100. Cpj 2:117.

100. Cpj 2:117.

See CIJ 1:lxvii; 1:83, §119. Cf. θεοδωρ- and θεοδοτ- names in CIJ 1:24, §30; 1:25, §31; 1:504, §693; 1:522, §722; 2:40, §783; 2:62, §818; 2:111, §879; 2:113, §882; 2:133, §922; 2:188, §§1027–28 (in Semitic letters); 2:266, §1265; 2:267, §1266; 2:268–69, §§1269–72; 2:333, §1404; 2:445, §1537; also θεοδουλ- names, 1:515, §713.

CPJ 2:117.

CPJ 1:xix; CIJ 1:lxvii. Nearly one-third of the Greek names of Jews in Ptolemaic papyri related to military matters are theophoric (CPJ 1:148); for examples of θεο- compounded names in Egyptian Jewish papyri, see CPJ 3:176–78.

Pace Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, 29–30. That he was a Jewish aristocratic priest (cf. Rius-Camps, “Confrontación”) is unduly speculative.

Most scholars regard Luke 1:1–4 as the prologue for both volumes (Fitzmyer, Acts, 59).

As noted by, e.g., Filson, History, 84.

E.g., Longin. Subl. 1.1; for critiquing earlier theories at the beginning of arguments, cf. Arist. Heav. 3.7–8, 305a 33–307b 24; 4.2, 308a 34–b3.

So also Justus, according to Jos. Life 357–59 (critiqued by Josephus). For Polybius’s hostile approach to some other historians, see our introduction, , .

Like the authors listed below who emphasize their selectivity, he also claims that he read nearly all the earlier extant histories but preferred to include only what was most suitable (Dio Cass. 1.1.1–2). Herodian also criticizes his predecessors for preferring rhetorical style to truth (Hdn. 1.1.1–2); Tacitus does so more gently: they embellished some things only because they lacked sufficient information (Agr. 10).

Jos. War 1.1–2, 7; Ant. 20.154–57; he emphasizes that no one else could have written his subject as well as he (Ant. 20.262). For critiques of predecessors, Wardle, Valerius Maximus, 67, cites Livy pref. 2; Sall. Hist. frg. 3, 7; Tac. Hist. 1.1.2–3; Ann. 1.1.2.

Many failed to write successfully, he notes, because they did not visit the sites in question (Diod. Sic. 1.4.1; though his own travels may have been limited, as Oldfather, “Introduction to Diodorus Siculus,” xiii, argues); he checked out records as well (Diod. Sic. 1.4.4–5). Tacitus also notes that his able predecessors lacked access to the current information he has (Agr. 10).

E.g., Val. Max. 1.pref. Quintilian starts by listing various views of a matter, offering his own only later (Inst. 5.pref. 1–3); more to the point, only after praising his predecessors does Quintilian note that he will differ from them on some points (3.1.22).

Comparison need not denigrate (e.g., Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 377.1). Noting that the discipline he is addressing is too vast for any single authority to treat comprehensively, Pliny E. N.H. 3.1.1–2 promises not to criticize anyone.

Cf. 2 Macc 2:24–25.

Historians critiquing other historians could be charged with envy (Sall. Catil. 3.2). Avoiding rudeness, Arrian Alex. 1.pref. 3 manages to compare his work favorably to that of his predecessors without being explicit, by inviting anyone questioning his reason to write to compare his work with that of his predecessors.

Rhetoric even recommended praising one’s subject by contrast with one’s predecessors without criticizing the predecessors (Men. Rhet. 2.3, 378.18–26).

Others might distinguish their work simply by saying that they offered a distinctive arrangement, though nothing truly new (Nicolaus Progymn. 1.pref. 1).

The only possible instance of this behavior in Luke’s work would be his treatment of John Mark (Acts 13:13; 15:37–38)—but only on the assumption (more plausible than some allow) that he and his audience knew this Mark to be the author of a popular Gospel, and even then we could not be certain that he was critiquing him as a predecessor, since Mark’s failure concerned Paul, not the Jesus tradition. A Luke and a Mark in the Pauline circle may have even worked together (Col 4:10, 14; Phlm 24; cf. 2 Tim 4:11).

Danker, New Age, 3; cf. Marshall, Luke, 39.

E.g., Jos. Ant. 13.297, 408; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 40.3; Lucian Alex. 61; Socratics Ep. 20; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.29.621; Iambl. V.P. 28.148–49; 32.226; see further sources in Klauck, “Presence,” 61–62 (Plut. Stoic Cont. 9, Mor. 1035AB; Alex. 7.3; Theon of Smyrna Exp. Rer. Math. 1; Cic. Tusc. 1.29); Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 120; van der Horst, “Cornutus,” 168–69; Metzger, “Considerations,” 17–18n84. The language also applied to what historians “handed on” (Dio Chrys. Or. 18.10) or to practices passed on from ancestors (Thucyd. 1.85.1). For receiving through a chain of tradition mentioning only the original source, see, e.g., m. ʿEd. 8:7; ʾAb. 1:1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 25 A; b. Šabb. 108a, bar.; Pesaḥ. 110b; Meg. 19b; Naz. 56b; perhaps 1 Cor 11:23.

See also Keener, Historical Jesus, 139–61; idem, “Assumptions”; and sources cited there.

E.g., Isaeus Pyrr. 40; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.43.2; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.107.

See discussion on Luke’s use of sources in our introduction, , .

Bruce, Documents, 24, suggests that the clause about taking up probably was added for clarity when Luke and Acts were severed to add Luke to the collection of Gospels.

Tannehill, Acts, 11 (basing his argument on Luke 9:51). The “suffering” undoubtedly refers to Jesus’s death (for the cognate noun πάθος as suffering applied to death elsewhere, see, e.g., Philost. Hrk. 2.9; 9.2; 20.3; 21.2; 31.7; 48.10; 12.1—though it can be used for experience, as in 7.9; 8.6; 33.6; suffering more generally in 18.5; 25.15; 46.2). First Peter uses the verb eleven times for Jesus and his followers; Luke-Acts applies it especially to Christ’s suffering (Luke 9:22; 17:25; 22:15; 24:26, 46; Acts 1:3; 3:18; 17:3; for Paul in Acts 9:16).

This is probably the term’s sense also in Acts 1:22; though Luke uses it in a variety of ways, it can refer to being taken up to heaven also in 10:16.

Dion. Hal. Thuc. 10–12 emphasizes that one should begin a narrative at the most natural starting point. Historically, the events of this “pivot” probably occurred in 30 C.E. (Nisan 14 or 15 may have fallen on a Friday then, April 7; see Witherington, Acts, 78; esp. and extensively, discussion favoring 30 or 31 C.E. in Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 36–41; for 30, see also Blinzler, Trial, 72–80; Brown, Death, 1373–76; Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:402; Riesner, “Pauline Chronology,” 11; but for the tenuousness of astronomical dating, in view of potential early Jewish observational mistakes, see Sanders, Figure, 284). The alternative date of 33 C.E. (Jewett, Chronology, 29) seems less probable (though see Duriez, AD 33, 219–25, and sources he cites, 245).

The most likely grammatical connection; see Fitzmyer, Acts, 196; Barrett, Acts, 69; Parsons and Culy, Acts, 3; Peterson, Acts, 103. This dependence on the Spirit in teaching apparently continues until the ascension (see Dunn, Baptism, 46; cf. Rom 1:4; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:18–19, cited in Dunn, Acts, 6).

Cf. also Dunn, Acts, 6.

Johnson, Acts, 24, suggests both (cf. Gaventa, Acts, 63). But Luke’s ambiguity here may stem from lack of care (despite being in his introduction) instead of being deliberate; only the larger context of his theology can help resolve the question at this remove.

Another suggested reading of the syntax is that Jesus chose the apostles because they would eventually receive the Spirit (Kilgallen, “Chose”); although this proposal makes excellent sense of the context, one would normally expect the accusative πνεῦμα (which does not appear with διὰ in the NT) if this were the intended meaning (with the genitive, the construction appears three times in Acts, all referring to prophetic activity, Acts 4:25; 11:28; 21:4).

Luke’s other use, Luke 4:10 (from Q, Matt 4:6), is not relevant. The cognate ἐντολή appears once in Acts (at Acts 17:15), for (in contrast to 1:2) not delaying.

I am using “apostle” here in its narrower, usual Lukan sense, in contrast with the broader usage in Paul and even Acts 14:4, 14.

Cf. the somewhat different use of the two cities in Revelation, where Babylon represents the world system epitomized in Rome and the new Jerusalem represents the eschatological future (as well as continuity with Israel’s heritage; discussion in, e.g., Keener, Revelation, 313, 379, 405–6, 412–13, 434, 486).

See, e.g., Henrichs, “Epiphany.”

Squires, Plan, 103–8; for Josephus on divination and epiphanies (e.g., dreams), see 108–12; for Luke-Acts (including appearances and visions), 112–20.

Origen Cels. 3.23–24 (Martin, Acts, 165–66); Remus, Conflict, 8 (citing Origen Cels. 2.55; 3.26, 32–33); Cook, Interpretation, 58–59 (noting that Origen concedes these but attributes them to demons).

E.g., Apul. Metam. 8.8; 9.31; ʾAbot R. Nat. 40 A. One supposed divine apparition turned out to be a conjured ghost of a gladiator (one of low class; Eunapius Lives 473). Likewise, although the biblical tradition reported only apparitions of angels in dreams, both pagan (e.g., Hom. Il. 23.65, 83–85; Eurip. Hec. 30–34, 703–6; Virg. Aen. 1.353–54; 2.268–97, 772–94; 4.351–52; 5.721–23; Ovid Metam. 11.586–88, 635, 650–73; Apul. Metam. 8.8; 9.31; Plut. Br. Wom., Mor. 252F) and Jewish (ʾAbot R. Nat. 40 A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:23; y. Ḥag. 2:2, §5; Ketub. 12:3, §7; Sanh. 6:6, §2; cf. Acts Paul 11.6) dreams often included apparitions of deceased persons.

Ovid claims to be terrified in his depictions in Fasti 1.95–98; 6.19–20, but these are poetic and may be a literary device. For comment on deity appearances, see comment on Acts 9:3; on those of Castor and Pollux, See comment on Acts 28:11.

In Talbert, Gospel, 41; cf. Plut. Cam. 33.7; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 61, cites Livy 1.16. Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 163–64, cite Romulus’s apotheosis appearance to Proculus Julius in Livy 1.16.2–8; Plut. Rom. 28; Numa 11.3; Ovid Fasti 2.500–509, and notes that Justin 1 Apol. 21 made an apologetic comparison between Jesus’s resurrection appearances and pagan understanding of imperial apotheosis.

For this discussion, see esp. Keener, John, 1185–88. See Wright, Resurrection, passim, for historical evidence supporting the claim of Jesus’s resurrection and its distinctiveness and especially the point that “resurrection,” by its Jewish definition, involved the body (what did not involve the body was something else; see 85–206, brought to my attention by C. L. Blomberg; for resurrection in Second Temple Judaism, see also Anderson, Raised, 48–91; for some earlier Israelite antecedents, see Raharimanantsoa, Mort, 378–47; for one survey of early and late evidence, arguing for a decisive shift with 2 Macc 7, see Bauer, “Tod”). For various approaches to the subject of Jesus’s resurrection, see Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection.

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 320.

Blackburn, “ΑΝΔΡΕΣ,” 193. In another third-century C.E. work by the same author, the hero Protesilaus appears to people and lives on; he is said to have “come back to life,” though he refuses to explain the nature of this claim (Philost. Hrk. 58.2). But whatever else his “return” from death might claim, it does not involve bodily resurrection: his body remains buried (9.1). (He visits both Hades and the world of the living [11.7] but visits his wife only in Hades [11.8]. Others also returned from Hades without immortality [e.g., Ant. Diog. Thule 109ab].) Even claims like this one made for Protesilaus do not predate the rise and spread of Christianity. See Bowersock, Fiction as History, 108–13; even his mid-first-century parallel does not indicate a bodily resurrection (it may simply mean “a brief tryst with his wife,” 112, as in earlier sources; see Petron. Sat. 129.1).

See the discussion of Talbert, “Concept of Immortals”; and other sources in comment on Acts 1:9–11, below. More recently, cf. the discussion of apotheosis in Talbert, Matthew, 317–20 (also acknowledging distinctives on 319–20).

E.g., Eurip. Bacch. 42, 53–54; Plut. Cic. 14.3; Ael. Arist. Or. 48.41; Apul. Metam. 11.3; Ach. Tat. 7.12.4; Char. Chaer. 2.2.5; 2.3.5; Philost. Hrk. 2.8; 18.1–2 (see further Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xxvi); reports in Grant, Religions, 9–13, 123; Rives, Religion, 102; in unrelated cultures, see Wolf, “Virgin of Guadalupe”; Mbiti, Religions, 105–12 passim; for more concrete effects of angelic manifestations in Hellenistic Jewish tradition, see Tob 12:19, 22; 2 Macc 3:24–26 (cf. God in 2 Macc 3:30).

See further Bartsch, “Inhalt.”

Nilsson, Piety, 106; the inscription of 324 C.E. in Grant, Religions, 123; Diod. Sic. 5.62.4; 11.14.3–4 (providential lightning); Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.56.1–3 (including a statue speaking). Cf. the apparition of God in 2 Macc 3:30 (referring to the apparitions in 3:24–26).

Cf. Grant, Gods, 66, 54–55, 64–65.

E.g., PDM 14.74–91, 95, 98–102, 169; probably Dio Chrys. Or. 32.12, 41.

So, e.g., Plut. Coriol. 3.4 (writing of the time of Tarquin, 3.1); or, less dramatically, the appearance of the Dioscuri’s stars (Plut. Lys. 12.1; 18.1); perhaps 2 Macc 3:24–26. Sometimes they might be just a century and a half earlier, like Suetonius’s report of an apparition publicly urging Caesar to cross the Rubicon (Jul. 32), perhaps originally political propaganda from Caesar’s faction.

E.g., Schweizer, Jesus, 48–49; see especially Licona, “Historicity of Resurrection,” 136n196, 346–47; idem, Resurrection, 484–85, 573–74; personal correspondence, April 25, 2010; but cf. also the qualified approach in O’Connell, “Hallucinations,” 75–83 (noting differences on 87–105).

Grayzel, History of Jews, 516; Bamberger, Story, 240.

Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi, 920; Greenstone, Messiah, 225–30.

See discussion in Keener, Historical Jesus, 153, 343. Price, Son of Man, 29, offers this figure as a comparison, but its value is limited.

Such reports of visions of heavenly armies appear in other war reports (Pliny E. N.H. 2.58.148). Similarly, people more recently have claimed to see, e.g., a cross in the sky (Sung, Diaries, 106, reporting the claims of some others; similar celestial phenomena in Wacker, Heaven, 93). But given the mutability of clouds, reports of shapes in the sky are not the same as corporate visions of a person before them on the ground.

For signs portending the temple’s destruction, see Jos. War 6.293–96; b. Yoma 39b; y. Yoma 43c; cf. Tac. Hist. 5.13, noted in Dibelius, Tradition, 195 (although he thinks the tradition circulated only after 70; ibid., 195n3).

Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 182–84.

Somewhat similarly, Saulnier, “Josèphe,” suggests that Josephus borrows the tradition from Flavian propaganda.

Tac. Hist. 5.13.2–7 likely depends on Jos. War 6.288–315.

E.g., Aul. Gel. 4.6.2.

E.g., Lucan C.W. 1.526–57; most obviously, who reported on Charybdis (1.547–48)?

Lucan C.W. 1.572–73. Lucan writes epic poetry about historical events, not history proper.

E.g., many of the portents listed in Livy 21.62.5; 24.10.7–10; 25.7.7–8; 26.23.4–5; 27.4.11–14; 27.11.2–5; 29.37.1–5; 29.14.3; 32.1.10–12; 33.26.7–8; 34.45.6–7; 35.9.2–3; 35.21.3–6; 36.37.2–3; 40.45.1–4; 41.21.12–13; 43.13.3–6; 45.16.5; Lucan C.W. 1.562–63.

E.g., Livy 21.62.4–5; 24.10.10; 42.2.4; Plut. Themist. 15.1; Hdn. 8.3.8–9.

Appian Bell. civ. 4.1.4 (43 B.C.E.); one of the portents in Livy 24.44.8 (213 B.C.E.); Caesar C.W. 3.105; Philost. Hrk. 56.2.

E.g., Livy 24.10.11; 24.44.8. If I correctly interpret Livy’s summaries, in some cases some reported seeing figures at another location when those present at that location could not confirm them. Sometimes what the apparition supposedly portended did not occur (Plut. Cic. 14.3).

Livy 21.62.5. Contrast Josh 5:13–15 (cf. 2 Kgs 6:17)!

E.g., Livy 21.62.1; Hdn. 8.3.8 (though he concludes that it is credible, 8.3.9). One fictitious or amplified, after-the-fact claim (e.g., Lucian Peregr. 39–40) was also sufficient rumor to provide grist for such a report, in contrast to what would be necessary to supply the multiple attestation for Jesus’s resurrection claims in Paul and the Gospels.

Livy 21.62.1; 24.10.6; 27.37.2; 29.14.2.

See the LCL, note on Livy 29.14.3; some discussion in Stothers, “Objects”; idem, “Optics.” Flames seen in the sky (e.g., Livy 32.8.2), showers of “stones” (36.37.3), a rainbow in a clear sky (41.21.12), meteors (e.g., 43.13.3), a comet shining for seven nights (Suet. Jul. 88), and many other phenomena are also plausible in this manner. Some reports, of course, were simply fabricated by someone.

In Philost. Hrk. 21.5, the gardener initially fails to recognize even Protesilaus.

This work probably dates to the early third century C.E. Cf. Iamblichus’s disciples who reportedly doubted other evidences but were persuaded by something indisputably supernatural (Eunapius Lives 459–60).

E.g., Xen. Eph. Anthia 3.5–8; Apoll. K. Tyre 25–26; Iambl. (nov.) Bab. St. 3–4 (Photius Bibl. 94.74b), 5 (74b), 6 (75a). People also entered and left the underworld (e.g., Ant. Diog. Thule 109ab).

Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 4; Witherington, Acts; Johnson, Acts, 25; Anderson, Glossary, 44, 108–9, 116–17 (some citing Arist. Rhet. 1.2.16–17, 1357b; Dion. Hal. Lysias 19; Quint. Inst. 5.9.3–7; cf. Rhet. Alex. 7, 1428.19–23). The term is a NT hapax legomenon but cf. the Hellenistic Jewish works Wis 5:11; 19:13; 3 Macc 3:24 (the only uses in the LXX).

See Mealand, “Many Proofs”; Witherington, Acts, 108, citing Jos. Ant. 3.317–18; Diod. Sic. 3.66.4.4; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.90.2.2. Cf. Jos. War 1.638 (Nicolaus’s prosecution of Antipater); Philo Good Person 1.

Arator Acts 1 (Martin, Acts, 3) understood this as evidencing Jesus’s true humanity.

Cf. also John 20:17, 20, 25–27; much more briefly, Matt 28:9.

Test. Ab. 4:9–10 A (cf. 6:5); ʾAbot R. Nat. 1 A; b. Yoma 75b; Gen. Rab. 48:11, 14; Exod. Rab. 32:4; Lev. Rab. 34:8; cf. Goodman, “Angels.” Greeks (whose deities subsisted on nectar and ambrosia) could describe as mortals those who ate grain (Hom. Il. 13.322).

Cf. Philost. Hrk. 11.9, where the hero’s ghost is never observed eating, yet the food is instantly consumed.

E.g., Lucan C.W. 1.11; Plut. Caes. 69.5, 8; Pliny Ep. 7.27.1–16; Max. Tyre 9.6–7; Dio Cass. 42.11.2–3; Johnston, “Dead, Cult of,” 114; Dubourdieu, “Dead, Cult of,” 115–16; in the ancient Near East, see Scurlock, “Ghosts.” On wraiths or false apparitions, see, e.g., Hom. Il. 5.449–53; the parody in Lucian Dial. D. 402–3 (11/16, Diogenes and Heracles 1–2).

E.g., in Hom. Il. 5.449–53; cf. Ovid Fasti 3.701–2 (allowing Caesar’s snatching up to heaven despite his apparent death, 3.703–4); the angel arrested in Moses’s place in y. Ber. 9:1, §8 (third century C.E.). The docetic idea of a wraith as substituted for Jesus on the cross (critiqued in Iren. Her. 1.24.4), followed in the Qur’an (cf. Cook, Muhammad, 79), apparently derives from this approach.

Helen in Euripides’s Helen (following Stesichorus’s Recantation) and Apollod. Epit. 3.5; Ixion’s cloud in Apollod. Epit. 1.20.

Lycophron Alex. 190–91; Apollod. Epit. 3.22. Euripides and others had tamed the ferocity of Homer’s tale at this point.

Johnson, Acts, 25.

Theissen, Miracle Stories, 67.

Philost. Hrk. 11.2–3 (Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, 35n39, contrasts the vanishing ghosts of Hom. Il. 23.65–101; Od. 11.204–22, 390–94).

Philost. Hrk. 12.4; 13.2–4. The spirit appears in the same form and age in which he died (Hrk. 10.2).

Hom. Il. 4.86–87, 121–24; 5.127–28, 177, 183, 191, 461–62, 604, 784–85; 7.58–59; 13.43–45, 69, 215–16, 356–57; 14.136; 16.715–20, 788–89; 17.71–73, 322–26, 551–55, 582–83; 20.79–81; 21.284–86, 599–611; Od. 1.420; 2.267–68, 382–87, 399–401; 6.21–22; 7.19–20; 8.8, 193–94; Virg. Aen. 1.314–15, 402–6, 657–60; 5.618–20, 645–52; 7.415–16; 9.646–52, 657–58; 12.784–85; Georg. 4.405–14, 440–42; Ovid Metam. 1.676; 11.241–46, 633–43; 14.765–71; Paus. 3.16.2–3; Ach. Tat. 2.15.4; Apollod. Bib. 2.4.8; 3.8.2; 3.10.7; 3.12.6; 3.13.5; Sil. It. 7.422–25, 435; Eunapius Lives 468; for ghosts, cf. Philost. Hrk. 21.1. They could also disguise the appearance of mortals (e.g., Hom. Od. 13.397–99) and become invisible (Il. 5.845).

E.g., Hom. Od. 13.189–93; 16.454–59; Ovid Metam. 8.851–54, 872–74; cf. perhaps Jdt 10:7; see further Keener, John, 773–74.

See Gen 18; Tob 5:4–6, 12; 9:1–5; Philo Abr. 114; Sipre Deut. 38.1.4; b. Peʾah 3:8, §3; Heb 13:2; cf. Luke 24:16, 31. Also Satan in Test. Job 6:4; 17:2 (OTP)/17:1 (Kraft); 23:1; cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:2.

L.A.B. 12:1; 61:9; 64:4. Sipre Deut. 47.2.8 speaks of the righteous as sometimes unseen, but not in the sense of disguised (perhaps intended corporately).

See comment in Robinson, Studies, 166.

Although the summary account in Barn. 15.9 connects both the resurrection and ascension with Sunday (cf. comment in Schille, Apostelgeschichte, 68), it is not clear that the same day must be in view.

With Fitzmyer, Acts, 202.

Witherington, Acts, 107–8.

John 20:24 reports that Thomas joined the group later, but because our lists count him as one of the Twelve (Mark 3:18; Matt 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13; as in John 20:24), this may be a different and unrelated tradition.

Johnson, Acts, 25, citing also “the Epistula Apostolorum, The Apocryphon of James (550 days)”; cf. Schille, Apostelgeschichte, 68, noting also eighteen months in Iren. Her. 1.3.2; 30.14. Gnostic “postresurrection” sayings often take the form of oracular dialogues (Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 126–27).

Zwiep, Ascension, 170–75, esp. 174.

Perkins, Reading, 255; cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 26 (arguing that Luke here sides with the Jerusalem church against Paul).

Dunn, Acts, 12–13, also citing the danger of unlimited revelatory claims based on indefinitely continuing appearances, as in later gnostic documents.

For Luke’s distinction between these resurrection appearances and mere visions, see discussion in O’Collins, “Closing of Appearances”; ὀίτανόμενος (Acts 1:3) refers to visibility, and the verb was not limited to visions (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 4, citing esp. 3 Kgdms 8:8 LXX; P.Paris 49.33; P.Tebt. 24.5; PGM 4.3033ff.).

See Keener, Corinthians, 125 (here perhaps as something like a postmature birth). The LXX normally employs Paul’s term for “abortion” here figuratively (with Hollander and van der Hout, “Abortion”). Some scholars even take Paul’s language to mean that he was the final apostle (Jones, “Last Apostle”), but in view of his more general use of “apostle” elsewhere (e.g., Rom 16:7; 1 Cor 15:5–7; Gal 1:19), this position seems too extreme. Some others take the language as implying Paul’s rejection (Mitchell, “Aborted Apostle”) or that his acts of persecution had contradicted the purpose for which he was born (Nickelsburg, “Ektrōma”).

Dunn, Acts, 3–4, who speculatively links “all the apostles” (1 Cor 15:7) with the Hellenist expansion (Acts 8:4; 11:19–21).

In Luke’s version; even the Twelve apparently returned to Galilee historically for at least a short period (Mark 14:28; 16:7; Matt 16:32; 28:7, 10, 16; John 21:1).

See Parsons, Departure, 195; idem, Acts, 35.

In Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.27, Apollonius provides such unknown information to his disciple Damis. Damis may well be fictitious (appropriate to the genre in which Philostratus writes), but his role here illustrates the concern to identify a potential source for the writer’s information. On Gethsemane see Allison, Jesus, 415–19.

Cadbury, “Eschatology,” 309. But many ancients recognized that forty days without food could precipitate starvation (Diog. Laert. 8.1.40; for a much lower estimate, Pliny E. N.H. 11.118.283).

Naturally recalled in later literature as well (e.g., Jub. 1:4; 4Q364 frg. 15.2; frg. 26bi.10; frg. 26bii + e2; Philo Dreams 1.36; Mos. 2.69–70; Jos. Ant. 3.95, 99; b. Šabb. 89a) and emulated by others (Adam in L.A.E. 6:1; cf. 17:3; 4 Ezra 14:23, 36, 43–45; 3 Bar. 4:14).

Johnson, Acts, 25; Talbert, Acts, 5–6. Cf. here also the time the spies surveyed the land (Num 13:25; 14:34). Pelikan, Acts, 38, suggests that the combination of “commanded” and “forty days” in Acts 1:2–3 is an allusion to Sinai’s Torah; this is possible, but Luke appears to make less of this association than Matthew does.

Again echoing Moses and/or Israel in the wilderness; for a discussion, see, e.g., Keener, Matthew, 136; Sanders, Figure, 112–13.

With, e.g., Perkins, Reading, 255; Spencer, Acts, 25; Pervo, Acts, 37.

For the inclusio (and summary), see Chrupcala, “Disegno.” Although an inclusio usually appears around smaller units (e.g., Luke 15:24, 36; Hom. Od. 1.1–2, 10; Catull. Carm. 52.1, 4; 57.1, 10; Pliny Ep. 3.16.1, 13; Harvey, Listening, 102–3), it also occasionally appears around some books (e.g., trial scenes in Char. Chaer.; John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rom 1:5; 16:25; see esp. Harvey, Listening, 67, 111–12, with Hom. Il. 1; 24).

For the Jewish setting of Jesus’s teaching on the kingdom (and a survey of some secondary scholarship), see, e.g., Keener, Matthew, 68–70. For the kingdom teaching here (Acts 1:3) providing continuity with the Gospel, see also Dunn, Acts, 7. For the kingdom in Luke-Acts as one unifying theme, see del Agua, “Evangelization.”

The specific construction περὶ τῆς βασιλείας appears here and in Luke 9:11 (Jesus); Acts 8:12 (Philip); 19:8 (Paul).

It is present in Luke 11:20; 17:21 (though conjoined with future material in 17:22–37); 18:17 (cf. future material in 18:7–8); future in 1:33 (if distinguished); 11:2; 13:28–29 (cf. present material in 13:18–21); 19:12; 22:29–30; perhaps 6:20; 12:32.

This is not, however, “triumphalism”; it would come through sufferings (Marguerat, Historian, 40).

The kingdom appears as both present and future in Luke-Acts (see Nolland, “Salvation-History,” 68–70; Ellis, “Fonction de l’eschatologie”), and Acts 1:3 is comprehensive, encompassing all Jesus’s teaching on the subject (Nolland, “Salvation-History,” 70).

The historical model for Luke 19:12 could be Herod or Archelaus; See comment on .

Pace the surprisingly poorly researched claims of Mack at this point (Mack, Myth, 70–73; idem, Lost Gospel, 126), the kingdom is a pre-Christian Jewish concept (e.g., Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:243–69; Vermes, Religion, 127–28); even if one discounted all other sources, the teachings about God’s kingdom in the Hebrew Bible and the LXX are certainly pre-Christian (see, e.g., Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:243–47; discussion of Daniel, below).

Frequently acknowledged, e.g., Dodd, Parables, 34; Perrin, Kingdom, 24; Betz, Jesus, 33; Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 54; see esp. Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:240–43; but contrast Aalen, “Reign.”

E.g., m. Ber. 2:2; Sipra A.M. pq. 13.194.2.1; Sipra Qed. pq. 9.207.2.13; Sipre Deut. 313.1.3; 323.1.2; t. B. Qam. 7:5; see Bonsirven, Judaism, 176; cf. Pss 145:2; 146:10. Reciting the Shema accepted this yoke (m. Ber. 2:2; b. Ber. 61b; Deut. Rab. 2:31).

E.g., Isa 9:6–7; 24:23; 52:7; Zech 14:9; Wis 5:16 (even despite its Hellenistic approach); Jub. 1:28; Pss. Sol. 17:5; 2 Bar. 73:1; Sib. Or. 3.767; 4Q246 II, 5; 4Q554 2 III, 14–21, esp. 20–21; Test. Mos. 10:1; Mek. Shir. 10.42–45; Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.3; Tg. Isa. 40:9. Pace Crossan, this kingdom belongs more to an apocalyptic than to a sapiential frame of reference (Freyne, Galilean, 136–37). For further data, cf. Moore, Judaism, 1:423; 2:309; Bonsirven, Judaism, 176–77; Laurin, “Immortality”; Young, Parables, 193; Tg. Ezek. 7:7, 10 in Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 53; for the present and future aspects, see also Ernst, “Reich.”

See, e.g., Oesterley, Liturgy, 65, 70.

E.g., Dan 4:26; 3 Macc 4:21; 1 En. 6:2; 1QM XII, 5; Rom 1:18; Luke 15:18; m. ʾAb. 1:3; t. B. Qam. 7:5; Sipra Behuq. pq. 6. 267.2.1; 79.1.1.

This is commonly pointed out both by scholars of Judaism (e.g., Bonsirven, Judaism, 7; Marmorstein, Names, 93; Moore, Judaism, 1:119) and by those of the NT (e.g., Goppelt, Theology, 1:44).

E.g., Test. Ab. 8:3 A; Tg. Isa. 40:9.

Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 242.

With, e.g., Niskanen, “Kingdoms”; Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 242; Evans, “Daniel’s Visions.”

Some scholars view the fourth beast as Greek but Rome as partaking in it (Caragounis, “Culture”), but the view held may depend on the interpreters’ period. Cf. the Kittim, who in at least the earliest Qumran scrolls might be pre-Roman enemies (Rowley, “Kittim”; Avi-Yonah, “War,” 5; Treves, “Date,” 420; Michel, Maître), though many take the Scrolls’ Kittim as Romans (Rabin, “Jannaeus”; Burrows, Scrolls, 123–42; idem, More Light, 194–203; Dupont-Sommer, Writings, 167–68; Charlesworth, Pesharim, 109–10; Bolotnikov, “War”; Vermes, “Elements”; cf. the redactional approach in Eshel, “Sny”), quite plausibly (cf. 4QpNah 3 + 4 I, 3; 1QpHab III, 11; 4Q161, frg. 8–10; 4Q491 8–10 II, 8–12; 13 5); some take them more generally (Carmignac, “Kittim” [though originally Macedonians]; North, “War,” 86–87; Van der Ploeg, Rouleau, 24–25; Gaster, Scriptures, 388), most plausibly (1QM I, 2, 4, 6; XI, 11; XV, 2; XVIII, 2–3; perhaps 1QpHab II, 12–14; III, 4, 9; IV, 5). The meaning could vary among documents depending on their date (Yadin, Scroll of War, 25).

On the four kingdoms, see 4Q554 2 III, 14–21; 2 Bar. 39:5–7; 4 Ezra 12:11; Sib. Or. 8.6–11; Sipre Deut. 317.4.2; 320.2.3; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:2; b. Taʿan. 2:5, §1; Song Rab. 7:1, §1; Midr. Pss. 40, §4; Collins, “Eschatologies,” 330–31; for early Christian readings, note esp. Pfandl, “Interpretations.” Cf. the similar Hellenistic-Roman perspective in Mendels, “Five Empires”; and, more relevant, four ages of metals from Hesiod to Persian sources and Daniel (Lucas, “Origin”).

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 139–40. Cf. also others, e.g., Giesen, Herrschaft.

With, e.g., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 146–48, 151–54, 231–32; Allison, “Eschatology”; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:289–397; cf. Burkitt, Sources, 69; Schweitzer, Quest, 223–397.

So, e.g., Dodd, Parables; Jeremias, Parables; Young, Parables, 221; Vermes, Religion, 147–49; Borg, Conflict, 249; see also Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:398–506.

E.g., Stein, Method and Message, 60–79; Ladd, Theology, 70–80; Aune, Cultic Setting, 3–4; Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 89; Harvey, History, 91; Perrin, Kingdom, 73–74 (noting the modification in Dodd’s own approach); Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:389; Allison, Jesus, 103–4, 107; Witherington, End, 51–74; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:10, 289–506; Stanton, “Message and Miracles,” 57–61; Theissen and Merz, Guide, 275; cf. Young, Parables, 193. Sanders, Figure, 177–78, grudgingly concedes this possibility but remains doubtful that any authentic passage clearly teaches the kingdom’s presence. But especially odd here is Mack, Lost Gospel, 126, who thinks that the authentic kingdom sayings in Q simply match the Cynic use of a philosopher reigning as king (in contrast to the LXX and other Jewish traditions of the reign of Israel’s one God!); pace Mack, though the kingdom is not dominant in early Jewish texts, it is frequent (see Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:240–69; cf. Vermes, Religion, 127–30; Neusner, “Kingdom,” acknowledging its subordinate function).

See, e.g., Brown, Death, 473–80; Keener, John, 289–90; Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 104, 116; cf. kingship in Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 234, 307–8; messianic-type associations in Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 139. Most scholars agree that Pilate had Jesus executed as a king (this fits the criterion of embarrassment) and that the disciples after the resurrection viewed him as the Messiah; a common source is far likelier than the possibility that the disciples obtained the idea from Pilate.

Historically, in the larger context of his ministry, Jesus’s preaching of the kingdom has implications for his role (see Beasley-Murray, “Kingdom,” 27–32; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 234, 307).

Some scholars also note that the ideals of this kingdom challenged worldly political powers (such as that of Antipas); see, e.g., Freyne, Galilean, 148–49; Malina, Social Gospel, 1, 71. God’s kingdom was technically a theocracy (with, e.g., Malina and Pilch, Acts, 22, 215), though this excluded other governments in its future, rather than its present, form (see discussion in our introduction, , ).

E.g., Bultmann, Theology, 1:24; Perrin, Kingdom; Tannehill, Sword, 56; Borg, Conflict, 248–63 (see esp. 257, 261); cf. Bultmann, “Science,” 137–38.

See Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 7, 27, 125–27; cf. also Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:242; somewhat less helpfully, Scott, Parable, 57.

Cf. also Thompson, Debate, 95; Thurman, Disinherited, 20–27.

Goldingay, “Expounding,” 354. Borg, Conflict, 11–12, questions Perrin’s use of “apocalyptic” for a concept that is not in fact apocalyptic.

One scene if the aorist participle συνελθόντες in Acts 1:6 refers to the same gathering implied in 1:4; two if it does not. But Luke’s depiction is likely a composite, in any case.

The Spirit is connected with the kingdom; cf. Smalley, “Spirit, Kingdom, and Prayer.” See esp. Cho, Spirit and Kingdom, who rightly notes that whereas, for Paul, the Spirit actualizes in believers’ lives what the Synoptics would call God’s reign (cf. 52–109; note also Dunn, Romans, 822), Luke’s connection is considerably more modest (Cho, Spirit and Kingdom, 162–95, connects this to proclamation; also in idem, “Spirit and Kingdom”).

For various interpretations in addition to what is provided here, see BDAG. Some scholars understand the term as simply “coming together” (i.e., equivalent to συνελθόντες in Acts 1:6). For metonymy in ancient rhetoric, see Rhet. Her. 4.32.43; more fully, Rowe, “Style,” 126 (including the sharing of salt in Demosth. Fals. leg. 189); Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 85.

Fuller, Formation, 109, 125; Tannehill, Luke, 291; Dunn, Acts, 7–8; Johnson, Acts, 25. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 5, allow this interpretation, though they prefer (following the tendency toward emendation more common in their era) to view it as an orthographic variant for συναυλιζόμενος, a frequent confusion in Greek literature. Black, Aramaic Approach, 141, also prefers “dining together” to proposed Aramaisms here. Sharing salt with strangers was a necessary and expected part of hospitality (Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 4:1); banqueters might use salt at dessert to arouse thirst for the drinking party to follow (Smith, Symposium, 30, citing Plut. Table 4.4, Mor. 669B).

Lucian Lucius 1; LCL, 8:53n1, suggests, “I.e. became friends and ate together.”

Cullmann, Worship, 16.

E.g., Lucian True Story 2.12. In Jewish sources, angels do not normally eat (Test. Ab. 4:9 A; ʾAbot R. Nat. 1 A; Gen. Rab. 2:2; cf. 2 En. 56:2; evil spirits in 1 En. 15:11), though they might do so on earth (Exod. Rab. 47:5).

See, e.g., Jub. 35:27; 45:5; discussion in Keener, John, 913; hospitality created friendly ties even with strangers (Eurip. Cycl. 125) and could even reconcile enemies (Plut. Cic. 26.1). See comment on Acts 10:23; 11:3.

E.g., Hom. Il. 21.76; Od. 4.534–35; 11.414–20; 14.404–5; Hes. W.D. 327; Eurip. Cycl. 126–28; Hec. 25–26, 710–20, 850–56; Ap. Rhod. 3.377–80; Ovid Metam. 1.144; 10.225–28; Livy 25.16.6. This principle included providing protection from other enemies (Ovid Metam. 5.44–45; Corn. Nep. Gen. 2 [Themistocles], 8.3).

Hom. Od. 21.26–28; Livy 39.51.12. Nevertheless, some warned that too much trust even of friends could prove dangerous (Hes. W.D. 370–72).

Commentators cite Greek and Arabic parallels; Wenham, Leviticus, 71; Herr, “Salt,” 286; Pollard, “Covenant”; earlier, also Gane, “Leviticus,” 292 (including here Ezra 4:14). The LXX uses ἁλίζω for seasoning offerings with salt (Lev 2:13; also Mark 9:49) or (apparently) rubbing it (Ezek 16:4); it probably applies to food in Matt 5:13.

See Le Cornu, Acts, 9 (and comparison with rabbinic comments on table fellowship).

See BDAG, second meaning (citing Jos. War 3.429; Ant. 8.105; Petosiris frg. 33; Herodotus’s Histories). None of the objections to this view are compelling.

The verb applies, however, only to specific settings (Luke 5:14; 8:29, 56; 9:21).

When a teacher or other person of superior status sent off a social inferior, their roles invited the teacher to give parting advice (Men. Rhet. 2.5, 395.8–12); Jesus’s status elevates the parting words to a command. Acts does not emphasize Jesus’s teaching (cf. Strange, “Jesus-Tradition”) as much as Luke’s Gospel does, but Luke still regards his teaching (Acts 1:4–5; 11:16; 20:35) and story (1:21–22; 10:36–42) as important.

With Miller, Empowered for Mission, 62, 69; Hernando, “Function,” 247–48.

Rackham, Acts, xlvii, notes that there was a waiting period before both Jesus’s and the church’s anointing (Luke 1–2; Acts 1).

Martha’s activity is not negative (cf. Luke 4:39) but only by contrast with Mary’s (as in 14:26); discipleship takes precedence over traditional gender (or other) roles (cf., e.g., 9:59–62; 18:29–30). Given the following context (11:1–13), Mary’s model also is appropriate for those seeking the gift of the Spirit (11:13). See comment on Acts 6:2–4.

Cf. discussion in Keck, Mandate, 52–56, esp. (here) 52.

Paul (e.g., Rom 5:5; 7:6; 8:4–16, 23, 26; 1 Cor 2:12; 3:16; 6:19; 12:3–13; 2 Cor 1:22; 3:3–18; 5:5; Gal 3:2–5, 14; 4:6, 29; 5:5, 16–25; 6:8) and John (John 3:5–8; 4:23–24; 7:39; 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13–15; 20:22) likewise speak of the Christian life and ministry as completely dependent on the Spirit; the view was probably widespread among early Christians (see further, e.g., Fee, Paul, Spirit, and People; Keener, “Spirit”; cf. Dunn, “Gospel According to Paul,” 148–51, on the Spirit as the defining mark of believers).

See, e.g., Hull, Spirit in Acts; Stronstad, Charismatic Theology; Shelton, Mighty in Deed; Penney, Missionary Emphasis; Hur, Reading, 275; Haya-Prats, Believers, 97–108, 192; though cf. Turner, Gifts, 38–55; idem, “Every Believer as Witness?” Outside Johannine and Pauline literature, God’s Spirit provided moral empowerment especially in the Dead Sea Scrolls and circles related to them (e.g., 4Q444 1 I; Keener, Spirit, 8–10), and in a way different from Paul and John.

Cf., e.g., Bock, Acts, 66.

Cf. perhaps the implication of a final turning of Jerusalem to salvation in Rev 11:2, 13 (Keener, Revelation, 287–89, 296–97), though the probability of this interpretation rests on the connection with the other passages (the city coalesces in other aspects with Babylon, Sodom, and Egypt, representing the evil world that Revelation often epitomizes in Rome).

According to Luke 24:33, the eleven, those who were with them, and the two whom Jesus had met on the road (one being Cleopas, possibly Luke’s source for the previous scene).

In view of the more general Elijah allusion in the context, Litwak, Echoes, 147, compares Elijah’s mantle (2 Kgs 2:13). (In Mark 1:6, John’s belt evokes that of Elijah in 2 Kgs 1:8, but Luke omits this description, despite Luke 1:17; see further discussion of Luke’s Elijah typology below.)

L.A.B. 20:2–3.

E.g., 4 Macc 6:2; Apoc. Mos. 20:1; perhaps ʾAb. 6:1, bar.; Pesiq. Rab. 1:2; clothed with evil in 4 Ezra 3:26. But clothing with some quality was a frequent metaphor (e.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 2.10.590). Esther was clothed with the Holy Spirit (b. Meg. 14b); Israel is clothed with God’s strength (Exod. Rab. 8:1).

L.A.B. 27:10; in 27:9, he is “clothed with the Spirit of the Lord.”

Jerusalem “puts on” eschatological “clothes of glory” (Pss. Sol. 11:7; i.e., glorious raiment, signifying restoration; cf. Isa 52:1; 61:10); the righteous could eschatologically don “garments of life” and glory (1 En. 62:15–16, possibly first century C.E.; later, like angels, 2 En. 22:8; cf. 22:9–10); cf. further Odes Sol. 25:8; Apost. Const. 8.6.6. (But cf. “garments of glory” or “honor” for Adam and Eve in Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 3:21, Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 3:21, and Tg. Onq. on Gen 3:21.) Many later rabbis thought that someone buried clothed would return clothed (Gen. Rab. 95:1; 100:2). For putting off an old robe and donning a new one at conversion, see Jos. Asen. 14:12; some views concerning Eph 4:24.

For the Spirit as an eschatological foretaste, see also the Spirit as ἀρραβών (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13–14), ἀίαρχή (Rom 8:23); also 1 Cor 2:9–10; probably Rom 14:17; Heb 6:4–5. On Luke’s use of the promise to encompass eschatological blessings, see Haya-Prats, Believers, 69.

