Funny thing about Acts... (Paul's trial)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2338
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Funny thing about Acts... (Paul's trial)

Post by GakuseiDon »

I thought I'd do a run-down of why Paul was on trial according to Acts, with the charges and Paul's defence against the charges.

Accusations are in yellow. Defensive statements are in blue.

Acts 17:
[5] But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
[6] And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
[7] Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.
[8] And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.
[9] And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.
[10] And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The accusation is that Paul was claiming there was another king other than Caesar.

Acts 22:
[19] And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee:
[20] And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.
[21] And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
[22] And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.
[23] And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air,
[24] The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him.

Sounds like the accusation was against Paul saying he was sent to the Gentiles to speak for the Lord, with the response by the Jews of casting off their clothes and throwing dust into the air.

Acts.23
[1] And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
[2] And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
[3] Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?
[4] And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?
[5] Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.
[6] But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
[7] And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.
[8] For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
[9] And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.
[10] And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle.

The accusation is against Paul's claim about the hope and resurrection of the dead. Interestingly, it wasn't about Jesus himself rising from the dead.

Acts 24:
[1] And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul.
[2] And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence,
[3] We accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.
[4] Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words.
[5] For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
[6] Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law
.
[7] But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
[8] Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.
[9] And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so.

The accusation against Paul is that he is a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the Nazarenes. Also that Paul profaned the Temple.

Acts 25:
[6] And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought.
[7] And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.
[8] While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

Paul's defence is that he has said nothing against the laws of the Jews against the Temple or against Caesar.

Acts 25:
[14] And when they had been there many days, Festus declared Paul's cause unto the king, saying, There is a certain man left in bonds by Felix:
[15] About whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgment against him.
[16] To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him.
[17] Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the morrow I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth.
[18] Against whom when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed:
[19] But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.

The elders of the Jews questioned Paul about his Jewish beliefs, and about Jesus, whom Paul said was alive. But the accusations that Festus was expecting them to make weren't made. I'm guessing that these missing charges related to sedition against Caesar.

Acts 26:
[19] Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
[20] But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
[21] For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.
[22] Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
[23] That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

[24] And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.
[25] But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.
...
[31] And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.
[32] Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.

Paul's defence is that that what he is saying is consistent with what the prophets and Moses prophecised about what would come. Festus and Agrippa agreed that there was nothing worthy of death or bonds in Paul's responses.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Funny thing about Acts... (Paul's trial)

Post by Secret Alias »

What does any of this have to do with the OP? All of these things are self-contained within Acts. All have Paul as the protagonist spreading an awareness of his vision of Jesus.
Aleph One
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:13 am

Re: Funny thing about Acts... (Paul's trial)

Post by Aleph One »

rgprice wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:59 pm For one thing, what I suspect is that belief in Jesus wasn't the start of the communities of earliest Christianity. Most likely thee were existing "churches" that shared some set of Christian type beliefs, and then "visions of Jesus" were introduced into the cult.
I hope this isn't too far afield but seeing a lot of overlap (generally) with Carrier here I was wondering if you have an opinion on his excavation of early christian (mythicist) versus orthodox christian (historicist) layers from the Ascension of Isaiah text (basically positing what he calls the "pocket gospel" was added later)? Just wondering because i keep hearing academics go straight to criticizing this (carrier's) ascension of isaiah reconstruction in order to discredit the mythicist position as a whole.

(Now that i'm thinking about it the AoI isn't really core to the whole mythological/historical debate in the first play so maybe it doesn't really matter, but i guess i'd still like to get another perspective on it, if possible.)

Thanks
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Funny thing about Acts... (Paul's trial)

Post by mlinssen »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 8:34 pm I thought I'd do a run-down of why Paul was on trial according to Acts, with the charges and Paul's defence against the charges.

Accusations are in yellow. Defensive statements are in blue.

Acts 17:
[5] But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
[6] And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
[7] Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.
[8] And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.
[9] And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.
[10] And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The accusation is that Paul was claiming there was another king other than Caesar.

Acts 22:
[19] And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee:
[20] And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.
[21] And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
[22] And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.
[23] And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air,
[24] The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him.

Sounds like the accusation was against Paul saying he was sent to the Gentiles to speak for the Lord, with the response by the Jews of casting off their clothes and throwing dust into the air.

Acts.23
[1] And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
[2] And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
[3] Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?
[4] And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?
[5] Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.
[6] But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
[7] And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.
[8] For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
[9] And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.
[10] And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle.

The accusation is against Paul's claim about the hope and resurrection of the dead. Interestingly, it wasn't about Jesus himself rising from the dead.

