5. See Malina and Pilch, Acts , 23.

5. See Malina and Pilch, Acts , 23.

Johnson, Acts, 39, comparing twelve leaders (1QS VIII, 1; Acts 1:26), psalms applied in light of their experience (4QpPs^a II, 6–25 [Ps 37]; Acts 1:20), sharing possessions (1QS V, 1–3; CD X, 18–20; Acts 2:44–45), and decisions by lots (1QS V, 3; VI, 16; Acts 1:26), though other Jews applied psalms and utopian communities shared possessions.

Johnson, Acts, 38. To be sure, the prediction of Acts 1:11 cannot follow immediately.

Cf. David preparing in faith for the temple that could only be built by his successor (cf. 1 Chr 28:11–19; 29:1–5; 2 Chr 2:7), or Jeremiah preparing for Judah’s restoration (Jer 32:6–15).

For various views concerning leadership structures and models in Acts, see, e.g., discussions in Zettner, Amt; Clarke, “Imitators”; and works cited in this commentary at relevant passages.

See Malina and Pilch, Acts, 23.

Apparently he was too tidy in Acts 15:33, requiring editorial clarification in 15:34!

Because of its olive presses, the mountain also could be called “the mountain of anointing” (e.g., b. Pesaḥ. 14a).

Parsons, Departure, 196, notes the allusion to the triumphal entry (Luke 19:29, 37), so that here, as with Bethany in Luke 19:29; 24:50, Jesus’s “Triumphal Exit” recalls his triumphal entry (though he emphasizes Luke 22:39 more).

Various commentators note the connection, e.g., Lake, “Ascension,” 22 (who cites also a rabbinic tradition on Ezek 11:23); Haenchen, Acts, 150. Cf. eschatological acts at this mountain in Test. Naph. 5:1; other eschatological mountains in 1 En. 24:2–3 (especially where he will judge, in 25:3); Rev 21:10. Parsons, Acts, 27, notes many ancient parallels to mountains as sites for ascensions (e.g., Lucian Hermot. 7; Apollod. Bib. 2.7.7; Diod. Sic. 3.60.3), presumably because they were considered closer to heaven. Kurzinger, Apostelgeschichte, 11, adds to Zech 14 mention of Ezek 11:23 (in which the mountain east of Jerusalem is the next holiest site).

Barrett, Acts, 1025.

Luke elsewhere offers estimates of distance, e.g., “about a stone’s throw” (Luke 22:41, which does not refer to the proximity of danger by slingers!).

Johnson, Acts, 33. Although passages such as this show Luke’s knowledge of Jerusalem (Hemer, Acts in History, 108), Luke generally records distances only to make a specific point, as in Luke 24:13 (see Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 47). For strict observance of these limits, see, e.g., m. ʿErub. 4:1–11. But “domains” could extend such limits; see, e.g., t. Šabb. 1:3; b. Sukkah 44b; b. Maʿaś. 2:3; in one later apocryphal account, one disciple learned how to include all Galilee within the Sabbath limit (y. ʿErub. 5:1). Some later interpreters applied the Sabbath day’s journey allegorically (Bede Comm. Acts 1.12B; Martin, Acts, 13).

For days, e.g., Gen 7:4, 12, 17; 8:6; Num 13:25; 14:34; 1 Sam 17:16; Ezek 4:6; Jonah 3:4; Tob 1:21; 2 Macc 5:2; 3 Macc 4:15; 6:38. Elsewhere, e.g., 2 Bar. 76:4; 3 Bar. 4:14; 4 Ezra 14:23, 36, 43–45; Jos. Ant. 14.476; 18.272; War 1.305; 4.56. Most relevant are Moses’s forty days on the mountain (Exod 24:18; 34:28; Deut 9:9, 11, 18, 25; 10:10; 4Q364 frg. 15.2; frg. 26bi.10; Jub. 1:4; Jos. Ant. 3.95, 99; Ag. Ap. 2.25; Philo Dreams 1.36; Mos. 2.69–70).

This depended, however, on how one counted the days; see m. Ḥag. 2:4; cf. b. Menaḥ. 65a.

Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 10; Witherington, Acts, 113.

E.g., m. ʿErub. 4:3; 5:7–9; Soṭah 5:3–14. The figures were natural extrapolations from Exod 16:29 (one must not leave one’s place on the Sabbath) and Num 35:5 (identifying one’s place as 2,000 cubits square; cf. Kurzinger, Apostelgeschichte, 11).

Conzelmann, Acts, 9 (citing Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2:590–94); Barrett, Acts, 85 (citing Mek. on Exod 16:29 and later sources for the Sabbath day’s journey); Le Cornu, Acts, 29 (citing m. ʿErub. 4:3; 5:7; b. ʿErub. 51a); also b. ʿErub. 45a. Finegan, Archeology of New Testament, 96, translates as 900 meters (see also Schille, Apostelgeschichte, 75, for 880 meters for the Sabbath day’s journey and 900 meters for Josephus’s estimate of the mountain’s distance from the city). The oft-mentioned divergence between the two estimates in Josephus is minimal (compare also John 11:18 with Luke 19:29; 24:50); one should not think that he or his sources measured the distance exactly, as for mile markers on Roman roads. Further, Mount Olivet is large, and one could measure the distance to more than one point on it (Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 46).

CD X, 21; XI, 5–6; 4Q265 7 II, 5–6; see Barrett, Acts, 85. Sadducees likely disagreed with the Pharisaic system of erub (Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 81).

Fitzmyer, Acts, 213. Luke 24:50 may read “over against” Bethany; cf. Carter and Earle, Acts, 14; Bruce, Commentary, 42.

I have adapted this material from Keener, John, 641–43.

In addition to biblical warrant in the creation narrative, later tradition provided another sign in creation, a river that flowed only on the Sabbath (e.g., Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 33:10); Jewish people also kept a Sabbatic year (Lev 25:4–5; Neh 10:31; Safrai, “Religion,” 825–27; probable numismatic evidence in Pfann, “Coinage”; t. Ter. 10:10; y. Šeb. 8:2, §7; Tac. Hist. 5.4).

Y. Ned. 3:9, §3; cf. Lev. Rab. 3:1. The rabbis regularly extolled the Sabbath (e.g., Gen. Rab. 10:9–11:10; Pesiq. Rab. 23:7–8); some even said the Messiah would come if all Israel kept the Sabbath together (Exod. Rab. 25:12).

Josephus affirmed Sabbath keeping and denigrated, in his narrative, Jews whom he portrayed as failing to observe it (see Weiss, “Sabbath in Josephus”).

Second-century rabbis also expected at least some children to study Torah under a teacher on Friday evenings (Safrai, “Education,” 954, cites m. Šabb. 1:3; t. Šabb. 1:12).

In rabbinic tradition, joy became a central characteristic of celebrating the Sabbath (Gen. Rab. 100:7).

E.g., t. Ketub. 1:1; b. Šabb. 12b; see further Westerholm and Evans, “Sabbath,” 1031–32. Keeping it was meritorious (e.g., later, Pesiq. Rab. 52:4), just as disobeying it was a grievous sin (Jub. 1:10).

One could also kill a threatening animal (y. Šabb. 14:1, §2); other peoples had also observed holy days that disallowed offensive warfare (e.g., Xen. Hell. 6.4.16; Thucyd. 5.54.2–4; 5.75.5; 5.82.2–3; 8.9.1; Ovid Fasti 3.811–12). (On war’s necessitating reinterpretation of the Sabbath laws, see Nikiprowetzky, “Sabbat.”)

b. Pesaḥ. 6:2 (Akiba); t. Pisha 5:1; with regard to warfare, Jos. Life 159, 161. The later practice of a Sabbath goy (cf., e.g., Deut. Rab. 1:21; for sheep tending, t. Šeb. 2:20; y. Šeb. 3:3, 34c) would not have been viewed favorably (CD XI, 2; m. Šabb. 16:8; t. Šabb. 13:9; cf. Exod 20:10; Deut 5:14).

Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 13; cf. Falk, Jesus, 149, on t. Šabb. 17:14; see further, e.g., m. Yoma 8:6; t. Šabb. 12:12–13; y. ʿErub. 10:11; Maʿaś. Š. 2:1, §4; Šabb. 6:3; further discussion in Keener, Matthew, 357–58. Later rabbis preferred death to Sabbath violation if, to pagans, the latter would imply apostasy (b. Sanh. 74b).

Le Cornu, Acts, 716, citing b. Pesaḥ. 68b. The Sabbath should be joyful (y. Ber. 2:6, §3), as festivals normally were (e.g., Dion. Hal. Epid. 1.255; for joy during festivals, see further comment on Acts 2:1).

E.g., y. Meg. 1:6, §2.

Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 18–19.

See CD X, 14–XI, 18, prohibiting talk of work (X, 19) and lifting dust (XI, 10–11); cf. Jos. War 2.147–49, prohibiting even defecation; Jub. 50:1–13 and comments in Finkelstein, Making, 205–11; 4Q251 frg. 1; 4Q265 7 I, 6–9); those who forgot the Sabbath were apostate (1Q22 I, 7–8; Jub. 1:10). Some scholars argue that the Scrolls represent broader Jewish tradition before Akiba (Kimbrough, “Sabbath”), but parallels in Philo may suggest that the more lenient customs, though not universal, predate the Tannaim (see Belkin, Philo, 192–203).

Contrast pagans who associated the Sabbath and fasting (e.g., Mart. Epig. 4.4.7; Suet. Aug. 76; Strabo 16.2.40; cf. further Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 70; Sevenster, Anti-Semitism, 130–32), perhaps confusing the Sabbath with Yom Kippur.

See Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 18; Sanders, Judaism, 367, citing CD XII, 3–6.

As laziness (e.g., Hor. Sat. 1.9.68–69; Juv. Sat. 14.96, 105–6; Tac. Hist. 5.4) and ridiculous superstition (e.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.47; see further Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 63ff.).

See, e.g., Apost. Const. 7.36.1–7 (OTP 2:682–83); CPJ 3:16, §457d. Others, of course, rejected the practice (e.g., Barn. 15.8; Ign. Magn. 9.1; Justin Dial. 10; Diogn. 4.1, 3).

E.g., Exod. Rab. 30:9 (recounting a purportedly late first- or, at the latest, early second-century C.E. episode, but the tradition is probably later); cf. b. Taʿan. 27b.

Though some argue that even these passages support continuing Sabbath observance (see Weiss, “Sabbath in Corpus”).

The Sabbath itself appears in the creation narrative and hence could have been construed as a universal expectation for humanity, including Gentiles (Gen 2:2–3), though the rabbis did not so construe it.

Barrett, Acts, 87 (citing the “periphrastic tense”).

See Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 6; Safrai, “Home,” 731 (also commenting on cases of joint ownership of the building, 730–31). In Roman homes, constructed to welcome and impress guests, decorations show that even upper floors were not purely private (Balch, “Families,” 265).

Blue, “Influence,” 480 (in n. 21 he suggests that homes in urban areas were probably about 3 percent). This extrapolates from cities that we know best, especially Rome; there may have been some regional variation. See further discussion at Acts 18:3; 20:8.

Upper stories in such tenements lacked plumbing and hence were often filthy (Carcopino, Life, 39–40), but upper stories are not “upper rooms” (despite the possible utility of some tenements’ long hallways; see comment on Acts 12:12–13; 20:8).

On the usual small size of upper rooms, see Jdt 8:5; more fully, Safrai, “Home,” 731.

Avigad, Jerusalem, 83, 139, 142; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 97. Upper-city Jerusalem’s mikvaot were very much like those found elsewhere (Sanders, Judaism, 222–29, esp. 223).

Bishop, Apostles, 32–33; Witherington, Acts, 211, following Blue, “House Church,” 119–22, esp. 131n44. For similar estimates in Corinth, varying according to the seating and the rooms used, see Jeffers, World, 81; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 156–57; Thiselton, Corinthians, 861 (twenty to thirty people could squeeze into a triclinium, or fifty into a large villa).

Lysias Or. 1.9 (in Murder of Eratosthenes), although this is a significantly earlier Greek source.

A house could have a second-floor triclinium (see the diagram in White, “Pater familias,” 461), but such a room was not meant to accommodate large numbers.

Some later traditions also speak of sages meeting in upper rooms as early as the time of Hillel the Elder (perhaps early first century); b. Soṭah 13:3; y. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:1, §2; Hor. 3:5, §3; Soṭah 9:16, §2. On the sages meeting in an upper chamber, see also Le Cornu, Acts, 30.

Also in b. Sanh. 11a; Soṭah 48b; y. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:1, §2; Hor. 3:5, §3; Soṭah 9:16, §2.

E.g., b. Ber. 37a; Soṭah 48b; Sanh. 11a. Later estimates of R. Gamaliel II’s academy (students on eighty or three hundred benches; b. Taʿan. 4:1, §14) are exaggerated (cf. the sukkah to avoid having them cramped, in y. Sukkah 2:1, §3). Guria’s house in Jericho appears also for the times of Hillel (b. Soṭah 13:3; b. Sanh. 11a) and his school (b. Soṭah 48b).

E.g., R. Tarfon (early second century) with the elders in Nitzeh’s upper room in Lydda (b. Qidd. 40b; Šabb. 29b; cf. y. Sanh. 3:5, §2); in Aris’s home in y. Ḥag. 1:7, §4.

Riesner, “Synagogues in Jerusalem,” 206, citing also Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2:594–95, for teachers meeting there (as do most commentators, e.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 10); cf. the Theodotus inscription (discussed at Acts 6:9). For prayer (Acts 1:14) in upper rooms, see, e.g., Dan 6:10; the special case in Acts 9:37–40; but since upper rooms were common, we should perhaps not press the connections too far.

Longenecker, Acts, 56.

For the upper room of Luke 22:12, despite the different term, see, e.g., Dunn, Acts, 15–16; Parsons, Departure, 197; D. Williams, Acts, 35.

On women drawing water, see Eurip. El. 56–57, 309; Safrai, “Home,” 752; cf. Eickelman, Middle East, 163. On multipurpose single servants, see Luke 17:7–8; Bailey, Peasant Eyes, 114–15; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 380, §127 (on παιδαγωγοί).

