Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson

7. Benefaction Gone Wrong: The "Sin" of Ananias and Sapphira in Context

7 BENEFACTION GONE WRONG: THE "SIN" OF ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA IN CONTEXT RICHARD S. ASCOUGH In the early chapters of Acts Luke describes the early Christians in Jerusalem as holding all things in common (arcavia KOiva) and selling property and possessions to meet the needs ofothers (Acts 2:41­47;4:32­35). Twospecific examples of those who have sold property are recorded, one positive and one negative. Barnabaslays the proceeds from the sale of a field (aypoc,) at the feet of the apostles (Acts 4:36­37). Ananias and Sapphira likewiselayasum at their feet from the sale of a piece of property (KTfju.cc; Acts 5:1­11). In their case, however, they do not turn over the entire proceeds from the sale of the land. When the discovery of their deception is brought to their attention each in turn dies on the spot. This negative example has been both puzzling and troublesome formany scholars (cf.Bruce 1988: 103; Haenchen 1971: 237). Most recognize that the addition in 5:11 of 6Ar|v TTJV 8KKAr|aiccv to the twice­repeated notation of great fear (5:5b, 11) probably indicates that the story bears an important message for Luke's community (Ltidemann 1987: 64). Yet, since an explicit description of the motivation is missing from the text the theories vary as to what that message might be. In order to determine the full import of Luke's inclusion of the story we must consider what Luke's audience might have assumed to be the motivating factorsbehind the sin ofAnanias and Sapphira, given the larger socio­cultural context. To do so we must set our text among 1 The practice quickly seems to have been abandoned within the Acts narrative. ByActs 11:27­30 the Judean churches are impoverished and in need ofhelp, a situation seemingly confirmed by Paul's collection for the poor of Jerusalem (see esp. 2 Cor 8­9; Rom 15:25­ 26). There are no other New Testament texts that confirm Luke's depiction of the community of goods in Jerusalem. 92 TEXT AND ARTIFACT the realia wehave from antiquity,asPeter Richardson has championed. In this case our artifacts will be inscriptions. 1. Past Interpretations of the Story The text of Acts indicates that the sin for which Ananias and Sapphira are condemned is the attempt to deceive the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3, 9). Many scholars see the lie itself as adequate explanation for the punishment. In no instance do these scholars give an explanation as to why the couple withheld some of the proceeds, or why, in doing so, they felt it necessary to lie to the apostles and the community. While Luke would probably confirm the condemnation oflyingboth to others (Exod 20:16; Lev6:2; 19:11) and to God (cf. Ezek 13:1­10; Isa 28:17), it is doubtful whether this is an adequate explanation of this passage. For this reason, other scholars suggestthat the precise nature ofthe sinlies elsewhere, particularly in the motivation for the lie. A number of commentators focus on the issue of the money retained. For example, Ernst Haenchen (1971: 240) suggeststhat the couple wanted to ensure their future security but felt it necessary to conform to the practice of others within the Christian community. Gerd Liidemann (1987: 64) isharsher in charging them with "dealing selfishly with material possessions." When ascribing the motivation for the lie to a desire simply to keep back money, most commentators assume that Ananias and Sapphira will be impoverished by the donation of the proceeds from the sale of this property. Ananias and Sapphira, however, sell "a" parcel of land (£7u5Ar|oev KTfju.a), not necessarily "all" of their land and possessions (cf.Witherington 1998: 215­ 16). Simple concern for the money does not explain the lie. As Peter in the story points out (Acts 5:4), the money, or any part of it, was theirs to keep 2 For instance, Marshall (1980: 112); Schmithals (1982: 56); Bruce (1988: 105); Barrett (1994: 262); Havelaar (1997: 65); Dunn (1996: 63); Walaskay (1998: 61); Klinghardt (1994: 255). Forkman (1972: 173­74) attempts to connect their actions with the sin against the HolySpirit mentioned in Luke 12:10.This explanation isinadequate,however, since the context of Luke 12:8­12, unlike that of Acts 5, places the sin against the Holy Spirit in situationsofchristologicalconfession before others, particularly those inauthority outside the Christian community. 3 Punishment for lying to the gods is alsoattested in the non­Jewishworld...