12. Luke’s Audience
12
The question of Luke’s particular audience is less pressing today than it was in the heyday of redaction criticism. Increasingly scholars are recognizing that large narrative works probably addressed wider audiences than the local “communities” that scholars have often constructed. Writers composed such works with more of an interest in them as enduring literature than as simply occasional documents. Nevertheless, it is usually possible to locate an ideal target audience, generally one that the writer also expected to be most receptive.
Luke’s ideal audience was probably, on average, of higher education than many others, with a wide knowledge of the northern Aegean Greek culture and a familiarity with the LXX. This observation probably also supports the likelihood that it was more economically stable than, say, rural peasants in Galilee or Egypt, and some were probably better off than the average artisan (Theophilus perhaps much better).
The frequent scholarly suggestion that Luke’s audience was wealthier and more highly educated, on average, than that of the other Gospels is a reasonable one. Luke dedicates his work to a “most excellent” Theophilus (Luke 1:3), a title suggesting that Theophilus was probably a person of prestige and rank in society (cf. Acts 26:25).
Although Theophilus is an explicit “narratee,” no ancient audience would assume that the dedicatee was necessarily socially representative of Luke’s ideal audience. One might dedicate a work to a patron who would be of higher rank than the clients who heard the work read, for example, at one of the banquets sponsored by the patron. Nevertheless, by addressing Theophilus as at least a part of his audience, Luke appeals to a person with some status in the larger society. Luke further emphasizes many people of status following the Way (e.g., Luke 8:3; 23:50–51; Acts 13:12; 17:4; 28:7); likewise, he portrays Paul’s status as relatively high, a point of interest to any ancient hearer but perhaps especially to another person of status.
Although his Gospel contains the most sweeping condemnations of the accumulation of wealth (e.g., Luke 3:11; 12:13–21, 33; 14:33), his very emphasis on this issue might suggest an audience that can afford to be challenged in the area of generosity. (It also suggests that, like biblical prophets or Cynic sages, he was willing to confront those whose responsibility was greatest rather than simply curry favor.) Luke’s emphasis on the poor, prominent especially in his Gospel, does not tell us anything about Luke’s own background; although Sirach emphasizes care for the poor, its author belongs to the elite (e.g., Sir 38:25–39:4).
Finally, an educated audience would best appreciate the elements of classical rhetoric alongside the appropriate stylistic variations for different settings. Whereas, in a work such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Jesus refuses to learn the Greek alphabet, Jesus reads Scripture in Luke (Luke 4:16), and Paul quotes Greek poets (Acts 17:28) and had special academic training (22:3).
At the same time, we should not press the connection with either Theophilus or elite converts in the text too far. Though Theophilus is of significant status and Luke emphasizes the high status of many characters, this need not mean that Luke’s audience is entirely or mostly of high status. Even today groups marginalized from society are often eager to point to isolated high-status members or precedents that show them respectable with the dominant culture, a culture that otherwise tends to dismiss or ignore them. Religious persons attending secular schools hostile to their faith may cite the existence of some professor or scholar at any school who shares their beliefs; those who attend religiously minority congregations of mostly low-status workers might seek to validate their faith to dominant-culture outsiders by mentioning a socially respectable member, for example, a doctor or attorney. Whatever its members’ status, Luke’s audience might appreciate “respectable” examples, provided it was an ignored, rather than a persecuted, minority.
What we can possibly conclude from this is that Luke’s target audience is relatively stable (and hence not hostile to the culture); Luke is positive toward the culture without needing to sound polemical against separatism from it. That Luke’s ideal audience is of higher-than-average status and educational attainment is, however, likely, but for a different reason: Luke’s literary level and his presupposition of significant cultural literacy (both Jewish, in knowledge of the LXX, and Greek, in geographic knowledge). It is not the audience of an elite multivolume history, but it is culturally literate enough to appreciate his work. Luke’s audience is not of elite status, but neither are they agrarian peasants; they are not too put off by manual labor (9:43; 18:3; 20:34; Luke 5:2), so the median target may have been artisans, with persons of higher and lower means included in the audience.
Rank and status were crucial issues in Mediterranean society. Epitaphs suggest that those of lower rank could still celebrate their status within their group of peers, though some scholars have found here “a marked feeling of inferiority and . . . a pathetic desire for self-assertion.” Social mobility was uncommon except among freedpersons and newly wealthy urban merchants.
There were also challenges to class and status divisions, in line with the Greek (but not Roman) ideal of equality (not always fulfilled in practice). Despite fixed roles for various status groups in the larger society, Eastern cultic associations sometimes surmounted such barriers. But even in an association such as the four-hundred-member second-century Dionysiac thiasus at Tusculum, where senators and clients met together, “only the senators’ immediate clients” were part of it, suggesting a continuation of some degree of the standard relationships in this case. Stoic philosophy also challenged assumptions about the importance of rank although, even when a Stoic emperor sat on the throne, it did little to change them.
Luke portrays Paul with images drawn from popular philosophy and rhetoric. Although in practice, different members of the real audience would have caught the nuances of his narrative with varying levels of accuracy, his ideal audience would have caught the allusions.
Luke’s ideal audience appears to be urban, Greek, and perhaps in officially romanized cities such as Corinth and Philippi and would be familiar with some measure of education and with public orations, Jewish religion, and (at least through banquet lecturers and philosophic orators) some philosophic ideas. Even if they did not have formal training, rhetorical techniques probably filtered down to urban audiences accustomed to hearing speeches.
The question as to whether Luke’s audience is largely Jewish or Gentile may be, in one sense, a forced dilemma. By this period the Greek churches included a sizable number of Gentiles; Philippi had never had a large Jewish population to begin with (see comment on Acts 16:13). At the same time, most of these churches grew from synagogues (Acts 17:10–12; 18:4–8; 19:8–10) or at least Jewish prayer groups (16:13) and would include a sizable number of Jewish people and Gentile synagogue adherents, who would have necessarily constituted the initial teaching nucleus for the congregations. (To the extent that one can define the ethos of a broad audience, “God-fearers” might thus be central.)
Joseph Tyson provides a likely portrait of the ideal readers of Luke-Acts presupposed in the text. Some elements—for example, the knowledge of public figures, such as emperors—could be taken for granted, but among his most significant characteristics of these readers are the following:
Tyson thus infers that the implied readers are probably like the God-fearers in Acts.
Presumably, much of the teaching nucleus of the church came from those who already knew the LXX well. Most Gentile Christians in this period still saw themselves as converts to a form of Judaism (Rom 2:29; 11:17–24; Gal 3:29; 1 Thess 4:5; 3 John 7; cf. 1 Cor 10:32); with his emphasis on the continuity of salvation history, Luke continues to embrace this idea even in the wake of 70 C.E. Certainly his work is laced with quotations from, and allusions to, Scripture, far more than his occasional explicit classical reference.
The more specific relationship with Judaism is debated (see below). Some envision a Jewish or partly Jewish audience. Thus Jacob Jervell argues that Luke writes to persuade Jewish Christians to welcome Gentile Christians fully. He observes that Luke shows the faithfulness of Jewish Christians to the law and demonstrates that Gentile converts are of the kind already acceptable to synagogues, namely, God-fearers. Robert Brawley argues that Luke “responds to Jewish antagonism apologetically and proffers conciliation.” Paul’s rejection in synagogues explains why he turned to the Gentiles.
Loveday Alexander also suggests that the apologetic audience seems primarily Jewish. Only one of the final defense speeches addresses specifically a Roman; although other speeches do address pagan religion or philosophy (Acts 14:15–17; 17:22–31), most address Judaism (e.g., 3:12–26; 7:2–53; 13:16–41). Luke gives more space to Paul’s custody than to his missionary journeys, but even when addressing Roman officials, Paul is answering Jewish issues, and he continues to address Jewish issues (and a Jewish audience) in his final speech in Acts. Acts concludes not with legal vindication but with God’s faithfulness to his people. All these observations are important, but Luke would have had to address Jewish accusations in any case if, in fact, these were an issue vis-à-vis local and Roman governments. Luke’s pervasive apologetic for Paul (see , ; , ) suggests a concern for what Rome thought of accusations that Paul, a leader of the Diaspora Christian movement, stirred unrest. These accusations often come from Paul’s Jewish detractors, but Luke’s concern seems less what the Jewish community thinks of Paul than what Roman officials think of Jewish (and other) accusations.
Although apologetic responses to Jewish objections appear in biblical arguments in some of the book’s apologetic speeches, especially in its closing scene, this apologetic does not guarantee a direct unbelieving Jewish audience any more than the apologetic concerning riots (See comment on Acts 24:5) guarantees the book a direct audience of Roman officials. Rather, Luke is providing a biblically literate Christian audience (composed of both Jews and Gentiles) a response to objections that concern them. That is, an apologetic for a group is not necessarily an apologetic directly to that group.
Although I do not agree that Luke writes primarily for a Jewish audience to secure Gentile admission into the church, I do believe that Luke may write with one apologetic eye on the larger Jewish community, both those who complain that Christians are discontinuous with Israel’s heritage and those who remain uncommitted for or against the faith. A few decades before Luke writes, Paul confronted Jewish Christians tempted to “Judaize” Gentile converts (Gal 2:3; 5:2–6) to make them acceptable for the more conservative audience in Jerusalem (5:11; 6:12). Writing after 70 C.E. to Diaspora Christians, Luke might deal with Jewish communities on the whole less conservative and more likely to accept God-fearers. In any case, Gentile Christians were by now a fact of life rather than a new threat.
From my investigation of Acts, it seems to me that Luke assumes an audience in which Gentiles are numerically predominant, as we might expect to be the eventual case with the churches in the Pauline mission that he depicts. The foundation of the churches is Jewish, and his ideal audience is conversant with Scripture. Their knowledge of Judaism encompasses not Palestinian Judaism (although they are apparently aware of aspects of it, such as differences between Pharisees and Sadducees) but a biblically based Diaspora Judaism. They know the Bible far better than they know postbiblical Jewish traditions (though at least Luke is familiar with some traditional Hellenistic Jewish apologetic). Although the churches’ foundations are Jewish, they also know the larger Greco-Roman culture, and not with the sense of a minority as second-class resident aliens. A sense of integration into the larger culture would fit some Jewish communities in Asia Minor, but it does not fit as easily the smaller Jewish communities in Philippi or possibly Corinth (see discussion of the geographic range of the audience below). It might fit many God-fearers even there and could certainly fit Gentiles who might expect their uncircumcised monotheism, for all its Jewish basis, to be viewed as distinct from participation in a foreign, ethnically based cult.
Studying the Gospels of Matthew and John in my earlier works, I concluded in favor of primarily Jewish audiences (an urban Syrian Jewish Christian one for Matthew and perhaps a sectarian Jewish Christian one in Asia Minor for the Fourth Gospel). For Luke-Acts, however, I tend to favor a mainstream Greco-Roman audience in Macedonia and Achaia, with Jewish founders (not least Paul), a mixture of Gentile and Jewish members, and considerable Jewish and God-fearing didactic input.
Where is Luke’s audience geographically? Regardless of Theophilus’s influence, it is unlikely that Luke would produce such a polished two-volume work merely for a single house church. Presumably, he would expect the work to find a receptive audience along the entire circuit of urban churches in the eastern Mediterranean world. This probably broad, hoped-for audience does not, however, diminish the likelihood that Luke had a narrower target audience, churches that he knew directly and particularly expected to resonate with (and perhaps help circulate) the accounts he had selected.
Some scholars think that Luke addresses especially congregations in Rome, where the churches probably still spoke especially Greek. This suggestion has some merit; after all, in Acts the climax of the gospel’s spread is Rome, and in it Roman Christians would receive a report of the gospel’s spread from the beginning until it reached them.
The problem with limiting this interest to Christians in Rome is that everyone in the cities of the empire thought of Rome as the heart of the empire and would regard this destination as strategically significant, whether or not they lived there (cf. Rom 1:8; though cf. also 1 Thess 1:7–8). This would especially be true of Christians in Roman colonies such as Corinth and Philippi, who would directly profit from any favorable precedents in the capital (cf. perhaps Phil 1:7). Indeed, Luke omits some major items of interest to the Roman church, such as Prisca and Aquila’s presence in Rome by this period (Rom 16:3–5); more significantly, he omits even mentioning in his narrative other friends and coworkers of Paul who eventually migrated there (16:5–15, esp. 16:7). That Acts leaves the narrator in Rome at its conclusion would demand a Roman provenance only if one must assume that the narrator wrote shortly after the close of Acts, and even then his place of writing would still not decide his intended audience.
Although the ultimate goal of Paul’s mission may be Rome, the focus of his public ministry recorded in Acts is Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia, that is, mostly in the Aegean region. By comparison, Rome itself receives only a few paragraphs and an essentially unfinished ending. Despite our considerable knowledge of persons in the Roman church (Rom 16:3–15, many of them migrants from the east), individuals in eastern Mediterranean churches are the ones named in Acts (Acts 16:14–15, 40; 17:5, 34; 18:8; 19:29; 20:4). Christians in Greece would have more freedom and public posture than Roman churches in this period.
Of specific local congregations, Corinth is one of the most likely options; Christians there seem to have coexisted peacefully with their society. Paul’s Corinthian correspondence addresses concerns of wealth, status inversion, and equality, as does Luke; he also addresses a congregation that emphasizes charismata (although in a less mission-oriented way than does Luke, 1 Cor 12–14) and apostles’ ministry signs (cf. mission-oriented signs in 2 Cor 12:12). Emphasizing an apostolic decree about sexual immorality and idol food (Acts 15:20, 29) would publicly reinforce Paul’s earlier teaching on these subjects (1 Cor 6–10). Luke might also have reason to stress the unity of Peter, Paul, and Apollos against Paul’s detractors (1 Cor 1–4). The theology of persecution in Acts could call charismatics to contemplate suffering as part of their mission, an emphasis the Christians in Corinth might still need (1 Cor 1:17–23; 2:2, 8; 4:9–16; 15:30–32; 2 Cor 1:4–10; 2:14–16; 4:7–5:8; 6:4–10; 11:23–33; 12:7–10; 13:4). Still, Luke records few details of Corinth (considering the length of Paul’s stay, Acts 18:11), presumably because his information there was only secondhand.
Another plausible audience is Ephesus, but there are problems with viewing this as the most probable audience. Although Luke devotes more space to Paul’s ministry to the Ephesians (most of 18:18–19:41; 20:17–38) than to any other part of his ministry, few church members there are named (though one could argue that Luke’s audience knows of Alexander; cf. comment on Acts 19:33); when they are, they are named as if not known (21:29). (Indeed, even Apollos, who preached successfully in Ephesus and Corinth, is introduced as if unknown [18:28], but probably some of the audience had heard of him.) Luke’s scenes in Ephesus are brief except for the dramatic riot, which would be a matter of some apologetic concern. Luke devotes so much space to Ephesus because it constitutes the climax of Paul’s precaptivity ministry; the length of time Paul spent in Ephesus and the achievements of his ministry there are sufficient cause for this attention.
Corinth is probably included in Luke’s target audience, but it is even more likely that he also includes Philippi, a church where the narrator himself stayed at some length (Acts 16:12–17; 20:5–6) and whose founding he describes in special detail. Luke mentions Jason in nearby Thessalonica without introduction as if Luke is either ineptly abbreviating a source (which would be uncharacteristic of him) or, more likely, his audience already knows of Jason (17:5–6).
If a major part of Luke’s audience includes Philippian Christians who know him well, he probably writes some time after the end of Nero’s persecution; Macedonian Christians all suffered far more than those in Achaia (Phil 1:29–30; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:14; 3:3–4; cf. perhaps Poly. Phil. 9.1–2; 12.3). Paul’s execution or other negative reports about Rome would not help their situation, but Acts seems too positive toward Rome, in general, to be simply suppressing critical information; for Luke, Nero’s era may seem like an exception rather than the rule. If Claudius’s anti-Judaic decree (Acts 18:2) may have adversely affected Christians in Macedonia (see comment on Acts 16:20–21), Nero’s policies (generally popular in Greece as a whole) surely would have done so.
Undoubtedly, most Jewish and Christian groups scrambled to distinguish themselves from Judean revolutionary movements in the Flavian period, perhaps complete with recriminations against eschatologically oriented sectarians (as Christians would appear). Suspicions about Christians probably took a greater toll in Macedonia than in Achaia or Asia (cf. Phil 1:28–30; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:14; 3:2–4), though specifically Jewish hostility, as opposed to concern for Roman-Philippian disdain for Paul’s execution, was not likely a factor in Philippi. But we may guess that even Christians in Philippi need not have found Luke’s usually positive reports of Roman precedents unrealistic. In any case, they, even more than the Corinthian churches, would have found these reports encouraging.
One problem with proposing an audience especially located in Greece and Macedonia is Luke’s complete silence about Titus (unless he is Titius Justus or, in contrast to 2 Tim 4:10–11, Luke himself). Given Luke’s report of other persons less critical to the later Pauline mission, the omission would appear almost deliberate. Perhaps the Macedonian or Achaian Christians later experienced conflict with Titus (in contrast to the earlier period in 2 Cor 7:6–8:23; 12:18). Or perhaps troubles arose with Titus after his role known to us in extant sources (cf. perhaps 2 Tim 4:10), making him controversial. One can only speculate the reasons for omitting such a prominent coworker of Paul.
A problem with presupposing an audience primarily in Philippi would be that it lacked a large Jewish community (see Acts 16:13), whereas Luke’s ideal core audience is biblically informed, perhaps from a background in the synagogue. Nevertheless, the Philippian church had now existed for many years and, undoubtedly, had plenty of instruction from someone with such a background if Luke had long sojourned there. Moreover, some of the other churches in the region (Thessalonica in Macedonia and especially Corinth in Achaia) included some Jewish elements, whose presence and teaching may have influenced other churches in the region. Since women had more freedoms in Macedonia (see comment on Acts 16:13–15), it is also plausible that Lydia and other God-fearing women in her circle (16:13) helped to instruct that church (cf. Phil 4:2–3). A church with fewer Jewish members might also require additional instruction in its Jewish heritage.
Probably Philippi is not the book’s only destination, as noted above, and as Luke’s interest in Jewish matters could further suggest. But while I believe that Luke sought an audience throughout Macedonia and Achaia (including Corinth) and would have welcomed one elsewhere (including Ephesus and Rome), the church he knew best seems to be Philippi. This church, like some of the others, was by now a significant community, and was among those that remained strong several decades later (see Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians).
Writers could expect educated readers to appreciate descriptions of various locations. During the imperial period, knowledge of geography (within the limits of the empire) was important for educated people. Even in small towns, people with education and means could have some knowledge about major locations and distances and the relative location of provinces. What they did not know they might be interested to learn because such knowledge displayed their cultural competence within the sphere of the empire. Diaspora Jews also may have prided themselves in such competencies, although, inevitably, they, like others, were sometimes wrong about their information.
Authors took for granted such knowledge on the part of their ideal audience, even if such assumptions would have stretched the competencies of some of their real readers. Our earliest Greek literature, rooted in widely circulated oral traditions, evokes a wide range of geographic awareness. A highly educated orator such as Dio Chrysostom adapted his speeches to each locale’s character, and readers of his collection would be able to appreciate enough of this local sensitivity to appreciate his intellect. Thus in Or. 34 he addresses Tarsus’s hostility to philosophers (34.3) and a problem with registers (34.10); in Or. 31 he plainly knows about Rhodes and expects his reading audience to share such information. Likewise, Marcus Aurelius expects his teacher to understand his mention of various plants growing in different parts of the empire (Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.5). Pliny the Younger insists that people in Rome were more interested in wonders in Greece and Asia than in Rome itself (Ep. 8.20.2). Likewise, when Philostratus writes of India in Life of Apollonius, he either verifies claims (albeit usually wrongly) or reinforces beliefs already held about it; when he writes of locations in Asia, he describes famous temples of various cities that he visited (temples also mentioned elsewhere). Philostratus appears to assume that his ideal reader is familiar with and interested in such topics.
Historians also assumed a wide range of geographic knowledge, though, where their audience lacked it, they provided it. Polybius provides as many concrete local descriptions as possible, as part of his approach of putting history in context (Polyb. 5.21.7–8) but also to acquaint hearers with these places (5.21.9). He recognizes that some of his readers will not have sufficient geographic knowledge, but he prefers educating them instead of leaving out matters that his more conversant ideal audience will readily grasp (3.38.4). Some apparently expected even more detail, so that Polybius has to defend himself by insisting that excessive details about exotic locations would distract from his main narrative (3.57.1–9). (For discussion of travel and geography in Acts, see further below.)
Luke’s Gospel begins and ends in Jerusalem; Acts begins in Jerusalem but ends in Rome. This contrast suggests a reorientation of mission and strategy, a transformation of the historical geographic orientation in previous salvation history (though not without precedent; see Acts 7). The focus relocates from the heart of salvation history to the heart of the empire, from the center of the world for the Jewish people to the center of the world for Gentiles—and thus from heritage to mission (see , , and esp. , ).
Luke, less concerned with liberally educating his audience about geography than is Polybius, does not include digressions of purely geographic interest. He does, however, presuppose some geographic knowledge and interest on the part of his educated audience. Long ago scholars pointed out that Luke alludes “to more than one hundred towns and cities,” often with “characteristically different experiences in different places.” It is unlikely that he alludes to such a range of information solely for his own entertainment.
How likely is it that he could expect his audience to share familiarity with some of this information? In a maritime center such as Corinth, knowledge of Aegean ports would be fairly widespread, at least among the congregation’s elite members and, undoubtedly, also those who lived and worked in Cenchreae, Corinth’s port city (Rom 16:1; see comment on Acts 18:18). Certainly people knew of the sites mentioned in their cultures’ epics, even when they knew them primarily orally. People in this region had long exhibited knowledge of current news (e.g., about conquests), readily exchanging it when various cities came together for events such as the Isthmian Games, hosted by Corinth. Likewise, Philippi and the nearby Aegean port town of Neapolis were in contact with and knowledgeable about the rest of the Aegean region.
Most of the locations that Luke mentions in the Aegean were familiar to those who knew Greek history, myth, and literature—that is, to those who prided themselves on being literate. Because Luke’s ideal audience (probably only a portion of his real audience) had ample familiarity with many of the cities mentioned, it is helpful for what is known about some of these cities to be noted for modern readers of commentaries. Of course, patron deities or famous temples in cities mentioned only in passing in Acts (some merely to designate the progress of Paul’s journeys) are nowhere close to being as central to Luke’s “meaning” as narrative parallels in Luke-Acts or background directly illumining the narrative.
Such information does, however, give us a better feel for Luke’s real world and the narrative world most likely inferred by his first audience than what modern readers tend to infer after a history of Christendom. Knowing the world first confronted by the apostolic church, chiefly the Pauline mission, also helps modern Christians to reappropriate the text in a post-Christendom setting and in areas with many first- and second-generation converts.
When the commentary cites ancient comments about these places, this is not to imply that Luke’s audience consciously considered allusions to such background simply because Paul traveled there; rather, the citations seek to illustrate how recognizable such sites were to Luke’s contemporaries who were cultured or aspired to appear as such and how deeply their histories resonated with the shared cultural heritage of much of Luke’s audience.
Our knowledge of Luke’s real audience is limited, and conclusions here must be tentative. Scholars have offered reasonable cases for various positions; I have attempted merely to offer the best reconstruction I can. Probably Luke’s ideal audience consists of mixed but predominantly Gentile congregations. Although he welcomes other listeners, his target audience seems to be Aegean, especially Roman colonies with strong Pauline churches like Corinth and Philippi; of these, the author has the most direct personal knowledge of Philippi. His audience is acutely aware of the larger Roman Empire and developing attitudes toward the Christian movement. Negative public views toward their executed founder Paul constitute a matter of shame, perhaps especially in the Roman colony of Philippi but elsewhere as well, inviting Luke’s apologetic.
Stanton, “Communities”; idem, New People, 50–51; Talbert, John, 63; esp. the essays in Bauckham, Gospels for Christians, particularly idem, “Gospels,” esp. 48; Burridge, “People,” 113–45; Alexander, “Book Production,” 90; Parsons, Acts, 20.
Talbert, “Chance,” 230.
For the latter assumption in the case of Josephus’s audience, see Mason, “Value for Study,” 597. See further Burridge, “People,” 143, who compares Gospel audiences with “market niches” or “target audiences”; Barton, “Audiences,” 194, though skeptical of “communities,” thinks it appropriate to look for “the Gospel audiences and their social location(s).” Roman historians probably also had both a primary audience (the Roman elite) and secondary audiences (others) in mind; see Marincola, “Audiences,” 12–13. For secondary audiences, one might consider the claim of Cic. Fin. 5.19.51 (cited in Laird, “Rhetoric,” 207) that “even artisans” enjoyed history (although I suspect this may have taken a more popular form than Livy’s 140 volumes noted by Laird, op. cit.).