Longenecker, Acts, 56; Fitzmyer, Acts, 213.

Then again, Luke fails to mention the kinship of Mark and Barnabas (Col 4:10). But it is not clear that Luke completely suppresses Mark (see comment on Acts 13:13; 15:37–39), and so antipathy to the household should not be a factor in their exclusion here.

Murphy O’Connor, “Cenacle,” 303–4, 310–12. Less persuasively, Murphy O’Connor doubts the Christian flight to Pella (316–17; cf. Brandon, Zealots, 284; Lüdemann, “Successors”; Aune, Prophecy, 312). By contrast, most scholars appear to still accept the basic claim in Euseb. H.E. 3.5.3 (e.g., Reicke, Era, 216; Lohse, Environment, 49; idem, Mark’s Witness, 79; Sowers, “Circumstances”; Cole, Mark, 203; Schoeps, “Ebionitische Apokalyptik”; Pritz, Nazarene Christianity, 122–27; for some possible archaeological support, see Smith, “Sarcophagus”). Pella does not fit Mark 13:14 closely enough to be based on it (or vice versa).

After troops burned much of Dolisie, Congo, my wife and some other returning refugees readily located ruins of their homes (or, failing remains, at least the plots of land), even in areas that had been densely populated and severely scorched. In their case, people recognized their districts, and concrete and metal markers remained on the sites of their homes.

Archaeologists dispute the precise site of the temple proper; cf., e.g., Kaufman, “Temple”; Cornfeld, Josephus, 364, 426; McRay, Archaeology, 113; Vogt, “Tempel.”

See, e.g., Avigad, Jerusalem, 120–39; idem, “Burnt House” (on the skeletal forearm, 67, 71–72).

Geva, “Searching.” Of course, Luke 21:6 (Mark 13:2) is hyperbolic; some stones were left standing on others (Danker, New Age, 198; Kaufman, “Eastern Wall,” 115; Sanders, Figure, 257). The western retaining wall of the temple survived, and later rabbis counted it indestructible (Num. Rab. 11:2; Song Rab. 2:9, §4; Lam. Rab. 1:5, §31; Pesiq. Rab. 15:10).

Geva, “Searching” (against); Bar, “Aelia Capitolina” (for, but uncertain exactly where).

Skarsaune, Shadow, 190–91; cf. Le Cornu, Acts, 31.

Contrary to some who share this perspective, however, “their significance” may well be “evocative and not constitutive”; see Richardson, Israel, 61.

See Harrington, God’s People, 39; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 104; cf. Jervell, Luke and People of God, 82; in Luke-Acts most fully, see the case in Fuller, Restoration, 239–64 (who interprets Israel’s restoration mostly spiritually through the apostolic mission); cf. 1QM II, 1; V, 2; esp. (with 1QS VIII, 1) 4Q259 II, 9. For the eschatological hope for the twelve tribes, see Sanders, Judaism, 291 (citing, e.g., 1QM II, 2–3; 11QT^a VIII, 14–16; LVII, 5–6).

See Turner, Power, 301.

Reitz, “Catalogue,” 6–7 (citing, e.g., Virg. Aen. 7.641–817; 10.120–45). In historical works, see, e.g., the list of ten generals on Samos in Androtion Atthis frg. 38. More generally, cf. genealogies and tribal lists in the OT. For vice and virtue lists, see comment on Acts 15:20.

E.g., 2 Sam 23:8–39; 1 Chr 25:1–7; Hom. Il. 3.161–242; Ap. Rhod. 1.23–228; Val. Flacc. 1.352–483; cf. Gordon, Near East, 110.

For lists of disciples, Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:150, cite m. ʾAb. 2:8; Diog. Laert. 8.46.

On the twelve apostles in Luke-Acts, see, e.g., Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 1:92–97.

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11 (“almost indisputable”), 98–101 (esp. refutation of Vielhauer, 99–100); Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 126–27; Meier, “Circle of Twelve”; Ehrman, Prophet, 186–87; Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 137; on the embarrassment, Zwiep, Judas, 47.

Whether this verse refers to Judas’s betrayal (Fee, Corinthians, 549, given the Last Supper context) or not (Hays, First Corinthians, 198; Smith, Symposium, 188, citing Rom 4:25; 8:32; perhaps Isa 53:6, 12b) is debated.

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 101. Such a standardized list would be difficult, in any case, in the earliest period, given the frequent use of multiple names (see comment on ).

Luke might follow Q here, Matthew (Matt 10:3) preferring Mark on this point; either way, Luke likely has genuine tradition (cf. John 14:22). Although the lists could include different persons at this point, they could also reflect differing traditions of the names of the same person; on the great frequency of persons bearing multiple names in antiquity, see comment on .

Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 25.

Linked with seven copulatives (had all been linked, it would be polysyndeton, on which see comment on Acts 15:20); but not all are so linked, and hence the names are divided into four groupings (the first containing four names; the next, two; the third, two; and the last, three). The first four are the most prominent.

Barrett, Acts, 87, might read too much into the repetition here; one would not expect all Luke’s audience to unwind the first scroll to find all the names or (without deliberate memorization) to recall all the names sequentially until hearing Luke-Acts many times. On the apostles in Luke-Acts, cf. Bovon, Theologian, 359–67.

With Dunn, Acts, 16; Johnson, Acts, 34. Some sages apparently divided their disciples by respective levels of attainment (Iambl. V.P. 18.80–81).

E.g., the sons of Boreas in Dio Chrys. Or. 4.117–18 (cf. perhaps, but not likely, Mark 3:17). Other scholars have compared the Dioscuri (on which See comment on Acts 28:11; for the comparison, see, e.g., Derrett, “Co-rescuers”), though some are unconvinced (e.g., Mitchell, “Homer,” 252). In family-dominant cultures, brothers can also act in pairs or groups—in Hebrew epic (e.g., Gen 34:25; 37:12, 23; 1 Sam 17:18; the sons of Zeruiah in 2 Sam 2:18; 3:39; 16:10; 19:22) and in contemporary real life.

If Luke wishes us to suppose that the names are grouped by twos as ministry teams (cf. Luke 10:1; but this is uncertain), these two could have switched on occasion (but this is also uncertain).

Luke 8:45; 9:20, 33; 12:41; 18:28; Acts 1:15; 2:14; for similar character, cf. Luke 22:54; 24:12; Mark 1:36; 8:29, 32; 9:5; 10:28; 11:21; 14:29, 31.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; cf. 24:34; Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; 16:7.

Peter’s role is not always positive (Luke 22:34, 58–61; cf. 9:33), but he grows (Acts 10:17–23). For Peter’s developing characterization as an agent of God’s message in Luke-Acts, see Wells, “Characterization.”

Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 28. Given the few extant traditions about most of the disciples, the production of two similarly named persons to harmonize divergent traditions (as in Diod. Sic. 4.4.1–5; Arrian Alex. 2.16.1–3; 4.28.2; Ind. 5.13) is unlikely here.

See Williams, “Names,” 107–9.

Fitzmyer, Essays, 105–12.

See Brown, Death, 915.

On nicknames, see, e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.2.4; Gen 29–30; cf. the “Goliath” family in Hachlili and Killebrew, “Byt glyt”; and by contrast, “Samuel the Small” in b. Soṭah 9:13, §2. Less relevant is that converts sometimes changed their names (Horsley, “Name Change”; proselytes with Jewish names in CIJ 1:384, §523 [also in Bamberger, Proselytism, 234]; Dominus Flevit inscription 31 in Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 68; Finegan, Archeology of New Testament, 247–48; m. Yad. 4:4; Sipre Deut. 253.2.2; b. Ber. 28a [but cf. b. Šabb. 33b]), pace Bagatti, Church, 237 (who assumed that these were Jewish converts to Christianity). Parents could name children symbolically, but often for events in the parents’ own lives (Gen 29:32–35; 41:51–52; cf. Job 42:14).

Williams, “Names,” 104. The name was not common (Meier, Matthew, 182; for a possible occurrence in 4Q130 8–9, see Charlesworth, “Peter”; but William Whiston’s “Peter” in Jos. Ant. 18.156 should read Πρῶτον); for discussion of the figurative sense behind the nickname, relevant to Matt 16:18, cf. Keener, Matthew, 426–27.

E.g., CPJ 1:132–33, §7; 1:246–47, §133, lines 35, 39; CIJ 2:312, §1367; 2:358, §1429; 2:391, §1468; Luke 8:3; see Ilan, “Lhbdly ktyb.”

Williams, “Names,” 97.

Ibid., 103. But see CIJ 2:74, §825 (194 C.E., Dura-Europos); it was, in any case, uncommon.

Williams, “Names,” 103. See “Didymus,” which bears the same meaning (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2; comments in Keener, John, 1225; “Didymus” or “Didymas” appears, e.g., in the name “Arius Didymus” and in P.Oxy. 115). (That his parents could have assigned him a title as a name also cannot be ruled out.)

Williams, “Names,” 98–99.

Ibid., 94 (though even “Tolmai” is rare, 94–95).

Williams, “Names,” 91–92 (they never appear in Egypt or Cyrene); cf., e.g., CIJ 2:270, §1276 (Jerusalem).

Also CIJ 2:117, §890; 2:126, §905; 2:128, §911; 2:137, §932; 2:171, §986; 2:391, §1468; 2:445, §1538. Cf. the same practice in Lucian Anach. 39; True Story 2.7.

E.g., for “Heracles,” cf. Arrian Alex. 2.16.1–3; 4.28.2; Ind. 5.13; Appian Hist. rom. 6.1.2; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.3. For others, see Val. Max. 3.3.ext. 3; Iambl. V.P. 5.25; Philost. Hrk. 26.16; Libanius Anecdote 3.29.

See, e.g., Jos. Life 96; CPJ 2:137, §235; 3:179; CIJ 1:267, §340; 2:117, §890; 2:155, §967; 2:186, §1017; 2:212, §1161; 2:391, §1467; 2:414, §1505; Williams, “Names,” 86.

E.g., “the less” in Mark 15:40; cf. the analogous method of distinguishing the two Ajaxes of Homeric fame (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 23.21; 32.33; 33.39; 35.1).

Williams, “Names,” 94. An Aramaic inscription from Capernaum mentions a “Halphai  ” alongside the more common “Zebidah” and “John” (CIJ 982; Hemer, Acts in History, 221). “Alpheios” does appear as a Gentile name, notably for a river in, e.g., Ovid Metam. 5.573–641; Libanius Narration 3.

Williams, “Names,” 89–90. In the Diaspora, see CIJ 1:15, §12; 1:26, §33; 1:84, §121; 1:85, §122; 1:270–71, §345; 1:271, §346; 1:272, §347; 1:272, §348; 1:273, §349; 1:274, §350; 1:274–75, §351; 1:455, §636 (unless it means “a Jew”); 1:479, §668; 2:46, §791.

Most scholars acknowledge this; e.g., Gundry, Matthew, 183; Smith, Parallels, 1; Cullmann, State, 15; idem, Peter, 22n24; Bruce, History, 93; Filson, History, 52; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 284n11. The rabbis used qannaim more broadly than for only Zealots (cf. Salomonsen, “Remarks”).

Cf. Barrett, Acts, 87 (citing Jos. Ant. 18.23). The epithet must be significant in some respect because Simon alone receives it (Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 98); France thinks that although the term did not connote a revolutionary this early, it might have already depicted the sort of zeal for God’s rule that led to the later party (Matthew, 177), perhaps rooted in the model of Phinehas (Num 25:7–13; 1 Macc 2:23–27, 50; cf. Ps 106:28–31; 1QH^a VI, 13–15; see further comment on Acts 22:3). I treat the debate on the title’s usage further in Keener, Matthew, 58–60.

Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, passim; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:156; cf. Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 97–98.

See Foakes-Jackson and Lake, “Zealots,” 425; see the excursus below. Least plausible is the suggestion of Fitzmyer, Acts, 214–15, and others that this apostle later joined the Zealots after 66 C.E.

Mason, Josephus and New Testament, 206; Borg, Conflict, 27–28; idem, Vision, 90; cf. Kingdon, “Zealots.”

Now widely held: Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 214–17; cf. 190–243; Baumbach, “Zeloten”; Smith, “Zealots”; Borg, “Zealot”; idem, Conflict, 35–36; Sanders, Judaism, 281–83.

The sense elsewhere (Jos. Ant. 12.271; 20.47; War 2.444, 564; Life 11; Ag. Ap. 1.162) is different.

Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 220–41; cf. Crossan, Jesus, 217.

Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 190, distinguish the Sicarii themselves from peasants and social bandits, relating them to a line of teachers of resistance (194–97). They suspect that Judas the Galilean may have advocated martyrdom rather than violence (197–98), but this is unclear.

Note, however, that the villagers could not have caught everyone (cf. Deut 21:1).

Pace Crossan, Jesus, 304–5; Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 48–50, 69–70; Oakman, “Peasant,” 131. Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 71, citing Jos. Ant. 14.168, contend that the common people asked for justice against Herod when he killed the bandits, but Josephus seems to refer to relatives. Villagers did protect bandits who robbed a servant of Caesar (p. 72, citing Jos. Ant. 20.113–17; War 2.228–31), and War 2.253 may also be relevant; but Josephus himself does not indicate that the “inhabitants” ravaged by the brigands were nobles. The drowning of nobles is significant (War 1.314–16, 326; Ant. 14.431–33), but Ant. 20.255–56 does not explicitly differentiate “Jews” as gentry from the “masses.” War 2.235–38 may well be relevant, but one wonders whether the elders in Ant. 14.167 are peasants, since the speaker is a Pharisee. The nuancing of Crossan, Jesus, 170 (their social location between the powerful and the powerless), may be helpful.

Cf. Donaldson, “Bandits.”

Cf. Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 77–85.

Ibid., xiii–xiv, 250–51; Crossan, Jesus, 194; Horsley, Galilee, 259. Josephus’s sources regarding brigands appear weak for 6–44 C.E., though he reports some uprisings (cf. also Mark 15:27), but after 44 he supplies many reports of bandits with heavy followings (War 2.228, 235, 238, 253; Ant. 20.121, 124, 161; Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 66–69).

Lewis, Life, 204.

Sanders, Judaism, 35–43.

Davies, Introduction.

Simon, Sects, 44; cf. Neusner, Beginning, 26–27; see esp. Jos. Ant. 18.4, 9, 23–25. Falk, Jesus, 57–58, 120–25, even decides (too narrowly) that the Zealots were Shammaites.

Sanders, Judaism, 13–14; cf. 280–84, 408–11. Hengel, Zeloten, saw them as a religiously motivated movement; Giblet, “Mouvement,” believes that they saw themselves as more religious than political. Though assuming specific religious beliefs, the nationalists did not represent an organized religious group (Salomonsen, “Debat”). Applebaum, “Zealots,” regards the revolutionary movement as a natural response to the Roman situation. Evidence at Masada indicates the Sicarii’s religious commitment (Cornfeld, Josephus, 489, 499).

Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, xv.

Cf. ibid., 19, 76. For priestly elements of resistance, see, e.g., Goodblatt, “Priestly Ideologies.”

Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, xv; Borg, Conflict, 36–47.

Sanders, Judaism, 241.

Ibid., 6–7.

Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 83. Josephus may have assumed command of many brigands himself; see the evidence in Horsley, Galilee, 266–67.

Wright, People of God, 179–80; Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 84–87. For anti-Roman polemic even in Qumran documents, see, e.g., Atkinson, “Polemics.”

On this basis, Blanco Pacheco, “María y el Espíritu,” argues that Acts 1:14 is not a text for Mariology (contrast, e.g., Montes Peral, “Dios”). Still, Mary’s prominence in Luke’s first volume’s introduction gives her a significant role in Luke’s work, as scholars often note (e.g., Crocetti, “Madre,” though offering textually unwarranted eucharistic connections); Luke’s opening chapters connect tightly with the story that follows (see at length Ó Fearghail, Introduction).

That Mary is among those whom Luke uses paradigmatically as prototypical Christians is generally agreed; see Syreeni, “Paradigms,” 36; following Räisänen, Mutter. For discussions of Mary in the NT, see, e.g., Gaventa, Mary; for continuing interest in the early second century, see, e.g., Ign. Eph. 7.2; 18.2; 19.1; Tral. 9.1. But some subsequent approaches blended more elements of Greco-Roman ideology (e.g., Görg, “Göttin”; cf. Bernabé Ubieta, “Esposas”; Koester, Introduction, 1:188).

One should not read too much into the use of a beatitude in Luke 1:48, since it was a common literary form (See comment on Acts 20:35).

The beatitude in Luke 11:27 was a common form of praising someone, often a mother or ancestor, by blessing another (cf. 1:42; Jub. 25:19; 2 Bar. 54:10–11; m. ʾAb. 2:8; t. Ḥag. 2:1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 13, §32 B; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 6:5; b. Ḥag. 14b; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 37:2; Petron. Sat. 94; Mus. Ruf. 16, p. 104.26; Men. Rhet. 2.8, 412.20–22; Musaeus Hero 138–39; cf. also sources in Danker, New Age, 140; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 231; Manson, Sayings, 88).

See CIJ 1:15, §12; 1:96, §137; 1:290–91, §374; 1:291, §375; 1:374, §511; 1:416, §§564–65; 2:443, §1535; cf. “Marina” in CIJ 1:292, §376. It can also be a Latin name (Judge, Rank, 13, 36n18).

Williams, “Names,” 107.

Ibid., 90–91.

Unless (this is less likely) we should think of either the resurrection or James’s subsequent prominence as inviting the title. The names of her children (Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1) are compatible with those of Jesus’s siblings (Mark 6:3), but these were common names.

Malina, Anthropology, 99.

Paul’s later experience (1 Cor 15:8) was not in Jerusalem (Gal 1:16–17); the Gospels also suggest that geographic distance no longer posed a barrier to the risen Christ (e.g., Luke 24:31).

I have argued for John’s reliability both in general (Keener, John, 3–52, esp. 29–34, 40–42) and on this point (1143), but I also recognize that John does not follow the same sorts of historiographic methodology as Luke.

By placing her among the disciples, Luke may defend Jesus’s honor by showing a new family to care for her (so Malina and Neyrey, “Honor and Shame,” 64), but the same verse mentions Jesus’s brothers, who could have done the same.

González, Acts, 27.

With Witherington, Acts, 113.

Cf. similarly Reimer, Women, 232–33; Johnson, Acts, 34; González, Acts, 27.

Brooten, “Segregated”; idem, Women Leaders, 103–38; Safrai, “Synagogue,” 939; idem, “Segregated”; idem, “Place of Women”; cf. Seager, “Synagogue,” 170–71; pace, e.g., May, “Synagogues,” 14; Swidler, Women, 89–90. On women active in the synagogues, see also Manns, “Femme.” A few ancient cults excluded women, notably (with a few exceptions) Mithraism (Klauck, Context, 141, 148); it may have been customary to segregate genders informally in some settings (cf., e.g., Iambl. V.P. 9.50), just as women were restricted from entering the Court of Israel in the temple (cf. Safrai, “Temple,” 867).

See discussion below.

Le Cornu, Acts, 881.

Willner, “Oedipus Complex.”

Originally that discussion was an excursus here, but it became too long to justify digressing so long from the text.

On the “brothers of the Lord,” who achieved a special role in ministry alongside the apostles (1 Cor 9:5), see, e.g., Lightfoot, Galatians, 247–82. Tradition claims that another relative of Jesus succeeded James (Malina and Pilch, Acts, 108, rightly notes Euseb. H.E. 3.32).

With Barrett, Acts, 103. Whether this is the James of Luke 24:10 may be disputed—“Jacob” and “Mary” were both common names in this period (Williams, “Names,” 86, 90–91)—but the statement is not clear enough by itself to explain the abruptness of Acts 12:17.

Larkin, Acts, 44, also sees their inclusion as emphasizing “the link between the church and Israel”; this is true, but the apostles serve the same function (cf. comment on Acts 1:13, 26).

Eisenman, Maccabees, 38, regards this passage as “a probably Lucan counterfeit of James’ episcopal election,” but Luke makes no effort to disguise James’s leadership (Acts 12:17; 15:13–21; 21:18–19) in the period in which Paul speaks of it (Gal 1:19; 2:9, 12), and Paul mentions James apart from the “twelve” and “all the apostles” (1 Cor 15:7).

Cf. C. Williams, Acts, 58; Dunn, Acts, 16. Perhaps his “inside” perspective on the material of the infancy narratives, through Mary, may have contributed to his later role, but that he, rather than Joses, Judas, and Simon (Mark 6:3), achieves this role might suggest leadership ability (his mention before the others may well also rank him second in age to Jesus).

Jerome Against Helvidius 16–18 (Pelikan, Acts, 45–46).

Cf. Tertullian in Vicastillo, “Hermanos.”

This view is first attested in the mid- to late second century (Prot. Jas. 9.2; 19.1–20.3; Thiselton, Corinthians, 681–82).

Barrett, Acts, 90; also Thiselton, Corinthians, 681–82; see esp. and most fully Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:318–32. Mary’s perpetual virginity probably originated from Prot. Jas. 19.3 (Blomberg, Matthew, 57).

The Gospel recognizes that brothers often divide over earthly matters such as inheritance, but Jesus disapproves of this (Luke 12:13; 15:27–28).

E.g., prayer (Tob 3:2–6, 11–15; 8:5–8, 15–17) and praise (11:14–15; 13:1–7) are regular motifs in Tobit (Harrington, “Prayers”); for prayer in Josephus, see Jonquière, Prayer in Josephus; Urbanz, “Gebet”; at Qumran, e.g., sources at Acts 3:1; in Jewish sources in Greek, see van der Horst and Newman, Prayers; in Paul, see, e.g., sources at Acts 16:25.

See, e.g., Bovon, Theologian, 400–403; Trites, “Prayer Motif”; Karris, Saying, 74–83; Liefeld, Acts, 87–88; Plymale, Prayer Texts; Han, “Prayer”; Jesudasan, “Prayer”; Green, Thirty Years, 268–73; Thielman, Theology, 142–46; Puskas and Crump, Introduction, 137–38; Osborne, “Prayer,” 253–57 (on Acts); on spirituality, Walton, “Spirituality.” For redactional evidence in the Gospel, see Mediavilla, “Oración de Jesús”; further on Jesus as the model intercessor in Luke-Acts, see Crump, Jesus the Intercessor; Lane, Gentile Mission, 64–67; Roth, “Pray-er”; Viljoen, “Intercessor”; for some prayers in Acts, Caballero Cuesta, “Oración en Iglesia.”

See, e.g., O’Brien, “Prayer in Luke-Acts”; Trites, “Prayer Motif”; cf. also Smalley, “Spirit, Kingdom, and Prayer.” In more recent history, some see a pattern between prayer and revivals in various parts of the world (see, e.g., Koch, Zulus, 319).

For the connection between prayer and the Spirit in Acts, see also, e.g., Hull, Spirit in Acts, 48; Richard, “Pentecost,” 135; Hur, Reading, 270. Twelftree, “Prayer,” nuances the discussion by pointing out that the Spirit comes in Luke-Acts to prayerful people, not necessarily to those praying specifically for the Spirit (noting the lack of direct object for αἰτοῦσιν in Luke 11:13).

Probably even the “bread” of Luke 11:3 (omitted in 11:11–12 but found in Matt 7:9) points especially to desperate need (Luke 11:5–8) for the Spirit (11:13). Talbert, Acts, 11, compares also prayer concerning imminent testing (Luke 11:4; 21:36; 22:46) and Jesus’s return (18:1–8).

E.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 10–11; Bruce, Acts¹, 74. Some see even the entire phrase προσκαρτεροῦντες . . .  τῇ προσευχῇ as referring to a place or at least (more likely) the action of meeting (Thornton, “Continuing Steadfast”).

E.g., CPJ 1:239–40, §129, line 5 (218 B.C.E.); 1:247–49, §134, lines 18, 29 (late second century B.C.E.); CIJ 1:495, §683 (80 C.E.); 1:497, §684; Ptolemaic inscriptions (2:367, §1440; 2:368, §1441; 2:369, §1442; 2:370–71, §1443; 2:371, §1444; 2:375–76, §1449); Juv. Sat. 3.296 (proseucha); perhaps CIJ 1:525, §726; 2:360, §1432; 2:361, §1433. This usage is regularly cited, e.g., Deissmann, Studies, 222; Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 324.

Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 207–25; Levinskaya, “Gentile Prayer House?”

Cf., e.g., Cohen, Maccabees, 66.

On prayer, see Sanders, Judaism, 203.

Falk, “Prayer Literature,” 277–78 (noting that Philo and Josephus focus on Scripture study in pre-70 C.E. synagogues). Urman, “House of Assembly,” tries to distinguish between community centers and houses of study (but how many communities could afford both?).

Applebaum, “Organization,” 490. Schubert, “Sacra Sinagoga,” suggests that rabbinic Judaism’s spread made the difference, but the term may appear as late as the sixth century C.E. (if CIJ 1:476, §662 refers to this).

The verb προσκαρτερέω implies continuing attention to a matter (Acts 8:13; 10:7; Rom 13:6); Jeremias applies it to “observance of the regular hours of prayer” (Prayers, 79).

For recipients of the gospel, Acts 8:6; used negatively for anti-Christian mobs in 7:57; 18:12; 19:29; otherwise negatively in 12:20. It usually implies unity (Walton, “Ὁμοθυμαδόν,” esp. 104–5). On the church’s unity in Acts, see further Thompson, “Unity.”

Brodie’s suggestion (“Division and Reconciliation”) that Luke depends on 1 Corinthians here fails to recognize the wider topos in ancient moral discourse.

In speeches, see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 32.37; 34.17–19; 38 passim; 40.35–38; 48.14; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.38; see esp. Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 60–64; in early Stoicism, see, e.g., Erskine, Stoa, 59.

Rowe, “Authority,” 106–7, counters those who use anthropological equality to deconstruct all authority roles, noting that leadership (in some form) remains a functional necessity in communities, as history attests.

Naturally, Luke, as a historian, emphasizes the importance of eyewitness testimony; but while the language of witness in this sense is particularly emphatically Lukan and Johannine, the appeal to eyewitness testimony seems to have been an emphasis of early Christianity more generally (1 Cor 15:5–8, 15; cf. 2 Pet 1:16; John 4:39; 15:27; 1 John 1:2; 4:14; Rev 1:2). Given the early date and the character of the testimony preserved, we have good reason to take it seriously, as much historical Jesus scholarship notes; see, e.g., Theissen, Gospels; Theissen and Merz, Guide; Charlesworth, “Archaeology”; Bauckham, Eyewitnesses; Keener, Historical Jesus; in greatest detail, the recent four-volume work, Holmén and Porter, Handbook.

Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 123–29; see discussion in Butticaz, Identité, 67–86.

E.g., Borg, Conflict, 70; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 98–101, 104; Bruce, “Jesus,” 75.

Harrington, God’s People, 39; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 104; cf. Jervell, Luke and People of God, 82.

Sanders, Paul and Judaism, 242; see further 243–44.

Ibid., 245–47; also Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 117; Flusser, Judaism, 49; cf., e.g., 4QpNah 3–4 IV, 3. In the eschaton, the sect will be Israel because all will have chosen their sides, but ultimately it is the Gentiles who will be destroyed (Sanders, Paul and Judaism, 249, 254). Samaritans also viewed themselves as the true Israel (Bowman, Documents, ii).

With Jeremias, Theology, 171–72 (citing CD I, 4–5; II, 6; 1QH^a XIV, 8; 1QM XIII, 8; XIV, 8–9; cf. also 1QH^a XIV, 11; 4Q163 4–6 II, 11; 4Q174 1 II, 2; 4Q268 1 12; 4Q393 3 7; 4Q491 8–10 I, 6; 4Q537 1 + 2 + 3 1).

E.g., Boismard and Lamouille, Actes, 2:13.

See comment on . For narrative asides in Acts, see Sheeley, Asides, 119–35; in ancient historiography, 56–78.

See, e.g., Theon Progymn. 4.73–79; 5.388–441.

For historical tradition here, see, e.g., Rengstorf, “Election of Matthias,” 180; Gundry, Matthew, 553; Pervo, Acts, 49 (noting the minor role of the “Twelve” in Acts and that in free composition Jesus might have chosen Judas’s successor); cf. even Haenchen, Acts, 163.

C. Williams, Acts, 59.

E.g., Xen. Anab. 3.1.38.

Dunn, Acts, 17–18; Rengstorf, “Election of Matthias,” 191 (though he still affirms that Luke does expect the kingdom, 192). Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger, “Reconsideration,” view Codex Bezae as critical of the apostles replacing Judas to forestall the rivalry of Jesus’s brothers. But whatever the Western text’s approach, any suggestion that Judas’s replacement here was an apostolic mistake (others suggest that they should have waited for Paul, e.g., Blaiklock, Acts, 53) runs counter to the portrayal of the positive apostles in the opening of Acts (certainly in most early textual tradition).

Barrett, Acts, 103.

See Pervo, “Meet Right.” Such literary contrasts are not relevant, however, to the question of historical genre. Although such a contrast would serve an apologetic purpose, it is intrinsically likely that even disagreeable meetings of the church would be less violent than the mob scenes on which Luke focuses for the movement’s enemies. Yet it is likely that some such (nonchurch) mob scenes historically occurred (cf. public punishments in 2 Cor 11:24–25, especially stoning; “dangers in the city” in 2 Cor 11:26; perhaps 1 Cor 4:11). Annen, “Heilige Geist,” applies this section (and Acts 6:1–7 and 15:1–35) to church leadership principles.

See further Schnabel, Mission, 395–98. Cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; Gal 1:18; esp. 1 Cor 9:5; 15:5; Gal 2:9.

Teachers were not to show favoritism too quickly (Philod. Crit. col. 13b), but they often had a disciple outstanding above the rest (e.g., m. ʾAb. 2:8; cf. Tilborg, Love, 246).

E.g., Xen. Anab. 5.1.2, 5; 6.4.12; 6.6.11; Cyr. 7.5.55; Plut. Cic. 16.3; Tac. Ann. 16.29; an orator who had to deliver a speech sitting, hence limiting bodily expression, was disadvantaged (Pliny E. Ep. 2.19.3). For rabbinic sources (where the situation is more complex), see discussion at Acts 13:16.

It appears less frequently with Jesus, probably because Luke knows the different Palestinian Jewish custom for teachers (cf. Luke 4:20; 5:3; cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 18:5). Some later texts indicate that only ordained rabbis sat to teach whereas disciples stood (ʾAbot R. Nat. 6 A; Gen. Rab. 98:11). Jesus was not “ordained” in the rabbinic movement, but some differences in practice may have existed among Pharisees of Jesus’s day, in any case (cf. t. Ber. 1:3; Sipre Deut. 34.5.3).

In the LXX, e.g., Exod 2:11; Judg 17:6; Neh 13:15, 23; Esth 1:2; Zech 8:6, 23; Jdt 1:5; 6:15; 8:1; 1 Macc 1:11; 2:1; 9:24; 11:20; 13:43; 14:13; Pss. Sol. 17:44; 18:6; elsewhere, e.g., 1 En. 105:1; Luke edits the phrase in Joel 4:1 LXX in Acts 2:17.

See Tannehill, Luke, 143–66 (who regards the term as synonymous with λαός, with its LXX connections, 143); but the Evangelists, including Luke, use “crowds” in quite varied ways (157–58; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 289). For the varied (and fickle) character of the crowds in ancient texts, see Meeks, Moral World, 57.

Some commentators (e.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 12; Karris, Invitation, 28; Marshall, Acts, 64) cite m. Sanh. 1:6 as primary background here for establishing a new community; but Luke’s audience would not be familiar with a single rabbinic tradition (unless it attests to a wider conception). This estimate may relate to rabbinic tradition about the number of elders who returned from exile with Ezra (see Danby, Mishnah, 446n5; Strack, Introduction, 9). Bede Comm. Acts 1.15 (Martin, Acts, 15–16) emphasizes that it is a triangular number (with 15 as its base); although this could be relevant in an apocalyptic passage (Rissi, Time, 76; Bauckham, Climax, 390–94, 402), it is improbable in historical narrative (cf. Keener, John, 1232–33). Some ridiculed Pythagoreans’ excess interest in such matters (Lucian Phil. Sale 4).

Witherington, Acts, 120; Barrett, Acts, 96. “Names” (ὀνομάτων) here functions as a metonymy for people (as in Rev 3:4; 11:13), perhaps reflecting Semitic or LXX influence (Barrett, Acts, 96, citing Num 1:18; 26:53, 55), though also in the papyri (Deissmann, Studies, 196). When Luke or his sources restrict a count to males, he is generally explicit (Luke 9:14; Acts 4:4); his male address (Acts 1:16) may function more inclusively (see 2:14, 22, 29, 37).

The practice may have changed from one period to another (Marx, “Racines”). The cemetery includes a small minority of female skeletons (Harrison, “Rites,” 28; Dupont-Sommer, Writings, 65; Bengtsson, “Kvinnor”) or nearly one-third (Elder, “Question”); women may have lived there only during particular periods (cf. Atkinson, “Women”; Cross, Library, 97). But while some argue that they were from the community (Taylor, “Cemeteries”), recent discussion suggests that they may date to many centuries after the original community vanished (Zias, “Cemeteries”; Beall, “Essenes,” 345; suggested as a possibility already by Cross, Library, 97).

Cf. CD XII, 1–2 (for Jerusalem). Many assume Qumran celibacy and that all were males (e.g., Desprez, “Groups”; Thiering, “Source”; Gusella, “Therapeutae”). Others suggest that only the Manual of Discipline excludes them (Bernstein, “Women”; cf. Bengtsson, “Kvinnor”) and note that women appear elsewhere in the documents (e.g., Hübner, “Zölibat”; Strugnell, “Wives”; Davies and Taylor, “Testimony”; Elder, “Question”; cf. Baumgarten, “4Q502”; 1Q28a I, 7–11; 4Q270 7 I, 12–13). The conflicting evidence may comport with literary evidence for both celibate and married Essenes (Cohen, Maccabees, 152). Further, the Damascus Document’s ideology need not represent the practice of its producing community (Grossman, “Reading”). Some think that the community excluded women for purity reasons (Buchanan, “Purity,” 399–405) or because of eschatological urgency (cf. van der Horst, “Celibacy”) or the eschatological holy war in particular (Steiner, “Warum asketisch?”).

Ancient sources claim that Essenes (still the majority view about the source of Qumran’s sectarian documents, although debated) were mostly celibate (Philo Hypoth. 11.14; Pliny E. N.H. 5.15.73; Jos. Ant. 18.21; War 2.120), but Josephus mentions that some did marry (War 2.160). Probably, some groups of Essenes were celibate and others married (with Chapman, “Marriage,” 211–15; Cohen, Maccabees, 152), though Hellenistic depictions of Essenes may draw on philosophic models (cf. Deming, Celibacy, 89–91) and conceptions (cf. Stowers, “Self-Mastery,” 534).

Witherington, Acts, 120. Some scholars compare the rabbinic minyan (see b. Ber. 6ab; Meg. 23b; y. Meg. 4:4, §5) to suggest ten males per apostle (Malina and Pilch, Acts, 25).

See on “parenthesis” (Latin interpositio or interclusio) Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 87 (citing Quint. Inst. 9.3.23); Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 337; Rowe, “Style,” 147; Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, §465.

An approximation, as Luke characteristically indicates by using ὡσεί (cf. Acts 2:41; 10:3; 19:7; Luke 3:23; 9:14, 28; 22:41; 23:44).

Matson, Conversion Narratives, 29–31, thinks that Luke may have created the mission of the seventy-two as a paradigm for the later Gentile mission; he is probably correct about its paradigmatic function (31–38), but as argued above, the large number of disciples is multiply attested.

Philost. Vit. soph. 2.11.591. Pythagoras allegedly had about eighty (Diog. Laert. 8.1.39). Even as an itinerant, Apollonius allegedly had thirty-four (until persecution reduced the number to eight, somewhat closer to Jesus’s inner circle; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.37).

Over the course of his life, Pythagoras allegedly had 235 whose names were allegedly preserved in the tradition (Iambl. V.P. 36.267), with allegedly six hundred adherents (on some level) in a particular city (Iambl. V.P. 6.29, if original), and at times spoke to crowds (not disciples) of more than two thousand (V.P. 6.30). By contrast, Diogenes the Cynic had none (as distinct from the sophists; Dio Chrys. Or. 4.14).

Jeffers, World, 254.

Watson, “Education,” 311. All the schools of Bethar had at least five hundred in b. Taʿan. 4:5, §10, but this is part of a rabbinic hyperbole.

Klauck, Context, 43.

Winter, Left Corinth, 37, noting that a small number such as seventeen was too few to succeed (citing Aristides Discourse 51.29; Russell, Declamation, 77n16).

C. Williams, Acts, 60. By contrast, the speech of Acts 2:17–39 would have to have been in Greek to be intelligible to most of those reported gathered in Acts 2:9–11.

Knowling, “Acts,” 63, plausibly suggests that the title indicates “the solemnity of occasion”; but cf. Acts 2:14–15. On “brother,” see 9:17.

Although one could argue that Acts 3:12 may address a crowd beyond the Court of Women (cf. 4:4), this suggestion would not fit the likeliest geography of the temple (3:2), and whatever one concludes about Acts 3, the converts in 2:41 cannot be restricted to males.

Estrada, Followers, 37, indeed, contends that Luke promotes the apostles in Acts’ opening chapters in part “to blot out the effect of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus,” which “had serious social implications, especially on the honour and reputation of the apostles as a group.” On the embarrassment, see also Zwiep, Judas, ch. 5.

Beck, “Women,” 281, attributes this usage to Luke’s “androcentric bias,” despite acknowledging that the use is traditional. On gender issues, see comment on ; esp. our introduction, .

See Ellingworth, “Men and Brethren.”

See esp. Brooten, “Segregated”; Brooten, Women Leaders, 103–38; see further comment on Acts 1:14.

Cf. Vander Stichele, “Gender,” 314, following D’Angelo, “ANHP Question,” 52.

Nevertheless, Luke’s usage might still be apologetic, emphasizing respect for male hearers and hence responding to objections from those sensitive to Eastern cults reputed to undermine traditional family values; cf. Keener, Paul, 140–42; discussion in our introduction, , . Thus Acts 7:2, e.g., includes titles clearly meant to defer to elite audience members’ honor. If so, however, Luke balances this with a contrasting gender-inclusive emphasis in his narrative (which likewise welcomes elite and poor alike). “Men and brothers” is specifically Lukan (fourteen times in Acts; elsewhere derivative from Acts unless 1 Clem. 14.1, 37.1, 43.4, and 62.1 are independent; Pervo, Acts, 51).

E.g., slaying a person whose trust one gained through feigned friendship, as in Corn. Nep. 14 (Datames), 11.3–5.

Xen. Hell. 1.7.22; Cic. Fin. 3.9.32; Val. Max. 1.1.13; Sen. E. Controv. 7.7.intro.; Babr. 138.7–8. This was despicable to the gods (Virg. Aen. 6.621) and usually even to those who benefited from the betrayal (Livy 1.11.6–7; 5.27.6–10; though not always, Livy 4.61.8–10).

E.g., Quint. Curt. 4.1.33.

Livy 2.5.7–8; Corn. Nep. 4 (Pausanias), 5.3.

E.g., Hom. Il. 21.76; Od. 4.534–35; 11.414–20; 14.404–5; Hesiod W.D. 327; Eurip. Cycl. 126–28; Hec. 25–26, 710–20, 850–56; Heracl. 1034–36 (even in subsequent generations!); Cic. Pis. 34.83; by seeking the host’s wife, Ovid Her. 17.3–4. On kindness due a host, see Cic. Verr. 2.2.47.117; Ap. Rhod. 3.377–80; Ovid Metam. 1.144; 10.225–28; Livy 25.16.6. This principle included providing protection from enemies (Ovid Metam. 5.44–45; Corn. Nep. 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 (Hesiod W.D. 370–72).

Aeschines Embassy 22, 55. For a guest to act unkindly was deceptive treachery (Catull. Carm. 64.176).

On its presumable historicity, see, e.g., Robbins, “Meal,” 30; cf. also probably 1 Cor 11:23, although the meaning is debated. Later polemic against Christians honored Judas (Toledot Yeshu; see Heindl, “Rezeption”).

“Through David’s mouth” also appears in Acts 4:25. This phrasing does not evoke God’s speaking to David through God’s mouth (and fulfilling it by his hand; 1 Kgs 8:15, 24; 2 Chr 6:4, 15) but rather the broader divine speech through the “mouth of prophets” (Luke 1:70; Acts 3:18, 21), phraseology in Zech 8:9 (and less positively, 1 Kgs 22:22–23; 2 Chr 18:21–22).

Psalms figure prominently in early Christian interpretations of Jesus’s passion, including in Luke’s theology (see Jipp, “Messiah”). Cf. Ps 2:1–2 in Acts 4:26; Ps 31:5 (LXX 30:6) in Luke 23:46 (here undoubtedly reflecting early Palestinian tradition; see discussion in Stauffer, Jesus and Story, 142; Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, 37); a clear allusion to Ps 22:18 (LXX 21:19) in Luke 23:34; a possible allusion to Ps 69:21 (LXX 68:22; the relevant term appears only four times in the LXX) in Luke 23:36; a possible allusion to Ps 38:11 (LXX 37:12) or perhaps 88:8 (LXX 87:10) in Luke 23:49.

God’s will and purposes are a recurrent theme in Acts’ speeches (see Soards, Speeches, 184–89; Squires, Plan; Bock, Theology, 122–28). Tannehill thinks that it echoes Luke 24:44 and hence allows Peter to carry forward Jesus’s role as interpreter (Acts, 20); the motif, however, is pervasive.

Soards, Speeches, 187–88; Cosgrove, “Divine dei” (though it is not a technical term). Other NT writers often employ the term similarly.

Cf. Acts 17:3; the passion in Luke 9:22. Δεῖ functions as a rhetorical authenticating device in Luke-Acts, invoking divine necessity (Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 185–212). For prediction and fulfillment as an authenticating device in ancient historiography, see 142–84.

