Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:06:13.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Temple Concerns and High-Priestly Prosecutions from Peter to James: Between Narrative and History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2009

Eyal Regev
Eyal Regev
Affiliation:
Department of Land of Israel and Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900Israel email: regeve1@mail.biu.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article demonstrates that according to the Acts of the Apostles, the major charges brought against Peter, Stephen, and Paul—as well as, in later Christian texts, against James—are violations of the Temple's sacredness, both by means of statements about and actions within it. On the narrative level, in their portrayal of the conflicts and trials of these early Christian leaders, the ancient Christian sources argued that because the early Christian community in Jerusalem sought to partake in the Temple worship in its own way, Jesus' followers were falsely accused of violating the Temple's sacredness. On the historical level, it may be concluded that these events were authentic, and that they were affected by two factors: (a) The assumption, on the part of the Jewish community, that Jesus represented an anti-Temple stance. This assumption was based on Jesus' ‘cleansing’ action at the Temple, and the saying attributed to him regarding the destruction of the Temple and the erection of a new one ‘not made with [human] hands’. As such, Jesus' followers were viewed as posing a threat to the Temple as well. (b) The meticulous approach to Temple rituals held by the Sadducean high priests in charge of the prosecutions. According to their approach, any deviance from the proscribed procedure desecrated the sacrificial cult and was to be avoided at any cost.

Keywords

Luke–ActsTemplethe Jerusalem churchSadduceesJewish-Christianity
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 64 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Reicke, B., ‘Judaeo-Christianity and Jewish Establishment, A.D. 33–66’, Jesus and the Politics of His Day (ed. Bammel, E. and Moule, C. F. D.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1984) 148–9Google Scholar, concluded that they were charged with religious heresy, especially preaching ‘the gospel of resurrection’. Baumbach, G., ‘The Sadduceens in Josephus’, Josephus, the Bible and History (ed. Feldman, L. H. and Hata, G.; Leiden: Brill, 1989) 185Google Scholar, pointed to law and eschatology. Acccording to Gaechter, P., ‘The Hatred of the House of Annas’, Theological Studies 8 (1947) 3–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, the high priests regarded the messianism of Jesus and the Church as a threat to their social position. Hultgern, A. J., ‘Paul's Pre-Christian Persecutions of the Church: Their Purpose, Locale, and Nature’, JBL 95 (1976) 97–111Google Scholar, pointed to the belief in Jesus as the reason for these other persecutions. On the possibility that Peter and the apostles were regarded as beguilers, see Schwartz, J., ‘Ben Stada and Peter in Lydda’, JSJ 21 (1990) 1–18Google Scholar. Finally, Sanders, E. P., Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM, 1985) 281–6Google Scholar argues for the shortcomings of previous suggestions and concludes that the persecutions were ‘sporadic’. He suggests that they were related to the law and the Temple, even while he recognizes that this is an incomplete explanation.

2 In all the cases discussed herein, ‘Temple’ is a translation of ἱερόν. Cases in which ‘Temple’ refers to ναός (the actual building of the Temple, or the shrine) will be specifically noted. All translations follow the nrsv, unless noted otherwise.

3 Most scholars do not adopt the view that one of the incidents is a duplication. See Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 254–6Google Scholar. In terms of literary artistry and theological purpose, the second builds upon the first, in which the charge is the violation of the Sanhedrin's interdiction and the result a beating. See Cunningham, S., ‘Through Many Tribulations’: The Theology of Persecution in Luke–Acts (JSNTSup 142; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997) 192–4Google Scholar and references.

4 Haenchen, Acts, 220–3 surveyed the relevant scholarship but left the question unresolved. Bond, H. K., Caiaphas: Friend of Rome and Judge of Jesus? (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004) 76–7Google Scholar suggested the possibility of apocalypticism.

5 On the question of the identity of the στρατηγός, see Fitzmyer, J. A., The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV (AB 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985) 1375Google Scholar. On his functions, see D. Tropper, ‘The Internal Administration of the Second Temple at Jerusalem’ (Ph.D. diss., Yeshiva University, 1970).

