The End of Acts 28 and the Fate of the Historical Apostle Paul

Home , Acts 28, Gnaeus (praenomen), Joseph Fitzmyer, Ostiense, The Gospel of Afranius

A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Theology Acadia Divinity College, Wolfville Nova Scotia

In (Partial) Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the degree Master of Arts

Rev. Karl L. Armstrong B.Comm., Saint Mary’s University, 1997 M.Div., Acadia Divinity College, 2006

April 2013

This thesis by KARL L. ARMSTRONG was defended successfully in an oral examination on 9 April 2013.

The examining committee for the thesis was:

______Dr. Robert Wilson, Chair

______Dr. Stanley Porter, External Examiner

______Dr. Allison Trites, Internal Examiner

______Dr. Craig Evans, Supervisor & MA Director

This thesis is accepted in its present form by Acadia Divinity College, the Faculty of Theology of Acadia University, as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Theology).

I, KARL L. ARMSTRONG, hereby grant permission to the University

Librarian at Acadia University to provide copies of my thesis, upon request, on a non-profit basis.

Karl L. Armstrong

Author

Dr. Craig Evans

Supervisor

9 April 2013

Date

iii

Acknowledgements

There are several individuals I would like to thank who helped me with this research project. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Craig Evans for his guidance this year along with his valuable insights and recommendations that I have incorporated along the way. Surely, some of his scholarly zeal has impacted my own approach to New Testament studies. I am also thankful for Dr. Robert Wilson for his own inspiring love of history but especially for the level of professionalism that he brought to my defence. Furthermore, I am grateful for my external examiner, Dr. Stanley Porter, whose superior editing skills and scholarly insights have greatly improved the quality of my thesis. Similarly, I am indebted to my internal examiner, Dr. Allison Trites, whose scholarly advice has further reinforced my research. I am also grateful for the regular encouragement I received from Dr. Jeremiah J. Johnston and Dr. Carol Anne Janzen who encouraged me throughout a tough academic year in so many ways (1 Thess. 5:11). Also,

I would like to extend a special thanks to Dr. Troy Troftgruben from the University of

North Dakota who was kind enough to send me a free copy of his book that was essential to my research. Many of his thoughtful insights are found throughout this study. I would also like to recognize the support of my friends: Officer Cadet Hugh Pineault, David

Myers, Jake Chitouras and Dr. David Watt – thanks for all your timely help and encouragement along the way. I am also grateful for the support of my father Leslie, mother Sally, and my mother-in-law Laura for their support of my academic pursuits. For my wife Beth, thanks for your hard work this year which allowed me to pursue another academic year – but especially your love and support during my defence. Most importantly, I am grateful to God for his incredible wisdom and strength He gave me

iv throughout this year. Finally, I commend this simple work in honour of the Apostle Paul and his beloved friend Dr. Luke the historian, who stayed with him to the end (2 Tim.

4:11).

Abstract

The purpose of this study will be to investigate the end of Acts 28 and the fate of the historical Apostle Paul. The primary reason for this study is due to the famous historical ambiguity associated with Paul’s fate following Acts 28. Initially, this thesis examines the widespread ambiguity and assumptions concerning Paul’s fate that exist among both modern and ancient writers. Accordingly, the various theological and literary explanations advanced by these scholars are examined in light of Acts and the significant historical events that shaped Christian, Jewish and Roman history.

Consequently, this study proposes that Luke was completely unaware of Paul’s death at the time of his writing Luke-Acts. This proposition is supported both internally by examining the language of Acts in the context of Rome, and externally by investigating the epic events that occurred in A.D. 64 and beyond. Furthermore, this study also proposes that Paul’s situation at the end of Acts is not a literary fabrication, but an authentic historical account that reflects the contemporary legal and business language of Rome in Paul’s day. Simultaneously, while addressing the critical issue of chronology, this study further proposes that Luke-Acts was written no later than A.D. 64. Finally, the historic tradition of Paul’s trial, martyrdom, and burial in Rome is summarily discussed and affirmed.

Table of Contents

Introduction: “What Happened to Paul?” 1

Primary Review of Contemporary Scholarship 3

Conclusions and Implications 21

Chapter I: The Rome of St. Paul in his day:

What’s going on in Rome? 24

The Greco-Roman Context 27

Historical Origins of Rome 30

Legendary Origins of Rome 33

The Rome of St. Paul in his day 36

Nero and ‘the Great Fire of Rome’ 38

Nero: ‘Son of a Monster’ 40

The Historical Jewish and Christian Presence in Rome 44

Christian ‘Origins’ in Rome 48

The Rome of St. Paul in his day –

Preliminary Observations 54

Chapter II: Critical Analysis of Acts in Light of Paul’s Roman

Imprisonment – The Facts of Acts 57

External Authorship of Luke-Acts 57

Internal Authorship of Luke-Acts 60

The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts 61

Comparative Exegesis of Luke’s Double Incipit:

vii

Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-3 63

Re: Dating of Luke-Acts: Early, Intermediate, or Late? 71

Concluding Observations and Implications 81

Chapter III: The Trial of St. Paul – Introduction 83

Paul’s Journey to Jerusalem 85

Paul’s Arrest by Tribune Lysias in Jerusalem 89

Paul’s First Defence: before the Mob 93

Paul the Roman Citizen 96

Paul’s Defence before the Sanhedrin 100

Paul’s Defence before Governor Felix 103

Paul’s Defence before Festus 107

Paul’s Defence before King Agrippa 110

The Trial of St. Paul the Roman Citizen –

Concluding Observations 113

Chapter IV: Critical-Historical Exegesis of Acts 28 114

A) Analysis of the Broad Context

(Acts 27:1-Acts 28:10) 115

B) Pericope Summary and Analysis of the Immediate

Context (Acts 28:11-31) 118

C) Critical Exegesis of Key Passages:

(Acts 28:16, 23, 30–31) 126

D) Concluding Observations and Implications 132

Chapter V: The Martyrdom of St. Paul 135

viii

Conclusion: The End of Acts 28 and the Fate of the

Historical Apostle Paul: Concluding Observations 140

Concluding Implications for New Testament Scholarship 150

Bibliography 153

Introduction: “What Happened to Paul?”

During the late 1980’s, “Unsolved Mysteries” was a popular TV show hosted by

Robert Stack. The show depicted various unexplained events, crimes and missing persons

– and the inexplicable events surrounding their unknown fate. Certainly, from an historical perspective, the end of Acts 28 and the events surrounding the fate of the Apostle Paul would have qualified for this show. Few people in world history have made a greater impact on religion and culture than Paul of Tarsus − and yet the details of his later life and martyrdom appear to be shrouded in mystery. Although historians are confident regarding many aspects of his life, what happened to Paul after his imprisonment in Rome in the early 60’s A.D. is a subject of great debate and speculation.1

Broadly speaking, as scholars address the details surrounding Paul’s fate and the end of Acts, obvious questions begin to surface: What were the circumstances for Paul regarding his initial trial and house arrest in Rome?2 What happened after his trial – was he released and if so where did he go next? Was he successful in venturing to Spain as he indicated in his previous letter to the Romans (Rom. 15:24) or did he simply revisit the established churches scattered across the eastern Roman Empire? Finally, what were the circumstances and events surrounding his final incarceration and martyrdom “outside the walls” of ancient Rome?

After exploring a survey of scholarly views (both ancient and modern) regarding this matter, the differences in views and assumptions become self-evident. Typically, the

1 Troy M. Troftgruben, A Conclusion Unhindered: A Study of the Ending of Acts within its Literary Environment (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 165, 182. See also comments by Lindsey P. Pherigo, “Paul’s Life After the Close of Acts,” JBL 70 (1951): 277. 2 Lee Martin McDonald, “Introduction to Acts,” in The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Acts- Philemon, ed. Craig A. Evans (Colorado Springs: Victor, 2004). McDonald asks similar penetrating questions such as this: “How could Luke focus so much attention on Paul and fail to tell the rest of the story?” 1 scholarly insights are very brief, especially when it comes to biblical commentaries.3

Furthermore, some of the latest commentaries, such as The New Interpreter’s Bible published in 2010, not only fails to address Paul’s fate at the close of Acts – there is simply no reference to this issue at all.4 Additionally, a great many books that are dedicated to Paul’s life, amazingly, offer paltry details for hungry students of history.

While some writers will present an assortment of views allowing the readers to draw their own conclusions, others are quite dramatic and sometimes make sweeping assumptions regarding Paul’s fate – oftentimes with little or no research to substantiate their conclusions.5 Among some scholars, it becomes obvious that a ‘hyper-critical’ scholarship might be affecting their conclusions.6 Still others, albeit with noble intentions, attempt to explain the events purely from a theological perspective, without fully considering the necessary questions that critical scholars and historians have asked for centuries.

Thankfully, there are some scholars who have taken great pains to study a combination of the available literary and archaeological background, “...drawing only such conclusions as seem to be warranted by it.”7 Therefore, the following scholarly views presented in this

3 For example see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles. 1953 (rev. ed; The Daily Study Bible Series; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), 192-193; David J. Williams, Acts (New International Biblical Commentary; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 17, 448–49, 454–55. However, modern writers are not entirely at fault as John Chrysostom bemoans in his commentary about A.D. 400: “But of [Paul’s] affairs after the two years [Acts 28:30] what shall we say? [Luke] leaves the hearer athirst for more; other authors (oἱ ἔxw) do the same thing, for to know everything makes the reader dull and jaded.” See Troftgruben, 22. Similarly, Pervo cites the same comments from Chrysostom: Cf. also Richard I. Pervo, Acts (Hermeneia A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 688. 4 Joel B. Green, Acts (The New Interpreter’s Bible: One Volume Commentary; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010), 766-7. 5 Cf. Robert Jewett, A Chronology of Paul’s Life (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 45, 102. 6 For example, consider the sweeping hypercriticism of Gerd Lüdemann who calls Luke a “ ... cunning propagandist with a theological bias.” Gerd Lüdemann, The Acts of the Apostles: What Really Happened in the Earliest Days of the Church (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2005), 349. C.A. Evans refers to this kind of “hypercriticism” that is “...all too common in scholarly circles and sometimes seems to arise from confusing criticism with skepticism – that is, thinking that the more skeptical the position, the more critical it is. Radical skepticism is no more critical than is credulity.” Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVaristy Press, 2006), 21. 7 Pherigo, 277–84, quotation from p. 277.

2 literature review will provide an introductory framework for addressing the question – what happened to Paul after Acts 28?

Primary Review of Contemporary Scholarship

Even though great gains have been made regarding the historical value of the book of Acts since the work of J.B. Lightfoot and Sir William M. Ramsay,8 there remains a need for further study – especially when it comes to the ending of Acts 28. For example,

David J. Williams in a popular commentary series, provides a positive spiritual emphasis in his introduction:

Acts ends at 28:31, but the story of Jesus goes on wherever his Spirit finds

men and women ready to believe, to obey, to give, to suffer, and if need be, to

die for him.9

Although this is encouraging for those reflecting on the theological meaning of the passage, students of history are still asking a plethora of probing questions that stem from the basic one – what happened to Paul?10

Regarding the last chapter of Acts, Williams describes some general details about

Paul’s “house arrest” and his bold preaching, but very little is said beyond this. Further, there seems to be only a small reference to the meaning behind key phrases such as ἐν ἰδίῳ

μισθώματι.11 For other scholars such as D.L. Mealand in his excellent study on “The Close of Acts and its Hellenistic Greek Vocabulary,” it is clear there is much we can discover

8 W. Ward Gasque, “The Historical Value of Acts,” Tyndale Bulletin 40 (1989): 136–57, here 136–37. Although dated, Gasque’s assessment of the state of the question is masterful. 9 David Williams, Acts, 17. 10 C.K. Barrett simply states: “The question that these verses pose (Acts 28:30-31) is why Luke stops where he does. What happened at the end of the ‘two years’ (v. 30)?” C.K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: Volume II (The International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 1248. 11 Acts 28:30 “. . . in his own rented house” (MOUNCE).

3 about Paul’s situation in Rome simply by studying Luke’s vocabulary and Sitz im Leben.12

However, the deficit regarding Paul’s further mission and martyrdom leaves the reader in wonder.

William Barclay also provides relatively few details concerning the end of Acts.

However, he does provide the reader with some helpful details regarding Paul’s co- workers being with him at Rome “in his own hired house.”13 He observes Paul’s industrious nature as he earned his keep while in prison, at the same time writing the

Prison Epistles as well.14 He also refers to Paul being “among the whole Praetorian

Guard” ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ (Phil. 1:13), suggesting that this elite and influential guard was well aware of the apostle and his chains.15 Additionally, he echoes Williams when it comes to the theological meaning of Luke’s ending while reflecting upon a word that most commentaries do rightly highlight: ἀκωλύτως meaning “...without let or hindrance.”

However, his probing question below is as helpful as it is speculative: “We wonder why

Luke never told us what happened to Paul, whether he was executed or released. The reason is that this was not Luke’s purpose” (my emphasis).16

Finally, using Acts 1:8 as a reference, he goes on to explain how the gospel has reached Rome: “the story... has finished in Rome ... and is being freely proclaimed-and

Luke’s task is at an end.”17 Although this may be a satisfying interpretation from a theological perspective, however, the basic question remains: what happened to Paul?

Searching for a more satisfying explanation for the ending of Acts 28, Richard

12 D.L. Mealand, “The Close of Acts and its Hellenistic Greek Vocabulary,” New Testament Studies 36 (1990): 583–97. 13 Barclay, 192. 14 Barclay’s list includes Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon. 15 Ibid.,193. 16 Ibid., 193. 17 Ibid., 193. For a discussion on this pervasive and speculative interpretation refer to Johannes Munck, The Acts of the Apostles (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1967), 54. Cf. also Troftgruben, 25.

Longenecker attempts to fill in some gaps. Regarding Acts 28:16, he supplies more background on Paul’s initial contact with Rome. He provides details such as how Paul likely had a chain tied to his wrists and how this is the last of the famous “we” sections in

Acts.18 Longenecker goes on to describe the greetings found at the end of Col. 4:10–18 and Phlm. 23–24 proposing how Luke and Aristarchus in particular were likely to have remained with Paul during his initial house arrest.19 Then beginning with Luke’s “terse” reference to Paul’s two-year house arrest, he unpacks a more compelling scholarly discussion regarding Paul’s fate. He describes how some propose the possibility of Paul’s execution after the two-year period, while others argue that Paul’s case never stood trial

“...because the prosecutors failed to appear within the statutory eighteen-month period....”20 Since the two years go beyond the eighteen-month period, some argue that

Luke’s readers would have expected Paul’s release.21 H.J. Cadbury’s words are perhaps a little gloomy; nevertheless they are worth repeating here: “...the extraordinary darkness which comes over us as students of history when rather abruptly this guide leaves us with

Paul a prisoner in Rome.”22

Since the time of Cadbury’s assessment, there has been over five decades of research – and yet the enigma remains.23 Agreeing with Longenecker, we are truly

“...forced to look elsewhere for information about Paul’s imprisonment and its

18 Acts 28:20 “For this reason, therefore, I have asked to see you and speak with you, since it is because of the hope of Israel that I wear this chain” [(MOUNCE); emphasis in original]. 19 Richard N. Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 9; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 568. 20 Ibid., 572. 21 Ibid., 572. 22 Cadbury, The Book of Acts in History (London: Black, 1955), 3. Richard Pervo shares a similar sentiment as discussed below: Pervo, Acts, 688. 23 Referring to the close of Acts in this way is almost fashionable: “The book of acts ends rather enigmatically...” I.e. Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts (Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2008), 365.

5 aftermath.”24 Consequently, he argues for Paul’s release somewhere around A.D. 63 that led to further missionary efforts across the Eastern Roman Empire, with a possible visit to

Spain — citing Rom. 15:23–24 and 1 Clement 5. He also factors in Paul’s “tone of resignation” in 2 Tim. 4:6–18 as a clue to the outcome of his second trial while considering his re-arrest about A.D. 67, and “according to tradition, [being] beheaded at

Rome by order of the emperor Nero.”25 Longenecker then provides us with a brief discussion on Luke’s use of ἀκωλύτως, while promoting the victorious theological purpose of Luke’s ending — as the previous writers have as well. Lastly, of great significance, he astutely observes the “tolerance of Rome” thus far towards Christianity and the gospel.26

F.F. Bruce has written cogently and considerably providing extensive research regarding the ending of Acts.27 For example, in his commentary, he refers to Sir William

Ramsay’s (and Theodor Mommsen’s) earlier work28 that the “stratopedarch,” found in the western Greek text, “. . . was the commander of the corps, the princeps peregrinorum, whose headquarters were on the Caelian Hill, where these officers-couriers resided when they were in Rome.”29 He then cites Ramsay describing the status of Paul’s initial stay in

24 Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 572. 25 Ibid., 572. 26 Ibid., 573. 27 Among his books and commentaries the following article is worthy of mention: F.F. Bruce, “St. Paul in Rome: 5. Concluding Observations,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Manchester 50 (1968): 262–79. 28 W.M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905), 347–48. Ramsay refers to Mommsen’s learned note in Berlin Akad. Sitzungsber. (1895): 501. See Ramsay, St. Paul, 315. Ramsay is referring—to state the bibliographical data somewhat more fully and accurately— to Adolf von Harnack and Theodor Mommsen, “Zu Apostelgesch. 28,16 (Stratopedάrχης = Princeps peregrinorum),” in Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie (1895): 491–503, here p. 501. 29 F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 528–29. See also his updated version in F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (revised; The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 503–4. For a recent discussion on the western text refer to Witherington (and also Peterson) who suspect the ‘stratopedarch’ in the western text of Acts 28:16 just might be the Praetorian Prefect Afranius Burrus. Cf. Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998),

Rome:

Paul was treated in Rome with utmost leniency. He was allowed to hire a house or

lodging in the city, and live there at his own convenience under the surveillance of

a soldier who was responsible for his presence when required. A light chain

fastened Paul’s wrist to that of the soldier. No hindrance was offered to his inviting

friends into his house, or to his preaching to all who came in to him; but he was

not allowed to go out freely.30

Bruce also elaborates upon the translation of the phrase ἐν ἰδίῳ μισθώματι31 that can mean either “in his own hired dwelling” or “at his own expense” and yet thinks the end result

“...makes little practical difference.”32 However, after a more recent and thorough grammatical study of the Greek at the end of Acts, scholars such as D.L. Mealand would challenge this view.33

Concerning the “two-year” stay for Paul in Acts 28:30, Bruce recognizes there is much to discover. Based upon Ramsay’s earlier work, and with similar reasoning as

Longenecker, he proposes that Paul was likely released due to a failed prosecution within the statutory period. By implication, he also wisely infers that the Roman authorities were well aware of Paul’s presence and preaching during that time, as “...they put no obstacle in his way.”34 A safe, initial deduction would lead one to explore the changes in Roman

788 and David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 708. 30 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 349. 31 Acts 28:30 “...in his own rented house” (MOUNCE). 32 Bruce, The Book of Acts, 534; idem, The Book of Acts (revised), 509–10. 33 Mealand, 583–97. 34 Bruce, The Book of Acts, 535 and Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 573 share a similar view with his comments concerning the “tolerance of Rome.”

7 public policy towards Christians in Rome near the time of Paul’s stay.35

As far as the details after Paul’s release, Bruce offers observations by contrasting those who are convinced Paul was not released;36 such as J.V. Bartlett who assumed that

Luke’s failure to mention Paul’s execution was not necessary because for Luke’s readers the consequences of prosecution under Nero were obvious.37 Admittedly, one wonders why Luke, who was both a close friend of Paul (Col. 4:14; Phlm. 1:24; 2 Tim. 4:11) and careful writer (Luke 1:3), who also wrote extensively regarding Jesus’ death (Luke 23:33 ff.), would fail to record Paul’s fate at this time thus reducing Bartlett’s proposition to conjecture at best.38

Finally, Bruce refers to Paul’s traditional date of execution under Nero following the great fire of Rome in A.D. 64.39 He then quotes Eusebius, the early church historian, as a way of explaining the time gap40 between the end of Paul’s two-year stay in Rome

(A.D. 61) and his death in A.D. 64:

... after defending himself the apostle was sent again on his ministry of

preaching, and coming a second time to the same city [Rome], suffered

35 Along with the apparent friendliness that existed between Rome and Paul (versus Jewish opposition) in Acts seems to suggest an earlier period of freedom before the persecution under Nero (predating the great fire of Rome in A.D. 64). 36 Jewett, A Chronology of Paul’s Life, 45, 102. 37 Ibid., 535. Bruce refers to J.V. Bartlett, “Two New Testament Problems. I. St. Paul’s Fate at Rome,” Expositor VIII/5 (1913): 464–67. Bartlett writes in response to W.M. Ramsay, “The Imprisonment and Supposed Trial of Paul,” Expositor VIII/5 (1913): 264–84. 38 Regarding the outcome of Paul’s trial Johannes Munck categorically states: “It is a reasonable assumption that this question is not answered because it could not be answered” (my emphasis). After weighing the various explanations for the abrupt ending of Acts he reasons that “It is therefore unlikely that he (Luke) would have deliberately avoided an account of Paul’s death.” See Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, 53-54. 39 Bruce, The Book of Acts, 535. 40 G. W. Trompf, “On Why Luke Declined to Recount the Death of Paul: Acts 27-28 and Beyond,” in Luke Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar, ed. Charles H. Talbert (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 233. Here Trompf describes Paul’s stay for two whole years of Acts 28:30a Ἐνέμεινεν δὲ διετίαν ὅλην in Rome as “...an ominous indication that he was allowed two years of freedom before something more taxing... and that the time between his potentially exonerative trial (ca. A.D. 62) and any volte face which brought about his death (in ca. A.D. 63) was rather less than some have alleged” (my emphasis). See also his note 40 on page 239 regarding his choice of chronology.

martyrdom under Nero (Ecclesiastical History ii. 22).41

Recently, Lee Martin McDonald raises several thought provoking questions — considerably more than many of the scholars thus far. He begins with a detailed discussion on Roman law and how it was not as clear-cut as one would like as it varied from one period to another, especially with regard to a particular Emperor in question. For instance, according to Dio Cassius, the Emperor Claudius was one such example, where because of a heavy number of lawsuits, he would dismiss them after a single day.42 On the other hand, slightly later Emperor Trajan was unbending in the case of a certain Bassus concerning the “...two years in which he could have asked for a retrial....”43 Lastly, even though the two-year waiting period became statutory by the sixth century, McDonald cites

Theodosius in A.D. 385 and 409 as taking these legal trials so seriously, that any accusers who failed to proceed “within a two-year period will be punished!”44 Therefore, it seems prudent to complete a focussed survey of Roman law before drawing any conclusions regarding Paul’s trial and two-year house arrest (Acts 28:30).

Regarding Paul’s trial, McDonald, while assuming an initial favourable hearing, asks what happened to Paul after the two years and “...why does Luke not say anything about it?”45 He goes on to question the way Acts ends and why we do not hear anything

41 Bruce, The Book of Acts, 535. Concurrently, Witherington also refers to the testimony of Eusebius that supports the view that Paul was martyred on his second visit to Rome – after being released the first time. Witherington refers to the piercing testimony of Eusebius: “Paul’s martyrdom was not accomplished during the sojourn in Rome which Luke describes (Hist. Eccl. 2.22.1-7)” (my emphasis). Further, Witherington declares: “If we take all this together, it seems much more probable than not that Paul did not die in Rome in A.D. 62, but rather, after the fire and after Nero gave up the virtue of clemency.” Ben Witherington III, New Testament History: A Narrative Account (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 324. Cf. Chapter 2 and especially the subsection: “Nero and the Great Fire of Rome” for a comprehensive discussion of this subject. 42 McDonald, 190–91. 43 Ibid, 191. 44 Ibid, 191. 45 Ibid.

9 further regarding Paul’s trial and imprisonment.46 He also wonders why we do not hear anything further regarding the Christians at Rome to whom Paul wrote his “longest and most carefully crafted letter.”47 McDonald also presents various theories as to why Acts ends the way it does including some common suggestions that Luke may have died,48 or for other reasons was never able to finish writing it, or that Luke simply did not have any other details regarding Paul at that time.49 He then suggests the possibility that Luke did not write further because the events were in fact too sad. He reasons from 2 Timothy 4 that the Christians in Rome may have abandoned Paul, citing a key early text from 1

Clem. 4:1–7 that it might have been through jealousy and strife that Paul (Peter as well) was “contended unto death.”50 McDonald’s observation is defensible – given the widespread division, jealousy and strife that Paul experienced in many of the churches:

(i.e. Rom. 13:13, 14:1ff, 16:17; 1 Cor. 1:10, 3:3, 11:18; 2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 3:1ff, 5:20; 1

Tim. 6:3ff; Tit. 1:10ff, 2:15, 3:9-11; 2 Tim. 2:14ff; esp. 4:16).

Further, McDonald navigates through the evidence for Paul’s initial release and his possible trip to Spain, and the interim writing of the pastoral letters (cf. Eusebius, Eccl.

Hist. 2.22.7). He then refers to the Muratorian fragment which assumes that Luke did in fact omit the martyrdom of Peter and Paul as well as his trip to Spain (cf. Muratorian

Fragment, lines 34–38).51 Finally, after citing the apocryphal Acts of Peter he concludes by stating:

46 Witherington similarly asks what scholars have said for centuries: “Why does the narrative stop where it does, offering chapters on Paul’s trial but relating the outcome of the trial in Rome?” Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account, 175. 47 McDonald, 191. 48 G. W. Trompf, “On Why Luke Declined to Recount the Death of Paul: Acts 27-28 and Beyond,” 225. 49 McDonald, 192. 50 Ibid. 51Ibid. Troftgruben also notes how this early writing “...may also sense incompletion at the end of the narrative...” Troftgruben, 23.

There are a number of references in the early church fathers to Paul’s going to

Spain, but none of them have much to commend themselves to scholars of the

early church.52

In light of McDonald’s sage counsel, caution will be necessary when it comes to the later extant writers.

The Hermeneia commentary series claims to present the reader with a “...critical and historical commentary to the bible.”53 The series “...is designed to be international and interconfessional in the selection of authors.”54 Further the editors claim to “...impose no systematic-theological perspective upon the series (directly, or indirectly by selection of authors).55 Here, Pervo shares a similar sentiment with many scholars such as Cadbury when he writes: “Commentators since Chrysostom have been compelled to ask why Luke did not finish the story of Paul.”56 He further bemoans the real question of scholarship:

“From both the historical/biographical and the literary viewpoint, the close of Acts disappoints.”57 He further elaborates by stating that “No amount of sophisticated literary criticism and theological reflection – good and useful as most of it is – can persuade readers that something is not wrong.”58

52 McDonald, 192. However, Witherington by referring to 1 Clem. 5:5-7, is far more optimistic: “Paul, he says, did reach the furthermost parts of the West (i.e. Spain). Indeed, Paul may have been exiled there. Paul, of course expressed his intention to go to Spain” (Rom. 15:24). Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account, 323-324. Brown as well: “It is generally assumed that he was freed from imprisonment, left Rome for further missionary travels, and ultimately returned for a second imprisonment that led to his death. That the travels were to Spain (Rom 15:24; 1Clem. 5:7) is more likely than the visit to Asia Minor and Greece that scholars have constructed on the basis of the post-Pauline Pastorals, a visit unknown to the author of Acts” (20:25, 38). Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist Press, 1983), 98. 53 Pervo, Acts, xi. 54 Pervo, Acts, xi. 55 Ibid., xi. 56 Pervo, Acts, 688. Chrysostom’s ancient view is discussed within Troftgruben’s research below. 57 Cadbury, The Book of Acts in History, 3. Cf. also Pervo, Acts, 688. 58 Pervo, Acts, 688.

Subsequently, while reflecting on these vexing questions – Pervo naturally begins to draw conclusions concerning these difficulties. He declares that the

....narrator has painted himself into a corner. Rather than relate the unhappy

outcome of this legal struggle, he refuses to discuss it. This provides Acts with

an ending that is happy and upbeat but also guilty of the historiographical sins

of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi (suppression of the true and intimation of

the false). The close of Acts is ‘fictitious’ in that it chooses to abandon its

principal story line on a high note rather than follow it into failure and

contradiction. The solution must therefore be literary (my emphasis).59

Though a literary solution to the ending of Acts is plausible, that it must be requires several assumptions.60 The greatest assumption would be that the author was fully aware of these unspoken events that have already taken place.61 Secondly, the next assumption would be that the author would in the end “...abandon its principal story line...” despite the existing sad and terrible details of death and persecution already narrated throughout

Acts.62 Thirdly, though the resurrection of Jesus was a ‘high note’ in Luke’s gospel, the extensive narration of his suffering and death was not (Luke 23:33 ff).

59 Ibid., 688. Earlier Pervo assumes the author was not Luke but an anonymous author (cf. p. 5). Similarly, Lüdemann states: “We are told that Paul’s imprisonment dragged on for another two years (28:30); but his trial – to say nothing of the possibility of his being found guilty – must be expunged from the record to allow for a properly basic heroic ending. By not telling the story of Paul’s martyrdom Luke avoided introducing the reader to the ugly side of it.” Lüdemann further calls “The ending of Acts bizarre...Luke knows that the Roman state executed Paul, he not only fails to report it...” He further describes Luke’s picture as “...theologically grounded but deliberately unhistorical... it casts serious doubt on Luke’s veracity in general and on the credibility of this account. Luke again turns out to be a cunning propagandist with a theological bias.” Cf. Lüdemann, 347, 349. 60 Parsons acknowledges “...there is much that is left unresolved...the ending is best understood, on literary grounds, as another example of a ‘suspended’ ending.” Parsons, Acts, 366. 61 For this present study, Luke the physician and travelling companion of Paul is understood to be the author of Luke-Acts. The dating of Acts is summarily explored in detail in the section: “Re: Dating of Luke-Acts: Early, Intermediate, or Late?” found in chapter 2. 62 I.e. the stoning of Stephen, the death of James, the near death stoning of Paul, the beating of Paul (Acts 7:54ff, 12:2, 14:19, 21:31-32)

Nevertheless, Pervo makes some helpful literary comparisons among the ancient works. Pervo highlights (but disagrees) with Philip Davies who finds a parallel with King

Jehoiachin’s imprisonment at the end of 2 Kings with Paul’s situation in Rome.63 Further, he considers the close of 2 Chronicles and 2 Maccabees as possibilities for Luke’s inspiration. Next he compares the close of Acts with “...Sallust’s monograph on the

Jugurthine war” (Sallust, The War with Jugurtha 114.3-4).64 Curiously, he then cites the

Life of Aesop and the Acts of Paul as examples that “...Luke definitely chose not to pursue...” as they “follow their respective heroes to the death.”65 Further, he compares and contrasts the close of Acts with the ending of Mark’s gospel. Afterwards he concludes with a ‘literary solution’ while referring to the explanation of G.W. Trompf – that “...Luke has ‘finished’ the stories of Peter and Paul by intimating for each a ‘passion’ and

‘resurrection’ gains support from Acts 28:30-31.”66 In support of this conclusion he also states that: “Readers knew that both Peter and Paul had been executed.” Perhaps this is an echo of Bartlett’s earlier proposition.

Among the most recent and relevant scholarship available, Troy Troftgruben provides the most detailed work relating to this subject in recent years.67 His well- researched book accomplishes what the title proposes, “A Conclusion Unhindered: A

Study of the Ending of Acts within its Literary Environment.” From beginning to end he engages the scholarly views regarding the ending of Acts, but with a special consideration of other endings found in ancient literature. He begins by asking the fundamental question

63 Pervo, Acts, 689. Cf. my explanatory note 95 below. 64 Pervo, Acts, 689-90, 696. 65 Ibid., 690. In the Acts of Paul (c. 2nd century writing), the account of Paul’s death provides many details regarding the persecution and death under Nero. This is clearly much later and fanciful at times, and yet it is equally speculative to assume that Luke was aware of Paul’s death and yet said nothing. 66 Ibid., 690. G. W. Trompf, “On Why Luke Declined to Recount the Death of Paul: Acts 27-28 and Beyond,” 225-39. 67 Cf. Troftgruben, A Conclusion Unhindered: A Study of the Ending of Acts within its Literary Environment.

– “How does the book of Acts end?”68 and proceeds to unpack some erudite answers.

Cogently and categorically, he pools the scholarly views concerning the ending of

Acts in the following groupings: 1) Luke Knew no More; 2) Luke was Prevented from

Finishing; 3) The ending was Deliberately Abrupt; 4) The ending was an Intentional and

Fitting Conclusion.69 In the first segment, building on ancient witnesses such as Irenaeus, the Muratorian Canon, and Eusebius, he plainly declares that Luke either simply did not know anything further or that his sources ran out.70 Initially he applauds this first category of explanation highlighting the reality of Luke’s preoccupation with Paul in the last eight chapters, as well as the reality of the “we” passages of Acts.71 Then he argues for several factors as to why this is an inadequate explanation of Luke’s abrupt ending. 72 One factor against the “abrupt” view is the ongoing debate among scholars regarding the date when

68 Ibid., 1. 69 Where some scholars (e.g. McDonald) adequately introduce the scholarly issues, Troftgruben surveys them in a comprehensive and systematic way. Cf. Troftgruben, 8-28. Barrett likewise goes beyond the question and suggests a similar array of possibilities summarized here: 1) Luke knew no more; 2) Luke planned a third volume; 3) Luke did not record Paul’s death because of the parallels with Jesus and other martyrs; 4) Nor would Paul’s martyrdom interest his readers; 5) Paul’s release was automatic (based on the two year period in v. 30); 6) Recording Paul’s death would only encourage a ‘piety of martyrdom.’ He is also careful to point out that: “Since we have nothing but conjecture on which to base an answer it is not surprising that many different answers have been given.” Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: Volume II, 1249. 70 Troftgruben, 8-9. 71 Cp. Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16 – since Luke suggests that he was an eyewitness to Paul’s activities, this proposal has merit. However, considering the pastorals as Pauline would suggest that Luke was aware of events beyond the end of Acts (cf. 2 Tim. 4:11 especially). Regardless, the ‘we’ issue is contested among scholars. For example, Stanley Porter proposes that “... the ‘we’ passages were a previously written source used by the author of Acts, probably not originating with him.” Additionally, he claims that “...the author of acts has used a continuous, independent source, probably discovered in the course of his investigation of the events of early Christianity.” For a detailed discussion of the prevalent scholarly views regarding the ‘we’ passages in Acts see Stanley E. Porter, The Paul of Acts: Essays in Literary Criticism, Rhetoric, and Theology (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 10ff; quotations taken from pp. 11 and 41 respectively. Cf. also Vernon Robbins, “By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages,” in Perspectives of Luke-Acts, ed. Charles H. Talbert (Danville, Va.: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978), 215-42. Regardless, the point of the matter is that someone was a source of Paul’s voyage to Rome and his subsequent house-arrest. Aristarchus, for example is identified as part of the voyage: “...Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica was with us.” Cf. my note 345 below. 72 Ibid., 185. Troftgruben in a useful way suggests how scholars have “argued either that that the ending of Acts is abrupt or that it conveys closure.” Parsons follows the latter category: “The ending both provides a sense of closure by recalling themes introduced in Acts 1 and a sense of being unfinished by leaving other major themes incomplete or unstated.” Cf. Parsons, Acts, 365.

Acts was written – if it was written between A.D. 80-90, then obviously Luke knew more.73 Further, he reasons prima facie that Luke was not so unaware of events post Acts

28.74

The second reason among scholars in Troftgruben’s view is that “Luke was

Prevented from Finishing.” There are four main views within this category: 1) Luke ran out of papyrus; 2) he died before he finished; 3) he wrote a third volume but it was lost;75

4) the ending is abrupt because he intended to write a third.76 Troftgruben criticises each of these views, especially that Luke wrote a third volume – as there is simply no evidence for this beyond Acts 28:31.77 Of the third view that the ending was “deliberately abrupt,” there are five possibilities that Luke did not want to write about Paul’s death, namely, that narrating his death would be 1) unedifying;78 2) might imply his guilt; 3) implicate

73 Troftgruben, 10. Based upon such Lukan passages regarding the demise of the Jewish Temple, or Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem, Troftgruben explains how scholars claim “...the principal reasons for dating Luke- Acts later than 70 C.E... makes most sense as a prophecy ex eventu...after the Temple’s destruction” (70 C.E). Yet one could argue that Luke was simply unaware of the Temple’s destruction. An event as monumental in Judaica as this would assuredly have been openly narrated – especially given the Jewish theological elements in Luke-Acts. For example, where Luke alludes to this event, the Jewish historian Josephus wrote an entire book regarding the Jewish war with Rome in “The Jewish War.” The famous depiction of the sack of Jerusalem inscribed on the Arch of Titus in Rome also demonstrates just how widespread this event was known in antiquity. Some scholars such as John T. Townsend argue for a much later dating “...that approaches the middle of the second century.” See Townsend, “The Date of Luke-Acts,” 47–62. However, Townsend’s argument appears to rest greatly upon comparing Luke-Acts (especially Acts) with the Pseudo-Clementine literature and other second century writings. 74 E.g. Paul’s farewell speech at Miletus in Acts 20:17-38, esp. 23-25, 28. However this may only be conjecture and does not prove that Luke was aware of Paul’s death; similar logic could also be applied to Paul’s supposed trip to Spain (Rom. 15:24). 75 G. W. Trompf, On Why Luke Declined to Recount the Death of Paul: Acts 27-28 and Beyond, 226. 76 Troftgruben, 12-13. At a first glance this sounds unintelligent, but running out of papyrus would be a difficult issue in ancient times as in the case of 2 Tim. 4:13 where Paul asks Timothy for his τὰς μεμβράνας “parchments” which he left at Troas. There is much speculation regarding the contents (perhaps they were details of his trial?). Regardless, his parchments were valuable to him. Cf. insight by Ralph Earle, 2 Timothy (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 11; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 415. 77 Troftgruben, 14. His conclusion is valid, however, the existence of a third volume or a longer ending to Acts is not impossible. Paul’s famous lost letter to the Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9) supports this possibility. Additionally, there are countless that have been destroyed and perhaps still others have yet to be found – the Dead Sea scrolls found in the caves of Qumran in 1946 onwards confirm this possibility. 78 Barrett seems to take the view that the “...end of the story was omitted because it was not edifying...” but clearly maintains that this conclusion is also conjecture. Cf. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: Volume II, 1249. Meanwhile Lüdemann also quotes Barrett here “...because it was not edifying...” however, he fails to

Christians who abandoned Paul; 4) negatively paint the Roman Empire as his executioners;79 5) or parallel the death of Jesus too closely.80

Challenging these views, Troftgruben argues that Stephen’s death was recorded in

Acts 6-7, and that since Jesus’ death did not imply guilt, neither would Paul’s. Further, even if the details were unedifying or involved blaming others, how could this justify

Luke leaving all the details out?81 Finally, he cites notable scholars such as F.F. Bruce,

Joseph Fitzmyer, and Daniel Marguerat who claim that the earliest readers of Acts already knew Paul’s fate.82 However, one flaw in the “deliberately abrupt” category is the fact that the most ancient writers such as Clement of Rome did not seem to know the specific details either (1 Clem. 5:2-7). Troftgruben argues that if anyone would have known the details regarding Paul’s fate, surely it would have been Clement writing only 30 years later.83 Admittedly, after surveying Bruce’s writings above, it does seem strange that Luke would fail to record Paul’s fate at this time.84

mention Barrett’s cautionary note regarding the conjectural nature of this position as well. See Lüdemann, 349. 79 G. W. Trompf, On Why Luke Declined to Recount the Death of Paul: Acts 27-28 and Beyond, 232-234. Among other writers, Trompf proposes three similar reasons that fit nicely into Troftgruben’s “deliberately abrupt” classification – especially his first and fourth. His three main reasons why Luke omitted Paul’s death are as follows: 1) for literary reasons it was best for Luke to end it optimistically (e.g. Paul’s survival of the shipwreck before arriving in Rome); 2) since (according to tradition) Paul was beheaded under Nero this “problematic death” would have offended “the sensibilities of influential Romans...”; 3) and Paul’s death would “not provide a useful moral to round off the career of Paul.” However, his reasoning becomes fragile as he refers to G.H.C. Macgregor’s wise observation that “Paul’s whole progress from Corinth to Jerusalem reads in Luke’s account like a march to martyrdom...” Cf. G.H.C. Macgregor, Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 9 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1952), 350. Therefore, it would seem reasonable for Luke to have included Paul’s martyrdom – if he was aware. 80 Troftgruben, 16. 81 Ibid.,17. This is especially true where Acts and Paul’s letters authentically describe many unedifying details, as well as naming his opponents specifically (e.g. 2 Tim. 2:17, 4:14). 82 Ibid.,19. Troftgruben refers to Bruce’s learned note that discusses J.V. Bartlett’s article (see my note 37). Bartlett assumed that Luke’s failure to mention Paul’s execution was not necessary, because for Luke’s readers, the consequences of prosecution under Nero were obvious. 83 Troftgruben, 20. 84 From page 8: “Admittedly, one wonders why Luke, who was both a close friend of Paul (Col. 4:14; Phlmn 1:24; 2 Tim. 4:11) and careful writer (Luke 1:3), who also wrote extensively regarding Jesus’ death (Luke 23:33 ff.), would fail to record Paul’s fate at this time thus reducing Bartlett’s proposition to conjecture at best.”

Troftgruben’s fourth possibility suggests that the ending of Acts is in fact, “An

Intentional and Fitting Conclusion.” The first group of scholars within this category suggest “... that the ending of Acts would not have seemed abrupt to its original readers”

(my emphasis).85 However, contrary to this view is the unfortunate truth that the “ancient commentaries on Acts are few...”86 and his reference to John Chrysostom writing about

A.D. 400 is well worth repeating here:

But of [Paul’s] affairs after the two years [Acts 28:30] what shall we say? [Luke]

leaves the hearer athirst for more; other authors (oἱ ἔxw) do the same thing, for to

know everything makes the reader dull and jaded.87

Curiously, Troftgruben does not comment upon the subsequent line from Chrysostom’s already surprising statement: “Or else he does this, not having it in his power to exhibit it from his own personal knowledge.”88 Along with Clement’s description, this may be further ancient evidence against many of the assumptions brought forward by scholars that would suggest that “Luke knew more” regarding what happened but decided not to write; or that his ending was “deliberately abrupt.”

