on the part of Peter which makes Paul’s condemnation so poignant, for it is only in the area of eating with Gentiles that Peter and the other Jewish Christians of Antioch have altered their lifestyle. Since Peter is currently living like a Gentile in some significant sense, Paul concludes his condemnation by asking Peter: πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις ἰουδαΐζειν? The final word, ἰουδαΐζειν, only occurs here in the NT, but 130 Contra Holtz, “Der Antiochenische Zwischenfall,” 345, though he is correct that this phrase does not necessitate that Peter lived like a Gentile in every possible way; it is rather a generalization, but one which refers to more than simply being willing to eat with Gentiles. 131 Longenecker, Galatians, 78; Fung, Galatians, 110. 132 Dunn, Galatians, 128. Contra Betz, Galatians, 112: “Cephas’ total emancipation from Judaism.” There is no need for Paul’s characterization of Peter to involve an “allor-nothing” attitude towards Jewish customs and practices. 133 Longenecker, Galatians, 78; Nanos, Mystery of Romans, 351. Contra Schlier, Galater, 86.

IV. Peter and Paul in Antioch

251

elsewhere it has the general sense of converting to Judaism or becoming a Jew (Esth 8:17 LXX; Josephus, B.J. 2.454, 463; Plutarch, Cicero 7.5).134 Paul is thus contending that at least some of the Gentile members of the Antioch church are considering becoming Jews, if they have not already done so.135 It is instructive that Paul has earlier in his narrative noted that Titus had not been compelled (ἀναγκάζω) to be circumcised (Gal 2:3) thereby making a connection between Peter’s action and the teaching of these false brethren.136 While Peter’s recent history which precedes this event indicates that he does not believe Gentiles must become Jews in order to be saved, Paul maintains that his actions have nevertheless led to such a conclusion on the part of the Antiochene Gentiles, especially given the fact that Peter has already, by his actions, convinced the Jewish Christians to withdraw from the Gentiles.137 Peter’s actions are thus essentially the same as those of the false brethren, even if his intentions are different. The nature of Peter’s intentions is considered in the following section. 134

Dunn, “Incident at Antioch,” 220, references these same passages, but then claims that “evidently one could ‘judaize’ without going the whole way (circumcision). It must therefore describe that range of conduct covered by the term ‘God-fearer’ (or within Palestine also the term ‘resident alien’) and signify an embracing of much that characterized the Jewish way of life, enough at any rate for the judaizing individual to be acceptable to devout Jews.” However, the passages themselves specify that the Gentiles who “judaized” were circumcised; it is not apparent that the term would, in fact, refer to a God-fearer or resident alien. In addition, in the particular context of Antioch, and its previous interaction with Jerusalem, the primary issue had been circumcision of Gentiles (Acts 15:1, 5; cf. Gal 2:3–4). His reference to Origen (220 n. 87) is too late to be useful to this discussion. 135 Longenecker, Galatians, 78, asserts that the verb ἀναγκάζω is to be interpreted as a conative present, and thus “refers not to an accomplished result but to the intention or tendency of Cephas’s action,” one which was done “inadvertently. Instead of treating [the Gentiles] as true believers in Jesus and full members of the Christian church, his action would have resulted in their becoming converts to Judaism.” 136 Bauckham, “James, Peter, and the Gentiles,” 126, correctly observes that the term ἰουδαΐζειν does not require circumcision, but neither does it necessarily exclude it. And Paul understands Peter’s actions as inevitably leading to full conversion to Judaism (which would include circumcision) for Peter is treating the Gentiles as “morally impure ‘sinners’” who have “not been purified by faith and the spirit, but need circumcision and Torah-observance to become morally pure.” (ibid) Such a conversion would not preclude these Gentiles from considering themselves to be followers of Jesus. However, their salvation would be based upon works of law and not faith in Christ. Cf. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, 367 n. 59. It remains an open question in this thesis, however, whether Peter intends to treat the Gentiles in this way, or if this is an unintended consequence of his actions. 137 Lightfoot, Galatians, 114; Fung, Galatians, 110–111; Bruce, Galatians, 133; Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 159,

252

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

V. Peter’s Rationale for Withdrawing from the Gentiles V. Peter’s Rationale for Withdrawing from the Gentiles The only direct statement by Paul regarding why Peter withdraws from the Gentiles is because he “feared those of the circumcision” (φοβούµενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτοµῆς: Gal 2:13). These individuals are certainly Jews, but are they followers of Jesus? In my first chapter, I observed that the answer to this question is largely dependent upon whether one asserts Peter’s reason for ceasing to eat with Gentiles was theological or sociological; those who hold to the former rationale tend to conclude that Peter feared Jewish Christians while those who hold to the latter are more likely to assert that it was non-Christian Jews whom Peter feared. In this section, I will consider six different proposals which attempt to explain why Peter decides to separate himself from the Gentiles. Integral to this discussion is the question of the purpose of the visit of James’ representatives. Prior to an analysis of these proposals, it will be helpful to delineate the reference of the phrase οἱ ἐκ περιτοµή in Gal 2:12. A survey of the NT uses of οἱ ἐκ περιτοµή (and variants) reveals that in three instances (Acts 10:45, 11:2; Titus 1:10) it clearly refers specifically to Jewish Christians,138 in a fourth instance (Rom 4:12) it encompasses all Jews generically, with a final reference (Col 4:11) being indeterminate. The less specific ἡ περιτοµή (and variants) also usually includes all Jews (Rom 3:30; 4:9; 15:8; Eph 2:11; Col 3:11). The exceptions are found in Gal 2:7–9 (3x) which is particularly important to this discussion as they appear only a few verses prior to the current verse under consideration. Here, ἡ περιτοµή refers specifically to those non-Christian Jews to whom Peter and the other pillars were to evangelize. Lexically, then, there is no requirement that οἱ ἐκ περιτοµῆς in Gal 2:12 must refer either to Christian or non-Christian Jews.139 The context of Gal 2:7–9, in which περιτοµή is used of non-Christian Jews, makes this the more likely alternative in Gal 2:12.140 138

In Acts 10:45, the phrase refers to Peter’s fellow believers who accompanied him to visit Cornelius. In Acts 11:2, it refers to Jewish Christians who objected to the decision of Peter and his companions to eat with Gentiles. In Titus 1:10, the phrase is included in the context of rebellious members of the church. Contra to some scholars (e.g., Dix, Jew and Greek, 42; Schmithals, Paul and James, 67) who claim that every Pauline instance of ἐκ περιτοµή refers to Jews in general. 139 Contra, e.g., Martyn, Galatians, 236–240, who maintains that the term can only refer to a specific party amongst the Jewish Christians who advocate circumcision. 140 Burton, Galatians, 107, argues that the absence of the article in Gal 2:7–9 and its presence in Gal 2:12 suggests that the reference is not identical in the two passages. However, as Longenecker, Galatians, 74, correctly notes, this distinction “cannot be supported by Paul’s mixture of anarthrous and articular forms of περιτοµή in Rom 3:30; 4:9, 12; 15:18; etc., all with reference to non-Christian Jews.” Ellis, “Circumcision

V. Peter’s Rationale for Withdrawing from the Gentiles

253

A. Was Peter Vacillating? Regarding Peter’s actions in Gal 2:11–14, some exegetes conclude that Peter’s actions are an example of personal vacillation regarding the correct way to respond to the situation of open table fellowship with Gentiles.141 For example, Ebeling argues that Peter “lacked the confidence to stand by what he had done.”142 Betz contends that Peter wavered between emphasizing unity between Jew and Gentile believers and Jewish cultic separation.143 However, there is no indication outside of Gal 2:11–14 that Peter experienced such uncertainty after his vision at Joppa and the clear acceptance of Cornelius’ household by their being filled with the Spirit. Such uncertainty would have required Peter to doubt that he accurately interpreted Cornelius’ filling of the Holy Spirit as a declaration that Gentiles could be considered clean even while remaining uncircumcised, and that this meant it was permissible to eat with uncircumcised believers. Not only had Peter been eating with Gentiles prior to the arrival of the men from James, Paul also describes Peter’s reversal as ὑπόκρισις. All of this makes it very improbable that Peter abruptly decided that a personal commitment to cultic separation should supercede the will of God that he show unity with Gentiles by eating with them. His confidence in his actions was firmly established in his belief that this was the will of God; he had boldly declared this before the entire Jerusalem church. While scholars such as Ebeling and Betz suggest that this was a single occurrence of vacillation, others argue that Peter evidences a tendency towards wavering, and that the Antioch incident was just one of many such Party,” 122 n. 24, 124 n. 32, suggests that Paul is referring only to the “ritually strict Hebrews” which had advocated for the circumcision of Gentiles in Acts 15, as opposed to the more moderate Hebrews led by James and Peter. If true, then Peter is fearing Jewish members of the church while he is residing three hundred miles away. 141 Luther, Galatians, 59; Cullmann, Peter, 53; Fung, Galatians, 110; Jürgen Becker, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles (trans. O. C. Dean; Louisville: Westminister John Knox, 1993), 100–101; Smiles, The Gospel and the Law, 92–93. George, Galatians, 178, provides this option as a possibility, but also believes Peter was dependent upon the directive from Jerusalem. However, as was argued earlier (pp. 228–235), Peter was not under the authority of James and therefore was not obligated to obey any directive from James, whatever it may have been. Perkins, Peter, 116, makes a similar argument, though she believes Paul was characterizing Peter thusly as a rhetorical device to advance his own claim of personal integrity; it is unclear whether Perkins believes this is an accurate assessment of Peter’s actual reasoning. 142 Ebeling, The Truth of the Gospel, 114. 143 Betz, Galatians, 106. Cf. Leon Morris, Galatians: Paul’s Charter of Christian Freedom (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 79, who appeals to Matt 16:16– 23 as evidence of Peter not being “the most consistent of men,” then acknowledges that Peter is depicted in acts as showing “far more courage” than previously in the Gospels, and finally concluding that “this apostle was a man of strange contradictions” (79 n. 45).

254

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

occurrences. Vincent Smiles references various passages from the Gospels (Mark 8:29–32; 14:29–31, 66–72; Matt 14:28–30; Luke 5:4–8; John 21:7) as evidence of a pattern of “impetuosity and fickleness” which accounts for Peter’s vacillation in Antioch.144 Yet these passages do not establish Smiles’ thesis. While Peter is presented as impetuous by the Gospel writers, the impetus for such action is usually his misunderstanding of Jesus’ teachings. He spoke and acted as he believed he was supposed to, not as the result of external pressure as would be the case in Gal 2:11–14 if Peter is vacillating on the issue of whether it is acceptable to eat with Gentiles following the arrival of the men from James. The one exception in the Gospels is his three-fold denial in which Peter does waver in his faithfulness to Jesus under the pressure of repeated questions regarding his status as a disciple of Jesus. But, as was argued in chapter 2, this was a unique situation and one which only occurred because Peter continued to do what he believed was right by following Jesus to the house of Caiaphas while the majority of Jesus’ other disciples fled. And, in Acts, Peter suppresses his impetuosity and consistently demonstrates his boldness in following the will of God, even in the face of determined opposition.145 Nor is the episode with Cornelius an example of vacillation on the part of Peter. For this to have been the case, Peter would have needed to already believe that Gentiles could be accepted qua Gentiles, and then wavered upon the accuracy of this belief. Yet this was not the case. Following Pentecost, when Peter came to an understanding of a vital truth from God, he boldly proclaimed it even in the face of persecution. The Cornelius episode is such an example, in which Peter came to understand, for the first time, that God shows no partiality between Jews and Gentiles, and then defends his decision to eat and stay with Gentiles in front of the Jerusalem church. Thus, the hypothesis that Peter was “an unstable character” who was “frightened” by “less reputable figures than James” to revert “to what he truly believed and that it was with a bad conscience that he had been playing a part when he ate with Gentiles”146 is unsubstantiated; the exact opposite portrait is presented in the Gospels and Acts. He only began to eat 144 Smiles, The Gospel and the Law, 92–93; cf. Mussner, Galaterbrief, 142, who adds that Peter felt guilty because he had been recognized by the Jerusalem agreement in Gal 2:9 specifically as a missionary to the Jews. 145 Taylor, Paul, Antioch, and Jerusalem, 133, similarly observes: “the fact that on one occasion of potentially mortal peril [Peter’s] survival instinct overcame the sentiments which had previously produced extravagant bravado is far from sufficient evidence that Peter was a habitual coward, and is no basis for believing that Peter was motivated by cowardice on this particular occasion.” 146 Barrett, “Paul: Councils and Controversies,” 53–54. Cf. idem, Freedom and Obligation, 13.

V. Peter’s Rationale for Withdrawing from the Gentiles

255

with Gentiles (first with Cornelius, later at Antioch) because he understood and believed this was the will of God. Previous failures on his part, with the unique exception of his denials, had been due to a misunderstanding about the will of God. In addition, these misunderstandings are limited to the Gospels. Following his restoration by Jesus in John 21:15–19 and his being filled with the Spirit at Pentecost, Peter is invariably presented as decidedly unwavering in his devotion to what he believes to be the will of God. It is, of course, possible that his actions in Antioch are entirely uncharacteristic, a momentary lapse in judgment. Yet, given his faithfulness to the will of God in the presence of persecution on multiple occasions, we should resort to such an explanation only if no other viable alternative exists. B. Did the Jerusalem Agreement Obligate Peter to Withdraw from the Gentiles? Some scholars argue that the Jerusalem agreement of Gal 2:9 had required a split between Jewish and Gentile believers, and that Peter had departed from this agreement in eating with Gentiles. The purpose of the visit of the men from James was to encourage Peter to cease reneging upon his responsibilities as an apostle to the circumcision and return to table fellowship with Jews. Had Peter eaten with only Jewish Christians in Antioch from the time of his arrival, supporters of this view maintain, there would have been no reason for Paul to critique Peter; it is only because he decided to eat with Gentiles at one point, and then withdrew from them, that Paul took umbrage.147 Yet, would Paul have agreed to such a policy when it was established in Gal 2:9? His public condemnation of Peter in Gal 2:11–14 makes this highly unlikely. If he deemed it important enough to criticize Peter publicly, why would he have hesitated to do so in the more private setting of his agreement with the Jerusalem pillars? Other scholars offer the alternative that the men from James were offering the Gentiles a choice: either be circumcised or uphold the 147

Cf. Schmithals, Paul and James, 64–72; Thiede, Simon Peter, 166–167; Mussner, Galaterbrief, 140–142; Ebeling, Truth of the Gospel, 112; Betz, Galatians, 108; Dunn, Galatians, 122; idem, “Incident at Antioch,” 224–225; idem, Jews and Christians, 172– 76; Böttrich, Petrus, 204–205; Martyn, Galatians, 242; Smiles, The Gospel and the Law, 88; Barrett, Freedom and Obligation, 13; Jost Eckert, “Paulus und die Jerusalemer Authoritäten, 303; Pesch, Simon-Petrus, 92; Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 126–42; Regodón, El Evangelio en Antioquía, 111; Zetterholm, Christianity in Antioch, 160–61; Gnilka, Petrus und Rom, 103; Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches, 75–79; Bauckham, “James, Peter, and the Gentiles,” 124–26; Catchpole, “Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree,” 440–43; Traugott Holtz, “Die Bedeutung des Apostelkonzils für Paulus,” NovT 16 (1974): 123.

256

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

Jerusalem agreement by maintaining separate commensality from Jewish believers.148 Not only does this position require that the historicity of Luke’s account of the Jerusalem council be discarded, Paul would have been no more willing to have accepted this when the Jerusalem agreement was established. Thiede’s contention that the two groups were eating separately prior to Peter’s arrival, with Peter eating with the Gentile Christians rather than the Jewish Christians, is particularly improbable,149 as Paul makes it clear that the rest of the Jewish believers, including Barnabas, follow Peter in ceasing to eat with the Gentiles. Had they already been eating separately, no such change in their behavior would have been required by Peter’s action. Yet even if the men from James had demanded circumcision of the Gentiles or separate commensality between Jewish and Gentile believers, why would Peter have capitulated, especially in light of the Cornelius episode? In this earlier instance, Peter was criticized for eating with Gentiles; yet Peter defended his decision as the will of God, because Gentiles were no longer to be considered unclean.150 And even though Dunn is correct that the Jerusalem agreement would have allowed Jews to live as Jews when interracial unity was not an issue, it is clear that Peter had not been living as a Jew (Gal 2:14), so why would he have altered his practice simply because these men from James encouraged him to exercise his right to live as a Jew if he so chose? Achtemeier recognizes this difficulty and attempts to solve it by asserting that the Jerusalem decree was formulated at a conference unconnected to Gal 2:1–10 or Acts 15 and did not include the presence of Peter. The first time Peter heard of this decree was when it was brought to Antioch by the men from James. It was Peter’s decision to abide by this decree which led him to withdraw from eating with the Gentiles. Achtemeier also proposes that James had decided to depart from the Jerusalem agreement of Gal 2:9 because of some sort of external or

148

Cf. Burton, Galatians, 101–13, 257–259; Becker, “Galater,” 27–28; Böttger, “Paulus und Petrus in Antiochien,” 81; Painter, Just James, 70; Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 107. 149 Thiede, Simon Peter, 166. Cf. Glanville Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), 277– 280. 150 Esler, Galatians, 134, suggests that Peter’s purpose for travelling to Antioch was to put the Jerusalem agreement into practice; this thesis, however, requires that Paul’s entire characterization of Peter in Gal 2:11–14 be discounted. To have eaten with Gentiles and lived like a Gentile would have been entirely counterproductive to such a purpose.

V. Peter’s Rationale for Withdrawing from the Gentiles

257

internal pressure.151 Such a thesis, which requires the addition of an unknown conference which has the decree attached to it along with a critique of Acts 15, should only be considered if all other possibilities have been discarded. A different response to this difficulty is suggested by Pesch in which he places the Cornelius episode after the Jerusalem agreement (Pesch connects Acts 15:1–4 with Gal 2:1–10 and identifies Acts 15:5–18 with Acts 11:1–18). Thus, whereas Peter had initially been a missionary to the Jews alone who advocated a complete separation between the Jewish and Gentile churches, by the time he arrives in Antioch in Gal 2:11, he has undergone a change of mind. The men from James convince Peter that he is guilty of reneging upon the earlier agreement and he thus withdraws from the Gentiles, both out of his recognition of the primacy of James and from a bad conscience, recognizing that his current behavior could become a cause of discord between Jewish and Gentile Christians. In response, he later negotiates the Jerusalem decree as a compromise position.152 This results in an awkwardness to Luke’s retelling of the story: the event is first told in Acts 11:1–18 prior to the Jerusalem agreement, the agreement is then not mentioned specifically in Acts 15:1–14, though the surrounding circumstances are, and finally the Acts 11:1–18 account is recast in a different context, with a later decree attached to it. In addition, it would be odd for Paul to discuss this agreement in Gal 2:9, and then only a few verses later, not connect Peter’s action with it if he viewed Peter’s decision as a violation of his own understanding of this agreement; or, alternatively, for him not to have mentioned that he was against the agreement itself. In addition, why would Barnabas have felt compelled to follow Peter if the issue was about a strict separation between Jewish believers (and their apostles of the circumcision) and the Gentile believers (and their apostles of the Gentiles, of which Barnabas was one)? Had the purpose of Peter (and the men from James) been to maintain ethnic demarcations of the Jerusalem agreement, it would have been equally important for Barnabas to remain in table fellowship with the Gentile Christians. The fact that Barnabas instead follows Peter is an indication that Peter’s reason did not concern the Jerusalem agreement at all.153 151

Paul J. Achtemeier, Quest for Unity, 52–53; idem, “An Elusive Unity: Paul, Acts, and the Early Church,” CBQ 48 (1986): 20–22. Lietzmann, 108–109, agrees, specifically identifying the men from James who brought the Decree to Antioch with Judas and Silas. Cf. also Catchpole, “Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree,” 442; Elmer, Paul, Jerusalem, and the Judaizers, 110–111. 152 Pesch, Simon-Petrus, 82–95. 153 John Howard Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (SNTSMS 26; London: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 151; Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 153; Holmberg, Paul and Power, 33; Howard, Paul, 31–32.

258

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

Arguing from the perspective of purity regulations in general rather than a specific ecclesiological agreement, Bruce Chilton argues that the “Jacobean circle” was proclaiming that the celebration of the eucharistic meal (which he believes was the type of meal from which Peter had withdrawn) was directly associated with Passover, and thus table fellowship with Gentiles during such a meal was to be strictly forbidden due to the prohibition against eating the Passover with the uncircumcised (Exod 12:28).154 While this is a theoretical explanation for James, it does not explain why Peter had no previous problem with celebrating the Eucharist with Gentiles. C. Did Peter Believe the Gentiles Should Be Circumcised? A very different perspective which attempts to explain Peter’s actions at Antioch is that Peter was convinced by the men from James that Gentile Christians must be circumcised.155 Esler suggests that the Jewish Christians who had unsuccessfully advocated circumcision of the Gentiles in Gal 2:4 prevailed upon James and John, after Peter had departed for Antioch, to reverse their decision made in Gal 2:9, perhaps threatening “to bring to bear on anyone actually engaging in table-fellowship with the gentiles the sort of force, whatever its precise nature, which Paul himself had once deployed against ‘the church of God’ (Gal 1:13).”156 This was done specifically because of the belief that Jewish participation in eucharistic meals with Gentiles, which involved the sharing of food, wine, and vessels, involved idolatry and was thus prohibited.157 These individuals 154

Chilton, A Feast of Meanings, 102–105. Similarly, Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles, 54, maintains that “If Paul does not mean what he says in 2:14, he has expressed himself most unfortunately, for his opponents in Galatia would be able to claim that in compelling the Galatians to be circumcised (6:12), they are following the precedent set by Peter at Antioch, who on Paul’s own admission ‘compelled the Gentiles to judaize’” (emphasis original). Cf. Luther, Galatians, 57; Howard, Paul, 22–28; Holtz, “Die Bedeutung,” 123; Schoeps, Paul, 67–68, 74–75; Strobel, “Das Aposteldekret als Folge des Antiochenischen Streites,” 84; Lüdemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts, 39; Wehr, Petrus und Paulus, 69; McKnight, “Parting within the Way,” 100 n. 37; Elmer, Paul, Jerusalem, and the Judaisers, 107. Brown, Donfried, and Reumann, Peter in the New Testament, 27 n. 58, suggests that the men from James “may even have been unconverted Jews rather than Jewish Christians.” Catchpole, “Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree,” 441, maintains that James and Peter both intended to intensify “the pressure upon the Gentiles to come into line” and thus to live as Jews, though he believes this only included the adoption of Jewish food regulations and not necessarily circumcision. 156 Esler, Galatians, 136. 157 Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, 73–86; idem, Galatians, 101; idem, First Christians, 63–64, 68. 155

V. Peter’s Rationale for Withdrawing from the Gentiles

259

successfully persuaded James to send a message that Peter should break fellowship with the Gentile believers in Antioch until they were circumcised. Peter feared the threat of these Jewish Christians and revoked the agreement which had specifically allowed for open table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles (which Esler directly identifies with “the truth of the Gospel”). He then proceeded to force the Gentile Christians to be circumcised, as this is the only plausible long-term solution to the problem of eating with uncircumcised Gentiles.158 In order to maintain this view, Esler also concludes that Luke’s Cornelius account (Acts 10:1–11:18) should be rejected as unhistorical, for if this depiction of Peter were accurate, Peter would not have disregarded the divine command and broken fellowship with the Gentiles at Antioch. Nor would Paul have described Peter as an apostle to the circumcision in contrast to Paul and Barnabas as apostles to the uncircumcision if Peter had been the initiator of the Gentile mission.159 In chapter 2, I appealed to Mark 7:1–23 as evidence that Jesus had rejected the Jewish belief that Jews could not use vessels that had become unclean after being touched by ritually unclean hands.160 In addition, God had revealed to Peter that the Gentiles were not to be viewed as unclean (Acts 10:28). And even if a connection between the Eucharist and the Passover is made, along with the specific prohibition against eating the Passover with the uncircumcised (Exod 12:43–49), the practice of common table fellowship in Antioch had existed for many years already. As the Jerusalem church did not previously have a problem with the Eucharist being celebrating in Antioch, it does not make sense that the Exodus passage alone would account for their sudden change of mind. However, it is possible that this was a recent objection by the non-Christian Jews in Jerusalem, and that this was a cause for persecution.161 Esler also insists that Peter’s compelling the Gentiles to judaize is identical to arguing that one is saved by works of the law rather than through faith in Christ.”162 However, it is not at all apparent that the teachings of Peter and the Galatian opponents are equivalent; Paul does not characterize these opponents as acting hypocritically; rather, they are preaching a different gospel (Gal 1:6–7). While it is certainly plausible that Paul recognizes the effect of Peter’s actions to be the same as those of his Galatian opponents, this does not mean that they shared the same intent. 158 Esler, Galatians, 130–140; idem, Philip Francis Esler, “Making and Breaking an Agreement Mediterranean Style: A New Reading of Galatians 2:1–14,” JTS 42 (1995): 285–314. 159 Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, 95. 160 See p. 116. 161 See pp. 262–275 for further consideration of this possibility. 162 Esler, First Christians, 58–61. Cf. Howard, Paul, 24–25.

260

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

A declaration by Peter that the Gentiles should be required to be circumcised would have been a clear abrogation of the Jerusalem agreement of Gal 2:9 (and of the Acts 15 council, if the Jerusalem council is to be identified with Gal 2:1–10).163 Such a reversal would certainly have been noted by Paul.164 In addition, the Gal 2:11–14 account does not concern an action which Gentile believers must perform, but rather a decision by Jewish believers to separate themselves from these Gentiles. The compelling of the Gentiles to judaize was only a result of Gentile Christians desiring to continue unified fellowship with their Jewish brethren. It was not the result of a specific teaching by Peter that the Gentiles should judaize. Also, if Peter had been truly persuaded that the Gentiles needed to be circumcised, then Paul’s characterization of Peter’s action as hypocrisy (2:13) would be unwarranted; Paul’s condemnation of Peter would have taken the same form as his censure of his Galatian opponents who were teaching a different gospel. D. Was Peter Playing the Role of Mediator? A related view to Esler’s is that of John Meier, who views Peter as playing the role of a mediator, attempting to prevent any deep schism between the two sides represented by Paul and James by taking a middle road, and getting condemned by Paul for his troubles.165 Likewise, Gnilka argues that Peter feared his actions would lead to a loss of unity in the church with those who demanded that Jews be faithful to their customs and desired to prevent a schism amongst Jewish Christians.166 However, Peter is nowhere else presented as a type of mediator who moderates his teachings or actions in order to prevent discord. Had this been the case, he would not have stood firmly against the prevailing opinion that he was wrong to eat with Cornelius (Acts 11:1–18). In addition, he rejects the demand that Gentiles be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:7–11). James, Peter, and Paul all shared congruent views on the Gentiles. While those believers mentioned in Acts 15:5 who advocated circumcision and law-obedience of Gentiles likely also objected to open table fellowship between the circumcised and uncircumcised, there was no need for any mediation to occur between Paul and James.

