A more detailed investigation of individual cities and villages confirms the image of a predominantly Jewish Galilee. In this chapter, I will investigate the populations of specific Galilean communities from the Late Hellenistic period through the beginning of the second century CE to determine what evidence exists in each for Jews and non-Jews. My survey will include communities that are generally acknowledged to be significant in the Early Roman period, such as Sepphoris and Tiberias; settlements mentioned in the New Testament and in the writings of Josephus; and other sites that are well known or that have yielded significant archaeological data from the Hasmonean and Early Roman periods (see Map 1). For the most part, this chapter will consider sites in Galilee's interior. Some sites that are arguably within geographical Galilee (such as Scythopolis on the southeastern border and the remote Upper Galilean sites of Kedesh and Tel Anafa) were clearly outside of political Galilee in the New Testament period; they will be considered in the next chapter. The exceptions to this are Bethsaida and Beth Yeraḥ, included here because of their proximity to other lake-side sites.

The nature of our evidence

The literary sources

Josephus is by far the most helpful literary source for this issue. While one must read his writings with a skeptical awareness of his penchant for exaggeration, such caution is most warranted when he is discussing his own actions and motivations or those of his opponents and rivals.

Introduction

Despite Luke's explicit reference to Stephen being ‘brought before the council’ (ἤγαγον εἰς τò συνέδριον) and to the activity of (false) μάρτυρες (6.12–14; 7.58), language which is clearly suggestive of a trial setting, the question has been raised whether Stephen's death, according to Acts, may not be better understood as the outcome of a lynching, rather than of a trial. Among the arguments which appear to support this interpretation are the absence of any formal verdict, the emphasis on the anger of Stephen's opponents as immediate precedent to his execution (7.54), the unlikelihood that the Sanhedrin had at the time the authority of capital punishment, and the fact that the Romans are not mentioned as taking any notice of the incident. Yet the overall picture seems to make best sense when understood as a legal trial, which due to the offensive words of the defendant and the escalating anger of his opponents soon succumbed to a more disorderly outburst of violence. With these qualifications, the story can be regarded as belonging to the Lukan trial narratives. As far as the scope of this ‘trial’ story is concerned, 6.12 and 7.57 seem to be the two limits; yet an adequate understanding of this section inevitably requires some consideration of the slightly larger literary unit, extending at least from the origins of the conflict in 6.9 to Stephen's death in 7.60.

I cannot hope here to do justice to all those who have made possible the completion of this book, but special mention must be made of the following: I am honoured to express my special gratitude to Professor Max Turner, for his sharp yet constructive advice, and for the model of scholarly competence combined with Christian commitment which I saw in him as supervisor of my PhD dissertation on which the book is based. (The dissertation was supervised at London Bible College and submitted to Brunel University in the spring of 1998.) Thanks are also due to my second supervisor, Dr Conrad Gempf, for his willingness to offer critical evaluation on certain areas of my research and to my friend James McGrath, who undertook the tedious task of proofreading the thesis.

Throughout the period of my research, the Romanian Missionary Society fully covered my tuition fees and several other costs – special thanks are due to Les and Dottie Tidball and Alan and Ann Penrose. Most of my living expenses were covered by the Emmanuel Church, Northwood; I shall never know all those who contributed, but Ann Bailey and Keith and Joan Alsop must be singled out for their constant help and affection. Generous gifts also came from the Keswick Convention, the Jerusalem Trust, and the Castle Street Church, Tredegar. To all these, I can only say a heartfelt ‘Thank you.’