Furthermore, Troftgruben discusses Chrysostom’s very first comment regarding the opening verse in Acts: “TO many persons this Book is so little known, both it and its author, that they are not even aware that there is such a book in existence.”89 As shocking

85 Ibid., 22. 86 Ibid., 22. On page 184 he elaborates further: “On the whole, discerning ancient readers’ views on closure is a challenging task, since ancient commentary on the matter is sparse, and determining the writings with which to compare a particular need is a task on its own.” 87 Ibid., 22. 88 Philip Schaff, ed., “Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Reprint. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), 326. 89 Ibid. Cf. Acts 1:1-2. Of special significance Schaff notes how “St. Chrys. had made the same complaint at Antioch in the Homilies (A.D. 387) in Principium Actorum, etc. t. iii. p. 54. ‘We are about to set before you a strange and new dish… strange, I say, and not strange. Not strange; for it belongs to the order of Holy Scripture and yet strange; because peradventure your ears are not accustomed to such a subject. Certainly,

17 as that sounds, Troftgruben acknowledges this astonishing declaration by Johannes

Quasten regarding Chrysostom’s homilies on Acts: how they are “...the only complete commentary on Acts that has survived from the first ten centuries...”90 Earlier still, and just as confounding, he emphasizes Eusebius’ description of Luke’s ending as abrupt by saying that: “Luke... cut his history short at this point.”91 Conjunctively, his observation builds on McDonald’s earlier insight regarding the Muratorian Canon that it “...may also sense incompletion at the end of the narrative...”92 Therefore, Troftgruben’s assessment is valid since the early writers also found the ending of Acts abrupt; in all probability, this abruptness was recognized by Luke’s original audience as well.93

The proponents who see the ending as “An Intentional and Fitting Conclusion” do so from literary and thematic grounds: 1) Paul’s arrival in Rome fulfils the beginning of

Acts 1:8;94 2) Paul’s arrival in Rome is a climax to the book as this is the capital of the gentile world; 3) Paul’s Jewish encounter in Rome represents the book’s narrative climax.

there are many to whom this Book is not even known (πολλοῖς γοῦν τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο οὐδὲ γνώριμόν ἐστι) and many again think it so plain, that they slight it thus to some men their knowledge, to some their ignorance, is the cause of their neglect...We are to enquire then who wrote it, and when, and on what subject and why it is ordered (νενομοθέτηται) to be read at this festival. For peradventure you do not hear this Book read [at other times] from year’s end to year’s end.’” 90 Troftgruben, 23; Johannes Quasten, “The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literarure from the Council of Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon, Vol. 3,” in Patrology (Westminister, Md.: Christian Classics, 1986), 440. 91 Troftgruben, 23. His point is well made, though Schaff translates the Greek as such: “Luke... brought his history to a close at this point.” Which does not necessarily imply abruptness “i.e. cut his history short,” only that he “...brought his history to a close at this point, after stating that Paul spent two whole years at Rome as a prisoner at large...” (my emphasis). Philip Schaff, ed., “Eusebius Pamphilus: Church History,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church: Volume 1 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), 124. 92 Troftgruben, 23. 93 Luke’s abruptness at the end of Acts may have been relieved through Paul’s later writings in the Prison and Pastoral Epistles. For example, 2 Tim. 4:11 Paul reveals how “Luke alone is with me.” These letters would have provided the church many further details regarding Paul’s post-Acts 28 situation presumably in Rome (e.g. 2 Tim. 2:9-10, 4:6-8). 94 Jesus’ promise in Acts 1:8: “you will be my witnesses... unto the ends of the earth.”

95 Troftgruben dismisses these views as ambiguous beginning with the first category. To those scholars who assume that Rome was the “end of the earth,” the historical truth is that Rome was rather seen as the centre of the earth96 and Paul was not the first to spread the gospel in Rome.97 Regarding the second category, and building on the previous argument, he concludes that the gentiles had been a part of Paul’s mission since chapter 10

– and besides, this leaves out the large emphasis on his meeting and speech to the Jews in

Acts 28:16-28.98 Finally, the third and last group of scholars see the ending largely as a theological emphasis “...about the lack of response to the gospel by the Jews.”99 However,

Troftgruben points out the reality that Paul’s missionary focus throughout Acts was on the

Jews (as well as Gentiles) and that Paul clearly welcomed “all” people in the final section

(Acts 28:30-31).100

Besides the attractive survey of scholarly views, another strength of Troftgruben’s

95 Ibid., 24-25. See also Trompf’s tantalizing idea in G. W. Trompf, On Why Luke Declined to Recount the Death of Paul: Acts 27-28 and Beyond, 227 where he describes “...the fascinating similarity...” between the last two verses of Acts and “... the conclusion to the Deuteronomic history at 2 Kings 25:28-30. Both King Jehoiachin and Paul were captives far from the homeland of Israel, but they were permitted room to maneuver and the economic means to live comfortably. ‘The strange ending of Acts is no longer strange; it has the special touch of Old Testament history upon it.’” This is an interesting possibility; however, it is doubtful that Luke’s Gentile (Roman) audience would have made the connection. Additionally, Evans notes the fact that “...half of 2 Kings wasn’t concerned with Jehoiachin.” C.A. Evans, thesis comment, March 19th, 2013. Cf. Pervo’s survey of literary endings in Pervo, Acts, 689 and also P. Davies, “The Ending of Acts,” The Expository Times 94 (1983): 334–35. 96 Troftgruben, 25. Nor does Luke make any unambiguous references to Acts 1:8 in the last chapter that would prove Rome to be a fait accompli for Paul’s gospel. Also see Barclay’s assumption above (note 17) and Munck’s observations regarding Paul’s arrival in Rome: Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, 54. A nuanced version of this is implied by Pervo’s comments that: “‘The ends of the earth’ (Acts 1:8) is realized in a mission that has no limits.” Cf. Pervo, Acts, 686. Here it seems that Pervo may be reflecting here on Tannehill’s words, however, Tannehill makes it clear in his thorough analysis that “‘The end of the earth’ is not a reference to Rome.” The roots of the phrase are found especially in Isaiah (Isa. 8:9, 48:20, 49:6, 62:11; also Pss. Sol. 1:4 and Acts 1:8; 13:47) and is to be universally understood as “...it envisions a goal that reaches beyond the end of Acts.” Cf. Tannehill’s full explanation in: Robert C. Tannehill, “Volume 2: The Acts of the Apostles,” in The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 17-18, 108-109, quotations taken from p. 17 and 356. 97 Troftgruben, 25-26. One plausible view is that the church was founded by “the visiting Romans” (οἱ ἐπιδημοῦντες Ῥωμαῖοι) who were present during Peter’s speech at Pentecost (Acts 2:10). 98 Ibid., 26. 99 Ibid., 26. 100 Ibid.

19 work is his comparison of Luke’s ending of Acts with other contemporary ancient works such as Homer’s Illiad and Virgil’s Aenid.101 However, as important as it is to understand the literary environment in Luke’s day, that is beyond the scope of this present study except where it may shed further light on the events surrounding the fate of the apostle

Paul.102 Although Paul’s fate was not a primary focus for Troftgruben’s research, from a literary standpoint, he posits that Paul’s fate does represent an unfulfilled expectation by the end of Acts.103 He also explains that even though Luke generally foreshadows Paul’s fate in Acts 20:24-25, 38 and later with Agabus’ prediction in 21:13, the ending still stops short of these expectations.104 He notes the uncertainty regarding Paul’s fate with a hint of resignation by stating: “Were it clear what happened to Paul, there would be far less debate about the ending of Acts from scholars throughout the centuries.”105 In summary,

Troftgruben’s work should help many scholars successfully steer away from the question of why Acts ends the way it does – towards how it ends. The difference will assuredly minimize the level of speculation and wishful thinking that seem to exist among scholars.106

101 Ibid., 33, 145 and 181. Troftgruben states: “In terms of literary closure, Luke’s ending is best compared to the endings of famous epic works, a point that has been overlooked by the majority of biblical scholarship” (see also p. 170 and his corresponding note 111). He argues beyond the ‘openness’ of the end of Acts into a new category he describes as ‘linkage.’ This linkage “...connects the story of the narrative (i.e. Acts) to another, subsequent story” (p. 169). Further he reasons how the end of Acts is an ‘expansive saga’ that continues beyond the end “...in similar ways Homer’s Iliad envisions events that occur beyond the end of the narrative: the death of Achilles and the fall of Troy, events that occur later on in the Epic Cycle” (p. 176). Troftgruben further concludes “...that the openness of Luke’s ending reads as a link to an expansive saga” (p. 187, cf. also his similar view on p. 177). 102 Ibid., 35. Reciprocally, Troftgruben by reflecting on the question “How does Acts end?” admits that his study focus is on the “narrative interpretation,” and the “final stage of the text.” However, he says the answer “...may also be a question of source criticism or historical events...” which is a greater hope for the present study. 103 Ibid., 158. 104 Ibid., 160, 162. 105 Ibid., 165, 182. 106 Ibid., 28.

Conclusions and Implications

As a result of the present survey of the historical and more recent views regarding

Paul’s fate and the end of Acts, several concluding observations and implications must be made. One clear observation that cannot be overstated is the need for further research into this challenging subject. Since many assumptions have been made among many writers, both in ancient and in more recent times, the approach of this project will be to examine these views, extricating reasonable deductions that are based on a measure of evidence, while challenging conclusions that are not well supported.

Furthermore, the research in the following chapters will be organized in a purposeful and systematic way – as this subject involves a myriad of views that are built upon many conditional presuppositions. For example, when studying Paul’s fate and the end of Acts, it becomes clear these can be viewed as two separate issues (as with

Troftgruben’s work) – but at the same time the symbiotic nature is also clear. Therefore, research towards one subject will unequivocally affect the conclusions of the other. This becomes especially important regarding the crucial issue of dating Luke-Acts (Chapter II).

For example, if it can be proven that Luke wrote after Paul’s death, then some conclusions are more likely while others may be dismissed. The converse is also true if it can be established that Luke did in fact write before Paul’s death.

Another important factor is the realization that ancient sources are not plentiful when it comes to this subject, compounding the dilemma further. From this introductory survey, it becomes clear that even among the ancient writers, ambiguity exists concerning

Paul’s fate and the ending of Acts – including his supposed trip to Spain. However, even though the details surrounding Paul’s trial and martyrdom are not plentiful, there seems to be a strong “tradition” when it comes to the basics of Paul’s incarceration and death under

Nero. Consequently, further historical and archaeological research will be discussed allowing for a balanced and scholarly conclusion (Chapter V).

Of particular importance is the realization from Bruce (and Longenecker) regarding the changes in Roman public policy towards Christians during Paul’s time in

Rome. By the end of Acts, it can be observed that a favourable (or at least tolerable) view towards Paul (and Christians in general) existed. By examining the language of Luke-Acts further alongside extant historical sources, one can ascertain the validity of this and the significant impact it would have on Paul’s fate. McDonald’s observations regarding

Roman Law are also worth exploring especially since many scholars are divided concerning Paul’s imprisonment – was he released after his two years or was he executed shortly thereafter? A thorough examination of Roman policy (and judicial proceedings) during the time of Paul’s incarceration may provide further insight into Paul’s possible fate (Chapter III & IV).

Finally, there have been grammatical insights made in this review that will be helpful in providing a platform for the greater exegetical study of the Greek terms found in

Acts (Chapter IV). Some of these terms may provide further clues as to the nature of

Paul’s trial and house arrest and whether or not there is (as some scholars believe) internal evidence that Luke knew of Paul’s fate (cf. Acts 20:25, 38 etc).107 Furthermore, examining the broader narrative unity of Luke-Acts, as well as Luke’s double incipits, will provide additional support in understanding the ending of Acts.108 This process will hopefully minimize any misinterpretations concerning Luke’s intended meaning, while maximizing

107 Cf. ‘Re: Dating of Luke-Acts: Early, Intermediate, or Late?’ found in Chapter II and especially the final ‘Concluding Observations and Implications.’ 108 Cf. ‘The Narrative-Unity of Luke Acts’ and the ‘Comparative Exegesis of Luke’s Double Incipit: Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-3’ – both found in Chapter II.

22 a sound understanding of what he was trying to say to his original audience – which providentially, was the “most excellent Theophilus” (cf. Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1).

Chapter I: The Rome of St. Paul in his day

“‘What’s going on in Rome?’ When asked this simple question by his friend Minicianus,

Pliny found himself bogged down in the sheer abundance of happenings there. Even a long letter, he complained in his reply, could not encompass all the city’s many events and affairs” (Ep. 3.9).109 Just like Pliny’s response to his inquisitive friend, a long ‘letter’ here could not encompass all the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the Rome of

Paul’s day. At the same time, for any historical investigation to be comprehensive, it is necessary to consider even the most trivial aspects of history. Ben Witherington III furnishes hungry students of history with this magnificent case in point:

The term ‘history’ can refer to a variety of things. ‘History’ can refer simply

to the flow of events in the past that are perceived to have had some sort of ongoing

significance. It is taken for granted that not everything that happens in a human life

is of ‘historic’ significance. Thus, for instance, what Robert E. Lee had for

breakfast on the first day of the battle of Gettysburg will not likely be revealed in

the accounts of that important morning. Now, had his breakfast made him ill, so

that he would have been unable to direct the Southern army on that day, then

what he had for breakfast might be said to have some historic significance. Even

trivial matters become important if they affect the crucial decisions and actions of

those who shape history. The familiar aphorism is a good reminder on this front:

‘For want of a nail, the horse shoe was lost. For want of a horse shoe, the horse

was lost. For want of a horse, the messenger was lost. For want of the messenger,

the battle was lost. For want of the battle, the war was lost, and all for want of a

109 Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, ed. Marshall D. Johnson, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 1.

nail.’110

It is simply impossible to estimate the Apostle Paul’s impact upon world history – especially considering what some may consider a “trivial” matter. Any combination of events affecting Paul’s life or Rome itself would have forever altered the annals of history.

There are countless examples that could easily demonstrate this axiom, however, for the present study one in particular is worth mentioning.111 Paul’s conversion is perhaps the greatest – setting off a countless chain of events that affected whole countries, cultures and countless millions of people throughout history. Luke details the account of his conversion in Acts 9:1-19 (see also 22:1-21 and 26:1-23) but Paul himself consistently and repeatedly confesses it in his own letters as well (Romans 1:1ff.; Gal. 1:1, 12ff.; 1 Cor. 15:1ff. etc).

Regardless of one’s personal viewpoint, the fact remains that Paul’s well- documented personal encounter with the risen Jesus of Nazareth forever altered the face of western civilization as we know it. Consider the impact that just one of Paul’s letters had on world history. Bruce’s dated yet masterful assessment demonstrates the incredible influence of Paul’s letter to the Romans on world history – where some might consider this ‘trivial.’ The year was AD 386 – the man was Aurelius Augustinus, a native of North

Africa and professor of Rhetoric at Milan. From his book Confessions Augustine describes his bitterly depressed state of heart as he sat under a fig tree. He heard something like the voice of a nearby child repeating over and over again “pick up and read, pick up and read.” He picked up the book (Romans) and read the first passage he laid his eyes on (Rom. 13:13-14) and was instantly converted to Christianity. Bruce observes:

110 Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account, 14-15. 111 Paul’s mission was filled with many significant dangers that could have changed history [i.e. beatings, riots, bandits, shipwrecks, the frequent Jewish attempts on his life (cf. 2 Cor. 11:23-27; Acts 21:36; 22:22; 23:10)].

“What the church and the world owe to this influx of light which illuminated Augustine’s mind as he read these words of Paul is something beyond our power to compute.”112

Centuries later in November of 1515, an ‘Augustinian’ monk (ironically) named

Martin Luther, who was of a similar emotional state as Augustine, was teaching his students from Paul’s letter to the Romans at the University of Wittenburg. As he grappled with this letter and eventually came to believe in Paul’s foundational teaching about justification by faith, his life, and much of 16th century Europe, was radically changed.113

James Edwards categorically states: “The discovery that ‘the righteous will live by faith’

(Rom. 1:17) propelled the monk, to launch the greatest reform the church has ever known.”114

Similarly, another seemingly inconsequential event can be traced from Paul’s teachings in Romans. Like Augustine and Luther, John Wesley’s conversion can be traced to one simple but critical event in his life. Wesley went unwillingly to a ‘society’ meeting on the evening of May 24, 1738, where Luther’s preface to the Romans was being read.

He wrote in his journal, “…while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust Christ,

Christ alone, for my salvation…” Bruce writes “…that critical moment in John Wesley’s life was the event above all others which launched the Evangelical Revival of the eighteenth century.”115

Lastly, and recently, Karl Barth was perhaps one of the greatest theologians of the

112 F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 58. 113 Just as one single verse from Paul’s letter to the Romans impacted Augustine, the same was with Luther as he grappled with Romans 1:17: “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘The righteous by faith will live.’” Cf. Bruce, Romans, 58-59. 114 James R. Edwards, Romans (NIBC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005), 2. 115 Bruce, Romans, 60.

20th century. Back in August 1918, he was then pastor of Safenwil in Canton Aargau,

Switzerland. He published a famous exposition of the Epistle to the Romans. In the preface Barth describes how he wrote it with a “…joyful sense of discovery. The mighty voice of Paul was new to me...” Bruce then recalls the words of the Catholic theologian

Karl Adams who said Barth’s Römerbrief fell “…like a bombshell on the theologians’ playground.” Bruce concludes by saying “the repercussions of that explosion are with us still”116 Therefore, even the smallest of details regarding the life and teachings of the

Apostle Paul have had an enormous affect on history as evidenced in the “…actions of those who shape history.”117

The Greco-Roman Context

The events surrounding Paul’s life had a massive impact upon later generations.

However, these events were shaped by a multitude of religious, cultural, political and physical realities. The chief aim of this collective study as previously stated in the introduction is to ‘investigate the end of Acts 28 and the fate of the historical Apostle

Paul.’ In order to ascertain the truth of the events surrounding this enigma, it becomes necessary to explore the background of the physical location where Paul was. As part of the so-called “we passages,” Paul’s travelling companion Luke records their arrival specifically in Rome (καὶ οὕτως εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην ἤλθαμεν).118 The people of this city had a unique political system, religious beliefs, customs, and lifestyle – just as any other city

116 Ibid. 117 Vide supra Witherington’s magnificent lesson on ‘history.’ Cf. Witherington, New Testament History, 14. 118 See Acts 28:14 and verse 16. For valuable insights regarding the ‘we’ passages, refer to my not 71 and Witherington’s careful incorporation and reflection of Joseph Fitzmyer’s earlier studies. See Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account, 254-255 and also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (AB 28; New York: Doubleday, 1981), 48, 51.

27 whether ancient or modern.119 Finding commonalities among ancient people is vital for any historical inquiry, however, it is mission critical that scholars clearly factor in the specific and local historical context of the people, places and issues they endeavour to illuminate.

That being said, for any critical New Testament study of quality, it is imperative that the background homework is complete before jumping to conclusions. It is also imperative that the unique background of Luke-Acts is not ignored or misinterpreted due to our own religious or cultural bias. Deeper still, it is vital that we do not miss the historical backdrop of Paul’s incarceration and martyrdom. Surely part of that requires a fresh examination of the city and its heritage – as cities change over time. So what did

Rome look like in Paul’s day? Where was the place of his imprisonment(s)? What were some of the stories that the Romans told him about their heritage, religion, and politics?

Where were the synagogues and Jewish communities that existed there – and how do we know? Is there literary and archaeological evidence for the burgeoning Christian communities Paul was surely in contact with? In pursuit of historical truth, these and many other probing questions need to be asked.

While the church is often critiqued for “preaching out of context,” modern scholarship is guilty of the same crime (which in turn fuels further teaching that is out of context). The tendency (for pastors and scholars) is to read into these ancient documents conclusions that are simply untenable. James Jeffers pinpoints this very issue:

119 That being said, an analysis of the pre-Christian, Jewish presence in Rome will be incorporated later in this chapter. Similarly, Raymond E. Brown in his note 187 refers to J.G. Gager who stressed that “...diaspora Judaism offered a blueprint for Christian adaptation to the Greco-Roman world. A knowledge of the former is essential for understanding the latter.” Brown then credits W. Wiefel for applying this to “...Rome in particular...” Brown and Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity, 92. Cf. also J.G. Gager, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1975), 128ff. and also W. Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity,” in The Romans Debate (ed. K.P. Donfried; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 100-19.

If New Testament texts were written to make sense to people in the first century,

then we must try to put ourselves into their places in order to determine what the

writers of the New Testament intended their readers to understand by what they

wrote. If we try to make sense of the Bible with no knowledge of the people who

wrote it, those who read it and the society in which they lived, we will be inclined

to read into the Scriptures our own society’s values and ideas. This would be a

major mistake since our culture is very different from that of the ancient Romans

(my emphasis).120

Not only is our culture very different from the Romans, they were also unique among the panoply of Indo-European civilizations – perhaps in a similar way as the local

Mi'kmaq would be compared with other native North Americans. Surely verisimilitudes exist among each culture, but at the same time each one has its own distinct heritage. The

Romans were unarguably influenced by the Greeks; however, they were also greatly influenced by another prevailing civilization known as the Etruscans.121 For this reason, a brief discussion of the Greek and Etruscan influence upon the early Romans is warranted in order to appreciate the distinctive nature of their society.122

120 James S. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity (Downers Grove: InterVaristy Press, 1999), 11. 121 Without ignoring the incredible Hellenistic influence upon the Romans, the very act of adding “Greco” to “Roman” without “Etruscan” already creates a cultural bias which might erode the uniqueness of this culture. Ancient and modern historians still debate the early and formative influences upon the early Romans, but it is clear the Etruscans had a unique influence on them as well. Cf. M. Cary and H.H. Scullard, A History of Rome: Down to the Reign of Constantine. 1935 (Revised. London: Macmillan, 1992), 17-18, 32-33. 122 Witherington also notes the decisive Etruscan impact upon ancient Rome: “The transformation of the settlement or village into an actual city seems to have been accomplished by the Etruscans somewhere around 600 B.C... The Etruscans also developed this city into the leading metropolis in central Italy, including setting the pattern for Rome’s legal and religious systems.” See Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account, 320.

Historical Origins of Rome

After considering the Greco-Roman context, Jean de La Fontaine’s wise observation that “Rome was not built in a day” remains true. The origins of the ancient city are shrouded in mystery and go back several hundred years before the birth of Christ.

Given the scope of this present study, a detailed survey of pre-Roman Italy is unwarranted, however, a brief introduction reveals much about their ancient heritage, geography, topography and architecture.

In fact, in the widely read landmark work of M. Cary and H.H. Scullard, the origins of the city are far more ancient than many realize.123 Beyond the speculation of the hunter-gathering inhabitants of stone-age Italy, there is evidence of their activities painted on cave walls and on the bones of animals – though not nearly as decorative as found in the caves of Spain and France.124 For the indigenous Italians life was “poor, nasty, brutish and short” though life eventually became a little easier during the later Neolithic age

(5,000 B.C.) when hunting gave way to farming.125 These pre-Roman settlers used seed- corn, cows, sheep and made their own pottery which became more decorative. Although some may have lived in caves, many by this time were now living in huts grouped together in small villages.126

During the transitional Chalcolithic or ‘Copper Age,’ immigrants came from central Europe bringing with them the ability to supplement their stone tools with

123 Cary and Scullard, A History of Rome, 7. Cary and Scullard propose an early stone-age date of some 200,000 years ago. Archaeological evidence in the form of flint axes have been found throughout Italy and “especially near Chieti and at Venosa, and an actual settlement has been revealed just west of Rome at Torrimpietra.” 124 Ibid., 7. 125 Ibid., 7. 126 Ibid., 7.

30 copper.127 During this time of technological advance, the early Italians slowly gained the advantage of metal working despite the popular and continued use of stone tools and weapons.128 In the Bronze Age, these semi-nomadic pastoralists by the twelfth century became “somewhat more stable and practiced some agriculture” where some of their pottery has been found on the future site of Rome.129 The old saying “they don’t make it like they used to” must have originated with the Romans as they are famous for the longevity of their craftsmanship.130

Fast forwarding beyond the Iron Age ‘Villanovans,’ the later Etruscans from about

650 B.C. onwards rose in political and cultural dominance. 131 They not only encouraged agricultural advances across the region of Latium,132 they promoted industry and commerce as well – much in the same way as the later Roman Empire did.133 Yet during the age of Kings, and before the founding of the republic in 509 B.C., Etruscan dominance and influence were unmistakable.134 However, the Etruscans failed to maintain their

“political destiny” while their “political power and culture moves across the Tiber to

Latium and Rome.”135

127 Ibid., 8. 128 Ibid., 8. 129 Ibid., 8-9. 130 Incredibly, an enormous collection of pottery (open to the elements) still remains in the ancient ruins of a Roman Fort at (Gonio) Apsaros in the Adjar region of Georgia. The fort is the traditional burial site of the apostle Matthias (Acts 1:26). The fort stands in remarkable shape: given its second and possibly first century dating, as Pliny the Elder mentions it as well (cf. Nat. Hist. 6.4 also App. Mithr. 15.101). 131 The Villanovans are so named by archaeologists at a site at “Villanova, some four miles east of Bologna” and “The name ‘Etruscans’ was given by the Romans to their neighbours in the district now known as Tuscany.” Cf. Ibid. 9, 17, 32. 132 “Latium, the cradle of Rome, consisted originally of the coastal plain from the mouth of the Tiber to the Circeian promontory, and its adjacent foothills.” Cf. Ibid., 31. 133 Ibid., 32. 134 For example, Jeffers describes how: “Roman Art, religion, military science, and politics show the influence of the Etruscans.” Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, 296. 135 Cary and Scullard, 28. “Etruscan rule at Rome, according to tradition, came to a dramatic end in 510 B.C. with the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus, but its demise should be seen in a wider context: the downfall of Etruscan power in Latium... the gradual cessation of Etruscan influences at Rome, and the gradual establishment of a Republican constitution” ( p. 55). Jeffers describes important aspects of later European

The physical and topographical origins of Rome are also tantalizing – especially when compared with the well-known eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 79.136 Many are familiar with the latter volcano, however, what is lesser known is that the seven hills that ancient Rome was founded upon137 were the result of the Ciminian and Alban volcanoes which “threw up a ring of hillocks to a height of 200-300 feet above sea-level, and of a

100 feet or more above the surrounding plain.”138 Hence, the unique topography of Rome provided many “natural” advantages for the early settlers.139 Not only would there be military advantages among the hills, the Latin plain provided a fertile farming region which allowed a sizable population to prosper.140 Living on the hills also provided safety from the frequent inundations from the Tiber which also provided potential for commerce and easy access to the sea.141 Rome’s location was also centrally located in the geographical heart of Italy, being equidistant from the north and the south.142 Finally,

and American “manifest destiny” which have been borrowed from Rome’s proto attitude of superiority – to rule and conquer others, empowered by their gods. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, 295-96. This hypothesis has merit – after walking the streets of Rome, absorbing the monuments and then comparing that with the city-centres of major European cities. In Washington D.C., the similarities among the monuments and presidential memorials are uncanny. 136 The study of Vesuvius and the nearby archaeological sites of Pompeii and Herculaneum have provided scholars with an abundance of information regarding the cultural life of ancient Romans. 137 The seven ‘traditional’ hills of Rome include the Aventine, Caelian, Capitoline, Esquiline, Palatine, Quirinal, and Viminal. Traditionally, the western hills such as the Janiculan and Vatican hills are not included among the official seven hills located on the eastern side of the Tiber. Cf. Cary and Scullard, 34. 138 Ibid., 34. Cary and Scullard rightly point out how the hills of Rome must not be judged by current standards. Over the centuries debris has collected across the ancient city raising the ground, and leveling the area. Within the ancient ruins of the Forum, the historical interpreter pointed several meters above us to an ancient church building to my right – which was originally a pagan temple. He explained how that was once ground zero – long before they excavated the ground to the most ancient level that we were currently standing on. 139 Witherington, New Testament History, 320-21. 140 Cary and Scullard, 34. 141 Ibid., 34. 142 Ibid., 35. Cary and Scullard simply remark: “In a word, it was Italy’s natural center of communications.”

32 there exists sufficient archaeological evidence from the eighth century B.C. of settlements on Rome’s seven hills – which eventually by 600 B.C. formed one city.143

Legendary Origins of Rome

Is a discussion of Rome’s fabled history necessary for the aim of the present study? It is hard to imagine the Apostle Paul either uncaring or unaware when it comes to this subject. We know that he was keenly interested in the cultural and religious climate wherever he travelled. A perfect example of this is found in Acts 17 where Luke records both aspects of Paul’s missional144 approach towards the Jews and Gentiles: “And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them and for three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures...” (Acts 17:2). This was his custom or ‘ethos’ (τὸ εἰωθὸς) to go to the Synagogue using the scriptures they would already be familiar with in order to explain his message about Jesus.

When it came to other cultures, whether the Greeks or Romans, his ethos was similar in that he began with their cultural and spiritual understanding. Later in Acts 17 we see evidence for his missional approach with his famous speech with the Greek philosophers on Mars Hill where he wrote: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of

143 Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, 295. On one of the nearby hills, evidence suggests a settlement as early as 1500 B.C. belonging to the Chalcolithic period existed – along with pottery from the Bronze Age (though no evidence of continuation). However foundations of an Iron Age ‘Villanovan’ Hut” of the eighth century B.C. were found on the central Palatine Hill which overlooks the later Roman forum. Lastly, the early Iron Age settlers are known to have settled across many of the other eastern hills as well. Cf. Cary and Scullard, 37, 38. 144 The term ‘missional’ I have borrowed from the Australian ‘missiologist’ and writer Michael Frost. My use of it here is best understood from Paul’s dictum “I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some” (1 Cor. 9:22). Cf. Michael Frost, The Road to Missional: Journey to the Center of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011), 15ff.

145 worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.” Curiously, these statues ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD’ are quite common across the Mediterranean basin and back in the 1820’s a similar one was found on the Palatine hill in Rome.146 At any rate, not only does Paul use their monuments as a ‘rhetorical’ springboard in his speeches, he uses the words of their poets when he says later in verse 28: “‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’”147 Therefore, just as the literary evidence supports Paul’s willingness to engage other cultures whether Jewish or Greek, a safe deduction is that when Paul came to

Rome he would have become very familiar with their unique history and ideals (and so should we) – regardless of the mythical aspects of the story.

Just as many are familiar with the legendary tales of Rome’s beginnings today, those living in Paul’s day were already well informed of its notorious beginnings.148 It is hard to imagine the aged apostle149 and other Christians in Rome being uninformed of this story – especially considering how the (ancient and modern) images of the ‘suckling she-

145 Acts 17:22, 23 NIV. 146 Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 380-81; McDonald, 119–20. Cf. also Wikipedia. “Si deus si dea,” 2013. Accessed April 13, 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_deus_si_dea 147 Acts 17:28 NIV. The first line is from the Cretan poet Epimenides and the second line is from the Cilician poet Aratus. Ergo Paul must have been familiar with the philosophy of the time. Epimenides perhaps was a favorite as he quotes another line from this same poem in his letter to Titus 1:12 on the Island of Crete. Curiously, both of these poems are about Zeus, who in Greco-Roman culture was an integral part of their religion.

148The legend of Rome’s origins began as early as 296 B.C. where “... a bronze statue of a wolf suckling human twins was set up in the Forum that by then the main outline of the legend was familiarly known at Rome.” Additionally, a silver coin dated to 269 B.C. also displays the twins. Cf. Cary and Scullard, 35; cf. also their note 9 on p.580. This iconic symbol is perhaps the most pervasive symbol within the city from ancient to modern times. 149 Bruce notes how Paul “...was born in Tarsus, the principal city of Cilicia, probably in one of the first few year years of the Christian era.” F.F. Bruce, New Testament History (London: Nelson, 1969), 222. Likewise Witherington ascribes Paul’s birth to be around A.D. 5 (+ or – three or four years). See Witherington, New Testament History, 196. Therefore, it is reasonable to estimate Paul’s age to be somewhere in the vicinity of 60 years of age.

34 wolf’ still dominate its streets and alleyways.150 Jeffers provides a concise summary of this infamous tale:

Romans believed that their society arose after the fall of the city of Troy in the

Trojan War (twelfth century B.C.) when the Trojan prince Aeneas escaped

west and settled in Italy.151 Two of his descendants, the twins Romulus and

Remus, were fathered by Mars, the god of War. They were abandoned at birth,

then nursed by a she-wolf and raised by a shepherd. Romulus killed his brother

in anger and then established the city of Rome in 753 B.C. as a refuge for

fugitives. He organized the kidnapping of women from the Sabine people, just

to their northeast, to supply wives for his followers. Some years later Romulus

was supposedly taken up by the gods and was worshipped from that time on as

the god Quirinus.152

As noted by Jeffers, the Greek influence upon the story of Rome’s founding is seen in the Trojan prince and warrior Aeneas – whose terracotta statuette dates from the early 5th century B.C. Consequently, this reveals a level of familiarity with the legend of

Aeneas in Rome.153 It is also very likely that Paul (and Luke) were also familiar with these legends especially having frequented the ancient city of Troas, which was nearby the

150 Much of the ruins of Rome’s ancient Forum still give visitors and students of history a picture of how the Forum was in fact “...a commercial and religious centre...” Ray Laurence, Simon Esmonde Cleary, and Gareth Sears, The City in the Roman West: c.250BC–c.AD250 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2011), 176, accessed January 28, 2013. http://library.acadiau.ca/. 151 Cary and Scullards’ observation how, “The Greek story telling faculty supplied mythical founders to all cities that lacked an authentic record of their creation, and to some whose genesis was a matter of history; its range of invention did not stop at the frontiers of the Greek world, but extended to foreign towns in which it happened to take interest. In the fifth and fourth centuries Rome had already attracted sufficient attention among Greek men of letters to become the subject of a whole repertory of foundation tales.” Cary and Scullard, 35; cf. also the associated notes on p. 580 concerning other possible origins of this story. 152 Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, 295. 153 Cary and Scullard, 36.

35 historical city of Troy.154

The Rome of St. Paul in his day

Leaving aside the voluminous task of assimilating Rome’s history over the next

600 years to the first century (which is beyond the scope of this study), Rome not only conquered the peninsula, but much of the western Europe, Africa, and the middle east by the end of the first century A.D. The ever popular dictum: “All roads lead to Rome” was now an historical fact – and not simply a popular saying. Every town and city across the

Empire was connected by roads – many of which are still used today – and Paul’s feet were no stranger to them.155 Beyond the Roman roads, there were many social, political, economic and military changes shaping the landscape of the Roman Empire in the first century B.C. In a masterful way, Ben Witherington III highlights these history-changing events of that century:

When Pompey the Great took Jerusalem in 63 B.C., probably few thought that

this foreshadowed the coming of a continual Roman presence in the region for

the next several hundred years... It is also fair to say that no one living in the

early first century A.D. would have guessed that the birth of a carpenter from

Nazareth just before the turn of the era was ultimately going to prove of more

154 Cf. Acts 16:8, 11; 20:5-7, 2 Cor. 2:12; 2 Tim. 4:13 Luke’s incredible familiarity with the most obscure details is uncanny – lending to the authenticity of his work. A good example is the Alexandrian ship they sailed to Rome “with the figurehead of the Dioscuri” παρασήμῳ Διοσκούροις. The Dioscuri were known as the twin gods of Castor and Pollux - twin sons of Zeus. 155 Paul and Luke travelled from the port city of Puteoli (modern day Pozzuoli) which was on the bay of Naples and was the very strategic port city for Neapolis (Naples). It was from Puteoli that Pliny the Younger in A.D. 79 described the destruction Mount Vesuvius wrought on Pompeii and Herculaneum from across the bay. From Puteoli they travelled to Neapolis, and probably to Capua. Passing through the Forum of Appius and the Three Taverns (Acts 28:14-15), they made their way to Rome most likely along the very old and famous Roman road known as the Via Appia, “the queen of the long roads.” Cf. Bruce, New Testament History, 342.

importance than the birth of Octavian or any of the emperors who followed

him. To say that the period we are chronicling... is one of the most important

periods in all of human history is to say too little. At the very least, for those w

who are the offspring of so-called Western culture, this is the inception of the

most important and formative period in all of human history in terms of politics,

religion and culture. 156

It was Julius Caesar who perhaps brought the greatest change to the Roman republic upon his ‘crossing the Rubicon’ in 49 B.C. but especially after his famous victory over General Pompey at the battle of Pharsalus in 48. B.C; this battle ensured his personal control over the Roman Empire.157 Before Caesar’s death (literally at the hands of Roman senators), he announced his successor to be his grand-nephew Gaius Octavius (Octavian) whom history remembers as Caesar Augustus. 158 After the defeat of Marc Antony and

Cleopatra at the battle of Actium159 on the western coast of Greece, Octavian then became

“undisputed ruler of the known world.”160

During Octavian’s reign (31 B.C. – A.D. 14), his building programs were

156 Witherington, New Testament History, 49, 51. 157 Cary and Scullard, 273. Cf. also Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, 314. M. Goodman’s sharp insight is worth repeating: “It has been said that when Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 B.C., he set Rome on a course toward Monarchy.” Cf. M. Goodman, The Roman World 44 B.C.-A.D. 180 (London: Routledge, 1997), 28 cited by Witherington, New Testament History, 72. 158 Most readers are familiar with the death of Julius Caesar at the hands of the senators (especially Brutus and Cassius) on the Ides of March (March 15th) in 44 B.C. However, what is typically misconstrued is the location of Caesar’s death – it was at Pompey’s theatre and not in the Senate house at the Forum. This famous scene is left unmarked in Rome, except for a building on the same location, built in the shape of the original theatre. Witherington reports the correct location. See also his concise account of Octavian’s rise to power and acquisition of the Consular’s chair. Ibid., 73. 159 Archaeological evidence in the form of a monument found at Nicopolis (literally ‘Victory City’) which was founded by Octavian suggests that Antony’s losses were severe. After a failed tactical maneuver by Antony, Cleopatra’s squadron fled first, then Antony’s while the remainder of the fleet surrendered. Cf. David Potter, Emperors of Rome: The Story of Imperial Rome from Julius Caesar to the Last Emperor (London: Quercus, 2007), 41. 160 Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era , 314 Jeffers goes on to say, “Thus by the time of Jesus, Rome was firmly in control of the Mediterranean and everyone in it. Its culture was poised to spread throughout the eastern Mediterranean.”

37 ambitious, opulent, and constant – reflecting the grandeur of the empire.161 Bo Reicke describes one of his crowning projects, some of which still stands today:

It was typical of the Augustan state that the seat of government was moved to

the Palatine. On this hill Augustus had built himself a palace (the word derives

from the name of a hill). Beside it he constructed a temple of his favorite god,

Apollo, adorned with gold and marble, where he convoked meetings and

assemblies (emphasis mine).162

Caesar’s palace, situated high above the Palatine hill, would have been a visible part of the Rome that Paul witnessed along with the other additions and building projects completed over the next few decades.

Nero and ‘the Great Fire of Rome’

However, the Rome of Paul’s sojourn was not as ‘beautiful’ or glamorous until after what historians describe as ‘the great fire of Rome.’163 In marked contrast, the landscape after

161 Ibid., 315. For the student of history, the ruins of ancient Rome are a fascinating study. However, McRay’s caveat is noteworthy: “For students of New Testament and archaeology, Rome should not be remembered so much for its ancient architecture as for its central role in providing the world with an empire of peace and prosperity, an era in which the message of Christianity was effectively disseminated through Greek-speaking Jewish emissaries working in a Greco-Roman culture. That such a cultural and linguistic melting pot might contribute to the spread of the Gospel was all part of what Paul means when he refers to God’s plan ‘in the fullness of time’” (Gal. 4:4). John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999), 350. 162 Bo Reicke, The New Testament Era: The World of the Bible from 500 B.C. to 100 A.D., trans. David E. Green. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), 227. 163 Laurence, Cleary and Sears describes the radical architectural differences: “Writers in antiquity were very conscious of the absence of beauty in the streets of Rome, prior to the great fire of AD 64. Rome was characterised by ugly buildings and narrow winding streets or vici. It was a city filled up rather than laid out and thus unlike both the colonies founded by Rome and Italian cities, such as Pompeii, and the cities founded by provincials. The great fire of Rome in AD 64 led to a new form of urbanism at Rome: rows of measured streets with broad thorough fares, a restriction on the height of buildings, open spaces, and the addition of colonnades in front of the apartment blocks. It is dubious whether these measures were fully implemented, but Tacitus is quite clear that the measures created a different form of urban experience in Rome–gone were the shady, winding streets, and towering buildings, and instead they were replaced with broad streets with colonnades and lower buildings. This was a new aesthetic for Rome, described by Tacitus

A.D. 64 was radically altered because of the colossal conflagration that destroyed an estimated 71% of the city.164 One of the most obvious examples is the landmark Coliseum, which was clearly the largest in the city, and yet it was not completed until A.D. 80.165

If we consider the approximate time that Paul (and company) arrived in Rome to be near A.D. 60 and there are good reasons for this,166 then the Emperor in question would have been Nero. Bruce declares that: “A new chapter in the history of Roman

Christianity... opens in A.D. 54, with the death of Claudius and the succession of Nero...”

