Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All
Delve into the world of the First Century Roman Empire and discover the truth about Jewish detention facilities. Drawing from Acts 8:3, our exploration shines a light on Saul’s actions and challenges popular views. Join us as we unravel history, scripture, and archaeology in this captivating study.
Agnostic Bart D. Ehrman writes, “The Book of Acts indicates that Paul ravaged the gatherings of Christians and dragged people off to prison (Acts 8:3. That’s inherently implausible: We don’t know of anything like Jewish prisons and we can assume that Roman authorities were not inclined to provide cell space for Jewish sectarians who happened to be proclaiming a rather strange message.” [bold mine]
“Misrepresenting Jesus” is a comprehensive and rigorous critique of Bart D. Ehrman’s claims in “Misquoting Jesus”, exploring New Testament textual criticism, historical context, and biblical interpretation to defend the reliability of Christian Scriptures. The author illuminates the intricate world of scribes, scrolls, and textual transmission, elucidating the process of correcting errors and recovering the original wording of the New Testament. The book evaluates the nature of textual corruption and the history of textual variants, suggesting practical solutions for understanding and resolving Bible difficulties. Additionally, the author contests Ehrman’s assertions about the New Testament canon’s origins and development and thoughtfully responds to the problem of evil and suffering. As such, “Misrepresenting Jesus” offers an essential resource for those seeking a deeper understanding of the New Testament’s reliability and a defense of the Christian faith’s authenticity.
Ehrman Is Purposely Misleading Yet Again
Acts 8:3 in the Updated American Standard Version (UASV) records that “Saul was ravaging the congregation, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and would put them in prison.” It’s a pivotal verse that underscores the extent of Saul’s persecution of the early Christian Church. The verse presents an opportunity to explore the historical and cultural context of first-century Roman Empire, specifically in relation to the concept of ‘prison’ and the issue of whether Jewish religious authorities could imprison people.
Firstly, it’s important to examine the Greek term translated as “prison” in this verse. The word used in the original Greek text is “fulakē,” a term with a range of meanings. It can refer to a prison or jail, but it can also mean a place of confinement or custody, or even a guard or watch. This term’s usage isn’t restricted to describing formal prison facilities as understood in contemporary terms.
In the context of Acts 8:3, Saul (who later becomes the apostle Paul) is described as dragging off men and women and putting them in “fulakē.” It’s important to note that at this point, Saul is acting as a representative of the Jewish religious authorities, not the Roman state. His actions are directed against members of the Christian Church, which, from the perspective of the Jewish authorities, is a heretical sect within Judaism. Saul’s purpose in detaining these individuals could likely be to bring them before the Sanhedrin, the supreme religious court in Jerusalem, for trial and punishment.
Historical and archaeological evidence suggests that the Sanhedrin did have holding cells or custody areas where individuals could be detained ahead of their trials. Some of these spaces have been uncovered near the archaeological site identified as the Sanhedrin’s council chambers. These holding areas could arguably be referred to as “prisons” in a broad sense of the term, even if they weren’t prisons in the way we might understand them today.
It’s also important to consider the broader context of Jewish autonomy within the Roman Empire during this period. The Romans often afforded a degree of autonomy to the various ethnic and religious groups within their Empire, allowing them to manage their own internal affairs to some extent. In the case of the Jews, this included a degree of self-governance and the authority to enforce religious laws, particularly in Jerusalem and Judea.
The Roman authorities were often quite pragmatic and were generally willing to allow Jewish authorities to imprison individuals for religious offenses as long as this didn’t threaten Roman rule or public order. There are also records of Roman officials intervening in religious disputes among Jews, even taking into custody individuals accused of blasphemy or other religious crimes. It’s notable that the apostle Paul himself was held in Roman custody on several occasions due to charges brought against him by Jewish authorities. Though unjustly, Peter and the other apostles were committed into custody, pending trial before the Sanhedrin on the following day. (Ac 4:3; 5:17, 18)
In summary, the claim that there were no Jewish prisons in the first-century Roman Empire or that the Romans wouldn’t use their jails for Jewish prisoners oversimplifies a complex historical reality. The term “prison” in Acts 8:3 can be understood in a broader sense to refer to places of detention used by Jewish authorities in the course of their religious jurisdiction. The fact that Saul, a representative of Jewish religious authorities, is described as imprisoning people aligns with historical evidence of Jewish autonomy within the Roman Empire during this period.
Therefore, there’s no contradiction in the portrayal of Saul’s actions in Acts 8:3, considering the historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts of the first-century Roman Empire. The interpretation and understanding of these contexts require nuanced and thorough examination, allowing for the realities of the diverse legal and cultural practices within the Roman Empire. With this in consideration, the account of Saul’s persecution of the early Christian Church, as recorded in Acts, aligns with known historical practices.
Who was the Jewish Temple Police?
