Conclusion
Acts and Paul’s letters are both important sources for informing us about Paul’s life. On the (often incidental) elements where they address the same issues, the vast number of correspondences (despite the differences) indicate that Luke clearly knew much about Paul. He was writing a work of history, not a novel.
For contrasts, see, e.g., Pervo, Mystery, 32 (I concur with at least five of the eight differences).
For a survey of views on Acts and Paul through 1978, see Mattill, “Value”; for more recent work, see esp. discussion in Porter, Paul in Acts; idem, “Portrait”; also Phillips, Paul and Acts (too recent for my full interaction).
Especially the sequence of the Pauline mission (see comments below, esp. ). This observation omits the large areas where they do not touch on the same information because of incidental gaps in either source. Alexander, “Chronology,” finds that Acts and Paul fit closely except on two points where Luke lacked full data. Phillips, Paul and Acts, 63–65 (who does not interact with Campbell, Alexander, or Riesner), emphasizes the differences more heavily, though especially the special case of Acts 15 (see 74–82), where I believe the parallels are more significant than the differences (cf. our discussion of Acts 15 ad loc.). Scholars today appear increasingly ready to employ all the earliest Christian sources rather than just Paul’s undisputed letters in reconstructing Pauline chronology (Edo, “Cronologías”).
Even the rare historical novel would not be expected to have so many close correspondences; if it did, it would be “almost” history, and I know of none that was so close to history as Acts is.
I refer to analogous events, not to the sort of details, such as the content of speeches on particular occasions, for which we lack sufficient external corroboration in some cases to demand analogous accuracy in others.
Some scholars, though conceding that Luke knew basic events, would insist that he must have sensationalized and fictionalized these events with “signs” claims. Yet such claims appear as a frequent part of evangelism in patristic and even modern sources, sometimes citing eyewitnesses; one may explain such phenomena in various ways, but to relegate all of them to a process of legendary accretion ignores actual data to favor modern Western assumptions of how early Christian “heroes” should have acted (see below).
Gaventa, Acts, 43, notes that God’s activity stands behind even Paul’s apparent prominence. For Paul’s prominence in Acts, see also Kurichianil, “Paul.”
Cf., e.g., Trocmé, “Beginnings of Historiography.” Georgi, Opponents, 319, thinks that Luke’s effort to promote Paul vis-à-vis his opponents proved successful.
See more fully Keener, “Apologetic.” Even modern scholars in various disciplines often become fond of and “defend” their subjects; e.g., scholars of Stoicism may want to help students appreciate Stoicism, and they hence answer some of the objections against it (e.g., Oksenberg Rorty, “Faces,” 243; cf. also Irwin, “Stoic Inhumanity,” 238); a classics professor may become fond of Herodotus (Cartledge, “Herodotus”); and some modern Pauline scholars rally to Paul’s defense on various points. But Luke’s apologetic is generally more intense than this. Even Luke’s portrayal of the love and loyalty Paul’s associates had for him (e.g., Acts 20:36–38) serves Luke’s apologetic purpose, though it is also consistent with Paul’s letters (e.g., 1 Thess 3:6), underlining Paul’s kind and generous character against the counterportrayals of Paul circulating elsewhere (e.g., Rom 3:8; 2 Cor 6:8; Phil 1:14–17; cf. 2 Tim 1:16); see further discussion ad loc.
Cf. the function of royal spinmeisters in Philost. Hrk. 31.5 and presumably behind 1–2 Samuel (in the context of ancient Near Eastern royal apologies, see Long, “Samuel,” 270); probably also the apologetic for Socrates in Xenophon and Plato. Josephus’s autobiography is apologetic (with, e.g., Lamour, “Organisation”).
Concerns about Paul persisted, albeit without interest in his Roman execution, in later decades; Judge, Athens, 62–63, cites as non-Pauline sources Shepherd of Hermas (numerically rivaling Paul’s letters among the papyri), the Didache, and Barnabas (though neglecting 1 Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius).
Paul’s own letters testify of conflicts with his own people (2 Cor 11:24, 26), although he had them with Gentiles as well.
See Keener, “Apologetic.” Mauck, Trial, 83–84, also insightfully notes narrative countercharges against Paul’s opponents, such as the Sanhedrin flogging innocent persons (5:40), some opponents supporting perjury (6:11), some supporting or attempting murder (7:58; 9:23; 21:31; 23:12–14), and so forth. Although Luke is emphatic that Paul did not stir unrest, he also avoids associating him with the culturally shameful vice of cowardice; Paul is prepared to sacrifice his life for his divine mission (20:24; 21:13; cf. 9:16), a Lukan portrait reflecting Paul’s genuine commitment (2 Cor 4:10–11; 11:23–27; Phil 1:20–24; 2:17; cf. Rom 15:25, 31; 1 Cor 15:30–32; 1 Thess 2:8).
Some proposed apologetic for Paul, however, is implausible—e.g., Luke’s attempt to dissociate Paul from Gnosticism (Lüdemann, Paul, 15–16, citing Acts 20:29–30, which reveals no particularly gnostic concerns). Gnosticism is too late for relevance here (see Yamauchi, Gnosticism; Smith, Gnostic Origins; Keener, John, 164–69) and too peripheral to Luke’s concerns, in any case.
Numerous other reports of, and written documents about, Jesus’s life and teaching were already circulating (Luke 1:1), and so, in his Gospel, Luke needed merely to supplement and edit those.
Such personal notes can appear in purely pseudepigraphic texts (Brox, “Notizen”), but not usually so extensively.
See, in favor of Pauline authorship, e.g., Jeremias, Briefe, 4–5; Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 3–33; Lock, Pastoral Epistles, xxv–xxxi (very tentatively); Fee, Timothy, xx; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, cxviii–cxxix; Ellis, “Authorship”; idem, Paul and Interpreters, 49–57; idem, “Pastoral Letters”; McRay, “Authorship”; Montague, Timothy, 16–23; cf. Johnson, Writings, 381–89; idem, Timothy, 4; Witherington, Titus, Timothy, John, 49–64. The story presupposed in the Pastorals is internally consistent.
For their pseudonymity (though many allow for Pauline tradition), see, e.g., Scott, Pastoral Epistles, xvi–xxiii; Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 1–5, 16; Zmijewski, “Pastoralbriefe”; Cook, “Fragments”; Maloney, “Authorship”; Verhoef, “Pseudepigraphy”; idem, “Paulines.”
Certainly, the style is quite different (Harrison, “Hypotheses”; Grayston and Herdan, “Authorship”; Mealand, “Extent”; though cf. Metzger, “Reconsideration”; Barr, “Scale”; idem, “Dependence”; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 453; esp. Richards, Letter Writing, 141–47; written vs. oral style in Baum, “Variation,” esp. 291–92); less relevant and compelling in my opinion are purported theological differences (e.g., Allan, “Formula”; Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 347–50).
Recognizing various arguments and Pauline materials but rejecting Pauline authorship in the strictest traditional sense, see esp. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 57–92 (noting [92] that the Pastorals “may well have been produced in a group which included Timothy and Titus themselves”; see also idem, “Pastoral Epistles,” 122; cf. Witherington, Titus, Timothy, John, 25); cf. evenhanded discussion in Quinn and Wacker, Letters, 18–23.
E.g., Suet. Jul. 45.1; Tib. 68.1–2; Nero 51; Tac. Agr. 44. Some such descriptions probably display the historians’ interests and may both help illuminate and be illuminated by comparisons with surviving portraiture; see discussion in Vout, “Emperor,” 263–74.
E.g., 1 Sam 9:2; Plut. Alex. 60.6. I do find, however, considerably more comment in fiction than in biographies and histories (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 10.1–4, esp. 10.3; 26.4, 13; 29.2; 33.39–40; 48.1; 49.3).
E.g., Men. Rhet. 2.5, 398.14–18; see further Anderson, Glossary, 125 (citing Rhet. Her. 4.63; for ridicule, Cic. De or. 2.266).
Cf. texts practicing divination through physiognomy (e.g., 4Q561; on zodiacal physiognomy in 4Q186 [see esp. 1 II, 5–8], see Schmidt, “Astrologie”; Böck, “Commentary”; Popovic, “Physiognomic Knowledge”; but by contrast, 4Q301 3 may not address physiognomy [Lange, “Physiognomie”]) or believing that physiognomy correctly predicted the future (Suet. Tit. 2). On physiognomy, see further Sassi, “Physiognomy”; in Stoicism, see Ramelli, Hierocles, 51n37 (citing SVF 2.10a from Dio Chrysostom Or. 33.53–55).
Some scholars have seen his description in Acts of Paul and Thecla in this way, but see Malherbe, “Physical Description” (also idem, Philosophers, 165–70; comparing descriptions of Augustus, Heracles, and Agathion), and the stature of Odysseus (Hom. Il. 3.193–94). Malina and Neyrey, Portraits, 100–152, offer a physiognomic perspective on Acts of Paul.
See Marshall, Enmity, 62, 64–65; Suet. Jul. 45.2; for gestures (which probably were relevant to Paul; cf. 2 Cor 10:10), Marshall, Enmity, 62, 65–66; on gestures more generally, see Hall, “Delivery,” 224–27; Hurschmann, “Gestures”; Lateiner, “Gestures.” Against some commentators, Gal 4:14–15 does not refer to an unsightly eye disease (as in Cic. Att. 7.14; 8.12–13; 10.14; 14.4.6); Gal 4:15 reflects a common idiom (Callim. Hymns 3 [to Artemis], lines 210–11; Petron. Sat. 1; Catull. Carm. 3.5; 14.1–3; 45.11–12; 48.1; 82.1–4; Sipre Deut. 313.1.4; perhaps Sen. E. Controv. 1.4.10; Sil. It. 10.637; see Keener, “Eyes”).
For Socrates’s nose, see, e.g., Max. Tyre 1.9; cf. also Aesop’s physical deformities in Vit. Aes. 1. Some criticisms of Odysseus’s appearance admittedly derived from his enemies (Philost. Hrk. 34.5).
E.g., by showing short Zacchaeus’s hospitality in Luke 19:3, 8–10 (see Parsons, Body, 97–108), though Luke’s mention of Zacchaeus’s height (to explain his climbing the tree) is incidental to the point of his repentance from sin.
Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, 124.
Against judging by appearance, see also Eunapius Lives 472–73; 2 Cor 5:16; John 7:24. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b.4, pp. 18–19.8–14, compares physical and moral beauty (but not on the assumption that they correspond in the same person). But whereas κάλλος appears fifty-four times in the LXX (e.g., often in Judith and Sirach; also five times in Psalms of Solomon), it does not appear in the NT (in contrast to the related καλός, ninety times in the NT and more than two hundred times in the LXX).
E.g., Sandmel, Genius of Paul, 13 (placing Paul and Acts in the same canon, in fact, “neutralizes” Paul’s radical character, p. 155). For the history of the division between scholarship connecting the Paul of Acts with the epistolary Paul, and contrasting them, from the skeptical approaches of F. C. Baur to (esp.) John Knox and Philipp Vielhauer, see helpfully Phillips, Paul and Acts, 30–49. Mount, Pauline Christianity, 172–80, concludes that Luke and his successors generated Paul’s importance as an individual figure in Christian memory; but what of Paul’s own view of his role in 1 Cor 4:15; 9:5–6; 15:5–10; Gal 1:16–20; 2:1–14?
Goodenough, “Perspective of Acts,” 58.
Vielhauer, “Paulinism”; Haenchen, “Acts as Source Material.” Vielhauer is followed by, e.g., Theissen, Writing and Politics, 85; cf. others, e.g., Schille, Apostelgeschichte, 49–50.
E.g., Jervell, Unknown Paul, 68–76; Bruce, Acts1, 34–40. Marguerat, “L’image de Paul,” notes both points that comport well with Paul and points that he believes fit a later generation.
See, e.g., Haacker, Theology, 143–44; Baum, “Paulinismen,” esp. 414–35.
For Luke as a “popular” historian, see the discussion on genre in , above (cf. also ); he did not cite his various sources even in his first volume, where he clearly acknowledges knowledge of them (Luke 1:1–2). Elite historiography (a class distinction not so relevant to novels) was far more apt to survive, so Luke-Acts is one of our few examples of popular historiography; interpreters must thus adjust historiographic expectations in light of some popular conventions, usually by substituting some storytelling expectations for elite rhetorical ones. Nevertheless, the many external correspondences to Acts that confirm Luke’s historiographic genre also confirm that he followed that genre’s expectations for narrating genuine events.
Points shared in common by independent portraits might be accepted as a least common denominator (Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 78, §25); but even for such a minimalist approach to Paul, we possess from an early period virtually only Acts and his letters, and a less minimalist approach must take into account the caveats below.
With also Bruce, Acts3, 46–47.
See the discussion in Gempf, “Speaking,” 293–94. For similar ideas expressed differently, see, e.g., O’Toole, “Notion of ‘Imitators.’”
See Mitchell, “Palimpsests.”
Keck, “Images,” argues that various portraits of Paul (he distinguishes Acts, Paul’s letters, and deuteropaulines) may all contain historical foundations, just as each (including Paul’s own writings) contains exaggerations; Paul’s successors each sought to claim his legacy.
Arguments against authenticity that are based on omissions employ fallacious reasoning: (1) It is possible to recount everything significant about Paul; (2) an author is obligated to recount everything (that we would count) significant about Paul; (3) we have a right to critique these omissions because, possessing some of Paul’s sample letters, we know more than Luke does; (4) if Luke does not know and recount what we know, the information that he does recount is not dependable.
Einhard claims to have witnessed many events surrounding Charlemagne yet never quotes him directly (Frye, “Problems,” 274); a witness need not recall or supply all information. For a philosopher’s complaint about the logic of argument from omissions, see McGrew, “Argument,” 598 (noting also that in law, “minor discrepancies among witnesses,” far from discrediting their testimony, challenge the likelihood of collusion).
That 2 Cor 12:2–4 refers to Paul’s own experience (cf. 12:1, 7) is fairly certain (see Keener, Corinthians, 237–38); cf. 2 Cor 5:13.
Donfried, Thessalonica, 90–96, critiques Vielhauer for ignoring Paul’s earlier letters, especially 1 Thessalonians (though Donfried dates it at least half a decade earlier than I would).
See Wilckens, “Interpreting,” esp. 75, 77, for critique of this old Bultmannian approach.