167 Hence, a discussion of the Caesar that Paul originally appealed to is in order (Acts

25:11). Jeffers provides a helpful, opening summary of what Nero’s infamous rule was like:

Nero’s rule can be divided into two periods: the early period, until 62, when

he allowed himself to be guided by the philosopher Seneca and by the head of

the Praetorian168 Prefect Burrus; and the later period, when he ruled on his own.

in the second century AD, but one that can be found in other cities in the Empire.” Laurence, Cleary, and Sears, The City in the Roman West, 117-118. Cf. also Tac.Ann.15.38 and 43. 164 Bruce, The Book of Acts (1983), 535. Cf. also Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (New York: HarperSanFranscisco, 1984), 34 and Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 47. Tacitus records the devastating news: “Rome is divided into fourteen regions, among which only four remained intact. Three were burned to the ground, and of the other seven there were only a few houses left, which were severely damaged and half-burnt” (Tacitus, Ann. 15.40). 165 Laurence, Cleary and Sears describe the progression of the amphitheatre and the later dating of the Coliseum: “The games in the amphitheatre, whether beast hunts or gladiatorial contests or both, have become the iconic feature of Roman culture. This is true not just in popular culture, whether in film or on television, but also in academic scholarship. However, we need to remember at the outset that at Rome there was no stone amphitheatre until 29 BC, when Statilius Taurus constructed one in the Campus Martius (later destroyed in the f ire of AD 64), and it was only surpassed by the building of the Coliseum, which was opened by the Emperor Titus in AD 80–a structure that would remain the largest amphitheatre in the Roman world.” Laurence, Cleary, and Sears, The City in the Roman West, 259 166 Brown and Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity, 122-124. 167 Bruce, New Testament History, 373. Nero was the adopted son of Claudius who was “murdered by poisoned mushrooms possibly administered by his wife Agrippina.” Suetonius in his Life of Nero declares: “Even if [Nero] was not the instigator of the emperor’s death, he was at least privy to it, as he openly admitted it; for he used afterwards to laud mushrooms, the vehicle in which the poison was administered to Claudius, as ‘the food of the gods, as the Greek proverb has it’” (Suetonius, Life of Nero, 33). Potter, Emperors of Rome, 57, 64, 66-67. 168 During Paul’s initial Roman imprisonment he developed many significant relationships with such Praetorian guards. To the extent that he wrote to the Philippians saying: “...that it has become known

The early period saw a more balanced, enlightened rule, including several popular

reforms.169 The later era was characterized by the eccentric rule of a despot who

believed above all that he was an artist, and who left the Empire in the hands of

freedmen while he conducted a concert tour through Greece. Out of his love for

Greek culture, on his own initiative he declared all of Greece free. But out of fear

for his position, he viciously murdered anyone who seemed to threaten him.

Reportedly among his victims were his mother, his wife and his stepbrother. 170

Nero: ‘Son of a Monster’

If Suetonius described Caligula as a ‘monster’ (Life of Caligula, 22), then how shall we describe Nero? If in his fury and megalomania he accomplished such brutality,

throughout the entire palace guard [literally “in the whole Praetorium” ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ], and by everyone else, that my imprisonment is for Christ” (Phil. 1:13). Potter provides a helpful background for the Praetorian Guard which “... was formed in 27 BC by Augustus as an elite unit of some 4500 men who were charged with the task of providing personal protection for the emperor. Their name derives from the term applied to the Roman commander (praetor) used in the field, the Praetorium.” Of special significance is how Tiberius in AD 23 brought all the outlying barracks into one central location on the outskirts of the city which was known as the Castra Praetoria. Their power and influence in Roman history were unquestionable especially when it came to “...the appointment of their preferred candidate. This occurred most famously with the accession of Claudius after the assassination of Caligula (by officers of the Praetorian Guard) in AD 41.” Ibid., 58, 63. 169 Potter agrees with Jeffers’s assessment concerning Nero’s earlier reign saying: “It took some time for it to emerge that Nero’s appointment as emperor was a disaster.” Ibid., 66. Cary and Scullard describe how “During the ministry of Seneca and Burrus the government of Nero followed a cautious but efficient administrative routine... and outside his family he had spilt hardly any blood.” Cary and Scullard, 358. Witherington likewise describes his first five years as “...relatively moderate.” Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account, 278. Elsewhere Witherington (and also Peterson) suspects the ‘stratopedarch’ in the western text of Acts 28:16 just might be the Praetorian Prefect Afranius Burrus. Cf. Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 788 and also Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 708. 170 Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the background of Early Christianity, 318. Regarding Nero’s mother Potter tells the story: “In AD 59 Nero arranged for Agrippina to take a trip across the Bay of Naples on a boat that had been sabotaged so that its stern, where she would be seated, would break off during the voyage and sink. Yet Nero had failed to take into account that his mother was a strong swimmer. Having made it safely back to shore, the empress was an object of pity to the crowd that assembled as she dragged herself on the beach. Her son showed no mercy. Learning of her escape, he planted a dagger on her freedman and, concocting a story that she had in fact planned to kill him, sent a detachment of guards to detain Aggrippina and put her to death.” Potter, Emperors of Rome, 67. Concerning his wife Sabina Potter writes, “Nero’s regime lurched from crisis to crisis. A year after the fire , in a fit of rage, Nero kicked his wife Poppaea Sabina in the stomach while she was pregnant, causing her death.” Ibid., 68.

40 then his actions after ‘the Great Fire of Rome’ are hardly surprising. Accordingly, an introductory discussion here is essential for the pursuit of Paul’s fate and the end of Acts – as there are numerous views concerning this great disaster. Noted historians Cary and

Scullard describe the terrible event and the persecution as follows:

In 64 a great conflagration swept the centre of the town for over a week and

consumed some of its most crowded quarters. This disaster was beyond doubt

the result of an accident; and the emperor [Nero] deserved some credit for the

vigorous measures of relief which he instituted for the homeless, and the rules

which he laid down for the more scientific reconstruction of the devastated

areas. On the other hand Nero forfeited whatever good will he might have earned

by appropriating for his own use some 120 acres of the burnt-out region between

the Palatine and Esquiline hills, and laying them out as a pleasure-ground, in

which a sumptuous new palace, the Domus Aurea, was erected for him.171 The cry

therefore went up that he had fired Rome of set purpose in order to obtain at

reduced prices the building land which he coveted, and it was rumoured that he

had celebrated the occasion by singing an aria on the burning of Troy.172 The

171 Suetonius describes this 200 acre Imperial Palace: “…parts of the house were overlaid with gold and studded with precious stones... all the dining-rooms had ceilings of fretted ivory... The main dining room was circular, and its roof slowly revolved in synchronization with the day and night sky” (Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, ‘Nero’ 31). McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament, 345. 172 Cary and Scullard observe how: “The fire broke out on a mid-moon night in July, a most unlikely time for incendiaries to go to work. Clearly neither Nero nor the Christians were responsible.” Cary and Scullard, see note 25 on p. 634. Gonzales highlights how Nero was several miles away and yet “... as soon as he heard the news he hurried to Rome, where he tried to organize the fight against the fire. He opened to the homeless the gardens of his palace, as well as other public buildings.” Despite this fact Gonzales further highlights that: “Soon the rumour arose-and persists to this day in many history books-that Nero had ordered the city destroyed so he could rebuilt it according to his fancy. The Roman historian Tacitus, who may well have been present at the time, records several of the rumours that circulated, but seems to believe that the fire began accidentally in an oil ware-house.” Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 33-34. The historicity of Nero’s playing the lyre while the fire raged on is anyone’s guess, though his singing and lyre playing he took very seriously as Potter recalls: “According to Suetonius, the megalomaniac emperor Nero subjected

emperor, taking fright, cast about for a scapegoat, and Tigellinus173 helped him out

by laying hands on the members of the newly formed Christian community in the

capital.174 An unknown number of victims was condemned on mere profession

of faith, and burnt or otherwise tortured to death.175 Nevertheless the populace

persisted in its belief that Nero was the real culprit, while his ruthless cruelty

excited pity for the victims and thus increased his unpopularity.176

Given the magnitude of this landmark disaster and the subsequent Christian holocaust, the original account from the Roman historian Tacitus deserves special examination (quotation below). Four truths can be taken from his account: 1) Tacitus is clearly no friend of the Christians in Rome which lends to the authenticity of this early account; 2) it provides vital evidence of the substantial Christian presence in Rome by

his fellow Romans to interminable performances of song and recitation, which nobody was allowed to leave on pain of death.” Potter, Emperors of Rome, 68. 173 Ibid., 68. Potter notes how Tigellinus, after joining Nero’s inner circle, “...would prove a loyal confederate in encouraging the worst of Nero’s vices, and was rewarded in AD 62 by being made prefect of the Praetorian Guard.”Cary and Scullard’s assessment of this man is the same: “... in the later years of Nero the terror of previous reigns was renewed... Tigellinus played upon the emperor’s fears and induced him to unleash the professional informers, whom Burrus and Seneca had held in check” (emphasis mine). Cary and Scullard, 359. 174 Cf. Tacitus Ann. 15.44 accounts the horrible details of what took place. Curiously, according to Cary and Scullard “It is noteworthy that the details of the Neronian persecution were not remembered in the church tradition. [However, cf. 1 Clement 6:1 and my note 175 below] Apart from Tacitus, there is a curt allusion in Suetonius (Nero, xvi. 2), who does not connect the action against the Christians with the charge of arson. Tacitus’s expression ‘correpti [sunt] qui fatebantur’ has given rise to much discussion: they confessed before arrest, but what did they confess? Surely not incendiarism, but Christianity. Tacitus, who is highly contemptuous of the Christians, and assumes them to be guilty of various kinds of foul living (flagitia), does not countenance the belief that they set Rome on fire; he states positively that the charges against them were a ‘frame-up.’” Ibid., note 26 on p. 634. 175 Jeffers describes the magnitude of persecution: “Hundreds of Roman Christians, perhaps several thousand , lost their lives in this persecution. Tacitus says that “an immense multitude” was convicted (Annals 15:44). Clement uses a similar phrase when he says that “a great multitude” was put to death at this time” (1 Clement 6:1). Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, 319. Lampe adds this insight to the dual witness of Tacitus and Clement calling this “... a coincidence that can hardly be explained by imputing rhetorical exaggeration to both authors.” Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 82. 176 Cary and Scullard, 359. Jeffers discuses the blame game for the fire: “Although Tacitus seems to believe the rumours that Nero ordered the fire, there is no hard evidence for this. At any rate, Nero needed to remove blame from himself in the minds of the angry Roman public. He found appropriate scapegoats, according to Tacitus, in the Christians. Thus began the Neronian persecution.” Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, 318.

A.D. 64; 3) this is “...one of the most ancient extant indications of how pagans viewed

Christians;”177 4) the ferocity of the persecution strongly suggests that prominent Christian leaders would not have survived –especially given Paul’s notoriety among Jewish and

Roman leadership (cf. Acts 28:17-31; Phil. 1:13; 4:22). Tacitus describes the following account, sparing none of the barbaric details:

In spite of every human effort, of the emperor’s largesse, and of the sacrifices

made to the gods, nothing sufficed to allay the superstition nor to destroy the

opinion that the fire had been ordered. Therefore in order to destroy this rumour,

Nero blamed the Christians,178 who are hated for their abominations, and punished

them with refined cruelty. Christ, from whom they take their name, was executed

by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Stopped for a moment, this evil

superstition reappeared, not only in Judea, where was the root of the evil, but also

in Rome, where all things sordid and abominable from every corner of the world

come together. Thus, first those who confessed [that they were Christians] were

arrested, and on the basis of their testimony a great number were condemned,

although not so much for the fire itself as for their hatred of humankind. Before

killing the Christians, Nero used them to amuse the people. Some were dressed in

furs, to be killed by dogs. Others were crucified. Still others were set on fire early

177 Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 35. 178 Lampe masterfully deduces via his multifaceted approach the reason why Nero successfully blamed the Christians as ‘scapegoats.’ The logic is much more obvious as we consider that the major concentration of Christians lived across the Tiber in the region known as Trastevere. Since Tacitus (Ann. 15:40) says that only 4 regions of Rome were spared Lampe explains his conclusion: “Certainly Trastevere – on the other bank of the Tiber – was one of the four quarters spared... Those who had saved their own skins and had watched the fiery spectacle from the safety of the other shore became easy targets for suspicion of having set the fire. For demographic purposes this situation must have appeared ideal. And Nero, himself under suspicion in the rumors of the populace, had every reason to think up a believable diverting maneuver to direct the people’s wrath away from himself.” Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 47. Additionally, there were other regions spared by the fire where Christians lived.

in the night, so that they might illuminate it. Nero opened his own gardens for

these shows, and in the circus he himself became a spectacle, for he mingled with

the people dressed as a charioteer, or he rode around in his chariot. All of this

aroused the mercy of the people, even against these culprits who deserved an

exemplary punishment, for it was clear that they were not being destroyed for the

common good, but rather to satisfy the cruelty of one person. [Tacitus, Annals

15:44 (my emphasis)]179

From the cold account of Tacitus, it is clear that while he does not care about the

Christians, he indicates that the reason for the persecution was not justice, but the crazed desires of the Emperor.180

The Historical Jewish and Christian Presence in Rome

In order to fully understand the mid-first century presence of Christianity in Rome, the natural place to begin is with a brief history of the already well-established Jewish presence. Roman Judaica was the incubator of Christianity in Rome. Brown wisely remarks how: “That background will enable us to speculate intelligently on the type of

Christianity that may have flourished in Rome.”181 Therefore, the goal of this research will be to outline the Jewish presence and origins first followed by the Christian presence in

Rome. However, due to the significant overlap between the two groups, at times, the research will be presented conjointly.

The Jewish population in Rome is well attested by many scholars such as

Raymond Brown who estimates some 40,000-50,000 Jews had lived in Rome by the first

179 Gonzalez, 34-35. 180 Ibid., 35. 181 Brown and Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity, 92.

44 century A.D.182 The first known Jewish immigration to Europe was in Rome and began as early as ca. 139 B.C. – some came as captives, others came as merchants.183 Accordingly,

Benjamin Wright III describes an earlier date for Jewish immigration and how Jews were quite familiar with the:

...Roman slave systems from early on... In many cases, Jews were among those

known to have been slaves. For instance, two inscriptions from Delphi, which date

to 163/162 and 158/157 BCE, note the manumission of an unknown Jewish slave

and a Jewish slave woman and her two daughters. Although it is not certain when

Jews began to settle in Rome, the greatest population expansion of that diaspora

community most likely came about beginning in the first century BCE through the

importation of Jews as slaves. 184

The Jewish population grew once again with further captives coming to Rome after

Pompey’s conquest of Palestine.185 There is also legal evidence from the trial of a certain

“prestigious scoundrel, Valerius Flaccus,” who “... was accused of stealing gold from the

182 Ibid., 92-97 estimate taken from p. 94. So also A.C. Clark; However, Peterson cites Witherington with a more conservative estimate of 20,000 in the time of Nero “...due to the earlier expulsion of Jews under Claudius.” Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 710. 183 Brown and Meier, 93. Brown cites the account of a certain ‘Valerius Maximus’ as an example in Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium 1.3.2. Furthermore, Wright describes the fact that “Abundant evidence exists for Jewish communities throughout the Mediterranean world.” He then points to “... Josephus's celebrated citation of Strabo (Ant. 14.114-15) who remarks that Jews can be found in every city...” while further citing Agrippa’s exaggerated but truthful speech in War 2.398 who says “There is not a people in the world which does not contain a portion of our race.” Cf. Benjamin G. Wright III, “’Ebed/doulos: Terms and Social Status in the Meeting of Hebrew Biblical and Hellenistic Roman Culture,” Semeia (1998): 87. 184 Ibid, 87-88. 185 Brown and Meier, 93. Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (106-48 B.C.), “Pompey” was the famous General, and Consul of the Roman Republic (70 B.C., 55 B.C., 52 B.C.) See Potter, Emperors of Rome: The Story of Imperial Rome from Julius Caesar to the Last Emperor, 24-25. Wright further explains how “...Pompey undoubtedly brought back captives, who would be sold as slaves, as part of his triumph. Philo, in the first century CE, remarks that most of the inhabitants of the Jewish community in Rome were brought to Rome as slaves and later were manumitted (Legatio ad Gaium 155), and certainly many more slaves were brought to Rome to celebrate Titus's triumph over the Jews in the First Revolt.” Cf. Wright, “’Ebed/doulos: Terms and Social Status in the Meeting of Hebrew Biblical and Hellenistic Roman Culture,” 88.

Jews.”186

According to Josephus (who wrote extensively concerning his Jewish heritage), the Jews gained special privileges after supporting “...the winning side in the wars that followed Caesar’s assination...”187 Further supporting evidence of the Roman Jewish presence is found in the many synagogues in Rome; two of them were named after Caesar and his son in law, Marcus Agrippa.188 In the Life of Claudius, the Roman Historian

Suetonius (c. A.D. 75-160) wrote a series of biographies regarding the Emperors. One famous citation regarding Claudius (A.D. 41-54) states: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them (the Jews) from “Rome.” 189

Most historians agree that Chrestus refers to Jesus Christ and the disturbance was not because of Christ – but over Christ.190 Commenting on this milestone event, Lampe declares: “With the events surrounding the ‘edict of Claudius,’ urban Roman Christianity steps for the first time into the light of history.”191 While academicians (Gonzales, Bruce,

Stein et al) say that the Christian proclamation caused many riots among the Jews – which incited Claudius to expel them all (see related examples in Acts 6:9-15; 13:49-51; 14:19-

186 This by itself is not convincing, but the fact that the famous Senator and Orator Cicero was prejudiced towards the Jews when he said: “You know how large a group they are, how unanimously they stick together, how influential in politics. I shall lower my voice and speak just loudly enough for the jury to hear me; for there are plenty of people to stir up those Jews against me and against every good Roman” (my emphasis). Brown and Meier, quotation from pp. 93-94. Cf. also Cicero, Pro Flacco 28 # 66-67. 187 Ibid., 94 Some of these privileges allowed them to gather more freely and raise money for the Temple in Jerusalem. 188 Cf. Suetonius, Julius 84.5 where apparently the Jews greatly mourned the death of Caesar. The names of the two synagogues were Augustesians and the other was Agrippesians. Ibid., 94. 189 Robert H. Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ (Downers Grove: InterVaristy Press, 1996), 27. Most scholars (such as Witherington) date this expulsion to be A.D. 49. Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account, 197. 190 Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 32. Cf. also Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ, 27. Brown makes the important linguistic distinction by noting how “... in the second century (the period when Suetonius was writing), both “Christus” (Christ) and “Christianus” (Christian) were often written with an “e” instead of an “i” following the “r.” One wonders whether Suetonius might not be giving us a garbled memory of struggles among the Jews over Christ.” In Brown’s note he recalls how the “Codex Sinaiticus used Chrest- for Christ- in Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16.” Brown and Meier, 100-101. 191 Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 11.

20; Acts 17:6ff. etc),192 Lampe (also Witherington) argues from several angles that among the expelled were also Jewish-Christians.193 This expulsion brings additional evidence for the Jewish (and early Christian) presence in Rome but also collaborative authenticity for the book of Acts; where in Acts 18:2 Luke records how “…Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome…”194 This is remarkably analogous to Suetonius’s version of the Claudius edict.

The political relationship between Rome and Judea also deserves special attention.

Some 140 years before Christ, the Maccabean/Hasmonean high priests were in contact with Rome.195 Brown explains how the “...later Hasmonean priests supported Julius

Caesar against Pompey, and the Judean King Herod the Great eventually became an ally of Octavian Augustus.”196 This unique political relationship with Judean rulers and the

Imperial Court grew well into the first century A.D., and beyond. Lastly, when the apostle

Paul came to Rome, Luke explains how “... it happened that after three days Paul called together the leaders of the Jews” (Acts 18:17). This also reveals an important canonical witness of their long-established presence in Rome by A.D. 64 – along with the

192 Gonzalez, 32. Bruce highlights the opposition that Paul and company received from the Jewish leaders in Thessalonica (Acts 17:6ff.) as an example of the kind of ‘disturbance’ which led to Claudius’ edict. Bruce, New Testament History, 283. See also Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ, 27. 193 One example in support of this view is that from among the expelled ‘Jews’ was “a Jew named Aquila.” He was clearly ‘Jewish,’ and yet along with his wife Priscilla together they were well known ‘Christian’ leaders in the early church (Acts 18:2, 18, 26; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19; esp. Rom. 16:3). See Lampe’s masterful reasoning in Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 11-16. Likewise Witherington deduces that among the expelled ‘Jews’ were also Jewish Christians and ‘prominent early Christian missionaries’ such as Priscilla and Acquila. He also demonstrates how the edict of A.D. 49 “sent shockwaves through the empire” impacting the question of Jewish/Gentile Christians relations. He also reasons that this is the formative background of the apostolic council in Jerusalem in Acts 15: “...the most crucial chapter in the whole book.” Curiously, later in the same year of Claudius’ edict (A.D. 49), Paul addresses similar critical issues when writing the Galatians. It is hardly surprising that the Acts 15 council was also c. A.D. 49 or 50. See Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account, 242ff., 249ff., quotations from pp. 242-24, cf. 197, 198 for chronology. See also page 330 of the same work concerning the social backdrop of Paul’s engagement with the Jews in Acts 28. 194 This rioting is implied in Cicero’s comments (cf. my note 186 above): Cicero, Pro Flacco 28 # 66-67. 195 Brown and Meier, 95. 196 Ibid., 95.

47 subsequent interchange that proceeded (28:17-28).

There is another avenue of evidence when considering the Jewish presence in

Rome. Lampe in his comprehensive research reveals that since the first century B.C. the traditional location of the Jewish quarter was the XIV Augustan region known as

‘Trastevere.’197 He cites Philo, Leg. Ad Gaium 155, 157 where Augustus:

...knew that the great section of Rome on the other side of the Tiber River was

occupied and inhabited by the Jews. Most were emancipated Roman citizens.

For having been brought to Italy as prisoners of war, they were liberated by

their owners... He neither ejected them from Rome nor deprived them of their

Roman citizenship...198

Given the Jewish roots of Christianity in Rome, it is not surprising to discover equally solid evidence that Trastevere is also an early settlement for Christians as well.199

Christian ‘Origins’ in Rome

Besides the obvious Jewish presence in Rome, what else can we know concerning the Christian presence in Rome? Secondly, how and where exactly did Christianity first spread in the capital? Much of the significant evidence has already been presented: First, indirectly because of the existing Jewish presence, and secondly, because of the direct evidence resulting from the persecution under Nero. However there are other avenues to undergird the historicity of their existence long before Paul’s arrival in Rome in c. 61 [see

197 Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 38. 198 Lampe also notes how the ‘Monteverde’ cemetery nearby Trastevere (to the right of the Tiber) is the oldest Jewish cemetery in Rome perhaps dating to the first century B.C. This along with surviving inscriptions ratifies this information. Ibid., 39-40. 199 Lampe writes: “We are able with great certainty to identify Trastevere, the XIV Augustan region, as an early Christian residential quarter.” Ibid., 42, 44-45, quotation taken from p. 42.

Paul’s detailed (but not dated) arrival in Acts 28:14 ff].200 Bruce declares that: “Less than three years after the accession of Nero, Paul could describe the Christian community as renowned for its faith throughout the world.”201 Indeed, there is perhaps no other single historical document addressed to a specific group of people, with as many personal details, names and subjects as Paul’s letter to this church in Rome (especially Rom.

16:1ff). Near the end of his letter, he indicates that “...for many years I have desired to come to visit you...” (Rom. 15:23). Since Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans c. 58 and could write of their well-known faith, it is plausible to wind the clock back at least to the early 50’s A.D.202 This fact, paired with Claudius’s datable expulsion of A.D. 49, makes it very likely that Christianity was firmly-rooted by the 40’s A.D.203

Beyond the evidence of Christianity already being established in Rome at least by the 50s A.D.,204 how and where did the gospel message first spread? Perhaps the first

Christians can be traced to Roman Jews who witnessed the powerful preaching of Peter at

200 Brown and Meier, 97. Though other scholars date his arrival slightly earlier in the spring of A.D. 60: Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account, 199. 201 Bruce, New Testament History, 373. After his introduction, Paul writes in verse 8: “First of all, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.” 202 Again the dating of Paul’s writing Romans from Corinth could be as early as A.D. 56 or early 57 – reflecting the previous influx of Jews (c. A.D. 54) that were allowed to return after Claudius’s expulsion. Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account, 198, 292. Dunn also notes that Paul’s letters indicate “...that there was already a significant number of Christians in Rome.” James D.G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making Volume 2: Beginning from Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 1003. 203 Brown sums it up best: “Thus the contention that Christianity reached Rome in the early 40’s remains unverifiable probability; that it had reached Rome by the late 40s or early 50s is virtually certain.” Brown and Meier, 99-100, 102 quotation here is from p. 103. Yet Peterson cites Tajra who “...argues that Christianity reached Rome at the end of Tiberius’s reign (which extended to A.D. 37) through the agency of the Jewish Dispersion.” Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 709. Cf. also H.W. Tajra, The Martyrdom of St. Paul (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1994), 76-77. 204 Curiously, some scholars propose that: “Judaism and Christianity began to emerge as clearly distinct entities c. 90 CE” – but without explanation. The evidence outlined in this section strongly suggests that such a distinction was evident decades earlier. Perhaps the assumption of a late dating of Acts to the early second century supports this view. Pervo, Acts, 685.

Pentecost (Acts 2:10) as some scholars suggest.205 Regardless, from among the established

Jewish population, Christianity would have flourished as it did in other cities across the

Mediterranean such as in Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus and Corinth – but are there specific clues to how and when? Peter Lampe discusses many of the traditional evidences of

Christian origins in Rome and suggests that it was actually ‘via’ the Puteoli-Rome trade route with the east.206 The reasons for this are manifold and require a correct understanding of the actual trade routes in the first half of the first century A.D. (which were different in the second half). It is interesting to note how the main trade route was in fact Puteoli and not the later strategic port of Ostia – which underscores Paul’s arrival in

Rome via Puteoli according to Acts 28:13: “From there we circled round and came to

Rhegium; and after one day a south wind came up, and on the following day we arrived in

Puteoli...” The ship that Paul and company were on was from Alexandria in Egypt, so chances are it was another grain ship similar to the one they shipwrecked on Malta (Acts

27:38, 41) on their way to Italy. This is a beautiful corroboration with the earlier manner of Roman shipping trade in the time of Nero.207

By the time Paul arrived there in A.D. 61, it is important to consider that many other religions entered the heart of the Roman Empire specifically through this trade route with the east. The cult of ‘Serapis’ is one such example where a temple was found as early as 105 B.C. where evidence for the cult was not found until the mid-first century B.C. on

205 However, Brown contends this is sheer imagination as those Jews were ‘resident’ at Jerusalem – Brown and Meier, 104. 206 Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 7-10. Puteoli was the strategic port city for Neapolis (modern day Naples). See my note 155 for more information on Puteoli. 207 Lampe explains how it was: “Still in the time of Nero, the harbor of Puteoli, not that of Ostia, represented the main gateway of Rome to the East... not until the Flavians did Ostia catch up in importance.” Ibid., 10 Cf. also Seneca, Ep. 77.1

50 the Mars field in Rome.208 Lastly, a further example is found in A.D. 79 with an inscription explaining how a “...new god from the east had made its entrance into Puteoli, this time one from Phoenicia.”209

Returning to the conceivable entrance of Christianity via Puteoli, the book of Acts records in 28:14 literally: “where finding brethren” (οὗ εὑρόντες ἀδελφοὺς). From this passage and from Romans 15:23 (reasoned above) it can be safely deduced the situation in

Puteoli is evidence of pre-Pauline Christianity. It can also be safely deduced that Luke’s phrase “where finding brethren” implies they were perhaps unaware of this Christian community.210 It is also clear from Acts 28:15 there were Christians in Rome who

“...came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us.”211 Beyond the sources already discussed, is there additional evidence of Christians living in Puteoli or in the surrounding region? Some historians think there is (i.e. Gonzales), while others like

Lampe are not convinced. Lampe explains his hesitation by saying: “In fact, findings from

Pompeii and Herculaneum, from which occasionally it has been concluded that Christians were present, are most ambivalent; there is no persuasive evidence.”212

Though Lampe recognizes the evidence for the Jewish and Christian presence in

Puteoli and Rome (recall my note 199 above), he cites several of the ‘traditional’ examples that are not so iron-clad upon careful investigation. The first one is from an

208 Ibid., 10. Puteoli was also the recipient of the Nabatean divinity ‘Drusares.’ 209 Ibid., 10. 210 Unless of course we take Paul’s address to the church ‘in Rome’ in a broader geographical sense: i.e. (πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ) “to all who are in Rome.” This is hypothetical, and the broader inclusion could be argued both ways especially with the use of the preposition (ἐν). However, considering just how large and strategic the city of Rome was it would also be unlikely for Paul to exclude nearby towns and cities. Perhaps an example of this is found when Paul wrote Romans from Corinth and yet acknowledged “...Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea...” which was the eastern port of Corinth (Rom. 16:1 - my emphasis). 211 Witherington notes how this was a great show of “respect and affection” as these Christians journeyed (walked) the 40 miles south from Rome to the Appian Forum along the Via Appia. Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account, 322. 212 Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 7.

“atrium wall of a house ‘Vico del Balcone pensile’ no. 22” from Pompeii. The charcoal scribble on the wall (which has disappeared since 1864) reads: “Christian.” Lampe righty asks whether this is a truly ‘Christian’ inscription or perhaps it is an insult. Regardless, and more optimistically, it does reveal that this person came in contact with Christians.213

A second inscription reads “FIDILIS IN P” meaning “fidelis in pace,” which may possibly be Christian, however both “IN PACE” and “FIDELIS” are also commonly found among

Roman pagan inscriptions.214 Thirdly, in 1952 an amphora was found marked with a Chi-

Rho (first two letters of Christ) – however it may simply refer to the contents inside.215

The fourth example is the famous “magical square” from Pompeii that reads “Rotas-

Sator” which can be read either way and can also be grouped as “Pater Noster” as well.

Without a familiarity or consideration of other ancient religions, it is easy to conclude this as ‘Christian.’ However, it could simply be a Jewish or Mithraic writing as well.216 A fifth example is in the form of a “Pompeian scribble (which) reads “Sodom(a) Gomora.”

Visitors to Pompeii quickly become familiar with their openly sexual and explicit

‘artistry’ and graffiti – so this could reasonably be a Jewish or Christian “...commentary on Pompeian life.”217

Finally, this last example may be rather surprising for some readers who were presented the following as ‘iron-clad’ evidence for Christianity in Herculaneum c. A.D.

79. The famous imprint of a Latin cross was found in the ‘Casa del Bicentenario’ located on the Decumanus Maximus in nearby Herculaneum.218 The traditional view is usually

213 Ibid., 8. Cf. inscription CIL (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum), 4:679 214 Ibid., 8. Cf. inscription CIL, 4:3200 c. 215 Ibid., 8. Lampe notes how one amphora was found with a Chi-Rho that was “unequivocally” pagan. Additionally, many non-Christian coins and papyri have been found with the Chi-Rho. 216 Ibid., 8-9. Lampe also cites that it was not until after A.D. 500 that Christians used the square. 217 Ibid., 9. Cf. inscription CIJ (Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum), 567; and CIL 4:4976. 218 Ibid., 9.

52 presented as conclusive evidence. Gonzales, an otherwise accomplished historian, optimistically jumps to conclusions saying: “This shrine, found in a relatively humble house in Herculaneum, attests to the presence of Christians living there in the first century.”219 This may be a veritable truth, however, ‘in context,’ the impression may have only been to support a ‘secular console.’ Evidently, the ‘Pansa House’ from Pompeii reveals this sort of generic usage.220 Furthermore, ancient Christian writers suggest that it was not uncommon among pagans for them to use a ‘cruciform object’ even for cultic purposes (Minucius Felix, Oct. 29.8; Tertullian, Apol. 16.6-8).221

Therefore, after weighing the evidence in context, and respecting the literary and archaeological boundaries between safety and speculation, the following inferences can be made concerning the origins of Roman Christianity. First, given the corroborative edict of

Claudius in A.D. 49, paired with the New Testament record in Acts and Paul’s letter to the

Romans, it can be safely assumed Christianity was present in Rome (and Puteoli) no later than the early 50’s and possibly as early as the 40’s A.D (cf. esp. Acts 28:14-15).

Secondly, Christianity likely flourished first via the Rome-Puteoli trade route with the eastern Mediterranean.222 Thirdly, Christianity probably flourished first among the synagogues and Jewish population (esp. Trastevere) as was commonplace throughout the

New Testament (i.e. Acts 13:5; 14:1; 17:2, 17 etc). Fourthly, as reasoned extensively from the non-Christian sources related to the ‘great fire of Rome’ and the subsequent Neronian

219 So Gonzalez, 93. 220 Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 9. 221 Ibid., 9. 222 Witherington (along with many scholars) also refers to Lampe’s older “landmark” study for the “intra- Jewish phenomenon” for the origins of Roman Christianity in: P. Lampe, Die stadtromischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten: Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte, WUNT 2.18, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1989), 10-35. See his similar comments previously reasoned above viz his citation of J.C. Walters in Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account, 329.

53 persecution, the historical presence of Christianity in Rome by A.D. 64 is beyond debate.

The Rome of St. Paul in his day – Preliminary Observations

The purpose of this chapter was to introduce ‘the Rome of St. Paul in his day.’ All three aspects of this study are needed in order to paint a proper context of what Rome was like in Paul’s day. A first priority was to examine the unique historical development of

Rome – including the physical, geographical and cultural progression of the city. Paired with this priority, a supplementary goal was to consider the legendary origins of Rome.

The second endeavour of this chapter was to incorporate the life of ‘St. Paul’ in the context of Rome while exploring the ways in which he would have engaged this people and its unique culture. Thirdly, Rome – including its topography, economy, religion, politics, and culture – has changed over time – just as any other ancient city does. Hence the need was to examine ‘the Rome of St. Paul – in his day.’ Failure to incorporate all three subject areas together will likely produce a fabrication of the fate of the historical

Apostle Paul.223 Therefore, chronology is of paramount importance for the present study – especially when considering the many ways scholars have drawn careless conclusions about Paul’s fate by ignoring the timing of key historical events.224

The chapter began with a simple question from Pliny’s friend Minicianus: ‘What’s going on in Rome?’ Along with the momentous impact of Paul’s life and letters upon world history, it was reasoned that even the most ‘trivial’ matters can have an enormous

223 I am indebted to C.A. Evans for the purpose and use of this word ‘fabrication’ in light of the ways scholars have distorted the historical Paul and the end of Acts. Cf. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. 224 Examples of this are manifold and typically revolve around the dating of Luke-Acts and other ancient documents (cf. Chapter II and Re: Dating of Luke-Acts: Early, Intermediate, or Late?). Chronology is also an important consideration concerning the legal nature of Paul’s trial (cf. Chapter III and ‘The Trial of St. Paul’). Many scholars have also drawn shaky conclusions based on the literary context of Acts. Cf. Troftgruben’s recent and masterful survey of the issues.

54 impact on of history. Next, ‘The Greco-Roman Context’ explained the necessity of understanding the unique social, political, cultural and religious context of the ancient

Romans. Subsequently, it was discovered how the ancient Romans were not only impacted by the Greeks (as commonly known) but also by the Etruscans as well in the

‘Historical Origins of Rome.’ Further matters of geographical and topographical significance were examined as they have shaped the development and physical location of

Rome as a city.

Within the next section: ‘Legendary Origins of Rome,’ the cultural and religious dimension of Rome’s founding was explored. Just as any missionary with a message, Paul would have engaged these stories as they would have been circulating by the time of his arrival in Rome. Subsequently, within ‘The Rome of St. Paul in his day,’ some of the great military and political leaders were introduced as they shaped the growth and development of the Roman Empire. Next, one of the greatest events in Roman History was examined in light of Roman Christianity in the section: ‘Nero and ‘the Great Fire of

Rome.’ The fire of A.D. 64 would have been front page news in New Testament times.

Here it was discovered the shocking truth that nearly 71% of the capital city was destroyed. Accordingly, the severity of the Christian persecution in Rome was discussed in the reciprocal section entitled: ‘Nero: ‘Son of a Monster.’ Lastly, in the remaining sections of Chapter I, it was argued that long before Paul’s arrival (c. 61), there existed flourishing Jewish and Christian communities.225

After weighing the evidence together, it becomes clear that Paul and ‘a multitude’ from among these Christians were killed in Rome under Nero following the ‘great fire of

Rome’ in A.D. 64. However, curious scholars continue to ask probing questions, striving

225 Cf. ‘The Historical Jewish and Christian Presence in Rome’ and ‘Christian ‘Origins’ in Rome.’ 55 for more details regarding Paul’s fate. Perhaps the greatest question still remains – why did Luke (or any other New Testament writer) not say anything about these titanic events?

Or is the generic description of Paul’s death and countless martyrs simply another sad page in history? Is this all we can safely know – or are there other clues among the ancient writers that may provide further information on what happened? What insights can we discover as we drag ‘this old chestnut out of the fire.’ 226 By pressing forward and sifting through the cavalcade of ancient and modern views, perhaps there are answers to these vexing questions.

226 Pherigo, 277–84, quotation from p. 277.

Chapter II: Critical Analysis of Acts in Light of Paul’s Roman Imprisonment

The Facts of Acts

The sheer size of this ancient book immediately warrants the attention of anyone interested in the history of the early church. C. A. Evans remarks how Luke’s “...two- volume work, Luke-Acts, amounts to approximately one fourth of the entire New

Testament! No other contributor to the New Testament wrote as much.”227 Therefore, scholarship regarding this two-volume book is of vital importance both from a theological and historical perspective.228 In recent decades, there has been renaissance in Acts scholarship. In Mikeal C. Parsons’s book, he highlights the epithets for 20th century Acts scholarship as such: “‘A storm center’ (Unnik 1966). ‘Shifting sands’ (Talbert 1976). ‘A fruitful field’ (Gasque 1988).”229 Ben Witherington III calls Acts “...one of the most interesting and puzzling books in the New Testament...” and how “In modern scholarship

Luke has been a battlefield or ‘storm center’ because of the difficult questions it raises.”230

The storm continues as evidenced by the number of fresh books and articles produced since the turn of the 21st century. This trend will surely continue for years to come – as new studies and new discoveries are made.

External Authorship of Luke-Acts

Since the issue of authorship is beyond the scope of the present study, only a brief discussion will be offered here. There are differing views concerning who wrote Luke-

227 C. A. Evans, Luke (New International Biblical Commentary; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1990), 1. 228 Liefeld observes: “Had modern methods of book publishing been available in the first century, the books of Luke and Acts might have been found standing side by side in paperback editions on a bookseller’s shelf.” Walter L. Liefeld, Luke (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 8; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 797. 229 Parsons, Acts, 3. 230 Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 1.

Acts, however the traditional view based upon the majority of scholars is derived from the earliest manuscripts. Joseph Fitzmyer identifies (papyrus: p74) as one of the best and early manuscripts for the book of Acts, where “...the title appears at the end of the Greek Text:

Praxis [ap]ostolon.”231 Additionally, Evans and Peterson both describe the oldest surviving Greek manuscript (p75), which is dated ca. A.D. 175-225 bearing the ancient title, the “Gospel according to Luke” written at the end of the scroll.232 Additionally, the

Muratorian Fragment provides a vital late second century reference to Luke’s authorship:

In the third place (we have) the book of the gospel according to Luke. It was

composed by Luke the physician after the ascension of Christ. Paul took Luke

along with him as his legal expert, so to speak (quasi ut iuris studiosum); he

wrote in his own name but in accordance with [Paul’s] opinion. He himself

never saw the Lord in the flesh; therefore, as well as he could ascertain (the

facts), he began to tell his story from the nativity of John... The Acts of all the

apostles have been written in one book: Luke, addressing “the most excellent

Theophilus,” thus brings together one by one the things which took place in his

presence, as is made evident by the omission of the passion of Peter and also of

Paul’s departure from the city for Spain (emphasis mine).233

Walter Liefeld notes the dating of this fragment (c. A.D. 180) and yet refers to an earlier witness to Luke’s authorship, “the heretic Marcion” (c. A.D. 135).234 Among the early church fathers, Irenaeus the Bishop of Lyons (ca. 125-202) also regarded Luke as

231 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Acts (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 47. 232 Evans, Luke, 1. Cf. also Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 1. 233 Lines 2-8, 34-39 of the second century “Muratorian Fragment” reproduced from: F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, Revised. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 1. Note well these curious omissions. This may suggest that the author of the Muratorian Fragment understood that Luke was unaware of Paul’s fate when he wrote Acts. 234 Liefeld, Luke, 799.

58 not only the author of the third gospel but the close companion (or follower) of Paul:

“Luke also, the companion of Paul (Καὶ Λουκᾶς δέ, ὁ ἀκόλουθος Παύλου), recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him” (Against Heresies, 3.1.7).235 In a later chapter of his third book, he writes:

If Paul had known any mysteries unrevealed to the other apostles, Luke, his

constant companion and fellow-traveller, could not have been ignorant of them;

neither could the truth have possibly lain hid from him, through whom alone we

learn many and most important particulars of the Gospel history. But that this Luke

was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself

clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself

(Against Heresies, 3.14.1 – my emphasis).236

Irenaeus’s comments here provide a valuable historical connection. This is reminiscent of the value the Apostle Paul had upon his beloved friend and co-worker Luke when he wrote: “Luke alone is with me” Λουκᾶς ἐστιν μόνος μετʼ ἐμοῦ (2 Tim. 4:11). Lastly,

Bruce also provides references to many other ancient works including Clement of

Alexander, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome. Then he categorically states that “...from the late second century on, the consentient witness of all who write on the subject is that the author of the two volumes ... was one and the same person, and that his name was

Luke.”237

235 The TLG provides the Greek: “Καὶ Λουκᾶς δέ, ὁ ἀκόλουθος Παύλου, τὸ ὑπ’ἐκείνου κηρυσσόμενον εὐαγγέλιον ἐν βίβλῳ κατέθετο” For the translation, cf. Philip Schaff, ed., “Irenaeus Against Heresies,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, Reprint. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 414. 236 Ibid., 437. 237 Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 2. For further reference and study see also: Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 5:12.82.4 and Adumbr. In 1 Pet.); Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4.2, 5; 5.2); Origen (ap.); Eusebius (HE 6.25.14, 3.4.6); Jerome (De vir. Ill. 7).