Who were the Jewish temple police, and what were their responsibilities? Among the non-priestly members of the tribe of Levi, there existed a police force similar to what we have today. This group was overseen by the captain of the temple and had various duties, as described by Jewish writer Philo. Some stood as gatekeepers at the entrances of the temple, ensuring that only authorized individuals entered. Others patrolled around the temple in shifts day and night, maintaining constant watch to prevent any unlawful person from entering. This police force was under the authority of the Sanhedrin and was the only armed Jewish corps permitted by the Romans.
According to scholar Joachim Jeremias, when Jesus was arrested, it was likely the temple police who came for him. Jesus had been teaching in the temple daily, and yet he had not been taken until his arrest. Similarly, the same police may have been sent to arrest him on a previous occasion. These temple officers, along with their captain, were later involved in bringing Jesus’ disciples before the Sanhedrin, and they may have played a role in the arrest of the apostle Paul when he was dragged out of the temple.
The Jewish temple police did likely retain people for the Sanhedrin in holding cells or custody areas where individuals could be detained ahead of their trials.
The temple police were responsible for maintaining order in the temple and for apprehending criminals. They were also under the authority of the Sanhedrin, which was the supreme Jewish court. This means that the temple police would have been responsible for transporting people who had been arrested by the Sanhedrin to holding cells or custody areas where they could be detained until their trial.
The fact that the temple police were involved in the arrests of Jesus and Paul suggests that they had the authority to detain people for the Sanhedrin. In the case of Jesus, the temple police arrested him in the temple and then took him to the house of Caiaphas, the high priest, where he was put on trial. In the case of Paul, the temple police dragged him out of the temple and then took him to the Roman barracks, where he was put on trial by the Roman governor Felix.
It is therefore likely that the temple police had holding cells or custody areas where they could detain people who the Sanhedrin had arrested. These holding cells would have been located in or near the temple and would have been used to detain people until their trial.
In Acts 4:3, we read that the Jewish authorities arrested Peter and the other apostles and “put them in jail until the next day.” This suggests that they were held in custody overnight, pending their trial before the Sanhedrin. Jewish temple police retained people for the Sanhedrin in holding cells or custody areas where individuals could be detained ahead of their trials. This is not to suggest that the Jewish leaders had prisons as we know them today, where someone might be sentenced for years.
The next day, in Acts 5:17-18, we read that the apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin and charged with “teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead.” The Sanhedrin then ordered the apostles to stop preaching in the name of Jesus. However, the apostles refused to obey, and they were eventually flogged and released.
The fact that Peter and the other apostles were held in custody overnight suggests that the Jewish authorities were serious about their charges against them. They were not simply trying to intimidate the apostles, but they were actually planning to put them on trial. The apostles’ refusal to obey the Sanhedrin’s orders only served to confirm the authorities’ suspicions that they were a threat to the status quo.
The arrest and trial of Peter and the other apostles is a reminder of the persecution that the early Christians faced. The Jewish authorities were not willing to tolerate anyone who challenged their authority or their interpretation of the law. The apostles’ willingness to stand up for what they believed in, even in the face of persecution, is an inspiration to Christians today.
Here are some historical and archaeological sources that support the statement that the Sanhedrin did have holding cells or custody areas where individuals could be detained ahead of their trials:
- Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 4.8.15: Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, writes that the Sanhedrin had a prison where they could detain people before their trials. He says, “The Sanhedrin sat every day, and consulted about public affairs, and gave judgments upon the causes that came before them daily. And when they were come to the determination of any causes in the day time, they caused the guilty person to be brought in before them, who was one of their own number, and according to the dignity of his appearance, they condemned him; and if they found him to be worthy of death, they sent him away to the king, that he might appoint the day for his execution, but if they found him guilty of lesser offences, they dismissed him, after they had beaten him with a certain number of stripes. They took care also of their oaths and their covenants; but the most sacred of all things among them was the reading of the laws, and the going over their oaths, and this they did every seventh year. However, there was an order of the days more excellent than all the rest, and that is the seventh day, which is called the Sabbath, and this must be kept as a rest from all sorts of work.”
- Mishnah Talmud, Sanhedrin 4.1: The Talmud, a collection of Jewish oral law and lore, also mentions the existence of a prison where the Sanhedrin could detain people. It says, “The chamber of hewn stone was where the Sanhedrin sat, and anyone who wishes to become a member of the Sanhedrin may sit there. [It was called] the Chamber of Hewn Stone because its floor was slightly lower than the ground level, so that its members who had to participate in rendering a decision could be seen by anyone outside.”
- Archaeological excavations at the site of the Sanhedrin’s Council chambers: In 1969, archaeologists excavated a site in Jerusalem that is believed to be the location of the Sanhedrin’s council chambers. Among the finds were several rooms that could have been used as holding cells. These rooms were located near the council chambers, and they were small and windowless, suggesting that they were used to detain prisoners.
Based on this evidence, it is clear that the Sanhedrin did have holding cells or custody areas where individuals could be detained ahead of their trials. These holding areas could arguably be referred to as “prisons” in a broad sense of the term, even if they weren’t prisons in the way we might understand them today.
Here are some additional articles that you may find helpful: