|[ Previous Appendix ]|[ Ancient Christianity Index ]|[ Next Appendix]|
Emperor Tiberius died 16 March 37 AD and was succeeded by Gaius (37-41 AD). Gaius typically displayed a kind of brilliance mixed with irrational [i.e. possibly psychotic] behavior. Not yet 25 years of age he was the great grandson of Emperor Octavian Augustus on his mother's side and the grand nephew of Tiberius on his father's side. His grandmother, Antonia, was the daughter of Mark Antony and Octavia, Octavian's sister. Gaius' imperial policies departed progressively from the sound strategies of Octavian and Tiberius. Both his benevolent actions and his tyrannies seemed to result more from personal interest and the emotional climate of the moment than from any consideration of what was in the best interest of the provinces and the Empire. All surviving sources are clearly hostile but sometimes not in agreement in their degree of gullibility in reporting rumors and gossip.
Up
With regard to the cult of the divi imperatores, divine, that is, deified, Emperors, Gaius ignored the precident set by Tiberius when he had the Senate deify Octavian Caesar Augustus. Because Gaius neglected this pious duty Tiberius Caesar Augustus was never numbered among the divi. Rather the young Emperor eventually chose to emphasize his personal identity as a descendant of the Divus Augustus, the deified Octavian. In order to do that he may have presented himself as a "brother" of Jupiter, the head of the panethon of Roman gods. To express his divinity in an impressive and memorable fashion he is reported to have replaced the sculpted heads of several important statues of gods with the likeness of his own head and face. Suetonius (Caligula 22) goes on to report that Gaius closed a public street and extended a wing of his palace across it to connect the palace to the back of the Temple of Castor and Pollux. Henceforth the Temple served as vestibule to the palace. This part of Suetonius' assertion is now supported by recent archaeological excavations in Rome. Further, Suetonius reports that Gaius often stood beside the twin gods to entertain the worship of palace guests some of whom, Suetonius says, addressed him as Jupiter Latairis.
When his favorite sister, Drusilla, died in AD 38 he imposed on the Senate demanding that they deify her and create a priesthood of 20 priests to worship the Diva Drusilla, divine Drusilla. Furthermore, he decreed that the Diva Drusilla be appropriately worshipped throughout the whole Empire. He also made it quite clear that he expected Roman officials across the Empire to provide opportunities for both citizens and subjects to render divine honor to his reigning magisty at suitable altars.
Moreover, in AD 40 he placed a golden statue of himself in its very own shrine beside the Temple of Jupiter in Rome displaying himself as a divus. Each day he and the statue wore identical outfits. To be sure Octavian Augustus had allowed the Romans to worship his Julian genius perhaps best understood as his familial spirit. But Gaius is certainly the first Julio-Claudian to install in Rome an image of himself to facilitate and encourage worship of the reigning Emperor.
Gaius officially recognized the Isis cult in Rome and seems to have establsihed its official place in the calender with annual games called the Isia and Heuresis. It is thought that Gaius rebuilt the temple of Isis destroyed by Tiberius. It was outside the sacred boundary of the city on the Campus Martius. Josephus (Antiquities, 19.l.14) has been taken to indicate that Gaius was in the process of being initiated into the Isis cult on the day he was assassinated.
Up
Jewish affairs during the brief reign of Gaius became quite threatening although they started out pleasantly enough. Lucius Vitellius the outgoing governor of Syria was in Jerusalem when he got his orders. He remitted some of their taxes, released the custody of the vestments for the High Priest to the ruling priests and administered an oath of loyalty to the new emperor. Josephus tells us that Emperor Gaius named Marullus to be the governor of Judea, but he offers no report of any Judean activities involving Marullus. Publius Petronius was in due time named Governor of Syria, and he became the major actor in the Judean tragedy.
Agrippa I (referred to later in Acts 12 as Herod) was the son of Aristobulus IV, hence the grandson of Herod the Great. He and his sister, Herodias, had been raised in Rome. Agrippa had been a close friend with Emperor Tiberius' son, Drusus. After Drusus' death Agrippa had returned to Judea in 23 AD hoping for favors from his uncle, Antipas, who was also his brother-in-law (Antipas had married Herodias who had previously been married to Antipas' half-brother, Herod II.). Agrippa was given a post at the city of Tiberius in Galilee, but apparently could not get along with Antipas. He returned to Rome in AD 36 being pursued by his creditors. He promptly became a friend and advisor of the young prince Gaius. Just six months before Emperor Tiberius died, Agrippa was jailed because of a disrespectful comment about the reclusive Emperor.
When Antipas, the Tetrarch of Galilee, Perea and the territories of his late half-brother Philip, hurried to Rome in AD 37 to ask the new Emperor Gaius to allow him to annex the Judean Province (Judea, Samaria and Idumea) to his quarter, Gaius banished him and his wife, Herodias, to Lyon in Gaul. Instead, Gaius presented Antipas' quarter, not including the Judean Province, to Agrippa I. He also added certain adjacent regions on the north to Agrippa I's quarter. Also in 37 Herod III, younger brother of Agrippa I, was named King of Chalcis (in Lebanon) but neither of the new kings left Rome immediately. Agrippa I left Rome sometime during AD 38 but Herod III did not depart to take up his kingdom until after Gaius' death in AD 41.
Traveling by way of Egypt Agrippa I became involved in a riotous disorder between the Jews and non-Jews of Alexandria. The Prefect of Egypt, A. Avillius Flaccus, had supported the non-Jews who demanded that a statue of the new Emperor be placed in every Jewish synagogue building in Alexandria. We may assume, but cannot prove, that Gaius had made some statement that instigated this. Moreover, there is no evidence of such action anywhere else in the Empire at this date.