Harnack, Acts, 300. Paul’s Jewish-Christian theology may be less distinctive, vis-à-vis that of other Jewish Christians, than is often assumed on the basis of Galatians and Acts 15 (see Wright, Founder, passim).
Scholars of other ancient works often note that competent authors composing in different genres employed correspondingly different styles; see, e.g., Woodman, Rhetoric, 126.
See Witherington, Acts, 433–34; at length, Walton, Leadership.
Jervell, Theology, 2–3, following Räisänen, Paul and Law, on the tensions in Paul’s letters. Hurd, “Chronology and Theology,” warns against harmonizing either Acts or the epistles, citing in the latter case the need to attend to theological development.
Jervell, Unknown Paul, 56–57. Although extreme conservative approaches to the Gospels gave “harmonization” a bad name, more moderate approaches to harmonization are, in fact, used in trying to reach the truth behind differing historical documents—e.g., differing biographies of Lincoln—and even news reports today (see Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 423–25, noting, e.g., the experiment of J. P. Holding). Unless historians find some variation, they often suspect dependence or forgeries (425). But harmonization of any sorts of historical records usually involves speculation precisely because we lack so much information.
C. Williams, Acts, 22. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 136–37, suggests that those who think Acts too erroneous to have been written by Paul’s companion exaggerate “both the proximity to Paul and the number of errors” (he also doubts that Luke would have felt obligation to report as precisely as modern historians expect, in any case).
Others also recognize Paul as a possible source (e.g., Chance, Acts, 6). Autobiographic sections in Paul’s letters make it likely that he talked about his life when he spoke, and a young admirer would undoubtedly have listened happily to such stories on lengthy voyages.
See, e.g., Jervell, Theology, 4, on their different applications of the decree in Acts 15; see further discussion in this commentary under Acts 15.
Porter, Paul in Acts, 190–93, arguing against Haenchen on this and other points (e.g., God’s call supreme in both Acts 26:14 and 1 Cor 9:16; Rom 9–11). For the close compatibility between Acts 28:16–31 and Rom 11, see esp. Litwak, “Views”; idem, Echoes, 241–48.
C. Williams, Acts, 22–23.
With Witherington, Acts, 59. Differences of emphasis are not necessarily conflicts (cf. Lodge, “Salvation Theologies”), though even conflicts do not disprove acquaintance.
Collins, Mark, 5. She argues that these Evangelists were the companions bearing those names in Col 4:10, 14 (5); she views that letter as pseudonymous but probably containing authentic information, some of it independently confirmed in Acts (6, esp. on Col 4:10).
Further, students have multiple teachers and (especially including written sources) multiple conversation partners, which also provide a grid through which they select what is most meaningful in our presentation. As Chance, Acts, 3, notes, “Paul, though admired, need hardly have been the author’s only source of theological thinking.” Hengel, Peter, 80, 85, suspects that Luke’s time in Judea with Paul (Acts 21–27) helped reshape his Paulinism. Even individuals are not always consistent; see Allison, Jesus, 91–92, 103–4.
Porter, Paul in Acts, 206.
Lutz, “Musonius,” 12–13.
See esp. Porter, Paul in Acts, 109–15.
Still, Bernard, “Discours,” contends that the rhetorical level even in this letter mediates between normal letter style and forensic speech. Because Paul’s letters have more argumentation than most letters do, they probably do recall much of his preaching material, but this connection should not be pressed too far.
See, e.g., Bruce, “Real Paul?”; Witherington, Acts, 171.
With Witherington, Acts, 436–38. Porter, Paul in Acts, 196–97, also responds to Luke’s use of “apostle” as differing from Paul’s. Those who challenged his apostleship in his letters were his competitors; Luke, by contrast, is his very favorably disposed biographer.
For objecting to arguments based on what Luke does not say, see also Porter, Paul in Acts, 200–203.
E.g., Aeschines Tim. 16; Cic. Cat. 4.4.7; Appian Bell. civ. 1.3.26; Plut. Cic. 20.3; 22.2; Caird, Revelation, 35; Aune, Revelation, 166 (citing Dig. 48.19.8.9; 48.19.35); Rapske, Custody, 12–13; idem, “Prison,” 827–28.
E.g. (among extreme examples), Hurd, “Reflections,” 133, suggests that “the letters must be treated first and treated as though Acts did not exist,” though one can then consider what Acts might add.
As is often observed, Paul wrote his letters not as a systematic but as a pastoral theologian, a pastor and missionary (on the latter point, cf., e.g., Grams, “Mission Theologians”).
Biographies proper were not intended to be fictitious; see Aune, “Biography,” 125; Witherington, Sage, 339; Keener, “Otho”; idem, Matthew, 18–20; for the overlap among genres, cf. Burridge, Gospels, 63–69.
See Hillard, Nobbs, and Winter, “Corpus.”
Winter, Left Corinth, xiv.
For suggestions of such elements, cf. Larsson, “Paul: Law and Salvation.”
Jervell, Unknown Paul, 15; Hemer, Acts in History, 19–21.
Donfried, Thessalonica, 72, suggests that Luke’s theological agenda may interfere with precise chronology. Yet we would expect reasonable chronology in a history, and Luke lacked theological incentive to place Paul’s travels after the Syrian ministry (Donfried places some of Paul’s travels earlier, e.g., 74, 99–117; so also others, e.g., Campbell, “Attestation” [relying on a reconstructed text]), if that was not how he thought it happened.
See Riesner, Early Period, 30, 231; cf. also Witherington, Acts, 87. For a chronology that accepts Acts where it fits the letters, see Jeske, “Luke and Paul on Paul.”
E.g., Cic. Fam. 11.1–2.
Witherington, Acts, 87, 307–8, 430–31; cf. Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu, 205–6.
Hall, “Inference,” 320.
Witherington, Acts, 86–87, 307–8; see also Riesner, Early Period, 29–30. For autobiographic elements that do appear in Paul, see esp. (on Galatians) the careful work of Lyons, Autobiography.
Riesner, Early Period, 30.
For differences between these letters, see, e.g., Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 43–46, 418; Cohen, Maccabees, 167; cf. Hays, Echoes, 176; Udoh, “Views on the Law.” Boers, Justification, 223–24, contends that their message is compatible on the level of deeper structures.
See esp. Nanos, Mystery, 18; also 4, 21, 240 (noting [338] consistency with Acts’ portrait).
Also Haacker, Theology, 146, concurring with Jervell. Cf. Barnett, Birth, 192: “An eyewitness of good memory and judicious perception may be an equal or better source of information than the subject himself.”
For one useful survey, see Walker, “Pauline Letters,” listing works arguing that Luke did not know them; that he did know some but did not use them; and that he knew and used some.
E.g., Pervo, “Dating Acts”; idem, Dating Acts, 51–147 (citing often even detailed turns of phrase); idem, Mystery, 4 (“near certainty that Luke used Paul’s letters”). Goulder, “Letters,” argues that Luke knew 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians (98), but his evidence is not impressive. Pervo’s detailed comparisons are commendable, but they admit of other possible explanations. If Luke moved in the Pauline circle, could he not have picked up “Pauline” phraseology (or both picked up similar language in those circles)? Some of his comparisons, such as the correspondence of the three elements of Luke 18:11 with three of the eleven elements of the vice list in 1 Cor 6:9–10 (pp. 64–65), may, at most, reflect Pauline language. Some others, such as “anxiety” appearing in both 1 Cor 7:32–35 and Luke 10:40–41 (p. 67), simply press too much into common use of widespread vocabulary to be plausible. We should note, however, that Pervo, Dating Acts, 146, is not claiming that Luke, though using Paul’s letters, lacked other sources.
See Knox, “Acts and Corpus”; Walker, “Acts and Corpus Reconsidered.” Although Polycarp may have written his letter to the Philippians partly to introduce a letter collection (Poly. Phil. 13.2), he also had other purposes in writing (cf., e.g., 11.1, 4).
Knox, “Acts and Corpus,” 282–83.
Ibid., 286.
See Witherington, Acts, 171, who, however, does not date Acts this late; also Pervo, Dating Acts, 53 (who does date it in the second century).
E.g., Deissmann, Light, 246; Maddox, Purpose, 68; Barrett, “Acts and Corpus”; Wallace and Williams, Acts, 11; Porter, Paul in Acts, 206; Walton, Leadership, 14–17; Langner, Hechos, 35.
Bornkamm, Paul, xx.
Fitzmyer, Acts, 133, though noting many correlations (134–36) alongside the differences (136–37); O’Neill, Theology, 101–2; Johnson, Acts, 3–5.
Witherington, Acts, 170.
Fitzmyer, Theologian, 16.
On second copies, see, e.g., Cic. Att. 9.11, 13a, 14; 10.3a; 13.29; Fam. 3.3.2; 7.25.1; 11.11.1; Ad Brut. 3.1 (2.2.1); Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 99.2–32; Pliny Ep. 1.1.1; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.26; cf. also Richards, Letter Writing, 217 (citing Cic. Att. 13.6.3); Schmidt, “Letter,” 437.
Goulder, “Letters,” 98.
Especially Acts 15:20 reflecting 1 Cor 8–10 (Goulder, “Letters,” 104).
See his summaries in Goulder, “Letters,” 111–12. Other connections that are more concrete than the suggested verbal ones are more apt to depend on common information than on a common document.
Contrast Pervo, Dating Acts, 54, who suggests that lack of letter-writing in Acts probably suppresses knowledge of Paul’s letter-writing. Yet one wonders how successfully Luke’s silence would suppress their influence (especially if they were as widely known in the Pauline circle as Pervo apparently thinks they were). In my view, Acts does not mention his letter-writing because it was of far less interest than his personal visits and sufferings (though Luke does not focus even on his teachings in person); it fits neither Luke’s purview nor his era. Only in a later generation, when his living memory faded, would such letters come to the fore. Pervo (100) recognizes that “direct contact with Paul and/or some of his associates” would explain the data as well as would dependence on Paul’s letters, but thinks that Luke so misrepresents Paul (e.g., by subordinating him to the Jerusalem apostles—if one finds this example persuasive) as to make this unlikely. I address Luke’s supposed misrepresentation of Paul later in this chapter.
See also Fitzmyer, Theologian, 16 (contrast Fitzmyer, Acts, 133).
Cf. the postscript inserted at Acts 28 in Ethiopic versions (Uhlig, “Pseudepigraphischer Actaschluss”).
Luke omits major elements of the letters and focuses, e.g., on different elements of the Jerusalem Council.
See also Fitzmyer, Acts, for differences (136–37) and correlations (134–36); Lüdemann, Christianity, 7–8. Ancient historians also could demand coherency with other accounts or evidence (Polyb. 3.32.4–5).
Most thoroughly, for Luke as full author, Wilson, Pastoral Epistles, marshaling considerable evidence; for Luke as Paul’s amanuensis for the Pastorals, C. F. D. Moule, followed by others (e.g., Knight, Sayings, 149–50); quite plausibly, Lukan redaction (Feuillet, “Affinités”). History is so distinct from nonnarrative genres (Pliny Ep. 5.8.7–11) that the correspondences we do find (often noted; e.g., Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 339) appear more significant; some of these may simply represent educated (especially Stoic) vocabulary, but given the limited Pauline circle we know (a serious limitation), perhaps no one seems likelier than Luke. For medical imagery in the Pastorals, see Malherbe, Philosophers, 121–36; pseudepigraphy also seems to have flourished in medical circles (e.g., the expansive Hippocratic corpus; cf. Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 165, 323).
Besides those affirming Pauline authorship, e.g., Bornkamm, Paul, 86; Harrison, “Hypotheses”; Rogers, “Pastoral Epistles”; Zmijewski, “Pastoralbriefe.” Cf. Quinn, “Volume,” who suggests (70–75) an epistolary appendix for Acts, like the three letters ending Diogenes Laertius’s life of Epicurus; but in view of the homogeneity of the texture of Acts, I believe that this proposal goes too far.
E.g., Rom 16:22; Cic. Fam. 16.14.1–2; 16.22.1 (the scribe is also an interpreter for the copyists); Dio Chrys. Or. 18.18; Corn. Nep. 18 (Eumenes), 1.5; Suet. Horace 2 (a more creative secretary); Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.26. See further Ukachukwu Manus, “Hypothesis”; Longenecker, “Amanuenses,” 282–89; esp. Richards, Letter Writing, 64–80, 92–93, 143.
E.g., P.Tebt. 104.40; P.Lond. 1164 (h), line 30; P.Oxy. 269.17–18; 1206.24; 1636, lines 45–46; BGU 405.23–24.
One could even postulate that Timothy and Titus had received instructions from Paul such as those in these letters but, lacking surviving copies of the original letters (cf. Heb 13:23), secured help from someone (perhaps Luke, who had been with Paul), who could reconstruct the substance of Paul’s message; or one could postulate that those who heard the letters’ substance from them sought to reconstruct them.
See Keener, “Apologetic.”
I will treat Ephesians and Colossians as Pauline; even if they are Pauline at one remove, nearly all their language and thought remain compatible with some earlier Pauline passages. By contrast, as noted in sect. 1.b above, this commentary will not assume the language of the Pastorals as Pauline. Even if their substance is from Paul (which I believe is significantly likelier than many concede), the language differs so starkly from Paul’s undisputed letters that even supporters of Pauline authorship usually attribute much of the language to an amanuensis; hence most would agree that the language (the issue in question in some of our discussions) is not indisputably Pauline. Because their authorship is a debate to which we cannot attend in a commentary on Acts, it seems better to make the case for the biblical academy from documents that are more widely accepted there. I will, however, draw on the Pastorals periodically for their deposit of information about Paul, which most, regardless of views on date and authorship, at least date significantly earlier than the fictitious apocryphal Acts of Paul.
Bruce, Acts3, 47–52 (who concludes, 52–59, that Luke’s portrayal of Paul is genuine); idem, “Paul”; deSilva, Introduction, 375–79; cf. Alexander, “Chronology”; Chance, Acts, 20–21.
Hemer, Acts in History, 206.
Ps.-Callisthenes’s Alexander Romance may follow the general itinerary of Alexander’s conquests, but the itinerary was well known and published and therefore difficult to contravene. The case of Paul’s itinerary differs. If we argue that both simply followed geography, Luke’s narrative includes far more details corresponding to Paul’s own than would be necessary for simply postulating movement westward.
Williams, Miracle Stories, 6–9, counters this skepticism, pointing out that Luke portrays Paul’s sufferings (as Paul does) and Paul mentions his own miracles (as Luke does). Emphasis may differ (probably partly on account of the differing genres in which they write), but their information is coherent.
See the discussion of signs in Luke’s theology in of this introduction, sect. 6, below; from a historical and social standpoint, below; on gifts, see further Keener, “Gifts”; idem, Gift, 102–35. Porter, Paul in Acts, 193–94, also responds to Haenchen’s contrast here, but he plays down Paul’s miracles in Acts too much.
See Porter, Paul in Acts, 206; cf. also Emmet, “Tradition.”
See esp. Wenham, “Corpus,” more extensively than here; also Hemer, Acts in History, 181–90; Witherington, Acts, 445–49.
Porter, Paul in Acts, 167.
Harnack, Acts, 272: “The agreement which in these numerous instances exists between the Acts (chaps. i.–xiv.) and the Pauline epistles, although the latter are only incidental writings belonging to the later years of the Apostle, is so extensive and so detailed as to exclude all wild hypotheses concerning those passages of the Acts that are without attestation in those epistles.” The logic is the same as arguments that a source unreliable where it can be checked should be assumed unreliable elsewhere (cf., e.g., Ehrman, Interrupted, 110, on Papias).
Harnack, Acts, excursus 1, pp. 264–74.
See esp. Acts 7–8.
See here also Acts 21:21.
Harnack, Acts, 267.
Better for the Pauline parallel, Acts 1:15.
Campbell, “Journeys,” 87 (for the chart; in greater detail, 81–84; Campbell starts with Damascus, but I have augmented the outline). Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu, 203–4, regards this article as significant and cites the concurrence of Kümmel and Fitzmyer. Cf. the similar concurrence of itineraries in Trebilco, “Itineraries”; more briefly, Wallace and Williams, Acts, 26–27; other agreements in Riesner, “Zuverlässigkeit,” 41–42.
Campbell, “Journeys,” 85.
If Luke used them but then “suppressed” them by silence, as Pervo, Dating Acts, 54, has suggested, why not also suppress the version of Paul’s ministry (including this itinerary) they contained?
Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu, 207–8.
Ibid., 203–4.
Ibid., 205; Talbert, Acts, 240. He notes that first-person narrative was often apologetic and tendentious (Mediterranean Milieu, 206; Acts, 240).
Goulder, Competing Mission, 223. He also thinks that the hearing before Gallio is likely, as also the link with Priscilla and Aquila, and the mention of Sosthenes.
This point appears less clear to me.
The omission of Demas (Col 4:14; Phlm 24) may make sense in view of 2 Tim 4:10. As for Luke (Col 4:14; Phlm 24; perhaps Rom 16:21; cf. 2 Tim 4:11), see below.
Perhaps also Jason (Acts 17:5–9, in light of Rom 16:21) and probably Sosthenes (Acts 18:17; 1 Cor 1:1).
Charlesworth, Trade Routes, 85–86.
Cf. Riesner, Early Period, 271.
Paul’s “brand marks of Jesus” (Gal 6:17) probably also implies that the beatings left marks (with Ramsay, Galatians, 472; Ridderbos, Galatia, 228; though others take them solely figuratively, Betz, Galatia, 324). Cf. further his theology of apostolic “tribulation,” in the comment on Acts 14:22.
Cf. also, for Judea, 1 Thess 2:14–16; Rom 15:31; Gal 6:12 (but this last text probably represents Paul’s Christian opponents’ non-Christian peers in Jerusalem, not in Asia Minor). Luke emphasizes local Jewish opposition in each location where he finds it, whereas Paul summarizes more the widespread unbelief of his people (Rom 9:3–6; 9:27–10:3; 10:19–21; 11:7–32).
Although the decree was reported in southern Galatia orally (Acts 16:4), this region was not specified in the decree.
For further discussion on Philippi (material appearing in conjunction with the “we” narrative), see comment on Acts 16 ad loc. Because Luke provides more detail there, proportionately less of it affords detailed parallels in Paul’s letters than in, e.g., Acts 17:1–9, but it appears in conjunction with the “we” narrator’s presence. Paul’s citizenship claim there, perhaps the specific element challenged the most often, is more plausible than its detractors allow (see comment on Acts 16:37).
Even here the digression in 1 Thess 2:14–16 makes the best sense if connected with some Jewish hostility in Thessalonica, though the “countrypeople” of 2:16 would be mostly Gentiles. Moreover, no opposition is reported in the synagogues in Acts 17:10–12, 17 (cf. also 16:12); such local variations in Luke’s pattern probably indicate that Luke, like other historians, looks for and then highlights patterns in his historical sources without conforming every instance in his sources to fit the pattern. The significant Gentile component in the church is apparent in 1 Thess 1:9, but Paul’s free use of Jewish eschatological imagery suggests that he anticipated a Jewish component as well. Nevertheless, Luke fairly often emphasizes the Jewish side of Paul’s opposition.
Although the differences in sequence are not irreconcilable, they are clearly independent. Ancient historians did not share our insistence for precision on all details they considered secondary (in contrast to accuracy about basic events). See comment on Acts 17:15.
Riesner, Early Period, 366–67. For Paul and the Thessalonian church, see Milligan, Thessalonians, xxvi–xl.
Cf., in further detail, Witherington, Acts, 446–47.
Paul’s letters indicate that he stopped in Athens but do not report that he spoke before the Areopagus. Historians could compose speeches for their characters, but Luke’s lack of overwhelming triumph at the conclusion (Acts 17:33–34), the plausibility of a new speaker in town being briefly evaluated by the Areopagus council, and the prominence of Stoic language in Paul’s letters all warn against a facile dismissal of even this scene.
Riesner, Early Period, 233.
Esp. Witherington, Acts, 537. I have added several to his list (including some from Goulder, Competing Mission, 223) and omitted his weaker connection of fear in both (Acts 18:9; 1 Cor 2:3; a connection also in Dunn, Acts, 243–44).
See Riesner, Early Period, 233, here adapted and expanded; Witherington, Acts, 447–49; cf. also Dunn, Acts, 262; more briefly Hemer, Acts in History, 187; Fitzmyer, Acts, 652. Cf. the complementary use of both sources in Haacker, “Paul’s Life” (and comments on Acts 19–20).
Contrary to some other proposals, the likeliest source of affliction in 2 Cor 1:8 is “severe persecution” (Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 116–17).
The form for “Beroean” fits exactly the evidence of local inscriptions (see Hemer, Acts in History, 124).
Potentially a live issue in and around Ephesus (Acts 19:17).
Cf. also the “us” and “you” in Eph 1:3–14. I do not mean to play down differences between the emphases about Paul in Acts and Ephesians (on which see, e.g., Sterling, “Apostle,” viewing both as late first century; Acts and a wider range of Pauline interpreters in Marguerat, “Réception”).
By contrast, 4Q174 1 II, 1, 4 emphasizes the eschatological exclusion of foreigners (Schnabel, Mission, 113); cf. Zech 14:21.
Cf. Keener, “Reconciliation,” 118–21.
With, e.g., deSilva, Introduction, 379–80. Perspectives, of course, differ; thus Luke may be more optimistic than Paul, and different emphases shape their common approach to justification (note these examples in Pervo, Mystery, 34).
Vielhauer, “Paulinism,” 48, stressing further Luke’s distinctive theology.
