Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First ... · PDF fileBulletin for Biblical Research 18.2 (2008) 233–270 Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the

Bulletin for Biblical Research 18.2 (2008) 233–270

Jewish Opposition to Christians inAsia Minor in the First Century

eckhard j. schnabel

trinity evangelical divinity school

This study examines the reasons for the opposition of the Jews of Roman AsiaMinor to the Jewish Christian missionaries and their teaching. It will be seen thatwhile theological convictions played a significant role, the opposition in the localsynagogues cannot be explained only with reference to the Jews’ zeal for the lawand for the purity of the Jewish community. The available evidence, particularlyof Josephus, suggests that the Jews of Asia Minor were concerned to preserve thesocial and political rights and privileges that they had enjoyed since Julius Cae-sar, which had come under pressure in different places at different times andwhich would be threatened if pagans joined the community without being askedto submit to circumcision and to other Jewish traditions such as the food laws.Concerns about the financial viability of the local Jewish community and aboutthe relationship with the Jewish commonwealth in Judea may have played a roleas well.

Key Words: mission, evangelism, Jews, synagogues, opposition, Rome, imperialedicts, politics, Asia Minor, Paul, Acts, Revelation

Luke reports in the book of Acts that, whereas Paul and his missionaryteam were initially received cordially in the synagogues of the cities theyvisited, opposition by members of the local Jewish community was aregular occurrence, an opposition that on some occasions culminated inoutright persecution. This opposition is usually explained with referenceto Paul’s message that salvation comes not through obedience to Torah,including the practice of circumcision and the food laws, but throughJesus, the crucified and risen Messiah.1 Some scholars have suggested

1. Cf. Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990), 257: “preaching anti-nomianism as virtue for Jew andGod-fearer alike . . . when one tried to defend Paul’s position, potential transgression could beseen as apostasy and, what is worse, as inciting others to abandon Judaism.” Similarly, Colin G.Kruse, “Afflictions, Trials, Hardships,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (ed. G. F. Hawthorneet al.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 18–20, 19–20; Udo Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Lifeand Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 164; Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early ChristianMission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 2:1348–51; Steven T. Katz, “The RabbinicResponses to Christianity,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic

00-BBR_18.2.book Page 233 Friday, September 12, 2008 12:00 PM

Bulletin for Biblical Research 18.2234

that political considerations need to be taken into account as well whenwe seek to understand the opposition of Jewish diaspora communities toPaul.2 The following observations will explore the validity of this sugges-tion. Because there are few sustained discussions of these issues in thescholarly literature, the focus will be on the primary source material, no-tably Luke’s book of Acts and Josephus’s historical works. Questions re-garding the historical reliability of Luke’s account in the book of Acts andof Josephus’s reporting will not be discussed. Despite the obvious signif-icance of the editorial decisions of both Luke and Josephus, there is suf-ficient evidence to suggest that their narratives can be compared to thehistoriographical standards of the Hellenistic-Roman period.3

Opposition of Jews to Christians in Asia Minor

Luke relates that Jewish residents of the cities in Asia Minor opposed boththe Jewish Christian missionaries and the new Christian communities.

The Evidence in the New Testament

1. Pisidian Antioch (Colonia Caesarea Antiocheia) is the first city in Asia Mi-nor for which Christian missionary work and Jewish opposition is reported

2. Schnelle (Apostle Paul, 163) refers to “the explosiveness of Paul’s missionary success forthe political stability of Judaism”; similarly, Claudia J. Setzer, Jewish Responses to Early Chris-tians: History and Polemics, 30–150 c.e. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 82. See Robert F. Stoops,“Riot and Assembly: The Social Context of Acts 19:23–41,” JBL 108 (1989): 73–91, for the anti-Jewish riot of the citizens of Ephesus in Acts 19. Stoops argues that, since Luke (but not out-siders) fully distinguished between Jews and Christians, “it was therefore natural that Lukeshould interpret opposition to Christian assemblies in the cities of the eastern Mediterraneanaccording to an established argument within Jewish apologetic” (81). It is doubtful, however,whether the tradition of the Roman confirmation of Jewish rights as a reaction to anti-Jewishriots by Gentiles could be easily transferred to Gentile (and Jewish) opposition to Christian as-semblies; Luke never reports that Roman officials confirmed the right of followers of Jesus tomeet in regular assemblies.

3. For Luke, see Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (ed. C. H.Gempf; WUNT 49; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989); Rainer Riesner, “Lukas (1. Jh. n.Chr.),” inHauptwerke der Geschichtsschreibung (ed. Volker Reinhardt; Stuttgart: Kröner, 1997), 391–94; BenWitherington III, New Testament History: A Narrative Account (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 174–78. For Josephus, see Per Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Worksand Their Importance (JSPSup 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 196–97; Per Bilde, “The Geograph-ical Excursuses in Josephus,” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period (ed. F. Parenteand J. Sievers; SPB 41; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 247–62; Klaus-Stefan Krieger, Geschichtsschreibungals Apologetik bei Flavius Josephus (TANZ 9; Tübingen: Francke, 1994); Steve Mason, “Contra-diction or Counterpoint? Josephus and Historical Method,” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 6 (2003):145–88; concerning the relevant Greek and Roman documents quoted in Josephus’s works, seeMiriam Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World: The Greek and Roman DocumentsQuoted by Josephus Flavius (TSAJ 74; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998).

Period (ed. S. T. Katz; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 259–98, esp. 262–66. Fora thorough discussion of the evidence in Paul’s letters, see Dieter Sänger, Die Verkündigung desGekreuzigten und Israel: Studien zum Verhältnis von Kirche und Israel bei Paulus und im frühenChristentum (WUNT 75; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994).


Schnabel: Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor 235

in the New Testament. When Paul and Barnabas arrived in the city in thesummer of a.d. 46,4 their encounter with the Jewish community was ini-tially positive (Acts 13:14–16, 42–43). Luke asserts in his account of theevents on the second sabbath that “the Jews” (o¥ ∆Iouda∂oi) were “filled withjealousy” (nrsv; ejplhvsqhsan zhvlou) when they saw the crowds (o¥ oßcloi)that turned out to hear Paul and Barnabas speak (Acts 13:45). Luke addsthat “blaspheming, they contradicted what was spoken by Paul” (13:45).After he notes the conversion of Gentiles both in the city and in the townsand villages controlled by Antioch (13:48–49),5 he points out that “theJews” (o¥ ∆Iouda∂oi)6 “incited the devout women of high standing and theleading men of the city (ta;Í sebomevnaÍ guna∂kaÍ ta;Í eujschvmonaÍ kaµ tou;Ípr∫touÍ thÅÍ povlewÍ), and stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas,and drove them out of their region” (13:50). The verb parotruvnein, which isgenerally translated “to incite,” means “to stir up strong emotion againstsomebody” or “to stir up hostility against somebody.”7 The phrase “lead-ing men of the city” (o¥ pr∫toi thÅÍ povlewÍ), though not a technical term forthe duoviri, the highest municipal magistrates, certainly refers to influen-tial members of the local aristocracy. The subject of ejphvgeiran diwgmovÍ(“they stirred up persecution,” i.e., “caused persecution to happen”) maybe either the Jews or the aristocratic women and their husbands or both.8

The result of the “persecution” was the expulsion of the Christian preach-ers from the city (ejxevbalon aujtou;Í ajpo; tΩn oJrÇwn aujtΩn).

2. This pattern is repeated in Iconium (Colonia Iulia Augusta Iconium),the next stop of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:1–6).9 After preaching in thelocal synagogue and after “a great number (polu; plhÅqoÍ) of both Jews andGreeks became believers” (Acts 14:1), members of the Jewish community“stirred up (ejphvgeiran) the Gentiles and poisoned their minds (ejkavkwsanta;Í yucavÍ) against the brothers” (Acts 14:2). The verb kakovun here meansnot “to cause harm, mistreat” but “to cause someone to think badly aboutsomeone, to make angry, to embitter.”10 The Jews who rejected Paul’spreaching incited the Gentiles to oppose both the new converts. It was

4. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 2:1098–10.5. Cf. ibid., 2:1107. Antioch controlled over 50 villages; cf. Cilliers Breytenbach, Paulus

und Barnabas in der Provinz Galatien: Studien zu Apostelgeschichte 13f.; 16,6; 18,23 und denAdressaten des Galaterbriefes (AGJU 38; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 50.

6. tniv reads “the Jewish leaders.”7. Walter Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Chris-

tian Literature (ed. F. W. Danker; 3rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000; hereafter,BDAG), 780 s.v. parotruvnw; and Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexiconof the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (2 vols.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1988;hereafter, LN), 492, §39.8.

8. Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994–98), 1:660;Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte (KEK 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 365.

9. For Iconium and Paul’s missionary work there, see my Early Christian Mission,2:1110–12.

10. BDAG 502 s.v. kakovw 2; Barrett (Acts, 1:668) interprets the term to mean that the Jewscaused the Gentiles “to be disaffected towards the brothers.”



possible, however, for Paul and Barnabas to stay in Iconium “for a longtime” (¥kano;n crovnon) and preach the gospel (Acts 14:3). Luke relates thatat some point an “attempt” (oJrmhv) was made by pagans and by Jews, “to-gether with their leaders” (su;n to∂Í aßrcousin aujtΩn) to mistreat and to killthe apostles (Acts 14:5). The term aßrconteÍ presumably refers to the Gen-tile magistrates,11 possibly to both the synagogue rulers and the leadingmagistrates of the city.12 The aim of their “attempt” against the mission-aries is formulated with two infinitives: uJbrÇsai kaµ liqobolhÅsai aujtouvÍ (“tomistreat them and to stone them,” Acts 14:5). It is unclear how Luke wantshis readers to understand the attempt to stone the missionaries. On theone hand, he seems to report a concerted attack organized not only by op-posing Jews and Gentiles but also by leading magistrates, which seems tosuggest official action. However, even though stoning was known as a le-gal form of punishment among both Jews and Greeks, it had no place inthe Roman legal system, which we should assume was used in Iconium.13

On the other hand, Luke does not report a spontaneous outburst of vio-lence; instead, the missionaries manage to slip away to cities in Lycaonia(Acts 14:6). The “plot” (tniv) of the opposing Jews and Gentiles, which in-cluded members of the local elites, is most plausibly understood as a de-liberate attempt to provoke lynch justice.14

3. The third city in which we have evidence of Jewish oppositionagainst Christian missionary work is Lystra (Colonia Iulia Felix Gemina Lys-tra; Acts 14:8–20).15 Luke focuses on the encounter with the Gentile citi-zens who link Barnabas with Zeus and Paul with Hermes and who wantto offer sacrifices to honor the missionaries. The presence of a Jewish com-

11. Barrett (Acts, 1:672) argues that aujtΩn refers to both eßqnh and ∆Iouda∂oi “so that thesewill not be rulers of the synagogue”; see also Josef Zmijewski, Die Apostelgeschichte (RNT; Re-gensburg, Germany: Pustet, 1994), 526. CIG 4001 attests to the existence in Iconium of a prΩtoÍaßrcwn; cf. Stephen Mitchell, “Iconium and Ninica: Two Double Communities in Roman AsiaMinor,” Historia 28 (1979): 409–38, esp. 413, 415.

12. Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 420 n. 265. Frederik J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds. (The Be-ginnings of Christianity, Part I: The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 4: English Translation and Commentary[London: Macmillan, 1933], 162) and Gerhard Schneider (Die Apostelgeschichte [HThK 5; Frei-burg: Herder, 1980–82], 152 n. 32) think that the term may refer to either Jewish leaders or tothe leaders of both the Jews and Gentiles. Because Iconium was a double community, i.e., botha Roman colony and a Greek polis (Mitchell, “Iconium and Ninica,” 414–16), the term aßrconteÍmight refer to the leaders of the Greek city rather than to the Roman magistrates of the colony.

13. A. Völkl, “Steinigung,” in Der Kleine Pauly: Lexikon der Antike. Auf der Grundlage vonPauly’s Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (ed. Konrat Ziegler et al.; Munich:Deutscher Taschenbuch, 1975; hereafter, KP), 5:353–54. Augustus founded the Roman colonyof Iulia Augusta Iconium, which continued to exist beside the old Greek polis; see Mitchell,“Iconium and Ninica,” 411–25.

14. G. Bertram, oJrmhv ktl., in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. G. Kittel andG. Friedrich; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76; hereafter, TDNT), 5:470; Zmijewski, Apostel-geschichte, 526 (“Mordkomplott”). Ernst Haenchen (Die Apostelgeschichte [KEK 2; Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977], 404) interprets in terms of the mental state that precedes theonrush of a lynch mob; see Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 2:152 n. 31.

15. See my Early Christian Mission, 2:1112–21.



munity is attested by the reference in Acts 16:1–2 to the Jewish mother ofTimothy who came from Lystra,16 and it is suggested by the successful at-tempt of Jews from Antioch and Iconium to stir up the crowd in the city(Acts 14:19).17 The lame man who heard Paul preach and who was healed(Acts 14:8–9) may have been a Jewish man who listened to Paul in the localsynagogue, but Luke’s report does not specify the location of Paul’s mis-sionary preaching on this occasion. The arrival of Jews from Antioch andIconium (ajpo; ÂntioceÇaÍ kaµ ∆IkonÇou ∆Iouda∂oi) suggests, in the context oftheir “persuasion activity” (Acts 14:19), that they pursued the missionariesfrom a distance of several days’ travel—Lystra is ca. 35 km south of Ico-nium, which is ca. 160 km east southeast of Antioch.18 This level of ani-mosity is less surprising when we take into account the fact that Lystra wascalled the “sister city” (ajdelfhv) of Pisidian Antioch, indicating or claimingmutual relationships.19 The “persuasion” (peÇqein) of the people of Lystraby the Jews from Antioch and Iconium resulted in the stoning of Paul, whois left for dead outside the city walls (Acts 14:19).20

4. The fourth city for which we have evidence of missionary workand of Jewish opposition to the Christian missionaries and the new con-verts is Ephesus (Acts 19:1–20:1).21 The fact that Paul is able to teach in thelocal synagogue for three months (Acts 19:8) suggests a tolerant attitudeof the Ephesian Jews concerning Paul’s preaching of the gospel and con-cerning listeners being persuaded by his arguments. The only negativereaction by Jews in Ephesus is formulated with three verbs: “some stub-bornly refused to believe and spoke evil of the Way” (tineÍ ejsklhruvnontokaµ hjpeÇqoun kakologouÅnteÍ th;n oJdovn)—sklhruvnein means “to cause to beunyielding in resisting information, harden” (pass. “to be hardened, to

16. If Timothy came from Derbe (Barrett, Acts, 2:759, on Acts 16:1; thus already the Latintranslation of Origen’s commentary on Rom 16:21), this argument becomes void. Most regardTimothy as hailing from Lystra; see Haenchen, Apostelgeschichte, 461; Alfons Weiser, Die Apos-telgeschichte (ÖTK 5/1–2; Gütersloh: Mohn / Würzburg: Echter, 1981–85), 2:400–401; F. F. Bruce,The Book of the Acts (rev. ed.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 303; Joseph A. Fitzmyer,The Acts of the Apostles (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 574.