When the Jews resisted the non-Jews responded with destruction and massacre (Josephus Antiquities 18.8.1). It is rather obvious that Flaccus was trying to ingratiate himself with Gaius, perhaps to divert the Emperor's attention from some more serious problems. A delegation of Alexandrian Jews lead by Philo Judaeus came to Rome in 38/39 seeking an audience with Gaius. A non-Jewish delegation from Alexandria likewise came under the leadership of Apion. Gaius delayed giving an audience to the Jewish delegation, but meanwhile A. Avillius Flaccus was tried and executed. It was not until September of AD 39 that Gaius gave an audience to Philo's deputation from Alexandria. The Emperor quizzed them about their lack of participation in the worship of the Emperor, their refusal to eat pork and the basis of their organization in Alexandria. His final comment was that Jewish abstentions should not be considered criminal but the result of not being in possession of their own wits.
Gaius became more concerned about the Jews as a result of events in Jamnia. The destruction of a pagan altar by some devout Jews in this non-Judean imperial region provoked Gaius to decree very harsh reprisals for the Jews in neighboring Judea. The procurator of Jamnia, Herennius Capito, had ordered the altar constructed specifically for the worship of the Emperor Gaius. Capito immediately reported to Gaius what had happened. Already in the summer of AD 39 Gaius acted to assert his authority--and divinity--by ordering altars be made available in every province and territory. Now Gaius ignored the long-honored Roman commitment to allow Jews unhindered freedom to practice their religion throughout the Empire but especially in Judea. Roman treaties with the Jews reportedly stipulated that any symbols of foreign gods or other abominations (e.g., swine--dead or alive including meat and leather--or altars to pagan gods) were to be excluded from Judea. Nevertheless, Gaius made up his mind to convert the Temple at Jerusalem into a seat for the worship of the living Emperor, even as he planned to introduce a temple and statue of himself at Rome.
Gaius ordered the governor of Syria, Publius Petronius, to commission a colossal statue of Jupiter displaying the unmistakable features of the young Emperor. The statue was to be set up in the Temple at Jerusalem and practices abhorrent to the Jews were to be imposed. Petronius contracted with craftsmen at Sidon to build the statue. Petronius also called the Jewish leaders to Antioch to inform them of the Emperor's orders. They assured him they would not rebel, but if he intended to desecrate the Temple with an image he must first sacrifice the entire population of Judea. Indeed, a kind of setdown strike by the Jews in Judea and in other regions seems to have threatened to paralyze the economy of the whole eastern end of the Empire. When Petronius came south to Ptolemais (Acco/Acre) with an escort of two Roman legions he was again met by a Jewish deputation along with thousands of unarmed Jews ready to sacrifice themselves to block his continued advance. After delaying some months he did proceed to Tiberius on the west shore of the Sea of Galilee. Still another deputation and an even larger mass of demonstrators gathered to protest the action in orderly but determined ways.
Petronius now appealed to Gaius in behalf of the Jews. Agrippa I, who had by this time returned to Rome from Alexandria, also wrote an appeal to Gaius which seems to have convinced the Emperor to moderate his demands regarding the statue, but he still refused to allow the Judean Jews to obstruct emperor worship in Judea. Josephus adds that Gaius sent orders for Petronius to commit suicide, but the orders did not reach the governor until after he had learned of Gaius' death. Philo reported that Gaius changed his mind yet again and commissioned a suitable statue to be built in Italy that he intended to escort personally to Judea and install in the Temple. Some modern scholars doubt the veracity of both of these dramatic aspects of the story.
Gaius never left Rome; a conspiracy of Senators, wealthy businessmen, Praetorian Guard officers, and members of Gaius' administration assassinated him on 24 January AD 41. The death blow was delivered by a Tribune of the Praetorian Guard, Cassius Chaerea, who possessed an outstanding military record but who had been unmercifully and repeatedly needled by the Emperor for his high pitched "woman's voice".
Up
After Saul's conversion the hostility between the non-Christian Jews and the believers continued to result in instances of persecution directed particularly toward those of Hellenistic culture. Jews in Damascus plotted Saul's death (Acts 9:23) and conspired with the Nabataeans at Damascus to capture Saul (II Corinthians 11:32). When Saul returned to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26) it frightened the believers. But Barnabas, the Hellenistic Jewish Christian leader originally from Cyprus, introduced Saul to one apostle, Cephas (i.e., Peter), and to James, the Lord's brother (Gal. 1:18; Acts 9:26-27). With their blessing Saul began preaching openly in Jerusalem, specifically challenging tous Hellénistas, that is, "the Hellenistic [Jew]s". A conspiracy of Hellenistic Jews formulated plans to kill him (Acts 9:29). It was at that point that the church in Jerusalem, perceiving the threat, escorted Saul to Caesarea Maritima and sent him home to Tarsus.
Please notice that Luke the author of Acts does not start using Saul's Roman name, Paul, until during the first missionary journey while on Cyprus, but we will continue to use the Hebrew and Roman names interchangeably in the following discussion.
Up
The external threat to the Jewish population (AD 39 and 40)under Emperor Gaius probably took attention away from the internal differences among the Jews (e.g., Aramaic Jews versus Hellenistic Jews) and gave the Jewish Christians more freedom (Cf. Acts 9:31). This was but a brief respite for the storm of persecution struck again in the following years. Christian developments that seem to fall early during this brief interlude include the ministry of Peter in Judea at Lydda, Joppa and Caesarea Maritima (Acts 9:32-10:48). It was at this time that Peter wrestled with the dilemma and persuaded the Judean community of believers to extend fellowship (baptism) to Cornelius a God-fearing gentile probably from Italy (Cf., Acts 11). But after that the situation would change.