See, e.g., Donfried, Thessalonica, 90–96 (noting that Vielhauer virtually ignores Paul’s early works, such as 1 Thessalonians); Marshall, “Luke’s View of Paul”; idem, Acts, 42–44; Porter, Paul in Acts, 189–206 (contending, 187–89, also that the older German line of scholarship represented by Haenchen and Vielhauer never really grappled with the critique of W. Ramsay that influenced British scholarship); Litwak, “Views” (esp. 229–31); Bock, Acts, 15–19 (esp. 16–17); Riesner, “Zuverlässigkeit,” 42. For a survey of critiques of Vielhauer and Haenchen, see Walton, Leadership, 6–12. As Powell, Acts, 35, observes, “Vielhauer’s essay has had a controversial reception.”
Cf. Barnett, Birth, 196.
See the critique, e.g., in Fitzmyer, Acts, 145–47; Hemer, Acts in History, 245–47; cf. Ware, Synopsis.
See the critique in Porter, Paul in Acts, 200–203.
Some scholars find Adam in Rom 1; see Hooker, “Adam”; Barrett, Adam, 17–19; against, see, e.g., Scroggs, Adam, 75–76n3; O’Rourke, “Rom 1,20,” esp. 305. I am not convinced of the need to read the Rom 5:12–21 fall narrative into Rom 1; but Paul is Jewish and alludes to human creation, and so further allusions to male and female (Rom 1:27) and God’s image (cf. 1:19–20, 23) are likely (cf. Hooker, “Adam,” 305).
Fitzmyer, Acts, 147.
Cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 117.6; Epict. Diatr. 1.6.7, 10; cf. Cic. Tusc. 1.13.30; Nat. d. 2.54.133–2.61.153. See further Porter, Paul in Acts, 145–50, 167–70; Bruce, “Paul and Athenians”; this commentary’s comments ad loc.
See Keener, Corinthians, passim (I hope to publish further information in later Pauline commentaries); see also Malherbe, Philosophers. I do not believe that the pattern that Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, finds in Paul is uniquely Stoic, but he is certainly right to offer comparisons and to contend that the Stoic dimension of Paul’s letters has been underexplored.
Parsons, Luke, 136.
From various perspectives (but all contradicting Paul’s supposed opposition to the law), e.g., Longenecker, Paul; Fuller, Gospel; Reicke, “God of Abraham,” 191–93; Rhyne, Faith; Schreiner, “Works of Law”; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 716–22; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 8; cf. Moule, “Obligation.” See Gasque, “Acts and History,” 66: Vielhauer’s critique of Luke’s Paul rests “more on his rigorous Lutheran understanding of the antithesis of law and gospel in Paul than on a careful exegesis of the letters of Paul” (cf., e.g., Vielhauer, “Paulinism,” 42: though Luke knew that Paul taught justification by faith, he did not know its “central significance”).
For Paul’s gospel narrative in 1 Cor 15:1–11 and Luke’s own passion and resurrection traditions being comparable, even where Luke modifies Mark, see Borgen, “Paul to Luke,” 179–80.
Many scholars regard this affirmation as pre-Pauline (e.g., Hunter, Predecessors, 24–25; Beasley-Murray, “Romans 1:3f”; Betz, Jesus, 94–95) or even view this premise that it is pre-Pauline as unanimous (Hengel, Son, 59), but not all concur; the premise is, at best, unproved (Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 207n45), and the supposed creed could be Paul’s composition using traditional vocabulary (Poythress, “Romans 1:3–4”).
Borgen, “Paul to Luke,” 170–82, esp. 170–74, shows the similarity to Rom 9–11; both treat the Gentile period as an interim (more clearly than in Mark, p. 182).
Borgen, “Paul to Luke,” 181.
Haenchen, “Acts as Source Material,” 265. For Luke’s Paul as pro-law, countering Marcion, see Tyson, “Wrestling” (esp. 25–27); but Luke’s portrait of Paul need be contemporary with Marcion to be used to challenge it no more than John’s portrait of Jesus (addressing an esp. Jewish setting) need be contemporary with Irenaeus’s gnostics.
See Porter, Paul in Acts, 190–93, for a critique of the supposed incompatibility of Paul and Acts regarding Paul’s Jewish fidelity; he notes that the “New Perspective” on Paul (E. P. Sanders, J. D. G. Dunn, and others) would eliminate this supposed conflict if one held it (though he does not). Cf. also the critique in Franklin, Interpreter, 57–61 (though he contrasts Luke’s contextualization of Paul for his generation with the “real” Paul; e.g., p. 161); Parsons, Luke, 137–38 (noting esp. Wilson, Luke and Law, 61–65).
Cf. the comments on Matthew in Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:695.
Albeit a Diaspora Jew at least somewhat effective in Greco-Roman rhetoric; but this is also true of Acts’ Paul, where Paul speaks and not just writes eloquently. For the Jewish fidelity of Paul in most current reconstructions, see, e.g., Nanos, “Paul’s Judaism”; Harrington, “Paul the Jew”; Frankemölle, “Apostol Pawel”; Tomson, “Tradycje”; Reiser, “Heiden”; Uchelen, “Halacha”; Bieberstein, “Freiheit”; Neuhaus, “Rencontre”; Roetzel, Paul, ix; Bachmann, “Verus Israel”; Zetterholm, “Judar”; Stegner, “Jewish Paul”; idem, “Jew, Paul the”; Kessler, “Paul the Jew”; many earlier, e.g., Davies, Paul (esp. note 216); Sanders, Paul and Judaism, 1; for Jewish perspectives, see, e.g., Langton, “Identity”; idem, “Myth”; Segal, “Studying; idem, “Exégètes juifs”; Denaux, “Visie”; Reinmuth, “Perspektive.”
See, on Rom 3:31, e.g., Gerhardsson, Memory, 287 (but this is not necessarily technical rabbinic language; see Rhyne, Faith, 73–74; Thompson, “Background”); Nanos, Mystery, 22, 176, 180–81; esp. Rhyne, Faith, passim; for Rom 9:31–32, see Fuller, Gospel, x–xi. Many scholars today take τέλος in Rom 10:4 as “goal,” “aim,” or “purpose” (see, e.g., Howard, “End,” 336; Kaiser, “Matters,” 177; Cranfield, Romans, 2:520; Rhyne, “Nomos”; Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 130; Haacker, Theology, 86–87; Johnson, Romans, 170, 175; Hays, Echoes, 76; pace, e.g., Käsemann, Romans, 282–83). For Pauline exegesis in both letters and speeches, cf. Bruce, “Paul’s Use of Old Testament.”
Sanders, Law and People, 192; Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 306; Witherington, Corinthians, 245; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 737.
For the relevance of 1 Cor 9:19–23 for Paul’s missionary strategies, see, e.g., Gasque, “Acts and History,” 69; Krentz, “All Things”; Reid, “Model”; Theobald, “Allen” (in relation to 1 Corinthians itself, see Chadwick, “All Things”). But one suspects that it was his adaptation to Gentiles rather than to his own people that took the greater adjustment (cf. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 110–11; Jervell, Unknown Paul, 58). Paul’s accommodation also may have had Jewish (Daube, New Testament and Judaism, 336ff.; despite Bornkamm, “Missionary Stance,” 195) as well as Gentile (see, e.g., Mitchell, “Accommodation,” 208–14; idem, “Many-Sorted Man”; Glad, “Adaptability”; other sources in Keener, Corinthians, 81) models.
See also Witherington, Acts, 434–36.
See, e.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 147; see further the discussion of Acts and Judaism in below.
Cf., on the former, Aune, “Duality.” The contrast should not, of course, be overstated; compare, e.g., 2 Cor 4:14 with 1 Thess 4:14 (see further Plevnik, “Destination”).
On the likely assumption of unity or, at the least, that constituent letters derive from the same period in Paul’s ministry.
See also the critique of Vielhauer here in Porter, Paul in Acts, 203–5 (who also compares with Acts the sort of eschatology in Phil 1:20–24; 2:16–17; 3:11–14).
Paul does climax 1 Corinthians with future eschatology (1 Cor 15), though he presses the matter less starkly in 2 Corinthians, and in both cases, he addresses those already converted. Still, at least in his earlier ministry, eschatology was at the heart of what he taught new believers (1 Thess 1:9–10).
See, e.g., Johnson, Function, 39. Luke occasionally provides Paul a prose rhythm missing in his letters (Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 382); nevertheless, his brief speeches lack the rich rhetorical devices in Paul’s letters.
Rhetorical devices in 1 Cor 1:18–20, 26; 2 Cor 11:22–29 include rhetorical questions, antithesis, a peristasis catalogue, and especially various forms of repetition (see, e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 27–32, 233). Noticeable devices appear throughout the correspondence (e.g., 1 Cor 15:42–49, 53–56, on pp. 131–34; 2 Cor 6:4–10, on p. 188). Classen, Rhetorical Criticism, 29–40 (esp. 30–31, 34–36), argues even for Paul’s familiarity with some rhetorical terminology.
For various views of Paul’s use of rhetoric in 1 Corinthians, see, e.g., Pogoloff, Logos; Winter, Philo and Paul; Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation; Litfin, Theology; Reid, “Strategies” (suggesting dependence on a Rhodian tradition).
Cic. Fam. 9.21.1; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 75.1–3; further discussion in Keener, Corinthians, 3–4, 29; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 114–27, 280–81; Classen, Rhetorical Theory, 6, 23; Reed, “Epistle”; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 541–61, esp. 562–67; idem, Paul in Acts, 106–7; Stamps, “Rhetoric,” 958; Weima, “Theory,” 329; idem, “Letters,” 644; idem, “Aristotle”; Bird, “Rhetorical Approach”; cf. also Demet. Style 229 (in Garland, 1 Corinthians, 19); even Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 109. But this need not exclude all rhetoric from letters (cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 18.18; 73 [in view of 73.10]; Fronto Ad Ant. imp. 2.5; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 19), especially those that, like Paul’s, employed argumentation (cf. Forbes, “Comparison,” 151) and were meant for oral public delivery (Danker, Corinthians, 108–9). Rhetoric may thus have use for analyzing Paul’s style, though not his structure (Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 127; Reed, “Epistle,” 191; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 567–68, 585; Malherbe, “Theorists,” 17); it is noteworthy, however, that through much of church history, scholars did use rhetorical categories to analyze Paul (cf. Classen, “Rhetoric”; idem, “Rhetorik”; idem, “Analyse”; Harvey, Listening, 22–23). That elements paralleled in formal rhetoric appear in Paul’s argumentation is clear enough to anyone familiar with both rhetoricians and Paul, and they are clearly Greco-Roman, not the sort of Galilean rhetoric that dominates the Jesus tradition.
See Harvey, Listening, 259–76.
Cf., e.g., Malherbe, Philosophers, 150–54. Parallels among several of Paul’s speeches may portray him as the ideal speaker (Quesnel, “Paul prédicateur”). Talbert, Patterns, 129, finds this philosophic model even for Jesus, but Maddox, Purpose, 16, is undoubtedly right to view “this analogy” as “at best a very remote one. . . . Luke is no Philo.” I do not claim here that Luke presents Paul as having tertiary rhetorical training, only that he appears as an effective speaker.
See, e.g., Witherington, Acts, 432–33; on philosophy, Malherbe, Philosophers, passim. In Acts, see Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 61–62, noting that this portrayal of Paul could help establish status (citing Demosth. Cor. 258; Jos. Life 2.8–9; Cic. Brut. 306–21); cf. also his complete Jewish “status” in Acts (Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 68–83, esp. 83). Grant, Paul, 11, thinks that many of Paul’s perspectives in 1 Corinthians “confirm the picture of him in Acts, where he is proud of being a Roman citizen by birth.”
On ridicule for weakness in gestures, see Marshall, Enmity, 65–66; on the importance of delivery and gestures, see, e.g., Cic. Brut. 17.55; 37.141; 43.158; 66.234; 82.283; 91.316; Rhet. Her. 3.11.19; Plut. Demosth. 7.2–3; 11.2–3; Pliny Ep. 2.3.9; 2.19.2–4, 6; 5.20.3; 6.11.2; Suet. Claud. 30; 41.2. On voice intonation, see, e.g., Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 11; Val. Max. 8.7.ext. 1; on theatrical gestures, e.g., Cic. Brut. 55.203; Rosc. Amer. 32.89; Suet. Jul. 33; Tac. Dial. 39; Lucian Prof. P.S. 22; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.537–38, 541–42; Hall, “Cicero and Quintilian”; some studied with actors to improve their delivery (Plut. Cic. 4.3). Hall, “Delivery,” 230, notes that orators could learn from actors regarding voice training (citing as relevant Quint. Inst. 11.3.19; perhaps Suet. Aug. 84) and gestures (De or. 1.251; Plut. Cic. 5; Macrob. Sat. 3.14), but avoid being associated with their nonaristocratic bearing (229–30, citing Rhet. Her. 3.26; Cic. De or. 3.220). Porter, Paul in Acts, 194–96, also responds to Haenchen on this point. For orators disclaiming skills, see Keener, Corinthians, 34.
For some samples, see Aletti, “Rhetoric,” 244–46.
Rhet. Her. 4.25.34–35; Demet. Style 5.270; Cosby, “Language,” 214 (citing esp. Rhet. Her. 4.25.34; Quint. Inst. 9.3.54–55, 62); Rowe, “Style,” 130; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 579; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 224; idem, Glossary, 57–58; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 102, 446–47; for examples, see Demosth. Con. 19; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.6.4; Max. Tyre 16.3; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 33; Porph. Marc. 14.244–45; 24.378–79; Wis 6:17–20; Sipre Deut. 161.1.3; y. Šeqal. 3:3; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 20b, bar.; Ber. 61a.
See Cic. Or. Brut. 39.135; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 34; Anderson, Glossary, 19; Rowe, “Style,” 131; cf. Demet. Style 5.268; for examples, see Mus. Ruf. 14, p. 92.35–36; Fronto Ad Ant. imp. 2.6.2; Ad M. Caes. 2.3.1, 3; 3.3; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 170; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 579; Lee, “Translations: Greek,” 779; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 86.
See Rowe, “Style,” 131; Anderson, Glossary, 54; idem, Rhetorical Theory, 163; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 579; Lee, “Translations: Greek,” 779; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 86.
