610. Turner, Power , 274.

610. Turner, Power , 274.

E.g., Hom. Il. 23.65, 83–85; Eurip. Hec. 30–34, 703–6; Virg. Aen. 1.353–54; 2.268–97, 772–94; 4.351–52; 5.721–23; Ovid Metam. 11.586–88, 635, 650–73; Plut. Sulla 37.2; Br. Wom., Mor. 252F; Apul. Metam. 8.8; 9.31; cf. Hom. Od. 4.795–839; 19.546–49; Appian Hist. rom. 8.1.1; Arrian Alex. 7.30.2.

ʾAbot R. Nat. 40 A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:23; y. Ḥag. 2:2, §5; Ketub. 12:3, §7; Sanh. 6:6, §2; Eccl. Rab. 9:10, §1; to my knowledge, the earliest Christian example is Acts Paul 11.6.

Greek tradition also allowed for apparitions of deities, not restricted to incubation (see, e.g., Plut. Luc. 10.2–3; 12.1; Sulla 9.4; 28.6).

On Luke’s dream and vision reports, see esp. now Miller, Convinced; for a survey of Lukan scholarship on dreams and visions, see 81–90.

Shorter, Witchdoctor, 152–53, notes Jung’s “big dream” (Jung, “Symbolic Life,” 556), that Freud conceded his inability to explain accurate premonitory dreams (Freud, Interpretation, 61), and that some have argued for genuine precognition in some dreams (citing Dunne, Experiment, 37ff., 50, 59; and esp. Rycroft, Innocence, 36).

For examples in Myanmar, Khai, “Pentecostalism,” 269, 270; popular-level claims about dreams in China, Sung, Diaries, 9–10, 15–16, 28, 55, 99, 102, 109, 110, 189–90; Yun, Heavenly Man, 32, 35, 135, 137, 178, 180, 181, 189, 197, 305–6, 315, 341; about visions, 58, 60, 68–69, 73, 103, 108–9, 122–23, 124, 254; for children in early twentieth-century China, see also Baker, Visions (new ed.), passim; visions in Timor, Indonesia, e.g., Wilkerson, Beyond, 76, 78, 81 (also on a popular level); in the Philippines, Ma, “Manifestations.” In Africa, see Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, 137, 378–86; Shorter, Witchdoctor, 149–61, esp. 152–54); in African Christian movements, see, e.g., Gornik, Word, 29–30, 58, 60, 64–65, 269; Adeyemo, “Dreams”; Dayhoff, “Machava”; idem, “Mthethwa”; idem, “Mucavele”; idem, “Vilakoti”; Fuller, “Harman”; idem, “Taiwo”; Gaiya, “Gindiri”; Koschorke, Ludwig, and Delgado, History, 221 (on Isaiah Shembe), 222; Magaji and Danmallam, “Magaji”; Manana, “Magaji”; Menberu, “Abraham”; Odili, “Okeriaka”; Quinn, “Kivebulaya” (on an Anglican, 1864–1933); Sundkler, “Worship,” 552–53; Wodi, “Wodi”; Kalu, African Pentecostalism, 288; Baker and Baker, Enough, 21, 58–59, 62–65, 72, 76, 142, 157, 182; idem, Miracles, 173; Clark, Impartation, 208.

In early modern Pentecostalism, see, e.g., McGee, People of Spirit, 269; more recently in the West, e.g., Rumph, Signs, 83–90; Deere, Voice, passim; Williams, Signs, 141–42; Storms, Convergence, 60–61, 64, 78–80; Stibbe, Prophetic Evangelism, 95; Baker and Baker, Enough, 49–50, 55, 181; idem, Miracles, 31, 199; Moreland and Issler, Faith, 198–99; Clark, Impartation, 120, 145–48, 200; dreams in Pullinger, Dragon, 28, 106, 123, 135; visions, 29, 200, 232; dreams in Jackson, Quest, 176, 335; visions, 70–71, 298.

E.g., they were common in early evangelicalism (Noll, Rise, 267), a movement in the twentieth century traditionally shyer concerning extrabiblical “revelation.”

E.g., Moreland, Triangle, 169; Moreland and Issler, Faith, 151–53; cf. Becken, “Healing Communities,” 233; Guthrie, “Breakthrough,” 26; Morgan, “Impasse,” 61; Stibbe, Prophetic Evangelism, 5–6, 17–20 (in the West, 101–2), 98 (a vision; in the West, 104–5); for some examples claiming conversions through visions or auditions, see, e.g., Kwan, “Argument,” 499; Filson, “Study,” 150; Knapstad, “Power,” 82–83; Burgess, Revolution, 250; Chesnut, “Exorcising,” 181–82 (apparently; Brazil); Kim, “Healing,” 273; Bush and Pegues, Move, 53, 62; Yun, Heavenly Man, 50; regarding dreams, Filson, “Study,” 154; Knapstad, “Power,” 87–88; Bush and Pegues, Move, 54, 62; Pope-Levison, Pulpit, 51. Ekechi, “Factor,” 294, notes the influence of a vision on corporate conversion in 1873 Onitsha. For dreams and healings (or prescriptions), see, e.g., Shorter, Witchdoctor, 153–54; Zempleni, “Symptom,” 119; Bush and Pegues, Move, 51, 61. Many Catholic and Protestant clergy are called to ministry through dreams (in Africa, see Sundkler, Bara Bukoba, 98, cited in Shorter, Witchdoctor, 153; e.g., Burgess, Revolution, 160; in Latin America, Marostica, “Learning,” 210; in Asia, Kim, “Healing,” 275; Yohannan, Revolution, 127–28; in the West, Tallman, Shakarian, 147); dreams also sometimes recruit priests in traditional religions (e.g., Verger, “Trance,” 51, though noting that this was not the most common method) or portend possession (Colson, “Possession,” 73).

Such dreams and visions included another person’s vision of her leaving the country and inadvertently returning during danger in the airport, twenty years before the event took place—and the visions of others, when she was in her country, that she would eventually marry a U.S. minister. (Not Pentecostal, she belonged to her country’s major Protestant church.) Shorter, Witchdoctor, 160–61, cites an example of what he took to be accurate African precognition through a dream. For possibly veridical experiences, see Pilch, Flights, 166–68.

Also 1QS IV, 21 and 4Q509 V, 15–16, which speak of God pouring out his “spirit of holiness” or “holy spirit” (as in Acts 2:33; 10:45; Rom 5:5; but “holy spirit” appears in the OT only at Ps 51:11 and Isa 63:10–11); 1 En. 91:1; cf. the metaphor for other divine attributes (justice poured out in Isa 45:8; 1QM XII, 10). In Joel 2:29, the Hebrew may play on the sound of the words for “pour” and “female servant,” but the Greek offers no echo of this.

Otherwise rare in the LXX and the Greek NT.

Barrett, Acts, 136. Cf. the material conception of “Spirit” in Stoicism (e.g., Long, Philosophy, 155–58, 171; Chevallier, Ancien Testament, 41–42; see discussion in our introduction, , , excursus part 1); for Stoics, all existent things had substance (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5a.5–6), including virtues, mind, and soul (2.7.5b.7, pp. 20–21.28–30).

Cf. Num 11:17, where the Hebrew agrees. Steyn, “Ἐκχεῶ,” suggests that something other than the Spirit is being poured out from the Spirit, but this thoughtful interpretation (while otherwise feasible) does not seem to fit the widespread OT background or the analogous passages in Acts.

With, e.g., Dunn, Romans, 1:253. Whether from Joel or from other OT fluid images for the Spirit, they probably do not stem solely from baptism in this period (unless we date Titus 3 quite late), for which immersion provided a more natural analogy than pouring (on the character of early Jewish baptismal analogies, see Keener, John, 442–47, 549; in view of ancient mikvaot, it is beyond question that immersion was favored in the earliest period). They might reflect a common tradition of interpretation. The image could also be a banquet image for pouring wine, offering continuity with the image of Acts 2:13 (as Hermog. Inv. 4.10.199–200, finds in Demosth. Or. 3.31; 4.49), but Luke would know the water imagery for the Spirit in the prophets (a motif developed esp. by John; see Keener, Spirit, 135–89).

Although this is pleonastic, the LXX pairs these two terms twenty-six times, always placing σημεῖα first (cf. also Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 23; Turner, Power, 273). In Acts, however, “signs” appears before “wonders” in 4:30; 5:12; 14:3; and 15:12; but “wonders” appears first in 2:19, 22, 43; 6:8; and 7:36. They may function interchangeably for Luke (see Menzies, Development, 222; in Byzantine lexicography, cf. Remus, Conflict, 48). Various functional synonyms existed for “miracles” (cf., e.g., θαυμαστόν in Test. Ab. 18:6 A; cf. Tob 12:22).

The rhetorical compilation of all three terms appears rarely (2 Cor 12:12; Heb 2:4).

With, e.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 23; Lampe, “Miracles,” 173; Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, 16, 72; Juel, Promise, 61; Zehnle, Pentecost Discourse, 34; Turner, Power, 273; Johnson, Function, 44–45n1; Johnson, Acts, 49; Barrett, Acts, 138 (citing Acts 2:43); Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 145; Chance, Acts, 53; Menzies, “Paradigm,” 214; Peterson, Acts, 143. The LXX connects the language most often with Moses and the exodus (with Acts 7:36; Johnson, Function, 45; Johnson, Acts, 50). Sloan, “Signs,” 161, adds the climactic sign of Jesus’s resurrection (cf. 2:24–32; cf. also perhaps Luke 11:29–30, though it lacks explicit connection with the resurrection, in contrast to Matt 12:39–40).

Already objecting to the gospel tradition some two decades after the event, one Thallus reportedly attributed the darkness to a coincidental eclipse, which Julius Africanus (ca. 221) disputes (see, e.g., discussion in Goguel, Life, 91–92; Bruce, Documents, 113; Allison, “Thallus,” 405 [with translation, 405–6]; Evans, “Non-Christian Sources,” 454–55). An unanticipated solar eclipse for three hours (most last a few minutes at most, like one eclipse for under two minutes in 29 C.E., Brown, Death, 1041–42) is improbable, but the report suggests that Diaspora Christians were circulating this tradition of the passion narrative even before the early 50s. Although Luke employs language often associated with eclipses, clouds could account for the earliest tradition’s darkness (cf. Mark 15:33).

Barclay, “Acts ii.14–40,” 198; Juel, Promise, 61. Cf. earlier Bede Comm. Acts 2.20, for whom the prophecy is partly fulfilled (the sun was darkened at the cross, but the moon was not obscured during Passover season).

Turner, Power, 273. In view of Luke 21:25–28, Marshall, “Acts,” 535, opines that the “wonders in heaven” may remain future.

Turner, Power, 274.

Cf. Borg, Conflict, 217.

The “blood” specifically applies to the moon in Acts 2:20, but if Luke presses realized eschatology even into such details (which seems somewhat more unlikely than likely), he might think also of Jesus’s blood (Luke 22:20, though this is not a characteristically Lukan emphasis), whether as a sign (22:44) or as an invitation to judgment (cf. 11:50–51).

Dunn, “Demythologizing,” 297, complains that Peter “treats the cosmic spectacle language of Joel 2 as little more than apocalyptic sound-effects.”

E.g., 1 En. 80:1–5; 91:16; 4 Ezra 5:4–5; 7:38–42; Sib. Or. 3.82–92; 5.29–31, 211–13. Sunlight is blotted out in Sib. Or. 3.800–804; 5.476–84, 512–31; Test. Mos. 10:5.

For cosmic catastrophe language used within history, see, e.g., Judg 5:4; Ps 18:4–19; Jer 4:23–28; Sib. Or. 3.286–92; 4.57–60; Petron. Sat. 124.

Sall. Jug. 53.1; Sil. It. 4.94; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 2.13; Ezek 38:16; 3 Macc 5:48; with regard to the Assyrian army, see Gordon, Civilizations, 260.

Hom. Il. 16.374–75.

Virg. Aen. 12.407–8, 463.

E.g., Aristoph. Wasps 1084; Val. Flacc. 2.522; Val. Max. 3.7.ext. 8 (where a Spartan thus quips he will fight in the shade); Sil. It. 2.37; 9.11–12, 311–12; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 2.16.

Tac. Hist. 3.56. Cf. the disaster involved when clouds cover the sun too long in the earlier “Prophecy of Nefer-Rohu” (ANET 445).

Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.41 (Dowden, 684).

In Joel 1–2, locusts appear to be depicted as an invading army; in Joel 3, they may foreshadow a genuine war.

Livy 42.2.5.

Darkness and clouds also characterize the day of YHWH in Ezek 30:3; Zeph 1:14–15.

Diog. Laert. Lives 7.1.145–46; 10.96; Pliny E. N.H. 2.6.47; Dio Cass. R.H. 60.26.1–5; Livy 44.37.6–7.

E.g., Heracl. Hom. Prob. 57.6; Philost. Hrk. 33.6; cf. Hübner, “Eclipses,” 791–92; the alleged prediction of Thales in Hdt. 1.74. Most people, however, did view unexpected darkness as the activity of deities (Plut. Tim. 28.2), and leaders who knew the natural cause of lunar eclipses might accommodate superstition (as the “opiate of the people,” so to speak) to manipulate them (see Quint. Curt. 4.10.5–7).

E.g., Polyb. 9.19.1; Val. Max. 8.11.ext. 1; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 7.1.2 (also Plut. Superst. 8, Mor. 169B in van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,” 56); some used unexpected darkness for advantage (Polyb. 7.16.3). Some attributed sickness (Manetho frg. 84) or various astrological effects (Ptolemy Tetrab. 2.9.89–90).