Up
The threat posed by Emperor Gaius had succeeded in heating up the cauldron of zealot sentiment to the virtual boiling point only to have Gauis suddenly removed and the threat dissappear. The pro-active zealous attitudes radiated out across the Jewish dispersion in every direction from Jerusalem. In their exuberance after Gaius was gone they looked for other "enemies" of Judaism to address (attack) whether they represented encroachments of Hellenization or Romanization. (See the discussion of the earlier appearance of this zealous philosophy in Appendix III.) Taking Josephus at his word we may identify most of these zealots theologically as Pharisees with an aggressive, in your face attitude. This increasingly popular sentiment can be seen in the actions of Jews in this period whether or not they have received the Gospel.
As for those who have received the Gospel they only gradually began to formulate various understandings of what it meant to be followers of Christ. They were not all in agreement, and their disagreements eventually became cause for dissension among them. Suffice it here to note that a substantial portion of the rank and file Jews who accepted Christianity remained to some degree or another "zealous" to confine Christianity to the Jewish race and centralize it under Jewish leadership; hence, we might call such individuals Jewish-Christian zealots. Paul called them Judaizers. These believers sincerely resisted the inclusion of gentiles into the fellowship unless those gentiles fully adopted Jewish customs--just as in the nineteenth century some insisted that converted savages must adopt western clothing, culture and behavior as an indication that they had accepted "Christ".
Up
The Hellenistic Christian Jews who fled Jerusalem beginning with Saul's persecution had witnessed effectively to Jews in the Hellenistic cities north of Jerusalem in Phoenicia, the island of Cyprus and Antioch the capital of the Syrian province. Among these Hellenistic Jewish Christians who eventually reached Antioch were believers from the island of Cyprus and Cyrene (Libya, in North Africa). There is more to this story below.
Up
Claudius was the descendant of Octavian's step-son, Drusus and his wife, Antonia, the daughter of Marcus Antonius and Octavia, Octavian's sister. As a physically handicapped individual, Claudius had survived the purge of other members of the Julio-Claudian family because his nephew, Emperor Gaius, did not perceive him as a threat. Yet, as Emperor, AD 41-54, Claudius turned out to be the best administrator the family had produced. Claudius laid the foundations for an imperial bureaucracy that would in the future blanket and nearly smother the entire Empire.
Among the important adjustments in the Empire made by Claudius, two Equestrian Provinces were created in northwest Africa. Two client kingdoms were abolished in Thrace and in their place an Equestrian ranked province was formed. Pamphylia was detached from the Galatian province and combined with the former client kingdom of Lydia to create a new province. The province of Britannia was establihsed in southeast England in 43 AD and rapidly expanded to the north and west.
During the thirteen year reign of Claudius, there were several changes in Palestine and Syria involving the heirs of Herod. Claudius enlarged Agrippa I's client kingdom by adding Judea and several surrounding bits of territory to it in AD 41. Claudius also took steps to settle the strife between pagans and Jews in Alexandria fanned into bloody violence by Gaius's actions, and to reaffirm the religious freedom of the Jews everywhere as well as the specific concessions in Judea which Gaius had sought to eliminate.
Agrippa I appointed Simon Cantheras to succeeded Theophilus son of Ananas as high priest in AD 41. Josephus' statement about Cantheras [Antiquities 19.6.2] is unclear. It seems most likely that Simon is really one of the sons of Simon the son of Boethus whose daughter, Mariamme II, married Herod the Great. However, he literally says that Cantheras was an additional name for Simon son of Boethus, whose daughter King Herod had married.
When Agrippa I (the Herod of Acts 12) died in AD 44, most of the territory of his client kingdom was organized as a single low-ranking province called Judea. Henceforth, the governors were likewise of a lower rank and styled as Procurators rather than Praefects. Claudius ordered the Procurator, Cuspius Fadus (44-46), to take control of the administration of the Temple and the priesthood and curtail the considerably expanded authority of the High Priest, currently Simon Cantheras. The Jews petitioned Claudius immediately through the governor of Syria. Young Marcus Julius Agrippa II, who was a guest in Claudius' household in Rome, assisted in the appeal. They persuaded Claudius, in c. 45 AD, to place the power over the priestly vestments (for the weekly service) and the Temple administration in the hands of Herod III, King of Chalcis, rather than in those of the Procurators of Judea. Shortly after Herod III's tenure in this responsibility began the death of Simon Cantheras gave him opportunity to name Matthias the son of Annas as new High Priest in Jerusalem. Then again before the end of Fadus' reign he appointed Elionaeus the son of Simon Cantheras, to succeed Matthias.
Josephus speaks of two other major disturbances in Judea during Fadus' reign. Military activity was necessary to defeat, capture and subsequently execute the powerful robber baron of the Negeb, Tholomaeus, together with his henchmen. And, the arrest and execution of the self-proclaimed prophet named Theudas together with his closest followers also stirred some discontent.
Tiberius Julius Alexander (an Alexandrian Jew, the nephew of the great scholar, Philo Judaeus) ruled Judea, 46-48. Josephus tells how this Alexander rounded up and crucified the two sons of Judas the Galilean, the founder of the zealot movement. Josephus also reports the occurrence of a famine in Judea during Alexander's reign. The crisis period of the famine was doubtless during the Jewish sabbatical year observance during the Jewish year corresponding to AD 47/48. Finally, a new High Priest was named during his reign; Joseph the son of Camith, probably the brother to Simon the son of Camith.
Up
Christian affairs during the early part of the reign of Emperor Claudius are complex and somewhat difficult to sort out chronologically. We have externally determined dates for two events that help us organize our thinking: the reign of King Agrippa I in Judea, AD 41-44, and the governorship of Tiberius Julius Alexander in Judea, AD 46-48.