Internal Authorship of Luke-Acts

Scholars, who are confident in Luke’s authorship, do so based upon several contributing “internal” factors. Liefeld highlights the following four reasons: 1) Luke and

Acts are addressed to one person (Theophilus Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1); 2) Acts refers to the

“first book” (πρῶτον λόγον) as well as the exact same person (Θεόφιλε); 3) Luke’s style, structural characteristics, theological terms and themes and references to certain individuals are identifiable and common to both books; 4) not only do the two volumes have a number of themes in common, they both contain a significant portion of passages that are unique to Luke’s pen.238

Likewise, the famous “we” passages in Acts (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18;

27:1-28:16) associates Luke not only as the author, but as a participant in several of the

Pauline travelogues.239 During such pericopes, the use of the first person plural makes it clear that the author of Acts was travelling with Paul, Silas and Timothy as well.240 After the Jerusalem council, Paul brought Silas along (Acts 15:40) where they met Timothy in

Lystra (Acts 16:1) and Luke in Troas.241 Richard Longenecker observes that: “Many commentators have suggested that Paul met Luke at Troas, perhaps initially for medical

238 According to C.F. Evans, this unique “L” material comprises 485 verses of Luke, or about 42 percent of Luke’s whole. A helpful summary of these passages was provided in lectures by Jeremiah J. Johnston, “The Gospel of Luke: Critical Issues and Interpretation,” BIBL 6123: Gospel of Luke (class lecture, Acadia Divinity College, Wolfville, N.S., 2012), 268. The “L” material found in the book of Acts is significantly higher given the nature of this second work as an historical narrative. Besides references to philosophers such as Epimenides and Aratus within Paul’s speech in Athens (Acts 17:28) and a considerable number of Old Testament references, the unique “L” material in Acts is significantly higher than found in Luke’s gospel. 239 Cf. Evans, Luke, 18. For an alternative perspective, see Porter, The Paul of Acts, 41 and my note 71 above. 240 Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 3. Bruce rightly notes “One relevant and striking piece of evidence is the presence here and there in Acts of sections in which the usual 3rd pers. (sing. Or plur.) of the narrative suddenly gives way to the 1st pers. plur.” We see this in the very first “we” section in Acts 16:10 when Luke writes εὐθέως ἐζητήσαμεν ἐξελθεῖν – “...immediately we sought to go out...” where the verb ἐζητήσαμεν is a first person plural. 241 This port city in western Turkey was the location of Paul’s famous vision of the man from Macedonia (Acts 16:9) that sparked the very first European Mission.

60 reasons...”242 Longenecker also proposes a likely scenario that Luke was a Macedonian, “a resident of Philippi.”243 However, Liefeld notes the suggestion that some scholars believe otherwise – that Luke came from Antioch in Syria.244 Furthermore, it is also clear that

Luke played a key role in the overall mission of the church as a friend and travelling companion of Paul (Phlm. 24 and 2 Tim. 4:11), but also as a physician (Col. 4:14).245

The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts

After commenting on the incredible value of Martin Dibelius’s work for Lukan scholarship before his untimely death in 1947, C.K. Barrett describes the heart of the matter:

For, notwithstanding the real and indisputable unity between the Third gospel

and Acts, Luke was compelled to proceed in the latter volume on different lines

from those he followed in the former. It was the material itself that demanded

this change.246

This is an important insight concerning literary unity – as there will be, by necessity,

242 Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 458. 243 Ibid., 458. Longenecker suggests three reasonable deductions concerning the “we” passages in Acts (summarized here). 1) Since the first “we” section starts in Troas and stops at Philippi; 2) the second “we” section (Acts 20:5-15) begins when the missionaries revisit Philippi; 3) since there are some thirty verses dedicated to the ministry at Philippi it is reasonable to deduce the author (assuming Luke) to be a resident of Philippi. 244 Liefeld, Luke, 799. Concerning this scholarly debate, Liefeld cites Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, pp. 35-53, 59-61. Evans is careful to note the “possibility” that Luke was “a native of Syrian Antioch... and almost certainly a gentile, though not necessarily a Greek.” Cf. Evans, Luke, 1-2. 245 Johnston, "The Gospel of Luke: Critical Issues and Interpretation,” 8. ὁ ἰατρὸς – can be a physician, doctor or healer. Cf. also Witherington’s discussion on ‘Itinerant Doctors in Antiquity’ in: Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account, 256. 246 Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent Studies, 27. Furthermore, concerning the issue of narrative unity Troftgruben declares: “This study assumes a narrative unity between Luke and Acts: a coherent and consistent narrative world produced by a single author as articulated by Robert C. Tannehill.” Cf. Troy M. Troftgruben, A Conclusion Unhindered: A Study of the Ending of Acts within its Literary Environment (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 1 and Robert C. Tannehill, “Volume 1: The Gospel According to Luke,” in The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 1-9, esp. 1-4.

61 adaptations, stylistic and grammatical changes to suit the context of the events being narrated. However, at the heart of the writing, there should remain a basic, underlying fluidity that matches the author with the text. Scholars such as Joel B. Green admit the same: “...I see Acts as the self-conscious continuation of Luke’s gospel, and that Luke has so constructed Acts as to reverberate with some of the emphases and patterns of the

Gospel.”247

Traditionally, there has been an assortment of views regarding the narrative unity of Luke-Acts. Peterson, as well as strong opponents such as Parsons and Pervo, both point to Cadbury as a foundational proponent of unity.248 Nearly a century ago Cadbury declared: “In any study of Luke and Acts, their unity is a fundamental and illuminating axiom. Among all the problems of New Testament authorship no answer is so universally agreed upon as is the common authorship of these two volumes.”249Just as a pendulum swings, it is therefore not surprising that scholars (who do not share this view) would question this presupposition. Pervo for example declares: “The unities of Luke and Acts are questions to be pursued rather than presuppositions to be exploited.” He also refers to the prejudice of Cadbury as the “...first vigorous proponent of unity...”250 While his first statement is agreeable, the latter reveals an equal swing of the pendulum towards a presupposed disunity of Luke-Acts. It is true the unity of Luke-Acts should be explored, weighing the internal and external literary evidence – but it is equally inadvisable to start

247 Green, Acts, 735. 248 Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 6ff. Cf. also H. J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (New York: Macmillan, 1927), 8ff. 249 Ibid., 8. 250Pervo, Acts, 19. Cf. his note 117 for the full quotation by Cadbury.

62 from a view toward disunity.251

Peterson observes how Parsons and Pervo “...obscure the literary, stylistic, and thematic links between the two-volumes.”252 Part of this may be symptomatic of a greater issue where Acts is not viewed as a historically reliable text. Pervo openly claims that

Luke is “...guilty of the historiographical sins of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi

(suppression of the true and intimation of the false).”253 Additionally, Pervo points to

Hemer and Witherington who “... claim a high level of accuracy for the book,” while arguing that “...NT scholarship in general has taken at least a step or two back from that position...”254 Lastly, despite the skepticism, their concern is noted as Peterson explains how they have: “...offered an important caution in the ongoing debate about the relationship between Luke and Acts, but they have overstated their case.”255

Comparative Exegesis of Luke’s Double Incipit: Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-3

Modern scholars still appreciate Cadbury’s assessment concerning the incredible history of scholarship concerning Luke’s preface. In the beginning of his widely read examination of Luke’s preface he writes: “In the study of the earliest Christian history no passage of scripture has had more emphasis laid upon it than the brief preface of Luke.”256

Nearly a century later this remains true today. Concerning the overall structure of Luke’s

251 Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 7. For example, they state that “...at the discourse level, it is inappropriate to speak of narrative unity.” Cf. Ibid., 7 and M.C. Parsons and R.I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993), 82 252 Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 7. 253 Pervo, Acts, 688. 254 Pervo goes as far to say that “Luke’s achievement as a historian lies more in his success at creating history than in recording it...” and further declares “The major impetus... for Acts and its apocryphal successors was not history, but the content of the canonical gospels” (my emphasis). Ibid., 18. 255 Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 7. For further reading 256 Henry J. Cadbury, “Appendix C - Commentary on the Preface of Luke,” in The Beginnings of Christianity; Part I: The Acts of the Apostles, ed. F.J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake (Vol. II.; London: Macmillan, 1922), 489.

63 double preface in Luke-Acts, notable scholars such as E. Earle Ellis (so also Cadbury,

Fitzmyer, Marshall, Evans, etc) note how these brief pericopes are common among the ancient Greek writers of the time.257 Therefore, not only are the similarities between

Luke’s prologues easily observed, verisimilitudes clearly exist with other extant writers as the following table reveals:

Luke 1:1-4 NA 27 Jos. Apion. 1.1-4 Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates (1:1-12) Luke 1:1 1 Ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ In my history of our Inasmuch as the account Inasmuch as ἐπεχείρησαν Antiquities, most of our deputation to many have taken ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν excellent (κράτιστε) Eleazar, the High Priest it in hand to περὶ τῶν Epaphroditus, I have, I of the Jews, is worth compile a πεπληροφορημένων ἐν think, made sufficiently narrating, Philocrates, narrative ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, clear... the extreme and because you set a concerning the antiquity of our Jewish high value, as you things that have race... Since, however, I constantly remind me, been observe that a on hearing the motives accomplished considerable number of and purposes of our among us, persons... discredit the mission, I have 2 just as those 2 καθὼς παρέδοσαν statements in my endeavored to set the who were, from ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς history..., I consider it matter forth clearly. I the beginning, αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται my duty to devote a appreciate your eyewitnesses and γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου, brief treatise to all these characteristic love of became ministers points... to instruct all learning, for it is indeed of the word, have who desire to know the men’s highest function delivered it to us, truth concerning the ‘ever to add knowledge, 3 it seemed good 3 ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ antiquity of our race. As ever to acquire it,’ to me also, παρηκολουθηκότι witnesses to my either through having carefully ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς statements I propose to researches or by actual investigated καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι, call the writers who, in experience of everything for a κράτιστε Θεόφιλε, the estimation of the affairs...258 long time, to Greeks, are the most write down the trustworthy authorities

257 E. Earle Ellis, ed., The Gospel of Luke (London: Nelson, 1966), 62. For example, Evans observes how “Luke’s dedication is unique to the Gospels, but not to the literature of his time.” Craig A. Evans, ed., The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Matthew-Luke, The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Matthew-Luke (Colorado Springs: Victor, 2003), 33. According to Liefeld, “The introduction to Luke is a long, carefully constructed sentence in the tradition of the finest historical works in Greek Literature.” Liefeld, Luke, 821. For further reading, see Loveday Alexander, The Preface to Luke's Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1 (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). 258 Evans, The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Matthew-Luke, 34 from M. Hadas, ed., The Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates (New York: Harper & Row, 1951), 57.

64 events in an on antiquity as a whole... orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may 4 ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν know the truth κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν about the things ἀσφάλειαν. that you have been taught. Acts 1:1 I wrote 1 Τὸν μὲν πρῶτον Jos. Apion. 2.1f. (Διὰ the first book, λόγον ἐποιησάμην περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ προτέρου Theophilus, about πάντων, ὦ Θεόφιλε, ὧν βιβλίου, τιμιώτατέ μοι everything that ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς ποιεῖν Ἐπαφρόδιτε) In the first Jesus began to do τε καὶ διδάσκειν, volume of this work, my and to teach, esteemed Epaphroditus, 2 until the day 2 ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας I demonstrated the when, having ἐντειλάμενος τοῖς antiquity of our race... I given commands ἀποστόλοις διὰ shall now proceed to through the Holy πνεύματος ἁγίου οὓς refute the rest of the Spirit to the ἐξελέξατο ἀνελήμφθη. authors who have apostles he had attacked us...259 chosen, he was taken up; 3 to whom also he 3 οἷς καὶ παρέστησεν presented himself ἑαυτὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τὸ alive after his παθεῖν αὐτὸν ἐν passion by many πολλοῖς τεκμηρίοις, δι᾽ proofs, being ἡμερῶν τεσσεράκοντα seen by them ὀπτανόμενος αὐτοῖς over a period of καὶ λέγων τὰ περὶ τῆς forty days and βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ· telling them what concerns the kingdom of God. Table 1.1 – Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE) Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-3

In Table 1.1, the parallels become evident by comparing Luke’s incipits with Josephus

Against Apion and the Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates.260 However, there is also much in

259 Translation from I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Greek Testament Commentary; Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978), 39. 260 Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX , 288. Fitzmyer also cites comparisons with the “classical historical prefaces of Heroditus, Thucydides and Polybius and with the prefaces of Hellenistic treatises on various subjects, such as Dioscorides Pedanius (De material medica 1.1; a pharmacological treatise), Hippocrates (De prisca medicina)...” in addition to Josephus, Against Apion and the letter of Aristeas (see table 1.1 above). Evans notes the uniqueness of Luke’s preface among all the NT writings “that it is written in a very sophisticated style that is reminiscent of the prefaces of some of the classical historians of

65 the way of uniqueness to Luke’s incipits as Fitzmyer observes how they “... are examples of free Lucan composition, independent of any source-material, in which Luke displays his ability to write in a literary mode that was contemporary.”261 Furthermore, the creative energy and sophisticated literary skill is seen in the poetic nature of the introductory preface. Although the double triad of parallel phrases is difficult to see in the English translations (so Fitzmyer), Ellis identifies the beauty of the poetic rhythm that Luke uses:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken

to compile a narrative...

just as [the eyewitnesses] delivered to us...

it seemed good to me also...

to write an orderly account...

that you may know the truth...262

Setting aside the artistic convention, it is obvious that Luke is primarily concerned with presenting an accurate history regarding the person of Jesus, but as Marshall indicates, he is also concerned with the “historical reliability of his material.”263 This is

antiquity...” Evans, Luke, 17. Cf. Bruce’s comparative Greek insights between Apion. 2.1 and Acts 1.1 especially, Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 98 cf. also Evans p. 18. 261 Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 288. A third example is Luke 3:1-2 where Fitzmyer also notes a close resemblance to the other incipits. 262 Cf. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, 62; Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 288. Though further study is required concerning the rhythmic nature of Luke’s preface, this may be a case of what Stein calls ‘synonymous parallelism’ as a form of poetry. See Robert H. Stein, The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 26-27. By intentionally reading Ellis’ reconstruction rhythmically, as if following a bouncing ball, the poetry becomes evident. 263 Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 40. Fitzmyer, like Marshall, also highlights the relationship between both prologues, where Acts “explicitly names Jesus” and goes on to say (the prologue) “... has to be related to the two-volumes as a whole, for the ‘events’ in the two of them are the subject-matter of his narrative.” Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 289. This truth becomes especially important when considering the dating of Luke-Acts. Furthermore, Evans observes that Luke’s preface may have been a polemic against a “...gnosticizing tendency to minimize the importance of Jesus’ real, historical, earthly life.” Cf. Evans, Luke, 19 citing Charles H. Talbert, Luke and the Gnostics: An Examination of the Lucan Purpose (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966). Concurrently, Marshall (p. 40) also observes this gnostic or docetic tendency that may have shaped Luke’s aim in writing this preface. This similar view is expressed regarding Luke 1:4 when he states, “There may be a polemical reference to heretics who disputed the truth of the

66 evident in Luke’s choice of words264 – as he has “carefully investigated everything” writing in “an orderly sequence” (Luke 1:3). This does not sound like a writer who wishes to leave out major details concerning the people and the events he is about to address.

Understanding Luke’s purpose in his preface is therefore an essential criterion towards understanding his conviction regarding certain gospel related events (i.e. Paul’s fate). In other words, even though he is not claiming perfection, or to be a “litterateur,”265 he is presenting “eye-witness” events – as the word αὐτόπται (autopsy) reveals.266

Consequently, it is paramount to understand Luke as not only a theologian but also as an historian.267 Luke’s preface reveals the symbiotic nature of his writing – his theology is grounded in history, and yet this history gives evidence to the beliefs that shape and guide

message, as it had been told to them. If many accounts of Jesus were circulating, Luke may have wished to enable his readers to sift out what was reliable from what was doubtful” (Marshall, p. 44). Cf. further ‘Gnostic speculation’ in Liefeld, Luke, 823. 264 Fitzmyer points out that not only is Luke’s preface an “imitation of Hellenistic literary prologues” but his “vocabulary is paralleled at times in Hellenistic writers.” The following words are examples of this Hellenistic use: “since, many, have undertaken, compile an orderly account, events, passed on, and Excellency.” Refer to Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 288-89. 265 Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 40. 266 This helpful insight was first derived from class lectures, Johnston, “The Gospel of Luke: Critical Issues and Interpretation.” Further to Johnston’s insight, Fitzmyer, in great detail, describes the second half of verse 2: οἱ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου. When interpreting this verse, the problem lies in whether Luke is referring here to one or two groups of persons who shaped the early tradition. Fitzmyer by analyzing the Greek points to a “double description of one group...” (contra the two groups K. Stendahl and R. Balducelli) that “...would refer to the disciples of Jesus, who were the “eyewitnesses” of his ministry, and who eventually became ‘the ministers of the word’” (my emphasis). He concludes this study, stating, “In any case, Luke is distancing himself from the ministry of Jesus by two layers of tradition; between him and it there is the testimony of eyewitnesses who have become ministers of the word.” See “Notes” section in Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 294 and also Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 42. Regarding τοῦ λόγου “of the Word,” Liefeld succinctly explains that, “‘Word’ (logos) here means the message of the gospel, especially as embodied in the words and deeds of Jesus.” He further notes how compared with the other gospels, “Luke uses it surprisingly often...” and notes how “...v.2 makes a serious claim regarding careful historical research that has weighty implications for our estimate of the entire Gospel.” Liefeld, Luke, 822. 267 Barrett notes how “Luke was a historical writer, and thus places himself in the midst of a group of historians. He was also a religious writer, and thus places himself in a second category.” Barrett, Luke the Historian, 12. While Bruce relates that: “Of all the NT writers, Luke is the only one who merits the title ‘historian.’” Cf. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 27.

67 our lives.268

In the first verse, Luke uses the word “inasmuch” Ἐπειδήπερ, lending to the classic narrative nature of Luke’s prefaces. Liefeld asserts this word is found in such major classical authors as Thucydides, Philo and Josephus, but is also frequently found in the biography of Diogenes Laertius.269 The perfect passive participle “have been accomplished,” πεπληροφορημένων brings the idea of completion.270 In verse 2 we are told about the “eyewitnesses” (see my note 266 above) who “have delivered it to us...”

παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν. Evans notes how this “...expression, they were handed down (NIV) comes from the same word from which we derive our word ‘tradition’ [i.e., ‘that which is handed down]’” (emphasis original).271 In verse 3, Luke’s intention to write a truthful and systematic account is unmistakable. Longenecker declares that “Luke did his research

‘carefully’ (ἀκριβῶς, lit., “accurately”) and wrote an “orderly” καθεξῆς account.”272 In similar fashion Evans bluntly states: “Luke claims to have done his homework and so is in a position to write a reliable account.”273 Lastly, in verse 3 we are introduced to a certain

Theophilus who was Luke’s initial recipient. Who was this “most excellent Theophilus”

268 Regarding Luke’s “eyewitnesses,” Ellis quoting J.M. Creed observes how, “The reference to “eyewitnesses” is a calculated answer to an explicit concern. It reflects the conviction that the Christian faith is rooted not in speculative creation but in historical reality. ‘An ancient writer would no more claim the authority of eyewitnesses without expecting his statement to be believed than a modern.’” Cf. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, 63 citing J.M. Creed, The Gospel according to St. Luke, (London, 1930). 269 Liefeld, Luke, 821 Within the TLG, this word occurs 16 times, 4 in Thucydides, Historiae, 11 times in Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum, and once in Plutarchus, Alexander, 41.10.4. Fitzmyer observes how this word occurs only here in the entire bible (NT+LXX) so Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I- IX, 290-91. Given the internal “biblical” rarity of this classical word that is found frequently in contemporary classical writings, this no doubt speaks to Luke’s broader desire to reach a Greco-Roman audience. 270 πεπληροφορημένων from πληροφορέω means to “accomplish, carry out fully” (UBS). Or as Marshall observes, “The thought is of events brought to completion, namely the events leading to salvation; the passive form suggests that these are divine acts which God himself promised and has now fully brought to pass, and the use of the perfect indicates that they are seen as a finished series in past time.” Cf. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 41citing G. Klein, Rekonstruktion und Interpretation (Munich: Kaiser, 1969), 198. 271 Evans, Luke, 19. 272 Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 822. 273 Evans, Luke, 20.

κράτιστε Θεόφιλε and what do we know about him?274 These questions bring about an incredible deal of speculation. However, besides the possibility of Theophilus being

Luke’s ‘patron,’ Fitzmyer’s conclusion remains prudent that Theophilus “...is otherwise unknown.”275

Concerning the last phrase of the preface Luke writes: “...so that you may know the truth ἀσφάλειαν about the things that you have been taught” ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν

κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν. Understanding Luke’s interpretation here is dependent largely on the meaning of κατηχήθης from κατηχέω meaning to “inform, instruct, or teach” (UBS) also Ellis (p. 64) and Marshall (p. 43) “to report.” Subsequently, the use of ἀσφάλεια connotes the idea of “safety and security” (UBS) and also “firmness or reliability” (so

Marshall p. 44). At this point, debating whether Theophilus was a Christian does not seem productive, though Morris says “He certainly knew something about the Christian faith and Luke wants him to know the truth of it.”276 Lastly, Marshall believes that “Luke wishes to show to Theophilus that reliable information was contained in the accounts which he had already received.”277

274 Bruce (et al) commonly notes how it is not necessary to read into the name of Theophilus (which means ‘dear to God’) more than necessary as his name simply “... occurs as a personal name from the third century B.C. onward, and the custom of dedicating books to distinguished persons was common at the time.” Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 98. 275 Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 299. Regarding the address “most excellent” κράτιστε (cf. Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25), there is plenty of speculation regarding the possibility that Theophilus may have enjoyed prominent political or social status. Fitzmyer’s assessment regarding the possibility that Theophilus was a member of the “ordo equester, the knights of Roman society” is perhaps the safest: “At most it would imply that Theophilus was socially respected and probably well off, or highly placed in a society to which Luke had access” (p. 300). Bruce also notes both the special and general sense of κράτιστε. Cf. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 98. Marshall carries a similar cautionary assessment and recognizes the possibility (as Fitzmyer p. 299 does) that Theophilus might be “... Luke’s literary patron, who would perhaps assist in the ‘publication’ of the gospel” (citing F. Hauck, Das Evangelium des Lukas [Theologischer Handkommentar zum NT; Leipzig: Deichert, 1934], 17). 276 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977). Many scholars conclude that he may have been a new Christian (so Evans p. 19) or at the very least received some education in the Christian faith (so Longenecker p. 823 and Marshall p. 43). 277 Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 44.

The complementary prologue of Acts 1:1-3278 makes it clear the author is the same as indicated by his second address to a certain “Theophilus.”279 In Acts 1:1, Luke specifically mentions his first book πρῶτον λόγον about everything περὶ πάντων280 that

Jesus began ἤρξατο to do ποιεῖν and to teach διδάσκειν.281 Verse 2 brings forth several matters of interest yet two of them are unambiguous priorities for Luke – the emphasis on the Holy Spirit πνεύματος ἁγίου and the theme of election in the choosing ἐξελέξατο of the apostles.282 In verse 3 Jesus “presented himself alive” παρέστησεν ἑαυτὸν ζῶντα and

“by many proofs” ἐν πολλοῖς τεκμηρίοις283 while “being seen by them” ὀπτανόμενος

278 Scholars vary in their identification concerning the official prologue of Luke’s second volume called Acts. Many commentators such as Bruce, Marshall, Longenecker include up to verse 5, while others like C.K. Barrett include up to verse 14. Although Fitzmyer recognizes their reasoning, he notes how “...the first two verses combine different literary forms and use some pre-Lucan tradition so that they have to be treated differently.” Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 191. Richard Pervo (along with Barrett and Talbert), also prefer to include up to verse 14 where he argues that: “Genuinely new material begins in verse 15.” Pervo, Acts, 33-34. For the purpose of this study, verse 3 will also be included as it connects well thematically with the very last verse in Acts 28:31. 279 The added emotional interjection ὦ Θεόφιλε may be akin to saying “Oh! Theophilus.” Perhaps this is an ancient form of emoticon  (cf. UBS). 280 Regarding Luke’s use of the word “all” (πάντων), Longenecker produces a learned observation, “throughout his two volumes Luke uses the word ‘all’ as a general expression that the context in each case must define. So we cannot assume he meant his Gospel to be any more exhaustive than Acts.” Cf. Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 253. 281 Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 98. Bruce notes the significance of (ἤρξατο) saying that, “As the Gospel records what Jesus began to do and teach (cf. Lk. 3:23), so Acts records what he continued to do and teach, by his Spirit in the apostles, after he was ‘taken up.’” Longenecker ascribes a similar view, see Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 253. 282 David Williams, Acts, 20. Williams notes the significance of this Lucan emphasis by saying, “At all events, we are here given notice that in the story that is about to unfold the Spirit plays a key role. The Spirit is mentioned four times in this chapter alone” (vv. 2, 5, 8, 16). Johnston notes the incredible fact there are 56 references in the Book of Acts. Johnston, "The Gospel of Luke: Critical Issues and Interpretation.” C.A. Evans notes the frequency of election as a theme in the gospel of Luke (that unambiguously carries into Acts as evidenced here already in the incipit). Furthermore, and building on the previous work of C.F. Evans that revealed a correlation between Luke’s central section (10:1-18:14) and Deuteronomy chapters 1-26, James A. Sanders made an important discovery. He “...has pointed out that the reason Deuteronomy is followed is because Luke is interacting with the theology of election. Sanders has sensed that underlying every paragraph of the Central section is some question having to do with election.” Cf. James A. Sanders, “The Ethic of Election in Luke’s Great Banquet Parable,” in J.L. Crenshaw and J.T. Willis, eds, Essays in Old Testament Ethics [New York: Ktav, 1974], pp. 247-71 cited by C.A. Evans, Luke, 168 cf. additional notes on Luke’s election theme 38, 223-24, 226-27. 283 Aristotle considers τεκμήριον as a “compelling sign.” Cf. Rhet. 1.2.16 cited in Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 100.

αὐτοῖς.284 Assuredly, this is foundational to Luke’s literary purpose as these truths relate back to his first volume (i.e. Luke 24:13ff).285 Finally, in Acts 1:3, Jesus was “telling them what concerns the kingdom of God.”286 At the very end of Acts, it is no accident that we find the Apostle Paul doing the same thing; in Acts 28:31 Paul was “preaching the

Kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ, with all boldness, without hindrance” (my emphasis).287

Re: Dating of Luke-Acts: Early, Intermediate, or Late?

In Lucan scholarship, it is hard to know whether there could be an enigma greater than the ending of Luke’s “Praxis Apostolon.”288 Perhaps the dating “debate” of his two- volume work would qualify as a close second. 289 Certainly, there is no end to the scholarly views and reviews regarding how one should date Luke’s writings.290 For the present study, the relationship between Luke’s ending and its date is considered extremely

284 Concerning the (δι᾽ ἡμερῶν τεσσεράκοντα) Bruce gives the sense that this is “Not continuously... but at intervals.” Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 100. Longenecker gives almost an identical sentiment concerning the phrase: “‘Over a period of forty days’ implies that during that time the risen Lord showed himself at intervals, not continuously” (my emphasis). Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 254. ὀπτανόμενος – from ὀπτάνομαι – is a present passive participle suggesting an ongoing appearance (though not continuously) of the risen Jesus to the apostles mentioned in verse 2. Bruce (p. 100) further reveals this is “The only NT occurrence of this verb...” 285 Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 254. 286 See Bruce’s insightful survey concerning the historical meaning behind “the Kingdom of God” (τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ). Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 100. 287 Note the similarities underlined in the Greek between Acts 1:3 (λέγων τὰ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ) and 28:31 (κηρύσσων τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ διδάσκων τὰ περὶ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). 288 Pervo calls this “The best attested title...” and refers to the earlier work of Theodore Zhan and Alfred Wikenhauser among others. Pervo, Acts, 29. Cf. also Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 47. 289 The narrative unity of Luke-Acts is assumed for the purposes of this study (cf. my note 246 above). 290 After listing four pages of many notable scholars and their (explicit or inexplicit) preferred dating of Acts, Hemer writes with a note of exasperation saying: “This range of opinion overlies a huge variety of divergent and often contradictory criteria and arguments.” Cf. Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989), 366-370 quotation from p. 370.

71 symbiotic, as one affects the other, and vice versa.291 Fitzmyer’s conclusion ignites both aspects of this debate well:

The trouble with such arguments for an early date stems mainly from one

consideration: no one knows why the Lucan story ends where it does, despite

many attempts to explain it. Nevertheless, the conclusion drawn from such an

ending, that the Lucan writings must have been completed before Paul’s trial or

death or before the destruction of Jerusalem, is unwarranted (my emphasis).292

It is true that when it comes to the uncertainties regarding the end of Luke-Acts, one must not conclude that Luke’s writing “...must have been completed before Paul’s trial or death or before the destruction of Jerusalem.”293 However, cautious scholars must also avoid the opposite conclusion as well – that Luke-Acts could not have been completed before

Paul’s trial or death.294 Care must be taken when reviewing the evidence, “...drawing only such conclusions as seem to be warranted by it.”295 Whether one arrives at an early or later dating of Luke-Acts, the issue is paramount for any scholar that is concerned with the historical integrity of Luke’s writing – especially as it concerns the fate of the Apostle

291 Bruce pinpoints the issue well: “The terminus a quo for the dating of Acts is the latest event alluded to in the book itself, the completion of the two years which Paul spent in Rome (28:30f.). Those two years were probably A.D. 60 and 61. Luke supplies hardly any hint of what happened at the end of them.” Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 9. 292 Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 52. Here Fitzmyer refers to his previous arguments found in Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 54-57. Curiously, despite his careful analysis that reasons for a post-70 A.D. date (p. 57), he makes this shocking, but common reflection: “Modern interpreters have long been puzzled by the failure of NT writers to mention the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70” (quotation from p. 55). 293 Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 52. 294 A perfect example of this is given by Cadbury when discussing the date of Luke-Acts, “Is there any other method by which the date of the gospel and Acts can be fixed? Probably not. At least none has yet been discovered. The extreme limits within which the composition of the two books must fall are c. 60 A.D. or a little earlier, when Paul reached Rome, and c. 150A.D., when Marcion made use of the Gospel. The two extremes are improbable; but just as there is no decisive proof that Luke was not written before the fall of Jerusalem, there is also none that it was used by any writer before Marcion.” Henry J. Cadbury, “The Identity of the Editor of Luke and Acts,” in The Beginnings of Christianity; Part I: The Acts of the Apostles, ed. F.J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake (Vol. II.; London: Macmillan, 1922), 358. 295 Pherigo, 277–84, quotation from p. 277.

Paul at the end of Acts.296

According to Fitzmyer’s useful outline, there exists three broad categories whereupon modern scholars belong: early (pre-A.D.70), intermediate (post-A.D. 70), or late dating (A.D. 100-130). The “Early Dating” of Luke-Acts was apparently first championed by Harnack and Rackham297 “...at the end of the last century and have since been repeated in some form by others who favour the early dating...”298 These proponents date Luke-Acts typically before the Apostle Paul’s trial in Rome (early 60’s A.D.) The main arguments typically incorporate the following reasons: 1) Luke’s failure to mention

Paul’s death or his pending trial before Caesar; 2) the persecution of Christians under

Nero;299 3) Luke’s apologetic purpose of showing Christianity as a religio licita makes no sense in light of the persecution that came later under Nero; 4) the peaceful tone of Acts which exudes a love for Paul is inconsistent with one who was aware of his tragic martyrdom and the subsequent persecution of the church;300 5) the description of the early

Jerusalem church that was still in contact with the Temple, Synagogues, Pharisees and

Sadducees is idyllic for being written after Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70 – especially

296 Luke’s double prologues (1:1-4; and Acts 1:1-3) is a not a claim to literary perfection, however the authenticity and expressed integrity concerning his account of Jesus and the history of the apostles is extremely important. 297 R.B. Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles, Reprint. (London: Methuen, 1953), 50-55. 298 Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 52. Some noteworthy scholars who favour an “early date” are Bruce, Ellis, Guthrie, Hemer, J.A.T. Robinson and curiously Johannes Munck – the author of an earlier edition of the same publication. Cf. Munck, The Acts of the Apostles. Recently, David Peterson recognizes several key scholars such as D.A. Carson, D.L. Bock, D. J. Moo, and L. Morris who support an early dating of Luke-Acts. Peterson shares his own view as such: “A date in the 70’s seems entirely reasonable... However, a good case can be made for a date as early as 62-64, given Luke’s ignorance of the letters of Paul, his portrayal of Judaism as legal religion, and his own omission of any reference to the Neronian persecution of Christians, let alone his failure to say anything about the outcome of Paul’s imprisonment in Rome.” Cf. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 5. 299 Additionally, Luke did not mention the great fire of Rome (See my note 164 above and Tacitus, Ann. 15.40). Cf. also Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 47 and John D. Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom (New York: HarperSanFranscisco, 2005), 362, 363, 400-402. 300 Ibid., 401. Cf. Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.2, 4 It seems inconceivable that Luke would (for whatever reasons) fail to write about something as severe as the persecution that occurred c. A.D. 64.

73 without reflection or reference to the impending Jewish Rebellion;301 6) Luke seems unaware of Paul’s letters; 7) the “obvious parallel” between the death of Jesus and the death of Paul is missing.302

Fitzmyer’s (et al) arguments against an early dating do not seem convincing. He argues by comparing Mark’s abrupt ending with Acts as well as dismissing the Luke-Acts literary parallels – and claims they are “irrelevant” and “not an argument for pegging chronology.”303 However, clearly Mark’s gospel in both style and structure is very different from Luke’s writing; especially where most scholars believe Luke used Mark as a source. Additionally, some recent scholars such as Troftgruben, who has meticulously researched the ending of Acts by comparing the endings of many other ancient works, has concluded that the ending of Acts still remains “A Conclusion Unhindered.”304

Fitzmyer next assumes Luke’s failure to account for Paul’s death is because of the

“delicacy in this matter,” and the fact that Paul’s death was also foreshadowed (Cf. Acts

20:25; 30:38; 21:13).305 Conversely, similar logic could be applied to Paul’s supposed trip

301 Admittedly, given the consistent rejection of (Jesus) and the gospel by Jewish leadership, and their later antagonism of the apostles, surely Luke would have written about the Temple’s destruction frequently and descriptively. 302 Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 52. Considering Luke’s incredibly detailed treatment of Jesus’ death on the cross, and other persecuted disciples (most notably Stephen in Acts 7), there is every reason to believe that Luke would write about the trial and death of his beloved friend Paul. 303 Ibid., 52. 304 Troftgruben, Cf. 168, 173, 178, 180-81. Troftgruben essentially builds on the ‘openness’ concept previously championed by Tannehill (cf. Tannehill Narrative Unity, 2:353-57) and refers to a new concept he calls ‘linkage’ (cf. p. 169 and also my note 101). His thesis: ‘A Conclusion Unhindered,’ appears to rest upon the last word in Acts: ἀκωλύτως. Building on Mealand’s insights, he reasons that it is the ‘apostolic witness’ that continues “... in an unhindered manner...” (cf. pp. 168, 173). In his closing statement, he incorporates the concept of witness and openness together by stating: “... how the openness of Acts functions, and clarifies how the ending may imply that witness continues ‘in an unhindered manner’ (28:30- 31) beyond the close of the narrative” (p. 178). This key word ἀκωλύτως is discussed in detail below within: ‘C) Critical Exegesis of Key Passages: Acts 28: 16, 23, 30–31.’ 305 Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 52 While many scholars identify this foreshadowing, others have compared this with other ancient works such as Sallust’s Jugurtha. Troy Troftgruben identifies two of the main characters (Marius and Sulla) who “follow the path of power, corruption, and demise in subsequent Roman history, but Sallust’s narrative ends midway along this path.” Therefore, according to Troftgruben (crediting George Parsenios), both narratives point to completion, but ultimately the endings “leave

74 to Spain (Rom. 15:24).306 Secondly, regarding Jesus’s death, it was clearly foreshadowed

(e.g. Mark 9:12; Luke 24:46), but was also vividly described in all four gospel accounts

(e.g. Luke 23:33 ff.) – so why not Paul’s? Fitzmyer writes further, saying, “The best way to account for Paul’s ending where it does (and quotes R.P.C. Hanson here) “...is that his

[Luke’s] readers knew the rest of Paul’s story.”307 However, how could we reasonably assume that such a close friend of Paul (Col. 4:14; Phlmn. 1:24; 2 Tim. 4:11) and careful writer (Luke 1:3) would fail to record Paul’s fate at this time?308 The reasoning behind

Fitzmyer’s (also Hanson, Bartlett’s et al) viewpoint rests on assumptions and is conjecture at best.309

Advocates of the “Late Dating” of Luke-Acts include Burkitt, Klein, Koester,

Knox, O’Neill, Overbeck, Schmiedel, Townsend and Pervo, and Parsons. 310 These scholars seem to place great emphasis on a relationship with second-century writings (i.e.

expectations unfulfilled...” Troftgruben, 160 (see also his explanatory notes 65 and 66). Additionally, see also the comparison with Sallust’s monograph and the close of Acts in Pervo, Acts, 689-90. 306 Just because Luke records speeches that foreshadow Paul’s death does not ipso facto prove that he was aware at the time of writing any more than proving Paul’s visit to Spain was a fait accompli – just because his letter indicated these plans. Besides, in the last few chapters of Acts there is no clear indication that Luke was aware of his death. 307 Hanson’s (and Fitzmyer’s) view was championed as early as 1913 by J.V. Bartlet as outlined by Bruce, The Book of Acts. 1983, 535. It was J.V. Bartlett who assumed that it was not necessary for Luke to mention Paul’s execution, because for Luke’s readers the consequences of prosecution under Nero were obvious. Bruce refers to Bartlet, “Two New Testament Problems. I. St. Paul’s Fate at Rome.” Bartlet writes in response to Ramsay, “The Imprisonment and Supposed Trial of Paul.” 308 Commenting upon Paul’s death, over a century ago Rackham’s axiom remains: “It seems incredible that if S. Luke had known it, he should have not mentioned it.” Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles, 51. 309 Regarding the outcome of Paul’s trial Johannes Munck categorically states: “It is a reasonable assumption that this question is not answered because it could not be answered” (my emphasis). After weighing the various explanations for the abrupt ending of Acts he confers: “It is therefore unlikely that he (Luke) would have deliberately avoided an account of Paul’s death.” See Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, 53-54. 310 Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 53. Surprisingly, some scholars such as John T. Townsend argue for a much later dating “...that approaches the middle of the second century.” See Townsend, “The Date of Luke- Acts.” However, Townsend’s argument seems to rest greatly upon comparing Acts with the Pseudo- Clementine literature and other second century writings. Pervo argues for a date of c. 115 (c. 110-120) from Ephesus “...or its general environs...” based on his earlier work in Richard Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2006). Cf. his more recent work in: Pervo, Acts, xv, 5. Similarly, Parsons settles for about A.D. 110 “...though a release anytime within the first two decades of the second century (ca. AD 100-120) would have provided sufficient time for Polycarp’s knowledge of the book.” Cf. Parsons, Acts, 17.

