Moises Preaching4

INFORMATION TO U SER S
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of th is reproduction is dependent upon th e quality of the

copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
RESURRECTION AND THE END OF HISTORY: THE RESURRECTION MOTIF IN

PAUL’S PREACHING AND DEFENSE IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL

SEMINARY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
BY
CASEY DERYL ELLEDGE
PRINCETON, NJ
2001
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n o f t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n proh ibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

UMI Number: 3006827
Copyright 2001 by
Elledge, Casey Deryt
All rights reserved.
___ ®
UMI
UMI Microform 3006827
Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

© Copyright Casey Deryl Elledge 2001
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

ABSTRACT
“Resurrection and The End o f History: The Resurrection M otif in Paul’s

Preaching and Defense in the Acts o f the Apostles”
Casey Deryl Elledge
Dissertation Adviser: Dr. James H. Charlesworth
An investigation o f the resurrection-judgment m otif in Paul’s
preaching and defense in Acts. Chapter 1 reviews the critical history and
proposes an approach to the problem through the study o f ancient literature.
Chapters 2-4 survey the portrayals o f Jewish beliefs regarding the
future life in 2 Maccabees, the Jewish Wars, and the Testaments o f the
Twelve Patriarchs.
These three works describe Jewish piety as hope in the reckoning o f
God’s justice beyond death. Within the literary works in which they appear,
these portrayals o f Jewish piety ennoble the Jewish people and affirm an
order o f divine retribution that stands over the histories they relate.
Informed by these works, Chapter 5 pursues an exegesis o f the
resurrection-judgment m otif in the scenes o f Paul’s preaching and defense.
The exegesis observes that in Paul’s missionary and forensic speeches, the
author o f Acts develops a concern with the idea o f the resurrection itself that
is distinctive from the earlier proclamation o f Jesus’ resurrection.
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p ro d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e rm is s io n .

Accompanying this development is the association between belief in Jesus’
resurrection and Jewish hopes o f a future resurrection-judgment.
Chapter 6 explores the theological-eschatological assumptions o f this
connection. The resurrection-judgment m otif in the Pauline speeches
assumes a comprehensive vision o f the divine plan that extends from
creation, to the resurrection o f Jesus; and from the resurrection o f Jesus, to a
future resurrection-judgment.
Chapter 7 provides proposals for the rhetorical strategies that underlie
this connection. Based upon the materials surveyed in Chapters 2-4, it
concludes that Paul’s hope in a resurrection-judgment is a device o f
characterization that heroizes his fidelity to Jewish ancestral religion. Paul’s
own faith in the resurrection-judgment also affirms that divine justice
ultimately stands over the events related in Acts. These aspects of
characterization and thematic commentary probably served a consolatory
function in relation to readers.
The study o f Paul’s resurrection faith within the context o f ancient
Jewish literature reveals the models o f religious heroism that Luke employed
in his presentation o f Paul. Even in the scenes o f his persecution, Paul’s
speeches point to an ultimate divine reckoning that stands over the church’s
situation within the divine plan.

CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................ x
PREFACE................................................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER I: CRITICAL INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSAL OF METHOD: THE
RESURRECTION-JUDGMENT MOTIF IN PAUL’S PREACHING AND DEFENSE:
ITS ROLE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF ACTS.............................................................. 1
History of Interpretation
The Tubingen Critics
“Radical ” Responses to the Tubingen School
Martin Dibelius
Ernst Haenchen
Henry J. Cadbury
Hans Conzelmann
Paul Schubert
Jacob Jervell
Robert C. Tannehill
John T. Carroll
Summation
Method
iii

CHAPTER 2: APPEALS TO THE FUTURE LIFE IN 2 MACCABEES........................68
Introduction
Appeals to the Future Life in 2 Maccabees
Survey of Attestations
The Legend o f the Seven Sons and Their Mother
The Prayer o f Razis
The Faith o f Judas
Concept of the Future Life
Function of the Future Life
Heroization o f Piety
The Problem o f Theodicy
Association with the Readers
Table I
CHAPTER 3: APPEALS TO THE FUTURE LIFE IN JOSEPHUS’ JEWISH
WARS........................................................................................................................................110
The Two Teachers
Josephus' Oration against Suicide
Titus Rouses His Troops
Eleazar's Last Stand
Concept of the Future Life
The Future Life: A Topic within Jewish Philosophy
iv
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r re p r o d u c tio n p roh ibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

Sources fo r Josephus ’ Translation Effort
Synthesis
Table II
Excursus I: Im m ortality: Idealists and Skeptics in the Roman C ontext
CHAPTER 4: APPEALS TO THE FUTURE LIFE IN THE TESTAMENTS OF THE
TWEL VE PA TRJARCHS......................................................................................................... 165
Survey of A ttestations
Simeon's Prophecy
Judah’s Prophecy
Zebulon’s Prophecy
Concept of the F uture Life
T able III
Excursus 2: T he R esurrection Prophecy in the Testament o f Benjamin
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n p rohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

Summation of Chapters 2-4: Style, Theology, Rhetoric
CHAPTER 5: THE RESURRECTION-JUDGMENT MOTIF IN PAUL’S PREACHING
AND DEFENSE......................................................................................................................201
The Resurrection in Luke-Acts prior to the Athenian Episode
Jesus Refers to the Future Resurrection in His Own Teachings
Jesus and the Scripture Prophesy His Own Resurrection from the Dead
The Apostles Proclaim and Defend the Resurrection o f Jesus
The Resurrection-judgment M otif in Paul’s Preaching and Defense
The Resurrection and the Athenian Episode
The Resurrection and Paul's Hearing before the Sanhedrin
The Resurrection and Paul's Trial before Felix
The Resurrection and Paul's Trial before Agrippa
Summation
The Context o f the Speech Materials
The Context o f Sectarian Designations
The Context o f the Trials
CHAPTER 6: THE RESURRECTION-JUDGMENT MOTIF AND MODELS OF
LUKAN ESCHATOLOGY................................................................................................... 278
The Future Resurrection and Other Eschatologicai Emphases in Acts
The Kingdom
The Spirit
vi

The Resurrection and Luke’s Theology of History
The Resurrection and Israel's Ancestral Past
The Resurrection and the Coming o f the Messiah
The Resurrection and the Future o f the Whole World
The Resurrection and Models of Lukan Eschatology
Delayed Eschatology
Fulfilled Eschatology
Futuristic Eschatology
Individual Eschatology
Two-Level Eschatology
Summation
Table IV
CHAPTER 7: PAUL’S RESURRECTION HOPE: ITS FUNCTION IN THE ACTS OF
THE APOSTLES.................................................................................................................... 317
The Heroization o f Piety
The Problem o f Paul
The Problem o f Israel
Didacticism
Exhortation
Consolation
vii

Conclusion
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................ 351
viii
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e cop y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p ro d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e rm is s io n .

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.......................................................................................................................................109
Table 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 155
Table 3 .......................................................................................................................................193
Table 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 316
ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary
ANR W Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt:

Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der
neueren Forschung
AThR Anglican Theological Review
BBB Bulletin de bibliographie biblique
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum

lovaniensium
BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche

Wissenschaft
BWANT Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Altenund Neuen

Testament
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series
CRINT Compendium rerum iudaicarum ad Novum

Testamentum
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DJDJ Discoveries in the Judaean Desert o f Jordan
EB Etudes bibliques
ExpTim Expository Times
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten

und Neuen Testaments
H ibJ Hibbert Journal
HTKNT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen

x

Testament
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HTS Harvard Theological Studies
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
Int Interpretation
JAAR Journal o f the American Academy o f Religion
JBL Journal o f Biblical Literature
JJS Journal o f Jewish Studies
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JSHRZ Jiidische Schriften aus hellenistisch-rdmischer Zeit
JSJSup Journal for the Study o f Judaism Supplement
JSNT Journal fo r the Study o f the New Testament
JSNTSup Journal for the Study o f the New Testament

Supplement
JSS Journal o f Semitic Studies
JTS Journal o f Theological Studies
NICNT New International Commentary on the New

Testament
NovT Novum Testamentum
NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplement
NTS New Testament Studies
OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
PG Patrologia Graeca
xi

RevQ Revue de Qumran
RhThPh Revue de theologie et de philosophie
SBLDS Society o f Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SBLSP Society o f Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
SJT Scottish Journal o f Theology
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph

Series
STDJ Studies on the Texts o f the Desert o f Judah
TAPA Transactions o f the American Philological

Association
TDNT Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen

Testament
WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift fu r die Kunde des Morgenlandes
VC Vigiliae christianae
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTGASLG Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate

Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis
ZA W Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZN W Zeitschrift ju r die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

und die Kunde der alteren Kirche
ZTK Zeitschrift Jur Theologie und Kirche
xii
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r re p r o d u c tio n proh ibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

PREFACE
This thesis is the result o f two years o f specialized dissertation research conducted
at Princeton Theological Seminary (2000-01).
All translations are those o f the author, unless otherwise noted.
Conventions o f style and abbreviation generally follow The SBL Handbook o f
Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (ed. P. Alexander
et.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999).
Special thanks are offered to a dissertation committee, whose provocative classes
and careful guidance in research, not only cultivated the earliest development o f this
work, but also nourished it until its completion. I am indebted to Prof. Don Juel for
assisting in the original proposal o f research, and for a careful reading and critical
commentary on the results. Prof. Beverly Gaventa was especially gracious in continuing
to work with this project, even during her own sabbatical year. Her thorough and incisive
reading o f this work allowed me to improve its quality dramatically throughout. Finally,
to Prof. James H. Charlesworth, who served as the chair o f this committee, I offer special
thanks for five unforgettable years o f specialized research into the language, history, and
literature o f Early Judaism - and for the contagious enthusiasm o f discovery.
I am blessed to have conducted this research in the presence o f numerous friends
and colleagues whose occasional comments have left their mark upon this work,
especially Dr. Bill Campbell, Michael T. Davis, John B.F. Miller, Lidija Novakovic,
Prof. Henry W.L. Rietz, and Matthew Skinner. I am forever grateful to Rebekah Ann
Bozeman for her cheerful assistance in the task o f editing the manuscript.
xiii

CHAPTER 1:
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSAL OF METHOD:
THE RESURRECTION-JUDGMENT MOTIF IN PAUL’S PREACHING AND
DEFENSE: ITS ROLE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF ACTS
Historie et eschatologie: tout a commence p a r la.

F ra n c is Bovon1
As Robert Maddox notes in The Purpose o f Luke-Acts, Paul’s arrest, trial, and
imprisonment in Acts 21:27-28:31 constitute “some 23.5% o f the text o f Acts and 12%
o f the whole o f Luke-Acts.”2 An especially prominent feature o f these climactic
chapters o f Luke-Acts is the recurrence o f Paul’s defense speeches (22:1-21; 23:6;
24:10-21; 25:8-12; 26:2-23). Despite the substance o f these speeches, Jacob Jervell
laments that “The apologetic speeches o f Paul have received only second-rate treatment
compared to the speeches in Acts 1-17.”3 This has proven an unfortunate oversight in
critical studies o f Luke-Acts, since these speeches recapitulate and further develop
numerous Lukan concerns, as the author brings his entire two-volume work to a close.
Among the most decisive concerns for Luke in these speeches is Paul’s4 belief in the
resurrection o f the dead, a m otif that seems strangely out o f place in the context o f a
1Franqois Bovon, Luc le theclogien: Vingt-cinq ans de recherches (1950-1975)

(Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1978), 19.
2Robert Maddox, The Purpose o f Luke-Acts (ed. J. Riches; Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark,
1982), 66.
3Jacob Jervell, The Theology o f the Acts o f the Apostles (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1996), 85-86 n. 159.
4The word “Paul” in this study refers directly to the Paul who is portrayed by the author
of Acts. Where “Paul” is referred to as an historical person and the author of the Pauline
epistles, this will be specifically noted, usually by the use of the term “the historical Paul.”
1

technical legal defense, yet one that the author has raised to forceful emphasis within
these climactic chapters.
The portrayal o f Paul’s faith in the resurrection o f the dead becomes a decisive
concern for Luke in four major speeches in the scenes o f Paul’s preaching (15:36-
20:38) and defense (21:27-26:32). Beginning with the Areopagus speech, Luke’s
concern with the resurrection and future judgment resurfaces for the first time since
Peter’s preaching in Cornelius’ house (Acts 10:40-43) and Paul’s preaching in Pisidian
Antioch (13:16-41):
1. In Paul’s visit to Athens, the preaching o f “Jesus and the resurrection”
provides the narrative context that introduces Paul’s Areopagus speech (17:18, “for he
was preaching the good news o f Jesus and the resurrection"). The resurrection also
serves as the climactic vindication o f his Areopagus speech as a whole (17:31, “for he
[God] has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man
whom he has ordained, having granted assurance to all, having raised him from the
dead"), and it introduces the denouement to the entire episode (17:32, “But when they
heard the resurrection o f the dead, some began making mockery, but others said, ‘We
will hear you concerning this also again’”).
2. A second instance o f this specific concern with the resurrection occurs in
Paul’s hearing before the Sanhedrin (23:6-11). His professed faith in the resurrection
(23:6, “concerning hope and resurrection o f the dead I am being held in judgment”)
creates a schism between the Sadducees, who deny the doctrine, and the Pharisees, who
hold fast to it as does Paul (23:8, “For while Sadducees say that there is no resurrection,
neither angel nor spirit, Pharisees confess both”).

3
3. In his trial before Felix, Paul continues to declare his hope in the
resurrection and to insist that he is on trial for this very hope (24:15-16, “Having a hope
in God, which they themselves also await, that there is to be a resurrection o f the ju st
and unjust. Because o f this, I myself aiso strive to have a conscience void o f offence
toward God and human beings, always”; 24:21, “Concerning the resurrection o f the
dead I am being held in judgment before you today”).
4. Finally, in a speech that some critics have described as the theological
climax o f Paul’s defense,5 Paul bears witness to Agrippa that the resurrection represents
the essence o f Jewish ancestral religion and hope for the future (26:6-8, “Even now I
stand under judgment for the hope o f the promise made by God to our fathers, to which
our twelve tribes, as they serve with zeal night and day, hope to attain - concerning this
hope I am being accused by Jews, O King. Why is it judged unbelievable to you that
God raises the d eadT j. One final reference to the resurrection brings the entire
complex o f defense speeches to their conclusion (26:23, “whether the Messiah would be
capable o f suffering, whether as the first from the resurrection o f the dead he would
proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles”).
Three additional narrative references reinforce the motif. First, Luke reports
that in Paul’s private discourses to Drusilla and Felix, he teaches concerning “the
coming judgment” (24:25), a theme introduced in the Areopagus speech (17:31) and
further acclaimed in Paul’s defense speech before Felix (24:15). Second, in
5Robert F. O’Toole, Acts 26: The Christological Climax o f Paul's Defense (Ac 22,1 -
26,32) (Analecta Biblica 78; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 160; see also Robert C.
Tannehill, The Narrative Unity o f Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation (2 vols.; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1991-94; orig. 1986-90), 2:287; “The Narrator’s Strategy in the Scenes of Paul’s
Defense,” Forum (1992): 255-69.

4
summarizing Paul’s case before Agrippa in 25:19, Festus reports that Paul’s Jewish
accusers brought a surprising charge against him. Instead o f accusing him o f the usual
crimes, they disputed about controversial “matters o f their own religion and about a
certain Jesus who had died, whom Paul claimed to be alive” (25:19). Third, though he
does not refer directly to the resurrection o f the dead, Luke recalls the “the hope o f
Israel” one last time in Acts 28:20 as he concludes his story, recapitulating the theme of
Paul’s resurrection “hope” which was repeated throughout the trial scenes.6
Though one might appropriately describe these passages as a “ functional
redundancy,” to use the terminology o f Ronald Witherup,7 one must also note that amid
the repeated assertions, there is a fascinating variety o f descriptive terms for the
resurrection. They are not merely formulaic. The resurrection can be preached as
“good news” alongside the very name o f Jesus (17:18), whose own resurrection from
the dead now serves as a guarantee to the Athenians that affirms the reality o f future
judgment (17:31). It confounds the Athenians, evoking mockery and curiosity (17:32).
Above all, it is a “hope,” for which Paul stands on trial (23:6; 24:15; 26:6; cf. 28:20), a
hope that promotes divisions among rival parties o f Jews (23:8), despite the fact that
Paul presents it as the essence o f the faith o f the twelve tribes throughout history (26:6-
6This is possible, given the dynamics of Lukan style, since it is often the case that “an
argument fully developed in one speech is only referred to in another”; John T. Townsend, “The
Speeches in Acts,” /17M42 (1960): 151.
7Ronald D. Witherup, “Functional Redundancy in the Acts o f the Apostles: A Case

Study,” JSNT 48 (1992): 67-96. Witherup developed this term to express the literary function
of the repeated accounts of Paul’s conversion. One might also classify this phenomenon
according to “repetition and variation,” “distribution and concentration,” using the terminology
of Henry J. Cadbury, “Four Features of Lucan Style,” in Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor
o f Paul Schubert (ed. L. Keck and J. Martyn; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), 87-102.
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r re p r o d u c tio n prohib ited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

5
8). As an act o f future and universal judgment, the resurrection is “o f the just and the
unjust” and demands a pure conscience before God in the present (24:14-16).
Furthermore, the resurrection o f Jesus points toward the future resurrection o f the dead,
since his own specific resurrection anticipates the universal and eschatological
resurrection (26:23). These passages do not merely hammer in the same m otif again
and again; they employ a number o f expressions and narrative contexts, reviving Luke’s
earlier concern with the resurrection in the speeches o f chapters 2 and 13, and
developing it in surprising new directions.
The sheer repetition and varied expressions o f resurrection language within
these speeches indicate that they serve a vital function within Luke’s rhetorical strategy
in the latter half o f the book o f Acts. Determining that function, however, has generated
varied readings o f these texts in critical history, so that no consensus communis
currently exists. This is especially problematic for interpretation o f Acts as a whole,
since it is in these very passages that Paul’s missionary preaching (15:36-20:38) turns
into his trial (21:27-26:32), thus spanning two o f the last great story complexes in the
earliest Christian history. In these crucial passages Luke begins to bring his epic story
to a close. What function do these appeals to the resurrection o f the dead serve in this
narrative context?
This dissertation proposes that Paul’s resurrection hope is one o f the primary
literary devices that the author o f Acts employs to come to terms with the problem o f
the eschatological future and its relationship to the author’s larger theology o f history.
This first chapter provides a review o f prior critical approaches to the passages that
portray Paul’s resurrection hope. Critical assessments o f Paul’s resurrection faith have

6
served as evidence in some o f the most important formulations concerning the
apologetical purpose o f Acts, from the early historical-critical research o f the Tubingen
School in the nineteenth century to the landmark works o f Martin Dibelius, Ernst
Haenchen, and Hans Conzelmann in the middle o f the twentieth. After the critical
review, I will propose a new option for assessing the function o f these texts in Paul’s
preaching and defense through a comparative literary analysis o f analogous speeches in
contemporary Jewish historical works that proclaim hope in the resurrection o f the
dead, immortality, and related concepts. This method o f analysis reveals how Luke
characterizes Paul according to contemporary models o f Jewish piety, in ways that help
Luke address the problem o f theodicy and console his readers that the divine plan will
yet culminate in the future in resurrection and final judgment.
History of Interpretation
The Tubingen Critics (c.1831-1908): Acts among Die Vereinigung Schriften
In order to do credit to contemporary exegetical contributions to the study o f this
topic, it is important first to recognize the historical-critical model o f the Tubingen
School as it relates to the study o f the book o f Acts, since the Tubingen scholars
proposed the first critical model for assessing the resurrection hope o f Paul. First
developed by its founder Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860), the Tubingen model
proposed that first-century Christianity was far from a uniform code o f beliefs and
conduct, but rather a conglomeration o f parties which frequently conflicted over
decisive issues o f faith and conduct. For this reason, interpreters o f the New Testament
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

7
must define an individual document’s Tendenz, “its special theological point o f view
within the context o f the history o f primitive Christianity”8 - a method o f research
termed Tendenzkritik. Though Baur was primarily an historian o f dogma, he produced
several books and essays that developed this method in terms o f New Testament
studies. Two bodies o f evidence were the most significant in developing his theory o f
party conflicts in “the early church”: 1. the party affiliations with which Paul must deal
in 1 Cor 1:11, which Baur simplified to a Gentile party (e.g., Paul and Apollos) and a
Jewish party (e.g., Peter and Christ);9 2. the later development o f anti-Paulinism in
Ebionite and pseudo-Clementine traditions, which implied a similar conflict between
Jewish (Petrine) and Gentile (Pauline) Christianity.10
Baur’s studies, however, were not limited to Pauline and extra-canonical anti-
Pauline literature. They also treated the book o f Acts as a distinctive response to this
atmosphere o f Jewish-Gentile conflict in the early church. By consistently painting the
portrait o f Paul in Acts 13-28 according to the outlines o f Peter drawn earlier in the
same book, Luke was attempting to harmonize two parties in conflict:
Indeed, whatever one may think o f the historical untrustworthiness o f the

Acts o f the Apostles, it is, in its fundamental idea and innermost
character, the apologetic attempt o f a Paulinist to initiate and bring about
the drawing together and uniting o f two opposing parties by making Paul
s As W. Ward Gasque defines the term; History o f the Interpretation o f the Acts o f the
Apostles (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1989; orig. 1975), 27.
9Ferdinand Christian Baur, “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der

Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christenthums in der altesten Kirche, der Apostel
Petrus in Rom,” Tubinger Zeitschrift fiir Theologie 5 (1831): 61-206. As the following quote
will indicate, the Paul-Peter conflict at Antioch (Gal 2:11-14) would further confirm the
existence of this conflict for Baur.
10Ibid., 115-20. On these two points, see Gasque, History o f Interpretation, 26-29.

g
appear as Petrine as possible and, correspondingly, Peter appear as
Pauline as possible, by throwing a veil o f reconciliation over the
differences which, according to the incontrovertible evidence o f Paul’s
declaration in Galatians, actually existed between the two apostles; and
by helping the Gentile Christians to forget their hostility toward Judaism
and the Jewish Christians, their hostility toward Gentiles, and to
concentrate on their common enmity toward the unbelieving Jews, who
had made Paul the constant object o f their implacable hatred."
The role of Acts as one o f the “unifying writings” {Die Vereinigung S ch riften f2 only
confirmed at a later historical juncture that the church was continuing to struggle within
itself along Jewish and Gentile divisions. Though Baur never undertook a
comprehensive exegesis o f Acts, his reconstruction o f the Sitz im Leben o f the book has
informed many assessments o f Paul’s resurrection faith in the trial scenes. As viewed
within the model proposed by Baur, the Jewishness o f Paul’s resurrection language in
the trial scenes would only have served to accentuate Paul’s fidelity to Jewish faith in
the eyes of Jewish Christians, thus conciliating the conflict between parties.13
Several o f Baur’s students expanded this essential model o f early Christian
history in more specific relationship to A cts.14 In a book specifically dedicated to the
purpose of Acts, Matthias Schneckenburger (1804-1848), a student o f both Baur and
11 Baur, “Christuspartei,” 119; irans. Gasque, History o f Interpretation, 28-29.
12Ibid, 119.
13Baur, of course, never directly argued this. For further assessments of Baur and the
Tubingen School, see Wemer Georg Kiimmel, The New Testament: The History o f the
Investigation o f Its Problems (trans. S. Gilmour and H. Kee; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972;
orig. 1970), 127-35; J.C. O’Neill, The Theology o f Acts in Its Historical Setting (London:
SPCK, 1961), 94-97; The Bible's Authority: A Portrait Gallery o f Thinkers from Lessing to
Bultmann (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1991), 117-25.
14For a thorough examination of the “Tubingen” approach to the trial scenes, see
William R. Long, “The Trial of Paul in the Book of Acts: Historical, Literary, and Theological
Considerations” (Ph.D. diss., Brown University, 1982), 316-29.

9
Hegel, would develop Baur’s party thesis more carefully in his own research o f the
defense speeches o f Acts 22-26, which he found to be concerned, not with essential
Pauline doctrines, but rather with the conciliatory presentation o f a Paul who was not
offensive to Jewish believers in Jesus.15 Albert Schwegler (1819-1857) further
employed Baur’s thesis in his own two-volume reconstruction o f the post-apostolic age.
This vast work recapitulated Baur’s thesis when treating the book o f Acts and its role
within the development o f Christianity.16 Like Schneckenburger, Eduard Zeller (1814-
1908), another o f Baur’s students, produced a comprehensive treatment o f the book o f
Acts. Zeller’s analysis claimed that the author o f Acts had thoroughly “Judaized” Paul,
in order “to purchase the recognition o f Gentile Christianity on the part o f Jewish
Christians by concessions to Judaism and in this way to influence both parties.” 17 Thus,
15Matthias Schneckenburger, Uberden Zweck der Apostelgeschichte: Zugleich eine

Erganzung der neueren Commentare (Bern: Fischer, 1841), 127-51, 152-218. SeeGasque,
History o f Interpretation, 32-40. Though there is no comprehensive treatment of the
resurrection passages in this work, Schnenckenburger’s comments on Paul’s Pharisaism in Acts
anticipate later trends. Schneckenburger argues that in Paul’s Pharisaism (23:6, 26:7-8), “Die
Hoffnungen der judischen Frommigkeit und die Verkundigung Jesu als des Messias harmonisch
sind”; Zweck der Apostelgeschichte, 144. Paul’s Pharisaism, along with his strong resemblance
to Peter, are part of Luke’s strategic mediating activity between Jewish and Gentile Christians
(151-52). Schneckenburger can also refer to the “Zankapfel der Auferstehung” in 23:6, a term
which suggests that Paul’s Pharisaic resurrection faith is a ploy to create conflict within the
Sanhedrin and demonstrate Paul’s acceptability to Pharisees (147).
16Albert Schwegler, Das nachapostolische Zeitalter in den Hauptmomenten seiner

Entwicklung (2 vols.; Tubingen: Mohr, 1846). Schwegler treated Luke and Acts within an
extended section on “Die paulinisch conciliatorischen Schriften” (37-135); and like both
Schneckenburger and Zeller, his interpretation of Acts 23:6 confirms a conciliatory Tendenz in
the work (94-96).
17Trans. Gasque, History o f Interpretation, 328; Zeller, Die Apostelgeschichte nach

ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung kritisch Untersucht (Stuttgart: 1854), 363. See also the edition by
the Theological Translation Fund, Zeller, The Contents and Origin o f the Acts o f the Apostles
Critically Investigated, to Which is Prefixed, Dr. Overbeck’s Introduction to the Acts from de
Wette's Handbook (trans, J. Dare; 2 vols.; London: Williams and Norgoth, 1875).
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e cop y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e rm is s io n .

10
“We hear but the maxims o f Jewish Christianity from the lips o f the Apostle o f the
Gentiles.” 18 Though he does not directly treat our resurrection passages in this context,
it is clear that the emphatic “Jewishness” and “Pharisaism” o f Paul’s resurrection hope
would only have provided further evidence for this reading o f Paul in Acts.19 In
addition to this statement of the purpose o f Acts, Zeller further proposed a secondary
theory that had already been implicit in Schneckenburger:20 that in Acts Luke
undertook a political apologetic that hoped to demonstrate that Christianity was not
politically dangerous to the Roman empire but was a peaceful religious movement
within Judaism.21
The contributions and shortcomings o f the Tubingen School o f Actaforschungen
are each voluminous, and cannot all be dealt with here. In specific relationship to
Paul’s resurrection faith in Acts, the most significant contribution o f the school has been
the development o f an apologetical model for interpreting the portrayal o f Paul in Acts.
Within this model, Luke appears to be defending the apostle against his detractors,
legitimating the position o f Gentile Christianity alongside Jewish Christianity, and
pacifying the empire’s view o f the emerging faith. Paul’s resurrection faith in the trial
18Zeller, Apostelgeschichte, 328; trans. Dare, Contents and Origin o f Acts, 2:123.
19Earlier in his exegesis of Acts 23:6-10, Zeller argued that Luke has completely
avoided the previous accusations against Paul (21:28), and has “in a sophistical manner”
substituted the idea of Paul’s hope in the resurrection. This maneuver is illustrative of the
tendential nature of Acts as a whole (284). Cf. 283-87; trans. Dare, Contents and Origin o f
Acts, 77-81.
20 Schneckenburger, Apostelgeschichte, 244-46.
21 Zeller, Apostelgeschichte, 365-69. This thesis was built primarily upon the
interactions between Paul and the representatives of Roman political rule (Acts 16:20-21; 17:6-
7; 18:13, 15; 19:37; 23:29; 24:5, 22; 25:18-19, 31-32).

11
scenes serves to affirm his authentic relation to Judaism’s ancestral hopes, thus
defending him against those who would question his relation to the ancestral religion.
The model o f the Tubingen school would have a long life and influence beyond mid
nineteenth century Germany. Even when the larger conflict-model o f the Tubingen
hypothesis has been abandoned or reinterpreted, aspects o f its apologetical approach to
the trial scenes survive in readings o f Acts proposed by Henry J. Cadbury, Martin
Dibelius, Burton Scott Easton, Ernst Haenchen, Jacob Jervell, Nils Dahl, Robert
Brawley, Hans Conzelmann, and Robert Maddox.
“Radical'’ Responses to the Tubingen School: Bruno Bauer, Franz Overbeck, and Paul
Schmiedel (c.1850-1935): Acts and the Crisis o f Gentile Christianity
Within the same generation in which the Tubingen School formulated its thesis
concerning party conflicts in “the early church,” a different model for the origins and
pupose o f Acts was proposed by scholars whom W. Ward Gasque characterizes as
“radical” respondents to the Tubingen School. These include Bruno Bauer (1809-88),
Franz Overbeck (1837-1905), and Paul Schmiedel (1851-1935). Among their numerous
idiosyncrasies and contributions is their common tendency to situate the historical
context o f Acts, not amid party conflicts among Gentile and Jewish Christians, but
rather at a time when Gentile Christianity had already taken the ascendancy and Jewish
Christianity was a matter o f distant historical memory. This ascendancy created a
problem o f Gentile alienation from its Jewish origins in the church, and Luke sought to
address this problem in the book o f Acts.

12
Bruno Bauer’s radicalism in biblical interpretation has been immortalized in the
work o f Albert Schweitzer22 and in numerous other critical studies.23 Though he is,
perhaps, best remembered as having written the first skeptical history o f Jesus,24 he also
made several important proposals about the apologetical purpose o f Acts. Bauer’s
proposal for the apologetic purpose o f Acts, however, differed from the Tubingen
model. Instead o f situating Acts as a conciliatory writing amid party conflicts in “the
early church,” Bauer proposed that the author o f Acts was attempting to demonstrate
how Christianity arose out o f Judaism to become a universal religion in his own time,
one primarily composed o f Gentiles, not Jews. Those aspects o f Acts that seemed to
resonate with Judaism were written to remind Gentile Christians o f the Jewish origins
o f their faith at a time when they had lost touch with their heritage and needed to be
reminded o f it.25 Aspects o f “Judaism” in Acts were, thus, not directed to or written by,
Jews at all. Instead, they represented the conservative spirit within Gentile Christianity,
Catholicism, which prized traditional scriptural and Jewish beliefs, such as monotheism,
ethical purity, and abstinence from idolatry. Acts was an important contributor to the
22 Albert Schweitzer, The Quest o f the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study ofIts Progress
from Reimarus to fVrede (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998; orig. 1906), 137-
60.
23 Martin Kegel, Bruno Bauer und seine Theorien iiber die Entstehung des Christentums
(Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1908); Ernst Bamikol, Das Entdeckte Christentum im Vormarz:
Bruno Batters Kampfgegen Religion und Christentum und Erstausgabe seiner Kampfschrift
(Aalen: Scientia, 1989; orig. 1927); O’Neill, The Bible's Authority, 130-65.
24 Bruno Bauer, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker (3 vols.; Leipzig,
O. Wiegand, 1941-42). As Schweitzer’s treatment noted, he was the first to have insinuated
total skepticism concerning the life of Jesus: E.g., “If a man of the name of Jesus has existed
...” (.Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker, 314).
25 Bruno Bauer, Die Apostelgeschichte: Eine Ausgleichung des Paulinismus und des
Judenthums innerhalb der christlichen Kirche (Berlin: Topelmann, 1850), 110-14, 118-22.

13
dissemination o f these ideas in the early church and represents the beginning o f a larger
development. A brief, but comprehensive, survey o f “Die Verteidigungsreden” served
to demonstrate this, and the Jewishness o f Paul’s resurrection hope was a key concern
o f Bauer in this section.26
Like Bauer, Franz Overbeck rejected the Tubingen formulation o f the
apologetical purpose o f Acts. The “nationale Antijudaismus” o f Acts disqualified it
from being a conciliatory gesture toward Jewish Christians, as the Tubingen model had
proposed.27 According to Overbeck, “Acts has abandoned Jewish Christianity as such”;
it is written in a context in which Gentile Christianity was already “the absolutely
dominant element in the church.”28 The purpose o f Acts is, thus, not to conciliate party
conflicts but to explain to Gentile Christianity how it came to be what it was by the
second or third decade o f the second century. Its theology was neither Pauline, nor
Jewish, but rather the theology that came to dominate early Catholicism.29 Overbeck
pressed his argument even further and retained an important aspect o f the work o f
Zeller. He found a secondary, political apologetic at work in Acts. The conspicuously
friendly relations between Paul and the Roman officials throughout his preaching and
defense betrayed an apologetical stratagem o f “averting political suspicions from
26 Bauer, Apostelgeschichte, 102-09.
27Franz Overbeck, Kurze Erkldrung der Apostelgeschichte: Von W.M.L. de Wette,

Vierte Auflage bearbeitet und stark erweitert von Franz Overbeck (Leipzig: 1870), xxx-xxxi.
As the title suggests, this work was originally a commentary begun by de Wette, but taken over
by Overbeck and refashioned according to his own ideas. See Gasque, History o f
Interpretation, 80-82; and the translation of Overbeck’s introduction to this work in Contents
and Origin o f the Acts o f the Apostles, 1-84.
28Overbeck, Apostelgeschichte, xxxi; trans. Gasque, History o f Interpretation, 331.

14
Christianity” in the eyes o f Gentiles outside o f the community.30 In this sense, Acts
marks the emergence of the kinds o f apologetic literature that would later flourish
during the persecutions o f the second and third centuries C.E.31
The proposals o f the “radical” critics concerning the apologetical purpose o f
Acts have proven significant for interpretation o f the resurrection-judgment passages
throughout the twentieth century. As the remainder o f this survey will show, Martin
Dibelius, Ernst Haenchen, Hans Conzelmann, as well as many others o f similar critical
bent, have been heavily influenced by the “radicals’” interpretation o f the setting and
purpose o f Acts. Three aspects o f their work have enjoyed an impressive longevity in
critical debate about the resurrection passages.
First, their thesis that Luke wrote at a time in which Christianity had grown
distant from Judaism and felt the need to emphasize the continuity in its own
redemptive history is still assumed by Dibelius, Haenchen, and Conzelmann when they
interpret the resurrection motif in Paul’s trials. As I shall argue in Chapter 6 o f this
study, an emphasis upon the continuity of sacred history in Acts cannot be avoided
when addressing these passages on the resurrection, regardless o f the historical context
19Overbeck, Apostelgeschichte, xxxi-xxxii.
30 Ibid., xxxii; trans. Gasque, History o f Interpretation, 332.
31 Overbeck, Apostelgeschichte, lxv. Additional assessments of Overbeck’s

contributions may be found in Kiimmel, History o f the Investigation, 109-25; O’Neill, The
Bible's Authority, 179-90.
Finally, one must mention Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel in connection with Bauer and
Overbeck. Like Bauer and Overbeck, Schmiedel understood Luke’s purpose as that of
justifying “the Gentile Christianity of himself and his time, already on the way to Catholicism”;
Encyclopedia Biblica 1 (1899), cols. 37-57, esp. col. 40. Luke’s method of achieving this goal
is to give an account of the origins of Christianity. An important secondary Tendenz in this
account is political. The author tends “to say as little as possible unfavourable to Roman civil
power” (col. 42). On these passages, see Gasque, History o f Interpretation, 91-92.

15
in which one imagines that Luke composed these chapters. In Paul’s trial scenes the
faith of the ancestors, God’s work in Jesus, and Paul’s own faith are essentially one and
the same. There have been no radical discontinuities in God’s work in history, and
Paul’s resurrection faith, rooted in ancestral religion and confirmed in Jesus’
resurrection from the dead, affirms the continuity between Christian faith and its Jewish
origins. In this sense, the “radicals’” approach to the resurrection passages has
remained an important contribution.
Second, the proposal o f a political apologetic, which the “radicals” shared with
Zeller and Schneckenburger o f the Tubingen School, would live on after them,
especially in the work o f Easton, Haenchen, and Conzelmann.32 The formation o f a
political apologetical reading o f Acts among the “radicals” would thus leave its mark on
two o f the landmark critical works o f the twentieth century. More recently, however,
the argument of a political apologetic in the resurrection passages has either been re
qualified or it has fallen entirely into critical disfavor.33
Third, the qualification o f Luke’s conservative “Jewish” theology as that o f
Fruhkatholizismus remained especially popular in twentieth-century German
scholarship, which continued to call attention to Luke’s divergence from the Paul o f the
epistles. In specific reference to the resurrection passages, this would occasionally lead
later interpreters34 to conclude that the resurrection m otif in the trial scenes was part o f
32Even Cadbury seems to have been influenced somewhat by this reading (see the
following section on Cadbury).
33 See the following section on Haenchen.
34 E.g., Dibelius, Barrett, and Talbert. See the following section dedicated to Dibelius.

16
Luke’s Gentile appropriation o f conservative Jewish theology in the face o f gnosticizing
trends in his own time. It is appropriate now to turn to the work o f Martin Dibelius, in
whom one may observe various strands o f the “radicals” gathered together and
interwoven within his own distinctive form o f literary interpretation.
Martin Dibelius (1883-1947): Stilkritik and Apology
As a complement to his form-critical studies on the gospels,35 Martin Dibelius
found it necessary to devise a different method o f exposition when treating the book o f
Acts. In Acts, the author did not have the same access to tradition that he did when
composing his gospel. Instead, the author demonstrates a greater stylistic freedom; and
interpretation o f Acts must come to terms with this “individual stamp” which the author
has impressed upon his work.36 “Stilkritik” was the name o f the method he developed
specifically for interpretation o f Acts. This method o f exposition aimed at “assessing
only the story-teller’s method o f writing and not the authenticity o f what he relates.”37
Dibelius’ development o f Stilkritik has provided the methodological foundation for a
great deal o f subsequent research into Luke’s distinctive role as writer and theologian.
The application o f this method in Dibelius’ essays on Acts was especially well suited
35 Martin Dibelius, Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tubingen: Mohr, 1919). See

also “Zur Formgeschichte des N.T.s (ausserhalb der Evangelien),” Theologische Rundschau 3
(1931): 209-42.
36Dibelius, “Style Criticism of the Book of Acts,” in Studies in the Acts o f the Apostles
(ed. H. Greeven; trans. M. Ling; Miffletown, Penn.: Sigler Press, 1999; orig. 1951), 1-25, esp.
page 3. The essay originally appeared in 1923. On Dibelius’ development of this method, see
also “The First Christian Historian,” Studies in the Acts o f the Apostles, 123-37.
37Dibelius, “Style Criticism of the Book of Acts,” 25.
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r re p r o d u c tio n proh ibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

17
for unveiling the apologetical strands which ran throughout the book and marked the
emergence o f those forms o f rhetoric and argumentation that would later flourish among
the great Christian apologists o f the second and third centuries. Both the Areopagus
speech and the defense speeches served Dibelius especially well in this regard. He
treated these primarily in three studies: “Paul on the Areopagus” (1939); ‘T he
Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography” (submitted 1944); and a few pages o f a
proposed, but never completed, volume on Paul the Radical Christian.38
In his essay on the Areopagus speech, Dibelius identified “a climax o f the book”
o f Acts in which the so-called apostle to the Gentiles finally preaches to the Gentiles.39
Yet this preaching was, for Dibelius, only marginally “Christian.” The cryptic
references to the resurrection o f an unnamed “man” (17:31) constitute the only
recognizably Christian materials in the speech. Otherwise, it is simply “a monotheistic
sermon,”40 “a Hellenistic speech about the true knowledge o f God.”41 Its distinctive
38All three are collected in the edition by Greeven: Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts
o f the Apostles.
39 Dibelius, “Paul on the Areopagus,” in Studies in the Acts o f the Apostles, 26-77, esp.
page 26; Dibelius would also recapitulate these basic arguments and refer back to his essay on
“Paul on the Areopagus” in “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography,” in Studies in
the Acts o f the Apostles, 138-91, esp. pages 152-54.
40 Dibelius, “Paul on the Areopagus,” 27.
41 Ibid., 57. Dibelius dichotomized Judaism and Hellenism (esp. Stoicism) in his
analysis of the speech, and concluded that the theology of the speech fit almost completely
within the thought-world of the latter. His criteria for this identification rested upon the
assumption that Judaism was characterized by historical thought, whereas Hellenism was
concerned with cosmic order and harmony. The Areopagus speech’s interest in the seasons, the
unity of humanity in the world, and the absence of historical epochs and political reigns in the
speech solidified its association with Hellenism. See “Paul on the Areopagus,” 27-37.

18
rationality and stylistic freedom make it a “foreign body” in the New Testament.42 The
Paul o f this speech is not that o f the epistles, but instead, “the precursor o f the
apologists.”43 Dibelius, however, rejects the thesis o f Eduard Norden44 and Alfred
Loisy45 that the speech is a later editorial insertion into the book o f Acts.46 Its style and
concerns are consistent with the author o f Acts, who stood at an historic turning-point in
the development o f early Christianity and “gave for the future the signal for the
Christian message to be spread abroad by means o f Hellenistic culture.”47 For Dibelius,
then, the Areopagus speech was finally “a symbol o f Christian theology in the
environment o f Greek culture.”48 The brevity o f the reference to the resurrection in v.
31 serves Dibelius as further evidence that the author was less interested in Christian
theology than in its positive cultural interaction with Hellenism. Jesus himself is not
even directly named in this reference. The resurrection is “only introduced in order to
prove that this unnamed man has been chosen.”49 Dibelius provides no serious
consideration o f the eschatological dimensions o f future judgment implied in v. 31. He
42 Dibelius, “Paul on the Areopagus,” 58, 64.
43 Ibid., 63.
44 Eduard Norden, Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religidser

Rede (Leipzig: Teubner, 1913), 3-83.
45 Alfred Loisy, Les Actes des Apotres: traduction nouvelle avec introduction et notes
(Paris: Rieder, 1925), 660-84.
46 Dibelius, “Paul on the Areopagus,” 64-77. See below on Jervell.
47 Ibid., 77.
48 Ibid., 77.
49 Ibid., 57.

19
is not even persuaded that this belief in future judgment is essentially Christian or
Jewish. He understands it, instead, as yet another aspect o f the common theology o f the
time.50 Dibelius also calls no attention to the further development o f the relationship
between Jesus’ resurrection and the future judgment in the trial scenes.
Dibelius did, however, treat the repeated references to the resurrection in Paul’s
defense speeches in his work on the speeches in Acts and their relationship to
Hellenistic historiography. Among the defense speeches o f chapters 21-26, Dibelius
was aware o f the recurrence o f resurrection language in Acts 23:6; 24:15, 21; and 26:8.
The “law o f repetition” indicated to him that the m otif was strategic for Luke’s
apologetic purposes in these chapters. He further observed that, in the defense speeches
o f Paul, Luke elevated the Jewish-Christian belief in the resurrection to a place o f
decisive importance as the essence o f Christian preaching.51
Dibelius conjectures several apologetical purposes which these references might
have served in the book o f Acts. These bear some resemblance to those proposed by
the Tubingen School, though Dibelius shares much more with the “radicals” than with
anyone else. Like Bauer, Overbeck, and Schmiedel, he reads Acts as an expression o f
Christianity at a time when the faith was growing distinct from its Jewish origins in
Diaspora communities. Luke’s response to this development is more theological for
50 Dibelius, “Paul on the Areopagus,” 56: “First comes the announcement of the divine
court, an item of eschatology such as might have been taught by many a religion and many a
preacher of the time.”
51 Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography,” 170-74, 180.

20
Dibelius than it was for the Tubingen School.52 Luke is a theologian, Dibelius claims;
not a “church-politician.”53 He responds to this emerging differentiation o f the church
from Judaism by emphasizing the sacred continuity between Israel’s past and Luke’s
present. Integral to this primary apologetical task is the remarkable figure o f Paul, who
spans both ends o f the church’s historic emergence. Paul’s faith in the resurrection, as a
profession o f the hopes o f the ancestors, is an important indication o f this Tendenz. In
further developing this primary understanding o f the Tendenz o f the trial speeches,
Dibelius proposes four additional apologetical purposes for Paul’s resurrection hope.
1. A Defense o f the Community against Judaism: In a comment on Acts 23:6-
10, Dibelius notices that Paul’s hope in the resurrection forces the Pharisees to
recognize the resurrection belief as essentially related to their own, so that non-
Christian Jews cannot rightly reject the belief in Jesus.54 This seems to imply a
polemical religious apologetic against Judaism, in which the Lukan Paul “has taken
from the arsenal o f Hellenistic Judaism the weapons which he directs against
Judaism.”55 It is, however, from a thoroughly Gentile perspective that Luke does this,
since Luke’s community has now emerged from its Jewish origins. The “Jewishness”
o f Paul’s resurrection hope affirms that Luke’s own Gentile community, as the heirs o f
52Robert Tannehill, in fact, traces critical discussion of the theology of Acts directly to
Dibelius; “A Study in the Theology of Acts,” A ThR 43 (1961): 195-96.
53 Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography,” 174.
54 Ibid., 170.
55 Ibid., 169-70. This comment refers to Luke’s strategy in Acts 7 and 13, but seems
also to include Dibelius’ reading of the resurrection passages, since he treats them immediately
after this statement.

21
Paul, are also the legitimate heirs o f the promises made to the ancestors. The presence
o f Jewish rejection o f Paul’s resurrection faith only confirms that true faithfulness to the
ancestral promises has now passed on to the Gentiles.
2. A Defense o f the Gentile Mission: The defense o f Paul is thus the defense o f
the Gentile mission’s place in redemptive history. The whole book o f Acts served as a
timely proof that the change o f the gospel to the Gentiles was not an accident o f history
but the dispensation of God. Gentile Christianity had not grown drastically separate
from Judaism but represented in its own message the fulfilling o f the hope o f Israel. It
is in the resurrection faith o f Paul that Luke raises the hopes o f Israel to forceful
emphasis and seeks to demonstrate their abiding validity in Christian faith.56 The
resurrection faith of Paul makes clear that “the Christian message represents the
fulfillment o f Jewish hopes.”57 Luke’s predominantly Gentile church did not live on the
margins o f Israel’s faith but they represented its very essence.
3. An Apology against Gnosis and fo r Traditional Doctrines: This apologetical
strategy which expresses continuity with Israel was especially important in light o f
emergent gnosis, which was already disregarding the God o f the Old Testament and the
hopes o f Israel, as the church became increasingly more Gentile.58 Luke counteracted
this by bringing his readers’ attention to the continuing validity o f the resurrection hope,
a traditional doctrine of Judaism, within the church. After Dibelius, Charles Talbert
56 Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography,” 173-74.
57Ibid., 174; see also the similar comment in “The First Christian Historian,” 133-34.

22
would make a similar argument about the function o f the resurrection m otif in 23:6,
24:21, 26:6-8, and 28:20.59
4. An Apologetical Epitome fo r Persecuted Christians: Finally, in his last
written comment on the resurrection passages o f the trial scenes, Dibelius could also
state that Paul’s defense speeches functioned as models o f self-defense for persecuted
Christians in Luke’s own time.60 In a study o f Paul in Acts which he would not live to
complete, he proposed that
the author wants . . . to commend to the Christians o f his day the use o f
such themes in their own defense. These themes are intended to
emphasize the fact that Christians have not rebelled against the emperor,
nor against the temple, nor against the law, but that the essential matter
o f dispute between them and the Jews is the question o f the resurrection.
Christians have inherited the best Jewish tradition in their belief that the
hope o f the fathers, the resurrection o f the last day, has already been
accomplished in the one case o f the Messiah, and that the day o f
fulfillment has therefore dawned.61
This exemplary understanding o f the defense speeches provides an interesting variation
on the theory o f a political apologetic discussed by both the Tubingen School and the
“radicals.” In Dibelius’ reading, however, these passages are not addressed directly to
imperial officials as a defense o f Christianity, but to persecuted Christians themselves
59 Charles Talbert, Luke and the Gnostics: An Examination o f the Lucan Purpose
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), 94-97.
60 Dibelius, “Paul in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Studies in the Acts o f the Apostles,
213: “ . . . when, in the five trial scenes examined here, Paul always says the same thing in his
defense, it is because the author wants thereby to commend to the Christians of his day the use
of such themes in their own defence.” This idea, of course, was implicit within an earlier
comment in “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography,” 149: “The intention is to
edify the reader by these arguments, not only as he observes their effectiveness in this one
particular trial, but in order that he himself may be so strengthened by them that he too will be
able to withstand such accusations.”
61 Ibid., 213.

23
as models o f self-defense.62 Though Dibelius is primarily concerned in this passage
with the function of these references in self-defense, his eschatological assumptions
about these references also shine through.63 For Luke, the day o f eschatological
fulfillment has dawned through the resurrection o f the Messiah. Paul’s future hope o f a
general resurrection o f the dead, however, seems to be reduced to this recognition o f
present fulfillment.
Ernst Haenchen (1894-1975): The Resurrection and Religio Quasi Licita
Dibelius’ studies in the Tendenzen o f Luke were highly influential, especially in
German scholarship. They moderated some o f the rough edges o f “radical” scholarship
and opened a new range o f vision into the purpose and setting o f Acts. The
methodological assumptions o f Stilkritik also allowed a greater appreciation for Acts as
the creative work o f its author, as opposed to a mere compilation o f historical data,
whether reliable or unreliable. Dibelius’ ideas would find their broadest application
and revision in the work o f Ernst Haenchen.64 Though agreeing with the fundamental
62 Gregory E. Sterling concludes his study of Luke-Acts with a similar assessment;

Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography
(NovTSup 64; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 385-86.
63 This proliferation of apologetical purposes for Acts is well illustrated in the following
quotation: “The speaker’s words are to reach the reader as directly as if they had been spoken
contemporaneously, for the content of the speeches is the Christian message itself, the defense
of the community against Judaism and against the danger of gnosticism in the future, the
presentation of individual ideas - of God or of the resurrection of the dead - and, finally, the
justification of the conversion of the Gentiles on the grounds that it was a task ordained by
God.” See “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography,” 180.
64 Both his commentary and an essay also published in the same year are the clearest
indications of this. The latter summarizes the methodological approach taken in the former.
Ernst Haenchen, The Acts o f the Apostles: A Commentary (trans. B. Noble and G. Shinn et al.;
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971; orig. 1956); “Tradition und Komposition in der

24
method o f Dibelius, Haenchen found the so-called apologetical speeches o f Paul’s trials
more fully infused with biographical materials and more fully integrated within the
story o f Acts as a whole. Thus, the defense speeches o f Paul were not simply a
handbook o f apologetical ideas for Christians in Luke’s own time.65
Haenchen also developed the idea o f a political apologetic, previously suggested
by Zeller and the “radicals,” in ways not fully anticipated by previous scholarship.66 In
the conclusion to his treatment o f Paul’s speech in the Temple courtyard (Acts 22:1-21),
Haenchen suggests that the speech, and those that follow, simultaneously portray Paul’s
past and Luke’s present:
With this we come to a final peculiarity o f this speech: it skillfully

weaves together Paul’s past and Luke’s present. Paul defends himself
against charges which are lodged against him; but fundamentally he does
not speak o f a past at that time already superseded - the Temple had long
lain in ruins when Luke wrote Acts - , but o f the burning question for
Luke and the Christians o f his time: can Christianity be understood in
unbroken continuity with Judaism? If that is possible, then Christian
doctrine can be recognized as an inner-Jewish a ip ea n ; and hence as a
religio quasi licita (Tertull. Apol. 21,1) . . . If this is the case, then there
is no fundamental gulf between Judaism and Christianity, the continuity
Apostelgeschichte,” ZTK52 (1955): 205-25; see esp. pages 223-25 on the apologetical function
of Paul’s resurrection hope. These two works contain Haenchen’s principal discussion of the
resurrection motif in Paul’s defense speeches.
63 Haenchen, The Acts o f the Apostles, 40.
66 Immediately prior to Haenchen’s statement of the theory, Burton Scott Easton should
be added to this list; Early Christianity: The Purpose o f Acts and Other Papers (ed. F. Grant;
Greenwich, Conn.: Seabury Press, 1954; orig. 1936). His argument concerning the resurrection
motif in the trials was very similar to that of Haenchen. The references to the resurrection show
that Paul is truly Jewish, that “Theophilus” (whom Easton regarded as a Roman authority) must
recognize that Christianity is nothing more and nothing less than a party within a religio licita
and that “the faith presented in these speeches is essentially Judaism... as held by a group of
Jews with special tenets of their own”(66), especially “exceptional wideheartedness to Gentiles”
(84).

25
between the two is unbroken, and Christianity can claim to be tolerated
like Judaism.67
This apologetical dynamic forms the context within which Paul’s references to the
resurrection function in the trial scenes. This seems clearest to Haenchen in Acts 23:6-
10, where controversy over the resurrection illustrates that “Christianity is a matter
within Judaism,”68 a faith that “affords room in itself for two movements: for the one,
resurrection, spirit and angel are realities o f faith, for the other they are not.”69
Furthermore, Paul’s resurrection language before Felix (24:15-16) shows that “the new
faith. . . is not a treason to the old. The hope o f resurrection is the bond which holds
the two together.”70 Finally, Paul’s climactic defense before Agrippa continues to
manipulate resurrection language, sealing the entire program o f defense speeches from
21:27-26:32 with the assertion “that precisely the strictest movement in Judaism,
Pharisaism, agreed with Christianity in its belief in the resurrection.”71 Haenchen did
not, however, relate the resurrection motif in the trials to its earlier development in the
Areopagus speech.72
67 Haenchen, Acts o f the Apostles, 630-31.
68 Ibid., 643.
69 Ibid., 643.
70 Ibid., 659.
71 Ibid., 693-94. For a similar clarification of Luke’s Tendenz in these passages, see
Haenchen’s ‘Tradition und Komposition in der Apostelgeschichte,” 220-25. See also Gasque,
History o f Interpretation, 238.
72In addition to the passages of the commentary cited above, see his essay “Tradition
und Komposition," 223-25.

26
Haenchen’s analysis pushed the theory o f a political apologetic in Acts further
than any previous treatment through a comprehensive exegesis o f the trial scenes.
Working independently o f Haenchen, Burton Scott Easton had earlier made similar
proposals o f considerable influence; but with Haenchen, an entire commentary now
demonstrated the thesis through comprehensive exegesis. This includes the exegesis o f
the resurrection m otif in the trial scenes. Critics and reviewers o f this explanation,
however, have exposed numerous problems with its assumptions. First, C.K. Barrett
has criticized approaches like those o f Haenchen by claiming that Acts
was not addressed to the Emperor, with the intention o f proving the
political harmlessness o f Christianity in general and o f Paul in particular
. . . No Roman official would ever have filtered out so much o f what to
him would be theological and ecclesiastical rubbish in order to reach so
tiny a grain o f relevant apology. So far as Acts was an apology, it was
an apology addressed to the church, demonstrating Paul’s anti-gnostic
orthodoxy, and his practical and doctrinal solidarity with the church at
Jerusalem.74
W. Ward Gasque has also questioned political apologetic approaches by asking
“whether the author would have understood the subtlety o f his own argument.”75
Second, as Mark Allen Powell indicates, “One problem with this theory is that
there is no sure evidence from the first century that Rome had a policy o f classifying
religions as legal or illegal.”76 Indeed, the only supporting evidence for religio licita
73 Easton, Early Christianity, 66, 84.
74 C.K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent Study (A.S. Peake Memorial Lecture 6;
London: Epworth Press, 1961), 63.
75This comes as a specific criticism of the political apologetic theory as articulated by

Easton; History o f Interpretation, 197.
76 Mark Allen Powell, What are They Saying about Luke-Acts (New York: Paulist
Press, 1991), 16.

27
that Haenchen offered was from Tertullian’s Apologeticum (21.1), itself an
apologetically charged work dating from the last months o f the year 197 C.E., during
the persecutions under Septimius Severus,77 almost an entire century later than dates
typically posed for Luke-Acts.78 This has significantly weakened Haenchen’s
apologetical approach to these passages. Since Haenchen, scholarship has often
directed more attention to “religious,” rather than “political,” apologetic in the trial
scenes. 79
Henry J. Cadbury (1883-1974): Acts as History-Like Narrative
An interesting complement and foil to German scholarship on Acts presents
itself in the form o f the foremost American scholar o f Acts, Henry J. Cadbury. Unlike
most members o f the Tubingen School, Cadbury was not interested in separating the
historical from the apologetical in Luke’s portrayal o f early Christian history, but in
getting to know the author himself in terms o f his distinctive literary style within
77Jean Pierre Waltzing, Terlullien: Apologetique: Commentaire analytique,

grammatical et historique (Paris: Societe de’ edition ‘Les belles letters,’ 1931), 4; Carl Becker,
Tertullian, Apologeticum: Verteidigung des Christentum (Miinchen: Kosel-Verlag KG, 1952),
16-17.
78 Further criticism of Haenchen’s thesis points out the negative portrayal of Rome in
portions of Luke-Acts; see Klaus Haacker, “Das Bekenntnis des Paulus zur Hoffnung Israels
nach Apostelgeschichte des Lukas,” NTS 31 (1985): 438-40. Hans Conzelmann, Acts o f the
Apostles: A Commentary (ed. E. Epp; trans. J. Limburg, A. Kreabel and D. Juel; Hermeneia;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987; orig. 1972), xlvii-xlviii. Conzelmann suggests that
Tertullian’s reference is to the collegia, not to religio licita as Haenchen used the term. It is
important to note, however, that Conzelmann reformulated Haenchen’s basic approach in terms
of a more general Lukan appeal for imperial justice without direct reference to any given
Roman legal tradition (see below); The Theology o f St. Luke (trans. G. Buswell; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1961; orig. 1953), 137-49.
79John T. Carroll, “Literary and Social Dimensions of Luke’s Apology for Paul,” SBL
Seminar Papers, 1988 (SBLSP 27; ed. D. Lull; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 106-07.

28
antiquity and the comprehensive narration o f history he presented in his unified two-
volume work, Luke-Acts - a term that Cadbury seems to have coined himself.80 This
sounds something like Dibelius’ Stilkritik, but Cadbury viewed Luke-Acts as a
comprehensive literary unity whose interpretation had to come to terms with this
characteristic o f the work.81 Cadbury’s primary contribution emerges from his
meticulous research into Luke’s narrative style within the context o f ancient literature.
For Cadbury, Luke’s purpose was not primarily that o f Baur’s Vereinigung
Schriften. Nor does Cadbury place the same emphasis upon Gentile alienation that the
“radicals” and Dibelius had done. Instead, Luke’s narrative style betrayed the purposes
o f a literary historian:
The form o f his work is narrative, and narrative carries with it the
intention of supplying information. No matter how much Luke differs
from the rhetorical historians o f Israel, his narrative shares with them the
common intention o f informing the reader concerning the past. Even
were it plain that the story was intended to serve also as an argument, in
any analysis o f the writer’s purpose this purely didactic motive would
have to be accepted as significant.
Artist or advocate, the historian is still historian, even if not in
our modem sense. Luke’s words about his own work and the work o f
his predecessors, a “narrative o f the things fulfilled among us,” “a
treatise concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach,” mean
this, whatever else they may mean, or whatever motives he had which he
does not express.82
80 Henry J. Cadbury, The Making ofLuke-Acts (London: SPCK, 1958; orig. 1928), 11.
Cadbury had dealt with many of these same matters in his doctoral dissertation, The Style and
Literary Method o f Luke: I. The Diction o f Luke and Acts and II. The Treatment o f Sources in
the Gospel (2 vols.; Harvard Theological Studies 6; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1919-20).
81 Dibelius’ Stilkritik, on the other hand, employed a different model of interpretation

for the two volumes (see the section on Dibelius).
82Cadbury, Making o f Luke-Acts, 299-300.

29
Despite Cadbury’s confidence in this primary purpose o f Acts, he would also propose
other unexpressed motives for Luke’s work that were operating at the secondary level.
These include what W. Ward Gasque has summarized as three apologetic purposes for
Acts among Cadbury’s writings:83 a popular apologetic, which presents many
providential evidences o f divine guidance in the establishment o f the church; a defense
before Judaism, which asserted the legitimacy o f Christianity as the fulfillment of
Judaism and the Old Testament; and a defense before the Romans, which sought to
affirm the legality o f Christianity before the Roman law.84 This perpetuates a critical
tendency to ascribe multiple apologetical purposes to Luke, which first became apparent
in Zeller. As for Luke’s theology, Cadbury found many traditional emphases of
Christian faith reported in (Luke-)Acts, but little to reflect that the author was a self
consciously creative theologian.
Cadbury did not undertake a comprehensive study o f the resurrection passages
in the latter half o f Acts; but a few comments in The Making o f Luke-Acts illustrate
what he might have done with a larger treatment. First, Cadbury called attention to the
singular importance o f the resurrection o f Jesus within Lukan theology: “No New
Testament writer more often refers to the resurrection as predicted in Scripture . . . or
83Gasque, History o f Interpretation, 191.
84Cadbury, Making ofLuke-Acts, 300-50; Gasque, History o f Interpretation, 191. On

this point, Cadbury sees Theophilus as “a man of influence liable to entertain a hostile view
towards Christianity unless by a clear statement of the facts his neutrality and fairness are
guaranteed.” This quotation is from “The Purpose Expressed in Luke’s Preface,” Expositor 21
(1921): 431-41. See Gasque, History o f Interpretation, 185.

30
cites more texts in its support than does Luke.”85 Second, in treating Luke’s
“theological attitudes,” Cadbury suggests that, for Luke,
It is plain t h a t . . . the resurrection o f Jesus is the distinguishing article o f

faith for the Christians over against the Jew. Not only the Athenian
philosophers found it a stumblingblock, but also the Jews. In his gospel
the author seems to sum up his verdict on the apostolic age in the words
o f Abraham to Dives, that the Jews will not be persuaded if one rose
from the dead, just as they have not really believed Moses and the
prophets.86
This comment raises two issues that will prove o f essential importance in my own
assessment o f these passages: 1. the issue o f the constant skepticism to which Luke
exposes the resurrection in Paul’s preaching and defense; and 2. the nature o f the
resurrection as an issue that distinguishes Paul from among those who hear his
preaching. Cadbury must be credited for being among the first to reveal these two
tendencies in the presentation o f Paul’s resurrection faith in the trial scenes.87
Cadbury could also take with some seriousness the futurity o f these claims about
the general resurrection o f the dead and their function within the author’s “philosophy
o f history.” In assessing the promise and fulfillment dimensions o f Acts, Cadbury
contributes the important insight that Luke develops the theme o f promise far beyond
the death o f Jesus:
The resurrection also was predicted; its witnesses were chosen in

advance. It is followed by the program o f repentance and forgiveness of
sins and, after an interval, by “the restoration o f all things” and “the
85Cadbury, Making o f Luke-Acts, 279.
86 Ibid., 278-79.
87 Of course, current specialists in Christian Origins are now far more careful than
Cadbury in the use of the terms “Christians” and “Jews,” especially since Luke’s portrayal of
Paul continues to accentuate his Jewish piety.

31
resurrection both o f the just and the unjust” and the “judgment o f the
living and the dead” . . . Thus the apostolic age also lies under the
guiding hand o f God.88
There are at least two ways in which these comments, first suggested in 1927, prove
foundational for the current project. In the first place, Cadbury has given serious
consideration to the future resurrection (Acts 24:15; 10:42) as an inevitable destination
on the future timeline o f Luke’s theology o f history. This presents a decisive alternative
to apologetical readings o f these texts. In the second, Cadbury also raises the question
o f the church’s own position within this larger vision o f history, especially in terms o f
the way that Luke affirms God’s “guiding hand” over the present.
Cadbury’s approach to Acts anticipates further developments in the critical
history. First o f all. a proliferation o f apologetical strategies is affirmed in Cadbury’s
work, at least three to be precise. As the previous section on the Tubingen School
suggested, critics throughout the twentieth century would continue to revise these same
proposals and add new ones; and Cadbury is certainly part o f that trend.
Second, Cadbury tends to discount the possibility that Luke is a creative
theologian in his own right, and prefers to think o f Luke as one who merely reported
numerous early Christian beliefs and practices. A more thorough integration o f
apologetical and theological interpretation o f Acts would have to wait for Hans
Conzelmann. This tendency to discount certain theological aspects o f Acts has
certainly exerted its influence upon interpretation o f the resurrection passages, since
they have often been viewed as apologetical posturing or early Catholicism, rather than
a serious theological matter for the author o f Acts. Despite this prejudice, however,
8®Cadbury, Making o f Luke-Acts, 304.

32
Cadbury managed to make some remarkably insightful comments on the role o f the
future resurrection and judgment within the larger vision o f history that the speeches of
Acts develop. These remarks prefigure later theological interpretations by Conzelmann
and Schubert.
Third, Cadbury’s most important proposal may have been that Luke’s purposes
are primarily attested in the history-like narrative that he has constructed. This
approach regards Luke primarily as one whose reason for writing is inherent within the
significance o f the total story he has to relate. This emphasis upon the comprehensive
narrative o f Luke’s two-volume work foreshadows critical concerns with the literary
techniques that Luke has employed in the presentation o f his total story.89 These very
matters would later become important in both theological and literary approaches to the
resurrection-judgment passages.90
89As Beverly Roberts Gaventa has shown, Cadbury’s own methodology is more akin to
form-criticism than to literary criticism. It is only after the fact that he is often credited as a
forerunner of literary criticism of the Acts; “The Peril of Modernizing Henry Joel Cadbury,” in
Cadbury, Knox, and Talbert: American Contributions to the Study o f Acts (eds. M. Parsons and
J. Tyson; SBL Biblical Scholarship in North America; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 22-26.
90 In addition to Cadbury’s independent pieces, one should also note his important
contributions to The Beginnings o f Christianity, Part I: The Acts o f the Apostles, edited by F. J.
Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. This monumental, three-volume work, to which Cadbury
was an important contributor, provides the best indication of the state of British and American
Acts research in the first few decades of the 20* century (1920-26). Highlights of concern for
the present topic include: 1. a thorough historical introduction to Jewish belief and practices
that were of concern for the author of Acts, including repeated mention of Jewish belief (and
disbelief) in the resurrection (1:113-24); 2. a discussion on the case for the historicity of Luke’s
tradition, in which the resurrection passages of the trial scenes are offered as evidence for (C.W.
Emmet) and against (Hans Windisch) Luke’s reliability (2:295-97; 2:333-35); and 3. the
suggestion by Foakes-Jackson that belief in a general resurrection of the dead plays a small part
in Acts in comparison to other early Christian literature, but became a vital issue five times near
the end of Acts (17:18, 32; 23:6; 25:15, 21), since the resurrection was a central aspect of Paul’s
preaching mission. The resurrection of Jesus declares his status as Messiah, but does not
foretell a general resurrection of the dead in the future (2:196). Of course, this assessment has
neglected to treat 26:6-8, 23, and thus for this very reason neglects the direct relationship that

33
Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989): Parusieverzdgerung
Among the most remarkable insights o f Dibelius into the trial speeches o f Paul
was the recognition that the speeches could never fully be reduced to the language o f a
technical legal defense. Even in the trial context o f Acts 21-26, the language o f Paul
maintained a kerygmatic quality, and the speeches were ultimately a kind o f
preaching.91 This observation has provided a foundation in subsequent scholarship for
theological interpretations o f these texts. If this reveals an ambivalence on the part o f
Dibelius, it also conveys a tension between apology and theology which is fundamental
to Luke’s presentation o f the trial scenes as a whole.92
Conzelmann’s The Theology o f St. Luke agreed essentially with Haenchen that
one could find a political apologetic within Luke-Acts; yet he endeavored to clarify the
distinctive eschatological understanding within which Luke’s apologetic functioned. It
was precisely because o f Luke’s modified eschatological understanding o f the delayed
parousia, that the writer sought conciliation between Christianity and the authorities o f
the world:
Luke draws between Jesus’ resurrection and the future resurrection. To his credit, however,
Foakes-Jackson has correctly noted the relationship between the Athenian episode and the trial
scenes on the issue of resurrection.
92On the history of this problem, see C.F. Evans, ‘“ Speeches’ in Acts,” in Melanges
Bibliques en homage au R.P. Beda Rigeaux (eds. A. Descamps et R. de Halleux; Gembloux:
Duculot, 1970), 287-91; W. Ward Gasque, “The Speeches of Acts: Dibelius Reconsidered,” in
New Dimensions in New Testament Study (ed. R. Longenecker and M. Tenney; Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Zondervan, 1974), 239-43.

34
We can be certain that Luke’s apologetic does not represent a merely
incidental element, a practical adjustment to the world. It is based on an
examination o f the principles from the angle o f redemptive history. The
fact that the End is no longer thought o f as imminent, and the subsequent
attempt to achieve a long-term agreement as to the Church’s relation to
the world show how closely related this question is to the central motifs
in Luke’s whole plan.93
The political apologetic is thus only one aspect o f the writer’s larger concern for the
reinterpretation o f redemptive history. This apologetical temperament explains why
Paul rarely mentions the resurrection o f Jesus in the trial scenes: it is simply too
controversial a matter.94 Luke wants to achieve consensus, not conflict.
This reinterpretation o f the church’s place in redemptive history is also the heart
o f Luke’s concern for “the solidarity o f the church with Israel.”95 The commonality
between the church and Israel could no longer be based upon the observance o f the law
by Luke’s time. Instead, Luke affirms the continuity between Israel and emergent
Christianity “by emphasizing the agreement about one central dogma, the doctrine o f a
general resurrection (Acts xxiii,6; xxvi,5ff.).”96 As the “inner unity” between the
church and Israel, the resurrection faith confirms the continuity o f believers in Jesus
with the promises o f God to Israel.97 The resonances here with Dibelius and Haenchen
are clear.
93 Conzelmann, Theology o f St. Luke, 149.
94 Ibid., 192, 206-07.
95 Ibid., 148.
96 Ibid., 147-48.
97 Ibid., 148.

35
Conzelmann also called unprecedented attention to the theological assumptions
o f Paul’s resurrection faith in the trial scenes. He asks whether or not the significance
o f Jesus’ resurrection relates “with the existence o f the faithful in the present,” and
answers in the affirmative, since “it is implied in Luke’s conception o f the
Resurrection.”98 The description o f Jesus as the “author o f life” (Acts 3:15, 31) and the
“first from the resurrection o f the dead” (Acts 26:23) confirms that Jesus’ resurrection is
“the proof o f the fact that there is a general resurrection and a judgment.”99 Like
Cadbury, Conzelmann calls attention to the future resurrection as a genuine feature o f
Luke’s theology o f history. His reading of these texts allows for a consistency o f
presentation in the resurrection m otif among numerous passages throughout Acts. His
analysis also demonstrates the conceptual connections between the presentation o f the
resurrection in the Areopagus speech and in the trial scenes.100
In the final analysis, however, Conzelmann’s assessment o f the function o f these
references is strongly existentialist and de-eschatologizing, as one might expect. In
addition to the already quoted comment that the resurrection is linked “with the
existence o f the faithful in the present” (as opposed to the end o f redemptive history
itself), Conzelmann identifies the importance o f the resurrection in Paul’s preaching as
a function o f its call to individual decision:
98Conzelmann, Theology o f St. Luke, 205.
99 Ibid., 205.
100See also the very brief statement in Heiden-Juden-Christen: Auseinandersetzungen

in der Literatur der hellenistisch-romischen Zeit (BHT 62; ed. J. Wellmann; Tubingen: Mohr
(Siebeck), 1981), 239-40.

36
The link between the Resurrection and the individual consists therefore
in the fact that it testifies to the truth about his future destiny, that is, to
the reality o f resurrection, responsibility and judgment. The question
then will be, whether he has repented and received forgiveness. The
message o f the Resurrection, therefore, is not a call to be saved, but is
rather o f a formal kind. It is now man’s concern to draw the
consequences, to repent, to be ‘converted,’ baptized, and to live the
Christian life. It is obvious that man’s response has now gained a
significance o f its own.101
It is clear that though this paragraph starts with talk o f “future destiny,” it ends with a
thorough emphasis upon “man’s response” and living the Christian life in the world. At
this point, we are reading Bultmann, more than Luke.102 Conzelmann has disposed - or
demythologized - future eschatology here in favor o f personal decision. Erich Grasser,
who would later develop Conzelmann’s model more fully, also treats the judgment
prophecy o f Acts 17:31 (and 10:42) as “aus paranetischen Griinden festgehalten.”103
Though there is, in favor o f Conzelmann and Grasser, a strong association between the
resurrection and repentance in Acts 17:30-31 (cf. 2:38), this very connection depends
upon a real emphasis on eschatological judgment.104
102Conzelmann maintains a similarly existentialist reading of the eschatology implied in

Acts 17:31. He emphasizes that the Areopagus speech envisions the basic structure of history
as having a beginning and end, “and in between a single insertion which determines the
situation of man in the world: the resurrection of Jesus, which introduces a historical epoch
fundamentally new when compared with the former one”; “The Address of Paul on the
Areopagus,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, 229.
102Erich Grasser, Das Problem der Parusieverzdgerung in den synoptischen Evangelien

und in der Apostelgeschichte (BZNW 22; Berlin: Topelmann, 1977), 204.
104Rudolf Schnackenburg correctly notes this in his reponses to Grasser in “Die

lukanische Eschatologie im Lichte von Aussagen der Apostelgeschichte,” in Glaube und
Eschatologie: Festschriftfur Werner Georg Kummel zum 80. Geburtstag (ed. E. Grasser and O.
Merk; Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1985), 249-66, esp. pages 259-61.
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n p rohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

37
Despite these criticisms, critical history has unfolded very much in favor o f
Conzelmann’s interpretation o f Lukan eschatology. Robert Maddox, in fact, can refer
to Conzelmann’s thesis as the “classic theory” o f Lukan eschatology;105 and Charles
Talbert can refer to a kind o f “synthesis” 106 that emerged around the work o f
Conzelmann and united numerous figures in German scholarship.107 For most o f the
latter half o f the twentieth century, Conzelmann’s model served as critical orthodoxy;
but subsequent scholarship has broken his hold on the critical field,108 so that the
theology o f Acts remains an open question now at the beginning o f a new century.
Paul Schubert (1900-1969): From Creation to Consummation
An early alternative to Conzelmann’s theological interpretation emerged in the
studies o f Paul Schubert. Schubert treated all the major speeches in the book o f Acts,
105 Robert Maddox, The Purpose o f Luke-Acts, 100-102.
106Charles Talbert, “Shifting Sands: The Recent Study of the Gospel of Luke,” fnt 30
(1976): 395; see also Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “Toward a Theology of Acts: Reading and Re
reading,” //»/ 42 (1988): 147.
107These figures include: Phillip Vielhauer, “On the Paulinism of Acts,” in Studies in
Luke-Acts, 33-50; Ernst Haenchen, Acts o f the Apostles, 143; Rudolf Bultmann, Theology o f the
New Testament (trans. K. Groebel; New York: Scribner, 1951-55), 2:462-63; Ernst Kasemann,
New Testament Questions o f Today (London: SCM Press, 1969), 21-22; Essays on New
Testament Themes (trans. W. Montague; London: SCM Press, 1971; orig. 1960), 28-29.
Francois Bovon also adds: Siegfried Schulz, “Gottes Vorsehung bei Lukas,” ZNW54 (1963):
104-16; Erich Dinkier, “The Idea of History in Earliest Christianity,” in The Idea o f History in
the Ancient Near East (ed. R. Dentan; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1955), 169-
214; Gunther Klein, Die ZwolfApostel: Ursprung und Gehalt einer Idee (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961); Erich Grasser, Das Problem der Parusieverzdgerung in den
synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte (BZNW 22; Berlin: Topelmann, 1977).
See Bovon, Luc le Theologien, 19.
108See the survey by John T. Carroll, Response to the End o f History: Eschatology and
Situation in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 92; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 2-10.

38
and concluded that despite their diversity, ‘“ the proof from prophecy,’ or better, the
theology o f divine promise (LXX) and divine fulfillment (Luke-Acts) is at the heart o f
all the major speeches” (e.g., the early “missionary speeches” o f chapters 2, 3, 10, 13;
as well as 1:16-22; 7:2-53; 14:15-17; 15:7-11, 13-21; 17:22-31; 20:18-35).109 This
reading o f the speeches as oracles for Luke’s theology o f promise and fulfillment
provided an alternative way o f discussing the theology o f Acts, beyond the “classic
theory.” Yet these speeches are not simply commentary on the actions in the story;
Luke has made “the speeches an integral part o f his story itself, as the story o f ‘the
proclamation o f the word o f God.’” 110 The speeches are thus highly theological:
The main intention o f the trial speeches is to round out the theology of
Luke, a) by further development o f the theme o f the resurrection o f Jesus
and its relation to the final judgment, and b) by effective and pithy
summaries o f Luke’s theology.111
Schubert shares with Conzelmann the observation that the resurrection o f Jesus is
emphatically linked to the future resurrection o f the dead and eschatological judgment
in the trial scenes, yet his further analysis only skirts the profound implications o f this
connection:
Thus Luke is the first o f all theological writers to bring the essentials of
futuristic eschatology, the ultimate hope o f Jews and Christians, in the
last chapters o f his book. Whatever the strengths and weaknesses o f the
109Paul Schubert, “The Final Cycle of Speeches in the Book of Acts,” JBL 87 (1968): 1-
2. The same thesis was also at the heart of his essay on Luke 24; “The Structure and
Significance of Luke 24,” in Neutestamentliche Studien jiir R. Bultmann (BZNW 21; ed. W.
Eltester; Berlin: Topelmann, 1954), 165-86.
110Schubert, “The Final Cycle of Speeches,” 16.
'“ Ibid., 10-11.
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e cop y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r re p ro d u c tio n p rohib ited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

39
theory o f Luke’s de-eschatologizing are, this fact should not be
overlooked.112
This is all that Schubert has to say on the matter. And even this passing statement is
somewhat cryptic.113 One could have hoped for more, since precisely here he entertains
the option o f understanding these texts as genuinely futurist eschatological references
and advancing discussion o f the eschatology o f Acts beyond the “classic theory.”
Schubert’s work on the final cycle o f speeches in Acts should be read alongside
his innovative discussion o f the Areopagus speech, where resurrection and future
judgment are also prominent themes. In contrast to Dibelius and Phillip Vielhauer, who
argued that Acts 17:31 was a thin kerygmatic reference attached to a primarily
Hellenistic speech,114 Schubert found the references to resurrection and judgment in
Acts 17:31 integrally related to the entire theological content o f the speech. In Acts
17:31 Luke points directly to the importance o f the resurrection o f Jesus as a
demonstration that confirms the truths o f Christian proclamation as a whole.115 The
speech expresses in concise form Luke’s comprehensive historical vision, and forms a
unity “from creation to consummation, via the resurrection o f Christ.” 116
Schubert’s exegetical pieces on the speeches o f Acts brought clearer insight into
the theological currents that ran through both the major and minor speeches o f Acts.
1,2 Schubert, “The Final Cycle of Speeches,” 13.
113One may even suspect a misstatement, or misprint, in the publication.
114Vielhauer, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” 45; Dibelius, “Paul on the Areopagus,” 56.
115Schubert, “The Place of the Areopagus Speech in the Composition of Acts,” in

Transitions in Biblical Scholarship (ed. J. Rylaarsdam; Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1968), 248.
116Ibid., 261.
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m is s io n of t h e cop y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

40
This includes the resurrection language o f Paul’s preaching and defense. His work,
along with that o f Conzelmann, has made it possible to read the references to the future
resurrection-judgment as authentic expressions o f the Lukan theology o f history.117
Schubert’s promise-fulfillment approach also provided an early alternative to the
“classic theory” o f Luke’s theology.118 Yet unanswered questions do linger over
Schubert’s exegesis. First o f all, Schubert left unanswered the extent to which the
resurrection-judgment language challenged Conzelmann’s thesis on the de-
eschatologizing tendencies o f Lukan theology.119 Second, it is clear that Schubert hears
Luke as an author far more than Paul as a character in these speeches. Furthermore, he
hears the speeches far more than the narrative context o f Paul’s missionary preaching
and trial scenes.120 One wonders, then, why it is the character Paul himself in specific
narrative contexts who brings resurrection and future judgment into such repeated
focus. Schubert, o f course, is not alone in attending more often to the speeches than to
117See also the section on Cadbury.
118Charles H. Talbert provides a programmatic survey and critique of the approach in

“Promise and Fulfillment in Lucan Theology,” in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the
Society o f Biblical Literature Seminar (ed. C. Talbert; New York: Crossroads, 1984), 91-103.
In addition to Schubert, he includes the following works as exemplars of the approach: Robert
Karris, What Are They Saying about Luke and Acts? (New York: Paulist, 1979), 118-19;
William S. Kurz, “The Function of Christological Proof from Prophecy for Luke and Justin”
(Ph.D. diss., Yale, 1976); Nils A. Dahl, “The Story of Abraham in Luke-Acts,” in Studies in
Luke-Acts, 139-59; et al., see Talbert, “Prophecy and Fulfillment in Lucan Theology,” 91-93.
119Rudolph Schnackenburg would develop the implications of this more fully in “Die
lukanische Eschatologie,” 259-61.
120Klaus Haacker also proposes the importance of dealing with the resurrection
language within the direct narrative context of the trial of Paul; “Das Bekenntnis des Paulus,"
437.

41
the narrative action o f these chapters. Indeed, the integration o f speech and narrative
remains a critical problem for studying Luke’s theology.121
Jacob Jervell (1920- ): In Defense o f Paul
In the work o f Jacob Jervell, it is possible to see aspects o f the Tubingen model
living on in a new way, yet with a much more ardent concern for the theology of
Acts.122 Instead o f developing a political apology toward Roman imperialism, Jervell
finds Luke addressing his work in conversation with numerous forms o f Judaism itself.
He contends, for example, that the purpose o f the speeches o f Acts 21-26 is not to
defend “Christianity or the individual Christian, but the person and activity o f Paul.” 123
Luke “writes for Christian readers who are under fire from their Jewish neighbors
because o f Paul,”124 assuring them that Paul’s preaching was fully grounded in
Pharisaic faithfulness to the law (22:3; 23:1, 3, 5, 6; 24:14; 26:4-5), the authority o f the
121As Beverly Roberts Gaventa notes; “Toward a Theology of Acts,” 146-57; see also I.
Hov.a.d Marshall, “How Does One Write on the Theology of Acts?” in Witness to the Gospel:
The Theology o f Acts (ed. I. Marshall and D. Peterson; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998),
12-13; and G. Walter Hansen, “The Preaching and Defence of Paul,” in Witness to the Gospel,
296.
One may also add to these criticisms that Schubert, like most critics writing before the
70s and 80s, tends to use the terminology of “Jew” and “Christian” with far too much levity.
Specialists in Christian Origins now recognize that the lines of differentiation between these
two groups were not so clearly drawn in Luke’s own time.
122See also Long, “The Trial of Paul in the Book of Acts,” 307.
123Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People o f God: A New Look at Luke-Acts (Minneapolis,
Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972), 161. This seems to be a swipe at both the theory of
a political apologetic and Dibelius’ proposal that the speeches o f Paul’s defense attempted to
legitimate the larger mission to the Gentiles and served as models of self-defense for persecuted
Christians (see the section on Dibelius).
124Ibid., 177.

42
law and prophets (24:14; 26:22), and the resurrection hope o f Israel (23:6; 24:14, 21;
26:6-8, 22).125 Paul is no apostate but is faithful to the full measure o f Israel’s ancestral
faith, including hope in the future resurrection.126 Nils Dahl corroborates most aspects
o f Jervell’s thesis, but suggests that Luke’s reading public was probably not to be found
among Jewish-Christians, but among the “number o f ‘God-fearing’ Gentiles at the
fringe o f the synagogue” who were “attracted to Christianity” yet still impressed with
the antiquity o f Jewish ancestral religion.127 Robert Brawley’s literary approach to the
trial scenes bears much in common with Jervell and Dahl.128 These statements of
125Jervell, Luke and the People o f God, 163.
126Ibid., 170-71.
127Nils Dahl, “The Purpose of Luke-Acts,” in Jesus in the Memory o f the Church:
Essays by Nils Alstrup Dahl (Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1976), 96-97.
128Robert L. Brawley, Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation
(SBLMS 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 62-63, 105-06, 155. One may also cite the
dissertation of Long, “The Trial of Paul in the Book of Acts,” 307.
Brawley argues that the apologetics of these chapters function primarily to legitimate
the Pauline mission to Gentiles and to proffer conciliation directly to Jewish groups (both
Christian and non-Christian) which rejected Paul’s mission. The “targets” of this complex
apologetical strategy include two groups: a group of “external opponents” who are “Jews”; and
a group of “internal opponents” who are “Jewish Christians,” or “sympathetic gentiles, such as
former God-fearers” (157). One senses the influence of Dahl here. The method of this apology
includes the legitimation of Paul as a thoroughgoing Pharisee who stands upon “the hopes of the
fathers, Moses, and the twelve tribes,” including the resurrection hope (157). Paul’s appeals to
the resurrection in Acts 24:14 and 26:6, 22 accentuate the commonality of his proclamation
with ancestral Jewish hopes, thus legitimating his mission as utterly consistent with “venerable
Jewish tradition” (62, 72, 81, 82). The apologetic dimensions of Acts 23:6-10 also employ the
resurrection as a method of correlating Paul’s message with that of the Pharisees, who had
achieved unprecedented respectability among the Jewish sects by the end of the first century
C.E. (90, 93, 99, 115-16). This apologetic also possesses an irenic purpose: “Against Jewish
detractors and their sympathetic Christian heretics alike Luke portrays Paul as innocuous to
genuine Judaism as he understands it” (83). In this sense, Luke draws “authentic Jews toward
Christianity and authentic Christians toward Judaism” (159). The emphatic commonality of
Paul and the Pharisees in their hope in the resurrection is among the literary devices that provide
a basis for Luke’s gestures of conciliation. Brawley presents a summary of this thesis in “Paul
in Acts: Lucan Apology and Conciliation,” in Luke-Acts: New Perspectivesfrom the Society o f
Biblical Literature Seminar, 129-47.