Since chapter 12 of Acts recounts events involving Herod Agrippa I which must date between AD 41 and 44, it has frequently been argued that chapter 11's events must be dated prior to AD 41. If so, then Agabus' prophecy in Antioch took place during the reign of Emperor Gaius (37-41) at the very least an impressive six years before the famine which occurred during the governorship of Tiberius Julius Alexander (46-48) and the reign of Emperor Claudius. If such a conclusion is accepted then some explanation must be made why an offering was taken immediately to Jerusalem, long before it would be needed (Acts 11:30). We must also explain why Paul doesn't mention the additional trip to Jerusalem with the offering in his letter to the Galatians. Did he forget that he had visited Jerusalem three times instead of two since his Damascus Road experience?
Movement toward a solution to this puzzle requires first of all an awareness of how complex historical accounts are structured. Anyone who has set his hand to write a history of some rather complex set of developments will appreciate Luke's problem. We all like the sequential narrative that flows without interruption from start to finish. Freshmen history students complain bitterly that the textbook author keeps changing the scope and subject of his account, breaking up the sequence and confusing them. That is precisely the response of the unsuspecting reader of Luke's account. This superficial response resulted in efforts by early scribes to "correct" Luke's text by removing what they saw as errors because of their confused understanding.
Luke's account is composed of many coherent segments, some long, some short. These segments reflect coherent points of view of the sort historians expect in their sources. These segments do not always fit together in a neat chronological sequence. Sometimes the source segments are chronologically parallel, or partially parallel, just as they are in any complex historical account. Perhaps Luke's choice to use his sources with as little re-casting as possible would not be the choice of other historians. Perhaps they would choose to so obliterate the identity of their sources that the account would appear to be seamless and unsegmented. Luke cannot be accused of that.
Acts 11:19-30 is one such coherent segment which summarizes developments beginning with the persecution in Jerusalem by Saul and narrating chronologically up to the delivery of the offering to the Jerusalem congregation by Paul and Barnabas. It summarizes the evangelistic activity of those driven from Jerusalem by Saul's persecution. It recounts Barnabas' commission to follow up and confirm this work (vs. 22). It tells (vss. 25-26) how Barnabas brought Paul to Antioch to teach, and moves on to recount Agabus' prophecy and the delivery of the offering. This whole narrative account serves as a preface to the following several source segments which elaborate at length on portions of this chronological sequence. This sequence covers approximately thirteen years beginning about AD 35 and stretching up to AD 48.
We have already discussed developments between AD 35 and AD 41. We are now focusing on the early years of Claudius beginning in AD 41. During the time the exiles from Jerusalem were continuing to spread through Phoenicia, Cyprus and within the city of Antioch, Syria (Acts 11:19-20), Agrippa I (AD 41-44) was persecuting the Apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 12:1-23). The period of teaching at Antioch (Acts 11:26) is further elaborated upon in Acts 13:1. The events of the first missionary journey described in Acts 13:2-15:1, occurred immediately after the teaching time at Antioch--between vss 26 and 27 of Acts 11. The appearance at Antioch of people from Judea and the subsequent trip to Judea, mentioned in Acts 11:27-30, is repeated with different emphasis-- the purpose of the journey is said to be different--in Acts 15:1-4. The very same trip to Jerusalem is referred to a third time in Acts 12:25.
It was these three parallel references to the Jerusalem visit that have bothered readers so much they have "corrected" the text of Acts 12:25. In an overwhelming number of the oldest and most important Biblical manuscripts Acts 12:25 reads "to Jerusalem" (eis Ierousalém). "Barnabas and Saul returned to Jerusalem, having fulfilled the ministry, taking along John who was surnamed Mark." Compare the translation of the verse in various modern translations and you will see how it has been altered. Indeed, the Greek text itself was altered. A number of fairly early and almost all later Greek manuscripts of Acts 12:25 read "from Jerusalem" (ex Ierousalém). After all, the most persuasive argument for the emendation of Acts 12:25 is the fact that John Mark is mentioned there as a traveling companion.
Based on the report given Acts 13:5 and 13, John Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey as far as Perga and then turned back, going to Jerusalem. The argument assumes that since chapter 13 comes after chapter 12 the events described in chapter 13 must be after the events described in chapter 12. On the basis of this chronological assumption John Mark would need to come from Jerusalem with Barnabas and Paul in order to be able to leave from Antioch with them on the first missionary journey.
However, the trip to Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 11:30, Acts 12:25, and Acts 15:3 was chronologically after the completion of the first missionary journey. Indeed, Paul's own testimony in Galatians chapters 1 and 2 makes it clear that these three passages (Acts 11:29, Acts 12:25, and Acts 15:2) must refer to one and the same visit to Jerusalem. Yet, without the Galatians letter's guidance the book of Acts when superficially interpreted seems to describe two separate Jerusalem trips--one for the offering and one for the conference.
Up
At the beginning of this period under "Herod the King" (Acts 12:1 = Agrippa I) who ruled briefly from AD 41 to 44 Judea was the scene of renewed persecution. This persecution seems particularly directed toward the Aramaic leadership of the Jerusalem Church in the person of two prominent apostles, James, the son of Zebedee, and Peter. James was arrested and executed, probably in 42 AD. Subsequently, Peter was arrested, but he was miraculously released and left Jerusalem. In both cases Agrippa I was attempting to placate the agitated demands of non-Christian Jews inflamed by the nativism of zealotism against anything or anyone foreign to Jewish traditional culture(Acts 12:1-3). It seems likely that if any other Apostles had remained in Jerusalem until this time they would now have good reason to leave because of the increasing intensity of anti-Christian feeling among the Jews. The Jerusalem Church was left under the leadership of early converts like Barnabas (the Hellenistic part of the Church) and James the Lord's brother (the Aramaic part of the Church).