Josephus, Marcion, Justin Martyr, Polycarp). Others like John T. Townsend adhere to even greater assumptions concerning Luke’s relationship with Clement’s writings (see my note 310 above). However, the majority of scholars do not support these ambiguous viewpoints.311

However, the relationship between Luke-Acts and the writings of Josephus are a verifiably, historic concern.312 Josephus lived approximately c. A.D. 37- c. 100. His

Jewish War was published in c. A.D. 75-79 while his Antiquities of the Jews was published in c. A.D. 93-94 His last two works Life and Against Apion were published shortly before his death (so Fitzmyer). Nearly a century ago, Cadbury indicated that the origins of the “relation of Josephus to Lucan writings” hypothesis stems from the writings of J.B. Ott in 1741 and also by J.P. Kreb in 1755.313 Apparently, during the course of the

19th century “the theory evolved that Luke was dependent on Josephus.”314 This flourished based on three main passages of scripture: the first one deals with a certain Theudas (Acts

5:36 ff.) who led a rebellion of four hundred men;315 the second concerns Lysanias the

311 Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 53. 312 As previously shown in Table 1.1 313 Cadbury, The Identity of the Editor of Luke and Acts, 355-356. See J.B. Ott, Spicilegium sive excerpta ex Flavio Josepho ad Novi Testamenti illustrationem, 1741 and J.P. Kreb, Observationes in Novum Testamentum e Flavio Josepho, 1755. 314 Cadbury, Identity, 356. According to Cadbury, it was Keim (and others) by 1878 who “adopted this view,” peaking with Krenkel’s work “Josephus and Lucas” in 1894. From there the view grew with F.C. Burkitt in his book “Gospel History and its Transmission.” 315 By comparing the Theudas of Acts with Josephus’ later account (c. A.D. 93), Marshall identifies the problem as anachronistic (i.e. Luke records Gamaliel speaking about Theudas long before Josephus’ account of this where “Fadus was Procurator of Judea (A.D. 44-46)...” (See Josephus Ant. 20:97f. and I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles. 1980 [Reprint, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988], 122). Marshall argues convincingly against the assumption that Luke is in error and dependant on Josephus by stating the following reasons: 1) There were many uprisings in the time of Herod (eg. the earlier Theudas of 4 B.C. also Longenecker below); 2) Josephus wrote much later (c. A.D. 93) and the details in the stories are different (i.e. Josephus does not mention the 400 men); 3) perhaps Josephus was wrong or “(more probably) that Gamaliel is referring to another, otherwise unknown, Theudas.” See Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 122-123. Longenecker as well is confident this matter is not only passé, but goes farther by saying that “... arguments for Luke’s dependence on Josephus have been fairly well demolished by a number of comparative writers...” and cites Emil Shurer’s dictum: “Either Luke had not

“tetrarch of Abilene” (Luke 3:1);316 and thirdly, the Egyptian who led a revolt of some

4000 terrorists (Acts 21:38).317 Even though Cadbury considered these so-called examples of “Lucan errors explained by Josephus” as “very persuasive,” yet without the aid of inscriptions, or nearly a century of scholarship, his cautionary words still echo today: “But they fall short of demonstration.”318 Therefore, after weighing the evidence, it seems risky to use the writings of Josephus in support of a late Lucan dating.319

The final grouping involves the “Intermediate Dating” of Luke-Acts. Navigating

Fitzmyer’s (et al) list, 320 he cites the following four supported reasons (paraphrased here):

1) The difficulty of the “many” in the early sixties A.D. who would “have undertaken to

read Josephus [my view], or he had forgotten what he read.” See Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 323 and Emil Schürer, “Lucas und Josephus,” ZWT 19 (1876): 582. 316 At a first glance, the dating issue of Lysanias that Cadbury identified was an enigma among scholars for some time. As late as the 1960’s such notable scholars as A.R.C. Leaney were troubled by this as he writes: “It remains an unsolved question why Luke mentions these apparently unimportant regions and princes...” See A.R.C. Leaney, The Gospel According to Luke, Second. (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1966), 48-50 quotation p. 50. Even scholars as late as Liefeld (1984) appear uncertain – though he offers a survey of the “alternate methods of chronological reckoning...” See Liefeld, Luke, 854, 857. Ellis describes an inscription that was found in Abilene, “probably dating from A.D. 15-30, (which) mentions ‘Lysanias the tetrarch.’” Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, 87. What is surprising is that Ramsay wrote about this nearly a century ago in W.M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), 297-300. Besides, C. A. Evans notes the evolution of the title “tetrarch” by saying it “...had come to mean ‘ruler’ in a general sense and could be applied to persons other than the four original tetrarchs of the Herodian family.” Finally, Evans regarding the Abilene inscription (citing Ellis, Fitzmyer and Marshall) declares: “The question was finally settled decisively in favour of Luke’s accuracy...” See Evans, Luke, 51. 317 This last issue regarding “the four thousand men of Assassins” (τοὺς τετρακισχιλίους ἄνδρας τῶν σικαρίων) does not seem an issue among scholars anymore (cf. Marshall, Longenecker and Bruce etc). Bruce describes these σικαρίoi (pl.) as “a loan word from Lat. Sicarii (so Cadbury’s reference). The sicarii or ‘dagger-men’ (from Lat. Sica, ‘dagger’) made their appearance during the procuratorship of Felix (A.D. 52-59) as bitter enemies of the Roman and pro-Roman Jews. They mingled with crowds at festivals and the like with daggers hidden beneath their cloaks, and stabbed their opponents by stealth. One of their victims was the former high priest Jonathan, son of Annas.” See Bruce, The Book of Acts, 437. Consequently, the fact that Josephus (later) writes about a similar event albeit with differing details, only supports Luke’s writing in principal further (cf. Jos. War II, 261-63 [xiii.1]; Antiq. XX, 169-72 [viii.1].) 318 Cadbury, The Identity of the Editor of Luke and Acts, 357. 319 Fitzmyer firmly suggests, “That Luke would have read or used Josephus’ writings is highly speculative and improbable; none of the evidence for it is convincing.” See Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 53 (cf. Fitzmyer here for more information regarding the scholarly refutations of the late dating of Luke-Acts). 320 Some of the scholars cited in this camp are Dupont, Hengel, Kümmel, Marxsen, Michaelis, Perrot, Pesch, Vielhauer, Weiser, C.S.C Williams. Based upon such Lucan passages regarding the demise of the Jewish Temple, or Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem, Troftgruben explains how scholars claim “...the principal reasons for dating Luke-Acts later than 70 C.E... makes most sense as a prophecy ex eventu...after the Temple’s destruction” (70 C.E.). Cf. Troftgruben, 10.

77 compile a narrative” before Luke;321 2) the fact that Luke’s reference of Luke 13:35a to

“‘your house is abandoned’ makes sense only after the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D.

70);”322 3) In Mark 13:2, Jesus pronounces judgement upon the Temple and in Mark 13:14 the “abomination of desolation” is replaced by “Jerusalem surrounded by camps”

κυκλουμένην323 ὑπὸ στρατοπέδων Ἰερουσαλήμ in Luke 21:20. Where Mark alludes to

Dan. 9:27 or 12:11, Luke instead describes the actual siege of Jerusalem;324 4) that

“...Luke 19:43-44 alludes to Roman earthworks325 of the sort described by Josephus” indicates a post-70 dating (cf. J.W. 6.2.7-150, 156).326 Concerning how much later than

321 Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 54. However, this ‘difficulty’ is minimized when considering that “many” written sources (i.e. Mark, Matthew, or “Q” or some combination of oral history regarding Jesus and the history of the early church) could have been circulating long before the time of Luke’s writing. 322 Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 54. Perhaps Jeremiah uses stronger language regarding “this house” in Lam. 2:7 or Jer. 22:5 where he states “...that this house is for desolation” ὅτι εἰς ἐρήμωσιν ἔσται ὁ οἶκος οὗτος. Regarding Luke 13:35 Leon Morris suggests that, “Many hold the house to be the Temple, but it is more probably Jerusalem as a whole.” Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 229. 323 The word κυκλόω meaning: “to surround/encircle,” (UBS) is found some 93 times in the LXX. Meanwhile it is found only 4 times in the whole NA27 and there is only one other military use found in the NT (Heb. 11:30) regarding the walls of Jericho: “Πίστει τὰ τείχη Ἰεριχὼ ἔπεσαν κυκλωθέντα ἐπὶ ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας.” περικυκλόω also means “to surround” (UBS) and is found only once in Luke 19:43 compared with 16 times in the LXX. 324 Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 54. C.H. Dodd argues persuasively against Luke’s supposed “editing” of Mark by saying: “The term ‘editing’ is in fact inapplicable. In 21b-22, 23b-24 Luke is either following a different source, or “writing out of his own head.” In 21a, and 23a he is not ‘editing’ Mark but simply copying him. It is only in 20 that it is plausible to speak of him as ‘editing’ Mark 13:14.” He goes on to say regarding the “edited” Luke 21:20: “It will hardly be argued that the mere expression κυκλουμένην ὑπὸ στρατοπέδων, describes Titus's siege so precisely that it must necessarily be a ‘vaticinium ex eventu.’ If you want to say in Greek ‘Jerusalem will be besieged,’ the choice of available expressions is strictly limited, and κυκλοῦsθαι ὑπὸ στρατοπέδων, is about as colourless as any.” C. H. Dodd, “The Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘Abomination of Desolation,’” The Journal of Roman Studies 37, no. Parts 1 and 2 (1947): 47–54 quotation from p. 48. 325 Josephus uses χωμάτων from line 150, χώματα from line 156 where Luke uses a different word χάρακά (see my note 334 below on the significant difference). Regardless the LXX of Ezek. 21:27 curiously uses both χάρακα and χῶμα where there are 12 occurrences for χῶμα, 3 in Ex. 8:12-13; the rest are found in (Jos. 8:28; Job 14:19; 17:16; 20:11; 22:24; 28:6; Hab. 1:10; Is. 25:2; DanT 12:2; 2 Macc. 12:17.) The LSJ defines this word as, “earth thrown up, bank, mound, thrown up against the walls of cities to take them...” Josephus (cf. JW 5.269) also uses the more advanced form τῶν χαρακωμάτων – where Luke does not. 326 Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 54. Fitzmyer also makes the assumption that, “Acts gives the impression of having been composed after the death of Paul,” and secondly, that Luke has not read Paul’s letters. This is a much larger discussion than warranted here, but the former assumption can only draw allusions to Paul’s death as Luke speaks as though Paul were still alive right up to the very last verse (Acts 28:31). The latter is possible especially if Luke compiled some of his narrative before Paul’s letters. However, there are many examples of similarities between Acts and Paul’s letters (i.e. their mutual emphasis on election, grace, faith, salvation and practical ones regarding people and places). Regardless, neither Paul, nor Luke wrote with a completed copy of the NT in hand.

A.D. 70, when considering a lack of reference to the Domitian persecution (A.D. 81-96), commentators prefer a date before this time.327 Fitzmyer concludes his assessment of the

“intermediate dating” as such:

Many NT interpreters use the date A.D. 80-85 for the composition of Luke-

Acts, and there is no good reason to oppose that date, even if there is no real

proof for it.... In the long run, it is a matter of little concern when or where

Luke-Acts was composed, since the interpretation of it, especially of Acts,

depends little on its date or place of composition (my emphasis).328

Given the depth of analysis, the survey of scholarship on the matter, this conclusion is disappointing.

Despite there being some commonalities with Josephus’s description, it seems speculative for Luke to wait at least 15 years329 after Paul’s death to then process his sources (Mark, Q, or other “saying sources” etc),330 especially when considering the common methods of ancient Roman siege warfare, combined with Luke’s theologically primed language in his account.331 At this juncture, some scholars may protest and point

327 Ibid. Setting aside the persecution under Domitian, the fact remains there is no clear reference in Luke- Acts to the massive (and outrageous) persecution under Nero (see Tacitus, Ann. 15.44) nor to the great fire of Rome in A.D. 64 that destroyed 71% of the city (cf. my note 164 above). 328 Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 55. 329 “The Jewish war” was not published until at least c. A.D. 75-79. 330 For more information regarding Q and Luke’s sources cf. Evans, Luke, 3, 5, 15, 18. 331 Further consideration and a veritable “smoking gun” is the widespread LXX usage of the word ἐρήμωσις – “destruction/desolation” (UBS) of Luke 21:20, and also Mark 13:14 as part of the phrase, τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως “the Abomination of Desolation.” Concerning Luke 21:20, C.H. Dodd argues that Luke “...wished to modify because it would be unintelligible to the public he had in view.” Which makes sense given a Gentile audience (Christian or otherwise) as evidenced by the fact that the average Christian today is unaware of the meaning of this phrase. Dodd then cites several key passages where variants of this word is found in the LXX (i.e. Lv. 26:34, 35; 2 Chr. 30:7, 36:21; Jer. 4:7; 1; Esdras 1:55; Jdt. 8:22; 1 Mac. 1:54; etc). Where there are some 23 references in the LXX, only three are found in the NT – curiously they are the synoptic “desolation” passages (Mark 13:14; Matt. 24:15 and Luke 21:20).

79 out the “similar” military language of Josephus used in Luke 19:42-44.332 However, as presented below, this language is straight from the LXX that prophesies the destruction of

Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C (along with other cities as well).333 Some of the exact military words that Luke uses are found in the LXX of Is. 29:3; 37:33; Ez. 4:1-3;

26:8; (the siege of Tyre) 21:22; Jer. 41:1; 52:45; and 1 Macc. 15:13-14.334 C.H. Dodd sums it up best when he states:

It appears, then, that not only are the two Lucan oracles composed entirely

from the language of the Old Testament, but the conception of the coming disaster

which the author has in mind is a generalized picture of the fall of Jerusalem as

imaginatively presented by the prophets. So far as any historical event has

coloured the picture, it is not Titus's capture of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but

Nebuchadnezzar’s capture in 586 B.C. ... therefore, in the Lucan oracles the

332 Although many scholars point to Luke’s “redaction” of Mark 13:14 in Luke 21:20, one could argue that the central “prophetic” description is common to all three synoptic gospels. For example, the phrase “stone upon stone” λίθον ἐπὶ λίθον is found in Luke 19:44 while the corresponding phrase λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον, is indentical to both Mark 13:2 and Matt. 24:2. The only difference is that the first stone in Luke 19:44 is accusative, where Mark and Matthew’s is masculine. 333 Commenting upon the military description in Luke 19:42-44 Dodd (p. 49) writes: “But these operations are no more than the regular common-places of ancient warfare.” Not only, but he points out the reality that Josephus’ (later) account describes some very specific “eye-witness” details that go far beyond Luke’s simple description – such as the inner Jewish (faction fighting) war inside the walls and cannibalism. Additionally, Dodd navigates the LXX with Luke’s specific phrase in 19:44: (καὶ ἐδαφιοῦσίν σε καὶ τὰ τέκνα σου) and finds the following supporting references (Hos. 10:14; 14:1, ἀφανισθήσεται Σαμάρεια ὅτι ἀντέστη πρὸς τὸν θεὸν αὐτῆς ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ πεσοῦνται αὐτοί καὶ τὰ ὑποτίτθια αὐτῶν ἐδαφισθήσονται καὶ αἱ ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσαι αὐτῶν διαρραγήσονται) Cf. also Nah. 3:10; Isa. 3:25-26; Ps. 137:9 (136:9 LXX); Mark 13:17; Luke 21:23. Further, Dodd states that Josephus “... does not say that the conquerors dashed children to the ground” (p. 50). This is true, as Josephus does say: “but those that were under seventeen years of age were sold for slaves [οἱ δ’ ἐντὸς ἑπτακαίδεκα ἐτῶν ἐπράθησαν (JW 6.418)] However, Dodd apparently missed some of the horrible details of what happened inside Jerusalem where one starving woman cooked and ate her own infant (JW 6.204-205 also 2 Kgs. 6:24-31). See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (AB 28a; New York: Doubleday, 1985), 134; cf. also Evans, Luke, 309. 334 Dodd, “The Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘Abomination of Desolation,’” 50-51 (cf. Dodd’s note 6 on page 50). Dodd’s perception of the earlier and basic use of the χάραξ “stake/barricade” in Luke 21:20 is especially noteworthy. He claims 1) this is the only occurence in the NT; 2) and that the LXX always uses this form (there are 13 references); 3) Josephus (cf. JW 5.269) uses a more advanced form (τῶν χαρακωμάτων – where the LSJ describes this as a “palisade,” palisaded enclosure, entrenched camp). An example of the same form is found in Xen. Hist. Hellenica 5.4.39 (χαρακώματος) and also Xen. Hist. Anabasis 5.2.26 (χαράκωμα).

prototype of coming disaster is the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem in 586

B.C., in Mark its prototype is the sacrilege of Antiochus in I68-7 B.C.335

Concluding Observations and Implications

After surveying some of the scholarship regarding Luke’s prefaces, several observations can be made. First, the literary quality of Luke’s writing is clearly comparable with other ancient Hellenistic writers of his time. This is especially apparent in Luke’s particular usage of words common in the prefaces of other extant literature such as found in the writings of Josephus Against Apion as well as the Letter of Aristeas to

Philocrates. A second major observation relates to the unique nature of Luke’s refined literary style. Though comparable to other extant literature, Luke’s creative pen remains unmistakably unique. This is evident both in the content of his writing and in the poetic nature as identified by Ellis. While Luke is clearly drawing on other sources whether

Mark, Q or otherwise, his prologues are especially distinct when compared with the other gospels. A third observation is that Luke is deeply concerned with introducing the truth of the gospel. His primary goal is to present to Theophilus (and to us) the truth concerning the risen Jesus Christ. Not only so, but he claims to have carefully, and accurately written about all of the events concerning his two-volume work.

When it comes to the highly contestable issue of dating Luke-Acts, the following observations can be made. First, an enormous number of viewpoints have already been proposed when it comes to this scholarly issue. Furthermore, these viewpoints are often presented with a flotilla of assumptions that typically relate to actual datable events in

335 Ibid., 52 and 53 respectively. See also Evans’ detailed note (Evans, Luke, 294-295.) concerning the assessment of C.H. Dodd’s “fascinating study” while engaging and incorporating Fitzmyer’s perspective.

81 history. The nexus of the argument seems to be directly related to the destruction of the

Temple in Jerusalem of A.D. 70. Regardless of an early or late dating, proponents on both sides of the fence point to internal Lucan evidence that supports their respective view.

Advocates for an intermediate or later date point to the foreshadowing of Paul’s death and the prophecies of Jesus regarding the Temple’s destruction. Ironically, those in favour of an earlier dating point to Luke’s failure in recording the temple’s destruction and Paul’s death.

The temple’s destruction was one indisputable fact of history that was known to both Jew and Gentile across the Roman Empire and yet both sides of the argument seem to admit there is no clear reference to the temple’s destruction in the entire NT as a past event. Nor is there any clear reference to the apostle Paul’s death and impending trial.

Further is the unavoidable truth concerning the mass persecution of the Christians in

Rome in the early 60’s A.D. that Luke does not mention. Conjoined with this notorious persecution was the great fire of A.D. 64 that wiped out over 70% of the capital of the

Roman Empire where both Luke and Paul at one time stayed. Concerning these events,

Luke says nothing. Not only are these events left unexplained in Luke’s writing, his grammar concerning the temple’s destruction is certainly much closer to the LXX than

Josephus writings several years later. Therefore, based on the evidence presented in this chapter, it seems incredible (if not impossible) to suggest that Luke wrote his two-volume work after the year A.D. 64. Consequently, it can be reasonably deduced that Luke, at the time of his writing, was completely unaware of Paul’s fate. The burden of proof rests upon the late-dating advocates.

Chapter III: The Trial of St. Paul

Introduction

The above title is somewhat of a misnomer as there is no known record of Paul’s actual trial.336 However, it does represent the end goal of this research – which is to shed light on Paul’s anticipated trial. By examining the events leading up to Paul’s arrest, defence speeches, and appeal to Caesar, clues to the outcome of this anticipated trial may be discovered.337 Therefore, the present study will focus on the arrest and defence of the apostle Paul beginning with his travel plans to Jerusalem (Acts 19:21) and finishing with his final defense before King Agrippa (Acts 26:32).338 Special consideration will be given to the political, legal and administrative terms as they illuminate what might have happened with Paul’s trial.339

Thankfully, Luke’s account is filled with specific legal, political, and administrative terms and phrases that match the contemporary Roman environment well.

There has been a rich history of scholarship regarding this fact going back to Cadbury’s

336 From the beginning, it must be stated that any historical reconstruction of these events remains conjectural by nature – primarily because Luke (and Paul) simply did not supply an account of his actual trial. Therefore, any details of the actual trial will remain a mystery until new archaeological or literary evidence proves otherwise. H.W. Tajra in his excellent study (which is highly favored among scholars) concerning Paul’s legal history states the case well: “One of the principal problems in dealing with Paul’s legal history is that the sole account one has of its most important developments, e.g. his arrest, appeal to Caesar and transfer to Rome, occurs in Acts alone. As this account is unique, it is impossible to test the narrative’s real historical value by comparing its relation of events to the witness of other more or less contemporary writings, the Epistles or early Patristic literature for example” (my emphasis). H.W. Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul: A Juridical Exegesis of the Second Half of the Acts of the Apostles (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989), 1. 337 The rationale for this approach is best described by H.W. Tajra: “The last seven chapters of Acts deal extensively with the apostle’s legal history. As Acts approaches its climax, Luke relates Paul’s case in much greater detail, refining the terms of the indictment and outlining the apostle’s legal defence. It is essentially in the later chapters of Acts and especially in Paul’s speeches, that the theological and apologetic programme of Acts is brought to its culminating point. The story of Paul’s legal history is bound up with that programme.” Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 61. 338 Since the book of Acts is our only known source concerning Paul’s defence and anticipated trial, naturally the observations and conclusions will be a reflection of this account. 339 Though it is possible that Paul’s death is foreshadowed in Acts (i.e. Acts 20:25), however, neither Paul’s actual trial nor his death are recorded in the book of Acts.

83 classic work on “Roman Law and the Trial of St. Paul.”340 For example, in his opening statement, Cadbury states how “The law and institutions of Rome appear in the book of

Acts frequently and in many forms.”341 In later scholarship Tajra provides a similar observation concerning Paul’s legal history as documented in the book of Acts:

Luke pays great attention to the formalities of legal structure; his handling of

the judicial material – where it can be checked – is remarkably accurate. Luke’s

meticulosity would strongly suggest that one is not dealing with fiction here,

but with a trustworthy reminiscence of someone who knew Paul quite well in

the final years of his apostolic ministry. Concentration on legal terminology

and procedure can only lead to the conclusion that Luke has given a legally

realistic account of Paul’s judicial history in Acts.342

Though a full assessment of the validity of Paul’s legal defence in Rome is of vital concern for this present study, that is a task far beyond the scope of the present analysis; rather the purpose here is to evaluate and interpret the significant juridical elements found in Acts. By examining Paul’s arrest and defence in the context of Roman law, clues to his anticipated trial and fate may be found.

340 Henry Joel Cadbury, “Roman Law and the Trial of Paul,” in The Beginnings of Christianity; Part I: The Acts of the Apostles, ed. F.J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake (Vol. V.; London: Macmillan, Ltd., 1933), 297–319. 341 Cadbury, “Roman Law and the Trial of Paul,” 297. Additionally, Allison Trites suggests “... there is a wealth of legal terminology in Acts referring literally to actual courts of law and courtroom procedure.” Allison A. Trites, “The Importance of Legal Scenes and Language in the Book of Acts,” NT 16 (1974): 279. See also his conclusion on p. 284. Furthermore, some scholars suggest “... that Luke's use of legal language implies that Acts is part of a strategy to defend Paul. Perhaps Theophilus was Paul's lawyer.” C.A. Evans, thesis comment, April 9th, 2013. Cf. especially J. W. Mauck, Paul on Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defense of Christianity (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001) and H. Omerzu, Der Prozess des Paulus: Eine exegetische und rechtshistorishe Untersuchung der Apostelgeschichte (BZNW 115; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002). 342 Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 1-2. This is a remarkable statement to make and defend considering the German tradition (Dibelius, Haenchen, Conzelmann) of his advisor Francois Bovon as well as the experts in Roman Law and Ancient History that were called in to hear his defence. Admittedly, Bovon states that Tajra was “...more influenced by British tradition and especially by the works of F.F. Bruce.” Cf. the preface.

Paul’s Journey to Jerusalem

Western civilization changed when the apostle Paul spoke two simple words in

Greek to the Roman Procurator Festus: “I appeal to Caesar” Καίσαρα ἐπικαλοῦμαι.343

This certainly was one of the decisive events that brought him to Rome, but what about the events that brought him to Governor Festus in the first place? How and why did Paul get arrested and what were the charges?344 Examining the context of his arrest will help us to better understand the nature of his defence and his upcoming trial.

One key passage leading up to Paul’s arrest and final trip to Jerusalem is found in

Acts 19:21where Luke records: “Now after all these things had taken place, Paul resolved in spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia and go on to Jerusalem πορεύεσθαι εἰς

Ἱεροσόλυμα, saying, ‘After I have been there, I must also see Rome.’” Here we see

Luke’s recollection of Paul’s expressed desire first to go on to Jerusalem and then onward to Rome. This is recorded just before the infamous scene in Ephesus where Luke gives a fitting description of the magnitude of opposition that Paul typically faced. He said there was “...no little disturbance concerning the Way” τάραχος οὐκ ὀλίγος περὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ

(19:23). Apparently, a silversmith named Demetrius stirred the crowds up causing a riot in the Ephesian theatre (vv. 24ff).

After the riot, Paul left Ephesus and came to Greece for a three month stay (20:2).

At this point, there was yet another Jewish plot against Paul. Instead of sailing for Syria, he decided to travel overland through Macedonia instead. His travelling companions at this point were Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timothy “... and the Asians,

Tychicus and Trophimus” (20:4; cf. also 21:29). It is important to note that this is most

343 Acts 25:11 344 Cf. Tajra, Trial, 61.

85 likely the same Aristarchus who (along with another Macedonian named Gaius) was included in the Ephesus riot. Additionally, this is probably the same Aristarchus who travelled by ship with Paul and Luke to Rome: “…Aristarchus, a Macedonian from

Thessalonica was with us” (Acts 27:2). Further support for this is due to his additional mention in Paul’s later prison epistles (cf. Col. 4:10–18 and Phlmn. 23–24).345

A second key passage that illustrates a further religious motivation for Paul to travel to Jerusalem is found a little later in 20:16: “For Paul had decided to sail past

Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia, for he was hastening, if it were possible for him, to be in Jerusalem γενέσθαι εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα for the day of Pentecost”

(my emphasis). After some island hopping, they make it to Miletus (v. 15), which was about 28 miles south of Ephesus on the Meander River. Instead of stopping in Ephesus

Luke stresses that Paul wanted to be in Jerusalem in time for Pentecost.346 Sailing past

Ephesus would also avoid any further riots!347

From Miletus, Paul sent for the Ephesian elders where part of his speech illuminates a similar internal motivation previously discussed above in 19:21. He declares to the elders: “And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem (πορεύομαι εἰς

Ἰερουσαλὴμ), not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit

345 Darrell Bock thinks this is possible: Darrell l. Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Comentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007), 731-732. Other scholars such as Chance, Bruce, Longenecker support this connection as well saying: “Nothing in these references would rule out that these texts refer to the same person who appears in Acts.” See J. Bradley Chance, Acts, (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon: Smith & Helwys, 2007), 495, quotation here taken from p. 353. Cf. also my note 71 above. 346 There is much discussion concerning this verse : Cf. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 562. Peterson notes Barrett’s scepticism concerning Paul’s desire to be in Jerusalem by Pentecost: Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: Volume II, 945. Tajra states that Paul wanted to get to Pentecost in time for Pentecost for two reasons: 1) to show “...his loyalty to Jewish tradition and practice”; 2) to bring the financial gifts collected from the gentile churches. Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 61. In the end, this may be a matter of Luke simply stating Paul’s plans to make Jerusalem by Pentecost on the one hand without getting into other reasons why “...he might not have to spend time in Asia...” (v. 16). If bypassing Ephesus (e.g. Acts 19:23-41) makes sense to 21st century readers, how much more so it would have to Theophilus and Luke’s original audience! 347 For a similar view see Chance, Acts, 368.

86 testifies to me, saying that in every city imprisonment and persecutions are waiting for me” (Acts 20:22-23). His anticipation of death and danger in Acts is well corroborated with his personal letters to the churches.348 In Paul’s earlier letter to the Romans (writing from Corinth; cf. Rom. 16:1) he anticipates the trouble awaiting him in Jerusalem.349 He asks for prayer: “...that I may be delivered from those in Judea who refuse to believe...”

(Rom. 15:31). Why else would Paul write that unless he was genuinely worried about what might happen in Jerusalem?

In addition to his personal anticipation of danger, he also describes his travel plans to the church in Rome much in the same way as in Acts: “When I do go to Spain, I hope to see you as I pass through and be helped on my way there by you, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. But for now, I am going to Jerusalem (πορεύομαι εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ) in a service for the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution to the poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (Rom. 15:24-26, my emphasis). Therefore, not only did Luke (in Acts) provide a record of Paul’s intentions to go to Jerusalem on his way to Rome – his own letter to the Romans further corroborates his travels plans with the

348 Some scholars maintain that Luke was aware of the outcome of Paul’s trial and his martyrdom by pointing to Paul’s words in Acts 20:25 in support of this: “And now I know that none of you will see my face again...” (cf. also Acts 20:24-25, 38) Yet elsewhere he “... bade farewell, saying, ‘I will come back to you again, God willing’” (Acts 18:21). Additionally, Paul says something far more specific in Acts that also does not require drawing out more than exists in the text when he says in Caesarea “...For I am ready not only to be tied up but also to die in Jerusalem...” (Acts 21:13). Lastly, from Paul’s letters, it’s abundantly clear that Paul frequently alludes to his own death (i.e. 1 Cor. 9:15; 15:31-32, 2 cor. 1:8ff; 7:3, 11:23ff; Gal. 2:19ff; 6:14, 17; Rom. 6:8, 12:1, 14:8; esp. Phil. 1:21; Col. 3:3; and later 2 Tim. 4:6). Therefore, this foreshadowing is likely a case of special pleading. For a discussion of this view see Troftgruben, 160, 162- 163. 349 Scholars believe that Paul wrote from Corinth largely based on this reference to Phoebe in Rom. 16:1 who was a “...deacon of the church in Cenchreae...” διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς and the likely bearer of this letter to the church in Rome. Cenchreae was the nearby port city of Corinth – ergo the deduction. Gaventa explains it this way: “The singling out of Phoebe suggests that she also is the one who reads the letter at Rome, since she would have had occasion to talk about it with Paul... In fact, it is entirely possible that she has had a hand in the letter itself, having talked through it with Paul.” Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “Paul and the Roman Believers,” in The Blackwell Companion to Paul, ed. Stephen Westerholm (West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 96.

87 curious addition of Spain.350

It is also essential to realize that part of Paul’s travel plans were also very practical

– he was intending to bring much needed financial relief “...to the poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (Rom. 15:26; also 2 Cor. 9:12-15). Paul had previously collected these gifts from the Gentile churches from Greece (Macedonia and Achaia) in order to support

Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. Tajra states that “...by this concrete gesture, the apostle was endeavouring to promote a greater sense of solidarity and unity between Christians of

Jewish and Gentile origin.”351 Though an admirable and concrete attempt to promote unity, unfortunately, Paul’s anticipation of danger “... from the unbelievers in Judea...” in

Jerusalem was well-founded (Rom. 15:31 (ESV); Acts 21:27ff).

The next phase leading up to Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem includes their travel by ship from Miletus to Cyprus, and on to Syria and Tyre. This stop is significant because we find yet another warning passage in 21:4 where Paul stayed for seven days with other disciples who “... kept telling Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem.” From

Tyre they sailed to Ptolemais, then on to Caesarea (vv. 7-8). Once again another warning passage is found while Paul was staying at “...the house of Philip the evangelist...” (v. 9).

Luke describes Paul’s encounter with a “... a prophet named Agabus...” who “... came down from Judea” (v. 10). Luke records this graphic prophetic picture as such: “He came to us and, taking Paul’s belt, he tied his own hands and feet with it and said, ‘The Holy

Spirit says this: ‘This is how the Jews will tie up in Jerusalem the man whose belt this is,

350 Cf. note my 5252 regarding the question of Spain. Scholars are divided on this issue. Where some are in favor of a Spanish mission (i.e. Brown, Witherington and Tajra), others are not convinced (cf. Pherigo, 284). Tajra discusses the question in detail and concludes that Paul did go to Spain. H.W. Tajra, The Martyrdom of St. Paul, 31. Refer also to pages 102ff; the patristic evidence 108; the Muratorian canon 122; and the curious omission of Spain in the Acts of Paul on p. 116. Lastly, some scholars (i.e. McDonald) are more cautious when it comes to this difficult subject (McDonald, 192). 351 Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 61.

88 and will deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles’” (v. 11). Given the consistent advice from his friends it is not surprising how they “... urged him not to go up to Jerusalem” (my emphasis, v. 12). However, despite his own expressed angst about Jerusalem (i.e. 19:21;

Rom. 15:31) he would not be deterred (20:13-14).

Paul’s Arrest by Tribune Lysias in Jerusalem

Having discussed the record of Paul’s travelogue to Jerusalem, the following is a brief overview of the events leading up to Paul’s arrest. Upon arrival in Jerusalem, Paul and company were first welcomed by “the brothers” and on the next day they met with

“...James, and all the elders were present” (20:18). Considering the emphasis Paul placed on the gifts from the Gentile churches, it seems strange that Luke does not mention them at this point in their meeting in Jerusalem. Witherington unpacks this situation bluntly by stating that:

Under such circumstances, it is very believable that the collection will have

failed to accomplish what Paul intended. Marching into Jerusalem with Gentiles

from various parts of the Empire at this xenophobic moment would hardly have

produced a positive response from Jews in general, or from ardent Pharisaic

Christians in Jerusalem.352

Since Jerusalem was a religious and political powder keg by the year A.D. 57 it is no surprise then how things transpired with Paul. Initially, the reception was warm as Paul related the positive ministry he had among the Gentiles (vv. 19-20). However, things began to cool as Luke then described the concerns that James, the recognized head of the

352 Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 644. Likewise Peterson also thinks it strange that Luke did not mention it –though he does include it in the later dialogue with Felix in Acts 24:17. Perhaps Luke’s failure to include it here was “...because the collection did not have the effect that Paul intended.” Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 584. 89

Jewish church along with the elders, had with Paul’s ministry. Corporately they described the thousands of Jewish believers who were “... all zealous for the law” (v.21). However, they heard some disturbing reports regarding Paul and how he was teaching: “...all the

Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake ἀποστασίαν Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children and not to walk according to our customs” (21:20b-21).353 This represents the primary issue that was not only a frequent source of contention for Paul in his ministry, but also the ultimate cause leading to his arrest. It is here that Luke pinpoints the ‘central problem’ for Paul among the Jewish community.354

Compounding this issue was how Jewish and Gentile relations in general were weakening as the full Jewish revolt against Rome was less than 10 years away.

Meanwhile, Jewish and Gentile relations within the church were also at an all time low which is evidenced by Paul’s consistent exhortation to unity in several of his letters (i.e.

Gal. 3:28, 1 Cor. 9:19-23; Rom. 12:5, 15:7; later Eph. 2:14ff., 4:1ff.; Col 3:15; Phil. 1:27 and also the Acts 15 council). The decisive and divisive issue at hand concerned Jewish

Christians and the law as the Gentile issues were already dealt with at the Acts 15 council

(cf. 21:25). Robert C. Tannehill makes this important distinction by declaring: “That issue has been settled. The new issue is distinct: is Paul leading Jewish Christians to abandon their Jewish way of life?”355

The solution proposed by James and the elders in v. 22 was an attempt to pacify the concerns the Jewish Christians had against Paul.356 They suggested that Paul join four

353 Tajra explains the charge: “Paul was being accused of encouraging Jewish believers to abandon their ancestral customs and of refusing to impose Mosaic observances on Gentile converts.” Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 62. 354 Ibid., 62. 355 Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 269. Cf. also Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 584. 356 Porter suggests an alternative scenario where Paul’s arrest was a set-up by the church in Jerusalem; specifically, that jealousy and division led to his betrayal by James. See Porter, The Paul of Acts, 172-186.

Jewish Christians who were fullfilling their Nazarite vows and pay for their required offerings (21:23-24). This was an act of Jewish piety and a way for him to identify with the Jewish nation – which would perhaps cool the Jewish sensitivities and help preserve the unity of the church.357 Subsequently, Paul followed their advice, had himself purified, and entered the Temple.

Unfortunately, even this conciliatory gesture was insufficient to promote peace and unity – especially while so many opposed his ministry. Here the instigators of Paul’s arrest were not from Jerusalem. Luke says it was “… the Jews from Asia…” who “…upon seeing him in the Temple, stirred up συνέχεον the whole crowd and laid hands on him...”

(21:27).358 Perhaps as Peterson notes, these were the antagonists Paul encountered in Asia.

Regardless, it seems that wherever he went there was always the possibility of a ‘Jewish plot’ against him (Acts 20:19). When the instigators aroused the crowd the accusations were that Paul was “… teaching everyone everywhere against 1) our people, 2) our law, and 3) this place” (numbering mine, v. 28a).359

However, they were not only upset about his teaching, but also by his actions – supposedly bringing Trophimus the Ephesian and others past the court of the Gentiles,

This proposal has merit – especially given the difficulties this passage presents (cf. my notes 357 and 522 below). 357 It is not surprising the theological issues raised here given Paul’s expressed views about the gospel (e.g. Galatians especially). That many theologians have wrestled with this passage is an understatement; though Paul’s earlier comments to the Corinthians provide some insight into his rational (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-23) esp. v. 20: “To the Jews I became as a Jew that I might win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) that I might win those under the law.” 358 Tajra notes that to stir up a crowd or cause a riot συγχέω only occurs in the NT in Acts. For this kind of reason, the Temple precincts “…were under constant military supervision.” Secondly, the phrase καὶ ἐπέβαλον ἐπʼ αὐτὸν τὰς χεῖρας actually denotes a legal phrase here used by the mob! In Latin the phrase (manum inicere alicui) means “…to seize or hold a person against whom one has certain types of claims.” Cf. Acts 5:18, 14:3 and Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 63-64. 359 Peterson suggests the charges were broader than before and similar in scope to that of Stephen in 6:13- 14; this was seen as an attack on “…the fundamentals of Judaism.” Cf. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 589. The charges were sufficient enough to “…ostracize Paul from the Jewish community…” Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 64.

91 into the inner courts (v. 29).360 Since the instigators were from Asia, perhaps they recognized Trophimus as from Ephesus in Asia Minor – the same Trophimus that was with Paul and company back in Greece (20:4).361 This would have inflamed the crowds instantly as no Gentile was allowed to cross the barrier, from the outer court of the

Gentiles into the inner – not even a Roman citizen was permitted to enter. 362 There were large stone inscriptions written in Latin and Greek fixed to the barrier at the foot of the steps leading up to the inner court, warning people with these words: “No foreigner may enter within the barricade which surrounds the Temple and enclosure. Anyone who is caught doing so will have himself to blame for his ensuing death.”363

The Roman authorities supported this law and the ensuing death penalty for any

Gentile who dared cross the Temple barrier. Therefore, in addition to the shouted theological accusations, the crowd also heard how Paul violated this law by bringing

Greeks into the Temple, placing it in a state of defilement. 364 Later in Acts 24 in the context of a Roman court of law, Tertullus, a certain ‘lawyer’ ῥήτορος Τερτύλλου τινός, used the more secular word for defilement βεβηλῶσαι. Here in 21:28, Paul’s ‘mob’

360 Though some scholars think it is possible that Paul may have brought Gentiles into the inner courts, most do not (so Bruce, Haenchen). In the height of communistic fears, Marshall put it bluntly: “The possibility that Trophimus might have wandered of his own free will into the forbidden area is about as likely as that somebody should wander into private rooms in the Kremlin for the purpose of sightseeing.” Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 348. Witherington agrees with Marshall’s assessment albeit the analogy is “...not so apt today with tours of the Kremlin going on apace.” Cf. Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio- Rhetorical Commentary, 655. Lastly, the public inscription with the written warning of death for any Gentile entering the inner court should lay to rest any remaining ambiguity (see my note 363 below). 361 Also 2 Tim. 4:20 where Paul writes from prison much later: “…and I left Trophimus behind in Miletus because he was sick.” Bock, Acts, 618. 362 Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 449. 363 Bruce, The Book of Acts (1983), 434 and Jos. JW 5.2; Ant. 15.11.5; Apion. 2.8; Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 212. Bruce further notes this was first discovered by C.S. Clermont-Ganneau in Jerusalem in 1871 and is now in Istanbul: Cf. CIJ (Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum), II, 1400 and a second one was discovered in 1935 and now resides in the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem. Cf. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 449. 364 See Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 64-65, 123; and Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 589. It would be unrealistic to assume that Paul actually did this based on his proven Jewish sensitivities in addition to the obvious public awareness of this law.

92 accusers use the word which connotes Levitical uncleanness κεκοίνωκεν.365 Tajra notes the difference where Tertullus accuses Paul of:

...trying to defile the Temple. In Acts 21:28 he was accused of actually defiling it.

Whatever the phraseology, the charge of profaning the Temple was a key one in

Paul’s present indictment because for this crime alone could the Sanhedrin

condemn a transgressor to death and entertain a confident hope that the governor

would execute the sentence (my emphasis).366

At this point, Jerusalem is in an uproar and the mob seizes Paul and drags him from the inner temple to the outer court shutting the door behind him (21:30).367 Luke describes how they were trying to kill him, but thankfully “...they stopped beating Paul...” once Lysias the commanding officer χιλιάρχῳ was notified and quickly intervened with some soldiers and centurions (21:31-32).368 Paul was then arrested, tied up with two chains and carried into the barracks by the soldiers “... for the crowd of people kept following and shouting, “Away with him!” αἶρε αὐτόν (21:34-36).369

Paul’s First Defence: before the Mob

Up to this point, the key events leading up to Paul’s arrival and arrest in Jerusalem

365 Tajra notes the perfect tense of κοινόω here – indicating “…that the profanation of the Temple subsists.” Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 64-65. 366 Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 123. 367 Luke Timothy Johnson makes an interesting observation: “This makes sense on a literal level: the keepers of the Temple close the gates once the polluter has been expelled from it in order to keep the riot outside the sacred precincts. But does Luke also intend symbolic ‘shutting of the gates’ that marks Paul as an outsider to the cultic life of Judaism, and at the same time the final response of the Christian Jerusalem Jews to the apostle?” Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina 5; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 382. Witherington discusses the symbolism but suggests this is “...probably over-allegorizing the story...” Witherington, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 655. Cf. also Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 590. 368 Luke does not give the name of the commander (Lysias) until Acts 23:26 and 24:22. 369 For a close parallel recall the scene some 20 plus years earlier with Jesus before Pilate and the crowds crying out “Away with this man…” αἶρε τοῦτον. Cf. Luke 23:18 (ESV)

93 have been explored. In this section, Paul’s defence will be examined in light of the Acts record. After escaping the mob and within the safety of the barracks παρεμβολὴν,370

Lysias discovers that Paul is a Jew from Tarsus, and not some Egyptian revolutionary

(21:37-39).371 With Lysias’s permission, Luke describes Paul’s first defence in 21:40: “...

Paul stood on the steps and motioned with his hand to the people. And when there was a great hush, he addressed them in the Hebrew language...”372 He very respectfully addresses them as: “Men, Brothers, and Fathers Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοὶ καὶ πατέρες …listen now to me as I make my defense to you” (22:1). Curiously, the opening words are the same as

Stephen’s opening address in his defence to the Sanhedrin (cf. Acts 7:2).373 Paul here uses the word ἀπολογίας for defence – David Williams explains how:

…in Acts the word means more than simply answering charges; it includes the

thought of witnessing to the Lord. Defense becomes, as it were, attack, and the

gospel is preached to the accusers.374

370 This is the Fortress Antonia cf. Jos. Ant. 15, 11.4 and Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 69-70. 371 That Paul could speak Greek is no surprise given that his letters were written in Greek. Here, Lysias wants to know if Paul could be this famous Egyptian revolutionary (identified with Ben Stada) who led some 4000 terrorists (τῶν σικαρίων – Lat. Sicarius, from sica, “dagger”) into the wilderness just a few years ago. Josephus wrote about this Egyptian who did lead some kind of revolt in the year AD 54 where the Romans quickly squashed it, but the leader escaped. These terrorists were Jewish militant nationalists who would sneak into the crowds and festivals with daggers hidden in their cloaks and knife people using stealth. This was a real problem during this time as even one of the High Priests, Jonathan, son of Annas, was killed by one of these assassins. Cf. Jos. BJ 2.261-63; Ant. 20.169-72 and Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 452-453. 372 The courage of Paul is exemplary given the fact that this mob nearly killed him a few moments ago. His love for his people and missionary zeal are best described in his letters (e.g. Romans 9:1ff. 10:1ff. especially). Paul addresses them “in the Aramaic speech” τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ. Bruce says we should understand this to mean Aramaic as it was “…the lingua franca of non-Greek speakers in the eastern Roman world and in the Parthian Empire.” Ibid., 453. Cf. also Marion L. Soards, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Contents (Louisville, Ky: Westminister/John Knox Press, 1994), 111. For a comparison of Paul’s defence speeches with the Greek and Roman literature of his day see: Fred Veltmann, “The Defense Speeches of Paul in Acts,” in Perspectives of Luke-Acts, ed. Charles H. Talbert (Danville, VA.: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978), 243-54. 373 Cf. Porter, The Paul of Acts, 152. 374 David Williams, Acts, 373. The word ἀπολογία ‘defence’ occurs 8 times as a noun in the NT (twice in Acts). Additionally, the verb ἀπολογέομαι occurs 10 times in the NT while occurring 6 times in Acts alone (UBS). This is significant in light of the possibility that Acts was a ‘legal defence’ for Paul (cf. my note 341 above). Furthermore, Johnston declares that “The task of apologetics is to give a reasoned defence of

During Paul’s first defence before the mob (22:1-21), the crowd becomes initially quiet as he speaks to them in their native Aramaic tongue (v. 2). He describes his thoroughly Jewish pedigree as a Jew from Tarsus, reared in Jerusalem while also appealing to their zeal (vv. 3-4). However, he explains how his own zeal went beyond that of the crowd as he once led the charge when it came to persecution. He goes on to describe how he systematically persecuted these ‘followers of the way’ to prison and even death (v. 4 cf. also 26:10; Gal. 1:13). He did not do this on his own initiative either, he had the authorization of the “…high priest and the whole council of elders...” (v. 5).

Out of this context of persecution, Paul describes his heavenly encounter with

Jesus of Nazareth on his way to Damascus (22:6-11). Then he explains his experience with Ananias where he regained his sight (vs. 12-13), was baptized (v. 16), and was instructed to be “... a witness μάρτυς for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard” (v. 15). Allison Trites declares how “The Book of Acts shows tremendous interest in the idea of witness. It is here that one observes ‘the greatest reflection on the meaning of ‘witness’ as it applies to the mission of the church.’”375 Additionally, G.W. Bowersock offers this contextual definition of witness μάρτυς:

‘Martyr’ is now, after all, a technical term and a powerful one. An honorable

and glorious death has nothing like the resonance of martyrdom, which has

inspired sophisticated and untutored persons alike to plunge eagerly into the

historic, biblical Christianity.” Jeremiah J. Johnston, “Life and Teaching of Jesus,” in BIBL 7123 (class lecture, Acadia Divinity College, 2013). 375 Trites, 278. In fact, the noun μάρτυς which means “witness,” is found 35 times in the NT. Meanwhile the variants μαρτυρία occurs 33 times while μαρτύριον is found 19 times. The verb μαρτυρέω which means to “bear witness, testify” is found an incredible 72 times in the NT. Similarly, μαρτύρομαι which means “testify, address solemnly; insist, urge” occurs 5 times. Additionally, another similar variant διαμαρτύρομαι which connotes the need to: “declare solemnly and emphatically; charge under solemn oath; warn” occurs 15 times (UBS). Altogether the word for witness/testimony is found 179 times in the entire New Testament – thus revealing the enormity of this theme. Cf. also Soards, The Speeches in Acts, 193.

afterlife. ‘Martyr’ is in origin the Greek μάρτυς, which becomes μάρτυρος,

μάρτυρες, in the oblique cases, and this is a word that simply means witness. It

has a long and interesting history in the Greek language from earliest times in

that sense. It was naturally part of the legal language of the Greek courts, and

it could be used metaphorically for all kinds of observation and attestation. 376

Bowersock’s point contextualizes the meaning for the first century in legal terms applicable to Paul’s defence – which includes the idea of witness.377

Lastly, Paul describes another encounter with Jesus reiterating to the crowd his previous life as a persecutor of Christians, most notably his approval of the death of

Stephen (vv. 17-20). However, it is his last phrase about going to the Gentiles that re- ignites the rage of the mob (vv. 21-22). Tannehill thoughtfully observes:

As a defense speech, Paul’s address to the crowd is a failure. The audience is

not persuaded. Although this scene is not a formal trial, Paul’s speech is called

a “defense” (22:1), and it is made before the people, who take the role of judges.

The verdict is negative.378

Here, Paul’s speech may have been a failure to the Jewish crowd – however, other audiences proved much more receptive to his witness (cp. Acts 14:1; 16:14; 17:12; 18:8;

Phil. 1:12).

Paul the Roman Citizen

As the soldiers were about to whip Paul in order to find out “...why they were

376 G.W. Bowerstock, Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 5. 377 The noun form of μάρτυς occurs 13 times in Acts alone where the compound verb διαμαρτύρομαι occurs 9 times. 378 Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 277.

96 shouting at him that way...” (v. 24), Lysias realized much to his chagrin that Paul was a

Roman Citizen Ῥωμαῖός (v. 26).379 This is highly significant for several reasons. Tajra describes the immediate benefit: “The cry civis Romanus sum had a suspensive effect on the proceedings; this proclamation freed him from the torture about to be inflicted.”380

Hence his Roman citizenship allows for preferential treatment of Paul as a prisoner – as it would have been unlawful for a Roman citizen to be beaten without a trial. Cicero, the famous Roman orator and Senator said: “It is a misdeed for a Roman citizen to be bound; it is a crime for him to be beaten; it is almost as bad as to murder a father to kill him”

(Against Verres 2.5.66).381 Not only would the citizen be spared from illegal beating and mistreatment, it said something of the privileged status of that person as Ramsay describes:

In the first century, when citizenship was still jealously guarded, the civitas

may be taken as proof that his [Paul’s] family was one of distinction and at

least moderate wealth. It also implies that there was in the surroundings amid

which he grew up, a certain attitude of friendliness to the Imperial

government...382

Therefore, the fact that the centurion informed commander Lysias of Paul’s query straightaway is not surprising – as this surely would have been a career-ending mistake for

379 Are you a Roman? σὺ Ῥωμαῖος εἶ ; (citizen) Barrett observes the grammatical significance of this question: “There is some emphasis on σὺ: You, whom at first I took to be the Egyptian rebel (21:38), whom I heard speaking to the Jews in their own Aramaic and claiming to be one of their race, you who have just escaped with your life from a violent mob – are you a Roman?” Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: Volume II, 1049. 380 Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 81-2. 381 Barclay, 163. 382 W.M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 30-1. Likewise Longenecker observes how: “At this time, Roman citizenship was a highly prized right conferred only on those of high social or government standing, those who had done some exceptional service for Rome, or those able to bribe some imperial or provincial administrator to have their names included on a list of candidates for enfranchisement.” Cf. Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 528.

97 the commander that may have endangered his own life as well (vs. 25-26).

Beyond this highly prized status, how did citizenship work in the Roman Empire?

Would it be sufficient enough to say one was a citizen as Paul did? If someone declared themselves to be one falsely, this was considered a serious offense which called for severe punishment.383

Though Paul’s letters do not mention his Roman citizenship, it is (as we have seen) a significant part of Luke’s narrative concerning Paul. Furthermore, while many scholars accept Paul’s citizenship as historical fact, there are, however some scholars, such as

Wolfgang Stegemann, who argue otherwise.384 Conversely, and curiously, scholars such as Gerd Lüdemann “...whose work is in general characterized by great scepticism as to the historical trustworthiness of Acts, nonetheless accepts as positively founded that Paul did indeed possess Roman citizenship.”385 Tajra successfully tackles Stegemann’s arguments and carefully deconstructs them one by one concluding that:

... the only plausible way to explain Paul’s transferral to the highest court is that he

was in fact a Roman citizen, who had exercised his right of appeal – a basic

prerogative of Roman citizenship – a right to justice, equitable treatment and

protection from magisterial abuse absolutely inherent in the civitas.386

How then did the system work in administrative terms? Tajra describes the process as such:

The Roman citizen could thus turn to a corpus of properly-kept census archives

and communal lists to prove his citizenship. If for some reason or other the

383 Cf. Epictetus, Arrian Discources, III, 24.41 cited in Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 85. 384 Wolfgang Stegemann, “Was der Apostel Paulus ein romischer Burger?,” ZNW 78 (1987): 200-29. 385 Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 86. For the wide acceptance of Paul’s Roman citizenship among scholars see Stanley E. Porter, “The Portrait of Paul in Acts,” in The Blackwell Companion to Paul, ed. Stephen Westerholm (West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 128. 386 Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 87-89, quotation from p. 89.

census archives were not consulted, then a native-born Roman citizen ‘could

produce a copy of the original profession or registration of his birth

recording his Roman status and made before a magistrate.’387

Beyond the official records, there is also some evidence that suggests Roman citizens (and possibly Paul before Lysias) carried with them their own ‘portable’ proof of citizenship – much like an early passport of sorts. Tajra describes these ancient passports:

The portable certificates which were held by the citizen himself were certified

copies made from the registers and their authenticity could be tested by referring

back to the public records. They most likely indicated his name, age, heirship to

his father’s estate and his Roman citizenship.388

Additionally, Sherwin-White provides a physical description of these ‘diptychs’ as such:

They were convenient in shape and size, being small wooden diptychs. But it is

more likely that they were normally kept in the family archives. The itinerant is

the exception in the ancient world. The general mass of the population stayed

in one place from one generation to another, except for merchants and

soldiers; hence the latter were given metal certificates of citizenship...389

Given this evidence, Tajra thinks it “...it is quite likely then that Paul produced a copy of his birth registration in order to corroborate his claim to Roman citizenship.”390 On the other hand, Sherwin White is more cautious stating that “Whether or not Romans carried

387 Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 84. Cf. also A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), 148. 388 Notably, the Michigan Papyrus 2737 (c. 103 AD) gives one such example of part of a diptych: “I Marcus Cornelius Iustus, the son of Marcus, possessed of property worthy twenty thousand sesterces, have published in the Kalendarium that on the fourth day before the Ides of September just past a son, Marcus Cornelius Iustus, a Roman Citizen, was born from the mother... a Heras, the daughter of Marcus.” From: H.A. Sanders, “Two Fragmentary Birth Certificates from the Michigan Collection” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 9 (1931): 62. Cited by Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 85. 389 Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 149. 390 Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 85.

99 such certificates about with them... we simply do not know.”391

In our pericope (22:28), the commander was obviously bitter and perhaps even a bit sarcastic about the realization of Paul’s citizenship as he drives home the fact he had to pay a lot of money for his citizenship where Paul says... “But I was even born one” (v.

28).392 Luke then describes how “Immediately those who were about to examine him drew back from him; and the commanding officer was afraid, realizing that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had bound him” (v. 29). After surveying the importance of Roman citizenship, their reaction is well justified. Lysias then releases Paul, and orders the

Sanhedrin to meet, wanting to get to the bottom of things – which sets the stage for the next phase of Paul’s defence (v. 30).

Paul’s Defence before the Sanhedrin

After Paul expressed his good conscience to the council συνεδρίῳ before God, the high priest Ananias “…ordered those standing near him to strike him on the mouth” (v. 2).

This is not surprising because Ananias had a long reign filled with pro-Roman polices the

Jewish nationalists hated.393 He was perhaps more akin to a mafia boss than a high priest considering his use of the Sicarii (dagger men assassins). Paul’s response in v. 3 that

“…God is about to strike...” him is not surprising – perhaps prophetic given the historical fate of Ananias (cf. Matt. 23:27). A few years later during the Jewish Revolt of AD 66, the

Jewish nationalists burnt his house down and he subsequently went in hiding into the

391 Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 148-149. 392 Tajra suggests that Paul’s family received their citizenship during “...one of the civil wars as a recompense for some signal service to the Roman state or to a particular victorious commander.” Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 83. 393 Bruce, The Book of Acts, 450.

100 aqueduct of Herod’s palace along with his brother Hezekiah – both of them were killed.394

After Paul’s apology for not recognizing the high priest he identifies a split in the council and begins to appeal to the Pharisees – as he was a Pharisee (v. 6).395 Luke says the “...the assembly was divided...” (v. 7) and the cause was theological: “For the

Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel nor spirit, but the Pharisees confess them all” (v. 8). Paul’s defense was so heated that Lysias had to rescue Paul and “...take him away from among them by force and bring him into the barracks” (v. 10). The following night Luke accounts for another passage that links Paul’s testimony διεμαρτύρω in Jerusalem with a future affirmation of his testimony μαρτυρῆσαι in Rome (v. 11).

The crooked events that transpired after his defence form a critical link to his next defence before Governor Felix. Apparently, there was a further plot on Paul’s life by

“...more than forty who took an oath not to eat until they killed Paul” (23:12-14). Given the shady reputation of Ananias at that time, he would have been a likely participant along with “...the chief priests and elders...” (v. 14). Providentially for Paul someone must have let the conspiracy slip out as Paul’s nephew heard about it and told him (v. 16).396

Subsequently, he sent his nephew along with a centurion to inform the commander (vv.

17- 22). Lysias apparently took the threat seriously and sent a sizable escort to go with

Paul to Caesarea which was some sixty miles away (v. 23-24).397

Meanwhile the commander wrote a letter that was sent along with the soldiers to

Governor Felix (v. 33). In v. Luke introduces the letters as such: “And he wrote a letter

394 Cf. Jos. J.W. II.17.9 and Bruce, The Book of Acts, 450. 395 Of all the explanations for why Paul did not recognize the high priest, the natural one makes the most sense in context: Paul simply did not recognize Ananias as the one who ordered him to be struck (vv. 4-5). 396 This is a rare glimpse into Paul’s family as there are no known details regarding Paul’s family within the entire New Testament. 397 Johnston notes how in ancient times a courier “… can travel 25 to 30 miles per day; changing horses throughout the day can yield extra miles. Roman couriers averaged 50 miles but could ride up to 200 miles a day if required.” Johnston, “Life and Teaching of Jesus.” 101 having this form:” γράψας ἐπιστολὴν ἔχουσαν τὸν τύπον τοῦτον· This statement does not imply exactitude, but ‘something like this’ or ‘after this form.’ It would likely have been written in Latin; perhaps Luke received a copy of it or at least heard the essence of it when it was read later on. The address reads: “Claudius Lysias, to the most excellent governor,

Felix, greetings” Κλαύδιος Λυσίας τῷ κρατίστῳ ἡγεμόνι Φήλικι χαίρειν (v. 26). This is significant because this is the usual way to address a man of his rank along with the typical sender, receiver, and customary greetings found in ancient letters. The title

“Excellency” was originally given to those of the ordo equester, the ‘Equestrian order, the knights of Roman society’ but later given to governors, Roman officials as well as a general form of polite address (cf. Luke 1:3).398

Furthermore, we find out the commander’s name is Claudius Lysias. Perhaps he was named after Emperor Claudius after he “bought” his citizenship (22:28). He writes to

Governor or ‘Procurator’ Felix ἡγεμόνι Φήλικι who was the governor of the Roman province of Judea from A.D. 52-59. Felix is a very interesting character as William

Barclay says that: “He was the first slave in history ever to become the Governor of a

Roman province.”399 Apparently he was married to three princesses, one of whom was the grand-daughter of Marc Antony and Cleopatra. In the body of the letter, Lysias outlines the circumstances of Paul’s rescue from the crowds noting clearly “…that he is a Roman”

ὅτι Ῥωμαῖός ἐστιν (23:27-28). He also outlines the proper procedures he took to find out what the charge was they were accusing him of (v. 28).400 Then he provides a significant clue that runs through the whole of Acts when Lysias gives his legal view of the issue

398 Cf. the discussion found in the Comparative Exegesis of Luke’s Double Incipit: Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1- 3. Refer especially to my note 275 and Table 1:1. 399 Barclay, 167-168. 400 Chance refers to Fitzmyer’s remarks “The Letter comes close to what was known as litterae dimissoriae: ‘…the letter that had to be sent according to Roman law from one official to a superior in the case of an appeal.’” Cf. Chance, Acts, 431; Fitzmyer, Acts, 726.

102 declaring: “I found him accused in regard to questions of their law, but with no charge deserving death or imprisonment” (v. 29, my emphasis). The principles at stake concern their law, and not Roman – which supersedes this dispute as Chance explains:

Lysias is convinced as other Roman officials who preceded him (cf. 18:15),

that disputes between Paul and his Jewish accusers have to do exclusively with

matters of Jewish law and are not deserving of Roman punishment, be it death

or incarceration (v. 29). This is a persistent theme in Acts: Christians, as

irritating as they might be, are not criminals; they do not violate the laws of the

Roman Empire (16:20-21, 38-39; 18:14; 25:8, 24-27; 26:32).401

The Commander closes with a note about Paul’s plot as well as ordering his accusers to speak with Felix (v. 30). Luke proceeds with details of the letter’s safe delivery and guarded entourage from Antipatris to Caesarea (23:31-33). Felix then reads the letter and offers to give Paul a hearing διακούσομαί and to have him guarded “in the

Praetorium” ἐν τῷ πραιτωρίῳ – the headquarters built by Herod the Great for himself.402

Paul’s Defence before Governor Felix

Luke opens the court scene as follows: “And after five days the high priest

Ananias went down with some elders and a prosecuting attorney, one Tertullus; and they laid before the governor their case against Paul” (Acts 24:1). Tertullus the professional

‘lawyer’ ῥήτορος proceeds with the case, and provides Felix with praise for his wonderful

401 Chance, Acts, 432. 402 Bruce explains the word for hearing διακούσομαί: “The compound is a legal term for ‘holding a hearing’ (cf. Job 9:33); it is used thus in Hellenistic writings, inscriptions, and papyri.” Secondly, he says “The praetorium (originally the headquarters of the praetor or military commander) was (among other things) the official residence of the Roman governor of an imperial province; the word is here used of the palace built for himself which served as a residence for the procurator.” Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 474. Cf. also my note 168 for further information about the praetorium.

103 reign (vv. 2-4). Peterson notes how this was “... the formal process by which a trial was set in motion, with the accused not yet being present to answer to the charges.”403 The plaintiff would speak first and bring forward the charge they wish to pursue.404 Tertullus then presents the specific charges that fall into three broad categories in vv. 5-7: 1) Paul is a riot-causing troublemaker;405 2) he is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect; 3) he tried to desecrate the temple.406 Recalling the earlier discussion when Paul faced the mob in

Jerusalem he was accused of actually defiling it (21:28), where Tertullus here suggests he only “…tried to desecrate the temple” (my emphasis). Regardless, this forms a key accusation in this court setting as this was the issue that could result in death – if Paul was found guilty.407 Next in v. 8 Peterson observes: “In what is called the peroration of the address, Tertullus invites the Governor himself to cross examine Paul about the matter.”408

Lastly, in v. 9 Luke says: “And the Jews also joined the attack, saying that it was so.”

Paul is direct in his approach to Felix when he gladly ‘makes his defence’

ἀπολογοῦμαι and declares his innocence. He simply “...went up to Jerusalem to worship”

– not to cause problems – nor could they prove any wrongdoing (vv. 11-13). For Paul as a

Roman Citizen, the law would surely lean in his favour – especially without witnesses or evidence. Paul then clarifies his defence, his apologia. Paul is a worshipper of God as they are – who believe “...all things that are according to the Law and written in the

Prophets...” as well as the resurrection – but as a follower of the way (vv. 14-15).

403 Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 630. 404 Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 119. 405 Bruce here describes Paul as “... a perfect pest, fomenting agitation in Jewish Communities, throughout the provinces...” F.F. Bruce, “The Significance of the Speeches for Interpreting Acts,” SJT 33 (1990): 27. 406 In light of Paul’s accusations here, Cadbury suggests that “...Paul might well seem to a procurator such a person and a fit candidate for reference to the emperor. He had already been confused by Claudius Lysias with a notable raiser of insurrection (xxi. 38). His own words are in defence against charges of tumult or seditio” (xxiv. 12, 18). Cadbury, “Roman Law and the Trial of Paul,” 310. 407 Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 123. 408 Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 633. 104

Furthermore, he maintains how he strives “...to have a clear conscience toward God and men at all times” (v. 16). This admission does not sound like the trouble-maker Tertullus proposed at all. This would surely strike a chord with the pious Jews – perhaps even Felix himself.409

During the main part of Paul’s defence he continues to maintain his innocence and his benevolence. He explains his charitable efforts in v. 17: he was law abiding and ceremonially clean (v. 18). Next he makes a strong legal case that his original accusers

“...ought to be here...” (v. 19) – but alas, were not. Sherwin-White elaborates stating that

“The original charge was made by certain Asian Jews who disappear from the case. In the hearing before Felix, Paul objects, rightly, that they ought to be present to make their charges. The Roman law was very strong against accusers who abandoned their charges.”410

This is an especially valid point considering the possibility of Paul’s accusers being found as destitutio. Nevertheless, Williams explains a caveat to this realization:

“The point, however, was not decisive, for though the Asian Jews had dropped out of sight, the original accusation (in a modified form) had been taken up by the council. The

Sanhedrin was now Paul’s accuser, and its representatives were present.”411 Both observations are valid, however, as far as the rest of Acts is concerned, the Sanhedrin does not appear to be successful in their prosecution of Paul – thus providing credence to

Sherwin-White’s learned assessment.

409 For a similar assessment see Ibid., 636. 410 Sherwin-White elaborates further in a way that places Paul’s comments here in chronological context: “Claudius himself had been busy with legislation aimed at preventing accusers within the system of the ordo from abandoning their charges. He made a speech about the matter in the Senate, and his proposals were later completed by the SC. Turpilianum of A.D. 61, under Nero. This laid down penalties for the offence which the lawyers call destitutio.” Perhaps Annas and company were legally liable for destitutio? Cf. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 52. 411 David Williams, Acts, 400. 105

Paul then proceeds to address his accusers and steers the court towards a crucial matter of theology: “...It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today” (24:21; cf. also 23:6; 24:21; 26:8 NIV). Felix follows standard procedures and

‘adjourned’ Ἀνεβάλετο the proceedings for a later time, perhaps due to an unwillingness to get involved in a theological dispute among the Jews. Barrett here remarks “Felix like other Roman officials, has no intention of being drawn into an internal Jewish dispute, or of doing injustice to a man whose only offense lay in what other Jews regarded as unorthodox theology.”412 Paul is then ordered to be kept under guard with a measure of

Custodia Liberia to “...let him have some freedom and not to prevent any of his friends from taking care of his needs” (v. 23).413

The last pericope provides some interesting practical details of history (24:24-27).

Felix and his wife Drussila are engaged with Paul in a personal discussion about “...about faith in Christ Jesus” (v. 24). The conversation goes well right up until Paul talks about “... righteousness and self-control and the judgment to come...” Felix is willing to listen to

Paul as he is hoping for a bribe – but Paul is obviously making him uncomfortable at this point! (vv. 25-26). Apparently this is one of several encounters where Luke must have received a personal account of this from Paul directly.414

Lastly, Luke notes the transition in governorship from Felix to Porcius Festus. This is very significant when Luke states how Felix wanted “...to curry favor with the Jews...” so he left him in prison (v. 27). Felix needed all the favor he could muster – especially considering the events leading to his removal as governor. When hostilities broke out

412 Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: Volume II, 1111. 413 Chance, Acts, 449. 414 Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 639. Peterson provides a window into this mixed reaction of Felix by stating: “He puts off making a personal decision about Christ, even as he puts off making a decision about Paul the prisoner!” (p. 641). 106 between Jew and Gentile in Caesarea, Felix sided with the Gentiles and his troops went overboard and many Jews were killed and taken prisoner, and the soldiers plundered the wealth of many Jewish families. This backfired on him when the Jews sent a delegation to

Rome to complain and they were actually able to force his recall as a governor (cf. Jos. JW

2.13.7; Ant. 20.182).415

Paul’s Defence before Festus

Time passed as Paul’s court case proceeded under the jurisdiction of the new governor Festus.416 The Jewish leaders presented the charges before Festus in Jerusalem but also tried to circumvent justice by urging “…Festus to transfer him to Jerusalem, for they were forming a plot to kill him along the way” (v. 3). Festus was not agreeable to this proposition and suggested that “...if the man has done anything wrong, they can press charges against him there” (v. 5 NIV). Once again it appears that Roman law is on Paul’s side.

After spending ‘eight or ten days’ with the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, Festus

“...took his seat on the judge’s bench and ordered Paul to be brought” (v. 6). Luke explains how they “...stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him, which they were not able to prove” (v. 7). Luke doesn’t go into details about what those charges were, but they were probably similar to the ones described in Acts 24:5-7 when

415 David Williams, Acts, 403; Bruce, The Book of Acts, 474; Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 642-643. Longenecker further states that Felix “... would have suffered severe punishment had not his brother Pallas interceded for him before Nero.” Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 542. 416 Porcius Festus replaced Felix as Governor (Procurator) in the year c. AD 60 and remained in power until c. AD 62. Chance explains that “...according to Josephus, he made conscientious attempts to deal with anti- Roman insurgents, particularly the assassination squads, known as the sicarii. ‘Now it was that Festus succeeded Felix as procurator, and made it his business to correct those that made disturbances in the country. So he caught the greatest part of the robbers, and destroyed a great many of them” (Jos. JW. 2.271; cf. Ant. 20.188). Chance, Acts, 461.

107

Felix was governor. Tertullus, the Sanhedrin’s lawyer, accused Paul of being: 1) a troublemaker; 2) a ringleader of the Nazarene sect; 3) one who tried to desecrate the temple. Some of this can be inferred from Paul’s subsequent words: “Then Paul made his defense ἀπολογουμένου: ‘I have done nothing wrong against the Jewish law or against the temple or against Caesar’” (v. 8 NIV).417 Paul certainly wished to stress his loyalty as a

Roman citizen and someone not guilty of sedition.418

Afterward, Festus “... wanting to curry favor χάριν with the Jews...” (cf. 24:27) asks if he is willing to face charges in Jerusalem (v. 9).419 Paul maintains his innocence and appeals to Caesar and his court βήματος as was his right as a Roman citizen (v. 11).

The βῆμα has often been thought of as a physical ‘seat’ such as the one found in Corinth which was the place for public speeches. Barrett notes an important difference which applies to the present pericope: “The βῆμα denotes the place where the judge holds his court, and is determined by the presence of the judge, not topographically” (cf. 25:10,

17).420 Additionally, the emphasis is on Festus as Caesar’s legal representative: “Paul, as the context will show, means that only Caesar (or his representative) has the right to pass judgement on him.”421 This is the higher (highest) court that Paul appeals to and Festus echoes Paul’s choice in v. 12: “To Caesar you have appealed; to Caesar you will go.” This process was known as the provocatio not the later appellatio as in the case of modern

417 Bruce notes how “This last denial probably alludes to the charge of disturbing the peace of the provinces.” Bruce, “The Significance of the Speeches for Interpreting Acts,” 27. Bruce further suggests that Paul “... replies explicitly to the charge of maiestas or other offenses against the imperial order... by denying that he had committed any crime against Caesar, he reiminds Festus that this is a matter with which he, as Caesar’s representative, is alone competent to deal.” Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 487. 418 Cadbury, “Roman Law and the Trial of Paul,” 310. Cf. also my note 406. 419 Tannehill and Peterson note the significance of Festus wishing to do a χάριν for the Jews. Festus is caught between pleasing this powerful group to the neglect of Roman Justice. Tannehill, 306-307; Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 648. 420 Ibid., 649; Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: Volume II, 871. 421 Barrett, Acts, 1129. See also my note 417 above. 108

English law where the sentence or verdict could be changed – provocatio “...was an appeal before trial to a higher court which would then take the whole case, trial, verdict, and sentence out of the lower court.”422 Since Paul knows he does not stand a chance of surviving a (lower) Jewish court, he plays, as Barrett calls it, his ‘trump card.’423

Festus then briefly discusses the details of the case with King Agrippa (v. 13-

21).424 Curiously, Festus’s personal view of handling the case sounds better than it was previously. Tannehill explains the difference saying that:

Festus’ account is partly a whitewash. He attempts to make his own handling of

Paul’s case look better than it was... [and by] citing Roman guarantees of a fair

trial for a defendant. His statement suggests that Festus is strongly committed

to Roman standards of justice (my additions).425

Furthermore, based on his conversation with Agrippa, he identifies the heart of the matter.

The dispute was a theological one and had to do with the resurrection of Jesus (v. 19). If that was the case, Tannehill asks, “...why did he not say so at the trial and acquit Paul?”426

Likewise Peterson concludes how “...this clearly exposes his political compromise with the Jews and his failure to act justly according to Roman standards.”427 Lastly, Luke

422 Regarding the process of appealing to the Emperor in Roman Law see Ibid., 1131; Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 144-47; Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 68-70; Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 724-26. Additionally, Peterson notes that Nero (AD 54-68) “...was not yet guilty of the sort of injustices for which he later became famous.” Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 649. Cf. also the lengthy discussion about Nero in chapter 1: “Nero and ‘the Great Fire of Rome,’ cf. also ‘Nero: ‘Son of a Monster.’ 423 Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: Volume II, 1131. 424 Apparently Agrippa had a reputation as an “...expert in the Jewish religion...” Cf. Bruce, “The Significance of the Speeches for Interpreting Acts,” 27. 425 Tannehill, 311. 426 Ibid., 311. 427 Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 653-654. Peterson also notes how unfair and dangerous it would have been for Paul to go to Jerusalem instead of simply being acquitted. Furthermore, Festus casually omits one aspect of his being ‘at a loss’ in v. 20 – his previously expressed desire “... to do the Jews a favor” (v. 9).

109 mentions King Agrippa’s desire to personally hear Paul (v. 22).

Paul’s Defence before King Agrippa

The last recorded stage of Paul’s defence before Imperial Rome occurs during this encounter with King Agrippa. Luke describes this grand occasion with much ‘fantasia’

μετὰ πολλῆς φαντασίας as the VIPs arrive from Caesarea and fill the ἀκροατήριον audience room – which includes most notably Agrippa, Bernice, but also the high-ranking military officers χιλιάρχοις and the “...prominent men of the city... ” (v. 23). Festus, as the ruling Governor, introduces Paul and the case to the King and all the prominent people by describing two major realities: 1) the Jewish community wants Paul dead (v. 24); and 2) so far in the eyes of Festus (and Rome) he is innocent, at least not deserving death (v.

25).428 Therefore, Festus on the one hand seems either unwilling or unable to deal with the

‘political problem’ of the apostle Paul (cf. 23:29; 25:25; 26; 31-32). Meanwhile on the other hand, concerning Paul he conveniently explains that because “… he himself appealed to the emperor, I decided to send him” (v. 25b).429 Lastly, he admits to Agrippa that he needs help in compiling a report to send along to Rome.430

Then Agrippa gives permission for Paul to speak and begin his defence

ἀπελογεῖτο.431 Paul politely addresses the King with a simple captatio benevolentiae and

428 On this note Barrett states: “This verse contains the strongest assertion so far of Paul’s innocence. The Roman magistrate has found in him nothing worthy of death, which evidently was the penalty that his Jewish accusers sought.” Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: Volume II, 1147. 429 Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 656. 430 Chance provides an expert assessment of Festus’ dilemma: “Festus has a problem precisely because he is about to send to the Emperor a man against whom he can find no legitimate charge.” Chance, Acts, 471. It seems obvious that Paul’s acquittal would upset the Jewish community – otherwise Festus (and Felix before him) would have done so already (e.g. Acts 24:27 and 25:9). 431 Haenchen makes the excellent observation that: “Paul assumes – despite the chains! – the attitude of the orator.” Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 682. Imagine this scene with Paul before the court in a light chain attached to his wrists yet still making the classic motion with his hands ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα in freedom!

110 emphasizes his “... defense against all the accusations of the Jews... ” (v. 2 NIV).432 Next he appeals to Agrippa’s familiarity with the “... Jewish religion and the customs that Jews often discussed...” 433 and begs him: “...listen to me patiently” (v. 3). Paul reminds his audience of his thoroughly Jewish upbringing and that he lived “... as a Pharisee” (v. 5).

This truly identifies Paul with the Jewish nation by the fact that he is speaking as one them. Paul then speaks of hope as Marshall describes:

The word hope is a key term in Paul’s defence (23:6; 24:15; 26:6f.; 28:20). It

refers to the believing expectation that God will fulfil the promises and

prophecies made in the Old Testament, and for Paul it refers specifically to the

belief that these promises have been and will be fulfilled in Jesus.434

With incredible irony, this is precisely the reason why Paul is on trial before the Jews – it is because of Jewish hopes that he is being accused.435

The climax of this hope is found in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth which is reflected in Paul’s question (v. 8). In the core of his defence, he then describes his previous hostility towards Jesus and his followers (vv. 9-10). He was so ‘vehemently angry’ at them he pursued them “...even to foreign cities” (v. 11).436 In vv. 12-18 Paul gives an account of his conversion which stresses the supernatural elements that were beyond his control. He was on his way to Damascus on a mission of persecution meanwhile “... a light from heaven, brighter than the sun...” shone around Paul and all those travelling with him (v. 13). He then experienced a dramatic encounter with the risen

Jesus who spoke to him and then appointed him as a “...servant and witness μάρτυρα...”

432 Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, 431. NIV 433 Fitzmyer, Acts, 756. 434 Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 392. 435 Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 683. 436 Haenchen notes how this is an ‘intensification’ compared to earlier passages where Paul went to Damascus (cf. 9:2; 22:5) Ibid., 685.

111

(vs. 14-16).437 Jesus told Paul about his new rescue mission that included both Jew and

Gentile – and the sending was personal and direct when Jesus said to him: “I am sending you” ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω σε (vv. 17-18; cf. also Luke 10:1; John 20:21).

Once converted and commissioned, Paul explained to Agrippa his obedience to the heavenly vision which included the proclamation of repentance towards God (vv. 19-20).

For Paul, this was the real reason why “... the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me” (v. 21). With God’s help he has “...stood testifying μαρτυρόμενος, both to small and great, saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass:

23 that the Christ was to suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles” (vv. 22-23).438

Festus interrupts his defence, and says literally: “Many letters are driving you to madness” (v. 24).439 In response Paul reasons that his words are “...true and rational” (v.

25). Further Paul appeals to Agrippa’s personal awareness and the public nature of these events – as well as his own personal belief in the prophets (vv. 26-27). Although he does not share Paul’s belief, Agrippa, Bernice “and those sitting with them...” affirm his innocence by saying: “This man is doing nothing worthy of death or imprisonment”

(vv.28-31). Once again the narrative of Acts presents Paul as an innocent man. The only caveat is that he has not been acquitted either as “...Agrippa said to Festus, ‘This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar’” (v. 32).

437 Chance, Acts, 480-481. Chance notes how “…the words ‘serve and witness’ loosely hark back to the Lukan prologue…” cf. Luke 1:1-2 438 Cf. Is. 52:13-53:12; Psalm 16, 22. Chance explains how Paul’s statement here reveals that “…the gospel of Jesus is not a ‘new religion,’ but the ‘fulfillment’ of the faith of Abraham, Moses, David the prophets, and the whole Jewish scripture. This was what the resurrected Jesus emphasized in Luke’s narrative” (cf. Luke 24:25, 32, 44-45). Ibid., 483-484. 439 Fitzmyer candidly states: “As a Roman who has to judge Paul’s case, Festus is concerned about Paul’s mental stability.” Fitzmyer, Acts, 763 quotation on p. 764.

112

The Trial of St. Paul the Roman Citizen – Concluding Observations

After this brief survey of Paul’s arrest and defence speeches, several observations can be made. Perhaps the greatest and most obvious is that Paul as a Roman citizen is consistently presented in Acts as innocent in the eyes of Rome. Neither the Jewish mob nor the Sanhedrin could produce enough evidence to make their prosecution of Paul successful. Paul is repeatedly charged with matters that concern Jewish law which are not punishable by death (so Chance) – this is the consistent theme throughout Acts (cf. 16:20-

21, 38-39; 18:14; 25:8, 24-27; 26:32). Paul’s proclamation is that Jesus of Nazareth, the hope of Israel, has been raised from the dead (Acts 24:21; 26:8). As far as Roman law is concerned at this point in Nero’s reign, his teaching is not considered to be sedition – nor a crime worthy of death.

However, in some ways Paul’s innocence is veiled as his legal position is held in tension beyond his arrest, defence and appeal to Caesar – all the way to the end of Acts.440

For example, if he was truly and fully innocent, why then was he not acquitted by Felix,

Festus and King Agrippa? Clearly, there was sufficient political pressure from the Jewish community to keep Paul in chains which inevitably caused his voyage and appeal to the

Imperial court in Rome (Acts 24:27, 25:9, and 27:1ff.). In the end, Paul’s prosecutors may have failed to successfully charge him; however, his acquittal remains to be seen.441

440 Refer to: ‘Critical-Historical Exegesis of Acts 28’ 441 Tajra concludes: “The most likely conclusion that can be drawn on the basis of the judicial evidence available in Acts is that Paul was released at the end of the two year period consequent to the Sanhedrin’s failure to continue the proceedings against him within the prescribed time. The positive tone on which Acts ends strongly suggests that Paul’s legal situation improved.” Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, 196.

113

Chapter IV: Critical-Historical Exegesis of Acts 28442

The title of this section suggests a ‘Critical-Historical Exegesis’ which explains the purpose of this study. The focus will be critical but not sceptical – historical and not necessarily theological. Although this exegesis discusses several matters of important theological reflection, the purpose of this exegesis will be to ascertain clues from the text regarding Paul’s fate – striving to uncover the literary implications of Luke’s account.

However, due to the extensive size of Acts, surveying the whole book in detail from beginning to end is far beyond the reaches of this study.

Nevertheless, the cumulative research to this point in the study should provide the reader with a sufficient background for the following exegetical analysis of the close of

Acts. In Chapter I: ‘The Rome of St. Paul in his day,’ supplied the historical background for this exegesis. Additionally, Chapters II and III provided many significant aspects of the exegesis such as: 1) the External-Internal Authorship of Luke-Acts; 2) The Narrative-

Unity of Luke Acts; 3) the Comparative Exegesis of Luke’s Double Incipit; 4) Paul’s

Journey to Jerusalem; 5) Paul’s Arrest by Tribune Lysias in Jerusalem; 6) Paul the Roman

Citizen; 7) Paul’s Defence before the: Sanhedrin, Mob, Felix, Festus, and King Agrippa.

This Critical-Historical Exegesis will endeavour to analyze clues to Paul’s fate within the following sections: A) Critical Analysis of the Broad Context (Acts 27:1-

28:10); B) Pericope Summary and Analysis of the Immediate Context (Acts 28:11-31); C)

Critical Exegesis of Key Passages: Acts 28:16, 23, 30–31; and D) Concluding

Implications.443 Finally, since Luke has “...carefully investigated everything from the

442 Some of the insights in this exegesis were gleaned from visiting Rome as well as preaching through the Book of Acts. 443 If only exegesis were as simple as ABC – the concluding section ‘D’ is crucial as many scholars have made shipwreck of their conclusions at this juncture.

114 beginning...”444 as expounded in the prologue of Luke-Acts, the goal for this study will be the same.

A) Analysis of the Broad Context (Acts 27:1-Acts 28:10)

The discussion regarding Paul’s arrest, defence, and appeal to Caesar in Chapter

III should provide a strong introduction for the remaining narrative in Acts 27:1ff. The focus in this section will be on the wider literary context of Luke’s narrative account of their journey to Rome. Just before this final voyage, Paul’s final defence and personal testimony was before King Agrippa in Acts 25, along with some key Roman officials in

Caesarea (cf. Paul’s Defense before King Agrippa above). Especially noteworthy was

Luke’s accounting of the interchange between Paul and Agrippa where Paul almost convinced him about Jesus (Acts 26:24-32, esp. v. 28). After hearing Paul’s testimony,

Agrippa consulted with Festus. Upon the realization that Paul was innocent – at least nothing that should warrant “…death or imprisonment” – they honoured his personal appeal to Caesar (Acts 26:31-32).445 This appeal was the climactic event that set the stage for their journey to Rome.

The record of the infamous sea voyage begins at Acts 27:1 where Luke writes:

“And when it was decided that we would sail for Italy…” – returning once more to the longest of the “we” sections of Acts. It is especially important to bear in mind that after leaving the far eastern port of Caesarea Maritima, the crew of this ship included Luke (and possibly Aristarchus) as an eye-witness chronicler.446 This whole account reads much like

444 Acts 1:3 NIV – Noting Luke’s use of ‘everything’ Evans suggests the likelihood that this “…would include Paul’s death if that had happened by the time Luke wrote.” C.A. Evans, thesis comment, March 19th, 2013. 445 Acts 26:32: And Agrippa said to Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.” 446 Chance, Acts, 495. This is not to be confused with Caesarea Philippi – especially where this city was far inland. Though Chance says that Aristarchus is not mentioned again in Acts, at this point Luke records that

115 an authentic sea voyage. Bruce calls it a “…classic in its own right…” while referring to

James Smith who wrote a then well-known book about this voyage back in the 1800’s.

Evidently Smith was “…an experienced yachtsman who made a careful study of Luke’s narrative …and formed the most favorable estimate of the accuracy of Luke’s account of each stage of the voyage.”447

As part of this voyage there were ‘other prisoners’ along with a certain “... centurion, named Julius, of the Augustan Cohort” (Acts 27:1). Chance in his excellent commentary describes this Augustan Cohort: “The Cohors la Augusta was made up primarily of Syrian mercenaries and was stationed during the first century AD in Syria.”448

Chance further reveals that although Luke does not say, it is likely “… that Julius would have been carrying Festus’s letter explaining the reasons that Paul was appearing before the emperor.”449 After they make their way from Caesarea to Sidon, Luke records how centurion Julius showed his kindness ‘philanthr p s’ φιλανθρώπως toward Paul (Acts

27:3).450

Later in their journey, Luke describes how “… the voyage was now dangerous because the fast had already gone by…” (Acts 27:9). Here, the Jewish fast was the Day of

Atonement – which would have been around October based on the Jewish calendar.

Longenecker describes how “…navigation in this part of the Mediterranean was always

“…Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica was with us” (Acts 27:2). Cf. Aristarchus in 19:29, 20:4. That he stayed all the way to Rome is speculation, but it is very likely given Paul’s later prison epistles – with the viewpoint they were written from Rome (esp. Col. 4:10, and Phlm). In his notes, Chance supports this as he states: “Nothing in these references would rule out that these texts refer to the same person who appears in Acts” (Chance, Acts, 353). So also Bruce, The Book of Acts. 1983, 501. 447 Ibid., 499. Bruce applauds the value of Smith’s work “…the more so as it has been out of print since the exhaustion of its fourth edition”… Cf. James Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul (4th edn.; London: Macmillan, 1880) 448 Chance, Acts, 494. 449 Ibid., 495; Cf. also Acts 25:1ff. 450 Perhaps there were Christians there due to the persecution in Jerusalem that happened after Stephen was killed (Acts 11:19).

116 dangerous after 14 September and was considered impossible after 11 November.”451 In ancient times, the modern navigational aids (i.e. GPS, sonar, sextant, or compass) were simply not available. It is no surprise that we read next in v. 9 how “Paul advised them…”

– not simply because he was an experienced sea traveler (e.g. 2 Cor. 11:25), but because this was a dangerous time of year for sailing.452 Unfortunately, the centurion took the advice of the captain and owner of the ship – instead of listening to Paul (Acts 27:11-12).

12 From Fair Havens, the goal was to sail south hoping to winter at the harbour of Pheonix

(modern Phineka) on the island of Crete (v. 12). However, things went badly as Luke describes: “But soon a violent wind, called the northeaster, rushed down from Crete”

(28:14). This was a wind of hurricane force transliterated ‘Typhonikos’ (τυφωνικὸς) – hence our English word ‘typhoon.’ This well-known enemy of sailors was called the

‘Euraquilo’ εὐρακύλων – which swept down from Mt. Ida on the island of Crete.453 The full account of the storm and shipwreck454 is found in the following verses, 15-44.455

451 Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 559. (cf. also Vegetius De Re Militari 4.39). 452 James Smith, an expert seaman, observed over a century ago “…that Fair Havens is so well protected by islands, that though not equal to Lutro [a port father west along the coast], it must be a very fair winter harbor; and that considering the suddenness, the frequency, and the violence with which the gales of northerly wind spring up, and the certainty that, if such a gale sprang up in the passage from Fair havens to Lutro, the ship must be driven off to sea, the prudence of the advice given by St. Paul may probably be supported even on nautical grounds.” Cf. Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 85 and Bruce, The Book of Acts, 507. 453 Bruce, The Book of Acts, 509. Bruce also observes how the Gk. εὐρακύλων “…is a hybrid, being derived from Gk. εὔρος (“east wind”) and Lat. Aquilo (“north wind” – or, as an accurate nautical term, “north-one- third-east wind”). 454 A rather fascinating detail is the ‘a certain cove’ κόλπον δέ τινα in Acts 27:39. Peterson notes how κόλπος can mean either ‘bosom’ or ‘bay’ – obviously bay given the context! Peterson refers to Bruce (citing Smith’s original work) who explains how “…St. Paul’s Bay is still considered (rightly) to be the most probable site.” Cf. Peterson, Acts, 694; Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 526; Cf. also Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 142. Today, there exists a prominent statue of Paul on one of the islands so named after him. 455 Of historical interest Luke notes in v. 17 the genuine fear “… that they would run aground on the Syrtis…” despite a distance of some 400 miles. In fact, William Barclay explains how the Sandbars of Syrtis “…were the graveyard of many a ship.” Cf. Barclay, 183. This was a dangerous collection of rocks and sandbars that lay to the west of Cyrene (n. African coast). Perhaps a north Atlantic equivalent would be our own Sable Island – the well-known graveyard of the Atlantic that has claimed the lives of many sailors and their ships.

117

Providentially, the crew was spared and their unavoidable last stop before sailing to Italy was Malta (Melita). The island was considered by the ancients to be a place of refuge in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea – where they were greeted with unparalleled hospitality and unusual kindness.456 Luke, as a doctor and as a man of faith, noted how God had blessed the people of Malta. Not only was the father of a certain

Publius457 healed, Luke says “…the rest of the people on the island who had diseases also came and were cured” (Acts 28:9). Not surprising then was the outpouring of Maltese generosity towards these gifted travelers as Luke describes how they were honored, providing them with the necessary supplies to keep sailing to their destination (v. 10).

B) Pericope Summary and Analysis of the Immediate Context (Acts 28:11-31)

After their near fatal shipwreck on the Island of Malta, Luke records their sailing adventure northward along the coast of Italy:

Acts 28:11 After three months we put out to sea in a ship that had wintered at

the island, a ship of Alexandria, with the “Heavenly Twins” as a figurehead.12

And when we put in at Syracuse, we stayed there three days. 13 From there we

circled round and came to Rhegium; and after one day a south wind came up,

and on the following day we arrived in Puteoli, 14 where we found brethren, and

456 Williams, Acts, 442. Williams notes how “The name Malta (or Melita) is Phoenician, meaning ‘refuge.’ Luke may have known this when he wrote this verse [28:1], which might be paraphrased: ‘We recognized that the island deserved its name.’” 457 Scholars hold differing views regarding the “leading man of the Island, named Publius.” Peterson citing Barrett says he might be the “…Roman Governor or a local native Officer who represented the regional procurator…” Though citing Johnson, Witherington, and Hemer he says “…it is also possible that the description refers to the most wealthy and leading citizen of the island.” See Peterson, Acts, 701. Likewise Chance states: “Whether this man was the official Roman governor of the island or simply the most notable citizen of the island cannot be determined. The name might indicate that he is a Roman citizen.” Cf. Chance, Acts, 515.

118 were invited to stay with them seven days. And so we went toward Rome. 15

And the brothers there, when they heard about us, came as far as the Forum of

Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, Paul gave thanks to

God and took courage. 16 And when we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with a soldier guarding him. 17 And it happened that after three days Paul called together the leaders of the Jews. And when they gathered, he said to them: “My brothers, though I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. 18 They examined me and wanted to release me, because there was no basis for a death sentence against me. 19 But when the

Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar, but not as though I had some charge to bring against my own people. 20 For this reason, therefore, I have asked to see you and speak with you, since it is because of the hope of

Israel that I wear this chain.” 21 And they said to him, “We have received no letters from Judea about you, nor have any of the brothers come from there and reported or spoken any bad about you. 22 But we desire to hear from you what you think, for with regard to this sect it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against.” 23 When they had arranged a day to meet with him, many came to him at his lodging, and he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the

Prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some were convinced by what he said, but others refused to believe. 25 And not being in harmony among themselves, they departed after Paul made one further statement. “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: 26 “‘Go to this people, and say,

119

“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never

perceive”; 27 for the heart of this people has become dull, and they hear with

difficultly with their ears, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with

their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I

should heal them.’ 28 So let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been

sent to the Gentiles; even they will listen.” 30 Paul lived there two whole years in

his own rented house and welcomed all who came to him, 31 proclaiming the

kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness,

without hindrance.458

Apparently they stayed for three months on Malta before sailing on (28:11). Their ship was from Alexandria, Egypt – which in all likelihood was another grain ship similar to the one they had just wrecked (27:38; 28:11). As noted in Chapter I: ‘The Rome of St.

Paul in his day,’ the ship sported the “… the figurehead of the Dioscuri” παρασήμῳ

Διοσκούροις (see my note 154). The Dioscuri were known as the twin gods of Castor and

Pollux - twin sons of Zeus. Longnecker sharply describes how:

…in Greek mythology [they] were transformed by Zeus into twin gods

represented by the constellation Gemini. The cult … was especially widespread

in Egypt and the Gemini were considered by sailors a sign of good fortune in

a storm. For an Alexandrian ship, the figurehead was an appropriate one.459

458 (MOUNCE) Barrett (Peterson p. 720) notes how v. 29 is not included in many manuscripts such as P74 while referring to Metzger who states: “The addition was probably made because of the abrupt transition from ver. 28 to ver. 30.” See Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: Volume II, 1250 and quotation from B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 502. Peterson further notes that a few extra variants are found at the end of Acts. See Peterson, Acts, 723 and also Metzger’s later edition: B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, Fourth Rev. (2nd ed.; Stuttgart/New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 445. 459 Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 566.

120

Once again we find good reason that Luke has indeed “carefully investigated everything” for this extremely “orderly account” (Luke 1:3) right down to a figurehead as David

Williams astutely observes how “The mentioning of this irrelevant detail is a sure sign that we have an eyewitness account.”460

In vv. 12 and 13 they sail from Syracuse (which was the Roman capital of Sicily) circling around Rhegium and then north to Puteoli – which was about 180 miles up the coast, not bad for 2 days of sailing. Puteoli (modern day Pozzuoli) was on the bay of

Naples and was the very strategic port city for Neapolis (Naples) which sits across from

Pompei and Mount Vesuvious which erupted years later in A.D. 79 (cf. my note 155 above). Here Luke explains that it was in Puteoli “.... where we found brethren, and were invited to stay with them seven days” (v. 14).461 While the archaeological evidence has been variously interpreted, Luke’s account here further strengthens the reality of

Christians living in Italy by the early sixties A.D. Recalling the discussion from Chapter 1:

‘Christian ‘Origins’ in Rome,’ Luke’s literary evidence here supports the view of

Puteoli as a strategic trade route with Rome and the east – essentially it was the Pier 21 of

Jewish and later Christian immigration into Italy. In the future, archaeological evidence may provide further details concerning the Jewish and Christian community at Puteoli.462

After their week-long visit with the ‘brethren’ Luke writes: “And so we went

460 Williams, Acts, 446. The colossal renaissance statues of Castor and Pollux in Rome are a vivid reminder of Luke’s seemingly random description of the ship’s figurehead.

461 Dunn relays the significance of a church in Puteoli – further noting from Josephus (Ant. 17.328) that a Jewish community existed as well. Cf. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, 1002. 462 Not only Puteoli, which is now swallowed up by the modern city of Naples, but Pompeii and Herculaneum across the bay of Naples certainly house untold archeological discoveries that could shed enormous light upon early Christian origins. Writing for National Geographic, James Owens declares: “Even after hundreds of years of work, about a third of the city still lies buried.” National Geographic. “Ancient Roman Life Preserved at Pompeii,” 2013. Accessed February 23, 2013 http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/archaeology/pompeii/

121 toward Rome.”463 From the port of Puteoli to Neapolis, and likely travelling through

Capua, they made their way north to Rome – most likely along the very old and famous

Roman road known as the Via Appia whom Statius described as “... the worn and well- known track of Appia, queen of the long roads.”464 While they were in Puteoli, word must have reached Rome that the aged Apostle and company were on there way to Rome (v.

15). In anticipation of the great Apostle’s visit the ‘brothers’ travelled, probably on foot, to “the Forum of Appius” which was about 43 miles from Rome. Apparently, some others met up with them a bit closer to Rome at a place called “Three Taverns” which was about

33 miles from Rome.465 After all, word of Paul’s mission and ministry adventures would have been well-known in addition to his lengthy letter to them from Corinth (Cenchrea) via Phoebe and especially Prisca (Priscilla) and Aquila – who were long-time friends and missionary companions of Paul (Cf. Rom. 16:1ff; Acts 18:2, 18; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim.

4:19). Regardless, at this point it was obvious that Paul was happy to see them (v. 15).

After their meeting, Luke records the actual entry into the city with some details regarding Paul’s initial house arrest (v. 16). 466 In Acts 28:16 Luke says that “...Paul was allowed to stay by himself ἐπετράπη τῷ Παύλῳ μένειν καθʼ ἑαυτὸν with a soldier guarding him” σὺν τῷ φυλάσσοντι αὐτὸν στρατιώτῃ. Therefore, it seems that at this point,

Paul had some measure of freedom, perhaps allowing him under supervision to walk around or do some reading/writing or some other work. However, from (v. 20) we know he also wore a light chain around his wrist perhaps attaching him to a Roman soldier

463 καὶ οὕτως εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην ἤλθαμεν Lit: ‘And thus into Rome we came’ 464 Statius, Silvae, II.2.12. 465 Ibid., 1002. 466 Sometimes English translations give the sense of duplicity when entering Rome – however, where Luke uses ἤλθαμεν in v. 14, the verb in v. 16 εἰσήλθομεν is modified to include the prefix εἰς ‘into.’ Perhaps this modification emphasizes the actual entry ‘into’ the city versus a general statement of their arrival in Rome (UBS).

122

(recalling Ramsay’s learned assessment in the introduction).

Within the next section, at Paul’s request he wastes no time in speaking with the

Jewish leaders (Ἰουδαίων πρώτους) in Rome (v. 17).467 In Paul’s speech he respectfully addresses them as “My Brothers” while declaring his ‘Jewish innocence’ by appealing to

“the customs of our fathers” (τοῖς ἔθεσι τοῖς πατρῴοις) – “...yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans” (v. 17). Then Luke records Paul’s

‘Roman innocence’ recalling Governors Felix and Festus and King Agrippa’s positive examination of him (v. 18). Subsequently, he makes it clear that his only safe option was to appeal to Caesar when the Jews objected; while at the same time making it equally clear he didn’t come to Rome to stir up trouble against his fellow Jews (v. 19). Paul then expresses his desire to engage with the Jews in Rome – perhaps some of them would understand. Curiously, he declares that “...it is because of the hope of Israel that I wear this chain” (v. 20). The hope of Israel, Paul says, was the reason for his chains. Israel’s hope, steeped in Messianic expectations, surely relates to the hope of the coming Messiah and the Kingdom of God.468

The polite and Roman Jewish response in vv. 21 and 22 indicates they have not heard anything suspicious about Paul – however, they make it clear that in general this sect αἱρέσεως is “…spoken against everywhere πανταχοῦ ἀντιλέγεται.” This strongly suggests that Christianity was tolerated within the greater Roman empire, but the

467 The evidence for the Jewish presence in Rome was previously discussed in Chapter 1. Cf. the section “The Historical Jewish and Christian Presence in Rome.” Dunn argues for a strong, existing Jewish community in Rome at this time and how: “They were anxious to hear what Paul’s views on the subject were. Despite its bad reputation, they still saw the movement Paul represented as a Jewish ‘sect’ and were open to Paul’s account of it.” Ibid., 1003-4, quotation from p. 1005. 468 Pervo gives a good summary of this hope “For Luke, the hope of Israel means belief in Jesus as the messianic savior whose resurrection brought about inclusion of gentiles and a turn away from understanding the Israelite heritage as observance of Torah to a view of Scripture as the repository of promises and prophecies revealing God’s plans for all the peoples of the earth.” See Pervo, Acts, 683.

123 undercurrents of persecution were already on the horizon. This statement may also be a reflection on the state of Jewish/Christian relations which Paul’s previous letter to the

Romans highlights as well as the previous expulsion under Claudius (Acts 18:2).469 The diplomatic response perhaps echoes the reality that the Jews were also on shaky ground at this time. If they were previously expelled from Italy about a decade ago in A.D. 49, surely the Jewish leadership would still be concerned about that happening again. This historical reality, combined with Paul’s current legal innocence in the eyes of Rome, would make it far too risky for the Jews to go on the offensive. Not surprising, they obliged to meet with Paul: “…they came to him into his lodging” ἦλθον πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰς

τὴν ξενίαν.470 Somewhere in Rome, Paul at this time had his own guest room where many learned about Jesus and the Kingdom of God (v. 23).

Luke notes that among the Jews some were convinced while “…others refused to believe” (v. 24) which led to them leaving in a disagreement ἀσύμφωνοι among themselves (v. 25).471 Subsequently, Paul challenges their unbelief by quoting the LXX of

Isaiah 6:9, 10 and then applies it to his current Jewish audience (vv. 26-27).472 Parsons identifies the chiastic antithetical structure of v. 27 reproduced here:

A Heart grown dull

469 Cf. the discussion regarding the account of Suetonius in “The Historical Jewish and Christian Presence in Rome,” in Chapter 1. 470 ξενίαν means hospitality but can also mean lodging as well. Pervo, Acts, 684. ξενίαν can also refer to a guest room (UBS). The same word is used in Paul’s letter to Philemon when he asked him to prepare a ξενίαν (guest room) for him (v. 22). 471 Dunn provides a valuable insight concerning the imperfect tense of both ἐπείθοντο ‘persuaded/convinced’ and ἠπίστουν ‘disbelieved’ – the debate would likely continue over the next couple of years (cf. Acts 28:30-31). Dunn, Christianity in the Making, 1005 also on p. 1007. 472 Pervo notes how Paul’s encounter with the Jews here at the end of Acts is similar to his encounter in Psidian Antioch (Acts 13:15-49) where Paul also quotes Isaiah to the Jews. Pervo, Acts, 684. On the contrary, though Dunn sees the Pauline/Isaiah parallels in Acts, he argues that vv. 25-28 do “...not follow a uniform rejection of his message by the Jews of Rome...” Paul sees his commission similar to Isaiah. Since Isaiah did not cease his commission (i.e. the next 60 chapters), neither would Paul. Therefore, Dunn reasons that v. 18 in particular should not “...be understood as Paul’s final turn away from and rejection of his people in favour of the gentiles...” Cf. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, 1006.

124

B Ears hard of hearing

C Shut eyes

C` Look with eyes

B` Listen with ears

A` Understand with heart473

As discussed in the introduction, many scholars promote Paul’s encounter with the

Jews in Rome as the narrative climax of Acts. 474 Although a Jewish narrative climax is possible (Troftgruben disagrees), the reality is that it still does not explain what happened to Paul post Acts 28 – which is the concern of the present study. That Paul has spoken to the Jews in Rome (where some believed and some didn’t) does not satisfy the historical inquiry surrounding his fate.475 Finally, regardless of the theological importance of Paul’s significant reference to Isaiah 6:9-10, the subsequent Gentile emphasis in vv. 30-31 makes it clear the ‘salvation of God’ and the focus of the gospel concerns both groups in Rome

(v. 30). Here, we are left with perhaps one of the best summary statements in the canon – perhaps in all of ancient literature. This is worth repeating here as a segue into the final assessment:

Paul lived there two whole years in his own rented house and welcomed all

473 Parsons, Acts, 365. 474 Troftgruben cites J.C. O’Neill, Joseph B. Tyson, Robert C. Tannehill, Jacques Dupont, Jacob Jervell, Johanness Weiss, and Jack T. Sanders among others who propose a combination of the “Jewish” climactic view of Acts. Troftgruben, 26 also 27-28. Cf. also Trompf, “On Why Luke Declined to Recount the Death of Paul: Acts 27-28 and Beyond.” 475 However, Paul’s words to the Jews here in 28:28 forms an historical link with his arrest in Jerusalem as Porter explains how “These words serve as the formal renunciation of the events that took place in Acts 21.” See Porter, The Paul of Acts, 186.

125

who came to him, 31 proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the

Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, without hindrance.476

C) Critical Exegesis of Key Passages: Acts 28:16, 23, 30–31

The above passages were chosen on the basis of historical inquiry. If there were any passages in Acts that might hold a ‘literary’ key for unlocking the mystery of Paul’s fate vv. 16, 23, and 30-31 would surely be it. They describe four fundamental aspects of

Paul’s stay in Rome. The first aspect is geographical. Luke provides some geographical knowledge to work with as he records in v. 30 that Paul was “in his own rented house” or

“at his own expense” ἐν ἰδίῳ μισθώματι so the ESV.477 Earlier in v. 23 Luke describes his place as ξενίαν which can mean either “lodging” or “guest room.” The second aspect is time. Luke describes his stay in Rome temporally: “...and he remained two whole years”

Ἐνέμεινεν δὲ διετίαν ὅλην (v. 30).478 Therefore, it is possible to date this event with some measure of accuracy by factoring other datable events in Acts. Luke as an historical writer is well known for dating key events in the larger scheme of history.479 The third aspect is purpose. In Rome, Luke clearly states in v. 31 that Paul’s purpose was “...proclaiming the

476 Acts 28:30-31. Barrett succinctly states the issue: “This verse and the next wind up Luke’s story... The verses in themselves are clear and satisfactory; it is not what is said but all that is not said that gives rise to problems.” Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: Volume II, 1251. 477 Perhaps μισθώματι emphasizes “...that Paul paid his own rent and was not dependent on contributions from others.” Pervo, Acts, 687. It’s unfortunate (though understandable) that Luke did not provide further specifics regarding Paul’s geographic location. Elsewhere in Acts 9:11 he went as far as naming the street (Εὐθεῖαν/Straight) and the owner of the house (Judas/Ἰούδα). 478 Pervo refers to the later account found in Act. Pet. (Verc.). 1. Where “...One of those converted was the wife of the supervisor of prisons, who converted her husband. He authorized Paul to travel, whence his mission to Spain.” Pervo, Acts, 686. Parsons identifies the “two years” mentioned in Acts as indicative of a period of special blessing. Cf. Parsons, Acts, 365. 479 Here I am indebted to Jeremiah Johnston in his lectures on Luke’s propensity to date. Luke 3 is one great example: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governing Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee and Philip his brother tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, 2 when Annas was high priest, and Caiaphas, the word of God came upon John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness.”

126 kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ...” κηρύσσων τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ

θεοῦ καὶ διδάσκων τὰ περὶ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ “...with all boldness, without hindrance” μετὰ πάσης παρρησίας ἀκωλύτως. The fourth aspect is found in v. 16 where

Luke provides information regarding the manner of Paul’s stay in Rome: “... Paul was allowed to remain by himself ἐπετράπη τῷ Παύλῳ μένειν καθʼ ἑαυτὸν with a soldier guarding him” σὺν τῷ φυλάσσοντι αὐτὸν στρατιώτῃ.480

Concerning v. 16, there is an important textual variant found in the Western text that needs to be addressed as it may provide clues to Paul’s situation in Rome. Metzger translates the passage (v. 16) as such: “the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard στρατοπεδάρχῳ; but Paul was allowed to live by himself...”481 Peterson refers to Witherington’s comments that are based on Metzger’s earlier assessment of the later

Western text: “While this statement is not likely an original part of the text of Acts, nevertheless it may reflect accurate information, as there is no plausible reason why a scribe would invent such an idea.”482 What it reflects is the possibility that the captain of the guard στρατοπεδάρχῳ, according to Witherington, just might be the Praetorian Prefect,

Afranius Burrus.483 As previously noted in Chapter 1, Burrus along with Seneca helped keep Nero’s earlier “...cautious but efficient administrative routine...” 484 Nero also

“...followed closely the advice of both Seneca and the head of the Praetorian Guard,

480 In addition to the “We” passages, Peterson notes how Luke remained in Rome: (Col. 4:10-14; Phm. 23- 34). Cf. Peterson, Acts, 708. 481 B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (1994), 443. The critical apparatus of the NA 27 notes this textual variant: (ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος παρέδωκεν τοὺς δεσμίους τῷ στρατοπεδάρχῳ, τῷ δὲ Π. Ἐπετρ). Pervo translates the “D-Text” of verse 16 as such: “When we reached Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the commandant of the barracks, but Paul had found favour with him, (so that he was allowed) to live outside of the barracks with a soldier guarding him.” Pervo also notes how “The words in parenthesis are supplied to make sense.” Cf. Pervo, Acts, 669. 482 Cf. Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 788 and Peterson, Acts, 708. Cf. also the original reference in Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (1971), 501. 483 Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 788. 484 Cary and Scullard, 358. Cf. Burrus and Seneca in: ‘Nero and ‘the Great Fire of Rome.’

127

Afranius Burrus, [to] whom Paul may well have been handed over by the centurion

Julius” (Acts 27:1, 3).485 At any case, with or without the Western text, it appears that

Paul’s house arrest (thus far) was a relaxed one and with a notable degree of preferential treatment and freedom.486

Setting aside the manner of Paul’s incarceration in Rome, what further insights can be discovered from the final text of Acts? Here it is paramount to incorporate D.L.

Mealand’s well-known study of the Greek words used in Acts 28:30-31 – especially where scholars repeatedly cite this article.487 This is not surprising given the depth of his research and the quality of insights. For example, of the three key terms in his study,

Mealand considers ἐν ἰδίῳ μισθώματι to be the most difficult – as it was often “...taken to refer to a hired dwelling.”488 The term μισθώματι occurs 77 times in various forms from a database of 40 million Greek words.489 Currently, as of February 2013, the TLG490 boasts

387 instances of this word and its variants – 182 are in the lexical form μίσθωμα with only

24 of them being in the dative neuter singular μισθώματι as found in Acts 28:30.

485 Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 792. 486 Peterson, Acts, 709. Peterson notes that Paul was given only one guard versus two which was standard practice. Further, the rotation of the cohort would allow Paul to connect with “the whole Praetorian guard” along with his many friends and visitors (Phil. 1:13; 2:19-30; 4:19). 487 Mealand, “The Close of Acts and its Hellenistic Greek Vocabulary.” Where in other studies it might be sufficient to cite this article, the nature of this study demands an appropriate consideration of Mealand’s key three terms. Such an analysis might shed further light on Paul’s trial and situation in Rome. Given the 1990 dating of this article, an updated study incorporating the latest Thesaurus Linguae Graecae would surely prove beneficial. 488 Ibid., 583. Peterson refers to Bruce (1990, 542) and Mealand (584-87) who “...concludes that it is a technical legal term for expense in paying rent.” He also recognizes the possibility that it describes the “...type of dwelling...and so it is likely that Paul lived in a room or rooms in one of the many thousands of tenement buildings in Rome.” Peterson, Acts, 720-21. 489 Mealand, 584. 490 “The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) is a research center at the University of California, Irvine. Founded in 1972 the TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek from Homer (8 c. B.C.) to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453... Today the Online TLG contains more than 105 million words from over 10,000 works associated with 4,000 authors and is constantly updated and improved with new features and texts.” Cf. http://www.tlg.uci.edu/ Although it is significant to realize the larger database available today, Mealand’s study still provides significant insights regarding the literary context of these three key terms found in Acts 28:30-31.

128

Mealand’s analysis reveals that μισθωμα “...is used in a good sense of payment in general, and in several instances specifically refers to the payment of rent.”491 However, there is a further context to consider with this term – it has legal implications as well. At the close of

Acts, Luke is using “... a piece of technical legal terminology... the legal term here is one derived from civil law as illustrated from Greek inscriptions.”492 Not only does this language connote civil law in general it points to “... a certain status being granted to a prisoner appealing against a criminal charge.”493 Therefore, not only did Paul have the freedom to rent his own house while awaiting trial in Rome, he must also have had the financial means as well.494 Mealand further elaborates how the language used here places

Paul’s occasion in Rome on firm historical ground – which has “...implications for Paul’s legal status and that fact may well be important as a feature of Acts as a literary text.”495

The next key term discussed within the second aspect of time is διετία from v. 30.

In the current TLG there are now over 491 recorded instances of this word and its variant forms with 190 found in the accusative – versus the 29 times during the time of Mealand’s research.496 In context, the term refers to a two-year period with sufficient evidence to show its use in leases497 – that much is certain – however, the legal implications/interpretation of this word is not as clear as the other two terms.498

491 Ibid., 585. 492 Ibid., 586. 493 Ibid., 586. 494 Cf. 2 Cor. 11:8ff. Mealand highlights an interesting parallel after the death of Tiberius when Herod Agrippa was moved to house arrest. As Agrippa was no ordinary prisoner, neither was Paul and so his treatment is supported by the later account of Josephus. Cf. Jos. Ant. 18.235. Cf. Mealand, 586. 495 Ibid., 586-87. 496 Ibid., 589. 497 Peterson remarks that this was “A full period of twenty-four months...” dating this period to AD 60 – 62. He further notes this two-year period was mentioned in Paul’s imprisonment under Felix in Caesarea. Together this dates Paul’s incarceration to at least four years in total. Cf. Peterson, Acts, 720. 498 Recall the discussion in the introduction: Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles, 572; McDonald, 191; Bruce, The Book of Acts, 535; Cf. especially the expanded comments in: Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 541. Here, Bruce highlights the early and popular view proposed by W.M. Ramsay, K. Lake

129

Accordingly, in the past many scholars understood this term to imply Paul’s release if his case was “not completed in two years...”499 However, Bruce challenges this common assumption by stating that “there is no first-century evidence suggesting that a case might be allowed to lapse automatically by default...” (my emphasis).500

The very last word found in Luke-Acts is the word ἀκωλύτως which requires significant discussion as it relates to the immediate literary context. At present, there are

1347 instances of this word in various forms with 795 occurring as an adverb as is found at the end of Acts.501 Specifically, this word provides clues relating to Paul’s freedom

(especially his preaching) and status as a prisoner in Rome.502 Not only does it give the sense of religious freedom of speech “...by one who had been accused of a criminal offense...” it is also the “...normal word used in Greek papyri for the unhindered access to rented property.”503 One specific papyrus (P.Oxy. 14.1641.6) is especially informative towards the application of ἀκωλύτως. It is also dated to Nero’s 14th year (c. 68 CE) which is extremely useful considering Paul’s time in Rome was only a few years earlier. The text

“... speaks of the lease of a house which is to be used without let or hindrance”

and H.J. Cadbury that: “...Paul’s two years comprised a statutory period of 18 months within which the prosecution might state its case against him, together with some further months required for the formalities attending his release, when the prosecution failed to make an appearance.” Cadbury, “Roman Law and the Trial of Paul,” 325–36. “But the alleged statutory period of eighteen months...” says Bruce “...proves to be based on the wrong dating of a papyrus [BGU 2.628 recto - (my emphasis)] which records an imperial edict of the third century fixing such a time limit for criminal cases submitted to the emperor from the provinces (and not providing for cases of prouocatio, like Paul’s).” In any case, our understanding of this two year period is a delicate one. Cf. Mealand, 588. 499 Mealand, 587. Mealand cites O. Eger and H.J. Cadbury where E. Haenchen argues “...that the supposition that the waiting period was previously two years is ‘unproved.’” 500 Ibid., 588. Cf. also Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 541-542 and my note 498 above. 501 Mealand’s 1988 study found only 160 occurrences of the adverb and 343 occurrences “of either the adverb or its cognate adjective.” See Mealand, 591. 502 Mealand, 589. 503 Ibid., 590.

130

ἀκολούτως.504 Hence, there are rental and legal505 connotations to this word – the ancients were rightly concerned that the owner would rent the property ἀκωλύτως “‘...without let or hindrance’ for the period of the lease, at the end of which it is to be returned free of filth and with the doors and keys intact.”506

Many other papyri over the later centuries “...do clearly show that the word was common in civil law in relation to the rental of property.”507 The wider literary context also provides insights applicable to Luke’s use.508 The word ἀκωλύτως was used in reference to various activities performed without interference: sailing, prayer and sacrifice, speech; even Cleopatra “...welcomed fever ‘as an excuse for abstaining from food and so releasing herself from life without hindrance’ [my emphasis (Plut. Ant.

82.4)].”509 The word also suggests religious freedom and “...the unstoppable sovereign action of God.”510

Furthermore, new historical insights can be established by studying the word

504 Ibid., 592. In Mealand’s note 16 he argues cogently that it is highly unlikely that ἀκολούτως derives from a different verb than ἀκωλύτως. 505 Bruce also considers this a ‘legal phrase.’ Cf. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 543. 506 Mealand, 592. 507 Ibid., 593. 508 Dunn recognizes Mealand’s insights that this is a legal term citing Barrett’s view here: Barrett, Acts: Volume II, 1253. Additionally, Dunn says the term perhaps refers “...to the ‘unrestricted’ use Paul had of his rented accommodation.” However, he also says: “In context that can mean nothing other than a sustained proclamation to all, Jew as well as Gentile.” Dunn, Christianity in the Making, 1008. 509 Mealand, 593. Barrett also gives this basic definition of ἀκωλύτως: “...unhindered, that is, with no one venturing or able to hinder or prevent.” See Barrett, Acts: Volume II, 1253. 510 Mealand, 594. Among the several passages found in Plato, Philo and Epictetus, Mealand also makes a reference to Wis. 7.23 where ἀκώλυτον appears as an adjective. Additionally, Frank Stagg proposes an important contextual distinction regarding the religious freedom of ἀκωλύτως. While Stagg recognizes the significance of Luke’s choice of ἀκωλύτως as do other scholars (Haenchen, Delling, and Wilson), he proposes a different interpretation based on the context of the word. He agrees with Delling who emphasizes the “proclamation of the sovereign rule of God” but disagrees with his view that ‘unhindered’ means “... unhindered by Rome (a fulfillment of Acts 1:8).” He further explains that “Exegetical and contextual factors are far more supportive for a reference of "unhindered" not to the threat of Roman interference (although this may be a subsidiary motive) but to the threat of inner barriers—struggles within the Christian community itself... (emphasis original)” Stagg’s insights are significant – especially given the consistent favourable view and inclusion of Gentiles throughout Luke-Acts. Cf. Frank Stagg, “The Unhindered Gospel,” Review and Expositor 71 (1974): 451-62 quotations taken from p. 461.

131

ἀκωλύτως along with διετία and μισθωμα, which together “...regularly appear in ancient papyri dealing with the leasing of property...”511 Each of these terms clearly “...have a technical background in civil law...” and are “...used in ancient leases.”512 Therefore, how does this impact our understanding of Paul’s situation? When Luke says that “Paul lived there two whole years in his own rented house...” it describes the historical and legal practice of renting accommodations. Mealand explains his conclusions further: “For two years (a normal span) Paul rented accommodation and this gave him unrestricted use of it.”513 While his accommodations were contractually unhindered, so was his bold preaching μετὰ πάσης παρρησίας ἀκωλύτως.514 Thus Acts leaves on a note of unhindered religious freedom (v.31).515

D) Concluding Observations and Implications

It is worth remembering Witherington’s discussion on the ‘trivial matters’ of history in chapter 1. Since we are not dealing with an abundance of details, every detail therefore becomes precious for the purposes of historical inquiry. Here, several basic observations can be offered based on the exegesis above – especially including the

511 Ibid., 590. 512 Ibid., 595. 513 Ibid. 514 “with all boldness” μετὰ πάσης παρρησίας is a common theme in Acts Cf. 2:29 μετὰ παρρησίας; 4:13 τὴν τοῦ Πέτρου παρρησίαν καὶ Ἰωάννου; 4:29 μετὰ παρρησίας πάσης; 4:31 μετὰ παρρησίας; and also the verb in 9:27 ἐπαρρησιάσατο; 13:46 παρρησιασάμενοί; also 14:3; 18:26; 19:8; 26:26. W.C. van Unnik explains the context of the word in Rome stating that it “...is closely connected with the proclamation of the gospel; it denotes the freedom with which it is proclaimed by him who himself is there on trial. It is, however, not the profession in the law-court, but the missionary activity that is carried out with all clearness and without hindrance.” W.C. van Unnik, “The Christian’s Freedom of Speech,” BJRL 44 (1961-62): 477 cited by Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 543. Cf. also Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: Volume II, 1253. 515 Bruce notes Paul’s positive view in Phil. 1:12-18 where the events have “...turned out to advance the gospel even more...” (Phil. 1:12). Barrett remarks: “Nothing, not even imprisonment, was able to put a stop to the spread of the Gospel, and nothing could deter Paul from doing the work of an evangelist, with the result that even in Rome the proclamation of the word was established.” Ibid., 1253.

132 contextual grammatical insights from Mealand’s study. Perhaps the greatest observation is that Luke’s choice of words in Acts 28:30-31 is commonly found in ancient rental and legal transactions. Therefore, it is clear that Luke was not ‘writing out of his own head’ or carefully constructing a pleasing ending that would satisfy the reader.516 This is significant evidence towards building the case that Luke is describing the actual situation of Paul in

Rome – and not a literary fabrication.517

Luke also provides a clear geographical reference for Paul – staying in his own rented house/apartment, at his own expense, as he awaits trial somewhere in Rome.518

Secondly, Acts ends with reference to time – a datable two-year reference to Paul’s rental agreement that also may imply legal connotations. Third, Acts ends with purpose – Paul’s preaching is “...with all boldness, without hindrance” representing the sentiment of many

Greco-Roman writers of the time. Fourth, Acts ends by describing the manner of Paul’s time in Rome which is consistent with the treatment of more distinguished prisoners – as in the case of Herod Agrippa’s house arrest (Jos. Ant. 18.235). Taken together, these facts paint a realistic portrayel of the historical Apostle Paul waiting trial in Rome for the two- year period, under house arrest, in his own rented house – “...proclaiming the kingdom of

God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, without hindrance” (v.

31).519

516 Mealand places the ending of Acts in historical context showing that the author has “... searched for and found traditions, or evidence of some kind, about the details of Paul’s circumstances in Rome, and about the character and nature of his proclamation... My case is that we have some ground for holding both that the author and historical material on which to base his account, and that he used his resulting account to good literary and theological effect.” Mealand, 591. 517 Contra Pervo’s view that the author of Acts is guilty of ‘historiographical sins.’ Cf. Pervo, Acts, 688. 518 Dunn, Christianity in the Making, 108. Lampe refers to passages such as 1 Cor. 9:12, 18, 6, 15; 4:12; 2 Cor. 11:7ff.; 12:13 that show how “... Paul as a rule was concerned to live ‘on his own expense’ in the community in which he was working, so that his cost fell on no one as a burden.” Cf. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 81. 519 Dunn, Christianity in the Making, 1005. Here, Dunn notes the dual emphasis of Paul’s testimony about the Kingdom of God and Jesus. As Jesus repeatedly proclaimed the Kingdom of God, Paul did likewise –

133

Regarding Luke’s epic words here it is worth repeating the dated but masterly exposition of T.D. Bernard:

Evidently on purpose are the two expressions combined in this final summary,

in order to show that the preaching of the kingdom and the preaching of Christ

are one: that the original proclamation has not ceased, but that in Christ Jesus

the thing proclaimed is no longer a vague and future hope, but a distinct and

present fact. In the conjunction of these words the progress of doctrine appears.

All that is founded upon the old Jewish expectation of a Kingdom of God; but

is now explained how that expression is fulfilled in the person of Jesus, and the

account of its realization consists in the unfolding truth concerning him (τὰ

περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ). The manifestation of Christ being finished, the kingdom is

already begun. Those who receive him enter into it. Having overcome the

sharpness of death, he has opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers.520

while also teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ (v. 31). Barrett makes a helpful observation: “κηρύσσων and διδάσκων are here synonyms; Luke does not seem to be distinguishing between two different kinds of communication.” Barrett, Acts: Volume II, 1253. Cf. also Peterson, Acts, 722. 520 T. D. Bernard, The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament [(1864) London, 1900], p. 112 cited in Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 542-43.

134

Chapter V: The Martyrdom of St. Paul

That Paul was initially released after his two year house arrest is very likely based on the exegesis above (Acts 28:30-31) as well as the evidence presented by many scholars in this study. Somehow Paul was then re-incarcerated based on the combined evidence from Clement, Eusebius, as well as Paul’s second letter to Timothy (cf. 1 Clem. 5:1- 6;

Eusebius, Ecc. His. 2:22; 2 Tim. 2:8-10, 4:6ff).521 The reason why is speculative, but in all probability ‘jealousy and strife’ was a motivating factor.522 This was a familiar concern for

Paul and an ever present danger in the church that continued well into Clement’s day – and beyond.523

That Paul had many enemies is also quite certain (cf. Acts 13:8, 16:22, 18:6,

20:19; 1 Thess. 2:2; 2 Cor. 11:23ff; 2 Tim. 4:14-15 etc). Therefore, it is easy to imagine one of his opponents such as ‘Alexander the coppersmith’ tipping off the authorities

521 While an exhaustive discussion concerning the authorship of 2 Timothy is beyond the scope of this study, there are good reasons to suggest that Paul wrote this letter. Perhaps the greatest reason in favour of Pauline authorship, is the frequency of personal names mentioned within the letter: 1) Paul and Jesus 1:1; 2) Timothy 1:2; 3) Lois and Eunice 1:5; 4) Phygelus and Hermogenes 1:15; 5) the household of Onesiphorus 1:16; 6) Hymenaeus and Philetus 2:17; 7) Demas, Crescens and Titus 4:10; 8) Luke and Mark 4:11; 9) Tychicus 4:12; 10) Carpus 4:13; 11) Alexander the coppersmith 4:14; 12) Prisca and Aquila and the household of Onesiphorus 4:19; 13) Erastus and Trophimus 4:20; 14) Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the brethren 4:21. Altogether there are 26 individuals named in this brief epistle. Furthermore, there are several (10) specific locations mentioned as well: 1) Rome 1:17; 2) Ephesus 1:18, 4:12; 3) Antioch, Iconium and Lystra 3:11; 4) Thessalonica, Dalmatia and Galatia 4:10; 5) Corinth and Miletus 4:20. Additionally, there are incredibly specific details found in the letter such as Paul’s need in 4:13 for his “...books, especially the parchments...” or the sickness of Trophimus in 4:20. There are also embarrassing details in the letter such as when “everyone deserted” Paul at his “first defense” (4:16). Additionally, the letter also contains some very specific travel details as well (4:21). Finally, both the opening and ending of 2 Timothy accurately reflect the language of Paul in his other epistles (i.e. Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 2 Thess. 3:18; Gal. 6:18; 1 Cor. 16:20; Phil. 4:23). Regardless, even if it could be proven that Paul was not the author, the fact remains that it still reflects a very clear and personal image of the aged apostle, pressing upon his young disciple Timothy, the imminence of his death in a Roman prison (2 Tim. 4:7-9). 522 The description of 2 Tim. 4:16 paired with Clement’s repeated emphasis on jealousy and strife in his epistle to the Corinthians makes this a likely factor. Additionally, the TLG reveals that Clement’s letter to the Corinthians contains an incredible 34 instances of ζῆλος ‘jealousy’ and approximately 18 accounts of ἔρις ‘strife’ in its variant forms. Furthermore, he specifically mentions jealousy and strife together in connection with Paul’s fate in 1 Clem. 5:5. 523 Comparatively, Paul’s own letters repeat this dual reality: i.e. Rom. 13:13: ‘not in strife and jealousy,’ μὴ ἔριδι καὶ ζήλῳ 1 Cor. 3:3: ‘jealousy and strife’ ζῆλος καὶ ἔρις and 2 Cor. 12:20 ‘strife, jealousy’ ἔρις, ζῆλος (see McDonald’s observations in the introduction50). 135 whereby Paul ends up in chains once more – this time with less freedom and greater severity (2 Tim. 2:9, 4:14).524 In fact, the overall tone of this epistle suggests that Paul was not expecting a favourable outcome this time (2 Tim. 4:6-9).525 Beyond the certainty of

‘his departure,’ the details of what took place after this second Roman imprisonment remain a mystery.

Although further evidence might suggest otherwise, it seems very unlikely that

Paul, as an apostle and famous Christian leader, would have survived Nero’s wrath (cf.

Nero and ‘the Great Fire of Rome’ and Nero: ‘Son of a Monster’).526 The majority of scholars and historians are in agreement on this point (Bruce, Brown, Gonzales, Jeffers,

Witherington, etc.) though some (Tajra) believe Paul died just before the great fire.527

Additionally, Brown finds support for Peter and Paul in Rome by referring to Ignatius

(Rom. 4:3), while other sources such as 1 Clement and later ones support the general admission “...that Peter and Paul died in Rome (A.D. 64-67) as martyrs in the persecution

524 Gordon Fee presents an interesting scenario based on 2 Tim. 4:14-15. He suggests that the “...best contextual guess is that the great deal of harm done by Alexander the Metalworker against Paul was to have him arrested. This is further supported by the fact that the verb ἐνδείκνυμι was often used with a legal sense of ‘inform against,’ and by the note in verse 15 that he strongly opposed our message” (emphasis original). Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. 1988 (Reprint, New International Biblical Commentary; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005), 295-96. 525 Where Paul writes in Phil. 2:17: “But even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering...” Ἀλλὰ εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι (my emphasis) – in 2 Tim. 4:6 Paul uses the same verb – yet this time without the conditional ‘if:’ “For I am already being poured out...” Ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη σπένδομαι. During this final incarceration he makes it clear to Timothy that “... the time of my departure has arrived.” Ralph Earle, 2 Timothy, 412. Here Fee explains that Paul “...clearly expects his present imprisonment to result in death...” Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 288. 526 Though Tajra thinks that Paul died just before the great fire of Rome (A.D. 63 or beginning of 64): “Paul’s trial and condemnation to death for treasonable activities would go a very very long way indeed in explaining how in a short period of time the Roman Christians went from being an unknown, innocuous group of no social or political importance whatever to being the scapegoats for a fire which burned down a goodly part of the most important city in the world.” Cf. Tajra, The Martyrdom of St. Paul, quotation from p. 32, cf. also 37, 199. 527 For example, Gonzales simply writes that: “It is very likely that both Peter and Paul were among the Neronian martyrs.” Gonzalez, 35. Jeffers declares: “The unanimous testimony of later Christian tradition is that Peter and Paul were both put to death under Nero.” Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, 319. Bruce likewise pronounces: “That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is certain...” Bruce, New Testament History, 388. Likewise Lüdemann citing 1 Clem. 5:4-7 states: “... that he (Paul) died a violent death in Rome is certain...” Lüdemann, 348.

136 of Christians under Nero...”528 Further he concludes how “... it is also plausible that Peter died by crucifixion in the circus of Nero south of the Vatican hill (in which he was buried) and Paul died by beheading on the Ostian way, as commemorated by subsequent churches and shrines.”529

Brown further collaborates these probabilities in detail stating:

Under the main altar of St. Peter’s basilica has been discovered the tropaeum

or tropaion (commemorative shrine) mentioned by Gaius, a Roman

presbyter(?), about A.D. 200: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles; for if

you go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those

who founded this church’ (Eusebius, Hist. 2.25.7). However, the Tropaeum

marks the place where the death and burial were honored, not necessarily the

exact place of burial.530

Similarly to Brown, McRay describes the second largest church in Rome next to

St. Peter’s: St. Paul Outside the Walls. It is located about a mile from the gate of St. Paul along the Via Ostiense. McRay claims that

No real excavation has been done here, but the site is thought to be the location of

the church built by Constantine to replace an oratory constructed over the place

where Lucina, a Roman matron, had buried Paul in her vineyard. When the present

church was being built, a marble slab was uncovered under the altar. Inscribed in

the slab with lettering from the time of Constantine were the words, ‘PAULO

528 Brown and Meier, 97. 529 Ibid., 97. Likewise Cary and Scullard say that “The victims... may have included St. Peter and Paul...” Similar to Brown, they describe further how the excavations “...though not revealing clear trace of Peter’s burial there, have shown that a martyr-shrine to him stood there as early as c. A.D. 160; they thus go some way to confirming the tradition that Peter was buried under this church beside the site of Nero’s circus.” Cary and Scullard, see their note 27 on p. 634. See also McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament, 347- 348 and also Bruce, New Testament History, 385 ff. 530 Brown and Meier, 97. Cf. also Tajra, The Martyrdom of St. Paul, 178-179.

137

APOSTOLO MART[YRI].’531

Considering the literary record and later church tradition, this points to the historicity of the burial of Paul in this area. Furthermore, Jack Finegan (cited by McRay) provides this safe observation:

...that there was little reason for a church to be built in this area unless some

special significance attached to it. For one thing, the site was a pagan cemetery.

It also was in a constricted space between two roads and on swampy land prone

to flooding from the Tiber River.532

Tajra in his exhaustive work concerning this subject, The Martyrdom of St. Paul, leaves virtually no stone unturned in his pursuit of the literary traditions surrounding

Paul’s fate from the New Testament period and beyond. In his conclusion, he states some concrete facts yet he does admit at the outset: “The story of Paul’s final days in Rome and the exact circumstances of his death and burial are to a very great extent shrouded in obscurity” (my emphasis).533 His research examines the earliest extant writers such as

Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians c. 95 A.D. and concludes: “Clement’s epistle shows that from the ancient most time Roman tradition held that Paul had been legally tried and executed in Rome during Nero’s reign.”534

Though other early Christian writers may be “... in possession of authentic historical tradition concerning Paul’s death, (they) refer to it in a vague, general and

531 McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament, 349. Cf. also Bruce, “St. Paul in Rome 5. Concluding Observations,” (1967), 275 and The Basilica Papale San Paolo fuori le Mura.“The Tomb of the Apostle,” 2013. Accessed March 12, 2013 http://www.vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_paolo/en/basilica/tomba.htm 532 McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament, 349. Cf. also Jack Finegan, Archaeology of the New Testament: The Mediterranean World of the Early Christian Apostles (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1981), 30. 533 Tajra, 198. 534 Tajra, 167. Likewise his analysis of the Patristics reveals how they “...used the figure of Paul for a variety of doctrinal and polemic purposes.” Quotation is taken from p. 198.

138 cursory way... ” (my addition).535 Tajra also describes the later Acts of Paul and other apocryphal works as “...creating a vibrantly dramatic, though entirely legendary Paul...” 536

Since we are primarily concerned with the fate of the historical Paul, this is unlikely to be a good source for historical Paul research.

Though Tajra finds the exact fate of Paul to be “...shrouded in obscurity...” while acknowledging the reality of the “manifest difficulties with the literary sources...” he does, however, find “... a few facts about Paul’s final days in Rome and the circumstances of his death...”537 The following is a summary of his findings: 1) Paul died in Rome; 2) Paul died during Nero’s reign (A.D. 54-68); 3) Paul was martyred.

That Paul died in Rome is significant because there are simply no rival cities in any of the historical records that refer to Paul’s death. Secondly, the patristic evidence suggests a range of dating from the great fire (A.D. 64) to the end of Nero’s reign in A.D.

68 – often linking the downfall of Nero as “...divine punishment for his ordering the slayings of both Peter and Paul.”538 Thirdly, Paul was martyred – he was formerly

“...accused, arrested, tried, legally condemned and executed. There are no indications whatsoever that he died a natural death or for some unknown reason took his own life.”539

For these reasons, it therefore appears certain that Paul was martyred in Rome, under

Nero, either just before or during the great fire of Rome in A.D. 64.

535 Ibid., 198. 536 Ibid., 198. 537 Ibid., 199. 538 Ibid., 199. 539 Ibid., 199.

139

The End of Acts 28 and the Fate of the Historical Apostle Paul:

Concluding Observations

In the Introduction: “What Happened to Paul?” the enigma of Paul’s fate post

Acts 28 was established by asking the same questions many have wrestled with for nearly

2000 years. Most if not all questions stem from the basic one – what happened to Paul after the end of Acts? Besides the core tradition of Paul’s martyrdom in Rome, the scholarly views are mixed. Where some minimize the enigma, others dismiss it completely – without discussing the issue at all. Certainly, a topic as historically important as this should be addressed. Furthermore, where some dismiss it, others construct sweeping conclusions that are built upon considerable assumptions. Strong conclusions are fine but must be done so with a measure of evidence – whether literary, archaeological or otherwise.

To illustrate this point, a lesson can be learned from a critical event that happened at the outset of the American War of Independence. The year was 1770 and it involved a certain John Adams who eventually became the second president of the United States

(1797-1801). Although Mr. Adams was soon to be recognized as a brilliant lawyer, he was given the seemingly impossible task of defending the British soldiers in the famous

Boston Massacre trials of Dec. 4, 1770. This crucial event was symptomatic of the growing rebellion against Great Britain.

In summary, there was a small band of British soldiers and their captain who were on trial for firing into a Boston mob that resulted in five deaths. John Adams was given the difficult task of first defending the captain of the soldiers, as well as the eight soldiers later on. When the evidence was presented and cross examined, Adams soon proved the innocence of the British soldiers – despite the popular view of the mob. In truth, the

140 soldiers were heckled and assaulted by a growing mob of a few hundred citizens. The evidence proved that the small band of frightened soldiers was only trying to defend themselves – and certainly not guilty of a ‘bloody massacre.’

In the end, the captain was acquitted along with six out of eight soldiers – two of whom were given a reduced sentence of manslaughter. During Adams’ famous (apologia) defense, he spoke these words:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations,

or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and

evidence.540

Likewise, when it comes to history in general and the fate of St. Paul in particular, conclusions need to be presented in light of the available evidence – which in the end may be quite different than our ‘wishes or inclinations.’

Thankfully many have given the topic of Paul’s fate and the end of Acts 28 a thorough and educated assessment (i.e. Cadbury, Pherigo, Bruce, Barrett, Marshall,

Mealand, Longenecker, McDonald, Witherington, Tajra, Troftgruben and others). Within the introduction, many significant insights were provided by these scholars such as the key terms and concepts that proved useful for later study. Most notable was the work of

Mealand, Bruce, Longenecker, McDonald, and Troftgruben in particular from whom much insight was drawn from in the early stages of this study.541 These scholars in particular helped generate the initial scope and direction of research for this project viz a viz their fascinating insights and thought-provoking questions.

540 Wikipedia. “John Adams,” 2013. Accessed April 16, 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_adams#Boston_Massacre. 541 For example, Mealand’s famous study which is thoroughly cited here is also frequently referred to by most Acts scholars. Mealand, “The Close of Acts and its Hellenistic Greek Vocabulary.”

141

Additionally, key literary works such as Eusebius and Clement of Rome were examined as well as critical events in Rome’s history – such as the great fire of Rome in

A.D. 64 and the subsequent persecution under Nero. An initial conversation about the sources for Paul’s martyrdom began in this chapter as well. Further, McDonald introduced an initial survey of the important insights concerning Roman law as it was during Nero’s reign as well as the necessity to examine the historical presence of Christians in Rome.

Subsequently, other views were introduced such as Pervo, Lüdemann, and Parsons.

Although some of their insights were very helpful and insightful, some of their conclusions regarding the book of Acts in general appear to be assumptive.542

Lastly, credit must be given to Troftgruben in his recent and exhaustive study regarding the end of Acts. The insights from his book are far too numerous to recapitulate here; however, a few of the best observations are worth repeating. The most helpful included the discussion of the four major scholarly views concerning the close of Acts, namely that: 1) Luke Knew no More; 2) Luke was Prevented from Finishing; 3) The

Ending was Deliberately Abrupt; 4) The Ending was an Intentional and Fitting

Conclusion.543 By examining these scholarly views many insights were incorporated into this study – his logic against the view that Luke’s ending was ‘deliberately abrupt’ was especially valuable. Additionally, after examining the writings of Clement of Rome, the

Muratorian canon, Eusebius, and Chrysostom’s homilies on Acts, it does seem apparent that the earliest of writers were not aware of many specific details concerning Paul’s fate.

Furthermore, Troftgruben also challenges the popular view that the close of Acts is simply

542 For example, Pervo’s claim that the solution to the close of Acts must be literary is very assumptive; likewise his implications that Luke fabricated the ending do not appear to be sound scholarship at all. Pervo, Acts, 688. This reality of diverging views is common among scholars as Chance states: “As with so many issues pertaining to Luke’s historical accuracy, there is no clear resolution, and the interpreters’ ideological and theological perspectives always color their conclusions.” Chance, Acts, 433. 543 Troftgruben, 8-28. Barrett’s summary was also helpful: Barrett, Acts: Volume II, 1249.

142 a narrative construction where: 1) Paul’s arrival in Rome fulfils the beginning of Acts 1:8;

2) Paul’s arrival in Rome is a climax to the book as this was the capital of the gentile world; 3) or Paul’s Jewish encounter in Rome represents the book’s narrative climax. 544

Finally, Troftgruben provides the reader with a reasonable assessment of Luke’s ending as compared with the endings of other ancient works.

Another lesson learned from the introduction was the need to consider both aspects of the thesis title as they are separate in one sense but related in another. For example, research on the historical Paul will unequivocally affect any conclusions drawn from the book of Acts and vice versa – especially when it comes to the issue of dating Acts which will be reviewed below. Lastly, many of the subject areas discussed in the introduction eventually formulated the chapters within this study.545

In Chapter I: ‘The Rome of St. Paul in his day,’ the importance of history was discussed along with Witherington’s useful insight regarding the potential impact of the most “trivial matters.” From here the impact of Paul’s life on world history was seen through his letters – such as in the lives of Augustine, Martin Luther, John Wesley, and

Karl Barth.546 Subsequently, the importance of the specific ‘Greco-Roman Context,’ was examined in light of the unique social, cultural, political and religious context of Rome.

Regarding the ‘Historical Origins of Rome,’ it became clear that Rome was clearly shaped and influenced not only by the Greeks, but also by the Etruscans who left their

544 Troftgruben, 24-25. 545 For example: 1) the History of Rome; 2) Nero and the great fire of Rome; 3) the Jewish and Christian Presence in Rome; 3) the Trial of St. Paul; 4) the Dating of Acts; 5) and exegesis of the close of Acts – as well as the significant Greek terms that have illuminated Paul’s fate. 546 Curiously, where Martin Luther’s preface to Paul’s letter to the Romans impacted John Wesley, it was Luther’s preface to his commentary on Galatians that impacted his brother Charles – and countless thousands ever since who sang the hymns he once composed. Like Charles, John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim’s Progress and Grace Abounding, whose preaching and writing transformed the church in England, wrote: “I do prefer this book of Martin Luther upon the Galatians, excepting the Holy Bible, before all books that I have ever seen.”

143 mark on the early Italians. Additionally, the geography and topography of the city was fashioned via the Ciminian and Alban volcanoes – which led to the creation of the seven hills. Lastly, it was also shown that the centrality of Rome’s physical location clearly enticed the formation of the early settlements.

Subsequently, the cultural and religious dimension to Rome’s founding was introduced in the ‘Legendary Origins of Rome.’ Here it was argued that since Paul was keenly interested in the cultural and religious climate wherever he travelled (i.e. Acts 17), he would have been familiar with the stories surrounding the legendary founding of Rome.

Next, within ‘The Rome of St. Paul in his day,’ a few of the great climactic leaders of the Roman Empire were introduced such as Pompey Magnus, Julius Caesar and Augustus

(Octavian) Caesar.

In the next section, one of the greatest events in Roman History was examined in light of Roman Christianity: ‘Nero and ‘the Great Fire of Rome.’ In New Testament times, the fire of A.D. 64 would have been the single greatest event in recent Roman history as it destroyed nearly 71% of the city – an event of this magnitude provides incredible insight for students of history. The reciprocal section entitled ‘Nero: ‘Son of a

Monster,’ focused on the subsequent persecution of Christians – which was both severe and systematic (Tacitus, Annals 15:44). What happened after the fire, and the subsequent blame placed on the Christians, resulted in something comparable to the Jewish holocaust of the 21st century. The fact that countless thousands of Christians died in Rome has a direct bearing on the fate of the Apostle Paul. A well-known Christian leader of his reputation would surely have been singled out and executed. Lastly, in the remaining sections of Chapter I, the Jewish and Christian presence in Rome was firmly established – long before Paul’s arrival (c. 61), there existed flourishing Jewish and Christian

144 communities.

In Chapter II: ‘Critical Analysis of Acts in Light of Paul’s Roman

Imprisonment,’ the flurry of recent scholarship regarding Acts was introduced.

Subsequently, issues of external and internal authorship were examined with the conclusion that Luke was in fact the author of this two-volume work. Despite some contrary views, there is also further evidence to support ‘The Narrative-Unity of Luke

Acts.’ Subsequently, a ‘Comparative Exegesis of Luke’s Double Incipit: Luke 1:1-4;

Acts 1:1-3,’ was undertaken which led not only to the discovery of verisimilitudes between the double incipits, but also with other extant literature of the time. Additionally, the double incipits demonstrated Luke’s intention to present a reliable account of the facts

(surely this would include Paul’s fate had he known). Luke was deeply concerned with introducing the truth of the gospel. His primary goal was to present to Theophilus (and to us) the truth concerning the risen Jesus Christ.

Though hotly debated, the next section entitled ‘Re: Dating of Luke-Acts: Early,

Intermediate, or Late?’ was found to be integral for this study in many ways. Regardless of the preferred date, the destruction of the Jewish Temple was the decisive factor in many of the arguments. Late dating advocates point to the similarities in the text with Josephus, while the early advocates refer to the existing language found in the first Temple’s destruction. Though biases exist on both sides of the argument, several facts remain unanswered for those who follow a post- A.D. 70 dating. Additionally, since it can be reasoned that Luke used the language of the LXX for the temple’s destruction in greater depth and frequency than the later language of Josephus, arguments based on Luke’s redaction of Mark are not so convincing. Furthermore, an event as momentous in Judaica as this would surely be discussed more openly in Luke and Acts – which is certainly not

145 the case.

Comparatively, not only does it seem incredible that Luke would avoid openly discussing the Temple’s destruction (which was front page news across the Roman

Empire), it is far more incredible that he would also fail to discuss the great fire of A.D.

64 which wiped out nearly 71% of the entire city, or the brutal persecution that followed.

The persecution would have reverberated among the wider Christian community in a very significant way. Intentionally omitting these events from the pages of Acts, would be like ignoring the great fires of London or Chicago – or reading a New York newspaper within a few years after Sept. 11, 2001 without any mention of the World Trade Tower’s destruction. Additionally, and critically, Luke also fails to discuss Paul’s death – regardless of a few passages that seem to ‘foreshadow’ his death. This omission remains incredibly speculative – especially when combined with his failure to mention many other significant events. 547 The conclusion is simple – Luke did not write about these events because they had not yet occurred at the time of his writing. No amount of literary skill or creative writing could have navigated past the totality of these devastating events in world history – especially considering Luke’s expressed integrity as a writer, who “...carefully investigated everything” (Luke 1:3).

Following the dating issue, several observations can be made from the study in

Chapter III: ‘The Trial of St. Paul.’ First is that Paul was clearly planning on visiting

Jerusalem. This was found both in Acts and in his personal letters. Additionally, Paul’s expectation of danger and death was also found in Acts along with his personal letters.

547 Not only is Luke’s failure to mention the Temple’s destruction incredible, other significant historical events are omitted: 1) The deaths of the other two great apostles: James (A.D. 62) and Peter (c. A.D. 64); 2) The Jewish Revolt in A.D. 66; 3) The death of Nero in A.D. 68; 4) The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; 5) The Roman Triumph in A.D. 71; 6) The eruption of Mount Vesuvius and the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum in A.D. 79. Cf. also Fitzmyer’s early dating list in Chapter II: ‘Re: Dating of Luke-Acts: Early, Intermediate, or Late?’ 146

This conclusion should have a further deconstructing effect on the theory that Luke accounted for Paul’s death by foreshadowing. Since Paul repeatedly wrote about the danger and death he faced in his own letters, any hint of foreshadowing from a secondary source (i.e. Luke) remains speculation at best.

In the story of ‘Paul’s Arrest by Tribune Lysias in Jerusalem,’ it became obvious from the start that Paul’s legal situation was both political and theological. From the outset the narrative of Acts revealed Paul’s innocence in the eyes of Rome. Paul is charged with matters that concern Jewish law, which was not considered punishable by death. In ‘Paul’s First Defence: before the Mob,’ the dual theme of defence and witness developed from his testimony. Though his speech may have been a failure to the Jewish crowd, it was a rhetorical success in the eyes of his increasingly gentile audience.

Subsequently, the section: ‘Paul the Roman Citizen’ was integral for understanding the quasi legal immunity of Paul throughout the remaining chapters of

Acts. The historical nature of his Roman citizenship provided him with justice and fair treatment against his Jewish accusers. The reaction from the soldiers and Lysias the commander in particular further supports his privileged legal position. His remaining

‘Defence before the Sanhedrin’ and Governor Felix further revealed the nature of his charges that remained unprovable thus far in Roman courts. However, it was discovered in

‘Paul’s Defence before Festus’ that the chances of his acquittal were diminished by the desire of Felix (later Festus) to curry favor with the Jews (24:27; 25:9). Subsequently,

Paul made his famous appeal to the higher court of Caesar. From here, it was clear that

King Agrippa as well did not find him guilty – at least worthy of death.

In ‘Chapter IV: Critical-Historical Exegesis of Acts 28,’ concerning the broad context, the focus was on Luke’s narrative account of their authentic sea voyage to Rome.

147

Both scholars and yachtsmen such as James Smith have found Luke’s description of their voyage to be accurate during every stage – from Caesarea to Italy. In fact, even the details of the storm and shipwreck on Malta measure up to historical scrutiny.

In the Immediate Context (Acts 28:11-31), the final aspect of their journey from

Malta to Rome was examined. Here, as elsewhere, the accuracy of Acts was found in the most trivial of details – notably including their ship’s figurehead (cf. 28:11 and my note

1544). Additionally, the chronological accuracy of Puteoli as a strategic trade route along with the extant Christian (Jewish) presence was identified (cf. 28:13-14 and my notes:

155, 207 and 461). Furthermore, and in addition to the momentous events discussed above, it can be further argued that the absolute destruction of nearby Pompeii and

Herculaneum make it virtually impossible to date Luke’s account of Paul’s week-long visit with the ‘brothers’ in Puteoli later than A.D. 79. Otherwise the view that Luke somehow intentionally omitted this local disaster would be like writing to someone about a recent visit with friends in Bedford Nova Scotia after Dec. 6th 1917 – without saying anything about the Halifax Explosion.548

Following the immediate context, the ‘Critical Exegesis of Key Passages: Acts

28: 16, 23, 30–31,’ provided many crucial observations regarding Paul’s house arrest in

Rome. Perhaps the greatest discoveries were made from the grammatical insights from

D.L. Mealand’s landmark study which was supplanted with fresh research found within the current TLG. Here it was ratified that Luke’s use of the three key terms found in

548 By comparison, where it is estimated that 1946 people died in the Halifax Explosion, an estimated 16,000 people in Pompeii and Herculaneum perished from the pyroclastic flows. Cf. Government of Nova Scotia. “Halifax Explosion Remembrance Book,” 2013. Accessed March 23, 2013 http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/remembrance/; and Cosmos Magazine. “Top ten worst Eruptions of all time,” 2013. Accessed March 23, 2013 http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/top-ten-worst-eruptions-all- time/

148

28:30-31 confirms that he was not fabricating history.549 The language he used to describe

Paul’s two year house arrest validates that he did not create a pleasant or ‘fictitious’ ending, nor was it a theological (or political) construction designed to address Jewish or

Gentile concerns. The language Luke used in his ending reflected the actual business and legal practices of his day. Therefore, the ending of Acts is datable and practical – even the manner of Paul’s house arrest is comparable to the practice of his time in Rome.550

However, despite the practical and legal nature of the end of Acts, the theological thrust is also clear. Since Paul’s dramatic conversion experience in Chapter 9, he consistently proclaimed the message of Jesus Christ – his death and resurrection. In fact, without this message, Luke would have nothing to write, and Paul would have no reason to travel and preach across the Roman Empire – nor would there be a cause for his arrest, defense and appeal to Caesar in the first place (i.e. Phil. 1:12-13). Therefore, in the last verse, it is not surprising to find Paul in his own rented house – “...proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, without hindrance” (v. 31). Though his situation is historically practical and verifiable, the last word of Acts ends on a note of unhindered religious freedom.

Lastly, in Chapter V: ‘The Martyrdom of St. Paul,’ the potential scenario concerning the fate of the Apostle Paul was discussed. That he was initially released due to a failed prosecution by the Sanhedrin is very likely – but not certain. That he travelled to Spain, or visited the churches in the east are both possible – but cannot be determined with certitude. However, it does seem clear that Paul was re-incarcerated in Rome based

549 1) μισθώματι = ‘expense’ or ‘hired dwelling;’ 2) διετία = ‘two years;’ 3) ἀκωλύτως = ‘without let or hindrance.’ 550 I.e. Herod Agrippa’s comparable house arrest (Jos. Ant. 18.235) which was previously noted in the ‘Critical Exegesis of Key Passages: Acts 28: 16, 23, 30–31’ above.

149 on the earliest literary evidence. Whether it was a result of ‘jealousy and strife’ we cannot be sure – however, it remains a credible scenario based upon the available evidence.

Concluding Implications for New Testament Scholarship

Although many uncertainties still remain regarding Paul’s fate, some concrete conclusions can be drawn based upon the available literary and archaeological evidence.

Perhaps the most controversial is that Luke was completely unaware of Paul’s death at the time of his writing Luke-Acts. Simply stated – Paul was alive at the time of Luke’s writing. This reality is further supported by Luke’s omission of the most earth-shattering events in Jewish, Christian and Roman history that took place during A.D. 64 and beyond.

The end of Acts simply and unmistakably does not reflect the fate of the Apostle Paul with certainty, nor the terrible world-changing events that took place afterwards.

There are further reasons that strengthen this case such as the historic debate and confusion concerning the close of Acts 28. As discussed, many scholars have undertaken to explain the enigma from a literary perspective without clearly answering the unresolved question of Paul’s fate in light of history. Moreover, theological attempts have also failed to unravel the enigma of the end of Acts. There are simply far too many unanswered questions left by Luke’s silence. It is easy to look back in history and reconstruct what we think happened; however, the silence remains – because these events did not happen yet.

Correspondingly, some scholars propose the indefensible assumption that Luke intentionally foreshadowed Paul’s death. This proposal is negated by the fact that Paul apparently ‘foreshadowed’ his own danger and death repeatedly in his own letters. On the other hand, some propose that it was too painful for Luke to describe Paul’s death. This naturally incurs the problem that Luke’s writing is thoroughly enveloped in the suffering

150 of Jesus and his followers. This solution also fails to address the massive persecution of

Christians along with the other earth-shattering events that occurred in A.D. 64 and beyond.

This study has also shown that Luke’s record of the prophetic language of Jesus concerning the Temple’s (and Jerusalem’s) destruction are far more likely to be based upon the first Temple’s destruction in the LXX rather than the later account of Josephus.

Moreover, the fact that even later dating advocates admit there is no past-tense mention of the Temple’s destruction in the entire NT underscores the need to re-examine this issue in light of the evidence. Regardless, of past or present tense, the wholesale omission of this event (along with many other empire-wide events discussed in this study), suggest that arguments in favor of a later, post A.D. 64 writing of Luke-Acts, are extremely weak.

Naturally, this has massive implications for historical Paul research in particular and New

Testament scholarship in general. Consequently, similar argumentation from this study could be applied to the other synoptic gospels; however, that is far beyond the scope of this study.

Furthermore, and in support of a pre-A.D. 64 dating of Luke-Acts, it has been consistently argued that Luke’s accuracy is found in the most trivial of details. Luke was not fabricating history. The language of Luke in general and Acts 28 in particular, confirms that he was simply describing the real historical situation of Paul in house arrest, awaiting his trial in Rome. The ending was not a theological or narrative construction; if anything, it was a legal construction designed in part to present a favourable case before an impending Roman court – which is the only court that mattered in the early 60’s A.D.

Perhaps Theophilus, or one of his associates, was Paul’s lawyer. Regardless, the frequent and deliberate use of the many legal terms throughout Acts and especially in the last two

151 verses clearly paint a real historical scene – that is both datable and comparable to the

Rome of Paul’s day.

Therefore, not only does the language of Luke suggest that Paul was still alive, his writing only makes sense if he was still alive. What would be the point of Luke using specific legal, business, and pro-Roman language after Paul’s death and the horrible persecution in A.D. 64?551 This question demands an answer from those who maintain that somehow Luke was aware of Paul’s death along with the countless thousands of

Christians in Rome who were systematically slaughtered. Surely Paul, and probably Luke along with other notable Christian leaders in Rome, would not have survived the later wrath of Nero’s reign.

Finally, and most assuredly, from this study the core of historic tradition remains – and this much is certain: the Apostle Paul was martyred in Rome, under Nero, sometime near the great fire of Rome in A.D. 64. That he was buried along the Ostian way according to Eusebius and the Roman Presbyter Gaius is not conclusive; however, the available literary and archaeological evidence supports this position. Finally, perhaps we can all imagine – just for a moment – the truth of Paul’s words written from a cold prison cell somewhere in Rome – just before ‘the time of his departure’

I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the

righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to

all who have longed for his appearing (2 Tim.4:7-8).

551 This compelling insight was proposed by Craig Evans during my thesis defence on April 9th, 2013.

152

Bibliography:

Alexander, Loveday. The Preface to Luke's Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1.SNTSMS 78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Barclay, William. The Acts of the Apostles. 1953. Rev. ed. The Daily Study Bible Series; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1976.

Barrett, C.K. Luke the Historian in Recent Studies. London: The Epworth Press, 1961.

———. The Acts of the Apostles: Volume II. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.

Bartlet, J.V. “Two New Testament Problems. I. St. Paul’s Fate at Rome.” Expositor VIII/5 (1913): 464–67.

Bernard, T. D. The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament. 1864. London, 1900.

Bock, Darrell L. Acts. BECNT. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007.

Bowersock, G.W. Martyrdom and Rome. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Bruce, F.F. New Testament History. London: Nelson, 1969.

———. “St. Paul in Rome: 5. Concluding Observations.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Manchester 50 (1968): 262–79.

———. The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. Revised. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

———. The Book of Acts. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

———. The Book of Acts. Revised. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

———. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

———. “The Significance of the Speeches for Interpreting Acts.” SJT 33 (1990): 20-8.

Cadbury, H. J. The Making of Luke-Acts. New York: Macmillan, 1927.

153

———. “Appendix C - Commentary on the Preface of Luke.” In The Beginnings of Christianity; Part I: The Acts of the Apostles, edited by F.J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, 489–510. Vol. II.; London: Macmillan, 1922.

———. The Book of Acts in History. London: Black, 1955.

———. “The Identity of the Editor of Luke and Acts.” In The Beginnings of Christianity; Part I: The Acts of the Apostles, edited by F.J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, 349–359. Vol. II.; London: Macmillan, 1922.

———. “Roman Law and the Trial of Paul.” In The Beginnings of Christianity; Part I: The Acts of the Apostles, edited by F.J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, 297–319. Vol. V.; London: Macmillan, 1933.

Cary, M and H.H. Scullard. A History of Rome: Down to the Reign of Constantine. 1935. Revised. London: Macmillan, 1992.

Chance, J. Bradley. Acts. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon: Smith & Helwys, 2007.

Creed, J.M. The Gospel according to St. Luke. London: Macmillan, 1930.

Crossan, John D., and Jonathan L. Reed. In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom. New York: HarperSanFranscisco, 2005.

Davies, P. “The Ending of Acts.” Exp Tim 94 (1983): 334–35.

Dodd, C. H. “The Fall of Jerusalem and the 'Abomination of Desolation '.” The Journal of Roman Studies 37 (1947): 47–54.

Doermann, Lindsey. “Top ten worst eruptions of all time.” 2013. Accessed March 23, 2013. http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/top-ten-worst-eruptions-all-time/

Dunn, James D.G. Christianity in the Making Volume 2: Beginning from Jerusalem. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Earle, Ralph. 2 Timothy. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 11. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.

Edwards, James R. Romans. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005.

Ellis, E. Earle, ed. The Gospel of Luke. London: Nelson, 1966.

Evans, C. A. Luke. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1990.

154

———. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

———. ed. The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Matthew-Luke. The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Matthew-Luke. Colorado Springs: Victor, 2003.

Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. 1988. Reprint, New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005.

Finegan, Jack. Archaeology of the New Testament: The Mediterranean World of the Early Christian Apostles. Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1981.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. AB 31. New York: Doubleday, 1998.

———. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. AB 28. New York: Doubleday, 1981.

———. The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV. AB 28a. New York: Doubleday, 1985.

Gager, J.G. Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice hall, 1975.

Gasque, W. Ward. “The Historical Value of Acts.” Tyndale Bulletin 40 (1989): 136–57.

Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. “Paul and the Roman Believers.” In The Blackwell Companion to Paul, edited by Stephen Westerholm, 93-107. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

Green, Joel B. Acts. The New Interpreter’s Bible: One Volume Commentary. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. New York: HarperSanFranscisco, 1984.

Goodman, M. The Roman World 44 B.C.-A.D. 180. London: Routledge, 1997.

Government of Nova Scotia. “Halifax Explosion Remembrance Book.” 2013. Accessed March 23, 2013. http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/remembrance/

Hadas, M. The Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates. New York: Harper & Row, 1951.

Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971.

Hauck, F. Das Evangelium des Lukas. Theologischer Handkommentar zum NT. Leipzig: Deichert, 1934.

155

Hemer, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989.

Jeffers, James S. The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity. Downers Grove: InterVaristy Press, 1999.

Jewett, Robert. A Chronology of Paul’s Life. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Johnston, Jeremiah J. “Life and Teaching of Jesus.” In BIBL 7123. Class lecture, Acadia Divinity College, 2013.

———. “The Gospel of Luke: Critical Issues and Interpretation.” In BIBL 6123.Class lecture, Acadia Divinity College, 2012.

Klein, G. Rekonstruktion und Interpretation. Munich: Kaiser, 1969.

Lampe, Peter. Die stadtromischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten: Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1989.

Lampe, Peter. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, edited by Marshall D. Johnson. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

Laurence, Ray, Simon Esmonde Cleary and Gareth Sears. The City in the Roman West: c.250BC–c.AD250. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2011. Accessed January 28, 2013. http://library.acadiau.ca/

Leaney, A.R.C. The Gospel According to Luke. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1966.

Liefeld, Walter L. Luke. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

Longenecker, Richard N. The Acts of the Apostles. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 9. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

Lüdemann, Gerd. The Acts of the Apostles: What Really Happened in the Earliest Days of the Church. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2005.

Luke Timothy Johnson. The Acts of the Apostles. Sacra Pagina 5. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992.

Macgregor, G.H.C. Interpreter’s Bible Vol. 9. Nashville: Abingdon, 1952.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Acts of the Apostles. 1980. Reprint, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988.

———.The Gospel of Luke. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978.

156

Mauck, J. W. Paul on Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defense of Christianity. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.

McDonald, Lee Martin. “Introduction to Acts.” In The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Acts-Philemon, edited by Craig A. Evans, 19-194. Colorado Springs: Victor, 2004.

McRay, John. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999.

Mealand, D.L. “The Close of Acts and its Hellenistic Greek Vocabulary.” New Testament Studies 36 (1990): 583–97.

Metzger, B.M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1971.

———. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. Fourth Rev. 2nd ed.; Stuttgart/New York: United Bible Societies, 1994.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to St. Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.

Munck, Johannes. The Acts of the Apostles. AB 31. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1967.

Omerzu, H. Der Prozess des Paulus: Eine exegetische und rechtshistorishe Untersuchung der Apostelgeschichte. BZNW 115; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002.

Owens, James. “Ancient Roman Life Preserved at Pompeii.” 2013. Accessed February 23, 2013. http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/archaeology/pompeii/

Parsons, Mikeal C. Acts. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2008.

Parsons, M.C. and Pervo, R.I. Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993.

Pervo, Richard I. Acts. Hermeneia - A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009.

Pervo, Richard I. Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2006.

Peterson, David G. The Acts of the Apostles. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

157

Pherigo, Lindsey P. “Paul’s Life after the Close of Acts.” JBL 70 (1951): 277–285.

Porter, Stanley E. The Paul of Acts: Essays in Literary Criticism, Rhetoric, and Theology. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999.

———. “The Portrait of Paul in Acts.” In The Blackwell Companion to Paul, edited by Stephen Westerholm, 124-138.West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

Potter, David. Emperors of Rome: The Story of Imperial Rome from Julius Caesar to the Last Emperor. London: Quercus, 2007.

Quasten, Johannes. “The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literarure from the Council of Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon, Vol. 3.” In Patrology, 440. Westminister, Md.: Christian Classics, 1986.

Rackham, R.B. The Acts of the Apostles. Reprint, London: Methuen, 1953.

Ramsay, W.M. St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905.

Ramsay, W.M. The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915.

———. “The Imprisonment and Supposed Trial of Paul.” Expositor VIII/5 (1913): 264– 84.

Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. New York: Paulist Press, 1983.

Reicke, Bo. The New Testament Era: The World of the Bible from 500 B.C. to 100 A.D. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968.

Robbins, Vernon. “By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages.” In Perspectives of Luke-Acts, edited by Charles H. Talbert, 215-42. Danville, Va.: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978.

Sanders, H.A. “Two Fragmentary Birth Certificates from the Michigan Collection.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 9 (1931): 62.

Sanders, James A. “The Ethic of Election in Luke’s Great Banquet Parable.” In Essays in Old Testament Ethics. New York: Ktav, 1974.

Schaff, Philip, ed. “Eusebius Pamphilus: Church History.” In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church: Volume 1, 103-131. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995.

158

———. “Irenaeus Against Heresies.” In The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, 309-578. Reprint, Eerdmans, 2001.

———. “Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans.” In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church: Volume 11, 2-328. Reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995.

Schürer, Emil. “Lucas und Josephus.” ZWT 19 (1876): 582.

Sherwin-White, A.N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963.

Smith, James. Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. 4th edn., London: Macmillan, 1880.

Soards, Marion L. The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Contents. Louisville, Ky: Westminister/John Knox Press, 1994.

Stagg, Frank. “The Unhindered Gospel,” Review and Expositor 71 (1974): 451-62.

Stegemann, Wolfgang. “Was der Apostel Paulus ein romischer Burger?” ZNW 78 (1987): 200-29.

Stein, Robert H. Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ. Downers Grove: InterVaristy Press, 1996.

———. The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994.

Tajra, H.W. The Martyrdom of St. Paul. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1994.

———. The Trial of St. Paul: A Juridical Exegesis of the Second Half of the Acts of the Apostles. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989.

Talbert, Charles H. Luke and the Gnostics: An Examination of the Lucan Purpose. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966.

Tannehill, Robert C. “Volume 2: The Acts of the Apostles.” In The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.

The Basilica Papale San Paolo fuori le Mura.“The Tomb of the Apostle.” 2013. Accessed March 12, 2013. http://www.vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_paolo/en/basilica/tomba.htm

Townsend, John T. “The Date of Luke-Acts.” In Luke Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar. New York: Crossroad, 1984.

159

Trites, Allison A. “The Importance of Legal Scenes and Language in the Book of Acts,” NT 16 (1974): 279-84.

Troftgruben, Troy M. A Conclusion Unhindered: A Study of the Ending of Acts within its Literary Environment. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.

Trompf, G. W. “On Why Luke Declined to Recount the Death of Paul: Acts 27-28 and Beyond.” In Luke Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar, edited by Charles H. Talbert, 225-39. New York: Crossroad, 1984.

Van Unnik, W.C. “The Christian’s Freedom of Speech.” BJRL 44 (1961-62): 477.

Veltmann, Fred. “The Defense Speeches of Paul in Acts.” In Perspectives of Luke-Acts, edited by Charles H. Talbert, 243-54. Danville, VA.: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978.

Wiefel,W. “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity.” In The Romans Debate, edited by. K.P. Donfried, 100-19. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977.

Wikipedia. “Si deus si dea. 2013. Accessed April 13, 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_deus_si_dea

Williams, David J. Acts. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002.

Witherington III, Ben. New Testament History: A Narrative Account. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

———. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998.

Wright, Benjamin G. III. “’Ebed/doulos: Terms and Social Status in the Meeting of Hebrew Biblical and Hellenistic Roman Culture.” Semeia (1998): 83–111.

Further sources cited:

(UBS) Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, Newman Barclay (LSJ) The Online Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon (TLG) Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Digital Library (NA27) Greek New Testament with Critical Apparatus, Mounce-Koivisto Morphology, and Concise Dictionary

160

(MOUNCE) Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (CIL) Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIJ) Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum

161