4. Dibelius, Studies in Acts , 127.

4. Dibelius, Studies in Acts , 127.

See Gallagher, “Conversion and Community” (on Acts of John; Joseph and Aseneth; Apuleius’s Metamorphoses).

See White, Initiation, 70. In contrast to multiple allegiances permitted in Mysteries, Judaism and Christianity were exclusivistic, creating (especially for Christians in Jerusalem and both in the Diaspora) a strong bond (see Gager, Kingdom, 131–32).

Talbert, Acts, 33, conversely offers a chiastic structure that includes shared possessions as part of the common life in Acts 2:44–46, and views apostolic signs (2:43) as the structure’s central element. Talbert’s structure may be correct; that 2:44–45 (using κοινά) may develop the summary of κοινωνία in 2:42 is, indeed, likely. Luke does not elaborate apostolic signs so much as the sharing of possessions at this point, but it does fit evangelism (2:41, 47; see comment on “power” at ) and the following narrative (3:1–4:4). Both elements recur in 4:32–35, with apostolic power being located more centrally (4:33), but the emphasis is laid heavily on sharing possessions (4:32, 34–35). If one adopts either chiastic model, at least the A/Aʹ and B/Bʹ elements are clear on either view.

Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 127.

Witherington, Acts, 159 (following Fornara, Nature of History, 47ff.).

Sterling, “Athletes of Virtue.”

The same impression is conveyed in reports within the narrative (e.g., Acts 14:27; 15:3, 12). Many scholars also take several such statements as structural clues for the narrative’s movement (see our introduction, , ).

See Rosner, “Progress,” 215–33, esp. 221–23; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 102; cf. Mark 1:28.

See Rosner, “Progress,” 232–33.

See Witherington, Acts, 158 (also noting variations, as in Mussies, “Variation”).

Witherington, “Editing,” 346. Their consistent structure and style in Acts also support this conclusion (Co, “Summaries in Acts”).

Brehm, “Significance of Summaries.”

Josephus’s summaries about Jewish “sects” (War 2.119–66; Ant. 13.171–73; 18.11–25) are driven by ideology and especially apologetic (McLaren, “Josephus’ Summary Statements,” goes even further).

See Witherington, Acts, 159. This sense would include the broader story, showing how they fulfilled Jesus’s teaching in the Gospel of Luke (e.g., Luke 12:33; 14:33; see Varickasseril, “Portrait”); for Luke’s theology of the church as the witnessing community where the Spirit works, see Haacker, “Bild.”

E.g., Xen. Hell. 3.5.25 (the close of Hell. 3); 4.8.19 (not the close of a book). Such summary statements were also appropriate in lists of laws (4Q270 7 II, 14–15).

E.g., Cic. Fin. 3.9.31; Quinct. 19.60; 28.85–29.90 (at the end of proofs); Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 42.23–29; 1 Cor 6:20; 10:31–11:1; 14:39–40. On recapitulation, see also Anderson, Glossary, 85 (citing Rhet. Alex. 20–21); for various methods of recapitulation (not used by Luke), see Anderson, Glossary, 22, 24, 39, 51; cf. additional citations in Keener, John, 887, 1213.

Rhet. Alex. 22, 1434b.8–11 (cf. abbreviation in lines 15–17).

E.g., Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 3.pref. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; Judg 17:6; 21:25 (cf. 18:1; 19:1).

E.g., the wedding invocation to Hymen in Catull. Carm. 61.4–5, 39–40, 49–50, 59–60; 62.4–5, 10, 19, 25, 31, 38, 48, 66 (with io added, 61.117–18, 137–38, 142–43; 147–48; 152–53, 157–58, 162–63, 167–68, 172–73, 177–78, 182–83); the bridal summons (61.96, 106, 113); invocation to the Fates (64.327, in briefer form thereafter in 333, 337, 342, 347, 352, 356, 361, 365, 371, 375, 381); or a summons to love (Perv. Ven. 1, 8, 27, 36, 48, 57–58, 68, 75, 80, 93).

Cf. Tannehill, Acts, 44 (Acts returns to the theme at Acts 4:32–5:11 and 6:1–6).

See Joubert, “Gesigpunt.” For parallels among them, see Marguerat, Actes, 102.

Cf. Sterling, “Athletes of Virtue.”

Van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,” 58, notes the two thousand converts in Porph. V.P. 20 and Iambl. V.P. 30. These are from so long after Pythagoras’s time that we can no longer ascertain the extent to which they depend on tradition.

Goulder, Type and History, 84. I use much of this material regarding Luke’s presentation of the Jesus movement’s early growth in Keener, “Plausibility.”

E.g., Hull, Spirit in Acts, 93.

Barrett, Acts, 159.

With, e.g., Taylor, Immerser, 63; Adler, “Baths” (interpreting the baths differently than Regev). Cf. Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 25–26.

See Reich, “Possible miqwa’ot”; Cornfeld, Archaeology, 50n229c (on Jos. War 1.229), 272; Mazar, “Excavations,” 52; Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 25–26, 55; Regev, “Baths”; in later literary sources, cf. m. Tamid 1:1; Mid. 1:9; Neg. 14:8; further comment on Acts 2:38. Others were apparently en route to Jerusalem or at least nearby (e.g., Reich, “‘Isawiya”; m. Parah 3:7). For the tradition of officers over water resources in the temple, see Jeremias, Jerusalem, 171, 174.

McRay, Archaeology, 106.

See m. Ter. 5:6; ʿEd. 1:3; 7:3–4; Miqw. 2:3ff.; 3:1–4; 4:1–5; 5:1–6; t. Miqw. 2; ʿEd. 1:3; Sipra Sh. par. 9.118.1.1; b. Šabb. 16b; 65a; 144b; Pesaḥ. 17b; 34b; Beṣah 18; Giṭ. 16a; B. Bat. 66a; Mak. 4a; Bek. 55b; y. Ter. 4:12; 5:7; cf. CD X, 12; more fully, Keener, John, 510–11. Even most homes in Herodian Jerusalem had underground cisterns for collecting drinking water (McRay, Archaeology, 125).

Safrai, “Temple,” 884. Some estimate that the subterranean reservoirs beneath the Temple Mount functioned as cisterns holding up to ten million gallons (McRay, Archaeology, 123). Proper mikvaot would not use drawn water (see Keener, John, 510–11), but the cisterns would accommodate the temple’s other needs; I am not aware whether conduits existed between some cisterns and mikvaot here, but some did elsewhere (cf. Avigad, Jerusalem, 139; Pearlman, Zealots, 180–81; Yadin, Masada, 166; Hachlili and Killebrew, “Saga,” 44, 46). Cultic precincts in general demanded water supplies (Egelhaaf-Gaiser, “Sites,” 211), but Jerusalem’s massive temple seems particularly well-endowed.

On these other pools in Jerusalem, see, e.g., McRay, Archaeology, 122–24; Reich and Shukron, “Brykt hsylwh.”

M. Zab. 1:5; b. Taʿan. 2:1, §8; Jeremias, Jerusalem, 320.

See Grasham, “Archaeology and Baptism.” Pools also apparently occurred on roads en route to Jerusalem, for pilgrims (Amit, “Miqveh Complex”). Such accommodations proved particularly important just before festivals (cf. John 11:55; for early arrivals for purification, see, e.g., Safrai, “Temple,” 876–77, citing, e.g., Jos. War 1.229; esp. for corpse impurity, cf. deSilva, Honor, 274–75; Sanders, Judaism, 134–35).

E.g., Barrett, Acts, 159. He is also skeptical that the women among the 120 would have participated; but only women would supervise women’s immersions, at least insofar as such immersions would have been done in the nude (cf. Meeks, Urban Christians, 151), as with mikvaot on the Temple Mount.

Conversion could also include emotion in a philosophic setting (cf. the desired response in protrepsis in Plut. Lect. 37F–38D in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 71–72).

Cf., e.g., high enemy numbers in Vell. Paterc. 2.23.3; 2.30.5; 2.47.1; 2.110.3 (though Velleius was himself an officer in this war—2.111.3—he would not have compiled the statistics himself); some such large figures, however, must have depended on genuine sources despite their propaganda value (see, e.g., Res gest. 1.3; 4.21; Res gest. summary). Few rivaled the rabbis in numerical hyperbole, with 80,000 myriads (i.e., 800 million) slain at Betar (b. Taʿan. 4:5, §10) or 150,000 schoolchildren (Lam. Rab. 3:51, §9); blood flowing to distant lands (y. Sukkah 5:1, §7; Lam. Rab. 2:2, §4); Gentiles fertilizing their vineyards for seven years with Jewish blood (b. Giṭ. 57a). Cf. the growth in Philistine numbers between Judg 16:27 MT and L.A.B. 43:8; 150,000 dead in Diod. Sic. 14.76.2.

He does, however, inadvertently attest that firsthand records were available; this historian contradicts the officers’ reports, which Lucian apparently knows. Yet even firsthand reports are often estimates.

Dunn, Acts, 34.

Rubincam, “Numbers” (evaluating, among others, Thucydides). Thus Quint. Curt. 4.16.26 (LCL, 1:319) reports the number of Persian casualties “so far as the victors could determine their number” (and even here does not match all other sources). Suet. Aug. 30 lists higher values for one donation than Res gest. 4.21 (which would not underestimate) lists altogether, but in addition to the real possibility that Suetonius misinterpreted his source, his value estimates might account for inflation by his day, or perhaps Augustus may not have calculated the gems and pearls in equivalent sesterces (gold appearing later in the passage).

Sometimes scribes did miscopy numbers (e.g., reading VIII as CIIII in Livy 3.3.9; see LCL, 2:251n1).

Even Roman legions provided a higher paper strength than their real force; thus a century contained only about sixty troops (see comment on Acts 10:1).

As is widely acknowledged (e.g., Feldman, “Introduction,” 45–46).

Compare Jos. Ant. 6.203 with 1 Sam 18:27 MT (though the LXX, if derivative, actually decreases the MT number!).

Cf., e.g., Foakes-Jackson and Lake, “Background of Jewish History,” 1n3; Avi-Yonah, “Geography,” 109.

See Byatt, “Population Numbers” (but most think that Byatt estimates too high).

Pliny E. N.H. 5.70 (Fiensy, “Composition,” 214).

Where Luke lacked any incentive to inflate; Josephus may have had some, but he may simply have a habit of estimating high.

Reinhardt, “Population Size,” 237, 240–41 (suggesting 60,000–120,000 in the 30s C.E.); Borg, Vision, 173, suggests 40,000–70,000. Even much earlier, F. C. Grant’s estimates were triple Jeremias’s; estimates are, as some scholars (e.g., Bruce, History, 39, warning that Jerusalem was just one square mile; Sanders, Judaism, 125) note, difficult. Foakes-Jackson and Lake, “Background of Jewish History,” 1, estimated fifty thousand.

Reinhardt, “Population Size,” 243.

Ibid., 245. Population density in Ostia (435 per hectare) was much higher than in Pompeii (125–156 per hectare; Horsley, Galilee, 166); Jerusalem, analogously, was probably heavily populated compared with Galilean towns.

Reinhardt, “Population Size,” 250.

Broshi, “Estimating,” 14 (close to double his estimate for the Herodian period, p. 13); cf. also idem, “Population de l’ancienne Jérusalem.” Earlier, Let. Aris. 105 estimates a compass of forty stadia.

Reinhardt, “Population Size,” 241–43. Wilkinson, “Population,” estimates more than seventy thousand for this period.

See, e.g., McRay, Archaeology, 122–23.

Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 97. It is possible that Rev 11:13 provides one ancient estimate of Jerusalem’s population at around seventy thousand (cf. Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 177; Aune, Revelation, 628). Revelation’s apocalyptic use of numbers predisposes it to round the figure to a multiple of seven, but the number could have also been rounded to twelve, so that seventy thousand might provide an estimate, within a few ten thousands, of the population. Even if this inference is correct, however, how accurate can we depend on Revelation’s estimate to be, especially if written perhaps two decades after the city’s demise?

Fiensy, “Composition,” 233 (also citing archaeological evidence for the community centers that housed many of them, including the Theodotus inscription). Pervo’s denial that Luke could include Diaspora hearers would seem to ignore Acts 2:5–13, but he may mean this objection only to Diaspora hearers in 4:4 (Acts, 86–87n115).

Witherington, Acts, 156.

Sanders, Judaism, 126.

Ancients sometimes did the same with ruined cities (a practice to which Thucydides objected in Thucyd. 1.10.1–2).

Sanders, Judaism, 126.

Ibid., 127.

The modern history of revivals readily illustrates the possibility of rapid growth (Wolffe, Expansion, 57–62; cf. Noll, Shape, 111), as does the rapid proliferation of Christianity (and its particular branches), Islam, and other movements in various parts of the world in the twentieth century.

Early Methodists in the United States, under the leadership of Francis Asbury, grew from three hundred in 1771 to three hundred thousand forty years later, i.e., one thousand times over (e.g., Noll, Rise, 190); Methodism in England grew from twenty-two thousand in 1767 to 518,000 (more than twenty times over in about eighty years; Bebbington, Dominance, 51); for more restrained yet comparable statistics from about 1800 to1850, see Wolffe, Expansion, 70 (about eighteenfold increase in the United States and fivefold in Great Britain); for growth from fourteen thousand to more than a million between 1784 and 1844, see Mullin, History, 182–83; one thousand to nearly half a million from 1770 to 1830 in Sweeney, Story, 64; twenty Methodist churches in the U.S. in 1770 to nearly twenty thousand ninety years later in Kidd, Awakening, 322. For some factors, see Wolffe, Expansion, 41; but apart from immigration, such factors could have applied equally to the Jerusalem church as a renewal movement within Judaism. Similarly, a Holiness denomination grew 300 percent in five years after its “pentecost” (Synan, Power, 123); Jesuits multiplied five hundred times in their first sixteen years (Mullin, History, 138); northern Methodists grew 118 percent in one year (and Presbyterians 34 percent) during the Korean revival of 1907 (Lee, “Korean Pentecost,” 81); one Korean church grew from five to 720,000 members in forty years (i.e., multiplied by 144,000; Lim, “Evaluation,” 182–83; with a generally “20–30 percent annual growth rate,” Lee, “Movement,” 518; but in South Korea generally, cf. also Hong, “Leadership,” 233–34); Indonesia’s Nias church grew from five hundred to 135,000 (i.e., 270 times the original number) in forty years; other Indonesian Christian groups multiplied in the 1960s, with the Timor church baptizing two hundred thousand in two years (York, “Indigenous Missionaries,” 249); in South Africa, “African Independent Churches” grew from thirty-two groups in 1913 to more than 3,500, accounting for more than 27 percent of the black population seventy-one years later (Oosthuizen et al., “Introduction,” 5; cf. Oosthuizen, “Healing,” 73–74; for 35 percent of the indigenous population, idem, Healer-Prophet, 1). The Welsh revival of 1904–5 led to nearly one hundred thousand conversions (White, “Revival,” 1), including perhaps twenty thousand in a five-week span (a contemporary cited in Hooper, “Awakening,” 225). Although absorbing elements of some other movements, Pentecostalism (with charismatics) grew by half a billion (by perhaps high estimates) in one century (see comment at ).

Pothen, “Missions,” 187 (on the Filadelfia church movement, see more fully 174–94); as in Acts, miracle reports are a major factor in the growth (189–90). Stark, Cities, 65–70, insists that sociology supports gradual growth rather than mass conversions, but he does not take into account such rapid people movements often noted in current missiological literature. Pervo, Acts, 87, cites Stark’s estimate (in Stark, Rise, 7–13) against Luke’s accuracy here. MacMullen, Second Church, 112, argues for a much lower proportion of Christians in the empire (esp. actual church-attending ones) than usually thought, but his estimates reflect archaeological remains (which are always incomplete), more space between worshipers than I would extrapolate from typical Majority World churches today, and, what really matters for our considerations, the later period of ca. 400 C.E. (though his distinction between the faith of the elite and that of the masses is well taken). Movements often begin rapidly and then slow in their growth rate. For higher estimates from literary sources, see Hart, Delusions, 184–86, 192.

In a single day in November 1994, perhaps eight hundred residents of Nieuw Nickerie, Suriname, were converted—reportedly more than ten times the number of local conversions over the previous century—leading to a mass people movement (from less than 1 percent of the population) that over the following decade converted perhaps 35 percent of the population (Norwood, “Colloquium,” 24–26; also Dr. Douglas Norwood, interview by author, Philadelphia, June 6, 2006; Norwood, as mentioned earlier, was an eyewitness of the initial revival).

E.g., although the retention rate is not documented, one Reinhard Bonnke crusade in Nigeria claimed one million “decisions for Christ” on the first night (November 2000, with a claim of “hundreds of thousands” of healings; Rutz, Megashift, 25–26); even allowing for exaggeration or misunderstanding, the numbers are phenomenal (admittedly in a culture already familiar with Christianity; but the Jerusalem church worked in a familiar environment of Jewish piety). On rapid “people movements,” see discussion at Acts 9:35. Contrast the older romantic notions that earliest Christianity’s converts were necessarily few (Case, Origins, 79).

As also noted at the beginning of Acts 2, I borrow “revival” from the discipline of U.S. religious history and contemporary studies of global Christianity (cf., e.g., Blumhofer and Balmer, Revivals; McClymond, Encyclopedia of Revivals; Harrell, Possible; Robeck, Mission; Burgess, Revolution; Roberts, Revival; Dermawan, “Study”; Lee, “Korean Pentecost”; Longkumer, “Study”; McGee, “Revivals in India”; Shaw, Awakening; Wiyono, “Timor Revival”; York, “Indigenous Missionaries”). I employ it in the sense of a religious renaissance or awakening, not in the more specific sense of the North American form that came to be called revival meetings. Some other scholars have also employed these religious models for broad social analogies with features of early Christianity (e.g., Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 192).

Cf. Johnson, Acts, 17.

Cf. also the acceptance of James by pious Jerusalemites in Jos. Ant. 20.200–201.

Luke does speak of “saving” one’s soul or life for eternity (Luke 9:24; 17:33), but this reflects the Jewish doctrine of “eternal life” (see Dan 12:2; Pss. Sol. 3:12; m. ʾAb. 2:7; b. Ber. 28b; Lev. Rab. 13:2; CIJ 1:422, §569; 1:474, §661; 2:443, §1536; Keener, John, 328–29). Septuagint readers may have read the Greek semantic range into the term (Hartman, “Psychae”), and some Diaspora Jewish documents could speak of righteous “souls” being “saved” after death (Test. Ab. 11:10 A, though probably based on their previously established trajectories), but Acts’ converts are neither disembodied nor dead (cf. LXX Gen 2:7; 12:5; and passim).

For ψυχαί as “persons,” see further LXX Gen 46:15–27; Exod 1:5; van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,” 58 (who adds to Bauer’s list Eurip. Andr. 611; Hel. 52–53; for a Latin equivalent, Val. Flacc. 7.274; 8.389).

For this sense of ἀίοδέχομαι, see Luke 8:40; 9:11; Acts 18:27; 21:17; 28:30 (all other Lukan uses except Acts 24:3).

Van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,” 58 (citing Plato Symp. 194D; Laws 642D; Theaet. 162E). With the ἀσμένως of later manuscripts he compares Diod. Sic. 12.54.1; 12.57.2; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.82.1.

Gerhardsson, Memory, 225, thinks that the “word of the Lord” includes not only kerygma but didachē, in view of Acts 1:21–22; I think that the kerygma simply includes the gospel story (which could be both taught and announced as good news; see 5:42; 15:35; 28:31). The prophetic connection is fairly explicit in, e.g., Luke 3:2.

Possibly, Luke 3:2 alludes to Isa 40:8, but this is by no means clear.

For a survey of views concerning Luke’s ecclesiology, see Bovon, Theologian, 290–308 (chronological bibliography, most complete from 1946 to 1977; and the review of views, 309–408, summarized on 403–8).

With Johnson, Acts, 58. Thornton, “Continuing Steadfast,” suggests that the continuing element of προσκαρτεροῦντες implies meetings; see comment on Acts 1:14 (also for other discussion of προσκαρτεροῦντες) and 2:46.

Note also Noack, “Pentecost in Jubilees,” 93.

E.g., Johnson, Acts, 58.

Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 1:130; Witherington, Acts, 160. This view would accord with the following narrative (Acts 2:43–47).

See, however, Stancil, “Evaluation,” for an additional καί following κοινωνία.

Jeremias, Sermon, 20; Prieur, “Actes 2,42 et culte réformé”; cf. less certainly Blue, “Influence,” 488. For worship in Acts and earliest Christianity, see earlier studies in Mattill and Mattill, Bibliography, 288, §§4008–17, including Macdonald, Worship.

ANF 185–86.

See Winter, Left Corinth, 133–34.

Corporate prayer in the temple appears also in the opening scene of the Gospel (Luke 1:10).

There is some question as to whether Jews recited prayers corporately in synagogues; probably at least some did, but there was no single standard practice (see discussion in Keener, John, 209). Jews did gather together for prayer (Jos. Life 277) and probably did pray aloud (as with Gentile prayers; van der Horst, “Prayer”), and fixed prayers did exist; but it is not clear that they prayed these prayers together or in unison.

E.g., the parallel between the Kaddish and the first stanza of Jesus’s model prayer was so obvious that an eighth-century translation of the Lord’s Prayer from Latin into Hebrew borrows some of its wording directly from the Kaddish (Lapide, Hebrew, 8); cf. Bivin, “Prayers”; Petuchowski and Brocke, Liturgy; Keener, Matthew, 215–16; later adaptations of traditional Jewish formulations in 1 Tim 4:4–5; Did. 10.3, 5; Apost. Const. passim. At least some fixed prayers (with corporate responses) appear at Qumran and hence before 70 C.E. (Abegg, “Liturgy: Qumran,” 648, cites 1QS I, 22–III, 12; 4Q502; 4Q503; Abegg [649] thinks communal prayers also likely in 4Q504; 4Q507–509).

E.g., m. ʾAb. 2:13; Ber. 4:4; see further Sandmel, Judaism, 152; Moore, Judaism, 2:220–21; Abrahams, Studies (2), 84; Johnson, Prayer, 61.

Karris, Invitation, 45. For the emphasis on “teaching” in Acts, in various passages, see Varickasseril, “Shepherding”; Bartel, “Role,” 329–30.

Tert. Praescr. 20 emphasizes this more fully: the churches derive from an apostolic foundation and hence are in continuity with the apostles.

Outsiders may have often viewed Christians in terms of philosophic schools (see, e.g., Judge, “Scholastic Community”: see comment on Acts 17:19); this may also comport with much of Luke’s portrayal (see Witherington, Acts, 197). Lacking cult, the earliest churches resembled associations, still more philosophic schools, and most of all synagogues (Judge, First Christians, 614–15). Apostolic education was Jewish rather than classical (ibid., 703, 705), but Diaspora Christian education mostly utilized the conventional classical models (see comment on Acts 19:9) unless Julian forced Christians to have distinctive schools (ibid., 695–96).

E.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 270.

That it can also occur in houses (Acts 5:42) may suggest that nonbelievers were welcomed (cf. 1 Cor 14:23); perhaps inquirers sometimes even offered their homes (Acts 10:24).

Mus. Ruf. 6, p. 52.29–32; 54.1–2.

See Safrai, “Education,” 968; cf. Deut 6:7–9. The later rabbinic movement particularly developed this tendency; on the merit of Torah study, cf., e.g., b. Ḥag. 15b; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §§10–11; Num. Rab. 12:4; Ruth Rab. 6:4; it equaled all other commandments (ʾAbot R. Nat. 40 A). Although one must practice as well as study (Jos. Ant. 20.44; m. ʾAb. 1:15, 17; 3:9, 17; 5:14; Sipre Deut. 32.5.12; ʾAbot R. Nat. 24 A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:10; 27:9; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 17b; Sanh. 106b; Yoma 72b; 86a; Lev. Rab. 35:7; Num. Rab. 14:10; Deut. Rab. 7:4; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 20.2; 108.6; Mus. Ruf. 6, p. 52.15–17; 17, p. 108.38–39; Epict. Diatr. 2.9.13), some rabbis felt that study took priority as a prerequisite for proper practice (Sipra Behuq. par. 2.264.1.4; Sipre Deut. 41.2.5–6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; b. Qidd. 40b; y. Ḥag. 1:7, §4; Song Rab. 2:14, §5).

Le Cornu, Acts, 146.

Aristotle earlier applied the term κοινωνία to the state as a community (Pol. 2.1.2, 1260b); cf. the verb cognate for common interest in, e.g., Hierocles Siblings (in Stob. Anth. 4.84.20); the noun for common nature in Iambl. Letter 4.7–9 (in Stob. Anth. 3.3.26).

In Latin, Cic. Verr. 2.3.20.50.

See Panikulam, Koinōnia, 123–24, 129.

With many commentators, including Dupont, Salvation, 86–87; Boismard and Lamouille, Actes, 2:151–52; Witherington, Acts, 160; Finger, Meals, 229. The term κοινωνία is associated with sharing goods in the Apostolic Fathers as well (Did. 4.8; Barn. 19.8; Dupont, Salvation, 99).

Cf. also Lampe, Seal, 51. Haya-Prats, Believers, 168–77, is technically correct that Luke explicitly associates the Spirit only with prophetic empowerment in Acts 2, not with the spiritual life of the community; our connection is indirect, but note similar community life following the outpouring of the Spirit in 4:31–35.

Cf. Safrai, “Religion,” 802. The blessing over the bread stood for “the basic food staple” (Le Cornu, Acts, 148); for Jerusalemites’ diet, see Bar-Oz et al., “Garbage.” For the meal later in the day, cf. the Roman custom in Jeffers, World, 39 (on Roman meals more fully, Carcopino, Life, 263–75); Keener, John, 1230; but esp. (most thoroughly and accurately) Smith, Symposium, 20–21.

On preparing bread, see Pliny E. N.H. 18.27.105–6; on breaking bread to symbolize unity at a wedding, see Quint. Curt. 8.4.27. In Galilee, “bread” was often conjoined with fish as well (Matt 14:17, 19; 15:34, 36; Mark 6:38, 41; Luke 9:13, 16; John 6:9, 11; 21:9, 13), but fish might be less a staple for less well-to-do households in Jerusalem. The urban working classes ate especially bread and legumes (Stambaugh, City, 200). Derrett, Audience, 44, thinks that most people shared from a common dish or pot.

On metonymy, see Rhet. Her. 4.43; Rowe, “Style,” 126; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 578; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 85.

The majority view, e.g., Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 43; LaVerdiere, “Breaking of Bread”; Witherington, Acts, 160; idem, Meal, 30; Barrett, Acts, 165; see esp. Heil, Meal Scenes, 243 (“The ideal table fellowship of the Jerusalem believers serves as a model for the eucharistic celebrations of the audience”); for a survey, Powell, Acts, 75–77; cf. Mattill, Last Things, 120 (“more than secular,” though the eucharistic nature is unclear). Pelikan, Acts, 59–60, allows that the sacramental system developed much later than Acts though the basis exists here; for an argument for eucharistic symbolism in Lukan bread-breaking, see Taylor, “Fraction du pain”; for comparison among community meals throughout Luke-Acts, see Lindemann, “Einheit,” 250–53; for a survey of views on the Lord’s Supper in Luke-Acts, see Bovon, Theologian, 479–83. For earlier studies on the Lord’s Supper in Acts, see Mattill and Mattill, Bibliography, 288–90, §§4018–38 (including, e.g., Lohmeyer, “Abendmahl”; Menoud, “Actes et l’Eucharistie”; Sloyan, “Concepts”; Thayer, “Discussions”; Weiss, “Herrenmahl”). Against overreading this, see discussion at Acts 27:33–38.

Cf. also Luke 6:1; the summary of Jesus’s meals with sinners in 7:34; the expectation for Jesus’s followers in their mission (10:7); kingdom celebration (15:23, for new converts; cf. 5:38). Without Jesus at the center, however, meals were not specifically virtuous (12:19, 22, 29, 45; 13:26; 17:27–28). Luke’s examples of common meals in the Gospel invite believers to cross class, ethnic, and other barriers to share meals (see rightly Finger, Meals, 280–81, 286; cf. Ashworth, “Hospitality”), since they belong in common to the family of Christ.

Cf. esp. Heil, Meal Scenes (on this passage, 235–43), esp. 312 (all Luke’s meal scenes foreshadow the eschatological banquet, with the Last Supper in Luke 22:7–38 serving “as the focal point for all of the other meals in Luke-Acts”). Some have argued that the communal meal at Qumran foreshadows the messianic banquet (Schiffman, “Communal Meals”; Vermes, Scrolls, 47; Harrington, God’s People, 42); not all have agreed (cf. Driver, Scrolls, 506–16, esp. 516); cf. also Tait, “Banquet,” who argues that the “messianic banquet” concept (though appearing in Isa 25 and some other sources and common in later rabbis) has been overused; and Smith, “Banquet,” who warns against facile assumptions of what the (widespread) image means (see esp. 71 on Qumran).

For the love feast, see, e.g., Jude 12; Tert. Apol. 39.16.

Cf. Jeremias, Sermon, 20. In Paul, “the community meal was a full-course dinner” (Smith, Symposium, 178); “the Lord’s Supper is one and the same with the communal meal” (Smith, Symposium, 285, undoubtedly rightly; with also, e.g., Bauckham, Jude, 84–85).

Cf., e.g., Goppelt, Theology, 2:12.

Cf. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 43.

Cf. particularly Bartchy, “Community,” esp. 312, 318, on the kinship connection with shared possessions. Foreign to most Westerners, table fellowship is more intelligible in an Asian context (e.g., Yao, “Barriers,” 33–35).

Blue, “Influence,” 476.

Ibid., 477.

There seems little evidence for this function for Jerusalem synagogues; there the temple filled most needs (Sanders, Judaism, 207), although, admittedly, our nonliterary evidence for Jerusalem is limited to the Theodotus inscription, which has guest rooms (Fiensy, “Composition,” 233).

Pearson, “Associations,” 136–37. On common meals in such associations, see, e.g., Harland, Associations, 59, 74–83; Rives, Religion, 125–26; and (stressing various forms) Ascough, “Commensality.” Pearson, “Associations,” 138, thinks that Luke might present the church’s meetings in ways “reminiscent for his readers” of their own involvement “in various associations,” but the “ideal community” view seems to have more in its favor. Like households, voluntary associations undoubtedly affected outsiders’ understanding of house churches (Barton, “Values,” 1132).

Willis, “Banquets,” 144; indeed, “one inscription forbids the bringing up of any business matter at the meal, lest it distract from the joy of the occasion” (145).

Ibid., 145.

See Iambl. V.P. 21.98; Culpepper, School, 51 (citing Hdt. 4.95; Diod. Sic. 10.5.2). Apparently, however, Pythagoras disapproved of literally “breaking” the bread (Diog. Laert. 8.1.34–35).

Culpepper, School, 78 (citing Plato Rep. 2.372BC; Laws 1.639E–641D; Cic. Tusc. 5.32.91; 35.100; Diog. Laert. 5.4; Athen. Deipn. 5.186B).

Cf., e.g., Xen. Cyr. 8.2.2–3; 8.7.14; Lysias Or. 12.14, §121; 18.10, §150; Plut. Coriol. 10.3; Hierocles Elements of Ethics 11.17–19; Cic. Fam. 13.19.1; 13.25.1; 13.36.1; Corn. Nep. 5 (Cimon), 3.3; Exod. Rab. 28:1. This was true even over several generations (Hom. Il. 6.212–31; Cic. Fam. 13.34.1). This did not prevent many guests, in practice, from complaining about perceived snubs at banquets (cf., e.g., Mart. Epig. 3.12, 49; 4.85; 12.28; Juv. Sat. 4.24–25, 37–48; Pliny Ep. 2.6.1; Lucian Nigr. 22; Alciph. Paras. 37 [Thermolepyrus to Ocimon], 1.20; Theissen, Setting, 156–58).

Bailey, Poet, 122.

Smith, Symposium, 55 (citing Plato Laws 2.671C–672A).

Xen. Cyr. 2.1.30; 4.2.38–39; Mem. 3.14.1; Plut. Table 1.2.3, Mor. 616E; 2.10.2, Mor. 644AB; Plut. S. Sp., Agesilaus the Great 1, Mor. 208BC; Lucian Carousal 43; also Pliny Ep. 2.6.3–5 (but contrast 9.5.2–3); cf. Saturnalia (Lucian Sat. 13, 17, 22). At Jewish festivals, see, e.g., m. Bik. 3:4; t. Bik. 2:10; at the Lord’s Supper, see 1 Cor 11:21–22; Theodoret Comm. 1 Cor. 236–37.

Klauck, Context, 49 (citing P.Lond. 2710). This behavior represents merely the ideal.

Smith, Symposium, 54–55 (citing Plut. Table, Mor. 614E, 615A, 644C). Luke’s depiction of inclusive table fellowship (in contrast to Pharisaic or temple avoidance of impurity) throughout his work (cf. Luke 5:30; 7:34; 15:2; Acts 27:35–36) is significant (see Kim, “Fellowship”).

If we observe what Luke actually depicts, very few Western churches today, regardless of how sacramental or nonsacramental they may be, genuinely reflect the spirit of the breaking of bread, in the context of shared possessions, that Luke portrays in the earliest church.

E.g., Hom. Il. 21.76; Od. 4.534–35; 11.414–20; 14.404–5; 21.26–28; Hesiod W.D. 327; Eurip. Heracl. 1034–36; Cycl. 126–28; Hec. 25–26, 710–20, 850–56; Ap. Rhod. 3.377–80; Cic. Pis. 34.83; Ovid Her. 17.3–4; Metam. 1.144; 10.225–28; Livy 25.16.6; 39.51.12; cf. Derrett, Audience, 39.

Aeschines Embassy 22, 55; also P.Lond. 2710 in Klauck, Context, 49; cf. 1QS V, 25; VII, 15–16 (perhaps also 4Q261 f.6.a e.1–2, though the reconstruction depends on 1QS VII).

Cf., e.g., Plut. Table 1.2.3, Mor. 616E; 1.3, Mor. 619BF; Juv. Sat. 4.15–18; Theissen, Setting, 156–58. On seating by rank, see further Smith, Symposium, 33, 55–57, 136. A poor and rich person dining together was normally exceptional (e.g., Quint. Decl. 301.10).

Capper, “Reciprocity,” 516–17.

Ibid., 514.

Smith, Symposium, 11 (with 298n27), 42–43, 208–9; Corley, Meals, 28–34; cf. Roller, “Horizontal Women.” For women earlier sitting rather than reclining, see, e.g., Val. Max. 2.1.2; Killebrew, “Furniture,” 359; likewise for children, Xen. Symp. 1.8. Most surviving guest lists are predominantly male, but Romans, in contrast to Greeks, allowed women’s attendance (Stambaugh, City, 207; on the Greek custom, known to Romans, see, e.g., Isaeus Pyrr. 14; Cic. Verr. 2.1.26.66; Vitruv. Arch. 6.7.4–5; cf. Lysias Or. 3.6, §97). Wives might begin the banquet but withdraw during the heavy drinking (Corley, Meals, 30); perhaps some even stayed for that (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.21; Winter, Wives, 153).

Smith, Symposium, 44, noting women sitting in Lucian Symp. 8; cf. the characterizations reported in Corley, Meals, 34–66.

Smith, Symposium, 208–9. Burton, “Commensality,” points to respectable women dining with men even in earlier Greek culture; some banquets (such as at weddings) certainly included them (see Smith, Symposium, 40); Greek banquets also had long allowed courtesans (Plut. Alex. 38.1; cf. deSilva, Honor, 184).

Naturally, it was expected within one’s own household, whether for Passover or regularly (e.g., b. Pesaḥ. 10:4).

Smith, Symposium, 209.

I adapt below the discussion in Keener, Matthew, 627–29.

E.g., Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 131.

Bultmann, Jesus and Word, 153.

Angus, Mystery-Religions, 127; Wilken, “Collegia,” 280–81; Theissen, Setting, 131–32; Willis, Idol Meat, 14.

Willis, Idol Meat, 47–61.

E.g., Cic. Senect. 13.45; Horsley, Documents, 1:5–9; Cole, Theoi megaloi, 36–37. For a comparison and contrast with associations (and other groups) here, see Öhler, “Urgemeinde.”

E.g., Burkert, Religion, 107.

Bokser, Description, 6–7; Smith, Symposium, 133–72; cf. Pines, “Darkness”; Levine, Hellenism, 119–24. All ancient banquets shared some similarities (see Smith, Symposium, 3).

Cf. Justin 1 Apol. 66; Tert. Apol. 39.15; Pliny Ep. 10.96. Minor assimilation begins as early as the Pauline churches (Guthrie, Orpheus, 268; cf. Caird, Apostolic Age, 96). Paul’s κυριακός, “of the Lord,” may allude to typical Roman usage for “imperial” (Deissmann, Light, 357). But early attestation of parallels often comes from early Christian writers who interpreted the Mysteries through the grid of their own experience (cf. Campbell, Iconography, 323), as an “imitation demoniaque du Christianisme” (Benoit, “Mystères,” 79–81), and the rites remained quite distinct (Metzger, “Considerations,” 15).

A small following of Dionysus (Henrichs, “Identities,” 160) and Mithraism (which gained prominence in the empire after Paul; Nock, Christianity, 133; Metzger, “Considerations,” 13–15) may have been the exceptions that ultimately affected other Mysteries and the later Christian sacramental view. But most now reject Cumont’s reading of even later Mithraic liturgy in light of Christian practice (Yamauchi, Persia, 517).

Nock, Christianity, 74; Willis, Idol Meat, 18–46, 62; Kane, “Cult Meal,” 349–51; pace Willoughby, Initiation, 85, 136–37, 161; Goodenough, Church, 22; Godwin, Mystery Religions, 28.

Fritsch, Community, 123–24; Cross, Library, 235.

Cf. Culpepper, School, 168; Donceel-Vouté, “Coenaculum.”

Gnilka, “Gemeinschaftsmal”; Gärtner, Temple, 10.

Delcor, “Repas”; cf. 1Qap Gen^ar XXI, 20–22.

Groh, “Meal.”

Harrison, “Rites,” 32–33; Schiffman, “Communal Meals”; idem, Law, 191–210; Simon, Sects, 77–78; Harrington, God’s People, 41–42; Schniedewind, “1QSa,” esp. 1025–26.

Sutcliffe, “Meals”; Schiffman, Law, 191–97. The meal in 1QS VI is “pure” because it is consecrated by the community and the priestly blessing, but it is not ceremonial food; the text indicates merely that a newcomer cannot partake until he has surrendered his own wealth and labor to the community—preventing free handouts.

The claim of some scholars that only men participated at each is based on inference about Qumran practice in general, not just meals, and an inference about the Last Supper that certainly did not obtain in house churches (cf. 1 Cor 11:2–34; 2 Pet 2:13–14 with Jude 12).

Van der Ploeg, “Meals”; Driver, Scrolls, 506–16; Lach, “Zrzeszenia.”

Burchard, “Importance,” suggests that Joseph and Aseneth influenced the Lord’s Supper, but this view likely overstates the prominence of Joseph and Aseneth (the date of which is also debated).

Oesterley, Liturgy, 167.

See Neusner, Beginning, 27. Against food’s being eaten in priestly purity, see Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 131–254.

Oesterley, Liturgy, 79, citing t. Ber. 5:1. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 28, doubts this, but one may compare echoes of the kiddush blessing in Did. 9.2–3; it is far more likely that the Didache betrays Jewish liturgical influence than that it influenced later rabbinic tradition.

E.g., y. B. Bat. 1:5, §2.

Jos. Ant. 14.215–16, cf. 14.260–61; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 78; idem, Figure, 202; Rabello, “Condition,” 707.

Some view Jesus’s meals as also anticipating the eschatological banquet (Becker, “Frohbotschaft”); for the Lord’s Supper, see 1 Cor 11:26; Mark 14:25.

Cf. commentators cited in Finger, Meals, 50, 81.

Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 29–36.

Many of the Passover traditions are undoubtedly early, although some scholars have overstated the case (Segal, Passover; Finkelstein, “Documents”; Wright, “Midrash,” 417; Safrai, “Religion,” 809). This does not mean the Haggadah used today; Stemberger, “Pesachhaggada,” doubts that any of the Pesach Haggadah predates 70 C.E.; it is also post-first century in Hauptman, “Haggadah”; Manns, “Pâque” (suggesting anti-Christian polemic in it); and in the current consensus more generally (Kulp, “Origins”). Leonhard, “Älteste Haggada,” doubts that it predates the tenth century. For one of the earlier extant versions varying from other copies, see Rovner, “Haggadah” (cf. idem, “Corrigenda”). Yet a prayer recorded in Hippolytus’s Apostolic Tradition adapts tradition preserved in the Passover Haggadah (Kinsella, “Transformation”).

With, e.g., Thiselton, Corinthians, 871–74; Winter, Left Corinth, 150; pace Smith, Symposium, 4, 295n5. See Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, although he overstates the case, contending, e.g., that Jewish people drank wine only on special occasions (50–51). Yet even if one merely factors in the regular Sabbath kiddush meals (e.g., t. Ber. 3:8; Tannaitic tradition in b. B. Qam. 69b; Pesaḥ. 102a, bar.; later, b. Šabb. 23b; Taʿan. 24a; Safrai, “Home,” 747; cf. Jub. 2:21), which he concedes, they drank quite regularly (cf. blessings over wine in meals in 1QS VI, 4–5; b. Ber. 33a; 51a); they drank wine often. He is, however, probably correct to emphasize that of the many kinds of wines available (on which cf., e.g., b. ʿAbod. Zar. 30a; Paul, “Wine”), red wine was used on Passover, augmenting Jesus’s symbolism (Eucharistic Words, 53, 290; b. Pesaḥ. 10:1).

The generally stricter Shammaite school (regarding Passover, e.g., b. Šabb. 18b, bar.) prevailed in his day, but our records were preserved by more lenient, rather than stricter, practitioners. Finkelstein, Making, 13–120, offers some source-critical suggestions on the Pesach Haggadah; but the current Haggadah is a late composition (as noted above).

See Aune, Environment, 122.

Unless (as is possible in view of his redaction elsewhere) he simply translated local customs into those more intelligible for his audience (and perhaps for himself). For Greek influence on Jewish banquet customs, see Smith, Symposium, 133–72.

Ibid., 27.

See συμίόσιον and cognates in LXX Esth 14:17; 7:7; 1 Macc 16:16; 2 Macc 2:27; 3 Macc 2:25; 4:16; 5:15–17, 36; 6:33; 7:20; Sir 31:31; 32:5; 49:1; δεῖίνον in LXX 4 Macc 3:9; Dan 1:13, 15–16 (the verb cognate appears in Tob 8:1; Prov 23:1; Dan 11:27; Luke uses it in Luke 17:8; 22:20). The uses may not all be technical (cf. Mark 6:39).

Croom, Clothing, 40.

Cf. festive garments for imperial festivals (Winter, Left Corinth, 276, citing Tert. Cor. 13); the best Sabbath garments of those who could afford them (y. b. Meṣiʿa 2:11, §1; Peʾah 8:8, §2; Sanh. 2:1, §4); even many villagers in Egypt had a set of special clothes, distinct from their work clothes, for special occasions (Lewis, Life, 69). Some, however, would not have two garments; most did not have two pair of sandals, one reserved for the Sabbath (y. Šabb. 6:2, §1). Cf. the possibility of garments being provided at weddings (Bultmann, Tradition, 202, cites b. Šabb. 152b) or public functions (2 Kgs 10:22); but homeowners could not do this for all guests. Commentators often interpret even Matt 22:11–12 with reference to merely clean clothes (e.g., Jeremias, Parables, 187–88; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:204, citing most early Christian commentators, such as Origen Hom. Exod. 11.7; Chrys. Hom. Matt. 69.2; Isaac the Syrian [Isaac of Nineveh] Ascetical Homilies 2, 76); cf. clean clothes for entering a house of worship (CD XI, 22) and for the Sabbath (XI, 3–5).

Wealthy Romans dressed down, wearing for evening banquets less formal clothes than their day clothes (Croom, Clothing, 40).

See esp. Smith, Symposium, 133–72.

Jeffers, World, 39–40; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 96; Dupont, Life, 98–99.

On the usual environments for ancient Judean meals, including those of the poor, see further Finger, Meals, 122.

For such reclining at banquets, see, e.g., Plato Rep. 2.372D; Xen. Anab. 6.1.4; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 47.5; Mart. Epig. 3.30.1 (recumbis); Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 2.14; Athen. Deipn. 1.18ab; Let. Aris. 181, 183; t. Ber. 4:20; Sipre Deut. 41.2.5; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 6:3; b. Ber. 37a; 42b–43a; Eccl. Rab. 9:8, §1; more fully, Keener, John, 900–901, 915–16. Except for the hellenized elite, most Judeans probably used chairs at ordinary meals (Safrai, “Home,” 736–37), reclining at banquets.

Even most association meals were festive (Willis, “Banquets,” 144).

Hom. Od. 1.153–55, 325–26; 9.3–6; 17.270–71; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.58; Plut. Table 1.1.5, Mor. 614F–615A; Pliny Ep. 1.15.2; 9.36.4; 9.40.2; Athen. Deipn. 15.694BC; Sir 32:3; Smith, Symposium, 16–17, 136–37. Cf. later singing during the Lord’s Supper in Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. 24.3.

E.g., Xen. Symp. 2.1; Smith, Symposium, 16–17, 35; cf. the use of flutes in Val. Max. 2.1.10. A girl’s attractiveness sometimes was a consideration (cf. Catull. Carm. 13.1–8, though not specifying her fluting).

E.g., Pliny Ep. 9.17.1; Jones, “Dinner Theater,” 185; Stambaugh, City, 207. Also acrobatics (Xen. Symp. 2.1).

E.g., Xen. Symp. 2.1; Slater, “Introduction,” 3; Stambaugh, City, 207; Smith, Symposium, 35.

Cf. Pliny Ep. 9.17.2–3 (objecting to mimes and clowns); Max. Tyre 22.3 (preferring lectures to music; cf. also Let. Aris. 286). Mimes tended to be vulgar (Val. Max. 2.6.7b; cf. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.2; Friedländer, Life, 1:218; 2:90–95, esp. 92).

E.g., Max. Tyre 22; Slater, “Introduction,” 2–3; cf. Lucian Posts 35–36; Pogoloff, Logos, 264–71. Sages could also offer private instruction to young men at such parties (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b.9, pp. 22–23.30–33).

Val. Max. 2.1.10; Corn. Nep. 25 (Atticus), 14.1; Pliny Ep. 1.15.2; 6.31.13; 9.17.3; Iambl. V.P. 21.99; Smith, Symposium, 35; Stambaugh, City, 207. Cf. comedies (Pliny Ep. 1.15.2; 9.36.4; 9.40.2). Sometimes poor clients had to endure patrons’ bad recitations (Mart. Epig. 3.45).

E.g., Plut. Table 1.1.5, Mor. 614F–615B; 3.intro., Mor. 644F; Pliny Ep. 3.12.1; 6.31.13; Aul. Gel. 7.13; Philost. Hrk. 45.5; cf. Smith, Symposium, 37–38, 50–56, 64, 138–39; Friedländer, Life, 1:219–20, 224–25; Pogoloff, Logos, 241–42, 255–64. This could also include light teasing (Xen. Cyr. 2.2.1; 8.4.6–27). Philosophers needed to make sure that they were influencing instead of being influenced (Epict. Diatr. 3.16; Encheir. 33.6).

Sir 9:15; Ps 154:14 (11QPs^a 154, Hebrew, in OTP 2:619; and Syriac, 5ApocSyrPs 2, in OTP 2:621); m. ʾAb. 3:2–3; cf. y. Ḥag. 2:1, §9; 2:2, §5; Safrai, “Education,” 968. The rabbis resented idle talk (e.g., Gen. Rab. 91:10; Eccl. Rab. 1:8, §1), which was antithetical to discussing Torah (ʾAbot R. Nat. 26; 29 A; 32, §68 B; cf. t. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:6; b. Taʿan. 3:11, §4).

Smith, Symposium, 179.

Cf. Plut. S. Sp., Lyc. 22, Mor. 228D, where unceasing worship involves many sacrifices rather than continuous sacrifice; continual prayer in 1 Macc 12:11 is also simply regular prayer. Other examples also probably refer to praying regularly and frequently rather than to every moment (Let. Aris. 196; P.Lond. 42.2–4; PSI 209.13–14). Ancients did understand regular prayer (e.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.25 [40]). The same interpretive question may arise in Rom 1:9; 1 Thess 5:17; Poly. Phil. 4.3.

But t. Ber. 3:6 cites Daniel’s thrice-daily prayers (Dan 6:11 [ET 6:10]) against praying continuously all day long.

Cf., e.g., in Mbiti, Religions, 83–84.

Le Cornu, Acts, 147.

For comparison among miracle summaries in Luke-Acts, see Lindemann, “Einheit,” 248–50.

With, e.g., Bruce, Acts¹, 100.

“Fear” appears with γίνομαι in Luke 1:65; Acts 5:5, 11; as also in LXX Gen 35:5; Exod 20:20; cf. 2 Chr 19:7 (impv.); Lam 3:47.

De Wet, “Signs,” 92, notes that he checked “over 350 theses, written by people from many different church denominations, covering almost every country in the world,” and also interviewed many “missionaries serving in overseas countries.”

Latourette, To A.D. 1500, 344; Tucker, Jerusalem, 41.

On this passage, see also Hoyt, “Poor in Luke-Acts,” 213–22.

Luke employs participial forms of πιστεύω nineteen times; the most relevant here is the analogous summary statement in Acts 4:32.

My view here contrasts sharply with Phillips, “Role Model,” esp. 50, 61–62, who suggests that Luke uses “we” to focus on Paul and distance the reader from the uncomfortable primitive demands in Acts 2:44–45. Tannehill, “Ethics,” 117–18, thinks Acts less demanding than the Gospel; though this passage may fulfill Jesus’s teaching, the ideal is realized only in the Jerusalem church (119). But whatever Luke’s available information beyond the Jerusalem church, it seems evident in light of the Gospel that he presents the Jerusalem church’s sacrificial giving as an ideal to be emulated. Admittedly, the emphasis has shifted in Acts; care for the poor remains necessary, but as the work grows larger, it is delegated, less central to the apostolic task than proclamation though apparently usually preparatory for it (Acts 6:2–4, 8; 11:30; 12:25–13:3). Hays, Ethics, rightly unites the varied dimensions of Luke’s wealth ethics around absolute discipleship, as in Luke 14:33.

Arlandson, Women, 108–9.

Blomberg, Poverty, 89–90 (following earlier sociological studies). Toner, Culture, 2–3, suggests that most of the roughly 80–85 percent of the empire that lived in the countryside was desperately poor.

Pearson, “Associations,” 137. Concerned about the church’s image regarding money (1 Cor 9:1–18; 2 Cor 2:17; 11:7–9; 12:14–18), Paul demanded less from his churches in this respect than did the surrounding culture (Rom 15:27; 1 Cor 16:1; Gal 6:6).

Smith, Symposium, 119; cf. Klauck, Context, 50 (citing SIG³ 1109 = LSCG 51).

Smith, Symposium 119.

Mealand, “Utopian Allusions,” 99 (but while Mealand allows the possibility of Christians helping each other, the “undoubtedly” is mine; see discussion below). Luke’s audience (for whom he provides far more marked biblical than Hellenistic quotations) is less educated in Greek elite thought, but portrayals of such ideals appear in a range of texts.

Ibid., 99. Whereas philosophers sought to design utopias, poets were more interested in depicting them (Kytzler, “Utopia,” 146).

Johnson, Acts, 62.

Meeks, Moral World, 28.

Mealand, “Utopian Allusions,” 97. Mealand notes that the practices may go back to Pythagoras or Spartans but that Plato popularized the ideal (97–98). Dupertuis, “Summaries,” especially highlights these parallels with the Republic (most obviously shared possessions, e.g., p. 293) and even thinks that Luke used the Republic as a direct literary model (295).

Malherbe, Social Aspects, 90 (citing Schubert, Kommunismus; Plümacher, Lukas, 16ff.; and other sources); cf. also Hengel, Property, 31.

Van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,” 58–59 (citing Iambl. V.P. 30; the collections in Festugière, “Nouvelle édition du ‘Vita’”; idem, Astrologie, 19–44; van der Horst, Chaeremon, 56ff.; Berger, “Gattungen,” 1280).

Dorandi, “Epicurean School,” 1074.

Cf. Capper, “Reciprocity” (who recognizes a possible connection in Acts 2–6, though later chapters of Acts suggest only alms). Cf. Boshoff and van Aarde, “Apokaliptek,” contrasting a utopian reading of the Pax Romana with early Christian understanding of the eschatological kingdom.

Capper, “Reciprocity,” 504–6 (citing Hesiod W.D. 106–201; Plato Rep. 6.499CD; Virg. Georg. 1.125–29; cf. possibly Jos. Ant. 1.53–54); Johnson, Acts, 62 (citing Ovid Metam. 1.88–111).

When a gardener, after an allusion to the golden age’s utopian economy (Philost. Hrk. 2.1), offers any fruits free of charge (2.2–5), the guest wonders if the gardener is a philosopher (2.6).

Beavis, “Kingdom,” even seeks to use Hellenistic Jewish appropriation of “utopianism” to better apprehend Jesus’s kingdom teaching.

E.g., Grant, Gods, 50; idem, Paul, 127; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 142; van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,” 59 (citing Iambl. V.P. 30).

Iambl. V.P. 30.167 (Dillon and Hershbell, 183).

Iambl. V.P. 30.168 (Dillon and Hershbell, 183).

The former proverb was often quoted; e.g., Plato Rep. 4.424A, 449C; Arist. N.E. 8.11, 1159b 31; 9.8, 1168b 8; Eurip. Andr. 376–77; Plut. Dial. L. 21, Mor. 767E; Terence Brothers 803–4; Philo Abr. 235; Iambl. V.P. 19.92; and others (many of these cited in Dupont, Salvation, 90; Johnson, Acts, 59). For the latter, see, e.g., Diog. Laert. 8.33 (Thom, “Akousmata,” 111).

Culpepper, School, 51 (citing Iambl. V.P. 89); see also Iambl. V.P. 18.81. Some question whether Pythagorean communities in the literal sense, as opposed to mere associations of friends, existed (Dillon and Hershbell, “Introduction,” 14–16). Nevertheless, Pythagoras approved of giving to others whenever they had needs (Iambl. V.P. 11.55), and his followers reportedly shared possessions even with other Pythagoreans they had never met (33.237–40).

Klauck, “Gütergemeinschaft”; Dupont, Salvation, 88. Van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,” 59 (citing more fully Wacht, “Gütergemeinschaft”) lists the most abundant parallels (59–60), including Pyth. Sent. 24; Zenobius Proverbia 4.79; Iambl. V.P. 81, 168; Porph. V.P. 20; Eurip. Orest. 735; Phoen. 243; Plato Rep. 424A (cf. 449C; Phaedr. 279C); Arist. N.E. 8.9, 1159b 31 (cf. 9.8, 1168b 78); Cic. Off. 1.16.51; 43.1.5; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 90.36–41; Dio Chrys. Or. 3.110 (cf. 37.7); Lucian Sat. 19; Ael. Arist. Or. 27.24; Diog. Laert. 8.10; 10.11 (cf. 6.72); Varro ap. Macrob. Sat. 1.8.3.

Cf. also the ideal applied to mythical creatures in Philost. Hrk. 1.5.

See Cic. Off. 1.17.54; Longus 1.10 (κοινῇ); Mus. Ruf. 13A, p. 88.13–14 (κοινά); 14, p. 94.8–9; Plut. Bride 19–20, Mor. 140DE (though the husband is then said to “own” everything, Bride 20, Mor. 140F); esp. Bride 34, Mor. 143A; cf. Xen. Oec. 10.4 (κοινωνήσοντες).

Dupont, Salvation, 88–89. An assembly (ἐκκλησία) could be a κοινός (common) body of people (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 32.33; for the “common” good in 48.8). It fits some cultures’ ideals better than others even today; see, e.g., its relevance in an African context in Ukachukwu Manus, “Community of Love.”

Cf. also the Greek emphasis on relations with neighbors especially in early and rural sources (Osborne, “Neighbours,” 617).

E.g., Pliny Ep. 1.4.3; 6.28.3; cf. Pliny Ep. 6.18.3; 6.30.1; 6.32.2; in the setting of a military alliance, Xen. Cyr. 5.4.29; Arrian Alex. 5.26.8; 1 Kgs 22:4; 2 Kgs 3:7; 1 Macc 12:23.

See Hahn, “Alms,” 522.

Johnson, Acts, 62, cites Plato Rep. 4.420C–422B; 5.462B–464A; Laws 3.679BC, 684CD; 5.744B–746C; 6.757A.

Including sharing wives (Plato Rep. 5.457, 459; also noted in Sext. Emp. Pyr. 3.205; Lucian Runaways 18; True Story 2.19; Phil. Sale 17), which his student Aristotle completely rejected (Arist. Pol. 2.1.3, 1261a), as, of course, did early Christians (Tert. Apol. 39.11–12; for an exception from a gnostic family, cf. Grant, Paul, 50). Diogenes the Cynic also supported sharing wives (Diog. Laert. 6.2.72), as did early Stoics, such as Zeno (7.1.33, 131; modified in Epict. Diatr. 2.4.8), but most people would have agreed more with Pindar (Encomia frg. 122) that “shared” women are prostitutes. Some cultures were thought to practice group marriage (Hdt. 1.216; Diod. Sic. 2.58.1), as some do today (Grunlan and Mayers, Cultural Anthropology, 161; Mbiti, Religions, 166).

E.g., Val. Max. 4.3.ext. 4a; Dio Chrys. Or. 64.18; Crates Ep. 18, 30; Diogenes Ep. 6, 13, 30; Lucian Dial. D. 423 (2/22, Charon and Menippus 1); 336–37 (3/2, Dead to Pluto against Menippus the Cynic 1–2); Quint. Decl. 283.2–3, 5; Diog. Laert. 6.2.37; 6.5.93; 6.9.104; Max. Tyre 36.5. Yet even the best Cynics recognized that the significance of their lifestyle was the values it reflected rather than merely the simplicity itself (Julian Ap. Or. 6.200C–201C in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 35; Crates Ep. 19; cf. Aul. Gel. 9.2.4–5; Plut. Isis 3, Mor. 352C; Petron. Sat. 14; Diogenes Ep. 15). On Cynic begging, see comment on Acts 3:2–3. Further on Cynic simplicity, see Desmond, Praise.

E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 4.8–10; Plut. Alex. 14.2–3. (Jewish sages may replace Diogenes in b. Tamid 32a; cf. the African king in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:1.)

E.g., 1QS I, 11–13; VI, 22–23; Jos. Ant. 18.20; War 2.122–25; Philo Good Person 76; Hypoth. 11.4–5.

Van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,” 59 (citing, on the Essenes, Philo Good Person 86; Hypoth. 11.4, 12 = Euseb. P.E. 8.11.4, 12; Jos. War 2.122–23; Ant. 18.20; Pliny E. N.H. 5.73).

Capper, “Reciprocity,” 507–8.

Erskine, Stoa, 120–21.

Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11b, pp. 64–65.1–9; 2.7.11d, pp. 66–67.1–4; 2.7.11i, pp. 76–77.17–20.

Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 88–89.13–16.

Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.7e, pp. 48–49.7–10.

Stoics always work for the good of others, for the common good (communi bono; Seneca Dial. 8.1.4).

He warned that a city with too much in common becomes like a family (Arist. Pol. 2.1.4, 1261a); he also addresses various views demanding equality or limitations on inequality with reference to property (2.4.1–2, 1266ab). Aristotle preferred equity (based on social worth) to equality (see, e.g., Meeks, Moral World, 36–37). For another defense of private property against “equalizing” all property in a city, see Quint. Decl. 261.4–6.

Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 114. E.g., on poor lodging for the poor, see Juv. Sat. 3.190–211.

Mac. Magn. Apocrit. 3.1–6 (Porphyry’s 44–45).

Mitchell, “Friendship in Acts 2:44–47,” 257, thinks Luke eclectic and dependent on popular expressions of the topos rather than on a particular philosophic school’s understanding. For friendship in Cicero, see, e.g., Gruber-Miller, “Relationships”; Fogel, “Friends.”

Besides citations above, Dio Chrys. Or. 3.110 (noting it as an ancient proverb); Sen. Y. Ben. 7.4.1; Mart. Epig. 2.43.1–2; Plut. Table 9.14.2, Mor. 743E; Flatt. 24, Mor. 65AB; Ps.-Phoc. 30; even among fishermen, as in Alciph. Fish. 7 (Thalassus to Pontius), 1.7. See further discussion in Keener, John, 1010–11.

E.g., Eurip. Andr. 585 (though contrast 632–35); Corn. Nep. 15 (Epaminondas), 3.4; Diog. Laert. 7.1.124; Libanius Anecdote 1.6. Reciprocity in gift-giving was an essential element of much ancient friendship (Marshall, Enmity, 1–24).

See sources in Keener, “Friendship,” 381; idem, John, 1007.

Cf. also Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 142 (citing Cic. Fin. 1.65).

Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5l, pp. 34–35.30 (φιλίαν . . .  κοινωνίαν βίου). Cf. κοινωνία and ὁμόνοια (concord, harmony) in Dio Chrys. Or. 40.35–36 (on the heavens).

Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b.2, pp. 14–15.15–16 (ἰσότητος ἐν κοινωνίᾳ).

Capper, “Reciprocity,” 516.

E.g., Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 1; Val. Max. 7.8.7; Mart. Epig. 3.36.1–3; Philost. Hrk. 4.3; 10.2; Iambl. V.P. 22.101; 33.230; 3 Macc 5:26; Acts 19:31; cf. also Mus. Ruf. 19, p. 122.29; Keener, “Friendship,” 381–82; idem, John, 1008.

Hom. Il. 18.81–82; Plato Laws 8.837AB; Arist. E.E. 7.9.1, 1241b; Arrian Alex. 7.14.6; Diog. Laert. 5.31; Iambl. V.P. 29.162; 30.167; Jos. Ant. 19.317; see Keener, “Friendship,” 382–83, esp. 382; idem, John, 1008–11, esp. 1008–9. For the “second self,” see, e.g., Diod. Sic. 17.37.6; Cic. Fam. 7.5.1; 13.1.5; cf. P.Oxy. 32.5–6; Cic. Fin. 1.20.70; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.63.

Arist. Pol. 3.7.2, 1282b; 5.1.7, 1301b; N.E. 8.7.3, 1158b; cf. Diog. Laert. 5.31. Others also adapted equality ideology to aristocracy, against democracy (Pliny Ep. 2.12.5–6; 9.5.2–3; Max. Tyre 14.7). Later Stoics seem to have adopted proportionate justice (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b.1, pp. 12–13.19–20; 2.7.5b.2, pp. 14–15.8; 2.7.5b.5, pp. 18–19.34–35). Cf. Lucian’s spoof on democratic equality in Hades in Dial. D. 433 (30/25, Nireus, Thersites, Menippus 2); 436 (8/26, Menippus and Cheiron 2).

Erskine, Stoa, 118–19.

Ibid., 121–22. Pythagoreans likewise associated ideal equality with sharing in common rather than with private property (Diog. Laert. 8.1.10; Iambl. V.P. 30.167; cf. Diog. Laert. 8.1.33; 8.2.65). Others opined that it ought to start with sharing at table (Plut. Table 1.2.3, Mor. 616E; 2.10.2, Mor. 644AB; Athen. Deipn. 1.12C); some applied equality to democracy (Xen. Cyr. 1.3.18).

Erskine, Stoa, 149, 181.

Lucian Hermot. 22; Men. Rhet. 1.3, 363.6–7; in the state as a whole, Marc. Aur. 1.14; for equality and justice, see, e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 10.1.2. Vassiliadis, “Equality,” doubts that typical ancient notions of “equality” had much social effect.

Mitchell, “Friends by Name,” 236–57.

Ibid., 237–40. For friendship ideals here, see also Penner, “Discourse,” 90–91.

Mitchell, “Friends by Name,” 240–42; idem, “Friendship in Acts 2:44–47,” 260–61. The ancient Israelite ideal of sharing (e.g., Deut 15:10–11) did not eliminate property (cf. esp. Lev 25:13–31, 41), though the sharing naturally required greater emphasis.

A point that may militate against the facile assumption that Luke simply invented the description to match philosophic ideals.

See the ridicule of Lucian Peregr. 13. To avoid offending the rich, Jos. Ant. 18.20 might, in fact, tone down the character of the Essenes’ communal sharing.

Mitchell, “Friends by Name,” 243–48; idem, “Friendship in Acts 2:44–47,” 264–67. He regards Acts 20:35 as especially countercultural (249). Finger, Meals, 231–32 (citing Mitchell, “Friendship in Acts 2:44–47”), suggests that Greek thinkers typically applied the adage about friends sharing everything to friends of the same class; Luke transcends this by speaking of “believers” rather than “friends.” As already noted, by this period many also applied “friendship” to socially unequal relationships, but the church’s “sharing” across class lines is significant. Luke probably encompasses the socially marginalized in his “poor” of Luke 4:18 (see Green, “Good News,” esp. 66–69, 71–72).

The Gospel’s ideals are more demanding than the narrative of Acts. Kraybill and Sweetland, “Sociological Perspective,” attribute this difference to divergent stages in the social movement; Arai, “Gemeindeethik,” attributes it to differences between the era of Jesus and that of the church; but cf., more probably, the difference in genre between radical sayings and paradigmatic narrative; cf. Keener, Matthew (1997), 18; Tannehill, Sword, passim.

As often argued. Öhler, “Urgemeinde” (noting friendship ideals, community of goods, associations, etc.), argues that Luke’s community is intended to exceed expectations for ideal communities. Social-identity theory helps identify various elements of this community’s distinctness from (cf. Acts 2:40) its surrounding culture (so Brawley, “Social Identity,” 16–33).

Mason, Josephus and New Testament, 202.

Penner, “Discourse,” 91: in Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.145–46, “Moses’ law promotes piety, koinonia in the community, and philanthropia toward humanity at large.” These “cardinal virtues” are ancient, and Luke and Josephus may both draw on this tradition.

Penner, “Discourse,” 89–100.

With most scholars, e.g., VanderKam, “People”; McRay, Archaeology, 359; Beall, “Essenes,” 344–46; Fitzmyer, “Essene”; Talmon, “Link”; Lönnqvist and Lönnqvist, “Emergence”; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 127; Zias, Tabor, and Harter-Lailheugue, “Toilets”; cf. Magness, “Qumran”; Schultz, “Qumran”; earlier, e.g., Cross, “Wrote”; idem, Library, 51; Colpe, “Essener”; Strugnell, “Flavius Josephus”; Albright and Mann, “Qumran and Essenes”; Dupont-Sommer, Writings, 408–12. See Pliny E. N.H. 5.15.73; Synesius on Dio, Ch. 1, pp. 35ff. Petav. (H. L. Crosby in Dio Chrysostom, LCL, 5:379).

Thus many scholars, e.g., Golb, “Manuscripts”; cf. Schiffman, “Miqsat”; earlier, e.g., Eisenman, Maccabees; Pryke, “Identity.” It is possible that a number of scrolls were not from the community (cf. Golb, “Anomalies”; Crown and Cansdale, “Settlement”), though inkwells suggest that writing was done there (Goranson, “Inkwells”). It is also true that there were likely more sects than Josephus reports (Goodman, “Essenes”) and more than one kind of Essene.

E.g., Fitzmyer, Essays, 284–88; Pfeiffer, Scrolls, 58–59; Mealand, “Community of Goods at Qumran”; Fabry, “Umkehr und Metanoia” (seeking to compare entrance there with repentance); Klauck, “Gütergemeinschaft”; Witherington, Acts, 162; and the extensive treatment in Finger, Meals, 146–66. Johnson, Acts, 59 cites numerous references (1QS V, 1–3, 14–16, 20; VI, 17–22, 24–25; VII, 24–25; VIII, 22–23; IX, 3–11; CD IX, 10–15; X, 18–20; XII, 6–7; XIII, 14–15; XIV, 20; XX, 7) but notes that sharing in common is based on ritual purity rather than on friendship (1QS IX, 3–11).

With, e.g., Jeremias, Theology, 223; Haenchen, Acts, 234; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 128; Capper, “Context,” 330–31. Thus note the lesser demands in, e.g., CD XVIII, 2–5 (Fritsch, Community, 84). Failure to note this difference mars the occasional critique of the notion of Essene communalism (e.g., LaSor, Scrolls, 84).

Flusser, Judaism, 194.

See Aune, Cultic Setting.

Murphy, “Disposition.”

Jos. Ant. 18.20; Philo Hypoth. 11.4–5; Pliny E. N.H. 5.17.13.

Thus they avoid war and slaves (Philo Good Person 78). Cf. also Hypoth.; on communalism, esp. 11.4–5.

Jos. War 2.122–27; Ant. 18.20, 22; Philo Good Person 76–87; Hypoth. 11.4; Pliny E. N.H. 5.15.73; cf. Philo Contempl. 34–39.

Mealand, “Utopian Allusions,” 98. Dupont, Salvation, 89, cites also Josephus’s comparison of Essenes with Stoics (War 2.122). Hellenistic Jews often paralleled Pythagoras’s teaching with Judaism (see, e.g., Gorman, “Pythagoras Palaestinus”).

See the balanced evaluation of Culpepper, School, 59–60.

Mendels, “Utopia and Essenes.” Certainly, Hellenism was felt in Palestine at the time of Qumran’s founding, and such philosophic ideals (if not utopias themselves) could have assimilated well with some OT prophetic ideals.

E.g., Tcherikover, “Ideology,” 64.

On the latter, see, e.g., Evans, “Therapeutae.” Philo employs them as a model for meditative lives (Bergmeier, “Gottesfreunde”). Philo may have interpreted them through the lens of radical philosophical utopian or anti-utopian communities (see Stowers, “Resemble Philosophy?” 94–95); somewhat, Egyptian priests (cf. Balch, “Families,” 267); and perhaps even Hyperboreans (Diod. Sic. 2.47.3). But while some view his depiction as pure fiction (Engberg-Pedersen, “Dream”), others argue that they may have been a genuine community (Beavis, “Therapeutae”; Szesnat, “Virgins”). The Therapeutae appear similar to the Essenes, except including both genders (Gusella, “Therapeutae”); others emphasize differences, viewing them as a small philosophic group (Taylor and Davies, “Therapeutae”). Our limited data about them has long fueled speculation: some early Christians viewed them as Christians (Euseb. H.E. 2.17; Pritz, Nazarene Christianity, 39; Inowlocki, “Interpretatio”); some link Testament of Job with the Therapeutae (tentatively, Spittler, “Introduction,” 833), but this has been questioned (Collins, “Testamentary Literature,” 276); some link Wisdom of Solomon with them (Tantlevskij, “Wisdom,” surprisingly finding Qumran parallels), but this is also difficult to prove; some have even linked them with a pagan temple (Moss, “Sect”).

On differences, cf. Cothenet, “Secte de Qumrân et la communauté chrétienne”; Kim, Stewardship and Almsgiving, 234–51.

See Fitzmyer, “Christianity in Light of the Scrolls,” 243 (citing 1QS VI, 19); Pervo, Acts, 128n16 (though apparently discarding the Qumran analogy’s usefulness entirely).

Jeremias, Theology, 223. For a broader economic context for first-century Palestine, see Oakman, “Economics.”

See Hare, Persecution, 15–16.

As a further example, later rabbis commended the pimp who nevertheless sold his own bed to get a weeping woman’s husband out of prison (b. Taʿan. 1:4, §1).

See Wright, Ethics, 194–96. For justice for the poor in the OT, see, e.g., Exod 22:25; Ps 72:13; Prov 14:21; Isa 3:14; Jer 5:28; Ezek 16:49; in the prophets, see, e.g., Gordon, Near East, 224.

For manna as a background here, see Grassi, Laugh, 121.

Philo Heir 191; 2 Cor 8:14; Jos. Ant 3.29.

Deut 13:7 LXX (13:6 ET), with friends as equals; Let. Aris. 228, 257, 263, 282 (see further Hadas, Aristeas, 174, 188n; 201, on Let. Aris. 257). Philo employs ἴσος regularly (altogether more than two hundred times; see discussion in Wolfson, Philo, 2:393).

Except extra for priests (Diod. Sic. 40.3.7).

Also van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,” 59; cf. Mealand, “Utopian Allusions,” 97.

Wenk, Power, 313 (more extensively, see the discussion in 259–73). To use Pauline language: although Luke emphasizes some of the Spirit’s “gifts” initially, his longer-range interest is in the Spirit’s “fruit.” In keeping with Luke’s own terminology, however, he does not make the connection with the Spirit as explicit in the latter case.

For a survey of studies on poverty and shared goods in Luke-Acts, see Bovon, Theologian, 390–96; see more recently Gillman, Possessions and Faith; Kim, Stewardship and Almsgiving (for Acts, 218–33); earlier, cf. Cadbury, Making, 260–63; Karris, Saying, 84–104. Scholars often recognize the connection between Acts 2:44–45 and Luke’s teaching elsewhere (e.g., Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 156).

E.g., Abraham, “Good News to Poor.”

Tannehill, “Ethics,” 119, finds Luke 14:33 fulfilled in Acts 2:44–45 and 4:32–35 and notes that “sell” and “distribute” (Luke 18:22) recur in Acts 4:34–35.

Cf. Hengel, Property, 33.

Flusser, Judaism, 195 (who thinks that Jesus rejected the Essenes’ economic separatism because he developed mainstream Judaism’s doctrine of love, 196–97); cf. Schmidt, Hostility to Wealth, esp. 135–62.

See France, “God and Mammon.”

For the language of family (more than patron-client relations) as dominating Luke’s treatment of rich and poor, see Moxnes, “Social Relations,” esp. 72. Cf. in this connection the citation of the first encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI in Scholl, Apostelgeschichte, 25: “The church is God’s family in the world.”

Cf. Lane, Mark, 372; Kee, Community, 109–10; Tannehill, Sword, 147–52, esp. 148–51; Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 92. For an analogy to this kind of “wealth,” cf. Socratics Ep. 21–22.

See discussion above on Acts 2:42.

See Danker, Corinthians, 143; Keener, Corinthians, 214–15; cf. deSilva, Honor, 113–14, 127n11. Cf. this model also in 1 Clem. 38.2 (see comment in Grant, Paul, 55); this is a major adaptation of patronage.

See Tannehill, Acts, 45; Kim, Stewardship and Almsgiving, 233–34. Bede Comm. Acts 2.44 speaks here of love for God generating love for neighbor, principles coherent with Jesus as well (cf. Luke 10:27–28; Mark 12:30–31). Tuckett, Luke, 96–97, rightly notes that Luke further radicalizes his already radical sources in the Jesus tradition, but on 100–102 suggests (in my opinion, somewhat less convincingly) that Luke expects a more lenient standard for his own day than for Jesus’s. Walton, “Communism,” shows the continuity of the charity ethic later in Acts (denying common ownership of property here).

Cf., e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 206.

See particularly Longenecker, “Good News,” esp. 63–64.

I have adapted and expanded some wording in this excursus from Keener, Matthew, 229–30.

See also Karris, “Poor,” 112–25.

See Esler, Community, 187–89 (he rightly compares this [189–91] with 1 En. 92–105). On wealth in Jesus’s teaching, esp. in Luke, see also Goppelt, Theology, 1:79–84, esp. 79–81; on finances in Luke, see Cadbury, Making, 260–63; on wealth and poverty in Luke-Acts, O’Toole, “Poverty”; on economic reversal and God’s favor for the needy in Luke-Acts, Sampathkumar, “Rich and Poor”; on sharing possessions, esp. Johnson, Function; idem, Sharing Possessions.

Plato Laws 9.870AB; Diog. Laert. 6.6.95; Sen. Y. Ben. 6.3.1–2; Ep. Lucil. 94.7; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5a.12, 14; 2.7.7e, pp. 48–49.10; 2.7.7f, pp. 48–49.22; cf. Isoc. Nic. 50 (Or. 3.37). In Plato, see Lodge, Ethics, 355–56.

Xen. Symp. 3.9; Diod. Sic. 10.7.1; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 4; 17:4–5; Dial. 2.13.3; 5.2.1; 12.10.10–11.2; Lucian Tim. 33; Diog. Laert. 6.9.104; Aul. Gel. 9.8. See also Mus. Ruf. 19 in Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 81–82; Pythagoras in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 110.

Lucret. Nat. 5.1105–42; Cato Distichs 4.1; Publ. Syr. 58; Sen. Y. Dial. 5.33.1; Ep. Lucil. 119.9; Pliny E. N.H. 33.2.4; Plut. Educ. 8, Mor. 5D; Phaedrus 4.12.5–8; Sall. Catil. 5.8; 52.7; Jug. 6.1; Lucian Tim. 28; Heraclitus Ep. 8. Cf. love of money as the source of all evils (Theon Progymn. 3.91–92, 264–66; Ps.-Phoc. 42; 1 Tim 6:10; Diog. Laert. 6.2.50; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 110.10; Iambl. V.P. 30.171).

Dio Chrys. Or. 13.13; Diog. Laert. 6.2.24; cf. Plut. Educ. 8, Mor. 5D; Libanius Encomium 3.11.

E.g., Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 34.31–33; 17, p. 110.20–22; Sen. Y. Dial. 12.11.6; Dio Chrys. Or. 79; Lucian Charon 12; Diog. Laert. 2.115; Libanius Invect. 5.2. A charlatan could thus be “worthy” of mere money (Mus. Ruf. frg. 50, pp. 142, 144).

Isoc. Demon. 19; Xen. Mem. 4.2.9; Let. Aris. 8; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 108.11; Dio Chrys. Or. 79.6; Diog. Laert. 2.115; Fronto Nep. am. 2.8; Marc. Aur. 3.6.2; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.22; Vit. soph. 2.1.547; in Plato, cf. Plato Phaedo 82BC; Lodge, Ethics, 174–247.

Hor. Ep. 1.1.52; elsewhere, Confuc. Anal. 56 (4.11); 79 (15.31). One could invest also in one’s children (Val. Max. 4.4.praef.).

E.g., Cic. Parad. 42–52; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11i, pp. 76–77.12–13; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 108.11; Mus. Ruf. frg. 34; Plut. Flatt. 16, Mor. 58E. Some mocked (and misrepresented) this view (Hor. Sat. 1.3.124–25; Plut. St. Poets 4, Mor. 1058C; Lucian Phil. Sale 20; Hermot. 16, 81). Some non-Stoics also articulated such ideas (Plato Phaedr. 279BC; Porph. Marc. 9.167–72; cf. Socratics Ep. 21; perhaps Philo Good Person 77; [Ps.]-Plut. frg. 28, from scholia on Hesiod W.D. 126; Diogenes the Cynic in Max. Tyre 36.5; figurative usage in Pliny Ep. 6.32.2; b. Tamid 32a).

Xen. Oec. 2.2–4; Hor. Odes 2.18; 3.16; Ep. 1.2.55–59; Val. Max. 7.1.2; Mart. Epig. 4.77.2; Juv. Sat. 14.303–4; Cic. Tusc. 5.31.89–5.32.89; Diogenes Ep. 46; Publ. Syr. 626; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 61.4; 94.43; 104.34; 119.2; Mus. Ruf. 7, p. 56.28; Pliny E. N.H. 7.46.151; Epict. Diatr. 3.9.15–17; Plut. L. Wealth 1–2, Mor. 523C–23E; Coriol. 10.3–4; Dio Chrys. Or. 6; Lucian Dial. D. 436 (8/26, Menippus and Cheiron 2); Quint. Decl. 268.4 (a speaker treats this as the noblest aspect of philosophy); Aul. Gel. 13.24; Marc. Aur. 5.1, 14; 8.45.1; Diog. Laert. 6.1.11; 10.1.11; Porph. Marc. 27.429–34; 28.447–48; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.291–92. In Plato, see Lodge, Ethics, 68–72. Basic needs, such as food, mattered more than fineries (Babr. 83; cf. Sir 29:21; 4Q416 2 [+ 4Q417] II, 19–20).

E.g., Arist. N.E. 1.7.6–8, 1097b; Epict. Diatr. 2.2.3; Plut. Virt. 3, Mor. 101B; Aul. Gel. 2.29.17–20; Marc. Aur. 3.11.2; Socratics Ep. 8; Diog. Laert. 6.1.11; Porph. Marc. 28.449; 30.469–70; Phil 4:11; 1 Tim 6:6; cf. Sir 29:22–23.

Cic. Off. 1.26.90; Sen. Y. Ben. 6.3.2; Diog. Laert. 1.93; Let. Aris. 290.

It was said that Democritus donated most of his family wealth to his city so that he might study with less distraction (Val. Max. 8.7.ext. 4).

E.g., Isoc. Demon. 9; Cic. Tusc. 1.38.91 (cf. 1 Tim 6:7); Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 20.13; Lucian Dial. D. 336 (3/2, Dead to Pluto against Menippus the Cynic 1); 337 (3/2, Dead to Pluto against Menippus the Cynic 2); 363–64 (20/10, Charon and Hermes 1); 429–31 (29/24, Diogenes and Mausolus 1–3); Job 1:21; Ps.-Phoc. 110; cf. Wis 7:6.

E.g., Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 1a; 9.4.ext. 1; Plut. Br. Wom. 22 (Chiomara), Mor. 258E; also Sir 31:6 [34:6]; 1 Tim 6:9.

E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 2.6.8.

Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 98.6.

E.g., Diog. Laert. 4.48; m. ʾAb. 2:7.

E.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 87; Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 34.10–12; 6, p. 54.12–15; 9, p. 70.29–31; 18A, p. 112.9; p. 114.21–26; 18B, pp. 118.340–120.7; 19, pp. 120.18–122.32; Dio Chrys. Or. 54.3 (on Socrates); Iambl. V.P. 16.69; 32.226.

Polyb. 31.25.1; 32.13.6–7; Diod. Sic. 33.7.1–5; 38/39.9.1; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.94.2; 6.96.2; Livy 21.4.5–7; 39.40.10–11; Val. Max. 2.5.5–6; Vell. Paterc. 2.78.2; 2.79.1; Quint. Curt. 3.2.15; Plut. M. Cato 3.2; Aul. Gel. 1.14; 2.24; 13.24; 15.12.1–4; Corn. Nep. 3 (Aristides), 3.2; 19 (Phocion), 1.3–4; 25 (Atticus), 13.6–7; 14.3; 22.4; Sall. Catil. 54.4–5; Jug. 85.33; Tac. Hist. 2.5, 64; Suet. Tib. 18.1–2; Max. Tyre 3.1; cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 7.81; 32.22; Philost. Hrk. 27.11; 33.14–18, 41–45; Libanius Declam. 36.16–17. On the Scythians, see, e.g., Strabo 7.3.7; Croesus Ep. 9; on old Romans, Dupont, Life, 32–37.

Cf. also Roman armies in Diod. Sic. 37.2.1; Tac. Hist. 2.69; Alexander’s in Plut. Alex. 40.2; condemnation of Roman luxury in Vell. Paterc. 2.1.1; 2.10.1; 2.33.4.

E.g., Polyb. 31.25.4–5; Corn. Nep. 7 (Alcibiades), 1.4; Sall. Catil. 5.8; 52.7; Jug. 6.1; Val. Max. 2.6.1; Sen. E. Controv. 1.pref. 7–8; Quint. Inst. 3.7.24; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.17.10; Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 34.8–10; 9, p. 70.11–22, 28; 18B, p. 118.34–36; Mart. Epig. 3.62; Plut. Comp. Arist. Cato 4.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 4.5–6; 33.28; Suet. Jul. 43.2; Max. Tyre 36.2; Fronto Nep. am. 2.9; Diogenes Ep. 38. Some criticized others for (in their view) carrying this critique too far (Pliny Ep. 9.12.1–2; Lucian Peregr. 19).

Aeschines Tim. 30, 42, 53, 170; Lysias Or. 14.27, §142; 19.10, §152; Diod. Sic. 17.108.4; Alciph. Farm. 32 (Gnathon to Callicomides), 3.34, ¶1; Cic. Sest. 52.111; Cat. 2.4.7; 2.5.10; Hor. Sat. 1.2.7–11; Val. Max. 9.1.2; Corn. Nep. 7 (Alcibiades), 1.4; Sall. Jug. 16.4; Sen. Y. Dial. 4.7.2; Lucan C.W. 2.352–91; Mart. Epig. 5.32; 9.82; Arrian Alex. 7.28.3; Diog. Laert. 6.2.50; Sall. Catil. 5.8; 52.7; Jug. 6.1; 16.4; Cato Distichs 3.21; Hor. Sat. 1.1.101–7; 1.2.62; Epistle 1.15.26–27; Epodes 1.34; Mus. Ruf. 19, p. 122.12–32; Plut. Alc. 16.1; Juv. Sat. 1.58–60; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.25.610; Athen. Deipn. 8.344b; Ps.-Phoc. 138; Sipre Deut. 11.1.2; Luke 15:13.

E.g., Eurip. Cycl. 316; Plato Laws 1.649D; Thucyd. 3.82.8; Diod. Sic. 21.1.4a; Hor. Sat. 1.1.84–87; Ep. 1.18.21–25; Val. Max. 9.4; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 110.9; Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.27–28; 4, p. 48.9; 14, p. 92.22; 17, p. 108.13; Dio Chrys. Or. 17; Max. Tyre 33.4; Hdn. 3.8.8; Iambl. V.P. 17.78; Let. Aris. 277; Jos. Ant. 15.89. Cf., e.g., Achilles’s refusal to take plunder (Philost. Hrk. 48.5; cf. Gen 14:22–24); by contrast, the oft-told tale of Midas (e.g., Lucian Ship 21).

E.g., Sen. Y. Ben. 6.3.1–2, 4; Dio Chrys. Or. 7.91; Diog. Laert. 4.50. Theophrastus (Char. 10 passim) makes fun of a stingy character with various examples: for instance, if a household servant breaks a dish, he subtracts its price from the servant’s food rations (10.5); no passerby dare seize an olive or date knocked down by the wind on his property (10.8); cf. similarly Theophr. Char. 22 passim, on stinginess.

E.g., Arist. N.E. 4.1.6–14, 1120a.

On Philo, cf. Schmidt, “Hostility to Wealth”; Downing, “Philo on Wealth”; Mealand, “Philo’s Attitude”; idem, “Paradox”; Phillips, “Revisiting Philo” (arguing that Philo opposes only lack of self-control, not wealth itself); on Seneca, Sevenster, Seneca, 200–206.

On views of poverty and wealth in intertestamental Jewish literature, see also Blomberg, Poverty, 91–103; in the rabbis, Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, ch. 17 (440–50); Abrahams, Studies (1), 113–17.

Sib. Or. 3.783; Let. Aris. 204–5; m. ʾAb. 4:9; Qidd. 4:14; cf. Sipre Deut. 352.1.1; b. Šabb. 151b; Ned. 38a; Gen. Rab. 11:4. Money could be used either for good or bad (y. b. Meṣiʿa 2:5, §2; Exod. Rab. 31:3; Eccl. Rab. 3:10, §1).

Deut 6:10–12; 11:15–16; 32:15; 1 En. 63:10; 94:8; 96:4; 97:8; 1QS X, 18–19; XI, 2; CD IV, 17; VIII, 5, 7; 4Q183 1 II, 4–5; Sir 31:8–11; Pss. Sol. 5:16–17; Let. Aris. 211; Jos. War 2.122, 250; Ant. 4.190; Ps.-Phoc. 42–47; Test. Jud. 19:1; m. ʾAb. 2:7; Sipre Deut. 43.3.1–2, 5; 318.1.1–4.

Sir 31:5 [34:5]; Sib. Or. 3.189, 234–36, 640–42; Ps.-Phoc. 42–47; 1 En. 108:8; Test. Levi 17.11; Test. Jud. 17.1; 18.2; 19.1; Sir 31:5–8; Philo Spec. Laws 1.281; cf. Test. Benj. 6:2.

Xen. Mem. 1.2.5; Isoc. Demon. 9, 27–28; Plato Hipparch. 225A–232C; Longin. Subl. 44.6; Sil. It. 11.33–36; Plut. Br. Wom. 22 (Chiomara), Mor. 258E; Dio Chrys. Or. 66.1; Diog. Laert. 4.48; 6.2.50; Theon Progymn. 3.91–92; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5f, pp. 30–31.30; 2.7.10b, pp. 58–59.36; 2.7.10c, pp. 60–61.19; 2.7.10e, pp. 62–63.23.

E.g., 4Q416 2 [+ 4Q417] III, 8–12; Ps.-Phoc. 6.

1 En. 108:8; cf. independently Porph. Marc. 14.242–46.

1 En. 100:6; m. ʾAb. 4:1; 6:9; b. B. Meṣiʿa 114b; Gen. Rab. 67:5; Exod. Rab. 31:3, 5, 14; 52:3; Lev. Rab. 34:4; Eccl. Rab. 2:1, §1; cf. Luke 12:34; Herm. 1.1.1. For true wealth, see also b. Šabb. 25a (in Finkelstein, Akiba, 187).

Especially m. ʾAb. 4:1; cf. also Tob 4:21; Let. Aris. 223; Philo Good Person 77; 4Q417 1 I, 17–22; Finkelstein, Akiba, 187. On contentment, cf. also Galen Grief 41–45, 78b–81.

It could lead to repentance (b. Ḥag. 9b; Lev. Rab. 13:4; Song Rab. 1:4, §4).

Sir 1:24; 41:14; Wis 7:13–14; 8:5; Cambridge Geniza Text, col. F, lines 16–17; cf. also, e.g., 4Q213 6 + 7 3; Philo Cher. 48 (cf. 107); Col 2:2; the Torah in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11; b. Šabb. 88b. Among Gentiles, cf. Vitruv. Arch. 6.pref. 1–2; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.21.

Johnson, Sharing Possessions, 133.

Hillel was said to have started poor (b. Yoma 35b).

Jos. Ant. 18.12; ʾAbot R. Nat. 5 A. The idealization of poverty probably originated among the comfortable (Unsok Ro, “Context”).

M. ʾAb. 1:5.

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:1.

Neusner, Beginning, 23.

Cf. Troeltsch, Social Teaching, 1:59, whose generally romantic view nevertheless commends itself here: “The ethic of Jesus is heroic rather than ascetic.” In its ideal form, however, the former may appear like the latter. For a survey of the secondary literature on poverty and sharing goods in Luke-Acts, see, e.g., Bovon, Theologian, 390–96.

Cf. Bishop, Apostles, 37 (who notes the long-term hereditary nature of such deeds and the difficulties with absentee landlords). Note BDAG on the shift in meaning.

Two-thirds (about forty) of the verb’s NT uses are in Luke-Acts (with twelve in Paul, leaving about eight); it appears as a participle (most relevant) twenty-eight times in Luke-Acts, again two-thirds of the NT uses.

So likewise in Acts 4:34. When Luke depicts a particular sale, he employs an aorist passive participle (5:4).

Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 161; idem, Acts, 59; Tannehill, “Ethics,” 118.

Sider, Christians, 76. “If the need was greater than the current cash reserves, they sold property. They simply gave until the needs were met” (ibid.).

E.g., Horn, “Gütergemeinschaft” (who speculates that the idea derived from the historic help that Antioch gave Jerusalem in Acts 11:27–30—though, as will be noted there, some think that passage a projection of Paul’s collection!).

Cf. Kraybill and Sweetland, “Sociological Perspective.”

Others also offer arguments in favor of its authenticity (e.g., Finger, Meals, 244–45, based on what is known of the first-century social environment; also Bartchy, “Community”; Marguerat, Actes, 162–63, on Acts 4:32–35; esp. Capper, “Context”).

Lake, “Communism,” 145.

Finger, Meals, 217–18, plausibly argues that Luke, having narrated the pattern and never informing us of its demise, expects his audience to infer its continuance in the churches.

See Blomberg, “Posesiones materiales.”

Cf. Watson, “Collection,” chs. 6–7.

Hengel, Property, 8.

Ibid., 9; Capper, “Reciprocity,” 500. Cf. Capper, “Context,” 324–25; idem, “Houses,” 472, 486.

Capper, “Context,” 335. Against many detractors today, I continue to find persuasive the thesis, explained by Geza Vermes and others, that the sectarian documents from Qumran reflect Essene thought.

Capper, “Context,” 341–50, arguing that the Christians probably met especially in the Essene Quarter. Others also suggest Essene and/or Qumran influence (Boismard and Lamouille, Actes, 2:162).

Betz, Jesus, 73; Munck, Acts, 22.

Capper, “Context,” 336; Witherington, Acts, 161–62; Finger, Meals, 231. The Hebrew could be rendered differently, and the wording is not close enough to make the inference a strong one. Its occurrences in the first chapters of Acts (Acts 1:15; 2:1, 44, 47; cf. 4:26) constitute half of NT uses (cf. also Luke 17:35; Matt 22:34), but it appears in Paul (1 Cor 7:5; 11:20; 14:23), about fifty times in the LXX, and about thirteen times in the Apostolic Fathers. It is rare, however, in the eloquent Greek of Philo (only at Rewards 24) and Josephus (Ant. 16.270; War 2.346).

See Hengel, Property, 32 (cf. also 84). But contrast Goppelt, Times, 50: because the sacrifice was voluntary (in contrast to Qumran), “the Church did not act out of an enthusiasm arising from an expectation of the imminent end, but” instead on the basis of Jesus’s teaching. Koester, “Structure,” 215–16, believes that there was an apocalyptic communal group of primitive Christians in Jerusalem, though he thinks little about them authentic.

Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 161.

Lucian Peregr. 13 (LCL, 5:15). Peregrinus, still a Christian at this point, garbs himself as a Cynic and bequeaths all his inheritance to his town in Peregr. 15.

Cook, Interpretation, 84–85.

Ibid., 85–87.

See Hengel, Property, 42–43 (citing Aristides Apol. 15.7–8) and 43–44 (beyond the second century). Community of goods, however, did not endure (45).

E.g., Augustine employs it as a continuing model for his church (Ep. 211.5; Martin, Acts, 38); yet it is argued that he mostly emphasized “basic theological claims,” neither caring for the poor nor changing the political order (McGee, “Possessions,” 166). McGee notes (177) the historical contingency of all the interpretations; but the more sacrificial approaches probably approximate the ideal better than do the preferred cultural assumptions of middle-class interpreters. Finger, Meals, 13–14, surveys pre-Reformation interpretations on economic sharing in Acts; views of “magisterial” reformers, 14–18; views of the radical reformers, 18–22; views of (middle-class or elite) critical scholarship, 22–26; socialist approaches, 27–29 (cf. also Williams, “Acts,” 221–23, on African-American socialist preacher George Woodbey); early sociological approaches, 29–33; and more recent scholarly approaches, 35–45. As Finger concludes (45), most Western commentators “assume capitalism’s superiority to other economic systems, and have profited by it,” and many twentieth-century commentators were reacting against political communism.

Cf. Wesley in Jennings, Good News, 25, 97–117, esp. 111–16; early Moravians (Williams, Radical Reformation, 429; cf. 229–33); monastic movements. Peter Riedeman, an Anabaptist (1506–56), argued for communal sharing of goods (still practiced among Hutterites; McGee, “Possessions,” 167–68; Williams, Radical Reformation, 232, 426–29, esp. 429 for the use of Acts 2:44), although, among Anabaptists, only Hutterites practiced this literally (Finger, Meals, 21–22); more recently, the communitarian Jesus Family in China (Anderson, Pentecostalism, 135; Zhaoming, “Chinese Denominations,” 452–64; Yamamori and Chan, Witnesses, 54–62; Wesley, Church, 56); some elements in the North American Jesus Movement of the 1960s–1970s (Jackson, Middle, 32; Di Sabatino, “Frisbee,” 395–96). Cf. John Chrysostom, for whom it was not a model to be imposed but an example of voluntary sharing seeking unity (McGee, “Possessions,” 165), yet also a radical prescription (Nassif, “Body,” 13). Although without citing this text, cf. John Winthrop, according to Cotton Mather, in Bradley et al., Tradition, 121. Blomberg, “Liberation Theology,” suggests a synthesis of evangelical appreciation for the historical grounding of radical NT teaching with liberationists’ praxis; Miller and Yamamori, Pentecostalism, passim, esp. 31–34, 39–128, 211–13, observe an increasing stream of social engagement in global Pentecostalism. Some scholars argue that divine healing beliefs provide social support for impoverished Brazilian Pentecostals (Mariz, Coping, in Castleberry, “Impact,” 151).

Paul also taught daily when able to do so (Acts 17:11; 19:9).

Luke was not necessarily consciously weaving all these texts together; it is one of his preferred expressions (see also Luke 16:19; Acts 3:2; he uses it in eleven of the seventeen times it appears in the NT; it appears twenty-two times in the largest form of the LXX and only twice in the Apostolic Fathers [Did. 4.2; Diogn. 6.9]). But his usage does reveal an emphasis on regularity.

Barrett, Acts, 171. The latter term’s cognates can involve generosity or lack of greed (see Luke 11:34; for discussion, see Keener, Matthew, 232–33), relevant to this context (Acts 2:44–45).

E.g., 1 Chr 28:9; Wis 1:1; Pesiq. Rab. 51:2; cf. Ps 86:11.

For unity among family members, relevant to early Christian understanding of their unity, see deSilva, Honor, 169–73.

See further, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 39.8.

Walton, “Ὁμοθυμαδόν,” 104, allows that it may mean “together” in the same location in Acts 2:46, but notes (105) that usually Luke uses it for “unitedly, unanimously, with one impulse, as one person” or “shared passion or commitment, with one heart/mind/purpose.” On the church’s unity in Acts, see further Thompson, “Unity.” For connections between expressions of unity in 2:44–45 and 4:32, see Giroud, “Propre.”

E.g., Men. Rhet. 2.3, 384.23–25; 2.7, 411.15–18; for early Stoics, see Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 75 (citing SVF 1.263); see further comment on Acts 15:25; or Keener, John, 1061–62.

Mek. Bah. 1.108ff. (Lauterbach, 2:200).

Van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,” 58–59 (comparing Iambl. V.P. 30).

Blue, “Influence,” 481–82, 486.

Sir 29:24 depicts as difficult moving “from house to house” (ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν), but there it refers to depending on the hospitality of strangers. Cullmann, Worship, 10, reads simply “at home,” but here they eat “together.” Ignatius’s exhortations to unity around the bishop, addressed to a later situation (Eph. 5.2; Magn. 7.1; Trall. 7.2; Philad. 4; Smyrn. 8.1; 9.1), cannot be applied anachronistically against earlier, less official forms of house meetings.

On a symbolic level, see, e.g., Luke 14:23; 15:25.

Wright, Ethics, 359–60. In antiquity, respect for religion made religious settings less threatening; even city folk invited foreigners to dine with them during festivals (Libanius Descr. 29.8).

Also more honest interaction (Pliny Ep. 5.12.1).

Neusner, Beginning, 27; Oesterley, Liturgy, 167; Lohse, Environment, 79; Bruce, Commentary, 81. Jewish communal banquets were more broadly recognized (Jos. Ant. 14.214; Rabello, “Condition,” 707).

Some Galilean families whose chambers surrounded a common courtyard formed associations that shared food resources (see Horsley, Galilee, 192).

Witherington, Acts, 211. See comment on Acts 18:2–3 (information on Corinthian homes is well documented).

Larger homes in Pompeii could hold more than fifty (Balch, “Houses”).

Cf. the invited diners in Dio Chrys. Or. 17.21.

Although patronage was especially a Roman model, it was disseminated in colonies (such as Corinth and Philippi) and widely known (overlapping with benefaction in the Greek East). It would be much better known in its technical form to Luke’s audience than to the ordinary Jerusalemites he depicts; on differences between patronage and benefaction, and the lack of patronage in relevant Jewish sources, see MacGillivray, “Patronage.”

See Eurip. El. 386–87; Isoc. Ad Nic. 19; Nic. 41 (Or. 3.35); Cic. Off. 1.17.54; Iambl. V.P. 30.169; Klauck, Context, 56; Meeks, Moral World, 21; Verner, Household, 152; cf. Demosth. Lept. 9; Val. Max. 2.6.6; Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 66.15; Plut. Alex. 9.6; Comp. Arist. Cato 3.1; Dinner 12, Mor. 155D; S. Sp., Lycurgus 21, Mor. 228CD; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.485.

Possibly learned from Paul’s colleagues (Rom 16:5), but probably not (cf. 16:10–11), since the churches needed somewhere to meet before Paul entered the picture (Acts 18:2).

Elliott, “Temple” (cf. discussion of divergent approaches to meals in these spheres in idem, “Purity System”; idem, “Household and Meals”), finds a temple/household contrast in Luke-Acts, with Luke favoring the latter. Aarde, “Houses,” counters by postulating broadening rather than replacement (cf. the relation of synagogues to the temple); Esler, “Reply,” critiques Aarde. In any case, the coupling of temple and household and of the larger dimension of public and private appears in Luke-Acts.

McRay, Archaeology, 102.

Rohrbaugh, “Pre-industrial City,” 134. Public buildings consumed perhaps half of Rome’s total space (Stambaugh, City, 90).

Stambaugh, City, 111, 113; for temples as civic space, see, e.g., Libanius Topics 2.8.

E.g., m. Ker. 1:7; ʾAbot R. Nat. 38 A; 41, §114 B; b. Pesaḥ. 26a; Liefeld, “Preacher,” 191–92 (following esp. Büchler, “Open Air”); Safrai, “Temple,” 905; Vermes, Religion, 76–77.

E.g., Iambl. V.P. 9.50; 21.96; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.2; see also Siegert, “Homily,” 421n1 (citing Plut. Pythical Dialogues passim; Dio Chrys. Or. 36); Watson, “Education,” 310. Educators in Rome often used temples and other public space near the Forum (310); for teaching in various public spaces, see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 20.9.

Religious guilds often met in temples, with other guilds also renting or owning rooms within temples’ sacred space (temenos; Smith, Symposium, 104, 110).

See on the “wicked priest,” e.g., 1QpHab VIII, 8–12; IX, 9–10; XI, 4–6; XII, 2–8; 4Q171 IV, 8.

See Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 36–37 (citing m. Parah 3:7; 4QMMT).

Jeffers, World, 77.

See Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 76, 268; cf. also Dunn, Partings, 37–56 on Jesus, and 57–74 on the Jerusalem Christians (minus, in his view, the Hellenists); Reitzel, “Luke’s Temple Image” (on the Gospel’s temple motif, even if he sometimes presses it too far for structural clues). Jesus apparently protested not the temple but the inadequate respect being shown its sanctity (Mark 11:15–17, esp. 11:16, omitted by Luke; John 2:16–17).

E.g., Dawsey, “Luke’s Positive Perception.”

On the temple and various Jewish views toward it, see Chilton, Comfort, and Wise, “Temple”; Wise, “11QTemple”; for various expectations of judgment, see the summary in Keener, Matthew, 561–62. Cf. Cousland, “Temples,” for Greco-Roman expectations for temples.

For a positive picture of worship in the temple in Luke-Acts, see Weinert, “Meaning of Temple.” The temple’s positive function for prayer could also highlight the paradox of Israel’s failure to embrace Jesus (see Holmås, “House”).

Cf. Clark, “Role,” 173–77, esp. 174; Ehrhardt, Acts, 19.

For some positive approaches to the temple in Luke-Acts, see Walton, “Perspectives,” 136–37; Tomson, “Centrality”; Chance, Acts, 118 (as well as Weinert, “Meaning of Temple,” as above).

Spencer, Acts, 40.

See 1 Chr 6:31–32; 15:16, 28–29; 16:4–6, 41–42; 23:27, 30; 2 Chr 8:14; 20:20–24; 29:25, 30; 31:2; also Ezra 3:10–11; Neh 12:24, 27–47; implicit also in 2 Chr 35:2–6.

Cf. 1 Sam 10:5; 2 Kgs 3:15; Hab 3:19.

