Protective anonymity

Gerd Theissen argued that the man who cut off the ear of the high priest's slave (Mark

14:47), and the naked youth (Mark 14:51-52) are anonymous because their identities had to

be protected for their own safety, in case the text fell into the hands of persecutors of

Christians.(1) Bauckham recently argued that the woman who poured the alabaster jar on

Jesus (Mark 14:3-9) and others in Mark's passion narrative are also anonymous for their own

protection.(2) There are also good reasons to believe that Paul employs anonymity to protect

the identity of three people who were involved in the controversial collection of money for the

churches of Judea (see on silences concerning the collection).

First century Christians risked beatings and death and it is completely to be expected that

the NT writers would choose their words carefully so that they did not inadvertently expose

the people about whom they wrote to persecution. The use of protective anonymity was one

way of safeguarding individuals.

It is surprising that the device of protective anonymity was not recognized earlier. Perhaps it

is because most academics do not work in cultures where religious persecution is severe.

It is argued here that the author of Acts was the Lucius of Rom 16:21, and it is possible that

he hides his own identity for his protection.

The Asiarchs in Acts 19:31 are anonymous and this is perhaps to protect these friends of

Paul from criticism from opponents of the church.

Protective heteronymity

People who are at risk of arrest or persecution often employ aliases. This makes it more

difficult for the authorities to trace them, while allowing identification by insiders who are told

the names. These web pages show that many or most of the first century Christians who

were persecuted or killed were the recipients of new names. In individual cases it is often

impossible to determine whether a new name was given to honor the individual or whether it

was given as an alias for their protection or whether both motives pertained. However, the

need for aliases goes a long way towards explaining why so many NT Christians were the

recipients of a second name.

An example of the use of protective heteronymity can be found in 2 Corinthians. When

discussing Timothy's involvement in the provocative collection for Jerusalem Paul does not

call him "Timothy". Instead he uses Timothy's earlier name, Titus, which was perhaps known

only to insiders. The three men who were sent with "Titus" in 2 Corinthians are all given

protective anonymity.

Let us now look at the device of protective heteronymity in Acts. In these web pages it is

argued that Crispus was named "Sosthenes", Gaius was named "Alexander", and Jason

was named "Aristarchus". Luke mentions all six names, but in no case does he state that

the same person is intended. The phenomenon of protective silence may provide the

explanation. All three would have been benefactors of the church and all three probably went

into exile to escape the law or persecution.

Sosthenes, Alexander, and Aristarchus enter history at a later date than Peter, John-Mark,

Paul and Barnabas, and are quite likely to have been alive at the time that Acts was written.

If so, Luke may have wished to protect their identities or limit the amount of information that

his text would reveal about them to potential persecutors. Insiders could well have known

that Crispus was Sosthenes, etc., so they would have no difficulty understanding the text,

but outsiders would be kept in the dark. If Luke had stated that Crispus was Sosthenes, for

example, he would have drawn attention to the use of aliases by Christians, and this would

have alerted opponents to the practice, which Luke would not have wanted to do. By

remaining silent about their identities, Luke deliberately leaves outsiders in ignorance about

whether Sosthenes, Alexander and Jason are Christians. This parallels the cases of the

naked youth and the man who cut off the ear of the high priest's slave, mentioned above,

whose Christian status is also left deliberately ambiguous, it seems.

"Theophilus", to whom Luke-Acts is addressed is very likely an alias and could well hide his

identity from potential persecutors.

Levi may have been given his new name (Matthew) so that he could make a break from his

tax collecting past. Mark mentions both names but does not tell us that they belonged to

one person. This may have been to protect Matthew from the stigma of his tax collecting

past.

John's gospel tells us that it was Mary, sister of Martha, who poured perfume on Jesus (John

12:1-8). Mark (14:3-9), like John, places the episode in Bethany. He places it in the house of

"Simon the leper". Probably this Simon was the father or a brother of Mary and Martha, and

the head of the house. Mark quotes Jesus as saying that what the woman had done would

be told in remembrance of her wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world. It is

therefore surprising that she is not named. Bauckham has argued that this silence is

protective (3). Now, Luke 7:36-50 tells the same story but emphasizes the woman's

sinfulness. Therefore, as we might expect, Luke leaves her anonymous, presumably to avoid

shaming her. The same person (Mary, sister of Martha) is named later in a passage that

speaks favorably of her (Luke 10:38-42), and this tends to confirm that the anonymity in

Luke 7:36-50 is protective. Other people who are anonymous in some places, but named in

others, may include Luke (see above) and, speculatively, Lazarus/beloved disciple.

Other protective silences in Acts

Certain anomalies in Acts 9 are explicable if Luke or his sources wanted to protect those

who helped Paul escape from damascus. See here.

Acts 12:17 says that Peter went to 'another place' after escaping from prison. The place is

strangely not named. It seems that Luke deliberately hides the location. Presumably he

wished to protect those that provided safe haven for Christians in hiding. It is probable that

Peter fled to Antioch with the help of John-Mark.

