Basket Case

[This is the conclusion of my article on Paul’s early career that I began last week. I strongly suggest that you first read that article, if you have not already done so, before continuing with this article.]

Fixing Pauline Chronology

Paul’s mention in Galatians 1:11-24 that “after three years” he traveled to Jerusalem to “visit Cephas” (that is, Peter) is a key piece of information that helps biblical scholars fix the time of Paul’s conversion. The common opinion is that the “three years” are in reference to his conversion and not to his return to Damascus from his sojourn in Arabia. So if we can narrow down the year Paul left Damascus, it would give us an idea of the date of his conversion.

In citing his sufferings as an apostle in 2 Corinthians, Paul refers to a time he escaped Damascus in a basket (11:32-33). This can only be the incident Luke narrates in Acts 9:23-25. Paul tells us this happened when Damascus was under the authority of an ethnarch (sheik of an ethnic group) appointed by King Aretas. Prior to the death of the emperor Tiberius (March 37 CE), Damascus was under Roman rule. Since the Nabatean king Aretas died in 39/40 CE, Paul’s attempted arrest and escape could only have occurred between 37 and 40 CE. Therefore, Paul’s conversion would have been 34-37 CE.

Saint Paul Escapes from Damascus [painting based on a 14th century mosaic in Sicily]. In boasting of the events that show his weakness, Paul mentions his humiliating escape from Damascus by basket. He may be contrasting himself with the honor that would be given to the first Roman soldier to scale the walls of a city under siege.

The confluence of Paul’s visit to Arabia (Nabatea) and his subsequent flight from the Nabatean ethnarch in Damascus has led many scholars to wonder if Paul got into some trouble in Arabia that required him to flee to the safety of Damascus. According to this theory, after Damascus fell under Nabatean authority, Paul learned of a plot to arrest him and had to flee once more, this time by means of a basket from the city’s wall. If this hypothesis is correct, it would place Paul leaving Damascus shortly after the Nabateans gained control, perhaps late 37 or early 38 CE. This would narrow down the year of Paul’s conversion to 34 or 35 CE.

Saul in Jerusalem

34-35 CE is prior to the recall of Pontius Pilate in late 36 CE. Previously, we speculated that the stoning of Stephen and persecution of the Jerusalem church would have been most likely during the period between the departure of Pilate and the arrival of his successor, Marcellus. But Acts places Saul at the stoning of Stephen and leading the persecution of the Christians in Jerusalem, events that could have only happened before his conversion.

The dating of these two events can be reconciled if we consider that Paul may not have had anything to do with persecuting Christians in Jerusalem. His placement at the scene of Stephen’s execution and subsequent spearheading of a program of persecution may have been dramatic license by Luke. It gives the reader of Acts a narrative thread to follow: from the reconstitution of the Twelve apostles, to the Seven they commission, to the stoning of Stephen – one of the Seven – at the feet of Saul.

As we saw last week, Luke’s explanation of why Saul left Jerusalem for Damascus has issues of historicity. One is reminded of the thoroughly implausible census that Luke provides as the reason for Joseph and Mary to travel from Nazareth to Jerusalem. If Luke wanted to situate Saul in Jerusalem to play up his role as arch-persecutor of the church but it was well-known that his conversion occurred in Damascus, Luke needed to come up with a reason for Saul to travel from Jerusalem to Damascus. A mission from the Sanhedrin to extradite Christians from Damascus to Jerusalem was Luke’s solution.

Paul in Jerusalem

Both Acts and Paul are in agreement that, after leaving Damascus, he travelled to Jerusalem. Acts gives no reason for the visit. Paul says it was to “visit Cephas” (that is, Peter) and he only stayed fifteen days, seeing no other apostle except James the brother of Jesus. The phrase “visit Cephas” could also be translated as “get information from Cephas” and Paul may be intentionally vague here. His visit to Peter was hardly a social call. Undoubtedly, Paul wanted to learn about the historical Jesus to better inform his preaching.

