Jonathan, Stephen and the First Marker in Pauline Chronology
I write to suggest a new way to view Pauline Chronology.
The easiest way to establish the historicity of Acts of the Apostles is to demonstrate that all of the data contained therein can be utilized to create an accurate chronology of the first generation of the followers of Jesus. In Acts 4:5-6, we read:
On the morrow their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in
Luke does not mean to say that Annas was the reigning High Priest; rather Annas is named as the High Priest by Luke because 1) he is considered by Jewish society to still be the High Priest, as High Priest for life; 2) because he is the power behind the throne; 3) as a mark of respect due the former High Priest; and 4) as part of the irenical presentation that Luke is making to Theophilus the High Priest, son of Annas. This is not to say that Annas was the reigning High Priest when Jesus appeared before him or when Stephen was stoned. This is consistent with Luke’s usage in Lk. 3:2 and also consistent with Josephus’ usage in identifying a former High Priest as High Priest.
This John in Acts 4:5-6 should be correctly identified as Jonathan. In fact, the Western text[i] has the name correctly as Jonathan, which would be consistent with Josephus[ii] who identifies Jonathan as the high priest who follows Caiaphas. One commentator notes “This sort of inconsequential detail, the mentioning of names that do not really play a role in the narrative, is characteristic of Luke and suggest his use of sources.”[iii] On the contrary, “this sort of inconsequential detail” is a hint of the greater involvement of Jonathan in a subsequent event consistent with Luke’s step-progression method. Krodel claims “Luke never says everything at once, but expands and unfolds earlier themes as he moves step by step from one episode to another.”[iv]
Most of the commentators do not discuss the identity of the unnamed high priest who addressed Stephen: “Is this so?” [7:1]. The reason Luke does not explicitly name the high priest concerns the irenical purpose of his message.[v] On my view, the stoning of Stephen occurs during the high priesthood of Jonathan. This proposal causes problems for most if not all Pauline chronology schemes except possibly Robin Lane Fox. The high priesthood of Jonathan can be precisely dated using the information from Josephus. For Josephus, there are three great holidays: the pilgrimage festivals of Passover, Shavuot, also known as Pentecost and Sukkot, when all Jews were enjoined to travel to
There is additional circumstantial evidence supporting the identification of Jonathan and the time period as the time period of the stoning of Stephen. Another son of Annas served for a brief time during the sixties as high priest and during his high priesthood the stoning of James occurred. The following similarities should be noted:
Jonathan + Ananus
son of Annas + son of Annas
5 months, 37 C.E. + 3 months, 62 C.E.
Vitellius in Antioch + Albinius out of town
stoning of Stephen + stoning of James
removal + removal
These two events occurred during a period of time when the Sanhedrin was unable to impose a death sentence without Roman approval. This should serve as a clue as to what happened in 37 C.E. In the case of James, the reigning high priest was removed as soon as Albinius arrived in
With respect to Stephen, we know that Jonathan served as High Priest for about 5 months before he was removed and replaced by his brother. Josephus does not tell us the reason for this unusual change of high priest after a brief period of service in that Jonathan did not die in office and we are left to speculate as to the reason for his removal. We do know that according to Acts, Stephen was stoned and the High Priest was involved. This High Priest was Jonathan. Just prior to the removal of the High Priest, there was vacuum in power as the top Roman official assigned to
In both situations, perhaps the reigning High Priest took advantage of the situation. Jonathan was removed as High Priest was because the stoning of Stephen took place on his watch and the Roman official took offense because he considered it to be a usurpation of his power. The stoning either was considered a lost of control of the crowds or failure to seek Roman approval of the death sentence. Josephus mentions another instance where the High Priest was removed because an event occurred for which he was held responsible: the removal of the eagle at the
In both instances, it would fair to infer that the stoning occurred because both Stephen and James had been publicly blaming the
Josephus does not tell us the reason why Jonathan only served five months. The reason is easy to understand. For Josephus, Jonathan is one of the good guys. There is simply no event prior to the high priesthood of Jonathan that can serve as the setting for the stoning of Stephen.
Based on the above, the date of Paul's conversion cannot be earlier than 37 C.E.
© copyrighted 2005, 10-9-07; comment about Nehemiah 9 added.
[i] See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 317.
[ii] Ant.18.4.3
[iii] Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, (Grand Rapids, 1998), 191.
[iv] G.A. Krodel, Acts (
[v] For the same reason, Luke does not explicitly identify Caiaphas as the name of the High Priest before Jesus appeared.
[vi] So Vitellius . . . ordered Pilate to go to
But Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to
[vii] See VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile, (Fortress Press, 2004), 412.
3 Comments:
Super work performed.
12:45 PM
Perhaps I am reading your blog wrong, but I think we agree that Pilate was removed in 36 CE about the time of the Passover, and at the same time Jonathan was made High Priest in Caiaphas’ place. That would be the spring of 36 CE. If Jonathan served only 5 months, he would have been removed in 36 CE and Theophilus’ tenure would have begun in the fall of that same year and not 37 CE as is believed. Is this analysis correct or have I missed something?
If Jonathan was removed from the high priesthood because of Stephen’s execution/murder in the fall of 36 CE, this would make it impossible for Paul to have been persecuting Christians for some time under Jonathan’s tenure (implied in Acts 8:1-4). After this Paul would need letters from the new High Priest (Theophilus) to continue doing so. The implication is that synagogues throughout the region knew of the High Priest’s policies and would have turned over Messianic Jews to Paul or anyone else coming in the name of the High Priest, but once a new High Priest is reigning, new letters would be demanded. Moreover, if Jonathan was removed for killing Stephen, why wasn’t Theophilus removed for giving authority to bring other believers to Jerusalem for punishment and execution (slaughter – G5408), as implied in Acts 9:1?
Personally, I don’t believe the Romans cared, if the High Priest, under due process in the Sanhedrin, executed its citizens who it thought were unruly. Pilate seemed to say as much when he told the High Priest to take Jesus and execute him under the Sanhedrin’s own authority. The problem then was that it was illegal for the Sanhedrin to try and execute anyone during annual Holy Days. The case with James, cir. 62 CE, is probably due to not only the civil unrest his execution/murder produced, but also the new procurator would have had to permit capital punishment to be carried out under due process. With no governor in Caesarea, the High Priest had no authority to call a Sanhedrin to order. In the matter having to do with Vitellius, he didn’t have to be present, because Marcellus was the procurator in Pilate’s place thus permitting the Sanhedrin to convene at Jerusalem at any time during Jonathan’s tenure.
Whatever the reason for Jonathan’s removal, I don’t believe it could have been for Stephen’s death. The time constraint in Acts 8 doesn’t seem to fit, and Theophilus seems to carry out the same matters, executing unnamed believers, yet he is not removed.
I, too, disagree with an early timeline for Paul’s conversion, but I have Jonathan giving him the letters for Damascus in 36 CE, and Jonathan was the High Priest for a year and a half, until Vitellius removed him during the Feast of Tabernacles [see Antiquities xviii, 5, 3 where immediately afterward Vitellius had his troops “winter” back in Syria due to Tiberius’ death]. Josephus doesn’t always tell us why the High Priest is removed from office. It is nice when he does, but it doesn’t always happen the way we would like.
4:58 PM
Re: "These two events occurred during a period of time when the Sanhedrin was unable to impose a death sentence without Roman approval." Brent Kinman in 'Pilate’s Assize and the Timing of Jesus’ Trial' Tyn. Bull. 42(2), 1991 makes a case that the "period of time" was merely during Pilate's assize in Jerusalem when he assumed that responsibility, not a general prohibition against the Jewish imposition of the death penalty.
Rick Carpenter
1:07 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home