Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible

and Theology
http://btb.sagepub.com

"Why Were the Heathen So Arrogant?" the Socio-Rhetorical Strategy of Acts 3-4
Randall C. Webber
Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 1992; 22; 19
DOI: 10.1177/014610799202200104

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/22/1/19

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Biblical Theology Bulletin Inc.

Additional services and information for Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/22/1/19

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009

 "WHY WERE THE HEATHEN SO ARROGANT?"
THE SOCIO-RHETORICAL STRATEGY
OF ACTS 3-4

RANDALL C. WEBBER

Abstract
Acts 3-4 is analyzed with reference to a culturally specific model of social and rhetorical competition. The functions
of positive and negative labelling in agonistic cultures are described in terms of the applicable conflict theory, and the
rhetorical strategies of the Christian and Sadducean combatants in Acts 3-4 are traced. Both groups conducted the con-
frontation in accordance with widely accepted rules of challenge and response, though the Christian speaker occasion-
ally approached an excessively aggressive strategy. The success of the Christian protagonists in this verbal skirmish
precipitated continued rhetorical combat and some episodes of violence between the Christians and the Sadducees in
the Jerusalem described in Acts.

devotes a large amount of its narrative to
Acts
descriptions of the relations between its Christian
protagonists and various Jewish groups. This simplistic
statement of a common observation obscures the sheer
variety of such relationships. Within the Jerusalem por-
tions of Acts, for example, the relationships usually take
the form of encounters between Christian Jews and other
Jews (Webber, 1989:86-87), and the responses of these
other Jewish groups to the Christian Jews are as varied
as the groups themselves. In the portions which describe
Christian activity in Asia Minor and Greece, the Chris-
tian groups, which include a greater variety of con-
stituencies, sometimes experience difficulties with
representatives of Jewish communities which are
described in less detail than are the non-Christian Jewish
groups in the Jerusalem narratives.
Tension pervades many of the encounters between
Christians and Jews described in Acts. The purpose for
which the author created this tension, however, is
unclear. Three works published in 1987 articulate three
different points of view regarding this question. J. T.
Sanders argues that Acts villifies Jewish Christians and
non-Christian Jews in order to legitimate Gentile Chris-
tianity ; &dquo;in Luke’s opinion, the world will be much better
off when ’the Jews’ get what they deserve and the world
is rid of them&dquo; (317). R. L. Brawley, on the other hand,
holds that Acts is an attempt to reconcile a Gentile
Christian community with Jews and Jewish Christians;
&dquo;... large islands of acceptance jut out in the midst of
the opposition&dquo; (156). P. F. Esler, in contrast with both
Sanders and Brawley, attempts to play both cards. &dquo;Their
[the Jerusalem Christians’] affection for the memory of
the Temple was tempered by the recognition that their
Christian faith ultimately sprang from a rejection of the
Temple and its cult. So, in the end, Luke could have his
cake and eat it&dquo; (163). In short, whether the cup was half
empty (Sanders) or half full (Brawley) or the author of
Acts had his cake and ate it (Esler) depends, to a large
extent, on the perspective of the modern author analyz-
ing Acts.
This essay analyzes some of the encounters between
Christians and Jews described in Acts but is much nar-
rower in scope than the works described above. First, the
analysis is restricted to a specific narrative entity, the
Jerusalem church of Acts, and speculation regarding any
possible historical counterpart is avoided. Second, the
essay is focused especially on Acts 3-4, the narratives’
first description of a major encounter between leaders
of the Jerusalem church and the Sadducees. Third, a
culturally specific model of rhetorical and social inter-
action is used as a heuristic tool to elucidate the func-
tion of the passage within the Jerusalem portions of Acts.
A brief outline of the passage reveals its basic character
and suggests appropriate guidelines for its analysis. The
encounter begins with a healing miracle accomplished
by Christian Jews on the temple grounds (Acts 3:1-10).
This healing leads to a speech by the Christian leader
Peter on Solomon’s Stoa, which was part of the temple
(vv. 11-26). The Sadducee-dominated hierarchy, who
disagree with the contents of the speech, respond by
arresting the speaker and his companion and holding a
Randall C. Webber (Ph.D., Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary), the author of An Analysis of Power in the Jerusalem
Church in Acts and several articles, is an employee of Univer-
sity Microfilms, 2134 Vernon Court, Louisville, KY 40206.

19

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009

20
hearing the next day (4:1-22). Finally, after the high
priestly family releases Peter and John with only a warn-
ing, the Christian community responds by ridiculing the
Sadducee-dominated hierarchy (vv. 23-31).
This outline indicates clearly that the passage in ques-
tion narrates a hostile encounter conducted by rhetorical
means. Practitioners of rhetoric during the Hellenistic
and Roman periods reached a consensus regarding a
broad definition of the art as the ability to speak per-
suasively and gracefully in a variety of settings (e.g.,
Cicero, De Orat., 1:16:64-65; Quintilian, Inst. Orat.,
2:15:1-37), and Quintilian, who probably was a contem-
porary of the author of Acts, proposed an addditional but
integral emphasis on the moral qualities of the speaker
and his cause (Inst. Orat., 2:15:38-2:16:19). The follow-
ing analysis demonstrates that the Christians and their
opponents in the passage under examination are con-
cerned both with the act of persuasion and with the
accuracy and morality of their claims. In other words,
Quintilian’s definition of rhetoric provides a suitable
description of the way in which the Christian and Saddu-
cean speakers in Acts 3-4 used the art.
The Christian author who describes the incident in
Acts 3-4 makes certain claims regarding the Christian
and the Sadducean Jews and attributes still other claims
about the Christians to the Sadducees. Thus, labelling
theory, a modem sociorhetorical model which empha-
sizes the study of the conflicting claims made both in
open and in veiled verbal and written confrontations, is
an appropriate heuristic tool for the analysis of the
passage after the applicability of the model to religious
strife in first-century Mediterranean cultures is demon-
strated.
Sociorhetorical Strategy
Labelling as a
in First-Century Mediterranean Cultures
Labelling is described by B. J. Malina and J. H. Neyrey
as &dquo;the successful identification of a person and his/her
personhood with some trait or behavior&dquo; (35), that is, as
the use of verbal means and writing to stereotype a
person. This method of conflict can take both negative
and positive forms. Negative labels (stigmata) are used
to define the labellers’ opponents as deviant, that is, as
out of place in a manner which is defined socially as
unacceptable, and positive labels (titles) are used to
define the labellers and their causes as prominent, out
of place in a manner which is defined socially in highly
complimentary terms (Malina and Neyrey: 36-37).
Since the use of labelling assumes a setting in which
conflict is a major component, the representatives of
mutually opposed groups engage in cycles of challenge
and riposte to define themselves positively and their
opponents negatively and to discredit their opponents’
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009
attempts to establish the opposite pattern of definitions.
Both groups in the passage under examination try to win
a round of challenge and riposte by the use of a simple
form of labelling, name-calling, within the context of a
rational argument for the accuracy and morality of their
perspectives. In summary, labels are social weapons in
Acts 3-4. &dquo;Negative labelling as well as positive name-
calling can lead to serious social consequences, lethal
in the negative instance, life-enhancing in the positive&dquo;
(Malina and Neyrey: 37).
Labelling is carried out in the midst of negotiation. A
person who is labelled negatively, for instance, may call
on the support of other social actors for help in bargain-
ing for the replacement of his or her label (Malina and
Neyrey: 39). Alternatively, one’s supporters among the
social actors may become the sources and defenders of
one’s positive labels. In both the positive and the negative
cases, the goal of labelling is the establishment of master
status or role engulfment, a climactic status in which
one’s label determines not only his or her conduct but
also that of others towards the labelled person.
Labelling theory may be incorporated easily into a
traditional Mediterranean social framework based largely
on the values of honor and shame. Honor is defined as
’a claim to worth and the social acknowledgement of that
worth&dquo; (Malina, 1981: 28) and may be obtained either by
ascription (grant from a social superior or inheritance)
or by acquisition in games of challenge and response
(Malina, 1981: 29-33). On the theoretical level, labelling
theory may serve as a heuristic model for the analysis
of verbal and written components of the social tug-of-
war which Malina calls challenge and response.
Malina and Neyrey’s overview of labelling, however,
is based on the observations of sociologists who studied
the phenomenon, primarily in its negative form, in
modern Western cultures. The next logical step in the
appropriation of this model for the analysis of Acts 3-4
is the demonstration that the model is applicable to
religious conflict in a first-century cultural milieu. This
step may be taken by means of a consideration of labell-
ing theory in light of common Mediterranean assump-
tions about conflict.
The concept of limited good, which pervaded first-
century Mediterranean culture, wielded considerable
influence over the attitudes toward conflict and the
selection of methods for confrontation in that milieu.
Limited good may be described simply as the assump-
tions that all desirable resources existed in finite
amounts and that these finite amounts could not be
increased; consequently, improvement in the position
of an individual or a family could come only at the
expense of others (Malina, 1978: 167-168). Since
improvement in social position in Mediterranean
cultures was assumed to entail social costs, it was
accomplished frequently in the face of resistance. The
confrontation which this resistance precipitated required

