5. With Witherington, Acts , 137–38.

5. With Witherington, Acts , 137–38.

Cf. similarly Soards, Speeches, 31; Witherington, Acts, 138. The “refutation” of Acts 2:15 is not limited to forensic speech but also appears in deliberative speech (e.g., Rufus Rhetor 39 in Anderson, Glossary, 124) and certainly in any speech interrupted by hecklers. Certainly, it is not an epideictic “festival speech” (on which cf., e.g., Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 145), though unprepared hearers might have expected a few of these.

See, e.g., Kurz, “Rhetoric in Christological Proof.” Because the rabbis derived many of their argumentative midrashic techniques from Hellenistic rhetoric, however (see Lieberman, Hellenism, 47–82; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:80ff.; Levine, Hellenism, 113–16; for examples, see, e.g., Arist. Rhet. 2.23.4–5, 1397b), we cannot isolate these techniques as purely Diaspora products.

John Chrysostom contrasts Peter’s boldness with his previous denials of Jesus (Hom. Acts 4, in Martin, Acts, 28).

The wording of Mark 1:17 would have made Jesus’s involvement in the transformation even clearer, but Luke changes it, perhaps to avoid a potentially negative misconstrual of fishing (Marshall, Luke, 206).

With Witherington, Acts, 137–38.

Witherington, Acts, 139. Such an inclusio, or verbal bracketing, was a common literary technique; see, e.g., Luke 15:24, 32; Matt 5:3, 10; 1 Cor 12:31; 14:1; Catull. Carm. 52.1, 4; 57.1, 10; Pliny Ep. 3.16.1, 13; Harvey, Listening, 66–67, 75–76, 91–92, 102–3, 289; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 229; Rowe, “Style,” 130; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 579, 582.

Xen. Mem. 4.2.6.

Sen. E. Controv. 10.pref. 3; Quint. Inst. 10.7.21.

Sen. E. Controv. 10.pref. 2.

Philost. Vit. soph. 1.24.529. Cf., e.g., Sen. E. Controv. 4.pref. 7; Pliny Ep. 2.3.1; Suet. Gramm. 23; Tac. Dial. 6; Lucian Prof. P.S. 20; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.482; see further discussion at Acts 14:15–17.

Gaventa, Acts, 73.

See Bailey, Poet, 65–66, along with his other literary insights there; more modestly, Parsons, Acts, 44.

Often they are “in the eye of the beholder” (Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 6). Bailey, Peasant Eyes, xix, xx, himself sounds this warning, noting that Bullinger’s abuse for a time discredited pursuit of chiasmi altogether. See the four test cases in Harvey, Listening, 104–17, with Gen 6:3–9:16 (113–14) being the likeliest.

Rowe, “Style,” 137; Harvey, Listening, 286. Rhetoricians did not emphasize such simple structures, but they are clear in texts (Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 94).

Harvey, Listening, 98. Note the verb twice in Hermog. Inv. 4.3.181; the genuine author is unknown.

In the LXX, see, e.g., Prov 10:17; Job 30:15 (Lee, “Translations: Greek,” 780); cf. the comparison with commutatio in Rhet. Her. 4.28.39 (Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 87).

See, e.g., Dewey, Debate, 206n123; Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 28–29; esp. Harvey, Listening, 61–82.

Harvey, Listening, 64–65, taking an extensive example from Hom. Od. 11.171–203 (ABCD-Dʹ-Cʹ-Bʹ-Aʹ).

Like other forms of parallelism (e.g., Albright, Yahweh, 4ff.), chiasmus appears in the ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible (Kitchen, World, 97; Harvey, Listening, 83–96) as well as in early Jewish texts (OTP 1:850 n. a, on Test. Job 25; Vellanickal, Sonship, 38–39, on 1QH^a XI, 7–12).

See Stock, “Chiastic Awareness.”

Harvey, Listening, 99. Chiasmus may draw attention to the relationship between lines parallel to each other (Gutt, Relevance Theory, 59).

Cf., e.g., the Heb. version of Ps 155 in 11Q5 XXIV, which is a partial acrostic; line 5 begins with b, line 7 with g, and “then (roughly) each line following with the subsequent letters” (Michael O. Wise in DSSNT 449).

Slightly adapted, but mostly reproduced, from Bailey, Poet, 65–66.

Ibid., 67.

Though skill in oral patterning could begin early (Harvey, Listening, 77, citing Quint. Inst. 2.4.15).

Cf. Dion. Hal. Thuc. 34, who doubts that Thucydides was “inspired” (θεοφορήτων) in view of his rhetorical inadequacies.

Cf. also Ellis, “Midrashic Features.”

Dunn, Acts, 27–28; cf. further Dupont, “Don de l’Esprit”; Turner, “Spirit of Christ and Christology,” 184–86; idem, Power, 268–69; Bonnah, Spirit, 275. Cf. also God appointing him as Lord and Christ (2:36).

Lindars, Apologetic, 37, arguing against views such as in Dodd, Preaching, 59 (though Lindars accepts much early tradition in the speech; Apologetic, ch. 2).

Cf. C. Williams, Acts, 60, for Aramaic. By contrast, Lüdemann, Acts, 54, rejects the authenticity of both speech and event because of LXX quotations, which expects too much of ancient historians.

Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 20, though they are probably wrong to think that Luke’s play on “Lord” would have worked only in Greek (the Syriac translation to which they appeal represents its own milieu, not that of the primitive church).

Pace Haenchen, Acts, 185.

See Tannehill, “Functions of Peter’s Speeches”; idem, Shape, 169–84.

Shiell, Reading Acts, 171, citing Cic. De or. 2.57.270–71.

See Shiell, Reading Acts, 174.

Ibid., 172.

That is, “eleven besides Peter,” the usual Lukan and Hellenistic, rather than classical, sense of the construction (Haenchen, Acts, 178n2, following Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 118–19, §221).

So Fitzmyer, Acts, 234. The comparison with “an Ignatian bishop with his crescent of attendant presbyters” (Pervo, Acts, 75) does not seem very relevant, though it might make sense on Pervo’s dating.

Their support also confirms that Peter’s speech is on behalf of the Christian community of “witnesses,” not for himself alone. Cf. Aeschines Tim. 29: only one who upholds the city’s “common interests” (κοινά) should address the citizen assembly.

These are aorist passive participles of ἵστημι, which also appears in this form in Acts 11:13; Luke 18:11, 40; 19:8 and nowhere else in the NT.

With Haenchen, Acts, 178n1; Fitzmyer, Acts, 251.

E.g., Xen. Anab. 5.1.2, 5; Cyr. 7.5.55; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.47.1; Cic. Verr. 2.4.64.142; Rosc. Amer. 1.1; 22.60; Virg. Aen. 11.342; Plut. Cic. 16.3; Coriol. 16.2; Tac. Ann. 16.29; Pliny Ep. 9.13.18; Lucian Peregr. 31; ʾAbot R. Nat. 6 A; 1 Cor 14:30 (though cf. Suet. Rhet. 6 for an exceptional case).

See more fully Keener, Matthew, 164; comment on Acts 13:16.

Soards, Speeches, 139 (on the LXX); Fitzmyer, Acts, 251 (citing Demosth. Cor. 291; Fals. leg. 336; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.33).

Even in Galilee, some natural acoustic settings existed that would amplify one’s voice range (Crisler, “Acoustics,” 134–37); the temple steps could have functioned similarly.

Edith L. Blumhofer, personal correspondence, April 18, 2006. Likewise, John Sung preached to thousands without amplification (Sung, Diaries, 112).

Noll, History, 93. (Conversely, in some locations in Africa I have found it difficult to project my voice for even a thousand people in a closed space without a sound system—but undoubtedly in part because I have been spoiled by my modern Western dependence on technology.)

Dio Chrys. Or. 27.5–7 complains that such competition virtually silenced philosophers (esp. Or. 27.7); although this would not likely be true of teachers in the Jewish temple, only the most popular (cf. Luke 19:47–20:1) would gather large crowds.

Bruce, Acts¹, 88; cf. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 21; Haenchen, Acts, 178n4; Marguerat, Actes, 87; Parsons, Acts, 41 (comparing also the “sound” in Acts 2:6, 14). Certainly, Acts 2 emphasizes preaching empowered by the Spirit as well as the message about Jesus (cf. Dyk, “Teologia”).

Cf. ʾAbot R. Nat. 38 A; b. Pesaḥ. 26a; Mark 12:35; Luke 19:47; 20:1; 21:37; John 7:14, 28; 8:20; 18:20; more sources in Liefeld, “Preacher,” 191; Safrai, “Temple,” 905.

See Men. Rhet. 1.3, 365.27–29. Cf. possibly Libanius Descr. 29.1, but this could refer to discussions about festivals afterward.

Cf., e.g., Malina and Rohrbaugh, Gospels, 141; deSilva, Honor, 29–31; for examples, see Pliny Ep. 1.5.5–6 and passim in ancient literature.

E.g., Xen. Cyr. 2.2.16; Cic. De or. 2.58.236; Fin. 4.26.73; Plut. Demosth. 11.4. This method sometimes, as in Cicero’s case, made enemies unnecessarily, contrary to Cicero’s own advice in Or. Brut. 26.88–90 (though more mildly, cf. Brut. 43.158; 93.322).

Scholars sometimes note the comic nature of the interchange (Dunn, Acts, 28; Pelikan, Acts, 53); on humor in Acts, cf. Goldingay, “Comic Acts?”; Grassi, Laugh.

See comment on Acts 7:51–53 (although Stephen rejects the convention). Even Cicero is more restrained with someone whom he cannot afford to alienate (Cic. Mur. 29.60).

For orators’ expected boldness, see comment on Acts 4:13.

An abrupt change of subject can be acceptable in rhetoric (see Rowe, “Style,” 145; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 582).

The term “residents” here, whatever else it means, must at least include the Diaspora Jews, some of them possibly pilgrims, subsumed under the same term in Acts 2:5.

Isaeus Pyrr. 1; Astyph. 16; Euphil. 10; Hagnoth. 1 (frg. 1); Demes. frg. 6; Eumath. frgs. 18, 20; Lysias Or. 14.32, §142; 14.41, §143; 15.1, §144; 17.1, §148; 18.1, §149; 18.20, §151; Demosth. Aphob. 1.1, 3, 4; Fals. leg. 4.

E.g., Aeschines Embassy 1, 4, 7, 55, 80, 87, 88, 108, 129, 135; Ctes. 179; Tim. 38, 41, 51, 69, 70.

Isaeus Menec. 17, 38, 44; Pyrr. 65; Nicost. 1–2, 13, 14, 21, 27; Dicaeog. 5, 29, 34, 35, 38, 41; Philoct. 9, 12, 39, 51; Apollod. 37; Ciron 1, 7, 21; Astyph. 6–7, 14, 26, 28, 34, 35; Aristarch. 1–3, 8, 11–12, 14, 18–19, 22; Hagnias 12, 37, 38; Cleon. 24–25, §37; 29, §37.

E.g., Lysias Or. 1.1, 11, 17, 34, 37, 47 (Murder of Eratosthenes); 6.41, §106 (equivalent to simply Ἀθηναῖοι, 6.50, §107).

E.g., Demosth. Fals. leg. 3, 4, 62, 64, 67.

E.g., ἄνδρες σύμμαχοι (to allies), Xen. Cyr. 5.3.30; 6.1.6; ἄνδρες φίλοι (to friends or soldiers), 5.5.44; 7.1.29. Later, see “men of Athens” in Hermog. Inv. 1.1.96 (twice), 97, 98, 99; 1.5.107; 2.7.124; 4.1.171.

As in Demosth. Epitaph. 1 (see DeWitt, “Demosthenes,” 7:6–7 n. a).

In conservative circles, even private conversations with women were discouraged (Eurip. El. 343–44; Theophr. Char. 28.3; Val. Max. 5.3.10–12; Livy 34.2.9; 34.4.18 [but cf. 34.5.7–10]; Sir 9:9; 42:12; John 4:27; m. ʾAb. 1:5; Ketub. 7:6; t. Šabb. 1:14; b. Ber. 43b, bar.; ʿErub. 53b), and the common use of the address suggests that speakers sometimes politely ignored women’s public presence. Perhaps it was considered poor taste to seem to address other men’s wives; perhaps it was simply convention.

See further Lucian Indictment, passim, e.g., 21, 30, 33, 34; Tyr. 1; Disowned 1, 6, 11, 14, 15, 18.

Indeed, he can occasionally use ἄνδρες to include women (Acts 17:34; so Bock, Acts, 572); Greek could also use the term to mean “person” generally (BDAG). Augustine explicitly addressed “men” in mixed audiences (MacMullen, Second Church, 97–98).

Luke accounts for a disproportionate share of the use of ἀνήρ in the NT; but what counts here is the plural use in speeches, and Luke has the majority of speeches following good Greek form.

Jos. Ant. 4.177; 6.20; 8.227; 11.38, 169; 14.172; 15.127, 382; 18.320; War 2.211; 3.472; 6.328; 7.323; Life 141.

He expressly emphasizes that gender as a bodily matter is irrelevant (Porph. Marc. 33.511–12).

Witherington, Acts, 138–39. For building rapport, see, e.g., Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 36.

See, e.g., the more elaborate form of προίαρασκευή in Anderson, Glossary, 104–5 (citing Quint. Inst. 9.2.17); less elaborately, Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 582 (on Phil 1:12).

E.g., Luke 14:35; 18:6; Mark 4:3, 9, 23; 7:14; Matt 11:15; Jas 2:5; Gen 4:23; 23:6, 8; 27:8, 43; Exod 18:19; Deut 4:1; 5:1; Josh 3:9; Prov 1:8; 4:1, 10; Job 13:6, 17; Sir 3:1; 6:23; 16:24; 23:7; 31:22; Bar 2:16; 3:2, 4, 9; 4:9; Jdt 5:5; 7:9; 8:11, 32; 14:1; Tob 6:13, 16; Test. Dan 1:2; Test. Jud. 20:1; Test. Iss. 6:1. The proposed allusion specifically to Joel 1:2 here (Evans, “Prophetic Setting,” 217) is thus forced.

E.g., Xen. Anab. 5.1.8; Rhet. Alex. 19, 1433b.19–23; Cic. Mil. 2.4; Philost. Hrk. 8.1; Epict. Diatr. 2.19.12; 3.24.68.

These are the only four occurrences of γνωστόν with ἔστω in early Christian literature. The phrase can hardly be daring in its LXX occurrences, all to the king (1 Esd 2:18; Ezra 4:12, 13; 5:8), but it does appear dramatic.

But rhetoricians also appreciated using wit to set hearers at ease; see Anderson, Glossary, 126 (citing Theon Progymnasmata (RG 2:99); Demet. Style 128; Cic. De or. 2.216–89; 3.205; Or. Brut. 138; Quint. Inst. 6.3).

Montefusco, “Exordium,” 272 (for the subject, citing Arist. Rhet. 1415a 26f; Cic. De or. 2.321; for the purpose, citing Cic. Inv. 1.20; Rhet. Alex. 1436a 33ff.).

In the words of Blue, “Influence,” 483.

Calculating Jerusalem sunrise in this season at around 6:00 a.m. Public business started early; in Rome, clients approached their patrons starting around dawn (e.g., Hor. Sat. 1.1.9–10; Ep. 2.1.103–5; Mart. Epig. 3.36.1–3); senators also could assemble at daybreak (Cic. Fam. 1.2.4; Plut. Cic. 15.3; 19.1); even schools started then (Watson, “Education,” 311–12); in summer, Romans counted “late morning” as before 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. (Carcopino, Life, 152). For early schedules for much of Mediterranean life, see further Keener, John, 1098.

On nonfestival days, work typically began after prayers at dawn; children also began school early and returned home by noon (Safrai, “Education,” 954).

Oesterley, Liturgy, 125 (attested in the Apostolic Tradition, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian).

Note the prudent caution of Falk, “Prayer Literature,” 274. Commentators usually note that on normal days Jews did not breakfast until 10:00 a.m. (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 21; Munck, Acts, 17; Bruce, Acts¹, 89; Barrett, Acts, 135). Greek practice varied in different periods (Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 3; Walter Miller, LCL 1:19n1 to Xen. Cyrop.; Keener, John, 1230; for this period, see esp. Smith, Symposium, 20–21).

Cyril Jer. Cat. Lect. 17.19 (Martin, Acts, 28) connects the third hour in Acts 2:15 with that in Mark 15:25; although this is not impossible, we should note that Luke omits the latter time description. Luke does not symbolically reinscribe time the way that John may do.

So Pliny E. N.H. 2.79.188.

Le Cornu, Acts, 93; Jeremias, Parables, 136n21; e.g., Exod. Rab. 41:7. Apart from legal contracts, Romans counted from sunrise as well; noon was VI (not XII) on their sundials (Morris, John, 158n90). Calculating from midnight (cf. Walker, “Hours”) was not the norm.

For pocket sundials (though rare), see Casson, Travel, 176–77; for water clocks, See comment on Acts 24:4. Some scholars have argued that a particular device found at Qumran is a detailed sundial (Albani and Glessmer, “Instrument de mesures”; Hollenbach, “Roundel”), but others have demurred (Levy, “Bad Timing”).

On enthymemes as (by one definition) incomplete syllogisms, see Vinson, “Enthymemes,” 119. On the category of time in refutations as relevant here, see Parsons, Acts, 42 (citing Theon Progymn. 93–94).

Smith, Symposium, 21. Vitruv. Arch. 6.4.1 expects dining after dark in winter.

Stambaugh, City, 200–201.

This was important, since the streets were often not safe (Jeffers, World, 31).

E.g., Alciph. Paras. 10 (Stemphylochaeron to Trapezocharon), 3.46, ¶2; Statius Silv. 2.4.6; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.21; Tac. Ann. 3.37; see further Winter, Left Corinth, 189.

Stambaugh, City, 201, citing Pliny Ep. 3.12; Prop. Eleg. 3.10.25–26; 4.8; Petron. Sat. 73.6; 78.6–7.

E.g., Sen. E. Controv. 2.1.15; Philo Cher. 92–93; Suet. Jul. 52.1; Tib. 42.1; Tit. 7.1; Libanius Descr. 6.6. Partying at night could be said to dull the senses (Livy 39.15.9). Toner, Culture, 151, cites emperors’ public nocturnal parties and the criticisms they invited (citing Suet. Calig. 18; Tac. Ann. 14.20–21).

Plut. Alex. 23.5 (of Alexander); Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 83.14 (who would have normally considered this behavior lazy; 122.1–2; cf. Seneca Elder Controv. 1.pref. 8); Aul. Gel. 7.10.5; Philo Cher. 92–93; cf. also Carcopino, Life, 151. Hangovers could include headaches and belching (e.g., Alciph. Farm. 30 [Scopiades to Cotion], 3.32, alleging that the hangover lasted two days).

Le Cornu, Acts, 93.

Pliny held a generally high view of the privileges of retirement (Ep. 4.23.3).

In Ep. 9.36.1, Pliny woke about sunrise, per his habit, but remained in bed afterward.