6 Schwartz, D. R., Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1990) 119–24Google Scholar, suggested that Agrippa aimed to avoid political disturbances.

7 E.g., Manson, W., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1951) 31–6Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., The Theology of Luke (trans. Buswell, G.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1961) 165Google Scholar.

8 Several scholars have maintained that the entire episode is a mixture of two sources, one containing accusations of the Hellenistic Jews and the lynch, and the other containing the trial before the Sanhedrin. See Dockx, S., ‘Date de la morte d’Étienne le Protomartyr’, Biblica 55 (1974) 65–73Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, J. A., The Acts of the Apostles (AB 18C; New York: Doubleday, 1998) 365, 390–1Google Scholar. Fitzmyer claimed that the speech originated in an Antiochian source with Luke's own additions. For the background of Stephen's alleged sayings and speech, see Hengel, M., ‘Between Jesus and Paul. The “Hellenists”, the “Seven” and Stephen (Acts 6.1–15; 7.54–8.3)’, Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (London: Fortress, 1983) 18–26Google Scholar.

9 Sylva, D. D., ‘The Meaning and Function of Acts 7.46–50’, JBL 106 (1987) 261–75Google Scholar; Kilgallen, J. J., ‘The Function of Stephen's Speech’, Biblica 70 (1989) 177–81Google Scholar; Hill, C. C., Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 67–81Google Scholar. Hill also reviewed the anti-Temple interpretations. See also Larson, E., ‘Temple Criticism and the Jewish Heritage: Some Reflections on Acts 6–7’, NTS 39 (1993) 379–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 See Segal, P., ‘The Penalty of the Warning Inscription from the Temple of Jerusalem’, IEJ 39 (1989) 79–84Google Scholar with bibliography.

11 Acts 21.37–26.32; Rapske, B., The Book of Acts in its First-Century Setting. Vol. 3, The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody (Carlisle: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994)Google Scholar.

12 Admittedly, due to his own theological interests, Luke also presents Jesus' resurrection as a major cause of the conflict between Paul and his opponents in his speeches.

13 Cadbury, H. J., The Making of Luke–Acts (repr. London: SPCK, 1958) esp. 299–300Google Scholar; Hengel, M., Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979)Google Scholar. Cf. Sterling, G., Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke–Acts, and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 16–19, 345–6, 349, 374, 386–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 See Lüdemann, G., Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987) 60, 85, 92–3, 234–6, 239, 245–6, 249–51Google Scholar, regarding the first arrest of Peter, and the instances in which Stephen and Paul were involved. Bond, Caiaphas, 74–7 noted Luke's shaping of the narrative in Acts 4–5, but nevertheless regarded the persecutions as historical, although she did downplay the role of the high priests.

15 M. Hengel, ‘Luke the Historian and the Geography of Palestine in the Acts of the Apostles’, Between Jesus and Paul, 102–6; Schwartz, J. J., ‘Temple and Temple Mount in the Book of Acts: Early Christian Activity, Topography, and Halakhah’, The Beginnings of Christianity (ed. Pastor, J. and Mor, M.; Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2005) 279–95Google Scholar.

16 Dunn, J. D. G., Christianity in the Making. Vol. 2, Beginning from Jerusalem (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009) 73–81Google Scholar and bibliography.

17 See already Dibelius, M., ‘The First Christian Historian’, The Book of Acts: Form, Style and Theology (repr. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004) 14–26Google Scholar. Cf. Bonz, M. Palmer, The Past as Legacy: Luke–Acts and Ancient Epic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2000)Google Scholar. For Acts' tendentious history, see Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 82–7, 160–4. See more below.

18 The conventional view of Acts as being the continuation of Luke's gospel in terms of theology and message has recently been refined by Parsons, M. C. and Pervo, R. I., Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993)Google Scholar, who highlighted the differences between the two. Drawing on the third gospel to interpret the attitude towards the Temple expressed in Acts therefore requires an awareness of possible points of difference.

19 Luke 1.5–24, 36; 2.22–43. Luke 17.14 acknowledges the priestly authority, adding another passage in which Jesus cures lepers.