17. Schneider (Apostelgeschichte, 2:157 n. 12, 162) interprets Acts 14:8–9, 19 as indicationthat there was no Jewish community in Lystra. He fails to link Acts 14:8–9, 19 with Acts 16:1–2; similarly, Zmijewski, Apostelgeschichte, 533.

18. Richard J. A. Talbert, ed., Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 2000), 62, 65–66; cf. my Early Christian Mission, 2:1074.

19. J. R. Sitlington Sterrett, The Wolfe Expedition to Asia Minor (Papers of the AmericanSchool of Classical Studies at Athens 3; Boston: Damrell & Upham, 1888), 218 no. 352; W. M.Calder, “Colonia Caesareia Antiocheia,” JRS 2 (1912): 78–109, 84 no. 3 (= IGR 3.302; OGIS 536;available online at http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/search_main.html). The text ofthe inscription is the following: th;n lamprotavthn / Ântiocevwn kolw / nÇan hJ lamprotav / th Lus-trevwn kolw / nÇa th;n ajdelfh;n / tåÅ thÅÍ ÔOmonoÇaÍ / ajgavlmati ejteÇmh / sen. See Stephen Mitchell,Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 1:76. SeeFoakes-Jackson and Lake, Beginnings IV, 162; Barrett, Acts, 1:683.

20. Paul’s reference to the fact that he had been stoned in 2 Cor 11:25 may refer to thesame incident.

21. Cf. my Early Christian Mission, 2:1206–31.



become hardened”); ajpeiqe∂n means “to disobey, to be disobedient”; kako-loge∂n means “to speak evil of, to revile, to insult, to slander.” The evidenceof the papyri does not suggest, as Moulton and Milligan have maintained,that the New Testament uses the verb in the weaker sense of “to speak evilof.”22 The papyrus evidence indicates that the verb often describes verbalabuse, suggesting that the meaning “to abuse, revile, slander” is appropri-ate, particularly in Acts 19:9.23 Verbal slander involves the spreading offalse rumors about Christians.24 Even though the Ephesian Jews contra-dicted Paul’s teaching and initiated a controversy, the context in Acts 19:9does not indicate how “evil” were the words with which they spoke aboutPaul in the course of this controversy. It is unclear whether the phraseejn∫pion touÅ plhvqouÍ refers to the new Christian converts in the synagogue,to the synagogue community as a whole, or to the general public of thecity.25 The riot in the city is traced back not to the Jews of Ephesus, whocome under attack themselves (Acts 19:33–34),26 but to local silversmiths(Acts 19:24–27, 38).

5. John states in his message to the church in Smyrna (Rev 2:8–11) thathe knows about the “slander” (blasfhmÇa) that the Christians have to en-dure from the local Jews (ejk tΩn legovntwn ∆IoudaÇouÍ eπnai eJautouvÍ) whom hecalls “synagogue of Satan” (sunagwgh; touÅ satanaÅ, Rev 2:9). The name Satanmeans literally “adversary” or “opponent.” The term blasfhmÇa refers hereeither to verbal slander or to the “denunciation of Christians before Romanor civic authorities.”27 John reminds the Christians in Asia Minor of the factthat Antipas, a Christian in Pergamum (Rev 2:13), has been killed, and heexpects Christians to be imprisoned and executed in Smyrna as well (Rev2:10). David Aune comments that “if Christians had suffered legal penaltiesat the hands of Roman authorities in Smyrna, such actions were probablyinitiated by local citizens, and this passage strongly suggests that the Jewsactively participated in the process.”28

22. J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from thePapyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 316 s.v. kakologevw.

23. Greg H. R. Horsley and Stephen R. Llewelyn, New Documents Illustrating Early Chris-tianity (North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia: Macquarie University, 1981–2002), 2:88, no.54, with reference to SB 12 11018; P.Ryl. II 150; BGU 4 1247; see also P.Lond. VII 2193; P.Fay. I 12.

24. Cf. David E. Aune, Revelation (WBC 52a–c; Dallas: Word, 1997–98), 1:162, which refersto Justin, Dial. 17:1, 108:2, 117:3; Tertullian, Ad Nat. 1:14; Origen, Contra Celsum 6:27.

25. Converts: see Rudolf Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte (EKK 5; Zürich: Benziger / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986), 2:168. Synagogue community: Schneider, Apostelgeschichte,2:268; Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostels (SP 5; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,1992), 339; Zmijewski, Apostelgeschichte, 688; Fitzmyer, Acts, 648. General public: Barrett, Acts,2:904.

26. It remains unclear who Alexander was, why the Jews of Ephesus put him forward inthe theater, and what he sought to achieve by his “defense”; Barrett, Acts, 2:932–33.

27. Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting (JSNTSup11; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986 repr. 1989), 7–9; Aune, Revelation, 1:162.

28. Ibid., 163. Aune notes that “the author is not condemning Jews generally but onlythose associated with synagogues in Smyrna and Philadelphia” (ibid., 162).



6. The Christians in Philadelphia (Rev 3:7–13) evidently also experi-enced opposition from local Jews; this is suggested by the fact that Johnrefers to the Jews of Philadelphia as belonging to “the synagogue of Satan”(ejk thÅÍ sunagwghÅÍ touÅ satanaÅ, Rev 3:9), just as the Jews of Smyrna.

7. For several cities in which missionaries were active and establishedChristian communities in the first century, there is no evidence of Jewishopposition (which does not mean that there was none): Derbe (Acts 14:20–21), Perge (Acts 14:25), Alexandria Troas (2 Cor 2:12, Acts 20:6–12), Lao-dicea (Col 2:1; 4:13, 15; Rev 1:11, 3:14), Hierapolis (Col 4:12–13), Colossae(Col 1:1, 7; 4:12–13), Sardes (Rev 3:1–6), Pergamon (Rev 2:12–17), Thyatira(Rev 2:18–29), Magnesia (Ignatius, Magn., prol.), Tralles (Ignatius, Trall.,prol.), and possibly in Attalia (Acts 14:25) and Miletus (Acts 20:15, 17–38).

8. A final passage that needs to be mentioned is Acts 21:27–28 (cf.24:19). Luke reports that Paul’s arrest in the Jerusalem temple in a.d. 57was caused by “Jews from Asia” (o¥ ajpo; thÅÍ ÂsÇaÍ ∆Iouda∂oi) who had seenPaul in the city in the company of Trophimus from Ephesus and, whenthey saw Paul in the temple, assumed that he had brought a Gentile intothe temple and thus violated the prohibition for non-Jews to enter thetemple beyond the Court of the Gentiles.29 They seized Paul and vocifer-ously informed the crowds in the temple court that “this is the man whois teaching everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and thisplace (ou•tovÍ ejstin oJ aßnqrwpoÍ oJ kata; touÅ laouÅ kaµ touÅ novmou kaµ touÅ tovpoutouvtou pavntaÍ pantac¬Å didavskwn); more than that, he has actually broughtGreeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place” (Acts 21:28). Theattempt to kill Paul (21:31) for profaning the temple was thwarted by theRoman commander (tribunus) of the cohort (21:32–33), which was sta-tioned in the Antonia fortress (Josephus, B.J. 5.242).

Explanations

Luke’s account of the missionary work of Paul and Barnabas in PisidianAntioch in Acts 13:13–52 is the longest account of Paul’s missionary workin Asia Minor.30 The focused observations on the Jewish opposition in13:45, 46–47, 50 (14:19) explain why many commentators concentratetheir comments on the Jewish opposition to the Christian missionaries on

29. It is a well-known fact that inscriptions warning Gentiles not to proceed beyond theCourt of the Gentiles were placed on the wall surrounding the inner precincts. See OGIS 2: 598.On the significance of the temple in the first century, see Doron Mendels, The Rise and Fall ofJewish Nationalism: The History of Jewish and Christian Ethnicity in Palestine within the Greco-Roman Period (200 b.c.e.–135 c.e.) (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 277–331; E. P. Sanders,Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 bce–66 ce (London: SCM, 1992), 45–189; Lee I. Levine, Jerusalem:Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 b.c.e.–70 c.e.) (Philadelphia: Jewish PublicationSociety, 2002); Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Chris-tianity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 87–102.

30. Compared with 94 lines of text in NA27, Luke’s account of missionary work in Iconium(14 lines), Lystra (33 lines), Derbe (3 lines), and Perge (2 lines) is much shorter, as are the ac-counts concerning Philippi (72 lines), Thessalonica (24 lines), Beroea (13 lines), Athens (50



this passage. The zhÅloÍ of the Jews, to which Luke refers in Acts 13:45,is a key term in the discussion. It has been interpreted in terms of theJews’ “zeal” for the law or in terms of their “envy” regarding the mis-sionary success of Paul and Barnabas. Some interpreters combine thesetwo explanations.

R. Pesch argues that the “jealousy” of the Jews derives from their“zeal” for the law, which Paul had declared to be powerless.31 J. Roloff sug-gests that the “jealousy” of the Jews is to be seen in their conviction that“the purity, indeed the very existence of Israel was jeopardized if Gentilesare admitted into Israel on the basis of faith in Christ alone.”32 J. Zmijewskiargues that the term jealousy describes a theological position of the Jews inAntioch who are convinced that the purity of Israel is at stake: they regardthe new teaching about salvation as an offense against the Mosaic law, par-ticularly against circumcision and the cultic commandments.33

Others interpret in terms of the envy of the Jewish community withregard to the missionary success of Paul and Barnabas. G. Schneider ar-gues that “in view of the presupposed historical situation, the jealousy ofthe Jews is unwarranted: the Jews should have been rejoicing in the pop-ularity of their religion among the pagans in the city; their jealousy be-comes plausible, however, when one works with the notion that Paul, theChristian convert, draws off Gentile sympathizers from the synagogue forhis own project.”34 J. Jervell argues for the same position: the jealousy ofthe Jews becomes plausible when one takes into account the outcome ofPaul’s missionary work: the Gentiles of the city join the missionaries,rather than the Gentile sympathizers in the synagogue.35 C. K. Barrett ar-gues that the phrase ejplhvsqhsan zhvlou “implies that they would have beenglad to make an equal impression on their Gentile neighbors.”36 Ben With-erington similarly surmises that the Jews’ reaction involved jealousy “pre-sumably because Paul and Barnabas were attracting a large Gentileaudience while apparently the local Jews themselves had been less suc-cessful in attracting Gentiles.”37

Some scholars combine the theological and the psychological interpre-tations. I. H. Marshall writes, “The effect of the crowds, however, was tomake the Jews envious of the missionaries; presumably their own mission-

31. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 2:45.32. Jürgen Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1981), 209.33. Zmijewski, Apostelgeschichte, 518.34. Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 2:145.35. Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 362.36. Barrett, Acts, 1:655, who continues to assert that “Luke however is probably giving

his standard picture of Jewish opposition.”37. Witherington, Acts, 414–15.

lines), and Corinth (42 lines). The account for Ephesus (103 lines) is long, mostly due to Luke’sfocus on the hostile reaction of the pagan citizens (46 lines).



ary efforts had been much less successful. At the same time, they probablydisagreed with the message that was being preached, and so they arguedagainst the missionaries and defamed them.”38

J. D. G. Dunn suggests a social and theological explanation for the jeal-ousy and the opposition of the Jews in Antioch to Paul and Barnabas. Afterdescribing the Jewish community in Antioch as “substantial and influen-tial,” he suggests that

it was not so much Paul’s message which caused the offence to thebulk of Antioch’s Jews as its surprising appeal to Antioch’s wider cit-izenry. The fear would be of an untried and untested new sect upset-ting and undermining the good standing and good relations whichthe Jewish community had established for itself within the city. . . .We may also deduce that there would be a theological dimension inthe local Jewish hostility.39

Similarly, Brian Rapske writes in a footnote,

The jealousy of the Jews in the Diaspora (Acts 13:45; 17:5; cf. 5:17) wasnot solely on account of the numbers of converts but what those num-bers represented. They raised serious questions regarding the accept-able terms for inclusion and constituted a diminution of power for theruling élites in the Jewish community. Significant numbers of conver-sions from among the God-fearers would have diminished Jewishstanding and protection within the Gentile community, particularlywhen converts were, or had connections with, the Gentile rulingélites.40

Some leave the Jewish opposition to the early Christian missionariesunexplained.41 Judith Lieu regards the New Testament material as “am-biguous” because it is unclear “when and whether it is appropriate there

38. I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC;Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1980), 229–30.

39. James D. G. Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles (EpComm; London: Epworth, 1996), 183.40. Brian Rapske, “Opposition to the Plan of God and Persecution,” in Witness to the

Gospel: The Theology of Acts (ed. I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),235–56, 247 n. 32. Note also the very brief remark of Skarsaune, Jewish Influences, 171: “Thesometimes violent measures taken by the latter [i.e., the Jews] are proof that they consideredPaul a real threat to their community”; Skarsaune does not explain why and in what sense thelocal Jewish communities felt threatened by Paul’s activities.