On this future promise in the prophets, see Wright, Spirit through Old Testament, 121–56. Witherington, Acts, 109, suggests that Luke grounds the new experience in history for apologetic motives; on the function of antiquity for apologetic, see our introduction, , .

Tannehill, Luke, 239, argues that the “promise” and the “gift” of the Spirit in Acts naturally look back to Luke 11:13, where the Father “gives” the Spirit. Stronstad, “Baptized,” 167, notes multiple promises of the Spirit by Jesus: Luke 11:13; 24:49; Acts 1:4–5, 8 (fulfilled on Pentecost); and Luke 12:12 and 21:14–15 (though the latter is not explicit; fulfilled in texts like Acts 4:8 and 6:10).

See, e.g., Lane, Gentile Mission, 74–76; compare Luke 21:12–15 with Acts 25:23–26:29.

For discussion of the implications of such claims in an early Jewish context, see Keener, Matthew, 455–56, 718; idem, John, 951–82.

Marguerat, Histoire, 75–76, observes that the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2 fits the unity of Luke-Acts by fulfilling a fundamental promise made as early as Luke 3:16.

Luke also omits here the context that explains this sense of “fire,” in contrast to Luke 3:9, 17. Matthew, the only other source (undoubtedly following Q) to report the fire saying, likewise supplies the context (Matt 3:10–12) whereas Mark and John mention only baptism in the Spirit and omit the discussion of fire in the context.

Menzies, Development, 198.

For the Spirit’s continuing Jesus’s activity in Acts 1–2, see, e.g., Stravinskas, “Role of Spirit.” For the Spirit’s empowering Jesus, see Luke 3:22; 4:1, 14, 18; Acts 10:38.

One could be more than a prophet without thereby compromising prophetic status (Luke 7:26).

Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 24–25; cf. Russell, “Anointing.” Turner, “Jesus and Spirit in Perspective,” and idem, Gifts, 35, argues from Luke’s high Christology (the exalted Jesus as Spirit giver) that Jesus’s experience of the Spirit is not paradigmatic; but this wrongly assumes a forced choice between Jesus’s functions as earthly paradigm and as heavenly Lord. Turner’s “Messianic” category for the Spirit (Turner, Gifts, 17–18) depends on the categories in which he divides the evidence (it overlaps with the prophetic category).

For “word of the Lord,” see Acts 8:25; 11:16 (a saying of Jesus); 12:24; 13:48, 49; 15:35, 36; 16:32; 19:10, 20. For “word of God,” see 4:29, 31; 6:2, 7; 8:14; 11:1; 13:5, 7, 44, 46; 17:13; 18:11. For “word” otherwise, see, e.g., 2:41; 6:4; 8:4; 10:36; 11:19; 13:26; 14:3, 25; 15:7; 16:6; 17:11; 18:5; 20:32. Distribution shows that these phrases are equivalent despite sometimes identifying Jesus as “the Lord.” Cf. the use of “word” in the Gospels and Acts in Millanao T., “Comprensión”; Pauline usage in Pahl, “Gospel.”

Cf. Luke 22:44; Luke often employs these expressions (Luke uses ὡς 111 times, compared with Mark’s twenty-one times and John’s thirty times; and ὡσεί fourteen times, compared with Mark’s use of it once and John’s not using it at all).

With minor adaptations, this set of parallels is from Talbert, Patterns, 16; Stronstad, Charismatic Theology, 51. The objection some raise against the parallels, that the Spirit is Jesus’s gift (Acts 2:33; Turner, Gifts, 35), forces a choice between earthly paradigm and heavenly giver that Luke would not likely have envisaged.

Some insist on employing only the verb cognate because Luke-Acts uses only the verb; I consider the distinction in this case unduly pedantic (Luke plainly uses the noun cognate to cover the same semantic range as the verb, e.g., regarding John’s baptism, as a noun, Luke 3:3; 7:29; 20:4; Acts 1:22; 10:37; 13:24; 18:25; esp. 19:3–4, which has both forms), but those who object to the noun form are welcome to treat it as verbal in all my uses if they wish.

For John as Jesus’s “precursor” in Luke-Acts (and presence of this idea in the tradition before Luke developed it), see Fitzmyer, Theologian, 86–116; in this instance, also Dunn, Acts, 9. Other early Christians schematized the continuity between John’s message and Jesus’s (Matt 3:2; 4:17), though behavioral contrasts were clear (Matt 11:19//Luke 7:34; perhaps overstated in Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 92). John was greater than other prophets (Luke 7:26a) because he introduced Jesus, but the least in the kingdom proclaim a fuller revelation than John (cf. 7:26b; 10:23–24). The transition from indirect to direct discourse in Acts 1:4 was not unusual (see Conzelmann, Acts, 6, citing 23:22; Luke 5:14; Jos. War 1.76; Ant. 1.100; Arrian Alex. 5.11.4).

The connection between John’s lesser and Jesus’s greater baptisms may imply an unstated premise, namely, that John’s baptism foreshadowed the coming baptism of Jesus; incomplete syllogisms are common in Luke, including in characters’ speech (Vinson, “Enthymemes,” 119–22, 131; on various definitions of enthymemes, cf. Anderson, Glossary, 44).

For discussion (including various views) on the Q material, see, e.g., Menzies, Development, 137–44; Keener, Spirit, 94–96 and notes; idem, Matthew, 127–28.

For discussion, see Keener, Spirit, 49–90, esp. 50, 70–71 (on Mark 1:8–12). For a broader theological approach, see Issler, “Prototype.”

Ideally, in a baptism of repentance (See comment on ), although Luke’s narrative displays varied scenarios. On this tradition of Spirit baptism as spiritual purification and initiation (like physical proselyte baptism), see, e.g., Keener, Gift, 138–46, 152–57, esp. 152–53; idem, Spirit, 135–89. Johanson, “Alternative View,” also finds in the term both conversion and empowerment (44; though he distinguishes especially the complementary approaches of John the Baptist [8–27] and Jesus [27–43]); encompassing both conversion and subsequent experience, cf. Osborne, Matthew, 119.

This later occurrence renders it doubtful that Luke intends the phrase to cover only the church’s experience on Pentecost (Brown, “‘Baptism’ and ‘Baptism’”; Green, Spirit, 172–78). Robinson, Studies, 167, argued for the “one baptism” of Pentecost as merely represented ritually in subsequent baptisms; by contrast, Kim, “Mission,” 49–62, esp. 53–62, argues for multiple outpourings in Acts as a model of repeatability.

On various synonyms, see, e.g., Stronstad, Charismatic Theology, 49–50; cf. Witherington, Acts, 133. Orators preferred to vary their terminology rather than repeat significant terms too frequently in a given context; see, e.g., Hermog. Method 4.416–17 (citing Hom. Il. 11.269–77; Od. 19.205–8; Thucyd. 1.1, 6, 8). Cf. also Lee, “Translations: Greek,” 776–77; but Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 162, 170–71, defines μεταβολή differently.

See Dunn, Baptism, passim (cf. idem, “Baptism”); Turner, “‘Spirit’ as Power,” 339–47; idem, Gifts, 46–55; idem, Power, 348 (stressing the “norm” of Acts 2:38–39 and that 8:16 is anomalous); idem, “Challenge.” But there is some debate; see further comment on Acts 2:38.

For the Spirit’s coming variously before or after baptism in Acts (in contrast to Paul), cf. also Bruce, “Holy Spirit in Acts”; Haya-Prats, Believers, 148–52. See comment on Acts 8:16 for further arguments and supporting sources.

See Haya-Prats, Believers, 192; esp. Menzies, Empowered, 106–228; idem, Development, 205–77 (though I believe that this approach can be taken too far; cf. esp. probably Luke 3:16; Acts 2:38); more nuanced, Cho, Spirit and Kingdom, 136, 162–95; for further discussion, see our introduction, , .

Menzies, Empowered, 230, notes that “subsequence” is problematic only if the experience is assumed identical with conversion and read in Pauline terms. (Various Pentecostal scholars have admitted the theological unity of the experience in Paul while pointing to the more varied character of Luke’s narrative; e.g., Hodges, Theology of Mission, 41.) Whereas those who deny subsequence often dismiss advocates of subsequence as biased, the assumption that Luke must employ phrases in the same manner as Paul seems to me to be a frequent bias in the argument against subsequence in Luke’s narratives. Virtually no one excludes subsequent “fillings” (e.g., Acts 4:8, 31; 13:9), which makes the issue here somewhat a semantic one (cf. Oss, “View,” 243–44; Keener, Gift, 147–49).

See more fully Keener, “Spirit,” 491–92; idem, Gift, 157–68 (noting also that this is my understanding of Luke, not of all NT writers). Reception history is interesting here, perhaps reflecting both readers’ location and legitimate observations about the text. Some scholars make some of the narrative examples’ subsequence paradigmatic: in addition to the sacramental version (confirmation), note the second experience of Puritan and Reformed Sealers (assurance; see Lederle, Treasures, 5; Dayton, Roots, 37; for later Reformed versions, see Curtis, Faith, 7–8), Wesleyan-Holiness movements (perfected love), the Keswick movement (power for service, which fits the emphasis in this passage), and classical Pentecostalism (Lederle, Treasures, 5; on Keswick, see also Alexander, Fire, 73; cf. also A. B. Simpson in Simpson, Church, 17–32); on empowerment, see also Bebbington, Dominance, 210–11. For a survey of views, see, e.g., Lederle, Treasures, passim; for subsequence in various traditions (including Wesleyan, Anglican, and Catholic traditions), see Dayton, Roots; Gresham, Doctrine; Synan, Movement, 18–21; Hollenweger, Pentecostals, 21, 26n2; Bruner, Theology, 76, 323–41; McGee, “Hermeneutics,” 101; Keener, “Holy Spirit,” 164–65; cf. perhaps Baptist A. J. Gordon in Barr, Leonard, Parsons, and Weaver, Acts, 119. For the meaning of baptism in the Spirit in various theological traditions, see, e.g., Brand, Perspectives (including Del Colle, “Baptism”; Dunning, “Perspective”; Hart, “Baptism”; Horton, “Baptism”; Kaiser, “Baptism”); Macchia, Baptized; McDonnell and Montague, Initiation, 23–41; Wessels, “Doctrine” (noting the priority of Acts in Pentecostal interpretation, 185–202, 337); Wheelock, “Spirit Baptism” (for classical Pentecostalism, 149–240; also in Protestant [241–78] and Catholic [278–301] charismatic circles); Yun, “Baptism.”

With respect to distinctions between Paul’s and Luke’s terminology, it should be noted that many in antiquity did not require the same terminology even in the same work. Plato and some of his successors rejected the pedantic attachment to consistent terminology reflected by some other philosophers (Max. Tyre 21.4; Trapp, Maximus, 182n9, cites also Arius Didymus in Stob. Ecl. 2.6.3, 2.21.11ff. [Meineke]). Rigorous consistency (in the sense in which many seek it) is more often the domain of dogmatics than of exegesis.

The phrase is acceptable Koine (Mealand, “Not Many Days”; pace Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 7, who saw it as an Aramaism resembling Exod 2:23; 4:18 LXX; Torrey, Composition, 24, saw ταύτας as an aramaized “redundant demonstrative”; Bruce, Acts¹, 69). This is an example of litotes or meiosis (Mickelsen, Interpreting, 193), for which see Rhet. Her. 4.38.50; Anderson, Glossary, 20–21 (s.v. ἀντεισαγωγή); Rowe, “Style,” 128 (citing Lysias Or. 12.22 [Against Eratosthenes]; Cic. Cat. 3.7.17); Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 579 (citing Rom 1:16); examples in Hermogenes Method 37.455–56 (citing Homer Il. 1.330; 15.11).

For early Jewish hopes for a very near restoration or judgment, see, e.g., 4Q385 3 4–5; 4 Ezra 4:44–50; 6:18; 8:61.

Elsewhere in early Christianity, the link is explicit in Matt 12:28 (probably Matthean redaction; see Keener, Matthew, 364; Gundry, Matthew, 235; Schweizer, Matthew, 287; Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 201; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:340; Allison, Moses, 237; pace Rodd, “Finger”; Haya-Prats, Believers, 32; Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 45–46; Menzies, Development, 186–89); John 3:5; Rom 14:17.

E.g., Isa 42:1; 44:3; 59:21; Ezek 36:24–28; 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28–3:1; for some discussion, cf., e.g., Ma, Spirit, 212–13; see discussion below. The Spirit’s eschatological connection may remain in Irenaeus’s Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (see Williams, “Christianity,” 25).

See esp. Turner, Power, 300. The slightly different Greek expression in Luke does appear in the LXX (2 Sam 22:17; Pss 17:17; 101:20; 143:7; Lam 1:13; Sir 16:17), but these cases do not concern the Spirit and are less relevant. The “pouring” of the Spirit in Isa 32:15 provides a natural midrashic link for Joel 2:28.

Marshall, “Acts,” 528 (following Pao, New Exodus, 528); see also Haya-Prats, Believers, 5. Elsewhere in the LXX, these terms are conjoined only at Num 5:14, 30; Job 4:15; and Wis 1:5, none of which is as relevant. Without the compound form, Haya-Prats, Believers, 5, cites further Ezek 2:2; 3:24; Wis 7:7.

Parsons, Departure, 181, thinks that the implied reader will likely identify with the disciples and their question and hence be challenged by Jesus’s response. Whenever we date Acts, however, Luke’s ideal audience will know that the parousia did not follow immediately. Nevertheless, Parsons may be right that they will identify with the disciples and regard the question as a perfectly logical one (cf. similarly John 14:5).

Though Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 51, associates their question with Zealot-like expectations of Galileans, even the most sectarian Jews shared this hope (e.g., 1QpHab V, 1–2 in Silberman, “Unriddling,” 342; 4Q385 3 3); cf. also Sib. Or. 2.174–86 (the more so if this material belongs to the Christian interpolation in the context). For political eschatologies, including Hellenistic influence on Jewish expectations of the four kingdoms, see Collins, “Eschatologies,” 330–31. On the expected restoration of the twelve tribes, See comment on Acts 26:7.

Gaventa, Acts, 65. Kayama, “Israel,” helpfully emphasizes reading all of Luke’s programmatic “Israel” passages sequentially (though this might not resolve the question of where to lay emphasis).

In Luke 19:11, after Jesus has talked often about the kingdom and recently about salvation “today” (19:9), people expect the kingdom to appear when he reaches Jerusalem.

Bede Comm. Acts 1.6 helpfully compares the disciples’ hope in Luke 24:21 with the hope expressed by the apostles here.

Luke’s interpretation of this theology undoubtedly differed from that of many of his contemporaries (see below), but their views also differed widely among themselves.

E.g., Isa 60:1–3; Jer 31:27–40; Hos 14:4–7; Amos 9:11–15; examples could be multiplied. For this hope in early Judaism, see, e.g., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 96–98.

Luke’s eschatology is closer to Paul’s than has often been allowed; see in greater detail Giles, “Present-Future Eschatology”; Litwak, “Views,” 241–48; Baum, Gospel, 167. For proposals concerning the literal Jewish people’s restoration in some sense in Rom 11, see, e.g., Das, Paul and Jews, 96–111; Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 423; Munck, Israel, 136; Goppelt, Judaism, 164; Rissi, Time, 130; Ladd, “Israel”; Nanos, Mystery, 240. (The argument that Rom 11:26 refers only to spiritual “Israel” [as in, e.g., Ponsot, “Israël”] requires a sudden change of word usage in the context; but cf. application to the present era’s remnant in Horne, “Phrase.”) For the proposal of a temporal use of εἰς τέλος in 1 Thess 2:16, hence limiting the period of judgment, see Donfried, Thessalonica, 207–8. Various Christian interpreters through history also expected Israel’s restoration (e.g., Humbert, “Objections”; Wolffe, “Dismantling,” 38), although, in the second century, we have only Justin (Stylianopoulis, Justin, 42).

On the latter, see discussion in Allison, “Matt. 23:39 = Luke 13:35b”; Keener, Matthew, 558–59; the position in Luke 13:35 is not so clearly future from Luke’s standpoint as it is in Matthew’s placement. Cf. also Rev 11:1–2, 13, on which I remarked earlier.

E.g., Test. Benj. 9:2 (if not a Christian interpolation); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:9; Sup. 5:3; Gen. Rab. 98:9; cf. 4 Ezra 13:40–43; contrast the minority view in m. Sanh. 10:5; t. Sanh. 13:12; b. Sanh. 110b. Earlier, e.g., Bar 4:37; 5:5; Tob 13:6; 2 Macc 2:18; cf. Pss. Sol. 17:28; 1QM II, 2–3, 7–8; III, 13; V, 1; 11QT^a XVIII, 14–16 (some of these from Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 96–97). See the more nuanced elaboration of approaches in Fuller, Restoration (the historic regathering in the Hebrew Bible, 15–23; the future regathering as a return of the Diaspora, e.g., in Tobit and Sirach, 25–48; a regathering from Israel, e.g., CD and 1 En. 85–90 and 4 Ezra, 48–84; and Philo’s spiritual journey, 84–101); Fuller can use this range to support his understanding of the distinctively Lukan shape of restoration.

Adapting Isaiah’s eschatological vision; see Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 229. On Isaiah in Luke-Acts, see also Mallen, Reading.

Especially during oral performance, hearers may have identified with the disciples’ confusion here; cf. audience identification in Dewey, “Oral-Aural Event,” 152–53 (citing Plato’s use of mimesis for emotional identification with characters). Goldingay, “Comic Acts?,” may also be correct that Luke allows some humor at the disciples’ expense (and even later in Acts, in 12:12–17; cf. 23:9–10).

Tuckett, “Christology,” 162.

Both the Scriptures (e.g., Isa 9:1–7; 11:1–11; Jer 23:5–6) and early Judaism generally (e.g., Luke 24:21; 4Q252 V, 3–4; Pss. Sol. 17:23; 2 Bar. 30:1; 39:7; 72:2; 4 Ezra 12:32; Tg. Hos. 14:8) associated Israel’s restoration with the Messiah’s coming, though some allowed for an interim period (Sipre Deut. 34.4.3; 310.5.1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 3:16; 27:5). Frequent prayers linked the two hopes together (Pss. Sol. 17:21; Fitzmyer, Acts, 205, cites Shemoneh Esre 14; Kaddish 2).

Theissen, Gospels, 279–80, may be correct that the war of 66–70 C.E. “awakened eschatological expectations,” which now seemed less imminent, until Jesus would appear (Luke 21:28).

Conzelmann, Theology of Luke, 95–136. For Conzelmann, Luke’s church replaced most immediate interest in the parousia. Luke could employ a transition of epochs in grounding the church’s identity in Israel’s history (Wolter, “Epochengeschichte,” 284). For studies of eschatology relevant for Acts before 1965, see Mattill and Mattill, Bibliography, 301–3 (including Borgen, “Eschatology”; Smith, “History”).

Haenchen, Acts, 95–96. Conzelmann’s approach to Luke and the parousia is only one among several major lines of interpretation; see the survey in Faure, Pentecôte, 43–46. For one recent discussion of the problem of the parousia in Acts, see Grässer, Forschungen, 48–58, 292–320.

Hill, Prophecy, 43, comparing Luke’s portrayal of this ministry in Luke 3:1–18; 7:26.

Wilson, “Lukan Eschatology”; Nielsen, “Purpose,” esp. 88; Giles, “Present-Future Eschatology”; Gaventa, “Eschatology Revisited”; Bayer, “Eschatology in Acts 3:17–26”; Tuckett, Luke, 36–43; Nolland, “Salvation-History,” 65–67; Turner, Power, 300; cf. also Ellis, Eschatology, passim; idem, “Fonction de l’eschatologie.” For a survey of responses to Conzelmann, see Bovon, Theologian, 25–29 and esp. 29–74, and cf. 1–8 (who also argues that Luke’s salvation-history approach reflected much of early Christianity, not his own invention; 26, 74–77).

See Hiers, “Problem of Delay.”

4 Ezra 7:74; Gen. Rab. 67:4; cf. 2 Pet 3:9; more generally, 2 Bar. 24:2; Let. Aris. 187–88; Sipre Deut. 43.14.1; b. Taʿan. 2:1, §11; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 7:10; Eccl. Rab. 7:15, §1. On delays of divine vengeance, cf. also Plut. Div. V. passim, Mor. 548A–568A.

1QpHab VII, 7–8, 11–14; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 24. Reicke, Epistles, 179, suggests that such delay was felt as a problem even to OT prophets (citing Hab 2:3; cf. also Zech 1:12). Later movements also addressed skeptics about the coming judgment; see, e.g., Qur’an 34.3; cf. 14.42.

On 2 Baruch, see, e.g., Roddy, “Two Parts” (though 2 Baruch’s calculations were doubtless less precise).

See discussion in, e.g., Aune, “Delay.” The “problem” interested their critics far more (Mac. Magn. Apocrit. 4.1–7).

Witherington, End, 48. Apocalyptic embraced both imminence and continuance (Allison, Jesus, 94).

Nock, “Gnosticism,” 271. Cf. the connection between Gnosticism and realized eschatology in Talbert, “Delay”; Aune, “Delay,” 99–100 (although one need not agree with this background for 2 Peter; cf. Bauckham, Jude, 153; by contrast, Bruce, Message, 94–95, finds the issue of delay highlighted there).

See, e.g., Flusser, “Salvation.”

I intend only an analogy; comparison of early Jewish movements, including Christianity, with geographically and chronologically distant Melanesian cargo cults and modern millenarianism (e.g., Gager, Kingdom, 20–37) is often rightly cited as an example of imprudent application of sociological models (e.g., Collins, “Apocalyptic Literature,” 362).

Cf. Carroll, Response to End, passim.

Boismard and Lamouille, Actes, 1:28–29, think that Paul eventually abandoned the idea of a political restoration of Israel; but the apparent decline in his future eschatology may simply reflect better contextualization for a Gentile audience. His restoration theology in Rom 11:26 may not be explicitly political, but those who read it in light of the OT prophecies would take it that way (though Paul differed from the usual scenario, presenting Gentile converts as full proselytes, belonging to the covenant people).

On Johannine eschatology, see, e.g., Keener, John, 320–23.

Hays, Moral Vision, 129–31; I do not find most of his examples here persuasive, but the emphasis on the past events of 70 C.E. in Luke 21:20, 24 seems to be.

With, e.g., Witherington, Acts, 110.

Cullmann, “Eschatology and Missions,” 416–17.

E.g., the late nineteenth-century Student Volunteer Movement (Neill, History of Missions, 393–94; Howard, Student Power, 91).

E.g., Mark 13:14, 29–30; 2 Thess 2:3–4, especially if taken in light of 1 Thess 5:2 (I take 2 Thessalonians to be authentic because I find the composition of 2 Thess 2:4 after 70 C.E. to be inconceivable and pure pseudepigraphy to be unlikely in the brief interim between Paul’s death and 70). Jewish eschatology can also balance an unknown time of the end with preceding signs (e.g., Bonsirven, Judaism, 53).

Luke 21:24, probably Luke’s redaction, provides for such an undefined interim (Glasson, Advent, 72–73).

For a survey of source- and redaction-critical perspectives on Luke 21, see Verheyden, “Source(s) of Luke 21.”

Cf., e.g., Tannehill, Acts, 15; McLean, “Correct View of Kingdom?” (though focusing on an ethnic, national entity); Dunn, Acts, 10; Witherington, Acts, 110n24; Franklin, Interpreter, 106; cf. the political reading in Buzzard, “Acts 1:6”; idem, “Eclipse”; pace, e.g., Barrett, Acts, 78–79. Parsons, “Place of Jerusalem,” 168, plausibly argues that its place as “the beachhead for the Gentile mission” exhausts Jerusalem’s promised eschatological role; but while it certainly prefigures it (cf. also the Mount of Olives in Acts 1:12; Zech 14:3–5), Jesus’s mere evasion of the temporal question suggests that it does not exhaust it.

Sages could advocate knowing the time (Sir 4:20; Eph 5:16), but this counsel probably involved recognizing its character (cf. Gal 1:4); less relevant here is that particular times (in terms of calendrical precision) could exemplify God’s commandments (Jub. 23:19). Ultimately God alone knew “the times and the years and the days” (1 En. 75:3 [Knibb, 175], regarding astronomical phenomena) and controlled the “times” (2 Bar. 48:2; cf. 1QM XIV, 4–5).

E.g., 1 En. 89; b. Sanh. 97b–98a; cf. Test. Levi 17 (Jubilee periods; perhaps Christian redaction); the Samaritan Chronicle (Bowman, Documents, 43, 46–47); perhaps Dan 11 passim; cf. Frost, “Apocalyptic,” 144. Others acknowledged that the final time remained secret (e.g., Pss. Sol. 17:21; 1QpHab VII, 12–14). Later rabbis debated whether Israel’s repentance could hasten the end (b. B. Bat. 10a; b. Meṣiʿa 85b; Deut. Rab. 6:7; Song Rab. 2:5, §3; 5:2, §2; 8:14, §1; cf. 2 Pet 3:12; 2 Clem. 12.3–6; perhaps already Jub. 23:26–27) and delay it through sin (b. Nid. 13b, bar.; Sanh. 97b) or whether God has established that time (e.g., Exod. Rab. 25:12; Lev. Rab. 15:1; probably Pss. Sol. 17:21), or whether it is a combination of both (Pesiq. Rab. 31:5). See the survey of rabbinic views in Moore, Judaism, 2:350–51.

As Luke Timothy Johnson notes, Luke believes in Israel’s restoration but expects the universal mission to the ends of the earth to precede it (Acts, 29). Johnson (26) associates the “restoration” with Elijah’s role as “restorer” (Mal 3:23 LXX, alluded to in Luke 1:17; cf. Sir 48:10); although this may be part of it (cf. Mark 9:12), Elijah restores families and is associated in Luke 1:17 with John rather than with Jesus; Acts 3:21 carries the restoration image much further.

Soards, Speeches, 24, sees this as “Luke’s version of a Synoptic logion not found in Luke’s Gospel (see Mark 13:32 and Matt 24:36),” but the wording is too close to 1 Thess 5:1 for coincidence. Others also compare all these sources (e.g., Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 51; cf. Kurzinger, Apostelgeschichte, 10).

See Keener, Matthew, 565–66; Waterman, “Sources”; Ford, Abomination, 22; esp. Wenham, Rediscovery. My rough, preliminary comparison of parallels between the Thessalonian correspondence and Jesus tradition, on the one hand, and these parallels and those in the far more vast body of Jewish eschatological sources, on the other (see Keener, Historical Jesus, 361–71), led me to the conclusion that the possibility of mere coincidence in the densely packed former parallels is, for practical purposes, virtually nil. Dan 2:21 speaks of God changing “times and epochs,” revealing wisdom about future kingdoms and the kingdom; this is less close than 1 Thess 5:1 but may ultimately stand behind the dominical saying.

See also Tannehill, Acts, 16.

Gaventa, Acts, 67 (citing idem, “Eschatology Revisited,” 37; Carroll, Response to End, 126–27). On prediction as an authentication method in ancient historiography, see Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 142–84.

See, e.g., 2 Bar. 21:8; b. Pesaḥ. 54b, bar.; Sanh. 97a; Num. Rab. 5:6; Tg. Qoh. 7:24; Moore, Judaism, 2:231; Daube, New Testament and Judaism, 289–90; Le Cornu, Acts, 16. Others noted signs (e.g., 2 Bar. 27:15 [but ambiguous signs]; Lam. Rab. 1:13, §41) or virtually set dates (see, e.g., rabbis in b. Sanh. 97ab; Lam. Rab. proem 21; Bonsirven, Judaism, 178; Morris, Apocalyptic, 46–47; cf. Test. Ab. 7:12 B; Gr. Ezra 3:3–4). For imminence more generally, see, e.g., 4Q385 3 3–5; 4 Ezra 4:44–50; 6:18; 8:61–62; cf. Knibb, Esdras, 211.

Some viewed the time of redemption as conditional on Israel’s merit (e.g., b. Sanh. 94a; B. Bat. 10a; b. Meṣiʿa 85b; Nid. 13b, bar.; b. Taʿan. 1:1, §7; Deut. Rab. 6:7; Song Rab. 2:5, §3; 8:14, §1; Manson, Paul and John, 23–24; cf. Jub. 23:26–27; 2 Clem. 12); others, as fixed (e.g., Lev. Rab. 15:1); for a survey of both conditional and fixed views in the rabbis, see Moore, Judaism, 2:350–51; Urbach, Sages, 1:669. Some harmonized: God’s timing and Israel’s repentance were interdependent (Pesiq. Rab. 31:5); Israel’s repentance could hasten the time that had been scheduled beforehand (Exod. Rab. 25:12); but the fixed dates had passed, so only merit could hasten the redemption (an Amora in b. Sanh. 97b).

Cf. Wolter, “Israel’s Future and Delay,” 323.

See discussion in our introduction, , . For a survey of Gentile views about salvation, see esp. Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 52–74.

See further Bird, Gentile Mission, 26–29, 177. Schmidt, “Abkehr,” believes that the Diaspora mission in Acts supplants the need for an eschatological gathering in Jerusalem.

Paralleling Jesus’s rejection in Luke 19:41–45.

For emphasis on the Spirit’s empowerment for missions, see, e.g., Hull, Spirit in Acts; Marshall, “Significance of Pentecost”; Stronstad, Charismatic Theology; Shelton, Mighty in Deed; Penney, Missionary Emphasis; Bovon, Theologian, 198–238; Meagher, “Pentecost Spirit”; Klaus, “Mission,” 574–75; cf. Bruce, “Holy Spirit in Acts”; Russell, “Anointing”; Wyckoff, “Baptism,” 448–49; Robinson and Wall, Called, 122; Keener, “Power”; missions and evangelism in Haya-Prats, Believers, 97–108; prophetic empowerment in Acts 2 in Kremer, Pfingstbericht; the church’s mission in Bonnah, Spirit, 267–390, and esp. 394, 401–2. For the emphasis on mission in early Christianity, see esp. the massive and carefully researched Schnabel, Mission; more briefly, idem, “Mission” (on Acts, 766–67).

Turner, Power, 349–52.

Ibid., 348.

Ibid., 399; cf. Turner, “Empowerment.” Turner, “Work,” treats nonsalvific prophetic empowerment as the majority view; while allowing the importance of the Spirit of prophecy, he connects that also with soteriology.

Turner, Power, 399. He does correctly note (402–4) that although missions is paramount, many mentions of the Spirit in Acts lack direct missiological significance (Acts 5:3, 9; 6:3; 11:28; 20:23, 28; 21:4, 11).

On earliest Christian evangelism, see Lim, “Evangelism”; Green, Evangelism; Beck, “Evangelism.”

Turner, Power, 300, 404–5, citing also Luke 1–3 (but while the Spirit empowers John and Jesus to minister to Israel [Luke 1:15–17; 4:18–19], this foreshadows the Gentile mission in Acts, Acts 2:17; Luke 4:25–27). Turner is surely correct (300), however, about the allusion to Isa 32:15 LXX in Luke 24:49 (//Acts 1:4, 8).

Cf. also Elijah in 1 Kgs 18:46, but because the language is absent, we should not envision a deliberate Elijah allusion here.

L.A.B. 27:10; Tg. Jon. on Judg 13:25; 14:6, 19.

On Mic 3:8, cf. also Wessels, “Empowered.” Cf. Isa 11:2 for the Spirit’s power for the Messiah’s leadership (similarly, and derivatively, 1 En. 49:3; Pss. Sol. 17:42). Also God’s Spirit could help Israel’s leaders accomplish their people’s restoration, impossible by human power (Zech 4:6–7). Cf. also 1 En. 68:2; 71:11; cf. 2 Bar. 85:7; less relevant, 1 En. 60:15–16.

For God’s power, cf., e.g., Deut 9:29; Wis 1:3, 5; 1 En. 1:4; 1QS XI, 19–20; 4Q176 12–13 I, 14; the second paragraph of the Amidah associates this power with resurrecting the dead (e.g., b. Roš Haš. 4:5; Sandmel, Judaism, 148; cf. Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 6:14).

Sometimes “power” referred to political or social power (Dio Chrys. Or. 3.62, 89; 38.31; Philost. Hrk. 4.1–2; 33.25; Eunapius Lives 462), military power (Jub. 38:1; 1 Macc 1:4; 2:66; 10:19), or even rhetorical power (Sir 21:7) or magical power (Arnold, Power, 34–36, 73–74; cf. Rood, “Christ comme dynamis”); for Greek and Roman conceptions of power, see, e.g., Corrington, “Power”; Peradotto and Sullivan, “Introduction,” 3.

Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 9:1.

4Q521 2 II, 6 (DSSNT 421); cf. Isa 40:29, 31; Test. Job 4:11; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 25:1.

E.g., Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.37, 42. The collocation of terms in Philo Creation 131 refers merely to the force of the wind, as in Wis 5:23. Wisdom of Solomon 11:20 refers to “breath of power” but may be more relevant.

Cf. Jos. Ant. 8.408.

For Paul’s association of the Spirit with power, see, e.g., the comments of Fee, Presence, 35–36.

Cf. here Chrys. Hom. Jn. 86 (Martin, Acts, 10): “And they did become witnesses by their miracles”; Bagalawis, “Power,” esp. 2–5. For the association of “power” with miracles, see also Ambrosiaster Comm. on Rom 1:16 (CSEL 81:35; Bray, Romans, 29); Pelagius Comm. Rom. on 15:19 (de Bruyn, 148; Bray, Romans, 362). Cf. also Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 115; Hekman, “Power” (including comparison to Native American conceptions); Pervo, Acts, 42 (“thaumaturgic and charismatic”); Keener, “Power,” 49–50; Haya-Prats, Believers, 31–34. The suggestion that Luke introduces “power” to reduce associating the Spirit with miracles (cf. Matt 12:28; Luke 11:20; Menzies, “Power,” responding to Turner, “Authoritative Preaching”) may go too far (see Acts 10:38; Luke 1:35); miracles constituted a “prophetic” activity.

The term usually translated “miracles” is δυνάμεις, which (despite its now conventional usage; see BDAG) might easily be associated with its sense in the singular form, δύναμις (cf., e.g., Luke 10:13; 19:37; Acts 2:22; 8:13; 19:11; again see BDAG). For exorcism and related ideas, see Luke 9:1; cf. 10:19; for “power” and miracles in Paul, see Rom 15:19; though it more often is associated with the “weak” miracle-working message itself (Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 1:18, 24; 2:4–5; Phil 3:10; 1 Thess 1:5; cf. 2 Tim 1:8).

Fifty-seven of them in the Fourth Gospel and Johannine epistles, nineteen in Revelation, and thirty-four in Luke-Acts, though this count encompasses various senses of the terms. Textual variants could adjust counts slightly.

See Schnabel, “Beginnings,” passim, esp. 58; at greatest length, Bird, Gentile Mission, passim, esp. 1–3, 172. Bird argues that (in contrast to the developed picture in Paul and Acts) Jesus treated ministry to the Gentiles as simply part of the ongoing Jewish mission, without addressing freedom from Torah (172, 177). He notes that even the “Judaizing” mission competing with Paul accepted a “Gentile mission” more generally (6).

See also, e.g., Guillet, “Récits évangéliques”; pace Héring, Second Corinthians, 110–11. Evidence for preresurrection mention of a Gentile mission is more debatable; see Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 220, on Matt 8:11–12; but in favor, cf. Keener, Matthew, 269–70.

The potential echo in Rom 15 (given views about Spain being at the ends of the earth) might count in favor of the wording “ends of the earth” being close to what Jesus spoke, but Luke 24:47 could suggest that Luke was not particular with the wording; for views regarding Luke’s creativity in his first volume’s programmatic scene, for example, see esp. Schreck, “Nazareth Pericope.” One could argue that “end of earth” here renders a Semitic original, confusing “end of the age” (ʿolam, עולם; cf. Matt 28:20), but Luke’s own wording seems more likely.

Cf. also, e.g., Lofthouse, “Spirit in Acts and Fourth Gospel”; Keener, John, 1022–24. Some scholars think that John derived his version from the Synoptics (Lincoln, John, 394); others see it as independent tradition confirmed by the test of coherency.

The eschatological “witness” in Matt 24:14 does not appear in Mark 13:10, but Matthew has probably not simply invented it. “Witness” in Matt 8:4 stems from Mark 1:44 (cf. Luke 5:14); Matt 10:18 is more positive than Mark 6:11 (Luke 9:5), but might borrow its language; yet “testimony” appears probably independently in Luke’s eschatological discourse (Luke 21:13).

See esp. Soards, Speeches, 192–200; cf. also Bovon, Theologian, 367–70; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 72–75; Taylor, “Witness.” For the overlap with evangelism (and a focus on Paul), see Aletti, “Evangelizzare.”

Soards, Speeches, 197.

See Bruce, Commentary, 39; Johnson, “Jesus against Idols”; Penney, Missionary Emphasis, 57–58; Turner, Power, 300–301; Köstenberger and O’Brien, Salvation, 126. At least some Tannaim emphasized this Isaian witness theme for Israel (see Moore, Judaism, 2:103–4; cf. 1QS VIII).

Fabry, “Jesaja-Rolle,” views it as one of Qumran’s favorite books; Fritsch, Community, 45, considered it the most widely attested book at Qumran, even more than the Pentateuch and Psalms. See especially Mallen, Reading, 29–59.

Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 111–46, shows at length that Luke sees Israel’s restoration especially through the lens of Isaiah. Mallen, Reading, 98–101, emphasizes Luke’s reliance on Isaiah’s vision of salvation (cf. 131–32 for Luke’s specific emphasis on particular elements of this vision).

Various strands of early Judaism followed these diverse visions (see Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 52–74), including these views: (1) Gentiles were hopelessly lost (Jubilees; 4 Ezra, 52–54; I would add 1QM); (2) proselytes would be welcomed and saved (54–60); (3) there were natural-law “proselytes” (Jos. Ant. 20.41; Sib. Or. passim; Philo, allowing spiritual circumcision) (60–65); (4) there were some righteous Gentiles (some Tannaim; Gentile sacrifices accepted in the temple) (65–69); (5) there were eschatological pilgrims (69–74). On welcoming God-fearers, cf. also (for the Amoraic period) Hirshman, “Rabbinic Universalism.”

Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 246, notes that Jewish texts link the Gentiles’ pilgrimage with Israel’s restoration (Tob 14:6; Pss. Sol. 17:31; Test. Sim. 7:2) but that (p. 247) they are not “equal partners” (Pss. Sol. 17:31; 1 En. 90:30; the greater equality in Philo Spec. Laws 1.51–52; 1.309 applies to converts). By contrast, he argues (247–48), Luke accepts Gentiles as Gentiles; Pao fruitfully grounds (217–48) Luke’s view of Gentiles’/nations’ status in Isaiah. Roetzel, Paul, 52, thinks that even the LXX translators of Isaiah universalized, advocating “the inclusion of Gentiles in the people of God.”

The LXX mention of all flesh seeing salvation is consistent with Isaiah’s themes; elsewhere the ends of the earth witness it (52:10).

God’s signs also extended to the ends of the earth (Ps 65:8), as would faith (65:5).

For the radical distinctiveness of Paul’s activity even in a Greco-Roman context, see esp. Bowers, “Propaganda,” 318–19. Paul probably drew on Isaiah to understand his own role in Israel’s restoration and in extending “that salvation to the Gentiles” (Wagner, Heralds, 29–33). Luke probably knew of missions of the Jerusalem apostles (cf. 1 Cor 9:5; 1 Pet 1:1) but focuses on Paul (see Porter and Westfall, “Cord,” 114–15).

Ladd, Young Church, 93–94, contrasts the building of new relationships, implicit in this mission (e.g., Acts 19:31), with the Qumran model of monasticism.

Ironically, although later generations of Christians were effective in promoting Israel’s God, they often combined it with anti-Semitism, undermining the strategy that Paul and possibly Luke envisioned (cf. Rom 10:19; 11:11, 14.)

E.g., Aeschines Tim. 89; Lysias Or. 3.14, §97; 3.20–21, §98; 3.27, §98; Rhet. Alex. 15, 1431b.21; cf. Casey, “Μάρτυς,” 30–31.

Rhet. Alex. 15, 1431b.22–23; Hermog. Issues 45.10–20.

Todd, “Evidence,” 579. Romans did not have a legal preference for witnesses (Nicholas, “Evidence”).

Nicholas, “Evidence.”

Le Cornu, Acts, 117, citing t. Šebu. 3:2; b. B. Qam. 55b–56a.

Trites, Witness, 16–19.

Ibid., 20–47, esp. 35–47 on witness for God in Isa 40–55 (cf. also Cothenet, “Témoignage”). On other Jewish texts, see Trites, Witness, 48–65 (Philo bridges the gap between the OT and Hellenistic use); in rabbinic literature, see 231–39.

Casey, “Μάρτυς,” 30–31.

See, e.g., Arist. Rhet. 1.15.13, 1375b; 1.15.17; Plut. Apoll. 14, Mor. 108E; Or. Delphi 22, Mor. 405A; Nic. 6.3; Libanius Maxim 3.3; Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.4; Jub. 1:12. Trites, Witness, 4–15, shows that they were used in both legal and nonlegal (e.g., historiographic) contexts to establish data. “Witness” could be linked with “evidences,” “sign,” and “example,” as Hermog. Method 4.417 finds in Thucyd. 1.1, 6, 8.

Cf. also Trites, Witness, 129–33; Soards, Speeches, 199.

Cf. Aune, Environment, 81, citing Hdt. 2.99; Polyb. 12.27.1–6; 20.12.8; Lucian Hist. 47 (on αὐτοψία, eyewitness knowledge). Luke’s specific term in Luke 1:2 is not limited to historiographic contexts (see Collins, “Eyewitnesses,” 450) but normally does involve firsthand experience (including in the examples that Collins cites; in history, see Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.55, distinct from participation but describing direct acquaintance).

E.g., 1 En. 104:11; 105:1; cf. Aune, Prophecy, 115. The language of “testimony” can also apply to disciples’ accounts of their teachers’ supernatural exploits (συνεμαρτύρουν; Eunapius Lives 459). Those skeptical of secondhand supernatural testimony sometimes proved more receptive if the testimony was from an eyewitness (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 7.9; 8.2, 6–7, though this is a novel).

Aune, Environment, 81 (citing, e.g., Polyb. 12.27.1–6; 20.12.8; Lucian Hist. 47); also Xen. Ages. 3.1; see further discussion in our introduction, , . See Trites, Witness, 136–39, for Acts’ emphasis on the eyewitness character of its testimony.

More than witnesses in an Athenian lawcourt from the same period (Todd, “Evidence,” 579)!

Ibid., 579 (though overstating the case through excessive dependence on Livy and Cicero De or. 2.62; Brut. 42; see our introduction, , sects. , ).

Cf. Turner, “Every Believer as Witness?”; Köstenberger and O’Brien, Salvation, 126–27. Even in the immediate context, however, the witnesses extend beyond the eleven to all who were present for the events (Luke 24:33, “those who were with them”; see Dillon, Eye-Witnesses, 291).

For Luke, Isa 6:9–10 sets the tone for the failure of some to see and hear (Luke 8:10, 18; Acts 28:26).

On the prophets as “witnesses” in Jub. 1:12; 4Q216, see Steck, “‘Zeugen’ und ‘Tora-Sucher.’”

Using the image of character witness (Acts 6:3; 10:22; 16:2; 22:5, 12; 26:5), God himself bore witness to his servants (13:22), including the Gentiles who accepted him (15:8), but especially to the message of his generosity (14:3).

Cf. Gebauer, “Mission und Zeugnis”; Bolt, “Mission” (Acts invites readers to follow its own model of propagating the message of the apostolic witnesses).

Cf. Rosenblatt, Paul the Accused, passim, who rightly argues that Luke uses Paul as a model for others who will also suffer for the Christian mission.

For the image of divine activity in Acts 1:8, see also Mallen, Reading, 82.

Many scholars favor the probability (e.g., Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 233–38; Cullmann, Christology, 313; Fahy, “Note”; Longenecker, Christology, 138; Schlatter, Romans, 202–3; esp. Cranfield, Romans, 2:467–68; Harris, Jesus as God, 143–72), though others disagree (e.g., Hunter, Romans, 90; Johnson, Romans, 157; cf. Hunter, Gospel according to Paul, 62–63). That this expression occurs in praise (so, e.g., Burridge and Gould, Jesus, 94) suggests functional, rather than dogmatic, interest.