Acts tells us that Saul was treated with suspicion on his arrival in Jerusalem and Barnabas had to introduce him to the apostles. It seems unlikely that three years after his conversion and ministry Paul’s intentions would still be doubted. We previously saw Barnabas in Acts 4:36-37 where he served as a positive example for selling his field and donating the proceeds to the Christian community. We learned in that passage that Barnabas was a native of Cyprus. Like Paul, he was a diaspora Jew and would later become Paul’s travelling companion on his early missionary journeys.

Although Luke reports that Saul angered the local Jewish populace for preaching in Jerusalem, Paul’s itinerary doesn’t allow for that. He insists in Gal 1:22 that he did not do any evangelizing in Judea (“I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea”) although they had heard of how he had formerly persecuted Christians. Paul seems to be going out of his way to stress that he has always been an apostle operating in Gentile territory.

Concluding Comments

Paul is the rare biblical character who provides us first-hand information about himself in his letters. Not only that, but we have additional information on his life from Acts, although as we have seen, that information does not always dovetail with what Paul tells us. Just like many people telling their story, Paul casts himself in the best possible light. Like many writers, Luke employs dramatic license in telling Paul’s story. Critical scholars cannot take either account completely at face value. Even so, we know more about Paul and his life than we do about any other character in either the Old or New Testament.

Persecution Complex

The commissioning of the Seven serves as an introduction to the martyrdom of Stephen which, in turn, serves as an introduction to Saul and the greater persecution of the church in Jerusalem. The persecution is the motivation behind the mission of Philip to Samaria and his baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch.

Escalating Persecution

This is not the first time Luke records harassment of the early Christians. In Acts 4:1-22, Peter and John were imprisoned overnight and hauled before the Sanhedrin to explain why they had been healing in the name of Jesus and preaching the resurrection of the dead. They were eventually released without punishment but warned not speak or teach in the name of Jesus again.

Further persecution of the apostles was reported in 5:17-42 when they disobeyed the Sanhedrin’s gag order. Initially imprisoned, they were freed by an angel of the Lord and went back to preaching in the Temple. Re-arrested, the Sanhedrin was convinced by the words of council-member Gamaliel to release the apostles, which they did after first having them flogged.

But when Stephen debated with foreign Jews in their synagogue, he was charged with blasphemy and brought before the Sanhedrin where false witnesses testified that Stephen also spoke against the Temple and the Law of Moses (6:8-15). The high priest asked Stephen what he had to say about the charges against him and he responded with the lengthy speech in 7:2-53.

At the end of his monologue (7:54-8:1a), Stephen described a vision of Jesus sitting at God’s right hand which was enough to send the mob over the edge. Dispensing with any legal procedure, the mob dragged Stephen out of the city and stoned him to death. The “witnesses” (that is, those doing the stoning) laid their cloaks “at the feet of a young man named Saul” who, we are told, approved of Stephen’s execution.

Saul at the Stoning of Stephen. Artist unknown.

According to Luke, Stephen’s death marked the start of a major period of persecution of the church in Jerusalem (8:1b-4) and Saul was the chief enforcer, pulling people from their homes and imprisoning them. All but the apostles fled Jerusalem for the relative safety of the Judean countryside and Samaria. And, wherever they went, they preached the Christian message. Thus the stage is set for recounting Philip’s mission in Acts 8 and Saul’s conversion in Acts 9.

How Reliable is Acts?

Biblical scholars have issues with the historicity of events as reported by Luke. We’ve seen how, in his Gospel, Luke is not averse to rewriting his source material – whether it be Mark or Q – to give a smoother narrative flow. Unlike Luke’s Gospel where we have Matthew or Mark to compare against, when it comes to Acts, we don’t have an alternate source except for occasional remarks in Paul’s letters. So we have to look for doublets and internal contradictions to get an idea where Luke may be blending his source material with his own composition.