Acts 24:
[1] And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul.
[2] And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence,
[3] We accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.
[4] Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words.
[5] For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
[6] Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law
.
[7] But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
[8] Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.
[9] And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so.

The accusation against Paul is that he is a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the Nazarenes. Also that Paul profaned the Temple.

Acts 25:
[6] And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought.
[7] And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.
[8] While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

Paul's defence is that he has said nothing against the laws of the Jews against the Temple or against Caesar.

Acts 25:
[14] And when they had been there many days, Festus declared Paul's cause unto the king, saying, There is a certain man left in bonds by Felix:
[15] About whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgment against him.
[16] To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him.
[17] Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the morrow I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth.
[18] Against whom when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed:
[19] But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.

The elders of the Jews questioned Paul about his Jewish beliefs, and about Jesus, whom Paul said was alive. But the accusations that Festus was expecting them to make weren't made. I'm guessing that these missing charges related to sedition against Caesar.

Acts 26:
[19] Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
[20] But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
[21] For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.
[22] Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
[23] That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

[24] And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.
[25] But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.
...
[31] And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.
[32] Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.

Paul's defence is that that what he is saying is consistent with what the prophets and Moses prophecised about what would come. Festus and Agrippa agreed that there was nothing worthy of death or bonds in Paul's responses.
of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive - that's it

That is a very fine collection! And certainly a perfect example of Peter's trial not being about Jesus at all:
rgprice wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 12:08 pm So in this entire account of Paul's time in Jerusalem, at no point does anyone say anything meaningful about Jesus. The Sanhedrin doesn't say, "You're a believer in that heretic we executed!" Or, "Yes, we remember Jesus, he was a false prophet, and you are too!"
Some people are incapable of reading, even though that's usually a fairly basic skill. Then again, so are kindness and politeness, and being able to communicate with people in stead of about (see what I'm doing here?)
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2338
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Funny thing about Acts... (Paul's trial)

Post by GakuseiDon »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 8:52 pm What does any of this have to do with the OP? All of these things are self-contained within Acts. All have Paul as the protagonist spreading an awareness of his vision of Jesus.
In the OP, rgprice wrote:
So in this entire account of Paul's time in Jerusalem, at no point does anyone say anything meaningful about Jesus. The Sanhedrin doesn't say, "You're a believer in that heretic we executed!" Or, "Yes, we remember Jesus, he was a false prophet, and you are too!"

The Romans don't say. "Jesus was justly executed under the law, we know he is dead. You're claims of resurrection are false! We'll show you the body!"

Nothing even remotely approaching that happens. In my mind, if I were fabricating this account after the fact, that certainly is what I would have written, something along those lines. But even in Acts of the Apostles its as if the memory of Jesus has been entirely wiped from the minds of everyone in Jerusalem!

This leads me to think that this latter portion of Acts really is based on authentic accounts and that the writer of Acts stuck pretty close to his source, at least in perhaps Acts 15-27.
I examined the charges made against Paul according to the Acts author: sedition against Caesar, profaning the Temple, falsifying what the prophets claimed, etc. Paul wasn't responding to accusations about what Jesus did or believed, he was responding to accusations about what Paul himself believed. So saying what Jesus said or did weren't pertinent. I think that rgprice makes the mistake that "it's all about Jesus" in the NT and other early Christian writings. But it clearly isn't. (That's true regardless of whether you're a 'mythicist' or 'historicist'.)

The only one that might be of interest is the accusation against Paul's "hope and resurrection of the dead", an accusation Paul responds to in 1 Cor 15 (presumably the source of the story in Acts). But at least his audience in 1 Cor 15 were believing Christians.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13928
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Funny thing about Acts... (Paul's trial)

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 12:26 am I examined the charges made against Paul according to the Acts author: sedition against Caesar, profaning the Temple, falsifying what the prophets claimed, etc. Paul wasn't responding to accusations about what Jesus did or believed, he was responding to accusations about what Paul himself believed.
So if Jesus was seditious against Caesar, if Jesus profaned the Temple, if Jesus falsified what the prophets claimed, etc., and Paul not, then Paul could be absolutely innocent in the eyes of Festus and Agrippa. :lol:
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Funny thing about Acts... (Paul's trial)

Post by Secret Alias »

Ok GD. But we who like to think of ourselves as better than Carrier and Giuseppe, those of us who aren't polemicists for a particular POV and who only seek after the truth - we have to admit that Acts has a strange peculiarity which might not lead to full blown mythicism per say but which is still curious. As we know there are really two parts to Acts - the Peter beginning and the Paul conclusion. While it is tempting to speculate that there are two traditions being put together here that's ultimately speculative. The point is that the Paul portion of the book has the Jews basically responding to Pau's vision of Jesus rather than Paul as a representative of a teacher with whom they are familiar or very familiar. Paul's speeches, Paul's teachings are what cause the reaction from the Jews. Yes there might be references to a tradition beyond Paul, but Paul and Paulism is very much what is on trial.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Funny thing about Acts... (Paul's trial)

Post by Irish1975 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 3:28 pm I dispute that Paul is the founder of Christianity; I dispute that he is even the founder of Greek Christianity.
1) What do you mean by "Greek Christianity"?

2) Paul writes that he, as the wise architect, laid the unalterable foundation that is Jesus Christ

Κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι ὡς σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων θεμέλιον ἔθηκα, ἄλλος δὲ ἐποικοδομεῖ. ἕκαστος δὲ βλεπέτω πῶς ἐποικοδομεῖ. 11θεμέλιον γὰρ ἄλλον οὐδεὶς δύναται θεῖναι παρὰ τὸν κείμενον, ὅς ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός
1 Cor 3:10-11

So is Paul lying or does this have a limited meaning in your view?

3)
No one knows who founded the churches at Rome and Alexandria, for example.
Nor do we know much about what sort of "Christianity" was originally practiced in Rome or Alexandria.

We at least know that Paul's letters were read as scripture by Marcionites, Valentinians, and Polycarp, who all regarded Paul in some sense as the founder. This thread seems to make a case that the author of Acts did as well.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Funny thing about Acts... (Paul's trial)

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Irish1975 wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:02 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 3:28 pm I dispute that Paul is the founder of Christianity; I dispute that he is even the founder of Greek Christianity.
1) What do you mean by "Greek Christianity"?

2) Paul writes that he, as the wise architect, laid the unalterable foundation that is Jesus Christ

Κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι ὡς σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων θεμέλιον ἔθηκα, ἄλλος δὲ ἐποικοδομεῖ. ἕκαστος δὲ βλεπέτω πῶς ἐποικοδομεῖ. 11θεμέλιον γὰρ ἄλλον οὐδεὶς δύναται θεῖναι παρὰ τὸν κείμενον, ὅς ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός
1 Cor 3:10-11

So is Paul lying or does this have a limited meaning in your view?
Limited meaning. He is speaking of the foundation of the church at Corinth.
No one knows who founded the churches at Rome and Alexandria, for example.
Nor do we know much about what sort of "Christianity" was originally practiced in Rome or Alexandria.

We at least know that Paul's letters were read as scripture by Marcionites, Valentinians, and Polycarp, who all regarded Paul in some sense as the founder. This thread seems to make a case that the author of Acts did as well.
Then I do not know what either "founder" or "Christianity" means for the purveyors of such a view, and the entire conversation devolves into semantics.

What I myself mean by those terms is very simple. Paul has believed in Christ Jesus (hence "Christianity," though of course I am aware that the fuller term is probably an anachronism for Paul's time); and so has Cephas (Galatians 2.15-16), who precedes Paul (hence Paul is not the "founder" of the belief). None of the groups you mention regarded Paul as the founder; they all thought that Jesus preceded Paul, and they regarded Jesus as the founder. Also, they were Christian groups; even the church fathers did not deny that the Marcionites, for example, were known as Christians; their strategy, rather, was sort of a "no true Scotsman" argument.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2852
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Funny thing about Acts... (Paul's trial)

Post by andrewcriddle »

rgprice wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:31 am @john2:
Then it says that Paul's mission was to be a witness for Jesus "to everyone," which presumably included those in power he encountered.
First of all, it says nothing about Jesus, it talks about the Righteous One. The very point is that doing stuff like associating "the Righteous One" with Jesus is an assumption that gets made within the context of the Christian narrative, but if you take the material on its own, without brining these assumptions to it, you see its not actually saying that.

Secondly, read that passage and think about it.

"14 “Then he said: ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15 You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

17 “When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance 18 and saw the Lord speaking to me. ‘Quick!’ he said. ‘Leave Jerusalem immediately, because the people here will not accept your testimony about me.’"

Let's assume that the Righteous One = Jesus, i.e. that "his name" is Yeshu'a. Ananias is telling Paul that Paul has been chose to "be the voice" of this heavenly deity. Paul is chosen to be a messenger for a heavenly being. Why would Paul need to be a voice for "the Righteous One", if "the Righteous One" had just been on earth a few years prior preaching with his own mouth? The whole scenario implies that Ananias' concept of "the Righteous One" is a heavenly being who needs human messengers, i.e. prophets, to be his mouthpiece on earth.

