harrill (2011) ananias

7/16/2019 Harrill (2011) Ananias

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/harrill-2011-ananias 1/20

Divine Judgment against Ananias and

Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11): A Stock Scene

of Perjury and Death

j. albert harrill

[email protected]

Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405

The story of Ananias and Sapphira begins with a utopian scene of the earliestbelievers sharing all goods in common. A Levite named Joseph (alias Barnabas)sells his field and lays all the proceeds at the feet of the apostles for distribution to

the community’s needy (Acts 4:32–37). Ananias then, “with the consent of his wifeSapphira,” sells a piece of property and appears to follow suit. Ananias, however, lays“only a part” of the sale’s proceeds before the apostles (5:1–2). The apostle Peterberates Ananias for “lying not to humans but to the Holy Spirit” (5:3), and Sap-phira for “putting the Spirit of the Lord to the test” (5:9). Upon hearing the apos-tle’s rebuke, Ananias and Sapphira each die in turn, suddenly and on the spot. Thestory ends with “great fear” (φόβος µέγας) seizing “all who heard these things” andespecially the whole “church”—the first occurrence of ἐκκλησία in the narrative(5:11).

The story’s apparent moral injustice has long offended biblical interpreters.In the third century, a Greek “philosopher,” most likely Porphyry, condemnedPeter’s rebuke as hypocritical and irrational: the apostle, who perjured himself by denying Jesus three times (Luke 22:31–34, 54–62), ritually murders the couple for

Previous versions of this essay were presented at Boston University, Universität Wien, andthe Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. Peter Arzt-Grabner, David Brakke, Martin Ebner,William Hanson, Thomas Kazan, Dietrich-Alex Koch, Jennifer Wright Knust, Hermut Löhr,Timothy Long, Martin Rese, and Zsuzsanna Várhelyi provided helpful criticism and advice.

I began the research for the essay in Münster in 2008, supported by an Arbeitsbesuch summergrant from the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung. I am grateful to all these people and institu-tions Unless otherwise noted translations of classical texts are adapted from the LCL

JBL 130, no. 2 (2011): 351–369



doing a much lesser sin, if indeed the couple’s action was a sin.1 More recent com-mentators have shared Porphyry’s shock at the story and its theological implica-tions.2

To resolve the story’s apparent moral injustice, scholars have proposed variousexegetical solutions. A typological reading, the most common, argues that the sinand punishment of Ananias and Sapphira conform to an OT archetype of the badIsraelite—namely, Achan, who was executed by a protracted burning and stoningbecause he stole part of the Jericho battle spoils devoted to the Lord (Josh 7:1–26).3

An etiological approach argues that the story originates from early Christian oraltraditions of untimely deaths of believers, before the parousia of the Lord (e.g.,1 Thess 4:13–17). A third reading considers the social situation in light of ancientJudaism. This interpretation points to prescriptions of similar disciplinary expul-

sions in the Dead Sea Scrolls for candidates who try to keep back some of their private possessions from the Qumran community (1QS 6:24b–25; CD 14:20–21). Afourth reading emphasizes the story’s function, which is said to legitimate the prac-tice of excommunication in the institutionalization of the early church (cf. Matt18:15–17; 1 Cor 5:13). A fifth reading, from a “salvation-history” perspective, iden-tifies the sin of Ananias and Sapphira as blocking the free activity of the Holy Spiritin human history, announced in Acts 1:8. A sixth, “original sin” reading, arguesthat the episode recounts sins at “beginnings,” a narrative form familiar from theHebrew Bible (e.g., Genesis 3; 6:1–4; Exodus 32; 2 Samuel 11).4 There is an over-

1 John Granger Cook, The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism

(Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity 3; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000; repr., Peabody,MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 155, 209–10; R. Joseph Hoffmann, Porphyry’s “Against the Christians”:

The Literary Remains (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1994), 54–55; Lamar Williamson Jr.,“The Use of the Ananias and Sapphira Story (Acts 5:1–11) in the Patristic Period” (Ph.D. diss., YaleUniversity, 1962), 26–30.

2 Daniel Marguerat, The First Christian Historian: Writing the “Acts of the Apostles” (trans.Ken McKinney, Gregory J. Laughery, and Richard Bauckham; SNTSMS 121; Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press, 2002), 155; Justin Taylor, “The Community of Goods among the FirstChristians and among the Essenes,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba

in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion

Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 27–31 January, 1999 (ed.David Goodblatt, Avital Pinnick, and Daniel R. Schwartz; STDJ 37; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 156. Forfurther examples, see Rick Strelan, Strange Acts: Studies in the Cultural World of the Acts of the

Apostles (BZNW 126; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2004), 199; and Julian V. Hills, “Equal Justiceunder the (New) Law: The Story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5,” Forum n.s. 3 (2000): 105.

3 Most recently argued by Hyung Dae Park, Finding “Herem”? A Study of Luke-Acts in the

Light of “Herem” (Library of New Testament Studies 357; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 131–45.

4 On these various interpretations, see Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia;Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 125–37; idem, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apolo-

i t (S t R CA P l b id 2006) 70 73 M t Fi t Ch i ti Hi t i 155 78

352 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 2 (2011)



arching problem with each of these proposals. The debates over the “meaning” of the story have become mired in the questionable assumption that antecedentsdetermine meaning.

Instead, I examine the story of Ananias and Sapphira in the broader culturalcontext of ancient oaths, vows, and promises. After all, breaking a promise—“lyingto the Holy Spirit”—drives the story’s plot and theme. I argue that the episodedepicts divine judgment for perjury, a stock scene familiar in ancient Mediter-ranean and Near Eastern cultures.5 This thesis offers a plausible context in whichancient readers would have made sense of the story of Ananias and Sapphira. I donot deny that ancient Christian readers could also have seen in the story an allu-sion to paradigmatic texts in Jewish Scripture, such as that of Achan, or biblicalinjunctions about oaths. Such biblical precedents do not, however, exhaust the

story’s resonances within Greco-Roman culture. I propose one such resonance, forexample, to be the form or structure of a comedy.6

I. The Broad Practice of Oaths in Antiquity:

The Formula of the Self-Curse

A verbal oath ritual confirmed virtually every agreement and business trans-action in the ancient world, including the sale of property.7 The oral formula was

remarkably fixed and included the imprecation for perjury in a self-curse. The oathwas often sworn over the destruction of a paradigmatic object, such as melted waxeffigies, a pealed vegetable, or a slaughtered animal, which accompanied the pour-ing out of wine. Mutilated animals (σφάγια, victims simply killed and nevercooked) and their severed parts (τόµια) were not technically a “sacrifice” (θυσία),an offering to the divine, but analogies in a sympathetic ritual that modeled thepenalty for violating the promise.8 A biblical example is the prophet Jeremiah, who

tary (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 315–37; C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Com-

mentary on the Acts of the Apostles, vol. 1, Preliminary Introduction and Commentary on Acts I– XIV (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 261–71; and Hills, “Equal Justice,” 109–13.

5 On the episode as a punitive miracle, see Pervo, Acts, 52–53.6 I use “comedy” in the sense of a form or structure that embodies certain thematic mean-

ings, such as the inversion of tragedy, and not in the sense of what is funny or laughable; seeDan O. Via, Kerygma and Comedy in the New Testament: A Structuralist Approach to Hermeneu-

tic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 41.7 On the broad ancient practice of oaths in the marketplace, see Nicholas K. Rauh, The

Sacred Bonds of Commerce: Religion, Economy, and Trade Society at Hellenistic Roman Delos, 166–

87 B.C. (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1993), 129–88; and Walter Burkert, Greek Religion (trans. John

Raffan; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), 253. On the legal context of verbal for-mulae, see J. Albert Harrill, “The Influence of Roman Contract Law on Early Baptismal Formu-l (T t lli Ad t 3) ” StP t 35 (2001) 275 82

Harrill: Divine Judgment against Ananias and Sapphira 353



warns the Jerusalemites about the covenant ramifications of their oath ritual: “Andthose who transgressed my [the Lord’s] covenant and did not keep the terms of thecovenant that they made before me, I [the Lord] will make like the calf when they

cut it in two and passed between its parts” (Jer 34:18). Forswearers will suffer theact performed to the paradigmatic object at the oath ceremony—death.9 Indeed,the oath’s self-curse was so important and familiar that ancient audiences recog-nized it to be in force regardless of whether a narrative expressly mentioned ordetailed it.10

Retribution, however, tells only one half of the story. The other half was ablessing for faithfulness to the oath’s promise. Ancient oaths normally uttered botha blessing and its complementary curse, which coincides with the blessing (Barna-bas) and curse (Ananias/Sapphira) scenes in Acts 4–5. An example of the pairing

in Greek oaths is the Athenian decree passed after the restoration of all democracy in 410 b.c.e. It stipulates an oath to be sworn over animal slaughter, with the typi-cal complementarities of a blessing and a curse: “All the Athenians shall take thisoath over victims without blemishes [καθ᾽ ἱερῶν τελείων], as the law enjoins, beforethe Dionysia. And they shall pray that he who observes this oath shall be blessedabundantly; but that he who does not observe it may perish from the earth, bothhe and his house” (Andocides 1.98). Both the blessing and the curse—καὶ εἰ µὲνεὐορκῶ . . . εἰ δὲ ἐπιορκῶ—as well as animal slaughter were standard features of Athenian preliminary oaths, in which litigants and jurors called perdition upon

themselves (and their families) for any perjuring of their forthcoming testimoniesor decisions. This tradition continued into later periods; Roman orators quote itapprovingly.11 The formula is always the same: “If I swear truly, may many bless-

9 On the oath ritual and its destruction of a paradigmatic object, see Christopher A.Faraone, “Molten Wax, Spilt Wine and Mutilated Animals: Sympathetic Magic in Near Eastern andEarly Greek Ceremonies,” JHS 113 (1993): 60–80; Billie Jean Collins, “The First Soldiers’ Oath(1.66)” and “The Second Soldiers’ Oath (1.67),” in COS 1:165–68; and Fritz Graf, “Eid” and “Fluchund Verwünschung,” in Thesaurus cultus et rituum Antiquorum (ThesCRA) (5 vols.; Los Angeles:

J. Paul Getty Museum, 2004–6), 3:237–70.10 See Jon D. Mikalson, Athenian Popular Religion(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina

Press, 1983), 36; Lindsay Watson, Arae: The Curse Poetry of Antiquity (ARCA Classical andMedieval Texts, Papers, and Monographs 26; Leeds: F. Cairns, 1991), 55; and Frances HicksonHahn, “Performing the Sacred: Prayers and Hymns,” in A Companion to Roman Religion (ed. JörgRüpke; Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World, Literature and Culture; Malden, MA: Black-well, 2007), 242. For comprehensive studies, see Horkos: The Oath in Greek Society (ed. Alan H.Sommerstein and Judith Fletcher; Exeter: Bristol Phoenix, 2007); Moshe Weinfeld, “The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East,” UF 8 (1976): 379–414; Paul Stengel, “Zu den griechischenSchwuropfern,” Hermes 49 (1914): 90–101; Rudolf Hirzel, Der Eid: Ein Beitrag zu seiner Geschichte

(Leipzig: Hirzel, 1902); and the mine of information in Kurt Latte, “Meineid,” in idem, KleineSchriften zu Religion, Recht, Literatur und Sprache der Griechen und Römer (ed. Olof Gigon, Wolf-gang Buchwald, and Wolfgang Kunkel; Munich: Beck, 1968), 367–79; repr. from PW 15.1 (1931).




ings be mine, and may I never again suffer such an outrage; but if I am forsworn,may I perish utterly, I and all I possess, or ever may possess” (Demosthenes, Con.41).12 The same self-curse formula (εὐορκοῦντι ἔστω µοι εὖ, ἐφιορκοῦντι δὲ ἐναντία)

is routine for oaths in documentary papyri.13 And epigraphic examples appearespecially in political treaties and other civic alliances, which invariably provideidentical conditional clauses that announce, “If I keep this oath may it go well forme, but if I forswear may I perish, myself and all that is mine” (καί µοι εὐορκοῦντιµὲν εὖ εἴη, εἰ δ᾽ ἐπιορκοίην, ἐξώλης εἴην καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ τἀµά).14 The various dates(700 b.c.e.–200 c.e.) and the scattered provenances of these inscriptions prove thediffusion and stability of the oath’s central formula throughout classical antiquity.Indeed, the complementarities of blessing and curse, sworn over animal slaughter,constitute one of the oldest and most fixed traditions of oaths and go back to treaties

of the ancient Near East, including the covenants of the Hebrew Bible.15

Aelius Aristide [2 vols.; Collection des universités de France 423–24; Paris: Belles lettres, 2002],1:135). Cf. Pliny, Pan. 64.3 (Roman consul oath of office). For the Athenian self-deprecation oathand its sacrifice, see Antiphon 5.11–12; Aeschines, Ctes. 233; Rosamond Kent Sprague, The Older

Sophists (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1972), 166.12 See also Demosthenes, Mid. 119; Aristocr. 67–69; Timocr. 151; 3 Aphob. 26, 54; Eub. 22,

53; Antiphon 5.11–12; Andocides 1.31–33; 1.126; Lysias 32.13.13 On the self-curse formula in documentary papyri, see BGU II.543.13–14 (27 b.c.e.); BGU

XVI.2589.10–11 (28b.c.e.

); BGU XVI.2591.7–8 (2b.c.e.

); BGU XVI.2592.11–12 (30b.c.e.