See, e.g., Witherington, Corinthians, 198; Bauckham, Crucified, 38, 52–53; Longenecker, “Contours,” 126–28; Hooker, Preface, 84. For Paul on Christ’s deity more generally, see, e.g., Wright, Founder, 63–72; Howell, “Interchange”; for Christ’s preexistence in Paul, see, e.g., Byrne, “Pre-existence”; pace Dunn, Theology of Paul, 266–93.

See Soards, Speeches, 44. On the Spirit and the Gentile mission, see, e.g., Philip, Pneumatology, 204–24; on the Spirit and witness, see Haya-Prats, Believers, 97–103; on the Spirit and evangelism, 103–8.

On the mission’s centrality in Acts, see, e.g., Mangatt, “Believing Community”; Bovon, Theologian, 238; see further , , in my introduction.

E.g., Streeter, Gospels, 531–32 (titling Acts “The Road to Rome,” 532); Neil, Acts, 27; Packer, Acts, 2; Eckey, Apostelgeschichte. This pattern also fits the work as a whole, since the Gospel begins and ends in Jerusalem (Marguerat, Histoire, 93; idem, Historian, 65). Although most scholars have viewed the two cities as antithetical, Luke embraces both (Marguerat, Histoire, 115–18; idem, Historian, 82–84; cf. Bovon, Studies, 31).

Both grounded in Isaiah’s eschatology (see Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 229) but shifting the focus from God’s activity (Israel’s restoration) to what Luke’s audience could help bring about (evangelizing all peoples).

Gaventa, Acts, 175. On every other occasion in Luke-Acts, the second future middle indicative (as well as all plural future middle indicatives) of εἰμί is a prediction rather than a command (Luke 1:20; 5:10; 6:35; 11:19; 12:52; 13:30; 14:14; 17:34–35; 21:11, 17, 25; 23:43; Acts 13:11; 22:15). But in the two most relevant cases, the prediction may welcome participation (Luke 5:10; Acts 22:15); cf. thus Pervo, Acts, 41, regarding “the implicit imperative.”

Parsons, Departure, 155.

E.g., Philost. Hrk. 25.13 (though eager, in any case, to critique Homer).

A more accurate designation, since the “Jewish mission” continues. On the mission’s including the ethnic as well as the geographic element, see, e.g., Stagg, Acts, 10–11, 36 (although playing down Luke’s geographic framework, from Jerusalem to Rome, too much).

Mission in the Christian sense was distinctively Christian in this period (Heimgartner, “Mission”), though later also Manichaean and Islamic (Heimgartner, “Mission,” 63; Toral-Niehoff, “Mission: Islam”).

Most often they apparently attracted them through their behavior (McKnight, “Proselytism,” 842–44).

Cf. Juv. Sat. 3.60–63; Gager, “Class,” 107; idem, Anti-Semitism; Keener, Paul, 140–42; Nilsson, Piety, 185.

Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 43.

Bowers, “Propaganda,” 318–19.

See ibid., 320–21; Murphy-O’Connor, “Jewish Mission?”; McKnight, Light among Gentiles; Cohen, “Missionize”; see some related discussion under the Gentile mission’s background in our introduction, , .

See, e.g., Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 59. Some later rabbinic advocacy of winning proselytes may react to Christian successes in converting pagans (Goodman, “Proselytizing”). I believe that Matthews, Converts, 3, is correct to allow for Jewish “mission” if we understand it to mean that some Jews actively pursued proselytes. (It does not seem to be deliberate geographic relocation, although it might resemble Paul’s activity: traveling merchants could proselytize [Jos. Ant. 20.34–48], and Paul could work.)

E.g., Paget, “Proselytism”; Ker, “Missionary Activity”; Rokéah, “Proselytism.” For Abraham as a model missionary in later sources, see Hayward, “Abraham as Proselytizer.”

Hence the reaction against proselytization in Rome; Diaspora Jewish literature sensitive to Gentile concerns (and welcoming interested proselytes, e.g., Joseph and Aseneth); and so forth.

Dunn, Acts, 2, regards Jerusalem as a theological as well as geographic starting point, emphasizing the heritage that informs the mission throughout (even as late as Acts 28:20).

Seventy-four times in the NT; 790 times in the LXX (including the Apocrypha except 2 Maccabees); Luke uses this title sixty-two times (thirty-six times in Acts).

Sixty-two times in the NT; thirty-two times in the LXX, but all are in the Apocrypha, mostly in the Maccabean literature, esp. 2 Maccabees.

Klauck, Magic, 4–5. Pliny the Elder notes that Bambyx in Syria was called Hierapolis, “Holy City” (N.H. 5.19.81; cf. a town named Hiero, “Holy,” on the Black Sea, 6.5.17).

Cf. Ross, “Spelling of Jerusalem.”

After the loss of Jerusalem, later rabbinic tradition increasingly idealized it (e.g., m. Šeqal. 8:1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 35; b. Pesaḥ. 19b).

Marxsen, Mark, 82–83. For Marxsen, Luke prefers Jerusalem because of its centrality in biblical history (as already noted, this centrality would be relevant to his audience’s interests); a return to Galilee (where Mark’s community still expected the parousia, in Marxsen’s view!) would be a regression (109).

Sanders, Figure, 278.

Jerusalem functioned as a symbolic center for Galileans as well; see Freyne, “‘Servant’ Community,” 109.

Sir 22:12; Jdt 16:24; cf. L.A.E. 51:2; Apoc. Mos. 43:3; b. Ketub. 8b and sources in Sandmel, Judaism, 201.

See Safrai, “Home,” 782.

On the majority view, the author would know that he was appending the account to John 20; I have argued elsewhere that there is good reason to suppose that both “authors” are in fact the same author (Keener, John, 1219–22).

By John’s chronology, the initial Jerusalem stay requires at least ten days after the crucifixion (John 20:26).

I estimate a week because the forty days would begin with resurrection appearances, which sources suggest began on the day of the resurrection. Forty could be a round number, but if Jesus chose it (as he did the twelve disciples) for symbolic value, he may have stayed with them for a full forty days to communicate the point; see comment on .

On Jerusalem as “sacred center” for Paul, see, e.g., Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 131; cf. Bornkamm, Paul, 53.

Skarsaune, Shadow, 147–48; pace Watson, Gentiles, 68. This evidence also undermines attempts to attribute the Jerusalem church’s centrality to mythmakers there opposed by Paul (pace Smith, “Jerusalem Church”); Paul knows the pillars in Jerusalem (Gal 1:17–19; 2:9–10), and Luke would hardly exalt them at the expense of his hero Paul.

Some Diaspora Jews who had traveled from a farther distance (and hence made pilgrimage rarely) might well remain for the entire period (See comment on ), but Galileans (with business to attend to at home) probably would not. Luke’s audience is probably familiar with the festivals (cf., e.g., Acts 20:6).

The claim, based on Luke 24:49, that the disciples spent the entire time “waiting” in Jerusalem (Dunn, Acts, 3), neglects Luke’s subsequent clarification of a forty-day interim before that command (Acts 1:3–4), to which no geographic location is specifically attached. Given the distance, the disciples could have gone to Galilee and back even several times during that period had they wished (although there is no reason to suppose such movement) before returning.

See Dunn, Acts, 3–4. This provides a neater conjunction between chronology and geography (Luke 24:6; Acts 10:37; 13:31).

See further Taylor, “Jerusalem and Temple.”

E.g., for its centrality in Josephus (without his emphasizing it eschatologically), see Feldman, “Importance.” For John 7:37–38, see Keener, John, 722–30.

Jub. 8:12 (for Zion’s role in Jubilees, cf. Sulzbach, “Geography”); Sib. Or. 5.249–50 (probably late first to early second century C.E. Egypt); b. Yoma 54b. Cf. also Scott, “Horizon,” 526; Alexander, “Imago mundi”; Paczkowski, “Ombelico” (including its influence on later Christian conceptions); Davies, Gospel and Land, 7. Let. Aris. 83 (cf. 115, μέση for seaports, also) places the center in the midst of Judea, as does Jos. War 3.52. 1 En. 26:1 may place the middle of the earth in Jerusalem (26:2–6). This view may have reacted polemically against the Delphic claim (Alexander, “Omphalos”; see below). For the temple as the center, see Jub. 8:19; b. Sanh. 37a; Num. Rab. 1:4; Lam. Rab. 3:64, §9; Pesiq. Rab. 10:2; 12:10; cf. Hayman, “Observations”; Schäfer, “Schöpfung”; Goldenberg, “Axis”; for its foundation stone, t. Kip. 2:14; Lev. Rab. 20:4; Num. Rab. 12:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:4; cf. Böhl, “Verhältnis”; for the Sanhedrin, b. Soṭah 45a; perhaps Song Rab. 7:3, §1 (in light of Soranus Gynec. 1.17.57–59). For a “navel” within a city, see Pindar Dith. 4, frg. 75 (possibly on a prominent altar within Athens); cf. Paus. 10.16.3.

Eurip. Med. 667–68 (ὀμφαλὸν γῆς); Orest. 591 (μεσομφάλους); Pindar Pyth. 4.74; 8.59–60; 11.10; Paeans 6.17; 21, frg. 54 (in Strabo 9.3.6); Varro L.L. 7.2.17 (umbilicus); Livy 38.48.2; Ovid Metam. 10.168; 15.630–31; Lucan C.W. 5.71; Men. Rhet. 1.3, 366.29; see further Schachter, “Omphalos”; cf. McGinnis, “Center.” Scott, “Horizon,” 485, cites Hdt. 4.36 and Arist. Mete. 2.5.362b.13; cf. Geroussis, Delphi, 6; Nikopoulou-de Sike, Delphi, 5–6. Scott, “Horizon,” 486, cites later Greek writers who made Rhodes the center (Agathemerus Geographiae informatio 1.5). While Philost. Hrk. 29.9 applies the phrase “belly of earth” literally to an oracular chasm, he probably intends a parallel to the Delphic use. Harrelson, Cult, 36, may also be correct in citing Mesopotamian parallels, though even unrelated cultures could see their own land as the world’s center (e.g., China; Kantowicz, Rage of Nations, 45).

McRay, Archaeology, 344. Rome is central in the Peutinger map (Tabula Peutingeriana) (Jewett, Romans, 912); for early Roman ideology about Rome’s centrality, see Dillery, “Roman Historians,” 94–95. Most peoples saw themselves as in the world’s middle (e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 2.80.190; likewise, although Pliny viewed the earth as spherical [2.65.161–65], he was certain that the cosmos was geocentric [2.69.176]). For a symbolic imperial shift of center, see Bexley, “Rome.”

Cf. Schwartz, “Rome in Novel.”

See Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 32–33.

See, e.g., Jervell, “Israel und Heidenvölken”; and discussion in our introduction regarding Israel.

For applications starting locally, see, e.g., Kanyoro, “Mission,” 62. Jerusalemites believed that people from the ends of the earth were already coming to them for worship (Jos. War 5.17). Subsequent narratives in Acts retain the salvation-historical priority of starting with the Jewish people (see comments on Acts 13:5), but not a repetition of the first church’s geographic priority.

Though cf. the microcosm of the mission in Acts 8:1–39, suggested in Thornton, “End of the Earth” (Judea in 8:1–4; Samaria in 8:5–25; the ends of the earth in 8:26–39). Melbourne, “Acts 1:8,” however, counters that the mission to the “ends of the earth” continues through Paul (13:47) to Rome.

As in, e.g., Goulder, Type and History, 68.

Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 32 (citing Luke 4:44; 5:17; Acts 1:8; 9:31; 11:29; 12:19; 15:1; 20:10; 26:20; 28:21).

Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 32. He suggests that Luke is still influenced by the biblical territory of Judah (Luke 1:39; cf. the Judahite hill country, 1:65; 2:4; 21:21).

Even many Syrian Jews were sufficiently hellenized that Josephus labels Jews in Greek cities “Greeks” (as opposed to “Syrians” in the countryside); see Rajak, “Location,” 1.

Tannehill, Acts, 17; followed also by Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 94. For the less complete “ends of the earth” in LXX, in addition to Isaian references, see LXX Deut 28:49; Ps 134:6–7 (ET 135:6–7); Jer 6:22; 10:13; 16:19; 27:41; 28:16; 32:32; 38:8; 1 Macc 3:9; cf. Pss. Sol. 1:4; 8:15; cf. also 1QM I, 8. Besides more closely verbal LXX parallels, some compare Jesus’s unending kingdom in Luke 1:33 and even Virgil Aen. 1.278–79 (Bonz, Past as Legacy, 133, cited in Krauter, “Epos,” 236), but Dan 7:14 would be clearer (Krauter, “Epos,” 236).

Tannehill, Acts, 17; Dupont, Salvation, 18; Arrington, Acts, 9; Moore, “End of Earth.”

Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 9; cf. Bruce, Acts¹, 71; Bruce, Commentary, 39n30.

See Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 92; e.g., also Mallen, Reading, 81.

Luke 24:46–47 does not specify the text, but it is clear from Acts 1:8 (and 13:47; Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 85). Acts 26:23 alludes to the same passage (86). Not only modern readers (e.g., Borgman, Way, 249–52) but inevitably even some ancient ones did connect Luke 24:44–49 with Acts 1:8 (see, e.g., Cyril of Alexandria Comm. Luke 24, in Just, Luke, 389).

Given the centrality of Rome for all the empire, an allusion to Aeneas’s Rome-ward journey (Reardon, “Homing to Rome”) seems too narrow.

For Luke, the mission to the “ends of the earth” vindicates also Paul’s Gentile mission (see Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 28–50).

Dion. Hal. Anc. Or. 1.3.

See also Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 39.

Agreeing here with, e.g., Tannehill, Acts, 17; Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 116; Klauck, Magic, 5; Gaventa, Acts, 65–66; Melbourne, “End of Earth,” esp. 11–14; Bock, Acts, 65.

Le Cornu, Acts, 21, briefly entertains the phrase referring to the boundaries of Eretz Israel but rightly concludes that Luke uses “land” more broadly than this elsewhere and that no part of Israel would be called “the remotest part.” For one survey of ancient views of the “ends of the earth,” see Romm, Edges (cited in Pervo, Acts, 44).

Sen. E. Suas. 1.4; Pliny E. N.H. 2.67.170 (also noting the Mediterranean dividing the world); 2.112.242; Jos. Ant. 1.38; Plut. Alex. 44.2; probably 1QM X, 13; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.6.3.

E.g., Philost. Hrk. 8.13; cf. 1 En. 33:2–3. Cicero can figuratively describe the ends of the Roman Empire as Oceanus (accurate on the west, at least, beyond Spain; Verr. 2.3.89.207). Oceanus is the limit of earth (γῆς τέρμα) in Glycon, quoted in Sen. E. Suas. 1.11.

Gill and Gempf, “Preface,” ix.

See Todd, “Hibernia.”

See Warmington and Millett, “Thule”; Todd, “Thule.”

Pliny E. N.H. 4.16.104 similarly designates it the land farthest north.

The Scythia normally so called would be inaccessible by the northern sea; Pliny assumed that the Caspian had a northern outlet in the ocean that circled the continents (H. Rackham, LCL, 1:302 n. b).

Ovid also called the place Scythia (Tristia 1.3.61; 3.3.46; 3.4.49; 4.6.47; 4.9.17); for many in the Mediterranean world, Scythia did, in fact, represent the extreme northeast (Aeschylus Seven 728, 817; Cic. Nat. d. 2.34.88; Ptolemy Tetrab. 2.3.60; Pliny E. N.H. 2.67.167; cf. Goldenberg, “Scythian-Barbarian”), and “civilized” Greeks and Romans viewed Scythians with both curiosity and fear (see further discussion of Scythians at Acts 8:27). The cold of the extreme north invited mythological speculation (e.g., 1 En. 34:1–2).

Dio Chrys. Or. 13.9 (ἐίὶ τὸ ὕστατον ἀίέλθῃς τῆς γῆς).

Cf. also Verr. 2.3.89.207.

Crates Ep. 31 (Cyn. Ep. 80–81).

Earlier, Pompey’s conquests between the Pontic and the Red Seas seemed to extend to the ends of the earth (Diod. Sic. 40.4; Le Cornu, Acts, 23).

Strabo 1.1.8; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref. 13; Juv. Sat. 10.1–2.

Casson, Travel, 119. For early Hellenistic rulers and India, see Jakobsson, “Founded.”

Pyrrho (ca. 360–270 B.C.E.; Diog. Laert. 9.11.61); allegedly Apollonius of Tyana (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2–3 [LCL, 1:117–229, 2:231–345]); cf. Finegan, Religions, 149, on archaeological confirmations of such reports; for possible influence on Hellenistic thought, see Scott, “Attitudes.” Apparently, however, only the Greeks who traveled to the east knew much about Indian religion (Delaygue, “Grecs”).

Cic. Tusc. 5.27.78; Strabo 15.1.11–13ff. (LCL, 7:14–19ff.); Xen. Cyr. 2.4.1–8; Val. Max. 2.6.14; 3.3.ext. 6; cf. Hor. Ep. 1.6.6; Odes 1.12.56; 1.31.6; 3.24.1–2; 4.14.42; Jub. 8:21. Some of the information was clearly speculative (e.g., Ach. Tat. 4.5.1; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.8–9; 3.40). See more fully Avi-Yonah, Hellenism, 164–66; Nock, Conversion, 46–47.

Lucian Runaways 6.

E.g., Val. Max. 3.3.ext. 6; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.5.572; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 3.5; cf. Pliny E. N.H. 7.2.22; Lucian Runaways 7; Hippol. Ref. 1.11, 21.

Val. Max. 2.6.14 (the LCL note cites also Cic. Tusc. 5.78).

E.g., Petron. Sat. 38; Poem 18; Paus. 3.12.4; Xen. Eph. Anthia 4.1; cf. Sib. Or. 11.299; Wheeler, Beyond Frontiers, 115–71; Drexhage, “India”; Casson, Travel, 124; idem, Mariners, 199, 204–6; Koester, Introduction, 1:86; Bauckham, Climax, 353, 358, 360; Aune, Revelation, 999. Cf. Ceylon (modern Sri Lanka) ties with Rome in Pliny E. N.H. 6.84–85 (in Sherk, Empire, 32); cf. ch. 4, “The Sea Route to India and Ceylon,” in Charlesworth, Trade Routes, 57–73; on Greek and Roman knowledge of this island, see Karttunen, “Taprobane.” The trade declined in the later empire, though some Christian missionaries traveled there (Karttunen, “India,” 772).

See, e.g., Catull. Carm. 64.48; Pliny E. N.H. 8.4.7–8 (noting the greater size of Indian elephants, 8.11.32; though cf. 8.13.35); Dio Chrys. Or. 79.4; Schneider, “Ivory.”

E.g., Pliny E. N.H. 9.54.106–9; 12.41.84; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.24; 3.57.

For precious stones, e.g., Mart. Epig. 4.28.4; for ebony, e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 12.8.17; for spices, e.g., Ovid Fasti 3.720; Statius Silv. 2.1.160–61; 5.1.212.

Juv. Sat. 6.585. The Indian emperor Aśoka reportedly sent representatives of Buddhism to Egypt in the third century B.C.E. (Finegan, Records, 67).

Res gest. 5.31; Suet. Aug. 21.3. See also discussion in Lintott, Romans, 1–5.

Sherk, Empire, 177–78, §136.

E.g., in Stehly, “Upanishads,” although Gispert-Sauch, “Upanisad,” thinks that it is possible.

See Steiner, “Laissez-passer.” Traditions speak of Christian missionaries from an early period (Irvin and Sunquist, Earliest Christianity, 93–95; more confidently, Thapar, History, 134–35; esp. and most helpfully, Schnabel, Mission, 881–95), and the Christian movement is well documented there in the second half of the first millennium (Irvin and Sunquist, Earliest Christianity, 308–10).

Casson, Mariners, 203, on the Periplus maris Erythraei.

Ibid., 204. For the sea route from Arabia to India, see Pliny E. N.H. 6.26.100–101; from Egypt to India, 6.26.101–6; on the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, see 6.28.107–11.

Casson, Mariners, 205.

Ibid.

E.g., Pliny E. N.H. 12.1.2. Although at least some Christians must have arrived earlier, early sources from China document the Christian movement there at least as early as 635 (Blaiklock, Archaeology, 76–77; esp. Irvin and Sunquist, Earliest Christianity, 315–19). For comparative studies on China and Greece, see Tanner, “China.”

E.g., Pliny E. N.H. 12.1.2; 12.41.84; Bauckham, Climax, 359; Aune, Revelation, 999.

E.g., Casson, Mariners, 198, 206; Bauckham, Climax, 355; on Jewish knowledge of silk, e.g., 2 Bar. 10:19; for the history of the silk trade, see, e.g., Frye, Heritage, 153–57. Even if some thought that it grew on trees (Bauckham, Climax, 355), Romans knew of the silk moth (Pliny E. N.H. 11.25.75; 11.26.76). The best silk was from China, but it was also being produced in Roman Asia (e.g., N.H. 11.27.77; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 96).

Croom, Clothing, 22 (citing SHA, Aurelianus 45.5).

Herbert, “Silk Road.” Aune, Revelation, 999 (following Charlesworth, Trade Routes, 97–111), thinks that this trade flourished especially 90–130 C.E.

Ying, “Ruler.”

Casson, Mariners, 205. Chinese ties with Europe go back to the second millennium B.C.E., but the sea route is certain only by the second or third century C.E. (so Brentjes, “China”).

Strabo 1.1.5, 8; 3.2; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref. 13; Sil. It. 1.270 (extremis . . .  terris); 15.638; Pliny Ep. 2.3.8; Gr. Anth. 4.3.84–85; cf. “at the ends of Europe” (τῶν ἐσχάτων τῆς Εὐρώίης) in Arrian Alex. 2.16.6. Riesner, Early Period, 305, cites also Lucan C.W. 3.454; Juv. Sat. 10.1–2; Strabo 2.5.9; Sil. It. 17.637. This must also be the view in 1 Clem. 5.5–7 (Grant, “Christian and Roman History,” 16).

Cf., e.g., Aus, “Plans.”