For the importance of rhetorical authentication where historical narratives seemed improbable, see Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 97 (citing Josephus, Lucian, and Philostratus).

For behavior reflecting (positively or negatively) on teachers, see, e.g., Aeschines Tim. 171–73; t. ʿEd. 3:4; ʾAbot R. Nat. 27 A; 34, §76 B; Mark 2:18, 24; Alciph. Court. 7 (Thaïs to Euthydemus), 1.34, ¶¶6–7; cf. Daube, “Responsibilities,” 3–4. For apologetic distancing of a teacher’s behavior from that of a wayward disciple, cf. Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 336, §111D; and especially the case of Alcibiades (Xen. Apol. 19; Mem. 1.2.12–18, 26; Plut. Alc. 7.3).

It was a shame to trust foolishly and experience betrayal; but because it was impossible to trust no one (Polyb. 8.36.1–9), one should simply be as careful as possible, gaining pledges and, where relevant, hostages, and if one was still betrayed, the shame belonged to the betrayer alone (8.36.4).

E.g., Lysias Or. 6.23, §105; 8.5–6, §112; Char. Chaer. 5.6.2; Corn. Nep. 14 (Datames), 6.3; 11.5; Sir 22:21–22; Test. Jud. 23:3; this remained true even if one’s life was at stake (Babr. 138.7–8). The deeper the level of intimacy, the more that trust was a duty, and the more terrible its betrayal (Cic. Rosc. Amer. 40.116). Refusing to betray a friend or spouse was honorable (Athen. Deipn. 15.965F, item 25; Sen. E. Controv. 2.5.intro.); conversely, treachery and betrayal warranted death (Val. Max. 9.6). See further comment at Acts 12:19; 13:13; with reference to Judas as a “guide,” cf. perhaps Luke 6:39.

E.g., Thucyd. 1.86.1; 1QS VII, 18–23; Heb 6:6; 2 Pet 2:20–21; b. Pesaḥ. 49b.

Johnson, Acts, 35, suggests that this phrase recalls the cognate noun that first appears in Luke when Satan entered Judas (Luke 22:3).

Cf. Jas 5:19–20. On perseverance in Luke-Acts, see esp. Brown, Apostasy. The involvement of Satan with both Judas (Luke 22:3) and Peter (22:31) in the same context suggests that only Jesus’s intercession preserved Peter from a similar fate (22:32).

E.g., 1 Macc 2:15; Pss. Sol. 17:15; 4 Macc 9:24.

So, e.g., Ezek 33:12–13, 18; 1 En. 91:7; Jub. 15:34; cf. Apoc. Pet. 5.1–2 (Ethiopic); perhaps 4Q163 6–7 II, 4–7 (though part is illegible). Some Jewish groups lamented much of Israel’s apostasy (e.g., 4Q501 line 3); some viewed it as characteristic of the end time (e.g., Test. Iss. 6:1; 2 Thess 2:3).

E.g., 1QS VII, 22–24; 3 Macc 7:14–15; Burkert, “Craft,” 18; R. Meir in t. Demai 2:9.

As Paul also does later (Acts 20:24; 21:19). Cf. similarly Tannehill, Acts, 22. The term applies to economic contributions in Luke 8:3 and Acts 11:29; 12:25; this usage provides a suitable contrast to the greed probably implied by Judas’s “wage” (Acts 1:18). It apparently applies to servant-disciples in 19:22.

For “portion” and predestination, see, e.g., Jub. 11:17.

For a comparison with OT Levites, see also Johnson, Acts, 35; Witherington, Acts, 122.

The context of this passage also speaks of “overseers” for the people (Neh 11:9, 14, 22; see Acts 1:20).

Cf. also Pss 16:5 (15:5 LXX, κληρονομίας); 119:57; 142:5, though these are not κλῆρος in the LXX. Appeals to late Targumim for the wording (cf. Marshall, Acts, 64) are unnecessary.

The radical apostolic values concerning ministry and possessions (cf., e.g., Acts 3:6; Luke 12:41–42) also recall earlier prophetic values (cf., e.g., 2 Kgs 5:26–27).

Scholars frequently note this connection; e.g., Johnson, Acts, 35; Witherington, Acts, 122.

On enthymeme in this broader sense, cf. Vinson, “Enthymemes,” 119–22, 131.

Bruce, Commentary, 48–49. For asides in Acts, see Sheeley, Asides, 119–35; in ancient historiography, 56–78. Astonishingly, Pervo, Dating Acts, 310, apparently attributes even the aside to Peter, then counts this attribution against early tradition.

E.g., Xen. Hell. 7.4.1; Thucyd. 1.24.1ff. (digressing from 1.23.6); Polyb. 3.2.7; 3.9.6; 3.39.1; 3.59.9; 31.30.4; 6.1.2; 6.50.1; Sall. Catil. 5.9–13.5; Livy 9.17.1–9.19.17 (apologizing in 9.17.1); Val. Max. 4.8.1 (with 4.7.ext. 2b); Jos. Ant. 20.224–51; Arrian Ind. 6.1; Tac. Hist. 2.2; cf. also Eigler, “Excursus” (noting Polyb. 18.35); Aune, Environment, 102 (citing Josh 5:4–7; 1 Sam 9:9; 2 Kgs 14:6–7; 7:6–7; 17:23–41; 1 Macc 8:1–16).

In other narratives, e.g., Hom. Od. 19.392–468 (Harvey, Listening, 58, following Whitman, Homer, 253); Corn. Nep. 16 (Pelopidas), 3.1; Jos. Life 336–67; Plut. Alex. 35.8; Photius Bibl. 166.109a (on Ant. Diog. Thule). Among rhetoricians, both in theory (Cic. Or. Brut. 40.137–38; Brut. 93.322) and in practice (e.g., Max. Tyre 19.1 [from 18.9]; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.38; 36.1–6); see “excursus” in Quint. Inst. 4.3.1–17. See also comment on Acts 1:15–26. In other genres, Dion. Hal. Lysias 13; Cic. Fin. 2.32.104; Att. 7.2; Or. Brut. 43.148; Sen. E. Controv. 2.1.35–36; Pliny E. N.H. 28.1.1 (for N.H. 28–32); Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 34.34; Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.57; Philost. Hrk. 20.1 (cf. 18.6–19.9); 53.2–3.

Aune, Environment, 130.

E.g., Barrett, Acts, 98.

E.g., Judg 3:21–22; Jos. War 1.81, 84; 5.385; 7.453; Ant. 9.101–3.

E.g., Hom. Il. 4.525–26; 20.418–20; 21.180–81; b. Ḥul. 56b–57a.

E.g., Xen. Anab. 5.1.15–16; see esp. Allen, Death of Herod, 155–95, on the retribution theme in apologetic historiography (155–71 for Diodorus Siculus; 171–82 for Dionysius of Halicarnassus; 182–95 for Josephus).

Lake, “Death of Judas,” 25. Van de Water, “Punishment,” compares the Wicked Priest’s demise.

Dunn, Acts, 19. For judgment in Acts, see, e.g., Morris, Cross in New Testament, 112–13.

Ray, Irony, 64, notes the irony: Judas took money for betraying Jesus, and the field that he bought with it led to Judas’s own death.

E.g., Sir 27:25–27; 2 Macc 4:38; 9:5–6; 13:7–8; L.A.B. 44:9–10; 1QpHab XI, 5, 7, 15; XII, 5–6; 4Q181 1 1–2; Jub. 4:32; 35:10–11; 37:5, 11; John 9:2; Matt 26:52; m. ʾAb. 2:6/7; Sipre Deut. 238.3.1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 27, §56 B; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 17b, bar.; Ber. 5a; Sanh. 108b; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §3; Gen. Rab. 53:5; Tg. Rishon on Esth 1:11; some other sources in Bonsirven, Judaism, 110. A rabbi would not even face execution without God having found at least a minor transgression (Mek. Nez. 18.55ff.).

Diod. Sic. 20.62.2; see also Demosth. Zenoth. 6. The principle also applied to executions by rulers (e.g., Diod. Sic. 20.101.3; Aul. Gel. 7.4.4) or heroes (Apollod. Bib. 3.16.1; Epit. 1.2–3). Cf. sorcerers’ death by sorcery in Kenyan Luo tradition (Whisson, “Disorders,” 289).

Various scholars include Papias’s version in the comparison at least briefly (e.g., Lake, “Death of Judas,” 25; Fitzmyer, Acts, 219).

From Apollinaris of Laodicea (AF, ed. Holmes, 582–85). Talbert, Acts, 15, compares the grotesque deaths depicted in Jos. War 7.451–53 and in Ahiqar (though the latter may belong only to later versions; see J. M. Lindenberger in OTP 2:498).

On the whole, it sounds closer to Luke’s account than to Matthew’s (Witherington, Acts, 121). MacDonald, “Papias,” even argues for Luke’s dependence on Papias.

See further Meier, Matthew, 338; Gundry, Matthew, 553; Brown, Death, 656–57; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:560 (for parallels in the betrayal sequence of the passion tradition, 565, though they regard this tradition as pre-Matthean, 566).

Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:560 (citing 2 Chr 21:18–19; 2 Macc 9:7–12; Bel 27; Jos. Ant. 17.168–69; War 7.452–53; Ahiq. 8; Acts Thom. 3.33; Theodoret Hist. Rel. 1.10, on Arius); cf. also Fitzmyer, Acts, 219–20 (adding Jos. War 1.656–65).

E.g., Soph. Oed. tyr. 1237–66; Eurip. Hel. 136, 200–202; Hipp. 776–81, 802; frg. 1111; Ap. Rhod. 1.1063–65; Polyb. 33.5.2; Cic. Scaur. 6.10–11; Ovid Her. 3.38; Pliny E. N.H. 16.45.108; Quint. Decl. 270 intro; 289 intro; Aul. Gel. 15.10.1–2; Hermog. Inv. 4.13.209.

Livy 42.28.11–12; Plut. Themist. 22.2; cf. also sources in Talbert, Matthew, 300. Romans denied burial to those who hanged themselves (see Livy, LCL, 12:372n1, citing Servius on Aen. 12.603; cf. Jewish tradition in Stauffer, Jesus and Story, 209). One might reconsider suicide by hanging lest one bring reproach on one’s family for excess misfortune (Tob 3:10). Judas likely had no sword (though cf. Luke 22:38).

Also, e.g., Alciph. Fish. 11 (Glaucippê to Charopê), 3.1, ¶4; y. Kil. 9:3, §3.

It was hardly the only alternative; Ap. Rhod. 3.789–90 lists poison alongside hanging (though this is for a sorceress).

When we examine differing accounts with elements of common tradition, we normally seek the most plausible reconstruction that makes best sense of the extant data, as, e.g., in Suet. Otho 8.1–2; Tac. Hist. 1.80–82; Plut. Otho 3.3–7. Cf. Keener, “Otho,” 344.

Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 424 (citing Bogart and Montell, Memory, 77, a work on method in oral historiography), compare two “contradictory” accounts of an 1881 lynching: in one, the men hang “from a railroad crossing,” and in the other, from a pine tree. But the historians found “old photographs that showed the bodies hanging at different times from both places”; after being lynched in one place, they were hanged again in another. These particular oral-history accounts proved more reliable than our modern critical resistance to harmonization. For one suggestion of harmonization, see Peterson, Acts, 124. Such language polarizes binary thinkers quickly; strangely, one reviewer focused on my brief concession regarding some efforts at harmonization in my Historical Jesus, 331, ignoring the context (331–32) in which I personally take a different approach.

So Apollinaris of Laodicea, in the fourth century (Papias frg. 18 [AF 583]).

Apul. Metam. 1.16; cf. Petron. Sat. 94. Cf. the attempted hangings in Eurip. Andr. 811–13; Ovid Metam. 10.378–81. Enraged mobs also occasionally dragged a corpse with a noose around its neck (Val. Max. 7.8.5), regarding natural death an inadequate price (cf. posthumous hanging in the OT, Deut 21:22–23; Josh 8:29; 10:26), but this is not what Matthew states (Matt 27:5).

“Pour out” (ἐκχύννω) often refers to blood (Luke 11:50; Acts 22:20), a fitting contrast to Jesus’s death, which Judas occasioned (Luke 22:20), but σίλάγχνον, though elsewhere in the NT used figuratively, may apply to all the abdominal organs (LSJ). A hanged corpse would not literally fall headfirst, but see .

Λακάω suggests the violence (cf. BDAG) and perhaps sound of the landing (cf. LSJ, λάσκω), but nothing necessarily about its subject’s consciousness. The verb recurs in Apollinaris of Laodicea’s quotation of this passage (Papias frg. 18.1), its only use in the Apostolic Fathers.

See Deut 21:23.

Packer, Acts, 25–26.

Apart from the unrelated uses in 3 Macc 5:43, 50; 6:23, this is the only use of πρηνής in the LXX, and Acts 1:18 is its only use in the NT. A hanged corpse (in Matthew’s version) when cut down would not literally fall headfirst (possibly in Luke’s). This term in Acts could suggest either a symbolic allusion by Luke here or that his tradition or interpretation is irreconcilable with Matthew on this point; but the term may also have a range of potential meaning not limited to “headfirst” (see BDAG).

The site traditionally designated as the location may have been a Sadducean tomb complex, perhaps belonging to Annas (Ritmeyer and Ritmeyer, “Akeldama”). “Their language” in 1:19 might highlight the contrast with those soon speaking the languages of other locales (2:11). “That is” appears in midrash (Rom 10:6–8; Bekken, Word, 79–81), but is also appropriate outside it (Acts 19:4), including for translation (Matt 27:46).

On “like-for-like” punishment, see, e.g., Sir 27:25–27; 2 Macc 4:38; 9:5–6; 13:7–8; 1QpHab XI, 5, 7, 15; XII, 5–6; 4Q181 1 1–2; Jub. 4:32; and comment above.

It was most likely near but outside Jerusalem, especially if one thinks of burials there (Matt 27:7).

See, e.g., Stambaugh, City, 139–40; comments on Acts 19:10, 29.

Suicides were not buried with others (Le Cornu, Acts, 42–43), just as the condemned were often buried separately (Stauffer, Jesus and Story, 209, citing t. Sanh. 9:8–9; m. Sanh. 6:7; Sanh. 45b, bar.).

Much larger parenthetical narratives often appear in ancient sources (on parenthetical “episodes,” see Anderson, Glossary, 50).

Regularly observed, e.g., Boismard and Lamouille, Actes, 2:202.

Luke often does abbreviate his material, sometimes obscuring connections that might otherwise be clear to us.

Bruce, Acts¹, 77 (noting that this is “a common explanation”). Cf. Xen. Anab. 5.3.9 (though this is money dedicated to a deity, who may have had little other use for it).

Though Sen. E. Controv. 10.3.intro. speaks of a daughter who hangs herself, then (10.3.3) one describes her (presumably for rhetorical effect) as writhing in her blood (cf. Judg 4:19–21 with 5:26–27, the latter taking poetic liberties); and Matthew links the name to the price of innocent blood (Matt 27:6–8; cf. Derrett, “Akeldama,” who suggests compensation for blood). The claim that the common tradition indicates “an aetiological story” (Johnson, Acts, 36) is not likely; the tradition was young, and the site would not likely have attracted pilgrims.

Benoit, Jesus, 1:206–7 (concluding his analysis, 189–207); cf. others more briefly, e.g., Chance, Acts, 41.

Some regard Matthew as more accurate here (e.g., Benoit, Jesus, 1:206–7); others prefer Luke (e.g., Gundry, Matthew, 555–56; cf. Keener, Matthew, 657–60).

See Longenecker, Exegesis, 150; cf. Burkitt, Gospel History, 125; Hill, Matthew, 348; Lindars, Apologetic, 118; for Jer 18–19, cf. Meier, Matthew, 339; Gundry, Matthew, 556; Upton, “Potter’s Field.” Manns, “Mort de Judas,” sees both Luke’s and Matthew’s accounts as employing midrashic elements; but this is far less characteristic of Luke, though he often explains events in light of Scripture (e.g., Luke 22:37; 24:27, 44–47; Acts 1:16; 13:27).

See Flint, “Psalms and Hymns,” 850. Among the “books” of Scripture, Luke distinguishes Psalms (Acts 1:20; Luke 20:42); Isaiah (Luke 3:4; 4:17, 20; cf. Acts 8:28–30); and the “minor” prophets (Acts 7:42). Luke situates this biblical text in the very center of 1:15–26 (Marguerat, Actes, 57).

Developed in wisdom texts, including Wisdom, as well as in the NT (Miranda, “Schicksal”; dependent on Wisdom, see, e.g., Matt 27:43). The theme of righteous sufferers appears in Mesopotamian, not exclusively Israelite (cf. Job), wisdom (ANET 434–35; Kramer, “Variation”; idem, “Literature,” 281).

Christians elsewhere applied psalms of righteous sufferers to Jesus, e.g., Ps 41:9 in John 13:18; Ps 69:9 in John 2:17 and Rom 15:3. Hays, Conversion, 107, finds Christ himself praying in “Davidic” psalms headed by the LXX superscription εἰς τὸ τέλος, which Christians may have interpreted eschatologically. On early Christian reapplication of psalms, cf. also Grant, “Singing.”

Cf., e.g., Bruce, Commentary, 48.

With Longenecker, Exegesis, 97; idem, Acts, 60; cf. Bock, Acts, 87, emphasizing the “principle”; Miura, David, 159–60. For typological use of Ps 22 and Ps 69 for Jesus as the righteous sufferer, see, e.g., Gundry, Use, 210. More fully on the use of Ps 22 in the passion narratives, see Brown, Death, 1455–64.

With, e.g., Johnson, Acts, 40.

E.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 225–26; note the similar structure and content in Miura, David, 156.

Jewish interpreters commonly linked texts on the basis of common key words (e.g., Mek. Pisha 5.103; Mek. Nez. 10.15–16, 26, 38; 17.17 [Lauterbach, 1:41; 3:75–77, 130]; b. Ber. 9a; 35a; B. Qam. 25b; Giṭ. 49a; Ker. 5a; Qidd. 15a; 35b; Menaḥ. 76a; Naz. 48a; Nid. 22b–23a; Roš Haš. 3b; 34a; Sanh. 40b; 51b; 52a; Šabb. 64a; Tem. 16a; Zebaḥ. 18a; 49b–50b; see more fully Keener, John, 305, 1184). In the LXX, both of these verses begin with the aorist passive imperative of γίνομαι; there is no such connection in the Hebrew.

Commentators (e.g., Johnson, Romans, 178) regularly note that it is widespread in early Christian usage.

See Moessner, “Script,” 223.

On adaptation for Acts, cf. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations, 62. For adapting texts for new contexts, see comment at ; cf. Stanley, Language of Scripture, 291.

With, e.g., Johnson, Acts, 36. The term ἐίίσκοίος appears in the LXX for a leader (Num 31:14; 2 Kgs 11:15, 18; 12:11; 2 Chr 34:12, 17; Neh 11:9, 14, 22; Isa 60:17; 1 Macc 1:51), borrowed from familiar Greek usage; see more fully comment on Acts 20:28. The shift in mood might represent “assimilation to the mood of the previous citation” (Marshall, “Acts,” 530).

Luke changes the psalm’s perfect passive participle to an adjective, perhaps for connection with his other uses of ἔρημος but probably simply to smooth the style (he employs the verb only at Luke 11:17).

Isaeus Apollod. 43–44 (οἰκος . . .  ἐξερημῶσαι); Menec. 35, 43.

C. Williams, Acts, 60.

Witherington, Acts, 125, adds another approach: early Jewish exegetes frequently mixed text types according to which fit their argument best, including using the LXX when writing in Hebrew.

Hadas, Aristeas, 161, n. on Let. Aris. 155, sees this as the earliest use of the title; but cf. LXX 1 Chr 15:15; 2 Chr 30:5, 18; Ezra 6:18. Later, cf. m. ʾAb. 3:9–11; 5:1, 27; 6:2, 6, 7.

Referring to the law of Moses, it appears in, e.g., Josh 8:31; 2 Kgs 23:21; 2 Chr 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 35:12; Ezra 3:2, 4; 6:18; Neh 8:15; 10:34, 36; Dan 9:13. Cf. 2 Sam 1:18 (referring to Jashar).

E.g., CD I, 13; V, 1; VII, 10; XI, 18, 20 (​ﬤ​ת​ו​ב​ ‭יﬤ​); 1QS V, 15, 17; VIII, 14. Cf. 1QM XV, 5–6, possibly quoting the Book of the War (but the text is quite fragmentary here). On the formulas and their resemblance to NT forms, cf. Fitzmyer, Essays, 7–16; idem, “Christianity in Light of the Scrolls,” 252–53.

E.g., Test. Zeb. 3:4; b. Giṭ. 9:10; Sanh. 10:1; Mek. Pisha 1.76–77; Sipre Deut. 56.1.2b; y. Meg. 1:5, §1; Sukkah 2:10, §1; 3:5, §1; Taʿan. 3:11, §5; 3 En. 5:14; 18:7, 18, 24; 28:4, 9, 10; 31:2. Cf. “as it is written” (Jub. 50:12; Test. Levi 5:4) and “it is written” (Jub. 4:5; 5:18; 32:28; 33:10, 12) in the heavenly tablets. Cf. Deissmann, Studies, 249–50, for the legal use of such a phrase in Hellenistic papyri.

E.g., m. ʾAb. 6:10; Giṭ. 9:10; Sanh. 10:1; Mek. Pisha 1.76 (וכתיב); 1.77 (וכתיב); Sipre Deut. 56.1.2b; y. Meg. 1:5, §1; Sukkah 2:10, §1; 3:5, §1; Taʿan. 3:11, §5; Gen. Rab. 1:4; Num. Rab. 19:8; cf. Sandmel, Judaism, 112 (noting the Gemara’s ka-katúv); Bultmann, Tradition, 45.

In the semirabbinic apocalypse 3 Enoch, for biblical quotations by the narrator (3 En. 5:14; 18:7, 18, 24; 23:1–18; 24:1–23; 28:4, 9, 10; 31:2; 35:4, 5; 38:2, 3; 40:3, 4; 42:3, 5, 6; 44:9; 46:13; 48A:3, 6; 48B:2; 48C:9–12; 48D:4; cf. 43:3; 48A:7) or heavenly beings (2:4, except A and E texts).

So Fitzmyer, “Quotations.” The rabbis’ “it is written” usually literally translates “it is said,” but “written” appears in 4Q266 11 3–6 (Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 120).

For “said” instead of “written,” see, e.g., CD IV, 19–20; XIX B, 15; 1QpHab VI, 2; m. ʾAb. 1:18; 2:13; Mek. Pisha 1.70–71; ʾAbot R. Nat. 36 A; cf. related formulas in 1QM XI, 5–6; CD IV, 13; V, 8; VI, 7–8, 13; VII, 8, 14; VIII, 9, 14; IX, 7–9; X, 16.

Outside the NT, see 1 Clem. 4.1; 14.4; 29.2; 36.3; 39.3; 46.2; 48.2; 50.4, 6; Ign. Eph. 5.3; Magn. 12.1; Phld. 8.2; Barn. 4.14; 11.1; 14.6; 16.6; Herm. 7.4; Papias frg. 2.1.

Cf. Bovon, Studies, 115. In Roman court settings, citing laws, see, e.g., Quint. Decl. 315.3, 5 (Scriptum est).

Deissmann, Studies, 249–50, argues for its legal character in early Hellenistic papyri.

Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 119.

Fitzmyer, Essays, 55 (arguing against B. Gärtner on this point).

Fitzmyer, “Christianity in Light of the Scrolls,” 253.

Cf. Talbert, Acts, 22, who also compares the setting apart of leaders in Exod 18:25; Num 27:22–23; and (perhaps implicitly) Acts 1:26.

See Clark, “Role,” 177–80. For varied language in such summaries of Jesus’s ministry, cf. Mussies, “Variation.”

See further Jos. Life 357; Ag. Ap. 1.45–56; our introduction, , ; comment on Acts 1:8.

Vander Stichele, “Gender,” 313, sees maleness as a criterion for the new apostle here.

Certainly, there was at least one woman among the early “apostles” as Paul uses the term (Rom 16:7; so Chrys. Hom. Rom. 31; Bruce, Mind, 262; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 587; Fàbrega, “War Junia[s]?”; see discussion in Bauckham, Women, 172–81; possibly as itinerant missionaries [as in Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 29; MacDonald, “Role of Women,” 163]), though none among the Twelve (how Luke usually defines “apostles”).

E.g., Jos. Ant. 4.219; Sipra VDDeho. pq.7.45.1.1; Justin. Inst. 2.10.6 (though contrast the earlier Gaius Inst. 2.105); see further Buckland, Roman Law, 92, 293; Schiemann, “Intestabilis,” 875; Wegner, Chattel, 120–23; outside forensic settings, cf., e.g., Avianus Fables 15–16. Women did testify under some circumstances (cf., e.g., Davies and Taylor, “Testimony”; Rothstein, “Testimony”).

E.g., contrast Peter’s confession in 10:28 with the implications of his theology in 2:17, 39. Admittedly, Luke later confronts Peter’s approach to Gentiles more forcefully than he addresses his view of gender, but the gender implications of 2:17–18 and their fleshing out elsewhere (cf. 21:9) might be relevant here.

See Gaventa, Acts, 71. Paul includes among the apostles also James (Gal 1:19; cf. 1 Cor 15:7) and apparently his own coworkers, Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thess 2:6; on Timothy, see, e.g., Ambrosiaster Comm. [CSEL 81:190; Bray, Corinthians, 187]; pace Bruce, Thessalonians, 31).

E.g., Num 27:17; Deut 31:2; 1 Sam 18:13, 16; 29:6; 2 Sam 3:25; 1 Kgs 3:7; 2 Chr 1:10; with Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 14. Cf. also Deut 28:6, 19; Josh 14:11; 1 Sam 29:6; 2 Kgs 19:27; Ps 121:8; Isa 37:28; Jer 17:19; 37:4; Jub. 35:6; CD XI, 10; Acts 9:28; John 10:7; m. Mid. 1:3.

Of thirty uses of συνέρχομαι in the NT, more than half (sixteen) occur in Acts, though only two in the Gospel.

See Tannehill, Acts, 23.

In the case of Luke 1:3, this may include the infancy narratives (traditions from James and ultimately Mary); cf. Acts 26:4 for Paul’s background. Ancient historians such as Herodotus and Thucydides consulted with family members for information (Byrskog, History, 82–83), and Byrskog argues persuasively that early Christians would have regarded Jesus’s relatives, including James and Mary, as authoritative sources (83–90).

Johannine literature also speaks of the “beginning” of believers’ own experience of the good news (1 John 2:7, 24; 3:11; 2 John 5–6).

E.g., Plut. Caes. 1.1–4; Jos. Life 1–12; also Life of Aesop in Drury, Design, 29; see Burridge, Gospels, 197–98.

Smith, “Comparison of Tradition,” 174–75, presses this emphasis to the exclusion of teaching (against Gerhardsson), but one wonders if Luke’s emphasis should be pressed so far (as against, e.g., Matthew’s); the sayings material in the Gospel suggests that even Luke would have been less restrictive than Smith thinks. Cf. Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 286–91.

See Abrahams, Studies (1), 30–35; Meier, “John the Baptist”; Webb, Baptizer. One should discount, however, the Slavonic additions between Jos. War 2 and War 3 (LCL, 3:644–45).

For the importance of comparing characters, cf. the prominence of synkrisis in rhetoric (e.g., Hermog. Progymn. 8, “On Syncrisis,” 18–20). For an extensive and helpful contrast between Peter and Judas, see Parsons, Acts, 31–32.

The number may be symbolic for the nations, as the number of the twelve is for Israel, or it might allude to the number of elders who received the Spirit with Moses; see the discussion at Acts 6:3.

E.g., in Jerusalem, CIJ 2:281, §1291; Luke lacked reason to include Caiaphas’s first name. “Joseph” was the only non-Hasmonean name as popular as Hasmonean ones in first-century Palestine (Williams, “Names,” 108–9; it appears widely across social levels in Palestine and the Diaspora, Williams, “Names,” 89).

On epitheton, see Anderson, Glossary, 52–53.

E.g., Polyb. 9.24.5; Dion. Hal. Din. 1; Plut. Themist. 32.1, 5; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.483; in mythology, e.g., Ajax (Philost. Hrk. 23.21; 32.33; 33.39; 35.1); “Heracles” (Arrian Alex. 2.16.1–3; 4.28.2; Ind. 5.13; Appian Hist. rom. 6.1.2); Plato (philosopher vs. comic poet, Hor. Sat. 2.3.11); and others (Arrian Alex. 2.16.4). Cf. Symm. Ep. 1.2.2; two people named John Eck in Luther’s day (in Bainton, Stand, 182).

E.g., P.Oxy. 494.32; 1273.3, 49; CPJ 2:140, §§248–49; 2:143, §261; 2:145, §§269–70; 2:146, §274; 2:147, §275; 2:147, §276; 2:151, §298; 2:153, §304; 2:154, §311; 2:156, §321; 3:9, §453; CIJ 1:24, §30; 2:111, §879.

Matthews, “Names, Greek,” 1023.

On nicknames, see, e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.2.4; Philost. Hrk. 14.4; Gen 29–30; cf. the “Goliath” family in Hachlili and Killebrew, “Byt glyt”; and by contrast, “Samuel the small” in b. Soṭah 9:13, §2.

Williams, “Names,” 106. In the Diaspora, Jews made less use of alternative, ethnic-specific names than Egyptians did (Williams, “Alternative Names”).

Double names were also standard in the culture (e.g., CIJ 1:24, §30; 2:111, §879; CPJ 2:143, §261; Leon, Jews of Rome, 107, 111; Acts 1:23; Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 47–48).

The Hebrew term translated “father-in-law” may also allow “brother-in-law” or another relative in some of these cases. Cf. also “Jacob” and “Israel”; “Elohim” and “YHWH” (though variant names also occur in Egyptian inscriptions and other ancient sources; see Kitchen, Orient, 121–22). For dual names in Bronze Age Mesopotamia and the Levant, see Cole, “Numbers,” 355.

Cornelius Nepos himself notes another figure surnamed “the good” (19 [Phocion], 1.1).

Most people had one name, but Roman citizens had three names (see comment on Acts 13:9), just as some Greeks had surnames (Appian Hist. rom. pref. 13). In Rome’s Jewish inscriptions, Latin users had double and triple names far more often than Greek (Leon, Jews of Rome, 111–13), though Semitic names are rarely combined with others (107).

Euseb. H.E. 2.23.4–7; G. Thom. 12 (NHL 119); cf. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 41.

For the name in Palestine, see, e.g., CIJ 2:135, §928; 2:143, §946; 2:169, §983; 2:171, §986; 2:235, §1197; 2:253, §1233; Jos. Life 36, 338, 346, 350, 357–60, 410.

Williams, “Names,” 104; cf. Bruce, Commentary, 50. It appeared primarily as a nickname there, not as a first or second name.

Williams, “Names,” 104; cf. Hemer, Acts in History, 221–22. For Diaspora Jews, see, e.g., CIJ 1:8, §3; 1:15, §13; 1:88, §125; 1:160, §224; 1:172, §240; 1:175, §245; 1:279, §357; 1:279, §358; 1:280, §359; 1:366–67, §502; 1:393, §533; 1:427, §583; 1:478, §666; 1:481, §670.

Williams, “Names,” 101–2; cf. Carter and Earle, Acts, 22; cf. the Jerusalem ossuary in Yamauchi, Stones, 121.

Papias frg. 3.9 (AF) (= frg. 6 in ANF 1:154); Euseb. H.E. 3.39.9; cf. Mark 16:18. Noted also in Fitzmyer, Acts, 226–27.

Also 3Q15 II, 5; Jos. Ant. 17.151; Life 7; Let. Aris. 47; CIJ 2:309, §1361; 2:309, §1362a; 2:310, §1362b; Luke 3:25–26; see also comment on “Matthew” at Acts 1:13. Some note the unlikely later legend of Matthias’s martyrdom in Ethiopia (Blaiklock, Acts, 53).

Outside these two passages, the only other use of the term in the earliest Christian texts is Herm. 31.4, which may reflect Luke’s terminology.

Dunn, Acts, 21. Barrett, Acts, 94, also contrasts pre- and post-Pentecost guidance, though affirming the legitimacy of Matthias’s choice.

Cf. perhaps God’s knowledge of the future state of hearts in Luke 2:35.

Closer to the wording is 1 Kgs 8:39 (//2 Chr 6:30), where, at the temple’s dedication, Solomon prays that God will answer people’s prayers according to the integrity of their hearts. Some find temple themes in Luke’s following context; the following context of 1 Kgs 8:41–43 also addresses the welcoming of Gentiles in God’s house (a point prefigured in Acts 2:5–11). But the idea is frequent enough (1 Chr 28:9; Prov 24:12; Jer 12:3), and Acts may borrow the language without emphasizing the context. (Acts 2:39 offers a covert allusion to the Gentile mission, but not as covert as this one would be.)

The gods have access to all knowledge (Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 32.17–18; tongue-in-cheek, cf. Lucian Phal. 1.1). Thales opined that one should guard the purity of one’s mind, since the gods know all thoughts (Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 8; Diog. Laert. 1.36). I draw here from Keener, John, 532.

E.g., Hom. Od. 4.468; 13.417; 20.75; Pindar Pyth. 3.28; Xen. Cav. Com. 9.9; Plut. Isis 1, Mor. 351E; Athen. Deipn. 5.218F; Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 32.17–18; Max. Tyre 3.1; Philost. Hrk. 16.4. Cf. the claim for Caesar in Ovid Pont. 4.9.125–28; a hero in Philost. Hrk. 43.3; the function of oracles in Aune, Prophecy, 68. At one point, a mortal suggests that the gods know all things (Hom. Od. 4.379), but the deity, who does not know, must refer him to another (4.382–93) who does know (4.472–80).

E.g., Hom. Il. 3.277; Hesiod Theog. 514; Aeschylus Eum. 1045; Suppl. 139, 210, 303–5; Ap. Rhod. 2.1123, 1133, 1179; cf. Aristoph. Birds 1058; Ovid Metam. 13.852–53.

E.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.181, claiming that all Jews agree; Sir 39:19; Bar 3:32; Sus 42; Let. Aris. 210; Sib. Or. 1.151; 3.12; 1 En. 9:5; 39:11; 84:3; CD II, 9–10; 2 Bar. 21:8; cf. Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 3:9; 16:13; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 1:9; “God of knowledge” in 4Q504 4 4; 4Q510 1 2; 4Q511 1 7.

4Q180 2–4 II, 5–10 (explaining Gen 18:21); 4Q299 3 II, 10–11; 1 En. 63:3; Pss. Sol. 9:3; 14:8; 17:25; Let. Aris. 132–33, 189; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.166; Ant. 4.41; Philo Prov. 2.35; Test. Jud. 20.3–4; Test. Zeb. 5:2; Test. Naph. 2:4–5; t. B. Qam. 7:2; b. Roš Haš. 1:3, §§39–42; Exod. Rab. 21:3; 43:3; 46:3. See also the sixth-century C.E. synagogue inscription in Carmon, Inscriptions, §185, pp. 85, 188–89; numerous targumic references in Lane, Hebrews, 103.

See, e.g., Hesiod W.D. 267; Eurip. El. 1176; Xen. Cyr. 5.4.31; Mem. 1.1.19; Epict. Diatr. 2.14.11; Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 8.

E.g., PGM 4.3046–48; Philo Spec. Laws 3.52; Rom 8:27; t. Sanh. 8:3; b. Ber. 58a (attributed to Ben Zoma); Gen. Rab. 67:8; Exod. Rab. 14:3; Acts Paul 3.24 (Paul Thec. 24); cf. Marmorstein, Names, 73, 79, 86. One finds similar designations in other societies (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 39), and the monotheistic emphasis continues in Islam, where Allah is All-knowing (e.g., Qur’an 3.73; 4.128, 130, 177; 5.54, 97; 24.64; 36.78; 49.16; 57.3; 58.7; 64.4), the Knower (e.g., 4.11, 17, 26, 32, 35, 70, 104, 111; 6.3, 13, 18, 60, 74; 8.71; 9.15, 16, 28, 60, 106, 110; 12.6, 83; 17.17; 31.28; 49.13; 67.14), seer (40.44; 67.19), seer or knower of deeds (33.9; 34.11; 48.24; 49.17; 57.4; 58.3, 13; 63.11; 64.2, 8), knower and seer (17.96), Watcher over all things (33.52; witness of all, 33.55; 34.47; 58.6), knower of all hidden and invisible things, especially hearts (5.116; 9.78; 13.9; 16.19; 32.6; 34.48; 39.46; 42.24; 49.17; 50.16; 57.6; 59.22; 60.1; 62.8; 64.4, 18; 72.26; 84.23; including sins, 25.58; sincerity, 29.3, 11; secrets, 33.54); hears and sees all (e.g., 4.134, 135, 148; 5.76; 7.200; 40.20, 56; hearer and knower, 8.17, 42, 61; 24.21, 60; 26.220; 29.5, 60; 31.28; 44.6; 49.1; 58.1); knows hearts (5.7; he knows what humans do, 11.123); is Knower, wise (22.52; 24.18, 38–39; 33.1; 34.1; 48.4; 43.84; 49.8; 60.10), mighty and wise or knower (35.2; 36.37; 39.1; 40.2, 8; 41.12; 42.3, 50; 43.9; 45.2, 37; 46.2; 48.7, 19; 57.1; 59.1, 24; 62.1, 3; 64.18).

E.g., Wis 7:23; 2 Macc 7:35; Let. Aris. 16; Sib. Or. frg. 1.3, 4; 1.152; 2.177. God watches especially the ways of the righteous; e.g., Test. Benj. 4:3; 6:6; 4 Bar. 7:35. Greeks also spoke of chief deities as ἐίίσκοίοι of all human life (e.g., Theon Progymn. 11.194; Epict. Diatr. 1.14.1, 9; 1.30.1; cf. Xen. Cyr. 8.7.22; Ap. Rhod. 2.1123, 1133, 1179; Callim. Hymns 3 [to Artemis], line 39; Plut. Isis 51, Mor. 371E; Xenophanes in Diog. Laert. 9.2.19; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.33; Porph. Marc. 12.205–6).

E.g., m. ʾAb. 2:1; Wis 1:6; among Greeks, Callim. Aetia 3.85.15.

E.g., Plut. Isis 75, Mor 381B; PGM 13.62; Ps.-Euripides in “Fragments of Pseudo-Greek Poets,” OTP 2:828; Philo Creation 69.

Haenchen, Acts, 162, suggests that the prayer was uttered in unanimity. For discussion, see comment on Acts 4:24–30.

Also Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 15; Crowe, Acts, 6–7.

Bede Comm. Acts 1.26 warns against inferring too much from their use here.

This is not a purely modern observation; Bede Comm. Acts 1.26 (trans. L. Martin, 20; Martin, Acts, 18) also compares the use of lots in the case of Zechariah in Luke 1.

See Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 15, who settle on the Father (though noting that καρδιογνῶστα applies to Christ in the later Apost. Const. 3.7.8). Ladd, Young Church, 50–51, and Talbert, Acts, 21, apply it to Jesus. (Talbert helpfully compares Luke 10:2; but his examples of Jesus’s knowing hearts in 5:22 and 7:39–40 seem less compelling than Acts 15:8; see comment on above.)

Jesus is also often “Lord” in the Gospel (e.g., Luke 2:11; 6:5, 46; 7:13, 19; 10:1, 41; 11:39; 12:42; 13:15; 22:61; 24:3, 34); vocatives can mean “Sir,” but surely after the resurrection, they convey something more (Acts 1:6).

E.g., Thucyd. 2.34.8–2.46.2; b. Šabb. 153a; Lebram, “Literarische Form,” on 4 Macc 3:19–18:24; see fuller comment in the section “Mourning” of the excursus “Burial and Mourning Practices and Stephen’s Death” at Acts 8:2.

Sinaiticus’s reading κλῆρος also makes good sense of the context (Acts 1:17, which it may reflect), but τόίον (𝔓⁷⁴ A B) has wider geographic distribution and appears the likelier reading here (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 288). “Lot” and “place” appear synonymous in 1QS II, 23 (Barrett, Acts, 103).

Gaventa, Acts, 70, suggests a connection between his “turning aside to go” and similar movement in Luke 22:3–4 (after Satan entered Judas, he “went”). Though not impossible, this connection does not appear strong.

Going to one’s “place” can mean going home (Gen 30:25; 1 Sam 2:20; cf. Exod 18:23; 1 Sam 14:46). Johnson, Acts, 37, notes that it sometimes applies to “one’s place of final destiny” (citing Tob 3:6; 1 Clem. 5:4; Ign. Magn. 5.1; but Tob 3:6 refers to death and Ignatius probably depends on Acts 1:25); Witherington, Acts, 122, and Barrett, Acts, 103, read it as a euphemism for hell (cf. Luke 16:25). For death (but applicable to all persons), cf. Eccl 3:20; 6:6.

Note also the contrast with Peter’s own “other place” in Acts 12:17 (in Land, Diffusion, 177, 226). Acts 28:30 does not fit the pattern, but it was the most coherent way for Luke to say what he needed.

With, e.g., Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 123–29.

Pythagoreans provoked much ancient numerical symbolism (cf. Laroche, “Numbers”; Menken, Techniques, 27–29), and their influence was known (e.g., Plut. E Delph. 8, Mor. 388C), though Israel’s “twelve tribes” certainly predate Pythagoras.

E.g., Rome’s Law of the Twelve Tables (Tac. Ann. 3.27); twelve servants in Jos. Asen. 3:2/3 (cf. seven in 2:6); Test. Ab. 2:5 A.

E.g., Aristoph. Knights 235; Menander Kolax E232; Fabula Incerta 8.11, 172; Alciph. Court. 18 (Menander to Glycera), 2.3, ¶8; Polyb. 4.39.6; Apollod. Bib. 3.14.2; Lucian Parl. G. 15; Paus. 1.3.3; Libanius Descr. 25.5; see further Guthrie, Greeks and Gods, 110–12; Phillips, “Twelve gods.” Cf. a group of twelve deities in Livy 22.10.9 (Purcell, “Consentes Di”); Romans used twelve rods to symbolize the two consuls (Val. Max. 1.1.3).