20 Luke 2.49; Sylva, D. D., ‘The Cryptic Clause en tois tou patros mou dei einai me in Luke 2.49b’, ZAW 78 (1987) 132–40Google Scholar.

21 Luke 19.47; 21.37–38; 24.53; Acts 2.46; 5.42; 21.23–26. The parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18.9–14) occurs when both figures are praying in the Temple.

22 Bachmann, M., Jerusalem und der Tempel: Die geographisch-theologischen Elemente in der lukanischen Sicht des judischen Kultzentrums (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980)Google Scholar; Chance, J. Bradley, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke–Acts (Macon: Mercer, 1988)Google Scholar; Wienert, F. D., ‘Luke, the Temple and Jesus’ Saying about Jerusalem's Abandoned House (Luke 13.34–35)’, CBQ 44.1 (1982) 68–76Google Scholar; Sylva, D. D., ‘The Temple Curtain and Jesus’ Death in the Gospel of Luke’, JBL 105 (1986) 239–50Google Scholar; Brawley, R. L., Luke–Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology and Conciliation (SBLMS 33; Atlanta: Scholars, 1987) 107–32Google Scholar; Sanders, E. P., ‘Jerusalem and its Temple in Early Christian Thought and Practice’, Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (ed. Levine, L. I.; New York: Continuum, 1999) 100–102Google Scholar; Matera, F. J., ‘The Death of Jesus according to Luke: A Question of Sources’, CBQ 47 (1985) 474–5, 485Google Scholar. According to Esler, P. F., Community and Gospel in Luke–Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987) 131–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Luke's position is somewhat ambivalent due to Stephen's speech and the fact that the Temple was off-limits for the non-Jews in his community.

23 Taylor, N. H., ‘Luke–Acts and the Temple’, The Unity of Luke–Acts (ed. Verheyden, J.; BHTL 142; Leuven: University of Leuven and Peeters, 1999) 709–21Google Scholar. Conzelmann, Theology of Luke, 147, 164–5, acknowledged the centrality of the Temple in Luke–Acts, but in considering Stephen's trial, concludes that it has been profaned ‘since Jesus’ occupation of the Temple'. Green, J. B., ‘The Demise of the Temple as “Cultural Center” in Luke–Acts: An Exploration of the Rending of the Temple Veil (Luke 23.44–49)’, RB 101.4 (1994) 495–515Google Scholar, argued for the neutralization of the power of the Temple to regulate socio-religious boundaries of purity and holiness, but also acknowledged Luke's positive approach to it.

24 Elliott, J. H., ‘Temple versus Household in Luke–Acts: A Contrast in Social Institutions’, The Social World of Luke–Acts: Models for Interpretation (ed. Neyrey, J. H.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 211–40Google Scholar.

25 Elliott, ‘Temple versus Household’, 223–4. The Temple conflicts outlined above may also be judged in light of the overall theme of persecution so central to Luke–Acts, a narrative device that serves the author's theological message of divine providence and triumph. See Cunningham, ‘Through Many Tribulations’: The Theology of Persecution in Luke–Acts, who also regards these Temple-related persecutions in Acts as shaped by and viewed as a continuation of the persecution of Jesus.

26 Luke 22.66–71; Mark 14.57–59. See also Matt 26.60–61; John 2.19–21.

27 Luke 23.26–43; Mark 15.29–30. Cf. Matt 27.40.

28 Luke 19.45–46 omitted from the Markan source (11.15–16; cf. Matt 21.12–13) Jesus' driving out of the buyers, the overturning of the tables of the money-changers, and his opposition to carrying anything through the Temple. He also balanced the act by noting Jesus' daily teachings in the Temple.

29 In so doing, Luke refrained from creating another ‘narrative chain’ or ‘redundant theme’ in which the Temple conflicts in Acts either continue or mirror those of Jesus in a manner that unifies his two volumes. For the occurrences of these narrative means, see Marguerat, D., The First Christian Historian: Writing the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ (SNTSMS 121; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2002) 52–3, 55–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 On the question of whether this scene could be historical in origin, and a rejection of the possibility that the passage merely expresses irony, see Barrett, C. K., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994/1998) 2.1058–62Google Scholar.