justification; the participant had to classify himself and
his group as deserving of increased resources and of his
opponents as deserving of the victimization they would
receive.
Quarrels among religious erupted freguently
groups
over the resource of reputation (i.e., honor). Whenever
two or more religious groups quarrelled, the one which
could demonstrate its legitimacy by whatever criteria
were applicable could expect to recruit heads of house-
holds and the material resources and personnel which
they controlled more effectively than could its rivals.
This initial victory might produce a snowball effect; the
initial reputation could lead to good recruitment and
from there to greater reputation and influence and,
ultimately, to dominance of the group’s sphere of activity
(e.g., Acts 1:8). Alternatively, a damaged reputation
might lead to poor recruitment, from there to an increas-
ingly sullied reputation and loss of influence, and, finally,
to ineffectiveness and possible oblivion.
Positive labelling was a particularly effective way for
a participant in a confrontation over reputation to
articulate his own claims and those of his group to an
increased share of that resource. The successful applica-
tion of a title both explained the rationale for the
individual’s or the group’s claim and appropriated the
desired reputation. Negative labelling had a comparable
effect on the opponents’ reputation. The successful
application of a stigma not only justified the victimi-
zation which the labeller’s opponents would receive but
also gave the opponents the negative reputation which
the labeller intended that they receive.
The presence of both types of labelling in Christian
literature written within a few decades of Acts begins
to demonstrate the suitability of labelling theory for the
analysis of quarrels over reputation in first-century
Mediterranean cultures. (The proper demonstration of
this point would require a more comprehensive treat-
ment than is provided here.) The first gospel, for ex-
ample, uses a series of blessings to praise Jesus’ followers
(5:3-12) and one of woes to castigate Jesus’s opponents,
the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees (23:13-33~. These
series, respectively, are intended to improve the status
of Jesus’ followers and to destroy that of the scribes and
Pharisees among the gospel’s audience, whose opinions,
presumably, are sufficiently important to the author to
warrant his influencing in that manner. In addition to
the series of blessings and woes, the Christian protag-
onists of the first gospel and their opponents, the
Galilean Pharisees, use direct name-calling against each
other extensively in their verbal skirmishes (Malina and
Neyrey: 56-65).
The Apocalypse also uses the labelling techniques
described above. Blessings scattered throughout the work
enhance the reputations of those who follow its author
and practice his brand of Christianity ( 1:3, 14:13, 16:15,
19:9, 20:6, 22:7, 14), and woes and curses destroy the
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009
21
reputations of other Christians and the rest of the world
(8:13, 9:12, 11:14, 12:12, 18:10, 18:16, 18:19, 22:18-19~.
The blessings are articulated in as formulaic a manner
as are those in the first gospel, but the woes are recorded
in a more varied fashion. Direct name-calling, likewise,
is abundant. The author’s followers, dead or alive, are
(among other things) &dquo;pillar(s) in the temple of my god&dquo;
(3:12~, souls under the altar (6:9-11), the twelve tradi-
tional tribes of Israel (7:4-8), those who washed their
clothes (7:13-14), &dquo;virgins&dquo; who &dquo;follow the Lamb
wherever he goes&dquo; (14:4), and &dquo;first fruits&dquo; (14:4). His
opponents, likewise, were &dquo;those who hold to the teach-
ing of Balaam&dquo; (2:14), &dquo;Jezebel&dquo; (2:20), &dquo;the synagogue of
Satan who call themselves Jews&dquo; (3:9; cf., 2:9), &dquo;any who
worship the beast and its image ...&dquo; (14:9), and a pros-
titute (17:1) named &dquo;Babylon the great, mother of
immoral sexual activity and of the earth’s abominations&dquo;
(17:5).
Name-calling, and series of blessings and woes are two
of the more obvious forms of labelling evident in first-
century Christian literature, and the Apocalypse and the
first gospel are two works in which such labelling is a
pervasive element. A comprehensive treatment of label-
ling in first-century Christian and Jewish literature most
likely would demonstrate that labelling techniques,
including those described above, were well-known and
used widely in that cultural milieu (e.g., in the fourth
gospel, Jude, 2 Peter, both religion’s apocalypses, much
of the Jewish prophetic literature, and some of the
Qumran literature). As demonstrated above, the positive
and the negative versions of labelling could be used
either in close proximity or with little direct relation-
ship to each other in written works.
Several authors of that era, who reflected consciously
on their use or avoidance of labelling, expressed a single
caveat. Quintilian, who described several rhetorical
techniques which might fall into the category of labell-
ing, warned that an excessively agressive verbal barrage
might precipitate retaliation in kind (Inst. Orat.
12:9:8-11). The author of the first gospel, whose use of
the strategy is described above, likewise, claimed to
oppose the abuse of the negative form (Matt 5:11-12,
21-22). Lucian, who wrote about 150 years later,
included the excessive application of stigmata as an
element in his satires of poor historians and rhetoricians
(Teacher of Rhetoric, 22-23; How to Write History, 8).
Malina summarizes this caveat in his description of
limited good: &dquo;... the maintenance and defense of this
valuable self-image is seen as basic to human living itself.
To deprive a person of this self-image in word and/or deed
is what the Jewish vocabulary for interpersonal sin is
about&dquo; ( 1978:168~.
The argument developed above may be summarized
as follows: Some first-century Christian writers used
positive and/or negative labelling extensively. The fact
that these authors’ works remain extant indicates that
22
they may have used their labelling strategies success-
fully. (After all, it is a cliche that the perspectives of the
winners in various struggles are more likely to be
recorded and preserved than are those of the losers.)
Consequently, labelling theory, though developed in
reference to modem Western cultures, is an appropriate
heuristic tool for the analysis of the confrontation nar-
rated in Acts 3-4.
Anatomy of a Conflict:
The Labelling Process in Acts 3-4
The narrative unit under examination begins with a
description of a healing by the Christian leader Peter
(3:1-11). This unit sets the stage for the upcoming con-
flict and begins the labelling process by means of which
the conflict is conducted. Peter and his companion John
make their way to the temple for a ritual, possibly the
evening tamid (v. 1; cf., Ex 29:38-46, Num 28:1-8). After
they enter the temple premises, they encounter a lame
beggar who requests alms from them as he does from
other worshippers (vv. 2-3). Peter and John have no
money for alms but give him an explicit command: &dquo;In
the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, [get up and] walk&dquo;
(w. 4-6). The man obeys the command (vv. 7-8), and
the healing is validated by the man’s attribution of his
good fortune to God and by other worshippers’ amaze-
ment (vv. 8-10).
This introduction serves two purposes in the larger
context of Acts 3-4. First, it uses narrative format to call
Jesus as a healer, a positive label, given the cultic and
economic difficulties which the physically deformed
experienced in that culture. (After all, the man needed
alms and was willing to go only to a gate at the outer
limits of the temple premises.) Second, as the reader dis-
covers later in the narrative, the temple and the hier-
archy are dominated by the Sadducean party, who do not
believe in the resurrection of the dead (4:1-3; cf., Mk
12:18-27, Acts 26:8; Josephus Ant. lud. 18:16, Bel. jud.
2:165). Since Peter heals the beggar by the power of a man
who, he claims, rose from the dead, the healing con-
stitutes a challange to the honor of the Sadducees in their
own territory.
The narrative continues on Solomon’s Stoa when Peter
takes advantage of the opportunity to exhibit his work
and to explain the healing to the other worshippers
(3:11-26). Since the healing is attributed to the power
of the risen Jesus, who is absent, or, at least, invisible,
the explanation focuses on the characteristics which
allow Jesus to exercise such power. Peter begins by
asserting that God ascribed glory to the holy and just
Jesus (vv. 13-14). This ascription was demonstrated by
God’s raising of Jesus from the dead, as Peter and his com-
panion could verify (v. 15). Furthermore, Jesus was the
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009
source of the power by which the healing, which the
onlookers could verify, was accomplished (v. 16). In sum-
mary, the first part of Peter’s speech emphasizes several
positive characteristics of Jesus.
The speech continues with the more thorough devel-
opment of two other titles and their application to Jesus.
He is the anointed one, &dquo;chosen for you, whom the Lord
will send&dquo; (v. 20) and the source of forgiveness for the
repentant among the audience (w. 17-20). In addition,
and at the culmination of Peter’s argument, Jesus is the
new Moses, the &dquo;prophet whom the Lord your God will
raise up from among your brothers as [he did] me&dquo; (v. 22;
cf., Deut 18:15). Thus, Jesus’ highly positive status is
foretold by no less of an authority than Moses and is
validated by Abraham, Samuel, and all the prophets (vv.
21-26; cf., Dillon: 547-549; Schlosser: passim).
Peter’s application of titles to Jesus is set against the
background of his stigmatization of his audience. He con-
trasts Jesus’ glory, holiness, and justice with the
audience’s manipulation of a hesitant Roman procurator
in order to eliminate the troublesome Jesus (vv. 13-14).
The resurrected Jesus, likewise, is identified explicitly
as the one &dquo;whom you killed&dquo; (v. 16). Peter clearly accuses
his audience of murder.
At this point, Peter runs the risk of discrediting
himself by means of an extremely aggressive strategy.
He has challenged the overseers of Judaism’s holiest
shrine and has alienated potential supporters by accus-
ing them of murder. He removes his foot from his mouth,
though, by admitting to the audience that he judged
them too severely: &dquo;And now, brothers, I know that you
and, likewise, also your rulers, did [this] in ignorance&dquo;
(v. 17). Furthermore, Jesus’ death is an aspect of the divine
economy (v. 18), and the risen Jesus is the source of
forgiveness for the repentant among the audience (vv.
19-20). Peter executes his ploy successfully; &dquo;many who
heard the speech believed...&dquo; (4:4). This rhetorical
maneuver, in short, reduces the impact of his accusations
and the chance that he might anger the audience by
transforming the accusations into corroborating material
for his application of titles to Jesus.
As Peter’s speech draws to a close, some priests, the
person in charge of security, and some Sadducees arrest
him and John (4:1-3). Their rationale is described as
unhappiness with the Christian Jews’ exposition of the
doctrine of resurrection with respect to Jesus (v. 2~. This
arrest constitutes the Sadducee-dominated Sanhedrin’s
response to the Christians’ challenge. The doctrine of the
resurrection is the hinge on which Peter’s entire labell-
ing strategy swings, so the Sadducees question his entire
effort by asserting that his hinge is untenable.
The Sadducees, in short, respond to the Christian
challenge in a reasonable and proportionate manner.
When the Christians enter the Sadducees’ territory and
promulgate a doctrine with which the Sadducees dis-
agree, the latter simply publicize their disagreement by