According to the gospels, Jesus was considered such a threat to the Roman and Jewish authorities that he had to be crucified. Yet his disciples are allowed to live in Jerusalem largely unmolested. They are first given a warning and later flogged. But it is not until Stephen begins debating with Hellenist Jews that Christian lives are put in danger. Something more than simply preaching the message of Jesus made the Christian presence in Jerusalem intolerable.

After the lynching of Stephen, Luke says all but the apostles fled Jerusalem due to persecution led by Saul. Judging from the rest of Acts, though, it seems it was mostly the Hellenists who fled Jerusalem while the Hebrews stayed behind. Based on the charges against Stephen, a disparaging attitude towards the Temple and the Law of Moses is what made the presence of the Hellenist Christians intolerable to the non-Christian Jews. Eventually, the friction between the Hellenist Christians like Paul and the Hebrew Christians like James will lead to a crisis over how to initiate Gentiles into the Church.

Introducing Saul

Saul, of course, is better known as St. Paul. Luke places him at the scene of Stephen’s execution and states he was a “young man” which could mean anything from 20 to 40 years of age. Luke also states that cloaks were piled at the feet of Saul, which sounds reminiscent of how money donated to the Church would be laid at the feet of the apostles. There was some symbolic significance for this act that has been lost to us.

Elsewhere in Acts, Luke states that Paul studied the Law in Jerusalem under Gamaliel (22:3) and voted to execute Christians at their trials. There are some doubts about this. In his letters Paul is proud of his education as a Pharisee yet never mentions he was taught by Gamaliel, the leading Pharisee of his time. If he spent years in Jerusalem studying Judaism, he took no notice of events around Passover 30 CE because he never mentions in his letters a personal connection with the Jesus of the public ministry.

Could Saul really have had a free hand to drag Christians out of their homes and imprison them? Some biblical scholars think something like this could only have happened in the period between the administrations of Pontius Pilate and Marcellus (late 36 to early 37 CE). Luke claims Saul had the authority to do this either from the high priest or the Sanhedrin, but this is dubious. Acts 9:1-2 states Saul had letters allowing him to arrest Christians in Damascus but neither the high priest nor the Sanhedrin had authority outside the city of Jerusalem. Many scholars believe that Luke is exaggerating Saul’s role as the great persecutor of the church in order to better serve as a contrast with his conversion to the great apostle.

The biggest takeaway from this brief episode in Acts is that it was the pressure of persecution that propelled the early church outwards from Jerusalem to the countryside of Judea and Samaria. It wasn’t something that Jesus planned from the start. Just as with the creation of the Seven, the apostles were making it up as they went along, responding to situations as they arose. In the next chapter of Acts, we will follow the mission of Philip, one of the Seven, as he preached in Samaria and the countryside of Judea.

Deacon Blues

Last week, Pope Francis agreed with a proposal to construct a commission to study the issue of women serving as permanent deacons. The diaconate is the first of three ranks of ordained ministry in the Roman Catholic Church (the other two ranks are that of priest and bishop). Deacons preparing for the priesthood are transitional deacons. Married men cannot be ordained as priests but can be ordained as permanent deacons. Acts 6:1-7 is usually cited as the origin of the diaconate but the seven men who were chosen are never referred to as deacons.

Hellenists vs. Hebrews

In something of a departure from previous episodes in Acts that spoke only of the irenic fellowship of the early Christian community in Jerusalem, for the first time Luke speaks of dissention in the ranks as the Hellenists lodged a complaint against the Hebrews that their widows were being neglected in the daily food distribution.

“Hellenists” are typically referred to as “Greek-speaking Jews.” That’s a rather sloppy designation, though, because although Paul was a Greek-speaking Jew, he identified as a Hebrew. The most commonly accepted description among biblical scholars is that the Hellenists spoke only Greek and followed Greek customs. The Hebrews spoke Hebrew and/or Aramaic in addition to Greek and followed traditional Jewish customs. So what we’re dealing with is a cultural difference in the community and not just a language difference. A modern-day equivalent would be English and Spanish-speaking segments in a church congregation, each with their own cultures and traditions.

Reading between the lines, there was probably more at issue than just food distribution to widows. Throughout the early chapters of Acts, Luke speaks of the apostles praying in the Temple. But in the remainder of Acts 6, Stephen will be accused of speaking against the Temple. And, in his speech that is supposed to be his defense against those charges, Stephen challenges the importance of the Temple: “Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands” (7:48). We know from other sources that Jews of this period were sharply divided over the claim that the Jerusalem Temple was the only place on earth where sacrifices could be offered. So it is not too much of a stretch to think that the importance of the Temple could have been a divisive issue within the early Jerusalem Christian community, as well.

Apostles are not Waitstaff

For whatever reason, unintentional or otherwise, the Hellenists believed their widows were being shortchanged. Widows were considered the most vulnerable members of a community since they did not have a husband to look after their welfare. The Twelve responded to the complaint by calling a meeting of the entire community to explain, “It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables.”

The apostles were responsible for how the community’s resources were spent and food inequality was a result of them paying inadequate attention to those duties. Rectifying this would require the apostles to spend more time on administrative functions and they felt that prayer and evangelizing were their proper roles.

Their proposed solution was that the community should select seven men of good standing who could be appointed to the task of seeing that the funds were distributed equitably. Why seven? It may have been in imitation of a Jewish town council (Josephus, Antiquities 4.8.14), but we really don’t know.

It is noteworthy that the seven names on Luke's list are Greek. While Greek names were common among Jews in Jerusalem, it is most likely in this instance that the Seven came from the Hellenist part of the community. Since the original charge of unfair treatment came from the Hellenist group, the best way to set that right was for the apostles to appoint administrators chosen by the Hellenists. The Hebrew group must have had their own administrators as well because after this time, Acts will speak of James the brother of Jesus and the elders alongside the apostles as authorities in Jerusalem.

“The apostles put their hands on the men and prayed for them” (Acts 6:6b). The imposition of hands is a gesture from the OT that expresses a blessing, spiritual gift, or installation to an office or rank. [image courtesy of www.freebibleimages.org]

Introducing the Seven

Of the seven names listed, we only hear more of Stephen and Philip. Stephen’s story will be told in the rest of chapter 6 and chapter 7. He will be known as the first Christian martyr. Philip will be featured prominently in Acts 8 and in 21:8 he will be called “the evangelist, one of the Seven.” He had four unmarried daughters with the gift of prophecy. Nicolaus is the only one of the Seven mentioned as being a convert to Judaism, so presumably the others were Jewish from birth. The rest are otherwise unknown.

The Greek word diakonia (ministry, service) is used several times in this passage referring to the daily service of food (6:1), serving tables (6:2), and the ministry of the word (6:4). Because of the frequent appearance of this term, the Seven have often been regarded as the first “deacons” of the church, but that name is not used for them here. And, although they were appointed to wait on tables, we never see Stephen and Philip function in that role. But we do see them engaged in the self-described role of the apostles, “the ministry of the Word” (6:4).

This has led biblical scholars to think Luke is misreading the tradition he received. In Mark 6:35-44, Jesus fed 5000 in a Jewish region and had twelve baskets leftover. A couple of chapters later (Mark 8:1-10), Jesus fed 4000 in a Gentile region and had seven baskets leftover. Many commentators see a numeric symbolism here: twelve = Israel, seven = Gentiles.

As discussed previously, Jesus intended the Twelve to symbolize the regathering of the twelve tribes. But there could only be twelve patriarchs for the new Israel. Others had to be appointed to evangelize to the Gentile world, and that’s where the Seven came in. Fluent in Greek and comfortable in the Gentile culture, these Hellenist apostles would help the Church spread to “all of Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1: 8).