Rhet. Alex. 26, 1435b.25–39; Dion. Hal. Lysias 14; Cosby, “Language,” 216; Rowe, “Style,” 142; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 87; Anderson, Glossary, 21–22. In 1 Cor 15:42–44, we also have symploche (on which see Rowe, “Style,” 131–32; on the passage, see Harvey, Listening, 174); for other examples of repetitive antithesis, see, e.g., Max. Tyre 3.4. With 2 Cor 6:8–10 compare the antithetic parallelism in, e.g., Cic. Phil. 8.5.16; Scaur. 16.37; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.58; Max. Tyre 36.2; Marc. Aur. 2.11; Oxford Geniza Text Col. A + 1Q21.
See Rhet. Alex. 21, 1434a.17–32; Cic. Or. Brut. 40.137; Walde, “Irony”; Anderson, Glossary, 39–40, 108; Rowe, “Style,” 128–29 (in rhetoric; for philosophy, see Erler, “Irony”; more generally, Duke, Irony, 8–17; Ray, Irony, 34–49; in Scripture, Ray, Irony, 11–27, including Luke-Acts, 53–66). Cf. its use in forensic polemic (Rhet. Alex. 35, 1441b.24–28; Cic. Phil. 13.2.4; Verr. 2.1.6.17; 2.2.31.76; 2.5.10.25; Sest. 37.80; Plut. Cic. 27.1; Ael. Arist. Leuct. Or. 5.4–5; Libanius Declam. 36.12); sarcasm (Cic. Sull. 24.67; Phil. 8.5.16; Fam. 5.2.8; Att. 9.7; Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.295; Life 340; Dio Chrys. Or. 31.9–10; 47.25; Pliny Ep. 8.23.3; Ach. Tat. 6.12.1) and sarcastic challenges (Sil. It. 11.254–55; Marc. Aur. 2.6; Sib. Or. 3.57–59); parody (Athen. Deipn. 15.698A–699C); dissembling in Socratic dialogues (Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.15.2); and haggadic farce (Kovelman, “Farce”). Stoics complained about dissembling and sarcasm (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 88–89.10–13) and were sometimes objects of it (Plut. St. Poets 4, Mor. 1058c). For the rhetoric of 1 Cor 4:9–13, including irony, see further Fitzgerald, Cracks, 131–32.
See most fully Fitzgerald, Cracks; idem, “Affliction Lists”; discussion in , above.
For vice lists, see Ptolemy Tetrab. 3.13.14–15; Lucian Posts 4; Charon 11, 15; Tim. 28; Nigr. 17; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 43; Wis 14:22–27; Test. Levi 17:11; 4Q477 2 II, 4. They appear often in rhetoric (Cic. Pis. 27.66; Cat. 2.4.7; 2.5.10; 2.10.22; Cic. Invect. Sall. 6.18; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.13; 3.53; 4.126; 8.8; 32.28, 91; 33.23, 55; 34.19; Fronto Nep. am. 2.8; Max. Tyre 5.7; 36.2); also among philosophers (Plato Laws 1.649D; Arist. E.E. 2.3.4, 1220b–1221a; Philo Sacr. 32; Posterity 52; Diogenes Ep. 36; Iambl. V.P. 17.78), especially Stoics (Sen. Y. Dial. 9.2.10–12; Epict. Diatr. 2.8.23; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b, pp. 12–13.2–12; 2.7.10b, pp. 58–59.32–36; 2.7.10b, pp. 60–61.1–7; 2.7.10e, pp. 62–63.15–19; 2.7.11e, pp. 68–69.17–20; Diog. Laert. 2.93). In negated form (hence functioning as a virtue list), Cic. Mur. 6.14; Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.17–22; Max. Tyre 25.6. For antithetical lists of virtues and vices, e.g., Ezek 18:5–9; Arist. V.V. 1249a–1251b; Cic. Cat. 2.10.25; Cael. 22.55; Phil. 3.11.28; 8.5.16. “Eschatological” vice lists also appear (e.g., Hesiod W.D. 181–201; cf. Lucian Men. 11), though mostly in Jewish and Christian eschatological texts (cf., e.g., 1QS IV, 9–11; Sib. Or. 2.255–82; Did. 5.1–2). See further Charles, “Vice Lists”; Engberg-Pedersen, “Vices.”
For virtue lists, see, e.g., Rhet. Alex. 36, 1442a.11–12 (adjacent to vices in lines 13–14); Rhet. Her. 3.2.3; Pliny Ep. 6.11.2; 6.26.1; Lucian Portr. 11; Max. Tyre 3.1; 18.5; among Stoics, Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 66.6; Mus. Ruf. 14, p. 92.31–33; 16, p. 104.18–24, 32–35; 17, p. 108.11–22; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b.17–24; 2.7.11e, pp. 68–69.12–16; 2.7.11i, pp. 78–79.12–18; 2.7.11m, pp. 88–89.1–8. In negated form, see Dio Chrys. Or. 32.37. We often encounter lists of Aristotle’s four cardinal virtues (e.g., Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 44.10–12; this commentary treats these more fully at Acts 24:2 and esp. 26:25).
E.g., Goodenough, “Perspective of Acts,” 58.
Although not all would have been citizens, the preponderance of Roman names (in a Roman colony) is significant: Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2; 1 Cor 16:19), Titius Justus (Acts 18:7), Crispus (18:8; 1 Cor 1:14), Gaius (Rom 16:23; 1 Cor 1:14), Fortunatus and Achaicus (1 Cor 16:17), Quartus (Rom 16:23), and Tertius (Rom 16:22).
Porter, Paul in Acts, 171; against Haenchen’s attribution of resurrection preaching to Acts’ Paul at the expense of the epistles’ Paul, see 197–99.
Ibid., 170–71. For compatibility on mission vision and practice, see Schnabel, Missionary, passim.
Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 9. Melanchthon’s approach to theology differed considerably from Luther’s (cf. Bergendoff, Church, 112–14), but he was clearly influenced by him. Scholars often differ from their mentors, despite the mentors’ influence (cf., e.g., Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman). Wallace and Williams, Acts, 11, compare the varied perceptions of Socrates in Plato and Xenophon. The analogy should not be overpressed, of course; the latter was not as closely acquainted with Socrates as the former, though the former (focused on discourse) probably took greater “historical” liberties. One could even go so far as to allow that “the author could have been an inaccurate eye-witness, or a highly accurate non-eye-witness” (Tuckett, Luke, 16), although we have considerable evidence for Luke’s accuracy.
DeSilva, Introduction, 299; cf. Chance, Acts, 3.
See Keener, John, 57–60, and sources cited there (including for teaching, Aul. Gel. 7.10.1; Socrates Ep. 20; Sipre Deut. 48.1.1–4; for behavior, Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.21; b. Ber. 62a).
See, e.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 108.17, 20, 22; 110.14, 20; Mus. Ruf. 1, 36.6–7 (Pythagoras’s disciples differed, but this was considered noteworthy, Val. Max. 8.15.ext. 1). Occasionally pupils could even turn against their teachers (Eunapius Lives 493; Luke 22:47–48), but in such a case, they would no longer claim his authority for the source of their teaching. See further Keener, John, 16–17.
For this difference, see, e.g., Porter, “Portrait,” 137.
Compare the quite divergent portrayals of Socrates among his followers. Traveling with Paul, Luke probably knew him better than Xenophon knew Socrates (though Xenophon’s prosaic portrait is probably less slanted than Plato’s “Platonized” one).
Bruce, Acts3, 59.