How does Luke-Acts use the language of judgement in its conflict narratives?

In Acts, the apostles utter proclamations of judgement on people they encounter on multiple occasions. Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 4.32-5.11), Simon the magus (Acts 8.9-25) and Bar-Jesus (Acts 13.6-12) all fall victim to the apostles’ judgment. The next series of columns will use close analysis of the Greek text to demonstrate key links between these three episodes in Acts, exploring elements of curse traditions in the apostles’ speeches.  Considerations of co-text will lead to better understanding of the function of curses in Luke-Acts. Having demonstrated some of the common elements in the judgments of the apostles, we will compare these biblical texts with some Greek and Coptic curse texts to further understand Luke-Acts interaction with curse traditions in the ancient Mediterranean.

There is little consensus among scholars over how to define the language of judgement in Luke-Acts. Some admit Paul’s words to Bar-Jesus to be a form of a curse. C. K. Barrett writes that Paul ‘roundly curses’ his opponent.^[1] E. Plumacher draws attention to the apostles’ Old Testament style: ‘Even the curses of the apostle sound a biblical note.’^[2] H. J. Klauck calls Paul’s words ‘a sharp invective’^[3] and L. T. Johnson, ‘a curse in the name of the Lord’, demonstrating Paul to be a genuine prophet.^[4]

However, when it comes to the other two narratives, scholars tend to offer a range of alternative labels for the apostles’ pronouncements, despite the evangelist portraying very similar phenomena. Barrett argues that Peter’s words to Ananias and Sapphira are ambiguous, and state only that Peter ‘predicts’ their fate.^[5] W. Larkin writes that Peter’s proclamation is ‘prophetic and effective judgment’ but emphasizes it is not a curse.^[6] B. Gaventa likewise redirects responsibility from Paul by writing that it is God’s confrontation with Satan that causes Ananias and Sapphira’s deaths.^[7]  Johnson describes Peter’s pronouncement as a prophetic declaration whose truth is powerful enough to kill.^[8] E. Haenchen calls it an ‘announcement’ of imminent death.^[9]

Similarly, when it comes to Peter’s encounter with Simon the magus, Barrett refers to a curse as ‘scarcely the right word.’^[10] Klauck describes Peter as ‘preaching’,^[11] Johnson as ‘rebuking’.^[12] Susan Garrett understands Peter’s words in Acts 8.9-25 as a curse but says elements of it depend on how one interprets ‘destruction’.^[13] A review of scholarship shows that few group the three incidents together. Rick Strelan is one of the few scholars to label the apostles’ words in these episodes as curses and who writes about these incidents in continuity.^[14] Despite the texts in Acts describing very similar phenomena, there is reluctance amongst scholars to label the apostles’ words of power as ‘curses’, possibly coming from an unwillingness to identify the activity of the apostles with a stereotypically ‘magical’ practice. O. Bauernfeind is one of the few scholars to read Peter’s words as reminiscent of magic formula from the Magical Papyri.^[15]

For a definition of cursing, this essay will take W. Schottroff’s definition from Encyclopaedia of Christianity, in which he describes a curse as being similar to a blessing, describing words of power thought to take effect ‘magically’. It is a materialised force that travels and overcomes (as in Zech 5.1-4, Num 24.9, Ps 140.9-11).^[16]

In discussion of curses, we are not interested in questions of whether cursing in Luke-Acts ‘magical’. In future columns, through literary analysis of the three texts, considerations of co-text of Acts and comparison with Greek and Coptic curse texts, we hope to explore what the language of judgement in Luke-Acts tell us about the text’s attitude towards opposition, and matters of deceit, money and ‘magic’.