–14c.e.); C.Pap.Gr. II.1.12.4–5 (= PSI XIV.1433) (69 c.e.); Chr.Wilck. 145.25–26 (= P.Flor. I.79) (60c.e.); P.Amst. I.28.5–6 (3 b.c.e.); P.Bingen 46.5 (52 b.c.e.); P.Hamb. I.60.23 (90 c.e.); P.Lips.II.132.17–18 (25 c.e.); P.Lond. II.181.15–16 (64 c.e.); P.Mich. II.122.33 (43 c.e.); P.Oxy. II.240.8–9 (37 c.e.); P.Oxy. II.253.22–23 (19 c.e.); P.Oxy. II.259.20–21 (23 c.e.); P.Oxy. X.1258.10–11 (ca.45 c.e.); P.Oxy. XII.1453.27–28 (= Sel.Pap. II) (30–29 b.c.e.); P.Oxy. XLIX.3508.35–36 (70 c.e.);P.Oxy.Hels. 10.23–24 (34 c.e.); SB XX 14440.19–21 (= P.Mil. I.3) (12 c.e.).

14 On the self-curse formula in inscriptions, see SIG3 1:145.9–10; 1:173.69–70; 1:764.31–33;2:633.114–15; 2:577.47–48; 2:826C.II.13–15; 3:913.45; OGIS 1.229.65–70, 75–80; 2:66.50;2:532.19–35. Hermann Bengtson, Die Verträge der griechisch-römischen Welt von 700 bis 338 v.

Chr., vol. 2 of Die Staatsverträge des Altertums (ed. Hermann Bengtson; Munich: Beck, 1962),

297.68–90; 263.24–26; 308.5–7; Hatto H. Schmitt, Die Verträge der griechisch-römischen Welt von338 bis 200 v. Chr ., vol. 3 of Bengtson, Staatsverträge (Munich: Beck, 1969), 468.20–22; 476.89–90; 463.12–14; Robert Parker, Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion(Oxford:Clarendon, 1983), 186–88.

15 See Gen 15:7–17; Num 5:19–22; Deut 28:1–45; 1 Sam 11:7; 25:22 (scribal change becauseDavid failed to uphold his oath); 1 Kgs 8:31–32 (par. 2 Chr 6:22–23); Job 31; Jer 11:1–5; 34:18–20; Zech 5:3–4; Weinfeld, “Loyalty Oath,” 397–99; Faraone, “Molten Wax,” 62–63, 71–72; YaelZiegler, Promises to Keep: The Oath in Biblical Narrative (VTSup 120; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 32–37,58–80, 92–94; Paul Sanders, “So May God Do to Me!” Bib 85 (2004): 91–98; Charles Fensham,“Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Near Eastern Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament,”

ZAW 74 (1963): 1–9; Sheldon H. Blank, “The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell, and the Oath,” HUCA23 (1950–51): 73–95; Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners

f J i h P l ti i th II IV C t i C E (N Y k J i h Th l i l S i f A




The formula appears in Livy’s story of the unification of Rome and Alba Longaunder King Tullus Hostilius (ca. seventh century b.c.e.). Livy recounts the archaicRoman oath ceremony in language familiar to his first-century b.c.e. audience:

The Fetial priest was Marcus Valerius; he made Spurius Fusius pater patratus,

touching his head and hair with the sacred sprig. The pater patratus is appointedto pronounce the oath, that is, to solemnize the pact; and this he accomplisheswith many words, expressed in a long metrical formula, which it is not worth-while to quote. The conditions being then recited, he shouts, “Hear, O Jupiter;hear, pater patratus of the Alban People: hear ye, people of Alba: from theseterms, as they have been publicly rehearsed from beginning to end, without fraud,from these tablets, or this wax, and as they have been this day clearly understood,the Roman People will not be the first to depart. If it shall first depart from them,

by general consent, with malice aforethought, then on that day do you, greatFather of the gods [Diespiter ], so smite the Roman People as I shall here today smite this piglet: and so much the harder smite them as your power and yourstrength are greater.” When Spurius had said these words, he struck the pigletwith a flint. In like manner the Albans pronounced their own forms and theirown oath, by the mouth of their own dictator and priests. (Livy 1.24.6–9)

The essential ritual moments of the Alban treaty invoke divine witnesses and theslaughter of an animal victim, which executes by analogy the ritual power of thegods against oath violators. The smiting of the piglet with a flint knife represents

Jupiter’s lightning bolt, an instrument believed to punish perjurers. Livy’s scene isstylized. It resembles designs on Roman coins showing two figures taking an oathby touching their swords upon a piglet.16 The language and action of the oath rit-ual come from the world of sacrifice.

In that world, the enforcement of oaths mattered. The principle of divine judg-ment figured prominently in the myriad of social contexts that required a personalloyalty oath. Soldiers swore to their commanders with a self-curse that invoked thedivine: “If I wittingly speak falsely, may Jupiter Optimus Maximus utterly destroy me, my house, my family, and my estate” (Livy 22.53.11–12). Initiates into a school

or profession swore to keep the mysteries of the teachings, as we find in the pro-logue of a professional astrological handbook: “To those who keep this oath may itgo well and may the abovementioned gods be in accord with their wishes, but may the opposite happen to those who forswear this oath” (Vettius Valens, Anthologies7.1).17 Physicians who swore the Hippocratic oath pleged their loyalty with a self-

16 Jonathan Williams, “Religion and Roman Coins,” in Rüpke, Roman Religion, 144–45 (fig.11.4). See also Hahn, “Performing the Sacred,” 240–41; and Fritz Graf, “The Power of the Wordin the Graeco-Roman World,” in La Potenza della parola: Destinatari, funzioni, bersagli; Atti del

Convegno di studi, Siena, 7-8 maggio 2002 (ed. Simone Beta; Fiesole [Florence]: Cadmo, 2004), 97.17 David Pingree, Vettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum libri novem (Bibliotheca scrip-

t G t R T b i L i i T b 1986) 251 T B t




curse: “Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the godsand goddesses . . . If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to meto enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all people for all time to

come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.”18

In addition, actors on the dramatic stage also swore loyalty to their patrons and theleaders.

Cicero recounts one memorable episode involving the famous tragic actorAesop:

For in the first place those actors had returned to the stage out of respect for theoccasion [to honor Pompey], who had, as I thought, quitted it out of self-respect.Indeed your favorite, our friend Aesop, was such a failure that nobody in theworld would have regretted his leaving off. When he began to swear the oath, his

voice failed him at the crucial point, If I wittingly deceive. Why should I tell youanything more? You know what the rest of the games were like. (Fam. 8.2; empha-sis added)

This passage is important because it suggests that ancient audiences recognizedoaths to take a usual formula, even when not detailed in the story.19 “Who willdeny,” writes Cicero, in another work, “that such beliefs [in the gods as the lords andrulers of all things] are useful when one remembers how often oaths are used toconfirm agreements, how important to our well-being is the sanctity of treaties,how many persons are deterred from crime by the fear of divine punishment, andhow sacred an association of citizens becomes when the immortal gods are mademembers of it, either as judges or witnesses?” (Leg. 2.7.16). Oaths functioned ascommunity self-definition, to bond the social order.

However, ancient society recognized that people can and do speak empty words in oaths, often with impunity.20 Uttering a self-curse did not necessarily affirm the existence and participation of the divine in human affairs. This ques-tion is important for the exegesis of Acts 5:1–11, because in Acts Ananias and Sap-phira behave in just this way. Their willing deception about participating in God’s

plan of a community of goods, before Peter, suggests their unbelief in divine judg-ment.

18 Translation adapted from Ludgwig Edelstein, Ancient Medicine: Selected Papers (ed. OwseiTemkin and C. Lilian Temkin; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), 6.

19 “Usual formula”: Tacitus, Hist . 4.31. For additional examples of the oath’s fixed formulain a broad variety of contexts, see Anne Pippin Burnett, Revenge in Attic and Later Tragedy (SatherClassical Lectures 62; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 197–99; and Joseph Plescia,

The Oath and Perjury in Ancient Greece (Tallahassee: Florida State University Press, 1970).20 Angelos Chaniotis, “Under the Watchful Eyes of the Gods: Divine Justice in Hellenistic

d R A i Mi ” i Th G R E t P liti C lt S i t ( d St h C l i




II. Not Fearing the Divine:

The Impious and Their Swearing Habits

Swearing habits revealed moral and religious character before ancient audi-ences and readers. Specific stereotypes and stock scenes tagged the perjurer as impi-ous. This characterization evoked for ancient audiences debates about divine

judgment. Evidence for this characterization comes especially from Greco-Romancomedy.

Yet the tragedy of Euripides provides the most famous line of perjury in Greek literature. The character Hippolytus almost perjures himself by saying he is goingto tell his father what had happened (a case of incest), and when the nurse protests

that he swore to keep it secret, Hippolytus declares, “My tongue swore, but my mindis not on oath [ἡ γλῶσσ᾽ ὀµώµοχ᾽, ἡ δὲ φρήν ἀνώµοτος]” (Hipp. 612). This line wasfamous in antiquity because it was so often quoted in Greek comedy, being fodderfor playwrights like Aristophanes.21

The ancient comedy of the perjurer’s impiety revolved around the character’slies and deceit in order to avoid paying debts. The debt-ridden father, Strepsiades,in Aristophanes’ Clouds (Nubes), for example, seeks out Socrates’ “Thinking House”hoping to learn the Unjust Argument for this specific reason: “all the debts, whichI have incurred . . . I’ll never pay, no not one penny of them” (114–18); “My debts!

my debts! I want to shrink my debts” (738–39). Strepsiades pleads, with cash, tohave Socrates teach him sophistry’s hidden secrets: “A galloping consumptionseized my money. Come now: do let me learn the Unjust Argument that can shirk debts. Now do just let me learn it. Name your own price, by all the gods I’ll pay it”(243–46). The first lesson that Socrates teaches is atheism (380–81). When Strep-siades asks where the thunderbolt comes from, Socrates drops his bombshell: “If [Zeus] really blasts perjurers, why hasn’t he burned Simon or Kleonomos or The-oros—they’re certainly perjurers. Instead he hits his own temple, and Sounion, theAcropolis, and great oaks. What’s he thinking of? I’m sure oaks don’t commit per-

jury” (399–402). Socrates’ pontification on the theological problem of unpunishedperjury shatters Strepsiades’ old beliefs in the gods in favor of Socrates’ meteoro-logical abstractions (the clouds).

The linking of impiety (atheism) and perjury recurs as a stock theme again inNew Comedy. In Rome, in Plautus’s The Rope (Rud .), the plot turns on a comicstage perjurer—the slave trader (pimp)—whose disregard for oaths, especially thoseinvolving cash transactions, was proverbial.22 Labrax perjures himself by trying to

21 Aristophanes, Thesm. 275–76; Frogs 101–2 and 1471. See Harry C. Avery, “‘My TongueSwore, but My Mind Is Unsworn,’” TAPA 99 (1968): 19–35; and Charles Segal, “Curse and Oathi E i id ’ Hi l t ” R 1 (1972) 165 80




get away with abduction of merchandise (girls) on which others have entered intoa contract: “This pimp [leno], true to his type, cared not a straw for his promise orthe oath he had given” (44–48); “If he has cheated gods and men, it’s all in the day’s

work for a pimp” (345). The very introduction of the slave dealer elicits an entire vice list: “A cheat and villain, a perjured, parricidal monster, lawless, impudent,impure, impious past all telling—in one word, a pimp. Why describe him further?”(651–53). Foreshadowing all this trouble, the play’s very prologue has a prosopopo-etic member of the celestial firmament, the star Arcturus, put all perjurers onnotice:

In the company of Him [Jupiter], who sways all peoples and the seas and lands,a citizen I am of the celestial city. . . . All who bring to court cases supported by false witness, all who before the magistrate deny on oath their honest debts, we

take note and take their names to Jove. Day by day, He knows who they be thatdo seek evil here on earth. When the wicked here expect to win their suits by perjury, or press false claims before the judge, the case adjudged is judged againby Him. And the fine He fines them far exceeds their gains in courts of law. (Rud.

1–20)

Sure enough, the slave trader faces the threat of getting “what suits him” (Rud.875), a prison sentence (891). To get out of the pickle, the slave trader (Labrax)goes into a nearby temple, of Venus, where he agrees to swear yet another oath witha self-curse, but Labrax whispers to himself, “My tongue may swear, but I act as Iplease” (1329–56). Ironically, Labrax swears his oath on orders of a slave (Gripus),whom a previous character had already condemned as a “font of perjury” (1109).When Gripus comes for the promised money and reminds Labrax of his oath,Labrax replies, “Swear, yes, and I’ll swear now, if it gives me any pleasure. Swearingwas invented to save property, not wreck it” (1373–74). The slave trader chatters onabout his impious habit: “Hobby of mine, swearing. Are you high priest over my perjury?” (1377). Labrax doubts the ritual power of the self-curse. Venus is irrele-

vant to his business; the gods demand nothing. Yet, in the end, the wrath of Jupiteragainst perjurers promised in the prologue never actually materializes. This stock comedy, therefore, raised the question of divine punishment for perjury but leftthe answer open and ambiguous for comedic effect.

Another self-perjuring pimp in Roman comedy is Dorio in the Phormio of Terence. Dorio the Pimp has a contract with a youth named Phaedria not to sellPhaedria’s girlfriend before a certain date, thus giving Phaedria the chance to comeup with the money for her. But then a buyer with ready cash appears, and the pimpabrogates the old contract and tells Phaedria that he has only twenty-four hours tocome up with the cash (Phorm. 485–533). Even though Dorio breaks his oath, there

Sl i th N T t t Lit S i l d M l Di i (Mi li F t 2006)




is no divine revenge upon the pimp for his perjury. In fact, he gets his money fromPhaedria and the deal goes through on the new terms he demands. Terence’s self-perjuring pimp is thus another example of how New Comedy leaves open the ques-

tion of divine punishment for perjury: characters break their oaths withoutconsequences.23

The comedy of sellers as proverbial perjurers appears also in a poetic calen-dar of the Roman year, Ovid’s Fasti. Ovid explores religious thinking on this ques-tion in a witty tale about the cult of Mercury, the patron god of circulation (themovement of goods) and of commerce itself, who was a well-known deceiver.24 Onthe Ides of May, Rome celebrates an annual public festival at the state temple of Mercury that, Ovid emphasizes, faces the racetrack (circus). “All who make a busi-ness of selling their wares give you incense,” writes Ovid, “and beg that you would

grant them gain” (Fast. 5.671–72). The betting-like spectacle of this festival promptsOvid to explore the additionally ridiculous show of the merchant’s (mercator )furtive cult to Mercury at the shop, away from customers’ eyes. The poet recountsthe scene of a merchant, “with his tunic girt up” and “ceremonially pure,” drawingwater from the so-called Spring of Mercury in a jar to carry it back to his shop:

With the water he wets a laurel bough, and with the wet bough he sprinkles allthe goods that are soon to change owners. He sprinkles, too, his own hair withthe dripping laurel and recites prayers in a voice accustomed to deceive. “Washaway the perjuries of past time,” says he, “wash away my false words [ perfida

verba] of the past day. Whether I have called you to witness, or have falsely invoked the great divinity of Jupiter, in the expectation that he would not hear,or whether I have knowingly taken in vain the name of any other god or goddess,let the swift south winds carry away the wicked words, and may tomorrow openthe door for me to fresh perjuries, and may the gods above not care if I shall utterany! Only grant me profits, grant me the joy of profit made, and see to it that Ienjoy cheating the buyer!” At such prayers Mercury laughs from on high, remem-bering that he himself rustled the Ortygian cattle. (Fast. 675–92)

The merchant prays privately “in a voice accustomed to deceive,” admitting his bad

swearing habits to himself and to the gods. His past perjuries had invoked Jupiterfalsely and had knowingly taken in vain the names of enough other gods and god-desses to fill a pantheon. Yet he aims to remove his past perjuries solely in order tomake a ritual opening for committing fresh ones, “in the hopes that the gods abovedo not care that I utter any.” He prays not for his own moral improvement but for

23 In all fairness, Phaedria has apparently failed to pay the pimp several times in previousagreements, but that does not excuse Dorio from violating his sacred oath. Indeed, the text makesexplicit the pimp’s shameless and unscrupulous desire to break an oath if he can “profit by it”

(Phorm. 256).24 On the long tradition of Mercury/Hermes as a perjurer of oaths, signaling his immatu-

it J dith Fl t h “A T i k t ’ O th i th H i H t H ” AJP 129 (2008)




Mercury’s divine apathy. His goals remain fixed on profit. The single-mindednesscharacterizes the merchant as a serial perjurer—and perpetually impious—intend-ing forever to profane the self-curse in the oath that will complete his every

marketplace sale. Ovid’s witty tale, like ancient comedy, explores ancient thinkingabout the use of religion by the impious for monetary gain. In the happy econom-ics of a merchant’s business theology, the gods demand nothing. While the formulaof oaths was obvious to ancient audiences, the swearer’s intent or sincerity wasambiguous.

Swearing an oath (and its ever-present imprecation) thus illustrates a funda-mental paradox in ancient culture, because it signaled either one’s piety or one’simpiety, depending on the context and the morality of the speaker. The author of Luke-Acts, I argue, sought to resolve this paradox both early and categorically for

the history of the church, in the story of Ananias and Sapphira. The scene of Acts5:1–11 functions to heighten the acceptance in the audience for the piety of thetrue oaths that the Lukan heroes later make in the narrative.

III. Ananias and Sapphira:

God Demands Death for Forswearing

The story of Ananias and Sapphira remains a long-standing exegetical puzzle

in biblical commentary. Yet scholarship has overlooked the stock theme of a perjurer’s impiety as a plausible context for reconstructing how an ancient audiencewould have made sense of their deaths.25 I argue that the Ananias and Sapphira

25 Some scholars have, however, hinted in this direction, but without developing either theperjurer theme or the oath ceremony. Helpful to my analysis is Henriette Havelaar, “HellenisticParallels to Acts 5:1–11 and the Problem of Conflicting Interpretations,” JSNT 67 (1997): 68–73,82; and Hans Dieter Betz, Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament: Religionsgeschichtliche

und Paränetische Parallelen (TU 76; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961), 178–79. See also G. H. R.

Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of Greek Inscriptions and PapyriPublished in 1978 (North Ryde, Australia: Macquarie University, 1983), 27–28; Alfons Weiser,“Das Gottesurteil über Hananias und Saphira,” TGl 69 (1979): 150–51; idem, Die Apostelgeschichte:

Kapitel 1–12 (ÖTK 5/1; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn; Würzburg: Echter, 1981), 141–42; S. J. Noorda,“Scene and Summary: A Proposal for Reading Acts 4,32–5,16,” in Les Actes des Apôtres: Tradi-

tions, rédaction, théologie (ed. Jacob Kremer; BETL 48; Gembloux: Duculot; Leuven: Leuven Uni- versity Press, 1979), 482; Brian J. Capper, “The Interpretation of Acts 5:4,” JSNT 19 (1983): 118;Ivoni Richter Reimer, Woman in the Acts of the Apostles: A Feminist Liberation Perspective (trans.Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 6–14; Barrett, Acts, 263, 266; Marguerat, First

Christian Historian, 168–78, 173 n. 45; Streeter, Strange Acts, 230; and Richard S. Ascough, “Bene-

faction Gone Wrong: The ‘Sin’ of Ananias and Sapphira in Context,” in Text and Artifact in the Reli- gions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson (ed. Stephen G. Wilson andMi h l D j di St di i Ch i ti it d J d i 9 W t l ON Wilf id L i U i




story participates in the cultural world of the oath ceremony and its divine ramifi-cations for perjurers. Importantly, the self-curse is present in that cultural worldeven if unspoken or not detailed, which helps explain the characters’ deaths. In

short, it supplies the missing piece of the story’s puzzle. Peter, the narrative hero,exposes Ananias and Sapphira as impostors who claim an undeserved share in thehonor of contributing to the community of goods, by his use of irony (Acts 5:4 and7) and his close scrutiny of a monetary transaction. The plot thus embodies a struc-tural theme of comedy, which achieves its effect by inverting the role of death in atragedy.26 The subsequent narrative celebration of the deaths of the impostors func-tions as apologetic discourse to defend the early church against the charge of hav-ing atheists among its members.27

The commerce of buying and selling drives the plot of key episodes in Luke-

Acts. These episodes advance Luke’s apologetic theme of possessions.28 The LukanJesus pronounces it repeatedly: “None of you can become my disciple if you do notgive up all your possessions” (Luke 14:33); “Sell your possessions and give alms.Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven,where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, thereyour heart will be also” (Luke 12:33–34). To the rich ruler asking how to inheriteternal life, and listing Mosaic commandments to show his piety, the Lukan Jesusteaches: “There is one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven” (Luke 18:22). For Acts, this teach-

ing forms the basis of the original, and utopian, community of believers sharing alltheir goods (Acts 2:44–46). The community of shared goods goes hand in handwith moral virtue (“generosity”) and Jewish piety (“praising God” in the Jerusalemtemple), which generates “goodwill” from the entire Jerusalem population, includ-ing from nonbelievers. The apologetic narrative affirms that the first believers wereneither immoral nor atheist.29

26 The classical comic hero is often an ironical person (εἴρων) who exposes an impostor(ἀλαζών) claiming an undeserved share in the fruits of victory; see Via, Kerygma and Comedy , 45–

46, who unfortunately does not discuss Acts.27 Atheism (rejection of the gods) appears later in the text as a specific charge against Paul:

λέγων ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν θεοὶ οἱ διὰ χειρῶν γινόµενοι (Acts 19:26). On ἄθεος, ἀθεότης, ἀσεβής, and τὸ µὴνοµίζειν θεούς in classical culture, see Plato, Apol. 26b–c; Leg. 10.885c; 10.908c; Cicero, Nat. d.

1.23.63; Plutarch, Mor. 165c (Superst. 2); Cassius Dio 52.36.2–3 and 67.14.2–3. On the charge of “atheism” against Christians, see Lucian, Alex. 38; Justin, 1 Apol. 5; Minucius Felix, Oct. 8.1–5;Athenagoras, Leg. 4 and 13; Mart. Pol. 3.2 and 9.2.

28 See Pervo, Acts, 11; Luke Timothy Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke–

Acts (SBLDS 39; Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1977), 204–11; and Halvor Moxnes,The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economy Relations in Luke’s Gospel (OBT;

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 160 and passim.29 On Acts as an apologetic (legitimating) narrative, see Pervo, Acts, 21–22; Loveday C. A.

Al d A t i It A i t Lit C t t A Cl i i t L k t th A t f th Ap tl




Negative tales about the rooting out of the impious from among the believersreinforce this theme. The counterexamples reveal, by their contrast, the true piety of the apostles and other believers. One tale (Acts 8:4–25) has the apostle Peter

preaching in Samaria to bestow the Holy Spirit on new converts through a ritual of laying on of hands. The antithesis of Peter appears, Simon the magician, and hewants to purchase his own franchise of the ritual power, offering silver for the rit-ual ability. “Give me also this power,” Simon says, “so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:19). But Peter curses Simon for his mer-chandising of religion: “May your silver perish with you, because you thought youcould obtain God’s gift with money! You have no part or share in this, for yourheart is not right before God. Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, andpray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For

I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and the chains of wickedness” (Acts 8:20–23). In this way, Luke’s narrative participates in ancient Mediterranean criticism of buyers and sellers as proverbially impious.

Further episodes of the merchant’s impiety include the story of the Philippianslave girl (Acts 16:16–40). Paul exorcises a slave girl who “had a spirit of divinationand brought her owners a great deal of money by fortune-telling” (Acts 16:16). Theloss of the spirit renders the slave girl worthless as an oracle; her owners no longerhave any fortune-telling to sell. “When her owners saw that their hope of makingmoney was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the market-

place before the authorities” (16:19). In the judicial hearing that ensues, the brow-beating owners lie: “These men are disturbing our city. They are Jews and areadvocating customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to adopt or observe”(16:20). Yet the magistrates release Paul and Silas after only a night in prison andapologize (παρακαλέω) for the city’s mistreatment of them as Roman citizens(16:39), which prepares Luke’s apologetic point about the church’s mission not vio-lating Roman law.30 The bully slaveholders exploit religion for commercial gain,profane legal proceedings, and lie to authorities, all of which characterize them asstock perjurers who fear no divine judgment.

The story of the Ephesian silversmiths concerns a businessman worried abouthis bottom line (Acts 19:23–41). The silversmith Demetrius spins his speech intoa pious call to protect the great Ephesian cult of Artemis, but the narrative makes

in Luke–Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology (SNTSMS 57; Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1987), 205–19. The old suggestion that Acts addressed Roman offi-cials to argue for Christianity’s recognition as a religio licita is highly unlikely. The apologetics of Luke-Acts has multiple purposes but is primarily aimed at insiders in Luke’s community to buildup reassurance and self-definition; see Robert F. Stoops Jr., “Riot and Assembly: The Social Con-

text of Acts 19:23–41,” JBL 108 (1989): 90.30 Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (trans.

J Li b A Th K b l d D ld H J l H i Phil d l hi F t




clear that his real fear is personal financial loss. In the end, the story defends thepiety of the traveling Christian heroes before Roman law and blames their accus-ers as illegitimate citizens—the real atheists. The episode thus stereotypes the local

merchants as cultic merchandisers who lie for gain, an apologetic theme.31

Important to this theme is fidelity to oaths and vows. Affirming God’s ownfidelity to oaths plays a key role in the opening birth stories. “Filled with the Holy Spirit,” John’s father, Zechariah, speaks a prophecy in the form of a prayer, whichblesses the Lord of Israel for keeping his sacred promise sealed with an oath: “Thushe has shown the mercy promised to our ancestors, and he has remembered hisholy covenant, the oath that he swore [ὅρκον ὃν ὤµοσεν] to our ancestor Abraham”(Luke 1:72–73; see also 1:55). The assurance that God keeps his sworn oaths recursas a theme in Peter’s inaugural sermon in Acts. His synopsis of Israelite history

reminds the Jerusalem crowd that King David “knew that God had sworn with anoath to him [ὅρκῳ ὤµοσεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεός] that he would put one of his descendantson the throne” (Acts 2:30). Trust in the Hebrew prophecy of oaths belongs also toPaul’s speech. Paul defends himself before King Agrippa: “And now I stand here ontrial on account of my hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors [ἐπ᾽ἐλπίδι τῆς εἰς τοὺς πατέρας ἡµῶν ἐπαγγελίας γενοµένης ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ], a promise thatour twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship day and night” (Acts26:6–7). These passages about the Hebrew covenants show Luke’s awareness of theancient oath’s solemnity and importance.

The Christian heroes in Acts take vows, observe the solemnity of their oaths,and are trustworthy witnesses of their proclamation’s promises. These episodesdescribe the apostles and their followers as pious Jews, which furthers the apolo-getic theme defending the early church from the charge of atheism. At Cenchreae,for example, Paul cuts his hair ritually as a public expression of “being under a vow”(εἶχεν γὰρ εὐχήν), most likely meaning the Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18). Later, to curbfalse allegations that he forsakes the Jewish law, Paul and four others go under a

vow (εὐχὴν ἔχοντες) publicly, in Jerusalem, at the request of James. This second vow requires purification rites and an offering of sacrifice (προσφορά) at the temple,

which also matches a Nazirite vow (Acts 21:20–26).32 The gestures seal the comple-tion of vows before a divine witness known for loyalty to covenant, the oath parexcellence. Paul’s wholehearted payment of the vows displays him as no atheist.33

31 On the episode’s apologetic function, see Pervo, Dating of Acts, 179–83; and Stoops, “Riotand Assembly,” 73–91.

32 The Nazirite vow required a sacrifice on account of its particular ritual requirements. Onthe distinction between oaths and vows, see Tony W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the

Ancient Near East (JSOTSup 147; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 11–18.

33 On the vows as Nazirite and their function as apologetic discourse, see Stuart Chepey,Nazirites in Late Second Temple Judaism: A Survey of Ancient Jewish Writings, the New Testament,

A h l i l E id d Oth W iti f L t A ti it (A i t J d i d E l




This characterization extends also to Barnabas, who had previously been the posi-tive example to the negative one of Ananias and Sapphira. Barnabas exhorts all thechurch members “to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast devotion; for he was

a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith” (Acts 11:23–24). Members of thechurch thus swear oaths and vows faithfully, for the whole world to see.

The narrative of Luke-Acts uses counterexamples of profaned and invertedoaths among Jewish nonbelievers to complement its apologetic picture of Christianorigins. When neither Roman law nor Jewish law proves to be an obstacle to Paul’smission, “the Jews” swear an oath to lie, explicitly called a “conspiracy” (συνωµοσία)in the text (Acts 23:12–15, 20–21). “The Jews” behave like comic stage perjurerswho use religion only as a pretext for personal gain. On the profane authority of their oath, the conspirators ask “the chief priests and the elders” to abandon the

faithful observance of holy law and to lure Paul to his death. Their pledge is aninversion of the sacred oath and its imprecations. In sum, “the Jews” behave as func-tional atheists who impiously do not fear that the Lord will act on forswearing.Their plot of murder and lawlessness reveals their unbelief in divine judgment. Theidea that the Jews so willingly invert the practice of sacred oaths adds significantdetail to the overarching negative portrayal of nonbelieving Jews in Acts.34

Warning signs of divine judgment are present throughout the narrative. TheLukan Jesus exhorts the crowd, saying, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven” (Luke 12:10; cf. Acts 7:51). Protesting his violent inter-

rogation in the Jewish council, Paul warns the high priest (another character namedAnanias): “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting there to judgeme according to the law, and yet in violation of the law you order me to be struck?”(Acts 23:3). Earlier, in Acts 5, the Pharisee Gamaliel advises the council to let theChristian mission run its course; otherwise, the council risks divine judgment uponitself. He pleads, “So in the present case, I will tell you, keep away from these menand let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, itwill fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case youmay even be found fighting against God! [θεοµάχοι εὑρεθῆτε]” (Acts 5:38–39).35

The warning signs of theomachos (fighting against God) become divine judg-ments in a number of key scenes. Blindness afflicts Bar-Jesus (alias Elymas), themagician and Jewish false prophet, for opposing the Christian mission (Acts 13:6–12). Judas dies in a gory mess that emphasizes the stain of money (Acts 1:18–20).Herod Agrippa I, the Jewish tetrarch with divine pretensions, also has a suddenand horrible demise: an angel of the Lord strikes him down, and he is eaten by worms and dies (Acts 12:21–23). In addition, there is the expectation of death for

34 On this negative portrayal, see Lawrence M. Wills, “The Depiction of the Jews in Acts,” JBL 110 (1991): 631–54.

35 O th li k b t A t 5 1 11 d th l t t i l b f th J i h th iti i A t




Paul when the tribal natives of Malta witness him being bitten by a viper: “Whenthe natives [οἱ βάρβαροι] saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to oneanother, ‘This man must be a murderer; though he has escaped from the sea, jus-

tice [ἡ δίκη, likely meaning the goddess Justice] has not allowed him to live’” (Acts28:4). The narrative thus supports beliefs in divine judgment not only in Judaismbut also in paganism. Such scenes participate in ancient Mediterranean expecta-tions of gods demanding summary judgment, the elements of which come fromthe cultural world of the oath ceremony and its sacrifice.

I argue that the aim of the Ananias and Sapphira scene (Acts 5:1–11)—part of a unified story that begins in 4:32–37—is to encourage readers to accept the churchas genuinely pious. The deadly consequences of “lying to the Holy Spirit” pointback to the narrative summary: the believers were “of one heart and soul” with “no

one claiming private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned washeld in common” (4:32). The expression οὐδὲ εἷς . . . ἔλεγεν (“no one claimed . . .”)is another way of explicitly telling the reader that they all swore an oath. The Greek construction functions very much like an adherescent negative, in which a negativeplaced before a verb gives the verb an opposite meaning: they do not say something and similar sentences really mean “they are denying something.”36 The expressionis thus stronger than it may at first appear, and the next sentence describes theblessings for faithfulness to the oath’s promise (4:33). Keeping part of the money from the property sale in light of the explicit oath in 4:32 characterizes Ananias

and Sapphira in the stock of the atheistic perjurer. Such a character consistently behaves without fear of the gods, denying any divine intervention in human affairs.Only after the couple’s expulsion is the community called a “church” (ἐκκλησία,5:11). Luke’s scene thus shows the church’s belief in the power and reality of thedivine, the author’s apologetic response to potential or actual charges that Chris-tians were atheists. At a crucial point in its history of the church, the narrativeexposes two converts to Christianity, Ananias and Sapphira, as impostors—atheistswho must suffer swift divine judgment for violating their oaths to the community of goods.

Many narrative clues in the story of Ananias and Sapphira show that the cou-ple swore a sacred oath. First, the apostle Peter clearly expects to receive all theirproceeds (Acts 5:3–4, 8–9), which implies that the couple had promised to donateall the money. Second, a series of Lukan summaries emphasizes a community-wideagreement of “one heart and soul [καρδία καὶ ψυχὴ µία]” to share everything(ἅπαντα κοινά), which implies a mutual agreement of some sacred kind (Acts 4:32–35; see also 2:44); and the emphasis on “heart” [καρδία] also recalls a saying of Jesusin the Gospel: “For where your treasure is, there your heart [καρδία] will be also”(Luke 12:34). Third, Barnabas offers a positive example of a member acting on his

36 S H b t W i S th G k G ( G d M M i C b id MA




promise to hand over all his cash proceeds from a property sale (Acts 4:36–37).And, fourth, the text makes it explicit that Peter condemns Ananias and Sapphirafor their specific offense against the divine and not against humans: “You have not

lied to human beings but to God [οὐκ ἐψεύσω ἀνθρώποις ἀλλὰ τῷ θεῷ]” (5:3); “How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test?” (5:9). Thiscondemnation participates in the widespread ideology of ancient oaths, which heldthat perjury is a specific offense against the gods, not humans. Furthermore, ancientaudiences would have expected that any property sale would have included an oath,sworn before witnesses in the marketplace, and the reaction of Peter makes it clearthat Ananias and Sapphira have sworn by divine witnesses (Acts 5:3, 9). The cou-ple’s behavior is atheistic in the sense that it assumes no consequences for one’sactions, as if God and “the Spirit of the Lord” do not care about human speech and

actions.37

At this point, a reader might object that the self-curse of Ananias and Sap-phira is not detailed. In reply, I would point to the consensus of scholars who agreethat the author of Luke-Acts suppresses many preparatory parts of narratives. Theseso-called Lukan summaries generalize a broad theme or set of themes; the sum-maries need not detail individual actions.38 For the author of Luke-Acts, the con-sequences of forswearing are more important to narrate than the self-curse itself,which is already implied in the explicit oath of the community (Acts 4:32).

In this way, the narrative of Acts follows a convention in ancient poetic and

dramatic literature that emphasizes less the curse per se than the dramatic eventsthat it sets in motion. In his work on Greek and Roman curse poetry, Lindsay Watson explains the literary device:

One example is the ἀραί of Oedipus in Aeschylus’ Septem. Their brooding pres-ence dominates the second half of the play, yet the actual words used by Oedipusin cursing his sons are reproduced only briefly, and in summary, at lines 786–90. . . . Aeschylus is more interested in the dramatic and psychological possibil-ities of the curse, than in what was actually said at the moment of imprecation.In this connexion, it is interesting to observe a similar procedure on Euripides’

part in the second Hippolytus. The action of the latter half of the play is deter-mined by Theseus’ cursing of his son, but the curse proper is allotted the briefestcompass in the text, a mere four lines (887–90). It is hard not to feel that Euripi-des has let slip an opportunity by not placing in Theseus’ mouth a truly terrificcurse. Here it is noteworthy that Seneca, in his Phaedra, likewise handles Theseus’curse upon Hippolytus in a low-key fashion (942–7)—yet permits the hero a farmore lengthy and imposing (self-)imprecation, after the truth has come to light(1201–1243).39

37 Paul B. Brown, “The Meaning and Function of Acts 5:1–11 in the Purpose of Luke–Acts”(Ph.D. diss., Boston University, 1969), 209–10.

38 S P A t 135 d C l A t liii 23 24 36




In addition, ancient readers would not have needed an explicit reference tothe self-curse to recognize the perjury of Ananias and Sapphira. Early Christianexegetes provide confirmation. Cyprian places Peter’s condemnation of Ananias

(Acts 5:3–4) alongside other biblical passages that illustrate punishment for notpaying quickly what one has vowed to God (Test. 30).40 Basil preaches that Ananias“dedicated his property to God” and “consecrated his possessions to God by a vow,”which “provoked the Lord’s displeasure against him to such a degree that he was notgiven time for repentance.”41 And John Chrystostom uses the episode to preachagainst oaths generally: Ananias made his money sacred by vowing it to God butafterwards took some back from God’s treasury; by lying to Peter, the couplethought that they were speaking only to a human—evidence of their impiety (Hom.

Act. 12).42 Chrysostom exhorts further:

You have seen the fate of liars. Consider what is the fate of those swearing falsely [οἱ ἐπιορκοῦντες], consider and desist. It is impossible for one swearing not alsoto forswear himself, whether he wants to or not; and no perjurer can be saved[οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιορκοῦντα σωθῆναι]. One false oath suffices to finish all, to draw upon us the whole measure of vengeance. Let us then take heed to ourselves, sothat we may escape the punishment due to the offence, and be deemed worthy of the loving kindness of God. (John Chrystostom, Hom. Act. 12 [PG 60:105–6]).43

Later patristic authors continue this line of interpretation. Gregory the Greatwrites, “Ananias had vowed money to God” and “was deserving of the penalty of death,” because he “withdrew the money that he had given to God” (Ep. 34).44

Jerome, responding to Porphyry, asserts that the couple deserved death becausetheir perjury signals impiety: “for having made a vow, they offered their money toGod as if it were their own and not His to whom they had vowed it; and keepingback for their own use a part of that which belongs to another, through fear of famine (cf. Acts 11:28), which true faith never fears, they drew down on themselvessuddenly the avenging stroke, which was meant not in cruelty towards them but asa warning to others” (Ep. 130.14).45 Jerome saw the couple’s attempt to save somemoney, presumably for getting them through the impending famine, as proof of their utter unbelief in the providence of God—sheer atheism. Jerome thus con-

40 CSEL 3.1:143–44; trans. in ANF 5:543.41 Basil, An Ascetical Discourse, trans. in Monica Wagner, Ascetical Works/Saint Basil (FC 9;

Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1962), 208.42 PG 60:99–105; trans. in NPNF 11:76–80.43 On Chrysostom’s interpretation, see Williamson, “Use of the Ananias and Sapphira Story,”

211–12, 226–27, 237–42.44 Trans. in NPNF 12:84.45 T i NPNF 6 268




demns Ananias and Sapphira as “idolaters” (Ep. 14.3).46 Moreover, when Augustinepreaches on this passage, he also defends the divine judgment of death, by sayingthat the Holy Spirit punished not avarice but a lie. Augustine uses the Scripture to

prompt his exhortation on the importance of fulfilling all vows made to God, espe-cially monastic ones.47 The history of patristic interpretation confirms, therefore,that divine judgment for perjury is a probable context in which ancient readerswould have made sense of the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira.48

IV. Conclusion

This exegetical study remaps the interpretation of Acts 5:1–11 beyond the

search for biblical antecedents and toward stock scenes of divine judgment for thecrime of perjury in Luke’s Greco-Roman culture. In Mediterranean and Near East-ern antiquity, the destruction of a paradigmatic object typically sealed the oaths,

vows, and other pacts used in everyday life, such as business and commercial trans-actions. The verbal formulas in oath ceremonies included a self-curse for dishon-esty and perjury (e.g., “May I die . . .”). Many ancient works questioned, however,the value of such self-imprecations, especially when impious characters with a habitof forswearing were proverbial. The comedy of the stage perjurer explored thisquestion in stock scenes to great dramatic effect.

From the perspective of Luke’s narrative, the deaths of Ananias and Sapphiraare not tragic. Rather, the scene encourages the audience to have confidence thatthe church (ἡ ἐκκλησία) is blameless of impiety (ἀσέβεια) and that promises aboutits deity are true. The positive resolution thus matches the form or structure of acomedy. The author of Luke-Acts engages the notions of ritual and religious iden-tity in his contemporary culture. He distinguishes the piety of his early Christianheroes by the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira, who scorn the keeping of oaths thatGod demands.

46 Trans. Charles C. Mierow, The Letters of Jerome, vol. 1 (ACW 33; Westminster, MD: New-man, 1963), 63.

47 Augustine, Sermon 148 (98) (PL 39:799–800); trans. Edmund Hill, The Works of Saint

Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century , vol. 3.5: Sermons 148–183 (ed. John E. Rotelle; New Rochelle, NY: New City Press, 1992), 17–18. Augustine mentions the destructive power of anoath’s imprecation in another work: Augustine, On the Psalms 7.3, trans. Maria Boulding, inRotelle, Works of Saint Augustine, vol. 3.15, Expositions of the Psalms, 1–32 (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2000), 116.

48 More patristic interpretation in light of ancient oaths and vows is found in Williamson,“Use of the Ananias and Sapphira Story,” 38–39, 42, 47, 50–60, 135, 175–79, 187–88, 199–200,

202–5, 335; and Brown, “Meaning and Function,” 62–64.




Copyright of Journal of Biblical Literature is the property of Society of Biblical Literature and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.