41. Justin Taylor, “St. Paul and the Roman Empire: Acts of the Apostles 13–14,” ANRW2:26.2, 1189–1231, esp. 1210–11; see also Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Ox-ford: Oxford University Press, 1996) on the relevant Acts passages. Also, Geoffrey E. M. SteCroix, “Why Were Early Christians Persecuted?” in Studies in Ancient Society (ed. M. I. Finley;Past and Present; London: Routledge / Boston: Keegan Paul, 1974), 210–49, esp. 212: “In con-sequence of riots provoked by Christian missionary preaching, action was sometimes taken bythe official of local communities. But any Christians who were martyred, like Stephen andJames ‘the Just’ (the brother of Jesus), were victims of purely Jewish enmity, which wouldcount for little outside Judaea itself.” Ste Croix’s essay concerns the persecutions of Christiansby Roman authorities in the second and third centuries.



to speak of ‘internal’ or ‘external’ action or perception.”42 This position ishardly convincing, because the question is not who regarded whom as“insider” and “outsider” but whether Jews who did not believe that Jesuswas the Messiah opposed and persecuted fellow Jews—missionaries suchas Paul and Barnabas—because of their beliefs and because of their dis-semination of their beliefs. Lieu argues with regard to Justin Martyr’s Di-alogue with Trypho and the Martyrdom of Polycarp that Christian accusationsof Jewish persecution are generally found in nonhistorical contexts.43 In adiscussion of the evidence of the book of Acts, this argument works onlyif one is willing to assume that the self-definition of Christians includedthe conviction that followers of Jesus share in the experience of JesusChrist, an experience that demands a negative role for the Jews. This thenimplies a rhetoric in which persecution, in particular Jewish persecution,“is but the necessary condition and foil for a Christian response which de-fines their new identity and values.”44 Neither an assumption of this sortnor its inference is convincing. E. Bammel points out that “the data of per-secution are merely mentioned in Acts. Hardly any attempt is made toembellish the details and to work out a martyrological history or a hagio-graphical portrait of nascent Christendom.”45

This is not the place to engage scholars who argue that Luke’s com-ments regarding Jewish opposition and hostility to the Christian mission-aries are “anti-Semitic” or “anti-Jewish,”46 or that “in Luke’s presentationof Paul’s ‘mission’ he was little concerned with historical precision.”47

These positions are the result of a prejudiced reading of a few select pas-sages, a reading that gives less than a full account of the historical situa-tion that pertained in the first century.48 J. D. G. Dunn refutes J. T. Sanders’s

42. Judith M. Lieu, “Accusations of Jewish Persecution in Early Christian Sources, withParticular Reference to Justin Martyr and the Martyrdom of Polycarp,” in Tolerance and Intoler-ance in Early Judaism and Christianity (ed. G. N. Stanton and G. G. Stroumsa; Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 1998), 279–95, esp. 280.

43. Lieu, “Jewish Persecution,” 280.44. Ibid., 290. 45. Ernst Bammel, “Jewish Activity against Christians in Palestine According to Acts,” in

The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting, vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (ed.R. Bauckham; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995), 357–64, esp. 361.

46. Samuel Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978),73; H. Dixon Slingerland, “ ‘The Jews in the Pauline Portion of Acts,” JAAR 54 (1986): 305–21,esp. 314–18; Jack T. Sanders, The Jews in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 80–83, 297–99.

47. Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social His-tory of Its First Century (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 342. Slingerland (“The Jews,” 314) be-lieves that “Acts has carefully created the false impression that Paul saw his own people as thefocus of his apostleship.”

48. For a critique of the charge of antisemitism or antijudaism with regard to Luke, seeLloyd Gaston, “Anti-Judaism and the Passion Narrative in Luke and Acts,” in Anti-Judaism inEarly Christianity, vol. 1: Paul and the Gospels (ed. P. Richardson and D. Granskou; StCJ 2; Wa-terloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1986), 127–53; Robert C. Tannehill, “Rejection by Jewsand Turning to Gentiles: The Pattern of Paul’s Mission in Acts,” in Luke–Acts and the Jewish Peo-ple: Eight Critical Perspectives (ed. J. B. Tyson; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 83–101; Craig A.



accusation that Luke’s narration is distorted by anti-Semitic rhetoric, con-cluding that “even the most negative of Luke’s statements regarding theJews may be best explained by a combination of historical fact, rhetoricaleffect, stylistic variation, and awareness of current tensions between thedifferent groups claiming the heritage of second Temple Judaism.”49

In order to clarify the reasons for the Jewish opposition to the Chris-tian missionaries, it will be necessary to review the political status of theJewish diaspora communities in Asia Minor and their contact with Jeru-salem before attempting an explanation for the hostility of the Jewishcommunities.

The Political and Social Status of the

Jewish Communities in Asia Minor

The Legal Status of the Jews

The legal status of the Jews in the Roman Empire can be described in thecontext of a three-tiered system of laws: the common law, which governedthe life of every person living in the empire, Jewry law (a later term),which granted the Jews of a city or of a province certain privileges, and le-gal traditions that were developed from the injunctions of the HebrewBible and from scribal and rabbinic discussions and decisions.50 Paul is agood example:

as a citizen of both Rome and Tarsus he was subject to the Roman lawas well as to the law of his home town; as a Tarsic Jew he shared inJewry-law privileges based on custom and on legal dispositions en-acted by Hellenistic and Roman magistrates; and as an observantJew he recognized the authority of the halachah and endeavored toact according to its precepts within the limits allowed by the othertwo laws.51

The Jews who lived in cities outside of the Holy Land were regarded as adistinct entity. They were allowed, in principle, to live according to their

49. Dunn, Partings, 151; cf. idem, “The Question of Anti-Semitism in the New TestamentWritings of the Period,” in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways a.d. 70 to 135 (ed. J. D. G.Dunn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 177–211, esp. 187–95.

50. Jewry law: Amnon Linder, “The Legal Status of the Jews in the Roman Empire,” inThe Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period (ed. S. T. Katz; Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 128–73, esp. 130. Legal traditions: ibid., 130–33,with reference to Aline Rousselle, “Vivre sous deux droits: La pratique familiale poly-juridiquedes citoyens romains juifs,” Annales 45 (1990): 839–59.

51. Linder, “Legal Status,” 131.

Evans, “Is Luke’s View of the Jewish Rejection of Jesus Anti-Semitic?” in Reimaging the Deathof the Lukan Jesus (ed. D. D. Sylva; BBB 73; Frankfurt: Hain, 1990), 29–56, 173–83; James D. G.Dunn, The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for theCharacter of Christianity (London: SCM / Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991; repr.1996), 150–51; Helmut Merkel, “Israel im lukanischen Werk,” NTS 40 (1994): 371–98.



national “law,” as the “laws” of Solon were recognized as typical of theAthenians.52

Julius Caesar allowed the Jews to live according to their ancestrallaws, according to a letter that he wrote in the second half of June, 47 b.c.,

to the magistrates, the council, and the people of Sidon, a letter that ac-companied an alleged decree that he issued concerning Hyrcanus II, theethnarch of the Jews (Josephus, A.J. 14.190–95).53

Gaius Julius Caesar, Imperator and Pontifex Maximus, Dictator forthe second time, to the magistrates, council and people of Sidon,greeting. If you are in good health, it is well; I also and the army arein good health. I am sending you a copy of the decree, inscribed on atablet, concerning Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, high priest and eth-narch of the Jews, in order that it may be deposited among your pub-lic records. It is my wish that this be set up on a bronze tablet in bothGreek and Latin (bouvlomai de; kaµ eJllhnistµ kaµ rJwma∑stµ ejn devltåcalk¬Å touÅto ajnateqhÅnai). . . . it is my wish that Hyrcanus, son of Al-exander, and his children shall be ethnarchs of the Jews and shall holdthe office of high priest of the Jews for all time in accordance withtheir national customs, and that he and his sons shall be our allies andalso be numbered among our particular friends; and whatever high-priestly prerogatives or privileges exist in accordance with their laws,these he and his children shall possess by my command. And if, dur-ing this period, any question shall arise concerning the Jews’ mannerof life, it is my pleasure that they shall have the decisions (aßn te metaxu;gevnhtaÇ tiÍ zhvthsiÍ perµ thÅÍ ∆IoudaÇwn ajgwghÅÍ, ajrevskei moi krÇsin gÇnes-qai par∆ aujto∂Í). (A.J. 14.190–91, 194–95)

According to Josephus, Caesar’s decree concerning the Jews was con-firmed six times by a senatus consultum in October, 47 b.c. (A.J. 14.196–99,202–10), in February, 44 b.c. (A.J. 14.200–201), on February 9, 44 b.c. (A.J.14.211–12), and on April 11, 44 b.c. (A.J. 14.219–22).54 The decree that Au-gustus sent to the magistrates, the council, and the people of Paros con-cerning the Jews of Delos (A.J. 14.213–16) guaranteed the Jews the right toassemble, to engage in cultic activity in the synagogue, and to collect thetribute for the Jerusalem temple.55 This policy was not devised for the ben-efit of the Jews, however. Caesar granted the right to use their own lawsto the citizens of Pergamon, Mytilene, and Thessalia as well.56 Augustusadopted Julius Caesar’s policies and granted the same religious freedom to

52. Ibid., 140.53. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 31–52 (no. 1). See also Erich S. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews

amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002), 88–89.54. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 55–106, 121–36 (nos. 2–6, 8).55. Ibid., 107–18 (no. 7); Jürgen Malitz, “Mommsen, Caesar und die Juden,” in Geschichte,

Tradition, Reflexion, vol. 2: Griechische und Römische Religion (ed. H. Cancik; Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, 1996), 371–87, esp. 384; he comments that these stipulations “provided the Jews of theDiaspora with a precise definition of their status which was absolutely vital.”

56. Cf. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 417, for documentation.



the Jews of Rome (A.J. 14.214), Delos (A.J. 14.213–16), Alexandria (CPJ 2:153),57 and the province of Asia (A.J. 16.162–66).58 Even though there wasno “Magna Carta” of Jewish rights,59 Caesar’s formal recognition of thetraditional rights of the Jews “allowed the Jews in later times to recall itand to request that it be applied whenever the need was felt.”60

The confirmation of Jewish rights was often made necessary on ac-count of tensions that arose in the cities in which Jews lived. This was thecase in Republican times as well as during the principate.61 During Re-publican times, there is evidence for Greeks trying to prevent the Jewsfrom living according to their traditional laws in Asia Minor, Delos (A.J.14.213–16), Sardis (A.J. 14.235), Laodicea and Tralles (A.J. 14.241–43), Mil-etus (A.J. 14.244–46), and Ephesus (A.J. 14.252–54). During the principate ofAugustus, Jews were prevented from following their traditional laws andcustoms in Asia Minor (A.J. 16.162–68; 171–73) and in Cyrene (A.J. 16.169–70), necessitating the confirmation of the traditional Jewish rights. Duringthe principate of Caligula, the cruel pogrom in Alexandria in a.d. 38 (A.J.18.257–60) prompted both the Greeks and the Jews of the city to send anembassy to the emperor Gaius Caligula.62 The five-member delegation ofthe Jewish community, which was led by Philo, presented their demandsfor the reestablishment and the conformation of their civil rights in thespring and autumn of a.d. 40. Philo writes,

Surely it was a cruel situation that the fate of all the Jews everywhereshould rest precariously on us five envoys (ejn hJm∂n de; pevnte presbeuta∂Ísaleuvein ta; tΩn pantacouÅ pavntwn ∆IoudaÇwn ouj calepovn). For if he shoulddecide in favour of our enemies, what other city will keep tranquil orrefrain from attacking its fellow inhabitants (tÇÍ eJtevra povliÍ hjremhvsei;tÇÍ oujk ejpiqhvsetai to∂Í sunoikouÅsi), what house of prayer will be leftunscathed (tÇÍ ajpaqh;Í kataleifqhvsetai proseuchv), what kind of civicrights will not be upset for those whose lot is cast under the ancient in-stitutions of the Jews? (po∂on politiko;n oujk ajnatraphvsetai dÇkaion to∂Í

57. Victor A. Tcherikover et al., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (Cambridge: Harvard Uni-versity Press, 1957; hereafter, CPJ), no. 153.

58. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 342, 443–44; cf. ibid., no. 7 (Delos, Rome), 22–23 (Asia).59. Tessa Rajak, “Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?” JRS 74 (1984): 107–23; Helga

Botermann, Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius: Römischer Staat und Christiani im 1. Jahrhundert(Hermes Einzelschriften 71; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1996), 107–32. The claim that there wasa “Jewish Magna Carta” was made by Jean Juster, Les Juifs dans l’empire Romain (Paris: Geuth-ner, 1914; repr. 1965), 1:213–17; cf. Alfredo Mordechai Rabello, “The Legal Condition of theJews in the Roman Empire,” ANRW 2:13, 662–762, esp. 692.

60. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 419.61. Ibid., 420 with n. 38.62. For the historical and chronological questions of the Alexandrian embassy to Rome,

see E. Mary Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium: With an Introduction, Translation,and Commentary (2nd ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 14–50; cf. idem, The Jews under Roman Rule: FromPompey to Diocletian (SJLA 20; Leiden: Brill, 1976; repr. 2001), 235–45; on the role of the MosaicLaw in Philo’s position, see Peder Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (NTSup 86;Leiden: Brill, 1997), 176–93.



kosmoumevnoiÍ kata; ta; pavtria tΩn ∆IoudaÇwn) First upset, then ship-wrecked, then sunk to the very bottom will be both their peculiar lawsand the rights which they enjoy in common in every city (ajnatetrav-yetai, nauaghvsei, kata; buqouÅ cwrhvsei kaµ ta; ejxaÇreta novmima kaµ ta;koina; pro;Í eJkavstaÍ tΩn povlewn aujto∂Í dÇkaia). (Legat. 370–71)

The first lines of this quotation indicate that the Jewish delegates from Al-exandria evidently “assume that their compatriots in other centres of theDiaspora are as unpopular with their gentile neighbours as their owncommunity is in Alexandria.”63 In his depiction of the coexistence of Jewsand Greeks in Alexandria and in the Jewish diaspora in general at the timeof the accession of Gaius Caligula in March, a.d. 37, Philo describes boththe ideal situation and the potential areas of conflict:

For who that saw Gaius when after the death of Tiberius he succeededto the sovereignty of the whole earth and sea, gained not by faction(ajstasÇaston) but established by law (eußnomon), with all parts, east,west, south, north, harmoniously adjusted (paÅsi to∂Í mevresin hJrmos-mevnhn e√Í to; suvmfwnon), the Greek in full agreement with the barbar-ian (touÅ me;n barbarikouÅ gevnouÍ tåÅ ÔEllhnikåÅ, touÅ d∆ ÔEllhnikouÅ tåÅ bar-barikåÅ), the civil with the military (kaµ touÅ me;n stratiwtikouÅ tåÅ kata;povleiÍ, touÅ de; politikouÅ tåÅ strateuomevnå), to enjoy and participate inpeace (sumfronhvsantoÍ e√Í metousÇan kaµ ajpovlausin e√rhvnhÍ)—who Isay was not filled with admiration and astonishment at his prodigiousand indescribable prosperity? (Legat. 8)