This sounds an awfully lot like typical Jewish demonology/angelology.
Then Acts 24 says that those in power charged Paul primarily with being a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes," and other Jews agreed with them. Do you suppose that they all did not know that Nazarenes believed in Jesus?
What makes you think so? Nothing in the text leads to that conclusion. Its an inference you make based on assumptions about the validity of the Gospel stories. Based on this portion of Acts alone it sounds like there was some sect called the Nazarenes, who preached in opposition to the ruling powers in Jerusalem. This is a well known thread that run throughout Hellenistic and early Roman Jewish history. From the Maccabean revolt on we hear constantly of Jewish sects who were in opposition to whatever high priest was in power and were working to undermine them along with whatever ruling authorities their were, whether it was the Seleucids, the Hasmoneans, or the Romans. All along the way Jewish and foreign leaders we having various opposition groups arrested and sometimes killed. There was a constant vigil against Jewish opposition sects.
So it appears to me that Paul's trial was about his belief in Jesus and the unrest that it caused in Jerusalem and that his defense was that this belief was in keeping with normative Judaism.
You're misrepresenting the quote. You made it look like the thing Paul says the king knows about is Jesus of Nazareth. But that's now what the text says. The text says:

"22 But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— 23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”

24 At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. “You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.”

25 “I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. 26 The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.”"

The text has Paul saying that the king is familiar with the words of the prophets, not that he's familiar with Jesus.
So according to Acts, Jews in Jerusalem and those in power (including Roman governors) were aware that Paul believed in Jesus. Then in Acts 26 it is again noted that those in power were aware of Jesus:
Indeed, this is the only real mention of Jesus in the whole trial. But in that mention we get no details at all. It says there was a Jesus "who had died" but Paul claimed "was alive." That would clearly have to be a misunderstanding or would be talking about something totally different from the Jesus of Paul's visions. Claiming that someone is alive is different from claiming to have visions of someone in heaven.

Secondly, this says, "a certain Jesus who had died," which is quite different from, "a certain Jesus that the Sanhedrin had put to death for being a seditious blasphemer."

The point is, here Paul is being interrogated by the Sanhedrin, the very body who, according to the Gospels, sentenced Jesus to death, and there is no discussion about Jesus at all. The Sanhedrin doesn't explain to Paul why Jesus was killed and why worshiping him is wrong, and Paul makes no defense of the human Jesus to explain why worshiping him is right! There is no discussion at all of the main event supposedly at the heart of the whole matter!

The entire heart of the Gospel story is the idea that Jesus' unjust execution was a sacrificial act that absolved the sins of the righteous/those who have faith in him/Gentiles/the world/whatever may be the claim. Paul is now standing before the very people who supposedly brought about that sacrifice and made all of this unfold. These people were the instrument of the most significant act in the history of the world according to the Christian narrative. And here Paul is, now standing before THE VERY PEOPLE WHO KILLED JESUS, and not a thing is said about it!

Even if you try to claim that maybe the body of the Sanhedrin had completely changed between the time of Pilate and Festus, about 20 years, surely the body would still either defend prior ruling or acknowledge its error. Either they would be defenders of the prior body or they would be an all new group of people who had been appointed to oppose the prior body. I'm sure it could be worked out to some degree from Josephus what the state of the Sanhedrin was at that point. I'm not sure. I know there was a lot of politics going on around it. But I believe that the body was stable and consisted of elders with long standing leadership in Jerusalem. No matter what the case, if anything like the Gospel scene had actually played out people on the Sanhedrin Paul was facing would have had deep knowledge of it, especially if, as you read into it, order had been given and carried out to arrest and put down a movement inspired by this person's execution.

So the claim is that this Jesus person had been executed at the order of the Sanhedrin, that a large scale campaign was being waged, of which Paul was a part, to put down a rebellion that had been incited by followers of this Jesus of Nazareth whom the Sanhedrin had sentenced. Everyone at that point would have to know who he was. He would have been an infamous figurehead - someone on the order of Osama bin Laden. And here Paul is now facing trial in front of the body who sentenced this Osama bin Laden type figure to death, and they don't even discuss it!?

"there was a Jesus guy who died that Paul says is alive." Oh, you mean the guy who was the leader of the Nazarene sect, whose execution apparently necessitated a mass order for widespread persecution to root out a rebel movement?

You see how none of this is adding up right?

So the point of all this is, the very nature of this Acts narrative leads to the conclusion that the narrative is in fact based on an earlier source that was produced prior to the Gospels, and the writer of Acts followed that pre-Gospel narrative, even though it no longer really made sense in the larger post-Gospel context.
FWIW I don't think the Gospel of Luke has the Sanhedrin condemning Jesus to death. This is found in Matthew and Mark but not Luke.

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply