[1346] . Le Cornu, Acts , 1245.

[1346] . Le Cornu, Acts , 1245.

[1339]. E.g., Catull. Carm. 3.5; 14.1–3; 82.1–4; Sipre Deut. 313.1.4; Keener, “Eyes”; cf. Callim. Hymn 3 (to Artemis), 210–11; Petronius Sat. 1.

[1340]. Cf. a potential view noted in Le Cornu, Acts, 1245–46, although she does not hold this view.

[1341]. Munck, Acts, 223; Marshall, Acts, 364; Cassidy, Society, 64–65; Johnson, Acts, 397; Witherington, Acts, 689; Dunn, Acts, 302; Le Cornu, Acts, 1245–46; Shiell, Reading Acts, 189–90 (suggesting that the lector would clarify this with a tone of irony here); Parsons, Acts, 315; cf. Mason, “Chief Priests,” 153. See also Safrai, “Insulting High Priest” (with background from Mek. Mishpatim 19 to Exod 22:28). The use of irony could be combined with a harsh tone, sometimes generating laughter (Shiell, Reading Acts, 87), though the present situation in the narrative is probably too tense for Luke’s audience members to laugh (at least on their first hearing).

[1342]. See further Rowe, “Style,” 128–29 (citing Demosth. Andr. 32; Cic. Cat. 1.1.2); Strabo 10.4.17; see in more detail Duke, Irony, 8–12; O’Day, Revelation, 12–19; Anderson, Glossary, 39, 108. One could say something while hinting toward something different (Anderson, Glossary, 14–16). Cic. Brut. 292 traces the use of irony back to Socrates’s dialogues in Plato, Xenophon, and Aeschines. It was certainly common enough in satire and in debate (e.g., Plato Soph. passim; Hor. Sat. 1.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 31.9–10; Plut. St. Poets 4, Mor. 1058c; Apul. Metam. 3.4–6; Tert. Apol. 40.2; forensic speech in Cic. Verr. 2.5.10.25) but also occurred in interpersonal hostile exchanges (Ach. Tat. 6.12.1); for Jewish examples in the Greek language, see, e.g., Jos. Life 340; Ag. Ap. 1.295 (though sarcasm also had a long history in Israelite tradition, e.g., 1 Kgs 18:27).

[1343]. It might be appropriate for an enemy from whom one expected certain death (Sil. It. 11.254–55).

[1344]. See Anderson, Glossary, 58 (citing Demet. Style 287–98); cf., e.g., Hermog. Inv. 4.12.202; Method 6.419. Against rhetorical recommendations, however, the case here would probably be recognized as deliberate, hence perhaps even sarcastic.

[1345]. Anderson, Glossary, 82. Cf. discussion in Hermog. Method 1.414–15. One could thus deliberately contend for the opposite of what one was saying; see Hermog. Inv. 4.13.205; Method 22.437 (citing Hom. Il. 2.135).

[1346]. Le Cornu, Acts, 1245.

[1347]. Ibid., 1246, points out that Paul, like the Qumran sectarians, rejected not the biblical office per se but the legitimacy of, or at least the abuse by, its current holder.

[1348]. Although the Roman world also communicated rank by distinctive clothing (Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 116).

[1349]. Clarity in the written text is not something that initial oral feedback from audiences would have helped in such a case, since the reader’s tone will have communicated a meaning—whether or not the one that Luke intended. If he and those he knew were the primary readers before the completion of this edition, the issue might not have come up from hearers—though one wonders why the readers would not have asked it.

[1350]. Barrett, Acts, 1062.

[1351]. On group loyalties, see Malina and Neyrey, Portraits, 164–69. That various factors established social networks among many of the Judean elite is clear (see, e.g., Avidov, “Peer Solidarity”). On partisan rivalries, see, e.g., Welborn, Politics, 8–11. People naturally often defended members of their own group (thus in Jos. Life 235, one’s hometown would naturally side with one).

[1352]. Cf. Welborn, Politics, 14–16. Cf. Paul’s self-claim to be a Pharisee in Phil 3:4–5.

[1353]. Although not all aristocrats were Sadducees, most of the Sadducees appear to have been aristocratic priests (Sanders, Judaism, 318, 322).

[1354]. With Witherington, Acts, 690–91.

[1355]. The Pharisees were a minority in the Sanhedrin, though Luke’s audience may not have known this. Until this passage, however, Luke’s audience would not have been aware of Pharisees in the Sanhedrin apart from Gamaliel (Acts 5:34).

[1356]. Keener, Background Commentary, 392; Fitzmyer, Acts, 718. Chrys. Hom. Acts 49.1 agrees that Paul divides his hostile audience, while emphasizing that he also tells the truth.

[1357]. Cf. the negative use of σχίσμα in Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 70–73. Luke might play on its use as “tearing” in the scene in Acts 23:10, but there he chooses a different term. The term στάσις, however, is used in both 23:7 and 23:10 (also 15:2; 19:40; 24:5) and is negative (cf. Rhodes, “Stasis”).

[1358]. Cf. similarly Witherington, Acts, 684. Others also recognize that Paul here redefines the issues (e.g., Malina and Neyrey, Portraits, 83–84; Linthicum, “Acts of Power,” 302).

[1359]. Some sources dislike his cleverness, but because it was sometimes employed in the service of malice (cf., e.g., Soph. Philoc. 54–55, 107–9, 119, 1228). In the OT, cf., e.g., Gen 27:18–19; 1 Sam 21:2.

[1360]. Pervo, Profit, 37; cf. idem, Acts, 574 (claiming Luke’s hostility toward Judaism). Pervo’s claim that this casts “mud upon the opposition” in a vulgar manner (Profit, 37) must presuppose that the early Christians invented all such reports of hostility (1 Thess 2:14–16), thereby making them guilty of malicious misrepresentation (leaving the apocalyptic, repressed-minority complex of many early Christians more difficult to account for); but by Pervo’s definition, would this approach not risk casting mud on the early Christians? As noted elsewhere, Pharisees and Essenes also complained about the high priests’ brutality; are all such sources slandering the high priests, or might the powerful have abused their power as much in Judea as in many societies?

[1361]. This might parallel them with high-status defenders of Paul in Acts 19:35–40 and 21:35. Perhaps Luke, like Josephus, writes more favorably of groups that remain influential in his day (though Pharisaism’s heirs presumably grow more dominant in subsequent decades).

[1362]. Although Luke is far more positive toward the Pharisees than his Jewish-Christian colleagues Matthew and John, they remain ambivalent characters for him (see comment on Acts 15:5), even though tolerant of the new movement (Acts 5:34–39).

[1363]. Cf. Hemer, Acts in History, 128. Dunn, Acts, 305, seems to suggest that Luke hoped for rapprochement with the Pharisees’ successors; if so, that hope was apparently largely abandoned in Matthean (see Keener, Matthew, 49–50, 536) and Johannine (see idem, John, 195–228) Christianity perhaps in the 80s and 90s respectively.

[1364]. Less than five, on the later dating of Paul’s arrest.

[1365]. Sanders, Judaism, 542n68.

[1366]. It is not impossible that this constituted a factor in Josephus’s “Pharisaism” (cf. Mason, “Was Josephus a Pharisee?,” who doubts Josephus’s Pharisaism).

[1367]. Their increase would fit the upward mobility of many groups over time, as well as tendencies to shift politically during the group’s ascent.

[1368]. Cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 718, who uses the greater popularity of the Pharisees in Jos. Ant. 18.17 in support of his argument that Pharisaic presence in the Sanhedrin had been growing since the first century B.C.E., though they remained a minority. Herod, who had conflict with some Pharisees (cf. 17.41–46; those “skilled in the law” in War 1.648, 650), probably wanted few Pharisees in his Sanhedrin; but they had probably grown socioeconomically over time, and the populist Agrippa I had better relations with them. Pharisees undoubtedly were growing in power, especially if Josephus himself, an aristocrat, was genuinely more aligned with the Pharisees. (But claims, based on rabbinic sources, that Pharisees eliminated Sadducees ca. 60/61 C.E., as in Eppstein, “Excommunicated,” neglect our earliest evidence.)

[1369]. The populace favored the Pharisees, but most of the wealthy, who made up municipal aristocracies, favored the Sadducees (Jos. Ant. 13.298). See discussion on the Sanhedrin at Acts 4:5 in Keener, Acts, 2:1137–41.