31 Luke 22.4, 52 (plural); Acts 4.1; 5.24, 26 (singular).

32 Luke 22.4, 52 (plural); Acts 4.1; 5.24, 26 (singular). See also Acts 4.6; 5.17, 24; 9.12; 19.14; 23.2, 14; 24.1. Luke also emphasizes the chief priests' plot against Jesus in Luke 19.47 (relating it to Jesus' teaching in the Temple); 20.19; 24.20. Cf. Luke 23.4, 10, 13. Cassidy, R. J., ‘Luke's Audience, the Chief Priests, and the Motive for Jesus' Death’, Political Issues in Luke–Acts (ed. Cassidy, R. J. and Scharper, P. J.; Maryknoll, NY; Orbis, 1983) 146–67Google Scholar, concludes that the high priests prosecuted Jesus because they felt threatened by him. Given Luke's positive view of the ordinary priests (see above) Luke appears to distinguish them from the high priests.

33 Cunningham, ‘Through Many Tribulations’, concludes that although the Temple plays a role in the rejection of Christ by the Jewish leadership, Luke does not attempt to link the rejection of Christianity with the Temple.

34 Weatherly, J. A., Jewish Responsibility for the Death of Jesus in Luke–Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994)Google Scholar. For instance, in Acts 3.17 and 13.27 all the Jewish leaders are blamed in Jesus' death. In the mockery scene, Luke 23.35 altered ἀρχιερεῖς (Mark 15.31//Matt 27.41) to ἄρχοντες. The high priests are also omitted in Luke 18.3, altering Mark 10.33–33//Matt 20.17–18. Luke 19.47 includes the high priests in the plot to kill Jesus, but broadens the circle of responsibility in comparison to Mark 11.18.

35 Acts 22.17; 24.17–18; 25.8, discussed above.

36 One of the major themes of Paul's speeches is that the Christians have not rebelled against the Temple's dictates. See M. Dibelius, ‘Paul in the Book of Acts’, The Book of Acts, 93. Indeed, Luke's detailed presentation of Paul's imprisonment attempts to show that the Jewish charges against the Christians are baseless. See Maddox, R., The Purpose of Luke–Acts (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982) 77–8Google Scholar.

37 Jervell, J., ‘The Law in Luke–Acts’, Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke–Acts (Philadelphia: Augsburg Fortress, 1972, repr. 2002) 133–52Google Scholar; Loader, W., Jesus' Attitude Towards the Law (Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1997) 273–389Google Scholar; Esler, Community and Gospel, 110–31.

38 For Luke's positive attitude towards Judaism (that is, his insistence that Christianity is a development within Judaism), see Jervell, Luke and the People of God; Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews; Tiede, D. L., Prophecy and History in Luke–Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980)Google Scholar. In fact, there are also indications of a certain rejection of Judaism in Acts, namely, the view that Christianity has superseded Judaism. See Marguerat, The First Christian Historian, 129–54; Tyson, J. B., Luke, Judaism and the Scholars: Critical Approaches to Luke–Acts (Columbia, SC; University of South Carolina, 1999)Google Scholar.

39 ‘The Way’ (ὁ ὁδός) is the positive Christian self-designation in Acts 18.25–26; 22.4; 24.14. Opponents used the negative designation αἵρεσις (Acts 24.5, 14; 28.22).

40 Luke 6.22; Acts 9.20–25; 13.50; 19.9; John 9.22; 12.42; 16.2. The closing of the Temple's doors after Paul was dragged away by the mob (Acts 21.30) may also be read in similar fashion.

41 See, in addition to the studies cited in nn. 13–15 above, Dupont, J., The Sources of Acts: The Present Position (London: Darton, Longman & Todd; New York: Herder & Herder, 1964)Google Scholar.

42 Ant. 20.200. Translation follows L. H. Feldman in the LCL edition, with the significant amendments following McLaren, J. S., ‘Ananus, James, and the Earliest Christianity: Josephus's Account of the Death of James’, JTS 52 (2001) 6, 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘Sanhedrin of judges’ and ‘for having acted illegally’ (Feldman translated the latter as ‘for having transgressed the law’). For the historical credibility of the passage, despite its reference to ‘Jesus who was called the Christ’, see Meier, J. P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1991) 1.56–59Google Scholar.

43 Hengel, M., ‘Jakobus der Herrenbruder—der erste Papst?’, Paulus und Jakobus: Kleine Schriften III (WUNT 141; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002) 552–3Google Scholar; Pratscher, W., Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und die Jakobustradition (FRLANT 139; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987) 257–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Martin, R. P., James (WBC 48; Waco, TX: Word, 1988) lxiv–xlvGoogle Scholar.

44 Reicke, ‘Judaeo-Christianity and Jewish Establishment’, 152. Bernheim, P.-A., James, the Brother of Jesus (London: SCM, 1997) 257Google Scholar, and Martin, James, lxiii, suggested that James was held responsible for Paul's and others' disassociation with the law, but also mentioned the successful Christian mission as a possible motive.

45 McLaren, ‘Ananus’, 17–19, 25.

46 Brandon, S. G. F., Jesus and the Zealots (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1967) 117–26, 168–9, 189Google Scholar argued that the ordinary priests were closely linked to the zealots, who opposed Ananus and the high priests. Painter, J., Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999) 140–1Google Scholar inferred that James opposed the exploitation of the poorer priests (cf. Ant. 20.205–207), bearing in mind that the Jerusalem Church was designated as ‘the poor’ (Gal 2.10), and that some priests had joined it. Cf. also Bernheim, James, 257.

47 Martin, James, lxv–lxvii, pointed to the role of priests among the early Christians in Jerusalem and the socio-economic defense of the poor and needy set out in the epistle of James.

48 Lüdemann, G., Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 62Google Scholar; McLaren, ‘Ananus’, 18.

49 McLaren, ‘Ananus’, 23. McLaren (pp. 17–18) states that ‘Josephus indicates that a variety of means were used by those vying for prominence to assert their influence. Included in this list are kidnapping, robbery, bribery, physical assault and murder’ (referring to Ant. 20.180–181, 205–207, 208–210, 214). But murder of Jews by Jews is not mentioned here; rather, it is only the execution of rebels by the Romans.

50 Painter, Just James, 141; Bernheim, James, 255.

51 Translations from Eusebius follow K. Lake in the LCL edition. For dating Hegesippus to the middle of the second century, see Painter, Just James, 119–20. For the πτερύγιον (pinnacle) of the Temple and its significance in early Christian memory, see Eliav, Y. Z., ‘The Tomb of James, Brother of Jesus, as Locus Memoriae’, HTR 97 (2004) 33–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Jones, F. S., An Ancient Jewish Christian Source, Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27–71 (Atlanta: Society for Biblical Literature, 1995) 101–7Google Scholar.

53 The mighty corner stone is identified ‘in the end of the entrance of the Temple’, in Test. Sol. 22.7–8.

54 The Second Apocalypse of James, Nag Hammadi Coptic Gnostic Library, Codex V 60, 14–62, in Hedrick, C. W. and Parrott, D. M., ‘The Second Apocalypse of James (V, 4)’, The Nag Hammadi Library in English (ed. Robinson, J. M.; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 275Google Scholar.

55 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 2.1.5, referring to Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposes, 7th book, and repeated in ibid. 2.23.3.

56 Lüdemann, Opposition to Paul, 169–77; Painter, Just James, 116–32, 141, 156–8, 175–7, 179–81, 189; Bauckham, R., ‘For What Offence Was James Put to Death?’ James the Just and Christian Origins (ed. Chilton, B. and Evans, C. A.; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 199–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Myllykoski, M., ‘James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives on Past and Present Scholarship (Part II)’, Currents in Biblical Research 6.1 (2007) 70–83Google Scholar.

57 Epiphanius Pan. 29.4.2–3 even stated that James was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies once a year (like the high priest on the Day of Atonement). Surprisingly, however, Hegesippus does not present this detail as the reason for his execution.

58 The author of Recognitions, who stressed the authority of James (1.43.2; 44.1) held a bold anti-Temple stance, arguing for the cessation of the sacrificial cult (1.39) and claiming that the tearing of the Temple veil was a sign of the coming destruction (1.54.1). He also situated James's teaching in the Temple in spite of the fact that the high priests and the lay priests had often beaten the Christians for teaching or learning about Jesus (1.55.1–2). Nonetheless, he also had an interest in priestly matters, purity, anointing oil, etc. (1.46–48; 1.51.1).

59 Eisler argued that James served as the high priest of the zealots, and his bold, discourteous entrance into the Holy of Holies led to his execution at the hands of Ananus. This idiosyncristic interpretation is based on the most unusual detail (and hence, probably the most legendary one) described in Hegesippus. On Eisler and his recent followers, cf. Myllykoski, ‘James the Just’, 67–8.

60 Bauckham, ‘For What Offence’, also suggests that placing James's martyrdom in the Temple is derived from the Temple imagery attributed to James (‘rampart of the people’, ‘the gate of Jesus’). This proposal grants, to my mind, too much credibility to the exact words of James.

61 C. A. Evans, ‘Jesus and James: Martyrs of the Temple’, James the Just and Christian Origins, 233–49. Evans (p. 249) concluded that Jesus and James might very well have advanced the same, somewhat critical, agenda against the Temple establishment.

62 Cf. Bauckham, ‘For What Offence?’, 203–4; Myllykoski ‘James’, 78–9; Gruenwald, I., ‘Halakhic Material in Codex Gnosticus V, 4: The Second Apocalypse of James?’, From Apocalypticism to Gnosticism (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1988) 279–94Google Scholar.

63 For the execution of ‘any outsider (zar) who comes near’ (Num 1.51; 3.10, 38; 18.7; cf. Num 4.20), see Philo Leg. ad Gaium 307; Temple Scroll 35.1–8; 4QDa 6ii 9–10. The early rabbis, however, left such transgressions up to divine punishment (karet), and shied away from human intervention. See m. Ker. 1.1; t. Sanh. 14.16 (ed. Zuckermandel, 437); Shemesh, A., ‘The Dispute Between the Pharisees and the Sadducees on the Death Penalty’, Tarbiz 70 (2000) 17–34 (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

64 Mark 14.43, 47, 53–54. Luke 22.52 added the Temple officers. Matt 26.57 and John 11.49 added Caiaphas's name. For the historicity of the role of the high priest and its correct identification with Caiaphas, see Winter, P., On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, rev. ed. 1974) 44–59, 66–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Although scholars tend to associate the ‘cleansing’ with Jesus' concern for the Temple cult, some have suggested that Jesus opposed the behavior of the high priests. See Evans, C. A., ‘Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?’, CBQ 51 (1989) 237–70Google Scholar. For relating the ‘cleansing’ to Jesus' moral stance, see Regev, E., ‘Moral Impurity and the Temple in Early Christianity in Light of Qumranic Ideology and Ancient Greek Practice’, HTR 79 (2004) 383–411Google Scholar, here 397–402.

66 Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 331–6; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 61–76; Crossan, J. D., Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995) 65, 108–111Google Scholar; Bond, Caiaphas, 64–9. Others regard Jesus' attitude towards the Temple as one of the main reasons for his crucifixion, e.g., Horsley, R. A., Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (New York: Harper & Row, 1987) 285–306, 321Google Scholar; Wright, N. T., Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 547–52Google Scholar.

67 Translation follows Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 134.

68 Juel, D., Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1973; repr. Atlanta: Scholars, 1977) 124Google Scholar, concluded that ‘perhaps Mark is suggesting that Jesus never made such a statement and that it is therefore false’.

69 Brown, R., The Gospel according to Saint John I–XII (AB 29; New York: Doubleday, 1966) 122–5Google Scholar.

70 Juel, Messiah and Temple, 129–30 comments that ‘it is astonishing that so little is made of the cleansing in Mark’. Although the evangelists claimed that due to the cleansing, the high priests and other Jewish leaders plotted to execute Jesus (Mark 11.18; Luke 19.47–48), this is in truth merely a conventional narrative device (e.g. Mark 3.6). Mark regarded this plot as stemming from Jesus' influence on the masses. In both Mark and Luke, Jesus continued teaching in the Temple. Matthew (21.14–17) extended the act of ‘cleansing’ with a scene of healing and a claim to messianism, arguing that it was the latter which offended the high priests and scribes.

71 Gospel of Peter 7.26, ed. Hennecke-Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, I (Philadelphia: Westminister, 1963) 185; t. Sanh. 13.5 (ed. Zuckermandel, 434).

72 Fitzmyer, Acts, 334 translated καὶ πάντες οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ ‘and all his colleagues’. The identification with Caiaphas is based both on Luke's chronology and the reference to him in the first prosecution (cf. Acts 4.6). See Bond, Caiaphas, 7–8, 13, 24; Fitzmyer, Acts, 299; Jeremias, J., Jerusalem at the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) 229Google Scholar; Moyne, J. Le, Les Sadducéens (Paris: Gabalda, 1972) 345Google Scholar; Flusser, D., ‘Caiaphas in the New Testament’, Atiqot 21 (1992) 82, 84Google Scholar.

73 The high priest who judged Stephen may have been Caiaphas, Jonathan son of Ananus, Theophilus son of Ananus, or Simon Cantheras. See Bond, Caiaphas, 181–82 n. 17 for references. All these priests were relatives of either Ananus son of Ananus or Caiaphas (of the family of Katros/Cantheras). For Ananias's identification with Ananias son of Nedebaus, see Fitzmyer, Acts, 717. Paul's conflict with Ananias implictly allies the latter with Paul's opponents, and since the Pharisees defended Paul, it seems that Luke considered Ananias a Sadducee. Cf. Munck, J., The Acts of the Apostles (AB 31; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967) 223Google Scholar. In fact, it is probable that all of the high priests from Herod's time through to 68 CE were Sadducees. For more on the high priestly families and their identification with the Sadducees, see Stern, M., ‘Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and Other Classes’, The Jewish People in the First Century, II (ed. Safrai, S. et al. ; CRINT 1; Assen/Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976) 600–612Google Scholar; Schwartz, Agriappa I, 185–95; Jeremias, Jerusalem, 229–32.

74 Acts 5.33–40. On the question of the historical reliability of the passage, see Fitzmyer, Acts, 333–4. Since Gamliel is not mentioned by Josephus, it is possible that Luke followed an early tradition about Gamliel's role in this judicial procedure. As already mentioned above, in Recognitions a certain Gamliel is associated with James's followers.

75 Ziesler, J. A., ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, NTS 25 (1979) 146–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carroll, J. T., ‘Luke's Portrayal of the Pharisees’, CBQ 50 (1988) 604–21Google Scholar; Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 84–106. Note that in Acts some Pharisees became Christians and Paul is identified as a former Pharisee (Acts 15.5; 23.6; 26.5; cf. Phil 3.5). In making this connection, Christianity is associated implicitly with authentic Judaism.

76 Baumgarten, A. I., ‘The Name of the Pharisees’, JBL 1983 (1983) 413–14Google Scholar; Mason, S., Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992) 176–7Google Scholar. Cf. Mason, , Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees (Leiden: Brill, 1991) 92, 109Google Scholar.

77 McLaren, ‘Ananus’, 7 n. 16 lists eight additional scholars who subscribed to this view, but nonetheless decides against it (pp. 7–12).

78 Martin, James, xliii; Bauckham, ‘For What Offence’, 223–4.

79 Luke also stressed the Sadducees' disbelief in resurrection as the reason for their persecution of the Christians; so, too, he portrayed the belief in resurrection as the common ground between the Pharisees and the Christians. See Acts 4.2; 23.6–9; 25.19; Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 114–16; Fitzmyer, Acts 333, 714–16. This attempt, however, is historically implausible: Although the Pharisees also believed in resurrection, the conflicts between them and the Sadducees centered around the realm of Jewish law and the Temple cult.