detaining the Christians until they can make a public
defense of their doctrine. This Sadducee response con-
stitutes a counterchallenge to the Christians. Imprison-
ment for the promulgation of an unacceptable doctrine,
specifically that of the resurrection, is tantamount to an
accusation of deviance. In other words, the Sadducees
define their version of Judaism as orthodox and assert
publicly that the Christians are outside of the bounds
of normative Judaism.
The Christians defend both their doctrine of the resur-
rection and their application of positive labels to Jesus
when the hearing commences the next day (4:5-12).
Peter reiterates his previous assertion that the healing
of the lame man was accomplished through the power
of Jesus (vv. 8-10) and then repeats his statement that
God raised Jesus, &dquo;whom you crucified,&dquo; from death (v.
10). The citation of Ps 118:22 provides a traditional
Davidic validation for the positive labelling of Jesus, and,
along with the preceding accusation that the Sadducees
crucified him, implies that their position is untenable
both on the grounds of their deficient character and on
the basis of scripture. Peter concludes his speech with
a summary statement of the cumulative effect of his use
of multiple titles for Jesus: &dquo;There is no salvation
anywhere else, no other name under heaven provided to
humankind by which we must be saved&dquo; (v. 12).
Peter defends himself and his Christian version of
Judaism by reversing the Sadducees’ accusations. The
resurrection of the dead is a valid doctrine, and the
application of titles to Jesus is justified on numerous
grounds. In addition, the Sadducees are Christ-killers,
and their doctrine is untenable. Thus, according to Peter,
the resurrection of the dead and the preeminence of the
risen Jesus are normative Jewish doctrines, and the Sad-
ducees, who believe in neither, are deviants.
The Sanhedrin, impressed with the presentation of the
uneducated Peter, realize that the Sadducees cannot
discredit the Christians. From the Sadducees’ perspec-
tive, most of the claims and counterclaims about Jesus
and the resurrection are mere speculation, but their own
observations give at least partial validation to the Chris-
tian contention that the lame man was healed by the
power of Jesus’ name (vv. 13-14). Political and social
superiority to the Christians is the only card which the
Sadducees can play to negate the advantage which the
Christians enjoy by virtue of their partially validated
argument.
The Sadducees play this card to the best of their ability.
After consultation among themselves, they order the
Christians to stop teaching in the name of Jesus (vv.
15-18). In other words, if the Christians end their
attempts to discredit the Sadducees, the latter, who enjoy
greater prestige and power in Jerusalem, will protect the
Christians’ good standing by letting their leaders go with
a mere verbal reprimand. Peter and John refuse this
proposal, because it would work entirely to the Sad-
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009
23
ducees’ advantage (vv. 19-20); the Christians, who realize
that the argument favors them and that the political and
social status quo works to the Sadducees’ advantage, have
everything to gain and nothing to lose from continued
verbal confrontations with that group. The Sadducees,
conversely, can only lose face in continued conflict with
the socially inferior but rhetorically competent Chris-
tians, so they carry out their decision and hope that the
Christians ultimately will come to their senses (v. 21).
After Peter and John return to the Christian commu-
nity, the group cites Ps 2:1 in a communal prayer (and
probably out of the psalm’s traditional context) to ridi-
cule their opponents:
Why were the heathen so arrogant,
and why did the people hallucinate?
The rulers of the land approached,
and the authorities plotted together
against the Lord and his annointed one.
(Acts 4:25)
The prayer, of course, implies that the Sadducees,
whether classified as heathen or as &dquo;people [of Israel]&dquo;
plotted with heathen and half-Jewish rulers (i.e., Pilate
and Herod Antipas) and other influential Jews to kill
Jesus (cf., Haenchen, 1971: 227). The accusations (vv.
25-26) and the subsequent requests included in the
prayer (vv. 27-30) receive divine validation when the
Holy Spirit fills all of the participants with the result that
they defy the Sadducee-dominated Sanhedrin by adver-
tising the titles which they applied to Jesus (v. 31).
As Acts 4 ends, the Christian Jews and the Sadducean
Jews conclude the first round of a struggle for pre-
eminence in Jerusalem. They conduct this struggle, the
topics of which the Christians define successfully as the
doctrine of the resurrection and the evaluation of Jesus,
in accordance with widely accepted principles of verbal
combat, and each group labels itself as normative for
Judaism and the other as deviant. The Christians, who
believe that they pressed their point successfully, refuse
the politically and socially superior Sadducees’ proposal
for a modus vivendi. This refusal can produce the follow-
ing result: continued Christian claims to prominence
followed by further conflict between that group and the
Sadducees.
Subsequent Christian-
Sadducean Relations in the
Jerusalem Portions of Acts
Tensions between Christians and Sadducees in Jeru-
salem escalate after the former group rejects the latter’s
proposal of a modus vivendi. The Christians meet at
Solomon’s Stoa, a part of the Sadducees’ territory, and
validate the original healing and the application of titles
24
to Jesus by means of additional miracles (Acts 5:12-16).
The Sadducees respond to this new challenge by arrest-
ing the Christians’ leaders, but the prisoners, freed by
miraculous means, challenge the Sadducees directly by
promulgating their ideology in the temple itself (vv.
17-24). After the prisoners are discovered and arrested
again, they reiterate the arguments developed in detail
in the initial confrontation (vv. 25-32). The Sadducee-
dominated Sanhedrin wants to end the dispute by kill-
ing the prisoners (the ultimate physical affront in
Mediterranean cultures [Malina, 1981: 35-36]) but is
dissuaded by Gamaliel, an influential member who is
a Pharisee (vv. 33-41). The Christians respond to this
Sadducee victory with increasing intransigence. They
continue to promulgate their doctrine in the temple and
elsewhere in Jerusalem (v. 42), right under the Sadducees’
noses.
The hostilities reach their climax when both groups
are forced to deal with accusations that Stephen, an
outspoken Christian of Greek background, departed from
the Christian pattern of labelling Jesus positively and
stigmatized the Sadducees more explicitly than had Peter
and the other apostles. A third party initiates the pro-
ceedings by bringing Stephen before the Sanhedrin on
the grounds that he &dquo;slandered this holy place and the
law, for we heard him saying that Jesus the Nazarene
would destroy this facility and replace the traditions
handed down to us from Moses&dquo; (6:13-14). In other
words, Stephen is accused of challenging not only the
Sadducees and their ideology but also the temple, the
very institution which guaranteed the Sadducees’ power.
When Stephen defends himself, he does not observe
the limits which restrained Peter. In a long, strident
speech he substantiates the accusations (7:44-50) and
accuses the Sadducees of exhibiting the deviant pattern
of killing God’s messengers, including Jesus (7:51-53).
The Sanhedrin, in tum, sets aside the limits which they
observed in their treatment of Peter and his companions.
When Stephen’s accusations climax with a vision of the
risen Jesus (who is still dead, according to the traditional
Sadducee doctrine), the Sanhedrin decides by consensus
that he is both deviant and excessively defiant and
punishes him in the prescribed manner (7:57-60; cf.,
Num 15:30-31).
Hostilities between Christians and Sadducees in the
Jerusalem portions of Acts culminate with the stoning
of Stephen. Most of the Christians are chased out of
town, but Peter and his companions are allowed to
remain for reasons which are unclear (8:1). The stoning
of Stephen marks a pyrrhic victory for the Sadducees.
On the one hand, they have eliminated the most danger-
ous of the Christians’ spokespersons and have broken the
power of the group in Jerusalem; on the other, they have
forced the Christians to turn the bulk of their attention
to the conversion of Gentiles and have reinforced the
Christians’ Selbstverständnis and power as a new
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009
religion which turned the Sadducees’ most valuable tradi-
tions against them (Dahl: 72-79).
Several years later, Paul and Barnabas travel to Jeru-
salem to settle a dispute and find that Peter and Jesus’
brother James have established a full-fledged congrega-
tion with two administrative bodies, the apostles and the
elders. This church and its leaders are prestigious enough
within Christianity to settle the dispute to the satis-
faction of all parties and powerful enough to promulgate
their ruling with the expectation that churches in other
areas will obey. The status of the church’s conflict with
the Sadducees is not addressed at this point.
Still later, when Paul returns to Jerusalem with an
offering from his Gentile Christian congregations, James
and the elders praise God for his work among the
Gentiles (an action which presumes an opposition to the
Sadducees’ temple-oriented ideology) and then give him
instructions regarding the symbolic gestures he should
make to dispel rumors that he is another Stephen
(21:17-25). Paul takes the advice to heart and uses his
offering to finance a traditional Nazirite vow by four
men; in other words, he goes along in order to get along
(v. 26). However, his gesture is misinterpreted as a
defiant action, he is subjected to an accusation remi-
niscent of but more serious than the one which Stephen
substantiated (vv. 27-29), and the conflict between the
Christians and the Sadducees precipitates a riot (w. 30ff).
Conclusion
Acts 3-4 purports to describe the first round of a quar-
rel between two Jewish groups in first-century Jerusalem.
The Christian leader Peter provokes the quarrel by heal-
ing a lame man on the temple premises, a location
dominated by the Sadducees, and then explaining his
actions by reference to power of the resurrected Jesus.
Since the Sadducees do not believe in the doctrine of the
resurrection, Peter’s explanation brings him into conflict
with the group primarily responsible for the well-being
of the temple and its cultus.
Peter and the Sadducee-dominated hierarchy conduct
their debate in accordance with widely accepted rules
for verbal confrontations. Peter uses the application of
titles to Jesus as his primary rhetorical technique and
exercises restraint in his application of the Christ-killer
stigma to his opponents. After Peter defines the doctrine
of the resurrection and the evaluation of Jesus as the
primary topics of the debate, each group labels itself and
its beliefs as normative for Judaism and the opponent
as deviant. After the argument ends with the Christians
gaining a slight advantage, the Sadducees propose a
settlement which would allow both sides to save face.
The Christians, who only stand to gain prestige and
power in continued conflicts with the politically and
socially superior Sadducees, refuse this proposal and defy
 25

the Sadducees openly in order to provoke additional tame debate. This initial conflict solidifies the emphasis
confrontations. on Jesus’ resurrection and prominence as the primary
Christian participants in later conflicts with the Sad- aspects of Christian Selbstverstdndnis and sets the stage
ducees become increasingly defiant in their actions and for continued conflict in which a Sadducee victory forces
strident in their rhetoric. Peter, for example, applies the the Christians to deny any significance to the Sadducee-
Christ-killer stigma to the Sadducees more vigorously dominated Jerusalem temple and to take other steps
in a debate which is similar to that described in chs. 3-4, which lead to the establishment of a verison of Chris-
and his life is saved only by the influence of a respected tianity with a largely non-Jewish orientation.
Pharisee. Stephen’s accusations are so explicit and
provocative that his stoning by the Sanhedrin could be
justified easily on scriptural grounds, though the Chris- Works Cited
tian author of Acts refuses, for obvious reasons, to take
that step explicitly.
The stoning of Stephen and the Sadducees’ subsequent Brawley, R. L.
1987 Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and
power play force the Christians to sanction operations
Reconciliation. SBLMS 33. Chico, CA: Scholars.
among predominantly Gentile populations. The few
Christians who remain subsequently in Jerusalem allow Dahl, N. A.

the conflict to simmer until Paul’s gesture, which is

1976 Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church. Min-
neapolis: Augsburg.
interpreted as a provocation, precipitates a more open Dillon, R. J.
quarrel. The conflict ends with the Sadducees maintain- 1986 "The Prophecy of Christ and His Witnesses
ing their dominance of the temple and its cultus. The According to the Discourses in Acts." NTS 32:
Christians are stigmatized, and their continued existence 544-556.
in Jerusalem remains tenuous. This Sadducean victory, Esler, P. F.
however, is thoroughly pyrrhic in character. The Chris- 1987 Community and the Gospel in Luke-Acts.
tians promulgate their doctrine of the resurrection and SNTSMS 57. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
prominence of Jesus among Gentile populations and, University Press.
thus, are able to define themselves successfully as the Haenchen, E.
1971 The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, tr. H.
orthodox party. This orthhodoxy is maintained by the
Anderson, rev. R. M. Wilson. Philadelphia:
sacrifice of those aspects of Christian ideology which
Westminster.
emphasize the significance of Jerusalem and its temple, Malina, B. J.
the areas dominated by the Sadducees, whose Jewish 1978 "Limited Good and the Social World of Early
identity the Christians challenged. &dquo;God’s word to Christianity." BTB 8/4: 162-176.
Abraham, ’they shall worship me in this place,’ was 1981 The New Testament World: Insights from
fulfilled not by the erection of Solomon’s temple but by Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox.
the rebuilding of the ’dwelling of David&dquo;’ (Dahl: 76). Malina, B. J., and J. H. Neyrey
In conclusion, Acts 3-4 provides a straightforward 1987 Calling Jesus Names: The Social Value of Labels
narration of the first round of a quarrel between Chris- in Matthew. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge.

tians and Sadducees in Jerusalem. This quarrel is Sanders, J. T.

conducted within the framework of widely accepted

1987 The Jews in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress.

rhetorical rules of the period, and the Christian Schlosser, J.

1987 "Moise, Serviteur du Kérygme Apostolique
protagonist is forced to admit his mistake when he uses d’après Ac 3,22-26." RevSciRel, 61/1: 17-31.
an excessively aggressive strategy. Furthermore, both the
Webber, R. C.
Christians and the Sadducees claim to be the normative 1989 "An Analysis of Power in the Jerusalem Church
Jewish group. Thus, the quarrel is presented as an intra- of Acts." Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological
Jewish power struggle conducted by means of a rather Seminary.

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009