According to the book of Acts, to be a Christian leader in Jerusalem in the years 30–62 CE was a dangerous, and potentially life-threatening, experience. Following Jesus' crucifixion, the early Christian leaders in Jerusalem were also brought to trial before the Temple's high priests: Peter and the apostles were flogged, Paul was charged, and Stephen was executed. Josephus (Ant. 20.200) adds that James was stoned, a scene that is dramatized in later Christian sources. Different explanations have been offered for the persecution of these Christian leaders.Footnote 1
In the present article, I will explore the charges directed against Peter, Stephen, Paul, and James by the high priests. Specifically, I will show that all these accusations and trials described in the book of Acts as well as in the later traditions pertaining to James's execution are related to the Temple. My analysis will be carried out on two different levels: narrative and historical. I will endeavor to interpret what messages were conveyed in these narratives, as well as discuss certain relevant aspects of Luke's treatment of the Temple and of the priesthood. I will similarly attempt to interpret the meanings inscribed in the later Christian traditions on James's execution.
Based on these findings, I will attempt to evaluate the historical plausibility of the Temple incidents in Acts and the traditions about James. Consequently, I will suggest that these Temple-related conflicts were shaped by two, interrelated factors: first, the conviction of Jewish leaders that Jesus posed a threat to the Temple, and second, the extreme sensitivity of the Sadducean high priests—who led the prosecution of the Christian leaders—to any possible violation of the cultic order. This latter factor, I will show, may well have led them to regard the early Christian activities in the Temple as sacrilegious threats. Finally, I will conclude with general, tentative considerations concerning the attitude of the early Christian community in Jerusalem towards the Temple.
1. Temple-Related Conflicts and Prosecutions in Acts
a. Peter and the Apostles
In Acts 4 and 5, Peter and other apostles are arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin (τὸ συνέδριον, a judicial committee headed by a high priest or king; the nrsv translates it as a ‘council’). According to Acts 4.1–3, ‘While Peter and John were speaking to the people, the priests, the captain (στρατηγός) of the Temple,Footnote 2 and the Sadducees came to them, much annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming that in Jesus there is the resurrection of the dead; so they arrested them and put them in custody'. At the judicial hearings, the high priests Annas, Caiaphas, and John, as well as other members of the high priestly families, were present (Acts 4.7). To be sure, the charges were not baseless: Acts 3 describes how Peter and John went up to the Temple for the afternoon prayer, and Peter, ‘in the name of Jesus’, healed a crippled beggar near the Temple's ‘beautiful gate’. When the news of his action spread, a crowd gathered around Peter and John in ‘Solomon's Portico’ at the Temple Mount, where Peter delivered a speech about the failure to believe in Jesus. As a result, the Sanhedrin decided to warn the apostles ‘not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus’ (4.18).
A similar story is recounted in Acts 5.12–42, although the consequences of Peter's actions are quite different.Footnote 3 Here, the apostles continue to heal, preach, and gather in Solomon's Portico (5.12); in response, ‘the high priest and all who were with him (that is, the sect of the Sadducees), being filled with jealousy, arrested the apostles and put them in the public prison’ (5.17). The apostles then fled and ‘entered the Temple at daybreak and went on with their teaching’ (5.21). The high priest, the captain of the Temple, and the other chief priests brought them back before the Sanhderin, where Peter defended himself through a speech on the salvation of Israel through Jesus. As a result, the apostles were flogged and ordered to halt their teaching in the name of Jesus—although, Luke makes clear, they continued preaching at the Temple regardless (5.21–42).
In both descriptions, the high priest and the Temple officers arrested and charged both Peter and the other apostles with healing and preaching in the name of Jesus. Previous scholars have suggested that the reason for these arrests was the apostles' belief in resurrection or black magic, as well as the spreading of apocalyptic expectations.Footnote 4 Yet instances of healing and preaching appear elsewhere in Acts (chs. 2, 8–10), and in all those cases, the high priests take no judicial measures against them. What, then, accounts for this difference in response?