It is not clear that Spain yet had a Jewish community (first clearly attested there in the third century; Bowers, “Communities”; but cf. the suggestion of earlier residence in Stern, “Diaspora,” 169–70); moreover, Paul would need to use Latin there (Ramsay, Pictures, 276; Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 186; cf. Untermann, “Hispania”). For an examination of the later tradition of Paul’s presence (cf., e.g., Murat. Canon 38–39), see Latourette, First Five Centuries, 96–97; Meinardus, “Traditions.” Philostratus claims that the danger of preaching in Rome under Nero led to Apollonius’s voyage to Spain (Vit. Apoll. 4.47), but this “parallel” may be based on Paul.

A few scholars do think of Spain in Acts 1:8, e.g., Davies, Gospel and Land, 279–80; Ellis, “End of Earth.”

Cf., e.g., Donahue, “Iunia Rustica”; Olshausen, “Incorporation”; Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 186; esp. the survey of archaeological work in Keay, “Work.”

E.g., Graf, “Hispania,” 397 (focusing on religious elements). For places with mixed Phoenician and Roman influence, see, e.g., Mierse, “Architecture.”

On ancient Spain and ancient views of Spain, see Barceló, “Hispania,” esp. 388, 391.

On Spain, see Pliny E. N.H. 3.1.6–3.3.30. Rome imported from there, e.g., dyes (Vitruv. Arch. 6.7.2; Pliny E. N.H. 16.12.32), silver (Polyb. 34.9.8–9; Pliny E. N.H. 33.31.96), mercury (Pliny E. N.H. 33.32.99–100), gold (Polyb. 31.22.3), black wool (Pliny E. N.H. 8.73.191), and horse breeding (8.67.166). On the mines in Roman Spain, see 4.20.112; Orejas and Sánchez-Palencia, “Mines.” On the harsh conditions of these mines, see, e.g., Forbes, Technology, 7:223.

E.g., Cic. Fam. 3.8.10; 6.18.2; 8.16.3; 9.9.2; Att. 9.2a. Although important to Rome, it could require a significant journey (see Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 392).

See Jewett, Romans, 912.

Martin, “Chamberlain’s Journey”; Keener, “Aftermath of Eunuch.” For Ethiopia as the end of the earth for Acts, cf. Thornton, “End of the Earth”; in a proleptic way, Gaventa, Acts, 145.

That is, ἔσχατοι . . .  ἔσχατοι, Strabo 1.1.6 (LCL); cf. Hom. Od. 1.23; Hdt. 3.25.

E.g., in the north in Ant. Diog. Thule, passim, e.g., 110b, 111a. Antonius Diogenes claims to derive these stories from earlier sources, while admitting that he fabricates them.

E.g., Epigoni frg. 5 (so Hdt. 4.32) and in Hesiod frg. 150.21 M.-W. (so GEF 59); Pliny E. N.H. 4.12.89.

Fitzmyer, Acts, 206–7; Barrett, Acts, 80. One could note that the Roman Empire is Luke’s world (Luke 2:1), but Acts 8:27 does show his interest in “ends of the earth” beyond that.

Rosner, “Progress,” 218.

Barrett, Acts, 80.

Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 36. For the world’s extent in the LXX, see Scott, “Horizon,” 502–3.

Johnson, Acts, 26–27.

See Scott, “Horizon,” 484–87, esp. 487; for Roman conceptions, see 487–92; for Jewish conceptions, 492–522. Early Palestinian Jews did have some knowledge of Hellenistic geography (cf. Jub. 8:12 and esp. OTP 2:72 n. i, Wintermute).

Barrett, Acts, 80.

Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 36; Rosner, “Progress,” 218.

See Rosner, “Progress,” 232–33; Marguerat, Historian, 230.

Johnson, Acts, 26–27 (citing Deut 28:49; Ps 134:6–7; Isa 8:9; 48:20; 49:6; 62:11; Jer 10:12; 16:19; 1 Macc 3:9; though he uses Acts’ context to emphasize Rome); Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 9.

Tannehill, Acts, 18; cf. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 36.

Tannehill, Acts, 9; Witherington, Acts, 106; Marguerat, Actes, 20 (following P.-H. Menoud); cf. Molthagen, “Geschichtsschreibung,” 166. For examples of this convention, see Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.2; Polyb. 3.1.3; yet it was hardly universal.

See Klauck, Magic, 5; O’Day, “Acts,” 305; Gangel, Acts, 10; Kisau, “Acts,” 1300; Schröter, “Stellung,” 47; esp. Parsons, Departure, 155.

Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 35 (comparing also the church’s missionary program in the Gospels; 1 Clem. 42.3–4; Herm. Sim. 8.3.2; Aristides Apol. 15.2; Justin 1 Apol. 31.7; 39.1ff.); cf. Dupont, Salvation, 12–13; Ridderbos, “Speeches of Peter,” 6; Stendahl, Paul, 118; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 27–28; Hamm, Acts, 9; Schmidt, “Abkehr”; Kurichianil, “Orderly Account.” Contrast van Unnik, “‘Acts’ and Confirmation,” 39; Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 39.

E.g., the promise of Dio Chrys. Or. 25.1 in the rest of Or. 25.

E.g., Philost. Hrk. 25.13 (though eager, in any case, to critique Homer).

Theon Progymn. 1.60; 2.91–104; 11.2–6, 240–43; Hermog. Progymn. 11, “On Thesis,” 24–25; Aphth. Progymn. 13, “On Thesis,” 49S, 41R; Nicolaus Progymn. 12, “On Thesis,” 71–72; see further Anderson, Glossary, 63–65 (esp. on Quint. Inst. 3.5.5–18; Cic. Or. Brut. 125; for the use of thesis in first-century school exercises, Quint. Inst. 2.4.24–32; Theon Progymnasmata (RG 2:120, lines 12ff.); on hypothesis, Cic. De or. 2.133–47; Top. 80; Or. Brut. 45–46); more briefly, Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 459–60; Schenkeveld, “Philosophical Prose,” 247; Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 198–99; Gibson, “Notes,” 509 (cf. also xxi, noting that thesis may have been one of the less dominant exercises in late antiquity). For developing a hypothesis (a sample declamation theme) see, e.g., Hermog. Inv. 1.1.93–100.

Quint. Inst. 4.4.1–2.

E.g., Thucyd. 1.23.6; Pliny E. N.H. 8.1.1; 18.1.1; 33.1.1; 34.1.1; 36.1.1; 37.1.1; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.1; 8.1. Dion. Hal. Thuc. 10–11 critiques Thucydides for inadequate arrangement (Moessner, “Arrangement,” 161).

E.g., Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 104; Johnson, Romans, 26; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 430 (as the πρόθεσις); Jewett, Romans, 135. Others are less certain here (Keck, “Pathos,” 86; Elliott, Arrogance, 17).

Schenkeveld, “Philosophical Prose,” 247.

Three in Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 375.7–8; four in 385.8; three or four in Gorg. Hel. 6 (developed in Hel. 6, 7, 8–14, and probably 15–19; summarizing again in 20).

Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 375.8ff.; 385.9–386.10; see discussion in Hermog. Inv. 3.1.126–29.

E.g., Arius Didymus in Stob. Ecl. 2.7.5; again, 2.7.5a.6–7, preparing for lines 7–15. This somewhat resembles the rhetorical practice of διαίρεσις (Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 375.7–8; 385.8; Porph. Isag. 1.6–7; Marc. 24.376–84; cf. Iambl. V.P. 30.168–69; though cf. the different technical definitions in Anderson, Glossary, 32–33; Rowe, “Style,” 134; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 125; cf. the later use of κεφάλαιον in Anderson, Glossary, 67–68; the idea in Fronto Eloq. 3.4). For sectioning a work for the convenience of readers, see, e.g., Pliny Ep. 9.4.1.

E.g., in rhetoric, Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436a.33–39; Dion. Hal. Lysias 24; Cic. Or. Brut. 40.137; Sen. E. Controv. 1.pref. 21 (noting that not all orators did so); Dio Chrys. Or. 38.8; in other sorts of works, Soranus Gynec. 1.intro. 2. For smaller sections or arguments within a work, e.g., 1.1.3; 2.5.9 (25.78); Pliny Ep. 6.29.1–2; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.1; 8.1. For others’ summaries of books, cf. Galen Grief 29–30.

Pliny E. N.H. 1; cf. Pliny’s explanation in N.H. pref. 33; see also Aul. Gel. pref. 25.

Failure to include this could be cause for censure by Hellenistic rhetorical critics (Dion. Hal. Thuc. 19). This could also be used for other narrative works (e.g., Virg. Aen. 1.1–6). Within a history, see Polyb. 3.1.3–3.5.9, especially the explicit explanation in 3.1.7; 11.1.4–5.

Johnson, Acts, 12, points out that Acts 1:8 is merely the most obvious of several such programmatic prophecies in Acts.

Witherington, Acts, 34–35, 159n107 (citing Fornara, Nature of History, 45).

See Scott, “Horizon,” 525–27; for this tradition more fully in Second Temple Judaism, see 507–22. Roughly, nations to the south represented Ham; to the east, Shem; and to the west, Japheth.

Scott, “Horizon,” 531.

Ibid., 493n33; the same three divisions appear in Philo Embassy 283–84 (497n47). For the historic division between Europe and Asia and possible relevance to Acts, see Keener, “Asia and Europe.”

Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xc.

Of the seventy-four place names found in both the LXX and the NT, Acts uses fifty-three (72 percent) of them (Scott, “Horizon,” 524).

See Hengel, Jesus and Paul, 97–128; even Jerusalemites probably knew little of the topography of Galilee, a rural backwater (see idem, “Geography of Palestine,” 33n19).

Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 78, notes that Luke probably never saw a map of Palestine, and he warns that modern scholars would be more generous to him if ever forced “to give an accurate description of the geography of the outer suburbs of our home towns or even to put on a blank map of Palestine those places the location of which Luke knew” (such as Antipatris and Caesarea).

Ibid., 29–30 (citing Strabo 16.2.16–46, esp. 16.2.21, 28–29, 34; Pliny E. N.H. 5.66–73; Tac. Ann. 12.54.2; Ptolemy Geog. 5.15.1–7 [5.16.1–10 in Nobbe]).

Most of the Jewish writers were from the Diaspora, like Luke (Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 29–30, citing here Let. Aris. 115–18; Ps.-Hecataeus in Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.196–97; Philo Prov. 2.107 = Euseb. P.E. 8.14.64); but even Josephus erred sometimes—surprisingly, most often when he was present! First and Second Maccabees and a military source in Polyb. 5.61.3–62.6; 66.1–72.12 tend to be much more accurate.

Some might add 2 Cor 11:5, 22; but cf. Keener, Corinthians, 227, 233.

See Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 97–144, esp. 102.

Cf. Nero’s consideration of massacring Gauls living in Rome lest they join the Gallic revolt from the province of Gaul (Suet. Nero 43.1).

See CPJ 1:80–81; 2:119–36, §§160–229; Suet. Dom. 12.2; Dio Cass. R.H. 65.7.2; Hemer, “Ostraka”; Carlebach, “References.” Appian Hist. rom. 11.8.50 claims that Jews paid a higher poll tax because they rebelled so often; Romans had never been happy about the temple tax, in any case (Cic. Flacc. 28.66–67). Note also the wide distribution of Judaea capta coins and their minting in the empire (Zarrow, “Romanisation”).

For the need for Greeks to respect Asian (Persian) culture, e.g., Plut. Themist. 27.2–3; Alex. 45.1–3, esp. 45.3; for Greek and Roman cultural differences, e.g., Corn. Nep. pref. 5–7. But for Greek cultural solidarity, cf. Martin, “Anti-individualistic Ideology.” On universalist cults and tendencies, see the discussion of “pagan ‘universal’ ideals” in our introduction, , sect. –.

See Keener, Paul, 140–42. But most Roman disdain for Greeks stemmed from the first century B.C.E. (e.g., Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.2.2.4; but contrast 1.1.9.28; Att. 1.15), when the efficacy of Greek cultural imperialism was a threat rather than a fait accompli.

See also Talbert, Patterns, 112.

The claim of some (e.g., Goppelt, Times, 18) that Luke’s exaltation coincides with the resurrection as in Paul mistakes theological unity with chronological unity (as in our discussion of Luke’s narrative presentation of Spirit baptism, in our introduction, , ; and at Acts 1:4–5; 2:38; 8:15–17).

Cf. also the comment on the Mount of Olives in Acts 1:12.

On parousia imagery in the ascension, see, e.g., Flender, Theologian, 93.

E.g., Appian Hist. rom. 7.8.53; Bell. civ. 2.21.149.

Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu, 19–43, notes many types of figures and texts (although these normally do not compose double volumes like Luke-Acts) and that it is “not genre specific” (41–42); he finds the succession principle also in Luke-Acts (43–55). But Talbert views Luke-Acts as biography, and the closest parallels (to succession narratives rather than lists) are in biography. See further idem, Acts, xix–xxv (esp. for examples of histories of schools, xix–xx).

Aune, Environment, 78–79, notes only six of Diogenes Laertius’s eighty-two lives (7 or 8 percent). With or without parallels, the subject of succession is a natural one in cases of leadership transition (e.g., on a popular level, Lindsay, Lake, 41–52, with also an Elijah allusion: Lake’s “mantle” fell on Letwaba).

Cf. Brodie, “Emulation,” 85.

Cf. the similar legal problem with heirs of one who died intestate or whose will might be disputed; Pliny Ep. 10.84; Gaius Inst. 2.156–60; Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 137; for detailed Roman laws on succession, see Buckland, Roman Law, 365–404. Some were confident, however, that others would complete their work if they died beforehand (Polyb. 3.5.7–8).

For Jesus designating his successors, see, e.g., Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2; on Luke 22:29–30, see Talbert, Acts, xxi.

Joshua also appears as Moses’s successor (Latin in Test. Mos. 1:7; 10:15; διάδοχος in Sir 46:1). Later rabbis viewed prophets’ disciples on the analogy with rabbinic academies (e.g., Tg. Jon. on 1 Sam 19:23; 2 Kgs 6:1; 9:1, 4); likewise, CD VIII, 20–21 assimilates Jeremiah’s Baruch to Elisha’s Gehazi. On Moses-Joshua succession in the sources, see Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu, 33–35; he also notes the Saul-David succession, citing 1 Kgs 16–18 LXX (this is actually the subtext of much of 1 Samuel), and the succession from David to Solomon (35). Of the many succession narratives, the closest analogies are in the LXX (51).

Gen. Rab. 58:2; Pesiq. Rab. 51:2, bar.

Rabbi Nehemiah claimed that God drove off marauders in response to the prayers of a pious sage; God later did the same for his disciple, though the disciple’s hand withered; God neither drove off marauders nor withered a hand in response to the prayers of the disciple’s disciple (b. Taʿan. 3:8, §2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:18).

With, e.g., Green, “Repetition,” 292. Elisha’s miracles also evoke those of Elijah (Levine, “Twice”). Elijah provided a model for hagiographic portrayals of signs workers from Hanina ben Dosa to Anthony of Egypt (Galley, “Heilige”); for Shenoute and other Egyptian saints, see Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 20. Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu, 53, compares also the Spirit coming “on” them as on Elisha (though this is familiar OT and Lukan terminology).

The Elijah story imitates that of Moses at some clear points (compare 1 Kgs 19:8 with Exod 3:1; 24:18; 34:28), just as Elisha’s recapitulates that of Elijah at points; thus we should expect diverse OT connections when we find any.

Despite Scripture’s explicit claim that Moses died (Deut 34:5–6; cf. 1 En. 89:38; 2 Bar. 17:4; m. ʾAb. 5:9; Tg. Neof. 1 on Deut 33:21), there are postbiblical reports of Moses’s survival (e.g., one view mentioned in Sipre Deut. 357.10.5; b. Soṭah 13b; cf. Mark 9:4; Rev 11:6) as well as later polemic against such a perspective (e.g., Deut. Rab. 11:10). Everyone acknowledged that Moses’s death was unusual at the least (cf., e.g., Philo Sacr. 8–10; Test. Mos. 11:8; ʾAbot R. Nat. 12 A).

Johnson, Acts, 30; Stronstad, Charismatic Theology, 20–21.

E.g., Quesnel, “Critère.” This idea is, however, much more prominent in the Fourth Gospel (see John 14:16–17, 26; 16:13–15; Keener, John, 966–69); but even in John, compare 15:27 with 15:26.

Although Luke (unlike some other early Christian writers, 2 Cor 1:21; 1 John 2:20, 27) reserves “anoint” for Jesus, associated with his title as the Christ (Acts 4:27).

Cf. discussion in Keener, John, 434–37.

Thus many commentators, including Keener, Revelation, 289–93; Bowman, Drama, 71; Hill, Prophecy, 89; Bauckham, Climax, 166, 273–75; Michaels, Revelation, 138–39; Talbert, Apocalypse, 45–46; Aune, Revelation, 631; Beale, Revelation, 572–75; Mounce, Revelation, 218; Reddish, Revelation, 211–12. This couple balances the two evil figures of Rev 13:1, 11, one of which is also a redivivus figure (a new Nero).

Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 20 (“an identification apparently often made for charismatic Christian figures in this period”). This may carry Luke’s parallels to a logical conclusion, insisting that the continuity from the OT through the apostolic era continued afterward.

Many scholars note Elijah-Elisha typology in Luke-Acts; see, e.g., Brodie, “Emulation”; Stronstad, Charismatic Theology, 44. Certainly, Luke takes at least some of this material, and probably more, from tradition (cf. Achtemeier, “Perspective on Miracles,” who doubts that Luke so shaped the material). Bostock, “Elisha,” suggests that Jesus (as John/Elijah’s successor) views himself as Elisha. Elijah is far more prominent in sources of this period, but Josephus increases the prominence of Elisha (whom he associates with political agendas; Höffken, “Elischa”). Some even view the historical Jesus in terms of the eschatological Elijah (e.g., Meier, “Quest”). Brodie, Interpreter, is thus right in observing connections with the Elijah-Elisha narratives, but he errs in viewing Luke as creatively “rewriting” them; rather, Luke rewrites his sources about Jesus and some of his movement in light of the connection tradition supplied about Elijah (with, e.g., Marshall, “Acts,” 525; Evans, “Function,” 70n4).

The term is not common in the OT, but upper rooms were natural places to keep corpses during preparation for burial. The term ὑίερῷον appears twenty-two times in our conventional LXX, four of them in these texts (1 Kgs 17:19, 23; 2 Kgs 4:10–11), or about 18 percent of the uses; the NT uses of this term (though cf. Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12) are only Acts 1:13; 9:37, 39; 20:8 (hence 75 percent appear in a resuscitation narrative).

That he should be heeded (Luke 9:35) may recall Deut 18:18, about Moses (cf. Bock, Luke, 874; Mauser, Christ in Wilderness, 114; Davies, Sermon, 24; Lane, Mark, 321; Bruce, Time, 40; Longenecker, Christology, 36; Gundry, Matthew, 343; Young, Jewish Theologian, 211).

The parallel (Q) pericope in Matthew (Matt 8:19–22) omits this anecdote, possibly implying Lukan composition; yet if it is pre-Lukan (more in line with my view of Luke’s historiography), this is a logical place to insert it.

Elijah’s “Spirit and power” functions as a hendiadys, hence “Spirit of power”; this suggests (at least in part) miracle-working power, as in the comment on Acts 1:8 (though Luke cannot attribute miracles to John; cf. John 10:41). For one discussion of the Spirit in Luke 1–2, see Turner, Power, 140–65.

Luke’s addition of “power” to the Spirit (certainly not from 2 Kgs 2:16 LXX; Wis 5:23) is typically Lukan (Luke 1:35; 4:14; Acts 1:8; 10:38) and not surprising to one in the Pauline circle (Rom 1:4; 15:13, 19; 1 Cor 2:4; Eph 3:16; 1 Thess 1:5; 2 Tim 1:7). For OT precedent, cf. 1 Sam 11:6; Mic 3:8; Zech 4:6; see also Wis 11:20.

In this case, following Mark (Mark 1:2–3), though Luke, following Q (cf. Matt 11:10), uses the Malachi part of Mark’s reference only in Luke 7:27. On divine Christology in some Lukan passages, see comment on .

That the disciples can rejoice in their miraculous ministries (Luke 10:17) shortly after John’s demise (9:7, 9; more clearly connected in Mark 6:13–30) casts the shadow of suffering forward over their ministries as successors of John’s successor.

I have adapted material here from Keener, John, 435–36.

Diversity of perspectives on Elijah extended even to interpretations of biblical narratives; cf. Zeller, “Elija.”

E.g., b. Moʾed Qaṭ. 26a; Sanh. 113b, although such texts may reflect differing implications as to whether (perhaps ʾAbot R. Nat. 38, §103 B, till the Messiah comes) or not (cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:4) he would die. Josephus’s words are more guarded (Ant. 9.28), perhaps accommodating Hellenistic skepticism.

See Keener, Spirit, 20–22; Sipra Sh. M.D. 99.5.6; also Tg. Jon. on 1 Sam 19:23; on 2 Kgs 6:1; 9:1, 4.

ʾAbot R. Nat. 2 A; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 36a; Ber. 3a; Giṭ. 42b; Ḥag. 9b; Qidd. 79a; Menaḥ. 32a; y. Ber. 9:2, §3; Ter. 1:6 (it is unclear here whether the activity in this text was in ancient Israel or during the rabbinic period); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:22; Elijah conversed with rabbis about unspecified or nonhalakic issues in b. B. Meṣiʿa 85b; Sanh. 113b; Yoma 19b–20a. Cf. his settling of questions pertaining to himself in b. Ketub. 106a (instructing R. Anan as he wrote Seder Eliyahu Rabbah and Seder Eliyahu Zuta); Gen. Rab. 71:9. Elijah already appears as “greatly zealous for the law” in 1 Macc 2:58.

E.g., b. Ber. 4b; he appears as an executor of judgment against a sacrilegious man in b. Ber. 6b; as a bearer of news to a rabbi in b. Šabb. 33b (Simeon ben Yohai); Deut. Rab. 5:15 (Meir); Tg. Rishon on Esth 4:1 (to Mordecai). For his knowledge of what God does, cf. b. B. Meṣiʿa 59b; he wakes the deceased patriarchs for prayers in b. B. Meṣiʿa 85b.

E.g., b. ʿAbod. Zar. 17b; Taʿan. 21a; y. Ketub. 12:3, §6; Kil. 9:3, §4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 18:5; Gen. Rab. 33:3. Other miracle workers may have been associated with Elijah (cf. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 72, 76–77, whose case is probable though not certain). His appearances to Jewish teachers seem to begin in the second-century sources (Bamberger, “Prophet,” 308).

Sipre Deut. 41.4.3; 342.5.2; b. Menaḥ. 63a; at the redemption of the new exodus in Exod. Rab. 3:4; he would punish the Gentiles in Gen. Rab. 71:9; involved in the resurrection in b. Soṭah 9:15; y. Šeqal. 3:3. Ford, Revelation, 179, cites also Pirqe R. El. 43, 47; S. Eli. Rab. 25ff.

E.g., the four craftsmen and comments on the seven shepherds of Mic 5:4 in b. Sukkah 52b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Song Rab. 8:9, §3; Pesiq. Rab. 15:14/15 (one may compare the priest anointed for war—and perhaps the two messiahs—in these texts with earlier Qumran expectation). In late texts of varying date and opinion, he is associated with the Messiah (Lev. Rab. 34:8; Deut. Rab. 6:7; Song Rab. 2:13, §4), preceding him (b. ʿErub. 43b; Pesiq. Rab. 35:4), coming with him (Exod. Rab. 18:12), knowing something about the time of his coming (b. B. Meṣiʿa 85b); he is also protective of his coming reign (Gen. Rab. 83:4); or Elijah is Phinehas the high priest (Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 6:18; cf. L.A.B. 48:1).

Primarily in Amoraic texts, e.g., b. Ber. 35b; B. Bat. 94b; b. Meṣiʿa 3a, 30a; Menaḥ. 45a, bar.

M. ʿEd. 8:7; t. ʿEd. 3:4; cf. Song Rab. 4:12, §5.

E.g., m. ʿEd. 8:7; Soṭah 9:15. Milikowsky, “‘Lyhw,” cites Seder ʿOlam as an early source for Elijah as the Messiah’s forerunner (although the source’s date may be debated).

See the many references (especially the nonrabbinic ones) in Teeple, Prophet, 4–8. Cf. also Sib. Or. 2.187–89; but because its context is a Christian interpolation, we cannot date it early with much assurance; 4Q382 frg. 31 may be eschatological (in a context about Elijah, frg. 1, 3, 9). Justin’s view that Elijah precedes Christ (Dial. 8.4) fits the evidence (cf. Williams, Justin Martyr, 18n5), but that he would anoint the Messiah (Dial. 8; 49) lacks other attestation (see Schneider, “Reflections,” 169; the parallel in Williams, Justin Martyr, 18n6, is inadequate).

Aune, Prophecy, 124–25; cf. Brown, John, 1:47. This is relevant even if rabbinic evidence for Elijah’s role as forerunner (b. ʿErub. 43ab, bar.) is later (as contended by Faierstein, “Elijah” [see esp. 86]; Fitzmyer, “Elijah”; contrast Allison, “Elijah”).

Enoch, Moses, “and possibly Ezra, Baruch, and Jeremiah” (Longenecker, Christology, 33).

Teeple, Prophet, 106, is probably wrong, however, in identifying Elijah in this text with a prophet-king Messiah.

“Double portion” is the right of the firstborn son (Deut 21:17). Although Elijah’s spirit (2 Kgs 2:9, 15) probably refers to the Spirit of the Lord (cf. 2 Kgs 2:16; Deut 34:9), if one extends it figuratively to include a sense of Elijah’s presence, this could apply in a much fuller sense to Jesus (Acts 3:6; 9:34).

E.g., Talbert, “Myth” (emphasizing Hellenistic Jewish sources); idem, Acts, 2–4; Strelan, Strange Acts, 42–47; Eckey, Apostelgeschichte, 57–60; Boring et al., Commentary, 309 (citing Dio Cass. 56.46 for Augustus’s ascension, according to one witness); Diod. Sic. 4.38.3–5 for that of Heracles; Romulus in Ovid Fasti 2.500–509 and Plut. Numa 11.3; ironically implied for Peregrinus in Lucian Peregr. 39; for emphasis on witnesses for Greek ascensions, Aune, Revelation, 626–27; for some sense for kings (at death) in ancient Egypt, cf. Davis, “Ascension-Myth”; ANET 18. If one counts others snatched up (like Ganymede), one could add further examples; see Aune, Revelation, 689–90. Van der Horst, “Macrobius,” 225, cites Macrob. Comm. 1.9.9.

But there are exceptions, such as the ex-praetor who testified that he saw Augustus’s form ascending to heaven after his cremation (Suet. Aug. 100.3–4, esp. 100.4). Supposedly divine beings started the fire at Caesar’s pyre (Suet. Jul. 84.3).

Eurip. Iph. Aul. 1608, 1614, 1622; Cypria 8 (the no-longer-extant epic, but summarized in Proclus Chrestomathia, which the editor supplements by Apollod. Epit. 3.1–33; GEF 75). For another case of readily bestowed immortality, here for Odysseus’s family, see Telegony 4 (from Proclus; GEF 169). These examples do not include hypothetical or figurative claims of mortals ascending to find deities (as in Char. Chaer. 3.2.5; 3.3.7).

Heracles’s “virtue” included his heroism and a highly allegorical reading of his behavior that would not fit any likely Jewish or Christian readings of his morality in classical texts.

Val. Max. 9.3.ext. 1, who apparently thinks Alexander’s ambitious conquests merited his ascension anyway.

In Jub. 32:20, Jacob watches God’s ascent (cf. 32:21, where an angel descends).

Luke 2:15; Judg 13:20; Tob 12:20 (ἀναβαίνω); Test. Ab. 4:5; 8:1; 9:7; 15:11 A (ἀνελθών; in 9 A, also λάβε and ὕψωσον, on a cherubim chariot); 4:4 B (ἀνελήφθη; as in ἀναλημφθείς, Acts 1:11); Test. Ab. 8:2–3 B (ἀνῆλθεν); L.A.E. 43:4; Jos. Asen. 17:8, some MSS (absent from Philonenko, 190, for 17:6; with a chariot of fire comparable to Elijah’s); 3 Bar. 3:1.

Wisdom descended from heaven to save Israel (Wis 18:15), and no one could ascend to grasp it (Bar 3:29).

E.g., Jub. 32:21; 2 Bar. 6:5; 4 Macc 4:10; 4Q537 frg. 1, introductory line; Gal 1:8; Rev 10:1. On the ascent and descent of angels (together in, e.g., Gen 28:12; Jub. 27:21), especially the sometimes divine angel of the Lord, see further Talbert, Gospel, 57, 62.

E.g., Mark 13:32; 1 En. 97:2; 104:1; 106:12–13.

1 Macc 2:58.

See Zwiep, Ascension, 64–71; cf. Meeks, Prophet-King, 156–58, 205–9, 241–46. Some rabbis apparently believed that Moses did not, in fact, die (Sipre Deut. 357.10.5; cf. Rev 11:6); cf. also Moses’s earlier ascension to receive the Torah (e.g., Sipre Deut. 49.2.1). Some scholars connect Moses’s ascension with older myths of heavenly invasion (Halperin, “Ascension”), though I am not persuaded.

For Enoch ascension traditions, see, e.g., Sir 49:14; Heb 11:5; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 4:24; Zwiep, Ascension, 41–51 (and cf. 51–58); Luke, “Enoch’s Ascension.” Ancient interpreters differed in their understanding of Enoch (cf., e.g., Luciani, “Sorte”); many rabbis, perhaps polemicizing against the Enoch tradition, denigrating him, claimed that he died for wickedness or before he could become wicked (Gen. Rab. 25:1; cf. Wis 4:10–11). Prerabbinic sources portray him favorably (e.g., Sir 44:16; Ps.-Eup., via Alexander Polyhistor, in Euseb. P.E. 9.17.8–9; Jub. 10:17; 1 En. passim, e.g., 83:8; 106:7; 4Q227; 4Q530 II, 21–23; 1Qap Gen^ar II, 19–25; V; Philo Abr. 17–19; Test. Dan 5:6; Test. Jud. 18:1; Asc. Is. 9:9; cf. VanderKam, “Traditions,” 245) and as escaping death (Jub. 4:23; Test. Ab. 11:5 B). Enoch literature circulated widely (cf., e.g., Test. Sim. 5:4; Test. Naph. 4:1), and his name was used by some later Jews (CPJ 3:40, §478; 3:98, §509).

For Ezra, see, e.g., (later) Gr. Ezra 5:7. See Aune, Revelation, 625–26; Zwiep, Ascension, 71–74. Cf. Baruch in Zwiep, Ascension, 74–75.

Although, as the LCL note here points out (R. Marcus, LCL, 6:16–17), Josephus plays down the miraculous element of Elijah’s ascension proper.

Cf. Begg, “Disappearances of Enoch” (who cites Moses’s humility in Jos. Ant. 3.212). Josephus probably employs the appealing language of deification while maintaining a strict monotheism; but as noted in our introduction (, ; , ), he writes for a more sophisticated audience than Luke, one less tolerant of future eschatology (cf. Josephus’s approach to the Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection, Ant. 18.14; esp. War 2.163).

See Palatty, “Ascension” (emphasizing also Tob 12:16–22).

With Zwiep, Ascension, 59–63, 194; Witherington, Acts, 112; Litwak, Echoes, 149; Marshall, “Acts,” 527; Pervo, Acts, 45. Bede envisions a contrast with Elijah here, since he doubts that the latter genuinely ascended to heaven (Comm. Acts 1.11).

Brodie, “Emulation,” 83 (noting “came to pass,” “parted,” “carried up,” and “heaven”). Compare possibly walking and talking together in Luke 24:32 (cf. 24:14–30) with 2 Kgs 2:11, although Luke 24:32 precedes the ascension narrative proper.

Litwak, Echoes, 150; cf. Parsons, Acts, 27. Note also the noun cognate in Luke 9:51, which undoubtedly shares in the Elijah allusion (the connection to Isa 53:8 in Feuillet, “Deux references,” is improbable).

Also Witherington, Acts, 112.

Cf. similarly Johnson, Acts, 31.

Zwiep, Ascension, 194.

Allusions further appear in Acts 2:33; Luke 22:69; Mark 14:62; Matt 26:64; Mark 16:19; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22.

Most NT writers who refer to the ascension do so only by way of Ps 110:1 (see Boismard and Lamouille, Actes, 3:35).

On the basis especially of the antinomy regarding Davidic descent in Mark 12:35–37, many contend that this pericope reflects authentic Jesus tradition; see Jeremias, Theology, 259; France, Matthew, 321.

Sleeman, Geography, 257 (and passim), argues that the ascension narrative shapes the texture of all of Acts 1–11.

This model differs from that of Jesus as prototype for the Spirit-filled life (cf. Turner’s emphasis on the exalted Lord versus the prototype; e.g., “Jesus and Spirit in Perspective”), but Luke does not treat them as incompatible.

See, e.g., discussion in Scott, “Ascent,” 447–48. On Greek deities’ mortal sons who suffer, are taken to heaven, and become saviors, see Strelan, Strange Acts, 46 (following van Tilborg and Counet, Appearances, 235); in accord with Greek perspectives on the body, these do not include bodily resurrection. For more general Greek conceptions of deification, see also the data in Keener, John, 298–99 (cf. 178–79, 292–93).

Apollodorus uses the same word (μεθίστημι) for heavenly relocation in Bib. 3.11.2. Widely seen sculptures (e.g., in Athens’s agora) celebrated Heracles’s apotheosis (Athenian Agora, 47).

Burning away mortal elements of infant demigods also appears (Apollod. Bib. 3.13.6); whether this is related to sacrificing infants (cf. Lev 18:21; 20:2–5; 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 32:35; Lycophron Alex. 229; Arrian Alex. 1.5.7; Tert. Apol. 9.2; Glueck, Rivers, 61; Albright, Biblical Period, 17; idem, Yahweh, 152; Rundin, “Pozo Moro”; especially, nearly a hundred infant skeletons in Ashkelon’s Roman-period sewers in Stager, “Eroticism at Ashkelon”) is unclear. (On human sacrifice in general in antiquity, in myth or history, see, e.g., Hom. Il. 23.175–76; Aeschylus Ag. 205–26; Soph. El. 530–45; Cic. Resp. 3.9.15; Apollod. Bib. 2.5.11; Appian Bell. civ. 1.14.117; Sen. Y. Troj. 360–70; Plut. Par. St. 35, Mor. 314CD; Cic. 10.3; Themist. 13.2–3; Suet. Aug. 15; Lucian Sacr. 13; Xen. Eph. Anthia 2.13; Ritner, Mechanics, 162–63; Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 185; Dandoy, Selinsky, and Voigt, “Celtic Sacrifice”; Euskirchen, “Celts: Religion,” 98).

Gilbert, “Propaganda,” 242–47, esp. 243. Although early Christians naturally drew this comparison (as noted Gilbert, “Propaganda,” 247, citing Justin 1 Apol. 21), Gilbert too readily plays down the more relevant comparison with Elijah (p. 246). On imperial apotheosis as ascent, see further Herz, “Emperors,” 314.

Scott, “Ascent,” 448–50 (citing Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagōgē, especially the heavenly enthronement in Ezek. Trag. Exag. 68–89; Philo Mos. 1.158; possibly 4Q491 [4QM^a] 11 I, 11–18); cf. 4Q374 in Fletcher-Louis, “4Q374.” Some suggest that 4Q491 11 I, 8–24 may also allude to a heavenly enthronement-deification of the Teacher of Righteousness (Laansma, “Mysticism,” 731).

See Talbert, “Concept of Immortals”; idem, Gospel, 39; Witherington, Acts, 109.

See Zwiep, Ascension, 194–95. The more hellenized versions may, however, apparently move more in this direction (Scott, “Ascent,” 448–50, noted above; cf. Fletcher-Louis, “4Q374”), but certainly these concepts are missing in the biblical accounts that are Luke’s clearest model.

Aune, “Problem of Genre,” 47–48; ancient Judaism did not link resurrection with enthronement (Allison, Jesus, 248, following Eskola, Messiah, 248). Strelan, Strange Acts, 47, also notes that Luke’s ascension account is theologically connected with Jesus’s parousia.

Borgman, Way, 257–58, intriguingly contrasts Jesus’s ascent with the Spirit’s descent. Unfortunately, neither text mentions a “descent”; the closest possible cases are the Spirit’s being “poured out” or “falling on” persons, but Luke does not take advantage of the possibility of a contrast between ascent and descent imagery, though it was available to him in Mark 1:10 (cf. Matt 3:16; Eph 4:9–10; in baptism, also Herm. 93.4, 6).

Strelan, Strange Acts, 38–39; cf., carefully, Pilch, Flights, 168–71.

One would probably not also think of a collective vision rather than individual ones, given the rareness of collective visions, unless they are experienced supernaturally. See discussion in Licona, “Historicity of Resurrection,” 136n196, 346–47; idem, Resurrection, 484–85, 573–74; personal correspondence, April 25, 2010; though for the possibility, see O’Connell, “Hallucinations,” 75–83.

Strelan, Strange Acts, 39, cites this usage; but apart from Acts 10:4; 11:6 and possibly 7:55 (we should not think the Sanhedrin experiences a vision in 6:15), the other uses are not visionary; many of the others are in miracle contexts, but this is not the case for Luke 4:20; 22:56; or Acts 23:1. The parallel with Acts 7:55 might help, however, since Stephen is the only person present to see the exalted Son of Man.

Strelan, Strange Acts, 39–42, connects the angels to visions. An angel appears in a vision in Acts 10:3, but in 12:9 Peter thinks that his experience with an angel is merely visionary, yet is proved wrong; the claim that the women at the tomb saw a “vision of angels” in Luke 24:23 comes from the mouths of skeptical reporters in the narrative world. Thus one may conclude at most that this is one possible way to read the text (as well as the history behind it).

Lüdemann, Christianity, 30.

For one sample application, see, e.g., Mulloor, “Ascension.”

Dunn, Acts, 13.

Benoit, Jesus, 1:209–53; as already noted, this exaltation on the same day does not leave enough time for the sorts of intimate encounter provided in the Gospels’ resurrection narratives.

Robinson, “Ascendancy.” Transcending a heavenly/earthly dichotomy, cf. Sleeman, Geography, drawing on Edward W. Soja’s conception of thirdspace. Green, “Acts,” 737, cites “visions of enthronement.” Although these might appear esp. in the apocalyptic genre, there is no reason in principle to exclude descriptions of apocalyptists’ visionary experiences in historical narrative (few other historical narratives have occasion to depict mystics and apocalyptists).

Lincoln, Ephesians, 20; cf. Lincoln, Paradise.

Cf. Stempvoort, “Interpretation of Ascension,” 38. Marguerat, Actes, 50–51, notes that early iconography interpreted Luke’s graphic depiction literally. Historians often included what they recognized as myths, but from the primeval past and often with remarks about their skepticism (see discussion in our introduction, ).

One might argue that he has done this especially to bring out the parallel with Elijah; but to this argument it could also be objected (on the basis of Luke’s preference for John as Elijah, above) that this parallel stems from Luke’s material itself, as reported by Jewish Christians who had long contemplated the event’s significance.

Lüdemann, Christianity, 30. Lüdemann’s response may rightly counter convenient suggestions that Luke would not care “what actually happened” (Strelan, Strange Acts, 35, though right that Luke’s interpretation is more significant); such lack of concern might fit a foundation myth whose sources were obscure and ancient, but not a recent event.

This is true even when they occur in historians, e.g., in Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. (on which see, e.g., Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 162).

Cf., e.g., the view among traditional Shilluk that their hero-founder “disappeared” into immortality (Mbiti, Religions, 250).

E.g., Eurip. Iph. Aul. 1608, 1614, 1622; Plut. Cam. 33.7; Eunapius Lives 468. Deities could come in disguise, then vanish (Virg. Aen. 9.657–58; perhaps Gen 18:33); Greek deities also could cause invisibility (e.g., Aristoph. Acharn. 390; Soph. Inachus frg. 8, 26 [SPap 3:24–25]; Apollod. Bib. 2.4.2), and when they did so, mortals could not make themselves visible again until the deities wished (Virg. Aen. 1.579–81, 586–87; cf. Hom. Od. 7.143; 13.352; 16.167–79).

Goulder, Type and History, 182–83.

E.g., the ascensions of Moses and Ezra in some Jewish traditions depend heavily on the explicit biblical ascension account of Elijah.

See, e.g., Keener, Matthew, 137; Teeple, Prophet, 75–76; Dunn, Baptism, 30; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 76; Albright and Mann, Matthew, 36; Collins, “Temptation”; Meier, Vision, 59–61; Gundry, Matthew, 53; France, Matthew, 98; Stegner, “Temptation Narrative.” On Matt 2, Keener, Matthew, 107–9; on Moses analogies in Matthew, see esp. Allison, Moses.

For sign prophets, see discussion in, e.g., Galley, “Heilige”; cf. also biblical models in Eve, Miracles, 115–16, 324. The rabbinic rainmaking sages, Honi and Hanina, also seem to have followed Elijah’s example (cf. 1 Kgs 18:44–45); Elijah also served as a model for some subsequent Christian miracle workers (see Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 20).

Goulder, Type and History, 182–83.

Cf. Zwiep, Ascension, 189–90, rightly doubting whether this source antedates Luke. Naturally, later sources recount the ascension (e.g., Gr. Anth. 1.19).

See Keener, John, 1192–95. Similarly, Homer’s Iliad predicts Achilles’s death without narrating it (e.g., 21.110; 23.80–81; for other examples of this literary technique, see Keener, John, 1194–95).

Zwiep, Ascension, 189, doubts the relevance of 1 Tim 3:16 and (more reasonably) Rev 12:5 because “ascension language is often used in the context of the resurrection-exaltation paradigm, which for this reason cannot be taken as evidence.” But this doubt is circular; would not the claim of Jesus’s exaltation itself constitute “evidence”? Rev 12:5 may allude to Jesus’s exaltation by way of the cross (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11).

Also in second-century writers, e.g., Barn. 15.9; Papias frg. 3.10.

Cf. also the tradition that Jesus originally came from heaven (Rom 10:6; 1 Cor 15:47; cf. Eph 4:9; John 3:13). On the ascending-descending motif in early Christology, see Longenecker, “Christological Motifs,” 542–44; Christology, 58–62; cf. Keener, John, 561–63 (cf. 162–63). For Jesus’s enthronement and exaltation in early Christianity, see, e.g., deSilva, “Exaltation”; Allison, Jesus, 247–51.

Similarly Larkin, Acts, 38; Witherington, Acts, 112 (adding Justin 1 Apol. 50). For various views regarding pre-Lukan tradition and redaction in the ascension narrative, see Bovon, Theologian, 170–77.

Cf. Goppelt, Times, 18, who views the ascension as “basically the symbolic conclusion of one appearance which stood for the end of the Easter appearances.”

Talbert, Patterns, 113, rightly observes Luke’s emphasis on corporeality (whether or not one accepts antidocetic polemic there, as also in idem, Luke and Gnostics; arguing for the polemic in Luke’s Gospel, see also Patterns, 116–19).

Zwiep, Ascension, 192–93.

Likely from Porphyry; see Hoffmann, Porphyry’s Against Christians, 68.

Sil. It. 9.488; cf. Job 22:14; Ps 18:11.

Sil. It. 9.484–85; cf. Plut. Cam. 33.7. Also, a deity could shroud one in a frightening cloud to terrify enemies (Hom. Il. 18.205–6).

Apollod. Bib. 2.7.7. Parsons, Acts, 27, adds other texts for a cloud in ascensions.

2 En. 31:1–2 J (probably much later than Acts). Also the late Gr. Ezra 5:7, where a cloud (νεφέλη) snatched (ἥρίασεν) Ezra up to heaven. Johnson, Acts, 27, cites Enoch in 2 En. 3:1; the new Moses and Elijah of Rev 11:12; and Jesus in Epistula apostolorum 51. Parsons, Acts, 27, adds Test. Ab. 8:3; 10:2; 12:1, 9 (but these appear only in the possibly later B recension).

Also noted by others in connection with Acts 1:9; e.g., Cadbury, “Eschatology,” 309 (who also emphasizes it as parousia imagery from Dan 7:13 forward); Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 9; Johnson, Acts, 27; Le Cornu, Acts, 27; Marguerat, Actes, 47. Moses is elsewhere associated with the cloud of glory (Exod 19:9; 20:21; 24:15–18; 33:9; 40:35; Ps 99:7; 1 Cor 10:2; 4Q377 1 II, 10); concealment of one’s taking to heaven appears later in 2 En. 67:1–3.

Also Test. Ab. 9:8–10:1 A; 8:3; 10:2; 12:1 B. God controls clouds like the way he controls lightning in Enochic theology (cf. angelic names in 1 En. 6:7; 41:3); Pesiq. Rab. 1:3 claims that someday clouds will carry Israelites to Jerusalem every Sabbath; God’s host (probably angels) could be compared with clouds (1QM XII, 9). Stempvoort, “Interpretation of Ascension,” 38, thinks Luke’s description refers not to “a fog cloud hiding a mystery but a royal chariot” (though he doubts a connection to Elijah’s ascension in a chariot in 2 Kgs 2:9–12 because it lacks a cloud).

Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 9 (citing 2 Kgs 2:11; Dan 7:13; 1 En. 39:3; 1 Thess 4:17; Rev 1:7; Mark 13:26; 14:62; and esp. Jos. Ant. 4.326).

Haenchen, Acts, 149 (citing only Livy 1.16.1; 1 En. 39:3).

Albright, Yahweh, 125; see, e.g., ANET 130 (Baal III AB A), 131, 132, 137.

See also Parsons, Departure, 172, noting that both occurred on mountains (Luke 9:28; Acts 1:12); Arrington, Acts, 11. Note also the two men, Elijah and Moses, there (Ehrman, Introduction, 137).

For Moses motifs in the transfiguration, see Moses, Transfiguration Story, passim, e.g., 84–85; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:695; Keener, Matthew, 435–37. Comparison with Moses’s glory was a key biblical allusion for early Christians (see, e.g., Keener, John, 405–26; idem, Corinthians, 168–70).

See Flender, Theologian, 93; Cadbury, “Eschatology,” 309.

With, e.g., Bruce, Commentary, 41; Minear, Hope, 119–21. Cf. Test. Ab. 9:8 A (where νεφέλην φωτός is a cherubim chariot).

Cf. the messianic figure who flies with the clouds of heaven in 4 Ezra 13:2.

The heavens were a realm of glory (as the realm of stars, or lights, along with clouds, 1QM X, 12). Cf. God speaking through a cloud, e.g., Test. Job 42:3 (OTP 1:861)/42:2 (Kraft, 74) (cf. Job 38:1).

E.g., ʾAbot R. Nat. 38 A; Sipra Qed. pq. 8.205.2.1; par. 4.206.2.6; Sipre Deut. 258.2.3; 320.2.1; b. Ber. 5b; Roš Haš. 31a; Šabb. 33a; 139a; Yebam. 64a, bar.; Yoma 21b; y. Sanh. 8:8, §1; Deut. Rab. 5:10; 6:14; Ruth Rab. 1:2; cf. Sipre Num. 1.10.3; so with Wisdom (Wis 1:4; 6:12–25, esp. 6:23; cf. Wis 7:25–26; Babr. 126). The Shekinah was progressively banished from, and then reinvited to, earth (ʾAbot R. Nat. 34 A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:1; Gen. Rab. 19:7; Song Rab. 5:1, §1); because of sin, his tabernacle or temple was necessary to bring his presence (Pesiq. Rab. 7:4). For the Shekinah’s continuing with Israel even when the nation sins, see Abelson, Immanence, 135–42.

Especially on the clouds of glory in the wilderness or revealed to Moses, Sipre Deut. 305.3.1; 313.3.1; 355.6.1; Gen. Rab. 60:16; Exod. Rab. 45:5; Num. Rab. 19:20; Song Rab. 4:5, §2; 7:6, §1; cf. Pesiq. Rab. 10:2 on a later period.

Twelve of fourteen uses in the NT; in the Apostolic Fathers, it is similarly clustered only in 1 Clem. 7.4; 9.2; 17.2; 19.2; 36.2.

Parsons, Departure, 182, citing the technique of “defamiliarization.” Idem, Acts, 28, compares the mild implied reproof with that in Acts 1:7–8. González, Months, 15, suggests that they are redirected to their mission on earth (as in Acts 1:7–8), a contrast with the practice of some (2 Thess 3:11).

Perhaps such questions also recalled a relevant cultural way of expressing encouragement in these cases.

Their gender reflects Luke’s narrative connections among these figures, as well as tradition, which might in turn reflect expectations for most angelic messengers (cf., e.g., Gen 19:1, 5; Judg 13:6, 8). Complaints against gender exclusivity here (Beck, “Women,” 281) are therefore misplaced if directed primarily at Luke (see comment on ), since the exclusivity is rooted in a broader cultural tradition.

Also Tannehill, Acts, 19 (suggesting that in this way the apostles experience a “vision of angels” like the women in Luke 24:23). Luke might shape the account in Luke 24 to fit the present narrative; Mark 16:5 mentions just one man (Luke may have an additional source, but note at least the similarity between Mark 16:6 and Luke 24:6).

Johnson, Acts, 27, who also thinks that this link fits the earlier ascensions of Moses and Elijah (2 Kgs 2:11–12; Philo Mos. 2.291; cf. Deut 34:6); cf. Ehrman, Introduction, 137. Some think that Elijah and Moses there stand for the Law and Prophets (cf. Origen Comm. Matt. 12:38; Augustine Sermons on New Testament Lessons (SSGF 2:63) [both in Oden and Hall, Mark, 119–20]; Taylor, Mark, 390; Montefiore, Gospels, 1:207), so that “hear him” (Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35) places Jesus higher than the OT, or that they function as harbingers of the end (Moule, Mark, 70; Young, Jewish Theologian, 208); most important, a new Moses and Elijah were expected (Deut 18:15–19; Mal 4:4–5), and Mark’s narrative presents each (Mark 9:7, 12; cf. Matt 17:5, 12–13).

Johnson, Acts, 31; followed by Wall, “Acts,” 43–44.

In some passages, angels could look like people (e.g., Gen 18:2 with 19:1, 15; Tob 5:4; 2 En. 20:1–2; Gen. Rab. 50:2; Pesiq. Rab. 20:4; Rev 21:17; cf. Judg 13:6–8; Ezek 40:3), as could (in fewer texts) demons (b. Giṭ. 66a). Angels also functioned as God’s messengers in Scripture, as they do here; they appear in pairs in Gen 19:1; John 20:12. Cf. Matt 28:2–7.

So also Brown, Death, 300.

White or linen in 1 En. 71:1; 87:2; 90:31–33; 2 Macc 3:26; 11:8; L.A.B. 9:10; Rev 15:6; Jannes and Jambres fragments in P.Beatty 16; clothed in glory in 1 En. 71:1; 3 Macc 6:18. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 9, also cite 2 Macc 11:8; Herm. Vis. 4.2.1–5; Sim. 8.2–3.

On linen, see briefly Wild, “Linen.”

Cosgrave, History of Costume, 20; on linen in Greco-Roman world, see, e.g., Pekridou-Gorecki, “Linen”; we have some apparently first-century linen from Qumran (Taylor et al., “Textiles”). On preparing flax for linen, see Pliny E. N.H. 19.3.16–18; on various kinds of linens, 19.4.19–21; the heavier wool was also often white (8.73.190).

Croom, Clothing, 26.

E.g., Paus. 9.39.8; Ovid. Her. 4.71 (Eleusinian rituals); Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.19 (shrine of Trophonius); cf. Ramsay, Letters, 386; Croom, Clothing, 70 (for Roman togas), 71 (Isis’s priests wearing linen); Eurip. Bacch. 112; Livy 27.37.11–12; 40.51.3; Acts John 38; Egyptian priests in Plut. Isis 3–4, Mor. 352C; App. C.W. 4.6.47; Apul. Metam. 11.10, 23; worshipers in Ovid Metam. 1.747; Paus. 2.35.5; 6.20.3; Pythagoras in Diod. Sic. 10.9.6; Diog. Laert. 8.1.33; Hipponax frg. 65; Athen. Deipn. 4.149d; SEG 11.923 in Sherk, Empire, 58. For clean or special garments for sacred festivals, cf., e.g., Libanius Descr. 29.3.

Jos. War 2.1; Ant. 11.327. Jos. Ant. 20.216–18 limits linen to the priests (against Agrippa II’s allowance for Levites); priests were to wear linen to prevent sweat (Ezek 44:18). Croom, Clothing, 131, suggests that Judean men often wore white and notes the same (p. 132) for Egypt (though most of the evidence is from funerary settings, this preference makes good sense in a hot climate).

Iambl. V.P. 28.153, 155; whether linen, as in V.P. 21.100; 28.149, or wool, replaced in later times with linen, as in Diog. Laert. 8.1.19.

Cf. Mithras in PGM 4.635–38; cf. 4.698–99.

E.g., “Black Aphrodite” (Engels, Roman Corinth, 97–98).

Croom, Clothing, 28.

Cf. Hom. Il. 1.103; Ovid Metam. 2.832; Pont. 2.5.37–38; Marc. Aur. 4.28; 4Q183 II, 4–8 (possibly also 4Q185 1–2 II, 6–7); 4Q544 1 10–14; 2 3–5 (both depicting the ruler of darkness); 4Q548 1 10–15; Sil. It. 11.548; Dupont, Life, 260; perhaps Albrile, “Colore.” Black functions negatively in Aeschylus Seven 832–33 (a terrible, “black curse”); Ovid Fasti 1.58 (inauspicious); Marc. Aur. 4.28. Athenians used white ballots for acquittal, black for a death sentence (Plut. Alc. 22.2). Cf. the Pythagorean use of white in Iambl. V.P. 28.149; also 28.153 (against the laziness of sleep), 155 (even worn to funerals). But black was also used for wall decorations (Vitruv. Arch. 7.10.1–4).

E.g., Eurip. Alc. 216, 427; Aristoph. Frogs 1337; Isaeus Nicost. 7; Lysias Or. 13.40, §133; Ovid Metam. 8.777–78; Val. Max. 1.7.7; 2.4.5; Sen. E. Controv. 10.1.1, 4; Plut. Alex. 49.3; Apollod. Epit. 1.7, 10; Sil. It. 11.257–58; Tac. Ann. 3.2; Paus. 1.22.5; Philost. Hrk. 31.9; 53.9, 11, 17; Hdn. 4.2.3; Jos. Asen. 10:8–9/10; 14:12; cf. Dupont, Life, 260; Llewellyn-Jones, Tortoise, 306; Hurschmann, “Mourning dress.” Those on trial also wore black (b. Roš Haš. 1:3, §27; Ramsay, Letters, 387); death is regularly dark (e.g., Hom. Il. 5.22, 47, 310; cf. Od. 11.32–33; death as “black” in Statius Theb. 4.528; the Styx in Lycophron Alex. 705.

E.g., b. Roš Haš. 1:3, §27; Ovid Tristia 5.5.8. Gregory the Great Homilies 21 opines that the angel came in white because of joy (Oden and Hall, Mark, 243). But people might prefer either white or dark wool (Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 3.25.4). The burial clothes of the righteous were white in Judaism (L.A.B. 64:6; cf. Test. Ab. 20:10 A; L.A.E. 48:1; Apoc. Mos. 40:1–3; b. Ber. 18b). Greeks also buried corpses in white (Klauck, Context, 72). Romans mourned in white (Plut. Rom. Q. 26, Mor. 270D) and buried in white (270DE).

One returning from death might be thought to wear white (Lucian Peregr. 40).

Cf. Hesiod W.D. 154–55; Aeschlyus Eum. 745 (the Furies spring from Night); Ovid Am. 1.8.3–8 (night as the time for witchcraft); Philost. Hrk. 33.6 (white associated with the sun god); Lucan C.W. 6.624; Philo thinks black the absence of light and white (Creation 29; Abr. 10). Ephraim Isaac, an Ethiopian translator of 1 Enoch, points out that in 1 En. 85:3, white suggests the image of purity in Ethiopic (OTP 1:63n85e; see also 1 En. 87:2).

See, e.g., Walde, “Nyx,” 932. Given the inability to see far and the suspicion that subversive activity or crimes that no one should see were most frequent at night, the association of evil with darkness is not surprising. On light and darkness imagery in antiquity, see Keener, John, 382–87.

White is associated positively with the spirit world in some traditional African societies (Mbiti, Religions, 73, 277; Isichei, History, 64; Beattie and Middleton, “Introduction,” xxiii–xxiv; Beattie, “Mediumship,” 160–61; black is for death in Shoko, Religion, 40). This is true also of many Islamic societies, though not always before the advent of Islam (Abdalla, “Friend,” 43; there are, however, ethnic connections occasionally, as in Kenyon, “Zar,” 111–12, on Sudanese spirits). Witchcraft is associated with night (Fape, Powers, 103; cf. Rosny, Healers). Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.19 associates Indians’ preference for black with their dark complexion, but is clear that this is his own guess.

Although familiar as a Semitic expression, it is acceptable Koine (e.g., Epict. Diatr. 3.24.75; 4.8.31). It appears rarely (eight times) in Paul, four times in John, seven times in Mark, but twenty-five times in the more Semitic syntax of Revelation and nearly sixty times in Matthew, who employs it most abundantly.

See Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 88; Anderson, Glossary, 102.

Soards, Speeches, 25. For the frequency of such an address (“Men . . . ”) in ancient rhetoric, see comment on , 22. “Galileans” designates their place of origin and is not a title for Christians per se (Cadbury, “Names for Christians,” 387, noting that usage only in Epict. Diatr. 4.7.6; Julian the Apostate).

Vander Stichele, “Gender,” 314, notes that the women of 1:14 are framed by addresses to “men” in Acts 1:11, 16; because the public sphere was an especially male arena, Luke emphasizes male messengers (following D’Angelo, “ANHP Question,” 52; cf. similarly Seim, Double Message, 162).

Predicted in the cognate in Luke 9:51; the verb probably bears this sense also in 1 Tim 3:16.

This is not the most common use of ὑίολαμβάνω, but Luke did not invent it for a wordplay (cf. Jos. Ant. 11.238 in BDAG).

The omission of “into the heaven” in D is probably not significant for the earliest text, given Luke’s repetition of the phrase (Haenchen, Acts, 150; less certainly, Metzger, Textual Commentary, 283); in context, its omission can hardly change the sense, in any case. Certainly, the ascension belongs in the text (Zwiep, “Text”).

E.g., Val. Flacc. 1.498; Libanius Narration 7.2; though classical Greek mythology (as opposed to Hellenistic philosophy) emphasized Olympus more.

E.g., Dan 4:26; 3 Macc 4:21; 1 En. 6:2; 1QM XII, 5; Rom 1:18; Luke 15:18; m. ʾAb. 1:3; t. B. Qam. 7:5; Sipra Behuq. pq. 6.267.2.1; 79.1.1; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 18a; Moʾed Qaṭ. 17a; B. Qam. 76a; Pesaḥ. 66b; Taʿan. 14b; Diod. Sic. 40.3.4; Num. Rab. 7:5; 8:4; Ruth Rab. 7:1; Eccl. Rab. 7:8, §1; 9:12. See also comment on “kingdom of heaven” in the excursus on kingdom of God at Acts 1:3.

Aune, Revelation, 318 (citing, e.g., Cleomedes 1.8–9; Ptolemy Mathematica syntaxis 1.3; Arist. Heav. 2.13, 292ab; Theon Progymn. 148.6–7; Philo Conf. 5; Cher. 22).

See, e.g. (among many other possible examples), Cic. Tusc. 1.19.43; 1.31.75; Resp. 6.14.14; 6.26.29; Cercidas frg. 1; Sen. Y. Dial. 11.9.3; 12.11.6; Plut. Isis 78, Mor. 382F–383A; Max. Tyre 10.2–3; Heraclitus Ep. 5; Aune, “Duality,” 228–30; 2 Cor 4:17–18; souls were by nature (in this view) heavenly (e.g., Virg. Aen. 6.728–34; Mus. Ruf. 18A, p. 112.24–25; Plut. Isis 78, Mor. 382F; Face M. 28, Mor. 943A; Exile 17, Mor. 607D). Heroes would surely live in heaven (Virg. Aen. 9.641; Ecl. 5.56–57, 64; Val. Max. 9.3.ext. 1; Sil. It. 3.137; Eunapius Lives 469), and some others also expected to go there after death (Cic. Resp. 6.26.29; Virg. Georg. 4.226–27; Ovid Metam. 15.875–76; Lucan C.W. 9.1–9; Fronto Nep. am. 2.8; Plot. Enn. 3.4.6; Hdn. 1.5.6).

See, e.g., Val. Flacc. 3.378–82; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 73.15; Herc. fur. 959; especially for “great” persons (Virg. Ecl. 9.47; Ovid Metam. 15.749, 843–51); cf. Plato Tim. 41E. Though most common in Roman sources, it also appears in some Jewish sources (2 Bar. 51:10; cf. 4 Macc 17:5; perhaps a play on this in 1 Cor 15:41). Although Cumont, After Life, 91–109, overemphasized astral immortality, he did not invent the notion.

Cf., e.g., Test. Sol. 2:3; Exod. Rab. 21:5; Eph 2:2; Bagatti, Church, 283–84; Daniélou, Theology, 191–92; such sources also attribute wings to angels and demons (ʾAbot R. Nat. 37 A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:1; b. Ḥag. 16a, bar.; Giṭ. 68b; Num. Rab. 12:3; Deut. Rab. 6:6; cf. also 1 En. 61:1; 2 En. 1:5; 3:1; 4:2; 16:7; 19:6; 72:9; 3 En. 9:3; 18:25; 41:3; 47:4; Test. Sol. 2:3; 25:3; Incant. Text 17.2; 43.6–7; Apoc. Sed. 2:4). Literary demonology becomes more dominant in third-century and later sources, but it probably reflects some ideas circulating on a popular level earlier, especially in Parthia, Syria, and Egypt. For many of the spirits invoked in magic, see, e.g., PGM 1.179–80; 4.3043–44; 12.67; for other spirits (or departed souls) in the air, see, e.g., Plato Epin. 984DE; Stoics, in Cic. Nat. d. 2.6.17; Philo Conf. 174; Giants 9; Dreams 1.135; Max. Tyre 9.6; 10.2; 11.12; Pythagoras in Diog. Laert. 8.1.32. Cf. also the heavenly angels of the nations (comment on Acts 16:9).

Gr. Anth. 1.19 (late); Daniélou, Theology, 191; Barth, Ephesians, 1:170; esp. work by W. Dalton (although his presentation of Jesus as the new Enoch goes too far; Dalton, “Victory”; idem, Proclamation; “Proclamation”; “Proclamatio”; “Interpretation”). Jesus’s victorious ascent might also resemble Moses’s ascent to take the Torah despite angelic opposition (on which see, e.g., Schultz, “Angelic Opposition”), though again this image predominates in later sources.

Jesus’s name is supreme over demons in Acts (Acts 16:18; 19:13–15), but Jesus expelled demons before his ascension (Luke 4:35–36, 41; 6:18; 7:21; 8:2, 29–33; 9:42; 11:14, 20; 13:11–13, 32; cf. 9:1; 10:17, 20). Luke employs the same text as in Eph 1:20–22, but in a sense, Jesus’s enemies are not yet under his feet (Acts 2:35). Luke does not explicitly address Jesus’s triumph over the powers through the ascension. (Luke does emphasize Christ as exalted judge; Acts 10:42; 17:31.)

Sleeman, Geography, 77.

E.g., Test. Ab. 20:12 A; 7:13 B (ἀναλαμβανέσαι; and figuratively, ἀναβαίνοντα); 14:7 B (ἦρεν); see comment above on souls ascending.

E.g., (later) Porph. Marc. 7.131–34; 16.267–68; 26.415–16. The Platonic tradition allowed this through contemplation of the divine (see, e.g., Philo Spec. Laws 3.1–2, 6; Plut. Isis 77, Mor. 382D; Max. Tyre 11.9–10; 26.1; 38.3; cf. Winston, “Philo’s Mysticism”); cf. the goal of divine vision in Jewish mysticism (e.g., Arbel, “Understanding”). Jewish mysticism noted dangers if one was not properly prepared for the ascent (e.g., Scholem, Gnosticism, 14–15; Lieber, “Angels”; cf. earlier Egyptian postmortem dangers in Egyptian Book of the Dead [Allen, 9, Sp. 7; 123–37, Sp. 145–46]).

See Segal, “Ascent in Judaism” (though he employs structuralist models, 1337–40), where postmortem examples predominate.

The cloud is the clearest allusion to the parousia here (also found in 1 Thess 4:17; Rev 1:7; Mark 14:62); the idea of an earlier coming “alone” (so Strombeck, Rapture, 27) does not appear in the context and violates the allusion to Zech 14:5 in Acts 1:12 and the meaning of the cloud allusion (Dan 7:13; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27; cf. Luke 22:69).

Given the later gnostic and Neoplatonic challenge, it is hardly surprising that patristic sources often emphasize Jesus’s bodily return, as he left bodily; so, e.g., Chrys. Hom. Acts 2; Hom. 2 Cor. 11.3; Aug. Tract. Jn. 21.13.2–4; Bede Comm. Acts 1.11B (Martin, Acts, 11–12). This emphasis could account for the inclusion of Luke 24:40 in most witnesses, although it also has early attestation.

Cf. also Zech 14:8 as one of the key elements behind John 7:37–39 (see Keener, John, 725–26, noting also the context in t. Suk. 3:18; Dodd, Interpretation, 350; Hunter, John, 84–85; Schnackenburg, John, 2:155).

Gaventa, Acts, 67 (citing idem, “Eschatology Revisited,” 37; Carroll, Response to End, 126–27). The ascension confirms the certainty of the parousia (Faure, Pentecôte, 82).

Gaventa, Acts, 27. See discussion of Luke’s eschatology, above.

The phenomenon was hardly unknown in antiquity; for one example from Luke’s general era, Nero impostors arose in the years following his demise (Tac. Hist. 1.2, 2.8-9; Suet. Nero 57.2; Dio Cass. 66.19.3; probably Dio Chrys. Or. 21.9–10).

Cf., more negatively, “this Nazarene, Jesus” in 6:14.

↑ Back to top