Aune, “Religion,” 919; Kearns, “Religion, Greek,” 1301.

E.g., Pliny E. N.H. 2.3.9; Petron. Sat. 35; cf. the twelve elements of heaven in PGM 36.19.

Cf. zodiacal associations with the twelve tribes in, e.g., Philo Mos. 2.112, 124–26; Rewards 65; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:5; Pesiq. Rab. 4:1; 29/30A:6. Cf. later Mithraic and Christian associations with the zodiac (Deman, “Mithras and Christ,” 517, including the twelve apostles; in Mithraism, Beck, “Zodiac”; Campbell, Iconography, 44–90). Some Jews connected temple symbolism (Philo Heir 221–25; QE 2.73, 79; Jos. War 5.217) or the priest’s breastplate (Philo Mos. 2.123–24; Jos. Ant. 3.186) with the zodiac; cf. also the later synagogue zodiacs (e.g., CIJ 2:212–13, §1162; 2:240–42, §1206; 2:242, §1207; Narkiss, “Elements,” 186; May, “Synagogues,” 9; Shanks, “Zodiac”; Hachlili, “Zodiac”; idem, “Zodiac in Art”; Gutmann, “Beth Alpha,” 299; Weiss, “Mosaic”; Meyers, “Synagogues,” 106), presumably depicting God over creation (cf. Philo Dreams 2.112; Sib. Or. 13.69–71; Tr. Shem passim; rabbis would have understood these monotheistically; Miller, “Rabbis”; as also in early Christianity, Oster, “Windows”). Arator Acts 1 (Martin, Acts, 16) compares the constellations even here!

Xen. Cyr. 1.2.5 (for Xenophon’s firsthand knowledge of Persia, see Xen. Anab. passim). Division into twelve tribes appears elsewhere (cf. Gen 17:20; 25:16; cf. Noth, History, 85–97); Alexander could also divide his army into twelve parts (Arrian Alex. 5.29.1).

E.g., y. Meg. 1.9, §12.

E.g., Philo Mos. 2.112, 124–26; Rewards 65; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:5; Pesiq. Rab. 4:1; 29/30A:6; cf. Jos. War 5.217.

Although Luke may use an estimate in Acts 19:7 (“about” twelve) to evoke the original twelve (paralleling Paul with Jesus), the allusion in his clearer “the twelve” (6:2; Luke 8:1; 9:1, 12; 18:31; 22:3, 47) is surely to the twelve tribes (Acts 7:8; 26:7; Luke 22:30).

Contrary to some who share this perspective, however, “their significance” may well be “evocative and not constitutive”; see Richardson, Israel, 61.

E.g., Jeremias, Theology, 234–35. Thus they mark Jesus’s movement as a renewal movement within Judaism (e.g., Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 138), a frequent scholarly understanding of the earliest Jesus movement (cf., e.g., Horsley, “Movements”).

Cf. also 1QM II, 1–3; 4Q159 2–4 3–6; 4Q164 1 4–5. For “twelve” in Qumran and other literature, see also Geyser, “Tribes,” 392.

See Bruce, “Jesus,” 75–76; Harrington, God’s People, 39; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 104; cf. Jervell, Luke and People of God, 82, 89.

Jeremias, Theology, 234; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 99–101.

The tradition of the Twelve—which is older than any given list of the names themselves—is a nearly certain bedrock tradition going back to the historical Jesus (Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11, 98–101; Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 126–27; Ehrman, Prophet, 186–87; Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 137). (In contrast to the slight variations in the canonical lists, one may compare the forms in the Apostolic Church Orders and the Epistula apostolorum [Lake, “Twelve,” 41].)

Bauckham, “James,” 430 (citing the views of Spencer and Daube, not his own). For the eschatological hope for the twelve tribes, Acts 26:7; see Sanders, Judaism, 291 (citing, e.g., 1QM II, 2–3; 11QT^a VIII, 14–16; LVII, 5–6).

Clark, “Role,” 173–77, esp. 174.

Six in, e.g., P.Col. 270.1.25–28; BGU 1273.36–40; P.Cair.Zen. 59001.48–52; P.Eleph. 1.16–18; P.Tebt. 104.34–35.

E.g., Isaeus Nicost. 28; Lysias Or. 10.16, §117; 13.86, §138; 11.5, §119; 14.17, §141; 15.3, §144; Xen. Hell. 1.7.10; 2.3.54; Lucian Indictment 5. See also MacDowell, “Eleven.” Cf. Allison, Jesus, 69.

E.g., Xen. Mem. 4.4.3; Hell. 2.3.11; Dio Chrys. Or. 43.8; Plut. Lys. 21.1–2; Paus. 1.29.3; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.16.501; see at greater length Gagarin, “Thirty Tyrants” (also noting a board called “the Ten”); Rhodes, “Triakonta.”

Lysias Or. 13.70, §136; Thucyd. 8.68.2; 8.70.1; 8.86.1; 8.92.2, 6; 8.93.1–2; Xen. Hell. 2.3.30, 45; Plut. Alc. 26.2; 27.1; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.15.498. On the Four Hundred, see further Andrewes and Rhodes, “Four Hundred”; they were replaced by the Five Thousand (Thucyd. 8.86.3–6; 8.92.11; 8.93.2). Cf. also the Eleans’ “Three Hundred” (Xen. Hell. 7.4.31) and the Ten Thousand (Xen. Hell. 7.4.33); two groups of “three hundred” (Rhodes, “Triakosioi”).

E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 50.2 (and see H. L. Crosby, LCL, 4:314n1); IG 2² .3277 (Sherk, Empire, §78A, p. 115); IG 2² .3449 (Sherk, Empire, §42F, pp. 80–81). Massilia’s senate was also called “the Six Hundred” (Val. Max. 2.6.7e). For Athens’s Five Hundred, see, e.g., Lysias Or. 13.86, §138; in a later period, constituting their councilors that year, see Paus. 1.3.5.

Tac. Ann. 3.64.

E.g., Suet. Aug. 36. Cf. the board of five (quinqueviri; e.g., Pliny Ep. 2.1.9).

E.g., Suet. Jul. 79.3.

See, e.g., Pliny Ep. 2.14.1; 4.16.1; 4.24.1; 5.9.5; 6.12.2; 9.23.1.

Nicholas, “Centumviri,” 309; Pliny Ep. 6.33.3.

On the textual variant, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 150–51; further sources in our introduction, , . If the number prefigures the Gentile mission as the Twelve suggests the mission to Israel, the association of seventy with the nations is significant, but see discussion our introduction, , .

E.g., Cic. Agr. 2.17.44; Statius Silv. 1.4.24 (see J. H. Mozley in LCL, 1:49 n. f); 4.4.43; 4.9.16; Suet. Aug. 36; Vesp. 10; Dom. 8.1; Passienus Crispus; Rhet. 6; cf. 2 Sam 23:23, 39.

Origen Comm. 1 Cor. 4.77; Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. 38.5; cf. Oecumenius in Pauluskommentare (Bray, Corinthians, 150).

See Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.30, on the “eighteen” Brahman sages at the king’s court.

This was close to the lowest limits for associations (Klauck, Context, 43).

Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.19 notes that Apollonius had seven disciples at one point; in 5.43, he has thirty and selects the ten most suitable to accompany him.

Cf. classical Athenian use of ostraca for voting (Deissmann, Light, 52, 55; MacDowell, “Ostracism”), but the usual Greek appointment of Athenian officials by lot reduced the Roman problem of “electoral corruption” (Eder, “Elections,” 897). For some jurors chosen by lot, cf. Max. Tyre 16.4; for lots selecting the roles for participants in sacred dramas, see Smith, Symposium, 117.

Cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 228; Barrett, Acts, 105.

Aune, Prophecy, 25, 30; cf. Parker, “Oracles”; Kauppi, Gods, 21–24 (for the relationship with Acts 1:15–26, see 25–27). Lots were apparently important among the Germans as well, where a priest (for the state) or a father (for a family) would distinguish slices of branch by runes and spread them over a cloth (Tac. Germ. 10).

Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:13; cf. discussion in Toner, Culture, 44–46. “Many of the major oracular sanctuaries” in antiquity had lot oracles (Nollé, “Lot”). Numbered stones or small shaped objects could be used (Stumpf, “Tessera,” 313). For the ancient Near Eastern practice, see, e.g., Horowitz and Hurowitz, “Urim” (suggesting multiple draws, with a white stone signifying “Yes” and a black stone “No”); and Kitz, “Terminology” (shaking items onto the ground, summarized in Hubbard, Joshua, 403). For lots in some cultures today, see, e.g., Werbner, “Truth,” 200–201; Rives, Religion, 57, compares the I Ching in traditional Chinese culture.

See Hom. Il. 7.171, 175; Pliny E. N.H. 33.4.12; cf. marriage partners in Eurip. Aeolus hypothesis 29–32; frg. 24a. MacDonald, Imitate Homer, 105–19, compares the selection of Matthias with the portrayal of the selection of Ajax to fight Hector in Il. 7; this comparison illumines some common cultural selection procedures, but we should note that they are hardly limited to Acts and Homer.

E.g., Heracl. Hom. Prob. 41.5; Lucian Dance 37.

See, e.g., Jones and Rhodes, “Epistatēs.” Some (apparently often including archons) obtained offices in Athens by lot (Plut. Arist. 1.8).

Rhodes, “Lot,” 816.

Ameling, “Lot” (for land lots, inheritance, liturgies, etc.).

See Rosenstein, “Sorting Out the Lot”; earlier among Greeks, see Rhet. Alex. 2.1424a.13–14. Penner, “Discourse,” 96n94, compares Acts 1:26 with Roman use of lots for political offices; although this is but one possible comparison, it is a useful one.

Kierdorf, “Lot,” 818 (also noting the tribes to which freedpersons were assigned). For other duties, see, e.g., Tac. Ann. 4.56.

Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.1.9.27; Vell. Paterc. 2.59.2; Pliny Ep. 2.12.2; 4.9.2; Suet. Vesp. 4.3; but cf. Tac. Ann. 3.58, 71.

The senate may have occasionally made exceptions for some reputed for extraordinary virtue (Val. Max. 8.15.4); sometimes, in praetors drawing lots for provinces, the matter could be rigged (Cic. Fam. 5.2.3).

For military use of oracles, see, e.g., Hdn. 8.3.7; for the Delphic oracle, Nilsson, Cults, 124–27; earlier in the ancient Near East, see, e.g., ANET 274–75, 277, 281, 292, 416, 449–50; ARMT 13.23, 114 in Moran, “Prophecy,” 17; Craghan, “Mari,” 48; Ross, “Prophecy,” 17; van der Toorn, “Oracle de victoire”; Craigie, Ugarit, 35; cf. Hayes, “Oracles,” 81–82. The pious would consult deities before acting (Xen. Cyr 1.5.6, 14; 1.6.2; 1.6.44; Anab. 6.3.18; 1 Sam 23:2–4; 2 Sam 5:23); they might wait for favorable omens (Xen. Anab. 6.4.16–25; 6.5.2, 8; Plut. Arist. 17.6–18.2). Others might ignore or reinterpret them (Val. Max. 1.6.6; 3.7.ext. 6; Suet. Jul. 59; 77; Tib. 2.2).

In Josephus, see, e.g., Ant. 6.62. Brug, “Lottery or Election?” thinks that the OT background supports lots here, though he doubts that the use of lots here is as clear as most commentators suggest.

Le Cornu, Acts, 50, adds 1Q28a I, 16.

See Driver, Scrolls, 520 (also the suggestion that Essenes appointed leaders by lot, though Jos. War 2.123 need not be so construed).

E.g., by revealing Achan as the transgressor (Josh 7:14; Jos. Ant. 5.43; b. Sanh. 11a; 43b; Num. Rab. 23:6) or (some thought) by determining the order of suicide (Jos. War 7.396). Some thought the Urim and Thummim worked by one of the stones shining supernaturally (Ant. 3.215; 1Q29; 4Q376; see Abegg, “Introduction to 1Q29,” 178). Lots may have even been used casually, as a form of gambling (e.g., Lam. Rab. 1:6); God would be sovereign in Israel’s favor, as with Purim (Esth 3:7; 9:24–32; Esth. Rab. 7:11).

Also b. Zebaḥ. 119b; Num. Rab. 21:9; one view in Gen. Rab. 98:2.

Also Jos. Ant. 7.367; b. Taʿan. 27b. The rabbis differ on whether the priestly courses did certain things during certain parts of the Feast of Sukkoth by lot or by turn (t. Sukkah 4:15–16). Priests cast lots regarding sacrifices (b. Šabb. 148b; 149b; Taʿan. 28a, using Neh 10:34; b. Sukkah 55b; Menaḥ. 20b; 106b; Tamid 26a; 28a; 30a; 32b).

Cf. also lots in the Day of Atonement ritual (Lev 16:8; m. Yoma 4:1; b. Yoma 37a; 39b; Menaḥ. 59b).

Van der Horst, “Bibliomancy,” citing as possibilities 1 Macc 3:48; 2 Macc 8:23; and esp. b. Ḥul. 95b; Ḥag. 15ab; Taʿan. 9a.

For the suspicion, see also Cornfeld, Josephus, 241.

Witherington, Acts, 126.

Barrett, Acts, 105; for some reason, he doubts that this is the form of lot here.

Conzelmann, Acts, 12 (citing Prov 16:33 for the former; Livy 23.3.7 for the latter).

Lucian Hermot. 40 (LCL, 6:337). Greek letters functioned as numerals.

See Malbon, “Importance of Minor Characters.”

This tradition about Matthias is reported in Euseb. H.E. 1.12.3 (Fitzmyer, Acts, 227; Barrett, Acts, 102). Some (Barrett, Acts, 102) read Euseb. H.E. 3.29.4 as if Clement of Alexandria claimed that Matthias later became inappropriately ascetic; but Luke might not make so much of Judas’s replacement if he knew of such a tradition in his day.

↑ Back to top