Cf. also Kelly, Peter, 340 (rightly citing Eccl 10:16; Isa 5:11; As. Mos. 7:4).

Dion. Hal. Demosth. 12 (quoting Demosth. Con. 3). Van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,” 56, and Fitzmyer, Acts, 251, appropriately cite Cic. Phil. 2.41.104. The sailors in Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.13 apparently were drunk the night before.

A Roman who so behaved invited criticism (Sen. E. Controv. 2.6.9).

Dio Chrys. Or. 3.81; Fronto Fer. als. 3.8–9 (cf. Ad M. Caes. 1.5.1). Sleep’s appropriate time was night (Sil. It. 4.88–89; excepting the afternoon siesta during midday heat, see Keener, John, 592; comment on Acts 26:13).

Dio Chrys. Or. 52.1 (where he rises at the first hour, apparently late for him); cf. Quint. Curt. 3.2.15.

Artem. Oneir. 1.8. Keener, John, 1098–99, surveys sources on early rising.

Fronto Ad M. Caes. 4.5.3 (letters); Ker, “Nocturnal Writers” (speeches and books; Quint. Inst. 10.3.26). But people more often studied in the morning (Vitruv. Arch. 6.4.1).

Cic. Att. 7.7; 13.26, 38; Plut. Demosth. 8.4; 12.5–6, though Philost. Vit. soph. 1.21.518 seems to view it as unusual (and one worked by night so he could study by day; Val. Max. 8.7.ext. 11).

E.g., 1QS VI, 6–7; t. Šabb. 1:13; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3b; Ber. 43b, bar.; ʿErub. 18b; 65a; Tamid 32b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 7:4; Exod. Rab. 47:5; Lev. Rab. 19:1; Num. Rab. 15:16; Safrai, “Home,” 745; Schnackenburg, John, 1:366.

Safrai, “Education,” 964–65.

Iambl. V.P. 25.112.

E.g., Suet. Aug. 78.1–2 (Augustus); Fronto Ad am. 2.2. The case of Claudius (Suet. Claud. 33.2) may relate to banquets (33.1) and women (33.2).

Lack of sleep could stem from self-discipline (Xen. Mem. 2.1.1; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.64.2; Livy 23.18.12; Sallust Catil. 54.4; Jug. 85.33; Sen. E. Controv. 1.pref. 17; Vell. Paterc. 2.41.2; 2.88.2; Mus. Ruf. 18B, p. 120.4; Sil. It. 9.4–5; Quint. Curt. 3.2.15; Plut. Cic. 36.3; Pliny Ep. 3.5.8–9; Iambl. V.P. 28.153; Libanius Maxim 1.4, 10, 13, 17; 2.12; Encomium 5.12; Anecdote 2.10; 3.30–31, 35), literary activity (Cic. Att. 13.26, 38; Ker, “Nocturnal Writers”), contemplation (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.30), Torah (Ps 119:55, 148; 1QS VI, 7–8; Gen. Rab. 17:5) or repentance (Jos. Asen. 18:4 MSS), sickness (Hippocr. Reg. Ac. Dis. 1–2; Prorr. 1.135–36; Fronto Ad am. 2.2; Ad M. Caes. 5.58 [73]), lovesickness (Ach. Tat. 1.6; PGM 101.5–7), jealousy (Plut. Themist. 3.3–4), fear (Pub. Syr. 359; Plut. Alex. 31.4; Sil. It. 13.256–57; cf. the eve of battle in Quint. Curt. 4.13.23; 7.8.2), anxiety caused by vice (Plut. Virt. 2, Mor. 100F), concern for others (Pliny Ep. 7.5.1; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.16.1; Symm. Ep. 1.48; perhaps 2 Cor 11:27–28), or other anxiety (Hom. Il. 2.2–3; Aristoph. Lys. 27; Livy 40.56.9; Plut. Cic. 35.3; Alex. 31.4; Ps 102:7); hunger (Libanius Invect. 6.16); mourning (Hom. Il. 24.4–6; Ovid Metam. 14.423–25; Tristia 3.8.27) or joyful reunion (Jub. 31:24); withholding of sleep for torture (Aul. Gel. 7.4.4; Cic. Pis. 19.43; Val. Max. 9.2.ext. 1); idleness during the day (m. ʾAb. 3:4); or hardships (Xen. Anab. 3.1.11; 7.6.36; Arrian Ind. 34.7; Gen 31:40; perhaps 2 Cor 11:26–27; Char. Chaer. 1.2.3).

Cf. Lampe, “Wolves,” 256; Lindars, Apologetic, 361; differently, Zehnle, Pentecost Discourse, 27–28 (who thinks that Acts 2:25–32 establishes Jesus’s messiahship, and 2:33–35 his lordship). Turner, Power, 346–47, is probably correct that the Spirit continues the salvation the disciples already had before Pentecost; but I think Luke emphasizes the soteriological dimension of the Spirit less than Turner believes (cf. Cho, Spirit and Kingdom, 51).

Johnson, Acts, 53–54, contrasts expectations that priests at oracular shrines interpret ecstatic speech; but note questions above regarding the nature of the speech’s unintelligibility (comment on Acts 2:4). As Acts 2:15 answers the complaint in 2:13, so 2:16–18 agrees with the affirmation in 2:11 (cf. Parsons, Acts, 42).

With, e.g., Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 1:119.

For this use of the demonstrative pronoun, See comment on Acts 2:12. Haenchen, Acts, 179, notes that “prophecy, elsewhere distinguished from the gift of tongues, is here identified with it to facilitate the scriptural proof.”

See Hays, Echoes, 170–72 (similar to the Qumran scrolls, but the latter do not regard “the decisive eschatological event” as having happened already; but cf. Aune, Cultic Setting).

Many scholars parallel Jesus’s opening speech in Luke 4:18–27 with Peter’s in Acts 2:17–40 (e.g., Zehnle, Pentecost Discourse, 128; cf. Neirynck, “Luke 4,16–30,” 376–78, among other comparisons). For these as key passages, see also Baarlink, “Bedeutung.” Ruthven, “Covenant,” treats Isa 59:19–21 as programmatic (noting in “Covenant,” 34, that I prefer Joel 2). The strength of Ruthven’s case is the many details he finds paralleled (e.g., geographic universality in Isa 59:19; some motifs are widespread, but cumulatively, the recurrence of the rarer samples, such as βίαιος, suggests at least that this passage informed Luke’s pneumatology). But even if this text offers a framework, it is an implicit one that cannot function as programmatic in the same way the explicit Joel text does.

Johnson, Function, 41.

See also, e.g., Black, Rhetoric of Gospel, 128.

E.g., Sen. E. Controv., passim; Eunapius Lives 502; see more fully our introduction, , .

See comment on Acts 17:28.

E.g., 4Q158 1–2 11–12 (with Gen 32:32); Let. Aris. 155; b. Soṭah 9:6; b. Soṭah 12:2; Mek. Shir. 6 (Lauterbach, 2:43–44); Esth. Rab. 10:5; Rom 9:17; Matt 19:4–5 (with Gen 2:24); 1 Clem. 56.3.

Peter might prefer “God” here so as not to confuse the midrashic application that he will draw from Acts 2:21, but it is probably simply for stylistic variation (cf. 7:7).

E.g., Tiede, Prophecy, 89; on this technique in the Qumran scrolls, see Dimant, “Pesharim”; Brooke, “Pesharim”; idem, “Interpretation” (comparing and contrasting Qumran and NT approaches); Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 347–50; Longenecker, Exegesis, 31, 38–45; Fitzmyer, “Quotations,” 325–30; Brownlee, “Interpretation,” 60–62 (on 1QpHab); Lim, “Orientation” (also on 1QpHab); Patte, Hermeneutic, 211ff.; cf. more briefly Sandmel, Judaism, 101; Moule, Birth, 61–62; Nickelsburg, Literature, 127; Mickelsen, Interpreting, 23. Some think that the pesharim were even publicly performed (Snyder, “Naughts and Crosses”; though the analogies may be too late for relevance).

E.g., pesher or pishro in 1QpHab I, 2 (cf. I, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15); II, 5, 8, 12 (cf. II, 1, 15); III, 4, 7 (cf. III, 9); IV, 5, 10, 14; V, 3, 7, 9 (cf. V, 16); VI, 3, 6, 10 (cf. VI, 16); VII, 4, 7, 10, 15; VIII, 1, 8, 16; IX, 4, 9 (cf. IX, 16); X, 3, 9, 15; XI, 4, 12; XII, 2, 7, 12; XIII, 1. On pesher exegesis, see, e.g., Brooke, “Pesharim”; cf. Harries, “Trends”; even with reference to dreams, Finkel, “Pesher.”

Likewise 4Q166 I–II (for Hosea’s generation).

Also, e.g., 4Q167 frg. 2. Some pesharim, in fact, inverted the original sense of the text (see Silberman, “Unriddling,” 342).

Fitzmyer, “Christianity in Light of the Scrolls,” 251. Cf. similarly Bruce, “Exposition,” 97.

See Longenecker, Exegesis, 100, 105, 130–31, for a number of examples (though see also our introduction, ). For a “pesher” Petrine perspective, cf. esp. 1 Pet 1:10–12.

Longenecker, Exegesis, 95. On partly realized eschatology at Qumran, see Aune, Cultic Setting; but nowhere in Greco-Roman antiquity, outside early Christianity, do we see the pervasive expectation of prophetic phenomena even on a local congregational level.

See Black, “Christological Use.”

Longenecker, Exegesis, 30–31, 100–101.

Cf. ibid., 105.

Cf. the later Karaites (Wieder, “Exegesis among Karaites,” 77, 102–3). Even pagan writers sometimes used a “this was that” sort of statement to explain the fulfillment of an obscure prophecy (Virg. Aen. 7.128, haec erat illa). Brownlee, “Comparison with Sects,” 68, compares Qumran’s pesher technique with the Therapeutae’s purported allegorical methods; but this stretches definitions considerably, even allowing for Philo’s bias.

Cf. perhaps, e.g., Pesiq. Rab. 21:1. Some (Wright, “Midrash,” 418–22; Brooke, “Pesher”) treat pesher under the broader rubric of midrash, although (see Horgan, “Prophecies,” 251) there are some clear differences. Miura, David, 150, finding “pesher” too loosely defined, prefers the label “typological prophetic” for the sorts of interpretations of psalms found in Acts 1–4.

Often noted among NT interpreters after Dodd, Preaching, 21.

On the four kingdoms, cf., e.g., 2 Bar. 39:7; Sipre Deut. 320.2.3; 317.4.2; Gen. Rab. 44:17; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 15:12.

For Esau as Rome in the Amoraim, e.g., b. Mak. 12a; b. Taʿan. 4:5, §10; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:14; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 5:3; Gen. Rab. 78:3; 83:4; Exod. Rab. 1:26; 18:12; 23:6; Lev. Rab. 13:5; 23:6; Num. Rab. 11:1; 14:1; Eccl. Rab. 11:5, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 12:25; 13:2; 15:20; perhaps also 4 Ezra 6:9. See further discussion in Hayward, “Pseudo-Jonathan” (on Tg. Ps.-J. to Gen 27:31); Freedman, “Jacob”; Butterweck, “Begegnung.” The tradition is not likely known to the author of Ps.-Philo Biblical Antiquities (which is fairly positive toward Edom; see Zeron, “Swansong”), but it probably originated no later than the early second century C.E. (cf. Hadas-Lebel, “Jacob et Esaü”).

Wright, “Midrash,” 133–34. Although ancients could take into account historical settings (see our preface), they read them with less historical distance than is customary today (see Bryan, Preface, 50–51).

Noted by others, e.g., Mufwata, Extrémités, 28–31.

Cf., e.g., revocalization (e.g., Brownlee, “Light,” 32), but writers could also update language (Cic. Brut. 17.68–69), conflate quotations (Max. Tyre 41.3), or make strategic changes in the text (see below). The rabbis did not permanently alter the biblical text, however (on earlier soferim, cf. Lieberman, Hellenism, 28–37), in contrast to Qumran scribes (Heger, “Exegesis”).

Freyne, Galilee, Jesus, 241; cf. ILS 7486; Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 29–30; Hengel, Property, 27. Cf. the “hired servants” in Mark 1:20.

See Stern, Authors, 1:8–11, 46, 50, 93–96, 131–33; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:255–61.

On the historical level, those who emphasize parallels with other “charismatic” sages sometimes doubt that Jesus often expounded texts; but it appears in every stratum of gospel tradition, and it is tenuous to discount such evidence on the assumption that Jesus functioned only as a signs prophet (see Keener, Matthew, 53–56).

Because Luke often plays down future eschatology, Dunn (Acts, 28) attributes this change to Luke’s source. But it is realized eschatology, which also appears in the Qumran scrolls (on which see Aune, Cultic Setting).

E.g., Silberman, “Unriddling,” passim; Roth, “Subject Matter of Exegesis,” 64–65.

See Lim, “Orientation.”

E.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 2.13.594 (quoting Eurip. Herc. fur. 1406; probably an example of educated people demonstrating their knowledge by their quotations).

E.g., Cic. Brut. 17.68–69.

Lucian Critic 32, closing his essay by loosely quoting Eurip. Bacch. 386ff. without concern for the meter (since his essay defends his diction, he would hardly close with an obvious mistake).

Cf. Doeve, Hermeneutics, 114; van de Sandt, “Fate of Gentiles,” thinks that Luke knew the context and deliberately transformed its expectation.

Cf. also Johnson, Acts, 61.

Deut. Rab. 6:14. If 1QS IV, 21 alludes to Joel 2:28–29 (which is possible, given the eschatological pouring of the Spirit; but cf. also Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 39:29), others connected the two passages even earlier. For Christian and rabbinic polemic (especially in the Amoraic period), see Keener, John, 194–214, esp. 194–207; for early Jewish applications of Ezek 36, see John, 551–52.

Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 22 (citing Midr. Pss. 14:6); Davies, Paul, 216 (on Num. Rab. 15:25); Zehnle, Pentecost Discourse, 29–30. Luke might sometimes assume the postbiblical history of interpretation in his exegesis (cf. Sanders, “Isaiah 61 to Luke 4”). Menzies, Empowered, 94–98, 232–43, notes the connection between the Spirit and eschatology in rabbinic sources but rightly emphasizes its lateness.

On possible rabbinic polemic against early Christian prophetic experience, see Keener, Spirit, 20–23, 26–27; idem, John, 203–7; idem, “Pneumatology,” 77–94; Bamberger, “Prophet,” 306–7.

Litwak, Echoes, 155.

Ibid., 156. Luke thus uses Joel regarding “the creation of a new community of God’s people” (168–73). On Luke’s relating this outpouring to the new community’s identity formation, see also Wenk, Power, 252–53.

Hays, Conversion, 187.

With, e.g., Ridderbos, “Speeches of Peter,” 13; Horton, Spirit, 146. Greco-Roman audiences would also be familiar with the practice of adapting quotations to clarify their intention (Stanley, Language of Scripture, 291; cf. 335, 337, 342–44).

In chiastic fashion, the nearest element is “I will pour out my Spirit,” with gender diversity next and diversity of age in the center. “These days” recurs in Acts 3:24 in a realized eschatological sense (cf. perhaps 1:15; 13:41; but such expressions are not intrinsically eschatological [cf. 5:37; 7:41; 9:37]).

Also 11Q13 II, 4; 1 En. 27:3–4 (after the final judgment); cf. 4Q509 II, 19; 2 Bar. 76:5; Test. Zeb. 8:2; 9:5. Jewish interpreters would also so understand Deut 4:30; 31:29; cf. others’ restoration in Jer 48:47; 49:39. The “last days” or “last generation” is a natural feature of the pesharim (e.g., 1QpHab I, 2; II, 5–6). Cf. also comment in Patte, Hermeneutic, 138.

Also 1Q22 I, 7–8; 4QpNah 3–4 III, 3; 4Q162 II, 1 in its context; 4Q163 23 II, 3–11; 4Q176 12 + 13 I, 9; 4QMMT C 21–22; Test. Dan 5:4; Test. Zeb. 9:5; Test. Iss. 6:1; cf. Sib. Or. 5.74; Apoc. Elij. 1:13. Writers could also apply the phrase to a person’s “last days,” i.e., on one’s deathbed (Test. Dan 1:1).

See also 1Q22 I, 7–8; 4QpNah 3–4 III, 3; 4Q162 II, 2–7; 4Q390 1 7–9; 1 En. 91:7; 3 En. 48A:5–6; 4 Ezra 14:16–18; Sib. Or. 5.74; Test. Naph. 4:1; Test. Dan 5:4; Test. Zeb. 9:5; Sipre Deut. 318.1.10; b. Sanh. 97a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9. Cf. perhaps 4Q501, line 3.

Wilson, Pastoral Epistles, 16, thinks that 1 Timothy employs “last days” in the Lukan manner.

E.g., Stagg, Acts, 59.

Menzies, Empowered, 180.

One could cite the Stoic idea of cyclical cosmic conflagration (see comment on Acts 3:19–21) or Greco-Asian and Egyptian anti-Roman oracles, but even these do not accept Judaism’s common linear concept of time with an ultimate judgment.

E.g., Winslow, “Religion,” 239. On the new era here in contrast to imperial propaganda (in light of Joel’s original context of deliverance), see Reid, “Resistance Discourse,” 44.

Though some think that Virgil actually doubted a renaissance and viewed the golden race as morally ambiguous (Barker, “Golden Age”). Virgil might be ironic in Ecl. 8.27–28, where he declares that in the coming era, griffins will mate with mares and the deer drink alongside hounds.

E.g., Tibullus 1.3.35ff.; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 90.5; 115.13; Fronto (Naber, 214, §3; LCL, 1:46–47); Max. Tyre 36.1–2.

Lucian Sat. 20, remarking on the views of the poets. For the lack of animal sacrifice then, see discussion in Ullucci, “Sacrifice.”

For the full depiction of decline in Hesiod, see W.D. 110–201; later, also Ovid Metam. 1.89–312 (gold in 1.89–90; silver in 1.113–15; bronze in 1.125–27; etc.; cf. 15.111–13); Babr. prol. 1–4. Sib. Or. 1.65–124 similarly speaks of different races of people.

Fowler and Fowler, “Golden age” (citing, e.g., Aratus Phaen. 100–114; Ovid Metam. 1.89–112; cf. Aetna 9–16 (Minor Latin Poets, LCL, p. 358); Athen. Deipn. 6.267e–270a).

Some (e.g., Harrison, Grace, 226–34, 351–52, on imperial beneficence) nevertheless see the Augustan motifs as relevant to the mid-first century. Certainly Velleius maintains Augustan utopianism ca. 30 C.E. (e.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.89.3).

E.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.14, 18 (cf. 97.1, 10); Tac. Dial. 12, 28–29; on literary decline, cf. Laistner, Historians, 103. Cf. also the long-standing theme of decline in Greco-Roman (Cic. Sest. 1.1; Sen. E. Controv. 1.pref. 6; 2.7.1; 10.pref. 7; Plut. Sulla 1.3; cf. Laistner, Historians, 22, 53–54; Judge, First Christians, 52–58; Roller, “Past,” 227–28) and Egyptian literature (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 247); Augustus may have allowed this theme because it was applied against his rivals (Judge, First Christians, 55–56). Many averred that the people of the past were superior (Hom. Il. 12.381–82; Dio Chrys. Or. 31.75; Crosby in LCL, 3:80–81n1, also cites Lucian Teacher of Rhetoric 9; Themistius Or. 22.281a; Plato Laws 10.886C; Lucret. Nat. 2.1157ff.; Sen. Y. Ep. 90.44; cf. the express demurral in Vell. Paterc. 2.92.5).

E.g., Diogenes in Max. Tyre 36 passim.

Xen. Mem. 3.5.9–13; cf. Babr. 126; esp. Romans (e.g., Pliny Ep. 3.3.5; 8.5.1; 8.14.4–6; Tac. Hist. 3.51; earlier, Sall. Catil. 6.6–13.5; with additional observations on Sallust in Feldherr, “Translation”); even as early as Hom. Il. 12.381–82. Tacitus so portrays even the rhetorical situation (Dial. 1) despite oratory’s revival in his era. The longevity of pre-Abrahamic ancestors also mostly declined progressively in Gen 5 (Hartman, “Thoughts,” 30).

Pliny Ep. 2.14.2–13.

For the eschatological Eden, see, e.g., 4 Ezra 8:52; Test. Dan 5:12; Test. Levi 18:10–12 (from a Christian interpolation); cf. 1QH^a XIV, 16–17; esp. in later rabbis (m. ʾAb. 5:20; Sipra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.5; b. Ber. 28b; Šabb. 104a; Taʿan. 31a; Tamid 32b; Tem. 16a; Yoma 87a; b. Peʾah 1:1, §8; Exod. Rab. 7:4; Lev. Rab. 32:1; Num. Rab. 13:2; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 3:24); on the Endzeit as the Urzeit, see, e.g., Sipra Behuq. pq. 1.261.1.6; Rev 22:1–3; Barn. 6.13; Russell, Apocalyptic, 280ff.; Arrington, Aeon Theology, 77–81; Mattill, Last Things, 5–6; Rissi, Time, 4.

For the entire period from Pentecost to the parousia as eschatological here, see, e.g., Cullmann, Time, 156; Johnson, Function, 44; Kent, Jerusalem to Rome, 32.

See Dodd, Preaching, 33.

See, e.g., Wikenhauser, Mysticism, 207; Howell, “Dualism”; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 466–72.

See further Aune, “Delay,” 5:93–94; in NT theology in general, Kümmel, Theology, 149; Ladd, Theology, 322; Minear, Kingdom, 147; Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus, 67. Ladd, Kingdom, 36, finds its roots in the OT prophets.

With, e.g., Dodd, Preaching, 59; Jervell, Unknown Paul, 96–121; cf. Litwak, Echoes, 168–73; the covenant renewal theme in Wenk, Power, 252–53.

So, e.g., Lampe, “Wolves,” 255–56, who notes it in other early Christian literature as well. On Luke’s relating this outpouring to the new community’s identity formation, see Wenk, Power, 252–53.

I argued for this exodus interpretation in Keener, Background Commentary, 429–31, 542. Later writers appealed to other arguments to justify two comings (see Justin 1 Apol. 52; cf. Tert. Apol. 21.15), e.g., typology based on the two goats (Justin Dial. 111; Tert. Adv. Jud. 14; cf. Barn. 7.6–10; Williams, Justin Martyr, 80n3).

Cf., e.g., Herford, Pharisees, 158; cf. 175.

Cf., e.g., Kohler, Theology, 37, 323–41.

Cf. later Justin Dial. 82, claiming that Israel’s prophetic gifts had been transferred to the church.

Ladd, Theology, 345. Cf. R. Williams, Acts, 43: the apostles’ prophetic speech functions as the sign that the last days have arrived. For the Spirit as eschatological foretaste, see also, e.g., Cadbury, “Eschatology,” 300; Ridderbos, “Speeches of Peter,” 12; comment on Acts 1:6–8.

So y. Šeqal. 3:3.

See our introduction, , , excursus part 3; or, e.g., Keener, Spirit, 10–13.

For Christians’ healing miracles in rabbinic sources, see Herford, Christianity, 50–51, 54–56, 211–15; Bagatti, Church, 95–96, 106–7; Manns, “Jacob.” Although rabbinic sources do not recite the charge of sorcery against miracles of Jesus or his movement before the late second century (Flusser, Judaism 635), Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 166, rightly notes that the charge must be early, stating, “Why answer a charge that was not levelled?” (Matt 12:24; cf. John 8:48); cf. Betz, Jesus, 58.

Apostolic signs often echo prophetic signs in the OT, but Acts, despite its focus, does not limit even these to apostles (Acts 6:8; 9:12, 17–18) and certainly not to the twelve who are usually called apostles (e.g., 13:11; 14:3; 15:12; 19:11–12; 28:8–9). Further, Luke treats the continuance of prophecy in the narrower sense as normal, a continuing sign of the eschatological blessing on the church (albeit not expressed by all individuals; 11:27; 13:1; 21:9, 10; cf. 13:2; 20:23; 21:4).

Cf. also Hill, Prophecy, 99; Cruz, “Hermeneutics.”

See Keener, Revelation, 305; Hill, “Prophecy in Revelation,” 414; Bruce, “Spirit in Apocalypse,” 337; idem, Time, 103; contrast Aune, Prophecy, 197, 206. It is likely also implied in Rev 11:3–6, although this is a notoriously difficult passage (Keener, Revelation, 289–93).

Cf. Forbes, Prophecy, 252–55.

Sib. Or. 3.582–83 (προφῆται; in view of 5.584–89, this may include wise counsel to avoid idolatry); cf. also, earlier, 1 Chr 16:22; Ps 105:15.

E.g., Marshall, Acts, 73n3; York, Missions, 82; Meek, Mission, 107–8. They appear in Joel’s context only as Israel’s enemies, not Israel’s converts (Joel 3:2–14, 17, 19, 21), but Luke apparently places Joel’s message in the larger picture he draws from Isaiah.

The LXX helpfully adds seeing God’s “salvation” to seeing his glory; Luke may prefigure this LXX addition in Luke 2:30.

See Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 230–32.

For the echo of Acts 2’s Joel quotation in Acts 10:45, see, e.g., Mufwata, Extrémités, 61. See my comment at Acts 10:45.

On different visions for Gentiles in the future, see Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 52–74.

Cf. similarly Paul’s expectation of prophecy until Christ’s return in 1 Cor 13:8–13, which I discuss briefly in Keener, Corinthians, 109–10.

That is, in modern theological terms, Luke cannot be a cessationist regarding this prophetic gift of the Spirit. For this passage and the expectation of continuing signs, see also Menzies, “Paradigm.”

It is more likely that the idea of prophecy’s cessation derived from reading into the NT the observed experience of Christians in some subsequent eras, where prophecy was either rare or demonstrably errant. Even this observation must be balanced, however, by the frequency of prophetic phenomena in many other eras of Christian history, including its current frequency in charismatic circles and especially in some regions of the world.

See, e.g., Shogren, “Prophecy.”

See, e.g., Cook, Interpretation, 77–79.

Thus, e.g., Chrys. Hom. Acts 5 (NPNF 11:33) emphasizes that the gift is now available to both genders, in contrast to being limited to a few women in the OT. Some scholars have, by contrast, supposed that Luke relegates women’s prophetic voice mostly to the OT era and does not present it as the norm of the new community (e.g., Reid, Choosing, 206), but such an inference runs directly counter to the one programmatic statement in Luke-Acts that specifically mentions women.

Luke does not explicitly challenge the public/private divide, which was an ancient custom difficult to violate while retaining an honorable hearing (although he makes use of ways in which it was already breaking down); his emphasis on inspired speech for God, however, relativizes that divide’s importance.

E.g., Sen. Y. Troj. 34–37.

E.g., Ovid Metam. 14.129–53; cf. Statius Silv. 5.3.175. On the Sibyls, see further, e.g., Strabo 14.1.34; Dio Chrys. Or. 35.2; Juv. Sat. 3.3; Ant. Diog. Thule 111a; Heraclitus Ep. 8; overpowered by prophetic frenzy in Virg. Aen. 6.77–102. Eventually, other women besides Sibyl could be Sibylla (Diod. Sic. 4.66.6).

E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 10.2.5; 12.9.1; Cic. Verr. 2.4.49.108; Livy 4.25.3; 5.13.5; 7.27.1; 10.8.2; 22.36.6–9; 22.57.4–6; 36.37.4; 40.19.4; 41.21.10; 45.16.6; Strabo 12.5.3; 17.1.43; Val. Max. 1.5.ext. 1; Tac. Ann. 15.44; Plut. Caes. 60.1; Appian Hist. rom. 7.9.56; 9.2; Aul. Gel. 1.19; Dio Cass. 48.43.5. On the pagan Sibyl tradition, see further Bouquet and Morzadec, Sibylle; Pigeaud, Sibylles; a summary of both in Roessli, “Vies.”

Tac. Ann. 6.12; Plut. Cic. 17.4; Lucian Peregr. 30–31; Dio Cass. 57.18.5. Those deemed legitimate could be interpreted so as to justify almost any decision (cf., e.g., Cic. Rab. Post. 2.4).

See Sib. Or. passim (on which see Collins, Sibylline Oracles; more briefly, idem, “Oracles”); Jos. Ant. 1.116–17; cf. Herm. 1.2.4; Justin 1 Apol. 20; Theoph. 2.36; Tert. Apol. 19.1.

Dio Chrys. Or. 1.54–56. Although this could be a literary device, there is no more reason to doubt it than Dio’s other stories of exile.

Eunapius Lives 468, 470.

See Aune, Prophecy, 28 (contrasting Apollo’s sanctuary at Claros); see further comment on Acts 16:16.

Tac. Germ. 8; cf. also the frenzied women prophesying in Britain in Tac. Ann. 14.32.

Also a false prophetess in Neh 6:14. For prophetesses at Mari, see Moran, “Prophecy,” 29ff.; Paul, “Prophets,” 1159–60.

L.A.B. 33:1; Tg. Jon. on Judg 4:4; 5:3, 7, 9. Some scholars think that Josephus diminishes Deborah’s role (Feldman, “Roncace’s Portraits”), but others differ (Roncace, “Portraits”). Certainly, Josephus neglects to mention her judging Israel (Ant. 5.201), a point that might not have played well to a Hellenistic audience.

Van der Horst, “Graf.” Huldah’s prophesying is restricted to women (Pesiq. Rab. 26:1/2), despite the biblical account (2 Kgs 22:12–15; 2 Chr 34:22–23).

See Bronner, “Prophetesses through Rabbinic Lenses” (on b. Meg. 14b).

E.g., Gen. Rab. 67:9 (in the name of a Tanna); 72:6.

Some concur that Paul permitted women’s vertical speech (to and from God) but argue that he did not permit horizontal speech (cf. Vander Stichele, “Silence”; Sigountos and Shank, “Public Roles”), a pattern that might fit the larger culture. Even if one accepts this perspective, however, the vertical was of higher authority (1 Cor 12:28; cf. Pelser, “Women,” 94–95; Spencer, Beyond Curse, 106–7; Bilezikian, Roles, 177). On the involvement of both genders, cf. Theissen, Erleben, 200 (citing also Testament of Job).

E.g., Origen Comm. 1 Cor. 4.74.6–16 (Bray, Corinthians, 146); Montanist oracles in Cat. Cor. 14.36 (Bray, Corinthians, 147).

Cf., e.g., Theodoret Comm. 1 Cor. 245 (Bray, Corinthians, 122), citing Acts.

See Spencer, Acts, 37 (who thinks that gender barriers would be the “logical next step”). Still, Peter was probably already more comfortable with Galilean women in mixed company at this point than with Gentiles.

Cf. Gaventa, Acts, 60: “the prophecy of Acts 2 stands only partially fulfilled,” but like other prophecies in Acts, this one will be fulfilled.

As Kanyoro, “Mission,” 63, points out, most of Luke’s narrative is theologically inclusive: all are told to wait (Acts 1:4), to be witnesses (1:8), filled (2:4); whoever calls will be saved (2:21). Rigato, “Valore inclusivo,” also reads gender inclusiveness from the “all” in 2:1–4. As some Pentecostal theologians emphasize, many Pentecostals have also viewed their own gender-egalitarian tendencies in this light (Yong, Spirit Poured, 190–94); in early Pentecostalism, see Wacker, Heaven, 158–65 (but for countervailing cultural and traditional tendencies, 165–76); Alexander, “Conscience,” 59 (William J. Seymour’s affirmation of women ministers, without their baptizing or ordaining); McGee, Miracles, 135 (on 136–37 noting the decline in the next generation); Alexander, Fire, 294 (initial freedom, declining with institutionalization); for a range of information about women leadership in Pentecostalism more generally, see Alexander and Yong, Daughters; for the prominence of women’s missionary roles among Indian Pentecostals and charismatics, see Pothen, “Missions,” 191–92, 255; for Pentecostal women in ministry in the Philippines, see Ma, “Women,” 136–42; in Africa, see Kalu, African Pentecostalism, 161–62; in the pre-Pentecostal healing movement (with limitations), see, e.g., Curtis, “Character,” 40; among U.S. Latino/a Pentecostals, see Espinosa, “Healing in Borderlands,” 140. Some estimate that Pentecostalism has been the largest historic force for inaugurating women’s ordination and promoting it worldwide (Powers, “Daughters,” 313; also cited in Richards, “Factors,” 98; cf. Sweeney, Story, 147). Miller and Yamamori, Pentecostalism, 208–9, note many women on pastoral staff worldwide, but their case studies located fewer as head pastors. In Ecuadorian Pentecostalism, whereas men claim more revelations in dreams, women report far more visions and prophecies (Castleberry, “Impact,” 142, also noting women’s typically greater diversity in charismatic experience in Abell, Experience; Brusco, Machismo; McDonnell, Renewal); at least in that culture, women feel less inhibited in expressing religious feeling (Castleberry, “Impact,” 144). For Pentecostalism, despite its limitations, empowering Colombian women, see Brusco, “Gender.”

Cf. Paul, who makes egalitarian statements (1 Cor 7:2–4, 12–16; 11:5, 11–12; Gal 3:28; Eph 5:21) and functions, in some respects, as an egalitarian with women colleagues (Rom 16:1–7, 16; Phil 4:2–3; Col 4:15) but does not usually directly confront the social hierarchy (1 Cor 11:3–16; 14:34–35; Eph 5:22). I believe that he would have readily relinquished gender hierarchy in a different social situation (see Keener, Paul, passim; idem, “Subversive Conservative”), but this conclusion rests on hermeneutical extrapolation (since we have no NT texts addressing such situations). Ramsay, Pictures, 7–8, thinks Luke similar to Gal 3:28 here, acknowledging a gap between ideal calling and the current actuality of church and society.

E.g., Theodoret Comm. 1 Cor. 245.

E.g., nineteenth-century African Methodist Episcopal evangelist Julia A. J. Foote (see Anderson, “Reading Tabitha”), Holiness and Pentecostal advocates (Powers, “Daughters,” 318) such as Phoebe Palmer (Everts and Baird, “Palmer,” 147, 151), Baptist A. J. Gordon in 1894 (Wacker, Heaven, 160), and others (Kisau, “Acts,” 1303; Shillington, Introduction, 114–16; Williams, “Acts,” 218, 220; cf. Cox, Fire, 123–38, esp. 138; Flattery, Spirit, 2:210). For an eighteen-year-old woman’s prophetic outlet in 1560, see Midelfort, “Possession,” 127–28; for the roles of women in other periods of religious revival, see, e.g., Roxburgh, “Impact,” 191–92, 203–4.

Gen 17:24–25; Exod 10:9; Deut 28:50; Josh 6:21; 1 Sam 5:9; 2 Chr 36:17; Esth 3:13; Job 29:8; Ps 148:12; Isa 20:4; Jer 6:11; 31:13; 51:22; Lam 2:21; Ezek 9:6. Pseudo-Hermogenes lists children and the aged among those who, with women, needed advocates to speak for them in court (Method 21.437).

E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 32.13; Plut. Isis 14, Mor. 356E; Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.4; also Aug. Conf. 8.12; cf. Matt 21:16; for children in ancient religion, see Mantle, “Roles”; idem, “Addendum.” For an old man interpreting dreams, see Hom. Il. 5.150.

Children have also proved susceptible to revival phenomena (cf. their presence at Cane Ridge; Wolffe, Expansion, 59; Wacker, “Living,” 426–27). Modern Christians in societies less influenced by the Western tradition of antisupernaturalism also report children having visions (some ten-year-olds in Yangon, Myanmar, in Khai, “Pentecostalism,” 270, noting that the pastor’s theological training had predisposed him against it but that he was compelled by the unexpected phenomena to accept it; elsewhere in Holder, “Revival”; Ma, “Vanderbout,” 135; Anderson, “Signs,” 201; Baker, Visions; Koch, Zulus, 207 [children’s prophecies in Indonesia], 208–16 [a Zulu girl’s accurate visions], 217–18 [prophecy through a Zulu child]); traditional cultures also report preteen children being possessed (Southall, “Possession,” 242).

Shiell, Reading Acts, 172, suggests that readers were often slaves and that a slave reading a passage about the Spirit poured out on slaves would intensify the “rhetorical effect.” Although this observation is plausible, we cannot be certain how often in congregations the reader would be a slave or if Luke anticipated this as a regular occurrence.

So also Philip, Pneumatology, 213, emphasizing that Luke thereby limits “all flesh” to believers (rather than all humanity).

2 Kgs 9:7, 36; 10:10; 14:25; 17:13, 23; 21:10; 24:2; Ezra 9:11; Isa 20:3; Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4; Dan 3:28; 6:20; 9:6, 10; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6; later, cf. ʾAbot R. Nat. 37, §95 B.

2 Sam 3:18; 7:5, 8, 19–21, 25–29; 1 Kgs 3:6; 8:24–26, 66; 11:13, 32, 34, 36, 38; 14:8; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6; 1 Chr 17:4, 7, 17–19, 23–27; 2 Chr 6:15–21, 42; Pss 78:70; 89:3, 20; 132:10; 144:10; Isa 37:35; Jer 33:21–22, 26; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–25; later, cf. ʾAbot R. Nat. 43, §121 B.

Exod 14:31; Num 12:7–8; Deut 34:5; Josh 1:1–2, 7, 13, 15; 8:31, 33; 9:24; 11:12, 15; 12:6; 13:8; 14:7; 18:7; 22:2, 4–5; 1 Kgs 8:53, 56; 2 Kgs 18:12; 21:8; 1 Chr 6:49; 2 Chr 1:3; 24:6, 9; Neh 1:7–8; 9:14; 10:29; Ps 105:26; Dan 9:11; Mal 4:4; later, cf. 4Q378 22 2; L.A.B. 30:2, famulum. ʾAbot R. Nat. 43, §121 B.

Cf. Gen 26:24; Exod 32:13; Deut 9:27; Ps 105:6; 2 Macc 1:2; Jub. 31:25; 45:3; Test. Ab. 9:4 A; 2 Bar. 4:4; ʾAbot R. Nat. 43, §121 B.

Lev 25:42, 55; Deut 32:43; Isa 41:8–9; 42:1, 19; 43:10; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; Jer 30:10; 46:27–28; Ezek 28:25; 37:25; 2 Bar. 44:4; t. B. Qam. 7:5; ʾAbot R. Nat. 43, §121 B; Gen. Rab. 96 NV; y. Qidd. 1:2, §24; cf. Tob 4:14 MSS.

For this meaning of this Q saying, see, e.g., Keener, Matthew, 130.

Cf. Martin, Slavery, 47–49. Even a person of great rank might call himself a “slave” before one of greater rank (e.g., Char. Chaer. 5.2.2).

E.g., Horsley, Documents, 3:7–9, §1 (on P.Oxy. 3312.99–100). For the exalted status of Caesar’s slaves, see Epict. Diatr. 1.19.19; 4.7.23; cf. further Sherk, Empire, §47, pp. 89–90. Slaves in Caesar’s household often preferred that status to freedom (Dixon, Roman Mother, 19, citing Suet. Gramm. 21).

In this excursus, I have developed Keener, Spirit, 6–48.

The original background of the term may be “the called one” (see Albright, Yahweh, 208–9; Holladay, “Statecraft,” 30), though whether it is a genuine passive or its sense is active remains debated (e.g., Lewis, Prophets, 9).

Ross, “Prophecy,” 4; cf. Lindblom, Prophecy, 85–86. It was an earlier (cf. 1 Sam 9:9) Israelite term for a visionary, though a “vision” could be simply a word from YHWH (1 Sam 3:15 [but cf. 3:10]); “seers” were prophets (Isa 29:10; Amos 7:12) or diviners (Mic 3:7); cf. 2 Sam 24:11ff.; 2 Kgs 17:13; 1 Chr 29:29; 2 Chr 9:29; 12:15; 29:30.

More than seventy uses, including 1 Sam 2:27; 9:6–10; 12:22; 13:1–31; 17:18, 24; 20:28; 2 Kgs 1:9–13; 4:7–8:11; 13:19; 2 Chr 11:2; 25:7–9.

Kitchen, World, 118; Huffmon, “Prophecy,” 105n8; cf. ANET 394–96.

Cf. the analogous use of “son” in scribal guilds (Chiera, Clay, 165–66).

See, e.g., Admonitions of Ipuwer (twenty-third to twenty-second century B.C.E.); Prophecy of Neferti (ca. 1990 B.C.E.); Kitchen, “Background,” 6–7.

Prophets were also understood as messengers in early Judaism; see Mek. Pisha 1.87 (Lauterbach, 1:8); ʾAbot R. Nat. 37, §95 B; Keener, John, 315.

The last reference, to an Assyrian official, is paralleled in Assyrian records of negotiations (Yamauchi, Stones, 77).

See Moran, “Prophecy,” 24–25. “By the hand of” in Israelite prophecy (cf. 1 Sam 28:6; 1 Kgs 16:7, 12, 34; 2 Kgs 9:36; 17:13; 2 Chr 10:15; Neh 9:30; and seventeen times attributed to Moses) is also paralleled in the Zakir inscription (Ross, “Prophecy,” 4).

For the image in Yahwistic prophetism, cf. Cross, Myth, 186–89. For the covenant as suzerain-vassal treaty, see, e.g., Kline, Treaty.

Holladay, “Statecraft,” 34 (cf. also 31–32, esp. 32nn14, 16). See also possible “messenger” names in Ross, “Prophecy,” 5–6 (also Mal 1:1 in the LXX; Lewis, Prophets, 82).

See Rabe, “Prophecy,” 127; cf. Weinfeld, “Patterns,” 187–88; on the form, see also Ramsey, “Speech-Forms” (though I doubt the cultic use); Blenkinsopp, “Reproach”; cf. also the covenant format in Tucker, “Prophetic Speech” (though he may push the point too far).

Gurney, Hittites, 158–59. Likewise, although Greeks were not limited to divination, it characterized Greek practice far more than that of ancient Israel (Lange, “Seers”).

Lindblom, Prophecy, 31. Rainey, “Kingdom,” 123, concurs but notes several rare references in Akkadian found at Ugarit. For divination in more recent cultures, see, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 89, 218, 232–33, 328; Shorter, Witchdoctor, 94; Saoyao, “Practices,” 77–78.

Some suggest that Israel’s prophetic style as a whole originated with Mari (Bright, History, 88–89; more cautiously, Ross, “Prophecy,” 11–12), but the usage probably predates Mari (cf. Pettinato, Archives, 319n12; Kitchen, World, 47) and may have been widespread in the milieu. (Mobile prophets unattached to the local sanctuary might also appear at Ebla [cf. Pettinato, Archives, 119].) Prophetism appears even in many preliterate cultures; what should be sought in the milieu is the forms rather than the concept.

Moran, “Prophecy,” 22–24; Huffmon, “Prophecy,” 109; Paul, “Prophets,” 1160.

With Lindblom, Prophecy, 31.

For the moral emphasis, see, e.g., Scott, Relevance, 57–58; McCown, Genesis, 213–15. Though Heschel, Prophets, 465–66, offers contrasts even here (such as the Israelite focus on justice for the poor more than on lamenting the demise of prosperity).

Huffmon, “Prophecy,” 107; Paul, “Prophets,” 1155–56, 1160.

Victory oracles constituted one of the most common kinds of oracles in Assyria, at Mari, and in Israel (van der Toorn, “Oracle de victoire”).

“The Instruction for King Meri-Ka-Re” (ANET 416).

ANET 449–50.

Pritchard, East, 1:261. Moran, “Prophecy,” 17, notes that ARM 13.23, 114 from Mari “predict either victory over Babylon or at least deliverance from its threat.”

Hayes, “Oracles,” 81, compares the Balaam oracle.

Ibid., 85–86, 91. Its connection with the royal coronation ritual, however (90–91), is not demonstrable.

Hayes, “Oracles,” 84–85; Paul, “Prophets,” 1160; Craghan, “Mari,” 48; cf. 1 Kgs 22:12. Oracles against nations in Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel (and probably even those against cities, e.g., in Mic 1) need not have been delivered to those nations (e.g., Isa 37:21; though there may have been exceptions when the opportunity arose; 2 Kgs 8:7–8; Jer 27:3).

E.g., Xen. Cyr. 6.4.12–13; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.2–3; Hdn. 8.3.7 (on Italians); cf. also Kearsley, “Octavian.”

Ross, “Prophecy,” 9; Wilson, “Early Prophecy,” 10; ANET 446–48. At Mari, extant oracles focused on the king’s activity, whereas the interests of local shrines predominate in the outlying areas (Moran, “Prophecy,” 17–18; cf. Lindblom, Prophecy, 30); many of Israel’s extant prophecies address kings, though this is surely due to the large-scale focus of the preserved books (cf., e.g., 1 Sam 9:6–9; 1 Kgs 17:14). Roman divination continued to affect political perspectives (cf. Ripat, “Omens”).

Moran, “Prophecy,” 29–54.

Huffmon, “Prophecy,” 105. At Mari they were connected with the royal court but were generally not on the royal payroll (so Hayes, “Prophetism,” 409).

ANET 281, 284ff.; Pritchard, East, 1:192, 196, 198. In Mesha’s Moabite inscription, see ANET 320 (Pritchard, East, 1:209–10).

Hayes, “Prophetism,” 404–5. Many were simply conditional as threats, but some others were absolute (Craghan, “Mari,” 46). On the usual view, most Egyptian judgment oracles (e.g., ANET 441–46) seem to have been issued after the fact.

See, e.g., 1 Sam 10:8; 15:1, 18–19; 1 Kgs 11:29–39; 12:22–24; 13:4; 14:4; 18:13, 22; 19:15–16; 2 Kgs 3:14; 4:13; 9:1–2; 13:14; 1 Chr 16:22 [the patriarchs]; 2 Chr 20:20; 25:16. The word of a prophet was God’s message (1 Sam 4:1; 2 Sam 24:18–19); at least at the beginning of dynasties, they anointed kings (1 Sam 13:14; 16:13; 1 Kgs 1:34, 45 [but cf. 1:39]; 12:15; cf. 2 Kgs 8:13). For judgment oracles, see, e.g., 2 Sam 24:11–13; 1 Kgs 13:21–22; 14:5–16; 16:2–7; 20:42; 21:19–24; 2 Kgs 1:16; 5:7; 7:2; 2 Chr 2:16). On immunity, one may compare that granted to heralds throughout Mediterranean and Middle Eastern antiquity (see 2 Sam 1:15; 18:20, 22; Hom. Il. 17.694–96; Eurip. Heracl. 272; Xen. Anab. 5.7.18–19, 34; Apollod. Epit. 3.28–29; Polyb. 15.2; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.43.4; Diod. Sic. 4.10.3–4; 36.15.1–2; Jos. Ant. 8.220–21; Appian Hist. rom. 12.12.84; Arrian Ind. 34.4; 35.1; Dio Cass. 19.61; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.35, 37); their office was held sacred (Hom. Il. 1.334; 7.274–82; 8.517; Aeschines Tim. 21; Cic. Phil. 13.21.47; Hdn. 6.4.6).

Pfeiffer, Ras Shamra, 44.

Mari prophecy was more mechanical than in, e.g., Hosea (Buss, “Prophecy,” 338); Scott, Relevance, 58, distinguishes the biblical prophets’ urgent message from the repetitious form in pagan cults. Paul, “Prophets,” 1160, lists seven contrasts: Mari prophets’ demands were cultic or political, not ethical; the primary agenda with the king was favor for the cult; Mari prophecy does not speak of the deity’s being involved in history; at least twice, the king would make the final decision (ARM 2.90; 3.40); the lock or fringe is missing in Israel (though cf. its identifying value in 1 Sam 15:27; 24:11; 1 Kgs 11:30); omens had to authenticate the oracle (perhaps the most significant contrast); and there was no prophetic succession.

See Kitchen, World, 116–18. Egyptian sermons on social ills would be closest in content, but they seem to have been mostly composed safely after the judgments they predict, sometimes to extinct dynasties.

Scott, Relevance, 57 (though his scheme, 59–62, appears somewhat subjective); esp. Heschel, Prophets, 472.

Heschel, Prophets, 471–73, esp. 471; Craghan, “Mari,” 52. On moral and other contrasts between YHWH and other deities, see comment on Acts 14:15–17. The prophetic conflict between YHWH and Baal is distinctive (see Buber, Faith, 70–75), perhaps because of the exclusivism of YHWH’s cult (but cf. the political struggle in the era of Akhenaton). (Parallels might also appear in the imposition of foreign cults, though Yahwism’s exclusivism amplified the reaction.)

As in Sandmel, Judaism, 174–75.

Hill, Prophecy, 21, citing the view, based on “Zech. 13.4–6; Mal. 4.5–6 and perhaps Ps. 74.9.” The problem with using such texts to make such a case, of course, arises if one suspects that Zechariah and Malachi may be claiming to be prophecy, even if postexilic prophetic form often differed from preexilic forms (much less poetry, etc.).

Ibid., 22. See further 25, 71.

Ibid., 25.

Hill explicitly excludes the Sibylline Oracles from consideration, though he does not think this changes the case at all. Despite the purely hellenized form of these oracles, however, they are spoken with full authority, and Sibylline pseudonymity was a literary convention meant to increase, not decrease, one’s prophetic authority. On change in OT prophecy, see Haran, “Continuity and Change”; but cf. Paul, “Prophets.”

Hill, Prophecy, 22. Aune contends here that 1 Macc 4:45b–46 refers to a future clerical prophet, not a prophet like the OT prophets, but offers no evidence to support this position (Prophecy, 105). He suggests that 1 Macc 9:27 means only that the ancient kind of prophets no longer appeared, and that 14:41 does not speak of a future prophet but was meant only to restrain an idealization of the Hasmonean program and, again, refers only to clerical prophecy related to the priesthood (Prophecy, 105). Aune may be right (against some scholars) that the future prophet is not eschatological, but he offers no convincing reason to assume that the intended readers of 1 Maccabees should have taken “prophet” in any other than the conventional sense.

E.g., Hill, Prophecy, 22.

Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.41. For more on the cessation of prophets in Josephus, see Leiman, “Josephus and Canon”; Bamberger, “Prophet,” 305.

Best, “Use of Pneuma by Josephus,” 222–25; Isaacs, Spirit, 49.

See Aune, “Προφήτης”; cf. also Hill, Prophecy, 26, 28. For the eschatological prophets in Josephus (regarded by him as false prophets), see Aune, Prophecy, 81. But while Josephus dismisses false eschatological prophets and their signs, he accepts authentic oracles and omens; see Kee, Miracle, 178–79. The Qumran texts may contrast true inspiration by the Spirit with false prophets (CD VI, 1; 4Q266 3 II, 9; 4Q267 2 6; 4Q269 4 I, 2; 6Q15 3 4), as also in Herm. 43.2, 7, 12.

Although prophets and prophecy were added to older scriptural examples in Sirach (Sir 46:1), I am not aware of any emphasis on current prophetism in the book.

See Sommer, “Prophecy,” 36. We should note, however, that a view may be widespread without being universal (see examples below).

See esp. Grudem, Prophecy, 21–23, for references on the cessation of prophecy, but see 24–33 on the continuation of revelatory experiences understood to be different from OT prophecy.

Isaacs, Spirit, 51.

That most rabbis associated the Spirit with past revelation does not mean that the rabbis had no surrogates for prophecy. In fact, they stressed that the prophetic function had been subsumed under their task of expounding the written Scriptures. Controversy with pneumatic sects—particularly the most pneumatic, early Christianity—may be an additional reason for emphasizing the quenched Spirit.

b. Soṭah 12:5.

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 13:14. For its diminution after the first temple’s destruction, see b. Yoma 21b; Eccl. Rab. 12:7, §1.

E.g., b. Soṭah 13:3; b. Sanh. 11a, bar.; Soṭah 48b, bar.; Yoma 9b; Song Rab. 8:9, §3; cf. Ḥul. 137b; Gen. Rab. 37:7.

Num. Rab. 15:10; Song Rab. 8:9, §3, both anonymous.

See esp. Davies, Paul, 208–15, who provides the appropriate qualifications; Bamberger, “Prophet,” 306; Leivestad, “Dogma”; Hill, Prophecy, 33–35. This view is commonly held; e.g., Rivkin, Revolution, 86; Patte, Hermeneutic, 119; Barrett, Spirit, 123.

Greenspahn, “Prophecy.”

E.g., b. Soṭah 13:3; b. Sanh. 11a; Yoma 9b; Soṭah 48b. See comment on Acts 10:13.

Cf., e.g., Chevallier, Ancien Testament, 31–32; Ma, Spirit, 175–78, 210–11. For associations with the new covenant in the OT, see Chevallier, Esprit de Dieu, 84–85; in early Judaism, 85–88.

Cf., e.g., Esprit de Dieu, 220–22; Dunn, “Kingdom,” 36.

Isaacs, Spirit, 84. She refers mainly to Philo, of whom the statement is undoubtedly true, and Josephus, who had good apologetic reasons not to stress the eschatological side of Judaism. But we may observe here Sib. Or. 4.46, possibly from the Hellenistic period (also 4.189–90, probably ca. 80 C.E.), although, in context, “spirit” may mean simply “life” at the resurrection.

Coppens, “Don,” 209, emphasizes that the Spirit is eschatological in the Qumran scrolls, linking it with the new-creation idea.

Isaacs, Spirit, i, 84–86.

See, in some detail, Davies, Paul, 208–17; Menzies, Development, 104–8; idem, Empowered, 94–98, 232–43 (rightly emphasizing the texts’ lateness); cf. Jeremias, Theology, 80–81; idem, Parables, 117, 126; Freedman, “Pottery,” 23. The presence of the Holy Spirit on Israel in the first exodus (Mek. Shir. 7.17–18 [Lauterbach, 2:55]; cf. Ruth Rab. 2:1), perhaps related to the idea of God’s Shekinah among Israel at that time, might also allow for such an endowment at a future new exodus.

Sandmel, Judaism, 174, as above; Aune, Prophecy, 4–6; Levison, “Withdraw”; Knox, Jerusalem, 36. Foerster, “Geist,” 117–18, thinks that the view that the Holy Spirit ceased with the last prophets was found mainly in rabbinic texts addressing certain situations and thus that it was not a dogmatic construct.

Jos. War 1.78–80; 2.159 (though the latter applies also to biblical interpretation, perhaps along the lines of the Qumran pesharim); cf. War 1.68–69; Ant. 15.374–79; 17.346 in Isaacs, Spirit, 49; Aune, Prophecy, 145; more extensively, Gray, Figures, 80–111. Aune argues that the prophecy in Jos. War 2.159 is noneschatological and very Hellenistic, and therefore probably inauthentic (Prophecy, 145); but Josephus could have hellenized the form himself.

See in Gray, Figures, 35–79; Isaacs, Spirit, 48; Hill, Prophecy, 26–27, on Jos. War 3.351–54; cf. an analogous claim of prediction in Cic. Fam. 6.6.7. Today prophecy is often associated with prediction of the future, but while this sense was included in ancient literature (Plut. E. Delph. 6, Mor. 387B; Heraclitus Ep. 5; Socrates Ep. 1; 6; Sib. Or. 3.822 [both future and past]; rabbinic references in Bowman, “Prophets,” 107), it was not the standard or only sense of the term.

See Jos. War 6.300–309, and esp. the study of him in Noack, Jesus Ananiassøn; Aune, Prophecy, 135–37. Cf. also on John the Baptist in Josephus, presented as, but not termed, a “prophet” (Aune, Prophecy, 130).

See Gray, Figures, 7–34, esp. 34.

Isaacs, Spirit, 48, cites Philo Abr. 35; cf. Migr. 34–35; Cher. 27; Dreams 2.252; she also notes that corybantic frenzy thrusts ascetics into the wilderness in Names 39; moreover, the LXX translators are inspired in Mos. 2.37.

Of interest here is Baer, Categories, 55–64, 96–98, for an important discussion of divine inspiration as divine impregnation in Philo. He also addresses Philonic texts, fewer in number but nevertheless significant, in which divine inspiration also enables one to throw off sense perception and thus become “virgin” or asexual; this might connect the prophetic Spirit with the purifying aspect of the Spirit, but (especially if the latter was primarily Essene) the latter may have been unknown to Philo.

Hill, Prophecy, 40–41 (though depending on 1QpHab II, 1–2, a reconstructed text that could be interpreted otherwise; and on the assumption that the Teacher authored many of the Hodayot).

Aune, Prophecy, 104; see earlier idem, Cultic Setting.

Abrahams, Studies (2), 126; he also believed, as Abrahams points out, that prophecy would be restored in the messianic age.

Ibid., 126; addressed in more detail below.

Ibid., 127–28; cf. also Abelson, Immanence, 268.

Although there are several references to its presence on the community gathered for Pesach; see in Urbach, Sages, 1:576.

Aune, Prophecy, 104. He provides (375n12) a partial list of modern scholars who have also come to this conclusion.

E.g., R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus in ʾAbot R. Nat. 25 A (a connection also evident in, e.g., Plato Apol. 39); see also Xen. Apol. 30; Tac. Ann. 6.46, 48; perhaps Vell. Paterc. 2.71.2; further, Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 221–22). In early Judaism outside the rabbis, see much more often testamentary literature. Jesus’s passion predictions likely have historical foundations (see, e.g., Tan, Zion Traditions, 57–80, esp. 79–80, 221–22; Keck, Jesus, 118; Keener, Historical Jesus, 283–302, esp. 288–89).

Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, Aune points out, was said to have predicted suffering just before Messiah’s coming (b. Soṭah 9:15 and other references in Aune, Prophecy, 145), but this was part of Judaism’s eschatological tradition by Eliezer’s time (e.g., 1QM XV, 1; Sib. Or. 3.213–15; Test. Mos. 7–8; 4 Ezra 6–8 passim; 2 Bar. 26:1–30:24; in later rabbis, e.g., b. Soṭah 9:15; b. Sanh. 97–99) and could thus be viewed as appropriate to a wisdom teacher, not necessarily a prophet.

Aune, Prophecy, 144, citing y. Šabb. 16:15d. Although the tradition may depend on Josephus’s account of his own insight, the focus here is on the extent to which the view existed in rabbinic tradition, not on the antiquity of this particular tradition.

B. Šabb. 34a; Gen. Rab. 79:6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:16; later transferred to R. Johanan and others (b. B. Bat. 75a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 18:5; cf. “the rabbis” in b. B. Meṣiʿa 85a). Is this more related to the evil-eye idea also found in the Greco-Roman world (Plut. Table 5.7.1–6, Mor. 680C–683B; Pleas. L. 5, Mor. 1090C) or to the idea that the pious man can summon forth divine fire (besides Elijah in 1 Kgs 18:38; 2 Kgs 1:10, 12; Liv. Pr. 21:2 [Schermann, §33], cf. Rev 11:5; Jos. Asen. 25:6–7; Test. Ab. 10:11–12; 14:11 A; 12:3–4 B; and perhaps y. Ḥag. 2:1, §4)? Cf. other images of fire falling in judgment (Lev 10:2; Num 16:35; 1QM XVII, 2–3; Jos. Ant. 4.55–56; Luke 9:54; Rev 20:9) or fire falling on altars (Exod 40:34; Plut. Aem. Paul. 24.1) or during esoteric Scripture expositions (e.g., y. Ḥag. 2:1, §4) to validate divine authorization.

Aune, Prophecy, 104; Glatzer, “Study,” 115–17, 121–22 (an already-existing tendency greatly augmented in reaction to the charismatic/prophetic activity of early Christianity). Schäfer, Vorstellung, 89–114, treats the quenching of the Spirit and eschatological renewal, and (on 116–33) those texts in which the Spirit is still available to the pious, suggesting that Christians may have used the presence of the Spirit as a polemic; Reif, “Review,” 158, reiterates Urbach’s view that the rabbis were reacting against early Christianity and argues that Schäfer presents no evidence to substantiate his view as better. It is not unlikely, however, that the polemic would have been operating in both directions.

One may wonder if Mekilta’s emphatic denial of Baruch’s possession of the gift of prophecy (Mek. Pisha 1.148–66 [Lauterbach, 1:14–15]) is not intended against the circles that produced 2 Baruch in the early second century. Likewise, Enoch was extolled in the rabbinic mystical tractate 3 Enoch as well as in other Enoch literature; Ps.-Eupolemus (OTP 2:881); 1Qap Gen^ar II, 19; Test. Ab. 11:3–9 B; Jub. 4:23, 10:17 (see further VanderKam, “Traditions”); but early Amoraim, seeking to refute minim, argued that Enoch died and was either wicked or ambivalent (Gen. Rab. 25:1).

Isaacs, Spirit, 49.

E.g., 1QS VIII, 16; 4Q381 69 4; cf. 4Q481a 2 4. This might be a coincidence due to the limited texts available, in view of Josephus’s emphasis on Essene prophecy.

Aune, Prophecy, 81, 104; see his earlier treatment of realized eschatology in idem, Cultic Setting, esp. ch. 2, “The Present Realization of Eschatological Salvation in the Qumran Community,” 29–44. Cf. Chevallier, “Souffle,” 38–41, who contrasts the Qumran writings with rabbinic literature and suggests that the presence of the Spirit in the Qumran writings is due to their partly realized eschatology. Much of early Christianity may have shared a view similar to the Qumran perspective.

Boring, Sayings, 111. Rabbinic association of the Spirit with the future seems primarily late and probably a peripheral emphasis (cf. Menzies, Empowered, 94–98).

Aune, Prophecy, 195.

3 En. 2:4 (OTP 1:257), basing the case on Ps 144:15. Cf. Manoah’s doubt of his worthiness to see the angel in L.A.B. 42:5 (he does, however, get to see him, 42:6–7).

B. B. Bat. 10a; Num. Rab. 12:21. ʾAbot R. Nat. 14 A; 28, §57 B, attribute this worthiness for the Shekinah to thirty of Hillel’s eighty disciples (rec. A claims that their generation was unworthy, as below).

Mek. Besh. 7.135ff. (Lauterbach, 1:252–53). Exod. Rab. 5:20 suggests from Num 11 that because of the elders’ merit, they received the Holy Spirit and so were made prophets. ʾAbot R. Nat. 11, §28 B, probably refers to prophets worthy to have the Holy Spirit rest on them.

Sipre Deut. 173.1.3 (Neusner, 2:50). Rabbi Yudan in Song Rab. 1:1, §9 declares that whoever publicly teaches the Torah merits the Holy Spirit resting on him. One of the Amoraim by the name of R. Aha also linked obedience to reception of the Holy Spirit (Lev. Rab. 35:7), although, in general, the Spirit was not so easily received (contrast Rom 5:5; Gal 3:2). For rabbinic references to the Holy Spirit’s continued availability for the worthy, see also Glatzer, “Prophecy,” 122–24.

Song Rab. 1:1, §9. For Torah obedience leading to the Spirit, Davies, “Spirit in Mekilta,” 98 (idem, Paul, 207, 218), cites b. Soṭah 9:12, 15; b. Soṭah 13:2; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 20b; Yoma 9b; Soṭah 48b; Sanh. 11a; Lev. Rab. 35:7; Song Rab. 1:8; Mek. Besh. 7.

See, e.g., Urbach, Sages, 1:577–78.

Simeon ben Azzai pointed out that prophecy was acquired only for the sake of Israel and is not due to personal merit, Mek. Pisha 1.148–66 (Lauterbach, 1:14–15); all the prophets were thus intensely nationalistic in their Judaism (Mek. Pisha 1.105–6 [Lauterbach, 1:10]). For a treatment of mainly Amoraic texts following this tendency, see Bowman, “Prophets,” 213–15, and for the nationalistic context of the rabbinic view of prophecy in general, 205–20; Glatzer, “Prophecy,” 130–36. Glatzer, “Prophecy,” 136, suggests that this is in part due to a polemic against Christian ideas of the church as a new Israel; but it may also indicate a community response to Roman oppression, an alternative to the apocalyptic paradigm.

Y. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:1, §2 (Neusner, 33:114); this was repeated in the upper room at Yavneh with Samuel the Small, all eyes turning to R. Eliezer as the other; also in y. Hor. 3:5, §3; Soṭah 9:16, §2; in simpler form (but in a later collection), Song Rab. 8:9, §3; with thirty of Hillel’s eighty disciples, according to “Our rabbis,” in b. Sukkah 28a; with the Shekinah in place of the Holy Spirit, b. Soṭah 48b. For other references to the linking of obedience to Torah with reception of the Holy Spirit, see Davies, “Spirit in Mekilta,” 98; idem, Paul, 207, 218; Urbach, Sages, 1:577–78.

Sipre Deut. 176.1.1; 176.2.2; R. Akiba in Mek. Pisha 1.137–41 (Lauterbach, 1:13); the gift of prophecy was also acquired thus; so Mek. Pisha 1.58–113 (Lauterbach, 1:5–11); R. Isaac in b. Sanh. 39b.

b. Soṭah 14:3; cf. also Eph. 4:30; third-century Test. Sol. 26:6.

E.g., Sipra Qed. pq. 8.205.2.1, par. 206.2.6; Sipre Num. 1.10.3; Sipre Deut. 258.2.3, 320.2.1; b. Ber. 5b; Roš Haš. 31a; Yoma 21b; Šabb. 33a; 139a; y. Sanh. 8:8, §1; Deut. Rab. 5:10; 6:14; Ruth Rab. 1:2. The Presence withdrew because of sin but was restored because of merit: Gen. Rab. 19:7; Song Rab. 5:1, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:1. On merit and the Presence, see Sipre Deut. 305.3.1; 312.3.1; 355.6.1; Gen. Rab. 60:12; Exod. Rab. 45:5; Num. Rab. 19:20; Song Rab. 4:5, §2; 7:6, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 10:2.

Adding more prophets to the biblical narrative was much less problematic; e.g., y. Meg. 1:5, §3; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:3; cf. references in Bowman, “Prophets,” 205; Jos. Asen. 22:13 (Levi as προφήτην); 23:8; Herm. Vis. 2.3.4 (and comments by E. G. Martin in OTP 2:463–65). That patriarchs should be prophets (expanding Gen 20:7) (see Philonic references in Hill, Prophecy, 32) should not surprise us.

Sipre Num. 96.3.1 (Neusner, 2:109); but it remains a wish, as in Num 11:26.

See Num. Rab. 15 in Davies, Paul, 216; cf. Aune, Prophecy, 193; Abrahams, Studies (2), 127. But this tradition is late and does not appear to have been a common topic of discussion in our texts.

Hill, Prophecy, 32.

Flusser, Judaism, 54; cf. also Coppens, “Don,” 209, who notes that it characterized the community. Tannaim cited Hillel for the tradition, mentioned above, that the Holy Spirit rested on the community of festal pilgrims gathered for Pesach (b. Pesaḥ. 6:13; b. Pesaḥ. 6:1; b. Pesaḥ. 66a, in Urbach, Sages, 1:576). Davies, Paul, 200–204, regards the OT teaching of the Spirit, most frequently observed in terms of prophecy, to be associated with the community for the growth of the community. Presumably, however, the prophetic practices mentioned in 1 Sam 10:5; 19:20 suggest that much prophecy was carried on that was never published because generally only the larger community-oriented prophetic message (and more specific samples of it) were valued by the communities that preserved them.

Aune, Realized Eschatology, 103. He does not, however, feel that all Christians were regarded as potential prophets (idem, Prophecy, 195, 206, esp. on Revelation); this may be affected in part by the various levels of meaning given to the terms “prophets” and “prophecy” in the early Christian literature (cf. 1 Cor 14:29–32).

E.g., Arrian Alex. 4.13.5; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.26.

E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 13.9–10; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.6. See comments in Nagy, “Prologue,” xxix; Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xxxix.

Far fewer than in Israel (Exod. Rab. 32:3; Lev. Rab. 2:9).

E.g., Sipre Deut. 343.6.1.

E.g., Gen. Rab. 52:5; 74:7; Lev. Rab. 1:13.

E.g., Thucyd. 2.21.3; cf. fabricated omens in Philost. Hrk. 31.5. Naturally, this was still truer of skeptics such as Lucian: Alex. 9; Peregr. 30–31; Dial. G. 244 (18/16, Hera and Leto 1); Dem. 37. A Byzantine text calls Apollo a false prophet (Lucian Patriot 5), a view also articulated in Sib. Or. 4.4–6. On false prophets, see further comment on Acts 13:6.

Weinfeld, “Patterns,” 179–80. Cf., e.g., Isa 7:11, 14; 20:3. At Mari, omens provided the final say on a prophecy (Moran, “Prophecy,” 22–24; Huffmon, “Prophecy,” 109).

In public prophecies; Moran, “Prophecy,” 19–21; Hayes, “Prophetism,” 407–8; Malamat, “Revelations,” 225–27; Craghan, “Mari,” 542–43.

Especially the Mesopotamian baru diviners (called “seers” because they read the omens; Lawrence, “Roots of Divination,” 55), but the practice was widespread; cf. Gen 44:5; “Taanach, No. 1” (fifteenth century B.C.E.; ANET 490); Assyrian “Hymn to the Sun-God” (ca. 668–633 B.C.E.; ANET 388); Hittite “Investigating the Anger of the Gods” (ANET 497–98); “The Telepinus Myth” (ANET 128); AQHT C (ii) (ANET 153); Akkadian text (“Akkadian Observations on Life and the World Order” [ANET 434]); Wilson, “Early Prophecy,” 10; Long, “Divination”; Mendenhall, “Mari,” 18; Gurney, Aspects, 45–46; idem, Hittites, 158–59; Lindblom, Prophecy, 31; cf. Reiner, “Fortune-Telling.” For modern divination, cf., e.g., Gelfand, “Disorders,” 161.

Among pre-Roman Arabs, Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.20; Greeks, Hdt. 1.47ff.; Paus. 3.11.5; 6.2.4; Burkert, Religion, 111–14; Martin, Religions, 40–50; Heschel, Prophets, 454–56; Scythian, Hdt. 4.68–69; Romans borrowed much from the Etruscans (Briquel, “Divination: Rome,” 576–77; cf. Mastrocinque, “Choices,” 384, 388); on Roman divination, see Rosenberger, “Nobiles,” 298–302; in the late republic, e.g., Cic. Inv. 1.53.101; in early imperial Rome, MacMullen, Enemies, 128–62; paid specialists in the Roman army, Horster, “Professionals,” 337. It could take the form of augury (as in Plut. Rom. Q. 72, Mor. 281B), examination of flames (Apul. Metam. 2.11), dream divination (Artemidorus Oneirocritica), and a variety of other forms (see Aune, Prophecy, 23, for one breakdown of categories, following K. Latte). Divination functioned essentially on the principle of sympathetic magic. See Stogiannos, “Πνευμα Πυθωνα,” for a review of the data (in Greek).

Lawrence, “Roots of Divination,” esp. 52.

Rives, Religion, 27.

Diog. Laert. 8.1.20, 23.

Max. Tyre 8.7 (see Trapp, n. 33). For Maximus, prophecy was akin to one’s intellectual faculties (Max. Tyre 13, esp. 13.2–3).

Cic. Div. passim (refuting Stoic arguments); Nat. d. 1.20.55–56; 2.3.7–2.4.12, esp. 2.4.12; 3.6.14; Diog. Laert. 7.1.149; cf. Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 2.34.1–2. Stoics believed that the gods knew the future because it had already occurred, history being cyclical (Chrysippus frg. 1192, in Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 312) and that exclusively the virtuous person exercised true mantic gifts (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11s, pp. 98–99.16–23). They viewed the mantic art as following rules that help one interpret signs from the gods (2.7.5b.12, pp. 24.32–27.2).

Certain Cynics (Diog. Laert. 6.2.24; Diogenes Ep. 38) and less defined opponents (cf. Artem. Oneir. 1.pref.). Some sought to stigmatize diviners in classical Greece to reduce their political effects (Carastro, “Tirésias”). Naturally, the most solid opposition would be encountered in Jewish sources: Hecataeus in Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.203–4 (OTP 2:919); Sib. Or. 3.224–26 (probably second century B.C.E.); Asc. Is. 2:5; 11QT^a LX, following Deut 18; Sipra Qed. pq. 6.203.2.1; Sipre Deut. 171.5.1; 172.1.2–4; cf. Smelik, “Witch.”

See, e.g., Val. Max. 1.4.1–7; 1.4.ext. 1–2 on auspices; 1.5.1–9 and 1.5.ext. 1–2 on omens; 1.6.1–13 and 1.6.ext. 1–3 on prodigies; 1.7.1–8 and 1.7.ext. 1–10 on dreams; 1.8.praef.–1.8.12 and 1.8.ext. 1–19 on miracles. Among others, Augustus took omens seriously (Suet. Aug. 92.1; cf. Vespasian, Suet. Vesp. 5; contrast Tiberius in Suet. Tib. 63.1); Julius did not (Suet. Julius 59, 77), to his doom (Julius 81.2–4; Vell. Paterc. 2.57.2). Omens were consulted even to ensure that weddings proved auspicious (Quint. Decl. 291.5).

Philost. Hrk. 1.2; cf. comment on Acts 27:10.

Xen. Cyr. 1.5.6, 14; 1.6.2; 1.6.44; Anab. 6.3.18; 6.4.16–25; Plut. Arist. 17.6–18.2; 1 Sam 23:2–4; 2 Sam 5:23.

E.g., Val. Max. 1.6.6; 3.7.ext. 6; Suet. Tib. 2.2.

See, e.g., Val. Flacc. 1.28–29; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 2.34.1–2; Fronto Ad verum imp. 2.8 (also from ants and bees); Char. Chaer. 8.2.9; Collins, “Mapping”; Frateantonio, “Haruspices.”

E.g., Hom. Od. 2.159; Soph. Antig. 998–1002; Ap. Rhod. 1.66; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 2.34.1–2; as in Plut. Rom. Q. 72, Mor. 281B; Dio Chrys. Or. 34.4–5; Plut. Alex. 27.2; Fronto Ad verum imp. 2.1.11; Iambl. V.P. 13.62; Diog. Laert. 8.1.20 (on Pythagoras); Sib. Or. 1.95; 3.224 (against it); Sipra Qed. pq. 6.203.2.1 (forbidding it).

Pliny E. N.H. 17.38.241–45.

Cf. the use of flames (Ap. Rhod. 1.436–39; Apul. Metam. 2.11), saucers (PGM 4.3209–54, though this is supposed to be an appearance), or cups (Gen 44:5; Sarna, Genesis, 223). Egyptian magic introduced special rituals (PGM 4.934), but some ancients considered witchcraft a despicable means to achieve these ends (Lucan C.W. 6.425–34, esp. 430–34; 1 Sam 28:6–10; cf. Smelik, “Witch”).

Lucian Alex. 9 (and LCL, 4:186–87n2).

Some Jewish divination existed (cf. 4Q318; b. Sanh. 101a), although those who viewed it as divination naturally disapproved (cf. Deut 18:10, 14; Isa 47:13).

See Plutarch Obsolescence of Oracles; cf. Lucan C.W. 5.139–40; Bremmer, “Divination: Greek,” 573; Theissen, Miracle Stories, 268; Parke, Oracle, 381; Grant, Gods, 63. (Oracles had long been connected with temples; Gilg. 7.4.45–48 [ANET 87]; Lindblom, Prophecy, 31; Wilson, “Early Prophecy,” 10; Holladay, “Statecraft,” 13, 17; Huffmon, “Prophecy,” 109, 111, 114; Kitchen, World, 119; Parke, Oracle, 370–71; Grant, Gods, 38.) They were still widely consulted (Collins, Sibylline Oracles, 5; Nilsson, Piety, 166; Aune, Prophecy, 51). They were still respected enough, however, that oracles could be useful in a court dispute; see Quint. Inst. 5.11.41–42 (this depended entirely on what side one argued; see 5.7.36). It may have been primarily their political use that declined (Rives, Religion, 57); this use had, of course, been strongest in the classical period; Nilsson, Cults, 123–42.

Hill, Prophecy, 11. The Romans were, of course, fascinated by Sibylline oracles, but in contrast to those of the Greeks, their cults concentrated more on divination (such as augury) than on prophetic inspiration (see further Salles, “Pythies et sibylles”).

Oracular prophecy may have even grown in the first three centuries C.E. (Lewis, Life, 98). For Greco-Egyptian prophecy, cf. CPJ 3:119–21, §520 (dated to the third century C.E. on paleographic grounds), probably reflecting the Potter’s Oracle (which Aune, Prophecy, 76–77, thinks reflects the Sitz of ca. 130 B.C.E.); cf. Deissmann, Studies, 235–36. Strabo 17.1.43 claims that even in Egypt, with its oracle of Ammon, oracles were in decline because of the Roman satisfaction with Sibylline oracles and the Tyrrhenian prophecies based on divination. Arrian Alex. 2.3.3 claims that the mantic gift was hereditary among the Telmissians.

E.g., Plutarch (Mackay, “Plutarch,” 99–101; for divination, 101–2; for portents, 103–4).

See Parke, Sibyls, appendix 3, “Ecstatic Prophecy in the Near East,” 216–20.

For the variety among different cults on this point, see Parke, Sibyls, 219; idem, Oracles, 85, 256–57.

E.g., Statius Silv. 5.3.172–75; Max. Tyre 8.3.

Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 147, citing Diod. Sic. 17.50.6.

Paus. 9.39.11 (on Trophonius’s oracle). For further documentation on oracles, see comment on Acts 16:16.

With pagan deities, e.g., Deut 12:30; 1 Sam 28:7; 2 Kgs 1:2–3; Isa 19:3; but it was often used with YHWH (e.g., 2 Kgs 1:16; 3:11; 8:8; 22:13; cf. 1 Kgs 22:5; 2 Kgs 19:2; esp. 1 Sam 9:9).

Huffmon, “Prophecy,” 105, who suggests a connection with the Mari cult title of a prophet as an “answerer.”

ANET 26, including n. 13; see Albright, Yahweh, 212; cf. Gordon, Near East, 159n19. Other examples of ecstatic prophecy among the Hittites and pre-Islamic nomads exist; see in Paul, “Prophets,” 1156. Egyptians did not necessarily have high regard for the possessed; a “man who is in the hand of the god” is classed with the blind and lame in “The Instruction of Amen-em-opet” 25 (ANET 424), where it refers to someone insane.

Haran, “Continuity and Change,” 181; Huffmon, “Prophecy,” 111–12; cf. the possible evidence of Ebla here in Pettinato, Archives, 253. This is relevant even if the ecstasy was controlled and not a full ecstasy, as some have suggested due to the forms of the prophecies (Moran, “Prophecy,” 27–28).

Cf. 2 Kgs 9:11; Jer 29:26; Hos 9:7. Some contrast earlier ecstatic prophets with later literary ones (Gordon, Near East, 159n19, 214; cf. 221); this, however, underestimates the measure of continuity in Israelite prophetism (Paul, “Prophets,” 1160ff.), though some changes occurred (see Haran, “Continuity and Change”). The rise of prophetic literacy need not diminish ecstasy.

Albright, Yahweh, 212; Malamat, “Revelations,” 210–11; cf. Paul, “Prophets,” 1159; Lindblom, Prophecy, 31; Gordon, Near East, 206. For a modern study of the psychological state suggested by the possession trance, see, e.g., Nussbaum, “Phenomena.” Possession trances are documented in a variety of cultures (e.g., among traditional Australian aborigines in Berndt, “Role,” 269) and sometimes associated with madness (Mbiti, Religions, 227); see fuller discussion in the excursus on possession at Acts 16:16.

See, e.g., Mithraic inspiration in PGM 4.738–39.

Plut. Dial. L. 16, Mor. 759AB (LCL, 9:364–65), describes the use of dance in “Bacchic orgies and Corybantic revels” and compares this behavior to the Pythia’s inspiration; cf. Table 1.5.2, Mor. 623B; Orph. H. 52.7 (cf. 40.15); cf. Burkert, Religion, 166; Martin, Religions, 61; Otto, Dionysus, 143–45; Huffmon, “Prophecy,” 112. Dancing can be used to stimulate trance states in various societies; see Eliade, Rites, 69; Mbiti, Religions, 106; sources in Keener, Miracles, 793–94; cf. the use of music in Gelfand, “Disorders,” 156, 162.

Fasting could prepare the way for revelations in 2 Bar. 20:5; 43:3; Herm. 1.2.2, 3.1, 10 (but cf. 1.3.13); also part of the initiation for the Lesser Mysteries of Eleusis (Mylonas, Eleusis, 241) and perhaps also the Greater Mysteries (258). On fasting and revelations, see the commentators on ταίεινοφροσύνη in Col 2:18, esp. Francis, “Humility,” 168–71; Lincoln, Paradise, 111. In early Judaism, fasting could be used for mourning (e.g., 2 Bar. 5:7; Test. Zeb. 4:1–3; cf. Apul. Metam. 2.24) or to intensify prayer (cf. Tob 12:8; 2 Macc 13:12; Test. Benj. 1:4–5; cf. Did. 1.3), but the rabbis strictly regulated fasting to avoid ascetic practices harmful to the body or dishonoring to the joy of the Sabbath (t. Kip. 4:1–2; Taʿan. 2:12, 14; b. Taʿan. 3:11, §3; 4:3, §2; Ned. 8:1, §1). Tribal religions sometimes use fasting to gain requests from deities (e.g., Fox, “Witchcraft,” 181), and in initiatory rites (Eliade, Rites, 67).

See Lindblom, Prophecy, 5, 8–9, 43, 58–60; cf. Paul, “Prophets,” 1156; 2 Kgs 18:28–29; Zech 13:4–6.

E.g., Exod 15:20; 1 Sam 10:5; 2 Kgs 3:15; cf. Hab 3:19; 1 Chr 25:1–6. Lindblom, Prophecy, 99, suggests that Canaanite models affected Israel here; probably the association between music and prophecy was more pervasive (cf. musical inspiration in Pilch, Flights, 73–88).

Cf. Schmid, “Geistwirkungen”; Aune, Prophecy, 86–87; for connections between Israelite and Mari models, see Holladay, “Statecraft,” 11–12; Bright, History, 88–89; cf. Pettinato, Ebla, 319n12. Wilson, “Ecstasy,” 323–25, finds further cases of ecstasy based on more subtle phraseology in the prophets; Parker, “Possession Trance,” views the experience as only marginal in Israelite prophetism. More recent studies challenge some earlier ones (see Michaelsen, “Ecstasy”). Levison, Filled, 154–77, emphasizes especially Greek ecstasy as background for early Jewish and Christian experience.

E.g., Arrian Alex. 4.13.5–6; Lucan C.W. 1.673–95; Plut. Table 1.5.2, Mor. 623B; Philost. Hrk. 7.3. But Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 28 recounts the possession in Virg. Aen. 6.78–79 and regards it as folly.

Plut. Or. Delphi 7, Mor. 397C; but cf. Theon in Or. Delphi 21, Mor. 404E. Aune, Prophecy, 4, does not think that the Pythia experienced mantic frenzy, but this is not the view of Plutarch (Dial. L. 16, Mor. 759B; cf. Lucan’s description of her rapturous trance, cited by Reitzenstein, Religions, 71; Plato Phaedr. 47). For the reputed authority and accuracy of this oracle, see Isoc. Paneg. 31; Hdt. 1.47ff., 65–67, 86; Plut. Gk. Q. 12, Mor. 293E; 19, Mor. 295DE; Borr. 3, Mor. 828D; Thes. 36.1; Lyc. 6.5; Solon 4.2; Diog. Laert. 8.1.21; cf. 5.91; Strabo 9.3.2, 11–12; Mart. Epig. 9.42.4; it also posed questions to early Christianity, Justin 1 Apol. 18; Min. Fel. Oct. 26.6; cf. Acts 16:16.

So, e.g., Iambl. Myst. 3.4–6; for the Trojan Cassandra, as late as the sixth century C.E., see Gr. Anth. 2.189–91 (cf. lines 42–44); some felt that inspiration raised a matter beyond reproach (Libanius Confirmation 1.1). See Aune, Prophecy, 47–48. That prophesying was not always irrational (Aune, Prophecy, 39) is not reason to presume that it could not have been uttered ecstatically. For possession and prophecy in later societies, see, e.g., Evans-Pritchard, Religion, 96, 303; on possession trance more fully, see the excursus at Acts 16:16.

Chevallier, Ancien Testament, 40, from Plutarch; Lucian Alex. 12; see the perception of Cassandra in Eurip. Alexander frg. 62g. Athena puts madnesses (μανίαισι) in men’s souls in Orph. H. 32.6, but line 9 shows that she does this only to the wicked, giving prudence to the good. The etymological relationship with μάντις proposed by Plato may be correct, but it does not indicate the view of all diviners in antiquity (Aune, Prophecy, 35); mantic frenzy was more common for peripheral intermediaries than for those in central cults (21).

Lucian Syr. G. 51; Apul. Metam. 8.27–28 (the Phrygian music in 8.30 could suggest Cybele, but a differentiation is made in 9.9–10); cf. 1 Kgs 18:28.

E.g., the cult of Cybele (Guthrie, Orpheus, 118); on ecstasy in this cult, see Burkert, Religion, 178; cf. Menander Theophoroumene 27; Orph. H. 27.11; Lucret. Nat. 2.618–20; Juv. Sat. 3.63; Dio Cass. 48.43.4. For ecstasy as divine possession in the Mysteries, see, e.g., Hill, Prophecy, 10–11; cf. Aune, Prophecy, 47.

Aune, Prophecy, 21; also Forbes, Prophecy, 282; Aune thinks that Livy has wrongly associated the two for several cults (Prophecy, 42). Plato had distinguished various kinds of inspiration, as Plutarch, nearer our period, also points out (Dial. L. 16, Mor. 758EF). Although possession was common in allusions to the Bacchae (e.g., Euripides Bacchanals; Plut. Par. St. 19, Mor. 310B; cf. Grant, Gods, 65; Martin, Religions, 93–94; Burkert, Religion, 292), the only author I have found who consistently links Bacchic or corybantic frenzy with prophetic inspiration is Philo: Op. 71; L.A. 3.82; Plant. 148; Contempl. 84.

Music and prophecy were associated in the figure of Orpheus, according to Linforth, Arts of Orpheus, 166; Guthrie, Orpheus, 21. Likewise, Apollo, the god of prophecy (a prophet himself, Cic. Tusc. 1.47.114; Epict. Diatr. 3.1.18; Orph. H. 34.4; cf. 11.21; 18.17; 27.13; 28.4; Lucian Z. Cat. [LCL, 2:76–77]; Dionysus in Eurip. Bacch. 298–99, μάντις), was also associated with music, Lucian Amber (LCL, 1:77); Dio Chrys. Or. 32.56–57; Marc. Aur. Med. 11.11; Artem. Oneir. 2.35; Gr. Anth. 2.266–70. There was also a high degree of assimilation among Orpheus, Dionysus, and Apollo, Plut. E Delph. 9, Mor. 388E–389A; Burkert, Orphism, 8; Guthrie, Orpheus, 36, 42–48, 113; Linforth, Orpheus, 171; Detienne, “Polythéisme”; Otto, Dionysus, 202–8.

Plato, Ion 533E (he compares this with Bacchic possession in 533E–534A); for oracular singers in Plato, see Aune, Prophecy, 38. Although they were divinely possessed, in Plato’s thought, their words still had to be judged and interpreted by nonpossessed governors; see Tigerstedt, “Idea,” 64–66, 72. Plutarch associates poetry with inspiration (Poetry 1, Mor. 15E; cf. Or. Delph., Mor. 394D–409D). Hesiod in Lucian Conversation with Hesiod 7 (LCL, 6:234–35) argues that the Muses inspired him and other poets (his interlocutor dissents). Horace entreats the Muses for inspiration in Odes 1.26; cf., e.g., 2.12.13; 3.1.3–4; 3.14.13–15; 4.8.29; 4.9.21; Juv. Sat. 7.10, 36–39; Frey in CIJ 1:cxxiii (a pagan sarcophagus with the Muse Urania teaching music to the spouse, reused by Roman Jews); Philo Plant. 129.

For the inspiration of lawgivers (divine sanction for laws had been important as early as Hammurabi), see Hadas, Aristeas, 194, on Let. Aris. 240.

E.g., Hadas, Aristeas, 34, 36; Wikenhauser, Mysticism, 76–77; Boring, Sayings, 82–83.

Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 317; Klauck, Context, 187.

As some appear to do: Klauck, Context, 187–88, noting that it depends solely on Lucan C.W. 5.116–20, 161–74, 190–97, and that Lucan himself claims that this possession was more powerful than ever before (C.W. 166–67). Also others (e.g., Witherington, Corinthians, 278–79).

Val. Max. 1.8.10; Max. Tyre 8.1; see further comment on Acts 16:16.

Plut. Dial. L. 16, Mor. 759B (regaining tranquility afterward); Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 34–35, §11D.

Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.31.1.

Livy 38.18.9.

Aul. Gel. 15.18.2.

Virg. Aen. 6.77–102.

Ovid Metam. 2.640–41.

PGM 4.850–929, including both Jewish and pagan elements.

Cf. the Jewish portrayal of astrology in, e.g., y. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:2, §5.

E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 10.23–27; 13.9; Philost. Hrk. 28.11–12; Klauck, Context, 189. See comment on Acts 21:4.

E.g., compare Philost. Hrk. 25.4, 8 with 24.1–2; 25.10–17; see also Lucian True Story 2.32; perhaps Hierocles How Should One Behave toward the Gods? (Stobaeus Anth. 1.3.53; criticizing Homer Il. 9.497); Libanius Refutation 1.1; 2.1; cf. Rives, Religion, 28. Cf. even Gen. Rab. 91:6 (though this is after the departure of the Spirit of prophecy), though the rabbis would have treated canonical revelation differently (see discussion on their own replacement of the prophetic function with exegesis). Yet some Gentiles did contend that inspiration guarded against error: e.g., Libanius Confirmation 1.1 (the poets’ voice but the Muses’ content); 2.1.

Dio Chrys. Or. 36.34–35.

E.g., Ovid Metam. 6.159–62; cf. discussion in Aune, Prophecy, 47.

Max. Tyre 9.1.

So Philo Spec. Laws 1.65; 4.49. Cf. similarly, e.g., Num. Rab. 18:12. Philo may have allowed for two forms of prophecy: ecstatic and noetic (the latter through reason; Winston, “Types of Prophecy”); Philo may have viewed Moses’s ecstasy as milder than Balaam’s (Levison, “Types of Prophecy”). Some think that Philo merely used Greek language for inspiration but did not envision ecstasy (Burkhardt, “Inspiration der Schrift”), but this is unlikely. Ps.-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities may also envision the Spirit displacing the prophet’s mind during inspiration (Piñero, “Mediterranean View”).

E.g., Sib. Or. 2.1–5; 3.1–7, 295–99, 489–91; 11.315–18; 12.295–96.

See Forbes, Prophecy, 188–217. Callan, “Prophecy,” suggests that the LXX applies it to nontrance activity, in contrast to Greek usage.

As also the verb (Deut 18:10; 1 Sam 28:8; 2 Kgs 17:17; Mic 3:11; Jer 27:9; Ezek 13:6, 23; 21:21, 23, 29; 22:28) and μαντεία (Num 23:23; Deut 18:10, 14; 2 Kgs 17:17; Isa 16:6; 44:25; Jer 14:14; Ezek 13:7–8, 23; 21:21, 23; Mic 3:6); μαντεῖον functions thus in Num 22:7 and Ezek 21:27 (ET 21:22), with Prov 16:10 being exceptional because it is figurative.

Some ancients also perceived oracles as declining in their days (cf. Plut. Obsol. 5, Mor. 411F; the opposite of Acts 2:17–18), or respect for inspiration as declining (Callim. Iambi 3.193). This fits the general pattern of early Judaism as well, except, of course, that they did not replace it with formal divination.

Forbes, Prophecy, 288–308.

E.g., 1 Sam 8:6–7; 9:17; 15:10, 16; 2 Sam 7:4–5; 12:1, 25; 24:11–12; 1 Kgs 12:22; 13:1; 14:5; 16:1; 19:15–16; 21:17–19; 2 Kgs 1:3–4; Jer 28:12–13.

E.g., 2 Sam 23:2; Hos 1:2; cf. Pss 12:5; 46:10; 91:14; Jer 27:2.

1 Sam 10:6, 10; 16:13–14. Cf. the Spirit-moved leaders of Israel in the book of Judges (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 9:23; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14).

Sib. Or. 3.781–82, probably from second-century B.C.E. Alexandria; cf. Gen. Rab. 73:5.

Cf., e.g., the angel of the Lord with the prophetic-messenger formula in L.A.B. 38:3. Greek literature could sometimes use προφήτης as a spokesperson for a view, e.g., Diogenes Ep. 21, or μαντεύομαι (not used of Christian prophecy in the NT) as a metaphorical extension of predicting nonsupernaturally, e.g., Ach. Tat. 1.9.5, 7. Epict. Diatr. 1.17.29 uses the μαντείαν as a parable of the philosopher; cf. 2.7.1–3 for Epictetus’s distaste for the real thing; and, more qualified, Encheir. 32.3.

See, e.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.203–4; Sib. Or. 3.224–26; Asc. Is. 2:5; Sipra Qed. pq. 6.203.2.1; Sipre Deut. 171.5.1. It could be a capital offense (11QT^a LX, 18–19; LXI, 2, repeating Deut 18:10–11, 20) and exclude one from the coming world (ʾAbot R. Nat. 36 A).

E.g., Heschel, Prophets, 465–66; Paul, “Prophecy,” 1160; on prophetic succession, Scott, Relevance, 57–62; Heschel, Prophets, 472–73; for Mari, Buss, “Prophecy,” 338; Craghan, “Mari,” 52; Heschel, Prophets, 471–72; for Greek versus Jewish prophecy, cf. Büchsel, Geist, 43–44.

Sib. Or. 11.316–18 (OTP 1:442; Greek text, Geffcken, 187–88).

Sib. Or. 11.320–24. Cicero concluded from pagan Sibylline use of acrostic that the form (which is Hellenistic, not classical) indicated deliberate, rather than ecstatic, thought (Parke, Sibyls, 139), but while there may not have been first-person speech or the same kind of possession as with the Pythia (219), the Sibyl portrays herself in the extant Jewish and Christian oracles as irresistibly moved.

L.A.B. 28:6 (OTP 2:341; Latin text, Kisch, 195).

L.A.B. 28:10 (OTP 2:342).

4 Bar. 5:8; also 5:12 (both Kraft, 22–23). The story of a long nap also circulated concerning Epimenides (who lived ca. 600 B.C.E.), as reported by Diog. Laert. 1.109 and Honi the Circle-Drawer, grandson of his more famous namesake, in b. Taʿan. 3:9, §4. Washington Irving had some Germanic and ultimately Mediterranean roots for his “original” American tale of Rip Van Winkle.

Test. Job 48–50 (though some have attributed this section to Christian influence, perhaps from the Montanist period). Philo’s description of the worship of the Therapeutae in Contempl. 84, compared with Bacchic rites of strong drink, includes apparently inspired singing. For inspired singing elsewhere, see Mek. on Exod 14:31–15:1 (in Smith, Parallels, 64); b. Soṭah 5:4, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 9:2; L.A.B. 32:14. It is possible that in Judaism this related to the heavenly (Test. Ab. 20:12–13 A; 2 En. 17:1 A and J) or eschatological (Sib. Or. 3.715, second century B.C.E.; b. Taʿan. 31a; Sanh. 91b; Num. Rab. 15:11; Eccl. Rab. 1:11, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 21:1) worship.

See, e.g., Russell, Apocalyptic, 160.

Isaacs, Spirit, 49 (citing Plato Tim. 71D; Ion 533D, 543C, and Philo Heir 264; Spec. Laws 4.49; QG 3.9).

Isaacs, Spirit, 51 (citing 1 Sam 10:10–12).

Isaacs, Spirit, 49–50, citing Philo Heir 69, 249, 266.

Philo Plant. 39 (LCL, 3:232–33).

Philo Migr. 190.

Philo Heir 68–69.

Philo Flight 168; cf. 2 Pet 1:21.

Philo Spec. Laws 1.65 (LCL, 7:136–37), using ἐνθουσιῶν.

Philo QG 3.9. In QG 4.138, every true prophet was called “seer” or “beholder” because of the eye of the soul. Contrast Aune, Prophecy, 150, who makes Philo’s allowance for an ecstatic to be aware of his surroundings a contrast with L.A.B. 28.

Philo Heir 264–65 (LCL); cf. 1 Cor 14 (the parallel between Philonic and Pauline language was originally pointed out to me by Prof. Dale Martin).

Philo Heir 249, 258–59.

Philo Mos. 2.258; cf. 1.201. This is especially effective when he is about to leave his body (2.288).

Philo Migr. 35. On Philo’s own experience, see Aune, Prophecy, 147.

Hill, Prophecy, 32–33. One may contrast the NT literature, for whatever reason: Nock, “Vocabulary,” 134. For a lengthy treatment of prophets moved by the divine Spirit in Philo, see Wolfson, Philo, 2:11–59.

Cf. Jos. War 3.353.

Jos. War 6.300–309.

Bamberger, “Prophet,” 305, citing b. B. Bat. 12b for a similar association of prophecy with madness after the temple’s destruction.

Isaacs, Spirit, 50, cites Ant. 6.222–23; 4.118.

Isaacs, Spirit, 50, citing Ant. 6.56, 76.

Odes Sol. 6:1–2 (OTP 2:738). Even Hellenistic magical divination seems to have influenced some strands of early Christianity, as in the Shepherd of Hermas (see Aune, Prophecy, 17, 211, 303, following Reiling, Hermas). At the same time, one should be cautious not to read in influences arbitrarily; cf. Forbes, “Inspired Speech”; Hill, Prophecy, 9, 29–30 (who goes too far, however, in denying the influences).

1 Cor 14:32; Severian of Gabala in Pauluskommentare 262, 270 (Bray, Corinthians, 118, 144); Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. 29.2.

Mek. Pisha 1.38–40 (Lauterbach, 1:4).

Sipre Deut. 62.1.1–2; 70.1.3; 157.1.1; Gen. Rab. 73:5. Of course, prophets functioned as messengers of the suzerain King Yahweh to his vassal kings of Israel in the OT as well, and so they executed a calling of higher authority than that of kings in the eyes of the Deuteronomic historians. Cf. Holladay, “Statecraft,” 31–34; and, on the court of Yahweh, Cross, Myth, 186–87.

Sipre Deut. 175.1.3 (Neusner), on Deut 18:15–22. This principle may have appeared relevant during Jesus’s proclamation of the imminent kingdom (Keener, Historical Jesus, 208, 235).

See t. Sanh. 14:13; even more so, Sipra Behuq. pq. 13.277.1.12.

It has been argued that sages replaced the temple also (Rosenfeld, “Sage and Temple”). Similarly, prophecy becomes especially teaching in the church fathers (though they did not exclude revelations); see Bray, Romans, 305, 311, citing, e.g., Origen Comm. Rom. on 12:6 (CER 5:60); Diodore of Tarsus, on Rom 12:6, in Pauluskommentare 106.

Sipra Sh. M.D. 99.5.6 (Neusner, 2:135); again in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:6/7. A similar use of Amos 7:14 by an Amora is noted in b. Ber. 34b; Yebam. 121b, by Hill, Prophecy, 34–35.

Y. Sanh. 10:1, §9, placing sages directly below prophets, prophets directly below Moses, and Moses directly below God. For Apollinaris of Laodicea, on Rom 12:6, in Pauluskommentare 76–77 (Bray, Romans, 311), as for Paul (1 Cor 12:28), prophecy is the greatest gift next to apostleship.

Y. Sanh. 11:4, §1: their teachings are more stringent than those of the prophets, and they may be accepted without signs, unlike the prophets. This is also taught in the y. Berakot reference noted by Jeremias, Jerusalem, 241–42.

Y. Hor. 3:5, §1: Sages are above kings, kings above high priests, high priests above prophets, and so on.

Bamberger, “Prophet,” 306, citing b. B. Bat. 12a; cf. also Urbach, Sages, 1:306.

Cohen, Maccabees, 23; cf. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:206. Cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:578: in the rabbinic period, “prophecy evolved into a mystic experience.”

E.g., ʾAbot R. Nat. 1 A. This is often observed: Aune, Prophecy, 104; Hill, Prophecy, 34–35; Urbach, Sages, 1:306, 564–65, 578 (although disagreeing with the proposed connection between the fixed law and the cessation of prophecy, p. 566).

Among Gentiles, cf. Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 1a: Socrates’s wisdom was like an earthly oraculum; likewise, a Cynic could claim (Lucian Phil. Sale 8) to be a sort of prophet. Earlier, Egyptian scribes foretold the future (P.Beatty 4, in Simpson, Literature of Egypt, 1; cf. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 240), and priests interpreted the will of the gods (Dunand, Religion en Égypte, 123); on Egyptian oracles, see Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 145–97.

A false prophet (like a bad disciple) speaks what he did not hear (t. Sanh. 14:14–16; cf. Sipre Deut. 177.1.1).

E.g., by the early Amora R. Levi, in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 14:4 (though cf. 24:7); cf. Aune, Prophecy, 124; Glatzer, “Prophecy,” 119–20, 126–30.

ʾAbot R. Nat. 4 A; 6, §19 B, predicates Johanan ben Zakkai’s “prophecy” to Vespasian on Scripture interpretation (Isa 10:34).

Besides eighteen references cited in Keener, “Heavenly Court,” see ʾAbot R. Nat. 32 A; y. Sanh. 1:1, §4, 11:5, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:11; cf. 11QMelch and explanation in Kobelski, “Melchizedek,” 123; Test. Ab. 12:11 A; 10:8 B (a heavenly judge); 3 En. 2:4; 5:10–12; 16:1; 18:16 (?); 28; 29:1; 30:1–2; for prophetic and apocalyptic tradition, cf. Couturier, “Vision du conseil.”

E.g., Tg. Jon. on 1 Sam 19:23–24; 2 Kgs 6:1; 9:1, 4.

Sipre Deut. 306.24.2. A true prophet must do as Moses did: Sipre Deut. 83.1.1.

Third-century Amora R. Samuel bar Nahman in R. Jonathan’s name, in y. Meg. 1:5, §3. For the divergent data on whether prophets could make innovations in the law, see Bowman, “Prophets,” 263–74.

Sipre Deut. 32.5.12.

Davies, “Aboth,” 129–37. Thus the words of Isa 51:16, “My words in your mouth,” applying in some contexts to prophecy, could be taken to apply to the study of Torah in b. Taʿan. 4:2, §13; Meg. 3:6, §2 (in Sipre Deut. 176.3.1, however, it is used prophetically).

Cf., e.g., 2 Macc 2:1–3; Hill, Prophecy, 27–28, on Josephus; Aune, Prophecy, 124, on Maccabean texts.

L.A.B. 11:2; Jub. 8:20.

Sipre Deut. 176.3.1, on Deut 18; see Jer 1:9. This phrase can be used in the OT simply for teaching another what to say, as in Exod 4:15; 2 Sam 14:3.

ʾAbot R. Nat. 24 A; b. Taʿan. 4:2, §13; Meg. 3:6, §2.

Sipre Deut. 357.18.2 (Neusner, 2:461), citing Num 24:16; Deut 5:28; Num 24:4. For the inability to control prophetic inspiration, see the references in Ecclesiastes Rabbah cited by Bowman, “Prophets,” 207. On b. B. Bat. 15b, comparing Moses and Balaam, see the extended discussion in Bowman, “Prophets,” 108–14; for the contrast between the two in Philo Mos. 1.263–99, see Feldman, “Balaam.” Jewish writers often regarded Balaam as the greatest of the Gentile prophets or philosophers (Jos. Ant. 4.104; Gen. Rab. 65:20, 93:10; Lam. Rab. proem 2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; in Num. Rab. 20:19, the Holy Spirit spoke with him); he was the only one who could explain to the nations what was happening at Sinai (Sipre Deut. 343.6.1; Pesiq. Rab. 20:1); but God kept him from cursing Israel against his will (Jos. Ant. 4.104; cf. Exod. Rab. 4:3; 20:5; 27:3), though he found another strategy to carry out his purpose (Jos. Ant. 4.104; Sipre Deut. 252.1.4; y. Sanh. 10:2, §8; cf. Taʿan. 4:5, §10). He is repeatedly considered wicked (Philo Conf. 159; Mos. 1.48; b. Ber. 7a; ʿAbod. Zar. 4a; Sanh. 105b–106a; Exod. Rab. 30:20; Num. Rab. 20:6; Pesiq. Rab. 20:1; 41:3) and is contrasted with Moses (Sipre Deut. 357.18.1–2, above; Exod. Rab. 32:3; Num. Rab. 14:20; Eccl. Rab. 2:15, §2) and Abraham (m. ʾAb. 5:19; Gen. Rab. 55:8). Later rabbinic polemic uses him as a type or name for Jesus (Herford, Christianity, 65ff.).

Schäfer, Vorstellung, may not conclusively demonstrate his case that the Holy Spirit’s continued activity in rabbinic texts originates from mystical sources (Reif, “Review,” 158), but these sources do seem to be the center of revelatory activity in extant rabbinic texts.

See P. Alexander’s comments in OTP 1:229–38 for broader connections.

Bonsirven, Judaism, 135, comments on t. Ber. 3:5, 7 (that Akiba would spend hours in fervent prayer and would be left in one part of the room and be found in another) that rapturous or ecstatic experiences may be in view here, but b. Ber. 31a suggests that he was moved around “on account of his many genuflexions and prostrations.” The latter could be an attempt to play down mysticism but is more probably the realistic explanation for his movement.

See esp. t. Ḥag. 2:3–4; b. Ḥag. 14b; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §§7–8; Song Rab. 1:4, §1. Visions of heaven became standard fare in the apocalypses; besides Enoch’s tour, see later employment of the theme in L.A.E. 25:3–4; Apoc. Zeph. 5:6; Gr. Ezra 5:20; Apoc. Sed. 9:1; cf. Moses in Sipre Deut. 357.6.6.

P. Alexander, in OTP 1:235, suggests the “tempting” possibility “that Merkabah mysticism” was originally part of the apocalyptic stream of experience “and that it was the events of the years A.D. 70–135 in Palestine which brought about a reorientation of apocalyptic and gave rise to a more or less independent Merkabah movement.” Hellenistic ascents may have provided a model, but Jewish ascent traditions were not uncommon, and they were often associated, e.g., with Moses to receive Torah (b. Šabb. 88b; cf. Exod. Rab. 42:4; Pesiq. Rab. 20:4; Aristob. frg. 4 [Euseb. P.E. 13.13.5, in OTP 2:840–41]; L.A.B. 12:1). Meeks, Prophet-King, 122–25, 141, 205–11, 241–46, 295–98; Nicholson, Death, 98; and others see a polemic against Moses’s ascent in the Fourth Gospel; for an early view that this is a polemic against Jewish mystic ascent traditions, see Odeberg, Gospel, 72.

Scholem, Gnosticism, 11–12, argues that the early Jewish mystics lived near the center of rabbinic Judaism, not near its fringes. The date of the materials is difficult to decide; Halperin, “Merkabah Midrash,” finds traces as early as the LXX; Goodenough, Symbols, 1:221 (cf. also 8:17; 12:198) thinks that Jewish mysticism was common, especially in the more Hellenistic circles, until halakic Judaism became dominant, and he finds evidence for this in Philo (idem, Introduction, 134–60). Neusner, “Merkavah Tradition,” thinks that the earlier Merkabah traditions were expanded and made more complex with time.

Cf. Basser, “Democratize”; Urbach, Sages, 1:193. Various Jewish mystical texts show varying degrees of emphasis on responsibility to the mystic’s community; see Chernus, “Individual.” Such ascents could be read in light of the myth of invading heaven in OT traditions (Halperin, “Ascension”), and some of the motifs may have come from Gnosticism in the Amoraic period (Schultz, “Angelic Opposition”). Abelson, Immanence, 340–56, strikes a balance between rabbinic Judaism’s use and its restraint of mystical tendencies.

E.g., t. Ḥag. 2:1, 7; b. Ḥag. 15a; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §15; Gen. Rab. 1:5, 10; 2:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5; cf. 2 En. 24:3 A (rec. J is similar); perhaps 1QH^a IX, 11, 13 (in Casciaro Ramírez, “Himnos”).

E.g., t. Ḥag. 2:1. After a child understood the reading of Ezekiel and was instantly consumed by fire, some rabbis wished to suppress Ezekiel (b. Ḥag. 13a; cf. Jerome’s report of a Jewish tradition that the beginning of Ezekiel was not to be read, in Scholem, Trends, 42); when R. Johanan ben Zakkai refused to teach the “Work of the Chariot” to R. Eleazar ben Arak, R. Eleazar then expounded it himself, and all the trees caught fire, bringing R. Johanan’s commendation (b. Ḥag. 14b); a disciple of a rabbi expounded a chapter in the “Work of the Chariot” without the rabbi’s permission and was struck with a skin disease (y. Ḥag. 2:1, §§3–4). Throne mysticism appears to exist in the Dead Sea Scrolls; see Dupont-Sommer, Writings, 333–34; Vermes, Scrolls, 210–11; Gaster, Scriptures, 285–88; Patte, Hermeneutic, 290, on the angelic litany. Test. Job 33:9 uses similar language, but of Job’s throne; the allusion in L.A.E. 25:2–3 (cf. Apoc. Mos. 33:2) may conflate Ezekiel’s and Elijah’s chariots.

An opinion is cited in which Torah should be taught only privately (b. Sukkah 49b), but this is normally reserved for certain esoteric teachings (b. Pesaḥ. 119a; Ḥag. 13a; Pesiq. Rab. 22:2). In b. Šabb. 80b, a certain Galilean (his place of origin may be significant) was going to lecture publicly on the chariot passage and so died before he could.

This may have associations with the language of the Mysteries (e.g., Lucian Lex. 10; Apul. Metam. 11.23; cf. Orph. H. 30.3, 7; Burkert, Mystery Cults, 9; Lincoln, Paradise, 82; Dibelius, “Initiation,” 65; Aune, Prophecy, 65; and commentaries on 2 Cor 12:4, such as Martin, Corinthians; Furnish, II Corinthians; and Barrett, 2 Corinthians), though it thereby acquired a broader religious semantic range (e.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1, §1), and the idea is already found in first-century Judaism (Philo Worse 175–76; Cher. 48; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.94 [of the law]; cf. P. Alexander, OTP 1:246–47, for the concept among Merkabah mystics).

Not all eschatology would have direct political implications, some of it being quietistic; but apparently eschatology and messianic hope in general were somewhat discredited or thought to threaten political instability, for they are, for whatever reason, toned down in the Tannaitic literature.

Cf. the idea of prophetic scribes as early as P.Beatty 4 (Simpson, Literature of Egypt, 1).

E.g., vates in Ovid Fasti 6.5–8.

E.g., Pindar Nem. 3.1–5; frg. 150 (from Eustath. Com. Il. 1.1); Callim. Aetia 1.1.1–38; Musaeus Hero 1. For the Muses’ help, cf. also Max. Tyre 38.2; cf. Schmeling, “Spectrum,” 21; on the Muses more generally, see, e.g., Walde, “Muses.”

E.g., Val. Flacc. 1.5–7; Statius Ach. 1.9.

Val. Max. 1.pref.; see Wardle, Valerius Maximus, 68.

Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 19, 5D–6D. He claimed that he needed the help especially because he would be arguing against a popular view of Plato (20, 6D). For deities of speech in general, see Dubourdieu, “Divinités de la parole.”

Dio Chrys. Or. 1.10.

E.g., Pliny E. N.H. 37.3.5; Fronto Eloq. 1.13; Marc. Aur. 11.11; cf. Statius Theb. 6.355–56; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 440.32–441.1. For prophecy more generally, e.g., Aristoph. Birds 716; Dio Chrys. Or. 13.9; Men. Rhet. 2.4, 390.23–24; comment on Acts 16:16; for Apollo and music, e.g., Dion. Hal. Epid. 1.256; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.56–57; Artem. Oneir. 2.35; Gr. Anth. 2.266–70.

Pliny Ep. 8.4.5.

See, e.g., Egyptian books in Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 240.

Philost. Hrk. 25.18.

Iambl. V.P. 29.157 (Dillon and Hershbell, 173).

Porph. Marc. 20.329, ἔνθεος.

Iambl. V.P. 1.1.

Speakers sometimes repeated a word or phrase for stylistic purposes (Anderson, Glossary, 37, on διλογία), but the point here is emphasis (cf. diaphora, as described in Rowe, “Style,” 133–34, citing Demosth. Fals. leg. 186; Cic. Phil. 12.6.14; also Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 580, on Rom 3:21–26).

See Menzies, Development, esp. 205–77 (on Acts).

Turner, Power, 105–14, 118, addresses the association between the Spirit and miracles in early Judaism, though the evidence is (compared with prophecy proper) not very wide.

Cf. Aune, Cultic Setting, 91.

He does not repeat the exact term ὅρασις (cf. Rev 4:3; 9:17; ninety-five times in the LXX; thirteen times in the Apostolic Fathers, 2 Clem. 1.6; 7.6; 17.5; Herm. 5.1; 8.2; 18.3–5; 19.2, 4; 20.1; 21.1; 22.1), but we may take ὀίτασία (Luke 1:22; 24:23; Acts 26:19; elsewhere in NT, only 2 Cor 12:1; in the LXX, in a nonvisionary sense, at Esth 14:16; Sir 43:2, 16; Mal 3:2; in the Apostolic Fathers, visionary in Mart. Pol. 5.2; 12.3) and ὅραμα (Acts 7:31; 9:10, 12; 10:3, 17, 19; 11:5; 12:9; 16:9–10; 18:9; elsewhere in the NT only at Matt 17:9, but some thirty-eight times in the LXX; and in the Apostolic Fathers, Herm. 10.3; 12.3; 18.6; 22.3; 23.2) as equivalent.

Luke never repeats the exact terms for “dream” here (elsewhere in early Christian texts, only Jude 8; but the verb appears perhaps seventeen times in the LXX, and the noun appears sixty-seven times in the LXX).

See Koet, “Divine Communication,” 756–57.

Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 236.

Ibid.

Extrasocial groups such as the Galli (castrated priests who experienced ecstasy) are not comparable except in the broadest sense (and in ancient depictions, castration is more characteristic of their ecstasy than prophecy is, in any case; see comment at Acts 8:27).

For diverse forms of early Jewish prophecy, see Cousland, “Prophets and Prophecy,” 833–35. The democratization of the Spirit within the church (language employed by others, e.g., Ma, “Empowerment,” 39; Marguerat, Actes, 88) resembles the “sectarian” emphasis of Qumran literature on the Spirit’s pervasiveness among the Qumran covenanters.

On this Jewish tradition, see Hall, “History,” 13–46; idem, Revealed Histories; cf. Hill, Prophecy, 27; Braun, “Prophet”; Mason, Josephus and New Testament, 20–21. Greeks were more explicit about inspiration claims in epics (e.g., Gordon, Civilizations, 224–25).

Sometimes accurate to the detail; see, e.g., Anderson, Pentecostalism, 71–72; Deere, Power of Spirit, 36–37, 133, 210–12; Alexander, Signs, 121; Gutierrez, Milagros, 76–77; Koch, Zulus, 219–20, 232, 234–35, 240–41; McKenna, Miracles, 6–7, 9–13, 23; Pytches, Come, 97–100; Storms, Convergence, 52, 60, 64, 66, 76–80, 86–87; idem, Guide, 37–38, 44–47, 81–85, 94, 100; Stibbe, Prophetic Evangelism, 1–5, 14–17, 49–50, 59–60, 62–64, 66–67, 70, 107, 129–30, 134–35, 159, 163, 166, 167, 195; Baker and Baker, Enough, 27; Moreland and Issler, Faith, 198–99; Best, Supernatural, 54–57, 92–93, 101–2, 107, 109–11, 125, 127–28, 199; cf. Pullinger, Dragon, 129. Storms also points to occasions in history (here Charles H. Spurgeon’s ministry) where the phenomenon occurred by other names (Guide, 89–90, citing Spurgeon, Autobiography, 2:226–27; also in Storms, “View,” 201–3). For accurate non-Christian prophecy, see, e.g., Ashe, Miracles, 165–66; Kibicho, “Continuity,” 381; Harner, Shaman, 97–98; Salamone, “Bori,” 18; Grindal, “Heart,” 72; Scherberger, “Shaman,” 60; Turner, “Advances,” 36; McClenon, Events, 135; Montefiore, Miracles, 41–42, 51–52.

E.g., Plut. Alc. 39.1–2; Cim. 18.4; Demosth. 29.2; Sulla 9.4. A “dream” parallels a “vision” in Baal h. I AB (iii–iv) (ANET 140). On dreams and visions, see also Keener, Miracles, 870–84; esp. Pilch, Flights.

Apul. Metam. 11.13, 19. Cf. also 1 En. 90:39–40.

See, e.g., Strelan, Strange Acts, 136–43; Rives, Religion, 102. Chance, “Prognostications,” 220n4, points to the presence of dreams and visions in Xen. Eph. Anthia (though not proportionate to their appearance in Acts).

PGM 4.930–1114, esp. 934; 77.1–24, specifically 1–5; Aune, Prophecy, 45; cf. Toner, Culture, 142, on PGM 7.727–39. Egyptian priests entreated the supreme deity to manifest himself to them (Plut. Isis 9, Mor. 354D); others could also plead for visions of the deceased (Philost. Hrk. 33.36). Cf. also fasting or ascetic means (e.g., Reitzenstein, Religions, 42; Francis, “Humility,” 168–69; Lincoln, Paradise, 111; see further comment on Acts 13:2).

Platonic philosophers embraced such mysticism (e.g., Plut. Isis 77, Mor. 382D; Philo Spec. Laws 3.1–2; Max. Tyre 11.10; Porph. Marc. 7.131–34; 10.180–83; 16.267–68; 26.415–16; for Philo, Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 31–32; Winston, “Philo’s Mysticism”; for Plotinus, see Case, Origins, 93–94), though especially in later Platonism (see MacMullen, Enemies, 108). Some thinkers parodied visionary ascents (Lucian Icar. passim).

E.g., with Hermotimus (Pliny E. N.H. 7.52.174; parodied in Lucian Fly 7), as a metaphor for rational ascent (Max. Tyre 26.1; 38.3); or more commonly (Russell, Apocalyptic, 166); during sleep (Lucret. Nat. 4.916–24); likewise, the soul of one dying might travel around the world, then reenter the body to proclaim such sights (Max. Tyre 10.2). Cf. cosmic tours in apocalypses (e.g., in Bauckham, “Visiting”; L.A.B. 19:10).

E.g., Eliade, Rites, 95; Prince, “Yoruba Psychiatry,” 92; Mbiti, Religions, 220; Rasmussen, “Shaman’s Journey,” 308. Many peoples attribute possession trance to the soul’s absence (Bourguignon, “Distribution,” 7–9), and Greeks sometimes attributed it to the mind’s displacement (see comments on ecstasy in the excursus on prophecy at ). For shamanic journeys to heaven, see also Scott, “Ascent,” 448. Among some other peoples, part of one’s soul travels regularly, and the rest does during sleep (Schmidt, “Psychiatry,” 140; for part of the spirit leaving the body in sleep, see also Lucret. Nat. 4.916–24); or soul travel occurs after death (Mbiti, Religions, 208–9).

Some early Jewish apocalyptic texts allowed the spirit to be caught up (1 En. 71:1; cf. also Russell, Apocalyptic, 166); but the Jewish approach was more commonly “in the body” (Furnish, II Corinthians, 525; e.g., Ezek 2:2; 3:14, 24; 8:3; 11:1, 24; Wis 4:11; 1 En. 39:3; 87:3; Test. Ab. 8:2–3 B), and so Paul’s allowance of “out of the body” may constitute a concession to Corinthian sentiments.

See fuller discussion in Keener, Revelation, 31–32.

Rowland, “Visions in Apocalyptic Literature,” 154.

See Pilch, “Sky Journeys,” focused esp. on the author of 1 Enoch (106–10; idem, Flights, 66–70).

Test. Jud. 3:10 adds extrabiblical visions to those Jacob had in Scripture. For visions of heavenly paradise, see, e.g., L.A.E. 28:3–4; Apoc. Mos. 22:3; Apoc. Zeph. 5:6; Gr. Ezra 5:20; Sipre Deut. 357.6.6. But these are closely related to visions of God’s throne (cf., e.g., t. Ḥag. 2:3–4; b. Ḥag. 14b, bar.; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §7; Song Rab. 1:4, §1).

See, e.g., 3 En. 1; Scholem, Trends, 44. In contrast to apocalypses, Hekhalot texts (like magical texts) provide instructions for the journey (Himmelfarb, “Ascent”). God might make the patriarchs his chariot (Gen. Rab. 47:6; 69:3; 82:6); for other chariots, cf. L.A.E. 25:2–3; Apoc. Mos. 22:3; 33:2.

See, e.g., 1 En. 14:24–25; 15:1; for Moses’s mystic ascents, see Meeks, Prophet-King, 122–25; Lincoln, Paradise, 118. The goal was to behold God (Arbel, “Understanding”). On heavenly ascent in general, see Segal, “Ascent in Judaism”; comment on Acts 1:9–11.

Some scholars suspect some Merkabah speculation even in the LXX (Halperin, “Midrash”); more clearly, it appears in Qumran scrolls (cf. Davila, “4Q534”; Dimant and Strugnell, “Vision”), as generally noted (e.g., Dupont-Sommer, Writings, 333–34; Gaster, Scriptures, 285–88; Patte, Hermeneutic, 290; Vermes, Religion, 128); also in L.A.E. 25:3. Some Jewish people disapproved of such activities (cf. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.191), which probably penetrated later rabbinic circles only gradually. For the tradition’s development, cf., e.g., Neusner, “Merkavah Tradition.”

See t. Ḥag. 2:1, 3–6; b. Ḥag. 13a, bar.; 14ab (including 14b, bar.); Šabb. 80b; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §§3–4, 7–8; Song Rab. 1:4, §1; Scholem, Trends, 42, 52–54; idem, Gnosticism, 14; Lieber, “Angels”; on suggested secret transmission, see, e.g., Séd, “Traditions secrètes.” The rabbis wanted to keep such material from the masses (Basser, “Merkavah Narrative”) and may have tried to play down such speculation (Basser, “Democratize”). Pythagoreans who leaked secrets of the sect also faced divine judgment (Iambl. V.P. 18.88; 34.247).

E.g., Acts 9:3–4 (though called a “vision” in 26:19, and despite a scholar’s suggestion of a “road trance”; see comment there). Cf. 10:3 (though called a “vision”; although some forms of intense prayer [10:30] could create a hypnotic state, reciting Jewish liturgy presumably would not have done so). For Luke’s use of vision as symbolic or nonphysical reality, contrast 12:9 with secondhand vision claims in Luke 1:22; 24:23.

So Pilch, Visions, passim, esp. 158–59; idem, “Trance Experience”; Malina and Pilch, Acts, 185–87; idem, Letters, 331–33. Although alternative explanations merit more consideration, Beauregard and O’Leary, Brain, argue that such mystic experiences reflect genuine connections with the primordial ground of being (e.g., 293–94). Strelan, Strange Acts, 131, suggests that ancients were less concerned than moderns to distinguish visual from visionary sight; although this was probably true in some cases, many ancient writers would have recognized the distinction.

Bourguignon, “Introduction,” 14; for psychomotor epilepsy, Prince, “EEG,” 122–24; for sleepwalking, 124–25; for hysterical fugue states, 125–27; cf. Pilch, Flights, 26.

Whether in humans suffering battle fatigue or in experimental dogs overwhelmed by stresses, the nervous system may collapse (Prince, “EEG,” 129). Cathartic release of emotion, or at a more extreme level, emotional collapse, seems to reset human emotional circuits; whether in ecstasies during Wesley’s preaching (June 15, 1739) or in the course of brainwashing techniques, emotional collapse yields a suggestible state, to which some also compare possession trance (Prince, “EEG,” 130). (Prince himself [132] thinks that ecstasies in Wesley’s meetings were caused by suggestion, lacking neurophysiological causes as in some other cases. But other studies have shown that intense religious emotion can produce altered neurophysiological states [see, e.g., Goodman, Speaking in Tongues; on mystical “call” trances, cf. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, 37–44].) Prince, “EEG,” 133–34, notes neurophysiological changes due to rhythmic drumming (as in West Africa and Haiti) and in “photic driving,” “light flashing at or near the alpha rhythm of the brain.”

Ludwig, “Altered States,” 88. Cf. Goodman, Trance Journeys; idem, Ecstasy; Pilch, Flights.

See generally Croy, “Religion, Personal,” 927; Theissen, Erleben, 138. On Greek and Roman dreams, see also Miller, Convinced, 23–39 (noting both acceptance and criticism); Bovon, Studies, 145–49; on Jewish dreams, Miller, Convinced, 40–61; Bovon, Studies, 149–52; on post-NT Christian dreams up through Augustine, 155–61 (e.g., Acts Thom. 154; Acts John 48).

Hom. Il. 1.63; 5.150; Eurip. Philoctetes frg. 789b.3; Xen. Anab. 3.1.11; 4.3.8; 6.1.22; Cav. Com. 9.9; Paus. 4.19.5–6; 9.26.4; Longus 1.7; 2.23, 26–27; 3.27; 4.35; Appian Hist. rom. 11.9.56; 12.12.83; Quint. Curt. 4.2.17; Arrian Alex. 2.18.1; Babr. 136.3–4; Ach. Tat. 1.3.2; 4.1.4; 7.12.4; Char. Chaer. 1.12.5; 2.9.6; 3.7.4; 4.1.2; 5.5.5–7; 6.2.2; 6.8.3; Libanius Narration 13; cf. Orph. H. 85–87; Epidaurus inscriptions; Hadas, Aristeas, 184–85; Reinhold, Diaspora, 35; Oberhelman, “Dreams”; Mackay, “Plutarch,” 104–6; Hanson, “Dreams and Visions”; Martin, Religions, 48–50; idem, “Artemidorus.”

Tac. Ann. 2.14; Marc. Aur. 1.17.8; van der Horst, “Macrobius,” 221–22; cf. Virg. Aen. 4.556–57; 7.415–20; Ovid Metam. 9.685–701; 15.653–54.

Ezek. Trag. Exag. 68–89; Sib. Or. 3.293; Philo Migr. 190; Deissmann, Light, 154; Lewis, Life, 99; Wright, Archaeology, 53.

Dio Cass. 13, frg. in Zonaras 8.22.

Hdt. 1.34, 107, 127; Quint. Curt. 3.3.2–3 (but probably a non-Persian literary invention).

Jos. War 1.328; 2.116; Life 208–10; for a fuller comparison between dreams in Josephus and Luke, see Vogel, “Traumdarstellungen” (on Josephus, esp. 136–45). Some dreams in Jubilees are from Scripture (e.g., Jub. 14:1; 29:6; 39:16; 40:1–3, 12; 44:2; cf. 29:3), but others were added (27:1; 35:6; 41:24); cf. extrabiblical dreams in Test. Levi 8:18; Test. Naph. 7:1 (but biblical ones in Test. Zeb. 3:3; Test. Gad 2:2); in apocalyptic sources, see, e.g., 1 En. 13:8; 85:1; 90:42; 4 Ezra 11:1; 12:35; 13:1, 15, 19, 53; 14:8.

Sib. Or. 3.293; Let. Aris. 192, 315.

ʾAbot R. Nat. 40 A; 46, §§128–29 B; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:2; b. B. Bat. 10a; Ber. 55a–58a; Ḥag. 14b; Gen. Rab. 17:5; 44:17; 89:5–6, 8; Lev. Rab. 3:5; 34:12; Eccl. Rab. 1:1, §1; 3:2, §2; 5:2, §1; 5:6, §1; Lam. Rab. 1:1, §§16–18; Zeitlin, “Dreams”; Alexander, “Dreambook.”

PGM 4.2076–80, 2444–45, 2625, 3172; PDM Sup. 117–30.

E.g., Quint. Curt. 4.2.17.

Dio Cass. 60.14.4–15.1; cf. Appian Hist. rom. 12.2.9.

Juv. Sat. 6.542–47; Lam. Rab. 1:1, §§14–15; cf. Virg. Aen. 5.636.

E.g., Gen 28:12; 37:5–9; Dan 2:19; cf. Jos. Ant. 2.13–16, 63–73.

E.g., 1Qap Gen^ar XIX, 14–23; Jub. 27:1–3; 32:1; 41:24; Ezek. Trag. Exag. 68–89; Jos. Ant. 2.216–19; 6.38; 7.147; L.A.B. 9:10; 42:3; 4 Ezra 10:59; Test. Ab. 4:8 A; 4:16; 6:1–2 B; L.A.E. 23:2/Apoc. Mos. 2:2; Endres, Interpretation, 207.

Fasting for revelations appears in a variety of texts (e.g., Herm. 1.3.10; see comment on Acts 13:2).

Cf. Gen 15:12–13; 1 Sam 3:3–4; 1 Kgs 3:4–5; Keret in KRT A (i) (ANET 143); Aqhat in AQHT A (i) (ANET 150).

E.g., Diod. Sic. 1.25.3–4; 1.53.8; Paus. 1.34.5; 2.27.2; Hdn. 4.8.3; Grant, Religions, 16, 38; Oepke, “ὄναρ,” 223–24; Grant, Gods, 66–67; cf. Rousselle, “Cults”; in Josephus, Gnuse, “Temple Experience.”

The fauns supposedly inspired both prophecies and sleep (Fronto Eloq. 1.13).

Gen 40:8; 41:16, 25, 28; Dan 2:27–28; Jos. War 2.111–13; Ant. 17.345–48. See Gnuse, “Dream Interpreter in Foreign Court.”

Bowersock, Fiction as History, 77–98 (including Galen 16.222); see further Hanson, “Dreams and Visions” (who also notes literary forms for dream or vision reports).

E.g., Apul. Metam. 11.19 (Isis calling Lucius to her priesthood).

Xen. Cyr. 8.7.2; Plut. Alc. 39.1–2; Sulla 37.2.

Aeschylus Pers. 176–99; Fronto Bell. parth. 6. When a preacher in Congo known for signs and wonders died, my future wife, then studying in France and unaware that he was passing, dreamed that he had stopped to say farewell; she later learned that many others had similar dreams when he died.

Sir 34:1–8 [31:1–8]; Let. Aris. 213–16; Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.207–8; Hom. Od. 19.559–67; Hdt. 7.12–19; Arist. On the Soul; On Prophecy in Sleep; Artem. Oneir. 1.1; Hdn. 2.9.3; cf. b. Hor. 13b; Cic. Div. 2.58.119–2.72.150; Diog. Laert. 6.2.43; probably Polyb. 33.21.1–2 (see LCL, 6:290–91). See further discussion esp. in Miller, Convinced, 29–36.

Artem. Oneir. 1.1. White, Artemidorus, 67–68n6, provides many parallels to this conception.

Men. Rhet. 2.4, 390.4–10 allows orators to invent dream-revelations for effect (cf. the value of visiones in Quint. Inst. 6.2.29, though he applies this to emotive, descriptive language, e.g., 6.2.32).

Plut. M. Cato 23.4. Thus a king’s prophets might claim to interpret a dream that he had in fact made up (Char. Chaer. 6.8.3; cf. Dan 2:9; of course, political expediency could dictate the outcome of many prophecies, as in 1 Kgs 22:13).

Alciph. Farm. 2 (Iophon to Eraston), 3.10, ¶3; Plut. Table 8.10, Mor. 734D.

Pliny E. N.H. 28.14.54.

Hom. Il. 2.20–21; Virg. Aen. 5.893–96; Vit. Aes. 33; P.Paris 47; cf. the prophecy in 1 Kgs 22:22–23. 4Q560 1 I, 5 is an incantation to protect against dreams, apparently recognizing that not all are from God.

↑ Back to top