Some also make a plausible case for spiritual-temple imagery earlier in the chapter (see Beale, “Descent”). One modern Christian renewal movement has envisioned a restoration of temple worship in Acts 15:16; although this is possible (cf. “tabernacle” in 7:43–44), both Amos and Luke probably apply that image instead to a restoration of Davidic rule.

See, e.g., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 78–86; Freyne, Galilean, 153–57.

E.g., 2 Bar. 4:3; 32:4; b. Roš Haš. 2:9; Šabb. 1:13; y. Ber. 1:5, §5; Gen. Rab. 65:23; Num. Rab. 14:8; 15:10; Lam. Rab. proem 33; a coin from 132 C.E. (Carmon, Inscriptions, 81, 178, §§178–79); cf. probable indications in the sixth-century Beth Alpha mosaic (Dequeker, “Zodiaque”); cf. also the plea for Jerusalem’s rebuilding in the fourteenth benediction of the Amidah (Oesterley, Liturgy, 65) and surrogate temple features in synagogues (e.g., Friedman, “Features”). Worship may have continued on the site of the temple until 135 (Clark, “Worship”).

E.g., 1 En. 90:28–29; Tob 13:10; 14:5; Sib. Or. 3.657–60, 702, 772–74. The Aramaic may diverge from the Ethiopic of 1 En. 91:13, but the reconstruction of the Aramaic is problematic, and so 1 En. 91:13 probably also refers to the future temple.

11QT^a XXX–XLV; 4Q174 1 I, 2–3; 4Q509 IV, 2, 12; 4Q511 35 3; notes in Maier, Temple Scroll, 98–116; Yadin, “Temple Scroll,” 41; Lincoln, Paradise, 149; Broshi, “Dimensions.”

Cf. 2 Macc 2:4–7; 2 Bar. 6:7–9; 4 Bar. 3:10–11, 19; 4:4; Liv. Pr. 2:15 (Schermann, 83) (25, Jeremiah); Rev 11:19; m. Šeqal. 6:1–2; Yoma 5:2; t. Kip. 2:15; contrast Jer 3:16.

Cf. 2 Bar. 29:8; commentaries (including mine) on Rev 2:17; John 6:32–35. For manna in the ark, see Heb 9:4.

The Samaritan hope seems to have drawn this conclusion; see Kalimi and Purvis, “Hiding”; cf. Collins, “Vessels”; MacDonald, Samaritans, 365; Bowman, Documents, 89.

Thus in the Scrolls (Flusser, Judaism, 43; probably, e.g., also in 4Q176 1 + 2 I, 2–3).

See, e.g., Taylor, “Jerusalem and Temple.”

See discussion in Keener, John, 611–18. Taylor, “Temple,” 720–21, argues that for Luke, after the rending of the veil, God’s presence was available only through the Spirit; the temple’s destruction in 70 therefore did not change the situation.

Dunn, Partings, 75–97.

Jos. War 6.301; Test. Mos. 6:8–9; Test. Levi 15:1 (cf. 14:6); cf. the hope of the new temple (1 En. 90:28–29; 11QT^a XXIX, 8–10; Sanders, Figure, 262) or judgment on the Jerusalem priesthood (1QpHab IX, 6–7). Jesus, by contrast, did not secede from the temple (hence Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 61–76, doubts that he thought it impure), yet if Jesus predicted its destruction, must he have not thought it impure in some way? For criticism of the temple and its cult in some early Jewish sources, see Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 280–84; Gathercole, Boasting, 205; for the authenticity of early Christian reports of Jesus’s prophetic criticism, see Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 286–303; Broadhead, “Priests,” 141–42; Keener, Matthew, 561–62 (and sources cited there).

See Let. Aris. 170, 172, 234. Philo’s emphasis on spiritual sacrifice (sources in Johnson, Romans, 189–90) did not lead to rejection of the temple. Even the Essenes seem to have used part of the temple, though not sacrificing there (Jos. Ant. 18.19; cf. Davies, “Temple in Damascus Document”; spiritual sacrifices in 1QS IX, 4–5; 4Q403 1 I, 39–40); cf. Sanders, Judaism, 53 (differing with Philo Good Person 75, who may have assimilated Essenes to Pythagoreans), though some argue that later Essenes substituted their own community as a spiritual temple for observance in the physical one (Kapfer, “Attitudes,” viewing the Manual of Discipline as later and diverging from the Damascus Document).

Cf. 1QpHab IX, 4–5; Test. Levi 14:1; 2 Bar. 10:18; Jos. Ant. 20.181, 206; Overman, Crisis, 329.

Cf. Keener, “Human Stones,” 34–35. Green, “Demise of Temple,” sees the veil’s rending (Luke 23:44–49) as a critical transition toward universality. Taylor, “Temple,” 716–17, finds in the rending exposure of the temple’s emptiness.

Jeremias, Prayers, 79. Luke likes the term; of its ten NT uses, six are in Acts. For early-morning prayers together following Jewish custom, cf. Manns, “Ante lucem” (citing Wis 16:28; Pliny Ep. 10.96), although, for Pliny’s urban Christians, meeting before the workday may have also been a factor.

Winter, Left Corinth, 134. Many civic cults held public celebrations only once a year (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 53.8, 12, 15), but monthly meetings for associations were common (e.g., Smith, Symposium, 99, 108, 112).

On food and gladness together, see, e.g., Acts 14:17; Deut 12:7, 18; 14:26; 27:7; 1 Kgs 4:20; 1 Chr 29:22; Neh 8:10; Esth 9:19, 22; Ps 104:15; Isa 22:13; 65:13; Jer 15:16; Joel 1:16; 1 Esd 9:54; 4Q545 1 I, 7; Jub. 13:27; 22:4; 31:22; 32:7; 36:17; Jos. Ant. 5.346; 7.60; Sib. Or. 1.73; Test. Jud. 15:4.

Dunn, Acts, 36–37 (citing as examples Pss 42:4; 47:1; 63:5; 100:2). Expressions of “joy,” “gladness,” etc., appear more than a hundred times in the canonical psalms, sometimes in connection with God’s house (Pss 42:4; 122:1). Expressions such as “joy” and “gladness” appear more than thirty times in Luke-Acts but may be connected partly with the temple only here in Luke-Acts. Joyful celebration characterized ancient festivals (Libanius Descr. 29.12).

Cic. Parad. 16–19; Leg. 1.23.60; Tusc. 5.7.19–20; Mus. Ruf. 7, p. 58.13; 17, p. 108.7; Iambl. V.P. 31.196; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 23; 27.3–4; 59.10; Ben. 7.2.3; Dial. 7; also Lutz, “Musonius,” 28; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 73. Self-knowledge also yielded full joy (Cic. Tusc. 5.25.70).

Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.189; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:2; b. Yoma 4b; b. Pesaḥ. 10:1; Lev. Rab. 16:4; Song Rab. 4:11, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 21:2/3; 51:4; Urbach, Sages, 1:390–92; Anderson, “Joy.” See further comment at Acts 13:52.

The Spirit appears with joy in y. Sukkah 5, cited in Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 203.

E.g., Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 88–89.8; cf. BDAG.

Using this term, see, e.g., 1 Chr 16:4, 7, 10, 35, 36, 41; 23:5, 30; 29:13; 2 Chr 5:13; 6:26; 7:3; 8:14; 20:19, 21; 31:2; Ezra 3:10–11; Neh 5:13; 12:24, 36; 1 Macc 4:33; 3 Macc 2:8; 5:13; 6:32; Jdt 13:14; Tob 13:17; and many other sources (including some fifty times in Psalms and more than a hundred total times in the LXX). Jewish tradition amplified praise in some cases, e.g., for Abraham (Jub. 16:31; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 21:33). Naturally, Gentiles also praised their deities (e.g., Xen. Cyr. 8.1.23; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 445.31–32).

E.g., 1 En. 9:4; 1QS X, 10. Cf. eschatological worship in 1 En. 39:7; Sib. Or. 3.715, 726; t. Pisha 8:22; b. Sanh. 91b; Taʿan. 31a.

E.g., 1 En. 12:3; 39:12; 61:11–13; 1QM XII, 1; 4Q403 1 II, 15; 4Q405 frg. 19; 20 II + 21–22; 4Q405 23 I, 8–10; 4Q511 35 2–5; Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 14:24. For earthly worship connected with the heavenly worship, cf., e.g., Sipre Deut. 306.31.1.

Outside Luke-Acts, only twice in the NT (i.e., Rom 15:11; Rev 19:5), and only two further times in the Apostolic Fathers (Barn. 7.1; Mart. Pol. 14.3). Nevertheless, it appears 117 times in the largest form of the LXX, particularly prominent in 1–2 Chronicles and in Psalms. The explicit command αἰνεῖτε τὸν κύριον appears five times in Psalms (in other forms of the verb, eight times; the number is higher if anarthrous uses of the object are included or if we include the objects in the dative); with τὸν θεόν, in Pss 147:12; 150:1; Jdt 13:14.

See van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,” 60 (Ael. Arist. Or. 40.1; Chaeremon Stoicus frg. 10).

It is not strictly clear whether they were used liturgically (Schuller, “Thanksgiving Hymns,” 1217), but it is improbable that only Christians and Therapeutae sang.

Technically, ψαλμός (psalm) was an accepted Greek term, but normally implied harp playing, which was probably not available in all the house churches the way remembered psalms (or newly composed psalms on the biblical model) would be. Early Christian usage follows the LXX, where instruments are not relevant to the definition.

E.g., toward God in Sir 17:10, 27–28; 39:14; 51:1, 10, 12, 22 (in God’s house, 47:10; 50:18); applied to Wisdom in 24:1; to people in 11:2; 39:9; 44:1; 47:6; and to words in 21:15.

See Falk, “Prayer Literature,” 272–73.

Luke opens and closes the narratives of his Gospel with scenes of the temple (Luke 1:8–22).

Cohen, Maccabees, 70; cf. also Arbel, “Liturgy: Rabbinic,” esp. (on the earliest period) 650–51; Le Cornu, Acts, 168. The benediction form was common in Qumran hymns (Cohen, Maccabees, 70), though more pervasive in the rabbis (Hoffman, “Berakhah”). Many have argued for hymns in the NT (Sanders, Hymns, 24–25; Hunter, Paul, 37–38; Hengel, Jesus and Paul, 78–96; Porter, “Creeds”), though (in my view) the hard evidence appears mainly in Revelation and Luke’s infancy narratives, not in Paul’s letters.

Also Jub. 39:4; 40:9; Test. Jos. 11:6; 12:3. Other patriarchs, e.g., Gen 18:3; Jub. 19:5; perhaps Test. Jud. 2:1 (χάριν); Jesus in Luke 4:22. It was a general idiom (e.g., Gen 43:14; 47:25, 29; Num 32:5; Deut 24:1; Ruth 2:2, 10, 13; Esth 2:9, 15, 17; Tob 1:13).

For favor with God, see, e.g., Luke 1:30; Acts 7:46; Gen 6:8; Exod 33:12–13, 16–17; 34:9; Num 11:11; Sir 3:18.

So Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 165, citing Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.3.1, 4; 1.11.3; 1.16.2; 1.23.1; 1.31.3; 1.59.5; 1.64.4; 2.15–17; 2.32.2; 2.36.2, 3; 2.47.1; 2.50.1; 2.62.5.

Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.7b, pp. 44–45.32–33, on acceptance by others.

On the masses, see discussion in Keener, John, 732–33; on negative attitudes toward fickleness, see, e.g., Cic. Fam. 1.9.11; 5.2.10; Quint. fratr. 1.2.2.4; Virg. Aen. 4.569–70; 2 Cor 1:17; Plut. Demosth. 13.1–2; Cic. 26.7; Pliny Ep. 2.11.22; 4.2.1; 8.18.3; Tac. Hist. 2.57, 101; 3.73, 84; Ann. 12.1, 3 (probably also 15.36); Suet. Tib. 67.4; Claud. 15.1; 16.1; 39–40; Quint. Decl. 352.1; Max. Tyre 5.3; Fronto Ad am. 1.19; Hermog. Issues 69.3–13; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11i, pp. 78–79.16–18; Porph. Marc. 27.438; Libanius Thesis 1.29; on fickle mobs, Livy 31.34.3; Lucan C.W. 3.52–56; Corn. Nep. 10 (Dion), 10.2; 13 (Timotheus), 4.1; Tac. Ann. 2.41; Hist. 1.32, 45; 3.85; 5.8; Max. Tyre 27.6; Ps.-Phoc. 95–96; Philo Embassy 120; Jos. Life 87, 97, 143–44, 313–17, 333; 1 Sam 18:16; 25:10; 2 Sam 3:36; among “barbarians,” Caesar Gall. W. 4.5; Jos. Ant. 18.47; Tac. Hist. 2.29; 3.85. The “crowds” of the Gospel may be identical with the “people” here (Tannehill, Luke, 143; cf. 143–66), and those crowds, though favorable in Galilee, appeared less favorable as Jesus drew closer to Jerusalem (157–58).

Eighty-three of 138 NT uses (about 60 percent) appear in Luke-Acts; for the frequent evocation of LXX connotations, cf. Tannehill, Luke, 143. God sometimes gave his “people” “favor” with others (Exod 3:21; 11:3; 12:36; Esth 7:3). The LXX does not, however, by any means restrict the term to Israel, though this is, naturally, its most common application.

E.g., Exod 32:1, 3, 6, 7, 21–22, 25, 30–31, 34–35; 33:3; Num 11:1; 16:41; 20:3; 21:4–5; 25:1; also, e.g., Liv. Pr. 2:1 (OTP 2:386; Schermann, §25, p. 81, on Jeremiah).

Local popularity often appears among praises of a person (e.g., Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.1; among achievements noted in Vell. Paterc. 2.43.3–4); for the benefits of a good reputation with the people, see 1 Sam 14:45; Prov 22:1; Jdt 8:8; Sir 42:8; Pindar Nem. 8.37–39; 1 Tim 3:7; Sipre Deut. 1.10.1; b. Ber. 17a; Char. Chaer. 1.1.10; see comment on Acts 6:3. Van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,” 59, compares here Iambl. V.P. 30.

Many studies, both more exegetical (Trites, “Church Growth”) and more applicational (Brewer, “Group Dynamics,” 162–63; cf. Rainer, “Church Growth and Evangelism”; for some other applications, see Roberts, “Resources”), have noted the significance of the group dynamic in evangelism and church growth in Acts.

With, e.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 30.

Dunn, Acts, 37, emphasizes both (comparing 1 Cor 1:21; 15:2); but cf. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 30; Mattill, Last Things, 50 (comparing Luke 13:23; 1 Cor 1:18; but both of these may be corporate expressions for those being converted). The present participle may correspond to the imperfect προσετίθει.

An analogous Hebrew construction applies to expanding the community in the Qumran scrolls (e.g., Driver, Scrolls, 520, citing 1QS VI, 4; Capper, “Context,” 336), which some think supports Semitic tradition here. The LXX uses προστεθήσεται for a convert in Isa 14:1 (see Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 42).

Johnson, Acts, 60.

↑ Back to top