Pliny E. N.H. 2.6.43; 2.7.47 (the moon or earth obstructing the sun); 2.9.53–55 (earlier views); 2.10.56–57 (their cyclic nature).

Pliny E. N.H. 2.30.98; 2.31–32.99 (in a larger context of portents, 2.33.100–2.37.101). He also believed that solar eclipses could generate epidemics (36.69.202).

This was more terrifying than a normal eclipse, which did not obscure sunlight totally (Pliny Ep. 6.20.18). Most Gentiles regarded sun and moon as deities (Rives, Religion, 16; cf. Plut. frg. 213); for the sun, see for Persia, e.g., Hdt. 1.131; Quint. Curt. 4.13.12; Olmstead, Persian Empire, 477 (cf. Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.36; Parthians in Hdn. 4.15.1); for Phoenicians, Ptolemy Tetrab. 2.3.66; for Syrians, Tac. Hist. 3.24.5; for Rome, Tac. Ann. 15.74; Plut. Pomp. 14.3 (cf. Cic. Resp. 6.17.17; Pliny E. N.H. 2.4.12–13; among Greeks, Soph. Oed. tyr. 660–61; Dio Chrys. Or. 3.57, 73; Dion. Hal. Epid. 1.256; Orph. H. intro lines 3–4; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.38; 7.10, 31 (cf. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.265); allegedly Paeonians in Max. Tyre 2.8; allegedly India in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.24, 32, 43; 3.15; earlier, the Hymn to the Aton (ANET 369–71); Hymn to the Sun-God (ANET 387–89); 2 Kgs 23:11; Ezek 8:16 (cf. “Mystery of Horses”; Gordon, Near East, 249; Jos. Asen. 6:2/5). The sun could also be identified with Apollo (Heracl. Hom. Prob. 6.6; 8.4–5; Max. Tyre 4.8; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 438.12–13; 442.30; 445.31–446.9), but Helios was considered divine himself, as in Lucian Dial. G. 278–80 (24/25, Zeus and Helios 1–2). For Jewish opposition, see, e.g., t. Suk. 6:6; Sipre Deut. 318.2.1–2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:1; y. Suk. 5:5, §3; they personified the sun, but more like an angel (cf. 1 En. 41:5–6; 72:2–37; 75:4; 3 En. 17:4). On moon deities, see Becker, “Moon deities”; Röllig, “Moon deities”; and Lieven, “Moon deities”; Druids in Pliny E. N.H. 16.95.250; supposedly Ethiopians in Heliod. Eth. 10.4; in the Mediterranean world, in myth, e.g., Ovid Fasti 4.374; Statius Ach. 1.619–21; Lucian Dial. G. 231 (19/11, Aphrodite and Selene 1); cf. Godwin, Mystery Religions, 69; perhaps Isis in Plut. Isis 52, Mor. 372D. For witchcraft and the moon, see, e.g., Ovid Her. 6.85; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.7; Heliod. Eth. 6.14; for the moon more like an angel, see, e.g., 2 En. 16; 3 En. 17:5.

E.g., t. Sukkah 2:5–6; Gen. Rab. 28:1; Tg. Ps.-J. on Deut 28:15. Eclipses predicted evil for the world, but especially for Israel (b. Sukkah 29a), but when occupied with Torah, Israel did not need to fear them (t. Sukkah 2:6). The sun’s being darkened (by whatever means) expressed judgment in the OT prophets (Isa 13:10; Ezek 32:7; Amos 5:18, 20; 8:9; cf. Mic 3:6; Zeph 1:15), including in Joel (Joel 2:2, 10, 31; 3:15).

E.g., Aristoph. Peace 414; Xen. Hell. 1.6.1; Thucyd. 2.28.1; Polyb. 29.16.1–3; Diod. Sic. 20.5.5; Livy 25.7.8; Plut. Caes. 69.3–4; Aem. Paul. 17.5; Arrian Alex. 3.7.6; 3.15.7; Philost. Hrk. 33.5; Hermog. Inv. 1.1.98; see discussion in Grafton, “Eclipses”; Hübner, “Eclipses,” 790. In Diog. Laert. 4.64, a lunar eclipse signified nature’s sympathy for the decease of a great man.

Plut. Alex. 31.4; Arrian Alex. 3.7.6; Quint. Curt. 4.10.2–6.

Ovid depicts witches who could cover the sky with clouds (Am. 1.8.9–10), turn the moon and stars blood-red (1.8.11–12), draw down the moon (Her. 6.85), and darken the sun (6.86).

In the short run, such days meant days of God’s reckoning and judgment (Everson, “Days of Yahweh,” 337), but in the distant future, the judgments blended together as a single event (see Ladd, Kingdom, 36).

With also Ladd, Theology, 555. Cf. “the day of the Lord’s judgment” in Pss. Sol. 15:12; Gr. Ezra 3:3 for the “great day” of God’s revelation; a time of judgment in b. Roš Haš. 16b; Soṭah 3b; ʿAbod. Zar. 18a.

E.g., Isa 2:12; Jer 46:10; Ezek 7:19; Lam 1:12; 2:1; cf. Ezek 30:9; Zech 14:1.

For a chronological bibliography (especially 1953–76) on Luke’s soteriology, see Bovon, Theologian, 239–41; for a review of views, see 242–66 (with conclusion and synthesis, 263–66); see also Stenschke, “Salvation”; Witherington, Acts, 821–43; Barnett, “Salvation,” 1072–73; Luter, “Savior (DLNTD),” 1082.

Cf. the fifteenth benediction of the Amidah (“the ‘blessing of David’”), which contains the phrase “who causes the horn of salvation to sprout” (Le Cornu, Acts, 726).

Cf. Ridderbos, “Speeches of Peter,” 28; Bovon, Theologian, 263 (for whom it is more often present).

With, e.g., Bayer, “Preaching,” 268; Meek, Mission, 108–9.

E.g., Gen 4:26; 12:8; 13:4; Pss 79:6 (78:6 LXX); 99:6 (98:6); Let. Aris. 226; Gen. Rab. 39:16. Cf. also Test. Mos. 1:18 (literal reading). “Calling on” (ἐίικαλέω and cognates) could be used for invoking divine heroes (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 31.7; 53.6, 11, 16) or divine kings (Jdt 3:8). A later Targum interprets Joel’s “calling on the name of the Lord” as prayer in his name (Tg. Joel 3:5). For connection with Acts 10:34, see Marguerat, Actes, 89.

Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 22; Knowling, “Acts,” 81; van Unnik, “Anathema,” 123; Kilgallen, Commentary, 18; cf. Juel, “Use of Psalm 16,” 544–45 (on which of the two “Lords” of Ps 110:1 must they call?).

Recognized, e.g., by Turner, Power, 272.

Cf., e.g., Dunn, Acts, 27; Costa Grillo, “Discourso de Pedro”; Marshall, “Acts,” 536, 543; Haenchen, Acts, 184n5; Dupont, Salvation, 22; Zehnle, Pentecost Discourse, 34; Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 231–32.

Cf. Hurtado, Become God, 161n29. On the implied invocation in Rom 10:9, see, e.g., Stuhlmacher, Romans, 154.

For the absence of the Tetragrammaton in the LXX, see, e.g., Dodd, Bible and Greeks, 3ff. Howard, “Tetragram,” argues that some pre-Christian Greek manuscripts used the divine name in Aramaic or Paleo-Hebrew letters or transliterated it as ΙΑΩ; for Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton, see Deissmann, Studies, 321–36. The originals, however, simply translated the divine name as κύριος (Rösel, “Translation of Name”). ΙΑΩ and “El” appear together as a single name in Apoc. Ab. 17:13.

Cf. the prohibition against verbatim recitation of the sacred Ten Commandments (Jos. Ant. 3.90). Cf. the ineffability of God in such philosophic thinkers as Philo and Justin (Shibata, “Ineffable”).

Cf. 4Q462 1 7 (which uses four dots instead of the divine name; DSSNT 401); Qumran’s use of Paleo-Hebrew letters for the divine name may reflect a similar fence (Siegel, “Employment,” compares the rabbinic proscription of erasing the divine name; see also Green, “Rabbinic Production”). The Tetragrammaton appears, e.g., in 4Q185 (Vermes, Scrolls, 258).

See, e.g., Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 108–18; more briefly, Keener, John, 297–98. For similar respect, cf. Paleo-Hebrew for the divine name in 4QIsa^c (Green, “Rabbinic Production”).

Sib. Or. 3.17–19.

b. Soṭah 7:6; Yom. 3:8, 6:2; Sipre Num. 39.5.1; cf. Marmorstein, Names, 39; it is said that it was gradually used more quietly to prevent abuse (y. Yoma 3:7). Let. Aris. 98 speaks of the sacred name inscribed on Aaron’s miter; in later texts, it was engraved on Israel’s weapons at Sinai (Song Rab. 5:7, §1; 8:5, §1). Use in the sanctuary might be quite early (cf. Lemaire, “Scepter,” suggesting its inscription on a Solomonic priestly scepter).

Sipre Num. 39.5.2; cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:127. Benedictions should not be written lest the name be burned in a fire (b. Šabb. 115b, bar.). On keeping the name secret, see also, e.g., Eccl. Rab. 3:11, §3; failure to revere the name’s mystery invited judgment (Pesiq. Rab. 22:7).

On the divine name’s power, see Urbach, Sages, 1:124–34; Moore, Judaism, 1:378, 426. His name created and destroyed worlds (Pesiq. Rab. 21:7). Much earlier, see its power in Artapanus in Euseb. P.E. 9.27.24–26.

So, e.g., b. Sanh. 60a, bar. (most opinions). It constituted blasphemy only if the divine name was used (m. Sanh. 7:5; cf. Lev 24:11, 16).

E.g., Lad. Jac. 2:18 (perhaps third century, though the editor dates it earlier). Some apparent permutations, however, simply reflect Egyptian ritual use of the “seven vowels” (Demet. Style 2.71).

Longenecker, Christology, 43ff. (citing Deut 12:11, 21; 14:23–24; 16:2, 11; 26:2; Neh 1:9; Ps 74:7; Isa 18:7; Jer 3:17; 7:10–14, 30). Longenecker (42) also cites evidence for pre-Christian use of the “name” as a “quasi-hypostatic” medium of revelation.

See, e.g., Jeremias, Theology, 10 (comparing [n. 1] even Samaritan usage to the modern period); rabbinic use of ha-Shem in Bietenhard, “ὄνομα,” 268–69; Bonsirven, Judaism, 7 (citing, e.g., m. Yoma 3:8). Cf. perhaps in Semyaza’s name in 1 En. 6:3. Philo used it also as a name of the Logos (Conf. 146; also noted by Longenecker, Christology, 43).

See discussion in Longenecker, Christology, 43–45.

Longenecker, “Christological Motifs,” 533–36.

See discussion of this saying in, e.g., Keener, Historical Jesus, 169.

Nock, Christianity, 32–33; Hunter, Gospel according to Paul, 65; Hengel, Acts and History, 105. Pace, e.g., Conzelmann, Theology, 83, who takes too little account of the Marana tha title (though acknowledging it, 82); see, e.g., Howard, Criticism, 162; Ladd, Criticism, 210.

Ladd, Young Church, 50–51; idem, Theology, 339. The later rabbinic distinction between “Lord” as God of mercy and “God” as judge (e.g., Sipre Deut. 26.5.1; Moore, Judaism, 1:387; the distinction might be earlier; cf. Rösel, “Theologie”) reflects the same method of exegesis that allowed distinctions at least of attributes.

Ladd, Theology, 338.

Ibid., 341.

Longenecker, Exegesis, 73, argues that some were interpreting it messianically; but it was not a pervasive messianic text (See comment on ).

Gundry, Use, 200; Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 190–91; Keener, Matthew, 532; pace Weeden, Mark, 133.

Bultmann, Theology, 1:124.

See at length Keener, John, 298–310; briefly idem, Matthew, 66–68; idem, Revelation, 42. Paul affirmed Jesus’s deity while believing that he remained within the Jewish monotheism of his day (see Wright, Founder, 63–72).

Dunn, Acts, 29. Cf. biblical divine language applied to Michael and Melchizedek in the Qumran scrolls (Hengel, Son, 80, citing also Philo Dreams 1.157 for the archangel Logos as κύριος); cf. also the Messiah as a representative of God in 4Q174 (on the interpretation of Schreiber, “König”; cf. Le Cornu, Acts, 130, on the Messiah and others bearing God’s name in b. B. Bat. 75b).

On “Jesus-devotion” in Luke-Acts, see Hurtado, Become God, 160–62; on Luke’s predicating analogous claims about Jesus and God, see O’Toole, Christology, passim; for Luke’s divine use of “Lord” and “Savior” titles for Jesus already in his first volume’s infancy narrative, see Rowe, “Trinity”; cf. also comment on Jesus’s “theophany” at Acts 9:3; the Isaiah background for Acts 1:8. Hays, “Category or Methodology,” also suggests it from Isa 35:4, a plausible (though uncertain) intertextual echo associated with Isa 35:5 in Luke 7:22. Cf. also Jesus’s unity with the Father (Luke 10:22) and equivalent statements about both the Father and the Son (noted in Langner, Hechos, 48).

See further Mark 1:3–4, 7–8; later, Revelation and John; Keener, John, 298–310; Harris, Jesus as God, passim. Gathercole, Son, argues that the Synoptic writers all accept the Son’s preexistence.

Probably already Jesus’s first Galilean followers; the more hellenized, bilingual urban churches of Jerusalem and Antioch (cf. Acts 6:1, 9; 11:19–20) may have spoken more Greek.

E.g., Hunter, Message, 41; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 247–48; Hengel, Acts, 105; Longenecker, Christology, 121–24; Fee, Corinthians, 839; Ladd, Criticism, 210. Some regard the original meaning of the term as ambiguous (Simon, Stephen and Hellenists, 66; cf. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 114–20), but a use in early Christian liturgy (eschatological, eucharistic, or both, e.g., Robinson, Studies, 154–57; idem, Coming, 26–27; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 300–301; Cullmann, Christology, 201–2; Hunter, Gospel according to Paul, 65; cf. Did. 10) would constitute a divine invocation (Fee, 1 Corinthians, 838–39; Ladd, Theology, 341, 416–17; for divine usage elsewhere, cf. Marmorstein, Names, 62–63; Betz, Jesus, 108; Bruce, Apostle, 117).

Cf. Glasson, Advent, 161–83; Robinson, Coming, 140; Bruce, Thessalonians, 73; 1 En. 91:7.

See arguments in, e.g., Hengel, Son, 77; Keener, John, 302–3; Pitto, “Señor.”

See Keener, John, 302–7; esp. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, passim; cf. also Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 91–132, for a telling response to those who attribute such ideas purely to Hellenistic influence. Even Q has a “high” Christology, venerating Jesus (Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 217–57).

See Hurtado, “Monotheism.”

E.g., Ign. Eph. 7; Rom. 3; Justin 2 Apol. 13; Iren. Her. 3.19; cf. Justin 1 Apol. 67; from ca. 230 C.E., Tzaferis, “Inscribed.” Cf. also 1 En. 48:5–6 (depending on the translation).

Lucian Peregr. 11; Pliny Ep. 10.96.7.

Ἀκούω appears with the impv. in Acts 2:22; 7:2; 13:16; 15:13; 22:1; and προσέχω in 5:35; 20:28; cf. 1 Tim 4:13. On the transitional function of this repetition from Acts 2:14, see also Marguerat, Actes, 90.

Also see Philost. Hrk. 8.1; 9.1; 19.3; 20.2; 23.2; 25.18; 40.1; 53.4.

A technique often used in amplification, inviting hearers’ attention (Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 372.19–20).

Cf. prodiorthōsis in Rowe, “Style,” 142 (citing Demosth. Cor. 199; Livy 39.37.17); and proparaskeuē, 146 (citing Hyperides Euxenippum 23; Cic. Clu. 4.11). In Paul, cf. Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 581–82 (citing 2 Cor 11:1, 16, 21, 23; Phil 1:12).

When transitioning to a new section of a speech, orators often tried to signal their new topic explicitly (Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 372.14–18).

The language need not be understood in an adoptionist manner (Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus, 38–39, comparing Rom 1:3–4); Bede Comm. Acts 2.22–23 suggests that Peter starts at a more basic level than “Son of God.” For a perhaps more convincing feature of primitive Christology, see Acts 2:36.

With an estimated population of about five hundred (Strange, “Nazareth,” 113; Stanton, New People, 112; Horsley, Galilee, 193), though more may well have lived in the surrounding countryside. Earlier estimates ranged from about sixteen hundred to two thousand (Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 27, 56; cf. Finkelstein, Pharisees, 1:41; Stauffer, Jesus and Story, 54). By contrast, an estimate of one hundred (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Gospels, 37) is too low; Nathanael may dismiss Nazareth, but at least he has heard of it (John 1:46). Archaeological evidence for an early Christian presence there is ambiguous (Skarsaune, Shadow, 191–92).

Designating people according to hometowns was conventional (e.g., Pliny Ep. 3.21.5; Mark 15:43; John 11:1) and appears in Luke-Acts (Luke 8:2; 24:10). The tradition that Jesus hailed from there is multiply, independently attested (Theissen and Merz, Guide, 164–65), and no one would invent an origin there.

Cf., e.g., Achtemeier, “Perspective on Miracles.”

Later signs (Esth 10:9 LXX; cf. Dan 4:37 LXX; Wis 8:8); prophetic tokens (Isa 8:18; 20:3); those of false prophets (Deut 13:1–2; cf. Mark 13:22; 2 Thess 2:9); also of God’s judgments (Deut 28:46). Continuing signs followed the model of those in the exodus (Jer 32:20 [39:20 LXX]). The partial parallel (characterizing magicians) in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.7 might depend on the by-then-widespread currency of Christian usage.

Acts 7:36; LXX Exod 7:3, 9; 11:10; Deut 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 11:3; 26:8; 29:3; 34:11; Pss 77:43 [ET 78:43]; 104:27 [105:27]; 134:9 [135:9]; Jer 39:20–21 [32:20–21]; Wis 10:16; Bar 2:11.

For more on signs in general in ancient literature, see Keener, John, 253–57.

E.g., Aeschines Embassy 44, 56; Matt 26:65; 1 Thess 2:1; cf. comment at Acts 20:18; 26:26. Recounting what the audience knows is believable though not always interesting (Gorg. Hel. 5).

For a 1948–78 bibliography concerning God’s plan, salvation, history, and eschatology in Luke-Acts, see Bovon, Theologian, 1–8.

E.g., Apollod. Epit. 5.10.

E.g., Char. Chaer. 1.1.3.

E.g., Ach. Tat. 1.3.2; Char. Chaer. 1.13.4; 8.1.2.

Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.6–7; after noting this reference, I subsequently discovered that Chance, “Prognostications,” not only highlights this very text but elaborates on it at length. In Israelite historiography, see 2 Sam 12:10–12 (cf. esp. 16:21–22).

Ps.-Callisth. Alex. passim, e.g., 1.30, 33; Apoll. K. Tyre 48; in Virgil’s epic, see Bonz, Past as Legacy, 192.

Squires, Plan, 121–29; Walbank, “Fortune,” 350–54 (noting that sometimes Tychē functions as a goddess, and sometimes as luck). Prediction (with its fulfillment) functioned as an authenticating device in Hellenistic historiography (Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 142–84; although common in epics, it appears in historians, p. 97). Outside Greek writers, note, e.g., the foreshadowing function of omens for Caesar’s death in Vell. Paterc. 2.57.2; Suet. Jul. 81; predictions to Sulla in Vell. Paterc. 2.24.3; Alexander’s “fortune” advances the plot in Quint. Curt. passim (the degree of Fortune’s role in his success was a favored topic of debate in antiquity; see Baynham, Alexander, 104–11, as cited in idem, “Reception,” 290); the succession of prophetic revelations provides an interpretive framework for the narratives of Samuel through Kings, ultimately offering theodicy concerning the exile (cf. 2 Kgs 21:12–15).

Squires, Plan, 129–37.

Demosth. Cor. 289 (citing an epitaph); Quint. Curt. 4.6.17.

On inescapable fate (sometimes fulfilled in the attempt to avert it), see, e.g., Soph. Oed. tyr. passim; Apollod. Bib. 2.4.4; 3.5.7; 3.12.5; Diod. Sic. 15.74.3–4; Val. Max. 1.8.ext. 8–9; Lucian Z. Cat. 12; Babr. 136; Libanius Narration 41; 1 Kgs 22:30, 34–35; cf. Plut. frg. 21 (LCL, 15:98–99), from his lost Is Foreknowledge of Future Events Useful? Zeus’s will could be fulfilled even through human folly (compare Hom. Il. 1.5 with 1.1–2).

In Thucydides, see Grene, Political Theory, 75–79; common elsewhere, e.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.53.3. For the danger of ignoring portents, see, e.g., Tac. Hist. 1.86; Suet. Otho 8.3.

See Johnson, Acts, 12 (citing Acts 3:22; 11:27; 13:46–47; 19:21; 20:25; 21:11; 23:11; 27:22; 28:28).

See Squires, Plan, 137–54. Promise-fulfillment is a major theme in Luke-Acts, though not necessarily the major one (Talbert, “Promise and Fulfillment”).

On “Fate,” see, e.g., Robertson and Dietrich, “Fate”; cf. Purcell, “Fortuna/Fors.”

Soards, Speeches, 184–89; Jackson, “Churches,” 103–9; in surrounding chapters, cf. also Taylor, Atonement, 18. Preaching both conveys and fulfills God’s plan (see Ferreira, “Plan”).

Cosgrove, “Divine ΔΕΙ”; Soards, Speeches, 187–88; Liefeld, Acts, 93–94; Bass, “Necessity,” 51–53. Noting the use of necessity in rhetorical argumentation (53–58), Bass helpfully explores its function in Luke-Acts (59–68).

Or obligation to it (Luke 13:16; 18:1; Acts 4:12; 16:30; 20:35), often as stated in Torah (Luke 11:42; 22:7; cf. Acts 15:5; 26:9); cf. other kinds of obligation (Luke 15:32; Acts 19:36; 24:19; 25:10, 24; 27:21).

For the necessary “passion” of Paul and his converts, cf. Acts 9:16; 14:22; perhaps 19:21; 23:11; 27:24. For connections between Petrine preaching in Acts and Luke 24, see esp. Dupont, “Discours de Pierre et chapitre XXIV.”

Also his plan in human history (Acts 17:26); Luke does not, however, reserve the term exclusively for divine decisions (11:29).

Luke also uses the term for human actions (Luke 23:51; Acts 5:38; 27:12, 42; the similar compounding in Luke 23:51 and Acts 5:38 is Lukan style). Cf. the use of βουλή for God’s plan in history elsewhere in Greek-speaking Judaism (e.g., Sib. Or. 1.216, 282; 3.571–74, esp. 571, 574).

Cf. perhaps also Acts 27:12, 42, though these uses might not be theologically significant for Luke.

Luke uses the cognate verb for previous knowledge on a human level in Acts 26:5 (as in 2 Pet 3:17; Jdt 11:19), but others apply it to God (Rom 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet 1:20; to wisdom in Wis 8:8).

Squires, “Plan.”

Squires, Plan, 15–17, 38–46 (esp. Dionysius of Halicarnassus); Hengel, Acts, 50–51; Peterson, “Fulfilment and Purpose”; Squires, “Plan,” 38; Aune, Environment, 134; Balch, “Genre,” 10–11; Meister, “Herodotus,” 269. Cf., e.g., Fortune in Polyb. 1.4, 58, 62; Diod. Sic. 1.1.3; 31.4.1; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.21.1.

Squires, Plan, 18–20, 46–52; Chapman, “Josephus,” 321. On fate in Josephus’s depiction of Ahab’s death in 1 Kgs 22 (which resembles Greek stories of failed attempts to avert fate), see Begg, “Death of Ahab.”

See Squires, Plan, 20–36, 52–77.

This included observing causal connections (Polyb. 1.4.3).

E.g., Plutarch (Swain, “Plutarch”; see esp. Plut. Fort. Rom., Mor. 316C–326C, allowing also for many Romans’ virtue; cf. similarly, Fort. Alex., Mor. 326D–345B); for Fortune favoring Rome in a war, e.g., Diod. Sic. 31.4.1. Cf. Sallust Cat. 10.1 in Feldherr, “Translation,” 385.

Squires, Plan, 154–60.

Ibid., 160–66.

See ibid., 166–85. Luke may be less interested in the philosophic problem of free will, since Jewish ideals of God’s sovereignty did not necessarily contradict it (see the discussion of free will below).

Ibid., 185 (while also noting that his language ranks him closer to popular Stoic usage than does that of Dionysius or Diodorus). Cf. the exploration in Mainville, “Liberté” (emphasizing God’s direction).

Aune, Environment, 134.

Probably more pervasive across more centuries was economic insecurity (Grant, “Economic Background,” 114); also relevant to our period is social instability (Lee, “Unrest”).

E.g., Case, Origins, 92; Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 210. Some argue that pessimism also characterized Palestine in this period (Davies, Paul, 13). Many argue for a rising popularity of personal religions from the East, as against the state cults (Carcopino, Life, 121–27).

Murray, Stages, 155. The evidence characterizes the third century more than the first, however.

Denzey, “Enslavement” (against Cumont, E. R. Dodds).

See, e.g., Hor. Odes 2.17.16; 3.24.6 (Necessity); Carm. saec. 25. On Fate, see further, e.g., Frede, “Fate” (including on philosophic theories, 367–68).

Nilsson, Piety, 94.

Demosth. Epitaph. 21 (“lord over all,” in a funeral oration); Thales in Diog. Laert. 1.35 (Necessity); Heraclitus in Diog. Laert. 9.1.7 (Destiny); Democritus in Diog. Laert. 9.7.45 (Necessity); Plut. Aem. Paul., e.g., 36.1; Alciph. Farm. 4 (Eupetalus to Elation), 1.25; Lucian Z. Cat. 1.

Aeschylus Suppl. 1046–47; Char. Chaer. 2.8.4; Apul. Metam. 9.1.

E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 6.16.5; Apul. Metam. 10.13.

Cic. Inv. 1.25.35 (though he believed that nature’s demands were higher than Fortune’s, Off. 1.33.120). Epicureans, by contrast, simply attributed station in life to chance (Lucret. Nat. 1.455–58).

E.g., Ach. Tat. 6.3.1; cf. Galen Grief 23b–24a.

E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 7.23.2; Juv. Sat. 12.63–65; Ach. Tat. 1.3.2; 4.1.3; 7.13.1. Cf. Horace’s portrayal of Fortune (Odes 1.7.25; 1.31.10; 1.34.14–16; 1.37.11–12; 2.1.3; 4.14.37; Epodes 4.6) and Fate (favorably in Odes 3.9.12; 4.2.38). Apollonius was pleasing to the Fates (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.1).

Fate produced the Trojan War (Philost. Hrk. 25.3).

E.g., Virg. Aen. 11.43 (Fortuna); Test. Sol. 8:7. Others also spoke of battle deaths’ randomness (2 Sam 11:25).

Hor. Odes 4.13.22–23; Epodes 13.15; Sil. It. 3.134–35; Quint. Inst. 6. pref. 1–2; Sen. Y. Apocol. 3; Prop. Eleg. 2.28.25.

E.g., Horsley, Documents, 4:20–21, §5; 4:25, §6; 4:33–34, §9; see also Sherk, Empire, §168G, p. 217 (including, e.g., CIL 2.4314).

Philost. Hrk. 2.10–11.

That attempts to avert prophecies lead to their fulfillment appears elsewhere (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:30–35; Babr. 136; Val. Max. 1.8.ext. 9; Lucian Z. Cat. 12).

On this point, biblical oracles differ, since they are often warnings (2 Kgs 20:1–6; Jonah 4; Jer 18:7–10), as in some other cultures (e.g., Walton, “Genesis,” 121). Greek philosophers affirmed divine foreknowledge (see Boyd, “Motivations,” contesting their view).

Likewise, Fortune conspired to bring about Germanicus’s death (Jos. Ant. 18.54).

Nilsson, Piety, 94; on her importance as a goddess for the Hellenistic world, see Tarn, Civilisation, 340.

Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 146. In the Roman period, she was patron deity of Caesarea in Judea; see Carmon, Inscriptions, §211 (English, 100; Hebrew, 216).

See Graf, “Fortuna.” Fortuna was more an abstraction than personalized (Lind, “Abstraction”).

Engels, Roman Corinth, 99. We know that Fortune was also among the gods worshiped at Ephesus (I. Eph. 1237; 3817.1) and Pisidian Antioch (I. Eph. 1238).

Sherk, Empire, §11, p. 21.

So Apul. Metam. 6.28.

Aeschylus Suppl. 1046–49; Pindar Pyth. 5.122–23; Dio Chrys. Or. 64.9; Max. Tyre 4.8; cf. Zeus as guide of Fate in Paus. 8.37.1; Zeus decreeing all things together with the Fates in Epict. Diatr. 1.12.25. But in Hom. Od. 1.32–43, Zeus attributes some bad fortune to human malice rather than to divine choice; in Max. Tyre 5.1, bad things come not from the gods but from chance; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 336, §111D, opines that human misdeeds come from human rather than divine choices.

Klauck, Context, 353.

Juv. Sat. 14.315–16. This is likely hyperbole, since no one envisioned wisdom eliminating chance; cf. the contrary view in a fragment from 4–5 C.E. in SPap 3:190–91: life is determined by fortune (τύχη), not by wisdom (φρόνησιν). But Epicurus felt that Fortune affected the wise little, in view of their dependence on reason (Diog. Laert. 10.144.16).

For Fate ruling even the gods, see also Hom. Il. 18.94–96; Hdt. 1.91; Sen. Y. Dial. 1.5.8; Tarn, Civilisation, 350–51; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 116. But in Sil. It. 17.374, 385, “omnipotent” Jupiter fates something according to his word to Juno (which depends on Fate).

Men. Rhet. 2.11, 420.29–31 (though this is a funeral oration, avoiding future shifts of fortune).

Polyb. 29.21.1–6, 9; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.25.3; Terence Moth. 406; Corn. Nep. 10 (Dion), 6.1; 13 (Timotheus), 4.1; Val. Max. 7.1. praef.; Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.22; 7.41.133–7.43.141; Tac. Hist. 4.47; Apul. Metam. 7.2. Some doubted fickleness in deities (Max. Tyre 5.3); some complained that at least death freed them from fate (Men. Rhet. 2.9, 414.9–10). Some spoke of Necessity (Hor. Odes 3.1.14–15) or Fortune (Dio Chrys. Or. 64.8) as “impartial,” but many viewed it as randomness (cf. Mart. Epig. 4.21, regarding the gods not avenging).

So Apul. Metam. 6.28.

Polyb. 29.21.1–6; Hor. Odes 2.6.9; CIL 11.1421 (in Sherk, Empire, §19, p. 34); Lucan C.W. 1.114; cf. “Necessity” as a “grim goddess” (Hor. Odes 1.35.17). This is frequent in novels with happy endings (Ach. Tat. 5.11.1; Char. Chaer. 5.1.4; 5.5.2; Apul. Metam. 7.16).

Plut. Apoll. 18, Mor. 111E.

Polyb. 38.21.2–3.

See Schaffner, “Felicitas,” 377. Earlier Greeks also believed that Fortune could bestow good things on people (e.g., Isoc. Paneg. 26).

Petron. Sat. 29 (ridiculing Trimalchio); ILS 1980 (from Ravenna) in Sherk, Empire, §178H, p. 238.

Isoc. Demon. 29.

Lucan C.W. 2.10–13; see also Plut. Fate, Mor. 568B–574F, which distinguishes fate from providence and (against Stoicism) notes interruptions in the causal chain. Max. Tyre 5.4 differentiates four causes: divine providence, destiny stemming from necessity, human activity, and Fortune dictated by chance. Allowing for why astrology does not always work, Ptolemy Tetrab. 1.3.11–12 distinguishes between irresistible and more resistible forces (though he does allow the forces to affect moral behavior, 3.13.159; 4.7.194).

Aul. Gel. 13.1. Some ancients doubted that they were (e.g., Cic. Off. 1.33.120), whereas for Stoics they would be interwoven (Marc. Aur. 2.3; Murray, Philosophy, 40–41).

Quint. Inst. 5.7.35; cf. Hippol. Ref. 1.19. As Marc. Aur. 4.2 summarizes it, “Either Providence or Atoms.” Later philosophers often sided with the Stoics (e.g., Iamblichus Letter 8 frg. 4, in Stobaeus Anth. 2.8.45).

Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.22–25, esp. 22. Some responded that Fortune was all the worthier of praise for such control (Dio Chrys. Or. 64; cf. also Or. 63; 65).

So Lucian Dial. D. 410–11 (27/19, Aeacus and Protesilaus 1–2); 451 (24/30, Minos and Sostratus 2).

E.g., Aeschylus Lib. 910–11 (Clytemnestra killing Agamemnon, and consequently Orestes killing her); others noted in Dio Chrys. Or. 64.2; also for protagonists’ acts (Char. Chaer. 2.8.4); cf. passion blamed on Fate or Fortune (Gorg. Hel. 6; Prop. Eleg. 1.6.30). Blaming behavior on fate was a way to evade responsibility (Max. Tyre 13.8–9).

For Cleanthes, only bad doings were not predestined (Long, Philosophy, 181); by contrast, some attributed misdeeds to fate and good behavior to choice (Plot. Enn. 3.1.10). Some offered a balance: most people shared the moral depravity of tyrants but lacked their “fortune” to indulge such depravity (Mus. Ruf. frg. 23), or destiny controls by decreeing that the self-controlled should succeed and those who indulge passions should fail (Plut. Poetry 6, Mor. 23DE).

Lucian Z. Cat. 5–7, 19. Contrast other thinkers, e.g., Iamblichus Letter 11.1 (Stobaeus Anth. 1.1.35).

The Fates appear in many texts, e.g., Lycophron Alex. 584, 716; Mart. Epig. 4.73; Juv. Sat. 9.135–36; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.1; 8.31; and passim; in more detail, Apollod. Bib. 1.3.1. See discussion in Henrichs, “Moira” (124–25 on the goddesses; 125–26 for “cult, myth, and iconography”).

Lucian Z. Cat. 2.

Val. Max. 2.7.ext. 1 (on the Carthaginians). For victories depending on Fortune’s favor, see, e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.21.1; Virg. Aen. 9.282; Fortune predicted Philip’s rule over Greece (Plut. Demosth. 19.1). Fortune helped both Athens (Demosth. Philip. 4.38) and Philip (Ep. Philip 15).

See likewise Πρόνοια, Providence, in Epict. Diatr. 1.6; 3.17; Marc. Aur. 2.3; 12.1.1. One should submit to whatever happens, for it is not an evil (Epict. Diatr. 3.17). On Necessity in the philosophers, see Hübner, “Necessity.”

Dio Chrys. Or. 64.18 (Dio disapproving).

E.g., Crates Ep. 35.

Cic. Top. 15.59; Diog. Laert. 7.1.149 (citing Chrysippus De fato; Posidonius in Chrysippus De fato 2; Zeno and Boethus in Chrysippus De fato 1). On causation in Stoicism, see Long, Philosophy, 163–70.

Sen. Y. Dial. 1.1.2 (cf. 12.8.3); Epict. Diatr. 1.6.1. Belief in providence in human affairs also appears in Chrysippus in Aul. Gel. 7.1. By contrast, Cicero De fato argues that chance explains events as well as fate does. Romans honored Providence; Cicero’s discussion of Stoic providence affected Augustan propaganda (Schlapbach, “Providentia”).

Mus. Ruf. frg. 47, p. 140.

Diog. Laert. 8.1.27.

Trapp, Maximus, 267–68, on Max. Tyre 34.

Porph. Marc. 30.470–76.

See, e.g., Apul. Metam. 11.22; Tarn, Civilisation, 350–52; Nilsson, Piety, 110–15; Murray, Stages, 124–27; Grant, Hellenism, 11; Lohse, Environment, 229–30; MacMullen, Enemies, 141; Koester, Introduction, 1:156–59, 380; Croy, “Religion: Personal,” 929–30. On control by the seven planets, see, e.g., Stob. Ecl. 1.5.14 (in Grant, Religions, 62–63).

For prediction but not determinism, see, e.g., the Neoplatonist Plot. Enn. 2.3; 3.1; 3.3.6.

Klauck, Context, 247, citing second-century Vett. Val. 5.9.2 (220.19–221.5 Kroll) = 5.6.9–11 (209.34–210.14 Pingtree); also in Grant, Religions, 60–62.

E.g., Favorinus in Aul. Gel. 14.1.

Pliny E. N.H. 2.6.28–30.

E.g., Mart. Epig. 9.82.1.

Pliny Ep. 2.20.3, 5.

Cf., e.g., Murray, Stages, 124–27; Albright and Mann, Matthew, 14.

Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 88.14–15. For an example of such inconsistent fear while believing in astrology and fate, see, e.g., Suet. Tib. 69.

Long, Philosophy, 41–42.

E.g., Let. Aris. 17, 195, 210, 227, 239, 244, 255, 266–72, 287; Wis 7:15–16; Test. Mos. 12:4; Test. Job 37 (a praiseworthy attribute of Job is faith in God’s sovereignty); 2 En. 33:7.

E.g., Gen 13:6–9; 36:6–7; Deut 29:4; Prov 21:1; Jer 32:40; Let. Aris. 231, 237–38, 243, 246, 252, 267, 270–72, 274, 276, 278, 282, 290; Sib. Or. 1.304.

1 Kgs 3:9; Let. Aris. 251, 256. For repentance, see the fifth benediction of the Amidah in Oesterley, Liturgy, 63; cf. Rom 2:4.

Such notions hardly need depend on Greek thought (cf. similar notions in some unrelated traditional societies, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 47, 52).

See, e.g., ἀνάγκη in Wis 19:4; προνοίας in 3 Macc 4:21.

So ἀνάγκη in Sib. Or. 3.571–72.

E.g., in protecting God’s people (Sib. Or. 5.227) and destroying their enemies (5.324). Jews could view philosophers’ recognition of providence as agreement with their own faith (Let. Aris. 201). This term was also applied to rulers (See comment on Acts 24:2).

Sib. Or. 5.215, 230, 245 (probably late first to early second century C.E. Egypt). In Sib. Or. 1.294, the “Fates” are enemies overcome by the just rule of Noah’s sons. Test. Sol. 8:3 names Clotho (one of the Fates) as the third of the astrological powers.

Aune, Environment, 108; Attridge, “Historiography,” 327.

Bilde, “Causes.”

Martin, “Heimarmene,” argues that Josephus uses popular astrological (more than Stoic) language and that Josephus views Israel as freed from fate to freely obey God.

Jos. Ant. 13.172. This may influence Josephus’s view about their foretelling the future accurately (War 2.159).

Despite the heavy predestinarian outlook of the sectarian Qumran scrolls, scholars generally argue that even these accept both predestination and free will; see, e.g., Vermes, Scrolls, 52; Price, “Light from Qumran,” 17; Driver, Scrolls, 558–62; Brown, Essays, 151–54; Sanders, Judaism, 251; Nötscher, “Schicksalsglaube.”

Jos. War 2.164–65; Ant. 13.173.

Jos. War 2.162–63; Ant. 18.13; so also Ant. 13.172 (except there he attributes only some actions to fate); cf. discussion in Klawans, “Fate.” The rabbis did embrace both poles (m. ʾAb. 3:16, at least as most commonly interpreted); see also, e.g., Urbach, Sages, 1:268–69. Josephus might compare the Pharisees with Platonists here (Pines, “Model,” even thinks that Josephus used a text that also stands behind Apul. De Platone et eius dogmate 1.12.205–6).

Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.245.

See fragments of Philo’s On Providence in LCL, 9:458–507.

Philo Heir 300–301.

See Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 135–50, esp. 149–50; Winston, Freedom, 14–15 (also the responses by Dillon and Eisenberg); cf. idem, “Freedom” (emphasizing determinism and rejecting absolute free will).

Wolfson, Philo, 1:180.

Carmon, Inscriptions, §211 (English, 100; Hebrew, 216). Although we lack evidence for a cult of Tychē there, she is prominent on many coins, often assimilated to the Roman Fortuna or Dea Roma (Gersht, “Tyche”).

L.A.B. 13:6. This idea is developed much more elaborately in later Jewish tradition.

Sib. Or. 1.40; 11.221 (possibly first-century B.C.E. Egypt). For “fate” as God’s judgment, see 3.502, 513, 517.

Sent. Sext. 436 (noting [436a] that it does not generate faith and [436b] that it “does not control God’s grace”); this source apparently accepts both God’s choice (Sent. Sext. 1–2) and that of his followers (Sent. Sext. 5).

So Dombrowski, “Misfortune.”

Urbach, Sages, 1:256.

Cf., e.g., the consensus assumption of modern psychology, despite diversity on many points (Patterson, Theories, 640ff., 653).

For one survey of the range of solutions to the apparent contradiction between Fate and free will, see Dihle, “Liberté” (covering philosophers, gnostics, and orthodox Christian thinkers).

Bobzien, “Conception.” For freedom of the will in Aristotle, see, e.g., Arist. E.E. 2.6.1–11, 1222b–1223a.

Cic. Fat. passim. Stoics, of course, emphasized that submission to Fate was how one could express freedom of the will; thus, e.g., a dying wise man escapes necessity by wishing to do what it requires of him (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 54.7).

Plut. Chance [Περὶ τύχης], Mor. 97C–100A. He also argues that, contrary to some accusations, Homer does not deny human choice (Plut. Coriol. 32.4–5).

See Klauck, Context, 375; Murray, Philosophy, 44.

They affirmed both causality (with teleology and providence) and human will (see Long, “Freedom”), the universal causal principle dwelling in each person’s share in the Logos (194).

E.g., Epict. Diatr. 1.17.27; on human freedom, see further, e.g., 1.6.40; 4.6.5. Some argue that Epictetus’s slave background influenced his emphasis on freedom (Oldfather, “Introduction to Epictetus,” vii–viii), but the emphasis was hardly limited to him (see, e.g., more than fifty sources besides Epictetus in Keener, John, 750–51), though some later Stoics quoted him (Marc. Aur. 9.36).

E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 1.5.6.

Aul. Gel. 7.2.

Lucret. Nat. 2.225–50; on randomness cf. also 1.958–1115. Randomness may occur in particle physics today (regarding theological implications, cf. Polkinghorne and Beale, Questions, 42; but cf. also Thurs, “Quantum Physics”), although, of course, these particles are not Epicurean “atoms.”

Lucret. Nat. 2.251–60. Motions begin in the mind, which then acts on the body (2.261–65).

Max. Tyre 13.5. Scholars debate the emphasis that Philo gives to each, but no one debates that he includes both free and deterministic elements.

Plot. Enn. 3.1. Traveling a mediating course, he rejects control by the stars (2.3, arguing that Soul controls) yet accepts stars and other signs for divination because of the universe’s unity and correspondence (3.3.6).

E.g., Iambl. V.P. 32.218.

Cook, Dogma, 151–52, 156.

E.g., Pss. Sol. 9:4; for human freedom and responsibility in several Jewish pseudepigraphic works, see Segalla, “Problema.” Some scholars argue that Ben Sira affirmed free will against some contemporary notions (Boccaccini, Judaism, 105–9); others, that he balanced the predestinarian character of earlier wisdom tradition with moral responsibility in a manner analogous to Stoics (Winston, “Determinism”); others still, that he used the Stoic idea of providence without its deterministic associations (Kaiser, “Rezeption”); yet others doubt that Sirach knew Stoicism at all.

On the deterministic side, see, e.g., Winston, Freedom; idem, “Freedom”; on the free-will side, see Wolfson, Philo, 1:424–62. See brief discussion above on Philo.

Carson, “Sovereignty in Philo.”

Jos. Ant. 13.171–73; War 2.162–65.

E.g., Vermes, Scrolls, 52; Brown, Essays, 151–54 (though noting internal contradictions due to their view of double predestination); Sanders, Judaism, 251. Nötscher, “Schicksalsglaube,” rightly notes that this was a practical coexistence of ideas, not a theoretical resolution of the two.

E.g., Sipre Deut. 312.1.1–2; 319.3.1. Moore, Judaism, 1:454ff.; Urbach, Sages, 1:268–69 (for astrology, 276–77). Later rabbis reacted even against the moral determinism of the fall, though perhaps partly because of Christian exploitation of the fall (Hayman, “Fall”).

This is a common explanation, in any case (e.g., Moore, Judaism, 1:454ff.; Bonsirven, Judaism, 17, 100). While צפוי probably means “foreseen” (see Jastrow, Dictionary, 1296), הרשות, often taken here as “freedom,” can mean authority or power to rule, often used for pagan governments such as Rome; the phrase could thus refer to God’s sovereignty over the nations. But see also ʾAbot R. Nat. 39 A.

Justin Dial. 141; 1 Apol. 43; Tatian Or. Gks. 11 (arguing against Fate, 8–10); Ps.-Clem. Hom. 12.3–4 (rejecting Fate as an abdication of moral responsibility); 13.1–2 (rejecting random chance and hence, by implication, Epicureanism). Later, see Severian of Gabala in Pauluskommentare 232 (Bray, Corinthians, 23); John of Damascus The Orthodox Faith 2.29 (Oden and Hall, Mark, 69); Chrysostom argued against God’s gift coercing the human will (Hall, “Chrysostom,” 56–57). Part of Justin’s concern was apologetic against the gnostic predestinarian perspective (Chadwick, Early Church, 77). Islam emphasized the other, absolute predestinarian side (e.g., Qur’an 28.68). Focusing on grace, many Western church fathers came to emphasize a stricter predestination, as in Ambrosiaster (Bray, “Ambrosiaster,” 36–37) and the later Augustine, after a long shift (see Bright, “Augustine,” 76–78; Reasoner, Romans, 71–72, 97, 100, 106; Roach, “Choice”; contrast earlier Augustine On Romans 62; To Simplician 1.2.1; 10; Bray, Romans, 244, 249, 254, 257). Denzey, “Beast,” 193–95, associates the form of early Christian willingness to face martyrdom with the Stoic ideal of asserting freedom in the face of Fate.

Dunand, Religion en Égypte, 70–71.

Horsley, Documents, 1:20, §2; also in Grant, Religions, 133 (second century C.E.). See also Reitzenstein, Religions, 64–65.

Apul. Metam. 11.6. Her providence delivered him from Fortune (11.12, 15, 25).

So Arnold, Power, 21; Trebilco, “Asia,” 317–18.

So, e.g., Knox, Gentiles, 101; Nock, Conversion, 99–102; Caird, Apostolic Age, 17; Avi-Yonah, Hellenism, 40–41; Dahl, Studies, 17; Tinh, “Sarapis and Isis,” 113.

See Bram, “Fate,” 326–30.

PGM 4.662–73 (here, seven Fates).

Sheldon, Mystery Religions, 33–34. Mithras worked with Isis in ordering planetary destiny (Apul. Metam. 11.22).

Also, some ideas associated with salvation in the Mysteries were in fact more widespread (see, e.g., Gasparro, Soteriology, 98).

See Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 59, 63; cf. Plato Phaedr. 248AB, 248E–249A; Val. Max. 4.1.ext. 2; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref. 7, 17; Max. Tyre 7.5; 11.10; 25.6; Porph. Marc. 6.103–8. Cf. their critics in Plato Theaet. 174A; Alciph. Farm. 11 (Sitalces to Oenopion, his son), 3.14; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.14; Philost. Hrk. 1.2.

Philo Spec. Laws 3.1–2.

Cf. Klauck, Context, 136; Angus, Mystery-Religions, 51; Knox, Gentiles, 101. Cf. perhaps ascent rituals in some other cultures (Eliade, Rites, 77–78).

E.g., Gen. Rab. 44:12 (cf. 48:12); Exod. Rab. 38:6. Cf. Israel’s exaltation in Test. Mos. 10:8–9; Abraham’s in Apoc. Ab. 20:2–5 (without mention of astrology). Cf. perhaps an earlier analogous solution for believers exalted in Christ in Eph 1:20–2:6.

See, e.g., Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 44–56. Even in the LXX (see Carson, Sovereignty, 42–44). Carson, Sovereignty, 74, argues that apocalyptic literature tends to de-emphasize election; in a different sense, however, determinism features heavily in apocalyptic (Arrington, Aeon Theology, 74–77).

E.g., 1QS X, 1ff.; 1QH^a X, 13; 4Q180 1 2; 1 En. 1:1–3, 8; 5:7–8; 25:5; 38:4; 48:1, 9; 50:1; 58:1; 61:4, 12; 93:2; Jub. 11:17; cf. Test. Job 4:11/9. They probably go beyond the OT (see Carson, Sovereignty, 83).

Jos. Ant. 13.172–73; 18.3; War 2.162–64. Despite Josephus’s presentation of the Essenes (Ant. 18.18), even the Scrolls do not deny all free will (Nötscher, “Schicksalsglaube”; Driver, Scrolls, 558–62; Marx, “Prédestination”; Sanders, Judaism, 251).

For double predestination, see also 11Q13 II, 8, 12.

Though in 1 En. 108:11 some of them may have been “born” in darkness, with sufferings. Many ancients viewed character as inborn, not changed (Pindar Ol. 13.12; also 11.19–20), but others recognized that character changed (Val. Max. 6.9.pref.–6.9.9; cf. 2 Chr 24:17–22).

1 En. 37:4; 39:8–9. Cf. the use of “chosen one” in, e.g., 39:6; 45:3–4; 48:6, 9; 51:3; 53:6; 55:4; 61:8, some for an exalted personage.

Wolfson, Philo, 1:180.

See Winston, Freedom; idem, “Freedom.” By contrast, Wolfson, Philo, 1:424–62, argues more for free will in Philo.

Carson, “Sovereignty in Philo.”

See, e.g., Neh 9:7; Jer 33:24; Sir 46:1; 2 Macc 1:25; Jub. 1:29; 22:9–10; 2 Bar. 48:20. See further Sanders, Paul and Judaism, 84–106, 329–33, 362–64, 389–90; Wright, People of God, 259–68.

1QS I, 10; II, 5; IX, 14; XI, 7; 1QM X, 9–10; XII, 1, 4; XV, 1–2; XVII, 7; 1QpHab V, 3; IX, 12; X, 13; 4QpPs 37 frg. 1; 4Q164 1 3; 4Q171 II, 5; III, 5; IV, 14; 4Q174 1 I, 19; 1 II, 2; 4Q381 46 5; 4Q504 1–2 III, 9. See further Sanders, Paul and Judaism, 257–70.

For individual Gentiles becoming part of the chosen people, see Jos. Asen. 8:9/11; for application of the title to believers in Jesus, e.g., Col 3:12; 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Clem. 50.7.

1Q34; and 1Q34bis 3 II, 5.

4Q504 1–2 III, 9–10.

Flusser, Judaism, 32–33.

Mek. Pisha 1.135ff.; Shir. 9.118ff.; Gen. Rab. 1:4; cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:524–41; Sanders, Paul and Judaism, 88–107; on foreknowledge, see, e.g., Marmorstein, Names, 154. On an individual level, it is possible that some rabbis accepted predestination of the righteous but not of the wicked (y. Ber. 1:5, §7); one who suffered Persian persecution accepted the corporate predestination of the Persians for damnation (b. Ber. 8b). God foreknows what he will do but relates to humans in their time (ʾAbot R. Nat. 37 A).

Neh 9:7; Apoc. Ab. 14:2; Num. Rab. 3:2.

E.g., 4Q266 11 11; 2 Macc 1:25; Jub. 19:18; 22:10; Num. Rab. 3:2.

E.g., Pss. Sol. 9:4; Sipre Deut. 319.3.1; cf. Boccaccini, Judaism, 105–9; Wolfson, Philo, 1:424–62; Urbach, Sages, 1:268–69; Bonsirven, Judaism, 17, 20, 100. Cf. conditional promises, e.g., Gen 18:19.

See discussion above.

Sipre Deut. 312.1.1–2; Num. Rab. 14:10.

For both God’s sovereignty and human responsibility in Paul’s letters, see, e.g., Lee, “Tension.” For John, early Christianity, and its Jewish setting, see esp. the thorough study of Carson, Sovereignty.

See Doble, Paradox, e.g., 160, comparing Wis 2:16 and arguing that Luke 23:47 should be translated “righteous” (its usual sense in Luke-Acts, 93–160) rather than merely “innocent.”

Doble, Paradox, 243, also concluding here that because Luke echoes Wisdom’s model of δίκαιος in his passion narrative, “his readers may infer that Luke probably intended to affirm that Jesus’s death stood in God’s plan of salvation as that willing act of faithful response to God’s call which turned the ages.”

If we factor in early Christian references to Christ’s dying for sins (e.g., Rom 5:6–10; 1 Cor 15:3) and other sacrificial language (1 Cor 5:7; 11:23–25; Heb 7:27; 9:25–26, 28; 10:10–12) as allusions to sin or atonement offerings (or that value attached to paschal sacrifices), the theme is abundant in Paul, in whose circle of churches Luke presumably moved (otherwise, why would he write so much on Paul?). See comment on Acts 8:32–33.

Most scholars note Luke’s lack of emphasis on this point, but they divide over the reason for it (see Bovon, Theologian, 164–65, for survey). For Luke’s seeing salvific significance in the cross, cf. Zehnle, “Salvific Character”; Fuller, “Theologia Crucis”; for atonement by Jesus’s death in Luke’s theology, see Peterson, Acts, 75–79; for vicarious atonement in Acts 20:28, Parsons, Acts, 300.

For the servant and atonement in these verses in Mark, see Keener, Matthew, 487–88, 630–31; for sacrificial language in Jesus’s words at the Last Supper, see, e.g., Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 220–22; McNamara, Targum, 129. In view of Isaiah and Maccabean texts, there is no need to doubt that even Jesus could have believed in substitutionary atonement (see, e.g., Morris, Preaching, 34); rabbis also believed in vicarious atonement (see Kim, “Atonement,” 145; cf. idem, “Targum Isaiah 53”; other Jewish sources in idem, “Concept of Atonement”); Greeks also understood dying for others and expiatory sacrifice (Hengel, Atonement, 9, 19), though the language of propitiation in select early Christian documents echoes especially Jewish sources (see Kim, “Hellenistic Thought,” 115–16).

On this resurrection preaching, see, e.g., Longenecker, Wine, 108–9; Morris, Cross in New Testament, 130–34.

Cf. Moessner, “Script.” The inversion of the tragedy into victory was part of early Christian preaching, but it fits Luke’s emphasis on God’s inverting humanly planned outcomes (see Grassi, Laugh, passim).

On ancient crucifixion generally, see, e.g., Hengel, Crucifixion; briefly, e.g., Green, “Crucifixion.”

For its use in Judea, see, e.g., Jos. Ant. 19.94; 20.102; War 2.75, 253; this often degenerated into blatant abuse (e.g., War 2.306, 308).

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11. I have borrowed much of the material from Keener, Matthew, 678–79; idem, John, 1135–36, but have woven in additional information omitted in those briefer works.

Bruce, “Matthew,” 328.

Theon Progymn. 5.52–56.

Hengel, Crucifixion, 25. For different shapes of crosses and the likeliest for Jesus (a four-armed cross), see Brown, Death, 948; Blinzler, Trial, 248–49. Positions varied, but for evidence for one possibly common position, see Tzaferis, “Crucifixion,” 52–53. For the torture entailed, see also Scott, Customs, 364–65; Brown, Death, 946–47. Crosses thus became a metaphor for suffering (Sen. Y. Dial. 1.3.10; Apul. Metam. 7.16; 8.22; 9.31; 10.9; 11.23); crucifixion apparently symbolizes suffering for one’s sins in Sen. Y. Dial. 7.19.3.

Apul. Metam. 8.22; cf. Prometheus’s fetters (Mart. Epig. 7; Lucian Z. Cat. 8; also Lucian Prom. 1–2, 4, 9, 17, and passim).

E.g., Jos. Ant. 12.256, where it was used against Jews resisting hellenization.

Esth 9:25; de Vaux, Israel, 159. Alexander used hanging in Persia (Arrian Alex. 6.30.2).

E.g., Jos. War 1.97; Ant. 13.380; 4QpNah 3 + 4 I, 7–8; 11QT^a LXIV; Sipre Deut. 221.1.1; y. Sanh. 6:6, §2; perhaps Exod. Rab. 20:10.

Cf. Gen 40:19; m. Sanh. 6:4.

Ironically Livy claims that Romans were the most humane of peoples with the mildest of punishments (1.28.11)!

See Artem. Oneir. 2.56; Plaut. Most. 2.1.12–13; m. Šabb. 6.10; Lane, Mark, 564; Allison, Jesus, 392–93; cf. Luke 24:39; for ropes alone, cf., e.g., Xen. Eph. Anthia 4.2. Cf. Diod. Sic. 25.5.2 (if προσηλόω here means “nail,” as it often does). Perhaps also the skeleton recovered at Givat ha-Mivtar (Bruce, “Trial,” 18), though original reports about the ankle nail(s) have been revised (Stanton, Gospels, 148; Kuhn, “Gekreuzigten”); on the wrists, see Yamauchi, “Crucifixion,” 2; Tzaferis, “Crucifixion,” 52; but this is still debated (McRay, Archaeology, 204–5). Since our sample size for crucifixion skeletons is one out of thousands crucified, we dare not infer too much from it.

Whitacre, John, 457.

Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 350; cf. also Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 264.

Blinzler, Trial, 249; Reicke, Era, 186.

Especially given the branch in John’s Gospel (John 19:29; cf. Mark 15:36). See further Blinzler, Trial, 249; Brown, Death, 948–49, guesses seven feet. Romans preferred to crucify criminals along the most-traveled roads to derive the optimum warning benefit (Quint. Decl. 274.13).

Cf. Blinzler, Trial, 213–14; Overman, Crisis, 387; Brown, Death, 968. This is its usual function in Josephus and hence probably in Judea (Harvey, History, 13; e.g., Jos. War 2.241, 253).

With, e.g., Harvey, History, 13–14; Stanton, Gospel Truth?, 173. Certainly, it remained for centuries an apologetic problem vis-à-vis the empire’s elite (Cook, Interpretation, 50–53, 107–8; cf. Lucian Peregr. 11).

On the shame of crucifixion, see, e.g., Polyb. 1.86.6; 8.21.3; Pliny E. N.H. 36.24.107–8; Deut 21:23; cf. probably Hor. Sat. 2.7.46–47; Epict. Diatr. 3.26.22.

E.g., Polyb. 1.86.4; 8.21.3 (though posthumous, after various other disgraces); Diod. Sic. 2.1.10; 25.5.2; cf. Caesar’s crucifixion of his former pirate captors, Vell. Paterc. 2.42.3; Plut. Caes. 2.4; Suet. Jul. 4, 74.1. Carthaginians also allegedly crucified their generals if they mismanaged campaigns (Val. Max. 2.7.ext. 1).

Diod. Sic. 17.46.4; Quint. Curt. 4.4.17.

Terence Andr. 622–24; Cic. Verr. 2.5.66.169.

Val. Max. 2.7.12 (LCL, 1:191). On the event, Shackleton Bailey in LCL, 1:190n13, refers here also to Livy 30.43.13.

Sen. E. Controv. 3.9 excerpts; Mart. Epig. 2.82; Juv. Sat. 6.219–24; Quint. Decl. 380 intro. The authors’ editorial perspective probably suggests general disdain for such cruelty.

Sen. Y. Clem. 1.26.1 (against a cruel master); Xen. Eph. Anthia 4.2 (though the false accuser is ultimately crucified instead). Slaves who acted as informers, betraying their masters to Antoninus, were crucified after the latter’s demise (Hdn. 5.2.2).

Apul. Metam. 10.12. Earlier, a Carthaginian spy was maimed and released, but twenty-five slaves charged with conspiring were crucified (Livy 22.33.1–2). Even if only some slaves were judged guilty, all would be crucified (Char. Chaer. 4.2.7). A writer who sounded critical of the emperor was killed and his servant copyists crucified (Suet. Dom. 10).

Llewelyn, Documents, 8:1–3, §1.

Diod. Sic. 34/35.12.1; Cic. Verr. 2.5.66.169; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 101.10–12; Lucian Fisherman 2; Apul. Metam. 3.9; 6.32; Char. Chaer. 3.3.12.

Gaston, “Anti-Judaism and Passion Narrative,” thinks Luke’s passion narrative more anti-Jewish than the rest of his Gospel and Acts. Yet Luke is far less harsh than Matthew (Matt 27:25; though both follow Q in Matt 23:34–36; Luke 11:49–51), perhaps because Matthew engages in greater intra-Jewish polemic.

On the historical question, see Keener, John, 1068–76, esp. 1073–76; on the Sanhedrin trial (in Luke, perhaps an informal hearing), see Keener, Matthew, 644–46 (with 613–16). Some take the account in Jos. Ant. 18.64 as omitting a Jewish trial, but this interpretation is at best unclear (Bammel, “Trial,” 433) even if the passage’s authenticity were not in question.

Gaventa, Acts, 47.

Cf. Wilch, “Jewish Guilt” (rejecting the notion that these passages are anti-Jewish).

In their ancient Near Eastern setting, cf. ANET 154 (Aqhat), 167 (Hamm. 23); Moyer, “Purity,” 120 (citing KUB 13.2.3.9ff.); Pfeiffer, Ras Shamra, 43–44. Among Greeks, cf., e.g., Xen. Eph. Anthia 4.2; the Spartans in Hdt. 7.133–37; Dio Chrys. Or. 76.5; for corporate responsibility elsewhere, see, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 269.

Cf. Matera, “Responsibility for Death”; Valentino, “Homiletical Charge.” Once appropriated by Gentiles and generalized to all Jews and Jews alone (cf., e.g., Justin Dial. 17), however, such words became ominous. Later, however, Bede Comm. Acts 2.22–23 argues that Peter first makes them aware of their guilt, then afterward preaches salvation to them (an approach similar to Paul in Rom 1–8).

Historically, they undoubtedly bore its onus; the likeliest text of Josephus attributes the charges against Jesus to the local elite (Ant. 18.64; with Evans, “Non-Christian Sources,” 466).

Cf. Walton, “Acts,” 29, contrasting the “you” responsibility in Jerusalem (Acts 2:23, 36; 3:13–17; 4:10) with the “they” responsibility in the Diaspora (10:39; 13:27–29).

Cf., by contrast, Haenchen, Acts, 183: “That specifically the pious diaspora Jews (2.5!) are charged with this guilt is from a literary point of view inept.”

Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 23, see the background in the Hebrew רשעים, which the LXX often renders by (when singular) ἄνομος (e.g., 1 Sam 24:14; 1 Kgs 8:32; 2 Chr 24:7; Prov 10:2) and which rabbis called the Romans. Bruce, Acts¹, 91, suggests this as a mark of historical tradition, since Luke would hardly have designated the Romans thus (cf. introduction, ); yet if not, he certainly did not mind retaining it.

The term ἄνομος appears elsewhere in Luke-Acts only at Luke 22:37, where it applies to those executed with Jesus; it is rare in the NT in general. The term would be useful in polemic; Greek could use cognate terms for savage, anarchic behavior (e.g., Diod. Sic. 4.70.3; 33.14.1; 34/35.12.1; 36.6.1; 36.11.1) or unjust treatment (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.4.2), and anti-Judaic traditions even applied the label to Israel’s customs (Diod. Sic. 34.35.3). Greeks also opined that lawlessness merited vengeance from the gods (e.g., Demosth. Neaer. 126).

This was a charge that sectarian communities regularly leveled against those outside (Overman, Gospel and Judaism, 17–18), including Qumran (1QpHab VII, 1–5; Overman, Gospel and Judaism, 24–25), 1 En. 99:10–12, and Psalms of Solomon (Gospel and Judaism, 26–27). In 2 Baruch, the law reveals who is wicked (41:3; 51:4; 54:14; Gospel and Judaism, 27), as in 4 Ezra (9:36–37; Gospel and Judaism, 27–28).

Acting “by the hand” of another was a familiar Semitic idiom (e.g., Lev 16:21; 1 Sam 11:7; 2 Sam 3:18; 11:14; 2 Kgs 14:27; Ezra 1:8; Ps 77:20; Prov 26:6; Jer 19:7; 29:3; Ezek 30:12). Bruce, Acts¹, 91, cites the Aramaic idiom ביד, but the LXX translation of the Hebrew is sufficient; on the Semitism, see, e.g., Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 117, §217.

For the theme of secondhand murder, see also 1 Kgs 21:19; Quint. Decl. 305.12; Philost. Hrk. 34.6–7; cf. Amos 4:1. Cf. also Philost. Hrk. 31.7, where indirect murder is “all but by his own hand” (Maclean and Aitken, 97).

God’s sovereign use even of testing and hardship appears elsewhere in ancient literature, e.g., Rom 8:28; b. Ber. 60b; Lev. Rab. 5:4; Did. 3.10; cf. esp. 4Q298 1 III, 8 (if one adopts the reading “predestined testings”); in the OT, see Eichrodt, “Faith in Providence,” 19–20. Stoics also believed that bad could be used for good in wise people’s lives (Sen. Y. Dial. 1.3.1; Ep. Lucil. 98.3; Mus. Ruf. frg. 27; esp. Epict. Diatr. 3.20.11), including by God (Epict. Diatr. 3.24.113); cf. also the Roman saying “Perhaps it is for the best” (Cic. Fam. 13.47.1), also used by R. Nahum of Gimzo (b. Taʿan. 21a).

Cf. ἐίιμονή in Anderson, Glossary, 53; lingering to elaborate in Hermog. Inv. 4.4.185–86. On resurrection in Peter’s speeches in Acts, see Anderson, Raised, 197–233 (in Acts 2, esp. 202–9).

Ὠδίς can refer metaphorically to any kind of anguish (Exod 15:14; Deut 2:25; Jer 8:21; Ezek 7:4 LXX [7:7 ET]; Nah 2:10), comparable to the trauma of childbirth (1 Sam 4:19; 2 Kgs 19:3; Job 39:1–2; Ps 47:7 LXX [48:6 ET]; Isa 13:8; 21:3; 26:17; 37:3; 66:7; Jer 6:24; 13:21; 22:23; 27:43 LXX [50:43 ET]; Hos 9:11; 13:13; Mic 4:9; Sir 7:27; 4 Macc 15:7, 16; 16:7–8; Pss. Sol. 3:9). Possibly some would have also applied to Jesus’s death the more universal travail implied in the rabbinic “birth-pangs of the Messiah” (so Bruce, Commentary, 71n56; on these “birth-pangs,” see, e.g., Keener, Matthew, 567).

Rackham, Acts, 29 (the Hebrew has a more natural sense, but the Greek is more “picturesque”); Mattill, Last Things, 32; cf. Barrett, Acts, 143, though he prefers dependence on the LXX here.

“Birth pangs” draws on OT judgment language (Ps 48:6; Isa 13:8; 21:3; 26:17; 42:14; Jer 4:31; 6:24; 13:21; 22:23; 30:6; 31:8; 48:41; 49:22, 24; 50:43; Hos 13:13; also Glasson, Advent, 175; cf. further 1QH^a XI, 8, 12; XIII, 30–31; 4Q429 1 IV, 3).

So Morris, Apocalyptic, 23; Lane, Mark, 459; Ladd, Theology, 201–2; Keener, John, 1044–45; cf. 1 En. 62:4; b. Sanh. 98b; Šabb. 118a; see OT origins for eschatological travail, for the Messiah and/or the community, in Isa 26:17–19; 66:7–8; Mic 5:2–4; cf. Isa 9:6. See particularly 1QH^a XI, 3–18, esp. XI, 7–12, but applications have varied: some scholars have applied it to the bringing forth of the Messiah himself (Brownlee, “Messianic Motifs,” 209; cf. Gordis, “‘Begotten’ Messiah,” 194; Thiering, “Suffering”); others think this, at most, possible (Brown, “Messianism,” 71–72) but, at best, unclear (Baumgarten and Mansoor, “Hodayot,” 188) or unlikely (Silberman, “Language,” 106); some view it as eschatological but not messianic (Brown, “Deliverance”), as the travail of the Teacher of Righteousness (Feuillet, Apocalypse, 111), or as the birthing of the community (Black, Scrolls, 151; Pryke, “Eschatology,” 50–51; Vellanickal, Sonship, 38–39).

E.g., CD IV, 12–13 A; 1QM XV, 1; 4Q162 I–II; 4Q215a 1 II; 4QMMT C 21–22; Jub. 23:13; 4 Ezra 6:24; 8:63–9:8; 13:30; 2 Bar. 26:1–29:3; b. Soṭah 9:15; see further documentation at Acts 14:22.

Cf. Marshall, Acts, 75.

Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 23 (citing 2 Sam 22:6; Job 21:17; 39:3; Pss 18:4–5; 116:3; Isa 13:8; 26:17; Jer 13:21; Hos 13:13); Le Cornu, Acts, 112.

This implicit use of psalm language fits the seven explicit quotations from Psalms in Acts, which conform mostly to the LXX (with a few variations; Dupont, Salvation, 104–5).

Doeve, Hermeneutics, 171; Bruce, Acts¹, 92; Bruce, Commentary, 71n56; the LXX translator probably misunderstood the Hebrew (Haenchen, Acts, 180). Likewise, “the Aramaic חבלא means both ‘rope,’ ‘cord’ and ‘pain’!” (Doeve, Hermeneutics, 170).

See Lindars, Apologetic, 39 (noting both possibilities). Λύω appears with ὠδῖνες in Job 39:2; Poly. Phil. 1.2 (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 23; but Polycarp is directly quoting Acts 2:24, albeit in the Western text).

Josh 18:1; Jdt 5:18; 1 Macc 15:33; 2 Macc 15:37; 3 Macc 1:1; with personification, 4 Macc 2:9.

Poly. Phil. 1.2 (see discussion in our introduction, , ).

Some have found in this section other verbal reminiscences of Ps 16 besides the quotation (cf. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations, 112–13). On Ps 16 here, see many studies, including Rese, “Funktion,” 73–76; Kaiser, “Promise in Psalm 16”; Constant, “Psaume 16 dans discours.”

Psalms was one of the most widely quoted sections of Scripture in Qumran texts, after Isaiah and the Pentateuch (Fritsch, Community, 45).

Longenecker, Exegesis, 97. On gezerah shevah, see comment on Acts 13:34.

With also Johnson, Acts, 52.

Kaiser, “Promise in Psalm 16”; cf. Constant, “Psaume 16 dans discours” (who suggests that Peter developed a nucleus of significance already present from Ps 16:9–10); Marshall, Acts, 77 (David’s own hope, but Peter claims that David cannot exhaust or complete its meaning). Miura, David, 153, connects David with Jesus as righteous sufferers both delivered in hope, with hope of enthronement. Miura, David, 144, notes that Qumran and Targums treated psalms as prophetically “transcending their immediate context”; David’s voice became the Messiah’s in Tg. 2 Sam 22. Thus (Miura, David, 151–52) a typological prophetic use of psalms fits the use in Acts 1–4 and some other texts (e.g., Rom 15:3, 8–9, citing R. Hays).

Schmitt, “Zeugnis der Auferstehung”; cf. “hope” in God in Ps 15:1 LXX. Psalmists could plead for deliverance from destruction while alive (cf., e.g., the postbiblical Ps 152:4); Ps 16 may pray to avoid premature death (Marguerat, Actes, 91). Dahood, Psalms, 1:91, thinks (to my mind, implausibly) that the psalmist expected complete avoidance of death, like Elijah; he notes Ugaritic parallels for the grant of eternal life. Litwak, Echoes, 175–79, argues against reading promise fulfillment here, instead suggesting a revisionary reading based on Jesus’s experience.

Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 23–24; Bruce, Commentary, 71; cf. the interpretive traditions in Miura, “David as Prophet.” Trull, “Interpretation,” argues that Peter (rightly) viewed Ps 16:8–11 as a specifically messianic prophecy. Some others see it as open to messianic interpretation (given the assumption that the audience will so understand it; Bellinger, “Psalms and Acts,” 134–36) through midrashic linking of Psalms texts (Bellinger cites Juel, “Use of Psalm 16”; idem, Messianic Exegesis, 146–49). Fenske, “Aspekte,” emphasizes a christological hermeneutic. The later Targumim may illustrate the propensity of other Jewish interpreters to highlight messianic readings (see Shepherd, “Targums”).

Le Cornu, Acts, 114.

Weiser, Psalms, 178; for the hint of eternal life here, see also Knight, Psalms, 1:78. Kilgallen, “Use of Psalm 16:8–11,” contends that Luke argues from Ps 16 that God’s love for his holy one logically necessitates the resurrection (Acts 2:27, 31; 13:35); Genuyt, “Écritures,” emphasizes the connection between faith in Scripture and resurrection here.

E.g., Lev. Rab. 5:5; Esth. Rab. 10:5. For the Spirit inspiring other Scripture, see, e.g., Sipre Deut. 355.17.1; Tg. Qoh. 1:4; 3:11–12; 4:15; 9:7; 10:7, 9; see discussion of inspiration in the excursus at Acts 2:17–18. It was natural to portray Scripture speaking in the present tense (e.g., Rom 9:17; 3 En. 48A:7; b. Soṭah 12:2; Mek. Shir. 6 [Lauterbach, 2:43–44]; Sipra A.M. par. 8.193.1.7; pq. 11.191.1.3); Luke usually reduces Mark’s historical presents (cf. Dion. Hal. 2 Amm. 12 for a rhetorician’s critique of inconsistency in verb tenses).

Pace Dahood, Psalms, 1:87–88, who compares Canaanite deities (thinking them the object of libation in Ps 16:4, p. 86).

Cf. Aaron as God’s holy one (albeit using ἅγιον) in Ps 106:16 (105:16 LXX).

E.g., David’s prophecy in Tg. Jon. on 2 Sam 23:1 (applied to the Messiah’s coming in Tg. Jon. on 2 Sam 23:3; Solomon’s prophecy concerning this in Tg. Jon. on 1 Kgs 5:13).

Juel, “Use of Psalm 16,” 549 (also noting that Midrash on Psalms links Pss 16:10 and 86:2). Less relevant in this context is the application of the “holy one” (albeit using ἅγιος) title to God himself (e.g., 71:22; 78:41; 89:18; Isa 1:4; 5:19, 24; 10:17, 20 and passim; 1 En. 1:2; 93:11; 97:6; Sib. Or. 3.709; Sipra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.5, 8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:2).

Cf. also in Jewish (especially funerary) inscriptions: e.g., CIJ 1:37, §55; 1:267, §340; 1:71, §100; 1:78, §111; 1:111, §154; 1:253, §321; 1:282–83, §363; 1:468, §652; cf. the Latin equivalent in 1:166, §233.

Haenchen, Acts, 181; Barrett, Acts, 145; Miura, David, 153; cf. Parsons, Acts, 45. Cf. the similar approach of John (John 16:32), perhaps suggesting that some Christians felt compelled to respond to what they would have regarded as a misinterpretation of Mark 15:34 (Keener, John, 1048).

So apparently Witherington, Acts, 148–49.

But neither can we assume, with Conzelmann (“Luke’s Place,” 308), that his silence polemicizes against it! Hengel, Jesus and Paul, 46, excepts preexistence Christology from the majority of NT Christology that probably predates Paul’s conversion; identification with the divine Lord in Acts 2:21–38 warns against ruling out preexistence for Luke without specific grounds to do so.

Eph 1:20; Heb 1:3, 13; 1 Pet 3:22; on the Hellenistic Jewish setting, see Keener, John, 375, 378.

See Schultz, “Angelic Opposition.”

Xen. Cyr. 8.4.3 probably refers to the banquet pattern (unless it suggests an alternative arrangement); these positions were also subject to change (8.4.5). The right hand is probably better in Sir 12:12. One’s closest associates would be on either side of one (b. Ber. 46b); in rabbinic sources, the center was most important and the right hand second (Lachs, Commentary, 337, citing m. Yoma 3:9; t. Sanh. 8:1; b. Yoma 37a; Midr. Pss. 18).

On preference for the right side, see, e.g., Plut. Rom. Q. 78, Mor. 282E; the left side is physically weaker (Eccl 10:2); in one Jewish tradition, the angel on the right of the throne recorded good deeds while the one on the left recorded evil ones (Test. Ab. 12:8–12 A); see other examples in Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:424.

E.g., Luke 22:69; Mark 14:62; Matt 25:31. Cf. help by God’s right hand, e.g., Exod 15:6, 12; Pss 17:7; 18:35; 20:6; 21:8; 44:3; 48:10; 60:5; 63:8; 118:15–16; Isa 41:10; 45:1; 48:13 (though some of these may connote the generally greater strength of the right arm).

Artem. Oneir. 1.2; b. Šabb. 61a; Num. Rab. 12:3; Midr. Pss. 17:8.

1 Kgs 2:19; Ps 45:9; 1 Esd 4:29–30; cf. Tg. Rishon on Esth 2:17; cf. Tac. Ann. 12.37 (presented as an unusual case; cf. 12.56; 13.5).

Note more generally the priority of the right in Gen 48:13–18; 1 Chr 6:39 (6:24 LXX); 1 Esd 9:43; 2 Chr 18:18; Neh 8:4. Johnson, Acts, 52, compares also God’s right hand as a source of power (e.g., Exod 15:6; Ps 118:16); Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 25, note that Rashi cites a midrash on Ps 118:16, where God uses his right hand to raise the righteous dead.

Tg. Ps.-J. on Deut 5:31.

Εἰς τὸν δεξιόν, Eunapius Lives 462.

Pindar frg. 146, from scholion on Il. 24.100; quoted also in Plut. Table 1.2.4, Mor. 617C; cf. Ael. Arist. Or. 37.4–7 (Hymn to Athena).

E.g., Suet. Nero 13.2, where Nero offers the seat to Tiridates of Armenia.

According to the gospel tradition, such seats were coveted (Mark 10:37).

Ael. Arist. Or. 37.4–7 (Hymn to Athena), LCL; in Pindar Odes, LCL, 2:378–79, Race’s note on Pindar frg. 146. Also cited in van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,” 57.

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:2.

Cf. Maccabean warfare μετ’ εὐφροσύνης (1 Macc 3:2; the term appears in the NT only at Acts 2:28; 14:17 but 162 Times in the LXX).

Eschatological hope also appears in Luke 24:21, though the speakers have abandoned it. Pervo, Acts, 83, argues that “resurrection of the flesh” with reference to Jesus is a distinctively Lukan idea, not attested elsewhere until Ignatius (esp. Smyrn. 3.2–3; cf. Eph. 7.2; Magn. 1.2; Smyrn. 12.2); early Jewish parallels (for resurrection generally) suggest, however, that Luke did not originate the notion, and certainly other early Christians affirmed “bodily” resurrection of some sort (cf., e.g., sources in Keener, John, 1175–77).

Though Luke’s composition (and probably the communication of his informant) was probably Greek, Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 24, infer too much in favor of such from this example; Jewish teachers often practiced a utilitarian text criticism that allowed them to adopt LXX readings when these supported their argument (See comment on Acts 2:17).

For this antithesis, see Luke 10:15//Matt 11:23; cf. Ps 139:8 (138:8 LXX); Job 7:9; 11:8; Amos 9:2.

Wis 16:13; Sir 14:12; 28:21; 48:5; 51:6; Pss. Sol. 18:2; Rev 1:18; 6:8; 20:13–14; cf. Test. Ab. 19:7 A. For the realm of the dead as the “gates of Hades,” see Hom. Od. 14.156; Hesiod Theog. 773; Eurip. Hipp. 56–57, 1447; Hec. 1; Diog. Laert. 10.126; Char. Chaer. 4.1.3; Orph. H. 18.15); likewise the house (e.g., Hom. Il. 15.251; 20.336; 21.48; 22.52, 213, 425, 482; 23.19, 71, 74, 103, 179; 24.246; Od. 14.208; 20.208) or realm (e.g., Soph. Ajax 635; Eurip. Alc. 25, 73, 436–37, 457, 626; El. 142–43; Herc. fur. 610, 619; Heracl. 218, 912–13, 949; Hipp. 895; Andr. 414; Ap. Rhod. 2.609; 3.810) of Hades; see Keener, Matthew, 428–29. Considerable continuity exists among Mesopotamian and Egyptian (Lieven, “Underworld”), Greek (Johnston, “Underworld”), and Roman (Käppel, “Underworld”) conceptions of the netherworld.

Cf. the more general sense of synonymia (as opposed to the technical usage) in Rowe, “Style,” 133; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 580.

Cf. also Steyn, Septuagint Quotations, 184. The cognate verb appears sixty-two times in the LXX and five times in the NT, but bears a different sense.

E.g., Arist. N.E. 1.12.6, 1102a; Lucret. Nat. 3.370–95; Marc. Aur. 5.13; 6.32; Diog. Laert. 3.63; Heraclitus Ep. 9; Diogenes Ep. 39; Plut. Plat. Q. 3.1, Mor. 1002B; Sext. Emp. Pyr. 1.79; Gr. Anth. 7.109. Some allowed the distinction only for humans (Sall. Catil. 1.2, 7), others also for animals (Arist. Pol. 1.2.10, 1254a; Diog. Laert. 8.1.28).

Plato Laws 8.828D; Phaedo 64CE; Phaedr. 245C; Rep. 10.611BC; Arist. Soul 1.4, 408b; Hdt. 2.123; Cic. Senect. 20.78; Tusc. 1.14.31; Dion Hal. Ant. rom. 8.62.1; Sen. Y. Dial. 12.11.7; Ep. Lucil. 57.9; Plut. Div. V. 17, Mor. 560B; Diog. Laert. 8.5.83; Plot. Enn. 4.7–8; Philo Virt. 67. Some popular thought drew from the “shades” of earlier myth (Hom. Od. 11.204–24, 487–91).

Most notably, Epicureans viewed the soul as mortal (Lucr. Nat. 3.417–829; Diog. Laert. 10.124–25); Stoics also accommodated their view of the soul’s afterlife to their view of the eventual cosmic conflagration (Sen. Y. Dial. 6.26.7). Many inscriptions are pessimistic.

Plato Cratyl. 400BC. Even when the specific language is absent, the concept is frequent: Plato Phaedo 80DE; Epict. Diatr. 1.1; 1.8–9; 1.9.11–12, 16; 3.13.17; 4.7.15; Arrian Alex. 7.2.4; Plut. Isis 5, Mor. 353A; Marc. Aur. 3.7; 4.5, 41; 6.28; 9.3; Plot. Enn. 1.5.3; cf. 4 Ezra 7:96; Diogn. 6.7–8.

Many mid-twentieth-century NT scholars, more familiar with the Hebrew Bible than with early Judaism, made a leap from most of the era of ancient Israel to early Judaism that is simply unjustifiable in this case in light of the ancient literature itself.

Let. Aris. 236; L.A.B. 3:10; Test. Ash. 2:6; Test. Naph. 2:2–3; Test. Job 20:3; Apoc. Ezek. 1–2. Often “soul and body” together signified the whole (e.g., 2 Macc 7:37; 14:38; Let. Aris. 139; Test. Sim. 2:5; 4:8).

E.g., 1 En. 102:5; t. Sanh. 13:2; b. Ber. 10a; 60b; Yoma 20b, bar.; Lev. Rab. 4:8; 34:3; Deut. Rab. 2:37; Pesiq. Rab. 31:2. See esp. the Hellenistic dualistic language in Sipre Deut. 306.28.3; later, Gen. Rab. 14:3; Eccl. Rab. 6:6–7, §1.

E.g., Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.1; Abr. 258; Jos. Ant. 17.354; 18.14, 18; War 1.84; 2.154, 163; 7.341–48; Test. Ab. 1:24–25 A; 4:9; 9:10 B; Jos. Asen. 27:10/8; Apoc. Mos. 13:6; 32:4; 33:2.

E.g., 1 En. 22:7; 4 Ezra 7:78; Gen. Rab. 14:9. Some traditions allowed the destruction of both soul and body for the wicked at the final judgment (t. Sanh. 13:4; cf. 1 Macc 2:63); Sadducees reportedly denied immortality (Jos. Ant. 18.16).

Philo Dreams 1.138–39; cf. Wis 9:15; Jos. War 2.154–55.

Zehnle, Pentecost Discourse, 34.

Just as he quotes the line of Joel 2:32 that he will expound; or just as Hebrews involves an explicit midrash on Ps 110 (Heb 1:13; 5:6, 10; 7:1–10).

Noted in Barrett, Acts, 146 (following Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2:26; Der. b. Zuṭ. 1). The nondecay of patriarchs sounds like the sort of hagiography popular also among Christians in late antiquity.

Witherington, Acts, 146; Barrett, Acts, 146.

With Johnson, Acts, 51 (citing Ael. Arist. Or. 6.2); cf. Anderson, Glossary, 94. On preparing hearers for a shocking statement, see comment on Acts 4:9–10; on παρρησία (often rendered “boldness”), see comment on Acts 4:13 (also Keener, John, 705–6).

A hermeneutical presupposition for approaching biblical texts, shared by the Pharisees (Sipre Deut. 329.2.1; b. Sanh. 90b; Gen. Rab. 20:10; Eccl. Rab. 9:5, §1; cf. 4 Macc 18:19; b. Pesaḥ. 68a) and the early Christians (Luke 20:37–38; cf. Lachs, Commentary, 361; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:233). One later rabbi went so far as to say that all texts implied the resurrection if one simply had the ingenuity to find it there (Midr. Tannaim on Deut 32:2, in Moore, Judaism, 2:383; Sipre Deut. 306.28.3).

Cf. Strauss, Messiah, 131–47. Miura, David, 144–45, notes that since contemporary Jewish expectations could apply the psalm to David himself (cf. “David redivivus” in Tg. 2 Sam 23:3), Peter demonstrates that it applies instead to Jesus.

For the uncleanness of tombs, see m. Naz. 3:5; 7:3; t. B. Bat. 1:10–11; Kelim B. Qam. 3:7; Šeb. 3:13; Mek. Pisha 1.83–84; ʾAbot R. Nat. 41 A; for warning markers, probably in view in Luke 11:44, see b. Moʾed Qaṭ. 1:2; Maʿaś. Š. 5:1; Šeqal. 1:1; b. B. Meṣiʿa 85b; b. Moʾed Qaṭ. 1:2, §7.

E.g., PGM 101.1–3; Nineham, Mark, 153; Alexander, Possession, 29; cf. Jub. 22:17; ʾAbot R. Nat. 3 A; Test. Sol. 8:9; Apul. Metam. 2.20; Lewis, Life, 96.

E.g., Plut. Themist. 9.4.

Veneration of holy persons’ and ancestral tombs is an ancient practice in the Middle East (Diod. Sic. 17.17.3; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.24.6; 11.10.1). Cf. Koester, “Heroes,” 261. For the character of funerary monuments in this period, see Cormack, “Funerary Monuments.”

Also ʾAbot R. Nat. 35 A; t. B. Bat. 1:11.

Jos. Ant. 7.392–94; 13.249; 16.179–83; War 1.61. Josephus’s passages indicate various attempts to pilfer it, but these would not affect Peter’s point that the tomb, and perhaps David’s remains, were available for public verification of his death. Some add later reference to Jerome Ep. 46.

T. B. Bat. 1:11; ʾAbot R. Nat. 35 A. That many of David’s descendants were buried in his city (e.g., 1 Kgs 11:43; 15:24; 22:50; 2 Kgs 8:24; 9:28; 12:21; 15:38; 2 Chr 9:31) might be taken to mean in its vicinity. On the Huldah tradition (and its absence in Lives of the Prophets), see van der Horst, “Graf.” Moving tombs or their contents was almost universally abhorrent (cf., e.g., Sen. E. Controv. 4.4, excerpts, intro.; Callim. Aetia 3.64), but a Second Temple period inscription suggests that the bones of at least some kings were moved (Carmon, Inscriptions, §255, pp. 120, 252).

Jeremias, Theology, 146n2; Schweizer, Matthew, 442–43.

Jos. Ant. 18.108; 20.95; Carmon, Inscriptions, §255, pp. 120, 252.

This was to be expected especially with the rise of tomb veneration in late antiquity; see Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.543; further discussion at Keener, John, 98.

See Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 24; Riesner, “Synagogues in Jerusalem,” 201; Fitzmyer, Acts, 257.

See Pixner, “Church of Apostles.”

Also noted in Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 24, following Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2:619.

For Scripture in general, e.g., 4 Ezra 14:22; Sipra VDDen. par. 1.1.3.3; 5.10.1.1; Sipra Behuq. pq. 6.267.2.1; Sipre Deut. 355.17.1–3; 356.4.1; also, on inspiration of worship and song, See comment on Acts 2:11; on inspiration in general, see the excursus at Acts 2:17–18.

Cf. Ps 2:7–9; Isa 9:7; 16:5; Jer 23:5; 33:15, 17, 21–22; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–25; Hos 3:5; Amos 9:11; Zech 12:8. For David’s rule in the world to come even in much later sources, see Midr. Pss. 57:3. God’s covenant with David directly involved his descendants (with Miura, David, 146).

11Q5 XXVII, 11; Sipre Deut. 1.1.4; cf. Jos. Ant. 7.391. Also Philo Agr. 50 (though he leaves the psalmist anonymous); cf. Moffatt, Hebrews, 3; Miura, David, 128–29; esp. Daly-Denton, “Prophet.”

Cf. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 25; Bock, “Scripture and Realisation,” 50. The term ὀσφῦς appears sixty-two times in the LXX, occasionally referring to the place of one’s seed, as here (Gen 35:11; 37:34); but καρίός τῆς κοιλίας is more common (Gen 30:2; Deut 7:13; Ps 132:11; Prov 18:20; Lam 2:20; Hos 9:16; Mic 6:7). The psalms elsewhere use καρίός for offspring only in Pss 21:10 and 127:3. Luke’s “swore with an oath” is pleonastic (Mickelsen, Interpreting, 195).

Johnson, Acts, 52; Witherington, Acts, 146; it is also connected with 2 Sam 7:12–13 there (Barrett, Acts, 147).

For one comparison with Qumran (which sometimes de-emphasizes the Davidic Messiah), see Ruzer, “Unhappy.” Josephus, while playing down messianism, certainly emphasizes the Davidic dynasty (Höffken, “Rolle”), perhaps foreshadowing the Herodian dynasty. For Davidic messianic connections in early Judaism and Luke-Acts, see Miura, David.

Kilgallen, “Assumptions,” emphasizes especially Luke 1:35 as informing how we should read Peter’s speech. Matera, Theology, 63, notes that the Gospel’s Christology (Luke 1:32–33) is completed only in the apostolic preaching in Acts. For the Davidic kingdom in Luke-Acts, see also Neubrand, Völker, 166–82.

See Gen 24:7; 26:3; Exod 13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1; Num 14:16, 23; 32:11; Deut 1:8; 4:31; 6:10, 13, 18, 23; 7:8, 12, 13; 8:1, 18; 9:5, 27; 10:11; 11:9, 21; 13:17; 19:8; 26:3, 15; 28:9, 11; 29:13; 30:20; 31:7, 20; 31:21, 23; 34:4; Josh 1:6; 21:43, 44; Judg 2:1; 1 Chr 16:16; Ps 105:9; Jer 11:5; 32:22; Bar 2:34; Sir 44:21; Wis 18:22. On the judicial function of oaths, cf. briefly Anderson, Glossary, 84–85; Keener, Matthew, 192–95.

This throne is exalted (cf. Acts 7:49); God will also cast down rulers from their thrones (Luke 1:52) and establish the Twelve on thrones over Israel’s tribes (22:30). The vice-regent role seems equivalent to that assigned to humanity in Gen 1:26–28, though there appears no hint of this text here.

Hurschmann, “Furniture,” 623 (on Greek furniture; Roman furniture was comparable, 624); idem, “Throne,” 628. For animal decorations associated with thrones, cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 10:20; Rev 4:6.

E.g., 1 En. 14:18–20; 2 En. 1a.4; 20:3; 22:2; 3 En. 33:4; Test. Levi 5; b. Ḥag. 13a; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 27:1. God is sometimes “the one seated on the throne” (e.g., Sir 1:8; 40:3; Test. Mos. 4:2; seated in heaven in CIJ 2:54, §802); cf. Zeus’s throne (Hom. Il. 8.442; Virg. Aen. 10.116), as also Hera (Eurip. Hel. 241) and Artemis (Hom. Il. 9.533).

Cf. Tuckett, “Christology,” 162, noting that this royalty would not entail a revolt against the empire. Tuckett (164) contends that the character of Jesus’s messiahship (exalted to heaven) differs from earlier expectations but that Luke is presenting earlier Christian Christologies rather than articulating his own.

4 Ezra 3:14; 2 Bar. 4:4; L.A.B. 23:6; Apoc. Ab. 9–32; Gen. Rab. 44:12. In Philo, Abraham encounters the Logos (Migr. 174 in Argyle, “Philo,” 38; on Philo here, cf. more fully Philo On the Change of Names in Urban and Henry, “Abraham”).

E.g., b. B. Bat. 16b–17a, bar.

↑ Back to top