Introduction

Having surveyed in the last chapter the major scholarly representations of Luke's apologetic motives and having outlined their merits and limitations in relation to the interpretation of Luke's trial narratives in general, we may now turn to the individual Lukan trial passages. The first narrative for consideration is Luke's account of Jesus' trial (Luke 22.66–23.25). As the next chapter will reveal, Luke's version of this event exhibits a considerable degree of independence from the Synoptic tradition. Which motives best explain the distinctiveness of Luke's story? Before embarking on the present analysis of the material, it seems appropriate to begin again by summarising some of the major contributions to the study of Jesus' trial in the Third Gospel and thus to set the stage for part one of the investigation (chapters 2–4). With this survey completed, we shall appear to be in a position to turn to the actual trial account. A look at the text soon reveals, however, that something important is still missing. We shall find ourselves at a significant loss in the appreciation of the event through joining the unfolding of a story almost at its end. To this problem there is but one remedy: an acquaintance with the foregoing part of the story, with a specific regard for those aspects of it which would seem to facilitate preparation for the encounter with the episode under consideration. This is precisely the purpose of the present chapter. But how should one go about such a ‘preparation’?

Introduction

With Luke's account of Paul's trials, one reaches the apex of Lukan apologetics. A telling indication of this is Luke's use of the ἀπoλoγία word group: out of a total of ten occurrences (Luke 12.11; 21.14; Ac. 19.33; 22.1; 24.10; 25.8, 16; 26.1, 2, 24), the first two are found on Jesus' lips as he predicts the disciples' trials, the third refers to Alexander's would-be defence in Ephesus, in an incident in which the main ‘offender’ is Paul, and all the remaining seven are directly associated with Paul's defence speeches in the context of his trials. Lukan scholarship, we shall shortly see, also bears witness to the importance of Paul's trials for Luke's apologetics – with a few exceptions, most studies on this part of Acts recognise here the existence of some form of apologetic agenda.

It is important first to pay some attention to the main interpretations of the intended function of these trial accounts. I shall note first a few works which have either denied or simply bypassed the existence of any apologetic tendencies in this part of Luke's work. Next, due to their large number and diversity, I shall group the apologetic readings of Paul's trials into several major categories and try to assess both their positive contributions and their limitations. Finally, this survey of previous research will provide the basis for my own investigation of the apologetic orientation of the narrative.

Introduction

If, as noted at the beginning of the last chapter, the function of Jesus' trial in Luke's Gospel cannot be satisfactorily explained by any of the available interpretations – that is, as a political apologia for Christianity or Rome or as a ‘trial’ of Israel or of God – does this imply that the textual traits and emphases on which the proponents of these interpretations have built their cases are simply illusory? Or should the overall function of the trial narrative be understood as a combination of several of these emphases, perhaps in slightly modified forms? If a combination of motives is the solution, should one view them as independent of each other, or are they part of a unified goal which is yet to be established? It is the contention of the present chapter that such a unified purpose provides the most satisfactory solution and that, in continuity with the observations regarding the Lukan plot and the trial predictions, the nature of Luke's purpose can be best described in terms of a Christological apologetic. The route which will be taken in order to substantiate this suggestion is the analysis of Luke's emphases in each of the four episodes of which Jesus' trial in the Third Gospel is composed.

The hearing before the Sanhedrin (22.66–71)

According to Mark's Gospel, Jesus' hearing before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14.53–64) takes place by night, at the high priest's house, with the episodes of Jesus' mistreatment and Peter's denial immediately following (Mark 14.65 and 14.66–72 respectively).

Trials and apologetics in Luke–Acts: setting the scene

Luke's special interest in forensic trials has often been recognised in Lukan scholarship. The textual evidence for such a concern on Luke's part abounds. While in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark Jesus predicts the disciples' trials only once (Matt. 10.17–20; Mark 13.9–11), in the Third Gospel he does so twice (12.11–12; 21.12–15). Similarly, whereas for the other two Synoptics Jesus' trial includes only two episodes (one before the Sanhedrin and one before Pilate), in Luke's Gospel four trial scenes are recorded: one before the Sanhedrin (22.66–71), a preliminary hearing before Pilate (23.1–5), a peculiarly Lukan episode before Herod (23.6–12), and a second session before Pilate (23.13–25). As one turns to Acts, the evidence is even more ample. After a brief presentation of the origins and lifestyle of the early Christian community in Jerusalem, the reader encounters two extensive trial scenes involving Peter (4.1–31; 5.17–42). These are soon followed by an even lengthier account of the trial and martyrdom of Stephen (6.9–7.60). Finally, Paul's whole missionary activity is scattered with conflicts and challenges which are often cast in a trial form, culminating, undoubtedly, with Paul's judicial history between his arrest in Jerusalem (21.27) and his two-year stay in Rome (28.30–1). It is not without justification, then, that Neyrey can write: ‘Forensic trials in Acts have an incredible scope: (a) all of the major figures of Acts (Peter, Stephen, and Paul) are tried, (b) in all of the significant places where the Gospel was preached (Judea, Jerusalem, Achaia, and Rome); (c) the trials take place before Jewish courts as well as Roman tribunals.’

Introduction

Although the trials of Jesus and Paul have long constituted important foci in the study of Luke–Acts in general and of Lukan apologetics in particular, very little attention has been paid to Luke's account of the trials of Peter and Stephen. This is not to say, of course, that Acts 4–7 has not been subject to scholarly investigation in any sense, but rather that the concerns which have guided the study of these chapters have almost completely bypassed the specific question of the role of Peter's and Stephen's trials in the narrative of Luke–Acts.

The paucity of studies in this area is all the more notable when account is taken of the fact that (i) after Jesus and possibly Paul, Peter is the most dominant human character of Luke–Acts; (ii) two chapters (4–5) at the beginning of Luke's second volume are dominated by the trials of Peter; (iii) Luke's incorporation in these chapters of two trial stories which have so much in common can only be explained by a special Lukan interest in the common elements of these incidents; (iv) in the case of Stephen, virtually all his narrative life – occupying most of yet another two chapters of Acts – is taken up with aspects of his trial (proceedings, speech, and outcome).

For the concerns of the present study, probably the single most significant implication of the insufficient attention previously paid to the trials of Peter and Stephen is the underestimation of the undermining force of these chapters for the existing explanations of the apologetic tendencies which Luke's trial narratives are said to exhibit.

Introduction

While, as indicated in chapter 2, it is customary for studies of the trial of Jesus in the Third Gospel to pay some attention to the narrative precedents of this event, virtually no attempt has yet been made to investigate the way in which subsequent elements of Luke's narrative may also (retrospectively) throw light on Luke's account of Jesus' trial. The paucity of such studies may appear understandable in view of the consideration that what determines the nature of a trial is what has been happening up to that point, rather than subsequent events. Nevertheless, a number of factors (which will be further substantiated in the course of the chapter) make the investigation of the present chapter necessary:

1. Luke's passion predictions (esp. 9.21; 18.31–3), as well as parallel passages in the resurrection narrative (24.7, 46) and in Acts (e.g. 2.22–4), seem to indicate that Luke thinks of Jesus' trial as of one piece with his death, resurrection and glorification. Consequently, the emphases of the trial narrative might be expected to exhibit certain common elements with the latter accounts, and, accordingly, one's findings in the latter may have a confirmatory (or corrective) role for those in the former.

2. […]

In the introductory chapter, the need was established for a thorough examination of the function of Luke's trial narratives. It was noted that apologetics has been the only context within which the question of authorial intent had been raised in relation to the trial material of Luke–Acts as a whole. Notwithstanding the success which some of the available apologetic interpretations of Luke's trial narratives have had in highlighting and explaining some textual traits and emphases, the conclusion was reached that these interpretations have not been able satisfactorily to explain Luke's trial material in its entirety and complexity. On the other hand, a growing trend in Lukan scholarship seemed to suggest a more promising direction for the interpretation of Luke's apologetics, along the lines of what I have named for convenience an apologia pro evangelio: a deliberate attempt on the author's part to assure his readers about the reliability and relevance of the Christian message. Accordingly, the rest of the study has been concerned with exploring the viability of such an apologetic reading of Luke's trial material. The details of Luke's individual trial narratives have been discussed in the course of the foregoing chapters and the results have been summarised at the end of each chapter. It remains now first to draw together the threads of the investigation and so to attempt a description of the overall picture of Luke's trial material. Second, I shall indicate certain implications of the findings for other areas of Lukan study.