E.g., Karris, “Poor”; Witherington, Acts, 63. We should note, however, that urban eastern Mediterranean Jews, in general, may have commanded a significant knowledge of recent history (cf. the ideal reader in Sib. Or. 5.1–50). For a survey of some views regarding the wealth of Luke’s audience, see Donahue, “Decades on Rich and Poor.”
See comment on .
Emphasized, e.g., by Creech, “Narratee,” 110–11. For Luke’s writing with Theophilus in view, cf. also Garrison, Theophilus, reasonably positioning Theophilus as a pro-Roman Gentile who knew the Gospel of Mark (cf. Luke 1:4); Parsons, Acts, 27.
Nock, Essays, 825–26, warns that dedications reveal simply that a book was in published form; they did not obligate the dedicatee in any respect.
See Neyrey, “Location of Paul”; Lentz, Luke’s Portrait. Apologetic literature often emphasized the reception of one’s claims by “respectable” people (Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.176–212; see Witherington, Acts, 295). Although Luke’s emphasis, this is not his fabrication; thus he may emphasize Paul’s sojourn in honorable cities such as Ephesus (Neyrey, “Location of Paul,” 273) and Corinth (273–74), but Paul’s letters leave no question that this sojourn happened (1 Cor 15:32; 16:8; cf. 1 Tim 1:3; 2 Tim 1:18).
Luke 14:15–24 directly challenges the assumptions of the elite (Rohrbaugh, “Pre-industrial City,” 146). Some scholars see an emphasis on social subversion in Luke’s narratives in Acts (Thomas, “Upside-Down”).
Luke is ready also to attribute special responsibility for injustices to leaders that act unjustly or lead others in doing so (e.g., Acts 3:17; 4:26; 13:27; 14:5).
Robbins, “Location,” 326. For Paul’s status, see esp. comment on Acts 22:3; also comments on 16:37; 21:39.
Apul. Metam. 11.10. Similarly, in antiquity, cultic groups often achieved mainstream status through benefaction or patronage (White, Origins of Architecture, 1:58–59).
In the latter case, an apocalyptic worldview celebrating distance from the culture would more often take hold.
Even mostly illiterate urban people could produce graffiti repeating lines from their cultural canon, albeit with spelling irregularities; see Toner, Culture, 140, on Virgilian graffiti “in a brothel, an iron-mongers and a gladiators’ barracks” (CIL 4.1527, 4401, 9987).
See, e.g., Xen. Cyr. 5.5.34; Pliny Ep. 9.5.3; Apul. Metam. 3.11, 15; 4.23; at length, Friedländer, Life, 1:98–206; Llewelyn, Documents, 6:132–40, §17; in architecture, Vitruv. Arch. 6.5.1–3; in dream interpretation, Artem. Oneir. passim, e.g., 4.26. For the social pyramid, see further Lewis, Life, 18–36, 66; Rohrbaugh, “Pre-industrial City,” 133; in Judaism, t. B. Qam. 9:12; Applebaum, “Social Status,” 707 (though Israelite law, in contrast to Mesopotamian and Roman law [e.g., Dig. 47.21.2; Paulus Sent. 5.23.14.19], lacked most class distinctions). This determined propriety in relationships (e.g., Sir 13:2; Polyb. 26.1.1–3; Livy 41.20.1–3), behavior (Phaedrus 1.3; Apul. Metam. 10.23; Sherk, Empire, §35, p. 62), and even the legality of marriage interests (Paulus Sent. 2; Dig. 23.2.42.pr. 1; both in Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 193, §196). Greeks were also somewhat familiar with the Indian caste system (Arrian Ind. 11.1–7).
On status consistency in general, see Lenski, “Status Crystallization.”
Nock, Conversion, 212.
Malina and Neyrey, Portraits, 175.
Cf., e.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 47.16; Dio Chrys. Or. 7.115; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 97. The ideals of friendship (see Keener, John, 1008–9, citing, e.g., Plato Laws 8.837AB; Arist. E.E. 7.9.1, 1241b; Diog. Laert. 5.31; Iambl. V.P. 29.162; 30.167; Let. Aris. 228; Jos. Ant. 19.317) and sometimes table fellowship (Xen. Cyr. 2.1.30; Mem. 3.14.1; Pliny Ep. 2.6.3–5; Plut. Table 1.2.3, Mor. 616E; Lucian Carousal 43; Athen. Deipn. 1.12C; Heraclitus Ep. 9; for the Lord’s table, Theodoret Comm. 1 Cor. 236–37) sometimes evoked equality; Saturnalia afforded status inversion for Romans momentarily (Lucian Sat. 13, 17–18); also cf. equality before God in Jewish thought (m. Bik. 3:4; t. Bik. 2:10).
Cf., e.g., Pliny Ep. 2.12.6; 9.5.3. Exceptions might be influenced, e.g., by Stoicism and Greek ideals (Marc. Aur. 1.14).
E.g., Xen. Cyr. 1.3.18; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 10.1.2; Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 48.9; Lucian Dial. D. 433 (30/25, Nireus, Thersites, Menippus 2); 436 (8/26, Menippus and Cheiron 2); Hermot. 22; Men. Rhet. 1.3, 363.6–7. Among Greek-speaking Jews, e.g., Let. Aris. 257, 263, 282. Many intended only equity, according to each person’s “worth” (Arist. N.E. 8.7.3, 1158b; Pol. 3.7.2, 1282b; 5.1.7, 1301b; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b.1, pp. 12f.19–20; 2.7.5b.2, pp. 14f.8; 2.7.5b.5, pp. 18f.34–35; cf. Pliny Ep. 2.12.6).
Cf., e.g., Evans, “Sanctuaries”; Mylonas, Eleusis, 282; Pomeroy, Goddesses; Klauck, Context, 49 (citing P.Lond. 2710), 66; Gager, “Class,” 102–3.
Gager, “Class,” 107–8.
E.g., Matheson, Epictetus, 13.
See, e.g., Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 8–9; Litfin, Theology, 124–26, 130; Burridge, “Gospels and Acts,” 510. Even edicts reflected rhetorical conventions (cf. Fronto Speeches 12), and the basic grammatical level of urban education included some exposure to rhetoric (Suet. Gramm. 4). Cf. rhetorical influence on Philo (Conley, “Philo”), Josephus (Runnalls, “Rhetoric,” 737–54, esp. 753–54), and even the LXX (Lee, “Translations: Greek,” esp. 781), though rhetoric would be foreign to most Galilean Jews (Goodman, State, 73). Rhetoric continued to shape expectations even among illiterate audiences in Byzantine times (Cunningham, Faith, 69).
Cf., e.g., Arai, “Stephanusrede.” Reiser, “Heiden,” sees God-fearers as a primary audience for Paul’s letters, many of which presuppose some biblical literacy.
Luke’s assumed eastern Mediterranean geographical literacy for his audience is not, however, demanding by the standards of some others, such as Philostratus (see Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xc).
Tyson, Images of Judaism, 35–36; followed by Barrett, Acts, 1xxix–lxxx (from whom I have abbreviated the summary); Tyson, Luke, Judaism, and Scholars, 145 (summarizing his Images of Judaism, ch. 2; and idem, “Reading as Godfearer”); tentatively, see also Ray, Irony, 165–70.
This remained true in works that I deem later; see Keener, Matthew, 45–51; idem, John, 172–75.
Jervell, “Church,” 20. Le Cornu, Acts, xxix, postulates a Jerusalem audience, which requires a pre-66 date; but whereas she doubts that the emphasis on Jerusalem and Caesarea would be of relevance to a Diaspora audience (xxx), one may counter that it would be of interest to Diaspora Jewish believers and therefore to the majority of Gentile believers in this period who recognized themselves as adherents to a Jewish messianic movement. Most interpreters do presume a Diaspora audience (e.g., Langner, Hechos, 36).
Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 155–56; he argues that “ends of the earth” in Acts 1:8 vindicates Paul’s Gentile mission (28–50).
For Acts as apologetic, see Alexander, Context, 183–206.
Ibid., 200. Against Alexander, I would count three, since Festus is part of the audience in Acts 26, but the Jewish element in Acts 22 and 26 cannot be minimized.
Alexander, Context, 204. Of course, speeches to Gentiles can become relevant within the narrative world only once the mission moves among them.
Ibid., 204–5.
Ibid., 205.
Ibid., 206.
Which seems to be the case even later in some settings, such as Rev 2:9; Mart. Pol. 13.1; 17.2; 18.1.
On the question of the salvation of God-fearers in various forms of early Judaism, see Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles.
Keener, Matthew, 40–42, 45–51; idem, John, 142–232.
See esp. considerations raised in many of the essays in Bauckham, Gospels for Christians.
Foakes-Jackson and Lake, “Internal Evidence of Acts,” 202–4 (provenance).
See, e.g., Paul’s Letter to the Romans; but also cf. the dominance of Greek in Jewish inscriptions from Rome (Leon, Jews of Rome, 75–92, esp. 75–76; Noy, “Writing”; Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 105; Stambaugh, City, 95). Some Aramaic occurs (Chilton, “Epitaph”), but it is minimal compared with Greek.
See Kilgallen, “Rome.” Based on Luke 12:55, Theissen, Gospels, 252–54, argues for a Western perspective, or at least a certainly non-Palestinian, non-Syrian one. He (probably rightly) thinks (258) that Luke likely visited Palestine but was not from there.
With most scholars today, we can take for granted the Roman destination of Rom 16 (see Gamble, Textual History, widely followed; Donfried, “Note on Romans 16”; Lönnermark, “Frågan”; Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 24–35), against some earlier hypotheses (e.g., Manson, “Letter”; Richards, “Romans and Corinthians,” 30; McDonald, “Romans XVI”). Admittedly, Luke does introduce and depict earlier (Acts 18:2–3, 18, 26) this couple known to Rome’s Christians—but they were well known not only in Rome but in Achaia and Asia (1 Cor 16:19; cf. 2 Tim 4:19).
The historic traditional view of a provenance in Antioch (Foakes-Jackson and Lake, “Internal Evidence of Acts,” 201) would connect with the emphasis on Antioch (Acts 6:5; 11:19–30; 13:1–3; 14:26–15:2; 15:22–23, 30, 35; 18:22); but Paul’s letters also presuppose Antioch’s role (Gal 2:11), and the preferred text of Acts does not associate Luke specifically with Antioch.
Polhill, Acts, 31–32, notes that Philip Esler, working from clues in the text for the social setting addressed, also suggests the urban Roman East. Others have also opted for Achaia (e.g., Leaney, Luke, 11). The assumed geographic knowledge is wide (though less than, e.g., in Philostratus; see Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xc).
Goulder, “Letters,” 110, suggests that Luke settled there after Paul’s death (although the connections he proposes [p. 111] do not strike me as persuasive). Another possibility often defended is Ephesus (see discussion below).
I first noticed the correspondences mentioned here between Acts and the Corinthian letters, January 10, 1990, when I inclined toward that destination for Luke-Acts. “Theophilus” is attested as a citizen name in Corinth (Kent, Inscriptions, 24, 28, both before Luke’s period), but this name is not very unusual (see comment on ).
Cf. also the favorable view of virginity in Acts 21:9; 1 Cor 7:25–38.
Luke’s baptismal theology (e.g., Acts 2:38; 22:16) differs from the emphasis in 1 Cor 1:13–17, but the baptismal situation that Paul addressed there does not appear in 2 Corinthians and may have been resolved.
First Clement suggests that many issues that Paul addressed in Corinth remained at the end of the first century. I also suspect that Hebrews was written to the sort of congregation taught by those educated in a Hellenistic synagogue setting, possibly (though not necessarily; cf. perhaps Heb 13:24) Corinth, which explains some similarities.
See, e.g., Pervo, Acts, 5–6, emphasizing local knowledge of Ephesus; idem, Mystery, 8, emphasizing the Pauline circles there in the early second century, when he dates Acts.
As also suggested in Ephesians and 1 and 2 Timothy (perhaps also Ign. Eph. 12.2; but this is less clear than, e.g., Polycarp’s allusions to Paul’s Philippian ministry in Phil. 3.2; 11.3; probably 9.1). The elements of known truth in Acts 19:26–27 might not go over well in a document meant for primary circulation in Ephesus (if nonbelievers might hear it), despite Demetrius’s role as a demagogue.
Writers would rarely devote such a monumental work with a target audience of only a single house church or a network of such churches in only one city; see again the essays in Bauckham, Gospels for Christians.
Luke could, of course, focus on Philippi because he knows it best, yet write to churches elsewhere. But I am arguing that he writes with the Christians he knows best in mind, not that he intended only Christians in Philippi to read his work. As a person of status, “Theophilus” is probably not Philippian, since most persons of status there would probably go by their Roman names.
Another suggestion has been Luke’s brother. An author might avoid praising those closest to him to avoid the charge of bias (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.33.628).
We think, e.g., of Polybius’s scenes, not simply the idyllic landscapes of poets (on the latter, see Hardie, “Locus amoenus”).
Talbert, “Geography,” 776.
See Talbert, “Small-Town Sources.”
E.g., (outside the empire but later) the cultural influences on Judaism as expressed in the synagogue at Dura-Europos; Goodenough, Symbols, vols. 9–11 (summary in 12:158–83).
E.g., the apparent assumption that all consuls were Caesars (Sib. Or. 11.265–67).
See fully Purcell, “Geography,” and sources noted there.
Neither of these situations is understood today.
E.g., Rhodes’s military triumphs (Dio Chrys. Or. 31.19) would be well known.
This is not to suggest that Roman Christians in the same period would be equally interested in Greek churches. That is, the focus on the East in Acts’ narrative probably suggests an Eastern audience.
He digresses to address this problem more fully in Polyb. 3.57.1–3.59.9. He would also consider direct experience of these places paramount for himself as a writer (12.25g.1–2), condemning historians who did not travel (12.25g.3–4; see Polybius’s emphasis on this point in our comment on historians investigating their subjects, , ).
That is, from the standpoint of an audience within the empire (Parthians, Nubians, Germans, and farther peoples in India, China, and elsewhere would have certainly demurred if this claim were pressed literally!).
Abbott, Acts, 13–14.
For Corinthian inscriptions mentioning Alexandria and cities in Asia Minor, see, e.g., Kent, Inscriptions, nos. 136 (p. 64), 138 (pp. 64–65), 303 (pp. 118–19), and 370 (p. 143).
In the West, even mostly illiterate urban people could produce graffiti repeating lines from their cultural canon, albeit with spelling irregularities; see Toner, Culture, 140, on Virgilian graffiti “in a brothel, an iron-mongers and a gladiators’ barracks” (CIL 4.1527, 4401, 9987).
So, e.g., Polyb. 18.46.1–2. Diaspora Jewish sources in late first- to early second-century Alexandria presume some knowledge of recent Mediterranean history on the part of readers (Sib. Or. 5.1–50, which is reasonably accurate for recent centuries; but cf. the confusion in 5.460–63).