Up
After the Jerusalem church heard of the evangelistic successes in Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch (Acts 11:19) enjoyed by those that fled Jerusalem because of Saul's persecution they commissioned Barnabas (a Hellenistic Jew from Cyprus) to tour the areas evangelized. We can only say that Barnabas seems to have departed sometime between c. AD 42 and 45, and it seems more likely to have happened after Agrippa I left Jerusalem, probably in 43, if not after his death in 44.
Barnabas came eventually to Antioch in Syria where large numbers (Acts 11:21) had been converted. The identity of these converts remains today in question because of the divergent textual traditions. The older Greek manuscripts identify these converts as Hellénas, ethnically Greek, Hellenic, but some other manuscripts use the word Hellénistas, culturally like the Greek, Hellenistic. The latter word is identical with the word used in Acts 6:1 to refer to the Hellenistic part of the body of believers in Jerusalem. The context (Acts 11:19) stresses that before the evangelists came to Antioch they had witnessed to Jews only. Considering the area where these Jews were living we must understand that they were culturally Hellenistic. The clear contrast between the Jews and the "Greeks" in this passage argues strongly for seeing the Antiochene converts as gentiles, possibly God-fearers.
Barnabas promptly surveyed the situation at Antioch and departed to Tarsus in Cilicia where he persuaded Paul to return with him to Antioch. It was apparently Barnabas' conclusion that gentile converts in Antioch needed considerable education in Jewish culture and religion as well as aggressive counseling and coaching in order to be prepared to make the day to day behavioral choices a follower of Christ should make. To accomplish this Barnabas rounded up a faculty of five. The Greek construction in Acts 13:1 makes it clear that two were teachers, Paul a rabbinically trained Jew from Tarsus, and Manean who had been raised and educated in the Herodian family. The other three were prophets: Symeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Barnabas himself. Acts 11:26 makes it clear that one result of their yearlong effort in Antioch was that believers began for the first time to be called Christians. This was probably in AD 44 or 45.
After the period of instruction at Antioch was completed Barnabas and Saul were released to continue Barnabas' mission of confirming the work of those scattered from Jerusalem by the persecution. Barnabas was the prophet, Saul was the teacher, and John Mark tagged along as far as Perga in Pamphylia possibly serving as evangelist. This journey must have begun as early as the Fall of AD 45 and seems to have been completed by the Fall of AD 47 or the Spring of 48 when they returned to Antioch (Acts 13:2-14:28).
While telling the story of their ministering on the Island of Cyprus Luke introduces Saul's Roman name, Paulos, Paul (Acts 13:9). It is interesting that the missionary team has been witnessing to Sergios Paulos, Sergius Paulus, the Roman governor of Cyprus. There is no other basis than simple coincidence that would support either the conjecture that Sergius Paulus legally adopted Saul at this time, or that Saul adopted the name of his first Roman convert. It can hardly be said that 'Paul' is the Roman form of his Aramaic name for it certainly is not a transliteration from Aramaic letters to Latin. After all, the equally unsupported conjecture may be just as likely, given Luke's terse phrase, that he received both names at birth, for Paul was a Roman citizen.
Up
On the first of the two visits in Antioch-in-Pisidia (in the Roman province of Galatia) during their first missionary journey the Jews instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:50.). At Iconium in Phrygian territory (also in the Galatian Province) the Jews alienated the Gentiles from Paul and Barnahas (Acts 14:2-5.). At Lystra in Laconean territory (also in the Galatian Province) the Jews from Antioch and Iconium came and caused trouble (Acts 14:19.). After preaching at Derbe they retraced their steps and visited the other communities a second time to organize the churches (Acts 14:21-25). In all of this activity Paul formulated the well known position that salvation is offered in Christ to Jew and gentile alike on the common basis of faith alone. The Jew must turn from dependence on the law just as a gentile must turn from dependence on pagan ideology.
The movement in Judaism of those zealous for the Law of Moses had its effects on the Christians as it developed in intensity after c. 45 AD. Both Christian and non-Christian Jews in Judea and the dispersion became more "zealous", "jealous" or "envious" for the Law and opposed to the political and cultural influences of the Hellenistic world. Some non-Christian Jews identified Christianity as part of this pernicious Hellenistic influence. The famine in Judea may well have intensified these zealous feelings. Some Jews who had responded positively to the Good News and identified with those of "the way" now responded to these acrimonious accusations by demanding that Christianity was a purely Jewish movement. Paul called these zealous Jewish believers Judaizers. Their incomplete understanding of the Gospel continued to be a problem for Paul's ongoing ministry in Galatia (Galatians 1:14; 4:17), at Ephesus and Corinth (Acts 18:24-27; 19:1. I Corinthians 1:11-12. II Corinthians 3:1; 11:5; 12:11.), at Rome (Romans 13:1-7, 13.), and at Philippi (Philippians 3:2, 18-19.). Even Peter addressed the problem in I Peter 2:13, and II Peter 2.
Over a period of several months as the famine began to grind heavily in Judea during the rule of Tiberius Julius Alexander, AD 46-48, several people from Judea moved to Antioch (Acts 11:27-28; 15:1. Galatians 2:11-12). Agabus and Cephas (= Peter) were the only individuals mentioned by name. Some of these new arrivals from Judea began zealously emphasizing traditional Jewish religious and cultural practices (vis á vis Hellenistic influences) as the necessary foundation for belief in Christ and admission to the Christian fellowship (Galatians 2:11; Acts 15:1). They were teaching that the gentile believers had to be circumcised, and if they would not, the Jewish believers were admonished to separate themselves from the gentile believers (Galatians 2:12ff). Some of these newcomers may have arrived before Paul and Barnabas returned from their first missionary journey. In any case Barnabas, Paul and Peter were all there when the men "from James" arrived and convinced Peter and Barnabas both to withdraw from social contact with the Christian gentiles (Galatians 2:11-13). We may understand from these events that the Judaizers wanted all gentile believers to become Jews first in order to be considered a part of the Christian fellowship. Of course Paul convinced his colleagues otherwise, but that did not prevent continued encounters with this almost hysterical nativism sweeping through the Jewish population.
Up
Agabus and some other prophets were among those who had arrived probably in the winter of 47-48 at the end of the Judean governorship of Tiberius Julius Alexander. Agabus made the dramatic pronouncement about the famine and need in Judea. The Christians in Antioch responded immediately by collecting a relief offering and dispatching Barnabas, Paul, Titus and, John Mark (See the discussion above) to Judea to deliver it probably during the spring or early summer months of AD 48, perhaps coinciding with Pentecost.
This date agrees generally with Paul's reference in Galatians 2:1 to "fourteen years" (counted inclusively) having elapsed only if we count since his conversion in AD 35. Paul's statements in Galatians (1:18 and 2:1) have convinced many readers that Luke has made an error in his account. After all Paul was an eye-witness and participant in the events, his testimony is certainly not to be ignored in favor of a summarizer. If it was 14 years (counted inclusively) after Paul's first visit to Jerusalem the earliest the trip with the offering could be dated would be AD 50. This would leave Paul a year or less to get to Corinth in time to minister 18 months and leave shortly after the beginning of Gallio's proconsulship. However, this interpretation is not a workable alternative unless Paul in writing Galatians has omitted his Jerusalem visit with the offering in 48 in response to the famine. Moreover the "fourteen years" may reflect Paul's utilization of the traditional Jewish sabbatical year cycle as his point of reference. If this was his intent he was measuring from the hardships experienced by the believers the months following the Holy Spirit's dramatic display at Pentecost and just prior to his own conversion.
There is nothing in Paul's Galatian text that prohibits our interpretation of the fourteen years as counting in both time references from his conversion, though it contradicts today's customary ways of thinking. Nor is there any really convincing argument for counting the two periods in sequence. It is true that Paul uses the exact same word epeita, "next," or "then" in both references, not just the second. In the first instance he follows epeita with meta tria eté anélthon, "after three years I went up". In the second instance he follows epeita with dia dekatessarôn etôn palin anebén, "through (or "during the course of") 14 years again I went up". If epeita is to be translated as "after" in both instances it would be redundant in the first instance.
According to Acts 12:25 (as it reads in most early manuscripts), Luke now offers a second explanation for the trip to Jerusalem. Barnabas had completed the commission (plérôsantes tén diakonian, "fulfilled the ministry") he had received from the Jerusalem Church (Acts 11:22) and took this opportunity to "return to Jerusalem" presumably to report. Then Luke also offers us a third explanation for the Jerusalem trip in Acts 15:1-3. The Church in Antioch had such dissention over the guidance to be given to Gentile converts they decided to send Barnabas and Paul, and some others to seek answers from Jerusalem. Thus Luke provides three distinct reasons for a trip to Jerusalem, not one or two. If each reason justifies a single trip then we have too many trips. That surely was a factor helping to justify altering the text of Acts 12:25.
Paul's presence in Jerusalem following the first missionary journey helps us understand the Galatian Letter, especially his surprise and reaction in chapter one, and the absence of any report in the Galatian Letter of the official action taken by the "Apostles, elders and brethren" in Jerusalem. Being in Jerusalem between Passover and Pentecost Paul may have been able to learn about the recent converts in the southern section of the Galatian Province (Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe) from pilgrims attending the feasts. It is possible that the pilgrim group included some of the recent converts. This may not have been the first time he learned of the continued efforts of the Judaizers in Galatia, but he seems to have already been in Jerusalem when he dashed off (cf. Gal 6;11) the Galatian letter expressing his dismay (Gal 1:6; 3:1) and stridently defending his "Gospel" (Gal 1:7-12). The occasion of his drafting the Galatian Letter was in all likelihood the opportune departure of some pilgrims returning to the Galatian Province.
Dispatching the letter to the Galatians did not calm Paul's agitation. He had already received certain affirmation "privately" (Gal 2:2) from James, Cephas and John regarding the message he and Barnabas proclaimed to the Gentiles. However, Luke tells us in Acts 15:5 that the situation was moved along by "certain Pharisees" who opposed the actions of Barnabas and Paul by demanding that gentile converts be circumcised and charged to keep the Mosaic Law. We should see this confrontation between believers in the light of the increasingly widespread evidence of zeal among the Jewish people for their native cultural heritage, against anything they perceived as minimizing, tarnishing or challenging traditional Jewishness in any way.
Now the Apostles and Elders gathered publicly to resolve the issue.
This was the so-called Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6-29). Their action not only approved the work of Paul and Barnabas with the gentiles they dispatched a delegation with a written statement of reassurance and clarification (text in Acts 15:23-29). The document Luke quotes was addressed to "brethren who are gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia." Why were the Galatians left off the list of recipients? The Galatian Province borders on Cilicia. Perhaps there was another letter addressed to them or perhaps the Apostles and Elders were aware that Paul had already sent a communication to the Galatians. Some reject the southern Galatian province location for the Galatian Christians partially because the Galatians weren't addressed in the docment Luke quotes. They will of course say that Paul had not yet witnessed to the ethnic Galatians in central Asia Minor since they see his ministry there hinted at during the subsequent second missionary journey (Acts 16:6) which will be discussed below.
Up
This was the year that Claudius married Julia Agrippina, his niece and the surviving sister of Emperor Gaius. She was his fourth wife; His first wife was Plautia Urglanilla who bore him Drusus who as a teen-ager choked on a tossed pear which he unwisely tried to catch in his open mouth. Claudius disavowed paternity of Drusus' sister and divorced Plautia. His second wife, Aelia Paetina, bore him a daughter, Claudia Antonia. He divorced his second wife on less incriminating grounds of behavior too scandalous for "Caesar's wife". Valeria Messalina, his third wife bore him both a daughter, Claudia Octavia, and the awaited son, Britannicus, who appeared the logical successor for Claudius. However, Valeria Messalina was executed in 48 AD because she was guilty of bigamy. Her daughter, Claudia Octavia, eventually (briefly) married Nero, Julia Agrippina's son by a previous husband, Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus. Young Britannicus was bypassed after Claudius adopted Nero in 50 AD.
Ventidius Cumanus was procurator of Judea, 48-52. During his reign things in Jerusalem and Judea got much worse. It was partly due to the misery produced in the aftermath of the famine and partly due to Cumanus' incompetence, and perhaps due, to some degree, to the wealthy Jerusalem businessman, the powerful Ananias the son of Nedebaeus, whom Herod Agrippa I's brother, Herod III, Client King of the Iturean principality of Chalcis, c. 41-48 AD, had appointed as High Priest in Jerusalem. Josephus alleged that from the time of Cumanus Judea was "overrun with robberies" (Antiquities, 20.6.1). An incident at the Passover feast incensed the Jews to the point that they reproached Cumanus and held him responsible for the sacrilegious act of his soldier. In the uproar Cumanus ordered his troops to gather at the fortress of Antonio beside the Temple. Seeing this, the people panicked and several were killed in the press.
During the Feast of Unleavened Bread a Roman messenger was attacked and robbed. Cumanus ordered the villages in the region to be plundered and the elders arrested. During the process a Roman soldier tore up a copy of the Torah. The Jews peacefully but persistently demanded that the soldier be punished for his act. Cumanus finally beheaded him to avert open rebellion.
Some Samaritans attacked and killed a large number of Galileans who were traveling through their country. When Cumanus would do nothing to punish this because of the bribes he received from the Samaritans, the Jews illegally organized a force, enrolled all the "robbers" from the hills, and invaded Samaria. Cumanus then distributed arms to the Samaritans and attacked the Jewish force. Cool heads among the Jews persuaded them to disband their illegal organization and lay down their arms.
Quadratus, the governor of Syria, then came to Samaria and held an investigation. He ordered the execution of certain Jewish leaders that had advised independent action. Quadratus sent the High Priest Ananias, together with the ruling priests, Jonathan the son of Annas, and Annas the son of Ananias (who was the Temple Commander), certain Samaritan leaders, and Cumanus together with his staff to Rome to stand before Claudius and explain their activities. Young Marcus Julius Agrippa II's bold intervention through the Emperor's wife, Agrippina (Nero's mother), prejudiced Claudius so that he banished Cumanus, executed the Samaritan leaders, and sent Judea a new governor in AD 52.
One of the Iturean Client kingdoms, probabaly Abilene, was briefly annexed to Syria in 49 AD as a result of the death of Herod III, King of Chalcis. Then in 50 AD Marcus Julius Agrippa II, the son of Agrippa I, succeeded his uncle Herod III and was established as Client ruler at Chalcis in the Beka'a valley, the northwestern part of the old Iturean kingdom. As prince in Chalcis Agrippa II also inherited from his uncle the responsibility of appointing the high priest at the Temple in Jerusalem. There are some indications that he was promoted out of that post in Chalcis to become "King" over more of the the Iturean territory including Abilene and stretching southeastward past Damascus including Mt. Hermon and Trachonitis by 53 AD. Agrippa II continued to rule this area until his death c. 93 AD.
We now understand that Procurator Antonius Felix, Claudius' last appointed governor for Judea who began to rule in AD 52 continued to rule under Emperor Nero until c. AD 56. Nero inherited imperial power in AD 54 when his mother, Agrippina, Claudius' wife, seems to have masterminded the assassination of her husband. In Judea during this time Ananias the son of Nedebaeus was still High Priest and the chaos was increasing. Eleazar the son of Dinai, a powerful independent robber who had aided in the attack on Samaria and had evaded Cumanus, was tricked, captured and sent to Rome. Felix put out a contract on Jonathan the son of Annas one of the ruling priests. While Jonathan had been in Rome he had helped Felix get appointed as procurator and now he couldn't stop reminding Felix of this favor. A man carrying a hidden dagger (sica) killed Jonathan right in the Temple. Such assassins were available for hire and often employed both by the government and by individuals to rid themselves of their enemies. Another strategy of the rebels in the Judean countryside was to stir the rural populace to rebellious actions and thus harass the Roman provincial government. For example, a certain Egyptian got a huge crowd gathered on the Mount of Olives by advertising that he was going to bring the walls of Jerusalem down by magic and thus deprive the Romans of their fortifications. Felix's guards attacked and killed 400 of the spectators but the Egyptian slipped away and was never caught. (Compare Acts 21:38.)
At Rome the first Jewish settlement dated from Pompey's prisoners taken to Rome in 62 BC. By the latter part of Claudius' reign they had become quite numerous (probabaly not more than half a million) and were organized in synagogues. The second century historian, Suetonius, reports (Life of Claudius, trans. Graves, 25) as follows: "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [sic], he expelled them from the City." At least, Suetonius' cryptic comment seems to indicate that the introduction of the teachings of or about Christ caused turmoil in the Jewish community. The early fifth century historian, Orosius, reported that the Jews' disturbances were during Claudius' 9th year. If Orossius' source counted the year comparable to AD 41 as Claudius' first, then AD 49 would be his ninth year. In at least one other instance Orosius' chronology is reportedly a year off; hence, Claudius' decree might have been in AD 50. Luke also reports (Acts 18:2) that the Jews were commanded to depart from the city. However, the third century Greek historian, Dio Cassius, in his Roman History, 60.6.6, reports that Claudius relented and allowed the Jews to remain in Rome and to observe their traditional manner of life, but forbade them to hold meetings there just as he forbade other clubs to meet inside the city. In any case a well-established Jewish community was still resident in Rome by the time Paul arrived there nearly a decade later.