If we examine Luke's narratives of the instances in question, we see that he connected the arrests to the Temple. His frequent mention of the Temple in relation to these episodes suggests that he associated the prosecution of the apostles with the location of their activity—namely, the Temple Mount. In other words, Luke makes the implicit claim that the high priests were concerned not merely by the apostles' teachings about Jesus and by their demonstrations of the power of healing through the use of Jesus' name; rather, the priests were concerned because these teachings and demonstrations were carried out in the Temple, and were regarded as a public desecration of the holy place. This claim is supported by the direct involvement of the high priest (who was in charge of the Temple cult), in the legal measures taken against the apostles, and by the presence of the captain of the Temple at the trials.Footnote 5 In this vein, it is interesting to note that when Agrippa I executed James, son of Zebedee and persecuted Peter (Acts 12.1–5), he was not concerned with such cultic or religious issues.Footnote 6
b. Stephen
Stephen, a Hellenistic Jew who lived in Jerusalem, was brought before the Sanhedrin. There, false witnesses declared, ‘This man never stops saying things against this holy place (namely, the Temple) and the law; for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses handed on to us’ (Acts 6.8–14). The high priest asked Stephen if this was true, and Stephen replied in the form of a long speech (Acts 7.2–53) containing biblical teachings and a mention of the tabernacle. Citing Isa 66.1–2, he went on to claim that ‘the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands’ (Acts 7.48)—an assertion that many commentators have regarded as proof of an anti-Temple stanceFootnote 7—and condemned those who rejected and killed Jesus. The course of his trial was altered radically, however, when he declared at his speech's conclusion, ‘I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God’ (7.51). The people regarded this statement as blasphemous; they rushed Stephen, drove him out of town, and stoned him to death in a kind of public lynching (7.57–58).Footnote 8
Significantly, however, although Stephen was killed on account of blasphemy, the original charge leveled against him was that he had declared that Jesus would destroy the Temple and change the Law. The first part of this accusation echoes the one attributed to Jesus by the false witnesses in Mark 14.58: ‘I will destroy this Temple (τὸν ναόν) that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands’. Indeed, Stephen's own statement about God not dwelling in a house made by human hands may likewise reflect an anti-Temple stance. Nevertheless, Luke made it clear that Stephen had not said what the witnesses argued he had. And in fact, if read literally, Stephen's words regarding God's dwelling do not necessarily imply the rejection of the Temple cult in Jerusalem, since they are derived from prophetic teachings whose purpose is the criticism of a belief in a limited abode for the Divine Presence.Footnote 9 In any event, it is clear that the alleged rejection of the Temple—and certainly the claim of its imminent destruction, based upon Jesus' prophecy—plays a crucial role in Luke's presentation of Stephen's arrest and trial.
c. Paul
When Paul returned to Jerusalem, he was suspected by other Jewish-Christians of warning Jews not to obey the Torah. The elders associated with James insisted that Paul would disprove this accusation, and demonstrate that he ‘observes and guards the law’, specifically through his sponsorship of the sacrifices (i.e. Nazirite vows) of fellow Christians. Paul purified himself along with the Nazirites and entered the Temple, thus ‘making public the completion of the days of purification when the sacrifice would be made’ (Acts 21.18–26).
Yet as Paul entered the Temple, he was seized by Jews from Asia who declared, ‘This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this place; more than that, he has actually brought Greeks into the Temple and has defiled this holy place’. Luke here adds an explanatory comment meant to undermine the Asian Jews' accusation: ‘For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the Temple’ (21.27–29). Nonetheless, Paul was dragged out of the Temple and would surely have been killed but for the Roman troops stationed nearby; hearing the commotion, they interfered and arrested Paul instead (21.30–36). It is possible that the crowd was fulfilling the legal practice, acknowledged by the Romans, according to which a gentile (ἀλλογενής) who enters the Temple's courts is to be executed immediately, even without benefit of a trial.Footnote 10 Yet in this case, we must remember, it was a Jew who was accused of responsibility for such a sacrilegious act.
Subsequently, there ensued long and winding legal procedures under the leadership of the high priest Ananias son of Nedebaus, as well as the Roman procurators Felix and Festus and King Agrippa II. The Jewish crowd, led by the high priest and the Sanhedrin, demanded the enforcement of the death penalty, but the Romans were not convinced of any actual guilt. Therefore, since Paul was a Roman citizen, he was taken into Roman custody until his appeal to Nero.Footnote 11
At first glance, the Temple accusation against Paul may seem like a mere excuse to punish him for his teachings against the Torah. (Note, however, that Paul visited Jerusalem in Acts 15 without encountering any such enmity.) Yet Luke mentions the violation of the Temple's sacredness time and again, both in his descriptions of the charges brought against Paul as well as in Paul's own speeches. Indeed, after Paul was transferred to Caesarea, a delegation headed by the high priest Ananias approached Felix, accusing Paul of trying ‘to profane the Temple’ (24.7). Paul replied that he ‘went up to worship in Jerusalem’, but was not—in what would seem to be a clear reference to the acts of Peter and the apostles—‘disputing with anyone in the Temple or stirring up a crowd either in the synagogues or throughout the city’ (24.11–12). Or, as he stated to Festus in response to the subsequent accusations against him, ‘I have in no way committed an offence against the law of the Jews, or against the Temple, or against the emperor’ (25.8).
In Paul's speeches, Luke portrays Paul as devoted to the Temple cult. For example, according to Luke, Paul points out that after being called by Jesus, he prayed in the Temple (Acts 22.17). Moreover, Paul stressed that he came to Jerusalem ‘to bring alms to my nation and to offer sacrifices; while I was doing this, they found me in the Temple, completing the rite of purification, without any crowd or disturbance’ (24.17–18). It seems likely that Luke was here attempting to convince the reader that the Temple charge was false—an implicit acknowledgment that the Temple was a focal point in the conflict between Paul and the Jerusalem Jews.Footnote 12
d. Between Narrative and History
From the above survey of the measures taken against the early Christian leaders emerges a certain theme: Peter and the apostles as well as Paul were all arrested and put on trial on account of their having allegedly committed forbidden actions in the Temple; so, too, was Stephen prosecuted following his supposed statement about Jesus' destruction of the Temple. The question arises, however, whether we can trust Luke's presentation of these events.