The Jewish embassy to Caligula seeks to assure the emperor that it is notthe fault of the Jewish community that factional uprisings disturbed theorder and the peace of civic life, arguing that the confirmation of the es-tablished rights of the Jews would guarantee the harmonious coexistenceof Greeks and non-Greeks and of civil service and the military authoritiesand thus the “prodigious and indescribable prosperity” of the cities.64 Af-ter Claudius acceded to the throne on January 24, 41, the delegation led byPhilo presented their case to the new emperor, who then issued an edict inthe spring of a.d. 41 (A.J. 19.280–85)65 in which, after commenting on theantiquity of the Jewish community in Alexandria, on the earlier privilegesand the religious liberty granted by Augustus, and on the “great folly andmadness” of Gaius Caligula, who had humiliated the Jews when they re-fused to address him as a god, he writes:

I desire that none of their rights should be lost to the Jews on accountof the madness of Gaius, but that their former privileges also be pre-served to them, while they abide by their own customs; and I enjoinupon both parties to take the greatest precaution to prevent any dis-

63. Smallwood, Legatio ad Gaium, 342.64. Karl Leo Noethlichs, Das Judentum und der römische Staat: Minderheitenpolitik im anti-

ken Rom (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1996), 75.65. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 295–326 (no. 28).



turbance arising after the posting of my edict (bouvlomai mhde;n dia; th;nGai?ou parafrosuvnhn tΩn dikaÇwn tåÅ ∆IoudaÇwn eßqnei parapeptwkevnai,fulavssesqai d∆ aujto∂Í kaµ ta; provteron dikai∫mata ejmmevnousi to∂Í √dÇoiÍeßqesin, ajmfotevroiÍ te diakeleuvomai to∂Í mevresi pleÇsthn poihvsasqaiprovnoian, o§pwÍ mhdemÇa tarach; gevnhtai meta; to; proteqhÅnaÇ mou to;diavtagma). (A.J. 19.285)

It appears that after this edict was posted, there was a Jewish uprising inAlexandria which led to renewed disorders, prompting Claudius, at therequest of Agrippa I (king of Judea from a.d. 41 to 44) and Herod II (kingof Chalcis from a.d. 41 to 48), to issue an edict addressing the Jews in gen-eral (A.J. 19.287–91).66

Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, of tribunician power,elected consul for the second time, proclaims: Kings Agrippa andHerod, my dearest friends, having petitioned me to permit the sameprivileges (ta; aujta; dÇkaia) to be maintained for the Jews throughoutthe empire under the Romans as those in Alexandria enjoy, I verygladly consented, not merely in order to please those who petitionedme, but also because in my opinion the Jews deserve to obtain theirrequest on account of their loyalty and friendship to the Romans(h§dista sunec∫rhsa ouj movnon touÅto to∂Í a√thsamevnoiÍ me carizovmenoÍ,ajlla; kaµ aujtou;Í uJpe;r w•n pareklhvqhn ajxÇouÍ krÇnaÍ dia; th;n pro;Í ÔRw-maÇouÍ pÇstin kaµ filÇan). In particular, I did so because I hold it rightthat not even Greek cities should be deprived of these privileges, see-ing that they were in fact guaranteed for them in the time of the di-vine Augustus. It is right, therefore, that the Jews throughout thewhole world under our sway (ejn pantµ tåÅ uJf∆ hJmaÅÍ kovsmå) should alsoobserve the customs of their fathers (ta; pavtria eßqh) without let or hin-drance. (A.J. 19.288–90)67

The phrase ta dÇkaia refers to the traditional rights of the Jews, i.e., the“rights related to the exercise of the Jewish pavtrioi novmoi.”68 Claudius goeson to warn the Jews against causing further disturbances and ends theedict with an order of publication:

I enjoin upon them also by these presents to avail themselves of thiskindness in a more reasonable spirit, and not to set at nought the be-liefs about the gods held by other peoples, but to keep their own laws(oªÍ kaµ aujto∂Í hßdh nuÅn paraggevllw mou tauvt¬ t¬Å filanqrwpÇç ejpieikev-steron crhÅsqai kaµ mh; ta;Í tΩn aßllwn ejqnΩn deisidaimonÇaÍ ejxouqenÇzein,tou;Í √dÇouÍ de; novmouÍ fulavssein). It is my will that the ruling bodies ofthe cities and colonies and municipia in Italy and outside Italy, andthe kings and other authorities through their own ambassadors, shall

66. Ibid., 328–42 (no. 29); regarding the historical background and the relationship withthe edict reported by Josephus in A.J. 280–85, cf. ibid., 305–13; also, Gruen, Diaspora, 98–100.

67. For bibliography, text, and commentary, see Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 328–44 (no. 29).

68. Ibid., 331; cf. ibid., 301.



cause this edict of mine to be inscribed, and keep it posted for not lessthan thirty days in a place where it can plainly be read from theground. (A.J. 19.290–91)

In October of a.d. 41, in the same year in which he had already issued twoedicts confirming the rights of the Alexandrian Jews, Claudius sent a letterto Aemilius Rectus, the Roman prefect in Alexandria (P.Lond. VI 1912 =CPJ 2: 153), dealing among other matters with the Jewish question (lines73–104).69

With regard to the responsibility for the disturbances and rioting, orrather, to speak the truth, the war, against the Jews, although yourambassadors, particularly Dionysios the son of Theon, argued vigor-ously and at length in the disputation, I have not wished to make anexact inquiry, but I harbor within me a store of immutable indignationagainst those who renewed the conflict. . . . I conjure the Alexandriansto behave gently and kindly toward the Jews who have inhabited thesame city for many years (praevwÍ kaµ filanqr∫pwÍ prosfevrwntai ∆Iou-daÇoiÍ to∂Í th;n aujth;n povlin ejk pollΩn crovnwn, lines 83–84), and not todishonor any of their customs in their worship of their god, but to al-low them to keep their own ways (o√kouÅsi kaµ mhde;n tΩn pro;Í qrhs-keÇan aujto∂Í nenomismevnwn touÅ qeouÅ lumaÇnwntai ajlla; ejΩsin aujtou;Í to∂Íeßqesin crhÅsqai, lines 84–87), as they did in the time of the god Augus-tus and as I too, having heard both sides, have confirmed. The Jews, onthe other hand, I order not to aim at more than they have previouslyhad and not in the future to send two embassies as if they lived in twocities, a thing which has never been done before, and not to intrudethemselves into the games presided over by the gymnasiarchoi and thekosmetai, since they enjoy what is their own, and in a city which is nottheir own they possess an abundance of all good things. Nor are theyto bring in or invite Jews coming from Syria or Egypt, or I shall beforced to conceive graver suspicions. If they disobey, I shall proceedagainst them in every way as fomenting a common plague for thewhole world (e√ de; mhv, pavnta trovpon aujtou;Í ejpexeleuvsomai kaqavper koi-nhvn tina thÅÍ o√koumevnhÍ novson ejxegeÇrontaÍ; lines 98–100). If you bothgive up your present ways and are willing to live in gentleness andkindness with one another, I for my part will care for the city as muchas I can.

Amnon Linder comments on the edicts and the letter of Claudius whichreestablish and confirm the rights of the Jews: “thus embraced by thegovernment, the principle could legitimize a range of social activities andinstitutions, but in practice it resulted in very few social, non-religious

69. Cf. the English translation in Louis H. Feldman and Reinhold Meyer, Jewish Life andThought among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 91–92 (no.4.19). See the discussion in Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 248–49; Aryeh Kasher, The Jewsin Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (TSAJ 7; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 310–26; Botermann,Judenedikt, 107–14; Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:856–57.



dispositions. Its main effect can be seen in the recognition of Jewish legalautonomy in some leading communities.”70 In Alexandria, the Greeks oc-cupied the summit of the social pyramid, and the native populationformed the base, while, as Linder points out,

the Jews, both as individuals and in their organized community, werein between, on a rather unstable and mutable level. They struggled toclimb and acquire the legal status of the upper ranks, and at the sametime to preserve their autonomous institutions and traditional statusagainst hostile pressure emanating both from the Greeks and the pro-vincial government. Ultimately they failed: Claudius finally deniedthe Jews of Alexandria the citizenship of that city, which he definedin his edict as “a city not their own,” thus effectively excluding themfrom the Greek institutions and the way of life typical of that Greekpoliteuma.71

Regarding the unstable nature, on principle, of the relationship be-tween Jews and non-Jews in diaspora cities, we should note that the letterswritten by Roman magistrates to the magistrates and the council of theGreek cities seem to have been deposited in the archives of the individualcities to which the letters were sent.72 The edicts issued by emperors mayhave been published in the capitol or at the imperial residence in Rome;some edicts were published in the imperial temple of a province, e.g., Au-gustus’s edict sent to the Jews of the province of Asia and “set up in themost conspicuous [part of the temple] assigned to me by the federation(koinon) of Asia in Ancyra” (A.J. 16.165).73

The evidence for the confirmation of Jewish rights to autonomous in-ternal administration is as follows (in chronological order):74

1. Miletus: letter written by the proconsul Publius Servilius Galbabetween 46–44 b.c. (A.J. 14.244–46, no. 18): permission to manage their rev-enues (or first fruits) (A.J. 14.245).

2. Ephesus: letter sent by P. Cornelius P. f. n. Dolabella, the Romanproconsul of the province of Syria, on January 24, 43 b.c. (A.J. 14.225–27, no.9): permission to make offerings for their sacrifices (A.J. 14.227).

3. Paros and the Jews on Delos: letter written by Octavian/Augustus75

in 42/41 b.c. (A.J. 14.214–16, no. 7): permission to collect contributions ofmoney (A.J. 14.215).

70. Linder, “Legal Status,” 140.71. Ibid., 141. Linder refers to the letter that the emperor Claudius sent to the Jews of Al-

exandria in a.d. 41: P.Lond. 1912; Tcherikover et al., CPJ no. 153; cf. Feldman and Meyer, JewishLife, 91–92 no. 4.19. The Greek phrase is ajllotrÇç povlei.

72. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 428; for the following comment, see p. 429.73. On the temple of Rome and Augustus in Ancyra, see Daniel M. Krencker and Martin

Schede, Der Tempel in Ankara (Denkmäler antiker Architektur 3; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1936); Mit-chell, Anatolia, 1:103 and passim.

74. See the summary of Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 376–77; the numbers refer to thetext, translation, and analysis in this book.

75. See the discussion in ibid., 114–15.



4. Ephesus and province of Asia: letter written by Marcus VipsaniusAgrippa probably in the summer of 14 b.c. (A.J. 16.167–68, no. 24): permis-sion regarding the care and custody of the Jewish sacred monies “belong-ing to the account of the temple in Jerusalem” (A.J. 16.167).

5. Province of Asia: edict issued by Augustus in 12 b.c., after March 6(A.J. 16.162–65, no. 22): permission to collect the Jewish sacred monies andsend them to Jerusalem (A.J. 16.163).

6. Cyrene: letter sent by Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa in 14 b.c., in thesummer (A.J. 16.169–70, no. 25): permission to send Jewish sacred moniesto Jerusalem (A.J. 16.169–70; cf. 16.27–28, 45, 60).

7. Province of Asia: mandatum sent by Augustus in 12 b.c. to GaiusNorbanus Flaccus, consul in 24 b.c. and later proconsul in Asia (A.J. 16.166,no. 23): permission to send Jewish sacred monies to Jerusalem.

8. Sardis: letter written by Gaius Norbanus Flaccus in 12 b.c., imple-menting an order of Augustus (A.J. 16.171, no. 26): permission to collectsums of money and send them to Jerusalem.

9. Ephesus: letter written by Iullus Antonius, the son of Mark Antonyand Fulvia, on February 13, 4 b.c. (A.J. 16.172–73, no. 27): permission to col-lect offerings and bring them under escort to Jerusalem (A.J. 16.172).

10. Alexandria: edict issued by Claudius in the spring of a.d. 41 (A.J.19.280–85, no. 28): confirmation of the rights of the Alexandrian Jews tolive by their own customs.

11. The Jews in the Roman Empire: edict issued by Claudius in thesummer of a.d. 41 (A.J. 19.287–91, no. 29): confirmation of the rights of theAlexandrian Jews for all Jews throughout the empire.

12. Alexandria: letter written by Claudius in October a.d. 41 (CPJ 2:153): confirmation of the rights of the Jews granted by Augustus, whilewarning the Jews not to seek to extend their rights.

Political, Social, and Religious Factors

The tension between Jews and Gentiles in Asia Minor was linked with sev-eral political, social, and religious aspects of Jewish life. There were re-peated disputes concerning the rights of local Jews to assemble, to observethe Sabbath, to perform their cult, to hold common meals, to own “sacred”property, and to have a measure of self-government.76 Lucius Antonius,proquaestor and propraetor in the province of Asia, writes to the city of Sardisin 49 b.c. to confirm the right of the Jewish citizens:

Lucius Antonius, son of Marcus, proquaestor and propraetor, to themagistrates, council and people of Sardis, greeting. Jewish citizens ofours have come to me and pointed out that from the earliest timesthey have had an association of their own in accordance with theirnative laws and a place of their own, in which they decide their af-fairs and controversies with one another (∆Iouda∂oi pol∂tai hJmevteroi

76. See the summary of ibid., 430.



proselqovnteÍ moi ejpevdeixan aujtou;Í suvnodon eßcein √dÇan kata; tou;Í pa-trÇouÍ novmouÍ ajp∆ ajrchÅÍ kaµ tovpon ≥dion, ejn å• tav te pravgmata kaµ ta;Í pro;ÍajllhvlouÍ ajntilogÇaÍ krÇnousin); and upon their request that it be per-mitted them to do these things, I decided that they might be main-tained, and permitted them so to do. (A.J. 14.235)77

The city of Sardis issued a decree, sometime after October 47 b.c., formallyrecognizing three specific rights for which the Jews had asked:

Decree of the people of Sardis. The following decree was passed by thecouncil and people on the motion of the magistrates. Whereas theJewish citizens living in our city have continually received many greatprivileges from the people and have now come before the council andthe people and have pleaded that as their laws and freedom have beenrestored to them by the Roman Senate and people, they may, in ac-cordance with their accepted customs, come together and have a com-munal life and adjudicate suits among themselves, and that a place begiven them in which they may gather together with their wives andchildren and offer their ancestral prayers and sacrifices to God, it hastherefore been decreed by the council and people (dedovcqai t¬Å boul¬Åkaµ tåÅ dhvmå) that permission shall be given them to come together onstated days to do those things which are in accordance with their laws(sugkecwrhÅsqai aujto∂Í sunercomevnoiÍ ejn ta∂Í ajpodedeigmevnaiÍ hJmevraiÍpravssein ta; kata; tou;Í aujtΩn novmouÍ), and also that a place shall beset apart by the magistrates for them to build and inhabit, such asthey may consider suitable for this purpose (ajforisqhÅnai d∆ aujto∂Í kaµtovpon uJpo; tΩn strathgΩn e√Í o√kodomÇan kaµ o≥khsin aujtΩn, o¶n a˙n uJpo-lavbwsin pro;Í touÅt∆ ejpithvdeion eπnai), and that the market-officials ofthe city shall be charged with the duty of having suitable food forthem brought in (o§pwÍ te to∂Íj thÅÍ povlewÍ ajgoranovmoiÍ ejpimele;Í ¬® kaµta; ejkeÇnoiÍ pro;Í trofh;n ejpithvdeia poie∂n e√savgesqai). (A.J. 14.259–61)78

A decree by the city of Halicarnassus permits Jewish festivals, feasts andgatherings to take place (A.J. 14.256–58). The peculiar calendar of the Jews,with the weekly observance of the Sabbath and with the observance ofother specifically Jewish festivals, provoked not only protests but legaldisputes, as Jews refused to appear before court or take place in other pub-lic events on their holy days. There is evidence for disputes of this sort inMiletus (A.J. 14.244–46), Laodicea (A.J. 14.241–43), Tralles (A.J. 14.242),Ephesus (A.J. 14.262–64), Halicarnassus (A.J. 14.256–58), and the cities ofIonia (A.J. 16.27, 45).