43
Jervell, Dahl, and Brawley recall aspects o f the Tiibingen hypothesis, especially where
they find Luke attempting to defend Paul in a context o f intra-Jewish disputes.129 My
own criticism o f this reading is that it overestimates the “commonality” between Paul
and his fellow Pharisees in these chapters, since, as Cadbury earlier suggested, Paul’s
resurrection faith has become “a stumblingblock” in the trial scenes.
Jervell does not merely conclude that the resurrection sayings are an apology for
Paul. He also explores their eschatological dimensions, especially in the case o f Acts
17:31. He cites Acts 17:30-31 as the last o f only three references to the parousia (Acts
1:10-11; 10:41-43) in the book o f Acts. These references are few, and Jervell indicates
on this basis that in general “future eschatology in Acts is remarkably reduced in
comparison with the gospel [of St. Luke].” 130 The prophecy o f Acts 17:30-31, however,
presents a certain exception to this rule:
The speech o f Paul on the Areopagus ends not with the proclamation o f
the gospel, as in the speeches to Jews, but with a reference to the
judgment day (17:31); the Gentile world has lived in ignorance, but the
time o f ignorance is now over as God has fixed a day for the judgement
o f the world. . . . The line o f thought runs from the resurrection to the
judgement, which shows that the resurrection as such is an
eschatological event ending in the consummation, which here is
judgement. So also in Acts 10:42 the resurrection points forward to
Jesus as the judge o f the living and the dead, but here the addressees are
Jews and forgiveness o f sins is available (1 0 :4 3 )... No date for the
judgement is given, but in 17:30f. the clear hint is that it is imminent.
When the church proclaims the resurrection it signals that the
eschatological drama has begun and is near its consummation.131
1:9 Carroll’s position is close to that of Jervell, but with the qualification that Luke’s
defense of Paul as a Jew is also a defense of the larger community’s position within redemptive
history; “Literary and Social Dimensions of Luke’s Apology for Paul,” 118.
130Jervell, Theology o f the Acts, 109.
131 Ibid., 114. C.K. Barrett, Acts o f the Apostles, 2:852: “It is implied that the day is
near, otherwise the warning would carry little force.”

44
Jervell finds a genuine imminence here that proves somewhat resistant to the larger de
emphasis o f future eschatology in Acts.132 Yet he understands the Areopagus speech as
“Nichtlukanisch” and a “Fremdkorper” in the book o f Acts.133 He thus does not relate
the judgment prophecy o f the Areopagus speech to the defense speeches. It is also
important to recognize that Jervell more characteristically looks to the past in
interpreting the resurrection hope in Acts, rather than to the future. He concludes that
“history means more to Luke than eschatology. Everything in the church comes from
the past, and eschatology confirms history.” He further emphasizes that “what has
happened and what is going to happen in the church comes from history . . . The future
is there in the past as promises and patterns in the scriptures.” This is the case even
with the parousia-.
Everything from the past, from history, has been realized except for the
very last thing, the parousia . . . but it will come because it is a part o f
history, that is, Scripture . . . History even gives the assurance to men
132One should also mention A.J. MattilFs treatment here, since the resurrection-
judgment passages (Acts 17:31, 24:15 and 25) served as evidence within his own argument that
Lukan eschatology foresaw an imminent return of Jesus; Luke and the Last Things: A
Perspectivefo r the Understanding o f Lukan Thought (Dillsboro, Nor. Car.: Western North
Carolina Press, 1979), 1-12,43-49. Mattill suggests especially that the verb pcXXetv, which
appears consistently in these three passages, conveys the sense of imminent action, especially
the impending imminence of the resurrection of the dead (24:15) and future judgment (17:31;
24:25). Though Mattill’s general thesis is largely rejected, his work continues to be of use.
Even where his conclusions are overdrawn, he has nonetheless highlighted genuinely futuristic
expectations in Luke-Acts, including Paul’s resurTection-judgment language. Jervell, for
example, who would not concede that Luke’s theology is apocalyptic, can agree with Mattill
that Acts 17:30-31 conveys the sense of imminent future judgment. Where Mattill falls short in
his larger thesis is in his disregard for showing precisely how Luke employs futuristic
eschatology in his larger presentation of Paul’s trials.
133Jervell, The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke-Acts and Early Christian History
(Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1984), 17; Die Apostelgeschichte iibersetzt und erklart von
Jacob Jervell (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar ilber das Neue Testament 3; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 452,455.

45
about the day of ultimate judgment: in this case the basis o f history is
the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 1 7 :3 1 )... And so the promises have two
functions: they determine the future before they are fulfilled, and when
they are fulfilled, they guarantee the rest o f the future, the
134
consummation.
These comments on the Lukan vision o f history and eschatology are especially
significant in the artistry with which they balance the delicate relationship between
Israel’s past and the future in Acts. They also raise the question o f whether the
resurrection hope o f Israel in the trial scenes is fundamentally a statement about the
fulfilling o f the Scripture in Christ’s own accomplished resurrection or a genuinely
eschatological hope for the future resurrection o f the dead. It is clear that Jervell is far
more interested in the former, though he is not unaware o f the implications o f the latter.
He does not, however, fully pursue the possibility that a future resurrection o f the dead
stands on the horizon o f Luke’s vision o f future history.
Robert C. Tannehill (1934- ): The Resurrection and the Pathos o f Israel's Tragedy
In The Narrative Unity o f Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Robert
Tannehill has undertaken an approach to the theological dimensions o f Acts that is
attentive to their integration with the movement o f Luke’s two-volume story as a whole.
What gives this story its unity is Luke’s theology o f the PouA.r| xox> 9eou, the
foreordained “plan o f God,” which Luke portrays as inevitably working itself out within
the story o f the church’s emergence, despite all human opposition.135 Tannehill’s
134Jervell, “The Future of the Past: Luke’s Vision of Salvation History and its Bearing
on His Writing of History,” in History, Literature, and Society in the Book o f Acts (ed. B.
Witherington HI; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 107-08.
135See Tannehill, “Israel in Acts: A Tragic Story,” JBL 104 (1985): 69-85.

46
narrative approach to Luke-Acts allows him to grant sustained attention to the repetition
o f resurrection language in these chapters and how the theological appeals to the
resurrection function within the literary structure o f Luke-Acts. Though Tannehill
neglects the importance o f the resurrection in Acts 17, he is far more attentive to its
strategic recurrence in the trial scenes:
Paul keeps coming back to the theme o f hope and resurrection even
when it no longer provokes disruption (cf. 24:15, 21; 28:20), and it will
be a central theme in Paul’s climactic defense before King Agrippa
(26:6-8, 23). Paul is doing more than injecting a controversial subject
into the Sanhedrin hearing. He is trying to change the entire issue o f his
trial, and he will persist in this effort in subsequent scenes. Therefore,
the significance o f Paul’s statement that he is on trial “concerning hope
and the resurrection o f the dead” can be understood only by considering
the development o f this theme in later scenes.136
Relying upon methods o f literary interpretation articulated by Robert Funk in the
Poetics o f Biblical Narrative, Tannehill attempts to discover the “narrator’s strategy” in
the scenes o f Paul’s defense by observing “the rhetorical shaping o f a narrative to make
a particular kind o f impression on its readers or hearers, or to appeal to them in a
particular way.” 137 This approach transcends a one-dimensional interpretation o f the
speeches as theological treatises, and attempts to determine their broader function
within an unfolding story.
Instead o f simply reading a unified theological understanding into all the
references, he hopes to treat each reference in its turn, with a view to how the theme
emerges and develops through the progress o f the narrative. These appeals to the
136Tannehill, The Narrative Unity, 2:287.
137Robert W. Funk, The Poetics o f Biblical Narrative (Foundations and Facets: Literary
Facets; Sonoma, Calif.: 1988); Tannehill, “The Narrator’s Strategy,” 255.

47
resurrection initially seem strangely out o f place; but as the theme is developed, it
becomes clear in 26:23 that “there is a christological core to this theme o f hope and
resurrection.” 138 In his reading, then, Acts 26:23 presents the christological goal
towards which all the other references move. In fact, in a more recent clarification of
this reading o f the trial scenes, Tannehill suggests that Paul’s references to the
resurrection in the trial scenes may take the place o f the earlier christological proofs
from the Scripture that were so prominent in the sermons o f Acts 2 and 13.139
This “christological core” is highly concealed in 23:6-10: “Paul speaks as if he
were simply defending a Pharisaic doctrine.” 140 Yet in 26:23, Paul openly reveals the
true meaning o f the resurrection. God has raised the Messiah as “the first o f the
resurrection from the dead.” 141 Paul’s resurrection hope is thus “not an individualistic
hope for life after death but a hope for the messianic kingdom, which is established
through the resurrection and characterized by resurrection life.” 142 Tannehill envisions
the resurrection in these chapters as directly linked with Israel’s hope for the Davidic
Messiah, “because Jesus is established as reigning Messiah through resurrection.” 143
139Tannehill, “The Story of Israel within the Lukan Narrative,” in Jesus and the
Heritage o f Israel: Luke's Narrative Claim upon Israel's Legacy (ed. D. Moessner; Luke the
Interpreter of Israel 1; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1999), 37-38.
141 Ibid., 2:319.
143Tannehill, “Paul’s Mission in Acts,” in Luke-Acts and the Jewish People: Eight
Critical Perspectives (Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1988), 95.
143Tannehill, The Narrative Unity, 2:319; a similar connection is made by Haacker,

“Das Bekenntnis des Paulus," 447.

48
Thus, for Tannehill, Paul’s resurrection language is a concise, and gradually unveiled,
proclamation that the promises o f Israel are fulfilled in Jesus’ resurrection from the
dead; and in this sense, his resurrection appeals are more about what has already
occurred in the Messiah’s resurrection than what lies ahead in the future.
Tannehill proposes a function for these references that is highly evangelical.
He rejects the “political apologetic” interpretation o f these verses. He argues instead
that by making his appeals directly to the resurrection in these chapters, Paul is turning
“his defense into an appealing witness to suspicious Jews.” 144 In moments, Tannehill
seems to imply that the resurrection language in these passages must be directed to a
reading community o f non-Christian Jews. He can, in fact, claim that in the speech o f
Acts 22 “Paul’s life story can be rhetorically shaped to respond to those who attack Paul
as anti-Jewish.”145 Yet he retreats from this implication by offering the proposal that
“Paul is being presented to Christians as a resourceful witness from whom other
missionaries can learn.” 146
Paul’s “appealing witness,” however, ultimately meets a tragic end in Luke-
Acts. Israel disbelieves even as the fulfillment o f her ancestral hopes is portrayed
before her very eyes. The “ irony o f Jewish rejection” is especially heightened in the
144Tannehill, The Narrative Unity, 2:287. Haacker more persuasively notes that only in
the defense before Felix is the hearer of the speech a non-Jew; “Das Bekenntnis des Paulus,”
439-40.
145Tannehill, “The Narrator’s Strategy,” 258.
146Tannehill, The Narrative Unity, 2:290; “The Story of Israel,” 338-39; Charles H.
Talbert concurs in a comment on Acts 23:6; Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological
Commentary on The Acts o f the Apostles (Reading the New Testament; New York: Crossroad,
1997), 201.

49
trial scenes, since Paul proclaims that the Jewish people have hoped for centuries in the
promises recently confirmed in Jesus’ resurrection; yet, even as Paul proclaims this
hope in the resurrection of Jesus, he is held on trial.147 The resurrection m otif o f the
trial scenes, especially 26:6-8, “contributes to a presentation o f the story o f Israel that
emphasizes the fulfillment o f its great hope and then depicts a tragic turn away from
this fulfillment.” 148 For Tannehill, these references to the resurrection function
prominently within his more general argument that Luke-Acts tells the tragic story o f
how Israel, in the very face o f the scriptural fulfillment o f all the promises made to her
ancestors, has ironically turned away.149
Tannehill’s contribution to the discussion o f these passages is profound. Like
Schubert, he accentuates an observation, previously made by Dibelius,150 that even in
the forensic and apologetical aspects o f the defense speeches o f Paul, there remains a
kerygmatic element.151 Tannehill describes the contours o f this proclamation in the
language o f fulfillment, accentuating the fact that “the resurrection . . . represents the
fulfillment of a promise that is central to Jewish existence.” 152 Certainly, the careful
description o f Jesus’ resurrection in Luke-Acts as an act o f scriptural fulfillment cannot
148 Ibid., 2:318.
149In his specific essay on the tragic unity of Luke-Acts, Tannehill introduces the
resurrection motif in the trial scenes as a fourth line of evidence for a tragic view of Israel in
Acts; “Israel in Acts: A Tragic Story,” 78-79; cf. “The Story of Israel,” 338-39.
150Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography,” 183.
151 As Haacker has also suggested; “Das Bekenntnis des Paulus,” 439.
152Tannehill, “Paul’s Mission in Acts,” 94.

50
be ignored in any serious treatment o f this topic. Luke’s account o f Jesus’ resurrection
in Luke 24 has paved the way directly to this emphasis, as Schubert also shows in his
own analysis o f the promise and fulfillment motif.153 Furthermore, Peter’s speech in
Acts 2 solidifies the continuity between scriptural promise and the resurrection o f Jesus
as an event o f prophetic fulfillment, as does Paul’s own sermon in Pisidian Antioch
(Acts 13). As Tannehill also shows, the references to ancestral hope in Paul’s
resurrection appeals recapitulate the earlier promise and fulfillment motif established in
Luke 24 and Acts 2 and 13.154
Yet something decisive is missing from the treatment. Tannehill has not fully
accounted for the eschatological nature o f the resurrection in these chapters, as a future
event o f judgment for “the just and the unjust” (24:15). Tannehill, o f course, is not
alone in this. Klaus Haacker,155 Jacob Jervell,156 and Robert F. O ’Toole,157 when
commenting upon these passages, prefer to speak o f the resurrection o f Jesus as the
historic fulfillment o f Israel’s hope in the past, rather than to explain its implications for
the future. Furthermore, despite his own warning not to interpret the climactic
proclamation o f 26:23 into all o f Paul’s resurrection language, Tannehill may well have
153Schubert, “The Structure and Significance of Luke 24,” 165-86.
154Tannehill, The Narrative Unity, 2:319-21. This, too, as Haacker has shown, may
also imply scriptural fulfillment; “Das Bekenntnis des Paulus,” 443-47. Note the similar
treatment by F. Scott Spencer, Acts (Readings; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997),
213,220.
155Haacker, “Das Bekenntnis des Paulus,” 443-47.
156Jervell, “The Future of the Past,” 106.
157O’Toole, Acts 26,86-97.

51
allowed the christology o f the resurrection m otif to swallow up its eschatology - that is,
he tends to read the resurrection m otif as a gradually unveiled declaration o f Jesus’
resurrection from the dead, not as a literal hope in the future resurrection-judgment.
This is particularly clear where he equates the resurrection directly with the messianic
kingdom. Once again, there is something to be gained from this connection, since the
resurrection o f Jesus from the dead in Acts 2 is his exaltation as “Lord and Messiah.’’
What Tannehill fails to clarify is that Luke has chronologically linked Jesus’ specific
resurrection in the past to the general resurrection o f the dead in the future, as two
decisive events within a larger vision o f history - one past, the other yet to come -
which, taken together, demonstrate God’s just and sovereign control over history as a
whole.158 The implications of this connection are especially interesting in light o f
Tannehill’s thesis about the tragic structure o f Luke-Acts. The appeal to an
eschatological act o f divine judgment may well have been Luke’s best attempt to
demonstrate God’s just control o f history precisely amid the tragedy o f Paul’s imminent
martyrdom and Israel’s disbelief. Yet this is an option that Tannehill has left
unexplored.
John T. Carroll (1954-present): Situational Eschatology
Finally, in his published 1986 dissertation, Response to the End o f History:
Eschatology and Situation in Luke-Acts, John Carroll has proposed a reading o f Acts
that moves beyond Conzelmann’s “classic theory.” Carroll’s treatment o f the problem
158Instead, he reads these references almost in reverse order: “Paul is able to move
from hope in a general resurrection to hope in a messianic kingdom for Israel established by a
resurrected Messiah”; “The Story of Israel,” 339.

52
o f Lukan eschatology takes a new and sophisticated vantage o f the so-called “delayed
parousia” in Acts. Carroll can agree with Conzelmann that evidence o f delay exists in
Acts. He disagrees, however, with Conzelmann’s association o f the delay o f the
parousia with a de-eschatologizing tendency. Instead, Luke’s “delayed parousia”
represents what one might call a “re-eschatologizing” o f history: Luke has not removed
the parousia from the church; he has instead saved the parousia for his own time by
removing it from the immediate context o f the events surrounding Jesus, Peter, and
Paul.159 The story o f Luke-Acts brings the movement o f history up to date - to the very
threshold o f Luke’s own context and readership. In so doing, Luke has brought the
entire context of future eschatology, delayed in the text, to stand over the readers in
their own contemporary situation. Thus, the “eschaton” is not “swallowed up” in the
“semeron,” 160 but stands over the readers o f Luke-Acts as a viable hope for the future.
Though Carroll does not develop his model in this direction, his model would suggest
that Paul’s statements about the future resurrection and judgment also stand over the
implied readers o f Acts as the next great events in history.
Though most o f Carroll’s treatment o f Acts concentrates on the early
eschatological texts in Acts 1:3-11, 2:17-21, 3:19-26,161 he wisely balances his reading
o f these loci classici o f Lukan eschatology with a thorough treatment o f the “hope o f
Israel” and the ending o f Acts.162 He finds the “hope o f Israel” to be a consistently
159Carroll, Response to the End, 166.
160Ibid., 166-67.
161 Ibid., 121-54.
162Ibid., 155-64.

53
asserted theme throughout Luke-Acts. Luke establishes the theme o f hope early in his
story, in the annunciations and birth narratives o f Luke 1-2; yet he also returns to the
theme at the end o f the gospel in 24:21.163 Luke returns to the theme again at the end of
Acts in the defense speeches o f 21-26 and in the conclusion to the entire work at 28:20.
The “hope o f Israel” thus “gives to Luke’s narrative its point o f departure and its
destination.” 164 These observations are especially perceptive in the way they show how
Luke reactivates the theme o f hope in Paul’s trial scenes.165
As for the basis and content o f this “hope” in Acts, Carroll prefers to speak o f
Israel’s hope as already fulfilled in “the coronation o f Israel’s King” and the preaching
o f the gospel to the Gentiles.166 In this sense, Carroll is very close to Tannehill’s
interpretation o f Israel’s hope, though he disagrees with him in numerous details. One
might also mention the treatment o f Robert Maddox as sympathetic to this reading.167
163 Carroll, Response to the End, 37-53.
164 Ibid., 155.
165 One should also recognize the value of Haacker’s essay here; “Das Bekenntnis des
Paulus zur Hoffnung Israels.” See also the section on Tannehill’s treatment, which depends in
significant measure on Haacker’s views.
166Carroll, Response to the End, 163.
167Maddox, The Purpose o f Luke-Acts, 130-57. Though Maddox concludes his survey
of the problem with his own proposal of an “eschatology already fulfilled,” he is also faithful to
enumerate the genuinely futurist aspects of Acts that resist classification within his own
proposal: Jesus’ promised coming on a cloud in Acts 1:11; the coming times o f refreshing in
3:20; and the future judgment in 10:41-43, 17:30-31, and 24:25. In addition to these examples,
Maddox also classifies five other references “which perhaps stand somewhat on the margin of
eschatological doctrine . . . and all have to do with the hope of Israel (or of the Pharisees) in the
resurrection of the dead at the final consummation: Acts 23:6; 24:15, 21; 26:6-8; 28:20” (130).
Maddox, however, discounts the importance of these references in Lukan eschatology: “But in
each case the point is not really to look forward to what will happen at the end (as is the case
with the similar terminology in Lukel4:14, cf. 18:30) but rather to argue from the general
Pharisaic belief in the ultimate resurrection of all humanity to the reasonableness of the

54
Israel’s hope is fulfilled in Jesus’ Messiahship and the current mission o f the church.
The hope for a future resurrection o f the dead, however, is largely passed over. It is
either subverted to Jesus’ own resurrection or ignored, and must leave us asking one o f
our original questions: what does it mean that our author turns his attention from the
specific resurrection o f Jesus in the past to the future resurrection-judgment in these
climactic chapters o f Acts?
Summation:
If one may generalize concerning the flow o f a very complicated history of
interpretation, nineteenth-century scholarship approached these passages apologetically,
as though they were a defense o f something important to Luke, something that was
endangered in his own time. Apologetical approaches, however, differed on precisely
what that was, and they continue to do so. With the work o f Dibelius, Conzelmann, and
Schubert in the mid-twentieth century, interpreters began taking more seriously the
theological dimensions o f these references within the Lukan vision o f redemptive
history. Finally, in an effort to avoid reading these passages in isolation from the
development o f Luke’s story as a whole, narrative approaches have attempted to read
these references to the resurrection with a special view to how they unfold through the
Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus as the first instance of it (cf. 26:23). In a formal
sense, this is rather like Paul’s concept of Christ’s resurrection as the “first-fruits” of the future
resurrection of those who are in him, 1 Cor. 15:20-23, cf. I Thess. 4:14. But the passages in
Acts lack the Christological and soteriological thrust of Paul, and sound more like an academic
debating-point. Nevertheless, when Luke claims the doctrine of a future, general resurrection as
common ground between the Pharisees and the Christians, it at least means that he accepts it as
a widely-agreed part of Christian doctrine, to which he himself also subscribes. (130)
Maddox’s reading is perhaps most important where it raises the question of the didactic aspect
o f Paul’s resurrection hope, a topic that is treated in Chapter 7 of this study.
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e c o p y rig h t o w n e r . F u r th e r re p ro d u c tio n p rohib ited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

55
progress o f Paul’s trials. Four dynamics have shaped the critical discussion o f these
passages for the last one hundred and fifty years. They continue to do so in the present.
1. Apologetical dynamics: The Tubingen School, Cadbury, the “radicals,”
Dibelius, Easton, Haenchen, Conzelmann, Jervell, Dahl, and Brawley have made
significant proposals concerning the apologetical dimensions o f the resurrection
language in these chapters; yet they remain divided as to what Luke is defending -
whether it be Christianity, the Gentile mission, traditional doctrines, or Paul himself -
and to whom he is defending it - whether to his own community, Romans, non-
Christian Jews, Jewish-Christians, God-fearers, or gnostics. In arguing for apologetical
approaches to these texts, they are following the lead o f “defense” language evident in
the text o f Acts. The verb djtoA.oyeai is attested six times (19:33; 24:10; 25:8; 26:1, 2,
24), and the noun (xtcoX oy'ux once (22:1), in Acts 19-26.168 Some kind o f “defense” is
definitely taking place in these chapters. The strength o f these apologetical approaches
to Paul’s resurrection hope also consists in their ability to address the question o f why
Acts 23:6-11 marks a sudden shift o f concern in Acts away from the specific
resurrection o f Jesus in the past (Acts 2-3; 13; and 17:18) and toward the general
resurrection o f the dead. These approaches also propose a rhetorical context within
which it would have been strategic for Luke to portray Paul as a Pharisee, whose
common hope in the resurrection is consistently accentuated throughout the trials (23:6-
11; 24:15-16, 21; 26:6-8). Apologetic interpretations have also called appropriate
attention to Luke’s purposed articulation o f the continuity o f Paul’s faith with the
i68O’Toole also calls further attention to the relationship between Luke 21:14-15 (cf.
Luke 12:12) and these passages of Acts; Acts 26, 35-37.

56
ancestral hopes o f Judaism. It is clear that in associating Paul so strongly with
Pharisaism, Luke is aligning him with the dominant party in Judaism before 70 C.E. and
with the only type o f Judaism, besides the Jesus Movement, that survived after 70
C.E.169
Yet there are four remaining problems among apologetical approaches to these
passages. First o f all, apologetical explanations ultimately rely upon speculative
conjectures about the audience o f Luke-Acts, a problem for which there have been no
decisive answers within Lukan scholarship. Some approaches have even envisioned
multiple audiences to account for multiple dimensions o f their apologetical models.
This lacuna in our historical understanding about the original audience o f Acts provides
no solid foundation upon which to build an argument about the purpose o f Acts.
Second, in many apologetical treatments o f these texts, Paul’s hearing before the
Sanhedrin often appears as the exegetical rule for interpreting the other references to the
resurrection in Paul’s speeches, with the logic that the case o f 23:6-11 should be used as
a paradigm for interpreting the others.170 Since 23:6-11 seems intent on portraying Paul
as a faithful member o f the Pharisaic school, it follows that the other references to
Paul’s resurrection faith must be functioning in the very same way. This, however, is
not necessarily the case. As we have already noted, there is variety o f expression
among these repeated references to the resurrection. This suggests that they cannot all
be reduced to an apologetical exegesis o f 23:6-11, since they are also concerned with
1691am obliged to James H. Charlesworth for this last statement.
170This is especially the case in works produced by the Tubingen School, the “radicals,”
and Haenchen.

57
the hopes o f the entire Jewish people throughout time (26:6-8) and the prospect o f
future judgment (17:31; 24:15-16).
Third, most apologetical approaches to these references discount the fact that
Luke’s distinctive development o f the resurrection motif, so prominent in the trial
scenes, actually begins in Acts 17:18-32, where Paul’s entire Athenian speech begins,
reaches its climax, and comes to an end with references to Paul’s belief in the
resurrection. It is here that Luke first begins developing a specific concern for the
resurrection as an idea that provokes mockery and curiosity among philosophical
schools. Luke continues to develop this concern more fully throughout the trial scenes.
The result o f ignoring the Athenian episode is that the entire resurrection m otif becomes
a matter o f inter-sectarian squabbling in the trial scenes, and its positive theological, and
indeed, eschatological dimensions are often overlooked. It follows that those who
interpret these references apologetically can often fail to develop more fully the positive
assertion that Paul’s speeches envision on the horizon o f future history an event called
the resurrection o f the dead. At their worst, apologetical approaches may reduce Paul’s
resurrection faith to a mere posture for legitimation; at their best, they still must account
for the positive theological claims made in these verses.
2. Promise-Fulfillment dynamics: Dibelius, Jervell, Conzelmann, Schubert,
Maddox, Haacker, Tannehill, and Carroll all call the necessary attention to the
description o f the resurrection as “the hope o f Israel,” in terms o f its relationship to all
that Moses and the prophets have spoken. As “the promise made to the fathers,” the
resurrection hope o f Israel now stands fulfilled in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.
Thus, God’s promises are now faithfully confirmed in history, revealing the essential

58
continuity between belief in Jesus in the present and Israel’s ancestral hopes in the past.
This promise-fulfillment dynamic should not be overlooked in treating the resurrection
m otif in Paul’s preaching and defense anymore than it can be in the interpretation o f
Acts as a whole. It is impossible, however, in the final analysis to reduce the genuine
futurity o f Acts 17:31 and 24:15-16 to an act o f scriptural fulfillment in the past. Jesus
is the “first from the resurrection o f the dead,” but he is not the last. For this reason,
interpretation o f these passages must certainly account for their emphasis upon the
fulfillment o f Israel’s ancestral hopes in Jesus’ specific resurrection from the dead; but
it cannot allow the past to swallow up the future where Luke is so clearly relating Jesus’
resurrection to what lies ahead. Thus, the resurrection m otif in these chapters cannot
finally be reduced to a parable o f Jesus’ own resurrection in the past, but its future
vision must be preserved in interpretation.
3. Theological-eschatological dynamics'. Conzelmann, Schubert, Cadbury,
and Maddox, are willing at least to consider the overtly futuristic character o f Paul’s
resurrection language in these chapters. Taken together, their work raises the possibility
that Paul’s claims about the resurrection may refer in some sense to the future. Yet they
remain divided on key issues. Perhaps the most significant problem for theological
interpretation involves striking the right balance between the concern for the future
resurrection in these texts and the literary uses in which Luke has employed this
concern. This problem demands more specialized attention to the function o f Paul’s
resurrection hope within Luke’s larger theology o f Israel’s history.
4. Narrative dynamics: The methods o f Tannehill, Brawley, and Carroll
indicate the significance o f reading these appeals to the resurrection in the context o f an

59
unfolding story. Attention to the narrative context within which these references appear
resists the temptation to read Paul’s speeches merely as doctrinal treatises. Three
aspects o f the narrative context o f these speeches have proven especially important in
the assessment of Paul’s resurrection language in the critical history, and will continue
to be crucial in future interpretations: 1) the speeches o f Acts and their relationship to
Luke’s narrative; 2) the function o f sectarian designations and conflicts (e.g.,
Epicureans, Stoics, Pharisees, Sadducees, the way) in these scenes; and 3) the context o f
Paul’s preaching (15:38-20:38) and trials (21:27-26:32). Interpretation o f these
passages must, therefore, remain attentive to the manner in which the resurrection motif
unfolds progressively in the speech materials o f Acts, intersects numerous sectarian
debates and rivalries, and plays a significant role in Paul’s missionary preaching and
defense speeches.
M ethod
The interpretive history o f these passages accentuating Paul’s hope in the
resurrection has unfolded in an almost accidental fashion. Where interpreters have
addressed these passages at all, their treatments have oflen emerged as peripheral
comments within critical works designed to address much larger issues.171 There has
been no single work dedicated to a focused analysis o f Paul’s resurrection faith in the
book o f Acts. Nor has there been a thorough treatment o f Paul’s resurrection hope in
171 Significant critical reflection on the resurrection passages must be laboriously

gleaned from the works presented above. The comments typically emerge within larger
treatments of Paul’s arrest and trial, the speeches in Acts, the Lukan theology, or simply
commentaries that mention these passages ad loc.

60
relation to models o f ancient Jewish piety in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.
Numerous ancient literary documents from the formative period o f Judaism and
Christianity attest to the hopes o f the Jewish people in the resurrection o f the dead,
immortality, and related concepts. Israel’s Scripture, the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha,
Dead Sea Scrolls, and Josephus are especially important corpora in the development o f
these traditions. An intensive survey o f Paul’s resurrection hope within the context o f
these materials may serve to address the fundamental question o f what it meant for
Luke to portray Paul as a believer in the resurrection within the literature o f antiquity.
These extra-textual dimensions o f ancient resurrection hope may provide clarification
upon Luke’s intra-textual use o f Paul’s dramatic professions that God raises the dead.
The analogies, however, must be selectively drawn in terms o f literary style, as
well as theological content. Paul’s professions o f faith in the resurrection are not
apocalyptic discourses, as one finds in 4 Ezra or 2 Baruch. Nor are they doctrinal
treatises on the resurrection. They should not be confused with these literary forms.
Instead, P a u l’s resurrection hopes surface within speeches that a literary character
offers within the context o f a larger story concerning recent events within the history o f
G od’s people. A priority is thus placed on those literary traditions that present faith in
the future life in the context o f character speeches that appear within a larger story. The
need for this selective survey is suggested by the active role Luke ascribes to speeches
throughout Acts. The work contains at least twenty-four speeches, amassing about 295

61
total verses, over one-fourth o f the entire document;172 and Paul himself is the speaker
in approximately 102 o f these.173
Dibelius was the first to present a comprehensive taxonomy for the function o f
the speeches in Acts, through a comparative analysis o f the speeches in ancient
historiography. His own taxonomy has endured through the years, and has received
numerous modifications throughout the latter half o f the twentieth-century. Dibelius’
research indicated that the speeches in ancient historiography were composed, “to
impart to the reader:
1. An insight into the total situation - for this, several speeches are
frequently required in order to illuminate the situation from different
angles.
2. An insight into the meaning o f the historical moment concerned, but
one which goes beyond the facts o f history. Even though this insight
may not have been revealed to the historical character at the moment
when he is making the speech, the writer nevertheless lets him supply it.
3. An insight into the character o f the speaker.
4. An insight into general ideas which are introduced to explain the
situation, even if they are only loosely connected with it.174
Dibelius would also add that the speeches were events in the story that furthered its
action. In application to the speeches in Acts, Dibelius would discount item 3, since
Luke was not interested in portraying the inner personalities o f his characters, but in
172Out of approximately 1000 total verses. The statistics are those of Gerhard
Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte (HTKNT 5; 2 vols.; Freiburg: Herder, 1980-82), 1:95-103.
Marion Soards expands these statistics to include twenty-seven or twenty-eight speeches, seven
more “partial speeches,” and three “dialogues,” bringing the total to approximately 365 verses;
The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville, Ken.:
Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 1.
1731am obliged to Prof. Don Juel for clarifying the relatively large amount o f speech
material given to Paul. The statistical approximation is my own.
174Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography,” 139-40.

62
portraying them as living examples o f Christian preaching.175 As Marion L. Soards has
shown, critics since Dibelius have called greater attention to the literary,176 didactic,177
and theological178 aspects of the speeches,'79 without necessarily overturning his
taxonomy in the process. Scholars continuing to work on the speeches o f Acts illustrate
the important functional analogies between the speeches in Acts and the speeches in
ancient histories, from Thucydides to the historical traditions o f the Greek Scripture.180
175Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography,” 182.
176G.H.R. Horsley, “Speeches and Dialogue in Acts,” NTS 32 (1986): 609-14. Horsley
describes the speeches as depending upon a stylistic concern “to lighten the narrative and vivify
it” (613).
177Conzeimann, Acts of the Apostles, xliii. The speeches serve “to instruct, but also
seek to please the reader” (xliii).
178This was, of course, a strong emphasis of Dibelius’ own work, as well as Schubert’s.
See the sections on them.
179Soards, The Speeches in Acts, 9-10.
180A preliminary bibliography of these approaches includes, but is not limited to the
following: David L. Balch, “The Areopagus Speech: An Appeal to the Stoic Historian
Posidonius against Later Stoics and Epicureans,” in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in
Honor o f Abraham Malherbe (ed. D. Balch, E. Ferguson, W. Meeks; Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1990), 52-79; “The Genre of Luke-Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel, or
Political History,” SJT35 (1990): 5-19; “Comments on the Genre and Political Theme of Luke-
Acts: A Preliminary Comparison of two Hellenistic Historians,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1989
(ed. D. Lull; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1989), 343-62; “Acts as Hellenistic Historiography,”
SBL Seminar Papers, 1985 (SBLSP 24; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 429-32; F. Gerald
Downing, “Common Ground with Paganism in Luke and Josephus,” NTS 28 (1982): 544-58;
T.F. Glasson, “The Speeches in Acts and Thucydides,” ExpTim 76 (1965): 165; Colin J. Hemer,
The Book ofActs in the Setting o f Hellenistic History (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1989);
William S. Kurz, “Luke-Acts and Historiography in the Greek Bible,” SBL Seminar Papers,
1980 (SBLSP 17; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980), 283-300; Jerome Neyrey, “The Forensic
Defense Speech and Paul’s Trial Speeches in Acts 22-26: Form and Function,” in Luke-Acts:
New Perspectives from the Society o f Biblical Literature Seminar (ed. C. Talbert; New York:
Crossroad, 1983), 210-14; “Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy: A Study in Stereotypes,” in
Greeks, Romans, and Christians, 118-34; Eckhard Pliimacher, “Die Missionsreden der
Apostelgeschichte und Dionys von Halikamass,” NTS 39 (1993): 161-77;
“Wirklichkeitserfahrung und Geschichtsschreibung bei Lukas: Erwagungen zu den Wir-
Stiicken der Apostelgeschichte,” ZNW 83 (1992): 270-75; “Die Apostelgeschichte als

63
Soards’ own contribution to the discussion explores the means by which
historiographical speeches and those in Acts function to achieve greater literary and
thematic unity within the narratives in which they appear.181 Indeed, the motifs o f the
speeches pervade multiple literary units throughout the book o f Acts, developing
recurrent ideas in diverse narrative contexts as the mission moves on steadily from
Jerusalem to Rome. The concern with the resurrection in the speech materials is
exemplary of this stylistic phenomenon. Mention o f the resurrection in the speeches o f
Acts pervades multiple literary units within the work, including the prologue to the
mission (1:22), the Jerusalem witness (2:24-36, 3:15), the persecution and dispersion of
the witness (10:40-43; 13:30, 33-37), the Pauline mission (17:18, 31), and Paul’s arrest
and trials (23:6; 24:15-16, 21; 26:6-8, 23). Soards’ remarks on the use o f these
speeches to achieve greater thematic unity in Acts are certainly illustrated in these texts.
One must, however, also recognize that these speeches also give progressive
development to Luke’s theology o f the resurrection in Acts, as the mystery o f the
resurrection is further illumined in new narrative contexts throughout the work. The
historische Monografie,” in Les Actes des Apotres: tradition, redaction, theologie (ed. J.
Kremer; Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 48; Gembloux: Leuven
University Press, 1979); Brian S. Rosner, “Acts and Biblical History,” in The Book o f Acts in Its
Ancient Literary Setting (ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke; vol. 1 of The Book o f
Acts in its First-Century Setting; ed. B. Winter; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993-95), 65-
82; John T. Squires, The Plan o f God in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS 76; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1993), 15-36; “The Plan of God in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Witness to the
Gospel, 19-39; Marion Soards, The Speeches in Acts; Gregory Sterling, Historiography and
Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography, David L. Tiede,
Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980); W.C. van Unnik,
“Luke-Acts: A Storm Center in Contemporary Scholarship,” in Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays
for P. Schubert (ed. L. Keck and J. Martyn; Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 15-32; “Die
Apostelgeschichte und die Haresien,” ZNW(\961): 240-46; “Luke’s Second Book and the
Rules of Hellenistic Historiography,” in Les Actes des Apotres, 37-60.
181 Soards, The Speeches in Acts, 12.

64
approach to the speeches taken in what follows is highly influenced by each o f these
treatments. It explores especially the relationships that exist between speech and
characterization, speech and story, and speech and the implied reader.
It is a shortcoming o f most comparative studies o f the speeches that they have
little to say about the function o f eschatological language and themes within the larger
presentation o f ancient historical works. This is understandable, since classical sources,
from which many historiographical approaches have emerged, contain very little that
could properly be classified as “eschatological.” An exploration o f the speeches in
early Jewish historical works, however, reveals a broader array o f futuristic themes and
concerns. Isolating such appeals for divine judgment and hope in the future life may
provide a comparative basis for evaluating Paul’s resurrection hope amid models o f
ancient Jewish piety.
At least three early Jewish historical works incorporate repeated appeals to the
resurrection o f the dead, immortality, and eternal life into their speech materials. These
works are selected among others because they satisfy the requirement for both content
analogy and stylistic analogy, e.g., they attest the content o f belief in the resurrection o f
the dead, immortality, and related concepts; and the stylistics o f speech materials that
appear within a larger story o f Jewish history.
1. First, in 2 Maccabees, the author portrays characters who proclaim their
hope in a future resurrection in three different scenes (2 Macc 7; 12:38-45; 14:37-46).
2. Second, in the Jewish Wars, Josephus portrays four character speeches
that appeal to the notion o f a future immortal life beyond death (1.648; 2.117-66; 3.340-
408; 6.33-53; 7.337-88).

65
3. Finally, the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs tells the stories o f the
ancestors, and indeed o f all Israel through the ages, concluding the speeches o f Simeon,
Judah, Zebulon, and Benjamin with affirmations o f a future resurrection from the dead
( T1Sim. 6.7; TJud. 25.1-4; T.Zeb. 10.1-6; T.Ben. 10.1-11).182
By analyzing the meaning and function o f these speeches regarding the
resurrection o f the dead, immortality, and eternal life within the larger historical works
in which they appear, I hope to develop an exegetical perspective that is sensitive to the
rhetorical functions that these professions o f future hope served in the narration o f
Jewish history. Such a perspective may contribute new insights into the rhetorical
functions o f Paul’s hope in a future resurrection-judgment in the scenes o f his preaching
and trials. The four speeches in which Paul mentions his hope in a future resurrection-
judgment (17:22-31, 23:6, 24:10-21; 26:1-23) are also crucial for the interpretation o f
Acts as a whole, since it is in these chapters that Paul’s mission turns directly into his
trial, setting into motion the final act o f Luke’s story. After tracing the development o f
the resurrection-judgment m otif through these four speeches (Chapter 5) and assessing
its theological-eschatological assumptions (Chapter 6), I propose three possibilities for
the rhetorical function o f Paul’s resurrection hope, based upon the survey o f the extra-
textual materials (Chapter 7):
1. The first is concerned with the relationship between speech and
characterization. It argues that Paul’s resurrection-judgment language in these
speeches performs the function o f heroizing his fidelity to Israel’s ancestral faith in God
182Cf. T. Lev. 18.14. As the following treatment will show, the first three references
may simply represent standard Jewish hopes in the resurrection; but the passage of T. Ben. is
clearly Christian in a pervasive way.

66
in the specific literary context o f his own accusation, trial, and imminent martyrdom.
This approach, of course, contrasts with Dibelius’ assertion that the speeches o f Acts do
not characterize. It should be noted, however, that Dibelius uses the language o f
characterization in the more modem sense o f portraying the “inner personalities” o f a
character. The approach taken in what follows certainly does not pursue
characterization in this sense, but explores how the speeches present Paul as an ideal
type o f Jewish religious and philosophical piety.183 The extra-textual speech materials
surveyed in Chapters 2-4 provide analogous accounts o f faith in the resurrection,
immortality, and eternal life as ideal elements o f Jewish piety.
2. The second concerns the relationship between speech and story. It
suggests that this hero’s exemplary hope in the future resurrection affirms God’s
ultimate control over history and serves as a Lukan attempt to address the perennial
historiographical problem o f theodicy. This problem is especially reflected in the
preaching and defense o f Paul in two ways: through the problem o f Israel’s disbelief,
and through the foreshadowed sufferings o f Paul. Luke addresses these problems by
relating Jesus’ resurrection from the dead to the final resurrection-judgment, affirming
the continuity o f the divine plan as it extends from the creation o f the world to the
consummation. The extra-textual speech materials surveyed in Chapters 2-4 reveal
183John A. Darr’s study of characterization points the way beyond Dibelius’ caution by
showing that characterization expresses rhetorical strategies in the text, even if they do not
portray a depth-psychology; The Reader and the Rhetoric o f Characterization in Luke-Acts
(Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville, Ken.: Westminster/John Knox Press,
1992); and Herod the Fox: Audience Criticism and Lukan Characterization (JSNTSup 163;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 75-89. On the relationship between speech and
characterization, see Robert Alter, The Art o f Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books,
1981), 116-17.

67
analogous concerns with affirming the certainty o f divine retribution, providence, and
God’s ultimate control over history.
3. The third and final proposal for the function o f Paul’s resurrection hope
describes the rhetorical relationship between the speeches o f Paul and the implied
authorial audience o f Acts. It concludes that Paul’s resurrection language in these
chapters may perform a consolatory function in relationship to the reader: since both
Paul and the implied readers stand in hope o f the future resurrection o f the dead, Paul’s
own persistent and faithful preaching o f the doctrine may challenge readers to persevere
in the same hope, despite the tragic and perplexing events o f Israel’s disbelief and the
prospect o f suffering. The extra-textual speeches surveyed in Chapters 2-4 provide
analogous rhetorical features o f consolation and exhortation.

CHAPTER 2:
APPEALS TO THE FUTURE LIFE IN 2 MACCABEES
Introduction
In one of many fascinating passages in the Jewish Antiquities, Josephus finds
him self on the verge o f divulging to his readers the prospects o f Jewish eschatological
hopes, yet insistently backs away from the topic. In his commentary on “the stone” of
Dan 2:36, Josephus turns suddenly reticent to explain the full implications o f Daniel’s
prophecy for the future:
And Daniel also revealed to the king the meaning o f the stone, but I have
not thought it proper to relate this, since I am expected to write o f what is
past and done and not o f what is yet to be; if, however, there is someone
who has so keen a desire for exact information that he will not stop short
o f inquiring more closely but wishes to learn about the hidden things that
are yet to come, let him take the trouble to read the Book o f Daniel,
which he will find among the sacred writings (A.J. 10.210).
This suggestive, yet elusive, passage has rightly received considerable critical attention.
While some commentators have found Josephus to be subverting apocalyptic hopes for
a messianic kingdom to the power o f the Roman principate,1others have proposed that
Josephus is actually drawing his reader into the very prophecies that still offered hope
for a future Jewish kingdom beyond the Roman empire.2 In either case, one thing is
clear: Josephus knows more than he will say. He was was familiar with eschatological
1In Josephus, The Jewish Antiquities, Books 1-19 (trans. H. St. J. Thackeray et al.;
LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930-65), 275 n. c. The comment is that of Ralph
Marcus.
2E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief (63 B.C.E.-66 C.E.) (London: SCM
Press, 1994; orig. 1992), 288-89; Gerhard Delling, “Die biblische Prophetie bei Josephus,” in
Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen
Testament (ed. O. Betz, K. Haacker, und M. Hengel; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht,
1974), 117-18.
68

69
hopes that found in the prophetic texts a record o f i d jieX X o v tcx : “the things that are yet
to be.”
Though critical reflection on this passage has been rightly concerned with what
it may indicate about Josephus’ political stance on the future o f the Empire, this passage
is also crucial for what it reveals about the literary boundaries that Josephus draws
between his own history writing and speculation upon the eschatological future. As an
historiographer, Josephus finds it inappropriate to relate (iaxopeiv) the meaning o f the
stone. He is obliged to compose in his history the things that have come to pass - not
the things that are yet to come (id peXXovxa). The more important point for Josephus is
that Daniel’s prophecies and their accurate fulfillment in history affirm one o f the
fundamental assumptions o f his historiography as a whole:
All these things, as God revealed them to him, he [Daniel] left behind in
his writings, so that those who read them and observe how they have
come to pass must wonder at Daniel’s having been so honoured by God,
and learn from the facts how mistaken are the Epicureans, who exclude
Providence from human life and refuse to believe that God governs its
affairs or that the universe is directed by a blessed and immortal Being to
the end that the whole o f it may endure . .. (A.J. 10.277-79)
Where Josephus is reticent to delve into future eschatology, he is also emphatic about
the prophetic proof that “Providence” (f| rcpovoia) oversees human life and that God
governs the events o f history. Divine guidance further implies that future events will
also remain under providential care, as Daniel’s prophecies for the future have revealed.
In negotiating the boundaries between the narration o f history and eschatological
prophecy, Josephus reveals an important challenge for many ancient Jewish historians:
that o f demonstrating God’s faithful governance o f history, in spite o f the recurrent loss
o f Jewish nationhood from 587-63 B.C.E., the martyrdom o f the righteous during this

70
period, and especially the climactic destruction o f the Second Temple. The Jewish
Antiquities, however, was not the only Jewish historical work o f the period to face these
specific challenges. Chapters 2-4 examine how three other works - 2 Maccabees,
Josephus’ Jewish Wars, and the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs - employ carefully
constructed professions o f faith in life beyond death within the context o f their larger
presentations o f Jewish history.3 These documents have been especially chosen among
others because they present faith in the future life within speeches given by historic
figures in Israel’s ongoing history.4
The criteria for identifying the literary “speeches” that appear in these
documents, and in the book o f Acts are as follows:
1. The speech must be introduced by a narrative comment indicating that
the action o f the story pauses so that a character may address an audience (2 Macc 7:2,
9, I t , 14, 21, 27, 30; B.J. 3.361; 6.33-34, 320-22, 337-41; T. Sim. 1.1-2, T. Jud. 1.1-2,
T. Zeb. 1.1-2, T. Ben. 1.1-2; Acts 17:16-22, 23:6, 24:10, 26:1). These narrative
introductions are often repetitive and formulaic. In the vast majority o f cases, they
introduce oratio recte; but in some cases oratio obliqua is preferred according to the
style o f the author (2 Macc 14:46; B.J. 1.649-51).
3The order of presentation is chiefly chronological, though the pre-Christian traditions

of the Testaments certainly ante-date Josephus, and perhaps also 2 Macc. The Testaments,
however, are treated last in the sequence for two reasons: first, the earliest pre-Christian
recensions of the Testaments are not available to modem study; and second, the Testaments are
considerably different from 2 Macc and B.J. in terms of genre.
4Thus, Liber Antiquarum Biblicarum 3.10, which is certainly an historiographical work

that appeals to the future resurrection of the dead, is not considered, since the prophecy comes
as divine speech rather than character speech. In some sense this reference in LAB serves as a
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e rm is s io n .

71
2. The speech must not simply be a soliloquy or dialogue, but it must
address a larger narrative audience that is directly identified in the text (2 Macc 7:1-9,
10, 12, 13, 20-21, 25-27, 30; B.J 1.649-51; 3.355, 360-61; 6.33-34, 320-22, 337-71; T.
Sim. 1.1-2, T. Jud. 1.1-2, T. Zeb. 1.1-2, T. Ben. 1.1-2; Acts 17:22, 23:6, 24:10, 26:1-3).5
3. Often, the relationship between speaker and audience is reinforced
within the speech through direct address (2 Macc 7:9, 14, 22, 27-28, 30-31, 34; B.J.
3.362, 6.34, 322, 341-42; T. Sim. 1.3, T. Jud. 26.1, T. Zeb. 10.1, T. Ben. 10.11; Acts
17:22; 23:6; 24:10-11, 14, 20-21; 26:2-3, 8, 19).
4. The speech must end, and the action o f the story must continue through
narrative description, often relating actions that are the direct result o f the speech (2
Macc 7:3-5, 10, 12-13, 24, 30, 39-41; B.J. 1.651-55, 3.383-86, 3.54-67, 389-401; T.
Sim. 8.1-9.1, T. Jud. 26.4, T. Zeb. 10.6-7, T. Ben. 12.1-4; Acts 17:32-34, 23:7-11, 24:22-
27, 26:24-32).
5. The length or brevity o f a speech may vary, since one speech may
merely summarize, allude to, or foreshadow matters described elsewhere in more detail.
Relatively shorter speeches should, therefore, not be excluded (B.J. 1.650; Acts 23:6).
6. The content o f a speech may be reinforced elsewhere by additional
narrative comments that expand or qualify the claims o f a speech (2 Macc 12:44-45;
B.J. 2.154-58, 163; Acts 24:25, 25:19).
further confirmation of the use of the future life within ancient Jewish historiography, but it
serves as an imprecise literary analogy for the development of Paul’s resurrection hope in Acts.
5A “narrative audience’’ is an audience in the text that is directly described as hearing

the words of a speech.

72
The analysis o f these three sources proceeds in each case through the following
structural divisions: I. survey o f attestations to the future life in the respective
document; II. the understanding o f the future life implied in the key passages; III. the
larger rhetorical function o f these appeals to the future life. The general term “future
life” is used in introduction to these texts, since they employ diverse conceptions of
resurrection, immortality, and eternal life that might be compromised by a more
harmonizing term. The purpose o f exploring these texts is to provide greater clarity into
the relationships that existed between hope in the future life and the rhetorical
presentation o f history, a relationship that is o f decisive significance for investigating
Luke’s use o f the resurrection-judgment motif in the speeches o f Acts.
Appeals to the Future Life in 2 Maccabees
Josephus’ reticence about explicitly pursuing aspects o f eschatological hope in
Jewish Antiquities 10.210 would have perhaps been shared by the author o f 1
Maccabees. One looks in vain for evidence o f eschatological hope for the future in 1
Maccabees. As Hugh Anderson comments, “Any type o f eschatology or ideology of
martyrdom is absent.”6 Instead, the over-riding premise o f the work emerges in the
death-bed oration o f Mattathias: “be courageous for the law, for it will bring you glory”
6 Hugh Anderson, “The Books of Maccabees,” ABD 4:441. Similarly, Johnathan A.

Goldstein can call 1 Macc a “history without miracles” that contrasts strongly with the
supematuralism of 2 Macc; IIMaccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB 41a; New York: Doubleday, 1983), 5. Joshua Efron, on the other hand,
suggests that “the author of 1 Maccabees does not deny eschatological expectations (IV 46; IX
27; XIV 41) but is cautious and restrained”; Studies on the Hasmonean Period (Studies in
Judaism in Late Antiquity 39; Leiden: Brill, 1987), 16-17.

73
(1 Macc 2:64), as it did for the ancestors (2:51-60). It is the reward o f the law in this
life that grants legitimacy to the moral order o f events which the author relates. For the
author o f 2 Maccabees, however, this was not enough.
Inheriting the historical traditions o f 1 Maccabees, if not the writing itself, Jason
o f Cyrene and his diligent Epitomist attempted to vindicate divine control over history
by incorporating hopes o f a future life into the stories o f the Maccabean heroes. The
stylistic freedom with which 2 Maccabees addresses these concerns has prompted its
classification as “pathetic” or “tragic history,”7 a style o f historiography that
emphasized the pious, dramatic, rhetorical, and legendary, over and against more
“ pragmatic” methods o f historiography concerned with politics and military conquest.8
Though the terminology o f “tragic history” is ultimately an academic one,9 it was
7Originally called "rhetorical history" by Benedictus Niese, “Kritik der beiden

Makkabaerbucher nebst Beitragen zur Geschichte der makkabaischen Erhebung,” Hermes 35
(1900): 268-307; see also Elias J. Bickermann, Der Gott der Makkabaer: Untersuchung iiber
Sinn und Ursprung der makkabaischen Erhebung (Berlin: Schocken, 1937), 147; C. Habicht, 2
Makkabaerbuch (JSHZ 1.3; Guttersloh: G. Mohn, 1976), 189; J.W. van Henten, The
Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours o f the Jewish People: A Study o f 2 and 4 Maccabees (JSJSup
57; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 20-21; called “theatrical history” by Goldstein, IIMaccabees, 20-22;
for the history of the problem, see Robert Doran, “2 Maccabees and ‘Tragic History,’” HUCA
50 (1979): 107-14; Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character o f 2 Maccabees
(CBQMS 12; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), 77-84.
! Cicero describes the style of mGri'CtKOV as, quo perturbantur animi el concitantur
{Brut, c.37); see Felix Marie Abel, Les Livres des Maccabees (Paris: Lecoffre, 1949), xxxvii.
Ulrich Kellermann, also uses the term “pathetischen Historiographie,” but also suggests a
correlation of the pathetic death scenes in 2 Macc with Hellenistic portrayals of the death of
Socrates; Auferstanden in den Himmel: 2 Makkabaer 7 und die Auferstehung der Mdrtyer
(Stuttgarter Bibel-Studien 95; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1979), 22.
One must note that “pragmatic” historians themselves were not wholly free of the
theatrical and dramatic; Goldstein, II Maccabees, 20; Doran, “2 Maccabees and Tragic
History,” 110-14; Temple Propaganda, 77-84.
9Doran, in fact, rejects use of the term to denominate a distinct form of

historiographical discourse in antiquity. Instead, he prefers to speak of the “tragic” as
something integral to many different expressions of ancient historiography, including the more

74
recognizable as a style o f rhetoric in antiquity. Hugh Anderson characterizes the
“tragic” style as one which was
rhetorical and dramatizing, which cascaded its effects, and which offered
appealing entertainment and sensitive participation. It was in this sense
that [2 Macc] sought to shock its audience both psychically and
physically through exaggeration and the broad depiction o f horrific
scenes and immeasurable passions, but also through praise o f heroic
deeds o f individuals and the terrible demise o f the “arch fiend.” 10
The liberties taken by the “tragic” historian, o f course, ultimately served a moralizing
purpose. In the case o f 2 Maccabees, the author vigorously defends his own theological
understanding o f the proper moral relationships between sin and retribution,
righteousness and reward, by incorporating dramatic scenes and heroic episodes, which
were apparently not among the traditions reported in 1 Maccabees.11
Though no consensus exists for the date o f Jason’s larger five-volume history o f
the revolt, the Epitomist who shortened the history for a broader circulation had
probably already completed his work by the early to mid-first century C.E.12 Since the
extant 2 Maccabees is the work o f the Epitomist, the term “author” is used in this
restrained historiographers Thucydides and Polybius; “2 Maccabees and ‘Tragic History,”’ 110-
14; Temple Propaganda, 77-84. For this reason, I have referred consistently to the “tragic” as a
“style” in 2 Macc, rather than a distinct class of historiography.
10Anderson, ABD 4:445; see also, Harold W. Attridge, “Historiography,” in Jewish

Writings o f the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian
Writings, Philo, and Josephus (ed. M. Stone; CRINT 2; Philadelphia: Fotress Press, 1984),
178.
11 Abel, Les Livres des Maccabees, xxxiv, 370; Attridge, “Historiography,” 178-79; Van
Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 24-25.
12Zeitlin proposes a date in the 40s, during the reign of King Agrippa II; Solomon
Zeitlin, ed., The Second Book o f Maccabees (Jewish Apocryphal Literature; New York: Harper
& Brothers, 1954), 27-30. The epitome itself is almost certainly pre-Roman.

75
chapter with the Epitomist in mind. The original edition o f Jason o f Cyrene is no longer
accessible to modem study. Solomon Zeitlin attributes the portrayal o f the resurrection
in the book to the Epitomist himself, who grew nervous at the fundamental problem that
the martyrdom o f the righteous posed for those who would read the Maccabean history.
At the death o f the two mothers thrown from the city wall (6:10), 2 Maccabees cannot
remain content with the mere description o f events, as one finds in 1 Macc 1:60.
Instead, the narrator interposes to address what he perceives to be a fundamental
problem o f the story he must relate:13
Now I appeal to those who happen to come upon this book, not to be cast
down by these misfortunes, but rather to consider that these were
retributions not intended to destroy, but rather only to discipline our
people. As a matter o f fact, it is a mark o f favor not to leave impious
ones alone for any length o f time, but to inflict immediate punishment on
them. When it comes to other nations the Lord shows his forbearance,
and delays punishing them until they have reached the fullness o f their
iniquity, but for us he had determined differently, in order that he may
not be compelled to punish us later when our sins have reached finality.
For this reason he never withdraws his mercy from us. Though he
chastens us with misfortune, he does not abandon his own people. Only
by way o f reminder must we say these things. After these few words we
must go on with our story. (2 Macc 6:12-17)14
The Epitomist has faithfully given direct evidence for retribution (anodoaiq) among the
wicked and righteous in his history up until this point in the narration (3:22-40; 4:7-17,
13Doran, Temple Propaganda, 53. Doran correctly refers to this passage as a “preface”
to the martyrdoms o f chapter 7; see also Van Henten, who calls this passage “a theodicy in a
nutshell”; The Maccabean Martyrs, 137-38; see also 24-25, 27; Attridge, “Historiography,”
179-81.
14Trans, adapted from Sidney Tedesche in Zeitlin, The Second Book o f Maccabees,
155.

76
30-38; 5:9, 11-20);15 yet the tales o f the martyrs press the bounds o f his abilities to
demonstrate a moral order o f retribution in the history he must relate.
It is at this point that the narrator incorporates the resurrection hope into the
stories o f the martyrs.16 On three separate occasions, 2 Maccabees attests to the
resurrection faith o f the Jewish ancestors.
The Legend o f the Seven Sons and their Mother
Six times in 2 Maccabees 7, which John Collins has called “the centerpiece” o f
the entire book,17 the martyrs openly proclaim their faith in a future resurrection o f the
righteous (7:9, 11, 14, 23, 29, 36).18 All six occurrences emerge within the context o f
15Cf. also the further development of the theme beyond chapter 7 in 8:33; 13:8; 15:32;
Efron, Studies in the Hasmonean Period, 17. Goldstein presents a helpful taxonomy of
retributive measures in 2 Macc: 1. prompt punishment (4:15-17; 6:12-17; 7:18, 32-33; 10:4); 2.
mercy upon repentance (2:22; 6:16; 7:6, 29, 33, 37-38; 8:5, 27, 29); 3. punishment of arrogant
pagans (7:16-19, 34-37; 8:34-36; 9:3-28; 15:28-35); 4. resurrection (7:9, 11, 14, 23, 29, 36;
12:43-45; 14:46); IIMaccabees, 13nl8.
16The continuation of this theme into the legend of the seven sons is signaled by the
quotation of Deut 32:36 at the very beginning of the chapter (2 Macc 7:6); Emile Puech, La
croyance croyance des Esseniens en la viefuture: immortalite, resurrection, vie etemelle?
histoire d'une croyance dans leJudaisme ancien (2 vols.; EB 21; Paris: Lecoffre, 1993), 1:87,
90-91; Kellermann, Auferstanden, 22.
17John J. Collins, Daniel, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees with an Excursus on the
Apocalyptic Genre (Old Testament Message 16; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1931),
310; similarly, George W.E. Nickelsburg calls it the “linchpin” of the book, “ 1 and 2
Maccabees: Same Story Different Meaning,” Concordia Theological Monthly 42 (1971): 522.
18The bulk of this chapter is probably an insertion, as Habicht and Doran suggest. Yet
the precise origin remains debated. The insertion was probably the work of the same epitomist
who abridged the work of Jason of Cyrene. Habicht, 2 Makkabaerbuch, I75ff; Doran, Temple

77
direct speeches which the martyrs and their mother make on the verge o f their deaths in
the presence o f one another, their tormentors, and the Syrian king. These six references
to the resurrection hope run as a kind o f refrain throughout the chapter. Though the first
case in 7:9 is quite concise, the theme grows more elaborate and reaches its climax,
oddly enough, in the speech o f the youngest son (7:30-38). A style o f contrasting
statements and antinomies, which Ulrich Kellermann links to methods o f philosophical
disputation,19 characterizes many o f these speeches, drawing fundamental oppositions
between God and the Syrian king, death and resurrection, the wicked and the
righteous.20 The trials o f these “philosophical” martyrs thus become a dramatic
narrative context within which they articulate their own deeply held beliefs, identity,
and world view.21 The resurrection is an important aspect o f these beliefs. The varied
yet consistent repetition o f these references to the future life serves as the primary
Propaganda, 22; “The Martyr: A Synoptic View of the Mother and Her Seven Sons,” in Ideal
Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms (eds. J. Collins and G. Nickelsburg;
Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980), 189-221; Kellermann, Auferstanden, 13-17.
19Kellermann, Auferstanden, 39-40.
20The author may, in fact, be taking advantage of a common hellenistic stereotype that
Jews were philosophers; see Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter
in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991; orig.
1969), 89-95, 255-61; Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 50, 199-200; W.H.C. Frend,
Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study o f a Conflictfrom the Maccabees to
Donatus (New York: New York University Press, 1967), 28; Attridge, “Historiography,” 160-
68; Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 106-07; Louis H. Feldman, “Abraham the Greek
Philosopher in Josephus,” TAPA 99 (1968): 143-56. See also Josephus, B.J. 2.119; Philo, Opif
128; as well as Eupolemus, frg. 1 (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.26.1); Pseudo-Eupolemus (Eusebius,
Praep. ev. 9.17.2-9); Artapantus (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.18.1; 9.23.1-4); Hecataeus of Abdera,
frg. 5.6.
21 Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 6-7, 104.

78
literary device by which the narrator hopes to alleviate the moral perplexity that
emerges from the unjust murder o f the righteous.22
1. 7:9: The first profession o f future hope among the seven sons comes in the
concise form o f a single sentence. After a narrative introduction that sets the context for
the speech (7:1-2, 9), the second o f the seven sons directly addresses the Syrian king
who has forbidden him to practice the ancestral laws:
While you, (O) Accursed (One), send us away from living in the present,
the King of the Universe shall raise us up unto an everlasting renewal of life,
because we have died for his laws.23
The piv ... 5e construction o f this rhetorically balanced statement proposes a shrewd
contrast between Antiochus, who takes away the life o f the martyrs, and God, who will
raise that life up again. The martyrs are caught in a contest between two kings.24 Both
Antiochus and God are rulers o f sorts;25 yet the contrast between them indicates that
while God seems absent at the death o f the righteous, he is in fact o too icocpou
Pacnteix;. Antiochus, who seems to hold the upper hand o f power in the scene,26 is
22These speeches are, in fact, as Doran has shown, the new contribution of the author to
an earlier legend of martyrdom; “The Martyr: A Synoptic View of the Mother and Her Seven
Sons,” 189-221.
23Iv> pev, aXdoxcop, ek too rcapovxo^ f|pa<; £fjv <X7coXt>ei<;, o 8e too Koapou
PaaiXeix; ajcoGavovxaq fipaq orcep xcov auxoo vopcov eiq aicoviov dvaP'taxnv £cofj<; ijpdc;
dvaoxf|aei.
24 Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 165.
25 Kellermann, Auferstanden, 23. Kellermann notes that the Syrian ruler is called
“king” fifty-four times in 2 Macc; see also Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 113-14.
26Diego Arenhoevel, “Die Hofthung auf die Auferstehung: Eine Auslegung von 2
Makk 7,” Bibel und Leben 5 (1064) 36-42.

79
“accursed.” This description introduces the theme o f judgment upon Antiochus for his
villainy (vss. 14, 17, 19, 34-36) and foreshadows his coming death (9:l-29).27
The resurrection in this passage is named by the future causative o f dviaTruii.
This is consistent with the resurrection prophecy o f Dan 12:2 (LXX).28 Accompanying
the verb is a prepositional phrase (eiq aicbviov avap'uoaiv £cin<;) that most likely
indicates purpose: e.g., '“'for" or “unto an everlasting renewal o f life”; though the more
literal locative sense may also apply: e.g., “into an everlasting renewal o f life.” Three
terms are compacted for emphasis in this elaborate expression: aiwviov avap'uooiv
£cofi<;.29 The first describes the “everlasting” nature o f the new life God will give. It will
never again be subject to the unjust death the martyrs have suffered in this life. The
second term may perhaps best be translated “revivification,” since as a nominalizing
form o f the verb dvafhoo, dvapicoau; names the very action o f renewing the life o f the
righteous dead.30 The final term, o f course, is £cdt|, which functions here as the
27 Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 27-28.
28 Theodotion prefers ey£p0f|aovxai.
29 Schleusner has conjectured the reading : aiciMou: e.g., “unto a renewal of

everlasting life”; see the text-critical edition by W. Kappler and Robert Hanhart,
Maccabaeorum liber II (VTGASLG 9.2; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 75, note
on 7:9. Peter Katz concurs with Schleusner; “The Text of 2 Maccabees Reconsidered,” ZNW 51
(1960): 14. An “everlasting renewal of life” (e.g., a renewal that will last eternally), however,
stands on its own, and the phrase conjectured by Schleusner and Katz is not necessary for the
meaning of the phrase. Doran sees the phrase as an instance of hypallege; Temple Propaganda,
22 n. 68. See also Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 174.
30 Puech has translated the verse perfectly into French: “pour une revivification
etemelle de vie”; La croyance, 1:87. Goldstein does the same in English; IIMaccabees, 305.
Kellermann renders “Wiedergeburt,” which is not as precise; Auferstanden, 23. See Josephus,
A.J. 18.14 (see also the treatment of this passage in the next chapter of this study); 2 Clem 19.4.
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e cop y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r re p r o d u c tio n p rohib ited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

80
objective genitive o f dvaP'icoai<; and presents the final contrast between what Antiochus
has done through murder and what God will do through the resurrection.
The participial phrase arcoGavovxaq fipaq \rnep xcov auxou vopcov reminds the
reader o f the martyrs’ devotion to the law, and conveys a causal notion: e.g., '’'‘because
we die for his laws . . .”31 The willing embrace o f death out o f zeal for the divine will
remains a significant aspect o f the martyr-theology throughout the remainder o f the
chapter. Finally, one may note the title employed for God in this passage. It is
precisely as the “King o f the Universe” that God will restore life at the resurrection,
since the bestowal o f all life in the cosmos is the activity o f God.
2. 7:11: The third son’s profession o f the resurrection hope is at once more
subtle and yet more direct than that o f the second. The speech is introduced as he is
ordered to put forth his tongue and hands for dismemberment. He quickly does so with
courage (euGapocoq) and nobility (yewa'iox;), and says:
From heaven I received these things,

and on account o f his laws I despise them,
and from him I hope to receive them back again.32
As in the previous case, concise, rhetorically balanced phrases express the hope o f the
martyrs. In the first o f the three cola, one finds a more explicit statement o f the creation
m otif first introduced by the title o xou Kocpou PaaiXeuq in case 1. It is directly “from
heaven,” here a circumlocution for God, that the third martyr’s tongue and hands have
31 The repetition of Tipd? calls added emphasis to the martyrs’ heroism in dying for the
law; Abel, Les Livres Maccabees, 373.
32 ’E4 oupavou xabxa K£KXT||iai teal 8ia xotx; auxou vopovx; urcepopcb xauxa x a l
nap aiixou xauxa rcaXiv eXrciâ) tcopiaaaGai.

81
come as a gift; and so he cannot withhold them now from the cause o f God’s law. In
the second colon, the martyr’s heroic devotion to the law is so great that he “looks
beyond” or “despises” his own body. He clearly insists, as did his brother, that he is
dying for the law. In the third colon, the martyr proclaims his hope in the future
resurrection. He hopes to receive his members33 “again” ( 7caA.1 v), a word that indicates
a correspondence between birth/creation (when God gave him these members) and the
resurrection (when he will receive them from God again). Finally, the language o f
“hope” (eXtci^co )34 functions as specialized terminology for belief in the resurrection o f
the righteous, as it will throughout the remainder o f the chapter (7:14, 20; cf. 34).
3. 7:14: The theme of hope continues in the dying words o f the fourth martyr:
It is better for those who are dying by (the hand of) human beings
to expect the hopes (given) by God o f being raised up again by
him.
For as for you, there will be no resurrection unto life.35
As in the example of case 1, this statement also works by drawing dramatic rhetorical
contrasts between opposites.36 First, there is the contrast between the murder o f the
righteous, which human beings (esp. Antiochus) perform, and the resurrection o f the
righteous, which God performs. The contrast reveals that God will not be outdone by
the murderous intentions o f human rulers, but will have the final say in the form o f the
33The repetition of the pron. xabxa indicates that he expects to receive the very same
members that he has lost; Abel, Les Livres des Maccabees, 374.
34Cf. Ezek37:l-14.
35Aipexov pexaXXdaaovxaq (>jt dvGpcortcov xaq ujco xou Qeau TtpoaSoKav EkKiSaq
7taA.1v dvaaxr(aeo0a i ujx aiixou • not pev yap dvdaxaaiq eiq £cof|v oiiic eaxai.
36See Kellermann, Auferstanden, 39-40.

82
resurrection. A second contrast is that it is better to die in hope than to live without it.
The future hope o f the martyrs alleviates the despair o f their current situation, while the
absence o f future hope on the part o f Antiochus forebodes doom, even while he seems
to be at the height o f his power. That foreboding doom is fully realized in the action of
the story in the lengthy description o f Antiochus’ death in chapter 9, where God’s
retribution upon the wicked king is lovingly described in every detail.
4. 7:22-23: The final three references to the future resurrection o f the righteous
in chapter 7 are more expansive in nature. Two o f these (7:22-23 and 7:27-29) come as
the words o f the mother to her youngest and only remaining son, who gives the last
climactic speech in the chapter himself (7:30-38). All three remaining speeches are
veritable discourses, in which the martyrs appear as masters o f philosophy, science, and
the divine nature.37 Indeed, John Chrysostom could not help associating the mother
with the figure o f a philosopher.38 The two speeches o f the mother do not directly
address Antiochus. Instead, they provide a clever variation upon the other speeches.
Whereas the first several speeches have been made directly to Antiochus, here the
mother speaks privately to her remaining sons in their ancestral language before the
king, who apparently sees but cannot understand the mother’s encouragements:
37 A. Fischel, “Martyr and Prophet,” JQR 37 (1946): 265-80, 363-86. The author may
present the Jewish heroes as “philosophers,” a common hellenistic stereotype of Judaism; see
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 89-95,255-61; Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 50,
199-200; Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution, 28; Attridge, “Historiography,” 160-68. See also
Josephus, B.J. 2.119; Philo, Opif. 128; as well as Eupolemus, frg. 1 (Eusebius, Praep. ev.
9.26.1); Pseudo-Eupolemus (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.17.2-9); Artapantus (Eusebius, Praep. ev.
9.18.1; 9.23.1-4); Hecataeus of Abdera, frg. 5.6.
38John Chrysostom, In sanctos Maccabaeos 1.2 (PG 50:620-21); see Goldstein, II

Maccabees, 309.

83
I do not know how you came into my womb, nor was it I who graced
you with breath and life, nor was it I who set in order the constitution o f
each one (of you). The Creator o f the Universe, then, who formed the
origin o f the human and sought out the origin o f all things, shall give
back to you again breath and life in mercy, since now you despise
yourselves for his laws.39
The mother is uniquely qualified to testify o f the mysteries o f bearing this youngest son
into the world. She cannot explain the mystery o f his creation, the breath and life that
animate him, or the order of the elements that compose his physical body. Yet what is
hidden to human beings is known to God.40 Once again, the speeches turn to the
creation m otif as the foundation o f the resurrection hope. The God who formed the
human from the dust is able to reanimate the human from dust. The resurrection here is
expressed as “giving back again” (naXiv djtoSiSoxnv) the “breath and life” (to Tiveupa
xai Tt|v £arr|v) o f the righteous. A new element o f description here is that this
restoration o f life comes “in mercy” ( p e t ’ eAiouq), a term that was originally introduced
in 6:12-17. Despite the present time o f affliction, God’s mercy will be shown in
fullness at the resurrection of the righteous. The current affliction, however, is time for
judgment, as 6:12-17 and 7:18-19 have already made clear (see the treatment o f case 6,
7:32-33 below). Finally, this speech, like the others, repeats that the gift o f life will
belong only to those who look beyond their own lives in the present out o f their
39Chile oils’ OTtax; eiq rr|v epqv e<j>aviiTE xoiXiav, oiiSe eytb t o JcvE-upa xai t t | v
£cor|v lipiv exapiadpriv, x a i tr|v Exaa t o d aToixeioxnv mix e y a i SieppuGpiaa • T o i y a p o u v
o t o u xoopoo xTtaTiy; o rcXaoat; dvOpancou yeveatv x ai mvToov eêupebv yeveaiv x ai to
Ttveupa x a i t t | v ^caf|v lipiv naXtv dnodiSoxnv p e t eXeouq, cbq vuv lircEpopaTE e a v x o v q
Sia r o v g a v z o v vopouq.
40 Cf. Ps 139:13-14; Job 10:10-12.

84
devotion for the law. The relationship implied between the law and the resurrection
emerges even more clearly in 7:36 (see below).
5. 7:27-29: The mother’s involvement in the story continues, but now with a
new twist. Antiochus has finally learned from the previous six martyrdoms that threats
o f execution will get him nowhere, so he changes tactics. He implicates the mother into
his strategy by persuading her to reason with the youngest son to deny his ancestral
faith, promising the youngest son the political relationship o f a <j)iA.o<; o f the king. In
contrast to the king’s offer, however, the mother advises her son to the contrary based
upon her own maternal relationship with her son:
Son, have mercy upon me, (since) I bore you in (my) womb nine months
and suckled you three years and raised you and brought you to this age
and supported you. I consider you, (my) child, worthy, (when) you look
at the heaven and the earth and see all that is in them, o f knowing that
God did not make them out o f existing things, nor did the human race
come into being in this way. Do not fear this executioner, but (since)
you are one who is worthy o f (his) brothers, choose death, in order that
in mercy I may receive you together with your brothers.41
The mother appeals to strong maternal imagery to emphasize that her own ancestral
claim upon her son to keep the laws is stronger than the merely political and material
advantages Antiochus offers the young boy to betray them.
The creation m otif surfaces again in this passage with increased prominence.
Surveying the created order can only lead the young boy to conclude that God created
41 'Tie, eXerjaov pe rf|v ev yaoxpi rcepieveyxaaav a t ptivaq evvea xai

0r|Xdaaadv a t ext| xpta xai exBpeij/aaav at xai ayayouoav ei<; xfiv t|A.ixiav xauxTiv
xai xpo<{>o<j>opf|caaav. aîcb at, xexvov, avapXe\|ravxa ei<; xov oupavov xai x t | v yfjv xai
xa ev aiixdi? ndvxa iSovxa yvcovai oxi mix e£ ovxcov enoir|aev aiixa o 0eoq, xai xo xcbv
dv0pajji(ov yevoq oiixco yivexai. pr| <j>of5Ti8fiq xov 8r|piov xouxov, aXXa xcbv d8eX<jxbv
aîcx; yevopevo<; emSe^xi xov Gavaxov, iva ev xcp eXeei aiiv xoi<; a8eX({xDi<; aov
xopiacopai at.

85
all things out o f nothing, including the human race. The purpose o f the creation motif
here, however, is not simply to reinforce God’s power to raise the dead, but rather to
emphasize the demand which God now lays upon the young boy for faithfulness to the
law. As the Creator, who gave life in the beginning, God may rightly demand the
fidelity o f the boy, even when it leads to death.
As earlier in 7:23, the terminology o f “mercy” appears in the description o f the
resurrection in the final words o f the speech. The mother hopes that she will receive all
the brothers back again ev eXeei. This prepositional phrase recalls the earlier concern o f
the author in 6:12-17 with God’s judgment and mercy in Jewish history, but this time
the problem is addressed more specifically in terms o f the resurrection as God’s act o f
ultimate mercy. The fifth and sixth martyrs, in fact, clarify that “our race has not been
forsaken by God” (7:17) and that “we are suffering these things on account o f
ourselves, since we have sinned against our own God” (7:18; cf. 7:30-38 below), both
o f which are claims previously asserted in 6:12-17. Mercy, too, is an integral theme in
6:12-17. Though God will justly chastise those who have sinned, “mercy will never
depart from us” (6:16). That promise is confirmed in the mother’s exhortation to her
son and specifically illustrated in the resurrection, when God will fully extend the
divine mercy to his chastened children. This manipulation o f judgment and mercy
language in the description o f the resurrection allows the author to reinforce the
retribution motif that is so integral to his historiographical concerns.
6. 7:30-38: In the final speech o f this legendary chapter, the youngest son
himself speaks, repeating yet also expanding many o f the previous declarations o f his
brothers and his mother. He needs no further persuasion to keep the law, but turns to

86
declare his faith to the Syrian king and his tormentors. In a violation o f the narrative’s
verisimilitude,42 this boy delivers a grand philosophical oration, the longest speech in
the chapter, though he is, in fact, so small that his mother must stoop down even to
speak with him (7:27). This strange lapse o f realism indicates that the author’s interests
have over-ridden the verisimilitude o f the narrative context, as he continues his struggle
to justify the moral order o f God’s ways amid the tragic deaths o f the martyrs:
What are you all waiting for? I do not obey the command o f the king,
but I hear the command o f the law given to our fathers through Moses.
But as for you, since you have sought out every evil against the
Hebrews, you will surely not escape the hands o f God. For we suffer on
account of our own sins. But if for the purpose o f punishment and
chastisement our living Lord has grown angry (at us) for a time, then he
shall also be reconciled to his own servants. But as for you, O lawless
and most wicked o f all men, do not lift yourself up, prancing about with
vain hopes, lifting up your hand against his servants.43 For you have not
yet escaped the judgment o f the almighty, (all)seeing God. For while our
brothers have fallen under the covenant o f God, having already endured
the brief toil o f everflowing life, you shall bring back upon yourself the
just penalties of your arrogance at the judgment o f God. I give over both
body and soul for the ancestral laws, invoking God quickly to become
gracious toward (my) nation, and as for you, after afflictions and
scourgings, to be forced to confess that he alone is God, and for the
42 Indeed, one might argue that verisimilitude is suspended throughout the entire
chapter, as the martyrs deliver their grand orations with their very last breath (vss 9, 11, 14, 16,
18), and Antiochus’ direct orders and commands defy reason; Arenhoevel, "Die Hoffhung,” 37-
38.
43The reading follows the Lucianic recension of LXX (xouq 5ouXouq auxou) codices
58 311 347 (codices 534 19 62 prefer the dative: e.g., toii; Soutane; autou), as suggested by
the end of v33 (totq eauxou SouXotq), a reading also reflected in the ancient Latin {in servos
ejus), as well as Syriac and Armenian. The reading attested in Alexandrinus and Vaticanus (etc!
tout; oupav'touq itatSaq) is possible but less likely, since SouXoq appears as recently as 7:33.
See Hanhart, Maccabaeorum liber II, 78; see Nickelsburg for a defense of the AV reading,
Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism{HTS 26; Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1972), 103-04.
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r re p r o d u c tio n p ro hibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

87
wrath o f the Almighty, which is justly brought upon our whole race, to
come to its rest with me and my brothers.44
This heroic oration brings to a close the series o f speeches in this chapter in climactic
form, recapitulating the theme o f retribution. The condemnation o f Antiochus is
prominent, and the foreshadowing o f his death grows intense. The sin o f Antiochus
surfaces here as a crime, not simply against the martyrs, but against God. He has lifted
up his hand against the servants o f God, yet he cannot escape from the justice o f God as
the future action o f the narrative reveals 45 He will pay for his crimes.
As for the brothers, they have already paid for their sins. They have endured the
“brief toil (that leads to) everflowing life” (p p a x u v . . . jtovov aevaou ârpq)46 This
unusual turn o f phrase is highly appropriate to the author’s concern for retribution: it is
their just death that satisfies God’s retributive wrath so that the divine mercy may
44Tiva pevexe; ot>x unaKoua) too jrpoaxdypaxoc; xou paaiXEO*;, xou 5e

rcpoaxdypaxog atcoixo xou vopou xou 8o0£vxo<; xoi; Jtaxpaaiv f|poW 8ia Mwuaecoq. au 8e
rcdcrriq KaKiaq eupexfi; yevopEvoq etc; xouq Eppaiouq ou (if| 8ta«}>uyn<; xai; xeipai; xou
0eou. ijpeu; yap 8ia xou; eauxcbv apapxia; jtaaxopEv. ei 8e xapiv E7ttreXf|ÊC0^ icai
TtaiSeiac; o £d>v KUpioq ijpcov Ppaxeax; ETKOpyiaxat, xai JiaXiv mxaXXayriaexai xoi<;
Eauxou SouXon;. au 8e, d>avoate Kai rcavxcov dv0pawca>v piaptbxaxe, (if) paxT|v
pEXECopiôu 4>puaxx6|i£vo; a8f|Xoiq eXrciaiv eju xoix; 8ouXou<; auxou emipopevo; xîpa •
oujko yap xfiv xou navxoKpaxopo; etcojixou 0eou Kpiaiv EKJiEêuyac;. oi pev yap vuv
f|fi£X£poi a8EX<}>oi ppaxuv urcEveyKavxEc; jiovov aevaou urco 8ta0f|icr|v 0eou
7C£7txa)Kaaiv • au 8e xp xou 0eou »cpia£i 8'iKata xa rcpoaxipa xrj; U7cepr|<t>avia<; drtoiap-
eycb 8e, Ka0ditep oi d&X<|)oi, Kai acbpa Kai \J/uxf|v rcpoSiSoipi nepi xcov naxptwv voptov
£7tiKaXoup£vo<; xov 0eov iXeox; xaxu x<£ e0vei y£vea0ai Kai ae pexa exaapcbv Kai
paaxiycov e£opoXoyf|aaa0ai 8ioxi povo; auxcx; 0eck; eaxiv, ev epoi 8e Kai xoi<; d8eX<t>oi<;
pou axiiaai xf|v xou rcavxoKpaxopoq opyf|v xfjv eju xo aup7cav rjpcov y£vo<; SiKaiax;
E7tT|Ypevr|v.
45 Frend, Martyrdom in the Early Church, 36.
44 Hermann Buckers asks whether the phrase aevaou ^cofj; depends upon the noun
7iovov ("the toil that leads to everflowing life”) or upon the phrase ujto Sia0f|KTiv 0eou
(“under God’s covenant of everflowing life”). The former presents the better case; “Das ‘Ewige
Leben’ in 2 Makk 7:36,” Biblica 21 (1940): 406-12. Disagreeing with this view is Kellermann,
Auferstanden, 78-80.

88
extend to the sons in the future life. Here, dvdoxaau; is not explicitly mentioned.
Instead, the language o f “everflowing life” is preferred in order to highlight the contrast
between the quickness o f this life’s afflictions and the everlasting nature o f the life that
is to come. There is, however, no contradiction with the resurrection language o f 7:9,
since the martyrs will be raised into the state o f everlasting life.47 The difference
between Antiochus and the brothers48 is that the latter have fallen x>no xt|v 8ia0f|icr|v,
“under the covenant.” Death under the covenant is what holds for them the promise of
the “ever-flowing life.”
The Prayer o f Razis
If one seeks a more physically grotesque tale o f martyrdom than that o f the
seven sons, perhaps the brief episode o f Razis in 2 Maccabees 14:37-46 presents a
formidable candidate.49 This episode refers to the resurrection, not as a direct speech,
but as a narrative report o f Razi’s prayer that is delivered in oratio obliqua.
Presumably, it contains the words that the author imagined Razis to have spoken
directly to God in the presence o f his persecutors. Though the reference to the
resurrection here is far more concise than the series o f orations presented in chapter 7,
the example o f Razis emphasizes the resurrection hope with unparalleled vividness.
The author carefully establishes the character o f Razis as an exemplary figure among
47Bucker, “Das ‘Ewige Leben,’” 412.
48 See also Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 174-75.
49James D. Tabor calls this “the most gruesome story in the Apocrypha”; “Martyr,
Martyrdom,” ABD 4:577.

89
his people: he is among the Jerusalem elders, a lover o f his city, well esteemed, and
recognized as a father o f the Jews because o f his kindness (14:37). When Razis is
surrounded by the Greeks, he attempts to end his own life twice, once by the sword and
once by falling from the top o f a building, but succeeds only in wounding himself. The
story o f Razis ends with a grotesque affirmation o f his hope in the resurrection:
When he was already completely out o f blood, he tore out his entrails,
took them in both hands, and hurled them out upon the crowds, invoking
the Master o f life and breath to return these things to him again. This
was the way that he died.50
As in the case o f the youngest son’s grand philosophical oration, Razis’ story
dramatically sacrifices realism in order to convey its point. How this Jerusalem elder
could conceivably do the things described in the passage is completely beyond
verisimilitude, yet completely fitting to the author’s purpose. The author’s resurrection
hope is one that does not shrink from the reality o f the body’s mutilation, decay, and
even vaporization (cf. 7:1-6). Razis’ heroism consists precisely in his faithful
adherence to the resurrection hope, even at the very point when his blood and entrails
are literally scattered across the earth. As with the legend o f the seven sons, the prayer
o f Razis recognizes it is the Creator who is the “Master o f life and breath,” and who
thus has power to restore the life o f the righteous in the future. The full physicality o f
the restoration o f life appears in Razis’ prayer that God will return “these things” (e.g.,
“the entrails,” id evxepa). What the righteous have lost, God will restore in the future.
50 JtavxeXtoq eâipoq r\5r\ yivopevoq JtpoPaXtbv xa evxepa Kai Xafkbv eKaxepaiq

xaiq xepoiv eveaeiae xoiq oxôk; Kai erciKodJeadpevof; xov Searcoôvxa xfjq £ajf|<; Kai xou
nveupaxcx; xauxa auxcp JiaXiv drcoSouvai xov8e xov xporcov pexqXXaêv.