Naturally, the answer depends on one's position with regard to the historical credibility of Acts. Those who consider Luke a reliable historianFootnote 13 and his sources authenticFootnote 14 would likely answer in the affirmative. They may find support for their position in Luke's precise geographical knowledge of the Temple: his references to ‘Solomon's Portico’, for example, and to ‘the Beautiful Gate’, as well as his familiarity with the sacrificial rites and security arrangements practiced therein.Footnote 15 Recently, Dunn defended the historical value of Acts, pointing to Luke's attempt at faithful transmission of traditions following Hellenistic historical conventions (Luke 1.1–4); his use of what appear to be firsthand sources (such as the ‘we passages’); the commensurability with Paul's letters; and Luke's historical accuracy with regard to various small details of Roman Judaea or Greco-Roman politics and culture.Footnote 16 Others, however, may remain more skeptical, since Luke was after all a theologian, and thus naturally shaped his narrative to convey a certain theological message. This message, critics argue, may have affected the historical accuracy of his narrative.Footnote 17 One is therefore left to wonder whether to regard Luke's competence as a historian as an indication of his reliability, or of his rhetorical skill.
Yet while the historical credibility of Acts may be called into question, there is no doubt that Luke employed narrative history in an effort to convey certain theological messages. I will therefore turn now to an analysis of those messages implied in the Temple conflicts involving Peter, Stephen, and Paul, which may add to our understanding of Luke's general attitude toward Judaism. Later on, I will build on the results of this literary investigation in an effort to unravel the question of these events' historical reliability.
2. Luke, the Priests, and the Temple: The Message of the Temple Conflicts in Acts
In evaluating Luke's intentions, we must engage in a broader analysis of his attitude toward the Temple, the priests, and the high priests as expressed in both his gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles.Footnote 18 Undoubtedly, the Temple is the focal Jewish institution for Luke: It both opens and ends his gospel. Luke locates Jesus' nativity and the beginning of the apostles' ministry there (Luke 24.52–53), and describes it as the scene of the apostles' activity as well. In his gospel, moreover, he stresses the priestly descent of the parents of John the Baptist, as well as the commitment of Jesus' parents to the Temple,Footnote 19 while Acts 6.7 maintains that many priests accepted the Christian faith. The ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus are acknowledged in the Temple, disclosing the divine residence there (Luke 1.8–23; 2.24–38); indeed, Jesus refers to the Temple as ‘my Father's house’.Footnote 20 Finally, in both Luke and Acts, Jesus and the apostles visit the Temple frequently and pray there.Footnote 21 Many scholars have therefore concluded that in Luke–Acts, the Temple is the center of God's worship, prayer, and sacrifice.Footnote 22
Other scholars, however, have observed that Luke is somewhat wary—if not outright critical—of the Temple. Some claim that the Temple lost its credibility throughout the gospel, and that, for Luke in particular, the Temple had already fulfilled its purpose before Jesus' death.Footnote 23 Others maintain that for Luke, the Temple's role was superseded by that of the household as the actual sphere of God's redemption, and that throughout Luke–Acts, the Temple is eventually unmasked as a locus of political power the essence of which is opposed to God's people.Footnote 24
Ostensibly, the Temple conflicts described in Acts would seem to reinforce those interpretations of an implied criticism of the Temple. After all, according to Acts, while the Temple was undoubtedly a holy place, its establishment—namely, the high priests and their associates—stands in opposition to the belief in Jesus and the mission of the apostles. Hence, the Temple is designated a negative arena of condemnation and rejection.Footnote 25
In order to test these views, we must first examine several cases in which Luke had the opportunity to condemn the Temple and rebuke its high priests, but nonetheless declined to do so. For instance, in his rewriting of Mark's version of the trial of Jesus, Luke omitted the charge that Jesus had threatened to demolish the Temple and rebuild another one (‘not made with hands’),Footnote 26 as well as the crowd's mocking of Jesus on the cross: ‘Aha! You who would destroy the Temple and build it in three days; save yourself and come down from the cross!’Footnote 27 Even the account of the ‘cleansing’ of the Temple is abbreviated dramatically, absent the descriptions of the financial transactions taking place there.Footnote 28 In sum, Luke purposely eliminated the primary attestations for Jesus' challenging of the Temple and its leaders.Footnote 29
In addition, Acts 23.2–5 recalls a direct conflict between Paul and the high priest during the hearing before the Sanhedrin. Ananias the high priest ordered that Paul be struck on his mouth. Initially, Paul retorted hotly; once he was informed that the person he had condemned was in fact the high priest, however, he responded with words of respect: ‘For it is written, “You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people”’ (Exod 22.47).Footnote 30
Furthermore, Luke highlights the role of the Temple officers and the captain in the arrests and trials of Jesus, Peter, and the apostles,Footnote 31 and the high priests' part in the arrests and trials of Jesus, Peter, Stephen, and Paul.Footnote 32 Significantly, however, he never accuses them either specifically or directly of unrighteousness, nor does he condemn them for hating the Christian leaders.Footnote 33 The accusations of rejecting Christ and persecuting his followers are instead directed at the Jerusalemites and their leaders.Footnote 34 It is therefore safe to conclude that Luke did not wish to condemn the leaders of the Temple or the high priests, despite their role in the persecution of Jesus, Peter and the apostles, Stephen, and Paul. On the contrary, he confirms the credibility of the Temple in the eyes of the Christians.
Significantly, towards the end of Acts, Luke contextualizes those of Paul's speeches in which he repeatedly declares his devotion to the sacrificial cult.Footnote 35 In so doing, he stresses that the Christians' commitment to the Temple remains undiminished, despite the tribulations they suffered at the hands of the high priests following their visits to the Temple.Footnote 36
Luke expresses admiration for the Temple, in keeping with his generally positive stance towards the Law.Footnote 37 This position also accords with the view of several scholars that Jewish antagonism is met, in Luke–Acts, with conciliation, and an attempt to present Christianity as an integral part or continuation of Judaism.Footnote 38 For despite their desire to take part in Temple worship and preserve Jewish cultic heritage, the Christians, Luke seems to be arguing, were nonetheless maltreated, and on account of baseless suspicions. In other words, in arguing that the Temple episodes in fact demonstrate that Christianity is not a dissident Jewish faction, Luke may in truth have been furthering his own, apologetic purposes.
The overall message to be gleaned from the Temple conflicts in Acts is therefore one of the unjustified refusal of the Temple authorities to recognize Christians as fellow Jews, as representatives of a legitimate Jewish ‘way’. Footnote 39 Much like the banishment of the Jewish-Christians from the synagogue,Footnote 40 then, the non-Christian Jews were portrayed as the ones to blame for the conflict between Judaism and Christianity.
a. The Historical Implications of Luke's Message
Luke's positive attitude toward the Temple and the priesthood, as well as his message that the early Christians leaders were falsely accused of both acts and words against the Temple, shed a new light on the question of whether these Temple conflicts actually happened. Namely, they lend credence to their historical legitimacy: It is unlikely, after all, that Luke would have conjured episodes with such clear anti-Temple overtones if they were contrary to his own purposes. It is also unreasonable to argue that Luke would have introduced the Jewish (or high-priestly) conception of the early Christians as enemies of the Temple—a conception to which Luke was wholeheartedly opposed—if it was not based in historical fact. We may thus conclude that his presentation of these events is biased, but not fictitious.
Indeed, it is inconceivable that Luke would have been able to describe preaching in the Temple, the prophesying of its destruction, and the entering of a gentile into it—all very different kinds of violations of the Temple cult—without some familiarity with historical fact. Moreover, several scholars have argued that Acts is in truth based on earlier sources (literary and oral), which would explain Luke's ability to construct a detailed narrative with the proper historical setting (Roman rule, Jewish religious practices, etc.).Footnote 41 As we shall see below, later Christian traditions about James's martyrdom also describe conflicts in or about the Temple.
3. James' Execution and the Temple: Narrative and History
According to Josephus, in 62 CE the Sadduceen high priest Ananus son of Ananus ‘convened a Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having acted illegally (παρανομησάντων) and delivered them up to be stoned’.Footnote 42 And with this pithy description, Josephus leaves the question of why James was prosecuted—and ultimately executed—open to intense scholarly debate.
Certain scholars have concluded that James was executed because he was the leader of a messianic/apocalyptic movement that was regarded as politically dangerous, perhaps even revolutionary.Footnote 43 The fact that he was convicted of an illegal act has led other scholars to infer that he did not observe Jewish law strictly enough.Footnote 44 Finally, a number of scholars have deduced from Josephus that James was executed not because of his Christian beliefs or his possible status within the nascent Christian community, but rather due to more prosaic political reasons: James's political alliance with Ananus's opponents (either rival high priestsFootnote 45 or common priests who were exploited by the high priesthood).Footnote 46 This alliance may have been the result of James's criticism of the priestly aristocracy, or his support for the poor and the needy;Footnote 47 it may also have simply been due to a personal rivalry between himself and Ananus.Footnote 48
All of these explanations for James's execution are problematic for several reasons. First, James could hardly be regarded as lax with regard to the law, since he is described as strict in his observance of purity restrictions in Gal 2.11–14 (see also Acts 21.24). Second, if the mission to the Gentiles or Jews was the reason for the charge against him, the high priests would have acted much earlier than 62 CE, probably closer to the Apostolic Council in 49 CE. Third, deducing James's role in the political scene based on Josephus's account of tension between high and common priests, or between aristocrats and zealots, is highly hypothetical: We have no information whatsoever about James's relations with any of these parties. That there were some priests among the Christians (Acts 6.7), and that the Christians in Jerusalem associated themselves with the poor, is not sufficient grounds for arguing that the high priests were determined to rid themselves of James. After all, there were many other poor people and anti-aristocrats in Judaean society at the time.
Furthermore, Ananus's convening of a Sanhedrin of judges and the execution of a death sentence were extremely exceptional steps. Indeed, Josephus does not mention any other high priest who had done so. True, both Herodian rulers and Roman governors executed opponents, but these were all revolutionary Jews, charged with sedition. Never in the years preceding the Great Revolt, when political or personal conflicts turned violent, did the high priests carry out trials and executions. Thus, the present incident can hardly be regarded as ‘an excellent example of the machinations among Jews seeking public prominence’.Footnote 49 James's alleged offence must therefore have been graver than the ones mentioned above. Josephus thus leads us to a dead-end regarding the actual charge against James, apart from the sole hint provided by the penalty of stoning.
It is significant, then, that the above-mentioned studies, in attempting to determine the offense for which James was executed, focus solely on Josephus's account, ignoring four later Christian sources that are regarded (quite rightly) as legendary.Footnote 50 These sources, as we will see, are critical for understanding the event in question, and even more so for how this event was understood by later Christians. With this in mind, I will now turn to an examination of these texts on two, overlapping levels: the narrative construction provided by their authors, and their possible reflection of historical reality. I will focus both on the geographical setting of the conflict between James and his opponents in the Temple and on his execution by means of stoning or having been thrown down from a great height.
The initial, and probably earliest, source that depicts James's conflict with his fellow Jews and subsequent martyrdom is that of Hegesippus, cited by Eusebius's Hist. eccl. 2.23.5–18. Hegesippus portrays James as a Nazirite ascetic, and explains that ‘he alone was allowed to enter into the Sanctuary (τὰ ἅγια)…and he used to enter alone into the Temple (εἰς τὸν ναόν) and be kneeling and praying for forgiveness for the people’ (6). The scribes and Pharisees asked James to persuade the crowds not to believe in Jesus as a messiah, and ‘to stand at the battlement of the Temple’ (πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ [11]) so that everyone would be able to hear him. Yet, when they asked him, ‘What is the gate of Jesus?’ James replied that the Son of Man in heaven would come on clouds. They then, according to Hegesippus, threw James down and stoned him, ‘since the fall had not killed him’ (16). When, this, too, proved ineffective, a certain laundryman finally beat James on the head with a club (17). He was then buried ‘on a spot by the Temple (ἐπὶ τῷ τόπῳ παρὰ τῷ ναῷ), and his gravestone still remains there’ (18).Footnote 51
A somewhat similar story was presented in the second century CE in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.66–70. There, James ascends to the Temple with his congregation (including Gamliel), where he encounters a large crowd led by the high priest Caiaphas. He enters into a discussion with Caiaphas on the belief in Christ and various scriptural matters (1.66), a discussion that ends in bloodshed as a massacre of the Christians in the Temple ensues. The person who ordered the massacre, so it is written, entered the Temple near the altar and used an altar brand (1.70.1, 6); James was then thrown from the top of the stairs, although it is not stated that he was put to death (1.70.8).Footnote 52
A third, and even more obscure description is introduced in the Second Apocalypse of James from Nag Hammadi. There James announces, ‘Behold, I gave you your house, which you say that God has made. Did he who dwells in it promise to give you an inheritance through it? This (house) I shall doom to destruction and derision of those who are in ignorance’. Consequently, the priests said, ‘Come, let us stone the Just One’. They ‘found him standing beside the columns of the Temple beside the mighty corner stone.Footnote 53 And they decided to throw him down from the height, and they cast him down… They seized him and [struck] him as they dragged him upon the ground. They stretched him out and placed a stone on his abdomen. They all placed their feet on him, saying “You have erred!” Again, they raised him up, since he was alive… After having covered him up to his abdomen, they stoned him in this manner’.Footnote 54
Finally, Eusebius quotes Clement of Alexandria as saying that ‘James the Just…was thrown down from the pinnacle of the Temple (τοῦ πτερυγίου βληθείς) and beaten to death with a fuller's club’.Footnote 55
Hegesippus, the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, Clement of Alexandria, and the Second Apocalypse of James feature both similarities and differences. For starters, they are all based, directly or indirectly, on an early second-century CE source, or at the very least on a common ancient tradition containing remnants of a Jewish one.Footnote 56 The result, as we shall see below, is that all four narratives include two basic common features: the preaching in/about the Temple and the stoning of James.
On the literary level, all these sources place the conflict between James and his opponents (be it the high priest, the priests, the scribes and Pharisees, or simply the crowd) in the Temple. James committed several forbidden acts there: Hegesippus argued that James entered into the ναός when praying for the forgiveness of the people, thus implying that he acted as a priest—which would have been a grave transgression against the Temple cult.Footnote 57 The Second Apocalypse of James specifically mentions that James preached that the Temple is ‘doomed to destruction and derision’ while standing within it; and finally, in both Hegesippus and Recognitions, it is written that James preached about the belief in Christ in the Temple. No doubt, Hegesippus and Recognitions call to mind the preaching of Peter and the apostles in the Temple that led to their arrest and flogging in Acts 4–5. All three sources agree, then, that the very presence of James in the Temple, along with his actions therein, are the keys to understanding the zealous measures taken against him.
The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, Hegesippus, and the Second Apocalypse of James portray the Temple as the locus of the conflict between Jews and Christians, which in turn elevates it to a symbol of the rejection of Christ.Footnote 58 However, on the basic narrative level, it is important to note that all these sources assume interest on the part of James in attending the Temple Mount. Hegesippus even describes him as acting like a (high) priest. These sources thus imply an attraction on the part of James and his followers to the Temple, either as a place of worship or as a venue for preaching, as attested to by Acts. Only the Second Apocalypse of James describes an explict anti-Temple stance by recounting James's prophecy of its destruction as God's punishment of the Jews for their ‘ignorance’ (of Christ).
On the historical level, only a few scholars consider Hegesippus, and to a certain extent the Second Apocalypse of James, as possible keys to understanding the offense for which James was excecuted by Ananus.Footnote 59 According to Bauckham, since James was executed by stoning, he must have been charged either with blasphemy or with leading the people to apostasy. He suggests that the charge against James was based on his Christological interpretation of ‘the gate of God’ as ‘the gate of Jesus’, and James's preaching that Jesus is the gate of the eschatological Temple through which the righteous enter the presence of God.Footnote 60 Evans, by contrast, did associate James's execution directly with the Temple, although his aim was purely exegetical, and did not attempt to draw actual historical conclusions from this fact.Footnote 61
In any event, it should be noted that Hegesippus, Clement, Recognitions, and even the Second Apocalypse of James detail James's activities and interest in the Temple even though these authors no longer cherished the Jewish cultic system. It is therefore likely that their descriptions are based on an older tradition, rather than simply invented.
One aspect of the narrative that may attest to a certain historical value in these later traditions is the means of James's execution. In the Second Apocalypse of James the priests wanted literally to stone James, but threw him down from the height of the Temple instead, and then ‘placed a stone on his abdomen’. So, too, in Hegesippus and Clement James is thrown from the Temple, and in Recognitions he is thrown from the top of the stairs. According to Hegesippus, afterwards he was also stoned. This type of punishment probably represents the early rabbinic version of the biblical stoning penalty: According to m. Sanh. 6.4, someone condemned to be stoned must be pushed down from a place that is twice the height of a man. If that does not kill him, a witness must drop a large stone on his chest (as mentioned in the Second Apocalypse of James), and if that does not kill him, he must be literally stoned to death (as in Hegesippus). Thus, all four sources describe the stoning of James, which is already mentioned by Josephus! We may conclude, then, that they do provide at least a glimmer of historical truth, albeit with changes and adjustments that reflect later rabbinic law.Footnote 62
Significantly, however, all four sources place the stoning or throwing down in the Temple, which would seem historically impossible. Clearly, then, their purpose is to relate as directly as possible the cause of James's execution to his involvement in the Temple, although this information is conveyed by fictitious narratives. Yet both the setting of the execution and the transgressions attributed to James discussed above hint that the real reason for the stoning was in truth an illegal act on James's part that had something to do with the Temple. I therefore suggest that the later authors transformed an original conflict related to the Temple into a dramatic and legendary confrontation inside the Temple.
Indeed, the very manner in which James was put to death is connected to transgressions against the Temple: The final beating with a club described in both Hegesippus and Clement, as well as the use of an altar brand wielded by a priest described in Recognitions, is reminiscent of the ancient Jewish penalty for Temple transgressions. According to m. Sanh. 9.6, a priest who served in a state of impurity was executed by fellow priests outside the Temple ‘by splitting his brain open with clubs’. Furthermore, in the early, non-rabbinic penal code, trespassing the Temple's sacred domains (ascribed to James by Hegesippus) required the death penalty, which was probably practiced by stoning (perhaps even without a trial).Footnote 63
It is possible to conclude, then, that three of these texts attest to different sorts of offences carried out either against the Temple or within it; moreover, all four of them recall sanctions taken against transgressions of the Temple's sacredness. This common theme may point to an earlier Jewish-Christian tradition that connected James's execution to the Temple, one that, I believe, has historical roots. I find it reasonable to assume that James preached the Christian doctrine in the Temple—much like Peter and the apostles—and perhaps said something that was interpreted as a declaration against the Temple (as Bauckham maintains) in a manner reminiscent of his more famous brother.
4. Temple Sensitivities: The Historical Background of the High-Priestly Prosecutions
Much like the high-priestly prosecutions of Peter, Stephen, and Paul in Acts, the traditions on James's execution regard the Temple as the locus and substance of the early Christians' conflict with Jewish leaders. Clearly, this motif is crucial to understanding the early Jerusalem Church: Scenes of Christian interest and activity in the Temple, as well as sanctions against and trials of Christians carried out by the Jews (in particular the high priests), run across too many different texts and events to be regarded as merely a literary device. It must have contained some truth.
Turning to the historical aspects of these narratives, I will now examine two issues that may have affected the harsh reactions of the Jews to the acts of the early Christian leaders in the Temple: one, the accusations that Jesus threatened the Temple; and two, the Sadducees' extreme sensitivity to any violation of the Temple's sacredness.
a. Jesus' Anti-Temple Impact
Jesus was arrested by the high priests and brought before a συνέδριον led by the high priest Caiaphas.Footnote 64 There he was charged with threatening, ‘I will destroy this Temple that is made with hands, and in three days I build another, not made with hands’ (Mark 14.58), the content of which is repeated in the mockery of Jesus on the cross in Mark 15.29–30. This accusation is usually linked to Jesus' slightly earlier, violent demonstration at the Temple Mount, the so-called ‘cleansing’ of the Temple in which he clashed with the buyers and sellers of sacrificial animals and the money changers (Mark 11.15–17).Footnote 65 Many scholars have therefore concluded that Jesus was arrested (and some would also add, crucified) because of a transgression against the Temple, be it the alleged statement foretelling its destruction and/or his offensive ‘cleansing’ of the Temple.Footnote 66
Interestingly, the gospels attest to the reaction of the early Christians to this charge. The author of the Gospel of Thomas (71), for instance, attributed to Jesus a straightforward threat to the physical existence of the Temple: ‘I will [destroy this] house, and no one will be able to build it [again]’.Footnote 67 Unlike Thomas, however, all four evangelists felt uneasy with the allegation. Mark (14.57, 59) argued that it was false;Footnote 68 Matthew (26.61) limited the scope of the charge, insisting that Jesus declared only that he was able to destroy and rebuild the Temple; Luke omitted it entirely (see above); and John (2.19–21) omitted it from his description of the trial, placing it in the ‘cleansing’ of the Temple instead. Yet even that mention was transformed entirely in meaning as referring to ‘the Temple of his body’, namely, to Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection.Footnote 69 Moreover, Luke (6.11–14) argues that the allegations that Stephen said that Jesus would destroy the Temple were false and even heinous (see above). These treatments of the Temple charge may bear witness to its originality (whether or not Jesus actually said something of this kind is irrelevant to the determination of the actual charge leveled against him). In a similar vein, the evangelists' description of the dramatic ‘cleansing’ of the Temple is both brief and technical, and as such disregards the fact that this was Jesus' most public, provocative, and offensive performance to date.Footnote 70
Why did the authors of the gospels downplay Jesus' anti-Temple stance, even after the Temple had already been destroyed? Most likely they were reacting to the accusations of their Jewish contemporaries that not only Jesus, but his followers, too, were enemies of the Temple. Indeed, later traditions indicate that the Jewish-Christians were suspected of plotting against the Temple: According to the Gospel of Peter, for example, the apostles were accused of attempting to burn down the Temple, and a similar charge is made against Jewish heretics (minim) in early rabbinic literature.Footnote 71
Returning to the Temple incidents described in Acts, these narratives would seem to provide a response to accusations of Jesus' sacrilegious intentions, showing that despite the severe measures taken against Peter, Stephen, and Paul, the suspicions that they rejected the Temple cult or desired its destruction were false. To the contrary, Peter and the apostles, and Paul (and according to Hegesippus, also James) all wished to participate in the Temple rituals at any cost.
Moreover, Jesus' alleged anti-Temple stance increases the historical plausibility of the narratives of the Temple conflicts described in Acts, as well as the association of James's execution with the Temple. Given the unsavory reputation of the Christians in the eyes of the Temple authorities, it is understandable that the high priests and their followers would regard Peter, Stephen, Paul, and James with suspicion and hostility when they entered the Temple or preached about it.
b. The Attitude of the Sadducean High Priests Towards the Temple Cult
In Acts, Hegesippus, Recognitions, and the Second Apocalypse of James the preaching and actions of the Christian leaders in the Temple are met with extreme sanctions by the high priests or other Jewish leaders in the Temple. The high priests are portrayed here as hard-hearted defenders of the Temple against somewhat insignificant or merely symbolic threats. I suggest in what follows that their characterization reflects a certain historical reality: the sensitivity of the Sadducean high priests to any possible violation of the sacredness of the sacrificial cult.
Ananus son of Ananus, the high priest who executed James, ‘followed the school of the Sadducees’ (Ant. 20. 199). The unnamed high priest who led the prosecution of Peter and the apostles is also associated with the Sadducees (‘the high priest and all who were with him, that is, the sect of the Sadducees’, Acts 5.17). Most scholars have concluded from the passage that he (and not only his associates) was a Sadducee and identified him with Joseph Caiaphas,Footnote 72 the high priest who was responsible for Jesus' arrest, ‘trial’, and handing over to Pilate (note that Caiaphas also confronted James in Recognitions). It is more than possible that the unnamed high priest who prosecuted Stephen and Ananias son of Nedebaus—the latter of whom headed Paul's hearing before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23.2)—were also Sadducees.Footnote 73
The Pharisees, by contrast, were not involved in the measures taken against the Christian leaders described in Acts (although they did take part in James's execution in Hegesippus). In fact, Luke describes the Pharisees as defending the Christians: During the second judicial act against Peter and the apostles, when the members of the Sanhedrin expressed their willingness to execute them, Luke assigns to Gamliel ‘a Pharisee in the sunedrion’ a speech in which he calls for releasing them without penalty. Consequently, the final punishment was reduced to flogging.Footnote 74 And in Paul's hearing before the Sanhedrin, he declares himself a Pharisee who believes in resurrection, thus sparking a dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, resulting in the following pronouncement of some pharisaic scribes: ‘We find nothing wrong with this man’. In this instance, the hearing ended without a decision (Acts 23.6–11). Indeed, the characterization of the Pharisees in Acts is always positive. However, in Luke's gospel, the Pharisees sometimes show respect toward Jesus, and sometimes either confront him or are rebuked by him.Footnote 75
According to Josephus, James's trial and execution by Ananus was opposed by ‘those of the inhabitants of the city who were considered the most fair-minded and who were strict in observance of the law (peri tous nomous akribeis)’. These people informed Agrippa II and Albinus of Ananus's unacceptable deed, leading to his dismissal from the high priesthood (Ant. 20.201–202). As Baumgarten and Mason note on this point, Josephus's wording is similar to his usual characterization of the Pharisees.Footnote 76 Since the passage deals with a legal case led by a Sadducean high priest, many believe that Ananus's opponents were none other than the Pharisees,Footnote 77 and that they resisted the Sadducean law invoked by Ananus.Footnote 78 It seems, therefore, that the Pharisees objected to the severe punishment of James for his alleged act against the Temple.
