Article

Journal for the Study of

the New Testament
A Tale of Two Riots: The 2014, Vol. 37(1) 86–111
© The Author(s) 2014
synkrisis of the Temples of Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Ephesus and Jerusalem in DOI: 10.1177/0142064X14545011
jsnt.sagepub.com
Acts 19–23

Jeffrey M.Tripp
Loyola University Chicago, USA

Abstract
Towards the end of Paul’s career, Acts narrates two riot scenes tied to the temples in
Ephesus and Jerusalem, forming a synkrisis between the two cities and their temples. The
similarities between the two scenes argue for temples as places of danger for Christians
while protecting the Christian community from perceptions of anti-cultic teaching. The
endings, however, are very different. In the first case, the correct response to the
church is presented in Ephesus where the riot ends in a quick and orderly manner. In
the second case, the incorrect response is presented in Jerusalem where the disorder
spreads to the local government, forcing the Roman military to intervene.

Keywords
Acts, Ephesus, Jerusalem Temple, Paul, synkrisis, Temple of Artemis

Towards the end of his free career in Acts, Paul is the cause of two riots—one in
Ephesus (19.23–20.1) and another in Jerusalem (21.27–23.22). Both of these
riots stem from accusations that Paul has attacked the (central) temple of the city,
and their quick succession invites the audience of Acts to read them in tandem.
Although each scene has been well examined and similarities are occasionally
noted, there is a general absence of material which reads the two in relation to
each other. Darrell Bock is emblematic of this, noting similarities between the

Corresponding author:
Jeffrey M. Tripp, Loyola University Chicago, Department of Theology, 1032 W. Sheridan Road, Crown
Center Room 300, Chicago, IL 60660, USA.
Email: jtripp@luc.edu

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

Tripp 87

scenes but sparing just two sentences of comment on the similarities between
them.1 Likewise Christopher Mount summarizes the connection well:

The author, however, has … set the message of Jesus proclaimed by Paul over against
the religious and economic interests of the Greek cult. This foreshadows the conflict
between the message of Paul and the interests of the Jerusalem cult. The author
intends to differentiate Christianity as proclaimed by Paul from cultic allegiance to
idols and temples (whether pagan or Jewish) (Mount 2002: 125).

Since Mount’s interests are only in the Ephesus material, he does not develop
this further.
By placing scenes with a number of parallel elements so close together, often
in matching sequential order, the author of Acts2 creates a s&gkrisi, a compari-
son between Ephesus and Jerusalem through the chaos-inducing effects of their
temples. The usefulness of the ancient rhetorical device of synkrisis (in Latin
texts, comparatio) for the study of Luke and Acts has been widely recognized.3
Many ancient rhetoricians commented on synkrisis, including the progymnas-
mata of Theon (first century CE), and there is evidence that creating synkriseis was
part of a basic Greek education.4 The purpose of a synkrisis was to place similar
things in parallel in order to isolate differences or to demonstrate the superiority
of one over the other (Tatum 2010: 10). The classic example is Plutarch’s Parallel
Lives, but it was not only biographies that could be compared. A broad range of
topics could be set in parallel, such as seafaring and agriculture, town life and
country life (Libanius [fourth century CE], VIII, 349-55), or various professions
(Quintilian, Decl. Min. 268). Meleager of Gadara (first century BCE) is quoted as
creating a synkrisis of pease-pottage and lentil soup.5
Perhaps under the influence of Plutarch, scholars tend to notice parallels
between people instead of places or things.6 These include John the Baptist and

1. On the riot in Ephesus: ‘The scene also compares with 21:27-36, where Jews form the oppo-
sition’ (Bock 2007: 608). On Jerusalem: ‘The mood of the scene is much like the riot in
Ephesus in 19:21-40’ (Bock 2007: 653).
2. The authors of Luke and Acts are often supposed to be one and the same. While this is pos-
sible, even likely, I make no assumption of this fact in what follows. Luke will be considered
to the extent that Acts is in the Lukan tradition and models itself on Luke’s language and
literary habits (if from a different author). I also take Acts to be written after the destruction
of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE. For the sake of simplicity, I occasionally refer to the implied
author as ‘he’ without any assertion as to the gender of the real author.
3. Clark (2001: 63-73) traces the history of synkriseis in Luke/Acts research, from Schneck-
enberger (d. 1848) up to his own study. For a more recent contribution, see Bersot 2012.
4. Cairns 2007: 75; Parsons 2004; and Bonner 1977: 266-67.
5. Quoted by Athenaeus (third century CE), Deipnosophistae 4.159a.
6. All of the parallels examined in Clark 2001 are between people or groups of people. This
extends beyond Luke/Acts research, as Stanton 1992: 77-84 (John the Baptist and Jesus in
Matthew) and Forbes 1986 (Paul and his opponents) illustrate.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

88 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37(1)

Jesus in the infancy narratives of Lk. 1–27 and the careers of Peter and Paul in
Acts (Clark 2001: 35-54). Yet Acts also creates a synkrisis between Ephesus and
Jerusalem, particularly in their reactions to Paul’s perceived teaching against the
great temple of the Gentiles and the great temple of the Jews. Taken together, the
scenes argue against temples as the dwelling-place of the divine. However, the
close parallels in how the riots begin only serve to highlight the differences in
how they end. Since Acts is written after the Temple of Yahweh has been
destroyed by Rome yet while the Temple of Artemis still stands, at the political
level Acts argues that reacting with violence toward Christianity in defense of
one’s cult is chaotic and anti-Roman.8 At the theological level Acts may argue
that God allows even God’s own temple to be destroyed if defending it leads to
violent rejection of Christ and his followers.
Before establishing and analyzing the synkrisis, it must be stressed that the
temples of both cities are the issue. A reluctance to put the Jerusalem temple in
the same category as a Gentile one is often implicit in the secondary literature,
probably due to positive aspects of the earlier depiction of the temple in Luke
and Acts.9 Would Acts really compare the temple where Jesus is presented as an
infant (Lk. 2.22-24) and where the early Jerusalem church preaches (Acts 2–5)
with a Gentile temple, and in a way that the Gentile one seems to come out
ahead? Acts does exactly that. Moreover, Acts prepares us for this argument in
the Jerusalem temple scene that immediately precedes Paul’s: the stoning to
death of Stephen.
Stephen argues with other diaspora Jews (from among other places Asia, 6.9)
who bring forward false witnesses before the Sanhedrin to lay a twofold charge
against him: that he does not cease to speak against this holy place (kata to
to&po to a(gi/o [to&to]) and against the law, and that he claims that Jesus
will destroy this place (to to&po toto) and change the Mosaic customs
(6.13-14). Both charges involve the temple. In Stephen’s lengthy defense, he
makes two important points, neither of which directly answers the charges

7. Clark (2001: 103-10) examines the parallels in these chapters (expanding them to include
Lk. 3–4), citing Green, Ó Fearghail, Brown, Fitzmyer and Wink (along with Dibelius and
Laurentin) as precedents.
8. It is no coincidence that every time a Roman official actually gets involved, he favors Paul
(13.12; 18.12-17; 23.29; 25.25)—except for possibly Felix, who is portrayed as sycophantic
and seeking bribes (24.26-27; see Wills 1991: 650-52). Pesch leans in this direction when he
notes the importance to the ‘Apologie der Kirche’ in Acts of Paul’s success with a Roman
official at the outset of his mission (13.12; see Pesch 1986: II, 26).
9. That the Jerusalem temple is part of Western (Jewish and Christian) religious heritage, while
the Temple of Artemis is not, may also play a role. Furthermore, one needs to be careful not
to contribute to anti-Semitic readings of Acts, a text which does not argue against Judaism
or Jews as such, but against a particular way of worshiping God as no longer appropriate or
desirable.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

Tripp 89

against him: he emphasizes the migratory nature of the people’s history, from
Abraham and his family (7.2-16) to Moses and the exodus (7.17-45) until the
time of David and Solomon when the tabernacle is replaced with a house/temple
(7.46-47). It is at this point, when Solomon has built the temple (not explicitly
with divine permission),10 that Stephen makes his second point: ‘the Most High
does not live in things made by human hands’ (o) o( #yisto e0 eiropoi/-
toi katoikei, 7.48). Several verses earlier Stephen recalled the Golden Calf
incident, noting that the people reveled ‘in the works of their hands’ (e0 toi
e1rgoi tw~ eirw~ a)tw~, 7.41) which anticipates how he soon describes the
temple. Thus Stephen argues that the house that Solomon built is like the Calf
that Aaron made: both are cases of idolatry.11 Charles Giblin comments:

Stephen does not attack the temple but attacks a state of mind according to which that
building and institution, divorced from response to God’s guidance, stands as a
pseudo-religious absolute. Equivalently, this attitude constitutes idolatry. Such an
attitude may presage national calamity, as it did before the Exile (Giblin 1985: 111).

Furthermore, there is no indication that the implied author disagrees with

Stephen.
After his defense fails, Stephen is executed.12 Although several scenes take
place in Jerusalem after this point, the temple plays no role until Paul joins the
Nazirites there and immediately incites a riot. Stephen’s death severs obligations
to the temple (whether the characters know this yet or not) so that the church may
move following God’s will as Abraham and Moses do in his speech. If we take
Stephen’s argument seriously that the temple is (or has become) idolatrous, there
is nothing to prevent the comparison of Jerusalem with Ephesus through their
temples. This is precisely the lens through which I will examine the synkrisis
between the riots in the two cities.
A monograph by Andrew C. Clark (2001) gives a detailed examination of the
use of synkrisis in Luke and Acts. Clark’s methodological discussion estab-
lishes six criteria for identifying synkriseis which will be helpful in establishing
the one in question. Several of these criteria are inevitably subjective, and no

10. In Acts 7.46-47, David asks if he may find a dwelling (sk/wa) for the House of Jacob
(tw~ oikw 0akw&) and Solomon builds a house (oi0koo&se a)tw~ oiko), but Acts/
Stephen omits any story of God explicitly granting permission to either of them (cf. 2 Sam.
7.13; 2 Chron. 22.9-10).
11. Lupieri (forthcoming); the parallel between the Golden Calf and the temple is augmented
by the immediate citation of prophetic support texts (7.42-43, 49-50), the only citations of
Stephen’s long defense.
12. The running scene beginning with Stephen’s seizure (6.12) and ending with his death (7.60)
is textually the longest of the opening chapters in Jerusalem (Acts 1–7) and is in the climactic
position, lending it a great deal of importance. See below nn. 24-25.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

90 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37(1)

one alone is sufficient to establish an intentional comparison. Rather, we are

looking for patterns of evidence that would build up in the minds of the original
audience of Acts. As we will see, the scenes are constructed in such a way that
they point toward each other, even as the latter scene diverges from the
former.

Establishing a synkrisis through Six Criteria

Content
Similarity in content, particularly with regard to the vocabulary chosen in these
two scenes, is quite easy to establish. Clark advises that care be taken in using
this criterion: one risks mistaking stylistic choices for theological ones, and coin-
cidence for intent. Still, he argues that ‘similarity in language in terms of lexical
repetitions or synonyms is an important criterion… Rare words are more likely
to be significant’ (Clark 2001: 75).
The author’s choices in describing the riots are themselves distinctive and
rare. In four cases, the cities are described as in ‘confusion’. This is described
as s&gsi in 19.29 (only here in the NT)13 and with the related verb
sge/w (to confuse) in 19.32 (in Ephesus), and twice in Jerusalem (21.27, 31).
This verb is unique to Acts in the NT. ‘Confusion’ is noted just twice before the
riots (2.6; 9.22) but is suddenly noted four times in two scenes, and no more
from that point onwards. Later, the town clerk warns the Ephesians that they are
in danger of being accused of ‘dissension’ (sta&si, 19.40), a word that will be
applied to the Sanhedrin (23.7, 10). Like ‘confusion’, ‘dissension’ is rare.14 The
town clerk also warns the Ephesians that they will be unable to explain this
‘disorderly gathering’ or ‘conspiracy’ (sstrof/, 19.40). In Jerusalem where
no one is able to calm the violence, a sstrof/ is actually formed in order to
kill Paul immediately following a hearing on the riot (23.12). The word is
unique to these two cases in the NT. In the end, both disturbances are described
as a ‘riot’ (qo&ro) by the narrator (20.1; 21.34) and by Paul (24.18). These
are likewise the only uses of qo&ro in Acts.15 The restriction of this

13. In Codex Bezae the verb is used here instead (se&q), which would strengthen the parallel
with Acts 21 in the double use of sge/w.
14. Acts describes the debate caused by Paul at the Council of Jerusalem by using sta&si (15.2),
and Tertullus will blame the dissensions of the Jews, including the riot, on Paul (24.5). Mark
claims that Barabbas was imprisoned for dissension (Mk 15.7), which Luke follows (Lk.
23.19, 25). These are Luke’s only uses of the term.
15. Mark uses qo&ro twice (Mk 5.38, the ‘commotion’ over the dead girl; and 14.2, the threat of
riot if the chief priests arrest Jesus); in both cases Matthew follows Mark’s wording (Mt. 9.23;
26.5; cf. also 27.24, unique to Matthew) while Luke eliminates the mention of a riot in paral-
lel passages (cf. Lk. 8.51; 22.2), so Luke–Acts—read as a two-volume work—uses the word

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

Tripp 91

vocabulary principally to these scenes is even more notable given the Lukan
tradition’s fondness for lexical variety.16
So in four cases Acts uses words that are rare, if not unique, to these scenes in
order to describe the riots. That Acts uses ta&rao (‘disturbance’, 19.23) only
in Ephesus may be significant (see below), but it also demonstrates that the
author had access to a broader vocabulary than he actually uses. The connection
between the scenes on this front is strengthened even further in a turn of phrase
used to describe the disturbances. In Ephesus the confusion is characterized by
the narrator:

Some cried one thing and some another (alloi e\ o allo ti e1krazo, 19.32).

This phrase is closely echoed in Jerusalem:

Some shouted one thing and some another (alloi e\ allo ti e0pefw&o, 21.34).

These parallel constructions occur only here in Acts (and Luke).

Other lexical connections between the two scenes are less notable individu-
ally, but are numerous enough to draw attention.17 These include the repeated use
of ‘temple’ (i9ero&, 19.27; 21.27, 28, 29, 30; 22.17), related lexical forms (‘sacri-
lege’ [i9ero&slo], 19.37) and terminology (‘sanctuary’ [ao&, 19.24]; ‘temple
guardian’ [ewko&ro, 19.35]), the vocative addresses to ‘men’ (are, 19.25,
35; 21.28; 22.1; cf. 23.1, 6) and the offering of an apology in both scenes (19.33;
22.1).18 With so many overlaps in lexical content between the scenes, it would

only in reference to the riots in Ephesus and Jerusalem. Acts uses the related verb qore/w
twice, once in the similar sense of ‘rioting’ started by Jews in Thessalonica (e0qor&o, 17.5)
and once when Paul advises his companions not to trouble themselves (qoreisqe, 20.10).
Luke eliminates Mark’s use of this last form in Mk 5.39 (while Matthew does not), yet has
Jesus (disapprovingly) tell Martha that she is ‘troubled’ (qora&z, Lk. 10.41) in a scene
unique to Luke.
16. However, this variety is evident within the words used to describe the chaos within the scenes.
Variatio in this smaller sense (avoiding the tedious repetition of words) was valued in ancient
rhetoric (Aristotle, Rh. 1371a; Quintilian 10.2.1; Carm. 166-167 [fourth or fifth century CE]),
and is used throughout Acts (Mussies 1991 and 1995).
17. See below on the sequencing of similar material for further connections. Note also the
repeated mention of the ‘city’ in both scenes (19.29, 35; 21.29, 30, 39; 22.3), although this
noun is used 37 other times in Acts, as well as the equally frequent mentions of a ‘crowd’
(19.26, 33, 35; 21.27, 34, 35), which is used only 16 other times in Acts.
18. In 19.33 Alexander ‘was intending to make a defense (a)pologeisqai)’, while in 22.1 Paul
asks his countrymen to hear his defense (a)pologi/a). The latter word is used by Festus in
25.16, which is the only other time Acts (or Luke) uses it. The former word is used in 24.10,
25.8 and 26.1, 2, 24 to describe the defenses that Paul offers to Felix, Festus and Agrippa and
which were necessitated by the riot in Jerusalem. Luke chooses this word (against Mark and

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

92 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37(1)

seem appropriate to proceed with our hypothesis and examine the sequence of
events.

Sequence
Similarities in the sequencing of these elements are a strong indicator of inten-
tional patterning, but Clark warns that the absence of a strict sequential match
does not negate a parallel (2001: 76). Although Clark points to historical consid-
erations as a restriction on the sequencing of events, it is just as likely that liter-
ary factors such as source material or the need to maintain multiple connections
at once might disrupt sequential patterns.19 Differences in sequential order may
also derive from a desire to introduce variatio into two similar scenes20 or from
the contrasts an author wishes to highlight through the synkrisis. In Table 1, 14
major elements shared by both scenes are presented in the order that they appear
in Ephesus.
Looking at this set of parallels, there is a substantial alignment of elements as
well as notable disruptions in the pattern. After a note of confusion (19.29; 21.27)
there is a rushing together of a crowd (19.29; 21.30), a seizing of the accused (or
in Ephesus, Paul’s companions as proxies, 19.29; cf. 21.30), a fortuitous inter-
vention by authorities (the Asiarchs in Ephesus, 19.31; the Roman military in
Jerusalem, 21.32), a description of the crowd’s disorder using a distinctive phrase
(19.32; 21.34), an attempt at apology (19.33; 22.1), a second cry against the
accused (19.34; 22.22), and mentions of dissension (19.40; 23.7) and conspiracy
(19.40; 23.12). This accounts for 9 of the 14 elements. Other elements that are
out of order are not wildly so: each scene begins with a twofold charge made

Matthew’s ‘speak’ [lale/w]) in Lk. 12.11 (//Mk 13.11; Mt. 10.17) and the doublet in 21.14,
both exhorting Jesus’ followers not to worry how to make a defense when they are brought
before governing bodies because the Spirit/Jesus will tell them what to say. This may explain
the uses in Acts 24–26 (e.g., see Jervell 1998: 590-91). The connection between the apolo-
gies of Alexander and Paul is strengthened by the motioning of the hand that accompanies
each attempt (katasei/sa t\ eira, 19.33; kate/seise t eiri\, 21.40). Each of these is
preceded by another mention of hands: in Ephesus, things made by hands are not gods (19.26),
echoing 17.25, and in Jerusalem, they laid hands on Paul to seize him (21.27). This density of
‘hand’ language recalls the similar emphasis on hands in Stephen’s speech (7.25, 35, 41, 48, 50).
19. The use of sources is a particular issue in Acts 19.23–20.1 (Mount 2002: 111-30). With the
longer riot narrative in Acts 21.27–23.11, the author also maintains parallels with the deaths
of Stephen and Jesus, so that we are not looking at a single-variable explanation for every
element in a very complex set of scenes.
20. Marguerat (2011: 35-36) draws attention to Lucian of Samosata (second century CE), Hist.
Conscr. 51, who calls on the historian to arrange (iaqe/sqai) the order of events well.
Marguerat relates this to the ability of Acts to vary a theme in the handling of narrative redun-
dancy (for example, in the retelling of Paul’s call in Acts 9; 22; 26).

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

Tripp 93

Table 1. Sequential Parallels within the Riot Scenes in Ephesus and Jerusalem.

Element Ephesus Element Jerusalem

1 Twofold (a) Call to the men of the city: 2 Twofold (a) Call to the men
Charges ‘Men!’ (are) Charges of the city: ‘Isra-
(19.25-27) (21.28) elites!’ (are
0sralitai)
(b) Threat of Paul’s teaching: (b) Threat of Paul’s
‘not only in Ephesus but teaching: ‘This
in almost all (seo (o[to) is the
pa&s) of Asia, this man … teaching
(o[to) Paul has per- everyone every-
suaded and drawn away where (pa&ta
a considerable number pata~)’
of people’
(c) First charge: ‘There is (c) First charge: ‘teach-
danger not only that this ing against the
trade of ours may come people and the law
into disrepute’ and this place’
(d) Second charge: ‘but also (d) Second charge:
that the temple (i9ero) ‘moreover, he
of the great goddess brought a Greek
Artemis will be scorned, into the temple
and she will be deprived (i9ero) and has
of her majesty that defiled this holy
brought all Asia and the place’
world to worship her’
2 First Cry When they heard this, they 9 First Cry For the multitude of
(19.28) were enraged and shouted (21.36) the people followed,
(e1krazo), ‘Great is Arte- crying (kra&zote),
mis of the Ephesians!’ ‘Take him away!’
3 First Confu- The city was filled with the 1 First Confu- When the Jews from
sion (19.29) confusion (sg&sew) sion (21.27) Asia saw him in the
temple, they confused
(se/eo) all the
crowd and seized him
with their hands
4 Rushing To- people rushed together 3 Rushing To- The whole city was
gether (19.29) (w#rsa/ te o(oqao) gether (21.30) aroused (e0ki/q) and
to the theater the people rushed
together (e0ge/eto
sro\)
5 Dragging dragging (sarpa&sate) 4 Dragging Seizing (e0pilao&eoi)
the Accused with them Gaius and the Accused Paul, they dragged
(19.29) Aristarchus, Macedonians (21.30) (ei[lko) him out of the
who were Paul’s travel temple
companions
(Continued)

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

94
Table 1. (Continued)
Element Ephesus
6 Authorities Also some of the Asiarchs,
Step In (19.31) who were his friends, sent
a message to him urging
him not to venture into the
theater
7 Crowd’s Dis- Some cried one thing and
order (19.32) some another (alloi e\
o allo ti e1krazo)
8 Second Confu- For the assembly was
sion (19.32) confused (sgkee/)
and most did not know
for what cause they came
together
9 Apology Alexander … intended to
(19.33) make an apology
(a)pologeisqai) to the mob
10 Second Cry Recognizing that he was
(19.34) a Jew, for about two
hours all of them shouted
(krazo&tw) in one voice
(fw\), ‘Great is Artemis of
the Ephesians!’
11 Call to City The town clerk said, ‘Ephe-
(19.35) sians (are 0Efe/sioi)!’
12 Dissension ‘For we are in danger of be- 13 Dissension
(19.40) ing charged with dissension
(sta&sew) today’
13 Conspiracy ‘since there is no cause that 14 Conspiracy
(19.40) we can give to justify this
conspiracy (sstrof~)’
14 Riot (20.1) But after the riot
(qo&ro) ceased …
Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37(1)
Element Jerusalem
6 Authori- Immediately he took
ties Step In solders and centuri-
(21.32) ons and ran down to
them. When they saw
the tribune and the
soldiers, they stopped
beating Paul
7 Crowd’s Dis- Some shouted one
order (21.34) thing and some another
(alloi e\ allo ti
e0pefw&o)
5 Second Con- All of Jerusalem
fusion (21.31) was confused
(sg&etai)
11 Apology ‘Listen to my apology
(22.1) (a)pologi/a) to you
now’
12 Second Cry Up until this word they
(22.21-22) listened, but they lifted
up their voice (fw\),
saying (le/gote), ‘Take
away such a one from
the earth, for it is not
fit that he should live!’
10 Call to City He addressed them in a
(21.40–22.1) Hebrew dialect, saying,
‘Brothers and fathers
(are a)elfoi\ kai\
pate/re)!’
there became a dissen-
(23.7) sion (sta&si) between
the Pharisees and the
Sadducees
When day came, having
(23.12) created a conspiracy
(sstrof\), the Jews
put themselves under
oath
8 Riot (21.34) he could not learn the
facts because of the
riot (qo&ro)
Tripp 95

against Paul (19.25-27; 21.28), although in Jerusalem this occurs after the men-
tion of confusion.
Yet some elements are notably out of sequence. These include the cries of the
crowd and the placement of the terms for ‘confusion’ and ‘riot’. These deviations
are dealt with in more detail below. Here I will only note that the bulk of the
matched elements are presented in the same order and the author does not move
the remaining elements out of sequence haphazardly. The synkrisis created
between these two scenes highlights similarities and differences in the reactions
of the two cities to the threat presented by Paul’s teaching. These deviations in
sequence align with the contrast.

Disruptions in the Text

Given that there are a high number of parallel elements, the majority of which
are presented in a similar order, this criterion raises the question whether there
are signs that they have been deliberately, even awkwardly, inserted into the
text to create the parallels (Clark 2001: 77). At least one passage in the Ephesus
riot has generated various conjectures on its role and placement in the narra-
tive.21 In 19.33-34a Acts introduces an Alexander, put forward by the Jews to
offer a defense. Alexander fails to deliver his apology; instead the crowd shouts
him down with cries of support for Artemis. He then disappears. What role
does this interlude serve? In Jerusalem, Paul (the ambiguity of whose ethnic
origins are continuously underlined)22 offers a defense that fails as soon as he
mentions his mission to the Gentiles, inspiring a second call for his life (22.21-
22). Likewise in Ephesus, when Alexander attempts a defense (of Paul? of the
Ephesian Jews?), as soon as the locals recognize that he is a Jew they raise up
a second cry in support of Artemis. That is, the intrusion of Alexander and the
Jews establishes Jewish–Gentile tension tied to a Gentile temple in a similar
way that Gentile–Jewish tension tied to the Jewish temple fuels the riot in
Jerusalem. Furthermore, this passage contributes to parallels between the
scenes in both content and sequence even if its precise role remains somewhat
unclear.

21. Mount (2002: 124-25) notes several conjectures about the role of Alexander here, himself
concluding that the episode is a vestige of a non-Pauline source, while Stoops (1989: 86)
rejects the appeal to sources, arguing that Alexander is inserted in order to draw attention to
the issue of Jewish rights.
22. First the Roman commander is surprised that Paul speaks Greek (21.37), not because he
believes that Paul is Jewish but Egyptian; then the crowd is even more surprised that he can
speak Aramaic (22.2). Despite Paul’s claims to be a Jew who has spent time in Jerusalem
(22.3), he appears to be a Gentile to everyone else.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

96 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37(1)

Literary Form
Here we are looking for formal similarities. However, in these long and rather
complex scenes we do not have a form typical of the NT such as miracle stories
or conversion narratives. Instead, we have riot scenes, specifically concerning
Jewish–Gentile relations. As it is, riot scenes, often in theaters, are quite common
in literature that is roughly contemporary with Acts.23 Both Philo (Leg. ad Gaium
18 §120-26; 42 §335-36) and Josephus (Ant. 14.10.21 §244-46; 16.2.5 §58-60;
19.5.2 §284; War 7.3.2-4 §46-62; 7.5.2 §107-111) record riots in a way that is
meant to support the rights of Jews in diaspora cities. The goal is to demonstrate
that the Jews of Antioch, Alexandria, or wherever, are not responsible for the vio-
lence that takes place, and that their rights (particularly of exemption from taxes
and sacrifices) must be enforced by the Roman authorities. Robert Stoops, Jr
warns on the one hand that ‘No fixed narrative forms for reporting riots developed
because no social context required the frequent repetition of such stories’ (Stoops
1989: 81). On the other hand, almost every element in the telling of the Ephesus
riot in Acts has parallels in riot scenes in both the writings of Josephus and Philo,
making it likely that Acts follows a set pattern in order to argue for the rights of
Christians similar to those of the Jews (Stoops 1989: 81-89). These parallels
include the charges against Paul for his attack on the temple, confusion, the drag-
ging away of perceived foreigners, the friendliness of the Asiarchs (notably
expanded by Stoops to include the protection of Roman officials), the attempted
apology with the crowd shouting it down, and the accusations of dissension and
conspiracy—all of which have parallels in the Jerusalem riot as well.
According to Stoops, the presentation of the Ephesus riot makes the point that
Christians, as a sort of Jewish sect, enjoy the same rights (and exemptions) as
Jews. Reading the scene with its twin in Jerusalem would strengthen his case,
because Acts argues for the Jewish spiritual heritage of the Christians, while lay-
ing the blame for whatever divisions have arisen between the two sects at the feet
of the other, non-Christian Jews. Paul never speaks against the temple and indeed
has intense religious experiences while inside it, but the frenetic zealotry of the
other Jews (as Acts portrays them) gets the best of them. They are responsible for
the violence in Jerusalem against Paul (if historical); they are characterized by a
violent fervor for their temple and city, a fervor that later reached its apex in the
revolt against Rome.

Structure
It will also be useful to examine how these scenes fit into, and contribute to, the
overall structure of Acts (Clark 2001: 76-77). Here we will focus on the role of

23. MacMullen (1966: 340-41 n. 12) gives a rather long list of city riots in Greek and Latin
literature.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

Tripp 97

the riot scenes in the larger narrative about Paul. After his conversion, Paul’s
story alternates between visits to Jerusalem and his three Gentile missions.
Ephesus is his final missionary city, the importance of which is underlined by the
amount of narrative time devoted to Paul’s ministry in Ephesus (18.19–20.38)24
and the amount of story time that Acts claims that Paul spent there (at least two
years according to 19.10; but cf. 20.31). Paul’s farewell to the Ephesian elders is
the final act of his third missionary journey, and his last visit to Jerusalem soon
follows. As with Ephesus, Paul’s final stay in Jerusalem is textually his longest
(21.17–23.31).25 The last four chapters of Acts trace Paul’s movement out of
Jerusalem to Rome, a move anticipated in Ephesus just before the riot (19.21)
and in Jerusalem just after the riot as the Jewish authorities are still in an uproar
(23.11). Structurally, riots form the climax of both Paul’s missionary journeys
and his experiences in Jerusalem.
Several elements narrated in Ephesus prior to the riot tie the Ephesian material
to Jerusalem. After Paul initially arrives in Ephesus, he briefly returns to
Jerusalem (18.22). This may provide an excuse for Paul’s absence in the Apollos
scene so that it is still Paul who founds the Ephesus church (Mount 2002: 112-
13), but it also serves to interject Jerusalem into the Ephesus narrative, thus link-
ing the two. Just before the riot the narrator says that Paul intends to return to
Jerusalem (19.21). Later in Jerusalem, Jews from Asia—by which Ephesus is
probably meant (cf. 21.29 and 20.4)26—accuse Paul of taking an Ephesian
Gentile into the temple. The emphasis on Asia in both scenes (here and 19.26,
27, as well as the Asiarchs in 19.31) interconnects the scenes while perhaps
recalling the Asians at Pentecost (2.9, signaling the church’s movement out of
Jerusalem) and the Asians who argue with Stephen.
Paul’s farewell discourse to the Ephesian elders serves as a transition narra-
tive. It is interesting that Paul displays no anxiety for the Ephesians as they return
to their city, given the riot that has only just been narrated.27 Instead, all of his
anxiety points to Jerusalem: ‘I go, bound in the Spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing
what will happen to me there’ (20.22). He even indicates that his life may be in

24. This is a span of 89 verses from Paul’s first arrival in Ephesus to his farewell to the elders of
Ephesus, although there are transitional verses (18.22-23, 27-28; 20.2-6, 13), an episode in
Troas (20.7-12), and the farewell to the elders of Ephesus occurs in the nearby port of Miletus.
Even without this material, 49 verses are devoted to events that take place in Ephesus.
25. This constitutes 85 verses before Paul is removed to Caesarea by Roman soldiers. Although
Paul does not spend two years in Jerusalem, he is detained in Caesarea for two years (24.27)
as a direct result of the riot.
26. Conzelmann 1987: 183; see also Omerzu 2009: 320-21.
27. Although it has been some months of story time since the riot (cf. 20.3). The reference to
wolves entering into the flock (20.29), paired with the warning that even among them some
will lead disciples away (20.30), seems to refer to internal threats which are rather unlike the
external threats of the mob in Acts 19.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

98 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37(1)

danger (20.24), and his audience agrees (20.38). Likewise the disciples in Tyre
warn him not to go to Jerusalem (21.4). In Caesarea, Agabus predicts that the
Jews at Jerusalem will bind Paul, prompting those around Paul to beg him not to
go. Instead he says that he is ready to be bound and even to die (21.10-13). So far
Paul finds care and safety in the homes of his fellow Christians, even in Judea,
while only a sense of doom surrounds Jerusalem.
Yet when Paul arrives in Jerusalem (21.17), he is received gladly by the church
in the city. He is, however, encouraged to support four men in completing a vow
in the temple (which includes shaving their heads) and to join them in purification
(21.23-24). Prior to the Ephesus material, Paul is involved in a vow process
where he shaves his own head (18.18). Luke Timothy Johnson (1992: 330) con-
nects the two incidents by arguing that Paul initiates his vow in Cenchreae but
finishes it here, in the temple. They have also been taken as two separate Nazirite
vows, each meant to address concerns about Paul’s law-abidingness (cf. 18.13;
21.21) (Koet 1996; see also Horn 1997). Whatever the case, that a similar vow
process precedes both riots creates an additional link on its own; if Johnson is
correct that the passages are two steps in a single process, the connection would
only be strengthened. Ironically, the process that is meant to prove to the ‘Jews
who have believed’ that Paul does not forsake Moses or circumcision (21.20-21)
will put him in the temple where he will be accused of teaching against ‘the peo-
ple and the law and this place’ (21.28).

Theme
The theme of both of these scenes has to do with temples. In the time of the story
world, each temple is a point of civic and national pride, entwined with other
legal, economic and political concerns. There is no indication in the presentation
of Paul in Acts that he would want to pose any threat to the temple in Jerusalem,
in fact quite the contrary, but from the narrative perspective of Luke and Acts,
Jesus and his church do exactly that. This is evident in the much-recognized
argument formed by these texts that the negative response of Jerusalem to Jesus
and his disciples makes the destruction of the temple inevitable.28 Through this
synkrisis, Acts argues that the temple (any temple) can no longer be the House of
God. Acts even provides an alternative: the house-church.
As the riot scenes in Acts 19 and 21 are both tied to temples, it is important
that the two cities should be readily identifiable with them. This is fairly certain
in the case of Ephesus due to the extreme fame of the Temple of Artemis. The
town clerk refers to Ephesus as ewko&ro, which in the case of Ephesus is

28. Even J. Bradley Chance (1988: 115-27), who gives much weight to passages in Luke and Acts
that can be interpreted as having a positive attitude toward the temple and Jerusalem, agrees
on this point.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

Tripp 99

principally tied to the presence of the Temple of Artemis in numismatic and

epigraphic evidence.29 Herodotus (Hist. 1.26.1-2) claims that the dedication of
the temple to Artemis saved the city from destruction by Croesus, who in fact
contributed to the building.30 Valerius Maximus (first century CE) calls it ‘the
most beautiful building’ (Memorable Deeds and Sayings 8.14.5) while Antipater
of Thessalonica (first century BCE), describing the Seven Wonders of the World,
concludes with the Temple of Artemis Ephesia as the greatest of the seven
(Greek Anthology 9.58). Pliny the Elder (Natural History 16; 33-36), Plutarch
(Life of Alexander 3.5-6), Aulus Gellius (second century CE, Attic Nights
2.16.18), Achilles Tatius (second century CE, Leucippe and Clitophon 7-8),
Xenophon of Ephesus (second century CE, Ephesian Tale 1; 5), and Pausanias
(Description of Greece 4.31.8; 7.2.6-7; 7.5.4) all mention the city of Ephesus in
tandem with the Temple of Artemis. The quantity and variety of these stories
about the temple testify to its fame. Add to the literary evidence the coins minted
in Ephesus featuring the temple or images of Artemis Ephesia,31 the large har-
bor and well-traveled roads leading to Ephesus (Worth 1999: 14-16) and the
expansionist nature of the Artemis cult (Trebilco 1994: 334), and it becomes
probable that anyone hearing Ephesus mentioned would anticipate that the tem-
ple will play a role.
Even though the Jerusalem temple did not enjoy the same fame as the Temple
of Artemis,32 the audience of Acts would be well informed about Jerusalem and
the importance of its temple. If not, both Luke and Acts have already conditioned
their audience to associate Jerusalem with the temple by the time that Paul arrives
for his final visit. The temple is the setting for much of the action of the early
Jerusalem church in Acts 2–7, including summary statements like 5.42: ‘And
every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and
preaching Jesus as the Christ’ (cf. also 2.46). Yet Acts 21 is the first we have seen
of it since Stephen was stoned for allegedly blaspheming the temple, a fact that
should help us anticipate a violent reception.

The Temples of Artemis and of God

Now that we have established that a comparison is being made between these
riots, it is time to look more closely at what both the similarities and differences

29. Horsley 1992: 136. The same term in other cases refers to the presence of the Imperial Cult.
30. Also Xerxes, passing through Ephesus, allowed all of the temples in Ephesus to be looted
except the one dedicated to Artemis (Worth 1999: 32).
31. The image of Artemis Ephesia was featured on coinage from more than 50 Asia Minor com-
munities (Worth 1999: 32). On these coins, Artemis is referred to as the leader, guide, founder,
ancestral goddess and patron of Ephesus (Oster 1982: 215).
32. However, see Strabo, Geo. 16.2.34, 37 and Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1.196-99, especially 2.79).

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

100 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37(1)

tell us about the attitude that Acts displays toward the temples in Ephesus and
Jerusalem. Historically the particular terms that Acts uses to describe the distur-
bance in Ephesus are important. Above it was noted that qo&ro is used (20.1).
In 19.23 the term is ta&rao. Later the town clerk uses ‘dissension’ (sta&si)
and calls the mob in the theater a ‘conspiracy’ (sstrof/).33 Paul Trebilco gives
two historical parallels to the scene in Acts. The first is from a second-century CE
proconsular edict from nearby Magnesia which describes a riot started by a bak-
ers’ guild:

Thus it comes about at times that the people are plunged into disorder (tara&) and
tumults (qor&o) by the meeting and insolent action of the groups of bakers in the
market-place, riots (sta&sew) for which they ought already to have been arrested and
put on trial … When from this time forward any one of them shall be caught in the act
of … starting any tumult (qor&o) and riot (sta&sew), he will be arrested (Trebilco
1994: 339).

The description of a first-century CE riot by Dio Chrysostom (Or. 34.21-22) of

linen-workers in Tarsus makes use of similar vocabulary (Trebilco 1994: 340).
Although these examples are motivated purely by economics, the riot in Acts 19
is likewise begun by members of a specific trade (in this case, silversmiths) for
economic reasons (19.24-27). By using this vocabulary Acts has set up a politi-
cally charged scene that would resonate throughout Asia. Yet, unlike the riot in
Magnesia, this disturbance does not require the intervention of the proconsul.
The economic dimensions should not be overstated, however, since they are
mentioned very briefly.34 Demetrius quickly notes the threats that Paul’s teach-
ing poses to the goddess and her temple (19.26-27).35 The riot itself is bracketed
by the cry of the crowds, ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!’ (19.28, 34).36 The

33. Johnson (1992: 350) notes the overtones of sedition in this final term (cf. 1 Macc. 14.44).
34. Wills is somewhat reductionistic when he attributes the riot to ‘greed’ alone (1991: 649).
The question of whether our Demetrius is the same as the neopoios Demetrius known from
an inscription, dated 50–100 CE, is left open (see Conzelmann 1987: 165 and Horsley 1992:
144-45), but would add to the religious dimension of his attack on Paul, (1) if this were the
case and (2) if it were known to the audience of Acts. The identification is unnecessary as the
religious dimension is already present without it.
35. Larry Kreitzer situates this scene in the context of two silver coins minted in Ephesus to
celebrate the marriage of Claudius and Agrippina. One side shows the couple, the other
‘Diana Ephesia’. These suggest a move towards the syncretism of the Imperial Cult with the
cult of Artemis, creating a patriotic fervor. ‘One can almost imagine the Ephesians saying:
“How dare this foreign Jew come here and criticize our sacred and holy temple of Artemis?”’
(Kreitzer 1987: 66).
36. The similar line in Xenophon, Eph. 1.11.5 is often cited in this context; cf. also the Acts of John
(Arnold 1989: 22), which may know our text. C.L. Brinks goes further, arguing, ‘Luke’s account
… cleverly and subtly compares Artemis with the God of the Christians and insinuates that even

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

Tripp 101

town clerk’s counter-argument is made in two parts, like the charges. The first
is completely pious: the greatness of Artemis, whose image fell from Zeus
(iopet/, and is thus not made by human hands; cf. 19.26),37 is unquestiona-
ble (19.35-36). The second is practical: these men have done nothing illegal;
there are legal procedures for bringing charges against them if they had; and
following this course of action puts them in danger of Roman enforcement of
order (19.37-40). To the extent that the town clerk is successful in calming the
crowd, it is based on an appeal to order and Ephesian confidence in their god-
dess. This latter element is well founded: the temple remained important into
the third century CE despite the early presence of an influential Christian
community.
Turning to Jerusalem, the Asian Jews bring two charges against Paul as
well. They complain that Paul teaches against this place and that Paul has
brought a Gentile into the temple, defiling this holy place (21.28). The first
claim closely echoes the first charge against Stephen (6.13), and Paul is seem-
ingly in the temple to demonstrate that he does not teach against the people,
the law, or the temple. Regarding the second, the narrator quickly explains
how they are mistaken: Paul never took Trophimus into the temple (21.29).
These diaspora Jews are just as wrong about Paul’s ‘attack’ on the temple as
other Asian Jews were about Stephen. Their aims are the same: the crowds
drag Paul out of the temple to safeguard its purity while seeking to kill an
innocent man (21.30-31).
Paul offers a form of self-defense in which he recounts his personal history
(22.1-21), including the story of his call. There are many oft-noted variations in
the three versions of this story in Acts (cf. 9.3-19; 26.12-18), but for us the most
important variation is that here—and only here—does Paul recount a separate
vision that he had while praying in the temple (22.17-21). Although in the first
narration (in Damascus) Jesus promises suffering to Paul (9.16), here—in the
temple—Jesus simply tells Paul to leave quickly because the people will not
accept his testimony (22.18). Paul protests that his credentials are impeccable
since he approved of the death of Stephen (22.19-20, thus creating an explicit

Artemis’s worshipers believed that the goddess faced a serious threat from a more powerful deity’
(Brinks 2009: 777). While this may be true, Brinks’s argument does not take into consideration
the similar scene in Jerusalem and the quick resolution of the Ephesian riot when he concludes:
‘The Christians and Jews … are victims of the riot, dragged along with the crowd but not per-
mitted to get a word in edgewise. In a competition of conduct, Artemis’s faithful are rebuked
for being rowdy and disruptive, and the respectability of her city is cast into doubt’ (2009: 792).
Nevertheless, Brinks draws much needed attention to the religious dimension of the conflict.
37. Fitzmyer (1998: 656) briefly links this back to Jerusalem: ‘as Christianity has reacted against
the cult of Yahweh in the temple of Jerusalem made by human hands (Stephen’s speech in
chap. 7), so now it reacts against temple images of the goddess “whom all Asia and the whole
world worship” made by human hands’.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

102 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37(1)

link to the last episode in the temple). Jesus responds by telling Paul to leave, and
that he will send Paul to the Gentiles (22.21). In fact, Jesus’ entire message to
Paul in the temple is characterized by three imperatives to leave,38 as well as two
futures that describe the program of Acts: they will not accept you, so I will send
you to the Gentiles.39
Yet here Paul is again in the temple, and he is in danger. There are two prob-
lems that Paul presents to the other Jews as Acts portrays them. The first is that
Paul is drawing Jews away from their traditions. Yet the adherents of Ephesian
Artemis are similarly threatened by Paul’s teaching. The second, related problem
is that Paul is including Gentiles in Jewish traditions. This has been an issue even
within the Jerusalem community of Jesus-followers (the ones, incidentally, still
habitually tied to the temple), but it is especially the case here. In Paul’s self-
defense before the crowds, he does his best (in a Hebrew dialect no less)40 to
present himself as a Jew devoted to the same God, praying in the same temple.
Yet as soon as the Gentiles are mentioned, the crowd calls for his life. After he
has been removed into Roman custody,41 Paul has a vision of the Lord telling
him that he must also testify in Rome (23.11); the conspiracy to kill Paul is noted
in the next verse. Allowing Gentiles into one’s social circle or even the syna-
gogue is one thing. A famous edict mounted in the temple threatening the lives
of any Gentile who enters makes it clear: allowing Gentiles into the temple is
quite another. These issues come to a head here, rather than in Thessalonica or
Corinth, because this is the home of the temple.
It would be a mistake, however, to isolate this conflict as one with Jews
alone, a mistake which is in part circumvented by the similar riot near the
Ephesian temple. In both places Paul’s teaching threatens the reputation that
they believe their temple deserves and the reaction is initially the same. One
group is made up of Gentiles, the other of Jews. The similarity is the presence
of the temple. The temple, whichever one we mean, is not the proper place of
worship. It causes exclusion and defensiveness. Acts argues against both the
great temple of the Jews and that of the Gentiles by presenting these two scenes
almost back to back.

38. In 22.18 Paul is told ‘make haste’ (speso) and ‘go away’ (e1celqe); the latter of these is
strengthened by ‘quickly’ (e0 ta&ei), while in 22.21 Paul is simply told ‘go!’ (pore&o).
39. Cf. especially the conclusion in 28.25-28 where Paul says that the salvation of God is sent to
the Gentiles after the Roman Jews fail to listen to him.
40. There is the possibility that the crowd believes Paul to be another ‘Greek’ like Stephen who
does not respect the temple (see above, n. 22).
41. The vision occurs after Paul has been taken ‘into the barracks/camp’ (ei0 t\ pareol/,
23.10). This phrase is repeated five other times in this context (21.34, 37; 22.24; 23.16, 32),
creating an echo of Luke’s sole use of a verbal cognate when Jesus weeps over Jerusalem in
Lk. 19.41-44, ‘your enemies will cast (parealosi) a barricade around you’ (Lk. 19.43).

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

Tripp 103

As we noticed, despite the numerous similarities between the two scenes,

they end very differently from each other. While in Ephesus the local govern-
ing bodies end the riot before Roman authorities need to intervene, in
Jerusalem the Roman authorities must intervene immediately. The accusers in
Ephesus are simply dismissed. Those in Jerusalem conspire to kill Paul so that
he must defend himself to Agrippa and two Roman governors, eventually
appealing to Caesar. Why construct the scenes in this way? Arguing that the
narrative simply reflects history is untenable in light of other traditions about
Paul’s time in Ephesus and the fact that the author of Acts is indeed an author.
He has created this synkrisis, which only highlights the divergent endings.
One group submits to order and legal authority, allowing Paul to move on.
This group’s temple still stands. The other group submits to chaos, trying to
circumvent Roman authority and to execute illegally a Roman citizen. This
behavior, taken as emblematic of Jerusalem, helps to explain why its temple
has been destroyed.
Acts portrays the Ephesians as resolving this conflict without violence and
finally without any real attack on Paul or on the church. Yet there are other
works in the NT that some believe comment on this episode, namely Paul’s own
references to the perils he faced in Ephesus in two letters written from that city:
1 and 2 Corinthians.42 In 1 Cor. 15.30 Paul asks why ‘we are in danger’
(kie&oe). Two verses later he claims that he fought with wild beasts at
Ephesus (15.32).43 It has also been conjectured that the dangers (ki&oi) that
Paul describes in 2 Cor. 11.26 may partially refer to events in Ephesus (cf. 2
Cor. 1.8) (Foakes Jackson and Lake 1933: 245). It is curious that Acts uses this
verb (kie&w) only in 19.27, 40 and that Paul uses it only to refer to events
in Ephesus. Some take the wild beasts in 1 Cor. 15.30 to be metaphorical,44 oth-
ers interpret them in literal terms.45 If the events in the theater did historically
turn violent, it is that much more notable that Acts chooses to portray the event
as ending so well. In that case, it would not be the only story in Acts that stops

42. For example, Witherington 1998: 586 and Barrett 2002: 299 (on 1 Cor. 15.32). See also
Fitzmyer 1998: 140, 637 for discussion. Fitzmyer, however, denies that the events alluded to
in 1–2 Corinthians bear any relation to the episode in Acts (1998: 655-56).
43. The possible connection between Paul fighting with beasts (e0qrioa&sa) and Artemis,
the lady of beasts (po&tia qrw~, Iliad 21.470) often goes unnoticed (Fitzmyer [1998: 657]
points to this reference but does not develop it). This link has been recently examined in more
detail by Williams 2006.
44. Osborne 1966 argues that the beasts represent ‘Judaizers’ (we might say Jewish-Christians),
against other suggestions that they represent imperial power or the mob in Acts, while
Malherbe 1968 argues rather that Paul, using the diatribe, simply indicates evil men.
45. Maurice Carrez (1985: 777) and Kreitzer (1987: 68) take this position. If this is the case, Acts
avoids any indication of the fact.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

104 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37(1)

suddenly and well despite outside evidence of a more negative outcome (cf.
Acts 8.24; 28.30-31).46
After his defense in Jerusalem, Paul is brought before the Sanhedrin so that
the Roman commander can determine what Paul is accused of. The language in
this scene is important to note. In the theater, the town clerk, Asiarchs, silver-
smiths and crowds arrive at a certain peace and agreement. In the assembly of the
Sanhedrin, Paul takes advantage of the internal strife of the group by claiming to
be a Pharisee who is on trial for belief in the resurrection (a bit of a half-truth).
This immediately causes dissension (23.7). The multitude is divided (e0si/sq
to plqo, 23.7), causing a great clamor (krag\ ega&l, 23.9). In Ephesus,
the town clerk warns that they are in danger of being accused of dissension,
presumably to the Roman authorities. In Jerusalem, the dissension of the
Sanhedrin is recognized as such by the Roman authority who is already involved
(23.10). Because the commander takes Paul out, a ‘conspiracy’ is formed to kill
him (23.12). Again, this is a word that the town clerk uses to characterize what is
happening in Ephesus, and it is disbanded in the next verse. All the politically
loaded language that was earlier applied to the riot in Ephesus is not only applied
to the mobs that attack Paul in the temple but to the local ruling body in Jerusalem.
Moreover, the Jerusalem authorities are not in danger of being accused of these
disorderly acts—they are already guilty of them.
The quick involvement of the Roman commander also explains the relocation
of certain elements. By 21.31, a report reaches the commander that Jerusalem is
in confusion because its citizens are seeking to kill Paul. The shouting of the
crowd confirms that the city is already in a riot (21.34-35). It is only now that Paul
is in Roman custody that the call to kill him is given (aire a)to&, 21.36). Earlier
to Pilate (another Roman official), the chief priests had similarly called for Jesus’
life (aire toto, Lk. 23.18). The synkrisis between the two riots is not the only
parallel that Acts creates here, and this is one element that connects Paul’s trials
back to that of Jesus (Clark 2001: 181). However, moving Jerusalem into a riot so
much more quickly than Ephesus adds to the contrast established by the synkrisis
between the two cities, helping to characterize Jerusalem as so devoted to its tem-
ple (but, in the view of Acts, not to its God as revealed in Jesus Christ) that its
people try to circumvent Roman authority and kill those sent by God.
The attitude of Luke and Acts toward the Jerusalem temple is complex.
Certainly there are positive elements in its portrayal of the temple in the early
stages of the narrative, and it never depicts Paul as disrespectful of the temple.

46. There is also the hypothesis (Mount 2002: 123-27) that Acts has modified a local story about
an uprising against (non-Christian) Jews by inserting a few references to Paul. If this is the
case, Acts still chooses this story into which to insert Paul, with the Ephesians obeying the
rule of law, while at the same time building parallels with the even more chaotic scene in
Jerusalem.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

Tripp 105

Yet the riot scene in Acts 21–22 is not the only anticipation of the temple’s
destruction, especially if the Gospel of Luke is included. However, it is the last
we see of the temple, and soon after, the last we see of Jerusalem. The cult’s
participants feel that Paul’s message threatens ‘this holy place’, causing an irra-
tional, bloodthirsty mob to emerge. The chief priests and the Sanhedrin should
calm the crowd enough to investigate whether the temple has been defiled or
whether Paul has spoken out against it, but they do not do so. They close the
doors to protect the temple instead of protecting either Paul or the people:

Thus, ironically enough, the Temple has become for Paul the place where his Jerusalem
troubles begin. Luke adds the symbolic detail, that the gates of the Temple ‘were
closed at once’. The Temple henceforth would have no meaning for the Christian
church. Early Christians had in the beginning continued to worship there with
Jerusalem Jews, but now the latter have turned against the ‘apostle of the Gentiles’,
and the gates of the Temple have been closed against him (Fitzmyer 1998: 697).

Their devotion to the institution of the temple is misdirected. An informed reader

knows the unhappy ending: the Temple of God is destroyed in a rebellion against
Rome.47

Conclusion
Where the Pharisees, and their rabbinic heirs after the temple’s destruction, tried
to extend the purity of the temple into the home so that the house of each Jew
approached the holiness of the House of God,48 Christians, particularly as repre-
sented in Acts, began to replace the temple with the house-church as the space of
God’s presence.49 John Elliott, limiting his study to the Jerusalem temple in Acts,
highlights ‘what appears to be a deliberate contrast drawn between temple and
household’, and goes on to make a statement that is applicable to both the Jewish
and Gentile readers of Acts:

47. The temple’s (and Jerusalem’s) capture and/or destruction by various Romans is perhaps the
most well-known fact about it; see Livy, Per. 102; Valerius Flaccus (first century CE), Arg.
1.13-14; Tacitus, Hist. 2.4; Josephus, War 1.8; Appian, Syr. Lib. 50.252; Suetonius, Div. Tit.
5.2; Philostratus (third century CE), Vita Ap. 6.29; Cassius Dio (third century CE), Hist. Rom.
66.4-7.
48. ‘Other Jews … supposed that purity laws were to be kept only in the Temple … But the
Pharisees held that even outside of the Temple, in one’s own home, the laws of ritual purity
were to be followed in the only circumstance in which they might apply, namely, at the table’
(Neusner 1972: 83).
49. There has been much work on the house-church in Acts in recent decades, including Blue
1994, Matson 1996 and Neyrey 2003. See also the related phenomenon in the Qumran writ-
ings, where the community is described as a ‘holy house’ where sacrifices are no longer burnt
offerings but the ‘offerings of the lips’ (cf. 1QS 9.3-6).

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

106 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37(1)

[I]n the Lukan economy of salvation, the temple system and the household represent
opposed types of social institutions. Only one of them, the household, is capable of
embodying socially and ideologically the structures, values, and goals of an inclusive
gospel of universal salvation (Elliott 1991a: 212-13).50

By concluding with violence stemming from both Gentile and Jewish temples,
Acts avoids legitimizing Gentile temples in the process of moving away from a
temple-based worship of God.
I will conclude with some reflections on how the synkrisis created in Acts 19
and 21–22 would read to the various potential audiences of Acts. We can con-
sider these audiences in three categories that are neither exhaustive nor mutually
exclusive: non-Jewish outsiders, non-Jewish converts and converts who are
either Jewish or who are attracted to the Judaistic aspects of Christianity. It is not
entirely unrealistic to imagine a non-Jewish outsider hearing part or all of Acts,
including through public proclamations or an official investigating Christians.51
The riot scenes defend Christian groups from accusations of sacrilegious or blas-
phemous attacks on temple establishments, shifting the blame away from the
Christians and onto the defenders of the temples. Meanwhile, the Christian
groups are presented as inclusive and obedient to authority while the non-
Christian Jews are portrayed as exclusive and disrespectful of Roman power.
Non-Christian Gentiles are presented as somewhere in the middle, perhaps in a
position to make the transition either way. Acts appeals to the Jewish heritage of
Christianity, a move that avoids accusations of novelty while perhaps acquiring
some of the special rights of Jews for Christianity as a Jewish sect. Yet the nar-
rative flow of Acts, including the final scenes in Jerusalem, distances Christianity
from the exclusiveness and violent nationalism, tied to the temple, that were
viewed as negative traits of Palestinian Judaism, especially after the Judean
revolt.52
Yet some Gentiles who heard the message of Christianity became Christians
themselves. Religious participation in temple institutions would have been a
long practiced habit to break. The proper boundary lines between the Christian
community and non-Jewish temple practices are a major issue in 1 Cor. 8–10,
which was written in Ephesus. The Ephesians were quite proud of their temple.
To abandon it would be to endanger the city; it would also endanger one’s status

50. See also Elliott 1991b. As Elliott (1991a: 218) points out, the Jerusalem temple is called the
‘House of God’ four times in Luke but only once at the end of Stephen’s speech in Acts 7.47-
50 and never thereafter; nor is the temple portrayed positively after Stephen’s death.
51. Cf. Pliny the Younger’s letter to Trajan (Ep. 10.96), in which he complains that people are
deserting the temples because of Christian influence; his investigation and concerns (exagger-
ated or not) provide an appropriate, roughly contemporary, example.
52. I am thinking particularly of the anti-Jewish history of Tacitus (Hist. 2.4-6; 5.1-13), or the
similarly anti-Jewish claims of Apion (Ag. Ap. 2.121).

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

Tripp 107

in a city where political and business relationships were often mediated by the
temple. Did the temptation to participate in feasts or civic cultic events exist at
the time of Acts, as it did in Corinth when Paul wrote about the etiquette of eat-
ing idol meat? Would Ephesians and dwellers of other cities have reasoned simi-
larly to the ‘strong’ in Corinth: these idols, including Artemis, are not gods, so
what is the danger of benefiting from the temple?53 Would new Christians who
had grown up going to temples become wary of abstract ideas like the house-
church or the presence of God in the assembly of believers, longing for some-
thing more tangible, a sacred place (not just a sacred space) where they could
offer worship? Acts warns them against this by portraying temples as places of
danger for Christians, while arguing for the church as a space of mutual eco-
nomic and spiritual support.54
The importance given to the temple in Luke and Acts suggests that the
author(s), like many Jews and Jesus-followers, would have been greatly
impacted by its destruction. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it was difficult for many
Jews of various stripes completely to abandon a temple mentality even after
there was no longer an actual temple.55 John of Patmos, who is also connected
to Ephesus (Rev. 2.1-7), longed for the arrival of a new Jerusalem, one not
made by human hands and, notably, one without a temple (Rev. 21.22).
Whatever role the temple may have played prior to Acts 7, both Stephen’s
speech and his death establish that Jesus’ disciples cannot hope to find any-
thing but violence in its precincts. Jesus tells Paul as much in Paul’s temple
vision, a fact highlighted by the decision anachronistically to hold off telling
this story until he is under siege for entering the temple. The church should not
long for the return of the temple. The church itself is now God’s house, the
place where God’s Spirit dwells.

References
Arnold, Clinton E.
1989 Ephesians: Power and Magic. The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of its
Historical Setting (SNTSMS, 63; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Barrett, C.K.
2002 The Acts of the Apostles: A Shorter Commentary (London: T&T Clark).

53. John of Patmos similarly complains of Christians in nearby Pergamum (Rev. 2.14) and
Thyatira (Rev. 2.20) eating food sacrificed to idols, implying some sort of proximity to temple
practices.
54. Within the immediate material, cf. 19.19; 20.33-35; 21.23-24. The desire to portray the
church as economically supportive may provide another reason for Acts to avoid mentioning
Paul’s collection for the church in Jerusalem (if the author was aware of it); the necessity of
this donation might imply that the economic model of Acts is unsuccessful.
55. See the discussion and references in Taylor 2004: 460-81.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

108 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37(1)

Bersot, Jonathan
2012 ‘Parallélismes et synkrisis dans la finale de Luc: observations narratologiques en
Luc 23, 50-24, 53’, Études théologiques et religieuses 87: 19-34.
Bock, Darrell L.
2007 Acts (BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic).
Bonner, Stanley Frederick
1977 Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny (Los
Angeles: University of California Press).
Blue, Bradley
1994 ‘Acts and the House Church’, in David W.J. Gill and Conrad Gempf (eds.), The
Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. II. The Book of Acts in its Graeco-Roman
Setting (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans): 119-222.
Brinks, C.L.
2009 ‘“Great is Artemis of the Ephesians”: Acts 19:23-41 in Light of Goddess Worship
in Ephesus’, CBQ 71: 776-94.
Cairns, Francis
2007 Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry (Ann Arbor: Michigan Classi-
cal Press).
Carrez, Maurice
1985 ‘Note sur les évènements d’Éphèse et l’appel de Paul à sa citoyenneté romaine’,
in À cause de l’évangile: études sur les Synoptiques et les Actes offertes au
P. Jacques Dupont (LD, 123; Paris: Cerf): 769-77.
Chance, J. Bradley
1988 Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke–Acts (Macon, GA: Mercer Uni-
versity Press).
Clark, Andrew C.
2001 Parallel Lives: The Relation of Paul to the Apostles in the Lucan Perspective
(Waynesboro: Paternoster Press).
Conzelmann, Hans
1987 Acts of the Apostles (trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel and Donald H.
Juel; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
Elliott, John H.
1991a ‘Temple versus Household in Luke–Acts: A Contrast in Social Institutions’, in
Jerome H. Neyrey (ed.), The Social World of Luke–Acts: Models for Interpreta-
tions (Peabody, PA: Hendrickson Publishers): 211-40.
1991b ‘Household and Meals vs. Temple Purity: Replication Patterns in Luke–Acts’,
BTB 21.3: 102-108.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A.
1998 The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(Anchor Bible Commentaries, 31; New York: Doubleday).
Foakes Jackson, F.J. and Kirsopp Lake
1933 The Acts of the Apostles (The Beginnings of Christianity, 4; London: MacMillan).

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

Tripp 109

Forbes, Christopher
1986 ‘Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventions of Hel-
lenistic Rhetoric’, NTS 32: 1-30.
Giblin, Charles Homer
1985 The Destruction of Jerusalem According to Luke’s Gospel: A Historical-Typolog-
ical Moral (AnBib, 107; Rome: Biblical Institute Press).
Horn, Friedrich W.
1997 ‘Paulus, das Nasiräat und die Nasiräer’, NovT 39: 117-37.
Horsley, G.H.R.
1992 ‘The Inscriptions of Ephesos and the New Testament’, NovT 34: 105-68.
Jervell, Jacob
1998 Die Apostelgeschichte (KEK, 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Johnson, Luke Timothy
1992 The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina, 5; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).
Koet, Bart J.
1996 ‘Why Did Paul Shave his Hair (Acts 18,18)? Nazirate and Temple in the Book of
Acts’, in Marcel Poorthius and Chana Safrai (eds.), The Centrality of Jerusalem:
Historical Perspectives (Kampen: Kok Pharos): 128-42.
Kreitzer, Larry J.
1987 ‘A Numismatic Clue to Acts 19.23-41: The Ephesian Cistophori of Claudius and
Agrippina’, JSNT 30: 59-70.
Lupieri, Edmondo
forthcoming ‘A Beast and a Woman in the Desert, or the Sin of Israel: A Typological
Reflection’, in Eric F. Mason, Alec Lucas and Edmondo Lupieri (eds.), The
Golden Calf: Tradition and Reception in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
MacMullen, Ramsay
1966 Enemies of Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire (Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Malherbe, Abraham J.
1968 ‘The Beasts at Ephesus’, JBL 87: 71-80.
Marguerat, Daniel
2011 Lukas, der erste christliche Historiker: Eine Studie zur Apostelgeschichte
(ATANT, 92; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag).
Matson, David L.
1996 Household Conversion Narratives in Acts: Pattern and Interpretation (JSNTSup,
123; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Mount, Christopher
2002 Pauline Christianity: Luke–Acts and the Legacy of Paul (NovTSup, 104; Leiden:
Brill).
Mussies, Gerard
1991 ‘Variation in the Book of Acts’, FN 4: 165-82.
1995 ‘Variation in the Book of Acts (Part II)’, FN 8: 23-62.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

110 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37(1)

Neusner, Jacob
1972 From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Neyrey, Jerome H.
2003 ‘“Teaching You in Public and from House to House” (Acts 20.20): Unpacking a
Cultural Stereotype’, JSNT 26.1: 69-102
Omerzu, Heike
2009 ‘Spurensuche: Apostelgeschichte und Paulusbriefe als Zeugnisse einer ephe-
sischen Gefangenschaft des Paulus’, in Jörg Frey, Jens Schröter and Clare K.
Rothschild (eds.), Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und frühchristlicher
Historiographie (BZNW, 162; Berlin: De Gruyter): 295-326.
Osborne, Robert E.
1966 ‘Paul and the Wild Beasts’, JBL 85: 225-30.
Oster, Richard
1982 ‘Numismatic Windows into the Social World of Early Christianity: A Method-
ological Inquiry’, JBL 101: 195-223.
Parsons, Mikeal C.
2004 ‘Luke and the Progymnasmata: A Preliminary Investigation into the Preliminary
Exercises’, in Todd C. Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele (eds.), Contextual-
izing Acts: Lukan Narratives and Greco-Roman Discourse (Leiden: Brill): 43-64.
Pesch, Rudolf
1986 Die Apostelgeschichte (EKK, 5; 2 vols.; Zürich: Benziger Verlag).
Stanton, Graham N.
1992 A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
Stoops, Robert F., Jr
1989 ‘Riot and Assembly: The Social Context of Acts 19:23-41’, JBL 108: 73-91.
Tatum, W. Jeffrey
2010 ‘Why Parallel Lives?’, in Noreen Humble (ed.), Plutarch’s Lives: Parallelism
and Purpose (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales): 1-22.
Taylor, Nicholas H.
2004 ‘The Jerusalem Temple in Luke–Acts’, HTS 60: 459-85.
Trebilco, Paul
1994 ‘Asia’, in David W.J. Gill and Conrad Gempf (eds.), The Book of Acts in its First
Century Setting. II. The Book of Acts in its Graeco-Roman Setting (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans): 291-364.
Williams, Guy
2006 ‘An Apocalyptic and Magical Interpretation of Paul’s “Beast Fight” in Ephesus
(1 Corinthians 15:32)’, JTS 57: 42-56.
Wills, Lawrence M.
1991 ‘The Depiction of the Jews in Acts’, JBL 110: 631-54.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015

Tripp 111

Witherington, Ben, III

1998 The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans).
Worth, Roland H., Jr
1999 The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse and Greco-Roman Culture (New York: Pau-
list Press).

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV on April 7, 2015