historical perspectives: from the hasmoneans to bar kokhba in light ...

COMMUNITY OF GOODS 153
no buying or selling among themselves, but each gives what he has
to any in need and receives from him in exchange something useful
to himself; they are, moreover, freely permitted to take anything
from any of their brothers without making any return." If so, then
in Josephus, as in Acts, there are allusions to two rather different
ways of practising community of goods, both of which are attributed
to the same group (compare § 122). 13 Josephus himself indicates
that not all Essenes lived in exactly the same manner as the community
he describes at length, but that there were others who married,
who would have practised community of goods rather differently.
b) V. 33 interrupts the summary, separating v. 32 fromVV. 34-35.
Commentators generally agree that it did not originally form part
of the same unit. Its inclusion could be a subtle indication on the
part of Luke that he is in fact following two sources and that the
two parts of the summary are not necessarily describing the same
practice of community of goods.
V. 34 tells us that "there was no one needy among them" (cf.
Deut. 15:4). The rest of this verse and the following explain how
the community ensured that none of its members was in want: "For
those who were possessors of farms or houses" (the WT has
only houses) used to sell them and bring the prices
(of what they had sold, adds the AT) and lay them at the feet of
the apostles." 14 A distribution was then made no doubt
by the apostles, "to each as anyone might have need." In other
words, the proceeds of the sales went into a common fund, administered
by "the apostles," which was intended to meet the needs of
those members who would otherwise be in want.
As we have already remarked, these words seem to be an amplification
of 2:45; in addition, v. 35 specifies who managed the common
fund and saw to the disbursements. In that case, VV. 34-35
originally referred to the same practice of absolute community of
goods as the earlier passage. But that is certainly not the same practice
as that described in v. 32.
13 But the corresponding "Slavonic" passage has: "There is no commerce among
them: that which each one needs, he takes as his own, without anyone preventing
him"; this would imply rather a common stock, and so once again a strict community
of goods.
14 This last expression is repeated in each of the two narratives that follow.
Commentators refer to Cicero, Pro Flacco 68: "ante pedes praetoris in foro expensum
est auri pondo."