80 E.g., the burning of the red heifer, m. Parah 3.7; t. Parah 3.8 (ed. Zuckermandel, 632).

81 Regev, E., The Sadducees and their Halakhah: Religion and Society in the Second Temple Period (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2005 [Hebrew]) 132–81, 226–41, 383–5Google Scholar; Regev, , ‘The Sadducees, the Pharisees and the Sacred: Meaning and Ideology in the Halakhic Controversies between the Sadducees and the Pharisees’, Review of Rabbinic Judaism 9 (2006) 126–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For example, the Sadducees opposed the Pharisaic regulation of the annual half-shekel donation to the Temple, which would have undermined the priests' exclusive cultic status (Regev, Sadducees and their Halakhah, 132–9).

82 T. Ḥagigah 3.35 (ed. Lieberman, 394).

83 Ant. 20.189–195. Ishmael followed the Sadducean laws of purity in t. Parah 3.6 (ed. Zuckermandel, 632). See Regev, Sadducees and their Halakhah, 176–9. On the religious objection to Agrippa's observation of the Temple rituals, cf. Schwartz, D. R., ‘Viewing the Holy Utensils (P. Ox. V, 840)’, NTS 32 (1986) 153–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Unnamed high priests demanded that the high priest's garments of the Day of Atonement be kept in the Temple instead of in the custody of the Roman governor, and succeeded in convincing Claudius to grant his support (Ant. 20.6–14). A quite different, but nevertheless relevant, case is the desperate call of the Sadducee Ananus son of Ananus for the defense of the Temple against the violent Zealots, who, he claimed, were polluting the Temple with bloodshed (War 4.162–206). Ananus also declared that he was willing to die for the sake of ‘God and the Sanctuary’ (War 4.191).

84 Barrett, C. K., ‘Attitudes to the Temple in the Acts of the Apostles’, Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel (ed. Horbury, W.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991) 345–67Google Scholar; Schwartz, ‘Temple and Temple Mount in the Book of Acts’. The fact that James, and eventually also Peter, refrained from eating with Gentiles on account of their observance of purity laws (Gal. 2.11–14) may also imply a similar concern for the sacrificial laws. Compare Dunn, J. D. G., ‘The Incident at Antioch (Gal. 2.11–18)’, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1990) 129–82Google Scholar.

85 According to J. B. Tyson, Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1992) 184: ‘The activity of Peter and the apostles in Acts 1–5 may be read, in part, as their attempt to take control of the Temple’, and Paul's entering the Temple is ‘a final attempt to return the Temple to its proper use’. Cf. also the thesis of Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, applied to both Jesus and James.

86 Bauckham, R., ‘James and the Jerusalem Church’, The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting (ed. Bauckham, R.; Carlisle: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 441–50Google Scholar; Bauckham, ‘For What Offence?’; Grappe, C., D'un Temple à l'autre: Pierre et l'Eglise primitive de Jérusalem (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1992) 88–115Google Scholar, both inferred from the fact that Peter and James were described as ‘pillars’ and possibly other parts of the Temple structure (e.g. Gal 2.9; Matt 16.18) that the early Jerusalem Church understood itself as the eschatological Temple. One may, however, question whether these expressions actually reflect Temple imagery or express reservations about the present Temple and the sacrificial cult.

87 Klawans, J., ‘Interpreting the Last Supper: Sacrifice, Spiritualization, and Anti-Sacrifice’, NTS 48 (2002) 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hogeterp, A. L. A., Paul and God's Temple (Leuven: Peeters, 2006)Google Scholar; Lieu, J., ‘Temple and Synagogue in John’, NTS 45 (1999) 51–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fuglseth, K. S., Johannine Sectarianism in Perspective: A Sociological, Historical, and Comparative Analysis of Temple and Social Relationships in the Gospel of John, Philo, and Qumran (NovTSup 119; Leiden: Brill, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.