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

158 JUSTIN TAYLOR
Sapphira consisted in making a false declaration concerning the
amount they had received for the sale of their land, pretending that
the amount laid "at the feet of the apostles" was the whole sum,
whereas it was only a part. Their motive may have been to get the
glory of having given all. So their crime, then, was not theft or
embezzlement, since they had a perfect right to keep their own property,
but rather one of lying. It is all very confusing, and their punishment
seems all the more disproportionate.
b) We are looking therefore for a situation where property initially
belongs to an individual, who has full rights over it, including
the price obtained for its sale, but which then becomes in full the
property of the community, in such a way that the previous owner
has no right to retain any of it. This situation would fit that of a
candidate for a community of Essenes, living under a system of strict
community of goods such as that prescribed by the Community Rule
and described in Josephus' report on the Essenes. According to this
system, as we have seen, those joining the group handed over their
property, of whatever sort; it would be returned to them if they left
during the probationary period, but on their final aggregation, it became
part of the property of the community. They would be expected
to transfer all of their assets, even though they could withdraw them
and depart up to the time of final acceptance. So a candidate who
presented part of his property, while declaring that it was the whole,
would be embezzling the community that had acquired provisional
rights to the whole property, as well as making a false declaration.
It seems reasonable to think that Ananias, with the consent of his
wife, made such a transfer of their assets upon entering the community
described in Acts 2:44-45 but kept back part, although they
were obliged to hand over all and declared that they were doing
so. 21 Their story should therefore be associated, like that of Barnabas,
with the first summary, 2:44-45, which describes a strict community
of goods. Why Luke placed it after the second summary, where
he seems to intend to describe a less strict practice, one can only
guess. Perhaps he merely wanted to fill out his description with two
exemplary narratives, one positive, the other negative.
In summary, it seems that Luke in Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-5:11
21 Thus B. J. Capper, "The Interpretation of Acts 5.4," JSNT 19 (1983): 117-31,
who draws the parallel with 1QS.