Josephus’s report of decrees in which he details the intervention ofRoman authorities on behalf of Jewish rights ends at the beginning of thefirst century. The reason for Josephus’s silence concerning the legal rightsof Jews in Asia Minor might be the fact that the pax romana brought social

77. Ibid., 176–81 (no. 14).78. Ibid., 216–25 (no. 20).



peace and economic prosperity to the region, which would have relaxedthe pressure on the Jewish community.79

Another reason seems to have been the influence that local Jewishcommunities enjoyed in the cities of Asia Minor. A major indicator of therespect which the Jewish community enjoyed in some cities is the presenceof Gentile “Godfearers” in local synagogues.80 An inscription from Akmo-nia dating to a.d. 50–70 honors Iulia Severa for donating funds to erect asynagogue.81

Iulia Severa, a Gentile woman, belonged to a leading family of the city ofAkmonia, related to “a Galatian dynasty which could trace its line back tothe tetrarchs and kings of the Hellenistic period.”82 She is depicted on coinsof the city, she was a member of the city council, a priestess of the imperialcult in Akmonia, and agonothete of the games of the city.83 P. Turronius

79. John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323bce–117 ce) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), 279; cf. pp. 279–80 for the following observation.

80. Cf. Acts 13:16, 48–50; 14:1; 16:14; 17:4, 12. On the Godfearers, see Folker Siegert, “Got-tesfürchtige und Sympathisanten,” JSJ 42 (1987): 109–64; Paul Trebilco, Jewish Communities inAsia Minor (SNTSMS 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 146–66; Irina Levin-skaya, The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting, vol. 5: The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting(Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996), 51–126; John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identityin the Hellenistic Diaspora (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 264–70; Bernd Wander, Got-tesfürchtige und Sympathisanten: Studien zum heidnischen Umfeld von Diasporasynagogen (WUNT104; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998); Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:129–33.

to;n kataskeuasqevnta oπkon uJpo; This building was erected by∆IoulÇaÍ SeouhvraÍ P. Turr∫nioÍ Klav- Iulia Severa; P(ublius) Tyrronios Kla-doÍ oJ dia; bÇou a˚rcisunavgwgoÍ kaµ dos, the archisynagogos for life, andLouvkioÍ LoukÇou ajrcisunavgwgoÍ Lucius, son of Lucius, archisynagogos,kaµ PopÇlioÍ Zwtiko;Í aßrcwn ejpes- and Publius Zotikos, archon, restoredkeuvasan eßk te tΩn √dÇwn kaµ tΩn sun- it with their own funds and collected (fromkataqemevnwn, kaµ eßgrayan tou;Í toÇ- the community), and they had the wallscouÍ kaµ th;n ojrofh;n kaµ ejpoÇhsan and the ceiling painted, and they reinforcedth;n tΩn qurÇdwn ajsfavleian kaµ to;n the windows and madelupo;n pavnta kovsmon. ou§stinaÍ ka[µ] all the rest of the ornamentation. AndhJ sunagwgh; ejteÇmhsen o§plå ejpicruv- the synagogue honored them with a gildedså dia; th;n ejnavreton aujtΩn d[i]avq[e-] shield on account of their virtuous disposi-sin kaµ th;n pro;Í th;n sunagwgh;n eußnoiavn tion and their goodwill and zeal for the te kaµ spoudhvn synagogue.

81. MAMA 4:264; CIJ 2:766. I cite the Greek text from Walter Ameling, Inscriptiones Ju-daicae Orientis, vol. 2: Kleinasien (TSAJ 99; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) (= IJudO 2), 348–55(no. 168); the translation is from Trebilco, Jewish Communities, 58–59, adapted with the help ofthe translation in IJudO 3, 349; cf. Feldman and Meyer, Jewish Life, 69–70 (no. 3.23); Lee I. Le-vine, “The Hellenistic-Roman Diaspora ce 70–ce 235: The Archaeology Evidence,” in TheCambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3: The Early Roman Period (ed. W. Horbury et al.; Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1999), 991–1024, esp. 1008.

82. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:9; idem, “The Plancii in Asia Minor,” JRS 64 (1974): 27–39, esp. 38.83. MAMA 4:153, 262–65; Andrew M. Burnett, et al., Roman Provincial Coinage I (London:

British Museum / Bibliothèque Nationale, 1992), nos. 3170–77 (dated to a.d. 55, 62, 65). OnIulia Severa, cf. E. Groag, “Iulia Severa,” in Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissen-schaft (ed. August Friedrich von Pauly and Georg Wissowa; Stuttgart: Metzler, 1894–1963;



Cladus, who is named as archisynagogos, was a member of an emigrant Ital-ian family. Another member of the Turronii, a certain Turronius Rapo, apriest of the imperial cult, appears alongside Iulia Severa on coins issuedby the city.84 Iulia Severa was connected by marriage to another Italian em-igrant family, the Servenii; the son, L. Servenius Cornutus, became a sen-ator in Rome.85 Stephen Mitchell comments that

this is the familiar milieu of aristocratic civic life of early imperial AsiaMinor, with the striking modification that the Jewish synagogue, andsome at least of its leading supporters, were completely assimilatedwithin it. The synagogue had been endowed by Iulia Severa, a gentile,just as any other temple might be; closely related persons associatedwith her held and advertised positions, on the one hand in the syna-gogue, on the other hand in the hierarchy of emperor worship.86

Even though the inscription from Aphrodisias, which dates to the fourthcentury,87 is too late to be directly relevant for our discussion, the fact thatit lists eight members of the city council (bouleutaÇ; B lines 34–38) as bene-factors of the synagogue illustrates the support that some local Jewishcommunities enjoyed in the cities of Asia Minor.88

Financial Factors

The tension between Jews and Gentiles in the diaspora was intricatelylinked with the economic conditions. Jewish communities were repeatedly

84. Cf. Helmut Halfmann, Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum biszum Ende des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (Hypomnemata 58; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1979), 102 (no. 5a).

85. Halfmann, Senatoren, 102 (no. 5); cf. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:9.86. Ibid. For a similar honorific inscription from Kyme or Phokaia in Ionia, see IGR

4:1327 = CIJ 2:738; cf. Ameling, IJudO 2, 162–67 (no. 36); Horsley and Llewelyn, New Docu-ments, 1:111–12.

87. Cf. Joyce Reynolds and Robert Tannenbaum, Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisias: GreekInscriptions with Commentary (Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Association Supple-ment 12; Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1987); Horsley and Llewelyn, New Doc-uments, 9:73–80 (no. 25); Wander, Gottesfürchtige, 121–27, 235–39; Ameling, IJudO 2, 71–112(no. 14).

88. This means that nearly 10% of the 100 council members of Aphrodisias sympathizedwith the Jewish community. Cf. Peter Herz, “Juden in Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft des oberenMaiandros-Tales,” in Ethnische und religiöse Minderheiten in Kleinasien: Von der hellenistischenAntike bis in das byzantinische Mittelalter (ed. P. Herz and J. Kobes; Mainzer Veröffentlichungenzur Byzantinistik 2; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998), 1–23, esp. 20.

hereafter, PW) X/1, 946–48; Tessa Rajak, “Benefactors in the Greco-Jewish Diaspora,” in Ge-schichte, Tradition, Reflexion, vol. 1: Judentum (ed. P. Schäfer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996),305–84, esp. 314; Donald D. Binder, Into the Temple Courts: The Place of Synagogues in the SecondTemple Period (SBLDS 169; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 145–46, 286–88; Lee I.Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,2000), 111–12, 125–26, 399–401; Philip Harland, Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations:Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 140–42; Amel-ing, IJudO 2, 351–53.



challenged as a result of their acquisition and use of funds. The earliestreference to the collection of monies for the Jerusalem temple in the Jew-ish diaspora communities comes from 88 b.c., when Mithridates attackedCos and seized, according to Josephus, 800 talents belonging to the Jewsof the province of Asia (Josephus, A.J. 14.112–13).89 In a famous case dat-ing to 62 b.c., the Jews of Asia Minor took L. Valerius Flaccus, the procon-sul of the province of Asia, to court for prohibiting the transfer of moniesto the temple in Jerusalem, having confiscated 20 pounds of gold fromLaodicea and 100 pounds from Apamea. Cicero defends Flaccus with thefollowing words.

As gold, under pretence of being given to the Jews, was accustomedevery year to be exported out of Italy and all the provinces to Jeru-salem (cum aurum Iudaeorum nomine quotannis ex Italia et ex omnibusnostris provinciis Hierosolymam exportari soleret), Flaccus issued anedict establishing a law that it should not be lawful for gold to be ex-ported out of Asia. And who is there, O judges, who cannot honestlypraise this measure? The senate had often decided, and when I wasconsul it came to a most solemn resolution that gold ought not to beexported. But to resist this barbarous superstition were an act of dig-nity, to despise the multitude of Jews, which at times was most un-ruly in the assemblies in defence of the interests of the republic, wasan act of the greatest wisdom. . . . There was a hundredweight of gold,more or less openly seized at Apamea, and weighed out in the forumat the feet of the praetor, by Sextus Caesius, a Roman knight, a mostexcellent and upright man; twenty pounds weight or a little morewere seized at Laodicea, by Lucius Peducaeus, who is here in court,one of our judges; some was seized also at Adramyttium, by CnaeusDomitius, the lieutenant, and a small quantity at Pergamus. (Cicero,Flacc. 67–68)

Cicero’s narration constitutes evidence that the contributions in gold,which the Jews sent annually to Jerusalem, were collected in the centers ofthe assize districts (conventus, dioikhvseiÍ), into which Roman Asia hadbeen divided and which continued to be a key element of the provincialadministration.90 The inscription I. Didyma 140, dating to a.d. 40, lists 12assize districts: Cyzicus, Adramyttium, Pergamum, Sardis, Ephesus, Mil-etus, Alabanda, Halicarnassus, Laodicea, Apamea, Synnada, and Philome-lium. Apameia is ca. 120 km (75 miles) from Pisidian Antioch, as is

89. Smallwood (Jews under Roman Rule, 125) surmises that the figure of 800 might be anerror for 80, “or large voluntary gifts for the Temple may have been included.”

90. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:33; idem, “The Administration of Roman Asia from 133 bc to ad

250,” in Lokale Autonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1. bis3. Jahrhundert (ed. W. Eck and E. Müller-Luckner; Schriften des Historischen Kollegs 42; Mu-nich: Oldenbourg, 1999), 17–46, esp. 27; for the following comment, see p. 23. On the collectionof the Jewish temple tax in the assize centers of Asia Minor, see also Walter Ameling, “Drei Stu-dien zu den Gerichtsbezirken der Provinz Asia in republikanischer Zeit,” EA 12 (1988): 9–24.



Synnada, and Philomelium, the assize center of the Lycaonian district ofAsia,91 is 30 km (19 miles) east of Antioch.