Why were the Sadducees particularly hostile on the matter of the involvement of the Christian leaders in the Temple?Footnote 79 Here the Sadducees' major religious (or halakhic) concern undoubtedly played a significant role. The Sadducees, and especially the Sadducean high priests, were more sensitive than most to any violation of the Temple's sacredness. In comparison to the Pharisees, for example, the Sadducees held a far stricter approach to the Temple's ritual purity,Footnote 80 and ascribed a greater significance to the priestly cult. They regarded both the Temple and the sacrificial cult as more sensitive and vulnerable to desecration, and in a certain sense, more sacred, than did the Pharisees. To the Sadducees, any possible violation of the cultic order, or any potential desecration of the Temple, was regarded as extremely dangerous.Footnote 81 As such, they held that the masses should be restricted from approaching the sacred. For example, the Sadducees complained about the Pharisees' purification of the Temple candelabrum: The need to purify it, they argued, resulted only from the Pharisees' having permitted the laity to approach it within the Temple's sacred precinct, thus defiling it through their contact with it.Footnote 82
Sadduceean high priests waged intense political battles to prevent what a non-Sadducee would regard as a minor violation of the Temple cult. Thus, Ishmael son of Phiabi led a delegation to Nero that appealed for the preservation of a screening wall that the priests had built to prevent Agrippa II from watching the sacrificial cult from his palace. Agrippa's observation of the priestly ritual was regarded by the Sadducees as sacrilegious, since it invaded the sacred realm.Footnote 83
This Sadducean cultic strictness demystifies many of the Temple episodes in Acts and underscores our reconstruction of James's execution; so, too, does it support their historical reliability. It helps to explain why the Sadducees reacted so harshly and maliciously towards the acts of Peter, Paul, and James in the Temple, and the supposed sayings of Jesus, Stephen, and James against it. It is not, therefore, the Sadducees' rejection of the Christian belief per se that underlies these conflicts, but rather their special sensitivity to threats against the Temple and to any possible violation of its sacredness.
5. Implications for the Early Jerusalem Church
On the narrative level, our analysis of the relevant texts has shown that the Temple incidents described in Acts in which Peter and the apostles as well as Paul were involved, and also the one described in Hegesippus concerning James, all attest to a concern for the Temple. True, a condemnation of the Temple in second-century traditions about James is found in the Second Apocalypse of James (in Recognitions there is similar condemnation that is not attributed to James), but even the Second Apocalypse of James and Recognitions presumes a certain interest on the part of James in the Temple. It therefore seems that the earliest traditions concerning the early Jerusalem Church largely regarded the Temple in a favorable fashion.
The Temple conflicts described in Acts and the connection between James's actions and a certain transgression against the Temple all seem historically plausible, for several reasons: (1) Luke's extraordinary appreciation of the Temple runs counter to the Temple conflicts described in his narrative, in which Stephen and Paul are accused of holding an anti-Temple stance. Since Luke's narrative clearly aims to defy these accusations, it is virtually impossible that they were the figments of his own imagination. (2) The pattern of Christian attendance in the Temple leading to an arrest/trial/punishment is repeated too many times, both in Acts and in the later traditions about James, to be regarded as a merely literary device. Indeed, even if certain episodes have been reproduced or exaggerated, it is nonetheless reasonable to assume that they were based on older traditions that emerged from historical experience. (3) The Jewish perception of Jesus and his followers as enemies of the Temple, and (4) the Sadducean sensitivity to possible threats to the sacrificial cult.
If we take this conclusion one step further, there is reason to believe that the actual attitude towards the Temple displayed by Peter, Paul, and James was not very different from that of their fellow Jews.Footnote 84 Indeed, the sources discussed here do not justify the assumption that the Christian leaders' clashes with the high priests derived from the former's attempts to gain a measure of control over the Temple.Footnote 85 Nor do they support the view that the Jerusalem community regarded itself as a ‘human Temple’, which could serve as a substitution for the physical one.Footnote 86 In fact, the general picture deduced from both Acts and Hegesippus corresponds with a growing scholarly recognition of the early Christian appreciation of the Temple and the sacrificial cult.Footnote 87
It is ironic, then, that, according to Acts and the traditions about James, the early-Christian attempts to involve themselves in Temple life or to use its setting or ritual cult for their own interests resulted in clashes with Jewish leaders, and particularly the Sadducean high priests—and with tragic results. It is thus tempting to conclude that their somewhat naïve endeavor to combine Christian belief with common Jewish religious devotion was in fact what got them into trouble.