90
The Faith o f Judas
Situated between the legend o f the seven sons and the prayer o f Razis is a
curious episode in which the same resurrection hope is presented in quite a different
way. Here, the author reinforces the resurrection hope o f the martyrs through narrative
comments that expand the claims o f the earlier speeches (see note 6 on the criteria of
selection). The reference to the resurrection comes in the form o f a psychologizing
ascription o f the belief to Judas.
While transferring the corpses o f fallen soldiers to their ancestral tombs, Judas’
soldiers notice that each o f the dead is wearing cultic objects, probably protective
amulets, dedicated to the idols o f Jamnia (12:40).51 The narrator reveals that this
idolatrous compromise o f the law is the very thing that brought about their deaths.
Judas gathers his army together in prayers that “the Lord, the just Judge
(biKaioKp'ixriq),” who has already punished the soldiers in death, will forgive them in
the future. After exhorting his men to learn from this example that they must avoid all
sin, Judas collects money that sacrifices may be offered on their behalf:
And (Judas) sent (the money) to Jerusalem in order to offer a sacrifice

for sin, acting very fine and courteous, and considering the resurrection.
For if he had not supposed that the fallen would be raised, praying for
the dead would have been excessive and foolish. And so then, he had in
view the glorious gift of thanks that is reserved for those who sleep in
piety, a holy and pious thought. Hence he made propitiation for the dead
that they might be released from sin. (12:43-45)
51John R. Bartlett, The First and Second Books o f the Maccabees (Cambridge Bible
Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 319; Abel, Les Livres des
Maccabees, 444.
52rcotT|ad|j£VCK; xe Kax avSpoXoyiav eiq apyupiot) Spaxpaq SioxtXiaq

aitEaxetXev eiq IepoaoXupa rcpoaayayeiv itepi apapxiaq Qtxnav itavu raAioq xai
aaxeiax; npaxxtov vwtep dvaaxdaecoq 5iaAoyi£6p£vo<; • ei pfj yap xouq itpojieitxioKoxaq

91
Despite the “astonishingly strange”53 nature o f this episode, the rules o f retribution that
informed the legend o f the seven sons and the prayer o f Razis find consistent
application to a subtly different situation in this passage.54
Here the author confronts the problem, not o f the martyred righteous as in
previous examples, but o f Jewish soldiers who have died while compromising the
Torah. Since only those who have died utco xt|v 8ia0f|icr|v may participate in the
resurrection, these soldiers are excluded. This violates the author’s sense o f justice, and
he searches for ways to overcome the problem. First o f all, he recognizes that by dying
the soldiers have already met the demands o f just retribution. Second, the author
portrays Judas as one who is ardently concerned for the proper burial and resurrection
o f his soldiers. The sin offerings that he donates on their behalf make them cultically
eligible for the resurrection. Released from sin, the soldiers will now presumably
inherit the xotpiaxripiov o f the resurrection, “reserved for those who sleep in piety.”
avaaxfjvat rcpoaeSotca, Jteptaaov Kai XripajSeq weep vexpcov euxeo0at • eixe epPXejuov
xoi<; gex euaepeiaq xoipcopevou; xaXXtaxov aTcoxe'tpevov xapiaxipiov, oaia xai
euaepfiq f| e7uvoia • o0ev 7tepi xtbv x e 0 v t |k 6 x g)v xov eîXaapov eitoiriaaxo xfj<; apapxiaq
drcokuQfjvai.
53 Efron, Studies in the Hasmonean Period, 19. Goldstein can call the passage “logical
gymnastics.” See II Maccabees, 449.
54 Abel suggests that the story implies a strong view of personal retribution rather than a
view of retribution based upon participation in all Israel; Les Livres Maccabees, 448. The text,
however, is actually somewhere between individual and corporate notions o f retribution.

92
The Concept of the Future Life
Though it was not the purpose o f the author o f 2 Maccabees to compose a
treatise on the resurrection, the eight attestations to the resurrection faith in this book do
present a sufficiently coherent portrait o f the resurrection that one may rightly speak of
“the concept o f the resurrection” in 2 Maccabees. Kellermann rightly indicates that a
relatively small vocabulary is used repeatedly for the resurrection in the speeches o f
chapter 7 (one might also add in the prayer o f Razis and the faith o f Judas), giving them
a thematic unity.55 The context within which the author’s conception emerges is the
problematic history o f death and bloodshed which the heirs o f the Maccabean stories
inherited. The author o f 1 Maccabees can claim simultaneously that “the law will bring
you glory” (2:64) and that “whenever anyone was discovered possessing a copy o f the
covenant or practicing the law, the king’s decree sentenced him to death” (1:58-61).
This presented to the author o f 2 Maccabees a contradiction that had to be addressed in
emphatic terms. The relationship between creation, covenant, and resurrection served
the author repeatedly in his effort to reconcile the contradiction between faith and
history.
Six o f the eight examples treated here articulate the resurrection hope in specific
relationship to God’s own ultimacy as the one who created heaven and earth, the very
God who even forms the human mysteriously within the womb (7:9; 7:11; 7:22-23;
7:27-29; 7:30-38; 14:45-46).56 In this sense the resurrection makes as great a claim
55Kellermann, Auferstanden, 39. See Appendix I (below).
56See Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 174-81.

93
about God’s power over creation as it does about what will happen in the future. The
brothers are directly related to God as all created beings are related to the Creator.
Since the human body exists as G od’s mysterious work, it follows that the mutilation of
the physical body, which is perhaps the most consistent theme among the attestations
(absent only in 12:43-45), presents no problems for God. It is God, after all, who
formed the human from its very origins and possesses complete authority over “breath
and life” (7:22-23; 14:45-46).57 The gruesome dismemberments and vaporizations only
call greater attention to God’s power to re-create the human out o f nothing (o o k et,
o v tc d v ) . Kellermann, in fact, accentuates this aspect o f the resurrection in 2 Maccabees
by using the term “Neuschopfung.”58 Yet Kellermann is wrong to assume that 2
Maccabees envisions an “himmlische Auferstehung” in the sense o f a resurrection into
the heavenly world.59 There is nothing in the text to exclude that the resurrection is a
restoration to life in this world.60 This emphasis upon the resurrection as the
reunification o f the very members o f the physical body lost in death stands as a unique
57 See Goldstein, II Maccabees, 307-09; “The Origins of the Doctrine of Creation Ex

Nihilo," JJS 35 (1984): 127-35.
58 Kellermann, Auferstanden, 86.
59 Ibid., 63-66, 67, 73, et al. For similar statements, see Friedrich Notscher,
Altorientalischer und alttestamentlicher Auferstehungsglauben (Wurtzburg: Becker, 1926),
170; and Arenhoevel, “Die Hoffnung,” 40. Goldstein rightly criticizes Kellermann’s statement;
IIMaccabees, 305; as does Gflnter Stemberger, Der Leib der Auferstehung: Studien zur
Anthropologie und Eschatologie des palastinischen Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter
(ca. 170 v.Cr.-IOO n.Chr.) (Analecta Biblica 56; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1972), 25.
60 As Stemberger rightly observes; Der Leib der Auferstehung, 24-25.
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r re p r o d u c tio n prohib ited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

94
feature o f 2 Maccabees within the literature o f its time. The author also seems to be
among the first to establish the resurrection hope through the model o f creation.61
Five o f the passages in 2 Maccabees also articulate the resurrection hope in the
language o f law and covenant (7:9; 7:11; 7:22-23; 7:27-29; 7:30-38; cf. 12:40,43-45).
Collins has, in fact, proposed that 2 Maccabees’s view o f Judaism as a whole may be
summarized as “covenantal nomism” ;62 and the resurrection itself is portrayed in
consistent relationship to the law.63 If the brothers belong to God as created beings,
they also belong to God through the covenant and are thus “his servants” (7:33-34; cf.
v. 18).64 On two occasions, the martyrs “despise” or “look beyond” the members o f
their own bodies out o f their loyalty and obedience to the law (7:11; 7:22-23). The
resurrection hope is exclusively for those who have died “under the covenant.” Thus,
there is no “resurrection o f the dead” in 2 Maccabees, since that terminology is absent
from the text. Instead, 2 Maccabees foresees a “resurrection o f the righteous.”65 Those
who keep the law will have glory in spite o f the horrible deaths they have suffered while
61 Nowhere can an analogous relationship be found in Dan 12:1-3. The importance of

this relationship for the history of doctrine becomes apparent in the Apostolic Constitutions (c.
3[d-4lh century C.E.), which provide a similar argument in favor of the resurrection based upon
the model of creation (V.i.vii). See the discussion of the Areopagus speech in Chapter 5.
62 John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic
Diaspora (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 76-77; Nickelsburg, “ 1 and 2 Maccabees,” 522. One
cannot tell whether Collins uses the term in the sense developed by Sanders, Judaism: Practice
and Belief.
63 Puech, La croyance, 1:88-89; Kellermann, Auferstanden, 62.
64 Arenhoevel, “Die Hoffhung,” 37.
65 Stemberger prefers to speak of hope “fur ganz Israel... fiir alle Gerechten”; Der Leib
der Auferstehung, 25.

95
earnestly keeping the law. In this sense, the resurrection confirms the blessing that the
law promises the righteous, and retributive justice is preserved.66
Furthermore, the law contains within itself the answer to the question o f why the
martyrs have died to begin with (7:32-33; cf. 12:40, 43-45). It is by transgressing their
own laws that they have died, not by the mere accidents o f history.67 After the days o f
the faithful Onias III (3:1), the people provoked God through sin and so brought upon
themselves the just wrath o f God (4:10-19).68 The last martyr o f chapter 7 hopes that
their deaths will cause this wrath to cease; and to a considerable degree this does occur
in the story with the rise o f Judas in the very next chapter (8:l-5).69 Since death is
judgment upon their sins, the resurrection is correspondingly termed God’s
“reconciliation” (KaxaXAayfiaexai) with the fallen (7:33) and divine “mercy” (eXeoq)
upon sinners (7:22-23; 7:27-29). As for Antiochus, the martyrs taunt their executioner,
since he will die outside o f the covenant and even as its enemy (7:9; 7:18; 7:30-38).70
For him, there will be no resurrection and no hope o f mercy.
If the author o f 2 Maccabees was familiar with the martyrdom/resurrection
paradigm o f Dan 11:33-35, 12:1-3, he significantly modified that paradigm for
66 Stemberger, Der Leib der Auferstehung, 25: “Die Anstoss fur die Auferstehungslehre
von 2 Makk ist der Vergeltungsglaube.”
67Arenhoevel, “Die Hoffnung,” 38.
68Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 77; Doran, Temple Propaganda, 52-55;
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 7.
69Abel, Les Livres des Maccabees, xxxiv; Doran, Temple Propaganda, 54.
70These taunts reinforce the motif of retribution by indicating the very different
destinies of the martyrs and Antiochus. They also call attention to the martyrs’ courage to defy
their own executioners; see Abel, Les Livres des Maccabees, 371.

96
presentation in his own history. There is no sense o f eschatological imminence in these
references to the resurrection hope. Nor is there any clue to when these things will take
place. There are also no other eschatological events cited which will accompany the
resurrection. Instead, the author preferred to work out these appeals to the resurrection
in terms o f creation and covenant, content simply to affirm that the resurrection would
take place at an indefinite time in the future, thus resolving the moral problems posed
by martyrdom. The relationship with creation has made the author’s portrayal o f the
resurrection an expression o f the divine power over the cosmos and the body o f the
human. The relationship with the law has also cast the resurrection as an expression of
the divine justice and its limitless capacity for blessing the righteous. To say that God
raises the righteous is, then, for the author o f 2 Maccabees, to claim that God is both
omnipotent and omniretributive.
The terminology for the resurrection in 2 Maccabees is varied. The author may
use the typical verb d v ia iT ||x i and its nominalizing abstract d v d a taa iq (7:9; 7:18;
12:43-45) to name the event, but he can also describe the resurrection as “receiving”
(Kop'iôpai) the fallen members o f the body back from God (7:11; 7:27-29). Similarly,
God may “return” (drtoStStopi) the members o f the body to the fallen. Since the
resurrection is a raising up, a receiving, and a returning o f the body back “again” to
what it was before death, the adverb rcaXiv appears repeatedly (7:11; 7:18; 7:22-23;
14:45-46). Resurrection and everlasting life are nowhere at odds in these texts.71 The
“life” (7:9; 7:18; 7:22-23; 7:30-38; 14:45-46) into which God will raise the martyrs is
71 BAcker, “Das ‘Ewige Leben,’” 412.

97
“everlasting” (aicoviov) and even “everflowing” (aevaou) life, not subject to the
destruction now experienced in the persecutions (7:9; 7:30-38). The passage from death
to life is an dvapioxJiq, a “reviving” o f life from death (7:9). Finally, the terminology of
“hope” (etoti<;) is consistent among these examples (7:11; 7:18; 7:30-38; cf. 2:18, 15:7).
Two o f these references apply directly to the positive hope for the future resurrection
(7:11; 7:18), while the third taunts Antiochus on the ground that his “hopes” are “vain”
(7:34) in comparison with those o f the martyrs. The language o f “hope,” rooted in
creation and covenant, is a fitting expression for the martyrs’ belief in the resurrection,
since it recognizes both the present reality o f impending death and the future certainty
o f the resurrection life that is not yet seen.
The legend o f the seven sons, the prayer o f Razis, and the resurrection faith of
Judas were all innovations into the historical traditions concerning the Maccabees. One
looks in vain for a single reference to these episodes in the earlier traditions o f 1
Maccabees. To what effect, then, did the author o f 2 Maccabees incorporate these
professions o f faith in the future life into his larger historiographical narration? At least
three options provide possible answers.
First, these speeches may function as devices o f characterization that ennoble
the martyrs as heroic exemplars o f Jewish piety. Second, they may offer thematic
commentary that attempts to make meaning o f the problematic narrative in which they
appear. Third, they may function rhetorically to inculcate certain beliefs and patterns of
behavior in those who would later inherit this rendition o f Jewish history. This three-

98
fold basis for analysis is designed to explore the relationships between speech and
characterization, speech and story, and speech and the implied reader.
For the author o f 2 Maccabees, it was necessary that his heroic Jewish ancestors
held to the doctrine o f the resurrection. In order to illustrate his own dogmatic concerns
the author has ensured that these exemplars o f Jewish identity were also firm believers
in God’s power to raise the dead. Kellermann can even call the entire episode o f
chapter 7 a Lehrerzahlung which has the resurrection faith as its central theme.72 As we
have noted, the belief is illustrated even in ways that directly violate the verisimilitude
o f the narrative context. Yet these departures from realistic narration only demonstrate
the author’s over-riding concern that the heroes o f the Jewish past were also heroic
exemplars o f Jewish piety, who kept the law, held to the creation faith, and hoped in the
resurrection. They even speak their noble dying words in their ancestral Jewish
language (7:8, 21, [24], 27).73
The author o f 2 Maccabees carefully describes the seven sons, their mother,
Razis, and Judas in terms that convey their nobility and courage. The seven brothers
72 Kellermann, Auferstanden, 39; see Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 122-23.
Though Kellermann’s opinion should be taken seriously, I believe that 2 Macc 7 accentuates
faith in the divine control over the calamities of history as a whole and exemplifies faithfulness
to the law, and should not be read as a dissertation on the resurrection itself. Doran, in fact, has
asserted that the true impetus of the martyrs’ speeches is the overthrow of the emperor; “The
Martyr,” 199.
73 Probably Hebrew, though perhaps Aramaic. This implies a tone of defiance to the
Greek Antiochus, who apparently cannot understand. Barttlett, The First and Second Books o f
the Maccabees, 271-72; Kellermann, Auferstanden, 17.

99
and their mother are practically philosophers who make heroic theological and
cosmological claims in the very face o f their imminent deaths, not unlike Socrates.74
The martyrs resolve to die “nobly” (yevvalcoc) rather than to transgress the laws (7:5; cf.
7:11). In contrast to 1 Maccabees, it is not Mattathias who originally chooses to die
rather than transgress the laws, but rather the martyrs Eleazar and the seven sons.75
This observation indicates the high stature in which the author o f 2 Maccabees holds the
martyrs. The mother is “to be admired” (0at>pacn:f|) and is “worthy o f honorable
remembrance” (p.vfmri<; dya9f|<; aîa), because she endured the deaths o f all seven sons
“resolutely” (etxjruxox;) through her hopes in God (7:20). She is full o f “conviction”
(<})p6vr||j.a), possessing both “feminine argumentation” ( t o v OfjXov Xoyiapov) and
“masculine passion” (apveoi Guptp). As the analysis has shown, Razis receives high
praises o f a similar nature (14:37-38), and Judas himself emerges as the primary
military and pietistic hero o f the entire book.76 His resurrection faith and zeal for the
law are one with the piety of the martyrs.77
74 Goldstein, LI Maccabees, 304; Kellermann, Auferstanden, 46-50; Van Henten, The

Maccabean Martyrs, 270-94; Norbert Brox, Zeuge und Martyrer: Untersuchungen zur
Friihchristlichen Zeugnis-Terminologie (Munchen: Kosel-Verlag, 1961), 175-95. See also the
following chapter on the Jewish Wars.
75Abel, Les Livres des Maccabees, xxxv.
76Judas’ own heroic stature in the book cannot be overemphasized. Not only does the
author fall short of even relating his death, but he has diminished the significance of the other
brothers so that Judas’ heroism is magnificently enhanced; Efron, Studies in the Hasmonean
Period, 19; cf. Arenhoevel, “Die Hoffnung,” 38-39; William H. Brownlee, “From Holy War to
Holy Martyrdom,” in The Questfo r the Kingdom o f God: Studies in Honor o f George E.
Mendenhall, (ed. H. Huffmon et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 281-92, esp. pages
288-89. He is, in fact, the leader of the Hasidim, or faithful ones (14:6); Nickelsburg, “1 and 2
Maccabees,” 525; Attridge, “Historiography,” 177; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 97. Cf.
5:27; 6:21; 8:26, 28; 10:26; 12:38,43.

100
Yet the most significant device o f heroization in these passages comes with the
martyrs’ encounter with death. The author consistently portrays the martyrs as willing,
even anxious, to die (6:29; 7:3, 9, 11, 22-23, 27-28, 30, 37).78 By embracing death for
the law with resolute courage, the martyrs emerge in 2 Maccabees as true exemplars of
zeal for the Torah. Their faith does not waver, even in the face o f inhuman torture.79
By calling direct attention to the faith the martyrs have in the resurrection at their
deaths, the author has exalted the doctrine to a quintessential aspect o f Jewish piety.
Perhaps the greatest testament to the effectiveness o f the author’s methods o f heroizing
the martyrs appears in the later veneration o f the martyrs by Jews and Christians alike.80
Stylistically, the narrator never speaks o f the resurrection as his own faith.
Certainly, he could have included an extended excursus in his narrative defending the
belief. Instead, he consistently attributes the belief to the martyrs and Judas; and the
77Nickelsburg, “ 1 and 2 Maccabees,” 524; Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 55-
56.
78 Frend, Martyrdom in the Early Church, 36-37.
79Goldstein, II Maccabees, 55.
80Margaret A. Schatkin, “The Maccabean Martyrs,” VC 28 (1974): 97-113; J.

Obermann, “The Sepulchre of the Maccabean Martyrs,” JBL 50 (1931): 250; W. Backer,
“Jiidische Martyrer im christichen Kalender,” JahrbucherJiir Jiidische Geschichte und Literatur
4 (1901): 70-85; Ernst Bammel, “Zum jiidischen Martyrerkult,” TLZ 78 (1983): 119-26; J.W.
van Henten, “The Martyrs as Heroes of the Christian People: Some Remarks on the Continuity
between Jewish and Christian Martyrology with Pagan Analogies,” Martyrium in
Multidisciplinary Perspective: Memorial Louis Reckmans (eds. M. Lamberigts and P. van
Dean; BETL 117; Leuven: Peeters, 1995), 303-22; GQnter Stemberger, “The Maccabees in
Rabbinic Tradition,” in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honor o f A. S. van der
Woude on the Occasion o f His 65lhBirthday, (eds. F. Garcia Martinez et al.; Leiden: Brill,
1992), 193-203; see also Chrysostom’s Homilia, XI, De Eleazaro et Semptem Pueris (PG
63:524-30); In sanctos Maccabaeos 1.2 (PG 50:620-21). See Goldstein, IIMaccabees, 309;
and Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 2-4.

101
majority o f references to the belief are speech-in-character. The effect o f this stylistic
device seems two-fold: first, the belief itself is exalted through its attribution to heroes
o f the past; second, the characters who make these professions are ennobled through
their heroic trust in God, even amid their own torture and death.
More is at stake in these resurrection passages than simple encomiasm, however.
The Jewish heroes’ faith in the resurrection provides a thematic commentary upon the
problematic narrative in which they appear. The theological claim that stands over 2
Maccabees 7, and indeed over the entire history, is “The Lord God oversees” (3:37; 7:6,
35). A providential will guides the events o f this story.81 This claim for the
providential guidance o f events, however, could not simply be asserted for the author o f
2 Maccabees; it had to be proven in specific light o f the conflict between the Syrian
King and o xou k o o j i o u BacnXeix;.82 The deaths suffered for the law in the Maccabean
crisis posed the ultimate test o f the validity o f divine justice in history.83 It is a
testament to the enduring legacy o f the problem raised by the crisis that the author o f 4
Maccabees, as well as Josephus, continued to produce multiple presentations o f the
story even into the late first-century C.E., approximately 260 years beyond the events
that these histories claim to report. The impending threat to the law and Temple that the
81 Kellermann, Auferstanden, 22; Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 126-28.
82Arenhoevel, “Die Hoffnung,” 38-39.
83Goldstein, II Maccabees, 3.
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r re p r o d u c tio n p ro hibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

102
entire crisis posed seems to have raised much larger questions about the rule o f God
over the history o f the Jewish people, questions that would linger far beyond the 25th o f
Chislev. As the commentary o f 2 Maccabees 6:12-17 reveals, the author o f2
Maccabees was well aware that generations after 167-64 B.C.E. readers could still be
“cast down by the calamities” (ouaxeAAeoGai 8ia xaq aup<t>opa<;) recorded “in this
book” (xfi8e xf| pip>.icp). How could God abandon the people to the lawless Greeks?
How could the law lead to glory, when it clearly led to shame and death?
As George W.E. Nickelsburg has shown, the author o f 2 Maccabees had at his
disposal a rich resource o f traditional approaches to these problems in the wisdom
theology o f the persecuted and vindicated righteous one.84 Yet if the author made use
o f such wisdom traditions, he also went beyond them in one decisive way. It was the
resurrection hope articulated by the martyrs, their mother, Razis, and Judas, that
allowed him to address these problems o f theodicy and to restore the balance o f a moral
order to the story he sought to tell.85 God had not abandoned the chosen people, but
was only chastening the righteous (rcpoq rcaiSeiav xou yevouq Tipdiv), who died for their
own sins against their own God (6:12; 7:30-38). Yet this chastening was only a “brief
toil” (Ppaxuv ... Ttovov) that would lead to “everflowing life” (aevaou ^<uf|<;) (7:36).
The law would thus lead to glory, as 1 Macc 2:64 had promised; but now the
path to glory would lead through the last trial o f dying for the law. The God o f creation
84Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 93-111. See Isa 50, 52, 53; Dan 3, 6; Bar 4:17-29; Wis
2:4-5; As. Mos. 9. See also Hans Cavallin, Life after Death: Paul's Argument for the
Resurrection o f the Dead in 1 Cor 15, Part 1: An Enquiry into the Jewish Background
(Coniectanea Biblica NTS 7:1; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1974), 113.
85 Attridge, “Historiography,” 180-81.

103
and covenant remained fully in control o f events, despite the perplexing death o f the
righteous, since the God who required covenant loyalty unto physical death also
possessed the creative power to reconstitute the physical body for everlasting life. From
creation to future resurrection, then, the author faithfully affirms God’s just and ultimate
control over events.
As these dramatic stories indicate, the “pathetic” or “tragic” style o f
historiography was at times blatant in its desire to seize upon the deepest sentiments o f
the readers in order to convey its moralizing purpose. But the associations drawn
between historiography and the reader were by no means limited to the “tragic” style.
As a perennial concern o f historiography, the events related in ancient histories often
served as examples that should inform readers o f current and future generations as they
faced the crises o f their own times.86 This more general feature o f historiography finds
explicit expression in 2 Maccabees’s portrayal o f the martyr known as Eleazar the
Scribe, whose tale o f faithfulness to the laws immediately precedes the legend o f the
seven sons. When he chooses to die openly for the law, Eleazar claims:
Therefore, by departing this life now with manly courage, I shall appear
worthy o f my own age, and to the youths (I shall appear) to have left
86 See as Thucydides 1.22.4; Polybius 1.4.11; Lucian, On the Writing o f History 9-10,
40-42, 61; Dionysius of Halikamassus, Roman Antiquities 1; Tacitus, Histories l.IH, Annals
116; and Josephus, A.J. 1.3-4, 14-15.
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e cop y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r re p r o d u c tio n p rohib ited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

104
behind a noble example o f (how to) die willingly and nobly on behalf o f
our reverend and holy laws. (6:27-28)87
In commentary upon the death o f Eleazar, the narrator reinforces the example o f his
heroic faith and “ illustrious death” ( evk Xe 'uxi; Gavaxov; 6:29):
In this way, then, he also died, leaving behind his own death as the
noblest and most memorable example o f virtue not only to the youths but
also to the great majority o f the nation. (6:31)88
As an example (uJtoSeiypa) o f true nobility to his entire people, Eleazar becomes a
model for the seven sons, the mother, and many others in the story o f how to face their
crisis with fidelity and courage. Unlike the apostates, Eleazar is a true representative o f
the people o f Israel.89
The exemplarity o f the martyrs may also have functioned in a similar way for
the readers o f the epitomized 2 Maccabees, which was probably already in circulation
during the first-century C.E. Dying for the ancestral laws in this period was by no
means a romantic ideal o f the antiquarian past. If one may trust Josephus’ description
87 8i6;tep avSpe'iox; pev vuv 8iaXXa£a<; xov |3i.ov xou pev ynpax; aîoq 4>avf|aopai,
xoiq 8e veoiq urcoSeiypa yEvva'iov tcaxaXeXoiTtdx; eiq xo TipoGupax; xai yevvaico; weep
xcbv oepvcbv xai ay'icov vopcov aTxeuGavaxiêiv.
88 Kai ouxoq ouv xouxov xov xponov p£xf|XXaijEv o\> povov xoiq veoiq, aXXa xai
xoiq txXeioxok; xov eGvovx; xov eauxou Gavaxov uxoSeiypa yevvaioxrixoq Kai
pvripoovvov apExfiq KaxaXincbv.
89 Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 106-07; Brox, Zeuge und Martyrer, 155-57;
Frend, Martyrdom in the Early Church, 35. Note that the seven brothers also refer to “we,”
“us,” and “our,” as though they speak as representatives for the entire Jewish people; Van
Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 138.
It remains unclear why Eleazar himself does not profess hope in the resurrection. It is
merely his hope that his heroic death may serve an example to future generations. The omission
of the resurrection hope here, however, may be strategic. Both the two women (6:10) and
Eleazar clearly establish the striking problematic of death for the law in its most dramatic terms,
thus setting in motion the problem of retribution which the author will address in the
resurrection hope of the seven sons, their mother, Judas, and Razis.

105
o f at least three events from 4 B.C.E. to 41 C.E.,90 dying for the ancestral laws was the
actual pursuit o f diverse groups o f Jewish pietists throughout the first half o f the first-
century, and thereafter.91 Judas, son o f Sepphoraeus, and Matthias, son o f Margalus,
could exhort their disciples to cut down Herod’s eagle from the Temple even at the risk
o f death, since it was a good thing “to die for the ancestral law” (B.J. 1.647-73).92
Similarly, when Pilate attempts to conduct standards with Caesar’s images into the
Temple precincts (c. 26-36 C.E.), the people bare their necks before him, “shouting that
they are prepared to die rather than to transgress the law” {B.J. 2.174).93 Furthermore,
when Gaius Caligula dispatched Petronius to erect statues o f him self as the divine
Caesar within the Jerusalem Temple in 40 C.E., Jews protest and “are ready to suffer for
the law,”94 presenting their wives and children also as “ready for the slaughter” 95 before
Petronius {B.J. 2.196-97).96 The description o f these conflicts shares much with the
ideology o f 2 Maccabees and suggests that death for the law was the pursuit of
numerous pietists during the Roman period.97
90 For others, see Brox, Zeuge und Martyrer, 165-66.
91 For other incidents after 70 C.E., see Frend, Martyrdom in the Early Church, 40-95;
Kellermann, Auferstanden, 12.
92urcep xou xaxpiou vopou 0 vt|okeiv.
93exoipotx; avoupeiv a<j>d<; epcxov paXXov ti xov vopov raxpapf|vai.
94epoa repo xou vopov naoxeiv Exoipax; exeiv.
95Exoipouq eiq xt|v acjjayriv.
96 See also the similar passage of C. Ap. 2.217-19, where Josephus must explain this
perplexing phenomenon to non-Jews who do not understand it.
97 See also Philo, Legatio ad Gaium, 162, 192, 215, 233, 249,266, 329.

106
Though 2 Maccabees is probably pre-Roman,98 it bequeathed to its future
readers examples o f faith and martyrdom that would continue to live well into the first
century C.E. and beyond. Abel accentuates this exemplarity o f 2 Maccabees: “Le cote
parenetique du livre donne a l’auteur Paspect du’un predicateur plutotot que d ’un
historien”;99 “ [Both the aged Eleazar and the young sons] trouve un modele a imiter au
temps de la persecution.” 100 J. van Henten also identifies the “three focal points” o f
dying for the laws as, “ I) absolute loyalty to the God o f the Jews, 2) strict observance of
Jewish laws, and 3) aspiration to serve as a model for other Jews by standing firm under
the most gruesome forms o f persecution.” 101 These texts in 2 Maccabees, then, pose
what David L. Seely terms the “mimetic” noble death.102 As Eleazar, the seven sons,
Razis, and Judas have done in the past, future generations must faithfully contend for
the law in their own tim e.103 The exemplary piety o f the seven sons, their mother, and
Razis demands that those who read the text must also face the martyr’s death with hope
in God’s mercy promised in the resurrection. In this sense, 2 Maccabees invited
98 Doran, Temple Propaganda, 111-13. Doran dates the epitome early in the reign of
Hyrcanus I (134-104 B.C.E.); Attridge, “Historiography,” 177; Van Henten concurs, The
Maccabean Martyrs, 50-52. Nickelsburg suggests the reign of Alexander Jannaeus; Jewish
Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987; orig. 1981), 121.
99 Abel, Les Livres des Maccabees, xxxiv.
100Ibid., 370; see also Attridge, “Historiography,” 180-81.
101 Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 125; see also 225-34.
102David L. Seely, The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul's Concept
o f Salvation (JSNTSup 28; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 87-91, 114-17.
103Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 95.
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e c o p y rig h t o w n e r . F u r th e r re p ro d u c tio n p rohib ited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

107
associations between the martyrs in the text and many pietists o f its own, and later,
times.104
In the case o f both the characters in the story and the readers o f that story, the
resurrection hope would stand upon the horizon o f indefinite future history, illuminating
their common struggle for righteousness against the powers o f the world. Thus, even in
the face o f death for the laws, the resurrection hope o f 2 Maccabees may have served to
encourage the pietists o f its own, and later, times to contend for the law in confidence
that those who die “under the Covenant” will be raised by their Creator “unto an
everlasting renewal o f life.” This encouragement may be seen as both hortatory (since
it encourages a pursuit o f the law that will lead to reward) and consolatory (since it
affirms that God will have the final word o f retribution and reward over the suffering
righteous) in nature.
The hopes o f the martyrs in 2 Maccabees provide a partial vantage into the
constellation o f ancient assumptions that were at stake in Jewish resurrection belief. By
presenting Paul as a believer in the resurrection, Luke situates Paul’s message within
this larger constellation o f ancient piety. This raises the possibility that Paul’s faith in
the future resurrection and judgment may perform (in its own distinctive ways) literary
functions o f heroization, theodicy, and rhetoric that are analogous to those o f 2
Maccabees. This possibility is pursued in Chapter 7 o f the dissertation. First, however,
104See Bickermann, The God o f the Maccabees, 90-92. Perhaps the greatest evidence
of the exemplary power of texts like 2 Macc comes to us in the form of later Rabbinic
restrictions against martyrdom: e.g., “live through the laws but do not die through them” ( Yoma
85b; cf. Sank. 74a; "Abod. Zar. 24b; Gen. Rab. 82). See J. Greenstone, “Martyrdom, Restriction
of,” Jewish Encyclopedia (ed. I. Singer; New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1910), 253-54.

108
it is necessary to turn to Josephus, who, like the author o f 2 Maccabees, provides one of
the foremost ancient descriptions o f Jewish faith in the future life.

109
Table I: Recurrent Motifs and Expressions
Attestations
Language 7:9 7:11 7:14 7:22-23 7:27-29 7:30-38 14:45-46 12:43-45
G od’s ultimacy,
creation/birth x X X X X X
dying for
the laws x X X X X
everlasting105 x X
life x X X X X
dvrioTacn<;
a v ta x rm i x X x
"despising” the
present life X X
eXjui'cD
eXtik; X X X
JtaXiv X X X X
taunts vs.
the king x X X
“breath and
life” X X
eXeoq X X
K o p i^ o fx a i X X
death as just
judgm ent X X
105 Adjectival use o f aicoviov and a e v a o o , respectively.

CHAPTER 3:
APPEALS TO THE FUTURE LIFE IN JOSEPHUS’ JEWISH WARS
The portrayal o f Jewish heroes as philosophical pietists capable o f theorizing on
creation, justice, and the future life is by no means limited to 2 Maccabees in Jewish
historiography. Not only does 4 Maccabees develop this portrayal in its own distinctive
ways,' but Josephus’ Jewish Wars fully accentuates the philosophical characteristics o f
many o f the memorable Jewish figures who appear in his history. Josephus also divides
many o f the Jewish people into philosophical schools (2.117-66), which differ
significantly from one another in their beliefs concerning providence, prophecy, and the
future life. This well known report concerning the beliefs o f the Jewish schools, as well
as its parallel in the Jewish Antiquities, stands as one o f the foremost ancient accounts
o f Jewish piety regarding the future life. As such, it is important for understanding
Luke’s portrayal o f Paul’s Pharisaic belief in the resurrection.
Beliefs about the future life, however, do not simply remain within Josephus’
narrative description o f the Jewish “sects’” respective “philosophies.” Josephus has
embedded claims about the future life into four major speeches by various figures
appearing in ihe Jewish Wars (1.648; 3.340-408; 6.33-53; 7.337-98). The stylistic
similarities with 2 Maccabees are worthy o f note. As in 2 Maccabees, there are
examples o f repeated vocabulary and motifs among the speeches in question. Both
' 4 Maccabees maximizes the philosophical portrayal of the martyrs, as a reading of its
portrayal of the seven sons indicates (4 Macc 8-13). Of particular significance for Josephus is
the translation of 2 Maccabees’s resurrection appeals into the language of immortality in 4
Maccabees, which was apparently more accommodating to a broader audience conditioned by
Hellenistic philosophical teachings (4 Macc 9.22; 14.5; 16.13; 17.12; 18.23). Hugh Anderson,
“4 Maccabees,” OTP 2:539.
110

I ll
documents also present these speeches in the context o f imminent death and
endangerment. Furthermore, like those o f 2 Maccabees, these speeches seem to have
addressed the fundamental problem o f demonstrating the providential guidance o f
creation and history amid tragedies that threatened to destroy this hope. As in the
previous chapter, this analysis o f the four speeches (I) proceeds through a survey o f
their occurrence in the Jewish Wars; (II) presents an exposition o f the concept o f the
future life found in these speeches; and finally, (III) offers a proposal concerning their
rhetorical function within the Jewish Wars.
Hope in the future life first surfaces in the Jewish Wars in the discourses o f two
teachers who instruct their students to pull down the golden eagle that Herod had placed
at the gate o f the Temple (1.647-48). This relatively brief incident is followed two
books later by a more extensive speech in which Josephus reasons philosophically on
the immortality o f the soul, in order to save his own life from an enforced suicide
(3.361-82). The hope o f a future life, however, is not confined to Jews. Titus himself is
apparently a believer in the concept and exhorts his soldiers to die bravely in battle with
confidence in a future reward beyond death (6.33-53). Finally, the theme o f the future
life emerges for the last time in Eleazar’s speech at Masada, the climactic speech o f the
entire Jewish Wars (7.320-88). The last three o f these are among the speeches which
Harold W. Attridge has classified as “the most important” in the Jewish Wars “for
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e cop y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p ro d u c tio n prohib ited w ith o u t p e rm is s io n .

112
illustrating the tendencies o f Josephus’ work.”2 Henry St. J. Thackeray has similarly
described the speeches o f Josephus and Eleazar as “the great set speeches inserted at
cardinal turning-points in the narrative: these are purely imaginary and serve the
purpose o f propaganda.”3 These critical comments aptly describe the significance of
these speeches for discerning the apologetical coloring with which Josephus shades his
narration o f history.
The Two Teachers (1.647-48)
Near the time o f Herod’s death in his narration o f the pre-history to the revolt,
Josephus tells the story o f a brief yet powerful “sedition” in which two Jewish teachers
(aotjnaxoti) exhort their disciples to remove Herod’s golden eagle from the Temple gate.
As an impetus to the dangers they must face in this task, the teachers tell their disciples,
It is good, if indeed one should be in danger, to die on behalf o f the

ancestral law. For the soul o f those who die in such a way survives
immortal, and (their) perception o f noble things survives everlasting; but
those o f a lower mind and inexperienced in their wisdom ignorantly love
(their own) soul and choose death by disease before (death) through
virtue. {B.J. 1.650)4
1Harold W. Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” in Jewish Writings o f the Second
Temple Period, 185-232, esp. pages 194-95.
3Henry St. J. Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian (The Hilda Stich
Stroock Lectures ... at the Jewish Institute of Religion 2; New York: Jewish Institute of
Religion Press, 1929), 42.
4 mXov elvat Xeyovxeq, ei tcai xt<; yevoixo jdv8uvo<;, vntep xou rcaxpiou vopou
0vf|CTKeiv xotq yap oikto XEXeoxdxnv aGdvaxov xe x t|v xjrujcnv K£x'1 X1l v ayaSoiq
aioGriaiv aiwviov itapapeveiv, xoix; 8k ayeveiq Kai xfjg axuxcbv aoîaq djteipov^
dyvooovxa<; <J>iXo\|n)xeiv m i Jtpo xou Si dpexnq xov ex voaou Gavaxov aipetoGai. The
edition of the Jewish Wars used in this chapter is that of Otto Michel and Otto Bauemfeind, De
bello judaico, Derjudische Krieg: Griechisch und Deutsch (4 vols.; Munchen: Kosel-Verlag,
1969).

113
This speech is reported in oratio obliqua, an occasional stylistic device, in which
Josephus summarizes in his own narration the content o f a given speech.5 That the
content o f these materials is a speech is clearly signified in the narrative conclusion:
“While (they were) yet (speaking) these words” (1.651).6 In contrast to the parallel
passage in the Jewish Antiquities, this passage contains a brief but pointed teaching
concerning immortality beyond death.7 According to the teachers, the virtuous embrace
danger and death for the ancestral law with confidence that the soul ('Iruxfl) o f the
virtuous will survive in immortality.
This brief summary o f the teachers’ discourses introduces an understanding o f
immortality that will receive more detailed treatment in the speeches that follow,
especially where it describes immortalization as the direct result o f personal heroism
(see below on 6.33-53; 7.320-88). The particular form o f heroism that will result in
immortalization is death for the ancestral laws.8 The teachers are very close to the
hopes o f 2 Maccabees here. Yet what is significantly different from 2 Maccabees is that
5 Syntactically, the report is in oratio obliqua, but it presumably contains the words the
teachers spoke to their students. On the speeches in oratio obliqua, see Thackeray, Josephus,
42; J. Lindner, Die GeschichtsauJJassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum.
Gleichzeitig ein Beitragzur Quellenfrage (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judenturns und
des Urchristentums 12; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 35-40, esp. page 40. The criteria for speech-
selection at the beginning of Chapter 2 lists the aspects of style that indicate Josephus is
portraying a speech here.
6 "Apa 8e xotq eKevvtov koyotq.
7A.J. 17.149-55 has the teachers make a more prolonged discourse, but one which
seems to lack completely the exhortation based upon immortality as one finds in B.J.
8 Bemd Schroder, Die 'vaterlichen Gesetze Flavius Josephus als Vermittler von
Halachah an Griechen und Romer (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1996), 35-36.

114
Josephus clearly prefers to speak o f immortality apart from any explicit reference to
dvdaxaau; in this passage. Like 4 Maccabees, Josephus prefers to translate Jewish
beliefs about the future life into Hellenistic philosophical conceptions o f the soul. In
fact, the teachers’ views on the immortality o f the soul seem to be a part o f their own
sort o f popular philosophy. As for those who lack the classic heroism to die for the
laws, the teachers claim that they will simply grow old and die through disease rather
than virtue. No promise o f immortality is granted them. This observation is significant
for what follows, since at least one speech (6.33-53) envisions the annihilation o f the
soul with the bodies o f those who waste away by disease. This kind o f immortality thus
depends directly on personal heroism, and it is this very assumption that provokes the
students o f these teachers to their death-defying protest against Herod. Unfortunately
for the teachers, their exhortation strikes too close to home. Both they and their
disciples are killed by Herod for their virtue.
It is unclear precisely what Josephus knew about this event, presuming, o f
course, that it ever happened. Much o f the teachers’ identity remains veiled,9 nor are
they mentioned by anyone other than Josephus.10 It is possible that Josephus knew o f
this incident and that the popular teachers continued to be remembered after their
deaths. Where Josephus took his own liberties in narration may well have been in his
own psychologizing o f the teachers’ motivations, including the ascription to them o f
9 Cecil Roth and Schroder understand them to be “Pharisees of the extreme wing”; Cecil
Roth, “An Ordinance against Images in Jerusalem, A.D. 566,” HTR 44 (1956): 172; Schroder,
Die 'vaterlichen Gesetze, '35.
10As Schroder confirms, they are not to be found in Rabbinical literature; Die
'vaterlichen Gesetze, ’ 35 n. 21.

115
beliefs about the future life. Josephus’ own tone toward the teachers is at least neutral
and perhaps even positive.11 Nowhere does he denigrate their efforts. He even casts an
heroic light upon their faithful adherence to the law in the face o f death.12 Their
teaching on immortality asserts a just reward for heroism, even when the immediate
outcome o f events poses death rather than reward.
Josephus' Oration against Suicide (3.361-82)
After the incident o f the two teachers, appeals to the future life surface again in
Josephus’ narrative description o f the beliefs o f the Jewish philosophical “schools”
(2.217-66), a passage to which we shall return. The next speech that contains
references to the future life is given by Josephus himself in one o f the most curious, and
controversial, sections of the Jewish Wars. Josephus has been defeated in battle by the
Romans in Galilee and now hides out with his compatriots. It is at this point that
Josephus begins to reveal his recent dreams that the Jewish cause is lost and that
Vespasian will become the Roman emperor (3.350-54; cf. Tacitus, Hist. 1.10). His
compatriots, meanwhile, have determined to commit military suicide (e.g., death rather
than surrender), and they compel Josephus to join their death pact (3.355-60). In
11He himself could be quite a purist in regard to the Temple See AJ. 20.216-18.
Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 482-83. Julius Guttmann argues that the anti-iconic
stance of the teachers is a projection from Josephus’ own time back upon the Herodian era, in
order to hide their originally anti-Roman hatred beneath the veil o f piety; “The ‘Second
Commandment’ and the Image in Judaism,” HUCA 32 (1961): 170.
12It is possible that Josephus’ anti-Herodian bias may have aligned some of his
sympathies with the teachers. On anti-Herodianism in Josephus, see Louis H. Feldman,
“Flavius Josephus Revisited,” ANRW0.21.2 (1984): 812-13.

116
response, Josephus “philosophizes” (<jHXoao4>£iv) what is essentially an oration against
suicide - especially his own.
Having dispelled the arguments one could offer in favor o f suicide (3.361-69),
Josephus turns to a kind o f “conditional immortality” in order to defend his own choice
for life:
Now while all people have bodies that are mortal and crafted out of
matter,13 the soul is immortal forever and (it is) a portion o f God (that)
takes up its abode in bodies. If, then, someone destroys the deposit
entrusted to the care of the human or treats it poorly, he will seem
wicked and faithless; and if someone casts out o f his own body the
deposit o f God entrusted to his care, then (do you) think he will escape
the one whom he has wronged? . . . Do you not know, then, that (as for)
those who exit from life in accordance with the law o f nature and repay
the obligation received from God, when the one who has given (it)
chooses to receive (it), theirs is eternal fame, their houses and families
are secured, their souls remain pure and obedient, having been allotted
(by God) the holiest region o f heaven, from which at the revolution o f
the ages they return again to inhabit undefiled bodies. But as for those
whose hands have raged against themselves, darker Hades receives their
souls, and God, their father, visits upon their posterity the outrageous
pride o f their fathers. (B.J. 3.372-76)14
There are at least three outstanding features o f this passage. First, the soul is an
immortal portion o f the Deity, “housed” or “inhabiting” a material dwelling. Use o f an
13Or “wood,” in keeping with the architectural metaphors which follow.
14xd pev ye acopaxa 0vr|xd Jtacnv Kai e k (|)0apxf|<; uXt|<; 8e8r|pioupyr|xai, vJ/ujcn 8e
aGavaxoq dei Kai Geou potpa xoiq acopaaiv evoudêxai- eix eav pev a<j)avicrn xu;
dvGpawroo JtapaKaxa0f|KT|v rj 8ia0iixat KaKcoq, jcovripoc; el vat 8oKei Kai aicioxoq, ei 8e
xi<; xou a<J>exepo\> acopaxoc; ekJJcxXXei xf)v JiapaKaxa0fiKT|v xou Geou, XeXr|0£vai 8o k e i
xov aSiKOupevov;. . . ap o u k io x e, oxt xcov pev eîovxcov xou ftiou Kaxa xov xfjq 4>uaeco<;
vopov Kai xo XTpj)0ev reapa xou Geou xpecx; ekxivuvxcov, oxav o Souq Kopioao0ai 0eXp,
kXeo<; pev aicoviov, o ik o i 8e Kai yeveai PePaioi, KaGapai Se Kai ejx(|kooi pevoumv ai
v|/uxai, xwpov oupaviov Xaxouoai xov ayitoxaxov, evGev e k 7tepixpo7rn<; aicovwv ayvoi<;
jcaX.iv avxevoudôvxai acopaoiv- ocoiq 8e Ka0’ eauxcov epavnoav ai x^PE<5. 'touxcov
#8t|<; pev Sexexat xou; vjruxou; OKOxeivoxepo<;, o 8e xouxcov jcaxf|p Gecx; ei<; eyyovotx;
xipcopeixai xou<; xcov naxepcov uPpiaxdu;.

117
architectural metaphor allows Josephus to maintain distinctions between the body and
the soul that are decisive for the prevailing anthropological dualism o f this passage.
Second, Josephus develops an ethics out o f this dualism. Since a portion o f the Deity
resides within the body’s material dwelling, one must preserve the body “according to
the law o f nature” (Korea xov xfj<; 4>uaeco<; vopov), which means facilitating the body’s
life and growth into a natural death wherever possible - in this case, by surrendering to
the Romans. Third, there are rewards and punishments depending upon one’s treatment
o f body and soul. Those who hastily evict the divine portion by their own hand are
punished because o f their inhospitality toward God. Their souls are absorbed into the
darkness o f Hades, and God enacts retributive vengeance against their offspring. The
souls o f those who revere “the law o f nature,” however, are preserved in the holiest
cosmic regions. Furthermore, their souls will actually be restored to new and undefiled
bodies at the revolution o f the ages. Hans Cavallin describes this reward for the
virtuous as practically a kind o f resurrection,15 though one cannot assume that the
terminology o f resurrection is appropriate here. There is no evidence that the “chaste”
bodies which souls will inhabit in the future are the same bodies they previously
inhabited. They may, in fact, be “different” bodies.16
Yet what overshadows even the philosophy o f Josephus in this passage is its
blatant use in self-apology. This speech could hardly have taken place among defeated
Jewish rebels somewhere in the caves o f Galilee. Josephus saved his life at Jotapata.
15Cavallin, Life after Death, 142.
16See the discussion of B.J. 2.168 in section II.

118
Though it is possible that his compatriots urged military suicide, Josephus probably did
not present to them a discourse on immortality. Indeed, the speech itself seems to
violate the verisimilitude o f a military negotiation for surrender. It serves, instead, to
ennoble, before the eyes o f the reader, Josephus’ questionable refusal to commit
military suicide along with his soldiers and his eventual defection to the Romans.17 It is
a “red-herring.” These high ideals o f immortality and the revolution o f the ages
legitimate Josephus’ decision against suicide as an ethical choice founded in his
philosophy o f the soul. Thus, he emerges from this incident looking more like a
philosopher and less like a coward.
Titus Rouses His Troops to Take Antonia (6.33-53)
Josephus and the two teachers are, strangely enough, not the only believers in
immortality in the Jewish Wars. Titus himself appeals to immortality as he exhorts his
soldiers to seize and destroy the Antonia. Titus’ speech implies that he is well aware of
the loss o f life required to take this stronghold. His speech endeavors to show “that it is
a beautiful thing to die in glory and how it will not be fruitless for those who first
attempt this noble deed.” The fruit that rewards the brave is in the life beyond death:
Neglecting to sing just now o f death in battle and the immortality that is
for those who die in warlike frenzy, I for my part would imprecate death
in peace by disease upon those who hold otherwise, whose soul also
together with (their) body is condemned to the grave. For who among
noble men does not know that Aether, the purest element, entertains as
strangers the souls that have been liberated by the sword in the battle-line
from the things o f the flesh and sets them up among the stars, (where)
17Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (London: SCM, 1983), 169-
73.

119
they are made visible as noble daimones and heroes propitious to their
own offspring, but subterraneous night obliterates into darkness and deep
Lethe receives the souls which have dissolved in disease with the body,
even if they are especially pure o f stains and pollutions, (since they)
receive at one and the same time the termination o f life and bodies, and
yet also o f memory. But if death has been spun as a necessity for men,
the sword is a nimbler instrument for that purpose than any disease. (B.J.
6.46-49)18
Like the instructions o f the two martyred teachers, Titus envisions the cowardly death in
peace and old age as one in which the soul deteriorates within the body. The souls of
those who lack virtue in critical moments thus annihilate themselves through decay.
Their souls dissolve in disease along with the body and are absorbed into the cosmic
darkness o f the underworld, where the river Lethe receives their souls into utter
forgetfulness. This is the case even for those who have been morally upright.
Heroes, on the other hand, are received into the cosmic regions o f the Aether,
the purest element in the heavens. The sword liberates their souls from the troubles and
limitations o f the flesh. Apotheosized into the stars, they shine forth as a kind o f astral
being, aiding their offspring from the heavens, though they have ascended far above the
affairs o f mortals. This new existence as daimones, however, should not be considered
as deification, since the soul is already a portion o f the divine even when it is trapped in
18Kai eycoye t o pev upvEiv apxi xf|v e v TtoXipcp te X e u ttiv Kai xf|v kni xou;
apEipavion; tcecto u o iv aGavaaiav napaXutcbv ercapaaatpr|v av xoi<; aAâx; e x o u o i xov
Kax eipf|vriv e k vooou Gavaxov, oiq psxa xou ccopaxa; Kai f| \J/u%fi xd<t>cp KaxaKpivExai.
t'k ; yap o u k biSe xcov ayaGcov avSpcov oxi xou; pev ev Ttapaxaêi oi8f|pco xcov
aapKcbv d7xoX.u0eioa<; t o KaGapcoxaxov axoixeiov ai0f|p êvoSoxcov aoxpotq
EyKa0t8puei, 8aipove<; S ayaGoi Kai ripcoE<; eupEVEiq i5ioiq Eyyovou; Epcjnxviôvxai, xaq
8e e v voaouai xoi<; ocopacn ouvxaKEioaq, Kav xa paXiaxa KT)X.i8cov r\ piaopaxcov cooi
KaGapai, v u ^ VKoyeioq acjnxviÊi Kai Xf|0Ti paGsia Sexexai, XapPavouoaq ap a xou xe
P'iou Kai xcov ocopaxcov e t i 8 e xt)? pvf|pri<; 7tepiypa<j)fiv; ei 8e KEtcXcoaxai psv dv0pawioi<;
avayKaia xeX euxt|, kou<})6 x ep o v 8e ei<; auxr|v voaou Jtaari<; oiSiipcx; ujrppEXTii;.

120
the human body (cf. 2.372).19 Determinism is an important feature o f Titus’ speech.
Necessity (dvayicoua) is portrayed as one o f the mythological Fates who “spin out”
(KEKXoxjiav) a destiny for human beings. If necessity spins death, one is more fortunate
to meet it in battle and heroism than to allow the soul to decay in peace and old age.
Unlike Josephus’ oration, Titus does not directly mention the soul’s future return to a
pure body at the revolution o f the ages.20 Titus’ philosophical dissertation is apparently
effective: after great loss o f life, the Romans successfully occupy the fortress (6.76-80).
Eleazar’s Last Stand (7.320-88)
The significance o f these appeals to the future life within Josephus’ presentation
o f history becomes even more conspicuous in the climactic speech o f the entire Jewish
Wars, Eleazar’s oration at Masada. Though some commentators have suggested that
Josephus’ own tone toward the Jews at Masada is negative or at least foreboding,21 a
new consensus is forming that this speech represents one o f Josephus’ most heroic
19Franz Cumont, The Afterlife in Roman Paganism (Silliman Memorial Lectures; New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1922), 112-13.
20At least one turn of phrase may suggest that this understanding o f the soul’s ultimate
return to a body underlies Titus’ speech. The Aether will “receive” the heroic soul “as a
stranger” (§evo8oxdiv). This idiom may envision the heroic soul only sojourning for a time
among the pure elements and stars, to return in the future to a pure body. Yet this is never
directly stated.
21 As Otto Michel-Bauemfeind claim, Eleazar is the “Todesprediger fur das judische

Volk,” a negative portrayal which contrasts with Josephus’ own positive Tendenzen for the
salvation of the Jewish people in the Diaspora-, “Die beiden Eleazarreden in Jos Bell 7.323-36,
7.341-88,” Zeitschriftfur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kirche 58 (1967): 268;
Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Josephus, 37. For another negative evaluation, see
David Ladouceur, “Masada: A Consideration of the Literary Evidence,” Greek, Roman, and
Byzantine Studies 21 (1980): 245-60; “Josephus and Masada,” in Josephus, Judaism, and
Christianity (ed. L. Feldman and G. Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), 97.

121
portrayals o f the rebels.22 The many paradoxes contained in the figure o f Eleazar have
allowed for divergent opinions. The speech is one o f the longest in the entire history,
and it is the last extended oration Josephus records before coming to a conclusion. The
speech occurs in two sections. In the first, Eleazar emphasizes the foundational
assumptions which first brought him and his compatriots into the revolt: service to God
alone, freedom from human rulers, and death before slavery (7.320-36). When fear o f
dying for freedom panics many o f his listeners, Eleazar turns to a second section in his
oration that pursues other forms o f argumentation (7.341-88).23 Josephus directly
describes this second address as a speech “concerning the immortality o f the soul” (rcepi
\|n>XTl<; dOavaoiaq), a phrase that Michel-Bauemfeind suggest is actually the title o f the
22Thackeray, Josephus, 22; Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 408-09. Rajak
suggests that the speech is similar to orations delivered by defeated enemies in Tacitus’
historiography. Her final estimation of the rebels at Masada is that “they are made into virtual
heroes by Josephus, and it is as though the author has forgotten his former abhorrence of such
people and their ideals”; Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 80-82. Yigael Yadin
claimed that Josephus was guilty for betraying his people and attempted to compensate through
a positive portrayal; Masada: Herod's Fortress and the Zealot’s Last Stand (trans. M.
Pearlman; New York: Random House, 1966), 15. Trude Weiss-Rosmarin suspects that
Josephus heroized Eleazar to cover up Roman atrocities at Masada; “Masada Revisited,” Jewish
Spectator 34 (1969): 29-32. Shaye J.D. Cohen explains Josephus’ positive portrayal by stating
Josephus simply “forgot that he wished to heap opprobrium, not approbation, on them”;
“Masada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and the Credibility of Josephus,” JJS 33
(1982): 385-405, esp. page 405. Feldman suggests that Josephus accentuated the heroic
characteristics of Eleazar in ways that could have been appreciated by “high Roman circles,” a
view not uncongenial to the approach taken in what follows; “Flavius Josephus Revisited,” 856.
Attridge prefers to describe the portrayal as a complex appeal for sympathy for the Jewish
people; “Josephus and His Works,” 209-10.
23The second part is thus not technically a mere repetition or intensification of the first,
since the discussion on immortality could not have been predicted from what precedes it in
7.320-36; pace Michel-Bauemfeind, “Die beiden Eleazarreden,” 267-70; Lindner, Die
Geschichtsauffassung des Josephus, 36; Schroder, Die 'vaterlichen Gesetze,’ 46. A better
statement of the formal relationship between the two pars is proposed by M. Luz, who regards
the second speech as a parakeleusis, a form of rhetorical exhortation based upon a previous
assertion; “Eleazar’s Second Speech on Masada and Its Literary Precedents,” Rheinisches
Museum 126(1983): 25-43.

122
speech.24 Eleazar shames the fearful for their lack o f courage, and then turns to an
extended discussion o f immortality to restore the courage o f his listeners (7.343-60). A
review o f precedents in the war itself that call for their military suicide follows (7.361-
79), and leads to a final exhortation to die with bravery and heroism (7.380-88).25
Within this grand oration, appeals to immortality and the life beyond death hold
a central position. Like the three previous instances, Eleazar’s speech envisions
immortality as an essential property o f the soul:
From ancient times, right from (their) first awareness, the ancestral and
divine words have continually taught us, with our forebears confirming
them by their works and intentions, that living is a calamity for human
beings, not death. For it is surely (death) that grants freedom to souls
and releases them to be set free into their native and pure place, (where)
they will be impassible o f all calamity. But as long as they are
imprisoned in a mortal body and infected with its evils, they are, to say
what is most true, dead. For fellowship with what is mortal is unfitting
to the divine. Now the soul is indeed able (to do) great things, even as it
is imprisoned in the body. For it makes (the body) its own tool for
perceiving, impelling it invisibly and leading it on to acts that are beyond
mortal nature. But not until (the soul) regains its native region, liberated
from the weight that drags it down to the earth and attaches it (there),
does it share in a blessed strength and an ability that is not hindered on
every side, remaining invisible to human eyes, like God himself. For
even while it is in the body it is not seen, since it approaches without
appearing and without being seen it departs again, it having a single and
incorruptible nature that is yet the cause o f change in the body. For
whatever the soul touches, that lives and flourishes; but whatever it
24 See also Michel-Bauemfeind, “Die beiden Eleazarreden,” 267-70; Lindner, Die

Geschichtsaujfassung des Josephus, 35-40; W. Morel, “Eine Rede bei Josephus (Bell, Iud. VII
344 sqq.),” Reinisches Museum 75 (1926): 106-15; Valentin Nikiprowetzky, “La mort d’Eleazar
fils de Jaire et les courants apologetiques dans le De Bello Judaico de Flavius Josephe,” in
Hommage a Dupont-Sommer (Paris: Lecoffre, 1971), 461-90; on this reading, see Cavallin,
Life after Death, 143. Michel-Bauemfeind likens this “title” to a Hellenistic tractate. Lindner
suggests that such a tractate may even have been a source for the speech.
23For other “suicide scenes” in the B.J., see 2.476,496-97; 4.70-83; see Attridge,
“Josephus and His Works,” 207-10.

123
departs withers and dies. So great (a portion) o f immortality is there
within it. (B J. 7.343-49)26
Eleazar claims that what he is teaching about death, life, and immortality is at the very
heart o f Jewish ancestral religion. Though one vainly searches the Pentateuch in the
Hebrew Bible and Septuagint for such ideas, Josephus seems to employ this ancestral
language as a way o f fortifying the argument Eleazar is making. The ideas that he
presents are essential to the ancient faith o f Judaism from the very beginning.
Eleazar claims that after death, the soul that animates the body will be restored
to its own pure abode to enjoy powers that are only hindered by the body in this life.
The future life will thus be a return o f the soul to its original dwelling place - unnamed
by Josephus - and an abandoning o f its temporary shelter in the body. What accounts
for the soul’s ability to lead the body in this life and to live forever beyond death is the
power o f immortality that dwells within it and cannot be overcome by death.
This teaching serves in Eleazar’s speech to comfort his troubled listeners and to
alleviate their fear o f death. It bears significant resemblance to the case o f the two
26JtdXai yap euGvx; arco tf|<; 7tpcoxr|<; aia0f|aeax; 7cai8euovxe<; T|pd^ oi m xpioi icai
Geioi Xoyox. 8iexekouv epyoiq xe Kai <j>povf|paai xcov Tipexepcov rtpoyovcov auxotx;
Pe|3aiouvxcov, oxi aup<J>opd xo £rjv eaxiv dvGpcorroit;, ouxi Gavaxoq. oxnoq pev yap
eXeuGepiav 8i8ou<; i|/uxai<; ei? tov oIkeiov Kai KaGapov d<})ir|oi xortov djtaXXaaaeoGai
7tdan<; aup<t>opdc; anaQeiq eaopevaq, eax; 8e eicnv ev acopaxi Gvrixcp 8e8epEvai Kai xcov
xouxou KaKtbv auvavarcipjtXavxai, xaXtiGeaxaxov eirceiv, xe0vf|Kaov Koivcovia yap
Geicp npcx; Gvrjxov dnpe7rf|<; eaxi. peya pev ouv 8uvaxai vJ/uxt) Kai acopaxi auvSeSepevry
rcoiei yap aiixfjq opyavov aioGavopevov dopaxcoq auxo Kivouaa Kai 0vrixf|<; cjruaecoq
rtepaixEpco rcpodyouaa xaiq 7cpdêaiv on pf|v aXX erceiSav drcoXuGeiaa xon
KaGeXKOvxoq auxf|v pdpouq km yrjv Kai rcpocncpepapevou xcopov drxoXdPfl xov oiKeiov,
xoxe 5f| paKapiac; iaxuoc; Kai rcavxaxoGev aKcoXuxou pexexei Suvapeax;, aopaxcx;
pevouaa xoiq avGpomvoi<; oppaaiv warcep auxcx; o Geoq- ou8e yap ecoq eaxiv ev acopaxi
Gecopeixai- rcpoaeiai yap a<{)avcbq Kai pf| pXercopevri JtaXiv anaXXaxxexai, piav pev
auxf| 4>uaiv exouaa xf|v a<j)0apxov, a ix ia 8e acopaxi yivopevri pexaPoXijq. oxou yap av
i|/uxri Ttpcxn{/aixrf|, xouxo £fj Kai xeGriXev, oxou 8 a v anaXXayfj, papavGev djto0vf|OKei-
xocouxoi auxjj nepieaxiv aGavaaiaq.

124
teachers and Titus’ oration, since all three attestations encourage heroism in the face o f
imminent death. The speech o f Eleazar, and its direct consequence, also share much
with the ideology o f martyrdom in 2 Maccabees, since in both cases references to the
future life encourage the faithful to die nobly in the face o f their tormentors. Two other
notes in Eleazar’s speech resonate with 2 Maccabees: first, the claim that he and his
compatriots will be dying for their own sins (7.332-33); and second, that they will leave
behind them the astonishing example o f their boldness (7.388, 351). What dominates
the entire speech o f Eleazar is, finally, that they are dying by divine necessity (7.358-60,
387).27 This presentation o f death as an absolute necessity, already established in Titus’
speech, makes it impossible to fulfill the “law o f nature,” o f which Josephus was so
reverent. This provides the fundamental contrast that makes the outcome o f Josephus’
speech so different from that o f Eleazar. To embrace God’s inscrutable will, death with
glory and hope in the future life remain the only option for the rebels at Masada (7.325-
26, 336, 341,351,380,388).
The Concept o f the Future Life
The speeches o f the Jewish Wars that make recourse to immortality cannot have
been a mere diversion for the author and audience o f this work. Four repetitions o f
these speeches suggest that more than simple entertainment is at work, as does the
consistency o f the basic themes one may find running throughout these four accounts.
The especially climactic expression that they achieve in Eleazar’s speech betrays their
27 Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Josephus, 36-37.

125
importance within the Jewish Wars. Their strategic development is further underscored
when one recognizes their fundamental continuity with Josephus’ apologetical
portrayals o f Jewish beliefs in the Against Apion, the Jewish Wars, and the Jewish
Antiquities.
In relation to Jewish belief in resurrection, two extremes must be avoided when
treating Josephus’ work: 1. When Josephus refers to immortality, he really means
Jewish belief in resurrection; 2. Josephus’ descriptions have absolutely no relation to
Jewish belief in resurrection. The first extreme must be avoided since Josephus simply
does not use the classic terms associated with the resurrection, and since external
sources hardly lead to the conclusion that all Jews believed in the resurrection. Instead,
Josephus’ language o f immortality may refer to a broader range o f notions in Judaism,
including immortality (Wis 3.5), resurrection (Dan 12:1-3, 2 Macc 7), or translation into
the heavenly world (7 Enoch 14.8). The second extreme, however, must also be
avoided, since external sources portray belief in a resurrection from the dead among
some o f the very same groups Josephus describes (e.g., Acts 23:8).
The Future Life: A Topic within Jewish Philosophy
In the formal apology Against Apion, Josephus concludes his work with a
summary o f Jewish beliefs and customs, where the central theme is the deposition and
observance o f the law (2.151-269). The reward o f those who keep the law is not public
recognition, as is the case among Greeks. According to Josephus, Jews have a different
perspective on reward:

126
Each man, having his own conscience has trusted that (it) bears witness
(to him), as the lawgiver prophesied, and as God has provided strong
confirmation; because as for those who keep the laws, if it should prove
necessary for them to die on behalf o f them, God has granted to those
who die willingly that they come into being again and receive a better
life from the revolution. Now I would have hesitated to write these
things, but through certain deeds it became clear to all that many o f our
own people quite often before now chose to suffer many things before
speaking even a single word contrary to the law. (C. Ap. 2.217-19)28
Within a larger catalogue o f the beliefs o f the Jewish people, Josephus’ comments on
immortality should be taken seriously. Here, he clarifies to his pagan audience that
belief in the future life served as a motivation for many of his own people to die for
their ancestral laws. The future life itself is literally a palingenesis ( 8 e 8 cokev o Gecx;
yeveoGai xe TtaXiv) here, yet the nature o f the future life is not defined. Josephus
simply describes it as “a better life” to be received “from the revolution” - a reference
to the reconstitution o f the cosmos also described in Josephus’ speech at Jotapata. The
independent report o f Tacitus reveals some familiarity with this larger stereotype:
“They [Jews] think the souls o f those killed by battle or torture are immortal: thus,
(their) love of procreating, and their contempt o f death” (Hist. 5.5).29
28aXA.’ outck ; EKaaxoq auxcb t o auvetScx; extov papxupouv tcetuctteukev , xou pev
vopoGexou 7tpo<}>TiTEuaavTO<;, xou 8e Ge o u t t | v rciaxiv iaxupav 7tapeaxr|K6xo<;, oxi xot<;
xoix; vopouq k & v ei 8eoi Gv t io k e iv unep auxwv rcpoGupcoq ajtoGavouai
8 e 8 cokev o Gecx; yeveaGat xe JtaXiv Kai fttov dpeivoo Xafteiv e k Jtepixpoirnq, afcouv 8’ av
eycb xauxa ypdêiv, ei pi) 8ia xaiv epytov a jtaaiv rjv (Jnxvepov oxi noXXoi Kai JtoXXotKi^
t)8 ti xtbv qpexeptov itepi xou pr|8e pfjpa (jiGeyâaGat n ap a xov vopov navxa naGeiv
yevvaitoq JtpoeiXovxo.
29Animosque proelio aut suppliciis peremptorum aetemos putant: hinc generandi

amor et moriendi contemptus.

127
Josephus’ memorable description o f the Jewish “sects” (cdpexiaxai)30 elaborates
with much greater precision the notion o f the future life among the Jews presented in
the Against Apion. O f the three Jewish “philosophical sects” Josephus describes in the
Jewish Wars, two claim strong beliefs in a future life: the Essenes and the Pharisees.
Essenes: The more detailed description is that o f the Essenes (2.154-58). After
a meticulous catalogue of their beliefs and practices, Josephus treats their “wisdom”
(oo<f>ta) concerning the future life. As in previous cases, Josephus speaks o f their belief
by establishing an anthropological dualism. The body is “corruptible” (<t>0apxa) and
composed o f a “matter” (uXr|) that is “not enduring” (06 povipov), but the soul
“perseveres forever immortal” (dGavdxouq del Siapiveiv). “After passing to and fro
from the finest Aether” (ek xou tercxoxdxou <j>oiX(baaq aiGepoq), the soul “is intertwined,
as it were, with imprisoning bodies, pulled down by a certain natural spell”
(oupitXEKEoGai. . . cSajcEp eipKxaiq xoiq acopaaiv iuyyi xivi <t>uaiiqj tcaxaajtcopEvou;).31
When death liberates the soul from “the bonds that accord with the flesh” (xcov wxxd
odpica Seapcov), souls “are bome on high” (pexecopouq 4>epeo0ai). The brief report o f
the Jewish Antiquities concurs. The Essenes “regard souls as immortal”
30Other terminology includes a'lpEOK; (B.J. 2.118, 122, 137,142, 162; A.J. 13.171,288,
293; 20.199; Vita 10, 12, 191, 197), yevcx; (B.J. 2.119, 7.268; A.J. 13.172,297; 15.371), et8o<;
(B.J. 2.119, 254), and xdypa (B.J. 2.122, 125, 164). On these texts, see Gunther Baumbach,
“The Sadducees in Josephus,” in Josephus, the Bible and History (ed. L. Feldman and G. Hata;
Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 173-175. Josephus’ use of this terminology
probably derives from Hellenistic usage for philosophical schools (Diogenes Laertius 1.19,
7.191; Sextus Empiricus, Pyr. 1.185; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Comp. 19; Polybius 5.93.8).
31 On this passage, see Plato, Phaedr. 83c-85, and section b) below.

128
(d0avax'i£ouoiv . . . xou; vjfu^dc;; A.J. 18.18). Though differing in minor details, these
descriptions are consistent with the language o f the four speeches just surveyed.
What is new, however, in the description o f the Essene belief in the future life is
the great work o f translation that Josephus has undertaken in “philosophizing” Jewish
belief in the future life by anchoring it in Hellenistic conceptions o f the soul (B.J. 2.155-
57). After describing the course o f the soul in Essene belief, Josephus supposes that
“the Greeks set apart the Isles o f the Blessed” for their heroes “according to the same
conception” (xtxxd xfiv auxfiv evvoiav "EXXriveq . . . xdq gaicdpcov vt|aov»<;
avaxeOeucevai). For the wicked, however, Josephus also recalls the mythological
“region o f the wicked down in Hades” (ica0’ <jt8ou xov aaePcbv xcopov), where Sisyphus,
Tantalus, Ixion, and Tityus receive their just punishment. This passage provides the
clearest textual hint that Josephus is self-consciously translating Jewish beliefs in the
future life “according to the same conception” one may find among the Greeks. As he
closes his discussion o f the Essene belief in the afterlife, Josephus reveals the purpose
o f their belief: to establish the everlasting nature o f the soul, and to exhort their
adherents to virtue, while deterring them from vice, through the hope o f immortality.
Pharisees: Josephus’ report o f the Pharisees in the Jewish Wars is much shorter,
as is his description o f their beliefs about the future life (2.163). While they believe that
“every soul is incorruptible” (^|/v>3cnv xe ra a a v pev a<j)0apxov), “only the soul o f the
good passes into a different body” (pexa|3a'ivetv 8e ei<; exepov acopa xf|v xcov ayaOcov
povnv), “but those o f the bad suffer in everlasting punishment” (xdq 8e xcov <(xxijXcov
aiS'up xipcopicjc icoA.d£eo0ai). In this description, Josephus seems to attest something like

129
a return to the body, but it is clearly another, a different, body than the one that existed
prior to death.32 It would thus be a mistake o f terminology to call this a resurrection o f
the dead.33 The description o f the Pharisees in the Jewish Antiquities (18.13-14) is more
revealing.34 The Pharisees believe that “souls have power to survive death” (aGdvaxov
xe iaxuv xai<; t|n>x<xi£); that “there are rewards and punishments under the earth” (u tc o
X0ovoq Sucaicocei<; x e Kai xipaq); that “eternal imprisonment is the lot o f (wicked)
souls” (xaiq |i£v eipyiiov aiSiov 7cpoaxi0ea0ai); and that “for (good) souls there is an
easy passage to revivification” (xaiq 8e pâxibvriv xou avapiouv). This last statement is
as close as Josephus ever comes to using vocabulary explicitly associated with the
resurrection.35 As the previous chapter has shown, the relatively rare word dvapioxriq
could refer to the kind o f resurrection which the author o f 2 Maccabees envisioned,
even in its most graphic realism. Despite this coincidence o f language, however,
Josephus’ Pharisees do not believe in the resurrection o f the body, but in the
transmigration of the soul into a “different” body.36 This element o f “Pharisaic” faith is
32 F.F. Bruce, “Paul on Immortality,” SJT 24 (1971): 457-72. As Bruce notes, this
language probably reflects a belief in reincarnation, 458-60.
33 Aimo T. Nikolainen mistakenly uses this terminology; Der Auferstehungsglauben in

der Bibel und ihrer Umwelt, I: Religionsgeschichtlicher Teil (Annales Academiae Scientiarum
Fennicae49; Helsinki: Der Finnischen Literaturgesellschaft, 1944), 174-75.
34 On the shift in Josephus’ portrayal o f the Pharisees from B.J. to A.J., see Morton
Smith, “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century,” in Israel: Its Role in Civilization (New York:
Harper, 1956), 67-81; Jacob Neusner, “Josephus’ Pharisees: A Complete Repertoire,” in
Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, 274-92.
35Cavallin, Life after Death, 141-42.
36 Louis H. Feldman suggests in his notes to the LCL edition that this is indeed a
reference to the resurrection (13, note c). Thackeray prefers the terminology of
“metempsychosis”; Selections from Josephus (New York: Macmillan, 1919), 159.

130
also present in Josephus’ own speech at Jotapata, yet it is strangely missing from the
description o f Essene belief. Whether Josephus is distinguishing between Pharisaic and
Essene belief is unclear, but at least possible.37 A much clearer contrast appears in the
differentiation between Pharisees and the Sadducees, who will have nothing to do with
the perseverance of the soul and the punishments in Hades (B.J. 2.165). They hold that
souls perish together with bodies (A.J. 18.16).
The descriptions o f Jewish beliefs, both in the Against Apion and in the report
on the beliefs o f the Jewish “sects,” assume that hope in the future life was an important
topic o f Jewish belief, on which all the major Jewish “sects” developed their own views.
Only the Sadducees deny the belief, and even their disagreement is carefully described.
Josephus proposes a range o f ideas through which he correlates Jewish faith in the
future with Hellenistic belief in the immortality o f the soul. He also includes numerous
mythological motifs, from the “Isles o f the Blessed” to the underworld. One looks in
vain, however, for any shared language between Josephus’ description o f these groups
and other possible historical sources for Essene, Pharisaic, and Sadducean belief. A
longstanding problem in biblical research remains that these groups, so often referred to
ancient literature, simply did not leave behind self-descriptions o f their own tenets.
37Nickelsburg has argued for this possibility; Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal
Life, 167-69. If the Qumran sectarian manuscripts may be considered a source for Essene
beliefs, one might argue that Josephus is distinguishing between Pharisaic belief which
envisioned a return to the body and Essene belief which envisioned simply a form of
immortality. The sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain a single definitive reference to
resurrection from the dead, but the language of everlasting life is recurrent. See the next
paragraph on this question.

131
The evidence that may indirectly attest to the beliefs o f these groups beyond
Josephus certainly does not align with his own descriptions. The sectarian Dead Sea
Scrolls attest faith in a life that endures forever,38 but there is no evidence that this faith
was grounded in the kind o f anthropological dualism attested in Josephus’ description
o f Essenes.39 Nor has Emile Puech’s attempt to argue for Essene belief in the
resurrection based upon 4Q521 been successful.40 Furthermore, references to the
38E.g., IQS 4.6-11, 23; 11.5-8. For a consensus of the discussion on the future life at
Qumran, see John J. Collins, Apocalypticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Literature of the Dead
Sea Scrolls; New York: Routledge, 1997), 110-29; and George W.E. Nickelsburg,
“Resurrection,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. Schiffman and J. VanderKam;
2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2:764-67.
Some have argued that Essenes shared the Jewish belief in the resurrection of the dead:
Kurt Schubert, “Das Problem der Auferstehungshoffnung in den Qumrantexten und in der
friihrabbinischen Literatur,” WZKM 56 (I960): 154-67; Emile Puech, La croyance des
Esseniens, vol. 2; “Messianism, Resurrection, and Eschatology,” in The Community o f the
Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E. Ulrich and J.
VanderKam; Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1994), 234-56. Others have denied the presence of any such belief at Qumran: R.
Laurin, “The Question of Immortality in the Qumran ‘Hodayot,’” JSS 3 (1958): 344-55; J. Le
Moyne, Les Sadduceens (Paris: Gabalda, 1972), 167-68. Collins’ conclusions are perhaps the
best statement of the issue: The rules refer to the reward of the righteous and punishment of the
wicked without reference to the resurrection, and 1QH sets the community within the cultic
context of fellowship with the angels and current participation in the eschatological state
(including “life”) through worship (1QH 8; 11:10-23). See Collins, Apocalypticism and the
Dead Sea Scrolls, 115-20; and David Aune, The Cultic Setting o f Realized Eschatology (Leiden:
Brill, 1972).
39Sanders suggests a possible correlation between IQS 2.5-8 and B.J. 2.154-55, though
he ultimately confesses that in the Qumran manuscripts “we do not learn just what happened to
dead sectarians”; Judaism: Practice and Belief 301-02. For a more aggressive attempt to
justify the record of Josephus with direct evidence from the scrolls, see Jean Carmignac, “Le
retour du Docteur de Justice a la fin des jours?” RevQ 1 (1958): 235-48.
40Puech’s arguments are based primarily upon the assertion that 4Q521 is a sectarian
Qumran composition, and thus the Qumran Essenes held to belief in the resurrection of the
dead. This is argued primarily in La croyance des Esseniens, vol. 2. His critical text and
translation of 4Q521 are published as, “Une Apocalypse Messianique (4Q521),” RevQ 60
(1992): 475-522. Two factors mitigate against this reading: 1. the lack of clearly sectarian
vocabulary in this document; and 2. the lack of clear resurrection language in the sectarian
documents.

132
Pharisees and Sadducees in the New Testament only disclose their different beliefs
about the resurrection, angels, and spirit - not the philosophical anthropology o f
Josephus.41 Finally, later rabbinic comments refer to the Sadducean denial o f “the
revivification o f the dead” (c rrn n n'Tin) and wholly lack the philosophical
terminology attested in Josephus.42 Two conclusions follow from these observations:
first, that Josephus has been faithful to report the mere fact that many Jews o f his own
time held to various beliefs in the future life;43 second, that he has also translated those
beliefs into Hellenistic categories that obscure their original forms.44
Sources fo r Josephus' Translation Effort
If this is the case, then into what Hellenistic conceptualities has Josephus
translated early Jewish belief in the future life? At least three sources provide the most
likely terminology for the Hellenistic language into which Josephus has translated these
beliefs. Josephus includes references to the mythology o f the poets. He also echoes
philosophical arguments concerning the soul which Plato had proposed in the Apology
41 Mk 12:18-27; Mt 22:23-33; Lk 20:27-40; Acts 23:6-8.
42 See b. Sanh. 11.1;/ Sanh .10.1; m. 'Abot R. Nat. 5, recension a; cf. references to the
“sectarians” (D'ra) in b. Sanh. 90a-91a.
43 Sanders notes that we cannot go beyond “this somewhat vague generalization” in

Josephus; Judaism: Practice and Belief, 303.
44 As Morel argues on Eleazar’s speech, “Josephus hat hier beigebracht, was er iiber die
Unsterblichkeit der Seele und die Vertlosigkeit des Lebens in der griechischen Literatur fand,
nicht was ein jiidischer Bandenfuhrer dariiber hatte sagen konnen”; “Eine Rede bei Josephus,”
106-07. See also Michel-Bauemfeind, “Die beiden Eleazarreden,” 170-72; Lindner, Die
Geschichtsaujfassung des Josephus, 36-40; Kurt Schubert, Die judischen Religionspartien in
neutestamentlicher Zeit (Stuttgarter Bibel Studien 43; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1970), 13.

133
and Phaedo. Josephus may also have been aware that philosophical skepticism
threatened traditional beliefs in immortality among contemporary Roman elites, giving
rise to divergent positions on death among Epicureans, Stoics, and other thinkers.45
Josephus’ translation effort reflects an eclectic synthesis o f traditional myths and
philosophical argumentation, which probably also modifies those ideas with a view to
the philosophical polemics o f his own time.46
45 These sources are not to be understood in isolation from one another, since Plato
depended heavily upon mythological traditions in his own development of the soul and since
later Romans like Cicero (Tusc. 1.72) and Seneca (Ep. 24.4) looked back upon Socrates in
discussing the topic; Erwin Rohde, Psyche: The Cult o f Souls and Belief in Immortality among
the Greeks (trans. W. Hillis; London: Regan Paul, 1925), 468-69 (see the Excursus below).
46 Not listed above as one of the sources for Josephus’ translation effort is his own
stance within the larger Hellenistic Judaism of his time, which according to Michel-
Bauemfeind, must have received early on the Hellenistic ascent of the soul after death; “Die
beiden Eleazarreden,” 270-71. This comment is correct, but probably refers more to the context
and methods of Josephus’ art of translation rather than to its sources. Of further importance,
Michel-Bauemfeind propose the possibility of Wisdom reflection as a scriptural source (he cites
Ec 3.21 and Midr. Qoh. Rab. on 3:21; perhaps Wis 2:18-3:5 might be added in support).
Supporting his thesis is the supposition of “chokmatischen Satzes” that form the basis of 7.343
and 380 (cf. Ec 4:1-3; 9:4; and Qoh. Rab. on these passages). Once again, Wisdom reflection
may have provided the context in which Josephus came to value ideas about immortality, but
Jewish wisdom can hardly account for the Hellenistic philosophical language of these speeches.
Rudolf Meyer explains the phenomenon by arguing for an influence from Hellenistic
anthropology upon Palestinian Judaism that would culminate in the anthropology of the Rabbis;
Hellenistisches in der rabbinisches Anthropologies Rabbinische Vorstellungen vom Werden des
Menschen (BWANT 22; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1937), 30-32. Hans Bietenhard has also
attempted to explain the phenomenon by incorporating Talmudic sources; Die himmlische Welt
im Urchristentum und Spatjudentum (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1951), 179. Though
correlation with rabbinical sources is not to be ruled out in discussion of the phenomenon, this
assumes a wholly different context, purpose, and theological vocabulary than those of the
Jewish Wars. Nikolainen refers to a Hellenistic synthesis with aspects of Persian religion; Die
Auferstehungsglauben, 175. Within the Jewish apocalypticism of Josephus’ own time, 2 Bar
30:1-4 provides, perhaps, the closest analogy, since it is especially concerned with the souls of
the wicked. Etienne Nodet has made similar proposals on the relationship to 1 Enoch 22, 102-
03; Bapteme et resurrection: Le temoignage de Josephe (Josephe et son temps; Paris: Cerf,
1999), 232. The most likely sources, however, as I argue, are a synthesis o f Hellenistic
mythology, philosophy, and polemics.

134
First, one must note the mythological language in which Josephus chooses to
speak o f the future life. Josephus preserves traditional terminology for the cosmic
zones inhabited by the dead, such as “the Isles o f the Blessed” (B.J'. 2.156),47 “Hades”
(B.J. 3.376),48 and “Lethe” (6.48),49 the mythic river o f forgetfulness. Yet one can be
even more specific about Josephus’ mythological sources when he directly mentions the
infernal punishments o f Sisyphus, Tantalus, Ixion, and Tityus (2.156),50 a clear hint that
Josephus has in mind the decensus ad inferos traditions o f the Odyssey, a myth attested
widely throughout antiquity and further memorialized in Virgil’s Aeneid.51 Orphism52
47 Homer, Od. 4.563; Hesiod, Op. 167-73; Pindar, Ol. 2.68-70. Jocelyn M.C. Toynbee,
Death and Burial in the Roman World (Aspects of Greek and Roman Life; London: Thames
and Hudson, 1971), 38. Rohde, Psyche, 53-79. See also the later development in James H.
Charlesworth, “The History of the Rechabites,” OTP 2:443-61.
48 Citations are too numerous to list, but see especially Homer, Od. 11.
49 See among other examples, Plato, Resp. 621a.
50Tantalus and Sisyphus appear in Od. 11.580-600. Ixion’s crimes and punishments are
attested in Pindar, Pyth. 2.2iff; Aeschylus, Earn. 717ff. Homer, Od. 11.576-81; Hyginus,
Fabulae 55; Apollonius Rhodius, Argon. 1.759ff.; Pindar, Pyth. 4.90.
51 Additional terminology that could have originated from epic traditions includes the
use of to describe the shades of the dead in the netherworld (Od. 11.51, 84, 90, 150, 205,
et ai), though Josephus uses the term in ways more conditioned by philosophical than epic
usage, as is clarified below. On Homeric usage, see Rohde, Psyche, 3-54; Jan N. Bremmer, The
Early Greek Concept o f the Soul (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), 3-12. Toynbee
rightly warns that Virgil’s own tripartite division of the cosmos remained primarily a poetic
motif that would not find a practical acceptance in actual beliefs for centuries; Death and Burial
in the Roman World, 36-37.
52Pindar, Pyth. 4.176; Euripides, Ale. 357-62; Hyps. 3.8-15, 2.93-107; Apollonius,
Scholia 1.23, 1.31-34; Pseudo-Eratosthenes, Catasterismi 24; Plato, Symp. 177d; Resp. 10.620a;
Isocrates, Bus. 11.38; Diogenes Laertius, Proemion 5; Pausanias 9.30. See also the Orphica
attested in Eusebius, Justin Martyr, and Clement of Alexandria, edited by M. Lafargue,
“Orphica," OTP 2:795-801. For a further survey of iconographic, fragmentary, and literary
evidence before and after 300 B.C.E., see Ivan M. Linforth, The Arts o f Orpheus (Berkeley
[California]: University of California Press, 1941); W.K.C. Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek
Religion: A Study o f the Orphic Movement (New York: Norton, 1966); John Warden, ed.,

135
and Bacchic mysticism53 also attested the decensus tradition in their own distinctive
ways, and perpetuated the m otif after the Homeric age.54 Perhaps more importantly for
Josephus, the tradition had its own distinctively Jewish analogues as well.55
Furthermore, Josephus uses the mythic terminology o f the “spinning” o f the Fates,56
when he refers to the necessity of dying (6.49). The cultic honors bestowed upon
mythological heroes and ancestors may also account for Titus’ immortalization o f the
virtuous as noble daimones and heroes (B J. 6.46-49).57 Gregory Nagy demonstrates
similar relationships between, heroism, immortalization, and daimonization in Archaic
Greek verse.58 The correlation o f Jewish faith in the future life with these traditional
Hellenistic mythologies allowed Josephus to present Jewish belief to elite Roman
Orpheus: The Metamorphoses o f a Myth (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982); Rohde,
Psyche, 335-61.
53 Walter Burkert, Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical (Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1985), 293-95. See especially the golden leaves found in the graves of Bacchic initiates as
described by Burkert.
54 Burkert, Greek Religion, 197-99, 293-95. On the history of this phenomenon, see
Rohde, Psyche, 153-334.
55 See Martha Himmelfarb, Tours o f Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and

Christian Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983).
56Homer, II. 24.209-11, 20.127ff.; Od. 7.196-98.
57Hesiod, Op. 109-21. E. Rohde distinguishes between heroes and daimones based on
the observation that the former were once humans but now enjoy an exalted status after death,
whereas the latter are minor divinities who have never entered the realm of humans; Psyche,
117-19. Josephus, however, uses them interchangeably, since both terms assume the divinity of
the soul as a portion of God. Cf. Plato, Resp. 540b; Rohde, Psyche, 475. See also R.H. Charles,
A Critical History o f the Doctrine o f a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity
(London: Black, 1913).
58Gregory Nagy, The Best o f the Achaeans: Concepts o f the Hero in Archaic Greek
Poetry (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), 174-210.

136
audiences in a way that both entertained their own sensibilities and was yet also
favorable toward Judaism.
Second, Josephus has made use o f Socratic and Platonic notions o f the soul
which one finds most enduringly expressed in the Apology and the Phaedo.59 These
two writings deal directly with the imminent death o f Socrates. In this sense, their
treatments o f the soul’s immortality directly address the problem o f death and suffering
injustice, while they also ennoble Socrates as one whose philosophy heroically
transcended death. This connection between philosophy and death proves very
important, since J. van Henten has argued that the noble deaths o f the philosophers were
an important influence upon the martyrdom ideology o f 2 Maccabees;60 and Arthur
59 Cavallin, Life after Death, 141-47. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society,
168-69. Rajak claims that Josephus’ oration is not as Hellenized as Eleazar’s but that is not
demonstrated in her brief statement on the problem.
The Phaedrus, Laws, Republic, and the Symposium are also quintessential Platonic
sources for the immortality of the soul, but they present the idea as an epistemological problem,
rather than as part of Socratic death traditions. For this reason, the Apology and Phaedo receive
primary treatment in what follows, and the others are read as complements to them. On the
relationships among these writings, see Leon Robin, La pensee hellenique des origins a
'Epicure: Questions de methode, de critique et d ’histoire (Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France, 1942), 353-54; Rohde, Psyche, 422. One should also account for some development in
Plato’s writings on immortality. Whereas in the Apology immortality is only a happy
possibility, it has become essential for the portrayal of divine realities in the Republic, as Rohde
suggests; Psyche, 463-89. Mary Margaret Mackenzie has further demonstrated the importance
of immortality for Platonic notions of retribution and theodicy; Plato on Punishment (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1981), 230-37.
It is also important to note the contribution of the pre-Socratics who stood between Homer
and Plato. Aristotle attributes to Thales of Miletos the first declaration that “the soul is
immortal.” In their own ways, Anaximander of Miletos, Heraclitus of Ephesus, Xenophanes of
Colophon, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras [Diogenes of Apollonia
should be added to Rohde’s list] set the stage for Platonic notions of the soul, which most
closely resemble those of Anaxagoras - the one figure in this list who transcended a merely
materialist conception of essence (Rohde, Psyche, 366-89). It is also important to remember
these figures, since their materialist and cosmic notions of the soul would remain prevalent in
Stoicism and Epicureanism.
60 Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 271-94.

137
Droge and Janies Tabor have extended the same connection to the very passages of
Josephus just surveyed.61 Whether these influences were direct or indirect, Plato, the
author o f 2 Maccabees, and Josephus all articulate their convictions on the future life in
the immediate narrative context o f foreshadowed death.
After Socrates’ condemnation in the Apology, he makes a brief yet suggestive
argument about the possibility o f immortality, since there may be much “hope” (etotiq)
that death is something good (Apol. 40c-41a).62 Like Socrates, who professed faith in
immortality before his own death, the two teachers, Josephus, Titus, and Eleazar also
discourse on the topic o f immortality to show that death is no calamity for the virtuous.
The transcendence o f the soul’s “perception” (ato0r|ai<;) beyond death (Apol. 40c) was
an important concern o f the speech o f the two teachers (B.J. 1.650).63 Socrates’ use o f
the analogia somni (Apol. 40c) also has its correspondent in Eleazar’s speech (B.J.
61 Arthur A. Droge and James D. Tabor, A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom
among Christians and Jews in Antiquity (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1992), 20-21,42-45,
73-76, 86-96. See also Seely, The Noble Death.
62 The argument in the Apology may be summarized as follows. Either death is nothing,
in which case it is an absence of perception (aicGtiaiq), not unlike “sleep” (wtvoq); or it is “a
certain change” (|i£X0t|k)>.r| xiq), “a change of habitation for the soul from the present place into
another place” (p£To'ncr|ai<; t f | ijru x n to ^ toitoo xou evGevSe eiq aXXov xorcov), “a journey”
(T) drcoSrm'ux). In the latter case, the soul of the dead would travel to Hades, where judgment is
maintained by the noble worthies who hold court in the underworld, like Minos and his
descendents (41a). The great poets, historians, and heroes would also be there for Socrates to
question (41b-c), a detail which may suggest the possibility of a “personal immortality” beyond
death, as opposed to a mere reconstitution into cosmic matter.62 Thus, death may be the greatest
of blessings (41c). The minority of the jurors who presumably voted for Socrates should be of
“good hope” (eueXmSaq) in the face of death (41c), knowing that for the noble there is nothing
evil in living or in dying, since their works have not been viewed carelessly by the gods (41d).
63 Cf. Eleazar’s description of the soul as “the instrument of perception” (opyocvov

aiaGavopevov) in 7.343-49.

138
7.349-50).64 The use o f “housing” language (|i£xo'ucr|ai<;) in Socrates’ description of
anthropological dualism (Apol. 40c-41a) coincides with the language o f Josephus’ own
speech, where the soul is described as “inhabiting” (evoiKiêxai) the body (B.J. 3.372,
376). The transference of the soul from the body to “another place” (Apol. 40c-41a) is
also consistent with Josephus’ allocation o f souls “to the holiest region o f heaven,”
“darker Hades” (B.J. 3.376), “a pure place,” and “a native region” (7.343-49), though
the Apology clearly lacks any sense o f a future destiny divided between the virtuous and
the cowardly.
As one might expect, discussions on the future life are also vigorously pursued
in the Phaedo, which, like the Apology, is directly concerned with the death o f
Socrates.65 Josephus may well have adopted a great deal o f this philosophy of
64 Cavallin attributes this directly to the Apology, Life after Death, 145.
65 The argument may be summarized as follows. According to Phaedo’s report,

Socrates “met death fearlessly and nobly” (cbq d5eco<; icai yevvaiax; exeXeuxa). Before he
died, he gave instruction that suicide is not permissible “before God sends some necessity
(dvdyier|v), as the one that has now come upon us” (62c). He remains “quite hopeful (eveXjuq)
that there is something (in store) for those who have died,” and that this “thing” is, as the
ancients say, much better for the good than for the wicked. Here, Socrates introduces an idea
that was not present in the Apology: rewards and punishments beyond the grave (63b-c), a
theme which is developed more explicitly later in the dialogue when Socrates describes the
cosmic dwelling places of virtuous and wicked souls (113d-114c). Death, simply put, is the
separation of the soul from the body (64c). While in the body, the soul is hindered in its pursuit
of wisdom (66a). Since the soul must find ways to meet the body’s needs, human beings are
slaves (SouXeuovxec;) to the service of the body (66d). One should thus live in purity while in
the body, “until God himself liberates us” (eox; av o Beck; auxoq ditoXuan tipdg), a phrase
which is essentially a euphemism for death (67c-d), which separates the soul “from the body as
from fetters” (axJ7CEp ek SEcptov ek xou acnpaxoq; cf. 81e, 113b). Socrates also goes to great
lengths to prove, based upon the theory of opposites, that “the living come into existence again
from among the dead” (ttd3.iv yiyv£C0ai ek xtbv dtcoQavovxwv xouq Cfivxaq), an ancient
tradition ofpalingenesis (70c-d). Souls thus existed prior to human life, learning is recollection
of the soul’s pre-existent knowledge, and death is a return to that realm in which souls existed
prior to their entrance into this world (70c-76e). The implications of Socrates’ teaching on
immortality and future destiny are that “we ought to do our best to acquire virtue and wisdom in

139
immortality. David Ladouceur, in fact, has claimed that both Josephus’ speech at
Jotapata and Eleazar’s speech at Masada make “common recourse to a Platonic
dialogue, the Phaedo, as a sort o f proof text.”66 Like Socrates (Phaed. 70c-d),
Josephus’ speech argues that those who fulfill their obligation to the divine “return
again to inhabit undefiled bodies” (ayvoit; rcdXiv dvxevonctôvxai awpaavv), an
expression that is not precisely that used by Socrates but that shares the expectation o f a
future return to a body (B.J. 3.376; cf. C. Ap. 2.217-19; B.J. 2.163).67 The speeches o f
the Jewish Wars also distinguish separate destinies for the virtuous and cowardly (B.J.
1.650; 3.376; 6.46-49; cf. 2.155-56; 2.163), a distinction suggested by Socrates’ own
description o f the respective destinies o f wicked and good beyond death (Phaed. 63b-c,
113d-l 14c). If the body is a “fetter” for Socrates (Phaed. 67c-d, 8 le, 113b), it is the
same for Josephus (7.343-49; cf. 2.155), as well as a prison (2.154). Death thus
“liberates” (djcoXOeiv) for both Plato (Phaed. 67c-d) and Josephus (6.46-49; 7.343-49).
It is a “freedom” (7.343-49). Furthermore, the ethical impetus to strive for virtue,
which one finds in the Phaedo (1 14c), also emerges in Josephus’ description o f the
life. For the prize is beautiful and the hope is great” (dpexfjc; k o u 4>povf|aecx; ev tcp P'icp
KaXov yap xo aGXov K a i f| kXmq peydXri; 1 14c).
p e x a a x E tv
64 Ladouceur, “Josephus and Masada,” 97. This kind of direct attribution is avoided in
my own treatment, in order to bring greater attention to Josephus’ syncretism, especially where
he synthesizes mythology, Platonism, and contemporary Roman concerns with immortality.
67 Socrates’ claim that “the living come into being again from the dead” (TtdXtv
y'tyvecGcti e k xdjv ajtoGavovxtov xotx; £d>vxa<;; 70c-d) is especially close to Josephus’
description of Jewish beliefs in Against Apion, where God grants to those who die for the laws
“that they come into being again and receive a better life from the revolution” (yeveoGat xe
tcdXtv k o u P'tov dpeivto Xaf3eiv e k Jtepixpo7tfj<;; 2.217-19). Both passages envision a
palingenesis in which souls departed from dead bodies give life to new and living bodies.

140
Essenes, whose goal in maintaining the doctrine o f immortality is to promote virtue and
deter from vice (2.156-57).
These similarities with Platonic notions and terminology o f the soul are quite
conspicuous, but they do not directly address why Josephus chose to speak in these
terms or how they might have been meaningful for his readers. In addressing this very
question, W. Morel,68 Hans Cavallin,69 and Helgo Lindner70 suggest literary dependence
upon “einer platonischen Schultradition.”71 Thus, if Josephus’ speeches reflect Plato,
they reflect him as he was being studied and debated in philosophical circles in the late
first-century C.E. The polemical context o f philosophical debate among Romans on
death and the soul in the late Republic through the first century C.E. provides the most
probable context within which these speeches on immortality became a consistently
pursued m otif in the Jewish Wars. Within this context, many views were possible -
from a constructive reinterpretation o f Plato’s original conception, as in Cicero’s
Tusculan Disputations, to the total denial o f the soul’s survival beyond death, as in
Lucretius’ Epicurean physics. Furthermore, both Stoics and Epicureans differed from
one another on the question o f the soul’s survival. Both o f these schools seem to have
shared a skeptical view o f traditional mythologies o f death; and both seem to have
68Morel, “Eine Rede bei Josephus,” 107.
69Cavallin, Life after Death, 141-47. Cavallin refers simply to Platonism.
70Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Josephus, 38. Lindner allows Morel’s

treatment of the literary-historical problem.
71The quotation is from Morel, 107.

agreed essentially on the materiality o f the soul.72 What separated them was that some73
Stoics envisioned the survival o f the immortal soul after death and its reconstitution into
the cosmos; Epicureans, on the other hand, could only envision the soul’s total
dissolution at death. Roman philosophical debate on the soul’s ultimate destiny may
constitute the third source for Josephus’ speeches on immortality.74
To summarize, Josephus’ speeches on immortality in the Jewish Wars combine
elements o f mythological and philosophical speculation in ways that were favorable to
those who defended the belief in his own time.
Synthesis
Josephus’ speeches on immortality lack any definite sense o f eschatological
imminence, a quality they share with the speeches o f 2 Maccabees. Nowhere is a
certain time postulated, either near or far, for the 7t£pixp07tf| aicovcov he describes; yet
there is also nothing in the text that would cast doubt upon the validity of this expected
event. His apologetical translation effort, however, has also obscured early Jewish
belief in the resurrection o f the dead by transforming it to reflect popular notions o f
immortality. Were it not for sources external to Josephus, no one would even know that
72Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World, 34.
73 Victor Goldschmidt rightly warns against over-generalizing here, since Stoics never
came to fix a dogma on survival after death that would be accepted by all; Le systeme stoicien et
I ’idee de temps (Paris: Librairie Philosophique, 1977), 176; Robert M. Wenly, Stoicism and its
Influence (Boston: Marshall Jones Company, 1924), 92-94.
74 For further discussion of this relationship, see Excursus 1: Immortality: Idealists

and Skeptics in the Roman Context.
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e cop y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r re p ro d u c tio n p rohib ited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

142
for approximately two-and-a-half centuries before the Jewish Wars many faithful
adherents o f Judaism foresaw on the horizon o f future history an eschatological
resurrection event. Despite these confusing aspects o f his treatment, Josephus’
comments are invaluable, since they show how faith in the future life could be defined
in apologetic terms as a philosophical “common topic” among the noblest “sects” o f
Judaism.
The speeches o f the Jewish Wars defend this concept in the face o f death by
anchoring their understandings o f immortality in a dualistic anthropology. This
anthropology preserves the immortality o f the soul by accentuating the mortality o f the
physical body. All four speeches surveyed ground the concept o f the future life in the
soul’s immortality {B.J. 1.680; 3.372-76; 6.96-99; 7.343-49). The descriptions o f the
Essenes {B.J. 2.154-58;A.J. 18.18), Pharisees (B.J. 2.163; A J . 18.13-14), and
Sadducees {B.J. 2.165; A.J. 18.16) follow the same rule. Only the brief summary o f
Jewish beliefs in Against Apion can refer to the future life apart from this dualistic
anthropology (C. Ap. 2.217-19). Within this general tendency, some o f the speeches
may assume that the souls o f those who lack virtue are annihilated in the underworld at
death, while only the souls of the virtuous endure forever (B.J. 1.650; 6.46-49). This
seems to be contradicted by the Pharisees’ claim that every soul is immortal {B.J.
2.163). Whether Josephus is implying a distinction between conditional and
unconditional immortality, or simply being inconsistent,75 the soul remains the
75 Sanders suggests that one should not make too much o f the differences between the
individual descriptions; Judaism: Practice and Belief, 301.

143
foundational notion for the treatment o f the future life in the Jewish Wars. As Josephus
claims in his own oration, it is a “portion o f God” (B.J. 3.372)
While firmly grounded in an idealist conception o f the soul, these speeches also
develop their hope in the future life in cosmic terms. Three o f the four speeches
describe the soul’s journey after death to various cosmic zones where they dwell in
either bliss or darkness. Josephus’ oration promotes those who die in virtue to “the
holiest region o f heaven,” while consigning those who die by rash suicides to Hades
(3.372-76). Titus’ speech envisions an heroic exaltation into the “Aether, the purest
element,” as well as a position “among the stars,” for those who die nobly in battle.
This involves immortalization as “daim ones” minor divinities who offer aid to mortals
upon earth. Cowards, however, will be annihilated into “subterraneous night” and
“Lethe” (6.46-49). Eleazar, too, foresees an exaltation o f righteous souls “into their
native and pure place” (7.343-49). Descriptions o f the Essenes also include the notion
that the soul originally dwelt in “the finest Aether” only to be pulled down into
imprisoning bodies upon the earth (B.J. 2.154-58); and the description o f the Pharisees
also portrays judgments and punishments “under the earth” (A.J. 18.13-14).
The cosmic distinctions made between the resting places o f virtuous and wicked
souls raise the issue o f future rewards and punishments beyond the grave. Though this
issue is consistently important among all four speeches, there is a broad range o f
application o f these ideas. The two teachers distinguish between those who die nobly
and thus live forever, and those who love their lives over-much and thus die through
disease (1.650). Josephus’ oration rewards the soul o f the virtuous with eternal fame,
the security o f those left behind, a dwelling in the holiest heaven, and a return to an
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r re p r o d u c tio n pro hibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

144
undefiled body at the revolution o f the ages. The wicked, however, will not escape
God. “Darker Hades" will receive their souls and God will punish their posterity for the
sins committed in the body (B.J. 3.372-76). Titus extols those who die in battle to
cosmic exaltation, whereas non-heroes seem to be annihilated at death both in soul and
in body (6.46-49). Eleazar’s speech more lightly treats the topic o f rewards and
includes no significant information on punishments, primarily due to its consolatory
purpose (7.343-49). Reward for those who die for the law is a significant aspect o f the
description in Against Apion (2.217-19). Belief in punishments beyond the grave is at
least implied in Josephus’ description o f the Essenes (2.154-58), and very prominent in
his description o f the Pharisees, who reserve a return to a different body only for the
virtuous and place the wicked in subterranean punishments (B.J. 2.163; A.J. 18.13-14).
Retribution beyond the grave is thus a recurrent m otif in the speeches and in the
description o f the Jewish “sects.”
As previously noted, only Josephus’ own oration (B.J. 3.376) among the four
speeches foresees a return to the human body for virtuous souls. At “the revolution o f
the ages,” virtuous souls will return again to inhabit undefiled bodies. These bodies
cannot be directly identified with the bodies o f the deceased. They may, in fact, be
“different” bodies, as B.J. 2.168 suggests in its description o f Pharisaic belief.
Josephus’ oration is also the only speech to mention the Jtepixpo7rri aicovtov.76 If
Josephus was distinguishing between different beliefs about a return to the body in the
future, then he nowhere calls specific attention to these differences. It is more likely
76This terminology recurs in his description of Jewish belief in the Against Apion
(2.217-19).

145
that the unique language o f his own speech simply supplies information that is omitted
by the others and thus serves to complement, rather than to contradict, them.
The Function of the Future Life
That Josephus composed four speeches in the Jewish Wars that profess hope in
the future life suggests their significant role within his comprehensive rhetorical
strategy. Though small in size relative to the entire document, these four speeches
occur at critical turning-points in the narrative, especially those by Josephus and
Eleazar. In what ways, then, do these speeches relate to the historiographical strategy
of the Jewish Wars?
Through these speeches, Josephus endows their speakers with a kind of
philosophical piety. These speeches ennoble the Jews as philosophers who converse
skillfully on the cosmos, the soul, and the future life. Belief in the future life serves as a
kind o f “common topic” among the Jewish “sects,” which all develop their own
philosophical opinions on the question. Indeed, much o f the content o f these speeches
is conversant with Plato’s heroizing portrayal o f Socrates on the verge o f his death. The
presence o f these beliefs in the speeches thus calls special attention to the philosophical
virtues o f the two teachers, Josephus, Titus, and Eleazar.77 Those philosophical virtues
77Lindner prefers the term “Weisheitslehrer” for Eleazar; Die Geschichtsaujfassung des
Josephus, 37. See also Ladouceur, “Josephus and Masada,” 98-99. The recognition of this
diversity leads me away from the, admittedly, insightful attempt of Ladouceur to identify
Eleazar with a polemic against Republican Stoics who plagued the Flavian emperors; “Josephus

146
were also present in part in the speeches o f 2 Maccabees, but Josephus has maximized
this strategy o f heroization for full effect. Many Jews who participated in the wars were
not haphazard rebels but civilized practitioners o f ancient philosophies to which even
the Greeks, Egyptians, and Babylonians ultimately owe their own philosophical heritage
(see A.J. 1.154-60, 166-68). Jewish ancestral religion is thus worthy o f the best that the
philosophies o f the West might have to offer, and it is in many ways consonant with
them. Josephus’ philosophical synthesis o f popular Hellenistic ideas about the soul and
its immortality thus serve as a strategic device for ennobling those who make these
grand orations.
There is a good deal o f diversity among the kinds o f characters who make these
speeches. The two teachers are pietistic Torah scholars, Josephus is a Jewish military
governor, Titus is the Roman commander, and Eleazar is a defeated rebel. These
speeches thus could not have functioned to ennoble the Jewish people alone, since Titus
himself has his own turn to speak. Josephus is interested in spreading heroism as far as
possible over his history. Not only were the Jews worthy opponents o f the Romans
{B.J. 1.7-8), but the Roman general Titus was worthy to meet the challenge set before
and Masada,” 98-101. Ladouceur, of course, deals only with the contrast between Josephus and
Eleazar, and he is interested in their divergent responses to suicide, not to their common
emphasis on the future life. He thus ignores the way in which the Jewish Wars complements
the speeches of Josephus and Eleazar with reports on the two teachers, two of the Jewish sects,
and Titus himself, so that a more general concern with immortality emerges. For similar critical
theories which find Josephus sketching his Jewish revolutionaries according to the profiles of
famous Roman subversives, see Feldman, “Flavius Josephus Revisited,” 346-47. See Feldman
also fora response to Ladouceur’s thesis (854-55).

147
him.78 His speech on immortality is rooted in ancient learning and philosophy. It
conveys both his own philosophical nobility and his prowess to rouse his troops for
battle. He possesses both royal and philosophical virtues. The possibility that the
Jewish Wars probably served as propaganda for his reign, further suggests that
Josephus’ description o f him hopes to glorify his actions in the wars insofar as
possible.79 Altogether, then, Josephus’ story is worthy o f narration and reading, since it
portrays figures o f immense courage and virtue on all sides o f the conflict.
Though the heroism o f philosophical virtue proves a formidable device o f
characterization on its own merits, this device is only intensified as those who make
these speeches on immortality face the problem o f imminent death. It is the meeting o f
philosophy with death which allows these speeches to make such a dramatic
impression, in much the same way that the speeches o f 2 Maccabees did.80 The two
teachers and Eleazar are exemplars o f this connection, since their words on immortality
78 On the heroization of Titus in the B.J., see Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” 200-
03.
79The foremost study of the B.J. as political propaganda for the Flavian emperors
remains that o f Wilhelm Weber, Josephus und Vespasian: Untersuchungen zu deni Jiidischen
Krieg des Flavins Josephus (Hildcsheim, New York: G. Olms Verlag, 1973), 21-28. He reads
the passages on Vespasian and Titus in the B.J. as apologetical propaganda for the Flavian
emperors in the context of Titus’ reign, specifically in light of the criticisms recorded in Tacitus.
In response to those who would criticize Titus as a militaristic dictator, philosophical
characterization lends to Titus an air of nobility.
80This suggestion runs counter to views that Josephus suppressed any connections
between the rebels and the Maccabees. On this view, see William R. Farmer, Maccabees,
Zealots, and Josephus: An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1956). The claim of my own study merely notes similar
devices of characterization and does not presume that Josephus knew 2 Maccabees. In fact, I
believe he did not. Instead, both works appeal to similar devices o f philosophical heroism and
perhaps martyrdom. For positive associations between Eleazar and the Maccabees, see B.
Shargel, “The Evolution of the Masada Myth,” Judaism 28 (1979): 357-71.

148
directly precede their own deaths. Their heroic idealism thus transcends the problem o f
death, in much the same way that Socrates’ statements on immortality preceded his own
death. The speeches by Josephus and Titus are variations upon the same theme.
Josephus’ ethics of suicide, however self-serving they may seem, do assume that where
it is necessary one must face death with courage. He simply did not feel that it was
necessary for him at the current time. Titus’ speech manipulates the immortality motif
to rouse his men for war and heroism in battle. Immortality will be the ultimate crown
for those who have fallen in battle. They will be exalted even to the stars.
Theodicy
The high level o f attestation o f the punishment and reward m otif in these
speeches indicates their collective concern for retribution. In this sense, the speeches
address a much larger problem within Josephus’ historiography as a whole: the
apologetical problem of showing that history, and even the cosmos itself, has been
harmoniously orchestrated by providence according to principles o f justice that work
themselves out in the course o f human affairs.81 This apologetical problem was
particularly strong among Stoic historians and their sympathizers within Josephus’ own
literary world, thus giving rise to numerous expressions o f “apologetical
historiography” which sought to vindicate the providential guidance o f history and lend
sanction to the dramatic events that changed the political, social, and religious
81 Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” 195-96, 203-07.

149
constellations o f the ancient world.82 For Josephus, this meant refuting philosophical
skepticism by demonstrating the execution o f a retributive providence at work even
amid the devastating events o f 66-70 C.E. The speeches on immortality repeatedly
affirm this moral order by expressing fundamental confidence in divine retribution.
Josephus uses numerous other devices throughout the Jewish Wars to defend
this apologetical narration o f history. His prophecy o f Vespasian’s accession indicates
a divine foreknowledge at work in the upcoming events that would change the course o f
history (3.330-408; 4.622-29).83 His editorial comments that many o f the Jewish rebels
sealed their own fate and sinned against God by resisting the will o f heaven aiso
accomplish this purpose (2.335-401; 3.136; 4.238-69; 4.317-25; 5.19-20, 348-55, 375-
419, 552-72; 6.93-109; 7.262-63).84 Furthermore, the catalogue o f omens and
prophecies that immediately precede the Temple destruction demonstrates that its fall
was no accident o f history but the fulfillment o f the will o f heaven (6.288-315). The
punishment o f evil-doers and the reward o f the just is also an important demonstration
that the divine will is at work in history, as Josephus narrates at the capture o f Simon
bar-Giora:
82 Attridge, Interpretation o f Biblical History, 43-57.
83On these passages, see Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” 188; Rajak, Josephus:
The Historian and His Society, 169-73; Horst R. Moehring, “Josephus ben Matthia and Flavius
Josephus,” ANR W H.21.2 (1984): 907-11.
84On these texts, see Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” 196-200; Lindner, Die
Geschichtsaujfassung des Josephus, 26-29; Thackeray, Josephus, 44-45; Michel-Bauemfeind,
“Die beiden Eleazarreden,” 269-70.

150
For wicked actions do not escape the divine anger, nor is justice too
weak to punish offenders, but in time overtakes those who transgress its
laws and inflicts punishments upon the wicked. {B.J. 7.34)
These, and many other,85 passages o f the Jewish Wars have provoked the description o f
its underlying theology as that o f “ethical providential theism”: the belief that the
divine has structured the order o f nature and history so as to preserve a just moral
order.86 Both biblical historiography and Hellenistic histories prior to Josephus
provided numerous and varied precedents for such a philosophy o f history.
In their own distinctive ways, the four speeches on immortality in the Jewish
Wars reinforce the moral order o f the cosmos and history by emphasizing the
inevitability o f punishment and reward beyond death. Regardless o f what happens upon
the plane o f mortal existence in the body, the retributive order o f justice at work in the
world remains fully in tact. Furthermore, death itself no longer remains a calamity for
the virtuous. Those who have died bravely in the wars do not go without rewards for
their virtue beyond the grave. Perhaps this very aspect o f the speeches on immortality
was especially significant in light o f the massive casualties which both sides suffered as
a direct result o f the war. As Harold Attridge shows, Josephus describes the sheer
physical carnage o f this war in devastating detail.87 In the context o f so many horrors,
the appeals to the future life are more than a diversion for the philosophically inclined
85See, for example, B.J. 1.82, 543, 628; 2.163-64,457, 539; 3.6, 144, 387-91; 4.104,
219, 297, 317-25, 366-70, 388, 622-29; 5.11-38, 366-67; 6.84, 108, 249-50, 267-68,428; 7.34,
358-60, 387. This list does not even include similar passages in the Jewish Antiquities.
86F. Gerald Downing, “Common Ground with Paganism in Luke and Josephus,” NTS
28(1982): 544.
87Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” 207-210.

151
reader. They are necessary for alleviating the moral perplexity o f such devastation and
vindicating an ultimately just moral order beyond the chaos o f the war.88
By emphasizing faith in the future life in the Jewish Wars, what might Josephus
have been trying to accomplish in terms o f the rhetorical presentation o f his history to
his readers? Certainly previous Hellenistic historians, such as Thucydides,89 Polybius,90
Lucian,91 Dionysius o f Halicarnassus,92 and Tacitus,93 as well as Josephus himself94
declare their own evaluation that the composition o f a history must prove useful for
future generations of readers who must deal with the vicissitudes o f fortune in their own
times.95 What examples, then, may the faith o f the teachers, Josephus, Titus, and
Eleazar have bequeathed to future generations?
A hint in Josephus’ description o f the Essenes may reveal an answer to this
question. According to Josephus, the Essenes held to their doctrines on the future life
88 It is thus no coincidence that in the Jewish Antiquities these speeches do not appear,
since the Antiquities does not endeavor an account of the war.
89Thucydides 1.22.4.
90 Polybius 1.4.11.
91 Lucian, De conscrib. 9-10, 40-42,61.
92 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 1.
93Tacitus, Histories 1.HI; Annals 116.
94Josephus, A.J. 1.3-4, 14-15.
95Hemer, The Book ofActs in the Setting o f Hellenistic History, 78-80.

152
for two reasons: first, to establish that the soul is everlasting; and then to inculcate
virtue by deterring from vice and promising a future reward for human actions (B.J
2.15). It is possible that Josephus’ own historiographical strategy in the speeches may
not stray far from this two-fold purpose. In the first case, he does go out o f his way to
affirm the immortality o f the soul by speaking through the characters o f numerous
Jewish heroes and even o f Titus, the emergent ruler o f the whole world. In this sense,
the speeches perform a catechetical function with regard to the reader o f the Jewish
Wars. Both the author o f 2 Maccabees and Josephus seem genuinely interested in
portraying belief in the future life to their readers in favorable ways. A certain
didacticism may thus motivate Josephus’ development o f these speech materials.
In the second case, Josephus may have used these speeches as means o f moral
instruction, as he claims the Essenes did. As David Seely has shown, the noble death of
the philosophers was by the late first-century C.E. a commonplace among philosophical
schools that conveyed to their adherents a mimetic impulse to follow in their examples
o f heroism.96 Certainly three o f the four speeches urge their listeners on toward ethical
heroism and moral courage in the face o f danger. Only Josephus’ speech does not call
directly for the heroic death o f the listeners, but even there a moral purpose underlies
his oration. In each case, immortality functions as an impetus for moral virtue and the
avoidance o f vice. Polybius, in fact, commenting centuries earlier on Roman
superstitions about the afterlife, praises their beliefs for their ability to instill heroism
96Seely, The Noble Death, 113-41.

153
and virtue among their people.97 Furthermore, these speeches may have served the
consolatory purpose o f inspiring virtuous readers who suffer the vicissitudes o f fortune
in their own times to take courage from “the hope o f reward even after death” (eXjriSi
m i p ex d xf|v xeXeuxT|v; B.J. 2.157). The speeches from the Jewish Wars, then,
may also address their readers as an exhortation to virtue. In times o f misfortune, the
speeches may also have addressed readers as a consolation that divine providence
would inevitably enact justice for the virtuous.
Like the resurrection faith o f the martyrs in 2 Maccabees, the passages on
immortality in the Jewish Wars help to reconstruct aspects o f Jewish piety regarding the
future life. Like Josephus’ portrayal o f numerous Figures in the Jewish Wars, Luke’s
portrayal o f Paul in Acts also accentuates his faith in the future life as an essential
aspect o f his Jewish piety. Josephus’ rhetorical use o f these speech materials also raises
the question o f whether Paul’s resurrection faith in Acts may employ similar strategies
o f characterization, theodicy, and rhetoric. Furthermore, Josephus’ translation effort
may indicate a road not taken by Luke: Rather than translating Paul’s resurrection hope
into the language o f immortality, as Josephus has, Luke presents Paul’s hope as a literal
resurrection from the dead. This is the case, even before predominantly Gentile
audiences (17:18, 31, 32; 24:15-16; 25:19), despite the fact that such ideas provoke an
array o f skepticism and misunderstanding. These aspects o f the Jewish Wars will
inform the treatment o f Paul’s resurrection hope in Chapters 5 and 7 o f the current
study. Before turning directly to this focus, however, it is necessary to treat the
97 Polybius 6.56.12. Cumont, Afterlife in Roman Paganism, 5.

154
Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs, an ancient collection that, like Acts, portrays the
resurrection hope as the faith o f Israel’s ancestors.

155
Table II: Recurrent Motifs and Expressions
Attestations
Language 1.650 3.37-76 6.46-49 7.343-49
soul’s immortality98
dying for the law99
death as necessity
punishments and/or
,101
rewards'00
soul’s cosmic
destination102
HEpiTpo7rf|103
return to the human body"
98 Also present in Josephus’ description of the Jewish sects (B.J. 2.154-65; A.J. 18.13-
18).
99 Also present in Against Apion (2.217-19).
100Also present in Against Apion (2.217-19) and in Josephus’ description of the Jewish
sects (B.J. 2.154-58; 2.163; ,4.7. 18.13-14).
101 Eleazar’s speech contains reference only to rewards, due primarily to its consolatory
purpose.
102Also present in Josephus’ description of the Jewish sects (B.J. 2.154-58; A.J. 18.13-
14).
103 Also present in Against Apion (2.217-19); cf B.J. 6.250.
104Also present in Josphus’ description of the Pharisees (B.J. 2.168).

156
Excursus 1: Immortality: Idealists and Skeptics in the Roman Context
The claim o f Eleazar that life in the body is, to tell the truth, a kind o f death
cannot be identified in any o f the “ancient and divine words” delivered to Moses.105 It
does, however, sound familiar to the instructions given in a dream by Scipio Africanus
to his descendant Aemilius in a section o f Cicero’s De Re Publica often referred to as
the Somnium Scipionis. Africanus dwells in recognizable shape among the blessed dead
who inhabit the stars o f the Milky Way (6.16).106 Aemilius asks his forebear whether
he and his father and others considered dead may really be alive. The ancestor answers,
“Surely all those are alive ... who have escaped from the body as from a prison; but that
life o f yours, which is called (life), is really death” (6.14).107 Scipio also claims, “All
those who have preserved, aided, or enlarged their fatherland have a special place fixed
for them in the heavens, where they may enjoy an eternal life o f happiness” (6.13-
15).108 Resonances with Josephus include the redefinition o f life as death (and vice
versa), the familiar metaphor o f the soul as imprisoned in the body (B.J. 7.343-49;
2.154-55), the exaltation o f the dead to the stars (B.J. 3.376; 6.46-49; see below), and
the more general hope that those who die adpatriam will enjoy a blessed life beyond.
105On this problem, see Schroder, Die 'vaterlichen Gesetze, ’ 46-47.
106Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World, 35.
107Immo vero, inquit, hi vivunt, qui e corporem vinculus tamquam e carcere

evolaverunt, vestra vero, quae dicitur, vita mors est. See also Cicero, Tusculan Disputations
1.75-76: nam haec quidem vita mors est.
108omnibus, qui patriam conservaverint, adiuverint, auxerint, certum esse in caelo

definitum locum, ubi beati aero sempiterno fruantur.

157
Cicero could also distinguish between the fates o f the wicked and the good after
death. In a passage o f the Tusculan Disputations which directly treats Plato’s
Phaedo,109 Cicero explains,
For as he [Socrates] estimated, so he proposed that there are two ways, a

two-fold path for souls when they have passed forth from the body: for
those who have contaminated themselves with human vices and have
delivered themselves over completely to their lusts, blinded by which
they either corrupted themselves by private vices and iniquities or
committed inexpiable deceits by violating the Republic - for them, there
is a separate journey, secluded from the assembly o f the gods. But those
who have kept themselves with integrity and chastity, and for whom
there was a minimal contagion from their bodies, and who always
separated themselves from it, and were always imitating the life o f the
gods in human bodies - for them, there stands open an easy passage to
return to those from whom they had set out. (1.72)110
This quotation and other passages within the Tusculan Disputations demonstrate how
Plato’s teachings on the soul’s immortality continued to receive support among some
Roman philosophers and provide the most likely intellectual context in which the
speeches o f the Jewish Wars appealed to philosophically inclined Roman readers.
Beyond the Republic and Cicero, and closer to Josephus’ own time, the
consolationes o f Seneca also develop their own themes of immortality in the effort to
109Cumont, Afterlife in Roman Paganism, 152-53; A.A. Long, “Cicero’s Plato and
Aristotle,” in Cicero the Philosopher: Twelve Papers (ed. J. Powell; Clarendon: Oxford,
1995), 49-62.
110Ita enim censebat itaque disseruit, duas esse vias duplicesque cursus animorum e
corpore excedentium: nam qui se humanis vitiis contaminavissent et se totos libidinibus
dedissent, quibus caecati vel domesticis vitiis atqueflagitiis se inquinavissent vel re publica
violanda frauds inexpiabiles concepissent, iis devium quoddam iter esse, seclusum a concilio
deorum; qui autem se integros castosque servavissent quibusque fuisset minima cum corporibus
contagio seseque ab iis semper sevocavissent essentque in corporibus humanis vitam imitati
deorum, iis ad illos, a quibus essent profecti, reditum facilem patere.

158
console the bereaved.111 Seneca rejects outright the mythological portrayals o f the
poets - a position that certainly separates him from both Plato and Josephus (.De
consolatio ad Marciam 19.6).112 His motivation is to rid death of the fear o f judgments
and terrors beyond the grave.113 Instead o f mythological images, Seneca prefers to
speak o f the soul’s journey beyond the body after death. The structures o f the physical
body are but “chains and darkness to our souls” (vincula animorum tenebraeque sunt).
The soul longs to return to its true origins in the heavens where it descended from the
cosmic realms o f fiery star-matter and to which it will return at death, to be
“intermingled with the stars” (sunt intermixtique sideribus-, 24.5-25).114 In the future,
when the time shall come in which the world extinguishes itself in order
to be renewed, these things will destroy themselves by their own powers,
and stars will clash with stars and whatever now shines forth from the
(current) order (of the world) will bum, as all matter blazes in a single
fire - us too. When it will seem good to God to set these things in
motion once again, as all things are falling, we who are blessed souls and
who have been allotted eternal things shall be turned again to our former
elements as a small appendage to this vast ruin.tls
111The Consolatio ad Polybium also includes consolatory discussion of immortality

(9.8).
112Perhaps also from Cicero.
113Others who shared the same impulse include Cicero, Tusc. 1.21, 48; cf. 1.6, 10; Nat.
d. 2.2, 5; Juvenal, Sat. 2.149; Pliny, Nat. 2.158. On this point, see Cumont, Afterlife in Roman
Paganism, 83-84.
114 Eduard Zeller, The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics (London: Longmans, 1870),
217-19.
115Et cum tempus advenerit, quo se mundus renovaturus extinguat, viribus ista se suis
caedent et sidera sideribus incurrent et omni flagrante material uno igni quicquid nunc ex
disposito lucet ardebit. Nos quoque felices animae et aetema sortitae, cum deo visum erit
iterum ista moliri, laudentibus cunctis et ipsae parva ruinae ingentis accessio in antiqua
elementa vertemur.

159
The expectation o f a universal conflagration, often termed an EKjrupcocriq by earlier
Stoics, foresees a cosmic cycle in which all things will be dissolved and restored to a
renewed existence, including life in the human body, to which the soul will return.116
The cosmic dimensions o f immortality in Stoicism illuminate some o f the
cosmic aspects o f immortality in Josephus. The notion that the soul ascends to the
heavens to join the stars at death is common to both Seneca and Josephus (B.J. 3.376;
6.46-49). In this sense, Josephus shares with Stoics a kind o f materialist notion o f
immortality in which the soul is the descendant o f cosmic matter dwelling in the highest
and purest realms o f the heavens. It is to these same origins that the soul returns to be
reunited with its “native” realm beyond the death o f the physical body. It is debatable
whether Josephus directly abandons the personal existence o f the soul to incorporation
within the atG ip or the stars. Cicero’s exaltation o f Africanus seems to preserve his
personal existence; Seneca seems to abandon personal existence to the stars; Josephus
seems uninterested in clarifying the matter. Stoics differed among themselves on this
question, and never built a firm consensus.117 The absorption o f the soul’s personal
116 J. Mansfield, “Providence and the Destruction of the Universe in Early Stoic
Thought. With Some Remarks on the ‘Mysteries of Philosophy,”’ in Studies in Hellenistic
Religions (ed. M Vermaseren; Leiden: Brill, 1979), 173-88. Cf. Eusebius, Praep. ev. 15.20.6.
Seneca’s Epistles also contain significant reflections upon immortality and dying a noble death.
In direct reflection upon the death of Socrates, Seneca writes to Lucilius that Socrates did not
flee from his predicament once convicted, in order that he might free human beings from their
two most grievous fears: imprisonment and death (Ep. 24.4). Further references to immortality
in the Epistles exhort the reader to moral action and impassivity amid life’s perils (26.4, 36.10,
57.7, 65.16, 71.13, 79.12, 102.22-29, 120.44).
117Cumont, Afterlife in Roman Paganism, 77.

160
existence into the cosmos is a likely implication o f Seneca’s cosmology, and may be of
Josephus’ as well.
As Franz Cumont shows, astral immortality was a widespread notion in

I 1o
antiquity, and thus one must avoid any direct correlation between Josephus and
Seneca on this point. Astral immortalization is also attested in Jewish eschatology in
Dan 12:1-3, 1 Enoch 104:2, 4 Ezra 7:46-49, 2 Baruch 51:7-13 (cf. Testament o f Moses
10:9). Here, Josephus may well have found the common ground between aspects o f
Jewish eschatology and Hellenistic cosmology that would make his elaborate translation
effort possible.119 Despite this similarity with Jewish immortality, however, Josephus’
speeches generally tell us more about Hellenistic popular philosophy than about Jewish
eschatological hopes. Seneca’s assertion that the soul would return to the material
world “when the time comes” for the world to be renewed seems to provide the most
likely contemporary context that may account for Josephus’ expectation o f a Ji£pixp07if|
- a cosmic revolution that would mark the descent o f virtuous souls into new and pure
bodies (B.J. 3.376; C. Ap. 2.217-19). This expectation assumes a cyclical model o f
time, which may well have been compatible with some aspects o f Stoicism.120
118Cumont, Afterlife in Roman Paganism, 91-109.
119On the relationship between these two contexts of immortality, see Hengel, Judaism
and Hellenism, 1:196-202.
120Josephus also presents the destruction of the Temple itself according to a recurrent
understanding of time, in which the destruction of the Second Temple takes place on the same
month and day as that of the First (B.J. 6.249-70). His language for this fixed date is “the fated
day in the revolutions of times” (f| eipappevri xpovcov rcepioSoiq rjpepa) in 6.250. On these
passages, see the comments by G.W. Trompf, The Idea o f Historical Recurrence in Western
Thought, 164-70. It is possible that Josephus presents the time of a return to the body,
according to a similarly cyclical and recurrent notion of history. It is also specifically at the
TtcpiTpoTEil aicovcov that he relates the return of the soul to inhabit undefiled bodies in his own

161
Josephus’ apologetical Tendenzen have often been described as favorable
toward Stoicism.121 He correlates his own understanding o f Pharisaism with the Stoics
{Life 12.4), and resists Epicurean skepticism with proofs o f providence from prophecy,
as we have already seen in his description o f Daniel’s prophecies {A.J. 10.277-79). The
Essenes, whom Josephus describes with a certain veneration and respect,122 are like the
followers of Pythagoras {A.J. 15.371), who according to Cicero also held to the
“etemality o f souls” {animorum aeternitate; Tusc. 1.39). Thus, where Josephus directly
mentions Stoicism, the attribution is either neutral or positive.123 The same may be said
o f Pythagoreanism.124 Where he mentions Epicureanism, however, the tone is almost
entirely negative. This anti-Epicurean Tendenz in his apologetic historiography may
constitute at least one factor in Josephus’ appeals to immortality in the Jewish Wars. In
contrast to Epicurean philosophies, Stoics consistently reinterpreted earlier
mythological and philosophical speculation on the soul’s immortality by grounding
speech at Jotapata {B.J. 3.372-76). On the idea of “eternal return” in Stoicism, see
Goldschmidt, Le systeme stoicien, 190-210.
121 Harold W. Attridge, The Interpretation o f Biblical History in the Antiquitates

Judaicae o f Flavius Josephus (Harvard Dissertations in Religion 7; Missoula [Montana]:
Scholars Press, 1976), 43-57, 71-107.
122Cavallin, Life after Death, 141. As Attridge notes, this is especially the case in the
B.J.; “Josephus and His Works,” 186. Baumbach, “The Sadducees in Josephus,” 174-75. The
length and favorability of Josephus’ report have, in fact, led Gustav Holscher to propose that
Josephus was working with a source especially favorable to Essenes; “Josephus,”
Realencyclopiidie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (ed. A. Pauly and G. Wissowa;
Stuttgart: Metzler, 1914-72), 9.1949.
123 H. Weiss, “Pharisaismus und Hellenismus: Zur Darstellung des Judenturns in

Geschichtswerk des jiidischen Historikers Flavius Josephus,” OLZ 74 (1979): 430. Weiss
ventures that Josephus knew Stoicism well and adopted it to suit his purposes.
124See also C. Ap. 1.14; 1.162-65; 2.168.

162
such speculation in the physics o f the soul and the cosmos. Stoic philosophers sought to
preserve a special place for the soul’s immortality, especially as an impetus to virtue
and ethical heroism. Epicureans, however, denied a life beyond death, with the
intention o f freeing human beings from the fear o f murky terrors beyond the grave.125
The atomistic physics o f Lucretius insinuated that death marked the dispersion o f
human existence, including the soul, into nothing.126 Since “death is nothing to us”
(pTtSev 7ipoq Tipac; eivai xov Bavaxov), it was not to be feared (Epicurus, Letter to
Menoeceus 124).127 One could thus pursue a free enjoyment o f the world without
undertaking the kind o f ethical asceticism that would earn a favorable outcome beyond
death. Though Josephus never directly correlates Sadducees with Epicureans,128
Epicurean skepticism about the future life may well underlie his description o f the
Sadducees.129 These polemics would have found Josephus a staunch defender o f the
125 Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus 124-27; Key Doctrines 19-21; Lucretius 3.830-911;
3.966-1023; 3.1087-94. K. Strodach, The Philosophy o f Epicurus: Letters, Doctrines, and
Parallel Passages from Lucretius (Chicago: Northwest University Press, 1963), 58-60; see also
Tacitus, Ann. 18.19.
126Lucretius 3.417-62; 3.624-33; 3.806-29. C. Segal, Lucretius on Death and Anxiety:

Poetry and Philosophy in De Rerum Natura (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990),
178-86.
127For more popular, epigraphic evidence for this notion, see Toynbee, Death and
Burial in the Roman World, 34-35; Cumont, Afterlife in Roman Paganism, 6-8; Richmond
Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 1;
Urbana [Illinois]: University of Illinois Press, 1942), 74-81.
128Baumbach, “The Sadducees in Josephus,” 175.
129The later b. Sanh., for example, would make this correlation more explicit: bxnr *?a
pbn on1? pxn i*?xi nxonnS -r* naan "sea nsa pnx isrr abis o-p-ns obia 7 5 3 1 naxao xan oSia1? on1? sr
pbrs cmp-cxi o'aon p mm pm mini p oman rrmn px taixn xan cbu?1?. “All Israel has a share in
the world to come. For it is said, ‘Your people, they are all righteous forever, they shall possess
the land, (they are) the branch o f my planting, the work of my hand, that I may be glorified’ (Isa

163
future life and a critic o f Epicurean skepticism. This bias seems to coincide with his
favorable descriptions o f Pharisees and Essenes, and with his more critical tone towards
Sadducees.
It is unwise, however, to declare Josephus a blatant Stoic on this question.130
Two observations preclude such an assessment. First, Josephus’ own views on the
question o f the future life remain mysterious.131 The mythological and philosophical
synthesis into which he translated Jewish belief in the future life does not necessarily
represent his own views any more than it does the original views o f the Essenes,
Pharisees, and Sadducees he endeavors to describe. Second, the speeches o f the Jewish
Wars are better described as a kind o f popular synthesis that incorporated traditional
myths and philosophical idealism in a way that was favorable toward Stoicism. In this
sense, perhaps pseudo-Phocylides, whose own reflections on immortality have been
called “Jewish,” “Hellenistic,” and “Stoic,” may provide the closest “parallel” o f all.132
60:22). But these are those who have no share in the world to come: the one who says ‘There
is no revivification of the dead derived from Torah, and the Torah is not from heaven,’ and an
Epicurean” (11.1). The edition is that of J. Schechter and Harry Freedman, Hebrew-English
Edition o f the Babylonian Talmud (London: Socino Press, 1987). Though the precise
correlation of terms between those who deny resurrection, those who deny the heavenly origins
of Torah, and an Epicurean is unclear, an Epicurean would probably be one who denied both
ideas. Ci.j. Sanh. 10.1.
For additional evidence of “Epicurean” views of death among Romans approximate to
the time of Josephus, see Cumont’s comments on Sallust, Bell. Cat. 51, 20; Pliny, Nat. 7.190;
Seneca, Tro. 382; Lucian, Alex. 61,47, 38,44; Afterlife in Roman Paganism, 8-12.
130Weiss approaches this position; “Pharisaismus und Hellenismus,” 430-34.
131 See also Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 301. Charles places too much faith
in Josephus’ descriptions as his own faith; Doctrine o f a Future Life, 354. As does Nikolainen,
Der Auferstehungsglauben, 111.
132See especially pseudo-Phocylides 99-115; see Cavillin, Life after Death, 151-55.

164
In the final analysis, Josephus’ appeals to the future life share what Toynbee has
described as the prevailing Roman attitude toward death throughout the late Republic
and Empire: a “conflicting and confused” belief in survival beyond death that was “in
the main, optimistic.”133 Seneca’s scholastic disdain for mythological portrayals o f the
afterlife, for example, would certainly have disapproved o f Josephus, despite the fact
that Josephus’ cosmology, his model o f cyclical time, and his ethics o f suicide would
certainly have remained favorable toward Stoicism. Thus, although the views presented
in these speeches cannot be identified with any individual school, they treat topics that
would have evoked interest among the philosophically inclined at Rome. Perhaps their
greatest achievement remains that they have made the Jews an important voice in the
philosophy o f the soul and the possibility o f life beyond death.
133Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World, 38-39. In viva voce, Emile Puech
has, in fact, commented to me that Josephus simply cannot be trusted to give a consistent and
accurate picture of specific Jewish beliefs about the future life. His statements on immortality
are highly inconsistent and confused among themselves, and it is difficult to correlate them with
external literary evidence as well.

CHAPTER 4:
APPEALS TO THE FUTURE LIFE IN THE
TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS
As a final piece o f evidence in this survey o f character speeches on the future
life, it is important to treat four brief passages within the Testaments o f the Twelve
Patriarchs, in which Simon, Judah, Zebulon, and Benjamin declare their faith in a
future resurrection o f the dead. These passages present formidable challenges for
analysis, since the provenience o f the Testaments has remained a disputed issue in
critical scholarship. Questions must still be answered concerning the extent to which
the Testaments have been refashioned by their Christian handlers, despite the “Charles
consensus” o f the first half of the twentieth century.1 Questions also remain about the
extent to which a pre-Christian Semitic Gnindschrift remains accessible despite
Christian handling.2 This problem has certainly not been solved by the inconclusive
1R.H. Charles argued that the Testaments was an originally Jewish document
containing Christian interpolations. His conclusions are articulated in a series of works from
1908-13: R.H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudpigrapha o f the Old Testament in
English with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1913); ed., The Greek Versions o f the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs, Edited
from Nine MSS, together with the Variants o f the Armenian and Slavonic Versions and Some
Hebrew Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon, 1908); “The Testaments of the XII Patriarchs,”
Encyclopedia Biblica 1 (1899): 287-41; “Testaments of the XII Patriarchs,” Dictionary o f the
Bible Dealing with Its Language, Literature and Contents 4 (1909): 721-25; “The Testaments
of the XII Patriarchs,” HibJ 3 (1904-05): 558-73; ed., Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs,
Translatedfrom the Editor’s Greek Text and Edited with Introductory Notes, and Indices
(London: Black, 1908); R.H. Charles and Arthur E. Cowley, “An Early Source of the
Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs,” JQR 19(1907): 566-83. For the term “Charles
consensus,” see the well known critical history by H. Dixon Slingerland, The Testaments o f the
Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History o f Research (SBLMS 21; Missoula [Montana]: Scholars
Press, 1977).
2The urgency of this question is posed by Marinus de Jonge’s work. He has argued that
although the Testaments bear evidence that the collection existed at a pre-Christian stage of
transmission, the precise content of that pre-Christian stage remains unrecoverable due to the
freedom of the Christian redactors with their sources; “Christian Influence in the Testaments of
165

166
evidence provided in Qumran manuscripts 3Q7,3 3Q8,4 4Q215,5 4Q484,6 4Q538,7 and
4Q539.8 The Aramaic Levi documents also yield inconclusive results. Though
the Twelve Patriarchs,” NovT 4 (1960): 184-89; “The Main Issues in the Study of the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (orig. 1979),” in Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian
Christology and the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: Collected Essays o f Marinus de
Jonge (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 162-63; “Israel’s Future in the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs (orig. 1986),” in Jewish Eschatology, 177-79; “Hippolytus’ ‘Benedictions of Issac,
Jacob and Moses’ and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (orig. 1985),” in Jewish
Eschatology, 204; “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Jewish and Christian (orig.
1985),” in Jewish Eschatology, 233-43; “The Interpretation of the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs in Recent Years,” in Studies on the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and
Interpretation (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 3; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 183-92.
See also Slingerland, The Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History, 60-63.
3 M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Les “petites grottes ” de Qumran (DJDJ III;
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962). The edition in DJDJ III conjectures that 3Q7 may attest to a
source for T. Jud. 24-25 (99-100), primarily on the basis of the reference to the d*jdh -jabs
attested in line 7. Milik has, in fact, restored the first several lines of 3Q7 in Hebrew according
to the Greek text of TJud. 25.1-2; “Ecrits preesseniens de Qumran: d’Henoch a Qumran,” in
Qumran: Sa piete, sa theologie et son milieu (BETL 46; ed. M. Delcor; Paris: Duculot, 1978),
98-99. The manuscript remains far too fragmentary for any definitive identification to be made.
4 Baillet, Milik, de Vaux, DJDJ HI. An identification with the Testaments has been
conjectured on the basis ofc]*® iKba[, which is also attested in T. Dan. 6.5, T. Ash. 6.6, and T.
Ben. 6.1.
5G. Brooke, J. Collins, P. Flint, J. Greenfield, E. Larson, C. Newsom, E. Puech, L.

Schiffman, M. Stone, and J. Trebolle Barrera, Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part J
(DJD XXH; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 73-82. Lines 1-5 correspond to T. Naph. 1:6-8.
6 M. Baillet, Qumran grotte 4.I ll (4Q482-4Q520) (DJD VH; Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1982), 3. This manuscript preserves a brief reference to ■eoo\ Baillet conjectures a relation to
T. Jud. 25.1-2. Though the word Dip, as attested in 4Q484, does have Greek counterparts in the
context of T. Jud. 25.1, the word is so common as to make an identification impossible.
7Currently, this text can only be consulted in photographs (Inv. no. 450; PAM 43.573),
though Milik has provided a transliterated text (“Ecrits preesseniens de Qumran, 98-99) and a
text with translation appears in the study edition of Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J.C.
Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997-98), 1076-77.
This manuscript cannot be identified with any section of the Testaments.
8One is limited to the photographs (Inv. No. 433; PAM 42.443,43.593), Milik (98-99),
and Garcia Martinez-Tigchelaar (1076-77). Milik conjectures a relation to T. Jos. 15.1-17.

167
4Q2139 and 4Q213al0 attest traditions retained in the Greek T. Lev., the remaining
Aramaic Levi materials (1Q21,11 4Q213b,12 4Q214,13 4Q214a,14 4Q214b,15 4Q540,16
4Q541l7) cannot be consistently identified with portions o f the Greek Testaments.
An additional difficulty posed by the Testaments is their literary form. Though
the biography and narrative o f Genesis are assumed and reviewed, the Testaments do
not provide an historical narrative o f consecutive events. Instead, the Testaments
display a more prophetic rendition o f history that contains occasional eschatological
speeches, in which the dying patriarchs o f Genesis are able to envision Israel’s future
history, from their own times, even to the consummation o f the age.
Despite these challenges for interpretation, the resurrection passages o f the
Testaments satisfy both the content and stylistic criteria for consideration within this
9 DJD XXII, 2-24. These fragments contain traditions that may have served as a source
for T. Lev. 12.7 and the first several verses of chap. 13.
10DJD XXII, 25-36. 4Q213a attests aspects of the prayer (rtruK --is mnx[) that appears
in T. Lev. 2.1-19.
11 D. Barthelemy and J.T. Milik, Qumran Cave J (DJD 1; Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1955). Fragments 1,4, 7, 8, 30 may correspond to the general context of T. Lev. 8 and 9.
12DJD XXII, 37-41. No direct correlations are offered.
13DJD XXH, 43-51. No direct correlations are offered.
16Emile Puech, “Fragments d’un apocryphe de Levi et le personage eschatologique.

4QTestLevic‘d(?) et 4QAJa,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings o f the
International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls Madrid 18-21 March 1991 (STDJ XI,2; ed. J.
Trebolle Barrera and L. Montaner; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 480-89. No direct correlations
are offered.
17Puech, “Fragments d’un apocryphe,” 449-79. No direct correlations are offered.

168
study, since they present hope in the future life as the professed belief o f figures who
appear within a larger historical work. They provide yet another instructive analogy
for approaching the problem o f the meaning and function o f appeals to the future life in
the portrayal o f Jewish history. Especially important for approaching the resurrection in
the book o f Acts is the portrayal o f Israel’s patriarchs as believers in the future
resurrection o f the dead, and the literary devices which the authors have used to frame
their own situation in history with the story o f the patriarchs in the past and a
resurrection o f the dead in future history. The implications o f the Testaments for
approaching Paul’s resurrection faith are pursued in Chapters 6-7 o f the current work.
As in the two previous chapters, this chapter (I) begins with a survey o f attestations to
the future life in the Testaments, (II) followed by a description o f the concept o f the
future life, and (III) finally a constructive proposal for the function o f the future life.
Survey o f Attestations
At least four passages of the Testaments directly refer to a future resurrection o f
the dead {T. Sim. 6.7; T.Jud. 25; T. Zeb. 10.1-2; T. Ben. 10.6-10).18 Each o f these
references surfaces in speeches by the patriarchs, and each emerges as a part o f the
eschatological predictions which the fathers make upon the verge o f their deaths. The
18T.Levi 18.13-14 may also contain a resurrection prophecy since it shares the language
of the patriarch’s future “rejoicing” which recurs in these four passages; Harm W. Hollander
and Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (Studia in
Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 125. Yet it should be noted that
this brief passage lacks the specific terminology for rising (dvaoxf|0 0 |ia i) that appears in the
other four. Because of this, it is not included among the four definitive references to the
resurrection in the current study.

169
first passage in T. Sim. 6.7 is brief, as is T. Zeb. 10.1-2; but T. Jud. 25 and T. Ben. 10.6-
10 expand and magnify the resurrection m otif into a visionary prophecy for the
reconstitution o f Israel.19
Sim eon’s Prophecy (T. Sim. 6.7)
The Testament o f Simeon opens with an introduction describing the occasion o f
his words “to his sons before he died” ( l.l) .20 A biographical sketch o f Simeon’s life
comprises the first main element o f his speech (2); and his envious crimes against
Joseph (2.6-14) lead to a moral exhortation against “envy” (3), which Hollander and de
Jonge describe as the “central theme” o f Simeon’s story.21 Reflections upon the regrets
of Simeon and the mercy o f Joseph complement further exhortations in 4.1-5.3. At 5.4,
a shift o f emphasis is discernible as Simeon turns toward future prophecies as a means
o f further admonishing his children against evil (5.4-7.1-3). It is within this extended
19 Since the final passage in T. Ben. (in the Greek versions) is clearly pervaded by
Christian revisions and may be very late, I have included it in Excursus 2: The Resurrection
Prophecy in the Testament o f Benjamin, so that its content is not directly confused with that
of the other three.
20xou; uio'iq a m o v npo t o o Gaveiv aw ov. The critical edition used in this study is
that of Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition o f the
Greek Text (Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 1:2; Leiden: Brill, 1978). M. de
Jonge’s edition is occasionally supplemented by that of Charles, The Greek Versions o f the
Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs. Further reference is also made to the critical edition of all
eschatological passages by Anders Hultg&rd, L 'eschatologie des Testaments des Douze
Patriarchs. I: Interpretation des texts; II: Composition de I ’ouvrage texts et traductions (2
vols.; Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Historia Religionum 7; Uppsala: Uppsala University
1991), 2:239-87.
21 Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, 109-

10 .

170
section that his resurrection prophecy takes place (6.7). Finally, chapters 8-9 describe
Simeon’s death and burial.
The resurrection prophecy o f Simeon occurs after the prediction o f his own
descendants’ apostasy (5.4-6) and the prediction that the seed o f Canaan, Amalek, the
Cappadocians, the Hittites, and Ham will all be destroyed (6.3-4),22 giving way to a
period o f universal peace in which Shem (presumably his descendants) will be glorified
and humans will rule over evil spirits (6.5-6). At this point, Simeon prophesies,
Then I shall arise in joy, and I shall bless the Most High,
because o f his marvelous (works). (6.7)23
This is the only passage within T. Sim. that clearly mentions a resurrection. It is very
brief, but uses a recognizable terminus technicus for the resurrection (avaaxT|aoM.ai)
that is maintained in the prophecies o f T. Jud., T. Zeb., and T. Ben. Furthermore, it links
the resurrection to eschatological joy and worship (a recurrent m otif in what follows), as
the patriarch rises to “bless the Most High.” The patriarch will thus one day join his
future descendants in an Israel that has been purged o f its enemies.
J u d a h ’s Prophecy (T. Jud. 25)
In the testament that Judah bequeaths to his descendants, one finds a clear
example o f this collection’s special concern with Judah and his offspring. His testament
22 On these peoples, see Hultgird, L 'eschatologie des Testaments, 1:248-51. Hultg&rd

argues that this expectation is based upon an eschatological source which predicted the
extermination of nations hostile to Israel (1:251-52).
23 t o t e d v a a x T j a o p a i e v e - u ^ p o a u v p , x a i eu X o y ria to x o v u i j n a x o v
e v x o iq G a u p a c n o K ; a u x o u .

171
is especially long. The first twelve chapters contain a biographical reminiscence o f the
patriarch’s life and courage, followed in chapters 13-20 by a section that intermingles
biographical details about the Tamar affair described in Gen 38 and exhortations against
drunkenness, greed, and impurity, as demonstrated in the Tamar episode. After a
description of the spirits o f truth and evil in chapter 20, the next section (21-25) turns to
prophesy future events, including the coming sins o f Judah’s descendants (21.6-22.2)
and the emergence o f a king from his seed who will rule the whole world in peace and
righteousness (22.2-24). It is immediately after this that the patriarch describes his own
future resurrection in the extended discourse o f chapter 25. Finally, chapter 26
concludes the testament with an exhortation to keep the law, since there is much “hope”
(eXiriq)24 in the future for those who are steadfast. Judah also gives precise instructions
for his burial, which his children execute by returning his corpse to Hebron.
Judah’s prophecy o f resurrection introduces a new hope that could not have been
predicted from Simeon’s earlier prophecy. Judah is not the only one whom God will
raise from the dead:
And after these things, Abraham and Issac and Jacob shall arise
unto life,
And I and my brothers will be rulers over our tribes in Israel:
Levi first, second I, third Joseph, fourth Benjamin, fifth Simeon,
sixth Issachar, and so all in order.25 (25.1)26
24 MS 1reads ekmq Pefkna. See the critical edition by de Jonge, Testaments o f the
Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition, 79.
25 MS k adds in the margin, “when the Messiah arises to raise them up together” (ore
dvearri o xptaxo^ auvavaaxfiaaq amon^). See the critical edition by de Jonge, Testaments
o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition, 77-78.
26icai pexa xauxa dvaaxfjaexai ’Appaap icai ’Iaaaic xai ’Iaxcbp ei<; £co(|v,
xai eyto Kai oi aSeX<|xu poo eâpôi OKtptxptov fipoav ev ’Iapaf|X eaopeGa,

172
The timing o f this resurrection (“after these things”)27 takes place, as in T. Sim., after a
new ruler has brought a reign o f peace to Israel. The terminology for the resurrection
used in the prophecy o f T.Sim. also appears consistently in this passage. The patriarchs
“shall arise” (dvaaxf|cexai) for participation in this restored Israel. They will preside
over their original tribes and territories, with Levi and Judah taking positions of
authority above the others. The author carefully describes an hierarchy that Hollander
and de Jonge attribute to reflection upon Deut 27.12.28 In what follows, the entire
cosmos in heaven and earth will bless the risen patriarchs (25.2),29 “there will be one
people o f the Lord and one tongue,”30 and Beliar shall be punished (25.3). Thus, the
restored Israel which the risen patriarchs govern will be a united people free o f evil.
The resurrection also extends beyond the partriarchs to encompass many others,
for whom the resurrection will mark a complete reversal o f fortunes:31
And those who died in sorrow shall arise in joy
Aeui rcpoko^, Seuxepo^ eym, xpixo<; ’ Iawr(|<J), xexapxoc; (teviapiv, Tteprcxoq lupecbv,
ejcxoq
’Iaaxap, teal oikox; Ka0e£,f|<; ndvxeq.
27pexd xauxa and xoxe often function in eschatological contexts in the Testaments (cf.
T. Sim. 6.7 and T. Ben. 10.4-5); Hultgird, L 'eschatologie des Testaments, 1:231.
28 Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, 230.
29As in 25.1 there is a clear hierarchy, as higher powers in heaven bless the Testaments’
“favorite” patriarchs, Levi and Judah; Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments o f the Twelve
Patriarchs: A Commentary, 230. On the biographical allusions in these blessings, see
Hultg&rd, L ’eschatologie des Testaments, 1:238.
30 icai Eaxat Eiq Xaoq tcupioo icai yXcoaoa pia.
31 For other traditions which emphasize the resurrection/afterlife as a reversal of earthly

fortunes, see lEn 96.3, 103.1-104.4; 2Bar 51-52; Apoc. Mos. 39; Mt 5.3-12; Lk 6.20-23;
Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, 230.

173
And those who were in poverty because o f the Lord shall be made rich
And those who were in want shall be fed
And those who were in weakness shall be strong
And those who died because o f the Lord shall be awakened unto life.
(25.4)32
As in the previous two passages, the terminology for the resurrection (avaaxriaovxai) is
consistently preserved, as well as the classic resurrection terminology o f “awakening
unto life” (e£\mvio9f|aovxai ev £aip).33 Taken together, both T. Sim. and T. Jud.
envision the resurrection o f the patriarchs to a restored Israel. Both the patriarchs and
their suffering descendants shall be raised to a new life in the land o f Israel in which
God will reverse their previous status o f sorrow, poverty, hunger, sickness, and death.
Judah encourages the righteous to remain steadfast in light o f this hope.
Zebulon's Prophecy (T. Zeb. 10.1-2)
Yet another resurrection passage may be found in the Testament o f Zebulon,
which combines biographical reminiscences (1.4-4.13; 5.5-7.4) with exhortations on
compassion and mercy (5.1-4; 7.2-3; 8.1-3; cf. 9.1-4). Like the other testaments, T.
Zeb. concludes with eschatological prophecies (9.5-10.4), including the foretelling o f
his own future resurrection. This expectation is directly connected with the patriarch’s
32x a i oi ev A.\>jrn xeAeuxfiaavxei; avaaxriaovxai ev ya-99-

x ai oi ev rcxcoxeuji 8ia xupiov jriCoimo0f|cyovxai
xai oi ev rcevipi xopxaa0f|aovxai
xai oi ev aaOeveiqt iaxuaouat
xai oi 8ia xnpiov d7co0avovxe<; e^t»7tvia0f|aovxai ev £<ofj.
33Cf. Dan 12:2: nbia "r6 rrix irp» i c a nniK 'jsra n'a-n. Ancient Greek translations have
left behind the literal Semitic idiom of “awakening,” and have used a more recognizable
terminology for the resurrection: LXX (avaaxf|aovxai); Theodotion (e4eyep0f|oovxat).

174
imminent death (10.1, 4), and the description o f his death and burial concludes the
entire testament (10.6-7).
Zebulon’s resurrection prophecy shares with T. Jud. and T. Ben. the expectation
o f the patriarch’s restored rule over his descendants:
And now, my children, do not sorrow that I am dying, nor grieve that I
am perishing.
For I shall arise again in your midst, as a ruler in the midst o f his sons,
And I shall rejoice in the midst o f my tribe, as many as keep the law o f
the Lord and the commandments o f Zebulon their father.
But upon the impious, the Lord will bring everlasting fire, and he will
destroy them throughout generations.
But as for now, I am going away into my rest, as my fathers. (10.1-4)34
Zebulon’s resurrection prophecy shares the terminology o f the previous examples
(dvaoxY)aopai). His restored rule over his tribe is also linked with the patriarch’s
rejoicing, a theme already established in the prophecies o f Simeon and Judah (see also
“gladness” in T. Ben. below). The passage also seems to assume that all those who
keep the law will participate in this restored rule. But the wicked will be punished
forever (cf. T. Jud. 25.3). These prophecies lead to Zebulon’s final exhortation: “But
as for you, fear the Lord your God with all your might all the days o f your life” (10.5).
34K ai vov, xeicva poo, pt| XurceiaGe o n djto0vf|OKto eyco, pr|8e ooprcircxexe oxt
dnoXetrcco. dvaaxrjoopat yap rcdXiv ev peacp opdiv ax; riyoupevoq ev pecxp oidiv aoxoo,
icai £v><j)pav9r|aopai ev peacp xrjq <j)oXfj<; poo, oaot eôXaâv vopov icopioo icai
evxoXdq ZaPouXcbv Jiaxpoq aoxmv.
ejti 5e xooq aoepeiq ETtaêi icupioq nop aicoviov, xai anoXeoei aoxooq ecoq yevecbv.
xecoq eyti) eiq xf|v avaJtatxnv poo anoxpexco, ax; oi Jtaxepeq poo.

175
The Concept of the Resurrection
As the introduction to this chapter suggested, the study o f the Testaments
continues to deal with the problem o f the relationship between Jewish and Christian
theology in the collection. It will remain impossible to resolve, due to the fragmentary
nature o f the pre-Christian Semitic evidence and the lateness o f the Greek manuscripts.
This aspect o f the Testaments as a whole is reflected in the four resurrection passages.
Whereas two (T. Sim. 6.7; T. Ben. 10.6-10) contain clearly Christian references in the
immediate context o f the resurrection prophecy, the other two do not ( TZ e b . 10.1-4; T.
Jud. 25).
The Christian associations o f the resurrection prophecy o f T. Sim. 6.7 come just
at the end o f the resurrection prophecy, in the form o f a oxi clause that describes the
praise that the risen patriarch will give to God in eschatological rejoicing: “for God,
taking a body and eating with men, saved men.”35 Though the presence o f this
christological statement at the conclusion o f the resurrection prophecy would suggest its
Christian origin, it is also important to note that the christology o f the oxi clause does
not directly occur within the resurrection prophecy itself and may, in fact, be separable
from it.36 Thus, the resurrection passage itself need not be exclusively Christian. The
35 oxi 0 e o <;, atopa Xa|3a>v x a i cruveoGicov avGpawion;, eooxrev avGpdwroix;.
36 In 1953, de Jonge was even more emphatic: “These [references to the incarnation]
are definitely out of place in T. Sim. 6.5, 7”; The Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study
o f Their Text, Composition and Origin, 96. Marc Philonenko made the curious attempt to
justify these “christological” imagery as pre-Christian by associating it with Essene theology
and the Righteous Teacher; Les interpolations chretiennes des Testaments des Douze
Patriarches et les Manuscrits de Qumran (Cahiers de la Revue d ’Histoire et de Philosophic
Religieuses 35; Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1960), 31-33. Hultg&rd explains the
clause as a secondary Christian gloss which attempted to explain the G aupaoia as the

176
explanatory clause may, in fact, merely be a Christian addition. A more decisively
Christian resurrection passage may be found in T. Ben. 10.1-4,37 where christological
statements are more naturally integrated throughout the entire resurrection prophecy. In
this passage, belief in the one “who appeared on earth in the form o f a man o f
lowliness” has become the supreme criterion o f future judgment both for Israel and for
the Gentiles. This tendency is so strong throughout the passage that one cannot simply
separate the christological statements from an original resurrection prophecy in the
Greek versions.38
Two other passages, however, do not contain clearly recognizable christological
statements. Despite its length, the resurrection prophecy o f T. Jud. 25 lacks a definitive
christological reference.39 Instead, it is primarily concerned with the restoration o f
incarnation and eucharist, whereas previously they had referred only to the events described in
6:5-7; L 'eschatologie des Testaments, 1:252.
37See Excursus 2 below for treatment.
38Pace Hultg&rd, who attempts to mark only 10.7-9 as secondary expansion;

L 'eschatologie des Testaments, 1:232-33. One must note, however, that the Armenian textual
tradition lacks altogether these christological statements. If the Armenian tradition preserves a
pre-Christian textual tradition at T. Ben. 10:6-10, then it is all the more probable that this
resurrection passage also existed at a pre-Christian stage of development. See Hultg&rd, who
attempts to mark only 10.7-9 as secondary expansion; L 'eschatologie des Testaments, 1:232-33
Charlesworth would also make this same proposal in 1981; James H. Charlesworth, “Christian
and Jewish Self-Definition in Light of the Christian Additions to the Apocryphal Writings,” in
Jewish and Christian Self-Definition: Volume Two: Aspects o f Judaism in the Greco-Roman
Period (ed. E.P. Sanders, A. Baumgarten, A. Mendelson; 3 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1981), 37. See also more recently, Jarl H. Ulrichsen, Die Grundschrift der Testamente der
Zwolf Patriarchen: Eine Untersuchung zu Umfang, Inhalt und Eigenart der ursprunglichen
Schrift (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Historia Religionum 10; Uppsala: Uppsala University,
1991), 142-43.
39 It should be noted, however, that de Jonge has suggested that the eschatological
reversals in T. Jud. 25.4 depend upon the beatitudes; Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A
Study o f their Text Composition and Origin, 32 and 95. Hultg&rd responds that one can find
similar ideas as easily in the scriptures and in a broader array of non-Christian eschatological
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r re p r o d u c tio n pro hibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

177
patriarchal rule over the tribes in the land o f Israel and with the reversal o f fortunes for
the faithful in the future life.40 Furthermore, T. Zeb. 10.1-4 lacks any christological
references in its resurrection prophecy. Instead, it is directly concerned with the
physical death o f Zebulon and the destruction o f the wicked. Keeping the law o f God
and the words o f the dying patriarch will be the criterion for future judgment - not faith
in the Messiah. As de Jonge notes, this resurrection prophecy introduces a new section
in T. Zeb. wholly unrelated to the christological prophecies o f T. Zeb. 9.8. It is possible,
then, that patriarchal hope in the future life existed in the collection at a pre-Christian
stage o f development and underwent christological expansion through its tradition-
history. The thirteenth century MS k shows this very process still at work in m argined
Throughout his career, de Jonge himself has defined the boundaries o f
reasonable opinion on this question. In his dissertation published in 1953, he noted that
our four passages have two things in common: the resurrection o f the patriarchs to rule
over their tribes; and final judgment upon the wicked.42 He further commented,
literature; L 'eschatologie des Testaments, 1:324-45. Hultg&rd himself concludes,

“L’authenticite juive de ce chapitre ne peut etre contestee” (1:246). I would add that T. Jos.'s
biographical reminiscences contain similar sets of reversals (T. Jos. 1.2-7). Thus, one need not
look outside the collection to identify a source, whether Christian or otherwise. See the
conjectural attempts to identify a pre-Christian source for T. Jud. 25.1-2 in 3Q7 (Baillet, DJDJ
HI, 99-100; Milik, “Ecrits preesseniens de Qumran,” 98-99).
40T. Kortweg prefers to state that T. Jud. 25 contains some primitive material which
promises to the patriarchs their own share or portion in the future; “The Meaning of Naphtali’s
Visions,” in Studies on the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs, 275.
41 MS k adds in the marginat T. Jud. 25.1, “when the Messiah arises to raise them up
together” (ore dveorri o xpioxcx; ouvavaaxr|aa<; auxouq). See the critical edition by de
Jonge, Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition, 77-78.
42 M. de Jonge, Testaments o f the twelve Patriarchs: A Study o f Their Text,

Composition and Origin, 96.

178
perceptively, that “these notions are not especially Christian.”43 Based upon this
observation, he suggests that an originally Jewish resurrection passage, not unlike T.
Zeb. 10.2-4, may have provided the inspiration for the other resurrection passages in the
collection. That original passage, o f course, is not accessible to modem study. He thus
concludes that “in the passages dealing with the resurrection, the author has impressed
very definite Christian ideas on a Jewish original.”44
In his more recent studies, however, de Jonge has argued for the possibility of
Christian authorship even in those resurrection passages that do not directly reveal a
christological viewpoint. Operating according to a method that considers everything
Christian until it can be proven otherwise, de Jonge notes that the resurrection o f the
patriarchs is probably Christian since similar ideas appear in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue
with Trypho the Jew (25.6; 26.1; 45.2-4, 80-81; 130.1-2).45 Justin illustrates that the
Christian fathers held out hope for a future resurrection o f the pre-Mosaic saints 46 This
theological vision, both o f the ancient patriarchs and the future resurrection, served the
43 M. de Jonge, Testaments o f the twelve Patriarchs: A Study o f Their Text,

Composition and Origin, 96.
44 Ibid., 96.
45 M. de Jonge, “Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in

Studies on the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation, 198. This is a the
central component of the methodology that de Jonge has articulated later in his career.
M. de Jonge, “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Christian and Jewish. A
Hundred Years after Friedrich Schnapp,” in Jewish Eschatology, 237-41; “The Pre-Mosaic
Servants of God (orig. 1985),” in Jewish Eschatology, 266-72. In the final analysis, de Jonge’s
parallels are not decisive for the specific problem of the resurrection prophecies. The citations
posed by de Jonge include only one reference to the resurrection of the patriarchs (45.2-4), and
there the emphasis is that they will be saved by Jesus Christ. There is no evidence in Justin,
however, that the patriarchs fell asleep in hope of the resurrection, as the Testaments attest.
46 M. de Jonge, “The Pre-Mosaic Servants of God,” 266-72.

179
church fathers’ apologetical interests by affirming the divine faithfulness to Israel, from
the beginning of the people, even to the end o f time.47
Rather than allowing de Jonge’s more recent work to repudiate his earlier
insights, perhaps it would be wiser to reconcile them. Taken together, his earlier and
more recent work have served to define the boundaries o f what is possible. The more
recent work o f de Jonge’s indicates that the resurrection prophecies o f the patriarchs
need not contain distinctively Christian elements in order to be “Christian,” as his
comparative studies o f Justin indicate. Thus, in their current form all four prophecies
may well have been “Christian” in the sense that Justin developed in his own
apologetic. It would be equally hazardous, however, to argue that the Testaments did
not contain a single resurrection prophecy at their pre-Christian stages o f transmission.
Specialists working on the Testaments (Marc Philonenko, Anders Hultg&rd, James H.
Charlesworth, and Jarl Ulrichsen) have reached similar conclusions.48
47 On this point, see also Jacob Jervell, “Ein Interpolator interpretiert. Zu der
christlichen Bearbeitung der Testaments der Zwolf Patriarchen,” in Studien zu den Testamenten
der Zwolf Patriarchen: Drei Aufsatze herausgegeben von Walter Eltester (ed. C. Burchard et
al.; BZNW 36; Berlin: TSpelmann, 1969), 41-47.
48 Philonenko, Les interpolations chretiennes des Testaments, 3-7. Philonenko argues

that the resurrection prophecies along with the sin-exile-retum passages and the Levi-Judah
passages, were the work of a Jewish (even Qumranic) redactor active just after the accession of
Herod the Great, 37 B.C.E.Using, of course, very different methodologies.
Hultg&rd, responding to Becker, warns of the difficulties of attempting to set aside the
prophetic sections of the Testaments as secondary to the tradition; L ’eschatologie des
Testaments, 1:246-47, 253-54; 11:157. Becker’s own treatment may be found in Jurgen Becker,
Untersuchungen zur Enstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der ZwolfPatriarchen (Leiden:
Brill, 1970), 403-04.
Charlesworth, “Christian and Jewish Self-Definition in Light of the Christian Additions
to the Apocryphal Writings,” 37.
Ulrichsen, Die Grundschrift der Testamente, 247-50. Ulrichsen argues that the earliest
and original form of the text contained no resurrection prophecies, but that the resurrection
motif emerged with the most ancient interpolations to die text after 165 B.C.E. (249). T. Jud.

180
As for the theology o f the resurrection in these passages, all four examples have
been framed by a biographical context which poses the imminent death o f the ancestor
as the occasion for these discourses. This narrative context is by far the clearest
commonality among the four resurrection passages.49 Hope in the resurrection shines
forth the more brightly against these sober testamentary death scenes. The resurrection
prophecies o f the patriarchs thus share with the speeches o f 2 Maccabees and the Jewish
Wars a narrative context in which piety meets its final trial in death.
The content o f all four prophecies envisions the resurrection as a time o f “joy”
or “rejoicing.” Three factors may account for this use o f language for the resurrection.
First, as Hollander and de Jonge suggest, the prophecy o f Isa 26:19 may have served as
a scriptural influence upon the terminology o f the Testaments,50 though it should also be
noted that rejoicing at the time o f the resurrection is also reflected in a broader array o f
parabiblical literature contemporaneous to the development o f the Testaments. 51
Second, the pathos o f death itself may raise the expectation for its opposite, joy, at the
resurrection. Zebulon, for example, must counsel his children not to be “sorrowful” and
and T. Zeb. are clearly Jewish (249), and contain a vision of the resurrection that is surprisingly
down to earth (249). They originate from the same hand (249), whereas T. Ben. assumes a
wholly different theology and is from a different hand (249).
49Pace de Jonge, who argues that “the passages dealing with the resurrection ... are so
heterogeneous that it is not possible to speak of common patters”; “The Main Issues in the
Study of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” 159. Almost ten years later, however, he
would conclude that though the resurrection passages have a variety of applications, they are
confined within a variety of other traditional motifs in “a coherent approach to the question” of
Israel’s future; “Israel’s Future in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” 178.
50The terminology is especially close: dvaaxf|Covxat oi veicpoi, icai eyep0f|aovxai

oi ev xoiq pvripeiotq, icai eti^pavGrjaovxat oi ev xfj yfj. Cf. also LXX Isa 25:6-9.

181
“downcast” at his death. Third, the language o f joy may also reflect the expectation that
the resurrection will involve worship, since both T. Sim. and T. Ben. prophesy that they
will “bless” and “worship” God in the resurrection. The place o f this worship in T. Ben.
is “at the right hand,” where the worshipping patriarchs enjoy the ultimate position o f
human honor.52
If this vision o f the resurrection is at least somewhat “liturgical,” it also
possesses “political” dimensions. Three o f the four passages (T. Jud.-, T. Zeb.\ T. Ben.)
prophesy that the patriarchs will arise to reign over their original portions in the land o f
Israel. The importance o f the patriarchs in this scenario is underscored by their
consistent preference for the middle voice o f dviarrm i, with the patriarchs themselves,
as subjects.53 The resurrection will mark the patriarchs’ return to life on the earth,54
specifically in the land of Israel, and perhaps even more precisely in their traditional
territorial portions in the land. This understanding o f the resurrection is thus both
nationalistic and restorationist. It envisions at the end o f days a restoration o f what
Israel was at its origins.
The timing o f the resurrection complements these nationalist and restorationist
concerns. Simeon, for example, prophesies that his resurrection will occur after Shem
(or his descendants) has subdued Canaan, Amalek, the Cappadocians, the Hittites and
51Cf. references to eschatological joy in lEn 25.6, 51.5; 2Bar 30.2; Apoc. Mos. 13.4;
see Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, 125.
52Hultg&rd, L ’eschatologie des Testaments, 1:232.
53E.g., as opposed to another construction, such as “God will raise ...”
54Ulrichsen, Die Grundschrift der Testamente, 248.

182
Ham (6.3-4). Even evil spirits will be subdued (6.5-6), as Shem ushers in a period o f
universal peace. The patriarch will arise to enjoy this time o f victory over Israel’s
enemies. In similar fashion Judah’s prophecy places the resurrection after one o f his
own descendants has emerged to rule the whole world in peace and righteousness (22.2-
24). Once again, the patriarchs are raised to enjoy and govern their hereditary portions
in Israel as part o f a new and universal kingdom. Furthermore, T. Ben. 10 places the
patriarchs’ resurrection after the revelation o f a savior to Israel. The three prophecies of
Simeon, Judah, and Benjamin thus reflect a sophisticated conception o f the
eschatological timing o f the resurrection, which will restore the patriarchs to govern
their tribes in the land o f Israel after a period o f universal peace has ensued.
Two o f the prophecies (T. Jud.-, T. Ben.) extend the resurrection to others besides
the patriarchs. Judah’s resurrection hope envisions an eschatological reversal for those
who have suffered in life. The resurrection will be joy for the sorrowful, riches for the
poor, food for the destitute, strength for the weak, and life for the dead. The highly
christological T. Ben. is the only prophecy among the four that prophesies a general
resurrection o f “all” people - “some unto glory and some unto shame,” which may
reflect the influence o f Dan 12:1-3. By prophesying the resurrection o f all, T. Ben. adds
to the Testaments a universalizing dimension that one cannot find in the other
resurrection passages.55 The two other passages (T. Sim.-, T. Zeb.) only prophesy the
resurrection o f the patriarchs and perhaps their descendants.56 The resurrection o f the
55Hultg&rd, L 'eschatologie des Testaments, 1:231.
56 T. 2leb. may assume a resurrection of Zebulon’s descendants with him since he will
presumably reign over his descendants in their tribe. Hultg&rd, L 'eschatologie des Testaments,

183
righteous, then, remains the most representative hope in the collection, with only T.
Ben. expecting a more universal and general resurrection.
Judgment attends the wicked in at least two o f the prophecies (T. Zeb.; T. Ben.).
Zebulon envisions everlasting fire and punishment for the ungodly, without stating
whether or not they are raised from the dead for judgment. Benjamin prophesies that all
the dead will be raised and judged by the criterion o f faith in the Messiah.57 Simeon
refers only to the subjugation o f hostile nations prior to the resurrection, and Judah only
to the punishment o f Beliar prior to the resurrection.
The terminology o f hope (eA.jri<;) surfaces in the context o f at least two
resurrection prophesies. In T. Jud. 26.1, the resurrection prophecy o f chapter 25 makes
its transition into Judah’s final exhortation, with the words, “Keep, therefore, my
children, the whole law o f the Lord, for there is hope (eA.jri<;) for those who make
straight their ways.” The term hope in the context o f the eschatological prophecies o f
chapter 25 seems to encompass the entire preceding section, including especially the
hope of the resurrection and the reversal o f fortunes after death. A more subtle
reference to “hope” occurs at the end o f Benjamin’s resurrection prophecy (10.11),
where the patriarch promises, “if you walk in holiness before the Lord, you shall also
dwell again in hope with me” (naikiv Kaxoucfiaexe etc’ eA.jri.5t ev ejioi). Hollander and de
Jonge have traced this expression to scriptural prophecies for the restoration o f Israel.
1:246. J. Ulrichsen, in fact, argues that the phrase “in your midst” refers not to geography but to
the risen dead of Zebulon’s own sons; Die Grundschrift der Testamente, 248. Hollander and de
Jonge use the terminology “resurrection of the righteous”; Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs:
A Commentary, 275.
57As I have noted, this is a clearly Christian element.

184
Their most convincing citation is that o f Ezek 28:25-26 (LXX),58 which shares the
terminology attested in T. Ben. 10.11.59 In associating the patriarch’s prophecy with a
hope for nationalist restoration, however, one should not lose sight o f the fact that the
author(s) o f Ps 16(15).9 can use a very similar expression with a much more personal
emphasis upon individual deliverance by God. The patriarchs’ hope seems to be a
combination o f nationalist and personal eschatological hopes. As the fathers o f Israel,
they hope for a resurrection that will mark the restoration o f Israel to land and kingdom.
As the dying faithful, they hope for eschatological life and joy in the future, despite the
imminence o f their own personal deaths.
Finally, one must account for what the patriarchs have not described about the
resurrection. They lack any o f the cosmic or anthropological aspects o f the future life
encountered on repeated occasions in this study. They are far more content to locate the
future life on earth and in Israel. The only concern for the body o f the resurrection is
implied in the transference o f the patriarchs’ remains to Hebron, whence, presumably,
they shall arise. Other than this the resurrection is only described as an entrance “into
life” (ei<; £cuf|v). Though the passages seem to convey a consistent sense o f timing for
the resurrection, they lack any kind o f impending eschatological imminence. Yet there
is a fervent certainty about the event, when one recognizes that the patriarchs have
58Koti Kaxoiicr|Oo\xnv eni xfj<; yife atixcbv, ijv 8e8toica xqj SouXtp pou Icoccop, tcai
Kaxoucnaouoiv e t c am fiq ev eXrciSi icai oiicoSopfiaouoiv o’uctaq k o u (Jruxeuaoixnv
apjteXtova<; Kai tcaxoitcfiaoixnv ev eXniSi.
59Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, 441.

As examples, they cite Ezek 28.25; 34.27; Hos 2.17(20); Judg 18.7, 9; Ps 4.9; 16(15).9; Prov
1.33; Zeph 2.15.

185
already described accurately the course o f Israel's history (post factum ) that had
presumably occurred prior to the composition o f the Testaments. The accuracy o f the
patriarchs in prophesying the ongoing history o f Israel beyond their deaths lends
credence, even an air o f inevitability, to unfulfilled events in the future, including the
resurrection o f the righteous in a restored Israel.
Why did the authors and redactors o f the Testaments include these repeated
references to the resurrection within the eschatological discourses o f the dying
patriarchs? One can only follow the clues that the document leaves behind in
formulating an answer to this question. Due to the existence o f multiple recensions and
interpolations of the tradition throughout history, one must recognize that the passages
probably performed multiple functions in the collection, at multiple stages within their
transmission. Rather than suggesting, however, that in the traditioning process the
resurrection passages became completely incoherent and amorphous, one should
recognize that the resurrection passages were sufficiently important to the collection
that they continued to grow throughout the traditioning process. As in the previous two
chapters, three functions of these speeches are explored. The first deals with the
question o f what these appeals tell us about the portrayal o f the characters who make
them, namely the patriarchs (a). The second treats the question o f how these passages
relate to the theological presentation o f Israel’s history in the Testaments (b). The third
attempts to identify the rhetorical force o f these passages with regard to those who
studied and read these texts (c).

186
As Hollander has recently brought into renewed focus and clarity, the twelve
patriarchs who leave their dying words to their descendants serve as ethical models who
bequeath examples o f righteousness and unrighteousness through reminiscence upon
their own lives.60 Though they are ideal figures and the very founders o f the Jewish
people, the patriarchs are also flawed examples who recount their own mistakes in their
biographical narrations, particularly in their crimes against Joseph. They are thus well
acquainted with vice, as well as virtue. This qualifies them to give ethical instruction to
their descendants and to warn with prophetic tone that their descendants will fall into
similar vices.
Though Hollander occasionally dichotomizes these paranetic discourses over
and against the eschatological sections,61 it is important to remember that the patriarchs
do not cease to be ethical models as they prophesy what will occur in the future.62 This
is especially the case when one considers the close relationship between the resurrection
prophecies and the biographical context o f imminent death in these four testaments. As
the previous section suggested, the most consistent textual aspect o f the four
60 Harm W. Hollander, Joseph as an Ethical Model in the Testaments o f the Twelve

Patriarchs (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 7; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 6-12.
61 Ibid., 6-8.
62Though Hollander borders on dichotomization in Joseph as an Ethical Model, he is

much more accurate in the Commentary with de Jonge, where he states “there is a close link
between the exhortatory sections in the Testaments and those which predict what will happen in
the future”; Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, 51.

187
resurrection prophecies is that they all occur in the context o f the patriarch’s imminent
death. In this sense, they bring to light the patriarchs’ steadfast hope in God, even at
their very moment o f death. Through the resurrection prophecies, the patriarchs
heroically face death and point beyond it to the future restoration o f true Israel.
If the last hope o f the patriarchs heroically transcends the inevitability o f their
deaths, their hope also calls increased attention to the authoritative role they will play in
the future life. By warning Israel o f its coming apostasy, the patriarchs consistently
claim that they are absolved o f all responsibility for the tumultuous events o f her
ongoing history.63 For this reason, they cannot be held guilty along with later
generations for Israel’s decline. As those who will worship in the divine presence, even
“at the right hand,” the patriarchs enjoy a unique favor with God, who will welcome
them into his immediate presence. This favor with God at the resurrection is also power
over human beings. The patriarchs will rule over their tribes in the restored Israel o f the
future. These prophecies thus enhance their unique status before God and Israel, thus
lending heightened credence to their ethical discourses. They speak as those whom God
has uniquely elected to reign in the world to come.
63 E.g., T Lev. 10.2.

188
Theodicy64
This promise o f the patriarchs’ future power and rule through the resurrection
also heightens the importance o f Israel at the end o f days. As the ancestral
representatives o f the Jewish people, the future exaltation o f the patriarchs is also the
exaltation o f Israel over her political and supernatural enemies. This event will mark
the definitive reunification o f Israel and put an end to the recurrent loss o f nationhood
that the patriarchs’ descendants would suffer for generations long after their own
deaths.65 Israel as a political kingdom has not, then, passed away out o f the divine plan
for history. God’s promises to the patriarchs are steadfast; and they, in fact, will be
raised from the dead to enjoy their fulfillment in the future.
The Testaments communicate this assurance o f Israel’s future restoration by
juxtaposing fulfilled events in Israel’s history with unfulfilled events in the
eschatological future. Fulfilled events include a broad array o f references to Israel’s sin
and exile. They also include the oppression in Egypt (T. Jos. 20.1), Israel’s original
occupation o f the land {T. Lev. 7.1), the construction o f the Temple in Benjamin (T.
64The term “theodicy” is preserved here as a matter of consistency with the previous
two chapters. It is admittedly more difficult to refer to a “theodicy” in the Testaments than in
the previous two examples, since the eschatological sections of the Testaments lack the kind of
philosophical characteristics noted in 2 Macc and the Jewish Wars. What is intended in this
section is a statement on how the resurrection prophecies function in the vision of Israel’s
history implied in the Testaments. Perhaps the title “the resurrection and the presentation of
Israel’s history,” might have been a more appropriate title. The effort to employ hope in the
resurrection as a means of addressing the problem of death and suffering, however, is consistent
with discussion of theodicy, and this is a concern of the resurrection prophecy in T. Jud.
65The traditions carefully treat these themes in what are typically called the “sin-exile-
restoration” passages: e.g., T. Lev. 10, 14-15, 16; T. Jud. 18.1 and chap. 23; T. Iss. 6; T. Zeb.
9.5-7, 9.9; T. Dan. 5.4a-5.6-9; T. Nap. 4.1-5; T. Gad. 8.2; T. Ash. 7.2-7; T. Ben. 9.1-3); see
Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, 53-56.

189
Ben. 9.2), the priestly status of Levi’s descendants (T. Lev. 8-9), the divided monarchy
(T. Zeb. 9.5), the establishment o f the kingdom through the tribe o f Judah and its later
termination (T'. Jud. 17.6, 22.2), as well as the destruction o f the First Temple (T. Levi
16; T. Jud. 23.3).66 In addition to these events that had certainly been fulfilled by the
time o f the collection’s origins, Christian recension continued to elaborate upon the
fulfilled events o f the patriarchs’ prophecies by making cryptic allusions to the savior’s
advent. The words o f the patriarchs, then, have presumably shown themselves faithful
prophecies o f future events in Israel’s ongoing history.
Through the resurrection prophecies, the patriarchs project this vision o f Israel’s
history far into the future, even to the very consummation o f the age. From the
beginning o f Israel’s history, they are able to see the ultimate destiny o f Israel as a
restored political kingdom in the land. The assurance of this prophecy indicates that the
recurrent patterns o f sin and judgment that have plagued Israel’s history cannot have the
final word. God will restore the chosen people, not simply by the sword or war, but by
supernatural agency. By framing Israel’s history from the time o f the patriarchs’ hopes
to the time o f their fulfillment in the future, the resurrection prophecies affirm that
Israel’s sin and dispersion have not wrested history from the control o f God.
This is the case, not only for Israel’s destiny, but also for the plight o f the
suffering righteous. As the previous section has shown, T. Jud. 25.3 extends the
resurrection hope to those who suffer affliction in this world. This concern for the fate
o f the suffering righteous is reflected more broadly in the collection in a number o f
86 Whether of the first or second is a matter of debate.

190
ways, but it is especially in the paradigmatic life o f Joseph (71 Ben. 3.1-6) that the
collection typically treats this matter.67 His story, in his own words, illustrates that “If,
then, you also walk in the commandments o f the Lord, my children, he shall exalt you
as a result and he shall bless you with good things forever” (71 Jos. 18.1).68 The
resurrection prophecy in 71 Jud. 25.3 has been made to complement this theme. In the
resurrection, God will raise those who, like Joseph, suffer hunger, affliction, false
accusation, and sorrow, into everlasting joy. The patriarchs affirm to their descendants
that God will not abandon the righteous, but will reverse their current state o f afflictions
at the resurrection. In this sense, God is faithful to reward the righteous at the end o f
history. This same concern with final justice is replicated in 71 Ben. ’s resurrection o f all
people for judgment, and in 71 Zeb.'s destruction o f the wicked immediately after the
resurrection o f the righteous. 71 Sim. also describes the subjugation o f hostile nations
prior to the resurrection, and 71 Jud. prophesies the punishment o f Beliar just prior to
the resurrection. The resurrection is thus a significant aspect o f the divine response to
good and evil in the world. These four prophecies proclaim that God ultimately
controls human affairs. They affirm the final reward o f the righteous into a world
where evil and human failure are rampant no more.
Finally, at least one example, 71 Zeb., treats the resurrection as a specific
consolatory response to the sorrows o f death. Zebulon admonishes his children not to
67In addition to 71 Jos. itself, see also 71 Rub. 4.8-10; 71 Zeb. 8.4; 71 Sim. 4.3-7, 5.1; T.
Lev. 13; cf. T. Dan. 1.4-9. Hollander, Joseph as an Ethical Model, 51-62.
68 ’Eav oov Kat upeiq rcopeuGiyce ev xaiq evxoXaiq Kup'iou, xeicva poo, uxj/axrei
npdtq evxauGa tcai euXoyf|<J£i ev dyaGoi*; ei<; auiovaq.

191
be sorrowful at his death, since he shall arise again with rejoicing among his
descendants. The sorrows of death, though real, are not final.
In assessing the rhetorical force o f these speeches as they address their implied
readers, it is important to recognize where the prophecies o f the patriarchs have framed
the contemporary experience of the readers, especially with regard to Israel’s past and
future history. Certainly the readers o f these texts did not live at the time o f the
patriarchs. As a literary device, the testament assumes a set o f conventions in which a
revered ancestor from the sacred past speaks to those who live generations later. In the
testament, the voice o f the ancestor emerges once again to provide instruction
concerning current and future events. The readers thus exist long after the time o f the
patriarchs’ deaths. The literary style o f the testament also assumes that the reader is in
the position o f one who must learn what the patriarch has to share. If there is an
analogue for the readers in the actual text o f the Testaments, it is the children o f the
patriarch, who attend faithfully to the dying words o f their father.
The Testaments, however, do not simply frame the contemporary context o f the
reader with regard to the patriarchal past. In their predictions o f events yet to come,
they also frame the readers’ position in history with a view to the eschatological future.
The moral exhortations which the ancestors have bequeathed to their descendants come
as instructions for participation in the eschatological blessings. Zebulon will rejoice in
the resurrection with his tribe, “as many as keep the law o f the Lord and the

192
commandments of Zebulon their father” (T. Zeb. 10.2).69 In this sense, the resurrection
prophecies are a call o f exhortation to later readers o f the Testaments. They must repent
and follow the ethical teachings o f the patriarchs to be admitted to eschatological life.
The call for obedience to the law and the patriarchs’ words, however, is o f little
benefit for those who keep the law and suffer while doing so. The Testaments
recognize this and proclaim to the suffering righteous that God has not abandoned them
to their sorrows; for as T. Jud. 25.3 promises, “those who died in sorrow shall rise in
joy.”70 The preceding comments on theodicy have proposed that the resurrection is one
o f a variety o f ideas that the authors o f the Testaments employ to affirm God’s care for
the suffering righteous. This affirmation may have embraced the ancient reader as a
consolation amid the troubles o f life. Through the consolation o f the resurrection, the
patriarchs promise to their suffering descendants a dramatic reversal o f fortunes into
eschatological life. Like Joseph, they will be exalted beyond their afflictions into life,
joy, and strength. The theme o f Israel’s reconstitution in the resurrection must have
performed a similar function. Despite the recurrent loss o f kingdom and the apostasy o f
later generations, the faithful could look forward to the future when God would restore
a true Israel in the Land. Complementary hortatory and consolatory functions provide
the best account for the rhetorical force o f these resurrection prophecies.
69For the Greek text see Survey of Attestations. Benjamin’s resurrection prophecy
also urges faith in the Messiah and walldng in holiness as the conditions for being raised “unto
glory” rather than “unto shame” (T.Ben. 10.2-5).
70For the Greek text see Survey of Attestations.

193
Table III: Recurrent Motifs and Expressions
Attestations
Language T. Sim. 6.7 T. Jud. 25 T. Zeb. 10.1-2 T. Ben. 10.6-11
dvaoxriaopai
or morph,
equivalent
“joy”/ “gladness” x
“rejoicing”
“unto life”/ “into x(x2)

life”
risen patriarch
as ruler
reversal of fortunes
Abraham, Issac,
Jacob
judgment
upon wicked
eknit;
71 Enoch, Noah, and Shem are also included.
72The reference is actually in 26.1, which summarizes the eschatological topics of chap. 25.

194
Excursus 2: The Resurrection Prophecy in the Testament o f Benjamin
The final passage o f the Testaments that contains a definitive reference to the
future resurrection o f the dead occurs near the end o f the Testament o f Benjamin, which
is the last discourse o f the entire collection. Since T. Ben. is, in part, a kind o f “resume”
o f previous claims expressed throughout the collection, its structure is rather cursory
and lacks a clear focus in its moral instruction.73 Furthermore, the prophecy here is
pervasively Christian, and indicates how the Christian handlers o f the document
continued to expand the resurrection prophecies with christological statements.74
Chapters 1-2 introduce a dialogue between Benjamin and Joseph, followed in chapters
3-8 by an exhortation that also includes scattered biographical references illustrating the
virtues o f a pure mind. Eschatological topics, including the last Temple, the Messiah,
and the giving o f the spirit to Gentiles, conclude the testament in chapters 9-11. In this
context, the patriarch also gives his prophecy o f a future resurrection o f the dead. After
giving burial instructions, Benjamin dies; and the entire collection comes to an end
(chap. 12).75
After several exhortations to keep the commandments (10.2-5), Benjamin
describes the reward the righteous will have when God reveals the savior to the nations:
Then you will see Enoch, Noah and Shem, and Abraham and Isaac and
73 Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, 411;

Hultg&rd, L 'eschatologie des Testaments, 1:231.
74 See the discussion on The Concept of the Resurrection.
75On the special function of T. Ben. as the conclusion of the Testaments, see also
Hultg&rd, L 'eschatologie des Testaments, 1:230-31; Becker, Untersuchungen zur
Enstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der ZwolfPatriarchen, 380-82; M. de Jonge, “Israel’s
Future in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” 178.

195
Jacob standing on the right hand in gladness.
Then we also shall arise, each (o f us) over our tribe, worshipping the
king o f the heavens, who appeared on earth in the form o f a man
o f lowliness.76
And as many as believed in him on earth shall rejoice together with
him. 7
Then also all shall rise, some unto glory and some unto shame.
And the Lord will judge Israel first concerning (her) iniquity against him,
for they did not believe that God appeared in the flesh as a
deliverer.
And then he shall judge all the nations, as many as did not believe in him
who appeared on earth.
And he will convict Israel by the elect ones o f the nations, even as he
convicted Esau by the Midianites who refused78 to be their
brothers through impurity and idolatry, and they were alienated
from God, not becoming children in the portion o f those who fear
the Lord.
But you, if you walk in holiness before the Lord, you shall also dwell
again in hope with me. And all Israel shall be gathered79 unto the
Lord.80 (10.6-11)81
76MSS k and d add in the margin JiEpi xou xpioxofi. See the critical edition by de
Jonge, Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition, 111.
77MS 1reads ouyxopEWuaiv avrop; MS d reads croyxwpiaEi auxwv; MS c reads
Xapqaovxai cruv auxtp.
78MSS bkgl read drcaxqaaaiv; MSS deaf read dnooxqaaaiv.
79MSS kdeaf read ouvax0qoea0£.
80Hultg&rd reads rcpoq epe, “unto me”; see L 'eschatologie des Testaments, 11:271.
81x o x e 6\Jfeo0e' Ev©x, Note Kai Iq p Kai ’APpaap tcai ’IoaaK icai ’Iaiabp
aviaxapEvouq e k 8 e£ ic o v e v dyaXXuxoEi.
x o x e icai rpxeiq avaaxqaop£0a EKaaxoq a ti mcqTtxpov qpwv, rcpocncuvo-uvxeq xov
BaaiAia xcov oupavwv xov e j i i y f |q <j>av£vxa pop<|>q dvGpdwtoo
xa7t£ivdxjE0j;-
Kai oaoi E7iioxE\xrav aox<p eni yqq, auyxapqaovxai aircip.
x o x e icai rcavxeq avaaxqoovxai, oi psv Eiq Soijav, oi 8 e Eiq axipiav,
icai KpivEt Kupioq e v rrpdrcoiq xov ’IapaqX rcEpi xqq e ’k ; auxov dSixiaq, oxi
apayEvapsvov 0 e o v e v oapKi EAE-uGEptoxqv o u k £7uaxe'uaav.
Kai x o x e KpivEi Jtavxa xa £0vq oca owe ErtiaxEixjav aiixq) E7U yq; 4>avevxi-
Kai e X e y ^ e i e v xoiq EKteKxoiq xtov eB vcov xov ’ I a p a q X , ciarcep qXEy^p xov ’ Hoaii
e v xoiq MaSivaioiq xoiq aJiEtOqaaaiv aSEXjjio'uq avxcov y£VEO0ai 8ia xqq
jcopvEiaq Kai xqq eiSroXoXaxpEiaq- Kai drcqXXoxpubGqoav 0 e o u ,
yEVOpEVOl OV>XEKVa EVpEplSl (JjofioupEVCOV icupiov.
upsiq 8 e Eav 7top£uqa0£ e v ayiaapcp Kaxa Jtpoaamov icuptou, jiaXiv KaxoucqaEXE

196
This passage, containing obvious Christian elements, reiterates previous expectations of
a resurrection (lipeiq dvaaxT|a6|i£0a) in “joy” or “gladness” found in T. Sim. and T.
Jud.. The resurrection also leads the righteous into a state o f eschatological worship
“on the right hand.” Though it may escape an initial survey o f the passage, a very
careful progression o f resurrections is prophesied,82 beginning with Enoch and
continuing until all are raised. First, Enoch, Noah, and Shem arise, the faithful servants
o f God who lived prior to Abraham. Then, the trio o f Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob arise.
Third, the twelve patriarchs themselves (“we”) arise to preside over their original tribes,
as in T. Jud. Fourth, all shall arise - both the wicked and the good - and God will judge
Israel and the nations according to whether or not they believed in the Messiah. More
than any other previous testament, T. Ben. asserts the universalist dimensions o f the
resurrection, not simply for the patriarchs or even for Israel, but for all.83 The passage
closes with a final exhortation that if Benjamin’s descendants will continue in holiness,
they will “dwell again in hope” (see below) with the patriarch, as all Israel is gathered
together before the Lord.
ejc eXruSi ev epo'r icai cruvaxBijaexai nou; ’Iapaf|X rtpoq lcupiov.
82Ulrichsen, Die Grundschrift der Testamente, 248.
83Hultg&rd, L 'eschatologie des Testaments, 1:231.

197
Summation o f Chapters 2-4: Style, Theology, Rhetoric
In conclusion to this section, it is important to summarize the most important
stylistic, theological, and rhetorical features o f these speeches that profess belief in the
resurrection o f the dead, immortality, and the future life.
Style: As noted in the introduction to this section, these references to faith in the
resurrection, immortality, and the future life were specifically chosen because they
emerge primarily in speeches delivered by figures who participate in the action o f
Jewish historical works. Among the three works surveyed here, these professions of
hope in the future life are repeated in numerous contexts, a stylistic phenomenon that
reiterates their significance within the stories these documents relate. There is, for the
most part, a basic continuity in the language used for the future life in the individual
texts; yet there is also a sufficiently broad terminology among the examples that each
case makes a genuine contribution to the recurrence and development o f the motif.
These speeches are especially numerous within the narrative context o f imminent death,
either o f the speaker or o f some other figure. Where they occur in this type o f context,
these professions o f faith in the future life reflect upon their speakers in positive ways
that accentuate their heroic faith in God, despite the threat o f persecution and death.
Despite this consistent feature, the theology o f the individual speeches cannot be limited
to explaining the death o f an individual character, since they clearly deal with larger
questions o f creation, history, theodicy, and divine justice. In some cases, the speeches
surveyed even violate the verisimilitude o f the narrative context. In these instances, it
appears to be the case that that the author now takes an especially strong hand in

198
promulgating his own philosophical and theological views on these issues, even when
this does not seem entirely appropriate to the narrative logic.
Theology. If one only compares the varied concepts o f the future life that appear
in these three documents, it becomes clear that they have very different understandings
about what the future life will be. To an extent, this can be accounted for by
recognizing that within antiquity there was no “orthodox” teaching on the form the
future life would take. More than this, however, the theological diversity and flexibility
o f these versions o f the future life indicate the extent to which individual authors shaped
the theological dimensions o f the future life to fit the more comprehensive Tendenzen o f
their respective presentations o f history. For 2 Macc, this involved articulating a faith
in the future life that could account for the deaths that the Jewish martyrs suffered under
the covenant. For the Jewish Wars, it was necessary to articulate aspects o f Jewish
hope in philosophical conceptualities that would entertain the sensibilities o f Hellenistic
readers and praise Judaism as a philosophy with its own venerable tenets and schools.
For the Testaments, the future life became the hope o f a true Israel restored to the land
beyond its recurrent cycles o f sin and exile. This diversity indicates the extent to which
the authors o f these speeches have integrated the future life into their larger literary
presentation o f the history o f the Jewish people.
Rhetoric: Each o f these works shapes the presentation o f Jewish history by
rhetorical methods that praise certain ideas and values before the eyes o f their readers.
In this sense, they attempt to shape current perceptions, as they relate the events o f the
past. The presentation o f the future life is among the rhetorical devices that allow these
documents to make such impressions. For 2 Macc, the resurrection hope encouraged

199
endangered pietists to maintain confidence in God’s ultimate power to reward the
faithful even in spite o f the necessity o f dying for the law. In the Jewish Wars, the
presentation o f faith in the future life affirms a cosmic order o f retribution and reward
that stands above the presentation o f Josephus’ history. In the Testaments, the diverse
appeals to the resurrection often include analogous exhortations to keep the commands
and the words o f the patriarch. It seems appropriate, then, to speak o f the hortatory
force o f these texts, since they call readers to follow in those virtues that will lead to
everlasting life. In emphasizing the hortatory force o f the passages, however, one must
also recognize the consolatory aspects o f these texts, since they present to their readers
a future hope that encourages faith in ultimate reward despite current tragedy and loss.
Finally, at least two o f our examples (2 Macc and B.J.) betray a certain didacticism in
their presentation o f the future life that suggests that the idea o f the future life itself was
important to them and worthy o f the confidence o f those who would read their works.
These aspects o f style, theology, and rhetoric provide an independent
comparative-literary measure for assessing Luke’s rhetorical strategy in the
development o f Paul’s resurrection hope as an aspect o f his Jewish piety. Furthermore,
these texts provide three partial examples o f the larger range o f ideas that were at stake
in Jewish beliefs about the resurrection o f the dead, immortality, and eternal life. In the
following treatment o f Paul’s resurrection piety, the comparative materials from 2
Maccabees, the Jewish Wars, and the Testaments will be used in three ways: they are
used to examine the stylistic features o f the speech materials in Acts; they are used to
assess aspects o f the theological content o f Paul’s resurrection hope; most importantly,
they are used to clarify the rhetoricalfunctions that professions o f faith in the future life

200
serve in the narration o f Paul’s preaching and defense. Chapter 5 begins with a
thorough survey o f the texts developing Paul’s resurrection hope. Based upon this
survey, the theological-eschatological assumptions o f Paul’s resurrection hope are
explored in Chapter 6. Finally, the rhetorical dimensions o f Paul’s resurrection hope
are pursued in terms of their devices o f heroization, theodicy, and rhetoric in Chapter 7.

CHAPTER 5:
THE RESURRECTION-JUDGMENT MOTIF IN PAUL’S
PREACHING AND DEFENSE
The preceding survey has shown how the speeches in 2 Maccabees, the Jewish
Wars, and the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs incorporate professions o f faith in
the future life into their speech materials in order to affirm a larger order o f retribution
and divine guidance that governs the events they describe. This survey raises the
possibility that Paul’s faith in the future resurrection and final judgment may perform
analogous rhetorical functions within Acts. Before pursuing this possibility, however, it
is necessary to chart the emergence and development o f the resurrection motif within
the narrative context o f Paul’s preaching and defense, since it is precisely here that
Luke develops a theology o f the resurrection that accentuates its universality and
futurity.1 O f special significance in this survey is the relationship between the
resurrection m otif and three recurrent narrative contexts within which it is consistently
developed: the speech materials o f Paul’s preaching and defense, disputes among the
“schools,” and the progress o f Paul’s trials.
The Resurrection in Luke-Acts Prior to Acts 17
In order to clarify the distinctive direction the resurrection m otif takes in the
scenes o f Paul’s preaching and defense, a brief summary o f statements about the
resurrection in Luke-Acts prior to Acts 17 is necessary. This is especially important,
1E.g., as opposed simply to an affirmation of Jesus’ accomplished resurrection in the

past.
201

202
since Luke prepares his implied authorial audience for Paul’s cryptic references to
resurrection in a variety o f ways prior to Acts 17.2 Mention o f the resurrection prior to
Acts 17 takes essentially three forms: 1. Jesus refers to the future resurrection in his
own teachings (Luke 14:14, 20:35); 2. Jesus and the Scriptures prophesy his own
resurrection from the dead (Luke 9:45, 18:34); 3. The apostles proclaim and defend the
resurrection o f Jesus according to the Scripture (Acts 1:22; 2:28-31; 3:15, 26; 4:2, 33;
10:40-42; 13:30-37).
Jesus Refers to the Future Resurrection in His Own Teachings
In at least two passages o f Luke’s Gospel, Jesus refers to the future resurrection.
First, in an exclusively Lukan exhortation on how to attend and host feasts (Luke 14:7-
14), Jesus concludes his teaching (v. 14) with the claim that those who hold feasts for
the poor, crippled, lame, and blind will be rewarded “in the resurrection o f the just” (ev
xf) dvaaxdoei xcov Sncauov). As Joel B. Green perceptively notes, this is the first time
in the Lukan narrative that “the resurrection” is mentioned; and it is no coincidence that
Jesus’ hearers are Pharisees.3 This terminology for the resurrection is anomalous in
2 In the following treatment the terms “implied authorial audience” and “implied
reader” are used to distinguish the reader of Luke-Acts’ comprehensive story from the
“narrative audience” in the text. The latter witness only particular scenes but have no
comprehensive access to Luke-Acts as a whole. The distinction is an important one, since the
implied authorial audience is privy to knowledge and themes that are only partially revealed to
an individual narrative audience in limited ways that often create misunderstanding and irony.
My use of these terms is influenced by, but modified from, Vemon Robbins, “The Social
Location of the Implied Author of Acts,’’ in The Social World o f Luke Acts: Models for
Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 305-32.
3Joel B. Green, The Gospel o f Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997),
554.

203
Luke-Acts, since no other text in either book mentions a “resurrection o f the just” in
isolation from that o f the unjust.4 Due to this distinctiveness, Conzelmann has
suggested that the reference betrays a “pre-Lukan view o f the resurrection.”5 One
should not, however, make too much o f this apparent inconsistency. Instead o f
proposing a consistent theology of the resurrection,6 Jesus appeals to the resurrection
only as a future time when God will fully reward unrecognized acts o f mercy.7
A second reference to the eschatological resurrection occurs in Jesus’
controversy with the Sadducees, who appear only here in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 20:27-
39).8 In a special Lukan addition to the synoptic tradition (cf. // Mark 12:18-27; Matt
22:23-33), Jesus introduces an antithesis between “the sons o f this age” (oi uioi xou
aicovoq xouxou [20:34]), who marry and are given in marriage, and “those considered
worthy o f obtaining that age and of the resurrection from the dead” (oi 5e
K axa4 i(O 0 ev x E < ; t o o aiwvaq e k e 'iv o u x u x e iv icai xf|<; dvaaxdaecoq xfjq e k vexpcov [20:35]),
who neither marry nor are given in marriage. The clear distinction between “this” age
4Conzelmann, Theology o f St. Luke, 110; Luke T. Johnson, Acts o f the Apostles (Sacra
Pagina 5; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992), 413; Puech, La croyance des esseniens,
1:426.
6Maddox offers a similar qualification (Purpose o f Luke-Acts, 130.)
7Johnson compares this especially with the “eschatological saying” of Luke 13:29, and
further associates Luke 6:32-35; Acts 23:6, 24:15; The Gospel o f Luke (Sacra Pagina 3;
Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1991), 225; see also Talbert’s careful comparison of Luke
20:27-39 and Acts 23:6-9 in Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre o f Luke-Acts
(SBLMS 20; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974), 17-I8ff.
8Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 313. They will, of course, make a dramatic return in the
book of Acts (4:1, 5:17, 23:6-8), where they object to the preaching of the resurrection. See
below.

204
and “that” one is exclusive to the Lukan redaction, as is the equation o f the latter
with the resurrection life. Luke uses the terminology o f “resurrection” to distinguish
between two epochs (Luke 20:35). The eschatological assumption implied in this
distinction is that the resurrection o f the dead will inaugurate a future eschatological age
that stands distinct from the current age.9 Unlike the previous reference to the future
resurrection in Luke 14:14, the reference in Luke 20:35 uses the terminology Etc vetcpwv
which implies a universal resurrection o f the dead - not merely a resurrection o f the
righteous. A hint o f reward at the resurrection may be implied in the claim that some
will be “considered worthy” (represented by the passivum divinum Kaxai;ico0evx£<;) o f
the resurrection.10 These are specifically designated in the Lukan redaction as “sons o f
God” and “sons o f the resurrection” (xq<; d v a a x d a e a x ; tuo'i) in v. 36.11
Taken together, these two passages, though slightly inconsistent with each other
in terminology, provide the only clear textual evidence for a future resurrection in Luke-
Acts prior to the resurrection-judgment motif that is developed in the Pauline speeches.
Despite their inconsistency and brevity, these uniquely Lukan traditions o f Jesus’
teachings indicate that the resurrection was part o f Luke’s theological vocabulary for
9Green, Gospel o f Luke, 720.
10Johnson, Acts o f the Apostles, 413; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Gospel according to Luke (2
vols; Anchor Bible Commentary 28; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1981), 2:1305.
11An additional note on the Lukan redaction is necessary, given the direct juxtaposition
of Jesus’ controversy with the Sadducees (Luke 20:27-40) with the question concerning David’s
son (Luke 20:41-44). The quotation of Ps 110.1 in the question concerning David’s son will be
directly related to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead as Messiah and heir of David when it is
cited in Acts 2:34-35. Neither of the parallel accounts of the controversy (Matt 22:23-33; Mark
12:18-27) or the question about David’s son (Matt 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37) directly
juxtaposes these materials. It is possible that Luke juxtaposes the two, since he views both
passages as essentially related to the question of the resurrection.

205
describing the future reward o f the righteous and the age to come. Luke’s
redactional measures, of course, serve a larger narrative function. By attributing the
resurrection belief to Jesus himself, Luke has characterized him as a faithful believer in
the reward that awaits the righteous in the world to come. This aspect o f
characterization significantly foreshadows the portrayal o f Paul that will emerge much
later in Luke-Acts. Like Jesus before him, Paul will assert his own faith in a
resurrection o f the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15); and like Jesus, he will also
participate in intellectual sparring with Sadducees and other skeptics concerning the
resurrection (17:18; 23:6-11; 26:8).
Jesus and the Scriptures Prophesy His Own Resurrection from the Dead
Despite these two brief Lukan references to Jesus’ faith in a future resurrection,
the overwhelming majority o f resurrection language in Luke-Acts refers directly to
Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. Such language typically occurs in the context o f
Jesus’ own teachings or in the apostles’ proclamation.
In the former case, Luke has faithfully reported the three Markan passion
predictions (Mark 8:30-33 // Luke 9:21-22; Mark 9:30-32 // Luke 9:43b-45; Mark
10:32-34 // Luke 18:31-34), two o f which directly mention the resurrection (Luke 9:22;
18:33). The reports themselves contain little redactional initiative on Luke’s part. The
most significant Lukan addition to the tradition comes by way o f conclusion to the
second and third predictions, where Luke accentuates the fact that the disciples have not

206
yet understood the saying (Luke 9:45; 18:34).12 This provides an early indication
that the Lukan redactions o f the sayings serve the larger narrative function of preparing
the way for two o f the resurrection appearances (24:13-25, 36-53),13 when the risen
Jesus himself must open the eyes o f the disciples (24:31,45) and even remind them o f
these three passion predictions (24:44; cf. 24:6-7). Even the empty tomb itself will
prove inconclusive evidence to the disciples (24:11).14 The resurrection o f Jesus is not
merely presented as an accomplished event within the divine plan; it is an on-going
mystery whose significance is expanded in multiple dimensions throughout Luke-Acts.
In both o f the resurrection appearances, Jesus himself must reveal the mystery o f
the divine plan to his disciples through the exposition o f the Scripture. First, there is the
revelation on the Emmaus road (24:13-25). This appearance account brings to a climax
Luke’s treatment of the resurrection in the Gospel and sets the tone for the apostolic
preaching o f Jesus’ resurrection in Acts. On the way to Emmaus, the risen Jesus
illumines the disciples’ lack o f understanding through the exposition o f “all that the
prophets spoke” (tract v oiq eXaXr|aav oi icpo^fjxai). Second, in the resurrection
appearance to the eleven (24:36-53), the same claim is recapitulated as Luke concludes
his Gospel. These two episodes bear a common message: “Beginning with Moses and
12Conzelmann, Theology o f St. Luke, 56, 59, 74, 113.
13This is especially the case in Luke 18:31, where Luke is already framing the
proclamation of the resurrection in the language of “all the things written by the prophets.” For
this formulation, see Maddox, Purpose o f Luke-Acts, 141-42. Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 1:54,
127, 199, 227,253-54,258-59, 278-79) also links this “ignorance” of Jesus’ mission with Luke
2:49-50, 17:25, 24:12; Acts 3:17, 13:27. One might add Luke 24:16 and Acts 17:29-30. See
also Johnson, Gospel o f Luke, 279.
14Green, Gospel o f Luke, 841.

207
all the prophets” (dp^dpevoq and Mojuoecx; Kai and rcavxcov xcov rcpo<|rnxcov), Jesus
interprets “in all the Scriptures” (ev rcaaaiq xaiq ypacjxxiq), “all the things written in the
law o f Moses and in the prophets and in the psalms concerning me” (rcavxa id
yeypappeva ev xcp vopcp Mcoikrecoq Kai xoiq 7ipo<t>rixaiq Kai iJfaXpoiq jcepi epou). Both the
resurrection appearances in Luke’s Gospel reveal the same essential theme that the
Scripture has been fulfilled in Jesus’ resurrection. This revelation, o f course, must also
be accompanied by direct appearances and the breaking o f bread (24:35, 43). Together,
these signs resolve the problem o f the disciples’ misunderstanding. Yet this does not
end Luke’s story. The resurrection o f Jesus also provides for the commissioning of
“witnesses” who will proclaim the mystery o f the resurrection throughout Acts.
In this dramatic unveiling o f prophetic fulfillment, Luke presents his decisive
answer to the problem o f Jesus’ suffering and the mystery o f his resurrection: all this
has been secretly contained within the Scripture.15 Luke will not disclose the specific
texts that he has in mind, though he names Moses, the prophets, and even the psalms.
Using the word “all,” Luke refers to the Scripture holistically in these resurrection
appearances.16 The entire counsel o f God has pointed to the Messiah’s death and
resurrection, from the words that Moses spoke to the people to their recent fulfillment in
15Schubert, “The Structure and Significance of Luke 24,” 165-86. One may also note
the concluding words of the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man: “If they do not hear Moses
and the prophets, they will not even be persuaded if one should rise from the dead” (Ei
Moriioecix; Kai xcov jrpo<t>T|xcov ouk aKouotxnv, oi)S eav xiq ek veKpcov avaaxfj
7t£io0f|oovxat; Luke 16:31). See Cadbury, Making o f Luke-Acts, 278-79.
16Fitzmyer uses the term “global”; Gospel According to Luke, 2:1559,65. See also
Green, Gospel o f Luke, 856.

208
Jesus’ passion and resurrection.17 This “all” o f the Scripture will be defined with
specific textual citations in the speeches o f Acts 2:22-36 and 13:30-37.18
To summarize, Luke’s Gospel conveys no sense o f the relationship between the
future resurrection of 7:14 and 20:35 and the accomplished resurrection o f Jesus in
chapter 24. There is no effort anywhere in the Gospel to relate the one to the other.
The Gospel ends as the climactic resurrection appearances o f chapter 24 call the
readers’ attention decisively toward Jesus’ own resurrection from the dead.
The Apostles Proclaim and Defend the Resurrection o f Jesus
The fulfillment theology o f Luke 24 continues to provide the most dominant
feature o f the apostolic proclamation o f Jesus’ resurrection in Acts 2 and 13.19 In fact,
Jesus’ resurrection as an event o f scriptural fulfillment in Luke 24 provides one o f the
most significant literary transitions from the Gospel to the first few chapters o f Acts.20
An additional account of the second resurrection appearance in Luke 24:36-49 is
apparently described in Acts 1. Yet in this alternative account, there is an important
difference, as Eric Franklin has argued: “Luke 24 set the [resurrection] event in the life
17In Squire’s statement of Luke’s ‘‘theology of the divine plan,” he classifies these and
other references to scriptural fulfillment as “second-level” motifs which support the central
claim of Luke-Acts: that the plan of God is working itself out in the events which Luke is
narrating; “The Plan of God in the Acts of the Apostles,” 22-23.
18Haacker shows that this includes not only scriptural prophecies, but also the
messianic hopes of the pre-history (Luke 1-2); “Das Bekenntnis des Paulus zur Hoffnung
Israels,” 447.
19Schubert, “The Final Cycle of Speeches,” 1-2.
20C. Sleeper, “Pentecost and Resurrection,” JBL 84 (1965): 389-99, esp. pages 389-92;
Green, Gospel o f Luke, 856.

o f Jesus, Acts 1 in that (sic) o f the life o f the early Church.”21 Jesus’ presentation o f
himself “alive” to chosen apostles establishes the narrative context for his final
instructions to the eleven and his subsequent ascension in Acts 1:3-l 1.
According to Robert Tannehill, this transition from Luke 24 to Acts 1
decelerates the dramatic speed o f the earlier resurrection appearances by having Jesus
remain with the disciples for a forty-day period o f instruction.22 This more extended
visit prepares the disciples for their imminent preaching mission. The relationship
between the resurrection and the coming mission is evident in Acts 1:22, where Judas’
successor is commissioned as “a witness together with us o f his [Jesus’] resurrection”
(pdpTupa xfiq dvaaxdaeax; avrob cruv fipiv). The apostolic vocation as “witnesses” o f
the risen Jesus is affirmed throughout Acts (cf. also 1:8; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 6:3;
10:39-43; 13:22, 31; 14:3; 22:15-16; 23:4, 11; 26:22). The content o f the preaching in
Acts (especially, the sermons o f Acts 2 and 13) also reflects the vocation o f bearing
faithful witness o f Jesus’ resurrection according to the Scripture.23
In the second half o f Peter’s Pentecost Sermon (2:22-36), Luke fully illustrates
his abiding concern with Jesus’ resurrection as the definitive sign o f his ordination by
God and the basis for the entire apostolic mission. Peter proclaims Jesus’ resurrection
21 Eric Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology o f Luke-Acts
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 35, cf. 36-41; see also the comprehensive treatment of
Mikeal C. Parsons, The Departure o f Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratives in Context
(JSNTSup 21; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 149-50, and especially page 198.
“ Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:10; Spencer, Acts, 24-25.
23Though it is not my intention to explore the christological implications of this

transition, it should be noted that in C.F.D. Moule’s seminal treatment of the christology of
Acts, he classified “the resurrection as the Christological watershed dividing the Gospel from
the Acts”; “The Christology of Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, 165.

210
as the direct fulfillment of the Scripture. Luke is far more specific in this case about
which “Scripture” he has in mind. He specifically identifies his source for the
prophecies as David, the historical Patriarch o f Israel (2:28-31), who spoke beforehand
concerning things that would befall the coming Messiah.24 Luke’s method o f
exposition throughout the chapter reflects sophisticated technical exegesis.25 Through
the Joel citation (2:17-31) Peter corrects the misunderstanding (2:12-13) that initially
surrounds the Pentecost event. This is not an episode o f drunkenness, but the
dispensation o f God’s Spirit according to prophecy. This clarification o f
misunderstanding, however, does not end the speech: The coming o f the Spirit is also a
further sign o f Jesus’ exaltation as Lord and Messiah. This is signaled especially in the
transition between the Joel citation and the remainder o f the speech, where the prophecy
that “whoever calls upon the name o f the Lord shall be saved” (2:21) moves directly
into a narrative summary o f God’s recent work in Jesus o f Nazareth (2:22-24),
especially his foreordained suffering and resurrection (2:23-24). Through the
resurrection, Jesus is exalted as this “Lord” in whose name salvation and forgiveness
from sins are offered (2:38-40).
These claims are tightly summarized as Peter draws near the conclusion o f his
speech (2:32-33): 1) Through the resurrection, God has exalted Jesus as Lord and
Messiah. 2) As exalted Lord and Messiah, Jesus pours forth the promise o f the Holy
24 Eduard Schweizer, “The Concept o f the Davidic ‘Son of God’ in Acts and Its Old
Testament Background,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, 186-93; Robert F. O’Toole, “Christ’s
Resurrection in Acts 13.13-52,” Biblica 60 (1969) 361-72, esp. pages 366-68.
25 Donald Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation o f the Old Testament

in Early Christianity (J?bi\ade\phia: Fortress Press, 1988), 146-50.

211
Spirit. And they are recapitulated in Peter’s concluding dialogue with the hearers o f
the speech (2:37-40): 1) The name o f Jesus, the exalted Lord and Messiah, has now
become the divinely sanctioned means o f repentance, forgiveness o f sin, and salvation
(2:38,40). 2) The promise o f the Spirit will continue to be poured out upon all who
call upon this name (2:38b-39).
Within this larger argument, the scriptural expositions o f Ps 16:8-11 and 110:1
indicate that by raising Jesus from the dead God has exalted him as the Lord and
Messiah in direct fulfillment o f David’s ancestral hopes. The hope o f David in Ps 16:8-
11 for deliverance from death and physical corruption cannot have been fulfilled in his
own personal identity, since his bones lay cold in the grave. But though David’s
remains saw corruption and were confined to the grave, his hopes o f deliverance from
death were not in vain, since God would raise his descendant, the Messiah, in direct
fulfillment o f his own prophetic words.26 Thus, by raising Jesus from the dead, God has
demonstrated that Jesus o f Nazareth is the Messiah. The concluding exposition o f Ps
110:1 further indicates this, yet now with more specific reference to the terminology o f
“ Lord” (2:34-36). The summary statement o f v. 36 recapitulates both expositions and
concludes that through the resurrection God “made” Jesus Lord and Messiah. The
apostles are witnesses o f this exaltation.
26Gert J. Steyn suggests that the importance of David for these quotations is signaled by
a change in person among the quotations of Acts 2, from God (Ps 2:7; Isa 55:3) to David
himself (Ps 15 [16]: 8-11); see Septuagint Quotations in the Context o f the Petrine and Pauline
Speeches o f the Acta Apostolorum (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 12;
Kampen: Pharos, 1995), 184-85.

212
Further sermons reiterate this concern with Jesus’ resurrection as his
messianic exaltation. Peter’s sermon in Solomon’s Portico, though generally less
concerned with the resurrection than with the response o f the religious leaders, is
consistent with Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 and reiterates that the apostles are witnesses of
Jesus’ resurrection (3:15, 26). Paul’s sermon to the Jews o f Pisidian Antioch (13:16-41)
is similarly preoccupied with David’s prophecies concerning Christ’s resurrection
(13:30-37) and the apostles as witnesses o f the risen Jesus “to the people” (13:31).27
Paul himself, though not present in the story in Luke 24 and Acts 1, can also claim to be
“a witness” (22:15, 26:16, 22; cf. 23:11) o f the risen Jesus.28 Like the other disciples,
his eyes have been opened by the risen one (9:8-18, 22:11). Though Peter and Paul
were once ignorant o f the mysteries o f divine necessity, their respective encounters with
the risen Jesus have now opened their eyes to the Scripture’s decrees concerning the
suffering and resurrection o f the Messiah.29 These sermons continue to develop the
significance o f Jesus’ resurrection in Luke’s story, illumining its mystery progressively,
in multiple episodes in the narrative, through reflection upon the Scripture.
In conclusion to this brief summary, the vast majority o f resurrection language
in Luke-Acts prior to Acts 17 refers directly to Jesus’ own resurrection from the dead.
This mystery o f the divine plan receives elaboration and clarification throughout Acts.
27 Darrell Bock, “Scripture and the Realisation of God’s Promises,” in Witness to the
Gospel, 53-54.
28Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:24. On the problem of the relationship between Paul
and earlier “witnesses” of the resurrection, see Haenchen, Acts o f the Apostles, 411; and
Tannehill’s response in Narrative Unity, 2:169.
29Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:20-21.

213
Among the numerous passages just cited in items 2 and 3, the promise-fulfillment
m otif is the overwhelming theological message o f Jesus’ resurrection.30 By raising the
Jesus from the dead, God has definitively answered all that the Scripture has promised,
vindicating Jesus o f Nazareth in the presence o f those who have crucified him and
ordaining him as the scriptural “Lord” and “Messiah.” There is, however, no clear and
sustained attempt to relate Jesus’ own resurrection to the eschatological resurrection.
Only two cryptic references to “eternal life” in Acts 13:46 and 48 could be
interpreted in this way. Yet these references do not even use the terminology of
“resurrection,” nor do they relate eternal life soteriologically to Jesus’ resurrection,
despite Robert F. O ’Toole’s attempt to demonstrate that they do.31 Furthermore, the
brief reference o f Acts 4:2 that the apostles were “proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection
from the dead” (KaxayyeXXeiv ev xqj ’Ir|crou xf|v av d ax aaiv xf|v etc veicpaiv)32 does
illustrate that Luke can name Jesus’ resurrection in relationship to a more general
terminology for the resurrection. These three passages certainly foreshadow aspects o f
the resurrection-judgment language in the Pauline speeches. Standing alone, however,
these brief references can hardly serve as the basis for identifying Jesus’ resurrection
30 Hansen, “The Preaching and Defense of Paul,” 300-01.
31 O’Toole, “Christ’s Resurrection,” 368-72.
32 This phrase may assume the same relationship between Jesus’ resurrection and the
future eschatological resurrection implied in the trial scenes. See Conzelmann, Theology o f St.
Luke, 205; F.F. Bruce, Acts o f the Apostels: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990; orig. 1951), 148. Barrett classifies the relationship as
instrumental, “proclaiming the resurrection from the dead by means of Jesus” (Acts o f the
Apostles, 1:220). Ben Witherington, HI, concurs; The Acts o f the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), 190. Bruce notes that manuscript D
negates this tendency by reversing the syntax: avayyeXeiv xov ’ I t i o o O v ev xp avaaxdaei
xtov veicpaiv.

214
with the eschatological resurrection o f the dead.33 Luke does not fully and
emphatically solidify the connection between Jesus’ resurrection and the future
resurrection until his distinctive development o f the resurrection m otif in the Pauline
sermons and forensic speeches. It is important, however, to recognize that when Luke
does return to the issue o f “resurrection” in these chapters, he has already informed his
implied authorial audience concerning the certainty o f Jesus’ resurrection from the
dead, prophesied in the Scripture and proclaimed by faithful witnesses.
The Resurrection-Judgment M otif in Paul’s Preaching and Defense
Luke’s further development o f the theology o f the resurrection in the scenes of
Paul’s preaching and defense builds upon his previous treatment o f Jesus’ resurrection
by relating his resurrection directly to the future resurrection and eschato logical
judgment. This relationship is yet another facet o f the mystery o f the resurrection that
Luke’s story develops. Paul’s preaching mission (15:36-20:38), and his arrest and trial
(21:27-26:32)34 provide the narrative context within which this distinctive development
takes place. In four diverse scenes, Paul bears witness to his faith in the resurrection of
the dead, an idea that evokes an array o f responses from his hearers in the text (narrative
33Pace Conzelmann, Theology o f St. Luke, 205; and Tannehill, Narrative Unity,
2:319n22. Only after Acts 17:31 and 26:23 are taken into consideration, may the three passages
noted above imply a cryptic association between Jesus’ resurrection and the future resurrection.
34The identification of textual units assumes that the separation of Paul and Barnabas
(15:36ff.), which transpires immediately after the Jerusalem Council (15:1-35), sets Paul on the
preaching mission that will culminate in his sermon before the Ephesian elders (20:17-38). The
next major textual unit is transitional in nature and relates Paul’s journey to Jerusalem to
worship in the Temple (21:1-26). Paul’s arrest and trials (21:27-26:32) follow fast upon his
entrance into the Temple, and lead inevitably to his travel to Rome (27:1-30).

21 5
audience), including affirmation, curiosity, misunderstanding, and occasional
outrage. Against this array o f responses from multiple narrative audiences, Paul’s
consistent faith in the resurrection portrays him as one who is unyieldingly faithful to
Jewish ancestral hope in the resurrection, despite constant misunderstanding and
endangerment. These four scenes also allow Luke to underscore his theology o f the
resurrection by measuring it over and against the responses o f Paul’s narrative
audiences in Athens, Jerusalem, and Caesarea.
The Resurrection and the Athenian Episode
Criticism o f Paul’s visit to Athens in Acts 17:16-34 has traditionally been
concerned with its sources3S and especially with what it illustrates about “that
extraordinary confrontation between Christianity and philosophy which was destined to
continue through the following centuries and to determine the entire history o f the
Occident.”36 The pursuit o f these perennial concerns, though certainly valid, has often
distracted from another decisive aspect o f the Athenian incident: Luke’s concern for
the resurrection at the beginning (17:18), climax (17:31), and denouement o f the entire
affair (17:32).37 Luke virtually forces this strange matter o f the resurrection upon the
unsuspecting Athenians. This recognition provides the basis for a reading o f the entire
episode in terms o f Luke’s further development o f the resurrection theme in Acts. The
35See Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 554-56.
36Conzelmann, “The Address of Paul on the Areopagus,” 217.
37Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 450: “Die Rede ist durch die Verkundigung der
Auferstehung motiviert, vl8, und sie endet mit derselben.”

216
Athenian episode recapitulates Luke’s earlier concern with Jesus’ resurrection in the
speech materials o f Acts 2 and 13. But as the following commentary will show, this is
no mere reiteration. By reviving his concern with the resurrection in a new narrative
context, Luke develops the m otif in striking new directions that anticipate the trial
scenes o f Acts 22-26.
In this sense, the Athenian episode, though peculiar, is not, as Jervell has argued,
“a foreign body” in Acts.38 It should not be divorced from discussion o f the
resurrection motif in the trial scenes, as has too often been the case. It shares with the
coming trial scenes, (1) an emphasis upon the relationship between Jesus’ resurrection
and the future resurrection-judgment; (2) a setting in conflicts between rival sectarians;
and (3) a re-emerging concern for “the resurrection” as an important issue in the speech
materials, one that instigates a variety o f responses among Paul’s narrative audiences.
The Narrative Introduction: The narrative introduction (17:16-21) to Paul’s
Areopagus speech reveals his outrage at the Athenians’ idolatry (17:16), a response that
immediately differentiates him from the inhabitants o f this setting. After his usual
teaching in the synagogue (17:17a), Paul disputes (SieXeyeTO) in the agora with all who
pass by there (17:17b) and meets “some o f the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers”:
And some began saying, “What would39 this
38 Jervell, The Unknown Paul, 17; Apostelgeschichte, 452: “Die Areopag-Rede ist ein
Fremdkorper sowohl im Neuen Testament als auch in den lukanischen Werken.” He even calls
the speech, “Nichtlukanische” (455). See the introduction on Dibelius, Norden, and Loisy.
39 The potential optative implies polite disdain. See C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book o f
New Testament Greek (2 ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994; orig. 1953),
151.

‘seed-picker’40 wish to say?” But others,41 “He seems42 to be a proclaimer43
of foreign divinities”;44 for he was preaching the good news45 o f Jesus
and the resurrection. (17:18)46
Paul’s preaching o f the resurrection initiates a divided response from the philosophers.
Some o f them dismiss him derisively as a philosophical pretender, while others assume
that he is a herald for daimones foreign to Athens (17:18). From the vantage o f the
40The demonstrative, “this,” is “used in a contemptuous sense” (BDF §290.6). The

translation hopes to capture the slang of the Athenian agora. The idiom implies the feeding
habits of granivorous birds which pick seeds and debris from the ground. Applied to
intellectual culture, the term derides Paul as a mere gatherer of important-sounding slogans. For
ancient usage, see Demosthenes, Cor. 127; Philo, Legal. 203; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 5.20;
Plutarch, Mor. 516c. See also Bruce, Acts o f the Apostles, 377; Johnson, Acts o f the Apostles,
312.
41 Neyrey suggests that in this divided response, the “some” represents the Epicurean
philosophers, whose attitude is skeptical, while the “others” represent the Stoic philosophers,
who have a more religious understanding of Paul’s message. He further links this divided
response to the “some” and “others” of v. 32; “Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy,” 127-29. N.
Clayton Cray affirms a similar opinion; “Hellenistic Philosophers and the Preaching of the
Resurrection (Acts 17:18-32),” NovT39 (1997): 38-39. Cf. also Haenchen, Acts o f the
Apostles, 526; and Johnson, Acts o f the Apostles, 317. The resurrection, however, is an idea for
which neither philosophical group is prepared. My translation assumes that the “some” and “the
others” of v. 18 represent two responses from the philosophers as a whole; and that the
reference in v. 32 refers to hearers at the Areopagus in a general way.
42The verb S o ic e iv appears in other contexts where what “seems” to be the case is later
shown to be otherwise (Luke 8:18; 12:51; 13:2,4; 19:11; 22:24; 24:37; Acts 12:9; 27:13;26:9).
43Or “herald.” Though Luke may simply use the word to indicate that Paul was a
preacher (cf. Acts 4:2; 17:3), the word may also imply that Paul was “declaring,” in a more
invasive sense, the worship of new divinities; see J. Schniewind, “ayyekia, ayyekku), ktA.,”
TDNT 1:56-73.
44The term Saipovia refers to minor divinities, a perennial concern in Athenian

religion; cf. Plato, Syntp. 202e: Jt&v to Satpoviov (lETaîj eaxi 0eou te Kai Gvtitou. Paul’s
speech will not refer to divinities but to o Gecx; o Jtoir|aa<; tov Koopov. On this contrast, cf. 1
Cor 10:20.
45Cf. uses of EijaYYEXtÊO0ai in reference to Paul in Acts 13:32; 14:7, 15; 15:35;
16:10.
46teat TivEq 'ekeyov, Tt av GeXoi o ojiEppoA.6yo^ ouxoq keyeiv- oi 8e, Hevcov

Satpovicov Sokei Kam yyekexx; Etvat, oxi tov ’ It|ctoov k<xi tt|v av ao x aaiv e u tiy y ^ - 1^ 0-

218
implied authorial audience, both insinuations o f the narrative audience pose naive
misunderstandings o f Paul and his message. Such misunderstanding further
differentiates Paul from the Athenians. As numerous commentators have suggested,47
the occasion for this misunderstanding is directly related to the preaching o f the
resurrection, as Luke clarifies at the end o f v. 18. The philosophers have mistaken Jesus
and Anastasis for two more daimones among the countless others they worship.
Ironically, the enlightened philosophers have misunderstood Paul’s message entirely.
Rather than providing an immediate clarification o f the misunderstanding, the
narrative leaves the philosophers in their obvious ignorance and will not clarify the
precise relationship between Jesus and Anastasis until the last verse o f the coming
speech (17:31). Despite this unresolved issue, the misunderstanding does lead the story
further. It causes the philosophers to “take” Paul to the Areopagus, so that they may
“know what is this new teaching spoken by you” (17:18). The Athenians can be blamed
for ignorance, but not for apathy. Whether Paul is now under arrest48 or is simply being
47 Dibelius, “Paul on the Areopagus,” 67; Conzelmann, “The Address of Paul on the
Areopagus,” 229 n. 5; Haenchen, Acts o f the Apostles, 497, 518; Phillip Menoud, “Jesus et
Anastasis,” RhThPh 32 (1944): 141-54; Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies and the Preaching of
the Resurrection,” 23; Howard Clark Kee, To Every Nation Under Heaven: The Acts o f the
Apostles (The New Testament in Context; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1997),
214; Witherington, Acts o f the Apostles, 515; Talbert, Reading Acts, 160. Haenchen notes that
John Chrysostom seems to have been the first to offer this interpretation; Acts o f the Apostles,
518. Those rejecting this understanding include: Barrett, Acts o f the Apostles, 2:831; Jervell,
Apostelgeschichte, 444; K. L. McKay, “Foreign Gods Identified in Acts 17:18?” TynBul 45
(1994): 411-12. Three other texts may be cited in support of Chrysostom’s original
observation. In Acts 14:8-18, the preachers are mistaken for Zeus and Hermes; and in 28:6,
Paul is mistaken for a god. Herod is the object of yet another case of mistaken identity in 12:22.
These scenes, together with 17:18, seem to constitute a consistent Lukan portrayal of paganism
as superstitiously willing to call anything a god.
48 David L. Batch makes an especially strong case for this interpretation based upon
other uses of £7tiXap|3dvco as “seize” in arresting (Luke 23:26; Acts 16:19,19:6, 18:17, 21:30),

asked to make an informative speech49 is unclear. The latter option is to be
preferred, given the ending o f the episode. Yet one must also note that certain
overtones o f the trial scenes do rest upon the story, foreshadowing future speeches in
which Paul the accused will bear witness o f his faith in the resurrection o f the dead
(23:6; 24:15-16, 21; 26:6-8, 23). After a brief narrative aside on the Athenians’
stereotypical propensity for novelty, Paul begins his speech (17:22-31).50
In some sense, one can sympathize with the misunderstanding o f the
philosophers. The two terms “Jesus and the resurrection” have been juxtaposed as a
kind o f summary o f Paul’s preaching. There is no clarification o f precisely how the two
terms are related, a problem that is reminiscent o f Acts 4:2. The authorial audience will
recognize that Paul really means Jesus’ own accomplished resurrection from the dead
and the Areopagus’ social function as a “judgment seat”; “The Areopagus Speech,” 73-74.
Timothy D. Bames reaches a similar conclusion and actually reads the Areopagus speech as a
forensic defense speech; “An Apostle on Trial,” JTS 20 (1969): 407-19. For a similar reading
of the speech as judicial in its rhetoric, see also Soards, The Speeches in Acts, loc. cit.; Evans,
‘“ Speeches’ in Acts,” 293-94.
49Johnson, Acts o f the Apostles, 314, on the other hand, argues that “taking along” is
also an acceptable translation of the verb in light of Acts 9:27 and 23:19. See also Barrett, Acts
o f the Apostles, 831-33; Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophers and the Resurrection,” 24; Spencer,
Acts, 173. Bertil Gartner pointed to the absence of prosecutor and accusation to defend the
same view; The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici
Upsaliensis 21; Uppsala: Gleerup, 1955), 53. Dibelius offers similar evidence against a “trial”
scenario; “Paul on the Areopagus,” 68 n. 16. Jervell notes that the speech is simply not a
“Verteidigungsrede”; Apostelgeschichte, 444. Conzelmann argues that Luke knows full well
how to conduct a trial scene and this is not one; Acts o f the Apostels, 140. It is possible that
here, as with the episode at Pisidian Antioch (13:15), Paul is being asked to make a speech. On
the importance of such gestures, see Stanley K. Stowers, “Social Status, Public Speaking and
Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity,” NovT26 (1984): 75-77.
50 Luke is presenting a well known stereotype. See Thucydides, 3.38.5; Demosthenes,

Epitaph. 4.10. On v. 21, see Norden, Agnostos Theos, 333; Bruce, Acts o f the Apostles, 352-53;
Haenchen, Acts o f the Apostels, 520; Conzelmann, Acts o f the Apostels, 139; Croy, “Hellenistic
Philosophers and the Resurrection,” 25-26; Neyrey, “Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy,” 127-
29.

220
(17:31), and so one should not make too much o f the terminology. The phraseology,
however, does foreshadow an emerging concern with “the resurrection” as an essential
component o f Paul’s preaching. It is, in fact, in response to hearing about “the
resurrection” that Paul’s speech will end in controversy. In this sense, the phraseology
signals that the resurrection itself is now emerging as a decisive issue in the narrative,
one that will be repeatedly discussed in the trial scenes (23:6; 24:15-16, 21; 26:6-8).51
It has also become a divisive issue. Alongside the strange name o f Jesus, it evokes
curiosity and misunderstanding as a “new teaching” ( r | kouvti o u k r|. . . 5i8axr|) that Paul
must clarify.
The Areopagus Speech: The transition from the narrative introduction to the
speech at the Areopagus leaves much to be desired.52 A great deal o f the speech as a
whole is compressed and sketchy, moving from creation to consummation in few
verses.53 Stating the relationship between the individual sections o f the speech thus
often rests more with the interpreter than with Luke. Not until Acts 17:31 does Paul
mention the resurrection again. Paul’s own introduction to his speech calls attention to
the theme o f knowing the true nature o f God (17:22-23), a theme that continues in the
51 Emmeram Krankl, in fact, proposes, “Der Spott der Zuhorer entziindet sich nicht
primar an der Verkiindigung der Auferweckung Jesu, sondem an der Auferweckungsidee als
solcher”; Jesus der Knecht Gottes: Die heilsgeschiiliche Stellung Jesu in den Reden der
Apostelgeschichte (Munchener Universitats-Schriften Katholisch-Theologische Fakultat;
Regensburg: F. Postet, 1972), 147.
52Dibelius, “Paul on the Areopagus,” 67 n. II: “From the narrative we gain the
impression that Jesus and the resurrection from the dead are the main themes of the
proclamation. The speech mentions Jesus only at the end, does not give his name and, instead
of hearing about the resurrection of the dead, we hear only about the resurrection of Jesus.”
53 Ibid., 27; Schubert, “The Place of the Areopagus Speech,” 261.

221
body o f the speech (17:24-28). Here, Paul is especially concerned with God’s true
nature as the Creator and giver o f life. Having developed this theme, Paul turns finally
toward an exhortation that urges the proper course o f behavior in light o f God’s true
nature: repentance from idolatry and ignorance, and acknowledgement o f the true God.
All o f this is urged in light o f coming judgment (17:29-31). It is only here at the very
end that Paul vaguely refers to the fact that God has raised “a man” from the dead. The
Areopagus speech can hardly be read as a treatise on “Jesus and the resurrection.”
If, however, one views the Areopagus speech as providing a complex o f ideas in
connection with which Luke chooses to provide further reflection upon Paul’s message
o f “Jesus and the resurrection,” then one may come to appreciate more fully the manner
in which the speech develops from creation to Jesus’ resurrection, and from his
resurrection to the final judgment. Conzelmann54 and Schubert55 pioneered this reading
o f the Areopagus speech, and Nauck56 and Bruce57 have further developed their own
exegetical proposals with similar recognitions that the speech conveys the activity o f
providence from creation to consummation, with the resurrection o f Jesus holding a
central position within this grand scheme. This suggests that the Areopagus speech is
nothing less than a Lukan manifesto on God’s creation and providential guidance o f the
54Conzelmann, “The Address of Paul on the Areopagus,” 220, 224-25.
55 Schubert, “The Place of the Areopagus Speech,” 260-61: “Luke regarded the
Areopagus speech as the final climactic part of his exposition on the whole plan of God" (260-
61).
56 Wolfgang Nauck, “Die Tradition und {Composition der Areopagrede,” ZTK 52

(1956): 11-52.
57 F. F. Bruce, “Paul and the Athenians,” ExpTim 88 (1976-77): 8-12, esp. pages 10-11.

222
human race from the creation to the eschatological judgment. What place do “Jesus
and the resurrection” hold within this vision o f nature and history?
An important connection for answering this question is the relationship between
creation and the resurrection in the Areopagus speech. This connection provides the
only foreseeable transition between the problem o f “Jesus and the resurrection”
proposed in the narrative introduction and the actual content o f the Areopagus speech.
In the body o f the speech, Paul makes five positive declarations about God. At least
four o f these deal directly with G od’s role as the Creator and source o f life: God made
the world and all that is in it (v. 24); the same is “Lord o f heaven and earth” (v. 24); “it
is he who gives to all things life and breath and all things” (v. 25);58 and God made out
o f “one” the whole race o f human beings and caused them to dwell throughout the earth
(v. 26). Even the fifth declaration, that God has pre-appointed “times” and
“boundaries” for the human race (v. 26), whether taken as a statement on cosmic or
historical order,59 also rests upon the assumption o f God’s creative power to orchestrate
life within the universe. Furthermore, the quotation o f Aratus in v. 2860 also
underscores this theme of God’s creative power. Human existence as the “offspring o f
God” is existence as created beings within the larger cosmos that God made.
58 Kee suggests that this statement is a paraphrase of Isa 42:5 which “pairs God’s act of
creation with his present activity in the bestowal o f ‘life and breath’ on all humanity”; To Every
Nation under Heaven, 215.
59On this distinction, see Dibelius, “Paul on the Areopagus,” 28-37.
60Ton yap Kat yevoq eapsv; Phaen. 5. Johnson suggests that Luke may understand
the citation of Aratus in terms of Gen 1:26; Acts o f the Apostles, 316.

223
This positive emphasis upon God’s true identity as the author o f all life is
initially coupled with a polemic against idolatry (17:24-25), as it also appears in Acts
14:15. This suggests that the creation language in the speech refutes idolatry. It is also
possible, however, that G od’s creative power provides the basis for clarifying the
meaning o f “Jesus and the resurrection” in this speech. To recall Chapter 2, the author
o f 2 Maccabees 7 developed his own theology o f the resurrection specifically in terms
o f his theology o f creation. God is the “King o f the cosmos” (2 Macc 7:9), the “Creator
of the cosmos” who graced the sons with “life and breath,” who formed the origin o f the
human, and who searched out the origin o f all things (7:22-23), without making a single
thing out o f pre-existent matter (7:27-29). It is “from heaven” that the sons have
received their bodies (7:11). All o f this serves as the author’s basis for developing the
radically physical hope in the resurrection that characterizes 2 Maccabees. Among later
Christian writings, the Apostolic Constitutions (c. 3rd-4th century C.E.) provides a
similar argument for the resurrection based upon the model o f creation (V.i.vii).61
It may be the case that in the Areopagus speech Paul also relies upon God’s
creative power as the basis for clarifying the problematic phrase “Jesus and the
resurrection.” The logic o f such a connection would emphasize that God’s power to
raise the dead should not seem an impossibility to the Athenians, since all that currently
exists derives from a God who is the Creator and gives life and breath to all things.
This includes the life o f human beings, as well as the life o f all things that exist in the
cosmos. When Paul finally articulates the precise relationship between “Jesus and the
61 Charlesworth suggests the late 4thcentury; “Apostolic Constitutions,” in

Encyclopedia o f the Dead Sea Scrolls, 42.

224
resurrection” in v. 31, he does so primarily upon the basis o f God’s infinite creative
power, which is everywhere visible throughout the entire created order. The one who
gives “life and breath” (cf. 2 Macc 7:22-23) to all is thus well able to give life “from the
dead” ( e k vEKpcbv). This connection alleviates the problem o f the transition between the
philosophers’ misunderstanding o f “Jesus and the resurrection” and the body o f the
Areopagus speech. It also provides greater continuity between the body o f the speech
and its climax. Above all, this connection between creation and resurrection seems
concerned with the matter o f what God can do in the universe, from the creation o f all
life to the resurrection o f life from the dead. Amid the philosophical skepticism and
curiosity o f the Athenians, Paul proclaims that, as Creator, the true God can and in fact,
has raised the dead. This concern with the resurrection as an issue o f the nature and
limits o f divine power will receive further development in the trial scenes.62
Paul’s “new teaching” on the resurrection, however, is still linked to “Jesus” in
Acts 17; and the conclusion to the speech finally articulates the proper relationship
between “Jesus and the resurrection” - that God has raised him from the dead (v. 31):
For63 he has appointed a day in which he will64
62 See especially the commentary on Paul’s speech before Agrippa below (26:8).
63 The word kgcBo t i introduces an explanatory clause (cf. Luke 1:7, 19:9; Acts 2:24).
In this case, the clause explains the underlying reason for the call to repent.
64The verb piXXei appears at least 29 times in Luke-Acts, making its translation
difficult. The treatment of this word in Acts 17:31 has played a significant role in discussions
of Lukan eschatology. Since it is used to convey future imminent action in Luke 7:2, 19:4; Acts
3:3,16:27, 18:14, 23:27, 26:2, 27:30 and 28:6, some commentators have read Acts 17:31 as
prophesying imminent judgment (Maddox, Purpose o f Luke-Acts, 130; Mattill, Luke and the
Last Things, 43-45; Jervell, Theology o f the Acts o f the Apostles, 114). It should be noted,
however, that in these cases the word is not typically used in eschatological contexts. The verb
may simply signal intention to act in the future (Luke 10:1; Acts 12:6; 20:3, 7, 13; 22:26). It
may also refer to the future in a generalized way without the assumption of imminence (Luke

225
judge65 the world in righteousness66 by a man whom he has ordained,67
having granted assurance68 to all, having raised him from the dead.69
Despite this climactic resolution o f the misunderstandings o f v. 18, there are still
significant differences here from the earlier presentation o f Jesus’ resurrection in Acts 2
and 13. First o f all, Jesus is not directly named in v. 31. God has rasied “a man whom
he has ordained.” O f course, the identity o f this man may be easily supplied from v. 18;
and so one should not make too much o f the omission. It is worth noting, however, that
Paul now refers to the resurrection as an act o f God without directly naming Jesus o f
Nazareth.70 Within the Areopagus speech, this “anonymity” calls attention to the
resurrection as yet another divine action which, along with the creation and sustenance
9:44; Acts 5:34; 11:28; 20:38; 23:30; 27:10, 33). Where the word is used in eschatological
contexts, as in Acts 17:31 (Luke 21:7, 24:15; Acts 24:15, 25; see also Luke 9:44; Acts 11:28,
26:22-23), there is no clear indication that the action is imminent; and so, it is safer to conclude
that the action is futuristic, with a strong tone of inevitability and divine intentionality.
65 Cf. Luke 10:14; 11:19; 18:6-8; 19:22; Acts 10:42.
66 This prophecy (peXXet Kpiveiv tf|v oiicou|i£vr|v ev Sucaiocruvfl) contains the only
verifiable scriptural language in the Areopagus speech (Pss 9:8 [LXX 9:9], 96:13 [95:13], 98:9
[97:9]). The prophecy may be a scriptural quotation or merely biblicistic language.
67 Cf. Acts 10:42.
68 Here rdaxiq means faithfulness in the sense of the assurance, reliability, or guarantee
of a thing. It thus bears closest resemblance to classical usage and is atypical for the NT
(Dibelius, “Paul on the Areopagus,” 317). See especially the uses illustrated in R. Bultmann,
“Jtiaxetxo, rricrriq, reiaxcx;, kzK," TDNT 6:174-228, esp. pages 177, 104 n. 227. The phrase
rctaxtv rcapaaxwv may mean “to give a pledge” or “to offer proof’ (Dibelius, “Paul on the
Areopagus,” 57; Johnson, Acts o f the Apostles, 317). Johnson refers the reader to Herodotus,
Persian Wars 3.74; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1173a; Josephus, A.J. 15.69.
89 kcxOoti eaxtiaev fipepav ev fj peXXei tcptveiv xr|v oiKoupevtiv ev StKaicxruvri,

ev av8pi qi wpiaev, tc'kjxw ttapaaxcov rcdaiv avaaxriaaq aircov etc vetcptbv.
70Barrett attributes this phenomenon to Luke’s primary concern with divine judgment
itself; Acts o f the Apostles, 2:853.

22 6
o f the human race, establishes God’s proper relationship with human beings. God
has not only created the “world” (17:24, tcoapov); God has raised one who will be the
agent o f final judgment over “the whole world” (oiKOU|jivT)v). The generality o f this
claim anticipates the development o f the resurrection m otif in the trial scenes, where
Paul proclaims his faith in the resurrection itself, apart from any direct mention o f Jesus.
Second, here for the first time in all o f Acts, the resurrection o f “the man” is
emphatically related to the reality o f eschatological judgment. There is one final way in
which God will be related to the human race, and that is as judge o f the whole world.
The God who has appointed the “times” o f the current world (v. 26) has also established
“a day” forjudging the world in righteousness. This surprisingly futuristic conclusion
to the speech provides an additional impetus to the exhortation to repentance from
idolatry and ignorance, which though in the past tolerated (v. 30; cf. 3:17; 13:27;
14:16), will now be subject to divine judgment. No sense o f timing for the future
judgment is given,71 only the sense o f its universality and inevitability.
Precisely how Jesus’ resurrection relates to his ordination as future judge
remains a question that Luke has not fully satisfied in the Areopagus episode. The final
statement o f the speech comes in the form o f two participial phrases whose relationship
to one another and to the preceding clause is tightly constructed in syntax, but far from
clear in meaning: God will judge the world in righteousness by a man he has ordained,
“having granted assurance to all, having raised him from the dead.” In these two highly
compressed phrases, at least two options are available for relating Jesus’ resurrection to
71 Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 450.

227
his ordination by God: 1. Through the resurrection o f Jesus, God has given
assurance o f the very fact that he has ordained this man.72 2. Through the resurrection
o f Jesus, God has given assurance o f the eschatological judgment itself.73 Though the
first option is predictable, given Acts 2 and 13, the second option remains viable, given
the distinctive treatment o f the resurrection m otif in Paul’s coming trials.
In the first case, the brief statement about Jesus’ resurrection in Acts 17:31
confirms that he is the man whom God has ordained. This recapitulates Luke’s earlier
portrayal o f Jesus’ resurrection in Acts 2 and 13. Peter’s Pentecost sermon has already
concluded with the claim that through the resurrection God made Jesus o f Nazareth
“both Lord and Messiah” (2:36). Through this exaltation, Jesus now dispenses the gift
o f the Holy Spirit (2:33); through him, sins are forgiven (2:38; 3:26; 13:38), and signs
and wonders occur (3:6, 16; 4:10,30). God ordained Jesus o f Nazareth as the one
through whom he would accomplish all these works, by raising him from the dead. The
“assurance” provided in the resurrection in Acts 17:31 confirms these earlier claims o f
the apostles by recalling the resurrection as the dramatic sign that God has ordained
Jesus to hold a unique role in the work o f salvation. The authorial audience alone,
however, has privileged access to this information. The narrative audience o f puzzled
Athenians is left largely to its own bewilderment.
72 Dibelius, “Paul on the Areopagus,” 55: “The resurrection is only introduced in order
to prove that this unnamed man has been chosen.”
73 Schnackenburg argues that “die syntaktisch enge Verbindung in v31” demonstrates

an immediate connection between the resurrection of Jesus and his future judgment of the
world; “Die lukanische Eschatologie nach der Apostelgeschichte,” 260.

228
In the second case, however, the conclusion to the Areopagus speech has
developed the exaltation o f Jesus in an unprecedented direction. It has linked his
exaltation directly to the final judgment. Through his resurrection, God has designated
Jesus as the agent o f final judgment. If this builds upon the earlier portrayals o f Jesus’
resurrection in Acts, it has also taken a step beyond them by projecting the exalted
agency o f the risen Jesus into the future judgment o f the world.74 Among earlier
passages in Luke-Acts, only Acts 10:40-42 could be cited in anticipation o f this
connection between Jesus’ resurrection and the future judgment. The declaration o f
Acts 10:41 certainly refers to Jesus’ resurrection and appearance to foreordained
witnesses; and in Acts 10:42 Peter also describes the apostles as proclaiming “that this
is the one ordained by God as judge o f the living and the dead” (o n ovxoq eaxiv o
copiapevoq xmo xofi Geou Kpixrj<; £covxcov xai veicpcbv), a formulation very similar to that
found in Acts 17:31. These two verses in Acts 10 certainly anticipate the language of
Acts 17:31 and share virtually the same christological assumptions. Furthermore, they
betray an emerging concern with the universality o f the Messiah’s future judicial work,
a concern that is shared with the conclusion to the Areopagus speech. What is missing
from Acts 10:41-42, however, is the clear prophecy o f a universal judgment event in the
future, as one finds at the conclusion o f the Areopagus speech.75 In Acts 17:31, the
74The most important difference between this emphasis and the call for repentance in
Acts 2:37-39 is that Peter’s sermon demands repentance in light of what has already occurred in
the past regarding the Messiah, whereas the conclusion of the Areopagus speech demands
repentance in light of the Messiah’s impending role in eschatological judgment.
75 Maddox distinguishes the sense o f the two passages, based upon the recognition that
the former presents nothing of the timing of the judgment, whereas the latter conveys a definite
sense of imminence; Purpose o f Luke-Acts, 130.

229
resurrection o f Jesus provides “assurance” o f more than his ordination by God. It
confirms that God has already taken the initiative in history for the future judgment o f
the world. The resurrection has ordained Jesus, specifically, by exalting him as the one
through whom God will judge the world in righteousness. In this way, Jesus’
resurrection is the assurance o f future judgement; and the preaching o f his resurrection
is a call o f repentance before the coming judgment.
The further development o f the resurrection motif in the trial scenes will solidify
this connection between Jesus’ resurrection and the future judgment o f the world in two
ways: first, the future judgment itself will imply a general resurrection o f the just and
the unjust for the specific purpose o f judgment (24:15-16, 25);76 second, Jesus is the
“ first o f the resurrection from the dead” (26:23), which implies that his own resurrection
provides the historical precedent and assurance for the general resurrection o f the dead
in the future. The new connection Luke establishes between Jesus’ resurrection and the
future judgment o f the world in Acts 17:31 is hardly as direct about this relationship as
what will follow in the trial scenes. It does not directly state that there will be a
resurrection o f the just and unjust for judgment (as in 24:15-16). Nor does it suggest
that Jesus is the first o f a universal resurrection o f the dead (as in 26:23). It does,
however, indicate that in the speech materials o f Paul’s preaching, Luke is now
developing his portrayal o f Jesus’ resurrection specifically in terms o f its relationship to
the eschatological future. The conclusion o f the Areopagus speech thus foreshadows a
76Cf. also the earlier passages of Luke’s Gospel (14:14, 20:35) which imply a hint of
reward at the future resurrection.

230
concern with the resurrection that cannot be confined to an act o f past fulfillment in
Jesus, but extends beyond this to the future judgment o f the whole world.
The Narrative Conclusion'. Despite Paul’s final articulation o f the proper
understanding o f “Jesus and the resurrection” in Acts 17:31, the denouement to the
Athenian episode indicates a divided response to his speech (17:32-34), a rhetorical
maneuver that is typical o f the Lukan speeches.77 That division occurs precisely over
the issue o f “the resurrection” (17:32), as Luke narrates the varying responses o f the
Athenians to the emphatic claim o f 17:31. It is specifically when the Athenians have
“heard the resurrection o f the dead” (ctKoxxsavxeq Se av d ax aaiv veicptbv) that the
divided response to the speech ensues. Rather than presenting a unanimous response
either for or against Paul’s message, Luke chooses instead to maintain an array o f
different responses to the resurrection message in 17:32-34. A similar strategy was at
work in the narrative introduction to the speech (17:18-21). By framing the Areopagus
speech before and after with an array o f responses to the resurrection from the narrative
audience, Luke leaves the impression that the matter o f the resurrection remains a
controversial one among the Athenians. It is a boundary issue that distinguishes Paul
from the Athenians and defines what is essential to his own preaching by way o f
contrast. The controversial nature o f Paul’s faith in the resurrection will remain an
important aspect o f the coming trial scenes.
77As Dibelius perceptively notes, this is typical o f Lukan speech-writing, which “leaves
what is most important to the end and emphasizes it by means of the contradiction of the
listeners (10:44; 22:22; 26:24; perhaps 5:33 and 7:54 are to be similarly understood)”; “Paul on
the Areopagus,” 57. I would add to Dibelius’ list, Acts 23:7. See below.

231
At least three responses may be detected in the denouement to the Athenian
episode. First, “Some began making mockery” o f Paul’s mention o f the resurrection
(17:32). This is nothing new in the way Luke crafts responses to his characters’
speeches and activities (cf. Acts 2:13). These “mockers” reinforce the initial response
o f those who called Paul a mere “seed-picker” in introduction to the speech (17:18).
Both these responses indicate that Paul’s resurrection faith can generate an elitist
response o f derision and Gentile scorn from those who do not hold the same faith.78
A second response to the resurrection is implied when others say “we will hear
from you concerning this again also” (dKouoo|i£0d oou rcepi xouxou Kai rtd7.iv). This
polite curiosity concerning the resurrection may reinforce the initial inquiry o f the
Athenians to know the novel teachings o f this strange visitor (17:19-21). Thus, the
resurrection message o f Paul may evoke a genuine curiosity from strangers. This, o f
course, also reveals a lack o f genuine faith in Paul’s message, perhaps even a tone o f
indifference.79 A slight touch o f foreshadowing may also rest upon this response.
According to the narrative of Acts, the Athenians do not, in fact, have the opportunity to
hear Paul “again” concerning the resurrection. Other narrative audiences, however, will
hear Paul discuss the resurrection “again” in the trial scenes. The matter is far from
78Cf. the Gentile scom of the resurrection in Origen, Cels. 2.55, 5.14, the Apostolic
Constitutions, V.i.vii; and Tertullian, Res. 1-4. Bruce offered a quotation from Aeschylus’
Eumenides that remains a vivid illustration of how later Gentiles may have viewed the
resurrection: dvSpoq S erteiSdv dip.’ dvacntdcrp Koviq anai, Gavovxoq, ouxu; eax
dvdaxaaiq (647); see Bruce, Acts o f the Apostles, 387; Colin J. Hemer, “The Speeches of Acts
II: The Areopagus Address,” TynBul 40 (1989): 244, 246.
79Talbert, Reading Acts, 165: “Postponement. . . is the equivalent of unbelief in Acts.”

232
resolved where Luke’s own purposes are at stake. The implied reader o f Acts will
also hear again concerning this matter o f the resurrection (23:6; 24:15-16, 21; 26:6-8,
23).
Finally, “some men joined him [Paul] and believed” (17:34), a typical Lukan
formulation o f discipleship to the apostolic message (cf. 5:13; 9:26). The speech is,
thus, not a total failure.80 Amid mockery, on the one hand, and polite curiosity, on the
other, there is the response o f a believing discipleship. This involves both devotion to
Paul and faith in the message he preaches, including faith that God raises the dead. The
naming o f “Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman, Damaris” (17:34) confirms that
Paul’s message on the “Areopagus” found believers among the Athenians. The
misunderstanding that the resurrection incites, then, need not disqualify a believing
response to the message, even among the idolatrous and novelizing Athenians.
In conclusion to this discussion o f the resurrection m otif in the Athenian
episode, one may ask why Luke forces this proclamation o f Paul’s resurrection faith
into a conversation with Athenian philosophers. None other than Epicurean and Stoic
philosophers are the very ones who rush Paul into the Areopagus and practically force
the speech to take place (17:18-21). This raises the question o f how Luke presents Paul
among the philosophers. This perennial problem o f the Athenian episode is made
especially difficult by the fact that Luke mentions the two rival schools o f philosophy,
80 Some have argued that the speech is a failure: F.J. Foakes-Jackson, The Acts o f the
Apostles (Moffat New Testament Commentary; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1931), 166;
C.S.C. Williams, A Commentary on the Acts o f the Apostles (Black’s New Testament
Commentaries; London: A.&C. Black, 1957), 206; Fitzmyer, Acts o f the Apostles, 603;
William Neil, The Acts o f the Apostles (New Century Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1987; orig. 1973), 193.
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e cop y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohib ited w ith o u t p e rm is s io n .

233
without giving any indication o f their supposed beliefs. Critical history has produced
volumes to supply the missing assumptions. Many commentators suggest that a kind of
“Socrates” m otif underlies the characterization o f Paul and the plot o f this episode.81
Some further argue that the Areopagus speech is essentially pro-Stoic and quite
polemical toward Epicurean skepticism.82 Others emphasize the ultimate uniqueness o f
the speech from both Stoic and Epicurean philosophies.83 Where the resurrection is
considered in the discussion, it usually strengthens this last position.
The “road not taken”84 by Luke in developing the resurrection m otif in the
Athenian episode is illustrated by Josephus’ translation effort described in Chapter 3.
81 Based especially upon correlation with Plato, Euthyphr. 3b; Apol. 24b-c; and
Xenophon, Mem. 1.1.1. This interpretation is explored by Bruce, Acts o f the Apostles, 377;
Barrett, Acts o f the Apostles, 2:830-31; Haenchen, Acts o f the Apostles, 527; Johnson, Acts of
the Apostles, 312-13, 318-19; Richard I. Pervo, Luke’s Story o f Paul (Minneapolis, Minn.:
Fortress Press, 1990), 61; Hansen, “The Preaching and Defence of Paul,” 310-11; Witherington,
Acts o f the Apostles, 514-15; Talbert, Reading Acts, 159-60; Stanley K. Stowers, “Social Status,
Public Speaking and Private Teaching,” 61.
82 Balch, “The Areopagus Speech,” 52-79; Neyrey, “Acts 17, Epicureans, and
Theodicy,” 118-34; Hansen, “The Preaching and Defence of Paul,” 311-13.
83 Bruce, “Paul and the Athenians,” 8-12; C.K. Barrett, “Paul’s Speech on the
Areopagus,” in New Testament Christianityfor Africa and the World: Essays in Honor o f
Harry Sawyer (ed. M. Glasswell and E. Fashole-Luke; London: SPCK, 1974), 73-75; Spencer,
Acts, 174-75. Here, one may also include Gartner, especially where he notes the polemical
stance toward Gentile culture which this speech presents; The Areopagus Speech and Natural
Revelation, 23, 29, 68; cf. also Krankl, Jesus derKnecht Gottes, 147. Even Talbert who reads
the speech as a whole as friendly to Hellenism, must conclude that in the resurrection the speech
“goes beyond the bounds of the familiar for its auditors”; Reading Acts, 164.
84 Stanley B. Morrow gives this expression to describe early Christian non-acceptance

of philosophical immortality, and its consistent preference for the resurrection from the dead;
“A0ANAIIA/ANAXTAIII: The Road not Taken,” NTS 45 (1999): 571-86. Apparently Justin
Martyr, Apol. 1.8, however, is not unlike Josephus on the question of punishment and reward.
Cf. also the treatment of the martyrs in 4 Maccabees, where immortality appears rather than
resurrection.

234
Perhaps Eleazar’s speech at Masada would have been better received by the
Athenians than Paul’s speech on the Areopagus. Rather than translating Jewish
resurrection belief into the terminology o f popular Hellenistic philosophy, as Josephus
seems to do, Luke has allowed Paul’s Jewish belief in the resurrection to stand forth in
striking contrast to his highly philosophical surroundings. Despite any similarities
between the Areopagus speech and Hellenistic philosophy, belief in the resurrection
only differentiates Paul from his Gentile hearers. Wherever the resurrection is
mentioned in Acts 17, it is a new idea, evoking curiosity and controversy.
Despite the fact that Josephus has obscured any Jewish belief in the resurrection
through his translation effort, he has been faithful to report the mere fact that numerous
Jews o f his own time believed in the future life. He can even describe the future life as
a kind o f common topic on which each o f the Jewish philosophical “schools” developed
its own tenets. One may identify similar philosophical tendencies in the speeches o f the
Maccabean martyrs, who are practically philosophers theorizing on God, creation,
childbirth, resurrection, and judgment. These aspects o f philosophical characterization
in 2 Macc and the Wars may shed some light on why Luke chooses to develop the
resurrection motif in the context o f the rival schools o f Epicurean and Stoic
philosophers. Luke is up to something more than simply casting Paul as a kind o f
“Socrates” at Athens, as previous commentators have suggested. Though Paul is
nowhere described as a philosopher in Acts, the further course o f the narrative will
develop his identity as a Pharisee - the member o f a sect o f Judaism that developed its
beliefs in the future life in specific terms o f resurrection hope (23:6-10, 26:5). As the
member o f a school in his own right, Paul has a legitimate place at the table in the

235
conversation with the Athenian philosophical schools, though the content o f his own
school’s belief in the resurrection is almost unintelligible to them.
There is a certain ambiguity, then, in the “philosophical” portrayal o f Paul in
this episode: as a Pharisee, Paul is the member o f what Josephus might have recognized
as a philosophical school in his own right, and he has a legitimate place in philosophical
disputation with other schools, such as Epicureans and Stoics;83 despite this place in the
conversation, however, the content o f his own school’s beliefs, made even stranger to
the Athenians by God’s recent work in Jesus, could not distance him more from the
Hellenistic philosophers o f Athens.86 Paul’s ultimate “differentness” at Athens serves
to define strict boundaries between the resurrection faith and Hellenistic religion. Any
tendency to make the gospel at ease with Hellenism in the Areopagus speech is, then,
severely derailed by the defining issues o f Paul’s message: Jesus, the resurrection o f
the dead, and the judgment o f the world.
This becomes especially clear when one recognizes the contrasts Luke has
established between the narrative audience and the implied authorial audience
throughout the Athenian episode. For the Athenians, who constitute the narrative
audience, Paul’s resurrection faith is a completely new matter that evokes surprise,
controversy, and mockery. The authorial audience o f this episode, however, has been
85John Lentz argues that Luke’s portrayal of Paul as a member of a school functions to
legitimate him by ascribing to him a proper education and an established hereditary lineage; Le
Portrait de Paul selon Luc dans les Actes des Apotres (trans. N. de Chabot and M. Trimaille;
Lectio Divina 172; Paris: Cerf, 1998), 74-86. Neyrey maintains a similar argument; “Acts 17,
Epicureans, and Theodicy,” 133-34. Cf. 26:24.
86Neyrey suggests the first eight verses of the speech contain “common theology”; yet
the resurrection in v. 31 ends all commonality; “Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy,” 120-21.

236
well prepared to recognize the meaning o f Paul’s resurrection faith. From the
resurrection appearances, to the sermons o f Acts, Luke has placed his authorial
audience on the “inside track” for understanding Paul’s preaching. The unsuspecting
Athenians seem comically uninformed by contrast. Yet even for the authorial audience,
there is something new. The mystery continues to be illumined. Now for the first time,
Jesus’ resurrection from the dead has been emphatically linked to the eschatological
judgment, through a clear judgment prophecy.
The Resurrection and P a u l‘s Hearing before the Sanhedrin
After Acts 17, Luke postpones the resurrection m otif for several chapters, until it
re-emerges prominently in the complex o f stories dedicated to Paul’s arrest and trials
(21:27-26:32).87 In the interim, Paul continues his mission in a large number o f
locations throughout the northern Mediterranean and Asia, with Corinth (18:1-17) and
Ephesus (18:18-19:41) serving as the setting for more extended visits lasting at least
three and one-half years (18:11; 19:10). After he has departed from Ephesus, Paul
travels throughout Macedonia and Greece, and returns to Ephesus to deliver his final
discourse to the elders (20:1-38), an oration that brings to a conclusion the concentrated
mission narrative that began earlier in 15:36. While traveling in the West, Paul
repeatedly gives notice o f his intentions to return to Jerusalem (19:21; 20:22). As he
returns to the Temple (21:1-26), the inevitable site o f his arrest (21:27-36) and early
defense speeches (22:30-23:10), two developing themes emerge: 1. Paul’s relationship
87 This postponement allows for the dramatic, even surprising, re-emergence of the topic
in 23:6.

Ill
to the law and Judaism (18:5-6, 13; 19:34; 21:15-25, 28; cf. 22:3); and 2. Paul’s
imminent imprisonment and death (20:22-25; 21:4, 11-14; cf. 23:11-22).88
These two issues set the context for his hearing before the Sanhedrin (22:30-
23:11). After an introduction that explains the commander’s rationale for calling the
council (22:30), the hearing proceeds as Paul makes two statements, each o f which
raises a controversy. First, Paul offers his initial statement to the council (23:1),
inciting a controversy with the high priest Ananias (23:2-5).89 Second, Paul offers a
further statement to the council concerning his Pharisaism and resurrection faith (23:6),
inciting another controversy, this time between Pharisees and Sadducees (23:7-9).
Finally, the commander intervenes to put an end to the unrest (23:10). The proper
conclusion to the scene is in the risen Jesus’ direct visit to Paul in 23:11.90 This
narrative device settles the controversy over the resurrection decisively in Paul’s favor,
at least in the eyes o f the authorial audience. The narrative audience o f Pharisees and
Sadducees at Paul’s hearing, however, are blind to this event. As he stands by Paul, the
88 Pervo calls the first three citations as “passion predictions”; Luke's Story o f Paul, 74.
Cf. Haacker, who describes Paul’s trials as “Leidensgeschichte”; “Das Bekenntnis des Paulus
zur Hoffnung Israels,” 439. Walter Radi terms 22:22-25 and 21:4, 10-12
“Leidensweissagungen” that parallel Jesus’ passion predictions; Paulus und Jesus im
lukanischen Doppelwerk: Untersuchungen zu Parallel Motiven im Lukasevangelium und in der
Apostelgeschichte (Europaische Hochschulschriften 49; Bern: Herbert Lang, 1975), 133-58.
See also Joseph B. Tyson, Images o f Judaism in Luke-Acts (Columbia, S. Car.: University of
South Carolina Press, 1992), 153-54, 159; Johnson, Acts o f the Apostles, 361-62,370-72.
89This controversy is not, of course, unrelated to 23:6-10. As David Daube notes,

Josephus would remember Ananias as “a savage Sadducee” {A.J. 20.119); “On Acts 23:
Sadducees and Angels,” JBL 109 (1990): 493; cf. also Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 554-55.
90Jervell divides the textual units similarly; Apostelgeschichte, 552.

238
risen Jesus’ prophetic words also point beyond Jerusalem to Caesarea and ultimately
to Rome, where the story continues to move on by divine necessity (cf. 19:21).
Though it is tempting to refer to this incident as a “trial,” since the council sits in
judgment over Paul as pertains to the law (according to 23:3; c f 23:6), it is more
accurately described as a legal inquiry from the commander concerning “why he was
accused by the Jews” (22:30).91 One would expect in this context the fiery accusations
concerning Paul’s crimes against the Jewish people, the laws o f Moses, and the Temple
(18:5-6, 13; 21:15-28; c f 24:4-9). These accusations against Paul, however, are
strangely absent. Instead, the surprising ground o f accusation that emerges from this
legal inquiry is that Paul’s Pharisaic belief in the resurrection is contested by some Jews
in the assembly, while it is affirmed and protected by others. Paul himself is
responsible for this. He sees his legal hearing, and indeed the entire complex o f trial
scenes, in a different light than do his accusers. Whereas his accusers have previously
charged him o f multiple crimes against the ancestral laws (18:13; 21:15-25, 28), Paul
makes his resurrection hope the central issue of his defense. The inquiry thus
establishes Paul’s resurrection faith as the central issue o f his trial.92 This heightens the
emphasis that the resurrection will receive in his subsequent trial scenes.93 Some
91 Johnson, Acts o f the Apostles, 400. Brian Rapske notes the “lightened custody” of
Paul in this section; The Book o f Acts and Paul in Roman Custody (vol. 3 of The Book o f Acts in
Its First Century Setting; ed. Bruce W. Winter; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993), 145-
49.
92Festus summarizes the case as concerning a certain Jesus who Paul said was alive
(25:19).
93 Schubert, “The Final Cycle of Speeches,” 6.

239
verisimilitude is sacrificed in the effort to achieve this effect. Nowhere before has
the resurrection been an issue in Paul’s arrest and imprisonment in chapters 21-22. This
betrays an indication that in 23:6 Luke has taken liberties in turning the trials toward the
theological crux o f the resurrection, despite the fact that Paul’s opponents never accuse
him on this basis.94
Paul certainly “knows” that the one party o f the council is composed o f
Sadducees, while the other party is composed o f Pharisees. Apparently, he realizes
precisely what effect his words will have on the council:
But Paul, knowing that the one part (of the council) was (composed)95 of
Sadducees96 but the other o f Pharisees, cried aloud in the Sanhedrin,97
“Men (and) brothers,981 am a Pharisee,99 a son o f Pharisees,100
94 Long, “The Trial of Paul in the Book of Acts,” 235-36.
95 ixcpcx; with the genitive conveys a partitive, in this case, even “partisan,” notion.
96 Cf. Luke 20:27; Acts 4:1, 5:17. Luke mentions this school rarely. Where he does,
they are antagonizes of Jesus and his subsequent followers, especially regarding the
resurrection.
97 The typical site for trials of Jesus and his followers (Luke 22:66; Acts 4:1-41; 6:12-
15).
98 Cf. speeches among Jews (2:29, 3:17, 13:26,23:1); Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 553-
54.
99 Characters called Pharisees have appeared throughout Luke-Acts (Luke 5:17, 21, 30,
33-34; 6:2, 7; 7:30,36-39; 11:37-39,42-44; 12:1; 13:31; 14:1,3; 15:2; 16:14; 17:20; 18:10;
19:39; Acts 5:34, 15:5, 23:6-9, 26:5). The final two passages include Paul himself as a
Pharisee, and attest their strictness and their belief in the resurrection.
100The phrase may indicate that Paul is merely a member of the Pharisaic sect, as
suggested by Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem at the Time o f Jesus: An Investigation into the
Social and Economic Conditions during the New Testament Period (trans. F. H. and C. H. Cave;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969; orig. 1923), 244-47; Johnson, Acts o f the Apostles, 397;
Dieter Luhrmann, “Paul and the Pharisaic Tradition,” JSNT 36 (1989): 75-94. But this would
be redundant. Instead, the phrase claims that Paul’s lineage involves hereditary membership in
this school (Haenchen, Acts o f the Apostles, 571; Bruce, Acts o f the Apostles, 465; Lentz, Le
Portrait de Paul, 74-80). The translation reflects this latter understanding of the phrase.

240
concerning hope101 and resurrection o f the dead I am being held in
judgm ent.'02 (23:6)103
The trick o f dividing the narrative audience o f Pharisees and Sadducees seems at first a
ploy that Paul uses to accentuate the folly o f his accusers.104 As in the case o f the
Athenian episode, Paul’s narrative audience has only a limited knowledge o f what is at
stake in his belief in the resurrection. For the Pharisees and Sadducees, the resurrection
is merely an issue that evokes sectarian controversy. Acting according to their
stereotypical prejudices for, and against, the resurrection, the two parts o f the council
irrupt in outrage against one another and bring Paul’s hearing to a chaotic end.
Paul now associates his belief in the resurrection directly with his Pharisaism
for the first time in Acts. Though this profession o f his sectarian affiliation initially
serves to inflame controversy within the Sanhedrin, Paul’s belief in the resurrection will
remain associated with his Pharisaism in future trial scenes (26:5). It is, thus, not
merely an instrument o f contention. His Pharisaism legitimates his learning and
ancestry (e.g., he is also “a son o f Pharisees”) before the council, further establishing
him as the member o f an honored school (22:3). Moreover, his sectarian affiliation may
also add credibility to the belief in the resurrection itself as the tenet o f an established
school o f Judaism. The resurrection thus unites two paradoxical aspects o f Paul’s
101 For the language of hope elsewhere in Luke-Acts, see Luke 6:34, 23:8,24:21; Acts
2:26; 16:19; 23:6; 24:15,26; 26:6-7; 27:20; 28:20. See the discussion below.
102Paul stands by this claim vigilantly in 24:21 and 26:6; cf. 28:20.
103Tvouq 8e o IlanXo*; o ti to ev pipo? eativ SaSSooxauov to 8e etepov

Oapioa'uov expaêv ev tip cruveSpicp, "AvSpeq d8eX<Jxn, eyco O apiaaioq etpi, mo<;
<t>apiomcL)v, Tiepi eX.jri.8oq x a i dvocatdoeax; vexpdiv [eyco] xpt.vop.ai.

241
identity in the book o f Acts: his identity as one who proclaims Jesus as the risen
Messiah; and his identity as a faithful Jew and Pharisee who holds loyally to the sect’s
ancestral hope in the resurrection.
Paul’s faith in the resurrection in this passage nowhere mentions Jesus. Through
his use o f Paul’s clever methods o f defense, Luke has now called unprecedented
attention to the fundamental claim that God raises the dead. In this sense, Paul now
favors Jesus himself, who contended against Sadducees that God does indeed raise the
dead (Luke 20:27-40). As in the case o f the Areopagus speech, the limited knowledge
o f the narrative audience contrasts strongly with the “insider” knowledge o f the
authorial audience. To the narrative audience o f Pharisees and Sadducees, the
resurrection is merely a contentious issue that evokes strife between rival schools. For
the authorial audience, however, the resurrection expresses the essence o f God’s work
in Jesus, the goal o f all that the prophets have spoken. Yet the authorial audience also
has something new to leam from the episode. The resurrection o f Jesus has now been
inextricably linked to the more general doctrine o f an eschatological resurrection and
the terminology o f future hope.
Terminologically, Paul now uses a new word to define his belief in the
resurrection: “concerning hope and resurrection o f the dead, I am being held in
judgment” (rtepi ekmSoq icai avaaxdaeox; veKpcov [eyco] Kpivopai). The language o f
hope has been used in a variety o f theological contexts in Luke-Acts prior to Paul’s
trials (Luke 23:8, 24:21; Acts 2:26), but it resurfaces here as a specific terminology for
104Darr, On Character Building, 86-87; Daube, “On Acts 23,” 493; Johnson, Acts o f the
Apostles, 400.

242
the future resurrection o f the dead. The terminology o f “hope” for the future
resurrection of the dead is repeatedly attested in the NT (1 Cor 15:19; 2 Cor 1:10; 1
Thess 4:13; cf. Tit 1:2, 3:7). It also surfaces in relation to the future life in the three
works surveyed in Chapters 2-4 o f this study (2 Macc 7:11,14, 30-38; T. Jud. 26.1, T.
Benj. 10.11; cf. B.J. 2.157).105 It recurs in the trial speeches as a synonym for belief in
the future resurrection o f the dead (24:15; cf. 28:20).
Use o f the indefinite noun here makes it difficult to relate the term “hope” to
dvaaxdaeox; and vetcpcov. There are at least two options for relating these terms to one
another. The first is to take eXniSoq as hendiadys106 with dvaaxdaeox; veicptbv: e.g.,
“concerning the hope o f the resurrection o f the dead, I am being held in judgment.”
This is more probable. The second option is to treat eXn'i8o<; more independently and to
supply the subjective genitive with both nouns: e.g., “concerning the hope ( ‘o f the
dead’) and the resurrection o f the dead, I am being judged.” 107
The first option receives confirmation in Acts 24:15-16, 21, where the
resurrection directly names the content o f Paul’s hope in the future (24:15-16), and
where an almost identical phrase to that in 23:6 can be used without any reference to
105See Plato, Apol. 40c, 41c-d; Phaed. 62c, 63b, 114c, in Chapter 3. See also 2 Bar
30:1-2.
106Barrett, Acts o f the Apostles, 2:1063; Nigel Turner, Syntax (vol. 3 of A Grammar o f
New Testament Greek:, 4 vols.; ed. J.H. Moulton; Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1988; orig. 1963),
3:335-36; Bruce, Acts o f the Apostles, 465; Johnson, Acts o f the Apostles, 398; Witherington,
Acts o f the Apostles, 690; BDF §442 (16).
107Daniel R. Schwartz, “The End of the Line: Paul in the Canonical Book of Acts,” in
Paul and the Legacies o f Paul (ed. W. Babcock; Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press,
1990), 19.

243
eXrriq (24:21). This would suggest that “hope” is an hendiadys for the future
resurrection o f the dead. The second option, however, is possible, given the language o f
Acts 26:6-8, where the ancestors, now presumably dead, have hoped for centuries in
God’s power to raise the dead. This may imply that the hope o f Acts 23:6 is in some
sense the hope o f the dead, particularly the hope o f the deceased ancestors, in God’s
power to raise the dead. The exegetical expositions o f Acts 2 and 13 provide the closest
approximation to what the reading “the hope o f the dead” would mean. The patriarch
David is made to confess prior to his death, “My flesh also shall dwell in hope” (exi Se
icai i) aap4 pot) KaxaaKt|va>aei ere eXittSi; 2:26). As a patriarch and ancestor o f Israel,
David hoped that God could deliver from death, yet his bones saw corruption. “The
hope o f the dead” would not refer inappropriately to the reading o f Ps 16 in the sermons
o f Acts 2 and 13. The resurrection passages o f the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs
further indicate that the portrayal o f the patriarchs as ideals o f piety who died in hope o f
the resurrection was at least possible by Luke’s own time. Though my translation
reflects the former option, the latter should not fade from view.
Despite its association with the language o f eschatological hope, Paul’s
resurrection belief seems more concerned with Pharisaic teachings than with the
future.108 This didactic aspect requires a closer look at how Luke develops the
resurrection m otif here as the teaching o f a school. As in the Athenian episode, the
context o f rival schools allows Luke to generate various responses to the resurrection
faith o f Paul. In a potentially explosive atmosphere where the beliefs o f rival schools
108Maddox, Purpose o f Luke-Acts, 130.

244
are at odds, Paul’s brief profession o f faith in the resurrection kindles a great fire.
Luke quickly relates an immediate “division o f Pharisees and Sadducees” (axdaiq xtov
Oapiaaicov icai Ia88ouKa'uov)109 and claims that “the multitude was divided” (eaxio6r|
to TcXfjGoq; 23:7). The reason for such intense division appears in the next verse, as
Luke informs the implied reader concerning the beliefs o f both “parts” o f the council:
For110 while111 Sadducees112 say that there is no resurrection,113 neither

angel nor spirit, Pharisees confess114 them both. (23:9)‘15
The uncertainty o f the antecedent o f the pronoun “both” (xa dpcjxnepa) has presented
something of a word puzzle to interpreters o f this verse. The coordination o f the terms
dvdaxaaiv, ayyeXov, and Jiveupa in the preceding clause offers related difficulties.
Exegetes have often taken xa apôxepa to mean “all three.”" 6 This “cure-all”
109Foraxdaiq elsewhere in Luke-Acts, see Luke 23:19, 25; Acts 15:2, 19:40, 24:5.
110The clause explains the cause of the division within the council (v. 7).
111 “While” attempts to translate pev . . . 8e adversatively; Herbert W. Smyth, Greek

Grammar (rev. ed.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984; orig. 1920), §2904; BDF
§447.
112“Sadducees in general.” Note the indefinite noun; see Smyth, Greek Grammar
§1126.
113Xeyeiv with pf| can also be translated, “to deny that there is .. .”
114Here, opoXoyeiv has the sense of making “solemn statements of faith.” See O.
Michel, “opoXoyeco, EljopoXoyeco, ktX,” TDNT 5:199-220, 209.
1,5SaSSouKaioi pev yap Xeyouoiv pf| elvai dvdaxaaiv grpe ayyeXov gfjxe
7tveupa, Oaptaaioi 8e opoXoyouaiv xa apôxepa.
116Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, The Acts o f the Apostles (vol. 4 of The
Beginnings o f Christianity, Part I; ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake; London: Macmillan,
1933), 289; Bruce, Acts o f the Apostles, 411-12; Haenchen, Acts o f the Apostles, 638-39;
Conzelmann, Acts o f the Apostles, 138; Johnson, Acts o f the Apostles, 398; Jervell,
Apostelgeschichte, 552.

245
solution, however, may misleadingly imply that the Sadducees did not believe in
angelic or spiritual beings.117 The point is that they opposed the resurrection, not
angelology or pneumatology as independent issues. There is no evidence elsewhere
that Sadducees denied belief in angels or spirits.
New conclusions to the problem have resulted from more recent specialized
studies by David Daube,118 Benjamin Viviano and Justin Taylor,119 who unanimously
accentuate the fact that the statement about the Sadducess’ disbelief in “angel or spirit”
is essentially related to their disbelief o f the resurrection, which is the real issue o f the
controversy. This opens two exegetical possibilities for the understanding o f the
antecedents o f xa apcjjoxepa. First, the “both” referred to may be a.) belief in the
resurrection and b.) belief in either angelic or spiritual beings.120 In this case, the
Pharisees would confess “both” the resurrection o f the dead and the related belief in the
existence o f angels and spirits beyond the grave; and the Sadducees would deny “both”
o f these categories o f belief, at least insofar as they are related to one another. Second,
the “both” may refer to the grammatical disjunction “neither angel nor spirit.” The
117This tendency is illustrated in Schiirer, History o f the Jewish People, 2:392.
118Daube, “On Acts 23,” 493-97. Daube argues that the pair “angel or spirit” assumes
“the span between death and resurrection, which, in widespread belief, a good person spends in
the realm or mode of angel or spirit” (493).
119Benedict T. Viviano and Justin Taylor, “Sadducees, Angels, and the Resurrection,”
JBL 111 (1992): 496-98. Viviano-Taylor suggest that the pair “angel or spirit” refers to the
form that life will take when the dead are raised (498). They note the previous study by Samuel
T. Lachs, “The Pharisees and Sadducees on Angels: A Reexamination of Acts XXIII.8,” Gratz
College Annual o f Jewish Studies 6 (Philadelphia: Gratz College, 1997), 35-42.
120Chrysostom, Horn. 39; Bruce, Acts o f the Apostles, 466; Witherington, Acts o f the
Apostles, 692.

246
“both,” then, would refer to a.) angel and b.) spirit. In this case the Sadducees would
deny the resurrection o f individuals as both angelic and spiritual beings, but the
Pharisees confess that both angelic and spiritual beings may exist in the resurrection.121
Though the second option for identifying the antecedent o f xa ap.<t>6x£pa is to be
preferred, precisely because o f a repetition o f the pair “spirit or angel” by the Pharisees
in v. 9, it should be noted that both these readings have the strength o f linking the denial
o f angelic-spiritual existence directly to the more immediate concern with the
resurrection o f the dead. This direct connection between angelic-spiritual existence and
the resurrection is also implied in Luke 20:36 (iodyyeXoi yap eiaiv xai mot eicnv Geou
xfjq avacxdoeax; mot ovxeq), 24:37-39 (ep4>o(k>i yevopevot e Go k o u v nveupa Gecopeiv. . .
tSexe oxi Jiveupa aapica xai ooxea ouk E%ei tcaGax; epe GecopeixE Exovxa), and Acts
12:15 (o dyycXcx; e o x i v aiixoo).122 Despite Luke’s imprecision on this matter, it is clear
that his report concerning the Sadducees’ beliefs assumes some hidden relationship
between the resurrection o f the dead and the existence o f angels and spirits. He would
not have mentioned the latter apart from the context o f the former.
A clue to this “hidden” connection between angelic-spiritual existence and the
resurrection o f the dead is revealed in the ironic response o f some Pharisees to Paul in
v. 9. It is not precisely the case that all Pharisees support Paul, and all Sadducees find
him worthy o f accusation before the law. Luke specifically identifies Paul’s supporters
121This is Viviano’s approach to the problem; “Sadducees, Angels, and Resurrection,”

497.
122These references constitute the primary support offered in Daube’s argument; “On
Acts 23,” 493-96. One might add Luke 16:22; cf. Acts 7:35, 12:23, 27:23. On these texts, see
Squires, “The Plan of God in the Acts of the Apostles,” 25-26.

247
as “some o f the scribes o f the party o f the Pharisees” (23:9). This group performs
essentially the same function in this story that Gamaliel played in Acts 5:37-42.123
They justify Paul and urge leniency from the rest o f the council. Their rationale for this
response is two-fold: “we find nothing evil in this man”; and “is it the case that a spirit
spoke to him or an angel?” 124
The first statement vindicates Paul according to the judgment o f respected
members o f the council. By this declaration, at least a segment o f the council has
declared Paul innocent at the earliest stage o f the legal proceedings. Additional
declarations o f innocence will follow in Paul’s subsequent trials.
The second statement is more complex. The Pharisees are willing to concede
that angelic or spiritual beings may have spoken to Paul.125 Paul, however, claims
nowhere in Acts 23 that an angel or spirit has spoken to him. Luke seems to be
inserting into the words o f these Pharisees an ironic allusion to Paul’s experience on the
Damascus road, when the risen Jesus spoke directly to him (9:4-6).126 The authorial
audience, in fact, recognizes that Paul has just completed an oration on the steps o f the
Antonia fortress that recounts how Jesus o f Nazareth spoke directly to him (22:6-10, 17-
123This similarity is clear in the Byz. tradition, which supplies the apodosis jllt|
OEopaxupev (cf. 5:32). The Pharisaic scribes also have their counterpart in the “scribes” who
admire Jesus’ resurrection teaching (Luke 20:39); Bruce, Acts o f the Apostles, 466.
124Reading e’l as interrogative. Jervell supplies an implied apodosis: “Was konnen wir
dann einwenden?”; Apostelgeschichte, 557.
125Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 557.
126Bruce, Acts o f the Apostles, 467.

248
2 1).127 This risen Jesus will also speak to him immediately after his hearing (23:11).
Thus, Paul’s hearing before the Sanhedrin is framed both before and after by references
that confirm a resurrected being has spoken to Paul. The ironic dimension o f this
hidden relationship is that it is neither an angel nor a spirit that has spoken to Paul, but
the risen Jesus himself (cf. Luke 24:37-39).128
The recurrence o f the vision reports in future trial scenes (26:12-19) increases
the likelihood o f this reading o f v. 9. The situational irony o f the Pharisees’ “defense”
o f Paul underscores the distance that exists between Paul and his fellow school-
members: it is not merely an heavenly being, but the risen Jesus o f Nazareth who
speaks to Paul.129 This recognition may further clarify the relationship between two o f
the primary topics o f the entire cycle o f defense speeches: (1.) Paul’s experiences with
the risen Jesus; and (2.) his faith in the resurrection o f the dead.130 The relationship
between these two claims further indicates that if Paul is a Pharisee, he is the only one
o f his kind. For him, “the resurrection” now entails more than a doctrine o f his
ancestral faith. It now encompasses his recent encounters with the risen Messiah. To
127Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 557.
128Jervell is thus essentially correct, but far too blatant, when he says, “Es wird von der
Auferstehung der Toten geredet, gemeint ist aber die Auferstehung Jesu”; Apostelgeschichte,
556. The “hiddenness” of this relationship must be maintained.
129Johnson, Acts o f the Apostles, 401. Johnson describes the Pharisees as “self
condemned” on this basis, but this evaluation seems too harsh. Daube, on the other hand,
reconstructs the Pharisees’ argument to mean, “he was counseled not by Jesus resurrected but
by Jesus on leave as, or represented by, an angel or spirit”; “On Acts 23,” 495.
130Jerome Neyrey has argued that these two claims are related to each other in the sense
that the former is Paul’s testimony in favor of the latter; “The Forensic Defense Speech and
Paul’s Trial,” 216-17. Acts 23:6-10 is preceded by the conversion narrative of 22:6-10, 17-21;
cf. the relationship between Acts 26:12-18 and 26:6-8, 23.

249
confess the one is to confess the other. Paul is thus to be distinguished from at least
two groups in this exchange. As a Pharisee, his resurrection hope clearly distinguishes
him from the party o f Sadducees who deny it, but his experience with the risen Messiah
also distinguishes him from his fellow Pharisees.131 Though willing to come to his
defense, they can only conjecture that an angel or spirit may have spoken to Paul. Luke
has prepared the implied reader to recognize otherwise.132
This irony points toward another sense in which the resurrection is important for
Luke in these chapters. It is as the risen one, now exalted to God’s right hand, that
Jesus spoke to Paul and continues speaking to him in the story o f Acts. In this sense,
Paul’s resurrection hope ironically testifies to the life that the risen Jesus currently
enjoys beyond death, not simply to a specific event in the past or future. The
resurrection is the basis for Jesus’ continuing activity in the mission o f Paul. This
further includes the giving o f the Spirit (2:33), the forgiveness o f sins (2:38; 3:26;
13:38), the working o f wonders (3:6,16; 4:10, 30; 16:18), and the repeated disclosures
to Paul (9:4-6; 18:9-10; 22:6-10, 17-21; 23:11; 26:12-19). The efficacy o f the
Messiah’s continuing work in Acts rests upon the belief that God raises the dead. The
mystery continues to unfold.
131Pace Tyson, who argues, “In the present pericope, there is such a close relationship
between the beliefs of Christians and Pharisees that Paul can be called by either name”; Images
o f Judaism, 167; see also 170. Jack T. Sanders argues for a second type of Pharisee here, a
“christianized Pharisee”; The Jews in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 100.
132Kee provides an alternative interpretation of Pharisaic belief in “spirit”: “it is the

outpouring of the Spirit that launches the apostles’ mission, and then guides and empowers the
messengers throughout Acts. Similarly, angels are essential agents in the mission of the church
and the guidance of its messengers”; “To Every Nation under Heaven,” 264. See also Squires,
“The Plan of God in the Acts of the Apostles,” 22-35. The real the problem of the dispute,
however, is the resurrection, not angelology or pneumatology as an independent issue.

250
As with the Areopagus episode, Paul’s resurrection hope instigates a divided
response among members o f the narrative audience. Though Tannehill has suggested
that in his appeal to the resurrection “Paul is seeking a shared starting point that will
lead beyond controversy to effective witness,” 133 this is exactly the opposite o f what
actually happens in the story. The resurrection qua resurrection splits Pharisaic scribes
and Sadducees. In this case, Luke uses the term axaa\q to describe the ensuing violent
response to Paul’s declaration. Indeed, the commander himself must intervene to save
Paul from being tom apart in the riotous uproar (v. 10). The charge o f inciting artdoeiq
among the Jews will also return to haunt Paul in his trial before Felix (24:5). The
resurrection faith of Paul thus creates as much controversy at Jerusalem as it did earlier
at Athens. Whether he is among Stoics and Epicureans, or Pharisees and Sadducees,
Paul’s resurrection faith creates misunderstanding and conflict.
The Resurrection and Paul's Trial before Felix
The immediate fallout o f the Sanhedrin controversy takes the form o f sedition
against Paul’s life (23:12-35), which results in the commander’s transportation o f Paul
away from the volatile atmosphere o f Jerusalem to Caesarea, where Felix will hear the
accusations against Paul (24:1-9) and his drcoXoyia (24:10-23). In contrast to the
hearing in Jerusalem, the legal proceedings before Felix have all the marks o f a full
blown trial, including accusers (23:35), a prosecutorial rhetor (24:1-2), a formal defense
speech by Paul (24:10), and a Roman Kpixf|<; to hear the case (24:10). The seriousness
133Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:288; see also Spencer, Acts, 213.

251
o f this legal setting is underscored by the observation that only Felix’s departure
forestalls a final decision on the entire affair by the governor himself (24:25-27). Life
and death are at stake in the trial.
The accusations against Paul are brief (see v. 4) and severe. Luke presents
Tertullus as the orator o f “the chief priest Ananias” and “certain elders” (v. 1), perhaps
also o f “the Jews” o f v. 9. Tertullus, in fact, speaks in the first-person plural when he
enumerates the accusations against Paul, a detail that suggests he speaks for a larger
party (24:4-6).134 His words contain four accusations that span several incidents and
culminate in the Temple accusation o f certain Jews from Asia (21:27-30):
1. Paul is a "pestilence” (Xoipov)135
2. and “one who incites divisions among all the Jews throughout the whole
world” (icivouvxa oxaaetc, rn a tv xoiq ’Io u Souok ; xotq r a t a xf|v oiK o u p ev riv ),
3. characteristics that seem to derive from his being “the leader o f the sect o f
the Nazoreans” (npojxoxJxdxt|v xe rfjq xcbv Na^wpaicov odpeaeax;).136
134This form of address appears in the speeches, where an individual speaks on behalf
of a larger party (2:8, 32; 3:15; 4:9, 20; 5:32; 6:4; 10:33,39,47; 13:32; 14:15; 15:10; 21:25;
23:15).
135On this term, A.N. Sherwyn-White calls attention to Claudius’ letter to the
Alexandrines in which he accuses the Jews of “stirring up a kind of universal plague throughout
the whole world” (KOtvf|v xtva xfjq o’ucoop£VT|<; voaov eÊye'tpovxat;); Roman Society and
Roman Law in the New Testament (Sarum Lectures 1960-61; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Books, 1981; orig. 1963), 51. For the text, see M. Charlesworth, Documents Illustrating the
Reign o f Claudius and Nero (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939), C. See also
Rapske, The Book o f Acts and Paul in Roman Custody, 160-61.
136Jervell denies that this is actually a legal charge; Apostelgeschichte, 568. It is

probably information that merely confirms the second, and more serious, charge. Haacker
relates charges 2 and 3 on the basis that the “Vorwurf des Sektierertums” would have been of
concern to the Roman governor as a proven cause of community unrest (as in 19:40 and 24:2);
“Das Bekenntnis des Paulus zur Hoffhung Israels,” 440.

252
4. The sinister nature o f this character is nowhere more evident than when
“he tried to defile the Temple” (to iepov eneipaaev pePriXxoaai).137
The first two charges are general in nature and name no specific incident.138 In a sense,
they are also true, since Paul has definitely been involved in numerous o tc x o e k ; (15:1-2;
19:21-40, esp. v. 40), most recently in his hearing before the Sanhedrin on the issue o f
the resurrection (23:7). The seriousness o f inciting a ta a e iq among the Jews is well
attested in Josephus as a crime worthy o f death (B . J 1.648-55; 2.39-75; 2.117-18). It is
also a charge o f special concern for Felix, since the Roman f|yepa>v would no doubt be
held responsible for unrest among the Judeans.139 Thus, the generality o f the first two
accusations should not detract from their seriousness.
The third charge against Paul explains the source o f the first two. The strife that
has surrounded Paul emerges from his being the “highest-ranking member” o f the sect
o f the Nazoreans. This use o f the term Na^copaioq is an anomaly in Acts. Elsewhere in
Luke-Acts it is only used to describe Jesus him self (Luke 18:37, 24:19; Acts 2:22, 3:6,
4:10, 6:14, 22:8, 26:9), probably as a geographical designation; but now it applies
directly to his followers as a sectarian designation. The history o f the terminology in
137These, of course, are not the first accusations against Paul. For a comprehensive list,
see Carroll. “Literary and Social Dimensions of Luke’s Apology for Paul,” 108-09.
138O ’Toole notes the “vague” nature of all but the fourth accusation; Acts 26, 37.
139 See B.J. 1.648-55; 2.39-75; 2.117-18. Felix’s predecessor, Cumanus, was banished
for allowing uprisings among Samaritans and Jews (B.J. 2.223-46). Bruce W. Winter also notes
that Felix had recently put to flight a rebellion by “the Egyptian” referred to by Josephus {B.J.
2.261-63); “The Importance of the Capitatio Benevolentiae in the Speeches of Tertullus and
Paul in Acts 24:1-21,” JTS 42 (1991): 516-20. See also Rapske, The Book o f Acts and Paul in
Roman Custody, 160-61.

253
early Aramaic and Syriac Christianity is complex,140 as is the use o f onsj in
benediction twelve o f the Palestinian recension o f the Shemoneh 'Esreh. Though the
matter cannot be dealt with here, it is possible that Luke was familiar with the use o f
this terminology in Aramaic and Syriac Christianity.141 The terminology o f the twelfth
benediction may coincidentally underscore the severity o f the charge against Paul,
though there is simply no evidence contemporaneous to Luke that the benediction was
known or enforced. The synagogues remain open to Paul throughout A cts.142
140The chief philological problem is that of derivation. Four possibilities have been
argued.
First, the term may be of geographical derivation (msj = “Nazareth”) in Hebrew (cnsj),
Aramaic (ansa), and Syriac (p.^). H. Schaeder has shown convincingly that the geographical
derivation is to be preferred above all other proposals on both historical and philological
grounds; “Na£apr)v6q, Naôjpaioq,” TDNT4:S74-79. Joseph A. Fitzmyer concurs; The Acts o f
the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 31; New York:
Doubleday, 1998), 254.
Second, Lidzbarski proposed that the title derived, as the Mandaeans apparently
described themselves, from a devotional self-designation (k”kiiskj [>-isa] = “observant ones”).
The laner derivation has often been argued in light of Epiphanius’ description of a pre-Christian
Jewish sect called the N aaapaiot (Pan. 29.6), with the fUrther implication that Jesus and his
earliest followers were associated with this group, and so came to bear the name; Zeitschrift fiir
Semitistik 1 (1922): 230-33. Barrett attempts to reconcile the first and second options listed
here by suggesting that the first was the original meaning, but that a false etymology, such as
the second, was later ascribed to the term; Acts o f the Apostles, 2:1098.
Third, Bertil Gartner proposed a derivation from us:, “preserved ones”; “Die
rdtselhaften Termini Nazoraer und Iskariot,” Horae Soederblomianiae 4 (1957).
Fourth, Eduard Schweizer proposed a derivation from t t j , “Nazirites” (c t t j ), meaning,
“holy ones”; “‘Er wird Nazoraer heissen’ (zu Me 1 24; Matt 2 23),” in Judentum,
Urchristentum, Kirche: FestschriftJurJ. Jeremias (BZNW 26; Berlin: Topelmann, 1960), 90.
On all these possibilities and their importance for Lukan christology, see Moule, “The
Christology of Acts,” 166.
141 Schaeder proposes that Luke uses the term “to denote members of the original
community in Jerusalem. It indicates their place of origin and has a derogatory nuance”; TDNT
4:874.
142As Schiirer rightly notes, the patristic evidence for the cursing of Christians is
significantly later than Luke (Epiphanius, Pan. 29.9; Jerome, Comm. Isa. 5:18-19,49:7, 52:4;
cf. Justin, Dial. 16); The History o f the Jewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D.
135) (rev. ed.; eds. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black; 4 vols.; Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark,

254
Despite our lack o f knowledge concerning what Luke knew o f the
designation, the term seems to function here as a derisive geographical designation, in
much the same way as “Galileans” in Acts 2:7.143 This accusation may be Tertullus’
attempt to refute Paul’s previous statement that he has always been a member o f the
well established Pharisaic party (23:6-7). Paul, in fact, will remind Felix that it is only
his accusers who call “the way” a sect (24:14).144 Like the charge that Paul incites
axaaeiq, this charge is also partially true. Paul is certainly a believer in Jesus o f
Nazareth; and through his preaching and miracles, he does appear as a kind o f
TtptoxooxdxTiq among the believers. By having Tertullus accuse Paul in just this way,
Luke has once again forced the coming declaration o f Paul’s resurrection faith into the
context o f sectarian disputes.
Finally, the fourth accusation against Paul is far more specific and refers directly
to the events o f Acts 21:27-30, where Jews from Asia (cf. 19:9, 20:19) accuse Paul o f
bringing Greeks into the Temple and thus defiling it. The seriousness o f this charge, as
Brian Rapske suggests, was sufficiently dire (in light o f B.J. 6.124-28) to warrant
immediate execution.145 Luke has already told this story in chapter 21 in such a way as
to indicate its falsity. Tertullus, o f course, seems not to have seen this incident as an
1979), 2:462. Not even J. Louis Martyn associates Luke-Acts with the benediction; History and
Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York: Harper & Rowe, 1968), 27-31.
143H. Schaeder, “NaôtpTivcx;, Na£(opdio<;,” TDNT4:874-79. Tajra, on the other hand,

suspects that “political messianism” is the underlying charge; The Martyrdom o f St. Paul
(WUNT 2.67; TQbingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994), 35.
144Jervell suggests the accusation is false; Apostelgeschichte, 569-70.
143Rapske, The Book o f Acts and Paul in Roman Custody, 162-63.

255
eyewitness; and Paul takes an indirect swipe at his credibility by calling for these
“Asian Jews” to bear witness in the court themselves, since they are apparently the
source o f this accusation (24:19). These accusers, however, seem not to be present.
None o f these accusations even mentions Paul’s resurrection faith.
After a polite introduction o f confidence in Felix (24:10), Paul proceeds to
answer each o f these charges in turn. First, Paul argues that he is not one who incites
riots, but only went up to Jerusalem to pray peacefully (24:11-13). Second, Paul
responds to the charge that he is the leader o f a controversial religious sect by
enumerating his true religious beliefs and way of life (24:14-16). It is in this context
that he once again professes his faith in the resurrection. Finally, Paul addresses the
charge that he tried to defile the Temple by describing his most recent pilgrimage to the
Temple (24:17-18). In conclusion to his speech, he challenges the Asian Jews who
created a stir in the Temple to appear before Felix, and rests his defense once again
upon his previous confession before the Sanhedrin: “concerning the resurrection o f the
dead, I am held in judgment before you today” (24:19-21).
Paul thus mentions the resurrection twice in his txTCoXoy'ia before Felix. Both
instances, especially the first, are expressive o f an “ethical” rhetoric that attempts to
demonstrate that the speaker is a person o f reason and virtue.146 In the first case, Paul
mentions his faith in the resurrection in a section o f the speech where he is refuting the
charge that he leads a controversial religious sect (24:15-16). He reminds Felix that it is
146See Aristotle, Rhet. 2.12-17; Quintillian, Inst. 3.8.13. Edward P.J. Corbett, Classical
Rhetoricfo r the Modem Student (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), 93-99; see also
Spencer, Acts, 220.

256
his accusers who call “the way” a sect,147 but nothing could be further from the truth.
Paul insists that his religion is “ancestral,” 148 as he already has at the Antonia fortress
(22:3) and as he will again to the Jews o f Rome (28:17). “The way” is a not a new sect,
but rather a manner o f worshipping “the God o f the ancestors” (xqj rcapxrpcp 0e<p).149 “In
accordance with the way,” Paul also believes in “all the things written throughout the
law and in those written in the prophets” (v. 14). These claims counteract the charge
that Paul’s manner o f worship is divergent from the ancestral religion. Paul’s
profession o f faith in the resurrection follows in turn:
Having150 a hope in God,151 which they themselves also aw ait,152 that
147Bruce, Acts o f the Apostles, 479. Cf. Acts 18:25-26 and 24:22, where the narrator
mentions “the way” without calling it a “sect.” The pejorative connotation of aipeai<; as
“heresy” is anachronistic (pace Spencer, Acts, 219). Luke uses this term in a neutral way (Acts
5:17, 15:5, 26:5), as “sect” or “school,” as in Josephus (see Chapter 3); H. Schlier, “aipeopai,
a'ipean;, k x X ,” TDNT1:182; Steve Mason, “Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees, and Sanhedrin
in Acts,” in The Book o f Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (ed. R. Bauckham; vol. 4 of The Book o f
Acts in Its First Century Setting, ed. Bruce W. Winter; Grand Rapids, Mich.: 1993-95), 155.
Mason suggests Luke avoids the term “sect” because “Christianity is now the only way” (155).
148Ktxxd dtKpipeiav too Ttaxptpoo vopou (22:3); xoiq eGcai xoiq Jtaxptpotq (28:17).
On this language, see 2 Macc 6:1, 7:2; 3 Macc 1:23; 4 Macc 4:15, 6:6, 9:1, 16:16; Josephus,
A.J. 14.213, 19:349; Philo, Vit.Mos. 1.31; Spec. Leg. 4:150; Ebr. 193.
149 On this phrase, see Josephus, A.J. 9.256; cf. 2.278, A.J. 10.58; 4 Macc 12:17.
150Here, exeiv may also have the sense of “holding fast” a religious doctrine or precept;
cf. Luke 19:20; Jn 14:21; 1 Tim 3:9; 2 Tim 1:13; Rev 6:9, 12:17, 19:10. For the phrase exeiv
ekmda, cf. Rom 15:4; 2 Cor 3:12; Eph 2:12; 1 Thess 4:13; 1 Jn 3:3.
151 For the use of the prep., see BDF §206(2). The prep, may also be translated “before
God” in light of rtpoq xov 0eov in the next verse.
152The translation o f Jrpoa8exea0ai as “await” rests upon usage in LXX (Job 2:9a:
jtpoaSexppevoq xfiv eXrciSa xxfe acjxripiaq |i.ou; see also Job 29:23: anjitep yfj Sixjttooa
7tpoo8exo|ievt| xov uexov; Pss 54:8: Jtpoae8ex6pr|v xov ctpôvxa pe; 103:11; Wis 18:7:
jcpoae8ex0T| into Xaov aov acoxripia pev SiKaicov, exQptbv 8e dcKcbkeia) and NT (Luke 2:25:
rcpoaSexopevot; napdtc>.r|aiv xoo ’Iapaf|X; 2:38: eXddxi jtepi auxou Ttdaiv xoiq
KpoaSexopevoiq Xuxptoovv ’ IepouoaXriji.; Luke 12:36: opoiot dvGpdntou; TtpooSexopevoiq
xov tcupiov eauxaiv; Acts 23:21: xpoaSexopevot xf|v and aov eizayyeXiav; Mark 15:43:

25 7
there is to be153 a resurrection o f the just and unjust. Because o f this, I
myself also strive154 to have a conscience155 void o f offense156 toward
God and human beings, always. (24:15-16)157
His worship o f the ancestral God and faith in the Scripture are accompanied by his hope
in the future resurrection o f the just and the unjust. “They themselves also await” the
fulfillment o f the same hope, apparently an indirect reference to some o f Paul’s Jewish
accusers.158 Though Paul does not elaborate here, he probably insinuates that his
accusers betray their own faith and act hypocritically by prosecuting him for an
icai auxcx; ify rcpoaSexopevo^ xt| v paaiXeiav xou 0eou). See W. Grundmann, “Sexopai,
Soxn, (XJtoSexopai, kxA.,” TDNT2:50-59. An alternative translation, “receive,” would
emphasize the reception and transmission of the ancestral traditions of the Jews, though
corroboration for such a translation is difficult to identify in Luke-Acts. Jervell prefers this
option: e.g., “festhalten”; Apostelgeschichte, 566.
153This marks another use of jicXXciv in an eschatological context. See the previous
discussion of Acts 17:31, and BDF §338(3), 350.
154The term aOKECO is an NT hapax legomenon, but appears in a wider array of

Hellenistic literature as a term for rigorous moral exercise (Lucian, Demon. 4, Tox. 27;
Epictetus, Diatr. 3, 12, 10; Philo, Leg. 3.190; Praem. 100; Abr. 129) in philosophical pursuits.
The word could also refer to rigorous devotion to the law (2 Macc 15:4; 4 Macc 13:22; Let.
Aris. 168). See H. Windisch, “doKEto,” TDNT 1:494-96; Johnson, Acts o f the Apostles, 413.
Cf. Acts 26:7, where the resurrection hope inspires the tribes’ constant “serving” (Xaxpetiov)
before God.
155Cf. Paul’s earlier confession of innocence before the Sanhedrin in 23:1. Josephus (C.
Ap. 218) also refers to the conscience of the faithful, when describing their adherence to the
laws in hopes of a future life. See the previous discussion of Josephus.
,5<sThis can mean, actively, not offending others, as I assume; or, passively, not being
led into sin oneself; see Johnson, Acts o f the Apostles, 413, who prefers the latter.
157eA.7n.5a excov ei<; xov 0eov tjv icai auxoi ouxoi TtpoaSexovxai, dvdaxaaiv
peXXeiv eaea0at Sucaicov xe icai aS'uccov. ev xauxtp icai auxcx; dcncco d7tpoaKOJtov
auveiSriatv exeiv 7tpo<; xov 0eov icai xoix; dv0pcojtoix; Sia Ttavxoq.
138It is possible that Luke’s verisimilitude has broken down here and that he uses the
third-person plural to refer to Jews in general, even apart from the context of the trials. Kee
suggests that the reference is to “the Pharisees, although they are not here directly named”; To
Every Nation Under Heaven, 272.
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r re p r o d u c tio n p roh ibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

258
essential aspect o f their own common ancestral religion (see 26:6-8). In this sense,
his defense also contains a sharp accusation. It is his accusers who are the ones doing
damage to the ancestral faith, not Paul. If anything, they should commend Paul for his
resilient hope in the resurrection, not condemn him.159
The futurity and universality o f Paul’s reference to the resurrection here are
unmistakable. The use o f jie XXe iv , as in Acts 17:31, projects the action o f the
complementary infinitive into the future. The resurrection here is not simply a
“resurrection o f the dead” but a “resurrection o f the just and the unjust,” a reference that
emphasizes the retributive nature o f the resurrection as an act o f universal judgment.160
This reiterates the expectation o f a future judgment established earlier in the Areopagus
speech (17:31; cf. 10:42, 24:25) and indicates the continuing significance o f God’s
future judgment and action in the narrative. This reference to God’s judgment is ironic
in the context o f Paul’s trial, since he himself now stands before the judgment o f human
rulers who have the authority to proclaim the sentence o f innocence or guilt, life or
death, over him. Paul’s ultimate hope, however, is in God who raises the dead and
renders unerring judgment.
Felix’s underhanded hope for receiving bribes seems even more culpable when
compared with this divine standard o f judgment (24:26). Felix, in fact, grows fearful
when Paul continues to teach both him and his wife, Drusilla, in private concerning
“righteousness, temperance and the coming judgment” (rcepi SucaiocruvTiq icai
159For this rhetorical gesture, see Plato, Apol. 36b-37a.
160Cf. the hint of reward in Luke 14:14 and 20:35.

259
eyKpaxe'ia<; m i xou Kp'ipaxoq xou pt&Aovxcx;; 24:25).161 Because o f this hope for
future resurrection and judgment (ev xouxtp), Paul has always exercised his conscience
without offending against God or human beings (v. 16). The contrast between Paul and
Felix is clear: Felix fears the judgment, because o f his unjust motives; but Paul hopes
in the judgment, because his conscience is void o f offense toward anyone. Thus, in
spite o f the accusations against him, Paul may remain confident in his adherence to the
ancestral faith, while challenging his accusers to appear in person if they would argue
otherwise (24:17-18). His unwavering faith in the resurrection and innocence toward
others confirm that he is the one who represents the ancestral faith, not his accusers.
The second reference to the resurrection comes at the conclusion o f the speech.
This marks the third speech o f Paul’s that ends with a dramatic reference to the
resurrection (17:31, 23:6, 24:21).162 Rather than advancing the resurrection m otif in
any new direction, the conclusion to Paul’s defense before Felix recapitulates Paul’s
earlier statement before the Sanhedrin: “concerning the resurrection o f the dead, I am
being held in judgment before you today.” The entire series o f trials remains, from
Paul’s perspective, an issue o f the resurrection o f the dead. This was his initial
declaration before the Sanhedrin’s preliminary hearing. He now stands vigilantly by
161Tannehill also calls attention to the “mixed motives” of Felix. On the one hand, he
seems genuinely interested in Paul’s message; on the other, he is tragically motivated by the
greed of personal gain. See Narrative Unity, 2:303. Johnson contrasts Felix’s greed with Paul’s
self-reliance (Acts 28:30); The Literary Function o f Possessions in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 39;
Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 32. Jervell also provides an incidental note, reminding
of Felix’s own marital scandal as described in Josephus, A.J. 20.145; Apostelgeschichte, 575.
162Neyrey, “The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul’s Trial,” 211-16.

260
that declaration with unswerving consistency. With his very life hanging in the
balance, Paul persistently stakes his defense upon his fidelity to Israel’s resurrection
hope.
In a way that transcends these individual trial scenes, the entire story o f Acts has
also invested itself heavily in this claim, from the appearance o f Jesus in Acts 1,
through the speeches o f chapters 2 and 13. The plausibility o f the ongoing “witness” in
Acts rests in large measure with the claim that God raises the dead. This not only
relates to the resurrection o f Jesus from the dead. God’s faithfulness to rebuild the
house o f David though Jesus rests upon the claim, as does the continuing work of the
Messiah within the story. Yet even more than these central themes o f Acts are at stake
in Paul’s resurrection hope. By now developing the future resurrection as a matter o f
retributive justice, Luke has also entrusted God’s ultimate justice in history to the claim
that God raises the dead (17:31; 24:15-16). The problem o f God’s ultimate control over
history seems especially acute in these trial scenes, since Luke’s story is now drawing
closer to its conclusion with Israel in disbelief and Paul on his inevitable way toward
death. The relationship between the resurrection motif and these problems will be the
subject o f the final chapters; but it must be noted here that for Luke far more is at stake
in Paul’s defense than simply his own innocence or guilt. Hope in God’s final judgment
also rests with the claim that God raises the dead.
The Resurrection and P a u l’s Trial before Agrippa
Due primarily to Felix’s two-year delay, Paul remains in custody and continues
to be imprisoned under Festus (24:27). This delay brings the story to a momentary

261
standstill, until Festus succeeds Felix and visits Jerusalem (25:1). This visit sets into
motion a new set o f events (25:1-22) that will see Paul testify before Agrippa, the King
o f the Jews (25:23-26:32), and will ultimately send Paul to Rome (27:1-28:31) to fulfill
the divine necessity prophesied in 23:11. After an initial probe by Festus and his
Jerusalem accusers (25:1-9), Paul answers his accusers successfully and then appeals
directly to the judgment of Caesar (25:10-12). Before transporting Paul to Rome,
however, Festus reports the entire affair to the visiting Agrippa (25:13-22), who takes a
special interest in the case. Festus notes the fundamental innocence o f Paul (25:18; cf.
25:25), while also confessing his own perplexity about “certain questions concerning
their own religion163. . . and concerning a certain Jesus who had died, whom Paul
claimed to be alive” (!/|xr||iaxa 5e xiva nepi xf|<; iSlocq SeioiSatpoviaq . . . m i nepi xivoq
’ Iriaofi xeOvriKoxoq ov e<jxxcncEv o riautax; £fjv; 25:19-20). This confusion on Festus’ part
provides the legal pretext for the hearing, since Festus must be sure o f the charges
against Paul before sending him to Rome (25:27). Agrippa’s personal curiosity also
motivates the hearing (25:22).
Paul’s final and climactic defense speech is by far the longest since the
djcokoyia he made at his arrest in 22:1-21. After a polite introductory word of
confidence (e.g., capitatio benevolentiae) in Agrippa’s sound judgment (26:1-3), Paul
rehearses his “way o f life” (P'icook;) as a Jew from his earliest days in Jerusalem (26:4-8)
to his many actions against the name o f Jesus and subsequent conversion (26:9-18).164
163Or “superstition.”
kmO’Toole reads only three major divisions in the speech (26:2-3; 26:4-8; 26:9-23);
Acts 26, 30-33. My structural divisions reflect a definite transition between w . 18 and 19, in

262
Paul concludes his defense by summarizing his preaching activity since “the
heavenly vision” (26:19-23). Two references to the resurrection appear in this last
defense speech. The former emerges as Paul describes his early way o f life as a
member o f the Jewish eGvoq (26:6-8). The latter concludes the fina1defense speech as
part o f a summary o f his preaching (26:23) since the heavenly vision. Thus, every
speech treated in this investigation concludes dramatically with some reference to the
resurrection.
The Resurrection and Paul's Early Way o f Life in Judaism (26:6-8): Paul’s
P'uixnq, or narrative o f his course o f life, begins with a recapitulation o f his earlier claim
before the Sanhedrin (23:6) that he has lived as a Pharisee (26:5). As in the case o f the
trial before Felix, the rhetoric here is ethical and seeks to demonstrate the acceptable
character o f the defendant. Paul claims even his accusers know “that according to the
strictest sect of our religion I have lived a Pharisee” (oxi tcaxa xf|v d » c p ip £ c r c d x T |v
dipeaiv xfiq ripexepaq GpTiaiceiaq e ^ c a Oapiaaioq). This statement o f sectarian
affiliation confirms the tendency o f the earlier passages that wherever the resurrection
appears, sectarian disputes are present. In illustration o f his faithfulness to the
established Pharisaic school o f Judaism, Paul adds:
Even now, I stand under judgment for the hope o f the promise made by
God to our fathers,165
which Paul turns from his P'uooiq before the “heavenly vision” to his preaching activity since
that time.
165Cf. Acts 13:32: icai ripei? upaq et>ayyeXi£a)p£0a xf|v rcpoq xouq Ttaxepaq
emyyeX'iav yevopevriv. In 26:6, however, the promise refers to the future resurrection, not to
Jesus’.

263
to which our twelve tribes,166 as they serve167 with zeal168 night and day,169
hope to attain —concerning this hope, I am being accused by Jews, O
King. Why is it judged unbelievable170 to you17 that172 God raises173 the
dead? (26:6-8)174
Paul’s faithfulness to the school o f Pharisaism is so complete that “even now” he
proudly faces the opposition o f a legal trial for pursuing hope in the resurrection.
166The word is singular, an adj. with the def. art., and appears only here in the NT. For
later usage, see Clement of Rome, 1 Cor 55.6; Prot. Jas. 1, 3. See Luke’s various developments
of the theme of “the twelve,” see Luke 6:13; 8:1,42-43; 9:1, 12, 17; 22:30; Acts 1:15-26; 7:8;
Johnson, Acts o f the Apostles, 433. Luke seems to imply its antonym in 10:28.
167Or “worship.” This traditional term for Israel’s worship (Exod 3:12; Deut 6:13) in
the LXX also appears in Luke 1:74, 2:37, 4:8; Acts 7:7, where it describes true and faithful
worship (but cf. Acts 7:42). Luke uses it three times in reference to Paul (24:14, 26:7, 27:23).
168Qj. “earnestness.” The idea is one of exertion; cf. daKcb in Acts 24:15-16.
169On the expression, “serving God day and night,” see Luke’s description of Anna’s
piety in Luke 2:37; Gaventa, From Darkness to Light: Aspects o f Conversion in the New
Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 80-81. See also Acts 10:1-2.
170Lit., “unworthy of credence”; Bultmann, TDNT, 6:204-05. The use of arcicxoq here
may imply the context of logical disputation (Plato, Phaedr. 245c; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.22-23).
More significant, however, is that in Luke-Acts similar language is used of the disciples’ initial
“disbelief’ of Jesus’ resurrection (Luke 24:11, 41) and Israel’s disbelief (Acts 28:2).
171The pron. is pi. Paul is not merely addressing Agrippa, but apparently all who are
present. Perhaps this shift in number is “a rhetorical question aimed at the hypothetically
Gentile audience which would be skeptical about any talk of the future life (compare Acts
17:32),”as Johnson suggests (Acts o f the Apostles, 433). Evans imagines that the pron. refers to
“unspecified Jews”; ‘“ Speeches’ in Acts,” 293.
172Or, “whether God raises . . . ” An indirect question serves as the subject of Kp'ivexai.
Cf. the uses of ei in 26:23. The original question may be supplied, “Is it the case that God
raises the dead?” Jervell simply reads ei as o n , which he also does in 26:23;
173On the “general” use of the present, see Smyth, Greek Grammar §1877.
174tcai vuv e tc’ eXrciSi xf\c, eiq xoix; naxepaq qpcav enayyeXiaq yevopevnq uito xou
0eoo eaxTpca icpivopevoq, eiq ijv xo 8a)6eicd<|n)Xov fipcov ev eKxeivqt vuicxa Kai Tpepav
XaxpeSov eXrciêi m xavxfjaai, rcepi rjq ekniSoq eyicaXoopai x>no' Ioo5aicov, paaiXeu. Ti
dbnoxov Kp'ivexai nap -6p.lv ei o 0eoq vetcpouq eyeipei;

264
In this case, however, faith in the resurrection transcends the school beliefs
o f the Pharisees, since it characterizes Jewish belief from ancestral times to the present.
The “hope” for which Paul stands accused was originally promised by God to “our
fathers.” Paul does not refer specifically to what this promised hope is, but perhaps the
words that Moses and the prophets spoke concerning the M essiah and the resurrection
provide the nearest possibility (Luke 24:13-25, 36-53; Acts 2:25-36; 13:22, 33, 34, 35,
40-41, 47). This would remain consistent with the affirmations o f Acts 2 and 13 that
God raised the Messiah in accordance with the promises made to the patriarch David,
who professed that his own flesh would rest “in hope” (Acts 2:26). The resurrection is
also described as “promise” (inayyeXm), a term Luke has used o f numerous events,
including the Spirit’s coming (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4; 2:33) and the Messiah’s
resurrection (Acts 2:39; 13:32), as envisioned from the perspective o f prophecy.175
Paul presents this hope as an expectation for God’s future action, and he
mentions the resurrection o f Jesus nowhere. The twelve tribes continue serving God in
the present, day and night, in hope o f attaining to the resurrection in the future (26:7).
Paul him self as preacher (17:31), as Pharisee (23:6), as Israelite (26:6-8), and as
defendant (24:15-16, 21, 25) has faithfully maintained this fundamental hope that God
can and will act in the future in resurrection and judgment. In this way, his resilient
hope in God’s future action represents what is essential to the ancestral faith and the
worship o f the twelve tribes throughout their history.176
175Cf. also Acts 13:23. Gaventa, From Darkness to Light, 80-81.
176Like Luke, Josephus can refer to faith in the future life as the belief of specific
schools, while also referring to this as the belief of faithful Jews in general (C. Ap. 2.217-19).

265
Following this statement is a curious rhetorical question (v. 8). Here, for the
First time in the speech, Paul directly mentions what he has only alluded to as “hope”
and “promise” in the previous two verses. Paul asks why it is judged “unbelievable to
you (pi.) that God raises the dead.” This question is apparently addressed to the plural
company o f Paul’s accusers (cf. v. 5), perhaps including Agrippa and Festus, who are
still also present. It is an odd fit with what has come just before it and with what comes
just after it. The question assumes that Paul’s hearers find it impossible that God raises
the dead. Its tone conveys a certain instinctive frustration from Paul at the skepticism
and confusion that have consistently attended his preaching o f the resurrection, from the
Athenian episode to the present. Once again, his defense has become an accusation.
The question also reveals a theological problem that strikes at the heart o f the
resurrection m otif in these chapters - that is the question o f what human beings may
believe that God can do. Amid the misunderstandings at Athens, the controversies at
Jerusalem, and the accusations at Caesarea, Paul consistently maintains that God has
raised the dead and will also raise the dead for judgment at the end o f history. The
context o f the school debates among Stoics, Epicureans, Sadducees, and Pharisees
allows Luke to raise a controversy about this question, and to answer it emphatically in
the unflinching resurrection hope o f Paul. The skepticism that surrounds his faith in the
resurrection only further illuminates his piety before the eyes o f the reader.
The Resurrection and Paul's Preaching Since "The Heavenly Vision " (26:22-
23): If the previous declaration o f Paul’s resurrection faith occurred in a description o f
his early way o f life in Judaism (w . 6-8), this reference occurs within a summary o f
Paul’s preaching since “the heavenly vision” and makes clear reference to the Messiah.

2 66
The relationship between the two “resurrections” (e.g., Jesus’ accomplished
resurrection and the future resurrection o f the dead) achieves unprecedented clarity and
unity in the final resurrection passage o f the speech (26:23).177 This statement also
marks the climax o f Paul’s defense speeches, and one o f the last extended speeches in
the entire book o f Acts. Both Paul’s defense and Luke’s story have a great deal riding
upon this final claim. This climax to the defense speeches emerges as a summary o f the
message he has preached since his conversion upon the Damascus road.178 The
passage elevates the vantage o f this defense speech from the courtroom to provide a
panoramic vision o f Paul’s vocation as a whole:
Having thus obtained help from God until the present day, I stand
bearing witness179 to both small and great,180 saying nothing other than
the things which the prophets and Moses said would come to pass181 -
w hether82 the Messiah (would be) capable o f
177Talbert calls attention to the relationship between the resurrection here and
previously in 26:6-8. In his exegesis, Talbert finds four structural segments to the speech as a
whole: 1. autobiographical (26:4-5); 2. the resurrection issue (26:6-8); 3. autobiographical
(26:9-21); 4. the resurrection issue (26:22-23); Reading Acts, 211-13. Though he does not
directly argue this, Talbert’s structural divisions would suggest that points 1. and 2. describe
Paul’s faith in Judaism prior to the heavenly vision, and points 3. and 4. deal with Paul’s
vocation since the heavenly vision. Part 2. would thus describe Paul’s “pre-visionary”
resurrection hope, whereas part 4. would describe his reformed resurrection hope, which now
has Jesus as its foundation.
178Darrell Bock terms this “the last summary citation in Luke-Acts”; “Scripture and the
Realization of God’s Promises,” 42.
179Cf. also 1:8; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 6:3; 10:39-43; 13:22, 31; 14:3; 22:15-16; 23:4,
11 .
180E.g., “to all.” Cf. Acts 8:10.
181Though this is probably another of Luke’s universal uses of the Scripture (cf. Luke
24:44-45), the allusions to “light” for the Gentiles in v. 23 may allude to Isa 42:6-7 and 49:6.
182“Whether” is a difficult fit for the ei, but it is necessary, since the particle introduces
two clauses of indirect question that serve as objects o f the participle Xeycov. The implied
original question might have been, “will the Messiah be capable of suffering? will he, as the

267
suffering,183 whether as the first from the resurrection o f the dead184 he
would18 proclaim light186 both to the people and to the Gentiles.
(26:22-23)187
Building upon the earlier presentation o f Christ’s resurrection as the fulfillment o f the
Scripture (Luke 24; Acts 2, 13),188 Paul concludes that his message is utterly consistent
first from the resurrection of the dead, proclaim light to the people and the Gentiles?” Jervell,
on the other hand, translates simply “dass”; Apostelgeschichte, 588.
183The verbal adjective here conveys the sense o f “possibility”; see Smyth, Greek
Grammar §472; BDF §65. A. Schmoller uses the Latin “passibilis” in translation;
Handkonkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament (Miinster: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft
Stuttgart, 1989; orig. 1938), 376. The word is an hapax in the NT, but would figure
prominently in later christology (Ignatius, To the Ephesians, 7.2; To Polycarp, 3.2). O.
Michaelis, however, translates “ordained to suffer” in light of Luke 24:26,46 and Acts 3:18,
17:3; “redoxkoiGtixo?, kxX,” 7DAT5.904-39, 924.
184Exegetes have puzzled over locative (“first from the resurrection of the dead”) and
instrumental (“he, first, on the basis of the resurrection of the dead”) renderings of the
prepositional phrase. On this problem, see Barrett, Acts o f the Apostles, 2:1166. The former is
to be preferred, since the phrase bears resemblance to similar christological formulations of the
resurrection elsewhere in NT: repcbxo? / eaxaxo? avGpcoreo? (1 Cor 15:45-47); repcoxoxoKO? ek
xcbv veKpcbv (Col 1:18; cf. 1:15 and Rom 8:29); repcoxoxoKO? xcbv veKpcbv (Rev 1:5); areapxri
xwv KEKOiprmevcov (1 Cor 15:20). See also Luke 2:7; Heb 1:6; Rev 1:17-18,2:8, 22:13 fora
variety of other uses. See also Spencer, Acts, 228.
185On peXXeiv, see the previous discussion of Acts 17:31. Here peXXeiv serves to
describe the act of future fulfillment from the perspective of the prophets who spoke in the past,
as in v. 23.
186The language of “light” appears in this way also in Simeon’s programmatic prophecy
in Luke 2:32 (<jxb? ei? dreoKOtXuvj/aiv eGvcbv Kai Soâv Xaou aou ’ Icpaf|X), which may have
been inspired by Isa 42:6-7 and 49:6, and in Paul’s reference to his own mission in 13:47
(TeGeticd oe ei? cjxb? eGvcbv xou eivai ae ei? acoxr|piav eco? eaxaxou xij? yf|?), which is an
abbreviation of Isa 49:6 (iSou xeGeuca ae ei? 6ia6f|iaiv yevou? ei? cjxb? eGvajv xou eivai ae
ei? acoxT|piav eco? eaxaxou xf|? yf|?); cf. Isa 42:6-7.
I«7 ♦ * t A f / / If
18' ereucoupia? ouv xuxtov xri? areo xou Geou axpi xf|? rmepa? xauxri? eaxriKa
papxupopevo? piKpcp xe Kai peyaXtp oii)5ev eicxo? Xeya»v <nv xe oi repcx{>i)xai eXaXriaav
peXXovxcov yiveaGai Kai Mtouarj?, ei reaGrixo? o x‘ pioxoq, ei repwxo? e§ dvaoxaaeco?
veKpcbv <jxu? peXXei KaxayyeXeiv xcp xe Xacb Kai xoi? eGveaiv.
188The passage is a veritable parallel to Luke 24:44-48, as Witherington notes (Acts o f

the Apostles, 747). The most significant difference, however, involves the relationship between
Jesus’ resurrection and the future.

268
with all that the prophets and Moses have foretold. This brings Paul to his final
description o f the resurrection. The Messiah is “the first o f the resurrection from the
dead.” This title suggests that the resurrection o f the Messiah in the past relates directly
to the resurrection o f the dead in the future. The future resurrection has already been
mentioned in 24:15 as an act o f retributive judgment; but this reference in 26:23
suggests that Jesus’ own resurrection has somehow marked the first instance o f that
future resurrection. This connection clarifies an earlier problem in Acts 17:31, where
the “assurance” o f G od’s future judgment is the resurrection o f Jesus from the dead. He
is “the first” o f what is yet to come. Through this reference, the mystery o f the
resurrection in Luke-Acts has now unfolded to reveal its ultimate connection to the
future destiny of the whole world.
Two other titles for Jesus in Acts may point to a similar understanding o f the
relationship between Jesus’ resurrection and the future resurrection o f the dead. In Acts
3:15, Peter calls Jesus the “prince” or “author o f life” (apxtlYcx; xfjq £ojfj<;); but the
meaning o f this title cannot be directly related to the future resurrection unless it is
understood in terms o f Acts 26:23. In Acts 10:42, Peter also calls Jesus “the one
ordained by God as judge o f the living and the dead.” This reference uses much o f the
same language as Acts 17:31, as Conzelmann noted; yet it also lacks any direct
prophecy for a future resurrection, as I have argued. The messianic title o f Acts 26:23
is thus unique among all others for the way in which it directly relates Jesus’
resurrection to the future resurrection o f the dead. As a fitting climax to the resurrection
m otif in Luke-Acts, it brings together into a more unified understanding the scattered
references to the resurrection o f Jesus, the future resurrection o f the dead, and future

269
judgment that have been noted throughout both documents. As Luke brings his
entire story to a close, he recapitulates this entire development in abbreviated form one
last time, as Paul explains his imprisonment to Roman Jews: “for it is for the hope o f
Israel that I wear this chain” (28:20).
Summary
Three narrative contexts are o f especial importance in Luke’s development o f
the resurrection-judgment motif.
The Context o f the Speech Materials
With the exception of a few narrative comments (17:18, 32; 23:8; 25:19; cf.
24:25), every reference to the resurrection emerges within the speech materials o f
Paul’s preaching and defense. In these speeches, Paul emerges as what he claims to be
before the Ephesians: he is one who “proclaims the whole counsel o f God” (20:27).
The resurrection is a central component in what Paul declares about the divine plan in
both the Athenian episode and the trial scenes. The importance o f the resurrection
m otif in the speeches treated in this survey stands forth with special emphasis when one
recognizes that every one of these speeches concludes with some climactic reference to
the resurrection. In the Athenian episode, Luke introduces a concern for the
resurrection o f the dead that is distinctive from what has come before in Luke-Acts and
concludes by relating Jesus’ resurrection to the prospect o f the eschatological judgment.
The precise relationship between Jesus’ resurrection and the future judgment remains
unclear in successive speeches. Until Acts 26:23, Luke has been careful to develop

270
hope in the resurrection as the future hope o f the Jewish people without any direct
link to Jesus. The future resurrection and Jesus’ accomplished resurrection remain in
some tension in the text until the climactic claim o f Acts 26:23: that Jesus is the first o f
the resurrection from the dead. This link between the two resurrections provides the
final continuity to what might otherwise seem scattered and inconsistent references to
the resurrection. Paul’s preaching o f the divine counsel progressively develops this
m otif at Athens, Jerusalem, and Caesarea.
Those to whom he proclaims this belief in resurrection, however, seem not to
understand him. Paul offers his speeches in these chapters before a colorful and
panoramic array o f narrative audiences, including Epicurean and Stoic philosophers,
Athenian citizens, the Judean populace, the Jerusalem sacerdotal aristocracy, Pharisees,
Sadducees, angry Jewish accusers, Roman governors, and kings. Before these narrative
audiences, the resurrection language provokes controversy and misunderstanding,
especially in the Athenian episode and the Sanhedrin hearing. Furthermore, before the
narrative audiences o f Jerusalem and Caesarea, Paul offers his resurrection hope as
evidence o f his adherence to the ancestral religion. As these speeches are related before
the implied authorial audience, however, they build upon the earlier proclamation o f
Jesus’ resurrection from the dead according to the Scripture. The authorial audience’s
implied knowledge o f this connection contrasts sharply and ironically with the limited
knowledge o f Paul’s narrative audiences. Yet the authorial audience also has something
new to leam from Paul’s trials. As in the sermons o f Acts 2 and 13, Paul’s preaching
and defense continue to illumine the mystery o f the resurrection, yet now from an

271
unprecedented vantage: Jesus’ resurrection has now been inextricably linked to
Jewish hopes for a future resurrection and final judgment.
Stylistically, these appeals to the resurrection hope bear some resemblance to the
speeches treated in Chapters 2-4 o f this study. In 2 Macc, the Jewish Wars, and the
Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs, one encounters similar speech materials in which
figures appearing within a larger narration of Jewish history proclaim their ultimate
faith in the resurrection and eternal life. Reading the resurrection-judgment m otif in the
context o f these other works reveals how Luke presents Paul as an idealized exemplar
o f Jewish religion by emphasizing his resurrection hope. Comparison with these other
works further suggests that the futuristic nature o f Paul’s hope should be taken more
seriously without reducing it simply to self-apology or a kind o f christological parable
o f Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.189 Other similarities between Acts and these
works include the concern for the future life within the specific context o f Jewish
sectarianism (B.J.), and the development o f these speeches on the future life in the
narrative context o f imminent death or persecution (2 Macc, B.J., T. 12 Pair.). These
stylistic and content analogies raise the question o f whether the development o f the
resurrection-judgment m otif in Acts may perform rhetorical functions analogous to
those o f 2 Macc, the Jewish Wars, and the Testaments o f the Twelve. This will be the
subject o f Chapter 7. The chief difference between Acts and these works is that,
whereas the other three works have a variety o f figures making these speeches, Luke
primarily has Paul develop the m otif as the central issue o f his preaching and trial.
189See the section on Tannehill in Chapter I.

27 2
The Context o f Sectarian Designations
All four o f these speeches develop the resurrection m otif in the context o f
sectarian dispute and school designations, including Epicureans, Stoics, (17:18),
Pharisees (23:6-10, 26:5-8), Sadducces (23:6-10), Nazoreans (24:5), and “the way”
(24:14). Josephus’ reports on the Jewish schools also develop the belief in a future life
as a kind o f “common topic” upon which the individual schools and sects developed
their own understandings. For Josephus, these reports legitimate Judaism by
demonstrating that it has developed its own traditions o f philosophical reflection, just as
the Greeks have done.
Certainly, these legitimating tendencies are also at work in Luke’s “sectarian”
portrayal o f Paul. John Lentz has shown how ancient schools could often endow their
adherents with the status markers o f education, heredity, and virtue that resulted in
increased social standing in the ancient world.190 Paul is indeed proud o f his Pharisaism
in these chapters. His Pharisaism is directly linked to his resurrection hope twice in
these speeches (23:6; 26:5-8). Among the accusations o f his opponents, the sectarian
issue is also represented twice (24:5, 14). Paul, o f course, never refers to “the way” as
an aipecnq, as his accusers do (24:19); but he does associate this form o f ancestral
worship with his resurrection hope (24:14-16). Thus, Luke has thoroughly integrated
190Lentz, Le Portrait de Paul, esp. 74-86. Additional support for this reading may be
found in David B. Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy, and Friend: The Pharisees in Luke-Acts
(Emory Studies in Early Christianity 2; New York: Peter Lang, 1991), 292-96; Rapske, The
Book o f Acts and Paul in Roman Custody, 163; and Jerome Neyrey, “Luke’s social location of
Paul: cultural anthropology and the status of Paul in Acts,” in History, Literature, and Society
in the Book o f Acts, 251-82.

Ill
the resurrection hope o f Paul with matters o f school affiliation.191 As the critical
introduction has demonstrated, these school affiliations have often been read as a legal
defense o f Paul before Judaism and Rome. They may also be read as an authentication
o f the resurrection belief. Paul’s Pharisaism may lend legitimacy to the resurrection
hope as the established teaching o f a school. Paul’s school affiliation allows the
resurrection a legitimate place in disputation with Epicureans, Stoics, fellow-Pharisees,
and Sadducces, whether they will accept the belief or not.
Within the comprehensive narrative o f the trial scenes, however, references to
sectarianism count for far more than the legitimation o f Paul or even the resurrection
hope itself. Sectarian controversies provide a narrative context o f conflict, accusation,
and dispute within which Luke can develop Paul’s own faith in the resurrection in direct
contrast to other groups. Sectarian designations play a central role in what John A. Darr
has called a “paradigm o f imperceptiveness” in Luke-Acts. According to this rhetorical
strategy, characters in Luke-Acts often “observe . . . Jesus and other agents o f God and
yet utterly fail to recognize the significance o f either the persons and events they see or
the messages they hear.” 192 This imperceptiveness is especially strong where Luke
191 Mason, ‘‘Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees,” 153. He suggests that the “Pharisees’
belief in the resurrection confirms that Christianity belongs in the orbit of Jewish philosophical
culture.”
192Darr, On Character Building, 86-87. This citation of Darr is offered with

fundamental disagreement of his actual reading of Acts 23:6-10. See also the more
comprehensive treatment by Jerry Lynn Ray, Narrative Irony in Luke-Acts: The Paradoxical
Interaction o f Prophetic Fulfillment and Jewish Rejection (Mellen biblical Press Series 28;
Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen biblical Press, 1996), 8-10. Ray reads the ironic dimensions of
misunderstanding as part of a larger theological concern with Jewish rejection of the mission.
Ray’s treatment is consistent with that of Tannehill (see critical introduction).

274
juxtaposes the narrative audience’s ignorance about the resurrection with the
authorial audience’s implied familiarity with Luke 24, Acts 2, and 13.
Though Paul’s references to the resurrection have often been read as an attempt
to foster conciliation between himself and his respective narrative audiences, especially
in the trial scenes, nothing could be further from the truth.193 Wherever Paul mentions
the resurrection, it creates controversy and misunderstanding, not consensus. It meets
with confusion among Epicureans and Stoics (Acts 17:18), rioting among Pharisees and
Sadducees (23:6-10), and the presumably false accusation that Paul leads his own
religious sect (24:5, cf. v. 14). The misunderstanding o f Festus (25:19) also contributes
to this larger ironies that surround Paul’s resurrection faith. These responses, however,
are never those o f genuine faith; and even where they seem slightly affirmative (17:32b;
23:9), they only underscore the ultimate distance between Paul’s resurrection faith and
the beliefs o f his respective audiences. Paul’s faith in the resurrection has become, in
Cadbury’s words, “a stumbling-block.” 194 The question o f Acts 26:8 indicates what is
at stake in these sectarian disputes from a theological perspective: whether or not it is
to be believed that God raises the dead, both in the past and in the future. Paul’s
affirmative answer to this question, based upon the resurrection o f Jesus, separates him
from all other schools he comes in contact with, even his own.
193Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:288: “Paul is seeking a shared starting point that will
lead beyond controversy to effective witness” [a comment on Acts 23:6].
194 See the critical introduction on Cadbury, Making o f Luke-Acts, 278-79; see also
Pervo’s similar assessment, Luke’s Story o f Paul, 63. Eduard Schweizer suggests a similar
dynamic: “It is the resurrection of Jesus which is again and again the parting of the ways”;
“Concerning the Speeches in Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, 214.

275
As a representative figure for those who also believe in the risen Jesus,
Paul’s controversies over the resurrection thus finally chart the emergent differentiation
o f belief in Jesus from among the other schools represented in the narrative. This
certainly is the case with the Gentiles at Athens. Among Jews at Jerusalem and
Caesarea, Paul’s distinctive understanding o f the resurrection also differentiates
believers in Jesus from the Jewish sects If the resurrection makes a conversation
possible among them, it is also the decisive point at which misunderstanding and
confusion must eventually lead Paul and those whose faith he represents down another
“way” o f ancestral worship. Jervell, in fact, is even more emphatic about this self
differentiation: “es im Judentum einen inneren Konflikt g i b t . . . Paulus spaltet und
sprengt Israel.” 195 Acts, o f course, only charts the initial emergence o f this self
differentiation. Paul remains a faithful Pharisee, as he maintains “the hope o f Israel” in
chains, until the very end (28:20).
The Context o f the Trials
Related to these sectarian disputes is the larger trial narrative, in which Paul
defends his own P'icixtk; amid numerous accusations that he has profaned the law, the
Temple and the Jewish people. Even the Athenian episode, though not technically a
trial, has the overtones o f one. Luke portrays the trials as an investigation into Paul’s
relationship to Judaism. In these inquiries, claims about Paul’s sectarian affiliation
emerge in both defense and accusation. Paul proclaims his resurrection hope as
195Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 555 and 568. The quotation is a conflation from his
commentaries on Acts 23:6-10 and 24:5-6, respectively.

276
evidence o f his Judaism and Pharisaism. Yet more than this, Paul cites his hope as
the essence o f Israel’s faith from the patriarchs to the present. Paul’s hope demonstrates
that he represents the authentic essence o f Judaism. If there are those who find the
resurrection “unbelievable,” then they are the schismatics, not he.196 His own defense
thus contains within itself a sharp counter-accusation.
Paul and faith in the resurrection emerge from these trials as the authentic
standard o f what Judaism has always been - hope in the promises God made to the
ancestors. The incremental declarations o f innocence by the Pharisaic scribes (23:9),
Claudius Lysias (23:29), Festus (25:25), and finally Agrippa (26:31-32) confirm this
fact from the perspectives o f independent observation. In the final outcome, these
declarations o f innocence do little more. Luke will not allow these pronouncements to
end Paul’s trials or to set him free. A divine necessity hangs over these scenes and
over-rules Paul’s innocence. It remains that he must travel now to Rome (23:11). If
this means that he will bear witness before Caesar, it also implies his own impending
death by the same divine necessity.
Luke, o f course, has more at stake in the trial scenes than simply the P'icook; o f
Paul. As Allision A. Trites has argued, trials are not distinctive to Acts 21-26. They
constitute a recurrent narrative context in Luke-Acts in which Jesus (Luke 22:66-23:25;
cf. Acts 5:30, 7:52, 13:27-29), Peter and John (Acts 4:15; 5:21, 27, 34,41), and Stephen
(6:12,15) have already bome faithful witness prior to Paul’s own trial scenes. Luke’s
own theological presentation o f the witness to Jesus has a great deal at stake in each o f
196Jervell is even more emphatic: “sie kein Recht mehr besitzen, zu Israel zu gehoren”;

277
these trials, and Paul’s trial is no different.197 It is through the presentation o f Paul’s
faith under trial that Luke gives further development to the theology o f the resurrection
in Acts.198 The references to the resurrection are difficult to imagine as a formal legal
defense.199 None o f the previous accusations against Paul has even mentioned the
resurrection, yet Luke has taken an especially strong hand in forcing the trials to deal
with the relationship between the resurrection o f Jesus and Jewish hope in the
resurrection o f the dead.200 The point o f conflict is recurrently theological.
Two questions remain to be addressed in investigation o f these texts. First, if
Luke has shaped the trial scenes in ways that accentuate the relationship between the
resurrection o f Jesus and Jewish hopes for a future resurrection, what are the theological
assumptions o f these passages in terms o f a larger theology o f history? Second, how
may one account for the rhetorical function o f this presentation o f Paul’s resurrection
faith with regard to Luke’s larger presentation o f the church’s story? These two central
questions provide the point o f departure for the final two chapters o f this study.
197Allison A. Trites, “The Importance of Legal Scenes and Language in the Book of
Acts,” NovT 15 (1973): 278-84; on the theological nature of Paul’s defense speeches, see also
Maddox, Purpose o f Luke-Acts, 280-81; Haacker, “Das Bekenntnis des Paulus zur Hoffnung
Israels,” 439. The study of Rosenblatt is also perceptive and comprehensive; Paul the Accused,
1-21. The trials of Paul mark the coming to pass of Jesus’ warnings in Luke 21:12-19 and Acts
9:16; Talbert, Reading Acts, 202.
198See the critical introduction on Dibelius, who concluded that the Verteidungsreden
were ultimately a kind of preaching; cf. the critical introduction on Schubert and Conzelmann.
See also O’Toole, Acts 26, 33.
199On this point, see also Haenchen, Acts o f the Apostles, 616; Evans, “The ‘Speeches’
in Acts,” 292.
200 Haacker, “Das Bekenntnis des Paulus zur Hoffnung Israels,” 443: “Paulus hier sagt,
was Lukas selber denkt”; Long, “The Trial of Paul in the Book of Acts,” 235-37.

CHAPTER 6:
THE RESURRECTION-JUDGMENT MOTIF
AND MODELS OF LUKAN ESCHATOLOGY
As Chapters 2-4 o f this study have indicated, hope in the future life was not a
static and consistent concept in ancient literature, but an impulse that was shaped in
myriad ways by popular legends, philosophy, mythology, cosmology, and the particular
Tendenzen o f individual writers. Surveys on this topic in the Hellenistic and Roman
periods continue to bear this out.1 Even within the NT, the presentation o f the future life
in the Apocalypse o f John can differ substantially from that o f the Pauline corpus. This
raises the question o f how Luke has shaped his presentation o f hope in the resurrection-
judgment in order to accommodate his own Tendenzen in the book o f Acts. This is o f
special importance to the perennial critical question o f Luke’s eschatological vision,
which dominated the theological interpretation o f Acts in the past century and remains a
contested issue now at the beginning o f twenty-first century interpretation.
Based upon the preceding exegetical survey o f the resurrection-judgment motif in
Paul’s preaching and defense, this chapter attempts to define the eschatological
assumptions o f Luke’s resurrection language in these chapters. After assessing the
possible relationships between the future resurrection and other eschatological emphases
in Acts, I will argue that Luke has carefully shaped Paul’s resurrection hope in these
chapters in order to accentuate the continuities among three critical dimensions o f
1These surveys include: Charles, A Critical History o f the Doctrine o f a Future Life\
Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life; Stemberger, Der Leib der
Auferstehung, Cavallin, Life after Death; Puech, La croyance des esseniens en la viefuture;
Nikolainen, Der Auferstehungsglauben in der Bibel und ihrer Umwelt; Charlesworth, “Individual
Resurrection from the Dead and Immortality of the Soul,” Histoire du Christianisme des origines
a nos jours. Tome 14 (Paris: Desclee, forthcoming 2001-02).
278

279
history: 1. Israel’s ancestral past; 2. the coming o f the Messiah; and 3. the future o f the
whole world. This, finally, will raise the terminological question o f how to situate this
reading o f the future resurrection-judgment within critical discussions o f Luke’s
eschatology.
The Future Resurrection and Other Eschatological Emphases in Acts
The references to future resurrection and judgment certainly do not constitute the
only eschatological language in Acts. As the critical introduction has shown, the
resurrection-judgment passages have often received only peripheral consideration in
assessments o f Luke’s eschatology. The critical discussion has been far more attentive to
Luke’s kingdom language, the second coming, the giving o f the Spirit, and other
miscellaneous hopes, especially as they are developed in the first three chapters o f Acts.
It is, o f course, tempting to consolidate several o f these expectations under the term
parousia;2 but this often unifies Luke’s eschatological vision where the author himself
has chosen to be more inconsistent.
“Inconsistency” is, in fact, one o f the most consistent characteristics o f the author
where the subject o f eschatology is concerned. One would have hoped that Luke might
have been more careful to relate the resurrection-judgment m otif to the eschatological
hopes implied in Acts 1:6-8 and 1:11. The hope o f a future resurrection-judgment,
however, is a very rough fit with the eschatological expectations established early in the
book o f Acts. The only possible connections involve the hope for the fulfillment o f the
2Jervell tends to do this in his Theology o f the Acts o f the Apostles, 109-15.

280
messianic kingdom (1:6-8) and the coming o f the Spirit (2:1-36). In the first case, it is
from his risen status as Messiah o f Israel that Jesus will serve as the divine minister of
future judgment over the whole world (10:40-42; 17:31). The dispensation o f the Spirit
at Pentecost (and thereafter) also provides some indirect links to Luke’s understanding o f
the resurrection (esp. 2:33), as will be clarified below. Comparison between Luke’s early
eschatological emphasis upon the kingdom and Spirit in Acts 1-3 and his later
development o f hope in a future resurrection and judgment indicates that as he brings his
work to a close Luke returns to the subject o f futuristic eschatology by relating Jesus’
resurrection to the future resurrection and final judgment.
The Kingdom
The text that has played the most important role in critical discussions o f the
eschatology o f Acts is Acts 1:4-l 1.3 It was here that Conzelmann found confirmation in
Luke’s second volume o f the “anti-apocalyptic” statements about the timing o f the
kingdom that he had worked so carefully to identify in the first (Luke 17:20, 19:11,
21:7).4 Due to the importance o f this reading o f Acts 1:4-l 1 for the “classic theory” of
Lukan eschatology,5 subsequent attempts to transcend the theory have also had to come
to terms with the problem o f the kingdom in these verses. Several proposals have
3As Erich Grasser notes in, “TA PERI TES BASILEIAS (Apg 1,6; 19,8),” in a cause de
I 'evangile: Etudes, sur les Synoptiques et les Actes offertes an P. Jaques Dupont, O.S.B. a
I ’occasion deson 70e anniversaire (Lectio Divina 123; Paris: Cerf, 1985), 708.
4Conzelmann, Theology o f St. Luke, 113-36, 179-80.
5 See the critical introduction.

281
attempted this by emphasizing that in Acts 1:7-8, Luke is not so much interested in the
“when” o f the kingdom as he is in “to whom” the kingdom will come.6 Maddox, for
example, has argued that the problem o f the kingdom here is not one o f timing but o f
inclusion, since Jesus is not denying the restoration o f the kingdom at this time but rather
its restoration exclusively to Israel.7 Other exegetes, most notably, Jervell, have moved
beyond Conzelmann’s “classic theory,” while also emphasizing (contra Maddox) that
Luke’s reference here does not necessarily abandon the nationalist and particularist
dimensions o f the messianic kingdom, as they stand fulfilled in Jesus.8 Carroll, however,
has shown that the “to whom” emphasis o f Maddox and Jervell is not the only way out o f
the “classic theory.” He, instead, calls attention to the imminent timing o f the kingdom in
these verses by distinguishing sharply between the situation o f the disciples in the text
and the later historical situation o f the author. Though delay is the sum o f Jesus’ words
for the disciples, the ongoing narrative o f Acts after chapter 1 places the readers on the
6 Maddox, Purpose o f Luke-Acts, 106-08; Jervell, Theology o f the Acts o f the Apostles,
109-112.
7Maddox, Purpose o f Luke-Acts, 105-08. Maddox denies any sense of delay here.
8Jervell, Theology o f the Acts o f the Apostles, 109. He calls to his support other exegetes
who do not find Jesus denying or correcting the assumptions of the disciples: Franklin, Christ the
Lord, 10,95, 102, 130; Donald Juel, Luke-Acts: The Promise o f History (Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1983), 63; Matill, Luke and the Last Things, 135-45; Tiede, Prophecy and History in Luke-
Acts, 90; see also Tiede’s proposal concerning the christology of Acts 1 in “The Exaltation of
Jesus and the Restoration of Israel in Acts 1,” in Christians among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in
Honor o f Krister Stendahl on His Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. G.W.E. Nickelsburg and G. MacRae;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 278-86. One should also add to this list Michael Wolter,
“Israel’s Future and the Delay of the Parousia, according to Luke,” in Jesus and the Heritage o f
Israel: Luke's Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (ed. D. Moessner; Luke the Interpreter of
Israel 1; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1999), 307-24. Note also the
commentary of Spencer, who reads some of the resurrection prophecies in light o f Ezek 37, and
assumes that they hope in a restoration of Israel; Acts, 226-28.

282
verge o f the imminent fulfillment o f Acts 1:4-11, which functions in the text as a kind o f
pledge for the late first-century readers o f Acts.9 In each o f these readings, the timing
and constitution o f “the kingdom” in Acts 1 comprise one o f the defining topics in the
ongoing critical debate.
It is important, then, to determine the relationship between the resurrection-
judgment m otif and the expectation o f a kingdom restored to Israel in Acts 1:6-7. At first
glance, there seems to be no relationship whatsoever. Never is kingdom language
associated with the future resurrection and judgment. When it is recognized, however,
that Jesus’ resurrection in Acts 2 and 13 is presented as his accession to the Davidic
throne,10 the terms “resurrection” and “kingdom” do not seem so disparate. In the
speeches o f Acts 2 and 13, it is through the resurrection that God has exalted Jesus as
Lord and Messiah over the kingdom promised to David’s heirs. His resurrection has also
ordained him as the agent o f eschatological judgment over the whole world (Acts 10:42;
17:31). This is yet another feature o f his messianic office. Though Jesus currently
possesses all these authorities as the reigning son o f David and Messiah o f Israel, he does
not yet directly exercise the capacity o f eschatological judge. Instead, as Peter claims,
the heavens have received him until “the times o f restitution o f all things” (Acts 3:18),
which in light o f Acts 1:6-l 1 can only be an additional reference to the future restoration
9 Carroll, Response to the End o f History, 126-28.
10This understanding of the resurrection of Jesus in Acts 2 and 13 has been well
established in the secondary literature for some time. See Conzelmann, Theology o f St. Luke,
174-82; Schweizer, “The Concept of the ‘Davidic Son,”’ 186-93; Jervell, Theology o f the Acts o f
the Apostles, 25-34; Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:37-40, 168-74; Haacker, “Das Bekenntnis des
Paulus zur Hoffnung Israels,” 437-51; Kr3nkl, Jesus der Knecht Gottes, 84-87.

283
o f the messianic kingdom. As the risen one, Jesus’ status after Acts 1, then, contains a
double aspect: on the one hand, he has already received through his resurrection the full
accession into the messianic kingdom, including the office o f future judge;11 on the other,
the heavens have received him to the right hand o f God (7:55), whence he awaits “the
times and seasons” in which he will fully restore the messianic kingdom.
These references to the restoration o f the kingdom to Israel are confined primarily
to Acts 1-3. This has often provoked the critical comment that Luke’s eschatological
concerns in Acts are confined primarily to the first few chapters, after which he becomes
predominantly consumed with the ongoing mission o f the church in the world.12 More
generalized references to “the kingdom” do, however, continue to surface in Acts beyond
chapters 1-3, primarily as terminology for the content o f the believers’ preaching (8:12,
19:8, 20:25, 28:31). A futuristic concern remains inherent within the kingdom
terminology in Acts 14:22: “through many sufferings it is necessary for us to enter into
the kingdom o f God.” These references indicate that the issue o f the kingdom does not
fade completely from Acts after chapters 1-3. The kingdom hope may also persist in
Acts through the references to Jesus as the future eschatological judge, whose own
resurrection from the dead prefigures what is to come for the whole world. If this is the
11Schnackenburg, “Die lukanische Eschatologie,” 261-65. Schnackenburg’s revision of

Grasser emphasizes the presence of the kingdom, rather than its delay. Despite some insightful
comments upon the resurrection language of Paul’s preaching and defense, however, he does not
take adequate account of this second dimension of what I have termed its “double-aspect”: e.g.,
hope for the future.
12Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “Eschatology of Luke-Acts Revisited,” Encounter 43 (1982):

27-42. Of course, she also reserves the possibility that the fulfillment of promises in the past
provide certainty for the fulfillment of fiiture events as well. See below.

284
case, then the resurrection-judgment motif may serve to keep certain aspects o f the
kingdom hope alive as Acts draws closer to its conclusion. Now of course, the language
o f the kingdom as has retreated largely into the background, and the hope for
resurrection-judgment is predominant.
National particularism and universalism are inseparable components o f this
hope.13 The hope for the future resurrection that has begun in Jesus’ own entrance into
glory rests upon the nationalistic promises God made to Israel’s ancestors, especially
David. Israel’s Messiah will judge the whole world, including the Gentiles (10:42;
17:31).14 According to Paul’s speeches, the future resurrection itself has been the hope o f
the twelve tribes throughout history and a faithful element o f the ancestral tradition. It
can even be abbreviated with the term, “the hope o f Israel.” 15 In its own distinctive way,
then, the resurrection-judgment motif revives the theme o f Israel’s messianic hope,
established earlier in Luke-Acts among the disciples (Luke 24:21), Mary (1:32-33),
13Contra Schwartz, who argues that “Luke’s Paul has denationalized this hope, leaving it
individual and universal”; “The End of the Line: Paul in the Canonical Book of Acts,” 19-20.
14Jervell thus calls the Areopagus speech a “Gerichtsrede an die heiden”;

Apostelgeschichte, 455. In the final statement of the Areopagus speech, the terms “Messiah” and
“Israel,” of course do not appear. The cryptic expression of v. 31 seems much more concerned
with the fact of the future judgment itself, and only secondarily with its agency, as Barrett has
suggested; Acts o f the Apostles, 2:853. Nevertheless, the similarities with Acts 10:40-42, where
“Messiah,” “Israel,” and the prophets are represented (cf. 10:34-43), indicate that a similar
understanding of messianic agency underlies the proclamation in Acts 17:31. Luke seems to have
offered a cryptic expression here, in order to accentuate the differences between what the
Athenians hear and what proves to be the case in other texts, thus accentuating the Athenian
ignorance.
15Some interpreters have interpreted this motif as a positive Lukan affirmation of

political restoration for Israel. Acts does not disallow this, but it does not affirm this either. See
Arthur W. Wainright, “Luke and the Restoration of the Kingdom to Israel,” ExpTim 89 (1977-
78): 76-79; David L. Tiede, Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts", J. Bradley Chance, Jerusalem,

285
Zecharias (1:67-80), Simeon and Anna (2:25-38). Paul’s hope, however, is not simply
for the Messiah’s coming, but for the future resurrection and judgment, whose assurance
he finds affirmed through Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.
Certainly, there is no reference to the restoration o f kingdom to Israel in these
passages. Paul expects resurrection and judgment, not the kingdom; but insofar as these
speeches envision the exercise o f the Messiah’s future judicial role in a resurrection unto
judgment, they build upon earlier hopes o f a messianic kingdom and project them into the
future. The primary difference o f emphasis is that whereas the kingdom hope o f the
disciples included Israel alone (Acts 1:6), the hope for resurrection and judgment now
extends universally to “the living and the dead” (10:42), “the world” (17:31), and “the
just and the unjust” (24:15). The resurrected Messiah o f Israel has become the judge o f
the whole world. When this relationship is recognized, it is not the case, that after the
first few chapters o f Acts, the author’s eschatological concerns fade from view. They
have been projected into the future and made universal in the resurrection hope.
The Spirit
Another o f the perennial terms o f discussion about the eschatology o f Acts has
been the giving o f the Spirit at Pentecost (and thereafter). Conzelmann’s development o f
what would become the “classic theory” treated Luke’s Joel quotation in Acts 2 as
evidence that the more primitive Christian awareness o f the Spirit as the eschatological
gift itself had now weakened into reinterpretation o f the Spirit as “the substitute in the
the Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1988), 379-87;
for a criticism of this reading, see Carroll, Response to the End o f History, 162-64.

286
meantime for the possession o f ultimate salvation.” 16 Maddox contests this reading o f
Acts 2 by proposing that Luke’s understanding o f the Spirit is part o f what he terms an
“eschatology already fulfilled,” in which Acts 2 is “a most joyful and confident statement
that the essential expectations o f the end-time have already been realized.” 17 Jervell has
also moved beyond the “classic theory” by emphasizing that the Spirit has always been
active in the history o f Israel, and that Acts 2 marks part o f the eschatological restoration
o f Israel through the Spirit.18 Carroll’s “eschatology and situation” method o f analysis
further suggests that in the programmatic Joel quotation o f Acts 2, the Spirit’s coming in
the text has brought the church in Luke’s own time one step closer to the advent o f the
cosmic signs (2:19-20) that will mark the end o f the age.19 As in the case o f the kingdom
passages, the coming o f the Spirit in Acts 2 remains among the loci classici for defining
Lukan eschatology.
If the activity o f the Spirit in Acts is an important indication o f its eschatology,
how do the resurrection-judgment passages relate to Pentecost? As in the case o f the
kingdom, there is at best an indirect relationship, since none o f the passages surveyed in
the previous chapter emphasize the giving o f the Spirit in relationship to the future
resurrection.20 An unspoken connection, however, may be implied in Acts 2:32-33,
16Conzelmann, Theology o f St. Luke, 95-96, 135-36.
17Maddox, Purpose o f Luke-Acts, 139.
18Jervell, Theology o f the Acts o f the Apostles, 43-48.
19Carroll, Response to the End o f History, 132-35.
20Nor can it be claimed that for Luke the Spirit is the resurrection-Spirit, as in Rom 8:11.

287
where it is directly from his exalted messianic status after his resurrection that Jesus
pours forth the promise o f the Holy Spirit.21 This understanding o f Jesus’ resurrection
implies that he has not been completely removed from the course o f the believers’
ongoing history, since from his risen status he remains an active participant in the story o f
Acts.22 The ironic presentation o f Paul’s resurrection hope in Acts 23:6-11 presumes a
similar christological understanding o f Jesus’ resurrection. It assures his continued
participation in the story.23 Rather than removing him from the further course o f events,
the resurrection o f Jesus has ensured that he continues to speak and act, especially in the
giving o f the Spirit and in the remarkable disclosures to Paul.24
The current status o f Jesus as the risen Messiah is not only the basis for his
present guidance o f the mission in Acts. It is also as the risen one that Jesus will exercise
his future role as the messianic judge. In this sense, Luke has developed his presentation
o f the resurrection o f Jesus in ways that set the stage for both the present and future
21 H. Douglas Buckwalter also emphasizes the present participation of the exalted Christ
in the work of the mission, yet he may “Christianize” the messianology of Luke too much when
he suggests that through the resurrection Jesus has become Yahweh’s “co-equal”; “The Divine
Saviour,” in Witness to the Gospel, 115-18.
22 Contra Jervell, Theology o f the Acts o f the Apostles, 33: “In Acts, the exalted Christ is
a remarkably passive figure and it is hard to see that he has any real function.”
23 See the discussion of 23:6-11 in the previous chapter.
24There are both continuities and differences between my own statements and the classic
“absentee christology” articulated by Moule; “The Christology of Acts,” 179-82. The chief
difference between my own treatment and his classic statement is that I find the understanding of
Jesus’ risen status in Acts to be more emphatic of “presence” than of “absence.” This is
especially clear in Acts 23:11, where the risen Jesus stands near Paul.

288
realization o f God’s promises.25 If some “promises,” such as the giving o f the Spirit,
have been fulfilled through Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4; 2:33,
29; 13:22), there are also additional “promises” that lie upon the future horizon o f history,
including Israel’s collective hope o f a future resurrection from the dead in Acts 26:6-8.
As the Messiah has already fulfilled the Scripture in his work, death, resurrection, and
dispensation o f the Spirit, he will also fulfill the “hope o f Israel” in the future in
resurrection and judgment. His own resurrection in the past contains the guarantee of
what the future holds for “the living and the dead,” and “the whole world” (10:41-42;
17:31; 26:23). When one considers the indirect relationships that exist among the
resurrection, the messianic kingdom, and the giving o f the Spirit, the development in the
speeches o f Paul’s preaching and defense, though distinctive, is not anomalous to the
eschatological concerns o f Acts 1-3. The resurrection-judgment motif builds upon these
earlier concerns, while also projecting them into the future in hope o f God’s final and
universal action at the end o f history.
The Resurrection and Luke’s Theology o f History
Luke has, in fact, developed his portrayal o f the resurrection in ways that link
together three aspects o f time that are essential for his own theological presentation o f
history: 1. Israel’s ancestral past; 2. the coming o f the Messiah; and 3. the future o f the
whole world. The eschatological assumptions o f the resurrection-judgment m otif in these
chapters are best understood when one recognizes how Luke has integrated these three
25On this dimension of Lukan eschatology, see Gaventa, “Eschatology of Luke-Acts

Revisited,” 42.

289
times together in the speeches of Paul, in order to provide a coherent rendering o f history
from the ancestral past to the very end. In delineating these aspects o f time, the intention
is not to propose a Lukan periodization o f history, but merely to call attention to the
chronological trajectories o f Paul’s resurrection hope.
The Resurrection and Israel's Ancestral Past
The first clear temporal dimension that Luke has integrated into his description o f
the resurrection is the time o f the ancestors. Four passages surveyed in the previous
chapter ascribe Paul’s resurrection belief directly to the hopes o f the Jewish people (23:6-
9; 24:15-17; 26:6-8; 28:20). There is no indication, however, that this simply means the
contemporary Judaism that Acts portrays. Instead, Luke grounds the resurrection faith in
Israel’s ancestral faith. Four times in these passages Luke explicitly “ancestralizes”
Paul’s current resurrection hope. Before Felix, it is a part o f worshipping “the God o f the
ancestors” (24:14-15). Before Agrippa, it is the hope o f promises that God made “to the
fathers” (26:6) and an essential aspect o f worship for the “twelve tribes” throughout time
(26:7). Luke can, thus, finally summarize Paul’s resurrection faith as “the hope o f Israel”
(28:20).
Even Luke’s description o f Paul’s Pharisaism seems to reflect this
ancestralization. Paul is not merely a Pharisee in his own contemporary practice, but “a
son o f Pharisees” (23:6), an indication that Luke may have understood Pharisaism as a
multi-generational phenomenon receding back in history prior to Paul’s, and probably

290
even Jesus’, births.26 Whether Luke is familiar with Josephus’ tendency to situate the
emergence o f the Pharisees within the Hasmonean dynasty (A.J. 13.288-98; B.J. 1.110-
13) cannot be known.27 But his development o f Jewish resurrection hope as ancestral
religion may indicate that he assumed the Pharisees had an extended pre-history. What is
more certain is that for Luke they were the “strictest” (26:5) current representatives o f the
hopes o f the twelve tribes. As such, he probably recognized them as the most rigorous
adherents and representatives o f the ancestral faith, including the resurrection hope o f the
twelve tribes throughout history.
The tendency to extend the resurrection hope back into Israel’s ancestral past is
nowhere more evident than in the case o f the patriarch David (Acts 2 and 13), as the
preceding chapter has suggested. Luke seems genuinely to assume that David hoped in
the resurrection and deliverance from death, not unlike Simeon, Zebulon, Judah, and
Benjamin in the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs. The prophetic reading o f David’s
hopes for resurrection in the ancient past complement Luke’s tendency o f ancestralizing
Paul’s resurrection hopes in the trial scenes. David’s ancient hopes for deliverance from
death have not gone unanswered.28 God has fulfilled them in the resurrection o f his
genealogical descendant, the Messiah. Most apologetical readings o f this tendency
26The Pharisees are already presented as an established party in Galilee, Judea, and
Jerusalem when Jesus first encounters them in Luke 5:17.
27 See also the cryptic references to Alexander Jannaeus’ instructions to his wife
concerning the Pharisees in b. Sot ch 22b, a tradition perhaps related to A.J. 13.401-05.
28 For these hopes, see the citations of Ps 16:8-11 in Acts 2:25-28 and 13:35-37.

291
accentuate in various ways its legitimating function.29 But there is more than this at
stake. By extending the resurrection hope back into Israel’s ancestral past, Luke provides
coherence to the ongoing history o f Israel amid the tumultuous events that he must relate
within his own history, especially the problem o f Jewish disbelief. By showing that the
Jewish ancestral hope in the resurrection had been fulfilled in the Messiah’s own
resurrection, Luke could accentuate the coherence o f Israel’s ongoing history amid the
dissonance o f his own historic context. The ancestral promises were not forgotten, but
affirmed for the present and the future through the resurrection o f the Messiah.
One may question whether Luke is accurate when he claims that Israel’s religion
has always been characterized by a resurrection hope. The historical critic o f the Hebrew
Bible may initially smile at this assertion. There is no definitive historical evidence in the
Hebrew Bible prior to the Maccabean revolt (Dan 12:1-3) that the Jewish people believed
in the resurrection o f the dead.30 Enochic traditions, such as those preserved in 1 En. 25,
may well have provided the earliest evidence circa 175 B.C.E.;31 but even then, the belief
29 See the critical introduction.
30John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book o f Daniel (Hermeneia;

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), loc. cit.; “Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of
Death,” CBQ 36 (1974): 21-43; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life, 11-27;
Cavallin, Life after Death, 23-31. For more “maximalist" readings of the idea of the resurrection
in the OT that do not limit the emergence to Dan 12:1-3, see Leonard J. Greenspoon, “The Origin
of the Idea of Resurrection,” in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith
(ed. B. Halpem and J. Levenson; Winona Lake, 111.: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 189-240; Gerhard
Hasel, “Resurrection in the Theology of Old Testament Apocalyptic,” ZAW 92 (1980): 267-84;
Robert Martin-Achard, From Death to Life: A Study o f the Development o f the Doctrine o f the
Resurrection in the Old Testament (trans. J. Smith; Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1960); John F.
A. Sawyer, “Hebrew Words for the Resurrection of the Dead,” VT 23 (1973): 18-34; Puech, La
croyances des esseniens, 1:33-98.
31 Here, however, the Enochic literature generally prefers Paradise traditions to explicit
discussion of the resurrection, but the two may well be combined in I En. 25.

292
was probably not universal among Jews.32 Luke, however, is not an historical critic o f
the Hebrew Bible. He studies the Psalms o f David with a messianic piety that
emphasizes the fulfillment o f prophecy in the great and mysterious events o f Jesus’ life,
especially his resurrection from the dead. For Luke, then, David and the ancestors hoped
in the future resurrection of the dead from their own distant historical setting.33 The
resurrection prophecies o f the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs paint a similar
portrait, in which belief in the resurrection is also ascribed anachronistically to the
ancestors Simeon, Judah, Zebulon, and Benjamin.34 Beyond patriarchal times, 2
Maccabees demonstrates how the resurrection hope could also be ascribed to the patriotic
Jewish heroes o f the sacred past. This tendency only grew stronger during, and after,
Luke’s own context, as the resurrection hope emerged as a kind o f standardized belief
among the rabbis by the time o f the Shemoneh Esreh (late first century C.E.)35 and the
Mishnah and Talmud Sanhedrin (c. early to mid-third century C.E.).36
32Nowhere can it be found in ben Sira.
33A graphic example of this reading of the Psalms is supplied in a christianum additum to
the heading of Ps 65 (LXX) in Ms Ga which reads, “Ode of a psalm on resurrection” (tj)8f|
\|raXp.ou dvaaxdaeax;). See the textual commentary in the critical edition by A. Rahlfs,
Septuaginta Sociatatis Scientiarum Gottingensis, Vol. X: Psalmi cum Odis (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931), 185 n. 1.
34 See Section 2.3 o f this study for texts and translations.
35Particularly the second benediction of the earlier Palestinian recension: nn*< -pna
Q’nn rrnn ' \ See Schiirer, History o f the Jewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ, 2:454-63. The
tradition may well have ante-dated the late first century.
36Seem.Sanh. 10:1 and especiallyj.Sanh. 10:1, b.Sanh. 11:1. Especially important to

these traditions is that the resurrection of the dead must be specifically derived minn p , though
some Mss of m.Sanh. lack this phrase.

2 93
Thus, Luke’s ascription o f the resurrection faith to the ancestors o f Israel probably
reflects (1) his pietistic reading o f certain psalms and prophecies in terms o f the
resurrection o f the Messiah;37 (2) a broader tendency in the literature o f his time that
ascribes to the ancestors aspects o f contemporary piety, including faith in the future life;38
and (3) his historical setting within the emergent standardization o f the resurrection hope
as a belief constitutive for all Judaism. This ancestralization o f the resurrection hope in
the speech materials o f the trial scenes, however, does not stand on its own. Luke is
intent on relating this device to two other aspects o f time.
The Resurrection and the Coming o f the Messiah
The second temporal dimension Luke has integrated within his treatment o f the
resurrection is obviously the time when God fulfilled the promises to the ancestors by
raising the Messiah from the dead. The immediate relationship between the hopes o f the
ancestors and the resurrection o f the Messiah is emphasized especially in the sermons o f
Acts 2 and 13, but this relationship is also recapitulated in the language o f Paul’s
preaching and defense. Jesus’ resurrection stands subtly behind all the resurrection
passages, even those that do not directly mention him, since the authorial audience has
been consistently informed o f this event throughout Luke-Acts. It is the dramatic
revelation o f the risen one to Paul that has now caught him up in a paradoxical and
37On this influence in Luke’s development of “the hope of Israel,” see Haacker, “Das
Bekenntnis des Paulus zur Hoffnung Israels,” 437-51. See also Donald Juel, Messianic Exegesis,
146-50.
38 In addition to the texts discussed here, see also Heb 11:17-19.

294
deadly struggle with his own people over the nature and meaning o f the resurrection.39 In
this sense, it is because o f the resurrection o f Jesus that he is now on trial in the first place
(23:6; 24:21; 28:20).
Three passages surveyed in Chapter 5 directly mention the resurrection o f Jesus.
In the Areopagus speech the resurrection o f Jesus marks a point in time subsequent to the
creation o f the world (17:24), the creation o f the human, and the dwelling o f human
beings throughout the world (17:26).40 The attempt to set the resurrection o f Jesus in
relation to the very creation is a distinctive feature o f the Areopagus speech. Here, Luke
has fully extended the pre-history o f Jesus’ resurrection to the very creation o f the world
and humanity (cf. Luke 2:23-38), not merely to the ancestors o f Israel. This reflects a
self-conscious attempt by Luke to situate the resurrection o f Jesus in relationship to the
very beginnings o f biblical chronology (Gen 1:1). In the Areopagus speech, the
resurrection o f Jesus has also marked the end o f “the times o f ignorance” for Gentiles.
After Jesus’ resurrection, the good news is proclaimed to all nations in ways that demand
repentance from idolatry (17:30; cf. 26:23). The brief narrative comment by Festus in
Acts 25:19 also reiterates Jesus’ death and resurrection in the past as the central religious
dispute o f Paul’s trial. Finally, Paul’s defense speeches conclude with a recapitulation o f
Jesus’ resurrection which frames this event as chronologically subsequent to the oracular
391 must, therefore, part ways with Daniel R. Schwartz, whose work is otherwise
congenial to the arguments presented in this chapter; see “The End of the Line: Paul in the
Canonical Book o f Acts,” 22-23.
40 Squires, “The Plan of God in the Acts of the Apostles,” 26-27.

295
activity o f Moses and the prophets, and chronologically prior to the preaching o f “light”
to the people and the Gentiles, and the future resurrection o f the dead (26:22-23).
A chronological list o f times and events with which Luke has surrounded the
resurrection o f Jesus in Acts would thus include,
1. the creation o f the world and humans, and their dwelling upon the earth;
2. the patriarchs, Moses, David, and the prophets in Israel, perhaps
corresponding to “the times o f ignorance” among the Gentiles;41
3. the coming o f the Messiah, culminating in his resurrection;
4. the preaching o f repentance and light to Israel and the nations, which
culminates in Acts with the preaching o f Paul.
Throughout Luke-Acts the correspondence between items 2 and 3 is particularly strong,
especially where prophecy and fulfillment are such important issues in Luke 24 and Acts
2 and 13. For Luke, it is appropriate to state that the resurrection o f the dead, long
prophesied and hoped for in Israel, has been realized in the resurrection o f Jesus from the
dead. Yet Luke is also concerned with the relationship between items 3 and 4, as he was
also in the commissioning appearance o f Luke 24:46-49. Jesus’ resurrection provides the
context for the current preaching mission o f repentance and forgiveness, which the risen
Messiah empowers through the giving o f the Spirit, the power o f his name, and
continuing supernatural disclosures which guide and encourage his servants in mission
41 For this correspondence between Israel and the Gentiles, see Bock, “Scripture and the
Realisation of God’s Promises,” 45-46.

296
and suffering.42 By drawing relationships between these aspects o f the past and the
present, Luke emphasizes the continuity o f the divine plan, especially as it leads to the
resurrection o f Jesus and the divine authorization of the current mission.
The Resurrection and the Future o f the Whole World
It would, however, be a mistake simply to read the resurrection-judgment m otif as
a kind o f gradually unfolding christological parable o f Jesus’ resurrection from the dead
as a fulfilled event in the past.43 These passages project the significance o f Jesus’
resurrection into the future by calling the readers’ attention to the final judgment and
resurrection o f the dead. The fulfillment o f the ancestral hopes in the resurrection o f the
Messiah is, thus, not a fully resolved issue in the narrative; it also serves as a pattern for
what is yet to come.44 AH four key passages surveyed in the previous section share at
least some hint o f this futuristic element in common. Though this future concern is
perhaps already assumed in Acts 4:2 and 10:42, it is the Areopagus speech that initiates a
genuine concern for relating Jesus’ accomplished resurrection to the future judgment in
Acts. What has occurred in Jesus’ resurrection is now presented, not simply as an act o f
42 Schnackenburg, “Die lukanische Eschatologie,” 264-65; Carroll, Response to the End

o f History, 132-35. This connection between items 3 and 4 also provides the context for
Moessner’s treatment of the resurrection hope in the trial scenes; see “The ‘script’ of the
Scriptures in Acts,” 242-45.
43 As the critical introduction suggests, Tannehill borders on this, when he reads the
resurrection passages of the trials as concealing a hidden christological core which is finally
unveiled in Acts 26:23.
44Cf. Soards’ warning that a one-dimensional reading of prophecy and fulfillment in the
speeches of Acts may ignore the fact that “the past, especially in the quotations of scripture, is
used in the speeches to establish the continuity of the past, the present, and even the future”; The
Speeches in Acts, 201. See also Bock, “Scripture and the Realisation of God’s Promises,” 47-49.

2 97
scriptural fulfillment, but as God’s assurance in history o f what is to come at the end o f
history - the judgment o f the whole world (17:31).
The claim that God will act in the future factionalizes the Sanhedrin. In Paul’s
hearing before the Sanhedrin, Luke seems more interested in developing the claim that
God raises the dead than he is in prophesying a future resurrection. Nevertheless, the
authenticity o f the latter rests with that o f the former. The resurrection is a “hope” (23:6)
for the future to which Paul proudly holds. There is a sense in which the question o f
future history is at stake in the Sanhedrin. Without a future resurrection, there will be no
final justice in the universe and the hopes o f Israel have not been fully assured for the
future through the Messiah’s coming. Having labored diligently to bring his history from
creation to the advance o f the current mission, Luke could hardly have left the future in
the hands o f Sadducees or other skeptics. The Messiah’s coming must ensure the future
consummation o f Israel’s hope and the final justice o f God.
Futurity is more obvious in Paul’s resurrection saying before Felix. Once again
the resurrection is a “hope” for the future that is awaited in the present. Paul openly
proclaims that there will be a resurrection of the just and the unjust, reinforcing the tone
o f future retribution sounded earlier in the Areopagus speech (17:31; cf. 10:42) and again
in his private discussion with Felix and Drusilla (24:25). As this warning o f impending
retribution called the Athenians to repentance (17:30), it also requires an unoffending
conscience from Paul (24:16) and even evokes fear (ep<t>o(lo<;) from Felix (24:25). The
universality o f this future judgment over the whole world does not detract from the
nationalist portrayal o f Paul’s resurrection hope. It is as the M essiah o f Israel that Jesus
will administer judgment upon both the living and the dead.

298
Paul’s resurrection sayings in his speech before Agrippa are consistent with this
futurity. Once again, the resurrection is “hope” for the future, which has inspired the
worship o f the twelve tribes throughout history. It is what they labor to attain. Paul rests
his own assurance about the future upon the realization that God raises the dead, a claim
that his adversaries find “unbelievable” (26:8). As in the case o f the Sanhedrin trial, he
affirms the claim that God raises the dead, especially as it relates to the future
culmination o f Israel’s hopes. If God does not raise the dead, both the past and the future
are lost. The hopes o f the people are empty, and the future itself is in jeopardy. His brief
title for Jesus in 26:23 - npSrcoq e£ dvaaxaaeox; vsicptov - further reveals his concern for
addressing this problem. Jesus is the first o f the resurrection from the dead. He thus
confirms that the future hopes o f the people are not vain, that God does indeed raise the
dead. God has already done so in the specific case o f the Messiah and will do so
definitively in the future. As the entire two-volume work comes to a close, Luke can thus
confidently leave his readers with one final glance at the future, as Paul once again
proclaims his unyielding fidelity to “the hope o f Israel” (28:20), for which he now
endures suffering and chains.
Given the futurity o f the references to the resurrection, one should revise the
previous chronology accordingly:
1. the creation o f the world and humans, and their dwelling upon the earth;
2. the patriarchs, Moses, David, and the prophets in Israel, perhaps
corresponding to “the times o f ignorance” among the Gentiles;
3. the coming o f the Messiah, culminating in his resurrection;
4. the preaching o f repentance and light to Israel and the nations, which

299
culminates in Acts with the preaching o f Paul;
5. the resurrection o f the dead and final judgment through the Messiah.45
The relationship between items 1 and 5 in the Areopagus speech conveys the
comprehensiveness o f Luke’s vision o f history. It extends literally from creation to
consummation.46 Luke does not describe every detail in between, but he has drawn the
boundaries clearly enough. The continuity between items 2 and 5 is a consistent concern
in Paul’s trial scenes, where the hopes o f the ancestors are portrayed as the future
resurrection hope, even apart from direct mention o f Jesus.47 Luke has related items 3
and 5 both in the Areopagus speech, where Jesus’ resurrection provides the assurance in
history o f future judgment, and in his final claim before Agrippa, where Jesus’
resurrection marks the beginning o f the eschatological resurrection. Finally, the
relationship between items 4 and S appears directly in the Areopagus speech’s call for
repentance and in the risen Messiah’s preaching o f light to all before the future
resurrection of the dead (26:23).
What is Luke’s position in this chronology? He is somewhere between items 4
and 5, roughly contemporaneous with Paul and the preaching mission, though Paul, for
Luke, is now in the past, even if his mission continues in the work o f his heirs. Luke’s
earliest readers can only have been in the same chronological position. The next great
45This last point may coincide with the coming of the kingdom and the return of Jesus
suggested in 1:6-11, though the resurrection hope is preferred over this earlier language.
46 See the critical introduction on Conzelmann and Schubert.
47Note also the portrayal of David as one who hoped in a future resurrection (2:29-36;
13:32-37), and the claim that God’s action has been established from “holy prophets from of old”
(3:21).

300
event that both Luke and his readers await is the same one that Israel has hoped for
through the centuries and their predecessor, Paul, claimed would come - the resurrection
unto judgment. Luke has thus framed his own position in history, as well as that o f his
readers, with the resurrection o f Jesus behind them and the future resurrection and
judgment before them. In this position, the past contains the certainty o f what will come
in the future, and the present is surrounded on both sides by the saving acts o f God.
In these speeches, then, Luke has carefully constructed relationships between
several junctures in what he might have recognized as the history o f the whole world.
That vision o f history does not conclude with the church’s current preaching mission o f
repentance and forgiveness, though it may be the penultimate event on the calendar o f
days. History will extend into the future to the very consummation o f the age in
resurrection and final judgment.48 Paul’s faith in the resurrection and judgment is the
primary literary device by which Luke shapes his own theology o f history to come to
terms with the future. It is by no means an elegant literary device. These references in
the speeches are so concise, and even cryptic, that they must be brought together from
multiple contexts and joined, like the fragments o f an ancient manuscript. Even when
joined together, there are still missing pieces. Nevertheless, when joined, they portray
the broad outlines o f the chronological assumptions o f a larger vision o f history.
This vision o f past, present, and future stands forth with additional emphasis,
when one recognizes that the resurrection passages are virtually free o f anthropological or
cosmological concerns for the form that life will take in the resurrection. Only the
48 Cf. Squires’ claim that, for Luke, God is at work “beyond the time of Jesus,” from the
creation of the world to the current mission; “The Plan of God in the Acts of the Apostles,” 26.

301
references to “angels” and “spirits” (23:8) could even provide a hint o f such concerns.
Nor does Luke recapitulate his earlier concerns with the “corruption” o f the Messiah’s
body (Luke 24:36-43; Acts 2:31-32; 13:35-37) in these chapters.49 Thus, it is impossible
to determine what form o f life the future resurrection will take based upon these
passages. If an answer may be found to this question, it is in that form o f existence that
Jesus himself seems to enjoy after his resurrection from the dead. Yet Paul’s resurrection
hope is silent on these questions. Instead, Paul’s resurrection hope has become
theological short-hand within the speech materials for the universal vision o f the divine
plan just described. The remaining problem that must be addressed in consideration o f
Luke’s re-emerging concern with the future is the function o f these references to the
eschatological resurrection and final judgment within Luke’s rhetorical strategy in the
scenes o f Paul’s preaching and defense. This question provides the context for the final
chapter.
The Resurrection and Models of Lukan Eschatology
Before turning to this final concern, it is necessary to clarify the previous reading
o f Luke’s theology o f history in conversation with the predominant critical terminology
in the study o f Luke’s eschatology. Though a variety o f terms is currently in use within
this field o f study, at least four terms now name recognizable models for assessing
Luke’s eschatology: 1. Delayed Eschatology; 2. Fulfilled Eschatology; 3. Futuristic
Eschatology; 4. Individual Eschatology; 5. Two-Level Eschatology. A survey o f the
49On Luke’s earlier anthropological concerns, see Krankl, Jesus der Knecht Gottes, 143-
47.

302
relationship between the resurrection-judgment m otif and these models for assessing
Luke’s eschatology in Acts finds some limited value in each one. Ultimately, however,
the resurrection-judgment m otif differs from them all because o f the unique manner in
which Luke has interrelated the past, present, and future in the resurrection motif, in the
effort to develop a concise, yet comprehensive, vision o f history.
Delayed Eschatology
As the critical introduction to this study has shown, the delay model for Lukan
eschatology became the predominant approach to the problem within a generation after
Conzelmann’s Die Mitte der Zeit ( Theology o f St. Luke) in 1953. Supported by a number
o f influential figures,50 Conzelmann’s theory, though primarily a redaction-critical study
o f the gospel, identified in Acts 1:6-11 an attempt to delay the imminent expectation o f
the parousia that was to be found in apocalyptic movements in early Christianity and
Judaism. In the place o f an imminent return o f Jesus, Luke substituted the prolonged
period o f the church’s mission through the work o f the Spirit given at Pentecost, until the
time o f ultimate salvation now far away in the future.51 This realization o f the church’s
50 See the critical introduction. Conzelmann’s work, as rightly suggested by Carroll and
Talbert, represents a synthesis of scholarship that arose out of and contributed to other works,
such as Bultmann, Theology o f the New Testament, 2:116-118; Vielhauer, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of
Acts,” 33-50; Kasemann, “The Problem of the Historical Jesus,” 28; Erich Grasser, Das Problem
der Parusieverzogerung in den synoptischen Evangelien; Haenchen, Acts o f the Apostles, 150-52.
See Carroll, Response to the End o f History, 7-9; Talbert, “Shifting Sands: The Recent Study of
the Gospel of Luke,” 395; Gaventa, “Toward a Theology of Acts: Reading and Re-reading,” 147;
Bovon, Luc le Theologien, 19.
51 Erich Grosser has remained an enduring proponent of Conzelmann’s thesis. See his
statements in response to Rudolf Schnackenburg, “TA PERI TES BASILEIAS,” 711-12.

303
prolonged existence in the world (ecclesia pressa) led Luke furthermore to conciliation
with both the Roman state and Judaism.
In support o f Conzelmann’s theory, the burning expectation o f an imminent end is
to be found nowhere in the resurrection passages. Even when the future resurrection is
prophesied here, Luke is far from his contemporary, the author o f 4 Ezra, for whom
Hades has borne the dead for “nine months,” and is now on the verge o f labor and giving
back the dead (4.33-43). Certainly, Luke is un-apocalyptic in these passages. Does it
follow that he is anti-apocalyptic, as Conzelmann’s model maintains? Or, has he
intentionally delayed expectation o f what is coming in the future? This cannot be argued
successfully on the basis o f the resurrection-judgment motif. First o f all, Paul is not
persuading over-zealous hearers in these chapters to modify their eschatological
expectations in favor o f delay, but rather trying to confirm before skeptical audiences that
God does indeed raise the dead, and will even do so in the future. By linking the future
resurrection to Jesus’ own resurrection, Luke has not delayed the future but has
confirmed it as inevitable and unavoidable. Furthermore, he has framed the current
historical situation o f his readers in such a way that the next great event in the divine plan
will be the future resurrection from the dead and the judgment o f the whole world.
Fulfilled Eschatology
If Luke has not delayed the future resurrection in these chapters, has he not
simply affirmed that it has already taken place in a figurative way in the accomplished
resurrection o f Jesus? This is the perspective o f the resurrection that would emerge from
models that argue, as Maddox does, that Luke is interested in conveying “a most joyful

304
and confident statement that the essential expectations o f the end-time have already been
realized.”52 As the foregoing study has shown, all the Scripture has pointed for ages and
generations to the resurrection o f Jesus from the dead, which is the primary fulfillment-
event recorded in all o f Luke-Acts. For Luke, the resurrection hope o f Israel has certainly
already been accomplished in Jesus’ resurrection, which stands subtly behind even those
passages that do not directly mention Jesus himself. By entering into his messianic glory,
the risen Jesus currently dispenses the eschatological gifts o f the Spirit, healing,
forgiveness o f sins, and salvation for Israel and the Gentiles.53 It would seem to be the
case, then, that the resurrection m otif would be highly conversant with a model o f
interpretation that emphasizes the current fulfillment o f Israel’s eschatological hopes.54
The unyielding futurity o f these passages, however, simply will not allow this
classification. Models for Lukan eschatology that are concerned with fulfilled events
tend to peripheralize the futuristic dimensions o f Paul’s hope in the future resurrection
and judgment;55 and as a result they often do not come to terms with the third temporal
dimension o f these passages (e.g., the future). Even where Luke calls attention to Jesus’
resurrection as an accomplished event, he is also busy in these chapters relating this to
future resurrection and final judgment (Acts 17:31, 26:23). This characteristic o f Luke’s
52The quotation is from Maddox, Purpose o f Luke-Acts, 139. The term “eschatology
already fulfilled” is also his. A similar perspective is provided by Schnackenburg, “Die
lukanische Eschatologie,” 263-65, who finds Luke combating “eine falsche Naherwartung” (261).
53Bock, “Scripture and the Realisation of God’s Promises,” 54-55.
54As suggested by Ulrich Wilckens, “Interpreting Luke-Acts in a Period of Existentialist

Theology,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, 65-66.
55As Maddox tends to do. See the critical introduction.

305
style, in which the author places simultaneous emphasis upon both fulfilled and future
events, is also perceptible in the Endzeitreden o f the gospel. Even in the uniquely Lukan
tradition, “The kingdom o f God is among you” (Luke 17:21), this assertion about the
presence o f the kingdom is immediately coupled only three verses later with the
expectation o f a futuristic parousia: “For as the lightening, when it lightens from one
part o f heaven, shines unto (another) part o f heaven, so shall the son o f man be56”
(17:24).
Futuristic Eschatology
It would stand to reason, then, that a futuristic model would have the best
advantage for accommodating these references. Here, one must distinguish between two
futuristic models for Luke’s eschatology. One model suggests an imminent sense o f
timing for the eschaton and is perhaps best represented by Fred O. Francis57 and A.J.
Mattill.58 The other prefers to describe an indefinite or inevitable sense o f futurity for the
eschaton, and may be best represented by Richard H. Hiers,59 Jacob Jervell,60 and
56 Many textual traditions supplement the cryptic assertion with the phrase ev tfl T)|iEp<5i.
57Fred O. Francis, “Eschatology and History in Luke-Acts,” JAAR 37 (1969): 49-63.

Francis’ well known slogan expresses his view that near-expectation is not foreign to Luke:
“Eschatological existence in Luke-Acts is a present whose consummation comes ‘speedily’ but
not ‘immediately’” (58-62).
58 Mattill, Luke and the Last Things; see the critical introduction.
59 Richard H. Hiers, “The Problem of the Delay o f the Parousia in Luke-Acts,” NTS 20
(1974): 145-55. Like Francis, Hiers deals primarily with the gospel. He has less to say about
Acts.
60 Perhaps Jervell is a good example of this; Theology o f the Acts o f the Apostles, 112-15.

306
Emmeram Krankl.61 The “delayed eschatology,” o f course, is also futuristic. But these
assessments o f Lukan eschatology differ from the “delay” model o f the “classic theory,”
in that they find Luke’s futuristic emphasis to be a positive and confident assertion o f his
theology rather than something he felt compelled to correct, postpone, or dismiss far into
the future.62
Among the resurrection passages surveyed, Acts 17:31 provides the only example
o f what one might possibly classify as imminent future eschatological expectation.63
Perhaps the brief summary o f Paul’s teaching concerning “the coming judgment” (24:25)
might be interpreted similarly.64 Apparently, Felix thought so. But this is only
conjectural and depends heavily upon the indecisive evidence o f the word peXXetv, which
can mean “about to” or simply “will.”65 Even if Acts 17:31 represents an imminent
future, what o f the other passages, which lack this sense o f timing? Are they to be
harmonized with Acts 17:31? This is unacceptable. It is more probable that Acts 17:31,
like the other references, implies futurity without any definite sense o f imminence.
61 Krankl, Jesus der Knecht Gottes, 203: “Es kommt Lukas nicht auf des Wann, sondem
auf das DaB der Parusie an.” These comments come in reference to Acts 10:42-43, 17:30-31.
62 For other futurist models of Lukan eschatology see also Christoph Burchard, Der
Dreizehnte Zeuge: Traditions- und kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Lukas ’
Darstellung der Friihzeit des Paulus (FRLANT 103; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht,
1970); Ruthild Geiger, Die lukanischen Endzeitreden: Studien zur Eschatologie des Lukas-
Evangeliums (Europaische Hochschulschriften 23.16; Bern: Herbert Lang, 1973).
63 Jervell, Theology o f the Acts, 114; Barrett, Acts o f the Apostles, 2:852.
64 A.J. Mattill presents Acts 10:42; 17:31; and 24:15, 25 as textual evidence for
Naherwartung in Acts; see “Naherwartung, Femerwartung, and the Purpose o f Luke-Acts:
Weymouth Reconsidered,” CBQ 34 (1974): 276-93.
65 See the discussion of Acts 17:31 in the previous chapter.

307
Futurist models that emphasize indefiniteness or inevitability may thus strike
closer to the root. Luke simply has not suggested the timing offuture judgment, though
his presentation o f Paul’s preaching and defense suggests that it will come as the other
promises have come - through the inevitable exercise o f the divine will. Paul’s “hope” in
these chapters is well founded. The “hope o f Israel” will come, just as the earlier
prophecies o f the Scripture have been fulfilled in the Messiah.66 Luke provides assurance
o f this by anchoring the future resurrection-judgment in Jesus’ accomplished resurrection
as the Messiah o f Israel and the agent o f eschatological judgment (17:31; 26:23). In these
passages, christology itself affirms the certainty o f future eschatology. There is no
question that this represents a futuristic tendency in Luke’s theology.
There are, however, two shortcomings o f a futuristic model. First o f all, it tends
to overlook the fact that for Luke the “ first” o f the resurrection has already come. For
him, the resurrection names Jesus’ current status o f messianic exaltation and the
extension o f the eschatological gifts to the church. If Luke has projected this awareness
into the future, this very maneuver depends upon the authenticity o f what has already
taken place. Second, the resurrection in these chapters retains the character o f a doctrine
o f Judaism. There is a certain didacticism about Paul’s resurrection hope in these
chapters. Before the authorial audience, Luke consistently portrays Paul as a steadfast
believer in this doctrine as a tenet o f his own Jewish heritage that is essentially
compatible with the preaching o f Jesus as the Messiah. Futurity is, thus, an undeniable
feature o f these passages, but it is not the whole portrait.
66 Gaventa, “Eschatology of Luke-Acts Revisited,” 42.

3 08
Individual Eschatology
Amid this talk o f the kingdom, the future, and the promises, how did Luke finally
develop his eschatology in the practical terms o f what he wanted to communicate
concerning the fate o f the individual in light o f death? This question has brought Jaques
Dupont,67 C.K. Barrett,68 Gerhard Schneider,69 Richard Bauckham,70 and Daniel
Schwartz7' to speak o f Luke’s eschatology as at least somewhat concerned with the
behavior o f individuals in light o f death and the question o f the ultimate fate o f the
wicked and good beyond the grave.72 In relation to the resurrection-judgment passages,
personal destiny does seem to be o f some concern in the Areopagus speech, where Paul
specifically cites the future judgment as an urgent call to repentance for the Athenians
67Jaques Dupont, “Die individuelle Eschatologie im Lukasevangelium und in der

Apostelgeschichte,” in Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker: Festschrift Jiir
Josef Schmidt (Freiburg: Herder, 1973), 37-47.
68 His comments come in the exegesis of Stephen’s vision; C.K. Barrett, “Stephen and the
Son of Man,” in Apophoreta: Festschriftfu r Ernst Haenchen (Berlin: Topelmann, 1964), 32-38.
69Gerhard Schneider, Parusiegleichnisse im Lukas-Evangelium (Stuttgart: Katholisches

Bibelwerk, 1975), 85-98. See Carroll, Response to the End o f History, 27-28.
70Richard Bauckham, “The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Parable and the Parallels,” in
The Fate o f the Dead: Studies in the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (NovTSup 93; Leiden:
Brill, 1998), 97-118.
71 Schwartz, “The End of the Line: Paul in the Canonical Book of Acts,” 20-21.
72This model has developed in reflection upon Luke 12:20, 16:19-31, 23:43; Acts 7:55-
60; 14:22.

309
(17:30-31).73 David Daube,74 Ben Viviano and Jeremy Taylor75 have argued that Luke’s
narrative comment on the resurrection, angels, and spirits (23:8-9) assumes beliefs about
the state o f the righteous beyond death. Though this remains conjectural, it may provide
yet another indication that Luke was at least somewhat concerned with issues o f
individual eschatology. Furthermore, Paul must maintain an unoffending conscience
himself, in light o f his resurrection faith, apparently because he, too, stands under the
coming judgment (24:15-17). Felix, on the other hand, becomes afraid when he hears
Paul privately discoursing on the coming judgment (24:25). These aspects o f the
resurrection motif do lend themselves to a model that accounts for individual behavior in
light o f the coming judgment.
Once again, however, these texts remain obstinate to classification. It is not
merely the fa te o f the individual, but the fa te o f Israel, that is at stake in Paul "s hope
(28:20). The long procession o f patriarchs and prophets who have hoped in the
resurrection stand behind Paul in these chapters, and their voices speak in his.
Furthermore in the Areopagus speech, Luke has extended the pre-history o f Jesus’
resurrection as far back as creation itself, while also linking it directly to the final
judgment. This maneuver reflects at least some concern with a world chronology that
situates the resurrection o f Jesus in terms o f both the beginning and the end o f history.
The judgment itself will be one o f the whole “world” (oiKoupevri) according to the
73 Schwartz, “The End of the Line: Paul in the Canonical Book of Acts,” 20-21.
74 Daube, “On Acts 23,” 493.
75Viviano and Taylor, “Sadducees, Angels, and the Resurrection,” 498.

310
Areopagus speech (17:31), and it is this inescapable universality o f the judgment that
now requires repentance from all the Gentiles. Luke may indeed employ these references
to foster an individual brand o f repentance and piety among his readers, but their content
cannot be reduced to an individual eschatology.
Two-Level Eschatology
One further terminological classification is necessary, since some models for
assessing Luke’s eschatology concentrate upon a combination o f eschatological
emphases in Acts. This seems necessary to account for Luke’s inconsistent use o f
eschatological language. Carroll terms these approaches “dichromatic” and finds
exemplars o f this model in Stephen G. Wilson,76 Beverly Roberts Gaventa,77 and E. Earle
Ellis.78 Wilson, for example, finds the gospel o f Luke fighting on two fronts: one set of
emphases presents a delayed eschatology that seems to serve as a corrective for
apocalyptic hopes (Luke 9:27; 19:11, 41-42; 21:20-24; 22:69); the other attempts to
revive imminent hopes for the future among those who have abandoned hope (Luke 10:9-
11; 12:38-40,41-48; 12:54-13:9; 18:8; 21:32). Acts, however, was written at a later date,
by which time Luke’s eschatological interests had faded altogether.79 Gaventa has
76 Stephen G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS 23;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973).
77Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “Eschatology of Acts Revisited.”
78E. Earle Ellis, Christ and the Future in New Testament History (NovTSup 97; Leiden:
Brill, 2000); see esp. pages 105-46 of his collected essays.
79Wilson, Gentiles and the Gentile Mission, 67-87.

311
modified this proposal by responding that Acts 1-3 does contain significant
eschatological reflection, but that this interest seems to wane in the ensuing narrative
which emphasizes the fulfillment o f promises in the Spirit’s coming and the worldwide
mission.80 Ellis finds both imminence and delay in Luke’s eschatology, but he poses
these as complements within a two-stage eschatology. Jesus represents in his own
resurrection an individual pattern o f the age to come.81 Yet Luke also awaits the
culmination o f history in the future parousia. In the interim, Ellis proposes a function for
individual eschatology.82 Luke hoped to calm apocalyptic fervor through these measures.
Carroll’s own model o f “eschatology and situation” also fits best within this terminology,
since he interprets Luke-Acts on two levels: the situation implied in the narrative and the
situation o f Luke’s own time. By narrating the fulfillment o f all the promises but the
parousia within Luke-Acts, the narrative spans the time from Jesus to Luke, bringing
history to the verge o f consummation and leaving its readers with assurance that the end
is certain and near.83
80Gaventa, “Eschatology of Luke-Acts Revisited,” 34-35.
81 Ellis, Christ and the Future, 112-19.
82Ibid., 114-15, 120-28, 144-46.
83Carroll, Response to the End o f History, 120-28. An interesting complement to Carroll

is provided by Wolter, who employs a method similar to that of Carroll, but who retains a much
more nationalistic reading of Luke’s future emphasis upon a kingdom to Israel; “Israel’s Future,”
312-20.
One could add to these four illustrative treatments the work o f John Nolland, who has
argued for a distinctive combination of present and future eschatologies in Luke-Acts. He views
the kingdom of God in terms of its present and climactic future dimensions, and finds Luke’s
vision of history as a pattern of recurrent and escalating typologies that will culminate in the
parousia. Due to similarities to Ellis’ basic “two-stage” model, I have only summarized his
important work here; see “Salvation-History and Eschatology,” in Witness to the Gospel, 63-81.

3 12
These approaches present several advantages for classifying the resurrection-
judgment motif. Though Wilson situates Luke’s eschatological concerns primarily in the
gospel, Gaventa, Ellis, and Carroll unanimously agree that eschatology is an important
concern in Acts. Gaventa poses the problem o f how the eschatological expectations
relate to the subsequent narrative; and though she disagrees that the resurrection passages
o f the trial scenes are emphatic o f Luke’s larger eschatological interests,84 the model that
she proposes allows for the recognition that the resurrection passages in Paul’s preaching
and defense revive a sense o f futurity in the narrative that has been rare in Acts after
chapters 1-3.
Ellis’ approach illustrates Luke’s presentation o f Jesus’ resurrection as his
entrance into the eschatological state and the vantage from which he dispenses the
messianic blessings to the church. Furthermore, Ellis’ second stage holds out the hope
for the final consummation, though he does not adequately recognize the direct
relationship between Jesus’ resurrection and the general resurrection.85 If there is a
His model is of value for the current study, since it provides a structure within which Jesus’
resurrection can be related simultaneously to the past and to the future.
84 She can call the passages “eschatological,” but suggests that they are merely
coincidental within the passages in which they occur; “Eschatology of Luke-Acts Revisited,” 34-
35.
85 Ellis, Christ and the Future, 114: “Similarly, Jesus, ‘the first to rise from the dead’
(Acts 26:23), has literally become ‘a son of the resurrection’ who does not die anymore (Luke
20:38); for his followers the fulfillment of the age to come awaits the future consummation. It is
present now, in life or death, only corporately ‘with Jesus’ (Luke 23:43) or ‘in God’ (Luke
20:38). The vertical dimension in Luke’s eschatology, therefore, is not a consummation in
heaven that is manifested on earth (Flender), but a consummation on earth in the resurrection and
exaltation of Jesus that is presently manifested in heaven.”

313
weakness here, it comes with the language o f “stages.”86 Does Ellis imply that Luke
envisioned two “great events” on the eschatological map, resurrection in the past and
parousia in the future, without adequately recognizing the eschatological nature o f what
intervenes? To a certain extent, Ellis leaves his work open to this reading. This “great
events” approach, despite obvious merits, detracts from the continuity o f history as a
work in progress in the present. Ellis’ emphasis on christology and individual
eschatology seems to fill the void in the interim between these stages.
Carroll’s model is especially appropriate to the manner in which Luke has framed
his own setting in history with the resurrection o f Jesus in the past and the general
resurrection o f the dead in the future, though his own approach does not develop this in
terms o f the future resurrection. The problem with applying Carroll’s model to these
texts is that where the text does refer to the future resurrection in the late stages o f Acts,
there is no sense o f imminence, which is what one really should find (according to
Carroll’s theory) as the chronological situation in the text converges with Luke’s own
situation in history near the end o f the book o f Acts.
Summation
If this search for an adequate critical model for the problem o f Luke’s eschatology
in the speeches that develop the resurrection-judgment m otif has seemed something o f a
methodological tap-dance, it also leads to the conclusion that Luke’s interests in these
passages are not purely eschatological, at least as eschatology is defined in these studies.
86 Ellis, Christ and the Future, 116-19.

314
Instead o f developing an eschatology, Luke seems finally to be using future eschatology
to affirm the ultimate certainty o f God’s control over the church’s story. The resurrection
passages do contain numerous future eschatological dimensions. Criticism o f these texts
should take their futurity seriously, including the expectation o f a future resurrection and
judgment. At points, these texts seem to fit well with the predominant critical models in
the study o f Lukan eschatology, especially models designed to accommodate futurity.
The resistance, however, which these texts exert against the models leads me to the
conclusion that Luke’s eschatology in these passages has become a function o f his
comprehensive theology o f history, which seeks to anchor the inevitability o f the future
in the accomplished events o f the past for those who must live in the present. Critical
models most conversant with this development find Luke working to achieve a
meaningful continuity in history, while incorporating future eschatological hopes as a
necessary means o f accomplishing this.87 Having now dealt with the exegesis o f the
87The “classic theory” came close to developing this type of model, but failed when it
assumed Luke’s intentions were to delay the parousia into the distant future by substituting
history for eschatology; see Grasser, Das Problem der Parusieverzdgerung, 215; “Die
Parusieerwartung in der Apostelgeshichte,” in Les Actes des Apdtres, 120-27. Zmijewski’s
interpretation is suggestive when he distinguishes between a temporal connection between events
on the eschatological horizon and a material connection between events in which Jesus represents
the presence of the kingdom until the end, which he situates at a “great distance” from the
present; Die Eschatologiereden des Lukas-Evangeliums (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1972), 98, 312,
559. With regard to the resurrection passages, however, it does not appear necessary to situate
the future any “great distance” from the present. Furthermore, Zmijewski typically treats “die
pharisaische Enderwartung” as a legitimation of “den christlichen Osterglauben” and Paul, not as
hope for the future; Die Apostelgeschichte ubersetzt und erklart (Regensburger Neues
Testament; Regensburg: F. Postet, 1994), 797, 817, 849.
Klaus Kliesch’s claim that the speech materials perpetuate an “heilsgeschichtliche Credo"
in Acts 2-3, 7, 10, 13, and 17 is highly suggestive of the comprehensiveness of Luke’s vision of
history in these speeches; Das heilsgeschichtliche Credo in den Reden der Apostelgeschichte
(BBB 44; Kohl-Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1975). Kliesch’s studies, though provocative, assume the
uncertain claim that Luke builds this “credo” upon pre-existing confessions of the church.

3 15
resurrection m otif (Chapter 5) and the theology o f history which it assumes (Chapter 6), I
will now propose a solution to the rhetorical purpose o f the resurrection m otif within the
concluding chapters o f Acts.
The important contribution of Emmeram Krankl bears similar characteristics. He finds in

the speeches of Acts, a salvation-historical program which centers around God’s work in Jesus.
He rightly stresses the continuity of this program: “Die Heilsgeschichte ist ein Kontinuum, in
dem Gott freilich verschiedene Schwerpunkte setzt”; Jesus der Knecht Gottes, 85. In this
program, the resurrection of Jesus is the center and seed of Luke’s message (146), the greatest
and latest of the great works accomplished by God in Jesus (146). Krankl’s model, however,
tends to discount the eschatological nature of the present work of the Spirit within the church and
Jesus’ role as future judge at the end of days (147).
In the end, it may be that Squires’ brief comments are most compatible with my own
argument presented in this chapter: “The scope of this divine plan is cosmic and universal. It
looks back to Jesus, encompassing the miracles he performed on earth, his death and resurrection,
his exaltation to heaven, and his future role as the one who will return to execute God’s
judgement. It looks even further back to Israel, the nation which God guided, Abraham, Joseph,
Moses, David, and the prophets. Indeed, the plan of God stretches right back into the past, to the
act of creation, and on into the future, to judgement at the end of history”; “The Plan of God in
the Acts of the Apostles,” 37. He does not, however, develop this fully through consideration of
the trial scenes.

316
Table IV: Recurrent Motifs and Expressions
Attestations
Language 17:18-31 23:6-11 24:15-16,21 26:5-7, 23
“hope”88
Kpiveiv,89
resurrection x(2x)
from the dead90
resurrection
of thejust and
unjust
Paul judged
for resurrection91
sects and schools 92
fathers, ancestors, „93

twelve tribes, Moses,
prophets
88Cf. also 28:20.
89 Cf. also 24:25.
90 E.g., dvdoxaai<; / dviaxripi.
91 Cf. also 28:20.
92 Specifically, 24:5, 14.
93 Specifically, 24:14.

CHAPTER 7:
PAUL’S RESURRECTION HOPE: ITS FUNCTION IN
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
As the introduction demonstrated, the earliest critical attempts to evaluate the
function o f Paul’s resurrection faith in Acts argued that these texts were characterized
by an apologetical purpose that accentuated Paul’s continuity with Judaism. Critics
have, thus, often read these texts as a legitimation o f Paul, Christianity, and the Gentile
mission according to the standards o f Jewish ancestral religion. As the preceding
chapters have argued, these texts cannot ultimately be reduced to an apologetical
posture for legitimation (see the critical introduction), since they seem concerned with
accentuating the continuity o f a comprehensive vision o f history that extends from the
creation o f the world to final judgment. This recognition requires a reassessment o f the
rhetorical function o f these passages within the concluding chapters o f Acts.
The body o f literature presented in Chapters 2-4 o f this thesis provides important
analogies for assessing the rhetorical functions o f speech materials that proclaim hope
in the future life. The books of 2 Maccabees, the Jewish Wars, and the Testaments o f
the Twelve Patriarchs also seek to provide an ennobling and meaningful account o f
Jewish history, one that asserts a moral order that governs the history o f the people amid
the tragedies that threatened their identity in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. These
texts pose the possibility that Luke may be addressing similar concerns within the
speech materials o f Paul’s preaching and defense by calling repeated attention to the
future dimensions o f the messianic kingdom. Perhaps the most important contribution
that these texts make for the study o f Acts is that Paul’s resurrection hope should be
317

318
taken more seriously as pointing to a future resurrection and judgment, rather than being
reduced completely to a posture for legitimation.
As with the documents treated in Chapters 2-4, the literary function o f the
speech materials o f Acts should be evaluated in terms o f their relationship to the
narrative’s characterization, plot, and rhetorical interactions with the implied reader.
This methodological assumption rests upon three observations: first, that these
speeches function as modes o f characterization; second, that they provide interpretive
commentary upon the immediate and general plot sequences o f the narrative; and third,
that these speeches attempt to promote the ideology o f the author to the implied readers
for rhetorical purposes. This chapter pursues a consideration o f these narrative
functions in relationship to the resurrection-judgment motif.
Heroization of Piety
A consistent feature o f the speeches treated in Chapters 2-4 o f this study is the
manner in which faith in the future life functions to idealize the piety o f the characters
who make them. In 2 Maccabees, it seems especially important to the author that the
militaristic heroes o f the revolt were also exemplars o f Jewish piety, including faith in a
future resurrection o f the righteous. In the Jewish Wars, faith in the future life plays the
positive apologetical role of highlighting the philosophical piety o f numerous figures,
predominantly Jewish heroes and sectarians. Both o f these documents portray the
characters who make these speeches as philosophical pietists, capable o f discoursing on
creation, providence, the cosmos, and the nature o f the future life. The speeches o f the
Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs also include professions o f hope in the resurrection

319
that further accentuate the piety o f the ancestors before the reader. What is especially
striking about all three o f these documents is the manner in which these characters
portray their faith in the future life especially within the context o f imminent death and
endangerment. Their ultimate trust in a divine reckoning in the future shines forth the
more brightly as they face the sober necessity o f death. These texts raise the question o f
whether Paul’s hope in resurrection-judgment may perform analogous literary functions
o f characterization.
The implications o f the resurrection-judgment motif for the characterization o f
Paul comprise only one aspect o f a much larger portrayal that spans approximately one
half of the entire book o f Acts. The critical issues surrounding this portrayal arise, not
only from the sheer length o f material devoted to Paul, but also from the diversity o f
that material. Prior to his arrest and trial, Paul is described as a persecutor (8:1-3; 9:2,
4, 13-14, 21-22), a witness to the risen Jesus (9:3-6, 17), an elect instrument o f the Lord
(9:15-16), a proclaimer o f Jesus (9:20, 22; 13:16-41; 16:31-34; 17:1-4; 18:5, 28; 19:1-
7), a god (14:11), a servant o f the Most High (16:17), a Roman citizen (16:37), a mere
gatherer o f ideas (17:18), a proclaimer o f foreign deities (17:18), a tent maker (18:3),
and a pilgrim (20:16, 21:25). He is endangered by his enemies (9:23-25; 13:50-51;
14:5, 19:16:19-24; 17:5-9; 19:23-27; 20:3), and he works numerous miracles (13:9-11;
14:3, 10; 15:12; 19:11-12; 20:7-12). This diverse series o f claims about Paul raises
numerous questions about his identity, and often results in misunderstanding and
controversy about his mission.
The trial scenes further excite the controversy about Paul in Acts, and set the
stage for Paul’s own self-descriptions o f his identity in the defense speeches. As a

320
character who is on trial for impiety and sacrilege, he is charged with crimes against the
law, the Jewish people, and the Temple; and by association, crimes against God.
Agrippa even suggests Paul’s behavior is characterized by madness or manticism
(26:24). Throughout the trial scenes, he is left alone in the spotlight to defend himself,1
surrounded only by the public shame o f imprisonment and chains.2 This credibility
problem is not unique to the trial scenes but extends back to his first appearance in Acts,
where he was involved in the persecution and martyrdom o f Stephen (8:1). It also
extends beyond the trial scenes into the travel narrative (27:1-28:10), and welcomes him
at Rome (28:11-3 1).3 Even in the Athenian episode, Paul evokes mockery and derision
for his preaching activity. On all sides, by Jews, Gentiles, and even believers in Jesus,
Paul is surrounded by skeptics and enemies who resist the divine call that is working
itself out in his preaching and defense.4 He never lacks an accuser or persecutor
throughout Acts, and is usually deemed guilty until proven innocent. Even in spite o f
the incremental declarations o f his innocence (23:9, 29; 25:25; 26:31-32), controversy
and accusation continue to follow him.
1Here, the author may make use of a traditional type-scene in which the righteous
“one” is beset by “the many.”
2On the issue of shame present throughout Paul’s trials, see Rapske, The Book o f Acts
and Paul in Roman Custody, 298-99ff.
3 This problem is thoroughly treated in the final chapter of William Campbell’s

dissertation, “Who are We in Acts?: The First-person Plural Character in the Acts of the
Apostles” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 2000).
* As Beverly Roberts Gaventa notes, even “when Paul emerges as an ardent proclaimer,
the question concerning his identity does not disappear”; in “The Overthrown Enemy: Luke’s
Portrait of Paul,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1985 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 444.

321
A unique feature o f the trial scenes is that they allow Paul to answer many o f the
questions about his own identity through self-description. They also provide an
unprecedented line o f vision into how this character interprets the divine calling that is
working itself out in his preaching and suffering. In this narrative context, Paul’s
resurrection hope is among the primary devices o f characterization that accentuate his
piety. Paul counteracts the charges that he has committed sacrilege against the Jews
and their God by affirming his strict adherence to Israel’s ancient hope in the
resurrection. The characterization o f Paul as a believer in the resurrection is presented
as “evidence” o f his legitimate status within Judaism. By proclaiming his hope in the
resurrection, Paul demonstrates his faithfulness to and continuity with the legitimating
ancestral tradition, in spite o f the public shame o f his trial and chains (23:6; 24:21;
28:20). His hope is that o f Moses, David, and the prophets who prophesied concerning
the resurrection o f the Messiah. His hope is also that o f the two disciples on the
Emmaus road (Luke 24:21), o f Zechariah, Mary, Simeon, and Anna (Luke 1-2), who all
faithfully awaited the fulfillment o f the promises and the coming o f the Messiah. Paul,
too, maintains an ardent hope for the future. Grounded upon the Scripture and the
M essiah’s exaltation from the grave, Paul waits in hope o f the future resurrection and
judgment, which will close the circle o f God’s work in the Messiah. His heroic fidelity
to the ancestral religion is unshakable, even amid his accusers and skeptics.
The heroization o f Paul’s piety in these chapters counts for still more than a
mere address o f the charges against him in the context o f the trial scenes. His hope in
the future resurrection and judgment is an important feature o f a larger apologetical
portrayal in which Paul emerges as the member o f a school who is capable o f

3 22
discoursing on creation, providence, ethics, and faith in the future life.5 Within the
literature o f antiquity, the apologetical characterization o f the Jewish heroes in 2
Maccabees and the Jewish Wars as philosophical pietists whose beliefs include the
notion o f life beyond the grave may provide the most approximate model o f heroism
into which Paul’s resurrection hope fits. Nowhere in Acts is Paul called a philosopher,
but it is possible that Paul’s belief in the resurrection is part o f a larger characterization
strategy in Jewish historiography that sought to establish the philosophical piety o f
Jewish heroes as steadfast adherents to their ancestral beliefs, including faith in the
resurrection, immortality, and eternal life.6
Paul’s resurrection hope betrays a similar strategy o f heroization in the
Areopagus speech where he disputes with Epicureans and Stoics, and theorizes on
philosophical topics, including belief in the resurrection and the future judgment. The
belief certainly emphasizes his membership in a school before the Sanhedrin (23:6).
The “resurrection o f the just and the unjust” serves as the source o f his own ethical piety
(24:15-16). Future judgment also accompanies “righteousness” and “temperance” in
his private discourses to Felix and Drusilla (24:25). Hope in the resurrection is the
essence o f Jewish ancestral religion (26:6-8). It is in direct defense o f this ancestral
belief, according to Paul at least, that he suffers the indignity o f chains and
5See also Carroll, “Literary and Social Dimensions of Luke’s Apology for Paul,” 116-
17; Stowers, “Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching,” 60-61; Mason, “Chief
Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees,” 154.
6Gregory Sterling has made a similar proposal regarding the portrayal of the Jerusalem
community, but has not yet extended this model to the consideration of Paul; “‘Athletes of
Virtue’: An Analysis of the Summaries in Acts (2:41-47; 4:32-35; 5:12-16),” JBL 113 (1994):
679-96.

323
imprisonments (23:6; 24:21; 26:6; 28:20). His steadfast faith even amid these
adversities only further accentuates his fidelity to the ancestral hopes.
At least one other feature o f heroism is worth considering in light o f the
speeches in 2 Maccabees, Jewish Wars, and the Testaments o f the Twelve. Each o f the
speeches surveyed in Chapters 2-4 o f this thesis takes place in the context o f imminent
death, most often that o f the speaker. This is an important device o f heroization in these
texts, since the faith in the future life flourishes specifically under the shadow o f death.
In 2 Maccabees it is specifically the heroic death for the law that serves as the occasion
for the martyrs’ discourses and resurrection hope. In the Jewish Wars, the speech
materials on immortality surface especially in the context o f the noble death when
“necessity” points in this direction. Both o f these documents may, in fact, attest to a
noble death tradition in philosophy, which portrayed the philosopher faithful to his
ideals and disdainful o f death to the very end.7 As the section on Josephus has shown,
the Socratic model o f discoursing on immortality in the context o f imminent death may
have provided the primary Hellenistic influence for this portrayal in the Jewish Wars.
As for the Testaments, their entire literary form is predicated upon the biographical
context o f imminent death. The patriarchs’ hope in the resurrection in this context calls
attention to their faithful courage in the presence o f death. The repeated portrayal o f
these characters as facing death with pious hope in a divine reckoning beyond the grave
7This has been suggested by the work of van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours
o f the Jewish People; Seely, Noble Death; Droge and Tabor, Noble Death; cf. also Walter Radi,
Paulus und Jesus, 222-27.

3 24
raises the question o f the relationship between Paul’s resurrection hope and the context
o f impending death in Acts.
At first glance, this relationship is nowhere to be found. According to Luke,
Paul never directly prophesies his own resurrection from the dead in these speeches.
Nowhere does one encounter the dramatic martyr scenes o f 2 Maccabees and the Jewish
Wars, or the deathbed orations o f the Testaments. Paul’s suffering and death, however,
do linger on the periphery o f these chapters. Paul’s suffering has been a matter
consistently developed since his commissioning by the risen Jesus (9:16). Several times
Paul has narrowly escaped plans to murder him (9:10-20; 14:5-6, 19, 22; 20:3; 21:36;
23:12-30; 25:1-5), and has been persecuted on numerous occasions (13:50; 16:19-24;
22:22-25). These scenes place Paul a hair’s breadth from death throughout the
fulfillment o f his calling. Only the divine necessity that Paul must bear witness at
Jerusalem and Rome saves his life (19:21; 20:22; 23:11; 25:12; 29:24).
Far more foreboding than this, however, are the four passages that foreshadow
the coming hardships o f Paul’s imprisonment and trial, and further attest his readiness
to die according to the divine will (20:18-24; 21:4, 10-14; 25:11). Beyond these
individual texts, one must also mention the Jesus-Stephen-Paul parallels in this context,
since commissioning (Luke 3:21-22 [Jesus]; Acts 6:1-7 [Stephen]; 9:1-19 [Paul]), trial
(Luke 22:66-23:25 [Jesus]; Acts 6:11-53 [Stephen]; 21:27-28:31 [Paul]), and death
(Luke 23:26-56 [Jesus]; Acts 7:54-8:1 [Stephen]; 20:18-24; 21:4, 10-14; 25:11 [Paul])
are the inevitable fate o f all three.8 The trial scenes themselves have set in motion the
8David P. Moessner, ‘“The Christ Must Suffer’: New Light on the Jesus-Peter,
Stephen, Paul Parallels in Luke-Acts,” N o v T li (1986): 251-56; cf. Radi, Paulus und Jesus,
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e cop y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p ro d u c tio n prohib ited w ith o u t p e rm is s io n .

325
last sequence o f events in Acts that will ultimately point beyond the conclusion o f
Luke’s own story to the inevitable death o f Paul. This certainly is not to claim that the
trial scenes are part o f a formal martyrology;9 but when these passages are taken into
consideration, it is clear that death has cast its shadows over the trial scenes o f Paul.
If Luke has cast a shade o f death over Paul’s faithful witness in Jerusalem and
ultimately in Rome, then his hope in a future resurrection and judgment would only
further idealize his piety in the face o f death. Faced with the prospect o f imprisonment,
accusation, and death, he trusts ultimately in God’s final reckoning o f justice.10 He
expresses no fear but only steadfast trust that God’s ultimate justice will prevail over his
own trial, and indeed, over the whole world. It is this hope o f a future resurrection unto
judgment that has motivated Paul to maintain an unoffending conscience before God
(24:15-17). In contrast to false accusers (24:1-5) and judicial corruption (24:26), Paul
133-201. See also Francis Pereira, Ephesus: Climax o f Universalism in Luke-Acts: A

Redaction-Critical Study o f Paul's Ephesian Ministry (Acts 18:23-20:1) (Jesuit Theological
Forum, ser. x no. 1; Anand: Prakash, 1983), 65-73, 221-24; Talbert, Reading Acts, 80-81;
Susan M. Praeder, “Jesus-Paul, Peter-Paul, and Jesus-Peter Parallelisms in Luke-Acts: A
History of Reader Response,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1984 (SBLSP 23; ed. K. Richards; Chico,
Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984), 36-37.
9One should note, however, that the classical martyrological profession of “readiness to
die” appears in Paul’s response to the oracle of Agabus in Acts 21:13 (cf. 25:11). See Chapters
2-4 on Macc 7:30-38; B.J. 2.174, 196-97; C. Ap. 2.217-19.
10Later reflection upon Paul’s martyrdom would make this fantastically clear. The
Martyreion Tou Hagiou Apostolou Paulou has Paul stand before Nero and claim: “if you
behead me, I will do this: I will arise and show myself to you that I am not dead but live unto
my Lord Jesus Christ, who comes to judge the world” (chapters 4-6). The earliest documentary
evidence for this document is 300 C.E. Writing earlier, Clement of Rome (c. 95 C.E.), could
similarly report that Paul “bore witness before the rulers and passed out of this world and was
taken up into the holy place” (Epistle to the Corinthians 5). Furthermore, Tertullian comments,
“Paul was bom into Roman citizenship; but he was reborn therein by the nobility of his
martyrdom” (Adversus Gnosticos Scorpiace 15). On these and other traditions of Paul’s fate,
this worldly and otherworldly, see Harry W. Tajra, The Martyrdom o f St. Paul, 121-67.

326
can face his trial with supreme confidence in his own innocence and in God’s final
judgment over all things. Thus, as the divine necessity that governs his life points
toward hardship and death, Paul is ready to die in full hope that the messianic kingdom
will culminate in the future in the resurrection o f the dead and final judgment.11 This
connection between suffering and hope is yet another result o f the author’s curious
attempt to turn Paul’s legal defense into a profession o f his belief in the resurrection.
The Problem of Theodicy
In an insightful essay on the Areopagus speech, Jerome Neyrey has argued that
theodicy is a decisive concern o f the judgment prophecy that concludes Paul’s discourse
at Athens (17:31).12 He bases this argument upon the observation that the issue o f
providence in nature and history was the defining issue that separated Paul’s Epicurean
and Stoic hearers from one another. By inserting Paul’s speech into a disputation with
these philosophers, Luke has raised the controversy o f theodicy and answered it in the
proclamation o f Paul. He also reads this literary strategy into Paul’s hearing before the
Sanhedrin, where the controversy between Pharisees and Sadducees further ensues over
the problem o f the limits and nature o f the divine power. In both scenes, Paul’s
speeches affirm the validity o f the providential guidance o f history, retributive
judgment, and the life after death. Further references to the resurrection and future
11Only Rosenblatt, to my knowledge, seems to have suggested this relationship, though

only in a very brief comment: “We suspect that death is not the end of the stury. Life is, after
all, the destiny of those who believe in resurrection” (Paul the Accused, 97).
12Neyrey, “Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy,” 127-34.

327
judgment in the trial scenes reiterate this. Paul’s speeches are generally favorable to
Stoic and Pharisaic answers to the problem o f theodicy, as Josephus describes them
(Vita 12.4; B.J. 2.117-66; A./. 10.277-79, 18.13-18).13
This study must be commended for the manner in which it has raised the
possibility that Luke has become concerned with addressing the problem o f divine
justice in these chapters.14 The weaknesses o f Neyrey’s argument are primarily, 1. that
he makes assumptions about the beliefs o f Stoics, Epicureans, Pharisees, and Sadducees
that Luke does not directly relate, beyond the obscure comment o f Acts 23:8; and 2.
that he does not convincingly demonstrate how the larger narrative o f Acts presents
genuine challenges to a providential understanding o f history which Luke felt
compelled to address in Paul’s preaching and defense.
The documents surveyed in Chapters 2-4 o f this thesis provide a body o f
comparative-literary evidence that affirms aspects o f Neyrey’s original suggestions and
helps to fill in some o f the blanks in his larger argument. All three o f the documents
express concern with the problem o f divine retribution in the world; and they
incorporate professions of faith in the future life into their speech materials in a specific
attempt to address this problem. The author o f 2 Maccabees introduces the resurrection
hope to address the problem o f God’s judgment and mercy for the Jewish people,
specifically in light o f the martyrdoms suffered for the law in the onslaught o f the
1:1Neyrey does not cite all of these passages, but they include additional references to
Pharisees, Sadducees, Stoics, and Epicureans that one might offer in further support of his
claims.
14Cf. Johnson, Acts o f the Apostles, 7: “Luke’s Apology is rather in the broadest sense
a theodicy. His purpose is to defend God’s activity in the world.’’

328
Greeks (2 Macc 6:12-17). In light o f the calamities that might cause his readers to be
“cast down,” the author’s presentation o f the resurrection hope affirmed that even amid
the most dire tragedies, “The Lord God oversees” (3:37; 7:6, 35). In the Jewish Wars,
the speeches on immortality also address the problem raised by the tragic death and
suffering experienced on both sides o f the war. Future reward and punishment beyond
the grave are recurrent features o f these speeches (1.650; 3.372-76; 6.46-49; 7:343-49).
The narrative descriptions o f the beliefs o f the Jewish sects also reveal this concern with
retributive justice (2.154-58, 163; cf. A.J. 18.13-14; C.Ap. 2.217-19). The speeches o f
the Testaments also include ardent concern for punishment and reward ( TJud. 25.3;
T.Zeb. 10.1-2; T.Ben. 10.6-10). Furthermore, patriarchal hope in the resurrection is an
important part of the collection’s larger concerns with the restoration o f the twelve
tribes as a functioning political kingdom in the land {T.Jud. 25.1; T.Zeb. 10.1-4; T.Ben.
10.11). In this way, the patriarchs proclaim God’s ultimate triumph for Israel, beyond
the loss o f political kingdom and the apostasy o f future generations. These texts thus
incorporate faith in the future life to affirm the ultimate justice o f nature and history in
spite o f those aspects o f history that threaten the moral order o f events the author seeks
to promote.
These documents raise the possibility that Paul’s resurrection piety in these
chapters may function to address larger problems o f theodicy in the book o f Acts. An
important aspect o f Paul’s vocation in Acts is, in fact, his role as one who proclaims
“the whole counsel o f God” (20:27). This aspect o f his identity suggests that the things
Paul says in the speeches o f his preaching and defense constitute important disclosures
concerning the divine plan in Acts. This is certainly the case at Pisidian Antioch, where

Paul proclaims that God raised Jesus as Messiah (13:16-41) in fulfillment o f the
Scripture. Yet Paul does not cease to declare the workings o f the divine plan in the
Areopagus speech and the trial scenes, where he develops connections between the
resurrection o f the Messiah and the future resurrection-judgment. In two o f his
speeches in these chapters, Paul directly proclaims a future judgment. At the
conclusion o f the Areopagus speech, this surfaces in a claim that God will judge the
whole world in righteousness by the risen one (17:31). In his defense before Felix, Paul
also professes his common ancestral faith that there will be a resurrection o f the just and
unjust for judgment (24:15). This idea had first been introduced in Peter’s sermon in
Cornelius’ house (10:40-42), and it is recapitulated in Paul’s private discourses to Felix
and Drusilla, when he teaches them concerning the “coming judgment” (24:25). These
passages indicate that final retributive judgment is an important concern in Acts; and
Paul’s preaching has become the vehicle through which this aspect o f the divine plan is
communicated to the reader. Luke’s earlier concern with retribution in history in Acts
5:1-10 and 12:1 -2415 is thus balanced in the latter half o f Acts with the promise o f
future retribution at the end o f history. At least four additional passages in Luke-Acts
reveal a similar interest in retribution and reward beyond death (Luke 14:14; 18:19-30;
23:43; Acts 7:54-60). Expressed in a variety o f ways, then, retribution and reward are
consistent features o f the author’s presentation o f events. The resurrection-judgment
15On the nature and function of this development, see O. Wesley Allen, Jr., The Death
o f Herod: The Narrative and Theological Function o f Retribution in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 158;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 110-46. Allen’s thorough study, however, does not consider
aspects of futuristic retribution in Luke-Acts.

330
motif affirms that retribution hangs over the present and future, so that nothing will
escape the just reckoning o f God.16
It remains, however, to show that the author faces genuine problems in the
narration o f history that demand a clear response. The author o f 2 Maccabees presented
his own development o f the resurrection hope in response to the problem o f the death o f
the righteous that left his readers “cast down.” Is there any indication within the literary
context o f Paul’s preaching and defense that Luke is similarly concerned with affirming
the divine control over the events he was attempting to relate? At least two possibilities
are worth considering in light o f the foregoing studies. Though they are presented here
under individual headings, their essential unity is clarified in the trial scenes, as Paul the
accused is paradoxically undermined by the very people whose hopes he seeks to
defend.
The Problem o f Paul
As the preceding comments on heroization have suggested, Paul’s death is never
far away from him. A divine necessity hangs over him at all times and leads him
through repeated cycles o f mission and suffering, including the trial scenes. Charles H.
Cosgrove, in fact, has shown that each narration o f Paul’s conversion contains some
reference to the divine necessity that overshadows his mission.17 This necessity points
16Justin Martyr would be even more emphatic: without judgment, there is no God
(Apol. 11.9).
17Charles H. Cosgrove, “The Divine AEI in Luke-Acts: Investigations into the Lukan
Understanding of God’s Providence,” NovT26 (1984): 176.

331
beyond Acts to his final witness in Rome. The trial scenes prove a path o f shame and
misunderstanding that transport Paul to this final destination. Even prior to the trials,
the pathos o f the Ephesian farewell speech lends an air o f finality to these chapters o f
Acts, and forecasts Paul’s exit from the stage o f Luke’s drama. As Stephen before him,
he is ready to embrace death willingly for the name o f the Lord Jesus. These
associations with further imprisonment and death present the paradox that the divine
necessity that has commissioned Paul leads through the way o f inevitable suffering, as
Paul’s company warns the believers in Antioch: “through many tribulations it is
necessary (5ei) for us to enter into the kingdom o f God” (14.22).18 The necessity o f the
tribulations through which the believers must pass does not exclude suffering and death,
as it has for Jesus and Stephen, and as it will for Paul himself.19
This paradox between human suffering and divine necessity may provide an
indication o f how Paul’s hope for resurrection and judgment in these speech materials
provides thematic commentary upon the narrative o f Paul’s trials. The divine necessity
that has ushered Paul into these present afflictions has also appointed a future day in
18Squires also directs attention to this relationship between the divine necessity and
suffering (5:29,40-41; 9:6, 16; 19:21; 23:11; 26:23, 32; 27:24); “The Plan of God in the Acts of
the Apostles,” 26. See also the warnings of Jesus in the Gospel, which qualify the coming of
the son of man with a warning about suffering, “But first it is necessary for him to suffer many
things” (17:24-25).
19David P. Moessner has provided the clearest statement of this paradox as it relates
both to Jesus and Paul in “The ‘script’ of the Scriptures,” 218-50. He can even use the term
“theodicy” to describe Luke’s treatment of this problem (250). His chief value for my own
interpretation of the trial scenes, however, involves the problem of necessary suffering more
than it does his atonement theology. See also B. Dehandschutter, “La persecution des chretiens
dans les Actes des Apotres,” in Les Actes des Apdtres, 541-46; Brian Rapske, “Opposition to the
Plan of God and Persecution,” in Witness to the Gospel, 246-46; Joel B. Green, “Salvation to
the End of the Earth: God as Saviour in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Witness to the Gospel,
100- 01 .

332
which the paradox o f righteousness and suffering will be resolved in a resurrection o f
the dead for universal judgment. Empowered by this hope, Paul faithfully endures the
trials and sufferings that the divine necessity has imposed upon him. His ancestral faith
has taught him, in spite o f his many accusers, that divine, not human, judgment is final.
Paul’s obedience to “the heavenly vision” indicates that he has sought to please God
rather than human beings (cf. Acts 4:19-20). He has nothing to fear at the judgment,
because he has kept his conscience void o f offense toward God and others (14:15-16).
In pursuit o f the divine will, he is not only ready to die, but also hopeful o f a future
resurrection in which God will reward the righteous and punish the wicked. O f course,
for the present, Paul remains within the paradox. Accusation, beating, stoning, and
persecution lay behind him; trials, shipwreck, snake-bite, rejection, and ultimately death
lay before him. Yet in the midst o f the paradox, Paul’s resurrection hope provides
assurance within the narrative that God will have the final word over Paul, and indeed
over all who have lived, from Adam until the end. Paul’s heroic piety in these chapters,
thus, works to resolve a larger paradox in Acts, and to vindicate the workings o f the
divine necessity, especially as they lead through inevitable suffering and death.
The Problem o f Israel
If Paul’s trial and death constituted the only paradox o f the divine will that
confronted the author o f Acts, the trial scenes could certainly have been composed in
any number o f ways. As they stand in the text, however, the trials also highlight a
larger problem for the author of Luke-Acts: the problem o f Israel’s disbelief. As
Tannehill has shown, this problem is an essential component o f the trial scenes, one that

333
is directly interwoven with the resurrection hope of Paul.20 Despite the high hopes
raised in the infancy narratives o f Jesus and John (Luke 1-2),21 Jesus’ rejection in
Nazareth, which emerges relatively early in Luke’s Gospel,22 establishes near the very
beginning o f Jesus’ work a response o f rage and disbelief among his own people (4:28-
29). In a series o f episodes, he is questioned and suspected by Pharisees and scribes
(5:21, 30, 33; 6:1-2, 7-11, 39, 49). Repeatedly, Jesus decries the disbelief and
unfaithfulness that surround him among his own people (7:9, 30; 11:29-32; 11:53-12:1;
16:4, 29-31; 18:9-14). This cycle of disbelief and rebuke culminates in the final plots
by the chief priests and scribes to arrest and kill Jesus (19:47; 20:19). In these passages,
the outcome o f the Messiah’s work has been ironically reversed from the glad hopes of
Zechariah, Elizabeth, Mary, Simeon, and Anna.23 The Messiah has not saved all the
people, but rather brought division (12:49-53), the rise and fall o f many in Israel (2:34-
35).
The problem o f Jewish disbelief continues in Acts. Despite the fulfillment o f
Israel’s hopes in the Messiah’s resurrection and an initial ingathering o f the people in
20 See the critical introduction on Tannehill, The Narrative Unity, 2:318-21; “Israel in
Acts: A Tragic Story,” 78-79. That Luke can associate the resurrection with Jewish disbelief as
early as Luke 16:31 indicates that he has been preparing for some time to address this problem
climactically in the trial scenes.
21 On the ironic and paradoxical fulfillment of these hopes, see David P. Moessner,
“The Ironic Fulfillment of Israel’s Glory,” in Luke-Acts and the Jewish People, 35-50; Ray,
Narrative Irony in Luke-Acts, 23-27, 101-29.
22Contrast its emergence later in the narrative of Jesus’ ministry in Mk 6:1-6 and Mt
13:53-58.
23 On this reversal, see Brawley, Centering on God: Method and Message in Luke-Acts
(Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville, Ken.: Westminster/John Knox Press,
1990), 68-85; Tannehill, The Narrative Unity, 1:43-44, 1:68-73.

3 34
Acts 1-3, the believers soon find themselves caught up in a vast conflict between God’s
Messiah and human beings (including both Israel and the Gentiles; 4:27-31). This
conflict reaches unprecedented intensity in the martyrdom o f Stephen (6:5-7:53), but it
also continues throughout Paul’s witness in Pisidian Antioch (13:44-52), Iconium (14:1-
7), Lystra (14:19), Thessalonica (17:1-9), and Corinth (18:5-17), until his climactic
arrest in Jerusalem (21:17-36). Throughout the trials, Paul’s own countrymen accuse
him o f impiety and sacrilege (24:1-9; 25:7, 18). He marvels in frustration that his
fellow Jews have ironically accused him for adhering to their own common resurrection
hope (26:8). At his final arrival at Rome, disbelief from Roman Jews also surrounds his
teaching (28:24). Certainly in these texts, Luke does not portray the entire Jewish
people in disbelief. As in the Pentecost (2:37-47) and Apollos (18:24-28) incidents,
myriads o f Jews believe (21:20) and continue doing so until the very end o f the story
(28:24). Nevertheless, the irony o f Jewish rejection has raised yet another paradox o f
the divine will. In the very fulfillment o f the ancestral promises concerning the
Messiah, many Jews disbelieve. This paradox creates a certain moral perplexity in the
story that Luke must tell. The “problem o f Paul” in these texts is one expression o f this
larger “problem o f Israel” in Luke-Acts. Paul’s own encounter with “many
tribulations” is caught up in the larger paradox o f the M essiah’s coming and a divided
response among the people.
Paul’s resurrection hope in Acts may serve as a thematic commentary upon this
paradox, one that vindicates God’s work in the Messiah in specific light o f the paradox
raised by “the problem o f Israel.” In the first case, Paul’s own heroic piety within the
ancestral faith indicates that all is not lost. All Israel has not plunged into disbelief.

There is Paul. There is a sense in which “the medium has become the message.’ His
resurrection hope represents the faith o f the Jewish people throughout time. It affirms
that the emergent faith in Jesus remains fundamentally consistent with all that Moses
and the prophets have spoken, so that God’s work in the Messiah has not failed to find
faith among the people. In the second case, the comprehensive picture o f the divine
plan that Luke has crafted in the speech materials portrays the continuity o f God’s work
from creation to the Messiah, and from the Messiah to the resurrection and final
judgment. Paul’s resurrection hope is theological short-hand for this unwavering
continuity and consistency in the divine plan, not only with regard to the past, but in the
future as well. Israel’s hope, then, grounded in the past resurrection o f Jesus from the
dead, extends into the future. His resurrection affirms within the paradoxical “present”
o f suffering and division that God will have the final word over the promises - in
resurrection and final judgment. It is precisely the resurrection o f Jesus as Messiah that
confirms this. In this sense, the portrayal o f Paul’s resurrection hope not only emerges
in continuity with the ancestral hopes o f the people; it helps to meet an important need
within the ancestral religion itself by affirming the future culmination o f the ancestral
promises.
The “problem o f Israel” is, in this case, not simply a tragedy that Luke
portrays.25 It is a tragedy whose paradoxes he attempts to resolve in the speech
1*C.J.A. Hickling, “The Portrait of Paul in Acts 26,” in Les Actes des Apdtres, 500.
25 Contra Tannehill, “Israel: A Tragic Story,” 78-79. Tiede’s response to this tragedy is
that the tension between Israel and the Messiah remains open to a resolution in the future in
Acts; ‘“ Glory to Thy People Israel’: Luke-Acts and the Jews,” in Luke-Acts and the Jewish
People, 23.

336
materials o f the trial scenes. In large measure, his own credibility as an apologetic
historian is at stake in these paradoxes. From the beginning, he has promised his reader
“assurance” (datjx&eiav), yet his epic story draws near its close with Paul in chains and
Israel in disbelief. By crafting a comprehensive vision o f the divine plan from creation
to the end, Luke affirms the continuity o f the divine plan amid the paradoxes o f faithful
existence in the present. By framing the current action o f the story within this
comprehensive vision o f history, Luke points beyond the problem o f retribution, the
problem o f Paul, and the problem o f Israel to a future horizon in which the Messiah’s
reign will triumph over the paradoxes o f history.
As Chapters 2-4 o f this study have proposed, it is important to recognize the
rhetorical strategies that speech materials execute when they are imbedded within a
larger narrative. As events in a story that are performed before the eyes o f an implied
authorial audience, these speeches are indirectly spoken to those who behold the
comprehensive story o f the larger works in which they appear. In the speeches
surveyed in Chapters 2-4, at least three rhetorical strategies appear to be at work with
regard to the authorial audience.
First, a kind o f didacticism seems to be at work in 2 Maccabees and the Jewish
Wars, one that actually ennobles belief in the resurrection (2 Macc) and immortality
(B.J.). The patriotic Jewish heroes in 2 Maccabees model belief in the resurrection
before the eyes o f the readers. Furthermore, both the Jewish heroes and Titus are firm

337
believers in immortality in the Jewish Wars. Their heroic examples advocate the
nobility of this philosophical concept.
Second, exhortations to virtue often attend hope in the future life. In 2
Maccabees, the stories o f the martyrs are examples to future generations o f perpetual
readiness to die for the law and never to err from it. The reward promised the righteous
in the resurrection serves as a further impetus to contend boldly for the law. In its own
way, the Jewish Wars also presents immortality as an impetus to ethical heroism. Hope
in immortality promotes the pursuit o f ethical heroism and the deterrence o f vice among
those who would later read Josephus’ history. In the Testaments as well, the
eschatological blessings promised in the resurrection passages serve as ethical
motivation to keep the commandments and the words o f the patriarchs. These
resurrection prophecies have an especially paranetic function in a document so highly
charged with ethical instruction.
Finally, and most importantly, these speeches also seem to have served a
consolatory purpose. Amid martyrdom, the horrors o f war, and threats to political
identity, these texts offered assurance o f an ultimately just outcome to the perplexing
events contained within these presentations o f Jewish history.
Though the speeches o f Acts serve as modes o f characterization and as thematic
commentary upon the (immediate and total) narrative context o f Luke’s story, they also
include the implied readers as hearers o f the speeches.26 In contrast to the narrative
26 Here, I must avoid the tendency by O’Toole to suggest that these speeches are
oriented directly to the reader, while also recognizing the rhetorical strategy implied in the
speeches; O’Toole, Acts 26, 2 and throughout his work.

338
audiences o f Paul’s speeches, who hear only scattered and obscure references to Paul’s
resurrection hope, the implied authorial audience witnesses the entire development o f
the motif, from its origins in the Gospel to the distinctive development in the second
half o f the book o f Acts. The features o f didacticism, exhortation, and consolation
suggested in the examples o f 2 Maccabees, Jewish Wars, and the Testaments offer the
possibility that Paul’s resurrection hope may perform analogous rhetorical functions in
relation to the authorial audience o f Acts.
Didacticism
The recurrent skepticism which surrounds Paul’s resurrection faith may imply a
didactic function for Paul’s hope in these chapters. The Athenians can refer to Paul’s
preaching o f the resurrection as “a new teaching” (17:19). Furthermore, in the trial
scenes Paul’s faithful and heroic adherence to this hope exemplifies belief in the
resurrection o f Jesus and the future resurrection o f the dead before the eyes o f the
readers. Paul is perplexed that his hearers find it unbelievable that God raises the dead
(26:8). This skepticism about the resurrection is parodied at Athens and in the
Sanhedrin. Over and against skeptics and accusers, Paul holds to the legitimating
tradition o f his ancestral faith in the resurrection without wavering and asserts that death
poses no obstacle to the divine power. As creator o f the cosmos and the human, God is
able also to raise the dead. Final judgment is also within the compass o f God’s action,
so that nothing is impossible with God (cf. Luke 1:37). Paul’s faith recapitulates the
importance o f this claim and defends it against skeptics.

339
At least two other NT writings suggest that resurrection faith was a contested
theological issue among the early believers. The historical Paul’s teaching on the future
resurrection in 1 Cor 15, for example, comes in direct response to some who have said,
“There is no resurrection o f the dead” (15:12). Furthermore, Hymenaeus and Philetus
were among those rebuked for teaching that “the resurrection is already” (2 Tim 2:18).
Though it is difficult to reconstruct the beliefs o f those who denied or reinterpreted the
resurrection hope in the early faith, it is clear that Luke’s didactic concerns in the
development o f Paul’s resurrection hope were not divorced from the history o f early
Christian dogma.27 The Paul o f Acts was not the only early believer to have
encountered skeptical or adverse responses concerning belief in the resurrection. The
historical Paul o f the epistles encountered similar forms o f resistance and argued
affirmatively that belief in the resurrection was constitutive for faith in Jesus as Lord,
and that without this belief the emerging faith could not face either its past or its future.
In this context, Luke’s affirmative literary presentation o f the resurrection-judgment
hope in Paul’s preaching and defense may exemplify the proper belief with regard to the
issue before the eyes of the authorial audience: Jesus has indeed risen from the dead,
yet there is more in store for the future; there will be a resurrection o f the ju st and the
unjust.28
27 Krankl offers the proposal that Luke’s concern with the “corruption” of Jesus in the
speeches of Acts 2:27 and 13:35 may assume a polemical context in which orthodox teachings
were being established against skeptics by apologetical means; Jesus der Knecht Goltes, 146-
47. Jesus’ eating in Luke 24:41-43 shows, in fact, that his body has not undergone physical
corruption.
28 It should be noted that Talbert has maximized the didacticism of the passages by
proposing that they are anti-Gnostic; Luke and the Gnostics, 94-97. The nature and meaning of

340
Exhortation
As with the case o f the three examples surveyed in Chapters 2-4, Acts also links
belief in the future life to moral exhortation. This stands forth in considerable relief,
since as C.K. Barrett has shown, “Acts contains hardly any direct ethical instruction.”
Instead, “the narrative is written on a good ethical level.”29 Three of the handful o f
passages that do contain some type o f moral exhortation are to be found in the context
o f the resurrection-judgment motif.
In light o f the day of judgment, the Athenians must repent o f their ignorance and
turn to the true God (17:30-31). Paul’s recognition o f a future resurrection and
judgment also causes him to maintain a pure conscience toward God and other human
beings (24:15-16). This very fact is offered in defense o f his own piety and virtue in his
apology before Felix. “Righteousness” and “temperance” further accompany “the
coming judgment” as the central aspects o f Paul’s private ethical discourses before
Felix and Drusilla (24:25). Felix’s fear in light o f the judgment exposes his own guilty
conscience (24:26) and presents him as a foil to Paul. Though Felix is in the position o f
authority to save or to condemn, he fears the judgment, especially in light o f his secret
the resurrection of Jesus was indeed an ardent topic of early Christian and Gnostic literature, as
Elaine Pagels clearly reminds us; The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979), 5-
20. Luke’s “Athenians,” “Sadducees,” and other skeptics, however, cannot be identified with
any particular group in Luke’s own milieux. Luke’s didactic concerns may address: 1. pagan
skeptics of the general idea of any resurrection from the dead; 2. Jewish skeptics of the
resurrection of Jesus as Messiah (cf. Luke 16:27-31; Mt 28:11-14); 3. Gnostic reinterpretation
of Jesus’ resurrection (and/or the future resurrection) according to its own anthropology and
cosmology. The context of Gentile skepticism in the Athenian episode and Jewish rejection
throughout the trial scenes tip the scales of probability strongly in favor of options 1 and 2.

341
greed (24:26). There is a greater judge than Felix. Paul, however, can speak boldly o f
his own P'ioxtk; with hope in the future resurrection and judgment, despite the fact that
he now stands in peril o f condemnation and death before human authorities. Like
Josephus, Luke presents hope in the future life as a matter that encourages virtue and
deters vice. Paul stands as an exemplar o f the former. Certainly, the references to
resurrection and judgment cannot be fully ascribed to ethical instruction. But Paul’s
exemplary cultivation o f a clear conscience in light o f judgment may reveal certain
paranetic aspects o f Paul’s preaching and defense that encouraged repentance,
righteousness, and virtue in light o f the coming judgment.
Consolation
Finally, Paul’s resurrection hope, and its emphasis upon the continuity o f the
divine plan from creation to consummation may also perform a consolatory function in
these chapters. As David L. Tiede has proposed, the volatile aftermath o f 70 C.E.
required a new quest for identity among the people o f God, a quest that Luke undertook
in his own work, answering troubled readers in his own time, “Fear not, little flock, for
it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32).30 John T.
Squires offers a similar assessment o f the apologetical purpose o f Luke’s narration o f
the church’s story: “Luke’s interpretation o f events within the framework o f the plan o f
God, is to offer encouragement to his readers as they live out their faith in a post-
29Barrett, Acts o f the Apostles, civ.
30Tiede, Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts, 127-32.

342
apostolic situation.”31 By attempting to reconcile the paradoxes o f Paul’s sufferings and
Israel’s disbelief, Luke’s portrayal o f continuity and justice in the divine plan may have
functioned rhetorically to console readers amid the perplexities o f their current
surroundings. According to these assessments, being “o f good courage” (23:11; 28:15)
was not only an instruction for Paul in Acts, but it reaches beyond Paul’s own day to the
authorial audience, who must also bear faithful witness in their own time. Based upon
the foregoing analysis, there are at least three ways in which Paul’s resurrection hope
may have served a consolatory rhetorical function in Acts.
First o f all, Paul’s faith in resurrection and judgment promises final justice for
the persecuted and falsely accused. In the very context o f the trial that leads to death for
the name o f Jesus, Paul looks beyond his own situation to the hope o f God’s final
judgment and vindication o f the righteous. The affirmation o f a retributive order to
history consoles the endangered righteous that beyond the paradoxes o f mission and
suffering in the present, there is hope o f final vindication. As in the days o f Jesus,
Stephen, and Paul, the way o f the righteous in Luke’s own time may well have led
inevitably into the trial, perhaps also to condemnation and death. The history o f early
Christianity before, during, and after Luke’s own day would indeed offer “many
tribulations” for the righteous. Paul’s affirmation o f hope in the context o f his own trial
may well have been Luke’s way o f consoling the endangered “witnesses” o f his own
time that God would yet have the final word o f judgment over the righteous. Consoled
31 Squires, “The Plan of God in the Acts of the Apostles,” 39.

343
with this hope, the implied reader o f Acts may have drawn inspiration to endure the
crucible o f trial, like Paul, as a faithful witness to the very end.32
Second, Paul’s faithfulness to the ancestral hope o f resurrection may have
offered assurance that believers in Luke’s own time had not grown apart from the God
o f Israel, despite the presence o f Jewish rejection o f Jesus as Messiah. The connections
between past, present, and future that were illustrated in Chapter 6 indicate that belief in
Jesus as Messiah was not a curious innovation in the history o f God’s people. Belief in
the Messiah, especially his resurrection, is integrally related to the promises made by
God to the Jewish ancestors. Furthermore, the hopes o f the patriarchs and the twelve
tribes throughout history for a resurrection o f the dead now stand assured for the future
through the coming o f Jesus as Messiah. Thus, in spite o f derision from disbelieving
Jews (and Gentiles), Paul’s hopes affirm that belief in the resurrection o f Jesus is utterly
consistent with the ancestral promises and is, in fact, the present guarantee o f their
ultimate fulfillment in the future. Rather than contradicting its Jewish origins, belief in
Jesus has assured the hopes o f the ancestral faith both for the present and the future.
Believers may, then, remain bold in their witness without any fear that they have
betrayed the ancestral religion.
Finally, Luke has framed the situation o f his own authorial audience with the
resurrection o f Jesus behind them and the future resurrection and judgment before them.
As the previous chapter has shown, the former contains the assurance in history o f what
the future holds. As a consolatory appeal, this framing device may well have assured
32 For a consolatory reading of Paul’s trials scenes by an ancient exegete, see

Chrysostom, Horn. 49.

344
readers that the past, the present, and the future remain within the faithful control o f the
divine plan. Amid the paradoxes of current existence, Luke’s readers could reflect upon
the faithful fulfillment o f the promises in the past, while also recognizing that they
point, in turn, beyond themselves, to the future consummation o f the Messiah’s reign.
Believers could be encouraged that the present witness to Jesus as Messiah would be
aided by the divine will in the present and fully vindicated at the last day, when the
“first” o f the resurrection from the dead would preside in final judgment over all
peoples o f all times and places.

345
Conclusion
This dissertation has advanced the thesis that hope in a future resurrection and
judgment constitutes a consistent theme in the speech materials o f Paul’s preaching and
defense. The cryptic references to the resurrection and future judgment in these
chapters have remained an enduring problematic in the modem interpretation o f Acts.
Through a comparative analysis o f appeals to the resurrection, immortality, and eternal
life in the speech materials o f three examples o f early Jewish historical literature, I
argued that Paul’s resurrection hope performs the apologetic functions o f heroizing the
piety o f Paul, vindicating the ultimate justice o f God amid problems o f theodicy, and
constructing rhetorical interactions with the implied readers that teach, exhort, and
console.
Chapter 1 of this thesis provided a critical review o f the history o f interpretation
o f these passages, and concluded that a new approach to the problem o f Paul’s hope in
these chapters should avoid the reductionism o f political apologetic approaches, while
equally resisting the tendency o f numerous theological interpretations to read these
passages merely as a gradually unfolding christological parable o f Jesus’ resurrection
from the dead. Paul’s hope should, in some sense, be taken seriously as a hope for a
future resurrection unto judgment. This conclusion led to the proposal o f a comparative
methodology that examines the nature and function o f analogous appeals to the
resurrection, immortality, and eternal life within the speech materials o f Jewish
historical works.

346
Chapters 2-4 conducted the research proposed in the first section through an
analysis o f the speech materials contained in 2 Maccabees, the Jewish Wars, and the
Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs. An analysis o f these works showed how their
authors have distinctively shaped their portrayal o f hope in the future life in order to
come to terms with tragedies and paradoxes in the narration o f Jewish history. In
relation to the characterization o f the figures who make these speeches, hope in the
future life performs a heroizing function in which the idealized piety o f the speaker
stands forth with special emphasis against the sober background o f imminent death. In
relation to the narrative context in which these idealized characters speak, hope in the
future life addresses the historiographical problems o f theodicy raised by death for the
law, the suffering o f the righteous, and the loss o f political kingdom. In relation to the
implied readers, the hopes that these ideal figures have in the future life betray three
features o f rhetorical persuasion: didacticism, exhortation to virtue, and consolation
amid tragedy.
Chapters 5-7 pursued an analysis o f Paul’s resurrection hope based upon this
comparative literary research. Chapter 5 surveyed the resurrection m otif in Acts and
illustrated the continuity o f Luke’s concern with the future resurrection and judgment in
the scenes o f Paul’s preaching and defense, as he builds upon earlier declarations o f
Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (Acts 2 and 13) and links them to the hope o f a future
resurrection and final judgment.
Chapter 6 investigated the eschatological assumptions o f this hope in
relationship to Luke’s theology o f history. Luke builds the theological assumptions o f
Paul’s future hope upon the earlier hope for the culmination o f the messianic kingdom
R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e cop y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohib ited w ith o u t p e rm is s io n .

347
in Acts, and projects this hope into the future. In so doing, he has set the resurrection o f
Jesus in relation to a larger set o f chronological relationships that provide a
comprehensive vision o f God’s action from creation to the final judgment.
Chapter 7 addressed the problem o f the rhetorical function o f Paul’s resurrection
hope in Acts. Drawing upon the survey o f the comparative materials in Chapters 2-4, it
argued that the repeated references to the resurrection function in three important ways
in these speeches. First, Paul’s resurrection hope is an important device o f
characterization that heroizes the faith o f Paul amid accusation, trial, and inevitable
death for the gospel. Second, the motif also provides an important thematic
commentary upon the problematic narrative o f Paul’s preaching and defense, one that
endeavors to resolve two related paradoxes o f the book o f Acts: the paradox o f
kingdom and suffering that Paul’s story raises; and the paradox o f Israel’s disbelief.
Finally, Paul’s resurrection hope functions in these chapters as rhetorical persuasion to
the implied reader, by inculcating belief in the resurrection amid pagan and Jewish
skepticism, by conveying exhortations to virtue in light o f coming judgment, and by
offering consolation amid the tragedies o f history that the messianic kingdom
inaugurated in Jesus o f Nazareth will yet culminate in the future with final justice at the
end o f history. The implication o f this research for the relationship between
eschatology and history in Acts is that eschatology is not replaced by history in the Acts
o f the Apostles - it is its necessary complement and inevitable result.
This study intersects with many larger problems in the interpretation o f the Acts
o f the Apostles. The conclusions reached through this research thus pose additional
options for specialized research in the Acts. These include, but are not limited to, the

3 48
Lukan portrayal o f Paul, the purpose o f the trial speeches, the Lukan christology, and
the larger context o f resurrection hopes in early Judaism and Christianity.
1. The portrayal o f Paul: This dissertation has argued that the resurrection-
judgment hope in Paul’s preaching and defense is an important part o f a larger heroic
portrayal in which Paul emerges as an ideal adherent to his ancestral religion. In my
own study, Paul’s hope in the resurrection was especially illumined through the study o f
early Jewish portrayals o f religious and philosophical piety. Additional aspects of
Paul’s piety in Acts may also be illumined through comparative analysis o f ancient
Jewish piety. Especially worthy o f consideration in this context are Paul’s responses to
his visionary episodes, his almsgiving, and his Temple piety (16:3; 18:3, 18; 20:16;
21:24; 24:17; 26:12-19).
The question o f the relationship between the Paul o f Acts and the historical Paul
has been intentionally avoided in this study, in order to do primary justice to Luke’s
own portrayal. The results o f the dissertation, however, may pose the question o f the
relationship between Luke’s portrayal of Paul’s resurrection hope and the historical
apostle’s dramatic defense o f the doctrine amid Corinthian skepticism in 1 Cor 15.
Whether Luke’s portrayal is in any sense grounded in an understanding o f the historical
apostle’s writings on the issue o f the resurrection should receive more careful attention
in historical assessments o f the book of Acts. As in the case o f Paul’s persecutions of
the church and his Pharisaism, the resurrection hope may rest upon biographical
elements that Luke has shaped for his own purposes.
2. The purpose o f the trial scenes: This study has also pursued the
possibility that the resurrection m otif o f the trial scenes ultimately serves a consolatory

349
function in relation to the implied reader by reconciling paradoxes in Luke’s narration
o f history. These observations suggest further possibilities that the trial scenes contain
additional consolatory elements. The relationship between persecution and witness in
the trials deserves further analysis within this model. Paul’s trial scenes may reactivate
an earlier plot sequence in Acts 7-8 in which increasing persecution leads inevitably to
the increasing geographical circumference o f the mission. In the case o f Paul, his
accusation and trial in Jerusalem lead inevitably to the advance o f the mission to
Caesarea, and ultimately to Rome. The consolatory dimensions o f these recurrent plot
sequences may suggest that persecution o f the witness is never the final word in the
story of the early believers, but leads inevitably by the guidance o f God to ever
increasing witness.
3. Lukan christology and eschatology. In Chapter 6 o f this study, the
observation was made that the christology o f Paul’s preaching and defense establishes
chronological trajectories, that relate Jesus’ exaltation to the past and the future.
Further specialized research may pursue the possibility o f similar chronological
trajectories in Lukan christology, especially in the ascension account (1:6-l 1), and in
Peter’s sermon at Solomon’s Portico (3:11-26). Furthermore, additional research may
continue to clarify the possible relationships that exist between the resurrection-
judgment hope and other aspects o f Lukan eschatology. This is especially necessary
due to the author’s inconsistency regarding eschatological topics. The resurrection-
judgment m otif described in this study constitutes one eschatological emphasis in Acts,
but not the only one. Additional studies may define more clearly how Luke uses
different hopes in complementary ways when discussing the eschatological future.

350
4. Ancient resurrection hope: Finally, Chapters 2-4 conducted research
into three ancient traditions that, like Acts, attest to Jewish piety as hope in the future
life. Not only are these individual traditions worthy o f more extensive study on their
own terms. Other documents not considered in the current study may shed additional
light on the topic o f early Jewish and Christian resurrection hope, especially 4 Ezra and
2 Baruch. Furthermore, Luke’s presentation o f the resurrection as common to both
Jewish ancestral religion and emergent Christian faith presents one o f the earliest
historical attempts to accentuate the commonality o f the two traditions. The treatment
o f the resurrection in Acts serves as an historic milestone in the ongoing history o f the
two peoples, and should receive more careful treatment in the theology o f Jewish-
Christian relations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abel, Felix Marie. Les Livres des Maccabees. Paris: Lecoffre, 1949.
Allen, O. Wesley, Jr. The Death o f Herod: The Narrative and Theological Function o f
Retribution in Luke-Acts. SBLDS 158. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.
Alter, Robert, The Art o f Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.
Anderson, Hugh. “4 Maccabees.” Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2:531-64.
________ . “The Books o f Maccabees.” Anchor Bible Dictionary 4:439-54.
Arenhoevel, Diego. “Die Hoffnung auf die Auferstehung: Eine Auslegung von 2 Makk
7.” Bibel und Leben 5 (1964): 36-42.
Attridge, Harold W. “Historiography.” Pages 157-84 in Jewish Writings o f the Second

Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings,
Philo, and Josephus. Edited by M. Stone. CRINT 2. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1984.
________ . The Interpretation o f Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae o f

Flavius Josephus. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 7. Missoula, Mont.:
Scholars Press, 1976.
________ . “Josephus and His Works.” Pages 185-232 in Jewish Writings o f the
Second Temple Period.
Aune, David. The Cultic Setting o f Realized Eschatology. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
Backer, W. “Jiidische Martyrer im christichen Kalender.” Jahrbucherfur Jiidische

Geschichte und Literatur 4 (1901): 70-85.
Baillet, M. Qumran grotte 4.III (4Q482-4Q520). DJD VII. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1982.
Baillet, M., J.T. Milik, and R. de Vaux. Les "petites grottes " de Qumran. DJDJ m .
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.
Balch, David L. “Acts as Hellenistic Historiography.” Pages 429-32 in SBL Seminar

Papers, 1985. SBLSP 24. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985.
________ . “The Areopagus Speech: An Appeal to the Stoic Historian Posidonius

against Later Stoics and Epicureans.” Pages 343-62 in Greeks, Romans, and
351

352
Christians: Essays in Honor o f Abraham Malherbe. Edited by D. Balch, E.
Ferguson, W. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.
________ . “Comments on the Genre and Political Theme o f Luke-Acts: A

Preliminary Comparison of Two Hellenistic Historians.” Pages 343-62 in SBL
Seminar Papers, 1989. Edited by D. Lull. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1989.
________ . “The Genre o f Luke-Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel, or

Political History.” Scottish Journal o f Theology 35 (1990): 5-19.
Bammel, Ernst. “Zum judischen Martyrerkult.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 78

(1983): 119-26.
Barnes, Timothy D. “An Apostle on Trial,” Journal ofTheolgical Studies 20 (1969):

407-19.
Bamikol, Ernst. Das Entdeckte Christentum im Vormarz: Bruno Bauers K am pf gegen

Religion und Christentum und Erstausgabe seiner Kampfschrift. Aalen:
Scientia, 1989; orig. 1927.
Barrett, C.K. Acts o f the Apostles. ICC. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1998.
________ . Luke the Historian in Recent Study. A.S. Peake Memorial Lecture 6.
London: Epworth Press, 1961.
________ . “Paul’s Speech on the Areopagus.” Pages 69-75 in New Testament

Christianity fo r Africa and the World: Essays in Honor o f Harry Sawyer.
Edited by M. Glasswell and E. Fashole-Luke. London: SPCK, 1974.
________ . “Stephen and the Son o f Man.” Pages 30-38 in Apophoreta: Festschrift
fu r Ernst Haenchen. Berlin: Topelmann, 1964.
Bartlett, John R. The First and Second Books o f the Maccabees. Cambridge Bible
Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.
Bauckham, Richard. “The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Parable and the Parallels.”
Pages 97-118 in The Fate o f the Dead: Studies in the Jewish and Christian
Apocalypses. NovTSup 93. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Bauer, Bruno. Die Apostelgeschichte: Eine Ausgleichung des Paulinismus und des
Judenthums innerhalb der christlichen Kirche. Berlin: Topelmann, 1850.
________ . Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker. 3 vols. Leipzig: O.

Wiegand, 1941-42.

353
Baumbach, Gunther. “The Sadducees in Josephus.” Pages 103-95 in Josephus, the

Bible and History. Edited by L. Feldman and G. Hata. Detroit: Wayne State
University Press, 1989.
Baur, Ferdinand Christian. “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der

Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christenthums in der altesten
Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom.” Tiibinger Zeitschrift fiir Theologie 5
(1831): 61-206
Becker, Carl. Tertullian, Apologeticum: Verteidigung des Christentum. Miinchen:

Kosel-Verlag KG, 1952.
Becker, Jurgen. Untersuchungen zur Enstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der Zwolf

Patriarchen. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Bickermann, Elias J. Der Gott der Makkabaer: Untersuchung iiber Sinn und Ursprung
der makkabaischen Erhebung. Berlin: Schocken, 1937.
Bietenhard, Hans. Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spdtjudentum.

Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1951.
Bock, Darrell. “Scripture and the Realisation (sic) o f God’s Promises.” Pages 41-62 in
Witness to the Gospel: The Theology o f Acts. Edited By I. Marshall and D.
Peterson. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1998.
Bovon, Fran<?ois. Luc le theologien: Vingt-cinq ans de recherches (1950-1975).

Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1978.
Brawley, Robert L. Centering on God: Method and Message in Luke-Acts. Literary

Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville, Ken.: Westminster/John Knox
Press, 1990.
________ . Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation. SBLMS
33. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
________ . “Paul in Acts: Lucan Apology and Conciliation.” Pages 129-47 in

Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society o f Biblical Literature Seminar.
Edited by C. Talbert. New York: Crossroad, 1984.
Bremmer, Jan N. The Early Greek Concept o f the Soul. Princeton: Princeton
Brooke, G., J. Collins, P. Flint, J. Greenfield, E. Larson, C. Newsom, E. Puech, L.

Schiffinan, M. Stone, and J. Trebolle Barrera. Qumran Cave 4.XVII:
Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. DJD XXII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
Brownlee, William H. “From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom.” Pages 281-92 in The
Quest fo r the Kingdom o f God: Studies in Honor o f George E. Mendenhall.
Edited by H. Huffmon et al. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983.
Brox, Norbert. Zeuge und Martyrer: Untersuchungen zur Friihchristlichen Zeugnis-

Terminologie. Munchen: Kosel-Verlag, 1961.
Bruce, F.F. Acts o f the Apostels: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990; orig. 1951.
________ . “Paul and the Athenians.” Expository Times 88 (1976-77): 8-12.
________ . “Paul on Immortality.” Scottish Journal o f Theology 24 (1971): 457-72.
Biickers, Hermann. “Das ‘Ewige Leben’ in 2 Makk 7:36.” Biblica 21 (1940): 406-12.
Buckwalter, H. Douglas. “The Divine Saviour.” Pages 107-23 in Witness to the

Gospel.
Bultmann, Rudolph. Theology o f the New Testament. Translated by K. Groebel. New

York: Scribner, 1951-55.
Burchard, Christoph. Der Dreizehnte Zeuge: Traditions- und

kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Lukas ’ Darstellung der Friihzeit
des Paulus. FRLANT 103. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1970.
Burkert, Walter. Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1985.
Cadbury, Henry J. “Four Features o f Lucan Style.” Pages 87-102 in Studies in Luke-
Acts: Essays Presented in Honor o f Paul Schubert. Edited by L. Keck and J.
Martyn. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966.
________ . “The Purpose Expressed in Luke’s Preface.” Expositor 21 (1921): 431 -

41.
________ . The Making o f Luke-Acts. London: SPCK, 1958; orig. 1928.
________ . The Style and Literary Method o f Luke: I. The Diction o f Luke and Acts
and II. The Treatment o f Sources in the Gospel. 2 vols. Harvard Theological
Studies 6. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1919-20.

355
Carmignac, Jean. “Le retour du Docteur de Justice a la fin des jours?” Revue de
Qumran 1 (1958): 235-48.
Carroll, John T. “Literary and Social Dimensions o f Luke’s Apology for Paul.” SBL
Seminar Papers, 1988. Edited by D. Lull. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.
________ . Response to the End o f History: Eschatology and Situation in Luke-Acts.

SBLDS 92. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.
Cavallin, Hans. Life after Death: Paul's Argument fo r the Resurrection o f the Dead in
I Cor 15, Part I: An Enquiry into the Jewish Background. Coniectanea Biblica
NTS 7:1. Lund: CW KGleerup, 1974.
Chance, J. Bradley. Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts. Macon,
Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1988.
Charles, R.H., ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudpigrapha o f the Old Testament in English
with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1913.
________ . A Critical History o f the Doctrine o f a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism,

and in Christianity. London: Black, 1913.
________ ., ed. The Greek Versions o f the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs, Edited
from Nine MSS, together with the Variants o f the Armenian and Slavonic
Versions and Some Hebrew Fragments. Oxford: Clarendon, 1908.
________ . “Testaments o f the XII Patriarchs.” Dictionary o f the Bible Dealing with
Its Language, Literature and Contents 4 (1909): 721-25.
________ . “The Testaments o f the XII Patriarchs.” Encyclopedia Biblica 1 (1899):

287-41.
________ . “The Testaments o f the XII Patriarchs.” Hibbert Journal 3 (1904-05):

558-73.
________ ., ed. Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs, Translated from the Editor's
Greek Text and Edited with Introductory Notes, and Indices. London: Black,
1908.
Charles, R.H. and Arthur E. Cowley. “An Early Source o f the Testaments o f the
Twelve Patriarchs” Jewish Quarterly Review 19 (1907): 566-83.

3 56
Charlesworth, James H. “Apostolic Constitutions.” Pages 42-43 in vol. 1 o f
Encyclopedia o f the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. Schiffman and J.
VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
________ . “The History of the Rechabites.” Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2:443-

461.
________ . “Individual Resurrection from the Dead and Immortality o f the Soul.”
Histoire du Christianisme des origines a nos jours. Tome 14. Paris: Desclee,
forthcoming 2001-02.
________ . “Christian and Jewish Self-Definition in Light o f the Christian Additions

to the Apocryphal Writings.” Pages 27-54 in Jewish and Christian Self-
Definition: Volume Two: Aspects o f Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period.
Edited by E.P. Sanders, A. Baumgarten, A. Mendelson. 3 vols. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1981.
Charlesworth, M. Documents Illustrating the Reign o f Claudius and Nero. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1939.
Cohen, Shaye J.D. “Masada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and the
Credibility o f Josephus” Journal o f Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 385-405.
Collins, John J. “Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence o f Death.” Catholic

Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974): 21-43.
________ . Apocalypticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Literature o f the Dead Sea
Scrolls. New York: Routledge, 1997.
________ . Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic

Diaspora. New York: Crossroad, 1983.
________ . Daniel: A Commentary on the Book o f Daniel. Hermeneia.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
________ . Daniel, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees with an Excursus on the

Apocalyptic Genre. Old Testament Message 16. Wilmington, Del.: Michael
Glazier, 1931.
Conzelmann, Hans. Acts o f the Apostles: A Commentary. Edited by E. Epp. Translated

by J. Limburg, A. Kreabel and D. Juel. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1987; orig. 1972.
________ . “The Address o f Paul on the Areopagus.” Pages 217-32 in Studies in

3 57
Luke-Acts.
________ . The Theology o f St. Luke. Translated by G. Buswell. Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1961; orig. 1953.
________ . Heiden-Juden-Christen: Auseinandersetzungen in der Literatur der

hellenistisch-rdmischen Zeit. BHT 62. Edited by J. Wellmann. Tubingen:
Mohr (Siebeck), 1981.
________ . The Theology o f St. Luke. Translated by G. Buswell; Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1961; orig. 1953.
Corbett, Edward P.J. Classical Rhetoric fo r the Modern Student. New York: Oxford
Cosgrove, Charles H. “The Divine AEI in Luke-Acts: Investigations into the Lukan
Understanding o f G od’s Providence.” Novum Testamentum 26 (1984): 168-90.
Croy, N. Clayton. “Hellenistic Philosophers and the Preaching o f the Resurrection

(Acts 17:18-32).” Novum Testamentum 39 (1997): 21-39.
Cumont, Franz. The Afterlife in Roman Paganism. Silliman Memorial Lectures. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1922.
Dahl, Nils A. “The Purpose o f Luke-Acts.” Pages 87-98 in Jesus in the Memory o f the
Early Church: Essays by Nils Alstrup Dahl. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg
Publishing House, 1976.
________ . “The Story o f Abraham in Luke-Acts.” Pages 139-59 in Studies in Luke-

Acts.
Darr, John A. Herod the Fox: Audience Criticism and Lukan Characterization.
JSNTSup 163. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
________ . On Character Building: The Reader and the Rhetoric o f

Characterization in Luke-Acts. Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation.
Louisville, Ken.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992.
Daube, David. “On Acts 23: Sadducees and Angels.” Journal o f Biblical Literature
109 (1990): 493-97.
Dehandschutter, B. “La persecution des chretiens dans les Actes des Apotres.” Pages
541-46 in Les Actes des Apotres: tradition, redaction, theologie. Edited by J.
Kremer. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 48.

358
Gembloux: Leuven University Press, 1979.
Delling, Gerhard. “Die biblische Prophetie bei Josephus.” Pages 109-21 mJosephus-
Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen
Testament. Edited by O. Betz, K. Haacker, und M. Hengel. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1974.
Dibelius, Martin. Formgeschichte des Evangeliums. Tubingen: Mohr, 1919.
________ . Studies in the Acts o f the Apostles. Edited by H. Greeven. Translated by

M. Ling. Miffletown, Penn.: Sigler Press, 1999; orig. 1951.
________ . “Zur Formgeschichte des N.T.s (ausserhalb der Evangelien).”

Theologische Rundschau 3 (1931): 209-42.
Dinkier, Erich. “The Idea o f History in Earliest Christianity.” Pages 169-214 in The
Idea o f History in the Ancient Near East. Edited by R. Dentan. New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University Press, 1955.
Doran, Robert. “2 Maccabees and ‘Tragic History.”’ Hebrew Union College Annual 50
(1979): 107-14
________ . “The Martyr: A Synoptic View o f the Mother and Her Seven Sons.”
Pages 189-221 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms.
Edited by J. Collins and G. Nickelsburg. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980.
________ . Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character o f 2 Maccabees.

CBQMS 12. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association o f America, 1981.
Downing, F. Gerald. “Common Ground with Paganism in Luke and Josephus.” New
Testament Studies 28 (1982): 544-58.
Droge, Arthur A. and James D. Tabor. A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among
Christians and Jews in Antiquity. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1992.
Dupont, Jaques. “Die individuelle Eschatologie im Lukasevangelium und in der

Apostelgeschichte.” Pages 37-47 in Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der
Synoptiker: Festschrift fu r Jo sef Schmidt. Freiburg: Herder, 1973.
Easton, Burton Scott. Early Christianity: The Purpose o f Acts and Other Papers.
Edited by F. Grant. Greenwich, Conn.: Seabury Press, 1954; orig. 1936.
Efron, Joshua. Studies on the Hasmonean Period. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
39.

359
Leiden: Brill, 1987.
Ellis, E. Earle. Christ and the Future in New Testament History. NovTSup 97. Leiden:
Brill, 2000.
Evans, C.F. ‘“ Speeches’ in Acts.” Pages 287-302 in Melanges Bibliques en homage au

R.P. Beda Rigeaux. Edited by A. Descamps et R. de Halleux. Gembloux:
Duculot, 1970.
Farmer, William H. Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus: An Inquiry into Jewish

Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1956.
Feldman, Louis H. “Abraham the Greek Philosopher in Josephus” Transactions o f the

American Philological Society 99 (1968): 143-56.
________ . “Flavius Josephus Revisited: The Man, His Writings, His Significance.”
ANR W 2 1.2: 763-862. Part 2, Principat, 21.2. Edited by W. Haase. New York:
de Gruyter, 1984.
Fischel, A. “Martyr and Prophet.” Jewish Quarterly Review 37 (1946): 265-80, 363-86.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts o f the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary, AB31. New York: Doubleday, 1998.
________ . Gospel according to Luke. 2 vols. Anchor Bible Commentary 28.

Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1981.
Foakes-Jackson, F.J. The Acts o f the Apostles. Moffat New Testament Commentary.
London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1931.
Francis, Fred O. “Eschatology and History in Luke-Acts.” Journal o f the American

Academy o f Religion 37 (1969): 49-63.
Franklin, Eric. Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology o f Luke-Acts.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975.
Frend, W.H.C. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study o f a Conflict
from the Maccabees to Donatus. New York: New York University Press, 1967.
Funk, Robert W. The Poetics o f Biblical Narrative. Foundations and Facets: Literary
Facets; Sonoma, Calif.: 1988.
Garcia Martinez, Florentino, and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study

360
Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997-98.
Gartner, Bertil. The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation. Acta Seminarii
Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 21. Uppsala: Gleerup, 1955.
________ . “Die ratselhaften Termini Nazoraer und Iskariot.” Horae

Soederblomianiae 4 (1957).
Gasque, W. Ward. History o f the Interpretation o f the Acts o f the Apostles. Peabody,
Mass: Hendrickson, 1989; orig. 1975.
________ . “The Speeches o f Acts: Dibelius Reconsidered.” Pages 232-50 in New

Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by R. Longenecker and M.
Tenney. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1974.
Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. “Eschatology o f Luke-Acts Revisited.” Encounter 43

(1982): 27-42.
________ . “The Peril o f Modernizing Henry Joel Cadbury.” Pages 7-26 in

Cadbury, Knox, and Talbert: American Contributions to the Study o f Acts.
Edited by M. Parsons and J. Tyson. SBL Biblical Scholarship in North
America. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.
________ . “The Overthrown Enemy: Luke’s Portrait o f Paul.” Pages 439-49 in

SBL Seminar Papers, 1985. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.
________ . “Toward a Theology of Acts: Reading and Re-reading.” Interpretation

42(1988): 146-57.
Geiger, Ruthild. Die lukanischen Endzeitreden: Studien zur Eschatologie des Lukas-
Evangeliums. Europaische Hochschulschriften 23.16. Bern: Herbert Lang,
1973.
Glasson, T.F. “The Speeches in Acts and Thucydides.” Expository Times 76 (1965):
165.
Goldschmidt, Victor. Le systeme sto'icien et I ’idee de temps. Paris: Librairie

Philosophique, 1977.
Goldstein, Jonathan. I I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and

Commentary. AB 41a. New York: Doubleday, 1983.
________ . “The Origins o f the Doctrine o f Creation Ex Nihilo,” Journal o f Jewish

Studies 35 (1984): 127-35.

361
Gowler, David B. Host, Guest, Enemy, and Friend: The Pharisees in Luke-Acts.
Emory Studies in Early Christianity 2. New York: Peter Lang, 1991.
Grasser, Erich. “Die Parusieerwartung in der Apostelgeschichte.” Pages 99-127 in Les

Actes des Apotres.
________ . Das Problem der Parusieverzdgerung in den synoptischen Evangelien

und in der Apostelgeschichte. BZNW 22. Berlin: Topelmann, 1977.
________ . “TA PERI TES BASILEIAS (Apg 1,6; 19,8).” Pages 708-25 in a cause
de I 'evangile: Etudes, sur les Synoptiques et les Actes offertes an P. Jaques
Dupont, O.S.B. a I ’occasion de son 70e anniversaire. Lectio Divina 123; Paris:
Cerf, 1985.
Green, Joel B. The Gospel o f Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997.
________ . “Salvation to the End o f the Earth: God as the Saviour in the Acts o f the
Apostles.” Pages 83-106 in Witness to the Gospel.
Greenspoon, Leonard J. “The Origin o f the Idea o f Resurrection.” Pages 189-240 in

Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith. Edited by B.
Halpem and J. Levenson. Winona Lake, 111.: Eisenbrauns, 1981.
Greenstone, H. “Martyrdom, Restriction of.” Jewish Encyclopedia. Edited by I.

Singer. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1910.
Guthrie, W.K.C. Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study o f the Orphic Movement. New
York: Norton, 1966.
Guttmann, Julius. “The ‘Second Commandment’ and the Image in Judaism.” Hebrew
Union College Annual 32 (1961): 161-74.
Haacker, Klaus. “Das Bekenntnis des Paulus zur Hoffnung Israels nach
Apostelgeschichte des Lukas.” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 437-51.
Habicht, C. 2 Makkabaerbuch. JSHZ 1.3. Guttersloh: G. Mohn, 1976.
Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts o f the Apostles: A Commentary. Translated by B. Noble

and G. Shinn et al. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971; orig. 1956.
________ . ‘Tradition und Komposition in der Apostelgeschichte.” Zeitschrift Jiir

Theologie und die Kirche 52 (1955): 205-25.

362
Hansen, G. Walter. “The Preaching and Defence o f Paul.” Pages 295-324 in Witness to
the Gospel.
Hasel, Gerhard. “Resurrection in the Theology o f Old Testament Apocalyptic.”

Zeitschrift Jiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92 (1980): 267-84.
Hemer, Colin J. The Book o f Acts in the Setting o f Hellenistic History. Tubingen: Mohr
(Siebeck), 1989.
________ . “The Speeches o f Acts II: The Areopagus Address.” Tyndale Bulletin 40
(1989): 239-59.
Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine

during the Early Hellenistic Period. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991; orig.
1969.
Hickling, C.J.A. “The Portrait o f Paul in Acts 26.” Pages 499-503 in Les Actes des
Apotres.
Hiers, Richard H. “The Problem o f the Delay o f the Parousia in Luke-Acts.” New
Testament Studies 20 (1974): 145-55.
Himmelfarb, Martha. Tours o f Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian

Literature. Philadelphia: University o f Pennsylvania Press, 1983.
Hollander, Harm W. Joseph as an Ethical Model in the Testaments o f the Twelve

Patriarchs. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 7. Leiden: Brill,
1981.
Hollander, Harm W. and Marinus de Jonge. The Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs:
A Commentary. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 8. Leiden: Brill,
1985.
Holscher, Gustav. “Josephus.” Realencyclopadie der klassischen

Altertumswissenschaft. Edited by A. Pauly and G. Wissowa. Stuttgart:
Metzler, 1914-72.
Horsley, G.H.R. “Speeches and Dialogue in Acts.” New Testament Studies 32 (1986):
609-14.
Hultgctrd, Anders. L 'eschatologie des Testaments des Douze Patriarchs. I:

Interpretation des texts; II: Composition de I ’ouvrage texts et traductions. 2
vols. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Historia Religionum 7. Uppsala: Uppsala
University 1991.

363
Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem at the Time o f Jesus: An Investigation into the Social
and Economic Conditions during the New Testament Period. Translated by F.
H. and C. H. Cave. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969; orig. 1923.
Jervell, Jacob. Die Apostelgeschichte iibersetzt und erklart von Jacob Jervell. Kritisch-
exegetischer Kommentar iiber das Neue Testament 3. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1998.
________ . “The Future o f the Past: Luke’s Vision o f Salvation History and its
Bearing on His Writing o f History.” Pages 104-28 in History, Literature, and
Society in the Book o f Acts. Edited by B. Witherington III. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996.
________ . “ Ein Interpolator interpretiert. Zu der christlichen Bearbeitung der

Testaments der Zwolf Patriarchen.” Pages 30-61 in Studien zu den Testamenten
der Z w o lf Patriarchen: Drei Aufsatze herausgegeben von Walter Eltester.
Edited by C. Burchard et al. BZNW 36. Berlin: Topelmann, 1969.
________ . Luke and the People o f God: A New Look at Luke-Acts. Minneapolis,
Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972.
________ . The Theology o f the Acts o f the Apostles. New York: Cambridge
________ . The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke-Acts and Early Christian History.
Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984.
Johnson, Luke T. Acts o f the Apostles. Sacra Pagina 5. Collegevi lie, Minn.: Liturgical
Press, 1992.
________ . The Gospel o f Luke. Sacra Pagina 3. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical

Press, 1991.
________ . The Literary Function o f Possessions in Luke-Acts. SBLDS 39.

Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977.
Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1926-1965.
Jonge, Marinus de. “Christian Influence in the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs.”
Novum Testamentum 4 (1960): 182-235.
________ . “Christian Influence in the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages

364
193-246 in Studies on the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and
Interpretation. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 3. Leiden: Brill,
1975.
________ . “Hippolytus’ ‘Benedictions o f Issac, Jacob and M oses’ and the

Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs (orig. 1985).” Pages 204-19 in Jewish
Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments o f the Twelve
Patriarchs: Collected Essays o f Marinus de Jonge. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
________ . “The Interpretation o f the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs in Recent

Years.” Pages 183-92 in Studies on the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs:
Text and Interpretation.
________ . “Israel’s Future in the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs (orig. 1986).”
Pages 164-79 in Jewish Eschatology.
________ . “The Main Issues in the Study o f the Testaments o f the Twelve
Patriarchs (orig. 1979).” Pages 147-63 in Jewish Eschatology.
________ . “The Pre-Mosaic Servants o f God (orig. 1985).” Pages 266-72 in Jewish
Eschatology.
________ . The Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition o f the

Greek Text. Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 1:2. Leiden: Brill,
1978.
________ . “The Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: Jewish and Christian (orig.
1985).” Pages 233-43 in Jewish Eschatology.
Juel, Donald. Luke-Acts: The Promise o f History. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1983.
________ . Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation o f the Old Testament

in Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.
Kappler, W. and Robert Hanhart. Maccabaeorum liber II. VTGASLG 9.2. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959.
Karris, Robert. What Are They Saying about Luke and Acts?. New York: Paulist,
1979.
Kasemann, Ernst. Essays on New Testament Themes. Translated by W. Montague.

London: SCM Press, 1971; orig. 1960.
________ . New Testament Questions o f Today. London: SCM Press, 1969.

365
Katz, Peter. “The Text o f 2 Maccabees Reconsidered.” Zeitschrift fu r die

neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kirche 51 (I960): 10-30.
Kee, Howard Clark. To Every Nation Under Heaven: The Acts o f the Apostles. The
New Testament in Context. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International,
1997.
Kegel, Martin. Bruno Bauer und seine Theorien iiber die Entstehung des Christentums.
Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1908.
Kellermann, Ulrich. Auferstanden in den Himmel: 2 Makkabder 7 und die

Auferstehung der Martyer. Stuttgarter Bibel-Studien 95. Stuttgart: Verlag
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1979.
Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament.
Translated by G. Bromiley. lOvols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964-76.
Klein, Gunther. Die Z w olf Apostel: Ursprung und Gehalt einer Idee. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961.
Kliesch, Klaus. Das heilsgeschichtliche Credo in den Reden der Apostelgeschichte.

BBB 44. Kohl-Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1975.
Kortweg, T. The Meaning o f Naphtali’s Visions.” Pages 260-90 in Studies on the

Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs.
Krankl, Emmeram. Jesus der Knecht Gottes: Die heilsgeschichtliche StellungJesu in

den Reden der Apostelgeschichte. Munchener Universitats-Schriften, Biblische
Untersuchungen 8. Regensburg: F. Postet, 1972.
Kiimmel, W emer Georg. The New Testament: The History o f the Investigation o f Its
Problems. Translated by S. Gilmour and H. Kee. Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1972; orig. 1970.
Kurz, William S. “The Function o f Christological Proof from Prophecy for Luke and
Justin.” Ph.D. diss., Yale, 1976.
________ . “Luke-Acts and Historiography in the Greek Bible.” Pages 283-300 in

SBL Seminar Papers, 1980. SBLSP 17. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980.
Lachs, Samuel T. “The Pharisees and Sadducees on Angels: A Reexamination o f Acts

XXm.8.” Pages 35-42 in Gratz College Annual o f Jewish Studies 6.
Philadelphia: Gratz College, 1997.

366
Ladouceur, David. “Masada: A Consideration o f the Literary Evidence.” Greek,

Roman, and Byzantine Studies 21 (1980): 245-60.
________ . “Josephus and Masada.” Pages 95-113 in Josephus, Judaism, and

Christianity. Edited by L. Feldman and G. Hata. Detroit: Wayne State
Lafargue, M. “Orphica.” Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2:795-801.
Lake, Kirsopp and Henry J. Cadbury. The Acts o f the Apostles. Vol. 4 o f The
Beginnings o f Christianity, Part I. Edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake.
London: Macmillan, 1933.
Lattimore, Richmond. Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs. Illinois Studies in

Language and Literature 1. Urbana, 111.: University o f Illinois Press, 1942.
Laurin, R. “The Question of Immortality in the Qumran ‘Hodayot.’” Journal o f Semitic

Studies 3 (1958): 344-55.
Le Moyne, J. Les Sadduceens. Paris: Gabalda, 1972.
Lentz, John. Le Portrait de Paul selon Luc dans les Actes des Apotres. Translated by
N. de Chabot and M. Trimaille. Lectio Divina 172. Paris: Cerf, 1998.
Lindner, J. Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum.

Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken
Judentums und des Urchristentums 12. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
Linforth, Ivan M. The Arts o f Orpheus. Berkeley, Cal.: University o f California Press,
1941.
Lidzbarski, Mark. Zeitschrift fu r Semitistik 1 (1922): 230-33.
Loisy, Alfred. Les Actes des Apotres: traduction nouvelle avec introduction et notes.
Paris: Rieder, 1925.
Long, A.A. “Cicero’s Plato and Aristotle.” Pages 37-62 in Cicero the Philosopher:
Twelve Papers. Edited by J. Powell. Clarendon: Oxford, 1995.
Long, William R. “The Trial o f Paul in the Book o f Acts: Historical, Literary, and
Theological Considerations.” Ph.D. diss., Brown University, 1982.
Lilhrmann, Dieter. “Paul and the Pharisaic Tradition.” Journal fo r the Study o f the New

367
Testament 36 (1989): 75-94.
Luz, M. “Eleazar’s Second Speech on Masada and Its Literary Precedents.”

Rheinisches Museum 126 (1983): 25-43.
Mackenzie, Mary Margaret. Plato on Punishment. Berkeley: University o f California

Press, 1981.
Maddox, Robert. The Purpose o f Luke-Acts. Edited by J. Riches. Edinburgh: T.&T.

Clark, 1982.
Mansfield, J. “Provide-ice and the Destruction o f the Universe in Early Stoic Thought.
With Some Remarks on the ‘Mysteries o f Philosophy.’” Pages 129-88 in
Studies in Hellenistic Religions. Edited by M. Vermaseren. Leiden: Brill,
1979.
Marrow, Stanley B. “A0ANAEIA/ANAXTA1II: The Road not Taken.” New

Testament Studies 45 (1999): 571 -86.
Marshall, I. Howard. “How Does One Write on the Theology o f Acts?” Pages 1-16 in
Witness to the Gospel.
Martin-Achard, Robert. From Death to Life: A Study o f the Development o f the

Doctrine o f the Resurrection in the Old Testament. Translated by J. Smith.
Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1960.
Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. New York: Harper &
Rowe, 1968.
Mason, Steve. “Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees, and Sanhedrin in Acts.” Pages
115-78 in The Book o f Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Edited by R. Bauckham.
Vol. 4 o f The Book o f Acts in Its First Century Setting. Edited by Bruce W.
Winter. Grand Rapids, Mich.: 1993-95.
Mattill, A J. Luke and the Last Things: A Perspective fo r the Understanding o f Lukan
Thought. Dillsboro, Nor. Car.: Western North Carolina Press, 1979.
________ . “Naherwartung, Femerwartung, and the Purpose o f Luke-Acts:

Weymouth Reconsidered.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1974): 276-93.
McKay, K.L. “Foreign Gods Identified in Acts 17:18?” Tyndale Bulletin 45 (1994):
411-12.
Menoud, Phillip. “Jesus et Anastasis.” Revue de theologie etphilosophie 32 (1944):

3 68
141-54.
Meyer, Rudolph. Hellenistisches in der rabbinisches Anthropologie: Rabbinische

Vorstellungen vom Werden des Menschen. BWANT 22. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1937.
Michel, Otto and Otto Bauemfeind. “Die beiden Eleazarreden in Jos bell 7.323-36,
7.341-88.” Zeitschrift fu r die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kirche 58
(1967): 267-72.
________ . De bello judaico, Der jiidische Krieg: Griechisch und Deutsch. 4 vols.
Munchen: Kosel-Verlag, 1969.
Milik, J.T. “Ecrits preesseniens de Qumran: d ’Henoch a Qumran.” Pages 91-106 in

Qumrdn: Sa piete, sa theologie et son milieu. BETL 46. Edited by M. Delcor.
Paris: Duculot, 1978.
Moehring, Horst R. “Josephus ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus.” A NR W 21.2:864-

944.
Moessner, David P. ‘“ The Christ Must Suffer’: New Light on the Jesus-Peter, Stephen,
Paul Parallels in Luke-Acts.” Novum Testamentum 28 (1986): 220-56.
________ . “The Ironic Fulfillment o f Israel’s Glory.” Pages 35-50 in Luke-Acts and
the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives. Edited by J. Tyson.
Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1988.
________ . “The ‘script’ o f the Scripture in Acts: Suffering as God’s ‘Plan’ ((knAri)
for the World for the ‘Release o f Sins.’” Pages 218-50 in History, Literature,
and Society in the Book o f Acts.
Morel, W. “Eine Rede bei Josephus (Bell. Iud. VII 344 sqq.).” Reinisches Museum 75
(1926): 106-15.
Moule, C.F.D. “The Christology o f Acts.” Pages 159-85 in Studies in Luke-Acts.
________ . An Idiom Book o f New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1994; orig. 1953.
Nagy, Gregory. The Best o f the Achaeans: Concepts o f the Hero in Archaic Greek
Poetry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979.
Nauck, Wolfgang. “Die Tradition und Komposition der Areopagrede.” Zeitschrift fu r

Theologie und Kirche 52 (1956): 11-52.

369
Neil, William. The Acts o f the Apostles. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1987; orig. 1973.
Neusner, Jacob. “Josephus’ Pharisees: A Complete Repertoire.” Pages 274-92 in

Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity.
Neyrey, Jerome. “Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy: A Study in Stereotypes.” Pages
118-34 in Greeks, Romans, and Christians.
________ . “The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul’s Trial Speeches in Acts 22-26:
Form and Function.” Pages 210-24 in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the
Society o f Biblical Literature Seminar. Edited by C. Talbert. New York:
Crossroad, 1983.
________ . “Luke’s social location o f Paul: cultural anthropology and the status of
Paul in Acts.” Pages 251 -82 in History, Literature, and Society in the Book o f
Acts.
Nickelsburg, George W.E. “ 1 and 2 Maccabees: Same Story Different Meaning.”

Concordia Theological Monthly 42 (1971): 515-26.
________ . Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and
Literary Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987; orig. 1981.
________ . “Resurrection.” Pages 764-67 in vol. 2 o f Encyclopedia o f the Dead Sea

Scrolls.
________ . Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism.

H TS26. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.
Niese, Benedictus. “Kritik der beiden Makkabaerbucher nebst Beitragen zur

Geschichte der makkabaischen Erhebung.” Hermes 35 (1900): 268-307.
Nikiprowetzky, Valentin. “La mort d ’Eleazar fils de Jaire et les courants apologetiques
dans le De Bello Judaico de Flavius Josephe.” Pages 461-90 in Hommage a
Dupont-Sommer. Paris: Lecoffre, 1971.
Nikolainen, Aimo T. D er Auferstehungsglauben in der Bibel und ihrer Umwelt, I:

Religionsgeschichtlicher Teil. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 49.
Helsinki: Der Finnischen Literaturgesellschaft, 1944.
Nodet, Etienne. Bapteme et resurrection: Le temoignage de Josephe. Josephe et son

temps. Paris: Cerf, 1999

370
Nolland, John. “Salvation-History and Eschatology.” Pages 63-81 in Witness to the

Gospel.
Norden, Eduard. Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religidser

Rede. Leipzig: Teubner, 1913.
Notscher, Friedrich. Altorientalischer und alttestamentlicher Auferstehungsglauben.

Wiirtzburg: Becker, 1926.
O ’Neill, J.C. The Bible's Authority: A Portrait Gallery o f Thinkers from Lessing to
Bultmann .Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1991.
Obermann, J. “The Sepulchre o f the Maccabean Martyrs.” Journal o f Biblical

Literature 50 (1931): 250-63.
O ’Toole, Robert F. Acts 26: The Christological Climax o f Paul s Defense (Ac 22,1 -
26,32). Analecta Biblica 78. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978.
________ . “Christ’s Resurrection in Acts 13.13-52.” Biblica 60 (1969): 361-72.
Overbeck, Franz. Kurze Erklarung der Apostelgeschichte: Von W.M.L. de Wette,

Vierte Auflage bearbeitet und stark erweitert von Franz Overbeck. Leipzig:
1870.
Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Random House, 1979.
Parsons, Mikeal C. The Departure o f Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratives in

Context. JSNTSup21. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987.
Pereira, Francis. Ephesus: Climax o f Universalism in Luke-Acts: A Redaction-Critical

Study o f P a u l’s Ephesian Ministry (Acts 18:23-20:1). Jesuit Theological Forum,
ser. x no. 1. Anand: Prakash, 1983.
Pervo, Richard I. L u k e ’s Story o f Paul. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1990.
Philonenko, Marc. Les interpolations chretiennes des Testaments des Douze

Patriarches et les Manuscrits de Qumran. Cahiers de la Revue d’Histoire et de
Philosophic Religieuses 35. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1960.
Plumacher, Eckhard. “Die Apostelgeschichte ais historische Monografie.” Pages 457-

66 in Les Actes des Apotres.
________ . “Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte und Dionys von Halikamass.”

371
New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 161-77.
________ . “Wirklichkeitserfahrung und Geschichtsschreibung bei Lukas:

Erwagungen zu den Wir-Stiicken der Apostelgeschichte.” Zeitschrift fu r
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kirche 83 (1992): 270-75.
Powell, Mark Allen. What are They Saying about Luke-Acts. New York: Paulist Press,
1991.
Praeder, Susan M. “Jesus-Paul, Peter-Paul, and Jesus-Peter Parallelisms in Luke-Acts:

A History o f Reader Response.” Pages 23-39 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1984.
SBLSP23. Edited by K. Richards. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984.
Puech, Emile. La croyance des Esseniens en la vie future: immortalite, resurrection,

vie eternelle? histoire d'une croyance dans le Judaisme ancien. 2 vols. EB21.
Paris: Lecoffre, 1993.
________ . “Messianism, Resurrection, and Eschatology.” Pages 234-56 in Tlte

Community o f the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Edited by E. Ulrich and J. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism
in Antiquity 10. Notre Dame, Ind.: University o f Notre Dame Press, 1994.
________ . Textes Hebreu (4Q521-4Q528, 4Q576-4Q579): Qumran Cave 4.XVIII.

DJD XXV. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
________ . “Une Apocalypse Messianique (4Q521),” Revue de Qumran 60 (1992):

475-522.
Radi, Walter. Paulus und Jesus im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Untersuchungen zu

Parallelmotiven im Lukasevangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte. Bern:
Herbert Lang, 1975.
Rahlfs, A. Septuaginta Sociatatis Scientiarum Gottingensis, Vol. X: Psalmi cum Odis.

VTGASLGX. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931.
Rajak, Tessa. Josephus: The Historian and His Society. London: SCM, 1983.
Rapske, Brian. The Book o f Acts and Paul in Roman Custody. Vol. 3 o f The Book o f
Acts in Its First Century Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993.
________ . “Opposition to the Plan o f God and Persecution.” Pages 215-34 in

Witness to the Gospel.

372
Ray, Jerry Lynn. Narrative Irony in Luke-Acts: The Paradoxical Interaction o f
Prophetic Fulfillment and Jewish Rejection. Mellen Biblical Press Series 28.
Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen Biblical Press, 1996.
Robin, Leon. La pensee hellenique des origins a "Epicure: Questions de methode, de

critique et d'histoire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1942.
Robbins, Vernon. “The Social Location o f the Implied Author o f Acts.” Pages 305-32
in The Social World o f Luke Acts: Models fo r Interpretation. Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 1991.
Rohde, Erwin. Psyche: The Cult o f Souls and B elief in Immortality among the Greeks.
Translated by W. Hillis. London: Kegan Paul, 1925.
Rosenblatt, Marie-Eloise. Paul the Accused: His Portrait in the Acts o f the Apostles.
Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press,
1995.
Rosner, Brian S. “Acts and Biblical History.” Pages 65-82 in The Book o f Acts in Its
Ancient Literary Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke.
Vol. 1 o f The Book o f Acts in its First Century Setting. Edited by Bruce W.
Winter. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993-95.
Roth, Cecil. “An Ordinance against Images in Jerusalem, A.D. 566.” Harvard
Theological Review 44 (1956): 169-77.
Sanders, E.P. Judaism: Practice and B elief (63 B.C.E.-66 C.E.). London: SCM Press,
1994; orig. 1992.
Sanders, Jack T. The Jews in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.
Sawyer, John F. A. “Hebrew Words for the Resurrection o f the Dead.” Vetus
Testamentum 23 (1973): 18-34.
Schatkin, Margaret A. “The Maccabean Martyrs.” Vigiliae Christianae 28 (1974): 97-

113.
Schechter, J. and Harry Freedman. Hebrew-English Edition o f the Babylonian Talmud.

London: Socino Press, 1987.
Schmiedel, Paul Wilhelm. Encyclopedia Biblica 1 (1899).
Schmoller, A. Handkonkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament. Munster:

Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart, 1989; orig. 1938.

373
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. “Die lukanische Eschatologie im Lichte von Aussagen der

Apostelgeschichte.” Pages 259-66 in Glaube und Eschatologie: Festschrift fu r
Werner Georg Kiimmel zum 80. Geburtstag. Edited by E. Crasser and O. Merk.
Tubingen: M ohr (Siebeck), 1985.
Schneckenburger, Matthias. Uber den Zweck der Apostelgeschichte: zugleich eine

Ergdnzung der neueren Commentare. Bern: Fischer, 1841.
Schneider, Gerhard. Die Apostelgeschichte. HTKNT 5. 2 vols. Freiburg: Herder,

1980-82.
________ . Parusiegleichnisse im Lukas-Evangelium. Stuttgart: Katholisches

Bibelwerk, 1975.
Schroder, Bemd. Die 'vaterlichen G esetze': Flavius Josephus als Vermittler von
Halachah an Griechen und Romer. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1996.
Schubert, Kurt. “Das Problem der Auferstehungshoffnung in den Qumrantexten und in

der friihrabbinischen Literatur.” Wiener Zeitschrift fu r die Kunde des
Morgenlandes 56 (1960): 154-67.
________ . Die judischen Religionspartien in neutestamentlicher Zeit. Stuttgarter

Bibel Studien 43. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1970.
Schubert, Paul. “The Final Cycle o f Speeches in the Book o f Acts.” Journal o f Biblical
Literature 87 (1968): 1-16.
________ . “The Place o f the Areopagus Speech in the Composition o f Acts.” Pages
235-62 in Transitions in Biblical Scholarship. Edited by J. Rylaarsdam. Essays
in Divinity 6. Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1968.
________ . “The Structure and Significance o f Luke 24.” Pages 165-86 in

Neutestamentliche Studien fu r R. Bultmann. BZNW 21. Edited by W. Eltester.
Berlin: Topelmann, 1954.
Schulz, Siegfried. “Gottes Vorsehung bei Lukas.” Zeitschrift fu r die neutestamentliche

Wissenschaft und die Kirche 54 (1963): 104-16.
Schiirer, Emil. The History o f the Jewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ (175 B. C.-
A.D. 135). Rev. ed. Edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black. 4 vols.
Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1979.
Schwartz, Daniel R. “The End o f the Line: Paul in the Canonical Book o f Acts.”

374
Pages 3-24 in Paul and the Legacies o f Paul. Edited by W. Babcock. Dallas:
Southern Methodist University Press, 1990.
Schwegler, Albert. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter in den Hauptmomenten seiner

entwicklung. 2 vols. Tiibingen: Mohr, 1846.
Schweizer, Eduard. ‘T he Concept o f the Davidic ‘Son o f God’ in Acts and Its Old
Testament Background.” Pages 186-93 in Studies in Luke-Acts.
________ . “Concerning the Speeches in Acts.” Pages 208-16 in Studies in Luke-

Acts.
________ . ‘“ Er wird Nazoraer heissen’ (zu Me 1 24; Mt 2 23).” In Judentum,

Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift fu r J. Jeremias. BZNW 26. Berlin:
Topelmann, 1960.
Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest o f the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study o f Its Progress
from Reimarus to Wrede. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998;
orig. 1906.
Seely, David L. The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul's Concept o f
Salvation. JSNTSup 28. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.
Segal, C. Lucretius on Death and Anxiety: Poetry and Philosophy in De Rerum

Natura. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.
Shargel, B. “The Evolution o f the Masada Myth.” Judaism 28 (1979): 357-71.
Sherwyn-White, A.N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Sarum
Lectures 1960-61. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1981; orig. 1963.
Sleeper, C. “Pentecost and Resurrection.” Journal o f Biblical Literature 84 (1965):

389-99.
Slingerland, H. Dixon. The Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History o f

Research. SBLM S21. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977.
Smith, Morton. “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century.” Pages 67-81 in Israel: Its
Role in Civilization. New York: Harper, 1956.
Smyth, Herbert W. Greek Grammar. Rev. ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1984; orig. 1920.
Soards, Marion. The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns.

375
Louisville, Ken.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994.
Spencer, F. Scott. Acts. Readings. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Squires, John T. The Plan o f God in Luke-Acts. SNTSMS 76; Cambridge: Cambridge
________ . “The Plan o f God in the Acts o f the Apostles.” Pages 19-39 in Witness
to the Gospel.
Stemberger, Gunter. Der Leib der Auferstehung: Studien zur Anthropologie und
Eschatologie des palastinischen Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (ca.
170v.C r.-l00 n.Chr.). Analecta Biblica 56. Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1972.
________ . “The Maccabees in Rabbinic Tradition.” Pages 193-203 in The

Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honor o f A. S. van der Woude on the
Occasion o f His 65,h Birthday. Edited by F. Garcia Martinez et al. Leiden:
Brill, 1992.
Sterling, Gregory. “ ‘Athletes o f Virtue’: An Analysis o f the Summaries in Acts (2:41-

47; 4:32-35; 5 : 1 2 - 1 6 Journal o f Biblical Literature 113 (1994): 679-96.
________ . Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and

Apologetic Historiography. NovTSup 64. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Steyn, Gert J. Septuagint Quotations in the Context o f the Petrine and Pauline
Speeches o f the Acta Apostolorum. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and
Theology 12. Kampen: Pharos, 1995.
Strodach, K. The Philosophy o f Epicurus: Letters, Doctrines, and Parallel Passages

from Lucretius. Chicago: Northwest University Press, 1963.
Stowers, Stanley K. “Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The
Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity.” Novum Testamentum 26 (1984):
59-82.
Tabor, James D. “Martyr, Martyrdom.” Anchor Bible Dictionary 4:574-79.
Tajra, Harry W. The Martyrdom o f St. Paul. WUNT 2.67. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck),
1994.
Talbert, Charles H. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre o f Luke-Acts.
SBLMS 20. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974.

376
________ . Luke and the Gnostics: An Examination o f the Lucan Purpose.

Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966.
________ . “Promise and Fulfillment in Lucan Theology.” Pages 91-103 in Luke-

Acts: New Perspectives from the Society o f Biblical Literature Seminar.
________ . Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on The Acts o f

the Apostles. Reading the New Testament. New York: Crossroade, 1997.
________ . “Shifting Sands: The Recent Study o f the Gospel o f Luke.”

Interpretation 30 (1976): 381-95.
Tannehill, Robert C. “Israel in Acts: A Tragic Story.” Journal o f Biblical Litarature

104(1985): 69-85.
________ . The Narrative Unity o f Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. 2 vols.

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991-94; orig. 1986-90.
________ . “The Narrator’s Strategy in the Scenes o f Paul’s Defense.” Forum

(1992): 255-69.
________ . “Rejection by Jews and Turning to Gentiles: The Pattern o f Paul’s

Mission in Acts.” Pages 83-101 in Luke-Acts and the Jewish People.
________ . “The Story o f Israel within the Lukan Narrative.” Pages 325-39 in Jesus
and the Heritage o f Israel: Luke's Narrative Claim upon Israel's Legacy.
Edited by D. Moessner. Luke the Interpreter o f Israel 1. Harrisburg, Penn.:
Trinity Press International, 1999.
________ . “A Study in the Theology o f Acts.” Anglican Theological Review 43

(1961): 195-203.
Thackeray, Henry St. J. Josephus: The Man and the Historian. The Hilda Stich
Stroock Lectures ... at the Jewish Institute o f Religion 2. New York: Jewish
Institute o f Religion Press, 1929.
________ . Selections from Josephus. New York: Macmillan, 1919.
Tiede, David L. “The Exaltation o f Jesus and the Restoration o f Israel in Acts 1.”
Pages 278-86 in Christians among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor o f
Krister Stendahl on His Sixty-fifth Birthday. Edited by G.W.E. Nickelsburg and
G. MacRae. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

377
________ . ‘“ Glory to Thy People Israel: Luke-Acts and the Jews.” Pages 21-34 in
Luke-Acts and the Jewish People.
________ . Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.
Toynbee, Jocelyn M.C. Death and Burial in the Roman World. Aspects o f Greek and
Roman Life. London: Thames and Hudson, 1971.
Townsend, John T. “The Speeches in Acts.” Anglican Theological Review 42 (1960):

150-59.
Trites, Allison A. “The Importance o f Legal Scenes and Language in the Book o f
Acts.” Novum Testamentum 15 (1973): 278-84.
Trompf, G.W. The Idea o f Historical Recurrence in Western Thought from Antiquity to
the Reformation. Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1979.
________ . “On Why Luke Declined to Recount the Death o f Paul: Acts 27-28 and
Beyond.” Pages 225-39 in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society o f
Biblical Literature Seminar.
Turner, Nigel. Syntax. Vol. 3 o f A Grammar o f New Testament Greek. 4 vols. Edited
by James H. Moulton. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1988; orig. 1963.
Tyson, Joseph B., ed. Images o f Judaism in Luke-Acts. Columbia, S. Car.: University
o f South Carolina Press, 1992.
________ . The Jews in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.
Ulrichsen, Jarl H. D ie Grundschrift der Testaments der Z w olf Patriarchen: Eine

Untersuchung zu Umfang, Inhalt und Eigenart der ursprunglichen Schrift. Acta
Universitatis Upsaliensis, Historia Religionum 10. Uppsala: Uppsala
University, 1991.
Van Henten, J.W. The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours o f the Jewish People: A Study
o f 2 and 4 Maccabees. JSJSup 57. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
________ . “The Martyrs as Heroes o f the Christian People: Some Remarks on the
Continuity between Jewish and Christian Martyrology with Pagan Analogies.”
Pages 202-22 in Martyrium in Multidisciplinary Perspective: Memorial Louis
Reckmans. Edited by M. Lamberigts and P. van Dean. BETL 117. Leuven:
Peeters, 1995.
Van Unnik, W.C. “Die Apostelgeschichte und die Haresien.” Zeitschrift fiir die

378
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kirche 58 (1967): 240-46.
________ . “Luke-Acts: A Storm Center in Contemporary Scholarship.” Pages 15-

32 in Studies in Luke-Acts.
________ . “Luke’s Second Book and the Rules o f Hellenistic Historiography.”

Pages 37-60 in Les Actes des Apotres.
Vielhauer, Phillip. “On the Paulinism of Acts.” Pages 33-50 in Studies in Luke-Acts.
Viviano, Benedict T. and Justin Taylor. “Sadducees, Angels, and the Resurrection.”
Journal o f Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 496-98.
Wainright, Arthur W. “Luke and the Restoration of the Kingdom to Israel.” Expository
Times 89 (1977-78): 76-79.
Waltzing, Jean Pierre. Tertullien: Apologetique: Commentaire analytique,

grammatical et historique. Paris: Societe de’ ed itio n ‘Les belles letters,’ 1931.
Warden, John, ed., Orpheus: The Metamorphoses o f a Myth. Toronto: University o f

Toronto Press, 1982.
Weber, Wilhelm. Josephus und Vespasian: Untersuchungen zu dem Judischen Krieg

des Flavius Josephus. Hildesheim, New York: G. Olms Verlag, 1973.
Weiss, H. “Pharisaismus und Hellenismus: Zur Darstellung des Judentums in

Geschichtswerk des judischen Historikers Flavius Josephus.” Orientalistische
Literaturzeitung 74 (1979): 421 -33.
Weiss-Rosmarin, Trude. “Masada Revisited.” Jewish Spectator 34 (1969): 29-32.
Wenly, Robert M. Stoicism and its Influence. Boston: Marshall Jones Company, 1924.
Wilckens, Ulrich. “Interpreting Luke-Acts in a Period o f Existentialist Theology.”

Pages 60-83 in Studies in Luke-Acts.
Williams, C.S.C. A Commentary on the Acts o f the Apostles. Black’s New Testament
Commentaries. London: A.&C. Black, 1957.
Wilson, Stephen G. The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts. SNTSMS 23.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.
Winter, Bruce W. “The Importance o f the Capitatio Benevolentiae in the Speeches o f

Tertullus And Paul in Acts 24:1-21 ."Journal o f Theological Studies 42 (1991):

379
505-31.
Witherington, Ben, III. The Acts o f the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary.

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998.
Witherup, Ronald D. “Functional Redundancy in the Acts o f the Apostles: A Case

Study.” Journal fo r the Study o f the New Testament 48 (1992): 67-96.
Wolter, Michael. “Israel’s Future and the Delay o f the Parousia, according to Luke.”
Pages 307-24 in Jesus and the Heritage o f Israel: L u k e ’s Narrative Claim upon
Israel’s Legacy. Edited by D. Moessner. Luke the Interpreter o f Israel 1.
Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1999.
Yadin, Yigael. Masada: Herod's Fortress and the Zealot’s Last Stand. Translated by
M. Pearlman. New York: Random House, 1966.
Zeitlin, Solomon, ed., and Sidney Tedesche, trans. The Second Book o f Maccabees.
Jewish Apocryphal Literature. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954.
Zeller, Eduard. The Contents and Origin o f the Acts o f the Apostles Critically
Investigated, to Which is Prefixed, Dr. Overbeck’s Introduction to the Acts from
de Wette's Handbook. Translated by J. Dare. 2 vols. London: Williams and
Norgoth, 1875.
________ . Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung kritisch

Untersucht. Stuttgart: 1854.
________ . The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics. London: Longmans, 1870.
Zmijewski, Josef. Die Apostelgeschichte iibersetzt und erklart. Regensburger Neues

Testament. Regensburg: F. Postet, 1994.
________ . Die Eschatologiereden des Lukas-Evangeliums. Bonn: Peter Hanstein,

1972.

Moises Preaching4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Moises Preaching4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moises Preaching4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO U SER S

The quality of th is reproduction is dependent upon th e quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

Bell & Howell Information and Learning

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

RESURRECTION AND THE END OF HISTORY: THE RESURRECTION MOTIF IN

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n o f t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n proh ibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

All rights reserved.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

“Resurrection and The End o f History: The Resurrection M otif in Paul’s

Casey Deryl Elledge

Dissertation Adviser: Dr. James H. Charlesworth

An investigation o f the resurrection-judgment m otif in Paul’s

proposes an approach to the problem through the study o f ancient literature.

Chapters 2-4 survey the portrayals o f Jewish beliefs regarding the

These three works describe Jewish piety as hope in the reckoning o f

Informed by these works, Chapter 5 pursues an exegesis o f the

resurrection-judgment m otif in the scenes o f Paul’s preaching and defense.

is distinctive from the earlier proclamation o f Jesus’ resurrection.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p ro d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e rm is s io n .

resurrection and Jewish hopes o f a future resurrection-judgment.

Chapter 6 explores the theological-eschatological assumptions o f this

connection. The resurrection-judgment m otif in the Pauline speeches

assumes a comprehensive vision o f the divine plan that extends from

creation, to the resurrection o f Jesus; and from the resurrection o f Jesus, to a

Chapter 7 provides proposals for the rhetorical strategies that underlie

this connection. Based upon the materials surveyed in Chapters 2-4, it

concludes that Paul’s hope in a resurrection-judgment is a device o f

characterization that heroizes his fidelity to Jewish ancestral religion. Paul’s

own faith in the resurrection-judgment also affirms that divine justice

ultimately stands over the events related in Acts. These aspects of

characterization and thematic commentary probably served a consolatory

function in relation to readers.

The study o f Paul’s resurrection faith within the context o f ancient

in his presentation o f Paul. Even in the scenes o f his persecution, Paul’s

situation within the divine plan.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

CHAPTER I: CRITICAL INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSAL OF METHOD: THE

RESURRECTION-JUDGMENT MOTIF IN PAUL’S PREACHING AND DEFENSE:

ITS ROLE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF ACTS.............................................................. 1

The Tubingen Critics

“Radical ” Responses to the Tubingen School

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

Appeals to the Future Life in 2 Maccabees

The Legend o f the Seven Sons and Their Mother

The Prayer o f Razis

The Faith o f Judas

Concept of the Future Life

Function of the Future Life

The Problem o f Theodicy

Association with the Readers

CHAPTER 3: APPEALS TO THE FUTURE LIFE IN JOSEPHUS’ JEWISH

The Two Teachers

Josephus' Oration against Suicide

Titus Rouses His Troops