Up
Paul, Barnabas, John Mark, Titus, together with the Jerusalem messengers, Silas and Judas Barsabbas, returned to Antioch after the Council.
Paul and Silas departed Antioch on the second missionary journey very shortly after returning from Jerusalem. Barnabas and John Mark also left Antioch to minister in Cyprus. Paul and Silas confirmed the churches in Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:41), and proceeded into the Galatian province. The Lyconaon cities of Derbe and Lystra are mentioned as well as the Phrygian city of Iconium while the Pisidian Antioch is not named. It was on this occasion that Paul had Timothy circumcised because he was neither a full-blooded Jew nor a full-blooded gentile (Acts 16:3). Luke does report summary fashion (Acts 16:4) that they went to cities, delivered the decrees of the Jerusalem Council to churches. Then Luke describes only that Paul, Timothy and Silas traveled from Iconium across the Phrygian and Galatian regions of the province of Asia where they did not minister, being forbidden by the Holy Spirit. There is, after all, only this negative reference to any ministry in this northern Galatian region--something very hard to square with belief that the Galatian churches addressed in Paul's letter were established on this occasion. Not receiving the leadership of the Holy Spirit to minister either in Asia, Bithynia (much further northwest), or Mysia (on the west between Asia and Bithynia), they didn't stop till they reached Troas where, evidently, Luke joined the party (note the "we" in Acts 16:10). After brief but eventful ministries in Philippi, Thessalonika, Beroea and Athens Paul worked for eighteen months in Corinth (Acts 18:11).
Three times the missionary's activities were brought to the attention of governmental authorities on this second missionary journey. Healing the slave-girl at Philippi put her owners out of business. They brought Paul and Silas before the Roman authorities in this Roman colonial city. Not recognizing them as Roman citizens who must always be given a trial, Paul and Silas were whipped and imprisoned as non-citizens (Acts 16). Later in Thessalonika the Jews from the Synagogue there incited a riot against the house of Jason, one of Paul's converts who may have opened his home to Paul and Silas. The Jews, using the disturbance as an excuse, arrested Jason and some other Christians and took them before the governors of the city, charging them with aiding and abetting the revolutionary actions of Paul and Silas. The believers were fined (Acts 17:5-9). Finally, at Corinth Sosthenes and the whole Jewish Synagogue brought Paul before Gallio. When Gallio learned the nature of their dispute with Paul he had Sosthenes whipped and released Paul (Acts 18:12-17).
When Paul arrived at Corinth he met Aquilla and Priscilla lately arrived from Rome as a result of the Emperor's reaction to the Jewish disturbance there in AD 49 or 50, as shown above. After being there for over a year, probabaly, the Jews hauled him before their new governor.
Proconsular governors served in the Senatorial provinces. They were generally selected from the Senate and by the Senate. Normally they served a year in their province evidently beginning in the late spring (May) and serving until his replacement was sent out the next year. If Claudius' letter to Delphi was written in February or March of AD 52 then Gallio's tenure in office began in AD 51. However, had the letter been written in the second quarter (April - June) of the year, which is less likely, that might indicate that Gallio would be arriving to begin his tenure in AD 52.
Since the Jews in Corinth did not act against Paul until Gallio arrived, and since Paul left Corinth after his "trial" before Gallio, he certainly reached Judea within the sailing season of that year, whether 51 or 52. On his way he stopped for a brief visit at Ephesus where he left Aquilla and Priscilla before sailing to Caesarea Maritima (Acts 15:40-18:22). Consequently, the whole journey occupied the period from the Spring or Summer of AD 49 to the late Summer or early Fall of AD 51 or, less likely, AD 52.
Up
I believe Paul began his third missionary trip late in 51 or, at the latest, a year later, in AD 52 just a little while after returning to Antioch (Acts 18:22-23). Some will argue that he took off a year apparently to rest before launching out again. There is no hint of where or how long he ministered on the way. He probably came to Ephesus early in 52 or 53. He spent his time (epi ménas treis) teaching in the Synagogue and (epi eté duo) at the School of Tyrannus (Acts 19:8-10). These idioms are usually translated, ignoring the repeated preposition epi in each case, as an unqualified "3 months" and "2 years" respectively. The preposition in this case I read as an indication of approximate maximum duration. I would translate the phrases "going on three months" and "going on two years". Compare Acts 21:31 where Paul generously refers to this same period at Ephesus as 3 years' time (trietian). In my reading of these indefinite time idioms in the Greek I see several days in excess of 24 months spread over three calendar years, either 52-54 or 53-55.
Paul's success in teaching in Ephesus had its effects in many outlying areas in Asia. His success threatened the livelihood of Demetrius the silversmith who incited a riot making it necessary for Paul to move on (Acts 19:23-20:1). He traveled through Macedonia ministering to various congregations and then went to Greece where he spent three months (Acts 20:1-3). Where in Greece did he minister? It has been widely assumed that he spent the three months in Corinth during which time he wrote the Epistle to the Romans. Interestingly, he mentions in Romans 15:19 that he has preached the gospel as far west as Illyricum, the southern end of which is west of Macedonia, a region not mentioned in Luke's account.
As Paul was engaged in this third missionary journey, Emperor Claudius's life was snuffed out by a coup evidently mastermined by the minions of his wife, Agrippina. It has been argued recently on the basis of all the surviving evidence that he was assaulted by two different applications of poison which he seems to have survived in a vegetative state--still breathing so they resorted to smothering him with feathers. His death was recorded by Suetonius (Claudius 45)as taking place on 13 October, 54 AD.
Up
Return to the Lecture/Essay Table of Contents for Part I.
ht3463aa05.html
Most recently edited 6 September 2009