Acts hardly mentions the church of Rome and does not name any individuals there. This is

particularly surprising since Prisca and Aquila had come to Rome (Rom 16:3). Furthermore,

Acts ends abruptly and does not complete the story of Paul's life and death. All this is

explicable if Luke had security concerns. It would be difficult for Luke to write recent history

without endangering those about whom he wrote. Most of the members of the church of

Rome would still be alive at the time of writing and they would still be in Rome.

Paul, being a Jew, incurred the wrath of fellow Jews and received the thirty nine lashes on five

occasions (2 Cor 11:24). It is likely that other prominent Jewish Christians risked the same

type of persecution (consider the fate of Jason, the attack on Sosthenes, the danger to

Prisca and Aquila (Rom 16:3), the imprisonment of Timothy (by then a Jew)(Heb.13:24), and

the possibility that Prisca, Aquila, Sosthenes, and Jason were all forced into exile by

persecution. We have no reason to believe these prominent Jewish Christians were not at

similar risk of persecution when Acts was written. Did Luke afford them protection by hiding

their identies or their locations? To answer this question we must survey the Jewish

Christians named in Acts.

The Christian Jews named in the first half of Acts are exclusively first generation Christians

and most of them would have died by the time Acts was written. So there was no harm in

Luke mentioning that Mary, the mother of John-Mark took in Peter, who was a wanted man

(Acts 12:12). Similarly Luke was comfortable in saying that Paul stayed with Mnason, an

early disciple (Acts 21:16). In the second half of Acts, by contrast, Luke hides the identities

and/or locations of all the known Jewish Christians.

Timothy. Acts keeps quiet about the fact that he was from Antioch. Nor does Luke tell us

where he went. He drops from the story after Acts 20:4.

Silas similarly drops completely from the story after his arrival in Corinth (Acts 18:5). Silas

probably left Corinth since his name does not appear in Rom 16, but Luke does not record

his onward journey.

Jason's story in Thessalonica is told by Luke. However, Luke does not reveal that he moved

to Corinth (Rom 16:21). Also, he may well have taken the alias, "Aristarchus", and Luke

keeps silent about this.

Aristarchus was a Jew according to Col 4. Acts is strangely ambiguous about whether he

returned to Thessalonica or continued on the Journey with Paul to Rome. Luke reveals the

names of no-one who supported Paul in Rome: neither Aristarchus, nor his own name, nor

members of the church of Rome.

Luke does not reveal to outsiders that Sosthenes was Crispus renamed. Nor does he tell us

that Sosthenes re-located to Ephesus (1 Cor 1;1) (notice the absence of Crispus or

Sosthenes from the greeters in Rom.16).

By contrast Luke does reveal that Prisca and Aquila moved to Ephesus. He is able to do

this because Ephesus was not their final place of residence. They moved to Rome, as Rom

16:3 indicates.

We are told that Apollos was a native of Alexandria and that he came to Ephesus and then

crossed over to Achaia. We know from 1 Corinthians that he returned to Ephesus. Luke

must have known this, but did not record it.

It is argued that Alexander (Acts 19:34) was a Christian and was Gaius of Macedonia. These

things are not explicitly stated in Acts and Luke's silence may well be protective. Luke does

not give the home town of Gaius.

Sopater/Sosipater was a Jew (Rom 16:21) and is mentioned by Luke (Acts 20:4), but his

name sounds suspiciously like an alias and therefore there is a possibility that the name

was used only by insiders. Furthermore, we have no proof that he was still a resident of

Beroea at the time of Acts 20:4. He may have gone into exile from Beroea and taken his

alias at the same time.

Finally, Lucius (Rom 16:21) was probably the author of Acts, as we have seen above, and

his identity and home town are not revealed in the text.

So, we have surveyed every Christian Jew in the second half of Acts. In every case there is

evidence that Luke has taken measures to avoid exposing them to reprisals/discipline. By

contrast, we have no evidence that the text of Acts takes measures to protect Lydia, or

Titius Justus, both of whom were non-Jews. The author if Acts (or at least of the 'we

passages') travelled around the Aegean with Paul on his way to Jerusalem. He therefore

must have known that Jason was no longer in Thessalonica, that Sosthenes and Crispus

and Silas were no longer in Corinth, that Apollos was no longer in Achaia. He went to Rome,

so must have known that Prisca and Aquila were no longer in Ephesus. It is significant,

therefore, that the second half of Acts places Jewish Christians only in cities that the author

knew that they later left. In no case did Luke risk revealing their locations at the time of

writing.

Erastus was in Corinth when the author of the we passages left the Aegean region (Rom

16:23). This may explain why Acts does not tell us that Erastus was a Corinthian or that

Timothy and Erastus proceeded from Macedonian to Corinth (compare Acts 19:22 and 1 Cor

16:10). We do not know whether Erastus was a Jew.

Finally, the Asiarchs, in Acts 19:31 are anonymous and this is perhaps for their protection.

(1) Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context, (tr. L. M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991)

p.184-189.

(2) E.A. Judge, "The Roman Base of Paul's Mission", Tyndale Bulletin 56.1 (2005).

(3) R. Bauckham, Jesus and the eyewitnesses p. 183-201.

4. (4)Michaelis, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament p 741-742.
   

Back to index