Abstract
Scholars of Luke–Acts have struggled to define the apostles’ proclamations of judgment on those who threatened the early Christian community. Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 4.32–5.11), Simon magus (8.4-25) and Bar-Jesus (13.4-12) all fall victim to the apostles’ words of power, yet scholars have typically shied away from categorizing their speeches as curses. Close analysis of the structure, style, phonaesthetic and dramatic aspects of the Greek texts suggests, however, that Luke indeed intends the apostles’ speeches to be heard as curses whilst simultaneously presenting them as legitimate acts of power. A comparison with Greek and Coptic ‘magical’ texts helps to place the curses of Acts in the context of cursing traditions in the wider ancient Mediterranean world.
Highlights
Scholars of Luke–Acts have struggled to define the apostles’ proclamations of judgment on those who threatened the early Christian community
In each case I will employ a comparative perspective to evaluate the curses of Acts in relation to a selection of Greek and Coptic ‘magical’ texts
Versnel has made a compelling case for a seemingly related but separate category of curses, which he terms ‘prayers for justice’ (1991a). Such curses are distinct from traditional defixiones in the way that they often address the local gods of the institutional cults, in their lack of magical formulae and their use of quasi-legal language, in their supplicatory posture, and in their desire for recompense on named enemies rather than anonymous ones (1991a: 90)
Summary
617; Conzelmann 1987: 100, who delineates the curse word, its effect and the public reaction; Haenchen 1971: 400; Johnson 1992: 226; Klauck 2000: 53; Parsons (2008: 189) interprets it in line with OT curses against those who practise idolatry, as in Deut. 28.2829. 617; Conzelmann 1987: 100, who delineates the curse word, its effect and the public reaction; Haenchen 1971: 400; Johnson 1992: 226; Klauck 2000: 53; Parsons (2008: 189) interprets it in line with OT curses against those who practise idolatry, as in Deut. For scholars who avoid or decline to describe Paul’s speech as a curse, see Carter and Earle 1959: 181; Bruce 1995: 249; Dunn 1996: 175; Gaventa 2003: 193; Malina and Pilch 2008: 91; Larkin 2011: 195. 3. For a range of alternative labels for Peter’s speech against Simon magus, see Derrett 1982: 64; Bruce 1995: 171; Dunn 1996: 112; Klauck 2000: 22; Witherington 2001: 287. Aune (1980), Haar (2003), Pervo (2008) and Keener (2013) represent the minority of modern scholars who have actively pursued, or have at least acknowledged, the texts’ similarities with non-biblical curses from Late Antiquity
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