Around 46 b.c.,92 the proconsul of the province of Asia directed thecity of Miletus not to interfere with the way in which the Jewish commu-nity manages its funds (A.J. 14.245). The city of Parium was instructed byCaesar to allow the local Jews “to contribute money to common meals andsacred rites” (A.J. 14.214). The city of Ephesus was told by P. Dolabella, thegovernor of the province of Asia, to allow the Jewish community “to makeofferings for their sacrifices” (A.J. 14.227). Augustus issued an edict in 12b.c. that includes the provision that the Jews’ “sacred monies shall be in-violable and may be sent up to Jerusalem and delivered to the treasurersin Jerusalem” (A.J. 16.163). The edict reads:

Caesar Augustus, Pontifex Maximus with tribunician power, decreesas follows. Since the Jewish nation has been found well disposed tothe Roman people not only at the present time but also in time past,and especially in the time of my father the emperor Caesar, as hastheir high priest Hyrcanus, it has been decided by me and my councilunder oath, with the consent of the Roman people, that the Jews mayfollow their own customs in accordance with the law of their fathers,just as they followed them in the time of Hyrcanus, high priest of theMost High God, and that their sacred monies shall be inviolable andmay be sent up to Jerusalem and delivered to the treasurers in Jeru-salem (tav te ¥era; eπnai ejn ajsulÇç kaµ ajnapevmpesqai e√Í ÔIerosovluma kaµajpodÇdosqai to∂Í ajpodoceuÅsin ÔIerosoluvmwn), and that they need notgive bond [to appear in court] on the Sabbath or on the day of prepa-ration for it [Sabbath Eve] after the ninth hour. And if anyone is caughtstealing their sacred books or their sacred monies from a synagogue oran ark [of the Law], he shall be regarded as sacrilegious, and his prop-erty shall be confiscated to the public treasury of the Romans. As forthe resolution which was offered by them in my honour concerningthe piety which I show to all men, and on behalf of Gaius MarciusCensorinus,93 I order that it and the present edict be set up in the mostconspicuous [part of the temple] assigned to me by the federation ofAsia in Ancyra. If anyone transgresses any of the above ordinances, heshall suffer severe punishment. (A.J. 16.162–65)94

Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, Roman general, friend and son-in-law of Au-gustus, governor of the eastern provinces in 23–21 b.c. and in 16–13 b.c.,writes in the summer of 14 b.c. a letter to Ephesus:

Agrippa to the magistrates, council and people of Ephesus, greeting.It is my will that the care and custody of the sacred monies belonging

91. Mitchell, “Administration of Roman Asia,” 20.92. For the following survey, cf. Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 268–69.93. C. Marcius Censorinus was consul in 8 b.c. and proconsul of the province of Asia in

a.d. 2–3.94. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 235–56 (no. 22).



to the account of the temple in Jerusalem (tΩn e√Í to; ¥ero;n to; ejn ÔIero-soluvmoiÍ ajnaferomevnwn ¥erΩn crhmavtwn) shall be given to the Jews inAsia in accordance with their ancestral customs. And if any men stealthe sacred monies of the Jews and take refuge in places of asylum, itis my will that they be dragged away from them and turned over tothe Jews under the same law by which temple-robbers are draggedaway from asylum. I have also written to the praetor Silanus that noone shall compel the Jews to give bond [to appear in court] on theSabbath. (A.J. 16.167–68)95

Gaius Norbanus Flaccus, the proconsul of the province of Asia during theprincipate of Augustus between 31 and 27 b.c., received a letter from theemperor informing him of the following decree:

Caesar to Norbanus Flaccus, greeting. The Jews, however numerousthey may be, who have been wont, according to their ancient cus-tom, to bring sacred monies to send up to Jerusalem, may do thiswithout interference (∆Iouda∂oi o§soi pot∆ ou®n e√sÇn, [oi ¶] di∆ ajrcaÇansunhvqeian e√∫qasin crhvmatav te ¥era; fevronteÍ ajnapevmpein ajkwluvtwÍtouÅto poieÇtwsan e√Í ÔIerosovluma. (A.J. 16.166)96

Philo emphasizes, in his report of the same occasion in Legat. 311–16, thatAugustus, when he had discovered that the sacred “firstfruits” were beingneglected,

he instructed the governors of the provinces in Asia to grant the Jewsalone the right of assembly (ejpevsteile to∂Í ejpitrovpoiÍ tΩn kata; th;nÂsÇan ejpikrateiΩn, puqovmenoÍ ojligwre∂sqai ta;Í ¥era;Í ajparcavÍ, ªna ejpi-trevpwsi to∂Í ∆IoudaÇoiÍ movnoiÍ e√Í ta; sunag∫gia sunevrcesqai. (Legat. 311)

Both Julius Caesar and Augustus exempted the synagogues in Italy and inthe eastern provinces from the general ban on collegia, a fact that “safe-guarded the collection of the ajparcaÇ, since the right to form collegia car-ried with it the right to have a common fund.”97 Gaius Norbanus Flaccuswrites to the magistrates of Ephesus in order to remind them of the em-peror’s decision that

the Jews, wherever they may be, regularly according to their old pe-culiar custom, make a rule of meeting together and subscribingmoney which they send to Jerusalem. He does not wish them to behindered from doing this (∆IoudaÇouÍ, ou• a˙n ≈sin, √dÇå ajrcaÇå ejqismåÅnomÇzein sunagomevnouÍ crhvmata fevrein, a¶ pevmpousin e√Í ÔIerosovluma:touvtouÍ oujk hjqevlhse kwluvesqai touÅto poie∂n). (Philo, Legat. 315)

The economic aspect of the tension between Jews and Gentiles comes tothe surface in the complaints of the Jews of Ionia before Marcus Agrippain 14 b.c.:

95. Ibid., 262–72 (no. 24).96. Ibid., 258–61 (no. 23).97. Smallwood, Legatio ad Gaium, 308–9.



It was also at this time, when they [Marcus Agrippa and Herod] werein Ionia, that a great multitude of Jews, who lived in its cities, tookadvantage of their opportunity to speak out freely, and came to themand told them of the mistreatment which they had suffered in not be-ing allowed to observe their own laws and in being forced to appearin court on their holy days because of the inconsiderateness of the ex-amining judges. And they told how they had been deprived of themonies sent as offering to Jerusalem (tΩn e√Í ÔIerosovluma crhmavtwnajnatiqemevnwn ajfairo∂nto) and of being forced to participate in mili-tary service and civic duties (strateiΩn kaµ leitourgiΩn ajnagkazovmenoikoinwne∂n) and to spend their sacred monies for these things, al-though they had been exempted from these duties because the Ro-mans had always permitted them to live in accordance with theirown laws. (A.J. 16.27–28)

Nicolaus of Damascus, who addresses Agrippa on behalf of the IonianJews (A.J. 16.31–57), asserts,

Although we have done splendidly, our circumstances should notarouse envy (ta; d∆ hJmevtera kaµ lamprΩÍ prattovntwn oujk eßstin ejpÇfqona),for it is through you that we, in common with all men, prosper,

and he argues that the enemies of the Jews in the Ionian cities deprivethem of their sacred traditions and customs

by laying hands on the money which we contribute in the name ofGod and by openly stealing it from our temple (crhvmata me;n a¶ tåÅ qeåÅsumfevromen ejp∫numa diafqeÇronteÍ kaµ fanerΩÍ ¥erosulouÅnteÍ), by im-posing taxes upon us, and by taking us to court and other publicplaces of business even on holy days. (A.J. 16.41, 45)

The proconsul Gaius Norbanus Flaccus directed the city of Sardis in 12 b.c.

to permit the Jews to send their sacred monies to Jerusalem, implementingAugustus’s order:

Gaius Norbanus Flaccus, proconsul, to the magistrates and council ofSardis, greeting. Caesar has written to me, ordering that the Jewsshall not be prevented from collecting sums of money, however greatthey may be, in accordance with their ancestral custom, and sendingthem up to Jerusalem (keleuvwn mh; kwluvesqai tou;Í ∆IoudaÇouÍ o§sa a˙n≈sin kata; to; pavtrion aujto∂Í eßqoÍ sunagagovnteÍ crhvmata ajnapevmpein e√ÍÔIerosovluma). I have therefore written to you in order that you mayknow that Caesar and I wish this to be done. (A.J. 16.171)98

Julius Antonius, also proconsul of the province of Asia, wrote on February13, 4 b.c. to Ephesus to confirm the right of the Jews, in agreement with thedecrees of Augustus and Agrippa, to follow their own laws and to sendtheir offerings to Jerusalem:

98. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 280–83 (no. 26).



To the magistrates, the council and the people of Ephesus, greeting.When I was administering justice in Ephesus on the Ides of February,the Jews dwelling in Asia (o¥ ejn t¬Å ÂsÇç katoikouÅnteÍ ∆Iouda∂oi) pointedout to me that Caesar Augustus and Agrippa have permitted them tofollow their own laws and customs, and to bring the offerings, whicheach of them makes of his own free will and out of piety toward theDeity, travelling together under escort [to Jerusalem] without beingimpeded in any way (sugkecwrhkevnai aujto∂Í crhÅsqai to∂Í √dÇoiÍ novmoiÍkaµ eßqesin, ajparcavÍ te, a¶Í e§kastoÍ aujtΩn ejk thÅÍ √dÇaÍ proairevsewÍ eujse-beÇaÍ e§neka thÅÍ pro;Í to; qe∂on ajnakomidhÅÍ sumporeuomevnouÍ poie∂n ajnem-podÇstwÍ). And they asked that I confirm by my own decision the rightsgranted by Augustus and Agrippa, I therefore wish you to know thatin agreement with the will of Augustus and Agrippa I permit them tolive and act in accordance with their ancestral customs without inter-ference (uJmaÅÍ ou®n bouvlomai e√devnai ejn to∂Í touÅ SebastouÅ kaµ ÂgrÇppaboulhvmasin sunepitrevpein aujto∂Í crhÅsqai kaµ poie∂n kata; ta; pavtriacwrµÍ ejmpodismouÅ). (A.J. 16.172–73)99

John Barclay comments that it was evidently extremely irksome to the cit-izens of the Greek cities to witness a large and evidently prosperous Jew-ish community sending large amounts of money to the temple inJerusalem while at the same time refusing to meet the traditional local lit-urgy (leitourgÇa) obligations by which wealthy citizens contributed to thewelfare and honor of the city and its temples.100

Conclusions

The lack of specific evidence for the middle of the first century a.d. formany of the cities in which Luke reports Jewish opposition and hostilitytoward Christian missionaries should not prevent us from attempting toformulate conclusions based on evidence that is slightly earlier.

1. Even though the relationship between Jews and non-Jews in thecities of Asia Minor was generally stable and respectful in the mid-firstcentury, there were no guarantees that this could not change suddenly. Aswe have seen, disturbances that involved local Jewish communities re-peatedly necessitated the confirmation of existing rights by imperial, pro-vincial, or local authorities.101 The unrest in Alexandria in Egypt and in

99. Ibid., 285–90 (no. 27).100. Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 268–69. On liturgies, see Friedrich Oertel, Die Litur-

gie: Studien zur ptolemäischen und kaiserlichen Verwaltung Ägyptens (Leipzig: Teubner, 1917; repr.1965); A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (Oxford: Clarendon, 1940; repr.1998), 167–68, 175–76; Naphtali Lewis, The Compulsory Public Services of Roman Egypt (Papyro-logica Florentina 28; Florence: Gonnelli, 1982; repr. 1997); Maurice Sartre, L’Orient romain: Prov-inces et sociétés provinciales en Méditerranée orientale d’Auguste aux Sévères (31 avant J.-C.–235 aprèsJ.-C.) (L’Univers historique; Paris: Seuil, 1991), 139–47; Horsley and Llewelyn, New Documents,7:93–111.

101. On documents that confirm rights previously granted by the Romans, see Pucci BenZeev, Jewish Rights, 424–27.



Antioch in Syria in the years a.d. 38–41—only about five years before Pauland Barnabas began to engage in missionary work in the cities of RomanAsia—demonstrates the tenuous nature of the status of the local Jewishcommunities, arguably not only for cities in Syria and Egypt but also forcities in other Roman provinces.

2. The religious freedom and the social autonomy of a local Jewishcommunity, granted and (re)confirmed by Roman officials, would bethreatened if the laws and customs that Jews were allowed by the authori-ties to follow and practice were to change. If a local Jewish communityabandoned the traditional definition of being “Israelite” or “Jewish,” forexample, by discarding the distinction between Jews (and proselytes) andnon-Jews, the local magistrates might no longer be willing to grant themembers of this community privileges (e.g., assembling once a week),which the other citizens did not have.

3. Financial matters, in particular the yearly collection of the “conse-crated money” and its transfer to Jerusalem, were a recurrent point of con-tention between Jews and non-Jews.102 If Jews and Jewish sympathizersset up alternative ways to collect and distribute monies, the local magis-trate might easily modify or even revoke the customary permission thatthe diaspora synagogues had been granted with regard to the manage-ment of their revenues.

4. The Jewish communities of the Ionian cities were willing and ableto vigorously defend their rights before the highest representatives of theemperor (A.J. 16.27–28). Even though this was an extraordinary case,which involved huge sums of money, it demonstrates that Jews were notshy about engaging the Roman authorities on the highest level. It is to beexpected that local Jewish communities, eager to at least maintain the po-litical and social status quo, would be willing to move against anyone whothreatened to endanger the existing rights and privileges in their city.

The Contacts of the Jewish Diaspora Communities

with Jerusalem

The Evidence

It is well known that Jews who lived in cities outside the Holy Land visitedJerusalem during pilgrimage festivals and on other occasions.103 Philowrites:

102. Cf. Linder, “Legal Status,” 142.103. Cf. Shmuel Safrai, Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener Verlag, 1981); Levine, Jerusalem, 245–53, 273–74; also David Noy, “Letters Out ofJudaea: Echoes of Israel in Jewish Inscriptions from Europe,” in Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-Roman Period (ed. S. Jones and S. Pearce; JSPSup 31; Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press, 1998), 106–17.



Countless multitudes from countless cities come, some over land,others over sea, from west and east and north and south at every feast(murÇoi ga;r ajpo; murÇwn o§swn povlewn, o¥ me;n dia; ghÅÍ, o¥ de; dia; qalavtthÍ,ejx ajnatolhÅÍ kaµ duvsewÍ kaµ aßrktou kaµ meshmbrÇaÍ kaq∆ eJkavsthn eJor-thvn). They take the Temple for their port as a general haven and saferefuge from the bustle and great turmoil of life, and there they seekto find calm weather. (Philo, Spec. 1:69)

In fact, practically in every city there are banking places for the holymoney (tame∂a tΩn ¥erΩn crhmavtwn) where people regularly come andgive their offerings. And at stated times there are appointed to carrythe sacred tribute envoys (¥eropompoµ tΩn crhmavtwn) selected on theirmerits, from every city those of the highest repute (ejx eJkavsthÍ o¥ do-kim∫tatoi), under whose conduct the hopes of each and all will travelsafely. For it is on these firstfruits, as prescribed by the law, that thehopes of the pious rest. (Philo, Spec. 1:78)

In 1983, Benjamin Isaac published an inscription discovered by Ben-jamin Mazar in excavations south of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem,“found among some debris which filled a pool in a palace of the Herodianperiod which was destroyed in 70 a.d.”104

The stone on which the words are inscribed measures 20 by 26 cm, sug-gesting that it was a plaque inserted in a wall, recording a contribution forfinancing the pavement of the temple complex. B. Isaac suggests that, be-cause the findspot is only 90 m from the southern retaining wall of theTemple Mount, it is “quite possible that the inscription derives from thesuperstructure, perhaps from the Royal Stoa.” He points to Josephus’scomment that the southern court of the temple was “completely pavedwith a variety of all kinds of stones”105 (to; d∆ u§paiqron a§pan pepoÇkilto pan-todapåÅ lÇqå katestrwmevnon; B.J. 5.192). A “20th year” is attested only forHerod; according to the “civil” calendar, Herod’s 20th year was 18/17 b.c.,according to the “ecclesiastical calendar” the year 17/16 b.c.

106 The HighPriest at this time would have been Simon or Boethos.107 Rhodes belonged

KEPARCIEREWS ](eßtouÍ) k’ ejp’ ajrcierevwÍ . . . year 20, under the High Priest PARISAKESWNOS ]PavriÍ ÂkevswnoÍ . . . Paris, son of AkesonENRODWI ]ejn Rovdwi . . . in RhodosROSTRWSIN p]rostrΩsin . . . for the pavementRACMAS d]racmavÍ . . . drachmas

104. Benjamin Isaac, “A Donation for Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem,” IEJ 33 (1983): 86–92,esp. 86; SEG 33 1277; Ameling, IJudO 2, 61–62 (no. 10). Cf. Klaus Bieberstein and HanswulfBloedhorn, Jerusalem: Grundzüge der Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit derosmanischen Herrschaft (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients 100; Wiesbaden:Reichert, 1994), 3:144.

105. Isaac, “Donation,” 89.106. Cf. Ormond Edwards, “Herodian Chronology,” PEQ 114 (1982): 29–42, esp. 38–39;

Ameling, IJudO 2, 61.107. Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Christ (175 b.c.–a.d. 135) (rev.

G. Vermes et al.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–87), 2:229.



to the Roman province of Asia. The son of Akeson was either a Jew or asympathizer, presumably a Godfearer, who made a donation in support ofHerod’s renovation of the temple.108 This inscription is important, as Ben-jamin Isaac points out, “as one of the few extant epigraphical documentsrelated to the Temple in Jerusalem.”109 It is all the more significant that thisinscription documents financial donations made for the building of thetemple complex by Jews or Godfearers from the diaspora, clearly demon-strating an interest in the metropolis of all the Jews in a diaspora commu-nity. The size of the inscription suggests the possibility that there werenumerous further donations that were made public through inscrip-tions.110 This inscription does not prove, but certainly suggests, that otherwealthy individuals from the Jewish diaspora made contributions to thetemple.

This is confirmed by Josephus, who knows that the gold and silvercovering of several gates of the temple had been donated by Alexander,the alabarch (chief of customs) of Alexandria (B.J. 5.205):

Of the gates nine were completely overlaid with gold and silver, aswere also their door-posts and lintels. . . . The nine gates were thusplated by Alexander the father of Tiberius (tΩn de; pulΩn a¥ me;n ejnnevacrusåÅ kaµ ajrguvrå kekalum mevnai pantacovqen h®san oJmoÇwÍ te aª teparastavdeÍ kaµ ta; uJpevr. . . . touÅton de; ta∂Í ejnneva puvlaiÍ ejpevceen oJ Tibe-rÇou path;r ÂlevxandroÍ; Josephus, B.J. 5.201, 205). Alexander, the fatherof Tiberius, was the alabarch Alexander of Alexandria, brother of thephilosopher Philo. (A.J. 18.259)111

The inscription found on an ossuary from Jerusalem provides the infor-mation that the bronze gate called “Nicanor Gate” was donated by an Al-exandrian man named Nicanor:

Nicanor of Alexandria who made the gates. (ojstaÍ tΩn touÅ Neikavno-roÍ ÂlexandrevwÍ poihvsantoÍ ta;Í quvraÍ; askla rnqn; OGIS 599; CIJ 2:1256; Jewish Inscriptions of Greco-Roman Egypt, 153)

Both these texts clearly reveal, as Margaret Williams points out, “the at-tachment of Diasporan Jews to both the Temple and the ‘Holy Land.’”112

Erich Gruen asserts that “Jerusalem as concept and reality remained apowerful emblem of Jewish identity—not supplanted by the Book or dis-avowed by those who dwelled afar.”113 The regular collections of moniesfor the temple in Jerusalem in the Jewish diaspora communities and the

108. Margaret Williams, “The Contribution of Jewish Inscriptions to the Study of Juda-ism,” in Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3: The Early Roman Period (ed. W. Horbury et al.; Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 75–93, 84.

109. Isaac, “Donation,” 92.110. Ameling, IJudO 2, 62.111. Peder Borgen, “Judaism in Egypt,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. D. N. Freed-

man; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 3:1061–72, esp. 1068; Borgen, Philo of Alexandria, 15.112. Williams, “Contribution,” 84.113. Gruen, Diaspora, 240.



transfer of these collections to the Holy Land, which have already beenmentioned, demonstrate the close connection between the Jewish commu-nities in the diaspora and Jerusalem.

Conclusions

When the Jewish diaspora communities vigorously defended their rightsand customs, they defended, among other matters, the measure of au-tonomous internal administration that Julius Caesar and Augustus hadgranted. The freedom to manage their own internal affairs included thepermission to collect contributions of money for the Jerusalem temple. Thestruggle to protect these rights permits at least two conclusions.

1. The fact that the diaspora Jews defended the permission to collectcontributions of this sort and to send them to Jerusalem demonstrates thatthey regarded it as essential to maintain connections with the metropolisof all Jews.

2. Any new developments that would jeopardize the traditional rela-tionship with Jerusalem, expressed in collections of money and in pilgrim-ages, would be viewed with suspicion.

The Jewish Opposition to the Followers of Jesus:

An Explanation

Concerns for Compromising Jewish Identity

The self-understanding of the early Christians and of their missionariesimplied a conflict that was unavoidable. The Christian missionaries taughtthe same God—the God who created the world and who had revealedhimself in Israel—whom the Jewish communities in the cities of Asia Mi-nor worshiped. They also taught, however, that God had sent Jesus, thepromised messiah, and offered through his death and resurrection univer-sal salvation and forgiveness—not only for the Jewish people, but for Gen-tiles as well. The principle “there is no longer Jew or Greek” (Gal 3:28; cf.Rom 3:9, 23, 29) signifies that Paul, and arguably other early Christian mis-sionaries, programmatically disregarded the connection between ethnicand religious identity, a nexus that was essential both for the self-understanding and for the political status of the local Jewish communi-ties.114 Because the Christian missionaries regularly began their preachingand teaching in the local synagogues, as a matter of course, conflict was in-evitable unless the Jewish community accepted their message of Jesus thecrucified and risen messiah who had inaugurated the last days in which

114. Dietrich-Alex Koch, “Die Christen als neue Randgruppe in Makedonien und Achaiaim 1. Jahrhundert n.Chr,” in Antike Randgesellschaften und Randgruppen im östlichen Mittelmeer-raum (ed. H.-P. Müller and F. Siegert; Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 5; Münster: Harras-sowitz, 2000), 158–88, esp. 173, with regard to the events in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1–9); for thefollowing comments, see pp. 173–74.



the nations would be converted, leading to a drastic transformation oftheir community. Because the local Jewish communities of Roman Asia(and Greece) were evidently not willing to accept the message of the fol-lowers of Jesus and thus the need for transformation, the establishment ofnew communities outside of the synagogue community was the result.

The consequences of the self-understanding of these new communi-ties of believers in Jesus Christ should not be underestimated. The emerg-ing Christian communities did not understand themselves as a new Jewishcommunity alongside the existing Jewish community but as a new entity,albeit fundamentally linked with God’s revelation in and through Israel. Itis surely no coincidence that the followers of Jesus called themselves not“synagogue of the christianoi,” analogous to the “synagogue of the Cyre-nians” or the “synagogue of the Alexandrians” (Acts 6:9) but “church ofGod” (ejkklhsÇa touÅ qeouÅ),115 a term that is not attested for a synagoguecommunity.

These consequences amplified the conflict between Jews and JewishChristians in a twofold manner.116 First, as individual members of the Jew-ish community—both Jews and proselytes—accepted the Christian mes-sage and joined the new community of the followers of Jesus Christ, thesynagogue community was weakened once they left.117 How much thesynagogue community was weakened and whether the departure of mem-bers and sympathizers would have been felt to be a threat depends onwhich and how many members joined the followers of Jesus. The perse-cution of Paul and Barnabas and of other Christians by Jews in Asia Minorindicates that the new movement was not regarded as a quantité négligeablebut as an entity that required robust suppressing action. Second, as God-fearers and other sympathizers accepted the Christian message and joinedthe emerging new community, the standing of the Jewish community inthe city, already a minority, was further diminished. When this matrix ofJewish and Jewish-Christian self-understanding is placed in the historicalcontext of the realities of the early Roman Empire in the first century, thefollowing considerations appear to be relevant.

Concerns for the Preservation of the Social and Political Status Quo

The social context of the Jewish communities in Roman Asia is a major fac-tor in understanding the forceful reaction of the leaders of the Jewish com-munities in cities such as Pisidian Antioch. If Paul indeed had letters ofrecommendation from L. Sergius Paullus for his relatives in Pisidian An-tioch, he would have directed his missionary efforts among Gentiles not at

115. 1 Cor 1:2; 10:32; 11:16, 22; 15:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:13; 1 Thess 2:14; 2 Thess 4:1; Acts 20:28.116. Koch, “Randgruppe,” 174.117. Does Paul continue to try to be part of diaspora Jewish communities? The fact that

he received on five occasions the synagogue punishment of being flogged (2 Cor 11:24) seemsto suggest this, although these incidents could have happened with new locations of mission-ary work; see Trebilco, Jewish Communities, 20.



the margins of colonial society but at its very center. The benefaction ofIulia Severa for the Jewish community in Akmonia demonstrates that, asStephen Mitchell argues, “it would not have been unnatural for importantfamilies, perhaps even pre-eminently that of the Sergii Paulli, to havetaken an active interest in Jewish worship.”118 If members of the localelites119 who had been benefactors of the Jewish community, together withlarger numbers of Gentiles, accepted Paul’s teaching and joined the emerg-ing new communities of the followers of Jesus, this could be expected tohave serious repercussions for the Jewish community. They would loseJewish families, proselytes, and pagan sympathizers to the new group, ac-companied by financial losses and damage to the status of the Jewish com-munity in the political landscape of the city.120

When Paul and Barnabas engaged in missionary work in a.d. 46 inAntioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, the Jews of Asia Minor were cer-tainly aware of the anti-Jewish pogrom in Alexandria in a.d. 38, duringwhich synagogues were profaned and destroyed (Philo, Flacc. 11.86–91; Jo-sephus, B.J. 2.385). They were also aware of the unrest in Alexandria in a.d.40/41 (Josephus, A.J. 19.279) and of the unrest in Antioch in Syria betweenJews and Gentiles in a.d. 39/40 and in a.d. 41 (Malalas, 244.15–245.20).Even though these events evidently had no direct repercussions for theJewish communities in Asia Minor, they certainly indicated that the im-perial edicts concerning their privileges did not guarantee their safety. Asthe Christian missionaries focused their teaching on the death of JesusChrist (Acts 13:27–29), their Gentile sympathizers and converts might eas-ily have turned against the local Jews as representatives of those who hadkilled the savior of the world, despite the involvement of the Roman pre-fect in Judea (Acts 13:28). There is no evidence in the first century for thiskind of Christian anti-Judaism, which proved so lethal for Jews in latercenturies. It is conceivable, however, that the local Jews might be afraid ofrepercussions of the missionaries’ focus on the culpability of the Jews ofJerusalem for the death of the Messiah.

When Augustus abolished the collegia, he authorized at the same timethe organizations of the old associations that Julius Caesar had exempted,“provided they received the necessary permit from the Senate. This per-mit was to be granted only to those associations that were not likely todisturb the peace of the state, but would definitely serve the public in-terest.”121 The leaders of the Jewish communities in Roman Asia could

118. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:9.119. On the local elites in Roman Asia, see Eckhard Stephan, Honoratioren, Griechen, Polis-

bürger: Kollektive Identitäten innerhalb der Oberschicht des kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien (Hypomne-mata 143; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002).

120. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:9.121. Suetonius, Augustus 32.1: “And he disbanded all collegia, except such as were of long

standing and formed for legitimate purposes.” K. R. Bradley translates the term collegia as“guild” (Suetonius: Lives of the Caesars [LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913; repr.1998], 201), which is misleading. Quotation from Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 460. On the



not be sure whether the debates provoked by the novel missionary activ-ity of Paul and Barnabas with their message of a crucified savior mightnot lead to disturbances that might jeopardize their legal status. As wehave seen, the fear of disturbances is vividly expressed by Philo on the oc-casion of the embassy of the Alexandrian Jews to Gaius Caligula in a.d.40. From both a Jewish and a Greek-Roman perspective, the public inter-est is certainly not served if citizens listen to orations about claims con-cerning a crucified savior who is proclaimed as the lord of the world.After all, the Roman authorities of Palestine had seen fit to eliminate Jesusof Nazareth with the ultimate punishment of crucifixion, in the context ofpublic disturbances in Jerusalem (Mark 15:11–15). Assuming that theJewish communities in Asia had heard that in Syria, followers of JesusChrist had established themselves since a.d. 32 or 35 as separate commu-nities,122 they may have wanted to prevent the establishment of similarcommunities in their cities in order to avoid the unrest that the activitiesof the Christians had caused.

There might also be a connection with the information that Luke pro-vides in Acts 11:26, to the effect that believers in Jesus Messiah were called“Christians” for the first time in Antioch (crhmatÇsai te pr∫twÍ ejn Ântio-ceÇç tou;Í maqhta;Í CristianouvÍ).123 The term CristianoÇ occurs only hereand in 1 Pet 4:16 in the context of Christians in Asia Minor who face thepossibility of having to give an account of their beliefs before the magis-trates in the cities in which they lived. The term christianoi is best ex-plained as an official designation coined by the Roman authorities in An-tioch for the new religious group of the followers of Jesus whom theybelieved to be the Christ.124 G. Schneider comments that “the designationwas probably applied to the Christians by outsiders . . . when, not least asa result of their missionary activity to the Greeks, they began to separatethemselves from the synagogue congregations and acquire an identity as

122. For the connection between Syrian Antioch and Jewish communities in Asia Minor,note, e.g., the inscription from Apollonia in Phrygia that mentions a certain Debbora from“Antioch,” who was “born of renowned parents” and who had married a certain Eumelos fromSillyum in Pamphylia (MAMA 4:202; Ameling, IJudO 2, 384–86, no. 180; Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:8–9 n. 60). Mitchell and Ameling accept the identification of Debbora as a Jewish woman, whichhad been suggested by W. M. Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul (New York: Armstrong, 1908), 255;and Juster, Les Juifs, 192 n. 7. Ameling argues for the identification of Antioch with Syrian An-tioch and for a date of the inscription in the 1st and 2nd centuries a.d. Barbara Levick (RomanColonies in Southern Asia Minor [Oxford: Clarendon, 1967], 128) and Schürer (History, 3:32) ar-gue for Antioch on the Maeander. Ameling highlights “the close connection which had alwaysexisted between Pamphylia and the Syrian Tetrapolis” (IJudO 2,385).

123. Cf. Justin Taylor, “Why Were the Disciples First Called ‘Christians’ at Antioch? (Acts11,26),” RB 101 (1994): 75–94; Botermann, Judenedikt, 141–88.

124. Erik Peterson, Frühkirche, Judentum und Gnosis: Studien und Untersuchungen (Rome:Herder, 1959), 269–77; Marta Sordi, The Christians and the Roman Empire (Norman: Universityof Oklahoma Press, 1986), 15.

diaspora synagogues as associations, see Peter Richardson, Building Jewish in the Roman East(Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004), 207–21.



a separate group.”125 Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer suggestthat “perhaps the new church had to register in the provincial capital withthe magistrates of the city or of the Province of Syria as a Jewish ‘specialsynagogue’ or ‘religious association,’ i.e. as collegium, sunagwghv or eßra-noÍ.”126 Rainer Riesner surmises with reference to the unrest between theJews and the Greeks in Antioch in a.d. 39/40 that “in connection with thisnewly emerging anti-Semitism, especially the Gentile Christians in Anti-och probably saw the value in not being viewed as a Jewish group, a cir-cumstance which then might have led to their special designation as Cris-tianoÇ.”127 If the Jewish leaders of the synagogue community in PisidianAntioch were aware of these developments in the capital of the Provinceof Syria, they might have made the decision, once they rejected the teach-ing of the Jewish Christian missionaries as misguided, to prevent similardevelopments in their city.

Developments that transpired at roughly the same time in Rome mightbe relevant for the forceful reaction of the Jews in Roman Asia as well. Ac-cording to Cassius Dio, the emperor Claudius issued an edict, to be datedin the year a.d. 41, in which he commanded the Jews to adhere to their an-cestral way of life and not to conduct meetings: “he did not drive them out,but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life (tåÅ de; dhvpatrÇå bÇå crwmevnouÍ ejkevleuse), not to hold meetings (mh; sunaqroÇzesqai)”(Cassius Dio 60.6.6).128 This measure, which denied the Jews in the city ofRome the right of assembly,129 suggests disturbances among the RomanJews provoked by the missionary activity of Jewish Christians.130 HelgaBotermann surmises that leading representatives of the synagogues mighthave complained at the imperial court about the Jewish Christian mission-aries, hoping to get rid of them as the result of official charges before theRoman authorities, or that king Herod Agrippa I, a friend of Claudius, orone of his advisers, might have played a role: “Any member of the Jewishupper class who knew both the Jews and the Romans and who was inter-ested in the maintenance of a good relationship with the emperor, couldeasily foresee serious political conflicts if the supporters of Jesus who had

125. Gerhard Schneider, “CristianovÍ,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. H.Balz and G. Schneider; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 3:478.

126. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien:Die unbekannten Jahre des Apostels (WUNT 108; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998; repr. 2000), 348;cf. idem Paul between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years (London: SCM / Louisville:Westminster John Knox, 1997), 226.

127. Rainer Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 114.

128. Feldman and Meyer, Jewish Life, 332 (no. 10.32).129. The edict of a.d. 41 (Cassius Dio 60.6.6) is to be distinguished from the edict of a.d.

49 (Suetonius, Claud. 25.4).130. Cf. Botermann, Judenedikt, 103–40; Hengel and Schwemer, Paulus, 389–91; Pucci Ben

Zeev, Jewish Rights, 448–49; Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 167–79; David Alvarez Cineira, Die Re-ligionspolitik des Kaisers Claudius und die Paulinische Mission (Herders biblische Studien 19; Frei-burg: Herder, 1999), 260–90.



been executed ten years earlier as ‘king of the Jews’ assembled and spokeof him as Messiah.”131 If the Jews in Roman Asia had knowledge of thisedict of a.d. 41 and its background, which is again a plausible possibility,they might have been easily emboldened to recruit the help of the local au-thorities, e.g., in Pisidian Antioch, and to move against the Jewish Christianmissionaries. The right to live according to Jewish laws that the emperorhad granted was not necessarily permanent. In the event that a specificpoint of the Jewish law or the provocative behavior of Jews (or of groupsperceived to be Jewish) “would for any reason be felt as contrary to the Ro-man law or interests, in Rome or wherever else in the provinces, the rightto use them, which they had had in Caesar’s times, could be immediatelyrevoked for a certain period of time or forever.”132

Another factor that affected the concerns for the preservation of the so-cial and political status quo of the local Jewish community might have beenfinancial. Neither Luke in the book of Acts nor Paul in his letters writteneither to churches in Asia Minor (Galatians) or from churches in Asia Minor(1 Corinthians) provides statistical evidence for the number of JewishChristians in the churches. Because most if not all churches began with theconversion of Jews, proselytes, and Godfearers, it would have been naturalfor the leadership of the local synagogue to fear the loss of financial con-tributions. Paul’s later collection for the Christians in Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1–4, 2 Cor 8–9, Rom 15:25–28; cf. Acts 20:16, 24:17) does not explain the Jewishopposition to his missionary work in southern Galatia. Is it possible thatJews in Roman Asia would think that a rival “Jewish” group might—even-tually—upset their right to send the temple tax to Jerusalem?133

Concerns for the Relationship with Jerusalem

Another facet of the explanation for the intense opposition of Jews to Jew-ish Christians may be found in the fear of a deteriorating relationship withJerusalem. When Paul engaged in missionary work in southern Galatia ina.d. 46, several events had taken place in Jerusalem that can hardly haveescaped the attention of the Jewish communities in Asia Minor. Jesus’ min-istry, which had attracted thousands of sympathizers in Galilee and be-yond (Matt 4:25, 14:21, 15:38; Mark 6:44, 8:9; Luke 12:1) must have been

131. Botermann, Judenedikt, 132.132. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 448, which goes on to argue that “the Jews who lived

in Josephus’ time, too, must have known this well. This explains the vein of anxiety we findin Josephus’ remarks when he explains to his public the reasons why he decided to quote theRoman and the Greek documents concerning the Jewish rights” (p. 449).

133. I thank Paul Trebilco for this suggestion (private communication). On the church inEphesus and Paul’s collection, see idem, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius(WUNT 166; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 63–64. On the collection, see more recentlyBurkhard Beckheuer, Paulus und Jerusalem: Kollekte und Mission im theologischen Denkern desHeidenapostels (EHS 23/611; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1997); Stephan Joubert, Paul as Benefactor:Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection (WUNT 2/124; Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, 2000).



common knowledge, as was his execution in a.d. 30 by Pontius Pilatus, theRoman prefect of Judea, initiated by the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem. Ina.d. 31/32, Stephen, a leading member of the followers of Jesus in Jerusa-lem, had been killed. In a.d. 41, Herod Agrippa I had organized a perse-cution against the leadership of the followers of Jesus, executing James, sonof Zebedee, and planning the execution of Simon Peter (Acts 12:1–4). Onlytwo years before Paul’s mission in southern Galatia, Herod Agrippa I134

had suddenly died in a.d. 44, and control had returned again to a Romangovernor, a development that evidently reawakened the earlier conflicts.135

The first Roman procurator, Cuspius Fadus (a.d. 44–46), tried to bring thepriestly vestments under Roman control, and he was forced to crush themovement of the self-proclaimed prophet Theudas (Josephus, B.J. 20.97–99;cf. Acts 5:36), who evidently “hoped to reunite the divided religious fac-tions of Judaism and to overthrow the Roman occupation in Palestine.”136

When Jewish communities in Roman Asia moved decisively andforcefully against Christian missionaries in a.d. 46, they could easily jus-tify their actions by appealing to the actions of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalemin a.d. 30 and of king Herod Agrippa I in a.d. 41. If the Jewish authoritiesin Jerusalem had regarded it as necessary to terminate the activities ofJesus of Nazareth and his followers with targeted force in Roman Judea,the Jewish communities in Roman Asia were arguably justified in seekingto nip the emerging Christian presence in the bud, forcing the JewishChristian missionaries to leave their cities.

We should not forget that only 20 years after the establishment of thechurches in Roman Asia, the Jewish revolt in Palestine in a.d. 66–70 hadrepercussions for the Jewish communities in the diaspora. Their positionvis-à-vis their Greek neighbors became more precarious. In Antioch, theGreek citizens asked Titus to expel the Jews from the city (Josephus, B.J.7.100–103).137 When Vespasian ordered in a.d. 71/72 that all Jews through-out the Roman Empire—men and women between the ages of 3 and 70—

134. Cf. Daniël R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (TSAJ 23; Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, 1990).

135. Emilio Gabba, “The Social, Economic and Political History of Palestine 63 bce–ce 70,”in Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3: The Early Roman Period (ed. W. Horbury et al.; Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1999), 94–167, esp. 142–43.

136. Clayton N. Jefford, “Theudas,” ABD 6:527–28; cf. David E. Aune, Prophecy in EarlyChristianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 126–62;Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus(New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 114–16. On the question of chronology, see Hemer,Acts, 162–63, 224–25; Witherington, Acts, 238–39.

137. Allen Kerkeslager, “The Diaspora from 66 to c. 235 ce I: The Jews in Egypt andCyrenaica, 66–c. 235 ce,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4: The Late Roman-RabbinicPeriod (ed. S. T. Katz; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 53–68; see p. 56 for com-ments with regard to Egypt that after a.d. 70 “the status of Jews as defeated enemies of Romeoffered a new pretext for local efforts” to deprive Jews of civic posts by legal or more violentmeans; cf. Josephus, A.J. 12.119–28; B.J. 2.487–98; 7.100–111, 361–68, 407–21, 433–53.



contribute to the fiscus Judaicus (B.J. 7.218; Cassius Dio 66.7),138 the tradi-tional right of diaspora Jews to send offerings to Jerusalem was revoked.139

This tax, valued originally at two denarii (didrachmon) and increased al-most immediately by the addition of the “firstfruits” (aparchai), which wasconsolidated toward the end of the first century into the Ioudaikon telesma,initially forced the Jews of the Empire to contribute to the rebuilding of thetemple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome. This tax “was designed to proclaimin a particularly oppressive manner their national and religious subservi-ence to Rome and the Roman state cult,” and “it made clear that Romeheld the entire Jewish people responsible for the war waged and lost inJudaea.”140 These later developments, though not immediately relevant tothe 40s, demonstrate that events in Palestine could have major repercus-sions for the Jewish diaspora communities.

Because Jesus was accused, convicted, and executed as a blasphemerand a deceiver of the people, and he claimed to possess comprehensive au-thority independent of the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem,141 the leader-ship of the Jewish community in Pisidian Antioch and in other cities ofRoman Asia would have thought that inactivity in this matter could fur-ther undermine the status of the Jews in Palestine who had just lost theJewish monarchy, coming once again under direct Roman administration.Responsible Jewish leaders in the local synagogues would certainly havebeen warranted to conclude that members of the synagogue communityshould be strongly discouraged to accept faith in Jesus as savior and lord,that the Jewish preachers who proclaim Jesus as Messiah and who admitGentiles into God’s covenant with Israel without requiring them to submitto circumcision and to other cultic stipulations must be expelled, and thatthe establishment of new communities in which Jews and Gentiles meetand worship together must be prevented.

The Charge of zhÅloÍ in Acts 13:45

Once we take the historical, political, and social situation of Jewish di-aspora communities into account, it becomes evident that the zhÅloÍ of theleaders of the Jewish community in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:45) cannot bereduced to a single factor. The same is surely true of the Jews in Iconium,

138. Cf. Feldman and Meyer, Jewish Life, 289–90, with reference to CPJ 2:160, 192, 207, 321,421; Suetonius, Dom. 12.2; b. B. Bat. 9a.

139. Kerkeslager, “Diaspora,” 55.140. Linder, “Legal Status,” 137; Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil,

116/117 ce: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Cultureand Religion 6; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 124.

141. Cf. August Strobel, Die Stunde der Wahrheit: Untersuchungen zum Strafverfahren gegenJesus (WUNT 21; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980); Otto Betz, “Probleme des Prozesses Jesu,”ANRW 2:25.1, 565–647; Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Exam-ination of Jesus (WUNT 2/106; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998). On the question of the Jewishresponsibility for Jesus’ death, see also Jon A. Weatherly, Jewish Responsibility for the Death ofJesus in Luke–Acts (JSNTSup 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994).



Lystra, Ephesus, Smyrna and Philadelphia, cities in which the New Testa-ment provides evidence for opposition of Jews to Jewish Christians.

The reason for the opposition of the Jews of Roman Asia to the JewishChristian missionaries and to their teaching is not jealousy regarding thegreater missionary success of Paul and his colleagues. This is true in viewof the fact that there was no organized missionary outreach of Jews to pa-gans during the Second Temple period.142 The term zhÅloÍ in Acts 13:45should thus not be translated “jealousy” or “envy,” but “zeal.”

Even though theological convictions clearly played a significant role(see Acts 21:27–28), the reason for the Jewish opposition cannot be ex-plained only with reference to their zeal for the law and for the purity ofthe Jewish community, which is threatened if a large number of pagansjoin the community without being asked to submit to circumcision andother Jewish laws and customs such as the food laws. As the history of Sec-ond Temple and later rabbinic Judaism demonstrates, Jewish leaders ac-cepted debate and controversy: the Jewish commonwealth was not a mono-lithic society in which everybody shared the same theological, cultural, orpolitical convictions. However, belief in and commitment to a crucifiedMessiah who had been opposed by the Jewish leadership was regarded asunacceptable by most Jews.

The motivations that prompt people to take drastic action are usuallycomplex. It is unwise to reduce the concerns of the Jews of Roman Asia whopersecuted Paul and Barnabas and other Christians to a single motive. Theycertainly opposed the Christian missionaries because they disagreed withtheir teaching. However, there are reasons to believe that the significance ofmaintaining their religious and ethnic identity also played an importantrole in their forceful and sometimes violent reaction. The Jews of Asia Mi-nor were surely concerned to preserve the social and political rights andprivileges that they had enjoyed since Julius Caesar and that had come un-der pressure in different places at different times—rights and privilegesthat might be jeopardized if the movement of the followers of Jesus was ig-nored. Also, the Jews of Asia Minor might have been motivated by con-cerns regarding the financial strength of their community, and they wereprobably also concerned to avoid actions or tolerate developments thatcontravened decisions made by the leadership of the Jewish common-wealth in Judea.

142. Cf. the discussion in my Early Christian Mission, 1:92–172.