163 Esler, “Making and Breaking,” 285–314, agrees, asserting that James and Peter did indeed break their previous agreement. 164 Martyn, Galatians, 233; Taylor, Paul, Antioch, and Jerusalem, 129. 165 Meier, “Antioch”, 41–42. Cf. Wehr, Petrus und Paulus, 69. 166 Gnilka, Petrus und Rom, 105.

V. Peter’s Rationale for Withdrawing from the Gentiles

261

E. Was Peter Concerned with His Position in the Church? Earlier in this chapter, the question of James’ leadership was discussed. This issue is not only relevant in order to understand the importance of James in Gal 2:11–14. It also significantly affects the interpretation of some scholars as to Peter’s reason for withdrawing from the Gentiles, contending either that Peter was concerned about his own position in the church being diminished due to his actions167 or that he believed himself to be subordinate to the will of James.168 Yet, even though he certainly recognized that many of his fellow believers in Jerusalem would disapprove, he publicly ate with Cornelius (Acts 11:2). There is no reason to believe that Peter would later decide to cease eating with Gentiles simply to maintain his standing in the church. In addition, as no single leader in the early church had universal jurisdiction over all others, Peter was not obligated to follow any instructions from James. A similar explanation for Peter’s actions is that Peter’s Jewishness was being questioned by his decision to eat with Gentiles, by Jewish Christians in Jerusalem,169 non-Christian Jews,170 or both.171 The first option is negated by the argument in the previous paragraph; Peter had already demonstrated his willingness to publicly eat with Gentiles, even if such an act would be considered questionable by his fellow believers. As discussed in chapters 2 and 3, Peter’s character was such that he boldly acted as he believed God desired him to act; public defamation would not have deterred him. Also, why did this not become an issue until Peter appeared in Antioch if there was great concern amongst the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (including James) with Jewish and Gentile believers eating with one another? After all, this practice had presumably originated at the very birth of the church of Antioch when Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, expelled from Jerusalem following the martyrdom of Stephen, evangelized Gentiles (Acts 11:19–21). Unless these Gentiles were obligated to become Jews from the outset (and clearly they were not), how could a community com167

Betz, Galatians, 109: “Peter chose the position of power and denied his theological convictions.” Cf. Becker, Galater, 28; Morris, Galatians, 79; Wechsler, Geschichtsbild und Apostelstreit, 333–334. 168 Cullmann, Peter, 44, 53; Bruce, Galatians, 92; McKnight, “Parting within the Way,” 100; Painter, “Who Was James?” 36. Dunn, “Incident at Antioch,” 228, offers both options as reasons for Peter’s withdrawal. 169 Schlier, Galater, 84 n. 4; Lagrange, Saint Paul, 28; Wechsler, Geschichtsbild und Apostelstreit, 333–335; Nanos, Mystery of Romans, 355. 170 Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 153. Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles, 106–107; Sanders, “Jewish Association,” 186. 171 Fung, Galatians, 108.

262

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

posed of both Jews and Gentiles form if open table fellowship were not included? Nor can it be argued that the Jerusalem church only became aware of such a practice many years later (at the time of Peter’s arrival), for they had sent their emissary, Barnabas, at the very beginning (Acts 11:22). Indeed, there had been at least one occasion where such a pattern could have been addressed: the Jerusalem meeting between James, Peter, John, Paul, and Barnabas. Thus, it becomes very difficult to contend that the purpose of the visit of the men from James was to correct the behavior of the Jewish Christians in Antioch when they had not done so for many years already. More plausible is the suggestion that Peter (and James as well) was concerned about his witness before non-Christian Jews; he was after all an apostle to the circumcision. Peter would surely have known that some Jews would not desire to listen to an evangelist who ate with Gentiles.172 Yet Peter had also spent years as Jesus’ disciple and had watched his Master regularly be willing to eat with people who were viewed by other Jews as unclean (Mark 2:15–17 and par.; cf. Matt 26:6; Luke 7:34; 9:5–7; 15:2). Once Peter was convinced that Gentiles were cleansed by God, Jesus’ own example would have deterred Peter from not eating with Gentiles because of what other Jews may have thought about such a decision. Thus far, I have considered and rejected five theories as to Peter’s reason for withdrawing from open table fellowship with the Gentile Christians at Antioch. One final option remains to be considered. F. Was Peter Concerned about Persecution? It is my contention that Peter was concerned that his actions would cause Jewish believers in Judea to undergo persecution after reports reached the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem that he, a key Christian leader, was eating with Gentiles.173 This thesis would explain why Peter would be fearful of Jews and why James might desire separation between Jewish and Gentile Christians without the need to appeal to inconsistency on the part of either an interpretation of the Jerusalem meeting (Gal 2:1–10) or the Jerusalem council (Acts 15; assuming this preceded the Antioch incident), as well as 172

Dix, Jew and Greek, 34. Dix, Jew and Greek, 43. Taylor, Paul, Antioch, and Jerusalem, 131, combining the fear-of-persecution argument with the Jerusalem-decree-required-separation argument, contends that if the Jerusalem community “felt itself to be compromised by the conduct of the Antiochene church, James would have felt entirely justified in invoking the agreement, and seeking, in terms of, and not in violation of, the conference decision to bring a greater degree of conformity to the Jewish law into the life of the Antiochene church, with whatever repercussions for the relations between Jewish and Gentile Christians in Antioch.” However, as has already been argued, the Jerusalem decree did not demand that the church at Antioch should adhere to an overtly Jewish lifestyle. 173

V. Peter’s Rationale for Withdrawing from the Gentiles

263

dismissing the need to insist upon a theological belief of James and Peter regarding the circumcision of Gentiles which is disputed by the rest of the NT data. While Peter almost certainly did not fear for himself (he had, on multiple occasions, faced persecution fearlessly: Acts 4:3–20; 5:29–32, 41–42), he had good reason to fear for his fellow Jewish Christians back in Jerusalem. Persecution was nothing new for the Jerusalem church. Following the crucifixion of Jesus, the Christian leadership had been arrested on multiple occasions, with James, son of Zebedee, executed (Acts 4:3; 5:18; 12:2–3). The church at large was persecuted following the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 8:1). In the letter to the Galatians itself, Paul refers to persecution of those who do not preach that converts to Christianity should be circumcised (5:11; 6:12; cf. 1 Thess 2:14–16). It should also be recalled that, while the early persecutions did not enjoy popular Jewish support, the arrest of Christians and the execution of James by Agrippa was pleasing to the Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 12:3). As was argued in chapter 3, this change of attitude was at least partially connected to Peter’s decision to eat at the house of the uncircumcised Cornelius along with the increased nationalism which naturally followed the appointment of Agrippa as king. Peter’s decision to cease engaging in open table fellowship with Gentile Christians, therefore, was not due to a change in theology or a failure of character, but rather a concern for how his actions would affect his fellow Jewish brethren in Jerusalem. This is not a new thesis. In a 1971 article, Jewett maintained: Jewish Christians in Judea were stimulated by Zealotic pressure into a nomistic campaign among their fellow Christians in the late forties and fifties. Their goal was to avert the suspicion that they were in communion with lawless Gentiles. It appears that the Judean Christians convinced themselves that circumcision of Gentile Christians would thwart 174 Zealot reprisals.

In this article, Jewett does not apply his thesis to the situation in Antioch, neither considering how this new situation may have affected the Jerusalem leadership nor how it may have played a role in convincing Peter to withdraw from the Gentiles; he is instead concerned with Paul’s opponents in Galatia. Other scholars have made this connection; none, however, pro174

Jewett, “The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation,” 205. An unlikely alternative to Jewett’s thesis is offered by David B. Bronson, “Paul, Galatians, and Jerusalem,” JAAR 35 (1967): 128, who suggests that “James and his group were swept into a more active nationalism” by the events which took place in the years prior to the Jewish War, thus requiring them “to clarify and tighten the basis of self-identification.” There is insufficient evidence that any segment of the early Jerusalem church was particularly political or that they supported a violent overthrow of Roman authority. Cf. MurphyO’Connor, Paul, 140–141, 151–152.

264

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

vide much exposition on this hypothesis.175 Instead, they simply refer to Jewett’s article as evidence of their assertion that Peter was concerned with nationalistic elements amongst non-Christian Jews in Judea. Little to no substantiation is provided from primary source material such as Josephus to back up their claim that fear of increased nationalism lies behind Peter’s withdrawal from open table fellowship with the Gentile Christians of Antioch. And as Jewett’s article is not specifically about the Antioch incident, there is a substantial lacuna which needs to be filled if this thesis is to be validated. In addition, there is a significant potential difficulty with this thesis. If the historical reconstruction of the Jewish nationalistic movement offered by scholars such as Hengel is accepted, in which the Zealot movement was vigorous and influential throughout the first century A.D., what would have compelled Peter and James to fear renewed persecution at this particular time? After all, Peter’s change in behavior is abrupt; it is clearly a reaction to some new belief as to how he should be acting. Hill discards this explanation precisely because it is largely dependent upon (what he believes to be) Hengel’s “now-discredited thesis concerning an early and widespread zealot movement”; rather, the process which led to the Jewish revolt of A.D. 66–70 “seems to have occurred very quickly.”176 As already detailed at length, Hengel argues that the Zealot movement was prominent and influential throughout the first century. 177 Yet if Hengel’s reconstruction of the Jewish revolutionary movement is correct, and there was constancy in revolutionary fervor throughout the first decades of the church, Peter should either have been reticent about eating with Gentiles from the very beginning or he would have long ago discarded the revolutionary sentiments in Judea as a reason not to eat with Gentiles. Yet neither of these two scenarios describes the evidence in either Acts or Galatians. Peter only became convinced that he should stop eating with Gentiles midway through his stay in Antioch. If his rationale 175 Bruce, Galatians, 130; idem, Peter, Stephen, James and John, 35–36; Betz, Galatians, 82; Longenecker, Galatians, xciii, 74–75; Fung, Galatians, 108; Carson, “Pauline Inconsistency,” 31–32; Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 155–156; Perkins, Peter, 119; Cummins, Paul, 177. Cf. also Markus Bockmuehl, “Antioch and James the Just.” in James the Just and Christian Origins (ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; NovTSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 73–75, who characterizes James’ reaction to political pressure as “realpolitik” (73). Barnett, Paul: Missionary of Jesus, 147, makes a short comment which suggests he may concur: “Was it in this worrying time in Judea under Tiberius Alexander and Ventidius Cumanus that Paul’s anticircumcision policies in the Diaspora began to be called into question by conservative, nationalistically minded members of the Jerusalem church? Believers in Judea were not insulated from the events in the wider world.” Cf. also idem, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, 172. 176 Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 130, 130 n. 106. 177 Hengel, Zealots, passim.

V. Peter’s Rationale for Withdrawing from the Gentiles

265

for doing so was due to concern for persecution of his Jewish Christian brethren, a specific impetus needs to be identified. However, the proponents of this theory do not adequately account for this problem and, by not doing so, greatly weaken the explanatory power of this explanation. For example, when Dunn appeals to Jewish nationalistic zeal as a prime factor underlying Peter’s decision in Antioch, he does not distinguish between the era of the Roman prefects prior to the reign of Herod Agrippa I (A.D. 41–44) and the era of the Roman procurators afterwards.178 Yet, as has been argued, there was a significant difference in how Jews responded to Roman rule pre-Agrippa and post-Agrippa. Dunn does not address why James decided that it was problematic for Peter to eat with Gentiles when he had previously been in accord with Peter’s declaration in Acts 11:1–18 that such action had been urged by God himself. Yet if the Jewish nationalistic movement was uniform from A.D. 6–66, then the decision by Peter to perform a volte-face in the midst of an unchanging socio-political environment is inexplicable. It is for this reason that Jost Eckert cautions against this proposal, because our sources do not provide any impetus for a change in behavior.179 One scholar who attempts to identify this impetus is Bo Reicke, who contends that the relative political stability at the time of the Jerusalem council (which he dates to A.D. 48) allowed for a more moderate stance toward Gentiles and the Law. But with the rise of radical zealotry during the procuratorship of Antonius Felix and the resulting persecution against the Jewish Christians, it became desirable to compel the Gentile Christians to keep the Law.180 This interpretation, however, depends upon dating the Antioch incident to A.D. 52 at the earliest, a later date than most scholars of NT chronology would accept. If the late 40s A.D. were, as Reicke contends, relatively stable, and if the Antioch incident is dated to this period, then why would Peter be inclined to withdraw from open table fellowship with Gentiles at this particular time? In addition, even Reicke’s date is too early for scholars such as Horsley and Hanson who insist that the Zealot movement did not gain influence until the late 50s or early 60s. It is here that the conclusions of the previous chapter enter into the discussion. The current scholarship on the Zealot movement severely weakens this persecution explanation for Peter’s actions at Antioch. Regardless of whether the Zealot movement had been active throughout the first century, or was non-existent until the years immediately prior to the Jewish War, there is no impetus to cause Peter to change his practice. However, if both 178

Dunn, “Incident at Antioch,” 204–206, 225–229. Eckert, “Paulus und die Jerusalemer Authoritäten, 301 n. 84. Cf. Martin, The Ruling Class of Judaea, 7–19; Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 130–31. 180 Reicke, “Der geschichtliche Hintergrund,” 177–84. 179

266

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

of these perspectives are rejected, and the alternative hypothesis that a significant change in Jewish resistance to Roman rule occurred during the 40s, these difficulties are avoided. Instead, the impetus for the decision by James to send representatives to Antioch and the decision by Peter to withdraw from table fellowship with Gentiles is the changing political environment in Judea. If the change in the political environment occurred in the 40s, it would not be necessary to date the Antioch incident to the 50s, as Reicke does, in order to maintain this explanation. Nor would this interpretation be weakened by a static political environment, regardless of whether this period was characterized by a violent Zealot movement throughout the first century (such as is argued by Hengel) or by a lack of such a movement until the late 50s to early 60s (such as is argued by Hanson/Horsley). Beginning with the decision to prefer the passive leadership of the high priest Joazar over the violent revolutionary model of Judas the Galilean and continuing through the period of the Roman prefects (A.D. 6–41), passive diplomacy was successfully utilized to convince their Roman overlords to respect Jewish laws and customs. The decision by Caligula to appoint Agrippa as king of Israel was the ultimate triumph of this passive diplomacy model; semi-independence was achieved without resorting to a violent uprising. With the death of Agrippa in A.D. 44, the return of Judea to provincial rule and the beginning of provincial rule for Galilee, this previous model appears to have been called into question. There is a gradual movement away from passivity towards an embracing of an active, violent resistance to Roman rule which had last been successfully advocated by Judas the Galilean in A.D. 6. In the nearly four decades since the failure of Judas’ rebellion, while there is no evidence of an influential revolutionary movement, it does appear that a core of Judas’ followers remained faithful to his principles. Only two years after the resumption of Roman rule, and following the failure of Theudas, two of Judas the Galilean’s sons, James and Simon, are executed by Tiberius Alexander. At the same time, Judea and Galilee are afflicted with a serious famine, which is only alleviated when a foreign ruler arranges for the purchase of corn and figs. The first of these events suggests a movement towards a greater approval towards the violent resistance model of Judas the Galilean, while the second likely resulted in a lessening of the influence of the Jewish leadership. Simultaneously, during the A.D. 40s, there was increasing reason to be concerned about Rome’s treatment of the Jews throughout the empire. While Claudius had affirmed certain special rights granted to the Jews by Augustus, he had issued edicts against the Jews in Rome and Alexandria.

V. Peter’s Rationale for Withdrawing from the Gentiles

267

They had also lost their best advocate with the death of Claudius’ friend, Agrippa. In A.D. 48, shortly after these two events, Cumanus becomes procurator of Judea. At some point during his tenure (Josephus does not provide an exact year), the first violent act of resistance since A.D. 6 occurred following a lewd act by one of the auxiliary units from either Sebaste or Caesarea; Cumanus responded by attacking the rioters, resulting in ten thousand casualties. A short time thereafter, the Jews rose in violence following another auxiliary soldier tearing apart a Torah scroll. And, in A.D. 51, violent clashes between the Samaritans and Jews result in Cumanus sending his Samaritan auxiliaries resulting in the deaths of many more Jews. While Cumanus was removed from office, these events began an escalation of violence which eventually resulted in the Jewish War of A.D. 66–70. It is clear that Judas the Galilean’s model, while rejected during the period of Roman prefects and the reign of Agrippa, was increasingly being accepted by the Jewish populace following the death of Agrippa. By the time of the Antioch incident, which most likely occurred between A.D. 47–49, acceptance of this philosophy had become widespread.181 The previous persecution of Christians in Judea (Acts 4:3; 5:18; 8:1; 12:2–3) had occurred during a period of time when the majority of Jews were practicing a passive resistance to Roman rule or when they had a Jewish king ruling over them. Now that the situation in Judea had deteriorated even further, with a model of active resistance being accepted for the first time since A.D. 6, the risk of persecution was even greater. The combination of increased nationalism and an acceptance that violence was a viable and effective means of exhibiting discontent meant that Jews developing close relationships with Gentiles would be far less tolerated and potentially met with active persecution. One did not have to be a wise prognosticator to recognize that the danger would be even greater for those Jewish Christians living in Jerusalem, the center of Jewish nationalism. When Peter had eaten at the home of Cornelius, there had been significant criticism on the part of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 11:2). His act may have been partially responsible for the shift in the general Jewish populace’s opinions of the early Christian community, from one of support for the Jewish Christians when they were faced with persecution by the Jewish leadership (Acts 4:21; 5:26) to one of support of Agrippa when he executed James, son of Zebedee, and imprisoned other Christians, including Peter (Acts 12:3). And while there had been a mixed JewishGentile community engaged in open table fellowship in Antioch for perhaps as much as a decade by the time Peter arrived in the late-40s A.D., 181

See chapter 4.

268

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

there had not been prominent members of the Jerusalem church participating in this fellowship between Jews and Gentiles.182 Though non-Christians Jews in Jerusalem may have been unconcerned with anonymous Jewish Christians eating with Gentiles in a city three hundred miles away, Peter was well-known to them. Many would have seen him preach at the temple. Many of those who had not become Christians themselves would have been insulted by Peter’s accusation that they had killed God’s anointed. Many had approved of Agrippa’s persecution of the apostles, including Peter, less than a decade earlier. And the prominence of Antioch would have ensured that reports of what was occurring in this city would make their way to Jerusalem. Therefore, a significant cause for concern about violence against Jewish Christians due to Peter’s actions was a combination of two factors: (1) a shift in the way Jews considered reacting to Roman rule, from peaceful diplomacy to violent resistance, and (2) the inclusion of a very prominent leader of the Jerusalem church in the open table fellowship which had already been occurring in Antioch, thus placing an official, and very public, stamp of approval on this practice. Nanos objects that if Peter eating with Gentiles might lead to persecution by nationalistic Jews, especially in Judea, would this not be equally true with Paul eating with Gentiles?183 However, by Paul’s own admission, he was not well known in Judea (Gal 1:22); the report that a certain Jew was eating with Gentiles would not have been nearly as problematic than if reports came back to Jerusalem regarding one of the most prominent leaders of the Christian church in Jerusalem eating with Gentiles, a man who had already stirred up trouble by eating at the home of Cornelius, an action which may have contributed to the popular approval of the execution of James and the arrest of Peter. It has already been established that the violent nationalistic philosophy of the followers of Judas the Galilean was gaining support during the 40s A.D. It is plausible that such individuals would be more favorable towards violence against Jews who were closely associated with Gentiles. But is there concrete evidence that the Jewish Christian community truly did have reason to believe that news about a prominent leader of the church eating with Gentiles would cause persecution at this specific moment in history? It is possible that James may have sent messengers to Antioch to ask Peter to refrain from eating with Gentiles simply because he feared what might happen. As he had been living in Jerusalem throughout the decade of 182 Barnabas may be counted as an exception, except he had not been active in the Jerusalem church for many years and was not part of its leadership; therefore, though he may have been considered prominent amongst Jewish Christians, he would not have been viewed this way by non-Christian Jews. 183 Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, 356 n. 40.

V. Peter’s Rationale for Withdrawing from the Gentiles

269

the 40s, while Peter had left at the beginning of the decade (Acts 12:17), James may have had a better sense of the danger that might come from word of Peter’s actions reaching the non-Christian Jews in Judea. It is not implausible that, having heard that Peter was eating with Gentiles, he took the initiative to prevent a potential persecution by sending men to Antioch to encourage Peter to withdraw from open table fellowship. Such prognostication would have been easier following the first act of violence during Cumanus’ tenure (possibly as early as Passover of A.D. 49). But the crucifixions of James and Simon, and the malcontent which results from famine, would likely have been sufficient to cause James significant concern. So would the views of Claudius towards Jews, as evidenced by his prohibition of Jews worshipping in synagogues in Rome and the rebuke of the Alexandrian Jews. If the Antioch incident occurred in A.D. 49, rather than a year or two earlier, the expulsion of Jews from Rome would also have led to uncertainty about how Jews in Judea and Galilee might be treated, as well as how the Jewish populace might react to any Jew who engaged in fellowship with these pagan Gentiles. Beyond the likelihood that James would have been well-positioned to predict the repercussions which might result from a prominent member of the Christian church eating with Gentiles, evidence can also be proffered that such concern for persecution may have been founded on what was specifically occurring in Judea at the time of the Antioch incident. The sixth-century chronicler Malalas records that “in the eighth year of the reign of Claudius Caesar (i.e., late-A.D. 48 or early-A.D. 49) the Jews began a fierce persecution of the apostles and their disciples, and planned a rebellion against Rome” (Chron. 10.247). Malalas is far from being the most reliable of sources. He frequently provides incorrect information and mixes up dates. As such, his data should not be accepted uncritically. Yet, as cogently argued by Bockmuehl, this passage may explain Paul’s description of persecution in 1 Thess 2:14–16.184 Here, Paul’s tone suggests a recent and/or current persecution occurring in Judea as well as in Thessalonica. Yet, assuming a composition date for 1 Thessalonians of the early 50s A.D., the most recent persecution recorded in Acts occurred nearly a decade earlier at the beginning of Agrippa’s reign (Acts 12:1–17). Bockmuehl notes that, “while the tenuous nature of this evidence [in Malalas] makes confirmation impossible, there is no obvious reason why such a specific reference to a persecution in AD 48/49 should have been

184 Bockmuehl, “1 Thessalonians 2:14–16,” 1–31. Cf. Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGCT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 113.

270

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

invented. Renewed persecution of this kind might indeed help to substantiate the impression of ‘fresh memories’ in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16.”185 Malalas’ comment that it was at this time that the people began planning to revolt against Rome also fits the time period. Agitation had already begun in the previous years with Theudas, James, and Simon. It would become clear during the administration of Cumanus, which began only a year after Malalas claims the Jews began planning for revolt, that a substantial number of people had already determined that violence should replace passive resistance.186 Bockmuehl thus concludes that “without wishing to make much of this uncertain text, for our purposes it would suffice to see here another witness to the impression that the end of Agrippa’s reign was long remembered as the beginning of a nasty turn in the fortunes of firstcentury Palestinian Judaism.”187 He also suggests that “such a context could supply some of the contributing factors behind James the Just’s intervention in Antioch (Gal 2:12).”188 If the Antioch incident did indeed take place in A.D. 48 at the earliest, this persecution likely did play a major role in James’ decision to send a message to Peter. Whether this renewed persecution of Jewish Christians in A.D. 48 was a direct result of Peter’s eating with Gentiles in Antioch or, more likely, whether James was concerned that news about Peter’s actions would only exacerbate the current situation in Jerusalem, James would certainly have had reason to fear that Peter’s actions might incite nonChristian Jews to persecute Jewish Christians, and have therefore decided to send a message to Peter which convinced him to withdraw from open table fellowship. Unfortunately, the date of the Antioch incident cannot be determined with absolute precision, and it remains possible that it occurred prior to the persecution mentioned by Malalas, prior to the expulsion of Jews from Rome, and prior to the initial violence during the procuratorship of Cumanus. The later the Antioch incident occured, the more concrete reasons James would have had for sending his message to Peter in Antioch. But, as was stated earlier, even if the Antioch incident did occur in the mid 40s rather than the late 40s, it is nevertheless plausible that James may have been able to predict that, given the rise in nationalistic tensions, Peter’s actions could have a deleterious effect on the Jewish Christian church in Judea. This is true even if the Antioch incident occurred as early as A.D. 44, before Paul and Barnabas left on their missionary journey (Acts 13:1– 3). In A.D. 44, Judea and Galilee had just come under Roman rule, the 185

Bockmuehl, Bockmuehl, 187 Bockmuehl, 188 Bockmuehl, 186

“1 Thessalonians 2:14–16,” 24–25. “1 Thessalonians 2:14–16,” 27. “1 Thessalonians 2:14–16,” 29. Cf. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 196. “1 Thessalonians 2:14–16,” 25.

V. Peter’s Rationale for Withdrawing from the Gentiles

271

land was in the midst of the famine, and Fadus had put down Theudas’ attempted rebellion. These incidents would have given James reason to consider the potential ramifications which would result from word reaching non-Christian Jews that Peter was eating with Gentiles. Therefore, Peter’s fear of the circumcision (Gal 2:13) most likely consisted of a fear that his Jewish Christian brethren would be persecuted by non-Christian Jews, either by Jews in general or by the Jewish leadership, which had already demonstrated its willingness to persecute the Jewish Christian church. And the catalyst for James’ decision to ask Peter to withdraw from open table fellowship with Gentiles was his receiving word of Peter’s actions and recognizing the danger of increased persecution which would likely result from reports that such a prominent member of the Jerusalem church was eating with Gentiles. Since James had been living in Jerusalem during this shift in Jewish attitudes about the most effective means of reacting to Roman rule, and because Peter likely had not, it is reasonable that it is James who would initially have identified this danger, and then proceeded to inform Peter of the effect his actions might have or actually were having. It should be reiterated that this historical reconstruction is indeed unaffected by the chronological issue of whether the Jerusalem council precedes or follows the Antioch incident. If Acts 15 comes first, and the decree had already been given, it would not have been applicable to the question of whether a Jewish Christian might choose not to eat with Gentile Christians because of a threat of persecution by other Jews. The provisions of the decree would not have alleviated the threat or reality of persecution from non-Christian Jews. Non-Christian Jews would have just as much of a problem with other Jews eating with Gentiles regardless of whether these Gentiles abstained from sexual immorality, eating blood, etc. There was no distinction made between eating with righteous Gentiles or God-fearing Gentiles. Commensality with all Gentiles who remained Gentiles was viewed as taboo, not just with those Gentiles who followed certain guidelines of behavior. Thus, the Jerusalem decree must have had a different purpose than making it less likely for open table fellowship to lead to persecution. It would have made it easier for the Jewish Christians of Acts 5:1, 5 to accept open table fellowship, in addition to emphasizing moral purity amongst the Gentiles. But it would not have satisfied any objections of non-Christian Jews. If, on the other hand, the decree was given after the Antioch incident, it could not have been an attempt to compromise, for even if the Gentile Christians were viewed by non-Christian, ultra-nationalistic Jews as “righteous Gentiles,” this would not have eliminated their aversion to close association with Gentiles, or their view that this indicated a lack of nation-

272

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

alistic pride on the part of Jews who fellowshipped with these Gentiles. This is because the concern of these nationalistic Jews was not simply ritual purity, but the fact that they were not Jewish, and association with anyone who was not Jewish constituted disloyalty. If Peter did withdraw from eating with Gentile Christians due to concern for persecution of Jewish Christians, does this mean that Peter foresaw the implications of his actions? Did he realize that Gentile Christians would decide to judaize as a result of his decision? Can Peter’s knowledge about the mindset of Gentile Christians be determined? If he was aware of how his actions would affect the Gentile Christians, Peter was guilty of either a substantial lack of understanding regarding the truth of the Gospel, at least as understood by Paul, or of acting in a way similar to Paul’s Galatian opponents who advocated that the Gentiles follow the Law. Paul does not characterize Peter in the same manner as the Galatian opponents; the content of the gospel preached by Peter is not presented as different as that preached by Paul (Gal 2:7–9). Unlike the Galatian opponents, who are guilty of heresy (1:6), Peter is guilty of hypocrisy (2:13). If Peter was not attempting to convince the Gentile Christians to follow the law, was his problem a lack of understanding regarding the truth of the gospel? A central tenet of the gospel as understood by Paul was salvation by faith in Christ rather than works of law (Rom 3:20, 27–28; Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5). Peter was not teaching that works of law were necessary for salvation; once again, Paul would have condemned Peter for teaching a false gospel were this the case. Rather, Peter believed that Gentiles could be accepted apart from the law; he had baptized Cornelius without the need to circumcise him (Acts 10:48; 11:3). And Paul himself acknowledges that Peter recognizes that “a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal 2:16). If Peter was teaching the same gospel as was Paul, then why would he act in such a way which would influence Gentile Christians to believe it was necessary to follow the law? The answer to this question may be found in a lack of understanding Peter had regarding the different ways in which Jews and Gentiles viewed the Law. Regardless of one’s evaluation of the so-called “New Perspective on Paul,” it is undeniable that Jews and Gentiles viewed the Law differently. Sanders observes that nowhere in rabbinic literature are there complaints about obedience to the Law being burdensome; its commandments were daily routine which the Jews had spent their entire lives observing.189 It is certainly possible that the rabbinic evidence is not entirely reflective of first century Judaism; Peter describes the 189

E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (1st American ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 110–111.

V. Peter’s Rationale for Withdrawing from the Gentiles

273

law as “a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10). But regardless of how difficult law-observance was for the Jew, it would have been much easier than for Gentiles who were unaccustomed to following its commandments. To Peter, its precepts were a familiar yoke; for the Gentiles, the Law would have required a drastic lifestyle change. In addition, for the Jew, the Law was not the means by which one entered into a relationship with God. At the most, it was the means by which one maintained such a relationship which had existed since birth (or, for males, at least since the eighth day of life when circumcised). Israel was elected, chosen by God; an eternal covenant was made with Israel (Deut 7:6; Sir 17:12; 36:11; Jub. 1:17–29; 2:31; 16:17–18; 19:18–19). Obedience to the law would result in rewards in the world to come (Sir 11:26; 16:14; 35:18–19; Jub. 6:12–13; 21:23–24) and atonement was necessary for sins (Exod 29:36; 32:30; Lev 1:4; 4:20, 26). But this was different from being a child of Israel. A Jew was a member of the covenant by virtue of his birth and circumcision on the eighth day, not by a decision to follow the Law (Jub. 15:26–34); while circumcision is a work, it is a work done by the parents, not the child. And for the Christian, atonement had already been made. A Jewish Christian could therefore follow the majority of the Law without believing it was the means of salvation, of becoming a member of the kingdom of God. He might even perform certain sacrifices, those of first fruits (Exod 34:22–26; Lev 2:12–16; 23:10–17, 20), peace offerings given for the purpose of thanksgiving (Lev 7:11–14), and sacrifices relating to the Nazirite vow (Num 6:13–17; Acts 21:23–26). None of these would make him a member of Israel as he has had this status since he was circumcised on the eighth day. The situation was quite different for a Gentile Christian, however. According to Jewish teachings, without following the Law, a Gentile could not be a full member of Israel (and even with full conversion, a Gentile might still be considered a secondary member of the society). Law-observance was essential for a Gentile to enter into God’s community, while a Jew did not need to enter into the community as he/she had been born into it. Instructive for this discussion is Josephus’ description of the conversion of Izates, king of Adiabene. Izates was concerned that circumcision would cause trouble with his subjects. A learned Jew, Eleazar, found Izates reading the law of Moses and said: In your ignorance, O king, you are guilty of the greatest offence against the law and thereby against God. For you ought not merely to read the law but also, and even more, to do what is commanded in it. How long will you continue to be uncircumcised? If you have not yet read the law concerning this matter, read it now, so that you may know what an impiety it is you commit. (A.J. 20.44–45)

274

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

Izates could not merely be a God-fearer; he needed to be circumcised; otherwise, he was in a position of the utmost disobedience towards God. This fundamental difference in the mindset of a Jew and a Gentile regarding the Law is something that could only be fully grasped by a person who had been immersed in both the Jewish and Gentile cultures. Peter had not. He had met some Gentiles. He was born in Bethsaida, a Gentile city. He had even spent a few days at the house of Cornelius. But there is no evidence that he was intimately acquainted with Gentiles. Even his early life in Bethsaida would not have necessarily put him in the type of close interaction with Gentiles which would help him understand how Gentiles viewed the Law differently than himself. Of course, it is certainly possible that he had close Gentile friends about which we are unaware, and which may have given him insight into how Gentiles viewed the Law. But if he did, his actions in Antioch become much more difficult to explain. If he knew how his actions would be perceived, then he was guilty of knowingly acting in such a way as to influence Gentiles to replace Christ with the law as the basis for their salvation. It is only if Peter was ignorant as to how the Gentile Christians of Antioch would interpret his actions that it can be asserted that Peter was indeed preaching the same gospel as Paul. Paul, on the other hand, had spent years ministering amongst the Gentiles and thus would have been more likely to understand their perspective towards the Law. He recognized that, in the mind of a Gentile, to follow the Law was akin to performing an act by which one gained entrance into the community of God. Thus, while a Jewish Christian could observe many of the precepts of the Law without viewing it as a means of salvation, the only reason for a Gentile Christian to observe the Law was in order to become a full member of the people of God. And if one could do so by following the Law, the sacrifice of Christ would no longer be relevant. It was because of this difference that, whereas Peter believed the truth of the Gospel simply meant that open table fellowship was permissible, Paul recognized that continued open table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians, including Peter, was essential if the Gentile Christians were to continue to place their faith in Christ rather than in their own works.190 Paul realizes that the result of Peter’s decision is that the Gentiles are coming to believe that justification comes by observing the law rather than faith in Christ, even though Peter believes the exact opposite (Gal 2:16). Peter’s action was not a moment of weakness resulting in the intentional proclamation through his actions that it was necessary for Gentile Christians to follow the Law if they desired to enter into full communion with

190

Bauckham, “James, Peter, and the Gentiles,” 127, 140–141.

VI. The Outcome of the Antioch Incident

275

the church. Rather, it was an error in understanding how Gentile Christians would perceive his withdrawal from them.191 Two important conclusions can be drawn from this section. (1) Peter withdrew from the Gentiles out of concern that his fellow Jewish Christian brethren would be persecuted by increasingly violent Jewish nationalists. (2) Peter was unaware how his actions would affect the Gentile Christians of Antioch.

VI. The Outcome of the Antioch Incident VI. The Outcome of the Antioch Incident Did Paul prevail at Antioch? Did Peter resume table fellowship with Gentiles, did he decide to ignore Paul’s protestations, or is there another option which might be considered? Currently, the majority scholarly position is that Paul failed to convince Peter.192 Most such scholars conclude that this was the major reason for his split with Barnabas; some additionally claim this led to a schism between Paul and Jerusalem church (including Peter).193 Other scholars, though a minority, maintain that Paul was able to convince Peter to resume eating with the Gentiles.194 The most common argument offered against the proposition that Paul was successful at Antioch is that he does not mention any such success. Bruce, for example, contends that “if the dispute had been amicably resolved by the time Paul sent this letter, we might have expected him to say

191

Lagrange, Saint Paul, 44; Mussner, Galaterbrief, 141; Bonnard, Galates, 51. Mussner, Petrus und Paulus, 186–187; Dix, Jew and Greek, 46–47; Bornkamm, Paul, 47; Lietzmann, Galater, 108; Schmithals, Paul and James, 76–77; Conzelmann, History of Primitive Christianity, 90; Taylor, Paul, Antioch, and Jerusalem, 137–139; Holmberg, Paul and Power, 34; Dauer, Paulus, 127–28; Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 159–160; Dunn, Parting of the Ways, 177–179; Meier, “Antioch,” 39–41. John McHugh, “Galatians 2:11–14,” 322–27, points to Rom 14:1–3, 15:1 and 1 Cor 9:20–22 as evidence suggesting that Paul was later convinced that Peter had, in fact, been correct. Gaechter, Petrus und seine Zeit, 253, concludes that Paul’s argument in Gal 2:15–21 does not indicate “the expression of the victory..., but rather proof that his defeat had left behind a festering wound in his soul.” 193 E.g., Taylor, Paul, Antioch, and Jerusalem, 139; Dunn, Galatians, 130–131; Betz, Galatians, 104; Hengel, Der unterschätzte Petrus, 85, 93. Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 149, also contends that a rift occurred following the Antioch debate, but that it was later resolved. 194 Ragnar Bring, Commentary on Galatians (trans. Eric Wahlstrom; Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1961), 82; Painter, Just James, 72; George, Galatians, 181–182; Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 2:1005; Howard, Paul, 43; Karrer, “Petrus im paulinischen Gemeindekreis,” 218; Nanos, Mystery of Romans, 358 n. 45. 192

276

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

so.”195 Yet this is by no means necessarily true. There may have been an alternate reason (or reasons) why Paul may have chosen to exclude the outcome of his confrontation with Peter. One of Paul’s central concerns in his autobiographical section in Galatians (1:1–2:14) is to establish his apostolic independence from Jerusalem.196 He is insistent that the truth of the gospel he has been preaching is not dependent upon acknowledgement by Peter, James, or any other Christian leader. Rather, as its source is from God, it is accurate regardless of what any other individual may say. This is certainly true if these individuals disagree with him. But it is just as true if they are in agreement. It would have been counterproductive for Paul to have ended his autobiographical account with a statement that Peter acknowledged that Paul was correct. Paul needs his readers to accept his words not because one of the Jerusalem apostles agrees with him, but rather because they trust that he speaks on behalf of God. Paul’s condemnation of Peter is accurate regardless of whether Peter assented. Even the giving of the right hand of fellowship by the Jerusalem pillars to Paul and Barnabas (Gal 2:9) is presented as a sign of unity between the two and not one of Paul and Barnabas acknowledging these pillars as their authorities. In addition, it is difficult to determine at what point in Gal 2:14–21 Paul’s recounting of his condemnation to Peter ends and his argument which he is crafting specifically for his Galatian audience begins. This is clearly intentional on the part of Paul. He desires a smooth transition. This would have been negated by a narrative statement of the outcome of the incident. In point of fact, the outcome is unimportant for Paul’s overall argument. It is only relevant to those NT scholars who are attempting to piece together a history of the early Christian church. Another argument often offered for why one should conclude that Paul did not prevail against Peter at Antioch is that there is no evidence that Antioch serves as Paul’s missionary base following the Antioch incident. Rather, it is argued, this incident results in a break between Paul and the Antioch and Jerusalem churches, including Peter and James.197 But the evidence does not support such a conclusion. When Paul and Silas depart 195

Bruce, Galatians, 134. Cf. also idem, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 178; Taylor, Paul, Antioch, and Jerusalem, 137; Eckert, Die urchristliche Verkündigung, 227; Holtz, “Der Antiochenische Zwischenfall,” 124; Mussner, Petrus und Paulus, 186–187; Dunn, “Incident at Antioch,” 232; Catchpole, “Paul, James, and the Apostolic Decree,” 442; Holmberg, Paul and Power, 34; Meier, “Antioch,” 39; Achtemeier, Quest for Unity, 59; Longenecker, Galatians, 79. 196 Dunn, “The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem,” 118–119. 197 Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles, 56; Elmer, Paul, Jerusalem, and the Judaisers, 114–115; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 489–494.

VI. The Outcome of the Antioch Incident

277

from Antioch, they are commended (παραδίδωµι) to the grace of God by the Antiochene believers (Acts 15:40). They later complete their missionary journey in Antioch (Acts 18:22–23).198 And the one or two references in the NT to a meeting between Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem church following the Antioch incident (definitely Acts 21:17–20 and possibly Acts 15, depending upon one’s conclusions regarding the chronology of the Jerusalem council in relation to the Antioch incident) are presented positively, not negatively. There is, in fact, no first-century evidence for a split between Paul and either Jerusalem or Antioch. A related argument against a victory by Paul regards the withdrawal of Barnabas in Gal 2:13. Hill is typical of many commentators when he concludes that Paul’s split with Barnabas is “better explained by the graver controversy of Gal. 2” than by a disagreement over John Mark.199 While it is true that a defeat at Antioch would have been much worse than a dispute over a fellow missionary, this is hardly an argument against Paul succeeding at Antioch. As long as it is plausible that Paul and Barnabas could have split over John Mark, no additional explanation (however severe) is required. Hill offers four additional reasons: (1) the independence of his mission following the Antioch incident (cf. Rom 15:20), (2) the Jerusalem decree which would have been unnecessarily had Paul prevailed, (3) Paul’s difficulties with the Galatian churches, which would have been less likely if Paul had prevailed,200 and (4) the unfavorable portrait of Peter and the other apostles provided by Paul in Galatians201 However, none of these are convincing. (1) Paul’s view of the independence of his mission was not based upon the outcome of the Antioch incident. Had he prevailed, he would not then have believed he was dependent upon Jerusalem; why then would it be assumed that because his mission was independent, he must not have prevailed? (2) Even if the Jerusalem decree was a response to the Antioch incident, this does not mean that Paul did not succeed. It could be argued that James recognized the va198 Painter, Just James, 72, maintains that the evidence supports the conclusion that Paul remained connected to Antioch as a missionary, and contends that “the conclusion that Paul lost the contest arises from assumptions about the subsequent nature of Christianity at Antioch.” 199 Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 126. 200 Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, 87. Wehr, Petrus und Paulus, 70, assumes that, as the Jewish Christians initially follow Peter, Peter’s argument must have been weightier than Paul’s and any attempts to claim that Peter was convicted by Paul and repented of his actions are wrong. Such an analysis ignores the reality of the fact that people, every day, across the world, have their previously strongly-held opinions changed based upon a stronger argument. 201 Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 126–127.

278

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

lidity of Paul’s argument but also maintained that a mixed congregation required the application of certain principles (and, as I have already argued, Paul would have had no difficulty with this decree). (3) It is not necessarily apparent that Paul’s troubles in Galatia were adversely affected by the outcome of the Antioch incident. It could be that his Galatian opponents are either preaching against the Jerusalem apostles or, more plausibly, misrepresenting their views. They do, after all, have the advantage of being in Galatia while it is quite possible that none of the Jerusalem apostles apart from Peter have visited the Galatian churches. Nor is there any reason to assume that Peter’s stay in Antioch overlapped the preaching of Paul’s Galatian opponents; it is indeed very plausible that Peter would have stayed in Antioch for only a short time, departing to visit other churches or, perhaps, to return to Jerusalem. There certainly is no indication that Peter intended to make Antioch his home city. (4) While it is true that Paul does not paint a completely harmonious portrait of Peter, this is not evidence of a schism between himself and Peter, anymore than the presentation of the Twelve as flawed disciples is an indication of a schism between the Gospel writers and the apostles. The fact that Galatians does not provide a hagiography of the Jerusalem apostles is evidence that early Christian history was not devoid of temporary disagreements and occasional conflicts. But this does not equate into a split between Paul and Peter. Seven arguments can be presented in support of the proposition that Paul did prevail. 1. The subsequent interaction between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles is positive, not negative. When Paul returns to Jerusalem in Acts 21:17–20, he is greeted by James and the elders warmly, with no indication of disharmony. They rejoice at the report of Paul’s ministry success. Luke does record that there were rumors circulating amongst the Jerusalem church that Paul was “teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs” (Acts 21:21). Paul had not, in fact, been doing this; he had emphasized that each person, whether circumcised or uncircumcised, should “remain in that condition in which he was called” (1 Cor 7:20). The existence of these rumors does make it likely that James had not been publicly extolling the virtues of Paul, thus quashing these rumors. But this, in itself, is not evidence of a schism between James and Paul. It should be recalled that James was not meeting with every single Jewish Christian in Jerusalem every single day or week. Rumors can quickly circulate in a church of only a few hundred members; the church in Jerusalem was composed of many thousands. Nor did everyone speak the same language (Acts 6:1). The duties of James would have been numerous; he

VI. The Outcome of the Antioch Incident

279

could not make it his primary priority to ensure that every false rumor was eliminated. The fact that the NT emphasizes the ministry of Paul, while largely silent on the missions of other Christian missionaries, has somewhat distorted our picture of the situation in the first-century Christian world. This is not to diminish the importance of Paul, but rather to recognize that not only would there have been many missionaries apart from Paul for James to discuss amongst the Jerusalem Christians, there would also have been a great many other concerns which would have taken up much of James’ time. One may consider, as a parallel, the relationships that existed between churches and foreign missionaries prior to the days of the internet, text-messaging, and satellite phones, the days in which churches would not hear from missionaries for months or years at a time, and only then by slow-moving mail. The relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem church cannot be described as particularly close, but this is not due to any schism. In addition, James’ request that Paul pay for the expenses of four men to fulfill their Nazirite vows implies that James himself does not believe these rumors which are circulating amongst the Jerusalem church. His concern is not to correct Paul’s teaching; he does not believe Paul has been wrongly teaching Jews to reject their way of life. Rather, James desires to find a way in which Paul can demonstrate the inaccuracy of these rumors. Paul’s willingness to follow James’ suggestion is additional evidence that these rumors are false. Were they true, would Paul have been willing to act in such a way to deceive the Jerusalem church into thinking they are false? He had publicly confronted Peter. Had these rumors been true, he would have done the same with James. James thus indicates that he is familiar enough with the teaching of Paul to judge these rumors to be false. And the cooperation between the two is evidence of accord, not discord. 2. Not only is there a harmony in the interaction between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles, Paul later refers to these leaders in a very different manner than his Galatian opponents. In 1 Cor 1:12, he refers to Christians who follow himself, or Peter (Cephas), or Apollos. His admonition is not that they reject the teachings of one or both of these other apostles, but rather that they act in unison and eliminate divisions (cf. also 1 Cor 3:22). This is in contrast to how he depicts the false teachers in Galatia, who distort the Gospel (Gal 1:6–7). Paul’s inclusion of his own experience with the resurrected Christ with that of Peter and James is also indicative of his approval of these two apostles. Had they taught and continued to act in such a way which Paul believed to pervert the truth of the Gospel, it would have been counterproductive for him to recount that Jesus appeared to both individually after his resurrection. Similarly, his approval of the decision of the apostles, the

280

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

Lord’s brothers, which would have included James, and Peter (Cephas) to take along their believing wives on their journeys also demonstrates a respect that he has for these individuals. If Paul disapproved of their teachings, it would have behooved him to not mention them at all, and especially not refer to Peter by name. 3. Approaching Paul’s ministry from another angle, his ministry success increases the likelihood that he had not been running in vain (Gal 2:1–10). Not only did the pillars approve of his mission to the Gentiles at Jerusalem (Gal 2:9), but after the Antioch incident as well (Acts 21:18–20). While Paul did not believe the truth of the gospel as he preached it depended upon the approval of the Jerusalem apostles, he recognized that lack of support would have made it very difficult for him to successfully proclaim this gospel.202 Had the Jerusalem apostles been advocating against Paul’s ministry, he would have needed to confront this directly in his letters. Nor is it likely that he would have been nearly as successful in his ministry if it were widely known that he was acting against the will of key apostles such as Peter and James. 4. It may also be argued that Paul’s decision to include this episode is itself indicative that he succeeded in convincing Peter. Nanos contends that Paul’s victory is implied as “testimonials are chosen for their persuasive weight” and if Paul failed at Antioch, he surely had other anecdotes which would more effectively illustrate his point.203 This is made even more likely given the fact that the remainder of Galatians does not specifically regard table fellowship. Thus, why bring up an incident which centered around table fellowship, in which judaizing was an unintended consequence of Peter’s action, unless it had an outcome favorable to Paul’s cause? 5. While Paul is concerned that the collection he has gathered for the Jerusalem church will be rejected (Rom 15:31), the very fact that he has endeavored to collect funds to assist the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem is indicative of the bond of unity he believes exists between himself and Jerusalem.204 It is instructive that the word used to describe the collection in Rom 15:26 is the same word used to describe the type of agreement made between the Jerusalem pillars and Paul and Barnabas in Gal 2:9: κοινωνία. As far as Paul is concerned, there has been no break between Jerusalem and himself. Rather, he promoted this physical symbol of unity between 202

Holmberg, Paul and Power, 15: “the dialectic between being independent of and being acknowledged by Jerusalem is the keynote of this important text and must not be forgotten.” 203 Nanos, Mystery of Romans, 358 n. 45. Cf. Bonnard, Galates, 48–49. 204 On the collection in Paul’s writings, see Rom 15:14–21; 1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8:1– 15; 9:1–5; Gal 2:10.

VI. The Outcome of the Antioch Incident

281

the Gentile churches he had founded and the Jerusalem church because “the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things” (Rom 15:27).205 Clearly, Paul does not believe the Jerusalem church is insisting that Gentile Christians be circumcised or follow the Law; he would never have characterized the influence of his Galatian opponents, for example, in this manner. Even if the collection was not accepted by the Jerusalem church,206 this would not be indicative of a lack of unity between Paul and the Jerusalem leadership regarding whether Gentile Christians must place themselves under the authority of the Law; otherwise, James and the elders would not have reacted so enthusiastically upon hearing the positive report of what God has been doing amongst the Gentiles through Paul’s ministry (Acts 21:19– 20a). The tension revealed in Acts 21:20b–21 is due to misconceptions regarding Paul’s teaching to Jewish Christians, not Gentile Christians. 6. Not only was Paul enthusiastic about providing financially for the Jerusalem church, he insisted on delivering this collection to Jerusalem itself. He could have sent the money with someone else; indeed he was urged not to go to Jerusalem by his fellow believers at Caesarea (Acts 21:12). “It is obvious that Paul regarded the relationship between the Jerusalem church and the Gentile-Christian churches as extremely significant.”207 7. A final argument relates to the previous discussion regarding Peter’s character. How would he have likely responded? While this is somewhat speculative, it is indeed reasonable to use a person’s past to postulate how they are most likely to act in the future. This is especially true when there is an established pattern. It has been shown that a primary driving force in the life of Peter is his desire to do what he believes to be right. When he is impetuous, it is due to a lack of understanding, not a desire to serve man rather than God. And, when he gains a fuller understanding, he is prone to change his practice; he is not the type of person who will stubbornly refuse to change even after recognizing he had acted incorrectly before. George observes that “Peter had fallen before and repented before, and we may assume that a similar pattern of remorse and renewal followed Paul’s stern rebuke.”208 In contrast, Dunn argues that “Peter is unlikely to have agreed that their common belief in justification through faith (Gal 2:16) was endangered. To observe the law as a principle regulating conduct did not undermine justification through faith.”209 Yet, Paul’s implication that the Gentiles are considering judaizing (i.e., placing themselves 205 Stephan Joubert, Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection (WUNT 2/124; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 207; Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 2:1000–1001. 206 E.g., Joubert, Paul as Benefactor, 212–215. 207 Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1001. 208 George, Galatians, 181. 209 Dunn, “Incident at Antioch,” 232.

282

Chapter 5: The Antioch Incident

under the authority of the Mosaic law) is certainly accurate. Given the fact that, for Gentiles, following the Law was equivalent to placing one’s faith in the Law as the means by which one gained entrance into the family of God, how difficult would it have been for Paul to demonstrate that Peter’s actions were having an effect that Peter would not himself desire – indeed, a desire that Peter himself would preach against? And since it has already been established that Peter agreed with Paul that Gentiles were saved by faith in Christ and not by works of law, why would Peter have not reacted positively if he believed Gentiles were placing their faith in the works of law? Thus, the only reason to presume that Peter did not respond favorably to Paul’s condemnation was if he were convinced that the Gentiles were not judaizing and that Paul’s concern was baseless. As long as Paul was able to establish that Gentiles were considering placing their faith in works of law rather than faith in Christ, Peter would have agreed that he needed to take additional action. And all that would have been necessary is for Peter to have inquired of the Gentile Christians whether this was, in fact, what they were thinking. Preaching the true gospel of Jesus Christ was just as important to Peter as it was to Paul; if he were to recognize that his actions were causing others to repudiate the gospel of Christ, there would be no reason for Peter not to address this problem directly. One final question remains: how did Peter address this problem? It is reasonable to question whether the only possible action Peter may have taken would have been to resume table fellowship with the Gentile Christians of Antioch. Certainly, this is what Paul desired. But it is conceivable that Peter could have responded positively to Paul’s words without acting according to Paul’s desires. Instead, Peter may have attempted to find a third option which would allow him to consider both the threat of persecution of his fellow Jewish Christians in Judea as well prevent the Gentile Christians of Antioch from judaizing. Peter could have directly addressed the church of Antioch and declared unequivocally that any attempt to judaize would indeed subvert the truth of the Gospel. Yet he may have also convinced the entire church that it was necessary to temporarily refrain from eating together for the sake of their Jewish brethren in Judea. If the Gentile Christians understood that a temporary sacrifice should be made and that their response should not be to judaize, Paul’s main concern as emphasized in his public confrontation to Peter, would have been addressed. Had Peter taken this route, and there is no way to definitively determine whether or not he did, another concern of Paul would have been overlooked. Paul’s teaching was not limited to ensuring that all know that “a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Je-

VI. The Outcome of the Antioch Incident

283

sus” (Gal 2:16; cf. 3:2–12). It also included a strong emphasis upon Christian unity. This is a significant focus throughout Paul’s epistles (e.g., Rom 12–16, 1 Cor 12–14 Eph 1–6. Phil 2, Col 3–4). And regardless of the reason, any separation between Jewish and Gentile Christians, especially in the area of table fellowship, would fail to promote unity and would likely, over time, result in disunity. 210 Paul would not have been entirely satisfied with such a decision on the part of Peter (again, assuming this is, in fact, what occurred). It is conceivable that he would have argued with Peter about this as well. However, as unity is not a significant topic in Gal 2:15–6:18, Paul may have deemed it unnecessary to relate this portion of what he said to Peter in his letter to the Galatians, preferring instead to focus upon the single issue of attacking the viewpoint of the judaizers. In addition, Paul may have recognized the necessity of compromise, even if the ideal situation would have been for the Jewish and Gentile Christians to have eaten together without concern for how their actions might affect others. In the final analysis, absent any further data, we cannot have certainty regarding what transpired following Paul’s confrontation of Peter. It is likely that Peter came to understand how his actions were adversely affecting the Gentiles. It is likely that Peter acted to alleviate this problem. But it may be that Peter disagreed with Paul over how this problem should be solved. Alternatively, it is equally plausible that Peter did resume table fellowship with Gentiles. The former option might further explain why Paul does not mention the outcome of the incident but, as has already been argued, it is not evident that he would have done so even if Peter had acted exactly as Paul hoped he would.

210

Ebeling, Truth of the Gospel, 111–112, Longenecker, Galatians, 75, Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 158–159; Becker, “Galater,” 28–29.

Chapter 6

Conclusion It was the intent of this thesis to demonstrate that the theory presented by scholars such as Bruce, Betz, Longenecker, Fung, Carson, Witherington, Perkins, and Cummins1 – that Peter withdrew from table fellowship with Gentile Christians at Antioch (Gal 2:11–14) due to concern about rising violent nationalism in Judea and the effect it could have upon the Jerusalem church if it became widely known that a chief Christian leader was eating with Gentiles – is accurate if an adequate catalyst for such concern at the time of the Antioch incident is provided. In addition, a character study of Peter throughout the Gospels and Acts demonstrates that many of the alternative theories as to Peter’s reasons for separating himself from the Gentile Christians are implausible. On the latter point, I demonstrated that there is a consistency in the presentation of Peter’s character throughout the Gospels. He is bold, but his boldness is often transformed into impetuosity due to lack of understanding of Jesus’ teachings. He has the desire to faithfully serve Jesus, but often acts in a misdirected manner. Even his denials of Jesus occur in the context of desiring to be a faithful disciple; his ultimate failure is primarily due to a lack of understanding of how a faithful disciple is expected to act. Following his restoration by Jesus in John 21:15–17 and his subsequent infilling of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, Peter’s lack of understanding is transformed into a robust and prophetic comprehension of the purpose of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Peter’s boldness, seen throughout the Gospels, remains. However, it is now properly directed by his Spirit-inspired understanding. He fearlessly proclaims the Gospel in the temple, the stronghold of those who crucified Christ. He firmly defends his decision to eat in the home of an uncircumcised believer (Acts 11:1–18) following his divine revelation regarding Gentiles being accepted as legitimate disciples of Jesus apart from the law. Given the overwhelming consistency of Peter’s character throughout several first-century A.D. sources, attempts by certain scholars to argue 1

Bruce, Galatians, 130; idem, Peter, Stephen, James and John, 35–36; Betz, Galatians, 82; Longenecker, Galatians, xciii, 74–75; Fung, Galatians, 108; Carson, “Pauline Inconsistency,” 31–32; Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 155–156; Perkins, Peter, 119; Cummins, Paul, 177.

Chapter 6: Conclusion

285

that he vacillated, believed that he was required by the Jerusalem agreement to withdraw from Gentiles, advocated the circumcision of Gentiles, attempted to play the role of mediator, or was concerned with his position in the church should all be rejected. The Peter of the Gospels and Acts would not have acted in any of these ways. Nor are there any other firstcentury sources which suggest that he might have done so. However, the alternative that Peter was concerned about persecution of the Jerusalem church, in the manner in which it has been previously argued in scholarship, is itself flawed, as there is no substantive reason provided for why Peter would have decided to change at this particular moment, rather than earlier or later. In order for this particular thesis to be upheld, a specific catalyst needs to be identified. The failure to identify such a catalyst is largely due to a misunderstanding of Jewish resistance to Roman rule in the first century A.D. Scholarship has been separated into two camps, with one group of scholars advocating that there had been a successful movement towards active resistance throughout the first century and another group of scholars arguing that the movement towards active resistance did not begin until the mid50s to early 60s. With the majority of Biblical scholars in agreement with dating the Antioch incident to the late 40s, neither of the two options above provides a catalyst for Peter’s volte face at Antioch. In fact, both groups of scholars are incorrect. It is very likely that there was a Jewish movement which advocated violent resistance to Roman rule throughout the first century. However, it was not until after the death of Agrippa and the resumption of direct Roman rule over Judea along with the first-time loss of a measure of sovereignty in Galilee that this active resistance philosophy began to be successful at convincing significant numbers of the Judean populace. With the aborted insurrection by Theudas, the crucifixions of Simon and James, sons of Judas the Galilean, suffering from a famine which was only alleviated by the benefaction of a foreign ruler, edicts by Claudius which would have created increased uncertainty amongst Jews regarding how Rome might treat them in the future, the way was paved for Jewish violence during the procurator Ventidius Cumanus. This movement away from a passive resistance and towards an increasing acceptance that violence should be the preferred Jewish response to Roman rule was the catalyst for James’ message to Peter, and Peter’s subsequent withdrawal from open table fellowship with Gentile Christians at Antioch. James recognized the persecution which would likely result from word of a prominent Christian such as Peter eating with Gentiles. Indeed, such persecution may have already begun, as chronicled by Malalas.

286

Chapter 6: Conclusion

Based upon this analysis, it is finally argued that Paul would have been successful in convincing Peter to directly address the Antiochene Gentile Christians, publicly agreeing with Paul that it would be wrong for them to adopt a Jewish lifestyle. However, unlike other scholars who advocate this position, I do not believe that Peter’s only options were to either disagree with Paul or renew open table fellowship. A third option exists, which Peter may or may not have adopted: he could have fully explained the reasoning behind his decision with the entire church of Antioch, insisting that the Gentile Christians refrain from judaizing while maintaining the necessity of eliminating a possible source of persecution for their Jewish Christian brethren by continuing to separate himself from eating with them.

Bibliography Aberbach, Moses. “Conflicting Accounts of Josephus and Tacitus concerning Cumanus’ and Felix’ Terms of Office.” Jewish Quarterly Review 40 (1949): 1–14. Aberbach, Moses, and David Aberbach. The Roman-Jewish Wars and Hebrew Cultural Nationalism. New York: St. Martin’s, 2000. Abogunrin, S. Oyin. “The Three Variant Accounts of Peter’s Call: A Critical and Theological Examination of the Texts.” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 587–602. Achtemeier, Paul J. “An Elusive Unity: Paul, Acts, and the Early Church.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (1986): 1–26. —. The Quest for Unity in the New Testament Church: A Study in Paul and Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. —. 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Adler, Nikolaus. Das erste christliche Pfingstfest: Sinn und Bedeutung des Pfingstberichtes Apg 2, 1–13. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 18. Münster: Aschendorff, 1938. Ådna, Jostein. “James’ Position at the Summit Meeting of the Apostles and the Elders in Jerusalem (Acts 15).” Pages 125–161 in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. Edited by Jostein Ådna and Hans Kvalbein. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 127. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. —. Jesu Stellung zum Tempel: Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischen Sendung. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/119. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Allen, Leslie C. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Alon, Gedalia. “The Levitical Uncleanness of Gentiles.” Pages 146–189 in Jews, Judaism and the Classical World. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977. Alvarez Cineira, David. Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Claudius und die Paulinische Mission. Herders biblische Studien 19. Freiburg: Herder, 1999. Applebaum, Shimon. “The Zealots: The Case for Reevaluation.” Journal of Roman Studies 1 (1971): 156–170. —. “Judaea as a Roman Province.” ANRW 8:355–396. Part 2, Principat, 8. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. —. “Josephus and the Economic Causes of the Jewish War.” Pages 237–264 in Josephus, the Bible and History. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Göhei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989. Archer, Léonie J. Her Price Is Beyond Rubies: The Jewish Woman in Graeco-Roman Palestine. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 60. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Translated by Willard R. Trask. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953.

288

Bibliography

Bammel, Caroline P. “The First Resurrection Appearance to Peter: John 21 and the Synoptics.” Pages 620–631 in John and the Synoptics. Edited by Adelbert Denaux. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 101. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Barclay, John M. G. “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (1987): 73–93. —. “Paul Among Diaspora Jews: Anomaly or Apostate?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 60 (1995): 89–120. Barnett, Paul W. “Under Tiberius All Was Quiet.” New Testament Studies 21 (1975): 564–571. —. Behind the Scenes of the New Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1990. —. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999. —. Paul: Missionary of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Barrett, Charles Kingsley. Freedom and Obligation: A Study of the Epistle to the Galatians. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985. —. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles: In Two Volumes. International Critical Commentary 34. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. —. “Paul: Councils and Controversies.” Pages 42–74 in Conflicts and Challenges in Early Christianity. Edited by Donald Hagner. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1999. —. On Paul: Aspects of His Life, Work and Influence in the Early Church. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Bauckham, Richard. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary 50. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983. —. “James and the Jerusalem Church.” Pages 415–480 in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. —. “James and the Gentiles (Acts 15.13–21).” Pages 154–184 in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts. Edited by Ben Witherington. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. —. Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. —. “James, Peter, and the Gentiles.” Pages 91–142 in The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Novum Testamentum Supplements 115. Leiden: Brill, 2005. —. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Baumbach, Günther. “Zeloten und Sikarier.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 90 (1965): 728–740. Baur, Ferdinand Christian. “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des paulinischen und petrinischen in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom.” Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 4 (1831): 61–206. —. Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teachings. Translated by Eduard Zeller. London: Williams & Norgate, 1873. —. Ausgewählte Werke in Einzelausgaben. Edited by Klaus Scholder. Stuttgart: Frommann, 1963. Bayer, Hans F. Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection: The Provenance, Meaning and Correlation of the Synoptic Predictions. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/20. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986.

Bibliography

289

Beardslee, William A. “Casting of Lots at Qumran and in the Book of Acts.” Novum Testamentum 4 (1960): 245–252. Beare, Francis Wright. “The Sequence of Events in Acts 9–15 and the Career of Peter.” Journal of Biblical Literature 62 (1943): 295–306. —. The Gospel According to Matthew: Translation, Introduction, and Commentary. 1st U.S. ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982. Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Word Biblical Commentary 36. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987. Becker, Jürgen. “Galater.” Pages 9–106 in Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser, Philipper, Kolosser, Thessalonicher und Philemon. Edited by Jürgen Becker, Gerhard Friedrich, and Hans Conzelmann. Das Neue Testament Deutsch 8. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. —. Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles. Translated by O. C. Dean. Louisville: Westminister John Knox, 1993. Ben Zeev, Miriam Pucci. Jewish Rights in the Roman World: The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 74. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Best, Ernest. “Peter in the Gospel According to Mark.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978): 547–558. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Bilde, Per. “Roman Emperor Gaius (Caligula)’s Attempt to Erect His Statue in the Temple of Jerusalem.” Studia theologica 32 (1978): 67–93. —. “The Causes of the Jewish War According to Josephus.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 10 (1979): 179–202. —. Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works and Their Importance. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Black, Matthew. “Judas of Galilee and Josephus’s ‘Fourth Philosophy’.” Pages 45–54 in Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet. Edited by Otto Betz and Klaus Haacker. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. —. “Not Peace but a Sword.” Pages 287–294 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by Ernst Bammel and Charles F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Blaine, Brad B. Peter in the Gospel of John: The Making of an Authentic Disciple. Society of Biblical Literature Academia Biblica 27. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Blinzler, Josef. “Die Niedermetzelung von Galiläern durch Pilatus.” Novum Testamentum 2 (1957): 24–49. Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. New American Commentary 22. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. —. The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues and Commentary. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2001. —. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. 2d ed. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2007. —. “Jesus, Sinners, and Table Fellowship.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 19 (2009): 35– 62. Bock, Darrell L. Luke. 2 vols. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 3. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994–1996.

290

Bibliography

—. Acts. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Bockmuehl, Markus. “Antioch and James the Just.” Pages 155–198 in James the Just and Christian Origins. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Novum Testamentum Supplements 98. Leiden: Brill, 1999. —. Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. —. “1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 and the Church in Jerusalem.” Tyndale Bulletin 52 (2001): 1–31. —. “Simon Peter’s Names in Jewish Sources,” Journal of Jewish Studies 55, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 58–80. —. “Simon Peter and Bethsaida.” Pages 53–90 in The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Novum Testamentum Supplements 115. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Boismard, Marie Emile. “Le lavement des pieds (Jn 13:1–17).” Revue biblique 71 (1964): 5–24. Bond, Helen K. Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Bonnard, Pierre. L’Evangile selon Saint Matthieu. Paris: Delachaux et Niestle, 1963. —. L’Épître de Saint Paul aux Galates. 2d ed. Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 9. Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1972. Boomershine, Thomas E. “Mark 16:8 and the Apostolic Commission.” Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (1981): 225–239. —. “Peter’s Denial as Polemic or Confession: The Implications of Media Criticism for Biblical Hermeneutics.” Semeia 39 (1987): 47–68. Borg, Marcus J. “Currency of the Term ‘Zealot’.” Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1971): 504–512. Boring, M. Eugene. Mark: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Bornkamm, Günther. Paul. 1st U.S. ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. Borrell, Agustí. The Good News of Peter’s Denial: A Narrative and Rhetorical Reading of Mark 14:54, 66–72. Translated by Sean Conlon. University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 7. Atlanta: Scholars, 1998. Böttger, Paul C. “Paulus und Petrus in Antiochien: zum Verständnis von Galater 2:11– 21.” New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 77–100. Böttrich, Christfried. Petrus: Fischer, Fels und Funktionär. Biblische Gestalten 2. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001. Bovon, François. “Tradition et rédaction en Actes 10:1–11,18.” Theologische Zeitschrift 26 (1970): 22–45. —. L’Evangile selon saint Luc. 4 vols. Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 3. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1991–2009. Brandon, Samuel G. F. “The Zealots, the Jewish Resistance against Rome, A.D. 6–73.” History Today 15 (1965): 632–641. —. Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity. New York: Scribner, 1967. Brawley, Robert L. Centering on God: Method and Message in Luke-Acts. Louisville: Westminster, 1990. Brighton, Mark Andrew. The Sicarii in Josephus’s Judean War: Rhetorical Analysis and Historical Observations. Early Judaism and Its Literature, 27. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009.

Bibliography

291

Brodie, Thomas L. The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Bronson, David B. “Paul, Galatians, and Jerusalem.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 35 (1967): 119–128. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. 2 vols. Anchor Bible 29. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966–1970. —. “Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity but Types of Jewish/Gentile Christianity.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45 (1983): 74–79. —. The Death of the Messiah, from Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried, and John Henry Paul Reumann. Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1973. Brown, Raymond E., and John P. Meier. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. New York: Paulist, 1983. Brown, Schuyler. Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke. Analecta biblica 36. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969. Bruce, Frederick F. “Galatians Problems 1: Autobiographical Data.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 51 (1968): 292–309. —. “Paul and Jerusalem.” Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968): 3–25. —. “Further Thoughts on Paul’s Autobiography: Galatians 1:11–2:14.” Pages 21–29 in Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburstag. Edited by E. Earle Ellis and Erich Grässer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. —. Peter, Stephen, James, and John: Studies in Early Non-Pauline Christianity. 1st American ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. —. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. —. “Conference in Jerusalem – Galatians 2:1–10.” Pages 195–212 in God Who Is Rich in Mercy: Essays Presented to Dr. D.B. Knox. Edited by David Knox. Homebush West, NSW, Australia: Lancer, 1986. —. The Book of the Acts. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. —. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Pbk. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Brug, John F. “Acts 1:26 – Lottery of Election.” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 95 (1998): 212–214. Brunt, Peter A. Roman Imperial Themes. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Bultmann, Rudolf Karl. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. Rev. ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1968. —. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. Burton, Ernest. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. International Critical Commentary 35; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921. Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Translated by William Pringle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949. Capper, Brian. “The Palestinian Cultural Context of Earliest Christian Community of Goods.” Pages 323–356 in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Caragounis, Chrys C. Peter and the Rock. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 58. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990.

292

Bibliography

Carson, Donald A. “Matthew.” Pages 3–602 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984. —. “Pauline Inconsistency: Reflections on 1 Corinthians 9:19–23 and Galatians 2:11– 14.” Churchman 100 (1986): 6–45. —. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Carter, Warren. “Matthew 4:18–22 and Matthean Discipleship: An Audience-Oriented Perspective.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59 (1997): 58–75. Catchpole, David R. “Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree.” New Testament Studies 23 (1977): 428–444. Chance, J. Bradley. Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts. Macon, Ga.: Mercer, 1988. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Chilton, Bruce. A Feast of Meanings: Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus through Johannine Circles. Novum Testamentum Supplements 72. Leiden: Brill, 1994. —. “James in Relation to Peter, Paul, and the Remembrance of Jesus.” Pages 138–160 in The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Clark, Andrew C. “The Role of the Apostles.” Pages 169–190 in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Cohen, Shaye J. D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 8. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Collins, Marilyn F. “Hidden Vessels in Samaritan Traditions.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 3 (1972): 97–116. Conzelmann, Hans. History of Primitive Christianity. Translated by John E. Steeley. Heremenia. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973. —. Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Translated by James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Corbo, Virgilio C. The House of St. Peter at Capharnaum: A Preliminary Report of the First Two Campaigns of Excavations, April 16–June 19, Sept. 12–Nov. 26, 1968. Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Minor 5. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1969. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to Saint Mark: An Introduction and Commentary. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960. Crenshaw, James L. Joel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 24C. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Cullmann, Oscar. The State in the New Testament. New York: Scribner, 1956. —. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study. Translated by Floyd V. Filson. 2d rev. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962. —. “Der zwölfte Apostel.” Pages 214–222 in Vorträge und Aufsätze, 1925–1962. Edited by Oscar Cullmann and Karlfried Fröhlich. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966. —. Jesus and the Revolutionaries. Translated by Gareth Putman. New York: Harper & Row, 1970. Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Foundations and Facets. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

Bibliography

293

Cummins, Stephen Anthony. Paul and the Crucified Christ in Antioch: Maccabean Martyrdom and Galatians 1 and 2. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Cunningham, Scott. ‘Through Many Tribulations’: The Theology of Persecution in LukeActs. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 142. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Daniel, Constantin. “Esséniens, zélotes et sicaires et leur mention par paronymie dans le NT.” Numen 13 (1966): 88–115. Daube, David. “Three Notes Having to Do with Johanan ben Zaccai.” Journal of Theological Studies 11 (1960): 53–62. Dauer, Anton. Paulus und die christliche Gemeinde im syrischen Antiochia: Kritische Bestandsaufnahme der modernen Forschung mit einigen weiterführenden Überlegungen. Bonner biblische Beiträge 106. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1996. Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. International Critical Commentary 26. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–1997. Denova, Rebecca I. The Things Accomplished Among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 141. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Derrett, J. Duncan M. “Ananias, Sapphira, and the Right of Property.” Downside Review 89 (1971): 225–232. —. “Ēsan gar halieis (Mk 1:16): Jesus’s Fishermen and the Parable of the Net.” Novum Testamentum 22 (1980): 108–137. —. “Thou Art the Stone, and Upon This Stone...” Downside Review 106 (1988): 276–285. —. “Sleeping at Gethsemane.” Downside Review 114 (1996): 235–245. Dewey, Kim E. “Peter’s Curse and Cursed Peter.” Pages 96–114 in The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14–16. Edited by Werner H. Kelber. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Dibelius, Martin. “The Apostolic Council.” Pages 93–108 in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. Edited by Heinrich Greeven. London: SCM, 1956. —. “The Conversion of Cornelius.” Pages 109–122 in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. Edited by Heinrich Greeven. London: SCM, 1956. —. “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography.” Pages 138–185 in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. Edited by Heinrich Greeven. London: SCM, 1956. —. From Tradition to Gospel. New York: Scribner, 1965. Dix, Gregory. Jew and Greek: A Study in the Primitive Church. Westminster: Dacre, 1953. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952. —. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. 1st pbk. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Donaldson, Terence L. “Rural Bandits, City Mobs and the Zealots.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 21 (1990): 19–40. Douglas, Mary. “Deciphering a Meal.” Pages 61–81 in Myth, Symbol, and Culture. Edited by Clifford Geertz. New York: Norton, 1971. Downey, Glanville. A History of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961. Doyle, Antony D. “Pilate’s Career and the Date of the Crucifixion.” Journal of Theological Studies 42 (1941): 190–193. Driver, Godfrey R. The Judaean Scrolls: The Problem and the Solution. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965.

294

Bibliography

Droge, Arthur J. “The Status of Peter in the Fourth Gospel: A Note on John 18:10–11.” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 307–311. Dschulnigg, Peter. Petrus im Neuen Testament. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996. Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentacostalism Today. Studies in Biblical Theology 15. London: SCM, 1970. —. “The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11–18).” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 18 (1983): 3–57. —. “The Messianic Secret in Mark.” Pages 116–131 in The Messianic Secret. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett. Issues in Religion and Theology 1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. —. “The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem According to Galatians 1 and 2.” Pages 108–128 in Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. 1st American ed. Louisville: Westminister John Knox, 1990. —. “Messianic Ideas and Their Influence on the Jesus of History.” Pages 365–381 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. —. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993. —. The Acts of the Apostles. 1st U.S. ed. Narrative Commentaries. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1996. —. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. —. Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135: The Second DurhamTübingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism (Durham, September 1989). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. —. Jesus Remembered. Vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. —. Beginning from Jerusalem. Vol. 2 of Christianity in the Making. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Dupont, Jacques. “Pierre et Paul á Antioche et á Jerusalem.” Recherches de science religieuse 45 (1957): 42–60, 225–239. —. The Salvation of the Gentiles: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles. Translated by John R. Keating. New York: Paulist, 1979. Ebeling, Gerhard. The Truth of the Gospel: An Exposition of Galatians. Translated by David Green. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Eckert, Jost. Die urchristliche Verkündigung im Streit zwischen Paulus und seinen Gegnern nach dem Galaterbrief. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1971. —. “Paulus und die Jerusalemer Autoritäten nach dem Galaterbrief und der Apostelgeschichte.” Pages 281–311 in Schriftauslegung: Beiträge zur Hermeneutik des Neuen Testamentes und im Neuen Testament. Edited by Josef Ernst. München: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1972. Edwards, James R. The Gospel According to Mark. Pillar New Testament Commentary 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Eisenman, Robert. “‘Sicarii Essenes,’ ‘The Party of the Circumcision,’ and Qumran.” Pages 247–260 in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Mladen Popović. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 70. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Bibliography

295

Eisler, Robert. The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist: According to Flavius Josephus’ Recently Rediscovered ‘Capture of Jerusalem’ and the Other Jewish and Christian Sources. London: Methuen, 1931. Ellis, E. Earle. “‘The End of the Earth’ (Acts 1:8).” Bulletin for Biblical Research 1 (1991): 123–132. —. “The Circumcision Party and the Early Christian Mission.” Pages 116–128 in Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. Edited by E. Earle Ellis. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993. Elmer, Ian J. Paul, Jerusalem and the Judaisers: The Galatian Crisis in Its Broadest Historical Context. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/258. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Esler, Philip Francis. Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. —. The First Christians in Their Social Worlds: Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation. London: Routledge, 1994. —. “Making and Breaking an Agreement Mediterranean Style: A New Reading of Galatians 2:1–14.” Journal of Theological Studies 42 (1995): 285–314. —. Galatians. New Testament Readings. London: Routledge, 1998. Estrada, Nelson P. From Followers to Leaders: The Apostles in the Ritual of Status Transformation in Acts 1–2. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 255. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Evans, Craig A. “The Twelve Thrones of Israel: Scripture and Politics in Luke 22:24– 30.” Pages 154–170 in Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in LukeActs. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. —. Mark 8:27–16:20. Word Biblical Commentary 34B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001. Farmer, William R. Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus: An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. —. “Judas, Simon and Athronges.” New Testament Studies 4 (1958): 147–155. —. “James the Lord’s Brother, According to Paul.” Pages 133–153 in James the Just and Christian Origins. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Novum Testamentum Supplements 98. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Feret, Henricus Maria. Pierre et Paul à Antioche et à Jérusalem: Le ‘conflit’ des deux apôtres. Paris: Cerf, 1955. Finley, Thomas J. Joel, Amos, Obadiah. Chicago: Moody, 1990. Fischer, David Hackett. Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. New York: Harper & Row, 1970. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Aramaic Kepha and Peter’s Name in the New Testament.” Pages 112–124 in To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies. The Biblical Resource Series. New York: Crossroad, 1981. —. The Gospel According to Luke. 2 vols. Anchor Bible 28. New York: Doubleday, 1981–1985. —. The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 31. New York: Doubleday, 1998. Foakes-Jackson, Frederick J., and Kirsopp Lake. The Beginnings of Christianity. London: Macmillan, 1920. Fornara, Charles W. The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. France, Richard T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

296

Bibliography

—. The Gospel of Matthew. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Fredriksen, Paula. “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2.” Journal of Theological Studies 42 (1991): 532–564. Freyne, Seán. Galilee, from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E.: A Study of Second Temple Judaism. University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 5. Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1980. Fugila, Jose B. “The Temptation on the Mount of Transfiguration.” African Journal of Theology 9 (1995): 331–340. Fuks, Gideon. “Again on the Episode of the Gilded Roman Shields at Jerusalem.” Harvard Theological Review 75 (1982): 503–507. —. “Josephus on Herod’s Attitude towards Jewish Religion: The Darker Side.” Journal of Jewish Studies 53 (2002): 238–245. Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Gaechter, Paul. “Jerusalem und Antiochien: Ein Beitrag zur urkirchlichen Rechtsentwicklung.” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 70 (1948): 1–48. —. “Die Wahl des Matthias (Apg 1, 15–26).” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 71 (1949): 318–346. —. Petrus und seine Zeit: Neutestamentliche Studien. Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1958. Garnsey, Peter. Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Garnsey, Peter, and Richard P. Saller. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. London: Duckworth, 1987. Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. From Darkness to Light: Aspects of Conversion in the New Testament. Overtures to Biblical Theology 20. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. —. “To Speak Thy Word with All Boldness: Acts 4:23–31.” Faith and Mission 3 (1986): 76–82. Gee, D. H. “Why Did Peter Spring into the Sea? (John 21:7).” Journal of Theological Studies 40 (1989): 481–489. Gnilka, Joachim. Das Matthäusevangelium II. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament I/2. Freiburg: Herder, 1988. —. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 2 vols. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2. Zurich: Benziger, 1994. —. Petrus und Rom: Das Petrusbild in den ersten zwei Jahrhunderten. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. Goguel, Maurice. “Did Peter Deny His Lord? A Conjecture.” Harvard Theological Review 25 (1932): 1–27. Goodblatt, David M. Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Goodenough, Erwin Ramsdell. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. New York: Pantheon, 1953. Goodman, Martin. The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome, A.D. 66–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. —. “Josephus as a Roman Citizen.” Pages 329–338 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Edited by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers. Studia post-Biblica 41. Leiden: Brill, 1994. —. “Judaea.” Pages 737–781 in Cambridge Ancient History, Vol 10: The Augustan Empire, 43 B.C.-A.D. 69. Edited by K. Bowman, Edward Champlin, and Andrew Lintott. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Bibliography

297

Gould, Ezra P. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. International Critical Commentary 27. New York: Scribner’s, 1896. Grappe, Christian. D’un Temple à l’autre: Pierre et l’Eglise primitive de Jérusalem. Études d′histoire et de philosophie religieuses 71. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1992. Green, Gene L. Jude and 2 Peter. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Grelot, Pierre. “L’origine de Matthieu 16,16–19.” Pages 91–105 in A cause de l’Evangile: Études sur les Synoptiques et les Actes; Offertes au P. Jacques Dupont, O.S.B. à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire. Edited by Jacques Dupont. LD 123. Paris: Cerf, 1985. Grundmann, Walter. “Das Wort von Jesu Freunden (Jn 15:13–16) und das Herrenmahl.” Novum Testamentum 3 (1959): 62–69. Grünewald, Thomas. Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Reality. Translated by John Drinkwater. London: Routledge, 2004 Guelich, Robert A. “The Gospel Genre.” Pages 182–219 in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien: Vorträge vom Tübinger Symposium 1982. Edited by Peter Stuhlmacher. Tübingen: Mohr, 1983. —. Mark 1–8:26. Word Biblical Commentary 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989. Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. —. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Haacker, Klaus. “Dibelius und Cornelius: Ein Beispiel formgeschichtlicher Überlieferungskritik.” Biblische Zeitschrift 24 (1980): 234–251. Haaland, Gunnar. “What Difference Does Philosophy Make?” Pages 262–288 in Making History: Josephus and Historical Method. Edited by Zuleika Rodgers. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 110. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Haas, Odo. Paulus der Missionar: Ziel, Grundsätze und Methoden der Missionstätigkeit des Apostels Paulus nach seinen eigenen Aussagen. Münsterschwarzacher Studien 11. Münsterschwarzach: Vier-Türme-Verlag, 1971. Haenchen, Ernst. Der Weg Jesu: Eine Erklärung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1966. —. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Translated by Bernard Noble and Gerald Shinn. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. —. John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew. 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 33. Dallas: Word, 1993–1995. Hamidovic, David. “Le remarque énigmatique d’Ac 5,4 dans la légende d’Ananias et Saphira.” Biblica 86 (2005): 407–415. Hamm, Dennis. “Acts 3:12–26: Peter’s Speech and the Healing of the Man Born Lame.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 11 (1984): 199. Hann, Robert R. “Judaism and Jewish Christianity in Antioch: Charisma and Conflict in the First Century.” Journal of Religious History 14 (1987): 341–360. Hansen, G. Walter. Galatians. IVP New Testament Commentary Series 9. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

298

Bibliography

Harnack, Adolf von. “Die Verklärungsgeschichte Jesu, der Bericht des Paulus (1. Kor. 15,3ff), und die beiden Christusvisionen des Petrus.” Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 5 (1922): 62–80. Hartenstein, Judith. Charakterisierung im Dialog: Die Darstellung von Maria Magdalena, Petrus, Thomas und der Mutter Jesu im Kontext anderer frühchristlicher Traditionen. Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 64. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Haya-Prats, Gonzalo. L’Esprit force de l’Église. Paris: Cerf, 1975. Heil, Christoph. Die Ablehnung der Speisegebote durch Paulus: Zur Frage nach der Stellung des Apostels zum Gesetz. Bonner biblische Beiträge 96. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1994. Heil, John Paul. The Meal Scenes in Luke-Acts: An Audience-Oriented Approach. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 52. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999. —. The Transfiguration of Jesus: Narrative Meaning and Function of Mark 9:2–8, Matt 17:1–8 and Luke 9:28–36. Analecta biblica 144. Rome: Editrice Pontificio istituto biblico, 2000. Hemer, Colin. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Edited by Conrad H. Gempf. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 49. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Hendrickx, Herman. The Passion Narratives of the Synoptic Gospels. Manila: East Asian Pastoral Institute, 1977. Hengel, Martin. “Zeloten und Sikarier: Zur Frage der Einheit und Vielfalt der jüdischen Befreiungsbewegung 6–74 n Chr.” Pages 175–196 in Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet. Edited by Otto Betz and Klaus Haacker. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. —. Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. —. Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. —. “Jakobus der Herrenbruder – der erste ‘Papst’?” Pages 71–104 in Glaube und Eschatologie: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 80. Geburtstag. Edited by Erich Grässer and Otto Merk. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. —. The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D. Translated by David Smith. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989. —. The ‘Hellenization’ of Judaea in the First Century after Christ. London: SCM, 1990. —. “The Geography of Palestine in Acts.” Pages 27–78 in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. —. Der unterschätzte Petrus: Zwei Studien. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Hengel, Martin, and Anna Maria Schwemer. Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years. Louisville: Westminster, 1997. Herron, Robert W. Mark’s Account of Peter’s Denial of Jesus: A History of Its Interpretation. Lanham: University Press of America, 1991. Hill, Craig C. Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. —. “The Jerusalem Church.” Pages 39–56 in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts. Edited by Matt Jackson-McCabe. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.

Bibliography

299

Hill, David. “The Spirit and the Church’s Witness: Observations on Acts 1:6–8.” Irish Biblical Studies 6 (1984): 16–26. Hobsbawm, Eric J. Primitive Rebels: Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movement in the 19th and 20th Centuries. New York: Norton, 1959. Hofius, Otfried. “Herrenmahl und Herrenmahlsparadosis: Erwägungen zu 1 Kor 11,23b25.” Pages 203–240 in Paulusstudien. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 51. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Holmberg, Bengt. Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. —. “Jewish Versus Christian Identity in the Early Church?” Revue biblique 105 (1998): 397–425. Holtz, Traugott. “Die Bedeutung des Apostelkonzils für Paulus,” NovT 16 (1974): 110– 148. —. “Der Antiochenische Zwischenfall (Galater 2:11–14).” New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 344–361. Horsley, Richard A. “Ancient Jewish Banditry and the Revolt against Rome, AD 66–70.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 409–432. —. “Menahem in Jerusalem: A Brief Messianic Episode among the Sicarii – Not ‘Zealot Messianism’.” Novum Testamentum 27 (1985): 334–348. —. “The Zealots: Their Origin, Relationships and Importance in the Jewish Revolt.” Novum Testamentum 28 (1986): 159–192. —. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Horsley, Richard A., and John S. Hanson. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus. New Voices in Biblical Studies. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. Horst, Pieter W. van der. “Peter’s Shadow: The Religio-Historical Backgrounds of Acts V. 15.” New Testament Studies 23 (1977): 204–212. Howard, George. Paul: Crisis in Galatia: A Study in Early Christian Theology. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Hvalvik, Reidar. “Jewish Believers and Jewish Influence in the Roman Church until the Early Second Century.” Pages 179–216 in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries. Edited by Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007. Ilan, Tal. Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996. Instone-Brewer, David. “The Eighteen Benedictions and the Minim before 70 CE.” Journal of Theological Studies 54 (2003): 25–44. —. Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament. Vol. 1, Prayer and Agriculture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Jackson-McCabe, Matt. “What’s in a Name? The Problem of ‘Jewish Christianity’.” Pages 7–38 in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts. Edited by Matt Jackson-McCabe. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Jaubert, Annie. “L’élection de Matthias et le tirage au sort.” Pages 274–280 in Studia Evangelica VI. Edited by Elizabeth A. Livingstone. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 112; Berlin: Akademie, 1973. Jensen, Morten Hørning. Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and Its Socio-Economic Impact on Galilee. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/215. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

300

Bibliography

Jeremias, Joachim. “Untersuchungen zum Quellenproblem der Apostelgeschichte.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 36 (1937): 205–221. Jervell, Jacob. Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972. —. Die Apostelgeschichte. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Jervis, L. Ann. “Peter in the Middle: Galatians 2:11–21.” Pages 45–62 in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson. Edited by Michel Richard Desjardins and Stephen G. Wilson. Studies in Christianity and Judaism 9. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2000. Jewett, Robert. “Agitators and the Galatian Congregation.” New Testament Studies 17 (1971): 198–212. —. A Chronology of Paul’s Life. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. —. “Gospel and Commensality: Social and Theological Implications of Galatians 2.14.” Pages 240–252 in Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker. Edited by L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Johnson, Elliott. “Author’s Intention and Biblical Interpretation.” Pages 409–437 in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible. Edited by Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus. Grand Rapids: Academie, 1984. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Acts of the Apostles. Edited by Daniel J. Harrington. Sacra Pagina 5. Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1992. Johnson, S. Lewis. “Transfiguration of Christ.” Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (1967): 133–143. Jones, Christopher P. The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom. Loeb Classical Monographs. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978. Joubert, Stephan. Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/124. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Joüon, Paul. “Marc 14, 31: Ό ∆Ε ΈΚΠΕΡΙΣΣΩΣ ΈΛΑΛΕΙ.” Recherches de science religieuse 29 (1939): 240–241. Juster, Jean. Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain: Leur condition juridique, économique et sociale. Paris: Geuthner, 1914. Kaiser, Walter C. “Promise of God and the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit.” Pages 109– 122 in The Living and Active Word of God: Studies in Honor of Samuel J. Schultz. Edited by Morris A. Inch and Ronald F. Youngblood. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Kalimi, Isaac, and James D. Purvis. “The Hiding of the Temple Vessels in Jewish and Samaritan Literature.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 (1994): 649–685. Karrer, Martin. “Petrus im paulinischen Gemeindekreis.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 80 (1989): 210–231. Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. —. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003. Kelber, Werner H. “Mark 14:32–42: Gethsemane – Passion Christology and Discipleship Failure.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 63 (1972): 166–187. —. “The Hour of the Son of Man and the Temptation of the Disciples.” Pages 41–60 in The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14–16. Edited by Werner H. Kelber. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.

Bibliography

301

Kennard, J. Spencer. “Judas of Galilee and His Clan.” Jewish Quarterly Review 36 (1946): 281–286. Kieffer, René. Foi et justification à Antioche: Interprétation d’un conflit (Ga 2, 14–21). LD 111. Paris: Cerf, 1982. Kingsbury, Jack Dean. “The Verb Akolouthein (‘to follow’) as an Index of Matthew’s View of His Community.” Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 56–73. —. Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Klassen, William. “Jesus and the Zealot Option.” Canadian Journal of Theology 16 (1970): 12–21. Klawans, Jonathan. “Notions of Gentile Impurity in Ancient Judaism.” Association for Jewish Studies Review 20 (1995): 285–312. Klein, Günter. “Die Verleugnung des Petrus: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung.” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 58 (1961): 285–328. —. “Galater 2, 6–9 und die Geschichte der Jerusalemer Urgemeinde.” Pages 90–128 in Rekonstruktion und Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament. Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie 50. München: Kaiser, 1969. Klijn, Albertus Frederik Johannes. “Study of Jewish Christianity.” New Testament Studies 20 (1974): 419–431. Knox, John. Chapters in a Life of Paul. New York: Abdingdon, 1950. Kohler, Kaufmann. “Zealots.” Pages 639–643 in Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1905. Köstenberger, Andreas J. John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004. Kraeling, Carl H. “The Episode of the Roman Standards at Jerusalem.” Harvard Theological Review 35 (1942): 263–289. Kraus, Thomas J. “‘Uneducated’, ‘Ignorant’, or Even ‘Illiterate’? Aspects and Background for an Understanding of ΑΓΡΑΜΑΤΟΙ (and Ι∆ΙΩΤΑΙ) in Acts 4.13.” New Testament Studies 45 (1999): 434–449. Kreißig, Heinz. Die sozialen Zusammenhänge des Judäischen Krieges, Klassen und Klassenkampf im Palästina des 1. Jahrhunderts v.u.Z. Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike 1. Berlin: Akademie, 1970. —. “A Marxist View of Josephus' Account of the Jewish War.” Pages 265–277 in Josephus, the Bible and History. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Göhei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989. Kremer, Jacob. Pfingstbericht und Pfingstgeschehen: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Apg 2, 1–13. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 63/64. Stuttgart: KBW, 1973. Krieger, Klaus-Stefan. Geschichtsschreibung als Apologetik: Bei Flavius Josephus. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 9. Tübingen: Francke, 1994. Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. Saint Paul: Épître aux Galates. Études bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1950. Lampe, Geoffrey W. H. The Seal of the Spirit: A Study in the Doctrine of Baptism and Confirmation in the New Testament and the Fathers. London: Longmans, 1951. —. “St. Peter’s Denial.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 55 (1973): 346–368. Lampe, Peter. “Das Spiel mit dem Petrusnamen, Matt 16:18.” New Testament Studies 25 (1979): 227–245. Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes. New International Commentary on the New Testament 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

302

Bibliography

Lapham, F. Peter: The Myth, the Man and the Writings: A Study of Early Petrine Text and Tradition. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 239. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. Laqueur, Richard. Der Jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: Ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage. Griessen: Münchow, 1920. Le Cornu, Hilary, and Joseph Shulam. A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Acts. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Academon, 2003. Lee, Simon S. Jesus’ Transfiguration and the Believers’ Transformation: A Study of the Transfiguration and Its Development in Early Christian Writings. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/265. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Lémonon, Jean-Pierre. Pilate et le gouvernement de la Judée: Textes et monuments. Études bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1981. Levinskaya, Irina. The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting. Book of Acts in Its FirstCentury Setting 5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Liefeld, Walter L. “Theological Motifs in the Transfiguration Narrative.” Pages 162–179 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. Lietzmann, Hans. Die Briefe des Apostels Paulus, an die Galater. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1921. Lightley, John W. Jewish Sects and Parties in the Time of Jesus. London: Sharp, 1925. Linnemann, Eta. “Die Verleugnung des Petrus.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 63 (1966): 1–32. Loftus, Francis. “Anti-Roman Revolts of the Jews and the Galileans.” Jewish Quarterly Review 68 (1977): 78–98. Longenecker, Richard N. “The Acts of the Apostles.” Vol 9 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981. —. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary 41. Dallas: Word, 1990. Lönning, Inge. “Paulus und Petrus: Gal 2:11ff. als kontroverstheologisches Fundamentalproblem.” Studia theologica 24 (1970): 1–69. Lövestam, Evald. Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament. Lund: Gleerup, 1963. Lüdemann, Gerd. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology. Translated by F. Stanley Jones. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. —. Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary. Translated by John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. —. Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Luther, Martin. Selected Writings of Martin Luther, Volume 1. Edited by Theodore G. Tappert. U.S.A.: Fortress, 2007. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew: A Commentary. Translated by James E. Crouch. Hermeneia. 3 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989–2005. Macgregor, George H. C. The Gospel of John. Moffatt New Testament Commentary. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1928. Mack, Burton L. A Myth of Innocence: The Gospel of Mark and Christian Origins. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Madden, Patrick J. Jesus’ Walking on the Sea: An Investigation of the Origin of the Narrative Account. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 81. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Maier, Paul L. “Episode of the Golden Roman Shields at Jerusalem.” Harvard Theological Review 62 (1969): 109–121. —. “Pilate in the Dock: For the Defense.” Bible Review 20 (2004): 27.

Bibliography

303

Mánek, Jindrich. “Fishers of Men.” Novum Testamentum 2 (1957): 138–141. Marcus, Joel. Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 2 vols. Anchor Bible 27. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005–2009. Marguerat, Daniel. “Terreur dans l’Église: Le drame d’Ananias et Saphira (Actes 5:1– 11).” Foi et vie 91 (1992): 77–88. —. “La mort d’Ananias et Saphira (Ac 5:1–11) dans la stratégie narrative de Luc.” New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 209–226. —. The First Christian Historian: Writing the ‘Acts of the Apostles’. Translated by Ken McKinney, Gregory J. Laughery, and Richard Bauckham. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Marshall, Christopher D. Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary 3. 1st American ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. —. The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary. 1st American ed. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. —. Last Supper and Lord’s Supper. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. —. “Acts.” Pages 513–606 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by Gregory K. Beale and Donald A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Marshall, Jonathan. Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors: Roman Palestine and the Gospel of Luke. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testamentt 2/259. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. —. Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997. Mason, Steve. “Contradiction or Counterpoint? Josephus and Historical Method.” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 6 (2003): 145–188. —. “Josephus as Authority for First-Century Judea.” Pages 7–44 in Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories. Edited by Steve Mason. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009. Matera, Frank J. Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies: Interpreting the Synoptics through Their Passion Stories. Theologial Inquires. New York: Paulist, 1986. —. “The Incomprehension of the Disciples and Peter’s Confession (Mark 6,14–8,30).” Biblica 70 (1989): 153–172. Matson, David Lertis. Household Conversion Narratives in Acts: Pattern and Interpretation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 123. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Maynard, Arthur H. “The Role of Peter in the Fourth Gospel.” New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 531–548. McCurley, Foster R. “‘And After Six Days’ (Mark 9:2): A Semitic Literary Device.” Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1971): 67–81. McGing, Brian C. “Pontius Pilate and the Sources.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991): 416. McHugh, John. “Galatians 2:11–14: Was Peter Right?” Pages 319–330 in Paulus und das antike Judentum: Tübingen-Durham-Symposium im Gedenken an den 50. Todestag Adolf Schlatters (19. Mai 1938). Edited by Martin Hengel and Ulrich Heckel. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 58. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991.

304

Bibliography

McKay, Kenneth L. “Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15–17.” Novum Testamentum 27 (1985): 319–333. McKnight, Scot. “A Parting within the Way: Jesus and James on Israel and Purity.” Pages 83–129 in James the Just and Christian Origins. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Novum Testamentum Supplements 98. Leiden: Brill, 1999. McLaren, James S. Power and Politics in Palestine: The Jews and the Governing of Their Land, 100 BC-AD 70. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 63. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. —. Turbulent Times? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 29. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. —. “Constructing Judaean History in the Diaspora: Josephus’s Accounts of Judas.” Pages 90–108 in Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire. Edited by John M. G. Barclay. Library of Second Temple Studies 45. London: T&T Clark, 2004. McLean, John A. “Did Jesus Correct the Disciples’ View of the Kingdom?” Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (1994): 215. McVann, Mark. “Conjectures About a Guilty Bystander: The Sword Slashing in Mark 14:47.” Listening 21 (1986): 124–137. Meek, James A. The Gentile Mission in Old Testament Citations in Acts: Text, Hermeneutic, and Purpose. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Méhat, André. “‘Quand Kephas vint a Antioch …’ que s’est-il passé entre Pierre et Paul.” LumVie 192 (1989): 29–43. Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1991. —. “The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist During Jesus’ Ministry?” Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997): 635–672. Mendels, Doron. “Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities, the ‘Fourth Philosophy,’ and the Political Messianism of the First Century C.E.” Pages 261–275 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. —. The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Menoud, Philippe H. “La mort d’Ananias et de Saphira (Actes 5,1–11).” Pages 146–154 in Aux sources de la Tradition Chrétienne: Mélanges offerts à M. Maurice Goguel. Edited by Oscar Cullmann. Bibliothèque théologique. Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1950. —. “Les additions au groupe des douze apôtres, d’après le livre des Actes.” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 37 (1957): 71–80. —. Jesus Christ and the Faith: A Collection of Studies. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 18. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978. Menzies, Robert P. The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology: With Special Reference to Luke-Acts. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 54. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Merkel, Helmut. “Peter’s Curse.” Pages 66–71 in The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C. F. D. Moule. Edited by Ernst Bammel. Studies in Biblical Theology 2/13. Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1970. Metzger, Bruce Manning. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, Third Edition. London: United Bible Societies, 1975.

Bibliography

305

Meyer, Rudolf. Der Prophet aus Galiläa: Studie zum Jesusbild der drei ersten Evangelien. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970. Mézange, Christoph. “Simon le Zélote était-il un révolutionnaire?” Biblica 81 (2000): 489–506. Miller, Chris A. “Did Peter’s Vision in Acts 10 Pertain to Men or the Menu?” Bibliotheca Sacra 159 (2002): 302–317. Minnerath, Roland. De Jérusalem à Rome: Pierre et l’unité de l’Église Apostolique. Théologie historique 101. Paris: Beauchesne, 1995. Mitchell, Alan C. “The Social Function of Friendship in Acts 2:44–47 and 4:32–37.” Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 255–272. Mittelstaedt, Alexander. Lukas als Historiker: Zur Datierung des lukanischen Doppelwerkes. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 43; Tübingen: Francke, 2006. Mittelstadt, Martin William. The Spirit and Suffering in Luke-Acts: Implications for a Pentecostal Pneumatology. Journal of Pentecostal Theology: Supplement Series 26. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Momigliano, Arnaldo. Claudius, the Emperor and His Achievement. Translated by W. D. Hogarth. New ed. Cambridge: Heffer, 1961. Moore, Thomas S. “‘To the End of the Earth’: The Geographic and Ethnic Universalism of Acts 1:8 in Light of Isaianic Influence on Luke.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997): 389–399. Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971. —. The Gospel According to Matthew. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. —. Galatians: Paul’s Charter of Christian Freedom. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996. Munck, Johannes. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Translated by Frank Clarke; 1st English ed. Richmond: John Knox, 1959. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Mussner, Franz. Der Galaterbrief. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 9. Freiburg: Herder, 1974. —. Petrus und Paulus, Pole der Einheit: Eine Hilfe für die Kirchen. Quaestiones disputatae 76. Freiburg: Herder, 1976. Nanos, Mark D. The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. —. The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. —. “The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem According to Gal 1 and 2.” Pages 199–234 in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. —. “The Myth of the ‘Law-Free’ Paul Standing Between Christians and Jews.” Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations 4 (2009): 1–21. Nau, Arlo J. Peter in Matthew: Discipleship, Diplomacy, and Dispraise ... with an Assessment of Power and Privilege in the Petrine Office. Good News Studies 36. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992. Neusner, Jacob. The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 A.D. Leiden: Brill, 1971.

306

Bibliography

—. From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1973. —. “Two Pictures of the Pharisees: Philosophical Circle or Eating Club.” Australasian Theological Review 64 (1982): 525–538. Nikiprowetzky, Valentin. “Sicaires et Zélotes: Une Reconsidération.” Semitica 23 (1973): 51–64. —. “Josephus and the Revolutionary Parties.” Pages 216–236 in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Edited by Louis Feldman and Göhei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987. Nolland, John. Luke. 3 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 35C. Dallas: Word, 1989 –1993. —. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Oepke, Albrecht. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater. 2d ed. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 9. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1957. Osborne, Grant R. The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984. O’Toole, Robert F. “‘You Did Not Lie to Us (Human Beings) but to God’ (Acts 5,4c).” Biblica 76 (1995): 182–209. Painter, John. Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition. Studies on Personalities of the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. —. “Who Was James? Footprints as a Means of Identification.” Pages 10–65 in The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. —. “James and Peter: Models of Leadership and Mission.” Pages 143–209 in The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Novum Testamentum Supplements 115. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Paltiel, Eliezer. “War in Judaea – After Herod’s Death.” Revue belge de philology et d’histoire 59 (1981): 107–136. —. Vassals and Rebels in the Roman Empire: Julio-Claudian Policies in Judaea and the Kingdoms of the East. Collection Latomus 212. Bruxelles: Latomus, 1991. Pao, David W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. Biblical Studies Library. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. —. “Family and Table Fellowship in the Writings of Luke.” Pages 181–193 in This Side of Heaven: Race, Ethnicity, and Christian Faith. Edited by Robert J. Priest and Alvaro L. Nieves. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Parente, Fausto. “Flavius Josephus’ Account of the Anti-Roman Riots Preceding the 66– 70 War, and Its Relevance for the Reconstruction of Jewish Eschatology during the First Century A.D.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 16 (1984): 183–205. Parsons, Mikael C. “Christian Origins and Narrative Openings: The Sense of a Beginning in Acts 1–5.” Review and Expositor 87 (1990): 403–422. Pastor, Jack. Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine. London: Routledge, 1997. —. “Josephus as a Source for Economic History: Problems and Approaches.” Pages 334– 346 in Making History: Josephus and Historical Method. Edited by Zuleika Rodgers. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 10. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Peerbolte, L. J. Lietaert. Paul the Missionary. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 34. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Penner, James A. “Revelation and Discipleship in Matthew’s Transfiguration Account.” Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (1995): 201–210.

Bibliography

307

Perkins, Pheme. Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church. Studies on Personalities of the New Testament. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1994. Perrin, Norman. What Is Redaction Criticism? Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969. Pervo, Richard I. Acts: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Pesch, Rudolf. Der reiche Fischfang, Lk 5, 1–11/Jo 21, 1–14: Wundergeschichte, Berufserzählung, Erscheinungsbericht. Kommentare und Beiträge zum Alten und Neuen Testament. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1969. —. “The Position and Significance of Peter in the Church of the New Testament: A Survey of Current Research.” Concilium 7 (1971): 21–35. —. “Die Passion des Menschensohns: Eine Studie zu den Menschensohnsworten der vormarkinischen Passionsgeschichte.” Pages 166–195 in Jesus und der Menschensohn. Edited by Rudolf Schnackenburg and Rudolf Pesch. Freiburg: Herder, 1975. —. Das Markusevangelium. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2. Freiburg: Herder, 1976. —. Simon-Petrus: Geschichte und geschichtliche Bedeutung des ersten Jüngers Jesu Christi. Päpste und Papsttum 15. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1980. —. Die Apostelgeschichte. 2 vols. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 5. Zurich: Benziger, 1986. Peterson, David. The Acts of the Apostles. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Phillips, Thomas E. Paul, His Letters, and Acts. Library of Pauline Studies. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009. Popkes, Enno Edzard. “‘Bevor einer von Jakobus kam...’: Anmerkungen zur textkritischen und theologiegeschichtlichen Problematik von Gal 2,12.” Novum Testamentum 46 (2004): 253–264. Pratscher, Wilhelm. Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und die Jakobustradition. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 139; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. Price, Jonathan. Jerusalem Under Siege: The Collapse of the Jewish State, 66–70 C.E. Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 3. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Quast, Kevin. Peter and the Beloved Disciple: Figures for a Community in Crisis. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 32. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Rajak, Tessa. “Justus of Tiberius.” Church Quarterly 23 (1973): 345–368. —. “Josephus and Justus of Tiberias.” Pages 81–94 in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Edited by Louis Feldman and Göhei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987. —. Josephus: The Historian and His Society. London: Duckworth, 2002. Rapoport-Albert, Ada. Essays in Jewish Historiography. History and Theory: Beiheft 27. Middletown: Wesleyan University, 1988 Rappaport, Uriel. “Jewish-Pagan Relations and the Revolt against Rome in 66–70 C.E..” Jerusalem Cathedra 1 (1981): 81–95. —. “How Anti-Roman Was the Galilee?” Pages 95–102 in The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Edited by Lee I. Levine. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. —. “Where Was Josephus Lying – In His Life or in the War?” Pages 279–289 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Edited by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers. Studia post-Biblica 41. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

308

Bibliography

Rastoin, Marc. “Simon-Pierre entre Jésus et Satan: La théologie lucanienne à l’œuvre en Lc 22,31–32.” Biblica 89 (2008): 153–172. Regodón, Jacinto Núñez. El Evangelio en Antioquía: Gál 2, 15–21 entre el incidente antioqueno y la crisis gálata. Plenitudo Temporis 7. Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, 2002. Rehkopf, Friedrich. Die lukanische Sonderquelle: Ihr Umfang und Sprachgebrauch. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1959. Reicke, Bo. “Der Geschichtliche Hintergrund des Apostelkonzils und der Antiochia Episode.” Pages 543–553 in Studia Paulina: In honorem Johannis de Zwaan septuagenarii. Edited by W.C. van Unnik, Jan Nicolaas Sevenster, and Charles Kingsley Barrett. Haarlem: Bohn, 1953. Reinbold, Wolfgang. Propaganda und Mission im ältesten Christentum: Eine Untersuchung zu den Modalitäten der Ausbreitung der frühen Kirche. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 188. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Reinhartz, Adele. Befriending the Beloved Disciple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John. New York: Continuum, 2001. Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich. “Election of Matthias, Acts 1,15 ff.” Pages 178–192 in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper. Edited by William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder. New York: Harper, 1962. Rhoads, David. “The Assumption of Moses and Jewish History: 4 B.C.–A.D. 48.” Pages 53–58 in Studies on the Testament of Moses: Seminar Papers. Edited by George Nickelsburg. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 4. Cambridge, Mass.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973. —. Israel in Revolution, 6–74 C.E.: A Political History based on the Writings of Josephus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Rhoads, David, and Donald Michie. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Riesner, Rainer. Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der EvangelienÜberlieferung. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981. —. Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology. Translated by Doug Scott. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Robinson, Donald W. B. “The Circumcision of Titus and Paul’s ‘Liberty’.” Australian Biblical Review 12 (1964): 24–42. Rodgers, Zuleika. Making History: Josephus and Historical Method. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 110; Leiden: Brill, 2007. Roloff, Jürgen. Die Apostelgeschichte. 2d ed. Texte zum Neuen Testament 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. Roth, Cecil. The Historical Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Philosophical Library, 1959. —. “The Zealots and Qumran: The Basic Issue.” Revue de Qumran 2 (1959): 81–84. —. “The Zealots – A Jewish Religious Sect.” Judaism 8 (1959): 33–40. Rudman, D. “The Significance of the Phrase ‘Fishers of Men’ in the Synoptic Gospels.” Irish Biblical Studies 26 (2005): 106–118. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. 1st American ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. —. “Jewish Association with Gentiles and Galatians 2:11–14.” Pages 170–188 in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn. Ed-

Bibliography

309

ited by Robert Tomson Fortna and Beverly Roberts Gaventa. Nashville: Abingdon, 1990. —. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. London: SCM, 1990. —. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE. London: SCM, 1992 —. The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Allen Lane, 1993. Sanders, Jack T. The Jews in Luke-Acts. London: SCM, 1987. Sandt, Hubertus van de. “The Fate of the Gentiles in Joel and Acts 2: An Intertextual Study.” Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 66 (1990): 56–77. Schäfer, Peter. The History of the Jews in Antiquity: The Jews of Palestine from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest. Translated by David Chowcat. Luxembourg: Harwood, 1995. Schalit, Abraham. König Herodes: Der Mann und sein Werk. Studia Judaica 4. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969. Schlatter, Adolf. Geschichte Israels von Alexander dem Großen bis Hadrian. 3d ed. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1925. —. Das Evangelium des Lukas: Aus seinen Quellen erklärt. 2d. ed. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1960. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Galater. 12th ed. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. Schmithals, Walter. Paul and James. Translated by Dorthea M. Barton. Studies in Biblical Theology 46. London: SCM, 1965. —. The Office of Apostle in the Early Church. Translated by John E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon, 1969. —. “Der Markusschluss, die Verklärungsgeschichte und die Aussendung der Zwölf.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 69 (1972): 379–411. Schnabel, Eckhard. Early Christian Mission. 2 vols. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004. —. The Book of Acts. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to St. John. 3 vols. New York: Seabury, 1980. Schneiders, Sandra M. “The Foot Washing (John 13:1–20): An Experiment in Hermeneutics.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 76–92. Schoeps, Hans Joachim. Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961. Scholz, Daniel J. “‘Rise, Peter, Kill and Eat’: Eating Unclean Food and Dining with Unclean People in Acts 10:1–11:18.” Proceedings – Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 22 (2002): 47–61. Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. New American Commentary 37. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003. Schulthess, Friedrich. “Zur Sprache der Evangelien.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 21 (1922): 250–258. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.– A.D. 135). Edited by Géza Vermès and Fergus Millar. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973. Schütz, John Howard. Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 26. London: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Josephus and Philo on Pontius Pilate.” Jerusalem Cathedra 3 (1983): 26–45. —. “The End of the ΓΗ (Acts 1:8): Beginning or End of the Christian Vision?” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986): 669–675.

310

Bibliography

—. Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 23. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990. Schweizer, Eduard. Matthäus und seine Gemeinde. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 71. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974. Schwier, Helmut. Tempel und Tempelzerstörung: Untersuchungen zu den theologischen und ideologischen Faktoren im ersten jüdisch-römischen Krieg (66–74 n. Chr.). Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Scott, J. Julius. “The Cornelius Incident in the Light of Its Jewish Setting.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34 (1991): 475–484. Scott, James M. Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of Paul’s Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 84. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Scramuzza, Vincent Mary. The Emperor Claudius. Harvard Historical Studies 44. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940. Shaw, Brent D. “Tyrants, Bandits and Kings: Personal Power in Josephus.” Journal of Jewish Studies 44 (1993): 176–204. Shelton, James B. Mighty in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. —. Review of Max Turner’s “Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts.” Pneuma 21 (1999): 163–168. Shiner, Whitney. Follow Me!: Disciples in Markan Rhetoric. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 145. Atlanta: Scholars, 1995. Silva, Moisés. Explorations in Exegetical Method: Galatians as a Test Case. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. Simon, Lutz. Petrus und der Lieblingsjünger im Johannesevangelium: Amt und Autorität. Frankfurt: Lang, 1994. Simon, Marcel. Le christianisme antique et son contexte religieux: scripta varia. 2 vols. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 23; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981. Slingerland, H. Dixon. “Suetonius Claudius 25:4 and the Account in Cassius Dio.” Jewish Quarterly Review 79 (1989): 305–322. —. “Suetonius Claudius 25.4, Acts 18, and Paulus Orosius’ Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII: Dating the Claudian Expulsion(s) of Roman Jews.” Jewish Quarterly Review 83 (1992): 127–144. —. Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 160; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Smallwood, E. Mary. “High Priests and Politics in Roman Palestine.” Journal of Theological Studies 13 (1962): 14–34. —. The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 20. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Smiles, Vincent. The Gospel and the Law in Galatia: Paul’s Response to Jewish-Christian Separatism and the Threat of Galatian Apostasy. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1998. Smith, Charles W. “Fishers of Men: Footnotes on a Gospel Figure.” Harvard Theological Review 52 (1959): 187–204. Smith, Dennis E. “Table Fellowship as a Literary Motif in the Gospel of Luke.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 613–638.

Bibliography

311

—. From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Smith, Morton. “Zealots and Sicarii: Their Origins and Relation.” Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971): 1–19. —. “The Troublemakers.” Pages 501–568 in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3: The Early Roman Period. Edited by William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Snyder, Graydon F. “John 13:16 and the Anti-Petrinism of the Johannine Tradition.” Biblical Research 16 (1971): 5–15. Soards, Marion L. The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Squires, John T. The Plan of God in Luke-Acts. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Stein, Robert H. “Relationship of Galatians 2:1–10 and Acts 15:1–35: Two Neglected Arguments.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 17 (1974): 239–242. —. “Is the Transfiguration (Mark 9:2–8) a Misplaced Resurrection-Account?” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 79–96. —. Mark. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. Sterling, Gregory E. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography. Novum Testamentum Supplements 64. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Stern, Menachem. “The Herodian Dynasty and the Province of Judea at the End of the Period of the Second Temple.” Pages 124–179 in The World History of the Jewish People. Vol. 7, The Herodian Period. Edited by Michael Avi-Yonah. London: Allen, 1975. —. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Vol. 2: From Tacitus to Simplicius. Fontes ad res judaicas spectantes; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980. Stibbe, Mark W. G. John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Stott, John R. W. The Message of Acts: The Spirit, the Church and the World. Leicester, Bible Speaks Today. England: InterVarsity Press, 1994. Stoutenburg, Dennis C. “‘Out of My Sight!’, ‘Get Behind Me!’, or ‘Follow After Me!’: There Is No Choice in God’s Kingdom.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36 (1993): 173–178. Strange, James F. and Hershel Shanks. “Has the House Where Jesus Stayed in Capernaum Been Found?” BAR 8, no. 6 (December 1982): 26–37. Strazicich, John. Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel: Appropriation and Resignification in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity. Biblical Interpretation Series 82. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Strobel, August. “Das Aposteldekret als Folge des Antiochenischen Streites.” Pages 81– 104 in Kontinuität und Einheit: Für Franz Mussner. Edited by Paul-Gerhard Müller and Werner Stenger. Freiburg: Herder, 1981. Styler, Geoffrey M. “Argumentum e silentio.” Pages 101–107 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by Ernest Bammel and Charles F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Suhl, Alfred. Paulus und seine Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Chronologie. Studien zum Neuen Testament 11. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975.

312

Bibliography

Sumney, Jerry L. “Paul and Christ-Believing Jews Whom He Opposes.” Pages 57–80 in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts. Edited by Matt Jackson-McCabe. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Tannehill, Robert C. “Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role.” Journal of Religion 57 (1977): 386–405. —. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986–1990. Taylor, Joan E., “The Phenomenon of Early Jewish-Christianity: Reality or Scholarly Invention?” Vigiliae christianae 44 (1990): 313–334. Taylor, Nicholas. Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem: A Study in Relationships and Authority in Earliest Christianity. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 66. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. —. “Apostolic Identity and the Conflicts in Corinth and Galatia.” Pages 99–127 in Paul and His Opponents. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Pauline Studies 2. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Taylor, Vincent. The Passion Narrative of St Luke: A Critical and Historical Investigation. Edited by Owen E. Evans. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 19. London: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Thiede, Carsten Peter. Simon Peter: From Galilee to Rome. Exeter: Paternoster, 1986. Tolbert, Mary Ann. Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Tomson, Peter J. Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature 1. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Torrey, Charles C. “The Name ‘Iscariot’.” Harvard Theological Review 36 (1943): 51– 62. Toussaint, Stanley D. “The Chronological Problem of Galatians 2:1–10.” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 334–340. Treier, Daniel J. “The Fulfillment of Joel 2:28–32: A Multiple-Lens Approach.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997): 13–26. Trites, Allison A. “The Transfiguration of Jesus: The Gospel in Microcosm.” Evangelical Quarterly 51 (1979): 67–79. Turner, David L. Matthew. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. Turner, Max. Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Tyson, Joseph B. “The Gentile Mission and the Authority of Scripture in Acts.” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 619–631. Van Henten, Jan Willem. “Noble Death in Josephus: Just Rhetoric?” Pages 195–218 in Making History: Josephus and Historical Method. Edited by Zuleika Rodgers. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 110. Leiden: Brill, 2007. VanderKam, James C. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Vermès, Géza. Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels. New York: Macmillan, 1973. Verseput, Donald J. “Paul’s Gentile Mission and the Jewish Christian Community: A Study of the Narrative in Galatians 1 and 2.” New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 36– 58. Villalba i Varneda, Pere. The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus. Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums 19. Leiden: Brill, 1986.

Bibliography

313

Viviano, Benedict T. “The High Priest’s Servant’s Ear: Mark 14:47.” Revue biblique 96 (1989): 71–80. Wahlen, Clinton L. “Peter’s Vision and Conflicting Definitions of Purity.” New Testament Studies 51 (2005): 505–518. Wall, Robert W. “Successors to ‘the Twelve’ According to Acts 12:1–17.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991): 628–643. Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Ward, Roy Bowen. “James of Jerusalem.” Restoration Quarterly 16 (1973): 174–190. —. “James of Jerusalem in the First Two Centuries.” ANRW 26.1:779–812. Part 2, Principat 26.1. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992. Watson, Francis B. Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective. Rev. and extended ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Wechsler, Andreas. Geschichtsbild und Apostelstreit: Eine forschungsgeschichtliche und exegetische Studie über den antiochenischen Zwischenfall (Gal 2, 11–14). Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde älteren Kirche 62. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991. Weeden, Theodore J. “Heresy That Necessitated Mark’s Gospel.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 59 (1968): 145– 158. —. Mark – Traditions in Conflict. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Wehr, Lothar. Petrus und Paulus, Kontrahenten und Partner: Die beiden Apostel im Spiegel des Neuen Testaments, der apostolischen Väter und früher Zeugnisse ihrer Verehrung. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 30. Münster: Aschendorff, 1996. Weiser, Alfons. “Die Nachwahl des Mattias (Apg 1,15–26): Zur Rezeption und Deutung urchristlicher Geschichte durch Lukas.” Pages 97–110 in Zur Geschichte des Urchristentums. Edited by Gerhard Dautzenberg and Josef Blank. Quaestiones disputatae 87. Freiburg: Herder, 1979. —. Die Apostelgeschichte. 2 vols. Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament 5. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1981 –1985. Wenham, David. “Acts and the Pauline Corpus II: The Evidence of Parallels.” Pages 215–258 in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke. Vol. 1 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Exeter: Paternoster, 1993. Wenham, Gordon J. “The Theology of Unclean Food.” Evangelical Quarterly 53 (1981): 6–15. Wiarda, Timothy. “Peter as Peter in the Gospel of Mark.” New Testament Studies 45 (1999): 19. —. Peter in the Gospels: Pattern, Personality, and Relationship. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/127. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Wikenhauser, Alfred. Die Apostelgeschichte. 4th ed. Regensburger Neues Testament 5. Regensburg: Pustet, 1961. Wilckens, Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Das Neue Testament Deutsch 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Wilkins, Michael J. The Concept of Disciple in Matthew’s Gospel: As Reflected in the Use of the Term Mαθητής. Novum Testamentum Supplements 59. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Williams, David John. Acts. New International Bible Commentary on the New Testament 5. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1990.

314

Bibliography

Wilson, Stephen G. The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. —. Luke and the Law. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Witherington, Ben. The Christology of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. —. John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. —. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. —. Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. —. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Witherup, Ronald D. “Cornelius Over and Over and Over Again: ‘Functional Redundancy’ in the Acts of the Apostles.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 49 (1993): 45–66. Wojciechowski, Michal. “La source de Jean 13:1–20.” New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 135–141. Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret. Translated by James C. G. Greig. Greenwood, S.C.: Attic, 1971. Zehnle, Richard F. Peter’s Pentecost Discourse: Tradition and Lukan Reinterpretation in Peter’s Speeches of Acts 2 and 3. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 15. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971. Zeitlin, Solomon. “Masada and the Sicarii.” Jewish Quarterly Review 57 (1967): 251– 270. Zetterholm, Magnus. The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity. Routledge Early Church Monographs. London: Routledge, 2003. Zwiep, Arie W. Judas and the Choice of Matthias: A Study on Context and Concern of Acts 1:15–26. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/187. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Zwingli, Ulrich. Huldrych Zwingli: Writings. 2 vols. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 12–13. Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick, 1984.

Index of Ancient Sources A. Hebrew Scriptures and Septuagint Genesis 3 12:1–3 18:18 21:1 22:18 (LXX) 50:24–25

103 n. 91 97–98 98 239 n. 91 93 n. 46, 98 239 n. 91

Exodus 3:16 4:31 12:28 12:43–49 22:19 29:36 32:30 34:22–26 34:29–35

239 n. 90 239 n. 90 258 116, 259 204 273 273 273 44

Leviticus 1:4 2:12–16 4:20 4:26 7:11–14 10:1–5 15:20 16:8 17–18 20:24–26 20:26 23:10–17 23:20

273 273 273 273 273 103 n. 91 117 85 n. 13 241 129 248 n. 123 273 273

Numbers 6:13–17 15:32–36 25:7–13

273 103 197

26:55 35:30

85 n. 13 83 n. 4

Deuteronomy 7:6 17:6–7

273 83 n. 4

Joshua 7:1 (LXX) 7:16–26

103 n. 91 103

2 Samuel 7:7 7:13

75 240 n. 95

2 Kings 10:5 18–20

221 152

1 Chronicles 19.24

221

2 Chronicles 17:12 30:8 29–32

240 n. 95 221 152

Ezra 10:11 10:19

248 n. 123 221

Nehemiah 9:2 10:28 13:3

248 n. 123 248 n. 123 248 n. 123

Esther 8:17 (LXX)

251

316

Index of Ancient Sources

14:17

116

Psalms 2:9 42:9 63:7 69:1–3 69:26 77:3 109:8

75 55 n. 171 55 n. 171 27 85 55 n. 171 85

Isaiah 32:15 42:1 42:4 43:10–12 44:3–5 44:8–9 49:26 56:3 56:3–5 Jeremiah 12:15–16 16:16 Lamentations 5:6 Ezekiel 11:19–20

83 44 44 83 n. 4 83 83 n. 4 91 248 n. 123 113 n. 138 239 22 n. 9 221 83

17:16 29:4 36:25–26 38:4

221 22 n. 9 83 22 n. 9

Daniel 1:8–16 7

116, 121 37

Hosea 3:5

239

Joel 2:28 2:28–32 3:1–5

91–92 83, 92–93 93 n. 46, 94

Amos 4:2 9:11–12 (LXX)

22 n. 9 238–240

Jonah 1:7–8

85 n. 13

Habakkuk 1:14–17

22 n. 9

Zechariah 6:12–13 12:10 13:7

240 n. 95 92 67

B. New Testament Matthew 2:6 3:17 4:1–11 4:18 4:18–20 5:33–37 6:30 7:13–14 7:24–25 7:24–27 8:5–13 8:11–12 8:14 8:29

75 44 38 20, 33 19, 24 62–63 27 248 25 n. 25 34 117 120 n. 171 33 38

9:11 10:2 10:4 11:7 11:19 11:27 12:1–14 14:22–25 14:22–36 14:26–31 14:28 14:28–30 14:30 14:58 15:15

120 n. 171 33 163, 164 164 120 n. 171 34 235 29 78 19, 27–29 33 11, 254 33 34 33

317

Index of Ancient Sources 15:21–28 15:23 16:13–16 16:13–20 16:16 16:16–19 16:16–23 16:17 16:17–19 16:18 16:18–19 16:19 16:21 16:21–23 16:22 17:1–8 17:6 17:8 17:20 17:24–27 18:17 18:24–25 19:28 20:1–16 21:13 21:33–41 22:1–14 23:7 23:8 23:13–26 26:3–5 26:6 26:6–7 26:14–28 26:20–35 26:25 26:26 26:31 26:31–35 26:33–35 26:35 26:36–46 26:40 26:40–41 26:47 26:49 26:51 26:53 26:55 26:56

117 84 31 19, 31–34 31, 35 n. 71 33 n. 64 253 n. 143 32, 40, 52 34 32, 33, 86, 240 26, 33 33 40 19, 39–40 36 n. 78, 53 n. 162 19, 44 44 44 28 30 205 175 n. 113 87 175 n. 113 200 n. 203 175 n. 113 120 n. 171 44 44 235 91 n. 35 126, 262 120 n. 171 175 n. 113 120 n. 172 44 120 51 19, 51 28 65 20, 57 54 n. 169 76 91 n. 35 44 58 59 200 n. 203 59

26:57 26:57–67 26:58 26:59–68 26:69–75 27:3–4 27:12 27:16 27:18 27:20–23 27:25 27:38 28:7–10 28:18–20 Mark 1:1 1:8 1:16 1:16–18 1:17 1:18 1:29–39 1:30 2:1–12 2:13–17 2:15–17 2:23–28 3:4 3:16 3:18 3:23 3:31–35 3:33 4:13 4:16–17 4:40 6:7–13 6:13 7:1–13 7:1–23 7:19 7:24–30 7:24–8:26 7:27 8:17–18 8:27–30 8:27–33 8:29

63 91 n. 35 20, 62–63 63 20, 28, 62–63 65 91 n. 35 160 91 n. 35 91 n. 35 91 n. 35, 105 200 n. 203 74 n. 266 74 n. 266 31 83 20 19, 21–23 21 21 20 20 20 120 n. 171, 200 126, 262 235 31 21, 32 163 31 22, 231 31 31 33 n. 60 31 23 n. 13 55 n. 170 235 116, 121 n. 176, 259 235 117 117 39 84 19, 29–31 29, 38 29

318 8:29–32 8:31 8:31–32 8:31–33 8:32 8:32–33 8:33 8:34–35 9:2–8 9:5 9:6 9:31 9:32 10:28–29 10:28–31 10:33–34 11:17 12:13–17 14:1 14:3 14:10–14 14:12–31

Index of Ancient Sources

15:7 15:27 16:7

11, 254 39 49 19, 36–39 38, 121 55 n. 172, 84 38 48 19, 41–43 43 41 n. 100 40 84 23 22 40 200 n. 203 200 91 n. 35 120 n. 171 91 n. 35 120 n. 171, 120 n. 172 120 19, 25, 49–50 121 11, 254 30, 65, 76, 121 20, 54–57 38 52, 54 n. 169 85 91 n. 35 58 200 59 69, 91 n. 35 20, 61–62, 63, 69 63, 69, 91 n. 35 240 31 11, 20, 61–62, 63, 69, 122, 254 160–162 200 n. 203 23, 74 n. 266

Luke 1:17 1:68

239 n. 91 239 n. 90, 239 n. 91

14:22 14:27–31 14:29 14:29–31 14:31 14:32–42 14:36 14:37 14:37–41 14:43 14:47 14:48 14:50 14:53 14:54 14:55–65 14:58 14:61 14:66–72

1:77 1:78 2:32 2:37 4:8 5:1–11 5:3 5:4–7 5:4–8 5:8 5:11 5:27–32 6:14 6:15 6:20–22 6:48 7:16 7:29 7:34 7:36–39 7:41–43 8:33 9:5–7 9:18–22 9:20 9:28–36 9:31–33a 9:32 9:33 10:30 10:36 11:4 12:9 12:36–37 12:58–59 13:1–2 13:29 14:1 14:7–24 15:2 16:1–6 19:1–9 19:44 19:46 20:1 20:27 22:14–38 22:19 22:30

239 n. 91 239 n. 90 239 n. 91 55 n. 171 123 24–25, 77, 105 20 74 11, 254 24, 63 23 120 n. 171 32 163 34 25 n. 25 238 n. 91 239 n. 91 120 n. 171, 126, 262 120 n. 171 175 n. 113 41 n. 100 126, 262 34, 119 34, 109 19, 44–45 43 41 n. 101 45 200 n. 203 200 n. 203 55 n. 170 67 120 n. 171 179 159 120 n. 171 120 n. 171 120 n. 171 126, 262 175 n. 113 120 n. 171 239 n. 90 200 n. 203 239 n. 91 99 120 n. 172 120 87, 120 n. 171

Index of Ancient Sources 22:31 22:31–32 22:31–34 22:32 22:33 22:34 22:35–38 22:38 22:39–46 22:41 22:49–51 22:52 22:54b–62 22:55–56 22:61 22:62 22:66 23:14 23:19 23:49 24:12 24:19 24:24 24:25–27 24:30 24:34 24:35 24:44 24:47–49

51, 52 n. 156, 67 52, 67 19, 51–53 73, 74, 85 137 52 160 n. 60 58 20, 57 57 58 200 n. 203 20, 63 69 63, 70 65 239 n. 91 165 n. 78 160 62 n. 203, 64 20, 70–71, 73 239 n. 91 73 37 120 n. 171 73 120 n. 171 85 83, 91

John 1:35–42 1:40–42 1:41 1:42 1:44 1:48 4:53 6:8 6:66 6:66–69 6:67 6:68–69 6:71 7:5 10:1 10:8 12:2 12:24–26 12:27

24 n. 21 19, 22 n. 10, 25 20 32 20 164 113 25 34 19, 34–36 35 35, 79 164 231 200 n. 203 200 n. 203 120 n. 171 48 56

13 13–17 13:2–11 13:8 13:13–16 13:26 13:33–38 13:36–38 13:37 14:15–19 14:26 14:31 16:5–15 17 18:2 18:3 18:10 18:10–11 18:11 18:12–13 18:12–14 18:15 18:15–18 18:18 18:19–23 18:19–24 18:25–27 18:26 18:28 18:28–30 18:40 19:6–7 19:12 19:15 19:26–27 20:1 20:2–10 20:4 20:8 20:9 20:19 20:22 20:30–31 21 74, 21:1–11 21:1–13 21:1–23 21:3 21:4

319 48 120 n. 172 19, 46–48, 60 46, 121 46 164 25 19, 53 53 95 90 56 89 56 59 91 n. 35 58 30, 58–60 56 91 n. 35 63 63 20, 63–70 69 91 n. 35 64 20, 63–70 65 115 91 n. 35 160, 200 n. 203 91 n. 35 91 n. 35 91 n. 35 64 71 20, 60, 71–73 71 71 50, 72 n. 256 65 95–96 77 76–77 25 n. 22 78 20, 24 n. 18, 60, 73–78 30, 96 79

320 21:5–7 21:7 21:7b 21:11 21:15–17 21:15–19 21:15–23 21:18 21:21–22 Acts 1–12 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9–11 1:12–16 1:12–26 1:13 1:14 1:15 1:15–26 1:16 1:18 1:20 1:25 2 89–96 2–3 2–5 2:1–6 2:8 2:14 2:14–41 2:17 2:17–21 2:23 2:25–28 2:34–35 2:36 2:37 2:38 2:39 2:41 2:42 2:42–47

Index of Ancient Sources 74 11, 254 30 79 52, 74, 76, 81, 84, 284 82, 122, 255 76 n. 278 76 76 82 82 83 84 84 74 n. 266, 83–84, 91, 93, 109 84 217 232 163 84 85 n. 9, 230 86 n. 14, 87 85 108 85 n. 11 86 120, 124, 284 237 135 124 104 90 n. 34 89 91, 98, 113 85 n. 11, 93 n. 46 91 85 n. 11 85 n. 11 91 91 n. 35 110 93–94, 98, 113 96, 135 120, 222 n. 26 120 n. 173, 121, 126

2:45 2:46 2:47 3–5 3:1 3:1–10 3:3 3:5–6 3:6 3:10–12 3:11 3:12 3:12–26 3:13 3:13–14 3:13–15 3:13–17 3:16 3:17 3:19 3:22–25 3:23 3:25 3:31 4:1 4:1–31 4:3 4:3–20 4:4 4:8 4:8–12 4:10 4:10–11 4:10–12 4:11 4:13 4:14 4:16 4:19–20 4:21 4:26 4:27–28 4:29 4:29–31 4:30 4:31 4:32 4:34

101 98 n. 65, 120 135, 239 n. 91 96–108 99 105 96 99 102 n. 88, 108, 110 113 98 n. 65 97, 108 90 n. 34, 97 n. 65 110 108 97 91 n. 35 102 n. 88, 108, 110 97 108 85 n. 11 239 n. 91 93 n. 46, 97–99, 113 101 135 80 104, 263, 267 263 101, 135 104, 108 90 n. 34 102 n. 88, 104, 108, 110, 239 n. 91 91 n. 35 99 85 n. 11 21, 99 101 135 104 135, 267 99 91 n. 35 99 108 102 n. 88 99, 104 104 102 n. 86

Index of Ancient Sources 4:34–35 4:37 5:1–11 5:2 5:3–9 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:7–11 5:9 5:11 5:12 5:12–16 5:15 5:17 5:17–42 5:18 5:26 5:28 5:29 5:29–32 5:30 5:30–31 5:36 5:41–42 5:42 6:1 6:1–3 6:1–6 6:1–8:3 6:2 6:3 6:5 6:8 6:12 7:17 7:34 7:54–60 7:55 8:1 8:9 8:14 8:14–17 8:14–24 8:17 8:40 9:17

101 103 101, 103 n. 91, 106, 107, 271 103 n. 91, 104, 233 230 102 271 106 107 102 n. 88 103, 263 97 n. 65, 104, 239 n. 91 135 104 135 80 263, 267 135, 267 105 104 64 n. 215, 90 n. 34, 263 91 n. 35 105 107 263 105 2, 238, 278 121 108 108 230, 233 104 104, 108 104 263 239 n. 91 239 n. 91 135 104 263 110 230, 233 133 108–112 95 110 104

9:26 9:26–30 9:29 9:32–35 9:32–43 9:34 9:36–42 10 10–11 10:1–48 10:1–11:18 10:2 10:5 10:7 10:7–8 10:14 10:15 10:18 10:20 10:21–23 10:23 10:28 10:32 10:34 10:34–35 10:34–43 10:39–40 10:41 10:44 10:45 10:46 10:47–48 10:48 11 11:1 11:1–18 11:2 11:2–3 11:3 11:4–17 11:12 11:13 11:15 11:15–18 11:16

321 220 108, 111 220 110 108–112, 140 102 n. 88, 110 110 92, 93, 98, 117, 127 4, 125, 245 n. 110 121–126 113–134, 225, 259 118 52 131 129 121, 131 122 52 122, 127 129 123 119, 122, 123, 245 n. 110, 259 52 122 124 n. 190 64 n. 215, 90 n. 34, 129 91 n. 35 125 95 91, 124, 128, 252 124 129 110, 125, 126, 272 132 135 13, 126–130, 141, 219, 243, 257, 260, 265, 284 127–128, 245, 252, 261, 268 125, 135 272 129 127 52 128 92 127, 128

322 11:17 11:18 11:19–21 11:19–25 11:20–30 11:22 11:24 11:26 11:27–30 12 12:1–2 12:1–3 12:1–17 12:2 12:2–3 12:3 12:12 12:17 13:1–3 13:5 13:9 13:14–43 13:17 13:43 13:50 14:1 14:5 14:8–18 14:19 15

15:1 15:1–4 15:1–14 15:1–29 15:2 15:5 15:5–18 15:7–9 15:7–11

Index of Ancient Sources 128, 132 128–129, 132 136, 261 1 1 244, 262 104 1 n. 1 215, 216 n. 2, 218 234 135 170 135–139, 269 86 263, 267 135, 137, 263, 267 102 n. 86 137–138, 139, 229– 230, 232, 234, 269 1, 270 223 104 223 239 n. 91 223 185 n. 150 223 185 n. 150 105 185 n. 150 1 n. 2, 4, 9, 132, 134, 139, 215–216, 218, 219, 220 n. 18, 230, 233 n. 71, 234, 237–238, 242, 247 n. 120, 253 n. 140, 257, 260, 263, 271, 277 127–128, 228, 237, 251 n. 134 257 257 215, 217, 235, 237– 243 162 n. 67, 238 6, 228, 235, 240, 251 n. 134, 260 257 238 4, 130, 139, 219,

15:7–12 15:9 15:10 15:11 15:13–21 15:14 15:16 15:16–18 15:17 15:19 15:19–21 15:20 15:21 15:22 15:23 15:24 15:25 15:28–29 15:30 15:35–36 15:37–41 15:40 16:1–18:10 16:4–6 16:14–15 16:25 16:25–34 17:2–4 17:4 17:5 17:5–8 17:10–12 17:17 18:2 18:4 18:7–11 18:8 18:18 18:22 18:22–23 19:1–7 19:8 19:28–41 19:40 20:21 20:28 21 21:8–10 21:12

230, 237, 239, 260 219 127, 219, 241 273 218 238, 239, 243 239 239–240 238 239 230, 233, 240 4, 240 238 242 4 233, 243 227 233 247 n. 120 217 217 217 277 217 243 121 55 n. 171 121 223 223 99 n. 74 185 n. 150 223 223 186, 223 223 121 223 218 218 n. 13 277 223 223 185 n. 150 161 223 76 233 n. 71 111 281

323

Index of Ancient Sources 21:17–20 21:18–20 21:18–26 21:19–20 21:20 21:21 21:23–26 21:26 22:3 22:21 23:7–11 23:8 23:12 23:12–13 23:14 23:21 24:5 24:14

277, 278 280 4 281 163 224, 278 273 225, 226 163 93 161 99 62 n. 205 160 62 n. 205 62 n. 205 1 n. 1, 161 1 n. 1

Romans 3:20 3:27–28 3:30 4:9 4:12 12–16 14:1–3 15:1 15:8 15:14–21 15:20 15:26 15:27 15:31

272 272 252 252 252 283 14, 275 n. 192 14, 275 n. 192 252 280 n. 204 277 280 281 281

1 Corinthians 1:12 1:18–25 3:22 6:13b–20 7:20 9:5 9:20–22 10:14–33 10:16–17 10:22–24 10:28–29 11:17–34 11:20 11:20–30

279 37 279 243 226, 278 20, 223, 232 14, 275 n. 192 243 120 n. 172 243 243 245 245 n. 111 121 n. 173

11:23–24 12–14 14:12 15:5 15:5–6 15:5–7 15:5–8 15:7 16:1–4

120 n. 172 283 163 73, 229 229 n. 52 234 232 229 n. 52 280 n. 204

2 Corinthians 6:14 8:1–15 8:4 9:1–5

222 280 222 280

Galatians 1:1–2:14 1:6–7 1:11–21 1:13 1:14 1:17 1:18 1:18–19 1:19 1:21 1:22 2:1 2:1–10

2:2 2:3 2:3–4 2:4 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:7–9 2:9

n. 26 n. 204 n. 26 n. 204

276 224, 259, 279 34 258 163 216 108, 111, 216–217, 218 n. 14, 219 230 n. 57, 234 139, 228 217 n. 7 268 216, 217 n. 7, 218 n. 14 5, 7 n. 26, 9, 215– 219, 223, 230, 235, 236–237, 237 n. 82, 238, 256, 257, 260, 262, 263, 280 133 251 238, 251 n. 134 6, 220–221, 228, 235, 236, 249, 258 238 220 130, 133, 220 50, 130, 138, 238, 252, 272 3, 7, 9, 11 n. 47, 12, 18, 50, 220, 225, 226, 228, 230 n. 57, 232, 242,

324

Index of Ancient Sources

2:21 3:2 3:2–12 3:5 5:11 5:12 6:12

254 n. 144, 255, 256–257, 258, 260, 276, 280 280 n. 204 218, 231, 244, 257 1, 2, 4–5, 6–15, 16, 19, 82, 83, 133, 134, 215, 218, 219, 224, 226, 228 n. 51, 231, 235, 236, 237, 244–251, 253, 254, 255, 256 n. 150, 260, 261, 284 6–7, 13, 128 n. 205, 133, 197 n. 185, 225, 226, 227, 228, 236, 243, 244, 245 n. 111, 252, 270 226 248, 252, 260, 271, 272, 277 7 n. 26, 130 n. 216, 218, 228, 246, 249, 256, 258 n. 155 276 15 14, 17–18, 215, 275 n. 192 283 272, 274, 281, 282– 283 1 272 283 272 263 228 258 n. 155, 263

Ephesians 1–6 2:11

283 252

Philippians 1:5 2

222 n. 26 283

2:10 2:11 2:11–14

2:12

2:12–13 2:13 2:14 2:14–21 2:15 2:15–21 2:15–6:8 2:16

Colossians 3–4 3:11 4:11

283 252 252

1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 4:3–8

263, 270 243

Titus 1:10 2:14

252 163

Hebrews 5:7 5:7–8 9:8 13:16

57 56 162 n. 67 222 n. 26

1 Peter 2:13–25 2:24 2:25 3:13 4:3 5:1–4 5:2 5:4 5:8

48 64 n. 215 76 163 119 n. 160 108 76 76 77

2 Peter 1:1–18 1:14 1:16–18 3:17

43 76 n. 279 42 248

1 John 1:9 3:3 3:6 3:7

47 n. 131 222 n. 26 222 n. 26 222 n. 26

325

Index of Ancient Sources

C. Apocrypha and Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Assumption of Moses 6:2–6 148 n. 20 2 Baruch 42:5

248 n. 123

1 Enoch 25:3

240 n. 90

Joseph and Aseneth 8:5 116

11:62 11:66 13:50

221 221 221

2 Maccabees 7:1 10:34 11:26 13:22 14:19

118 n. 160 118 n. 160 221 221 221

Psalms of Solomon 17:30 240 n. 95

Jubilees 1:17–29 2:31 6:12–13 15:26–34 16:17–18 19:18–19 21:23–24 22:16

273 273 273 273 273 273 273 248 n. 123, 273

Judith 12:19

114

Letter of Aristeas 128–143 151–152

116 249 n. 123

1 Maccabees 6:58 11:50

221 221

Sibylline Oracles 5:414–433

240 n. 95

Sirach 11:26 16:14 17:12 8:19 35:18–19 36:11

273 273 273 92 273 273

Testament of Levi 16:55

239 n. 90

Tobit 1:10–13 1:11 1:12

121 114 116

D. New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Gospel of the Hebrews Fragment 7 229

Gospel of Thomas 12 229

E. Josephus Antiquitates judaicae 1.2–4 143 n. 5 1.4 143 n. 4 3.320 176 4.219 71 n. 253 8.56 143 n. 4 14.3 143 n. 4

14.28 14.105 14.159 14:160 14.167 14.413–460

143 n. 4 157 148, 159, 206 n. 230 148 148 148

326 14.416 14.420–430 14.431–491 15.295 15.300–302 15.305–315 15.315–316 15.365 16.162–165 17.15 17.151–155 17.157 17.159 17.176–179 17.206 17.206–218 17.212 17.214 17.214–216 17.250 17.250–298 17.251 17.253 17.254 17.264 17.271 17.271–272 17.285 17.291 17.295 17.297 17.299–320 17.300 17.301 17.304 18.1–7 18.1–10 18.2–3 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.7 18.8 18.9 18.10 18.16–17 18.23 18.23–24 18.23–25

Index of Ancient Sources 149 149 149 149 176 178 178 148 182 150 148 150, 153 150 148 n. 20 192 192 203 203 192 203 192 203 203 192 157 203 151, 206 n. 230 152, 195 n. 173 199 n. 195 203 203 192 153, 192 192 192 202 n. 211 192, 202 n. 212 192 169, 192 154, 173, 193, 203, 207 n. 233 154 160, 202 154, 180 n. 131 154 154 99 n. 76 154 n. 41, 203, 206 154 192

18.30 18.31 18.32–33 18.34–35 18.55 18.55–59 18.57 18.59 18.60 18.60–62 18.62 18.81–84 18.85 18.85–88 18.85–89 18.86 18.88 18.90–95 18.118 18.121 18.121–124 18.123 18.124 18.252 18.257–309 18.258 18.261–309 18.263 18.264 18.267 18.270 18.271 18.272 18.274 18.284 18.302 18.326 19.279–291 19.285 19.290 19.291–299 19.300–311 19.309–310 19.328–330 19.328–331 19.330 19.331 19.356 19.356–359 19.362–363

155 155 155 155 119 n. 162 156, 193 193 156 157 n. 50, 158 157, 193 158, 202 185 193 193 163 193 193, 202 n. 216 166 202 n. 216 193 193 166, 193 166 n. 85, 193 202 n. 216 167, 193 167 n. 89 168 n. 96 167, 194 167 167 168 n. 93, 194 167 167 167, 194 193 202 n. 216 221 182 182 169, 182 169 169 169 179 169 169 169 187 n. 157 187 n. 157 171

Index of Ancient Sources 20.1 20.2–3 20.4 20.5 20.6–14 20.7 20.8 20.10 20.12 20.15–16 20.30 20.44–45 20.47 20.51 20.53 20.97–98 20.97–99 20.100–104 20.102 20.105 20.105–112 20.107 20.108 20.109 20.111 20.112 20.113 20.113–117 20.114 20.116 20.117 20.118 20.118–136 20.119 20.120 20.121 20.121–122 20.123 20.124 20.129 20.133 20.135 20.157 20.159 20.161 20.164 20.172 20.187 20.208

145 173, 199 n. 195 202 174, 199 n. 195, 202 174, 194 194, 201 194 194 194 174 202 273 202 176 178 107 174 175 180 202 194, 208 187 n. 155 194 187, 202 194 187 n. 156, 202 194, 199 n. 195 187, 194 187 194 201 188 194, 199 n. 195 188, 194 173, 188, 194 188 199 n. 195 194 188, 189 201, 203 201 202 143 n. 4 188 n. 162 202 n. 213 148 199 n. 195 198 n. 195 148

Bellum judaicum 1.1 1.1–3 1.4–5 1.10 1.13–15 1.16 1.22 1.30 1.84 1.204 1.205 1.303 1.304 1.304–313 1.314–357 1.635 1.650 1.659 1.660 2.1–13 2.3 2.4 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.10–13 2.11 2.12 2.39 2.39–79 2.40 2.43 2.45 2.56 2.57 2.65 2.71 2.73 2.75 2.80 2.80–92 2.81 2.111 2.117–118 2.118 2.125 2.131 2.135

327 143 n. 5 143 n. 5 145 n. 13 202 n. 214 143 n. 5 143 n. 4 143 n. 5 143 118 n. 160 148, 206 n. 230 148 n. 23 149 148 148 149 244 118 n. 160 118 n. 160 148 n. 20 192 151 192, 205 192, 203 192, 203 203 192 203 151 203 192 192 192 192 151, 153 n. 38, 203, 206 n. 230 203 151 199 n. 195 153 n. 36, 203 152 192, 203 153 192 154 192 193, 203 202 118 n. 160 244

328 2.164–166 2.169–174 2.172 2.175–177 2.184–203 2.192 2.193 2.196 2.197 2.198 2.199 2.201 2.223–227 2.224 2.224–227 2.225 2.226 2.227 2.228 2.228–231 2.230 2.232–246 2.234–235 2.235 2.239 2.253 2.254 2.256–257 2.260 2.264 2.264–265 2.265 2.267 2.269 2.388–389 2.409 2.427 2.433 2.433–441 2.444 2.447 2.449 2.454 2.462–463 2.463 2.489–498 2.525 2.581

Index of Ancient Sources 99 n. 76 156, 193 193 157, 193 167, 168 n. 96, 193 193 193, 194 193 167 167 193, 194 193 194 201 208 194 187 187 n. 156 194, 199 n. 195, 202 187, 194 187, 194 194, 199 n. 195 199 n. 195 174, 188 n. 162, 202 n. 213 189 201, 202 202 160 202 210 n. 244 199 n. 195 199 n. 194 202 202 145 n. 13 204 175, 199 n. 194 154, 207 n. 231 207 20 207 n. 232 145 n. 11 251 118 n. 158 251 181 145 n. 11 195 n. 173

3.108 3.142–144 3.193–202 3.340 3.345–408 3.436–437 4.99 4.205 4.397 4.414 5.28–29 5.53 5.265 5.424–444 5.541–542 6.81 6.209 6.329 7.45 7.154 7.253 7.254 7.323–325 7.327 7.410 7.412 7.418 7.438 7.455

145 144 144 144 144 144 118 118 145 199 145 145 145 145 144 219 118 147 118 244 207 199 204 244 204 199 204 199 143

n. 13 n. 8 n. 8 n. 8

Contra Apion 1.3 1.6 1.24 1.42 1.45 1.46 1.47 1.47–56 1.54 1.214 1.217 2.119 2.282 2.287 2.296

143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 118 118 143 143

n. 4 n. 4 n. 4 n. 4 n. 5 n. 4 n. 4 n. 5 n. 4 n. 4 n. 4 n. 160 n. 158 n. 4 n. 4

Vita 26 40

118 n. 160 143 n. 4, 144 n. 7

n. 8 n. 160 n. 160 n. 11 n. 194 n. 11 n. 11 n. 11 n. 11 n. 8 n. 18 n. 160 n. 158 n. 195

n. 194 n. 194 n. 4

329

Index of Ancient Sources 41 66 71 77–78 105 206 210 244 336–337

143 198 167 195 199 195 195 195 143

n. 5 n. 194

339 342 344 357–358 357–360 361 362–366 385 422–423

n. 173 n. 195 n. 173 n. 173 n. 173 n. 4

143 143 143 143 144 143 143 143 14

n. 4 n. 5 n. 5 n. 5 n. 7 n. 4 n. 5 n. 4

F. Philo De vita contemplativa 57 120 n. 167 64 120 n. 167 Legatio ad Gaium 230–232 166 n. 84 299–305 15 n. 64, 158–159, 193 300 193 301 159, 193

209 210 229–233 248–253 257

168 168 168 168 168

Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat 8:25 75 18 100

G. Dead Sea Scrolls 1QH 6.26–27 7.8–9

1QS 5.3 6.7–8 6.16

34 34

85 n. 13 55 n. 171 85 n. 13

H. Mishnah, Talmud, Targums m. Ketubbot 7:10

110

b. Giṭṭin 56a

32

m. ’Ohalot 18:7

115

b. Pesaḥim 65a

110

m. Šeqalim 4.2

157

b. Qiddušin 82b

110

m. Soṭah 9:9a

188 n. 163

t. Parah 3:8

b. Sanhedrin 94a 99a 104a

152 152 115

59 b. Sukkah 52a

37 n. 81

b. Berakot 10a

32

330

Index of Ancient Sources

y. Soṭah 24c

152

Targum Zechariah 6.12–13 240 n. 95 9.10 37 n. 81

Targum Isaiah 53.5

240 n. 95

I. Early Christian Literature 1 Clement 63.2 Didache 16.4

Jerome 118 n. 160 De viris illustribus 5 185 118 n. 160 John Malalas

Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 2.1.2–5 229 2.14.6 185 2.23.1–19 231 n. 63 3.39.14 23 Hippolytus

Chronographia 10.247

269

Paulus Orosius Historiarum Adversum Paganos 7.6.9 175 n. 17 7.6.15 186

Refutatio omnium haeresium 9.26.2 197 n. 186

J. Greco-Roman Literature Dio Cassius Historia Romana 59.4.4 60.3.5–5.1 60.6.6 66.4–5

Galen 167 n. 89 182 182, 184 199 n. 195

Justinian Digesta 12.4.5.4

Dio Chrysostom De tumultu 1–14

De alimentorum facultatibus 6.749 176

200

Philostratus 177 Vita Apollonii 1.15 1.23

Epictetus Diatribai 2.9.20 2.14.28

248 219 n. 19

3.7.1

219 n. 19

177 n. 120 177 n. 120

Plutarch Cicero 7.5

252

331

Index of Ancient Sources Crassus 559 Demetrius 912 Numa 13

Pompeius 40

Suetonius 247 n. 122

Divus Claudius 25.4

184

Vespasianus 4.3

177

159 n. 58

219 n. 18

219 n. 18

Polybius Historiae 1.16.10 6.40.14 7.17.1 10.32.3 11.21.2

167

247 n. 122

Quaestionum convivialum libri IX 612D 120 Theseus 30

Gaius Caligula 22

Tacitus Annales 2.42 12.23 12.49 12.54 Historiae 5.5 5.9

247 247 247 247 247

n. 122 n. 122 n. 122 n. 122 n. 122

155, 205 n. 227 152 n. 30 152 n. 30 169, 188 n. 164 115 n. 145 15 n. 64, 166–167, 168 n. 93

Xenophon Anabasis 2.328

221

Index of Authors Aberbach, M. 187, 188 Aberbach. D. 187, 188, 189 Abogunrin, S. O. 23, 24 Achtemeier, P. J. 9, 165, 257, 276 Adler, N. 89 Ådna, J. 238, 239, 240 Allen, L. C. 91 Allison, D. C. 28, 32, 34, 39, 44, 49, 56, 68, 80 Alon, G. 115, 118 Alvarez Cineira, D. 184 Applebaum, S. 152, 154, 175, 195, 206 Archer, L. J. 101 Auerbach, E. 66 Bammel, C. P. 73 Barclay, J. M. G. 15 Barnett, P. W. 12, 87, 136, 190, 264 Barrett, C. K. 7, 9, 87, 88, 93, 95, 96, 99, 100, 102, 104, 112, 117, 120, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 137, 139, 216, 230, 244, 254, 255 Bauckham, R. 8, 9, 23, 30, 43, 116, 117, 118, 138, 219, 232, 238, 240, 241, 246, 248, 251, 255, 274 Baumbach, G. 196 Baur, F. C. 2–5, 14 Bayer, H. F. 31, 39 Beardslee, W. A. 85 Beare, F. W. 62 Beasley-Murray, G. R. 34, 35, 47, 48, 60, 67, 69, 74, 77 Becker, J. 8, 9–10, 11, 235, 253, 256, 261, 283 Ben Zeev, M. P. 170 Best, E. 71 Betz, H. D. 7, 10, 221, 222, 223, 246, 248, 249, 250, 253, 255, 261, 264, 275, 284 Bilde, P. 145, 159, 168

Black, M. 160 Blaine, B. B. 26, 46, 47, 49, 53, 59, 64, 71, 75, 76, 79 Blinzler, J. 160 Blomberg, C. L. 25, 32, 48, 60, 70, 120 Bock, D. L. 24, 45, 54, 82, 88, 91, 98, 99, 102, 103, 104, 111, 121, 123, 124, 127, 128, 132, 137, 161, 163, 200 Bockmuehl, M. 6, 8, 13, 20, 26, 114, 117, 180, 182, 242, 255, 264, 269, 270 Boismard, M. E. 48 Bond, H. K. 156, 157, 158, 159 Bonnard, P. 38, 245, 247, 275, 280 Boomershine, T. E. 55, 61 Borg, M. J. 163, 196 Boring, M. E. 22 Bornkamm, G. 7, 14, 227, 245, 275 Borrell, A. 53, 62 Böttger, P. C. 8, 11, 249, 256 Böttrich, C. 21, 65, 78, 102, 136, 227, 255 Bovon, F. 77, 134 Brandon, S. G. F. 141, 156, 157, 159, 160, 164, 165, 168, 172, 195, 198, 199, 206, 208 Brawley, R. L. 51, 123 Brighton, M. A. 197 Brodie, T. L. 61 Bronson, D. B. 263 Brown, R. E. 2, 7, 24, 25, 32, 37, 39, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54–55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 64, 68, 69, 72, 74, 76, 77, 82, 160, 161, 201, 242, 258 Brown, S. 103 Bruce, F. F. 12, 16, 87, 91, 92, 96, 100, 102, 103, 107, 118, 124, 127, 136, 163, 216, 222, 223, 228, 231, 245, 246, 251, 261, 264, 276, 284 Brug, J. F. 85

Index of Authors Brunt, P. A. 175 Bultmann, R. K. 31, 43, 46, 48, 56, 67, 71, 72 Burton, E. 8, 245, 252, 256 Calvin, J. 32, 49 Capper, B. 101–102 Caragounis, C. C. 32 Carson, D. A. 12, 26, 32, 35, 36, 48, 66, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 95, 264, 284 Carter, W. 22–23 Catchpole, D. R. 9, 221, 255, 257, 258, 276 Chance, J. B. 93 Charlesworth, J. H. 30 Chilton, B. 9, 240, 258 Clark, A. C. 87 Cohen, S. J. D. 143, 144, 195, 199 Collins, M. F. 163 Colson, F. H. 158 Conzelmann, H. 9, 14, 106, 112, 130, 131, 275 Corbo, V. C. 20 Cranfield, C. E. B. 26, 36, 56 Crenshaw, J. L. 92 Cullmann, O. 10, 30, 32, 107, 137, 138, 164, 165, 195, 196, 253, 261 Culpepper, R. A. 71 Cummins, S. A. 13, 245, 264, 284 Cunningham, S. 137 Daniel, C. 164, 165, 196, 205 Daube, D. 59 Dauer, A. 14, 275 Davies, W. D. 28, 32, 34, 39, 44, 49, 56, 68, 80 Denova, R. I. 94 Derrett, J. D. M. 22, 26, 54, 101, 102 Dewey, K. E. 66 Dibelius, M. 52, 56, 67, 68, 88, 105, 130, 132, 137, 237, 239, 245 Dix, G. 11, 14, 252, 262, 275 Dodd, C. H. 72, 87 Donaldson, T. L. 208, 210 Donfried, K. P. 7, 24, 32, 51, 64, 242, 258 Douglas, M. 119 Downey, G. 256 Doyle, A. D. 159

333

Driver, G. R. 196, 197 Droge, A. J. 26 Dschulnigg, P. 23, 49, 53, 55, 72, 99, 102, 109, 224 Dunn, J. D. G. 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 56, 57, 73, 82, 86, 88, 89–90, 95, 96, 102, 106, 110, 111, 112, 118, 121, 128, 131, 134, 136, 138, 139, 183, 185, 216, 217, 218, 219, 225, 227, 230, 232, 234, 236, 239, 245, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 255, 261, 265, 275, 276, 281 Dupont, J. 83, 92, 218 Ebeling, G. 10, 225, 253, 255, 283 Eckert, J. 6, 11, 13, 255, 265, 276 Edwards, J. R. 43, 57 Eisenman, R. 197 Eisler, R. 165 Ellis, E. E. 83, 128, 252–253 Elmer, I. J. 216, 231, 237, 246, 257, 258, 276 Esler, P. F. 7, 113, 115, 116, 126, 127, 132, 133, 221, 256, 258, 259, 260, 277 Estrada, N. P. 85, 87 Evans, C. A. 31, 36, 39, 41, 56, 69, 87, 161, 200 Farmer, W. R. 148, 152, 168, 187, 232 Feret, H. M. 5 Finley, T. J. 92 Fischer, D. H. 16 Fitzmyer, J. A. 26, 51, 52, 56, 65, 69, 77, 96, 100, 104, 107, 120, 123, 124, 132, 138, 227, 237 Foakes-Jackson, F. J. 163, 196 Fornara, C. W. 237 France, R. T. 27, 32, 40, 41, 42, 49–50, 57, 58, 62, 65, 78, 164, 200 Fredriksen, P. 114 Freyne, S. 145, 148, 152, 153, 172 Fugila, J. B. 41 Fuks, G. 150, 159 Fung, R. Y. K. 12, 216, 226, 246, 250, 251, 253, 261, 264, 284 Gaechter, P. 10, 14, 86, 275 Garnsey, P. 176, 177, 178 Gaventa, B. R. 101, 126, 132

334

Index of Authors

Gee, D. H. 74 Gnilka, J. 6, 8, 33, 41, 51, 57, 59, 61, 62, 255, 260 Goguel, M. 68 Goodblatt, D. M. 154 Goodenough, E. R. 150 Goodman, M. 13, 144, 175, 179, 182, 190 Gould, E. P. 161 Grappe, C. 102, 136 Green, G. L. 42 Green, J. B. 41, 45, 51, 55 Grelot, P. 31 Grundmann, W. 64 Grünewald, T. 199–200, 201, 210 Guelich, R. A. 22, 26 Gundry, R. H. 22, 32, 38, 42, 43, 49, 50, 55, 56, 57, 58, 160, 161 Haacker, K. 131 Haaland, G. 154, 190 Haas, O. 222 Haenchen, E. 38, 48, 64, 67, 68, 70, 77, 88, 94, 96, 97, 107, 109, 120, 129, 130, 131, 132, 138, 139, 237, 238, 239, 241 Hagner, D. A. 28, 32, 33, 34, 39, 43, 44, 54, 63, 164 Hamidovic, D. 102 Hamm, D. 108 Hann, R. R. 231 Hansen, G. W. 12 Hanson, J. S. 141, 180, 196, 197, 208– 210, 265–266 Harnack, A. von 229 Hartenstein, J. 47, 79 Haya-Prats, G. 90 Heil, C. 245, 248 Heil, J. P. 45, 121, 126 Hemer, C. 15, 106, 107, 217 Hendrickx, H. 62 Hengel, M. 110, 112, 131, 135, 136, 138, 141, 144, 145, 148–149, 150, 151–152, 153, 154, 156, 158, 160, 162–163, 166, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 180, 188, 195–196, 197–207, 208, 210, 214, 216, 218, 220, 223, 230, 238, 242, 264, 266, 275 Herron, R. W. 67

Hill, C. C. 5, 8, 13, 114, 242, 243, 255, 264, 265, 277 Hill, D. 84 Hobsbawm, E. J. 209–210 Hofius, O. 245 Holmberg, B. 5, 14, 222, 231, 257, 275, 276, 280 Holtz, T. 9, 218, 250, 255, 258, 276 Horsley, R. A. 141, 152, 180, 196, 197, 208–210, 265–266 Horst, P. W. van der 104 Howard, G. 10–11, 246, 257, 258, 259, 275 Hvalvik, R. 234 Ilan, Ṭ. 101 Instone-Brewer, D. 204 Jackson-McCabe, M. 2–3, 82 Jaubert, A. 86 Jensen, M. H. 172 Jeremias, J. 100 Jervell, J. 87, 98, 122, 123 Jervis, L. A. 114, 235, 245 Jewett, R. 12, 16, 185, 216, 217, 218, 245, 263 Johnson, E. 94 Johnson, L. T. 127–128 Johnson, S. L. 41 Jones, C. P. 177 Joubert, S. 281 Joüon, P. 49 Juster, J. 157 Kaiser, W. C. 92, 93 Kalimi, I. 163 Karrer, M. 15, 275 Keener, C. S. 21, 24, 27, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37, 39, 44, 46, 62, 66, 69, 74, 75 Kelber, W. H. 55 Kennard, J. S. 153 Kieffer, R. 5 Kingsbury, J. D. 23, 30, 36 Klassen, W. 165 Klawans, J. 118 Klein, G. 50, 51, 65, 67, 68, 230 Klijn, A. F. J. 2 Knox, J. 216, 217 Kohler, K. 152 Köstenberger, A. J. 47, 75, 96, 160

Index of Authors Kraeling, C. H. 156 Kraus, T. J. 100 Kreißig, H. 153, 165, 175 Kremer, J. 90 Krieger, K. 15 Lagrange, M. 11, 261, 275 Lake, K. 163, 196 Lampe, G. W. H. 62, 90 Lampe, P. 26 Lane, W. L. 22, 38, 62, 163 Lapham, F. 53 Laqueur, R. 144 Le Cornu, H. 111, 114, 125, 126 Lee, S. S. 42 Lémonon, J. 158, 159 Levinskaya, I. 118, 185 Liefeld, W. L. 41, 44 Lietzmann, H. 6, 9, 14, 257, 275 Lightley, J. W. 169, 195 Linnemann, E. 68 Loftus, F. 148 Longenecker, R. N. 12, 16, 83, 216, 217, 221, 222, 226, 236, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 264, 276, 283, 284 Lönning, I. 131 Lövestam, E. 55, 77 Lüdemann, G. 5, 7, 88, 94, 105, 106, 112, 131, 139, 185, 216, 218, 223, 225, 230, 236, 258 Luther, M. 32, 253, 258 Luz, U. 29, 32, 33, 58, 62, 69, 78, 79, 200 Macgregor, G. H. C. 46 Mack, B. L. 50 Madden, P. J. 78 Maier, P. L. 157, 159 Mánek, J. 24 Marcus, J. 21, 30, 36, 37, 38, 42, 49, 56, 57, 62, 69, 160, 161, 163, 164, 200 Marguerat, D. 103, 107 Marshall, C. D. 22 Marshall, I. H. 43, 44, 45, 78, 93, 98, 127, 161, 164, 165, 245 Marshall, J. 177, 179 Martyn, J. L. 216, 223, 252, 255, 260 Mason, S. 146 Matera, F. J. 40, 51

335

Matson, D. L. 121, 126, 127, 128 Maynard, A. H. 71 McCurley, F. R. 43 McGing, B. C. 160 McHugh, J. 14, 275 McKay, K. L. 75 McKnight, S. 7, 228, 258, 261 McLaren, J. S. 143–144, 145, 146, 154, 157, 158, 191 McLean, J. A. 84 McVann, M. 58 Meek, J. A. 93, 98 Méhat, A. 218 Meier, J. P. 10, 14, 23, 25, 28, 29, 33, 39, 50, 52, 53, 60, 69, 71, 77, 260, 275, 276 Mendels, D. 142, 158, 166, 171, 172, 174, 197, 210, 212–213 Menoud, P. H. 86, 107, 120 Menzies, R. P. 90 Merkel, H. 62 Metzger, B. M. 104 Meyer, R. 152 Mézange, C. 164, 166, 172, 212 Michie, D. 30, 66–67 Miller, C. A. 111, 122 Minnerath, R. 33, 75, 76, 128, 242 Mitchell, A. C. 121 Mittelstaedt, A. 15 Mittelstadt, M. W. 96 Momigliano, A. 181–182, 183, 184, 185, 185, 190 Moore, T. S. 83 Morris, L. 32, 33, 47, 59, 70, 77, 92, 164, 253, 261 Munck, J. 4–5, 218, 222 Murphy-O’Connor, J. 217, 225, 263 Mussner, F. 11, 14, 33, 222, 247, 254, 255, 275, 276 Nanos, M. D. 216, 246, 247, 250, 251, 261, 268, 275, 280 Nau, A. J. 19 Neusner, J. 115, 120, 206 Nikiprowetzky, V. 196, 214 Nolland, J. 41, 43, 44, 45, 51, 63, 66, 164, 200 Oepke, A. 6, 227 Osborne, G. R. 71, 73, 74, 75 O’Toole, R. F. 103, 108

336

Index of Authors

Painter, J. 8, 15, 223, 225, 228–230, 231, 233, 256, 261, 275, 277 Paltiel, E. 153, 180 Pao, David W. 83, 84, 86, 92, 93, 98, 109, 113, 119 Parente, F. 153–154, 174, 203 Parsons, M. C. 65 Pastor, J. 176, 178 Peerbolte, L. J. 223 Penner, J. A. 41, 42 Perkins, P. 21, 31, 38, 65, 67, 132, 137, 140, 253, 264, 284 Perrin, N. 55 Pervo, R. I. 83, 88, 90, 94, 96, 102, 103, 112, 237, 238 Pesch, R. 8, 10, 20, 26, 31, 32, 33, 39, 52, 58, 62, 77, 86, 92, 104, 109, 130, 131, 134, 223, 232, 245, 255, 257 Peterson, D. 84, 85, 87, 96, 98, 100, 102, 107, 110, 111, 122, 123, 125, 128, 129, 137 Phillips, T. E. 132, 133, 219 Popkes, E. E. 247 Pratscher, W. 218, 229 Price, J. 147, 152, 166, 175, 180, 196, 197, 207–208, 210 Purvis, J. D. 163 Quast, K. 19 Rajak, T. 15, 144, 145, 159 Rapoport-Albert, A. 15 Rappaport, U. 145, 172, 187 Rastoin, M. 51 Regodón, J. N. 5, 8, 246, 255 Rehkopf, F. 51 Reicke, B. 14, 218, 265 Reinbold, W. 223 Reinhartz, A. 71 Rengstorf, K. H. 83, 86, 88 Reumann, J. H. P. 7, 24, 32, 51, 64, 242, 258 Rhoads, D. 30, 66–67, 142, 153, 161, 163–164, 166, 171, 188, 196–197, 206, 207, 210–211, 212 Riesner, R. 21, 136, 175, 182, 183, 185, 186, 217, 218, 270 Robinson, D. W. B. 247 Rodgers, Z. 15

Roloff, J. 88, 94, 121, 122, 130, 131, 136 Roth, C. 197 Rudman, D. 22 Saller, R. P. 176 Sanders, E. P. 5, 7, 11, 28, 114, 115, 116, 261, 272 Sanders, J. T. 91 Sandt, H. van de 92 Schäfer, P. 181, 191, 206 Schalit, A. 150 Schlatter, A. 51, 65, 198 Schlier, H. 6, 11, 216, 222, 225, 227, 245, 250, 261 Schmithals, W. 7, 14, 43, 223, 234, 252, 255, 275 Schnabel, E. 7, 15, 20, 21, 22, 24, 82, 83, 84, 86, 92, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101–102, 107, 109, 110, 111, 118, 119, 124, 127, 129, 134, 136, 137, 139, 184, 185, 216, 222, 223, 224, 228, 235, 236, 275, 281 Schnackenburg, R. 25, 74, 78 Schneiders, S. M. 46 Schoeps, H. J. 6, 258 Scholz, D. J. 117 Schreiner, T. R. 42 Schulthess, F. 164 Schürer, E. 191, 196, 197, 199, 206 Schütz, J. H. 257 Schwartz, D. R. 83, 136, 158, 168, 169, 183, 185 Schweizer, E. 23 Schwemer, A. M. 135, 136, 138, 216, 218, 220, 230 Schwier, H. 158 Scott, J. J. 122 Scott, J. M. 222 Scramuzza, V. M. 184, 185 Shanks, H. 20–21 Shaw, B. D. 201 Shelton, J. B. 89, 90 Shiner, W. 36 Shulam, J. 111, 114, 125, 126 Silva, M. 216 Simon, L. 74 Simon, M. 2 Slingerland, H. D. 182, 185

Index of Authors Smallwood, E. M. 155, 156, 157, 159, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 190 Smiles, V. 11, 220, 246, 253, 254, 255 Smith, C. W. 24 Smith, D. E. 120 Smith, M. 142, 154, 174, 180, 196, 197, 203, 206 Snyder, G. F. 46 Soards, M. L. 87 Squires, J. T. 97 Stein, R. H. 39, 43, 54, 55, 56, 58, 62, 161, 216 Stern, M. 185, 190 Stibbe, M. W. G. 64 Stott, J. R. W. 88, 91 Stoutenburg, D. C. 37–38 Strange, J. F. 20–21 Strazicich, J. 92 Sterling, G. E. 15 Strobel, A. 7, 226, 242, 258 Styler, G. M. 165 Suhl, A. 218 Sumney, J. L. 224 Tannehill, R. C. 30, 85, 92, 104, 106, 108, 109, 113, 122, 129, 130 Taylor, J. E. 2 Taylor, N. 5, 9, 11, 14, 216, 220, 224, 254, 260, 262, 275, 276 Taylor, V. 51 Thiede, C. P. 12, 21, 33, 73, 74, 76, 109, 123, 127, 136, 138, 243, 255, 256 Tolbert, M. A. 32–33, 67 Tomson, P. J. 114 Torrey, C. C. 164 Toussaint, S. D. 221 Treier, D. J. 92 Trites, A. A. 42 Turner, D. L. 32, 42 Turner, M. 87, 90, 124, 133 Tyson, J. B. 122 Van Henten, J. W. 168

337

VanderKam, J. C. 151, 155, 157, 166, 169, 176 Vermès, G. 30, 37 Verseput, D. J. 226 Villalba i Varneda, P. 15, 143 Viviano, B. T. 59 Wahlen, C. L. 114, 127 Wall, R. W. 138 Wanamaker, C. A. 269 Ward, R. B. 230, 231, 235 Watson, F. B. 9, 11, 237, 245, 256, 258, 261, 276 Wechsler, A. 5, 11, 215, 261 Weeden, T. J. 43, 55 Wehr, L. 7, 225, 230, 258, 260, 277 Weiser, A. 86, 95, 106, 107, 111, 122, 130, 134 Wenham, D. 216 Wenham, G. J. 116 Wiarda, T. 29, 30, 36, 42, 53, 56, 59, 61, 62, 72, 74, 79, 80 Wikenhauser, A. 87 Wilckens, U. 53 Wilkins, M. J. 21, 28, 32 Williams, D. J. 86, 103 Wilson, S. G. 94, 113, 114, 118, 127, 130 Witherington, B. 12–13, 14, 16, 60, 87, 88, 95, 96, 98, 100, 102, 103, 110, 111, 112, 118, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 128, 138, 160, 161, 163, 195, 216, 217, 219, 222, 235, 237, 238, 239, 240, 243, 245, 246, 247, 248, 251, 257, 261, 264, 275, 283, 284 Witherup, R. D. 121, 128 Wojciechowski, M. 48 Wrede, W. 38 Zehnle, R. F. 93, 106 Zeitlin, S. 196 Zetterholm, M. 8, 255 Zwiep, A. W. 86 Zwingli, U. 32

Index of Subjects Antioch incident 4–15, 17, 133, 141– 143, 215–275, 284–286 – results of 14–15, 18, 275–283, 286 Antipater 148 Archelaus 141, 142, 151, 153, 155, 192, 205 Augustus 153, 155, 156, 159, 182–183, 190, 266 Barabbas 160–163, 165, 200 Barnabas 1, 3, 11, 14, 103–104, 130, 136, 161, 162 n. 67, 217–218, 221– 227, 236, 238, 240, 241, 244, 248, 256, 257, 259, 262, 268 n. 182, 270, 275– 277, 280 Caligula 136, 155, 172, 183, 184, 266 Chronology 4–5, 185–186, 215–219, 271–272 Circumcision 1, 4, 8, 10–11, 12, 17, 93, 116, 124–125, 127–128, 132–133, 134, 140, 219, 220–221, 224–225, 226, 228, 236, 237–238, 240, 242, 243, 244, 247, 250, 251, 253–260, 262, 263, 271, 272, 273–274, 278, 281, 284–285 Claudius 142, 169–170, 171, 174, 189– 190 – and the Jews in Alexandria 182–183, 266, 269, 285 – and the Jews in Rome 183–186, 192 n. 170, 195, 213–214, 267, 269, 285 Cornelius 17, 52, 64 n. 215, 91 n. 35, 93–94, 98, 113–134, 135, 139 n. 261, 140, 220 n. 18, 236, 237 n. 81, 240, 245, 250, 252 n. 138, 253–255, 256, 257, 259, 260, 261, 263, 267– 268, 272, 274 Cumanus, Ventidius 12 n. 54, 17, 143, 147, 172 n. 107, 186–189, 191, 194, 199, 201, 202 n. 213, 208, 209, 213,

217, 264 n. 175, 267, 269, 270, 271, 285 Essenes 101 n. 85, 120 n. 169, 154 n. 40, 197 n. 185, 202 n. 211 Eucharist 9, 116, 120 n. 173, 126, 245– 246, 258, 259 Fadus, Cuspius 107, 171–172, 173–175, 185 n. 150, 190, 194, 195, 201, 207, 213, 217, 271 Famine in Judea, 18, 175–181, 186, 190, 209, 213, 215, 218, 266, 269, 271, 285 Food–laws 11 n. 50, 114–116, 118 –119, 121 –124, 125, 128–129, 131–132, 133, 240 –241, 242–243, 246–247, 250, 258 n. 155, 259 Gentiles and the Law 273–274 God–fearers 8, 118, 119 n. 163, 122– 123 125, 126, 223, 240, 242, 274 Herod Agrippa I 13, 17, 86, 135, 136, 138, 139, 142, 155, 167, 169–170, 171 –172, 173, 174, 175, 179, 183, 186, 189, 190, 191, 192, 198–199, 201, 203, 204 –205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 212, 213, 217, 263, 265, 266– 267, 268, 269, 270, 285 Herod the Great 136, 141, 143, 147– 150, 151, 153, 159, 169, 177–178, 179, 195, 205, 209, 211 James, son of Zebedee 25, 41, 43, 54, 58, 85, 86–87, 135, 137, 138, 139, 169, 263, 267 James, the brother of Jesus 88, 114, 137, 138, 139, 143, 215, 220–222, 225, 264, 276, 277–279, 280, 281 – and his message to Peter 1, 2–4, 6– 13, 17, 133, 141–142, 226, 227–228,

Index of Subjects 235, 247, 250, 252, 254, 255–261, 262, 266, 268–269, 270–271 – and his position in the church 139, 228–235, 261 – and his views regarding Gentiles 222, 225, 235–243, 262 Jerusalem agreement 5, 7–10, 11 n. 47, 12, 220–227, 254 n. 144, 255–257, 260, 285 Jerusalem council 4, 13, 132, 215–219, 227–228, 230, 233, 237, 239, 241, 242–244, 256, 260, 262, 265, 271, 277 Jews associating with Gentiles 113–119, 122–130, 134, 267–269, 270–271 Jewish War 37 n. 81, 142–143, 145, 147, 154, 158, 202 n. 214, 209, 263 n. 174, 265, 267 John, the apostle 3, 21, 25, 41, 43, 55, 56, 58, 85, 96–105, 109–111, 112, 133, 220–222, 225, 229, 233, 258, 262 John the Baptist 25, 39, 164 Josephus, as a historian 15, 17, 143–147 Judaize/Judaizers 130, 224, 226, 251 n. 135, 258 n. 156, 259, 260, 272, 280, 281–283, 286 Judas Iscariot 44 n. 113, 46, 59, 65, 69, 80, 85–87, 88, 89, 103 n. 91, 164, 232 Judas the Galilean 17, 105, 107, 142, 150, 151–156, 158, 159, 160–161, 164–167, 170, 171, 172–173, 174, 180, 188, 189, 190–193, 195–197, 198–201, 203–208, 211, 212, 213– 214 – and his family 175, 180–181, 198, 203 n. 220, 206–207, 211, 270, 286 Justus of Tiberius 143 n. 5, 144, 146 Maccabean revolt 66, 150, 152, 168, 209 Malalas 269–271, 285 Nero 181 Paul 1–6, 10, 12, 14–15, 16, 17–18, 34, 37, 68, 83, 95, 105, 108, 111, 121, 130, 132–133, 134, 139, 160–161, 186

339

– as an apostle to the Gentiles 133, 221–227, 231, 236–237, 238, 280– 281 – and his Galatian opponents 3–4, 12, 259, 263, 272, 278, 279, 281 – and the collection for Jerusalem 281 – and the Jerusalem decree 240, 242– 243, 271–272 Persecution 1, 2, 11, 13, 17, 89, 108– 109, 111, 135–137, 138, 169–170, 184–185, 220, 254, 255, 259, 262– 275, 282, 285–286 Peter – as a disciple of Jesus 21–25, 35, 38, 49–50, 67, 71–72, 73–74, 90 – as a leader of the church 50, 74–77, 84, 101, 103, 109–110, 138, 230, 232–235, 261–262 – as an apostle to the Jews 220–227 – and Gentiles 111, 117–119, 122– 130, 133, 219, 220–227, 245–275, 282–283 – and his background 20–21 – and his character 26, 27, 29, 32–33, 35, 36, 37, 39–40, 41–42, 45–47, 48, 54, 56, 58–59, 60, 64–66, 70, 71, 73, 78–81, 82, 84, 89, 91, 96, 99, 101, 107–108, 112, 121, 134, 136–137, 139, 253–255, 261, 281–282, 284– 285 – and his name 25–27, 32–33, 51–52, 61, 86 – and his position among the Twelve 30–31, 36, 41, 49, 58, 85–86, 97 n. 67, 104, 232–235 – and his reasons for ceasing to eat with Gentiles at Antioch 10–14, 16, 141, 227, 248–249, 252–275, 284– 285 – and his vision at Joppa 17, 93, 117, 121–122, 126, 127–128, 129 n. 210, 253 – and James 50, 137–138, 139, 141– 142, 220–222, 227–243, 271 – and Paul 133, 219–227 – and his preaching 90–101, 105–106, 107–108 – and Rome 185–186 Petronius, Publius 167–169, 170, 174, 178, 209

340

Index of Subjects

Pharisees 115, 120 n. 169, 154, 161, 165, 200, 205, 206, 212, 235 Pilate, Pontius 15 n. 64, 105, 156–167, 168, 170, 192, 193, 198, 201, 202 n. 215, 205, 207, 209, 210, 213 n. 260 Proselytes 92, 125 n. 194, 140, 240 Sadducees 59, 99, 104, 106, 135, 138, 148, 154 n. 40, 161, 165 Sicarii 158, 160, 164, 195–197, 199, 211

269, 270, 271, 275, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286 Theudas 105, 107, 174–175, 186, 266, 270, 271, 285 Tiberius155, 156, 158–159, 163, 166, 183 n. 140, 184, 185, 190, 193 n. 17 Tiberius Alexander 12 n. 54, 175–181, 190, 203 n. 220, 206, 207, 209, 217, 264 n. 175, 266 Vitellius, Lucius 163, 166, 193

Table fellowship 1, 3, 5, 6–7, 9, 10–14, 17, 18, 82, 114–117, 119–121, 124, 126, 127, 128, 130, 132, 134, 135, 140, 141, 228, 235, 236, 241, 244, 246, 253, 255, 257, 258, 259, 260, 262, 263, 264, 265–266, 267–268,

War of Varus 150–153, 192, 203 Zealots 12, 14, 32, 142, 144, 147, 150, 156, 158, 160, 162–164, 165, 168, 180, 188, 195–197, 198–207, 210– 212, 263–266 Index of Subjects Index of Authors