[1370]. Mason, “Chief Priests,” 176. Luke and Josephus share some common assumptions about Pharisees and Sadducees (ibid.).

[1371]. Philo emphasizes early Jewish unity as against the divisions of Greek philosophic sects, but for apologetic reasons (Runia, “Hairesis-Model”; to a much lesser extent, cf. perhaps Josephus, in Mason, Josephus and New Testament, 202–3). For conflict among Greek philosophic sects, see, e.g., Lucian Par. 27; further comment at Acts 17:18. For portrayals of discord marking unhealthy communities, see Parsons, Acts, 364 (who cites Plato Ep. 7.337; Polyb. 11.25.5; Philo Flacc. 17; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.242–43; for Jewish apologetic on Israel’s unity, Philo Virt. 35; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.179–81).

[1372]. E.g., t. Ḥag. 3:35; b. B. Bat. 115b (attributed, likely fallaciously, to Johanan ben Zakkai’s era); ʿErub. 101a. Pharisees especially emphasized right behavior according with ancestral tradition (Goodman, “Note”).

[1373]. See Knox, Jerusalem, 359.

[1374]. His distinction between Pharisaism and revolutionaries helps protect Josephus from any accusations on account of his Pharisaic sympathies in Life 18–20. But Johanan ben Zakkai, who advocated peace (e.g., ʾAbot R. Nat. 4 A; 6, §19 B), was undoubtedly not the only Pharisaic advocate of peace (cf. the frequent later rabbinic support for peace, in, e.g., m. ʾAb. 2:7; Sipra VDDen. pq. 16.28.1.1, 3; Sipre Num. 42.2.3; Sipre Deut. 199.3.1, though these edited works reflect a perspective from after 135 C.E.).

[1375]. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 206–7, suggests this point.

[1376]. E.g., Jos. Ant. 18.16; War 2.164–65; later b. Šabb. 152b (though MS M may be correct, unless the Sadducee is hypothetical; the passage is late Amoraic and Babylonian); cf. ʾAbot R. Nat. 5, 10 A; b. Ber. 15b; Pesaḥ. 68a; the Palestinian Targum in Isenberg, “Polemic.” See also Finkelstein, Pharisees, 1:145; esp. Setzer, “Resurrection.”

[1377]. Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 228, §442.16; also Fitzmyer, Acts, 718; Gaventa, Acts, 314; cf. Hanson, Acts, 221. Explicit mention of hendiadys appears in Late Latin (Rowe, “Style,” 143), but the grammatical construction is earlier. An article would have made this clearer grammatically; but context makes it clear enough, and Luke appears to use hendiadys elsewhere (e.g., Acts 14:17; Luke 2:47).

[1378]. Cf. also “hope” applied to Jesus’s resurrection in Acts 2:26.

[1379]. The Sadducees represented instead the position dominant some four centuries earlier (Montefiore, “Spirit of Judaism,” 36).

[1380]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 718–19. Cf., e.g., Oswalt, Isaiah, 300; Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:450–52.

[1381]. On this reference, see, e.g., Baldwin, Daniel, 204.

[1382]. I borrow here from Keener, John, 1175–77.

[1383]. Osborne, “Resurrection,” 932, cites also some Hellenistic works (4 Maccabees; Wis 2:23–24; 3:1–4; Philo Creation 135; Giants 14; perhaps also 1 En. 103:4) and, as denying even immortality, Sirach (Sir 17:27–28; 30:17; 37:26; 39:9; 44:8–15; 46:19). Some scholars suggest that Josephus overconformed Sadducees to Epicureans, denying them afterlife notions when they may have denied only resurrection (Simon, Sects, 26).

[1384]. Rabbinic texts often emphasize that the Sadducees, unlike Pharisees, denied the teaching and hence held no place in the coming world (e.g., m. Sanh. 10:1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 5 A; 10, §26 B; cf. b. Sanh. 90a). The doctrine of the resurrection was particularly relevant in the context of martyrdom (2 Macc 7:9, 11; 14:46); those inclined to defend the honor of martyrs hence took serious offense at the denial (rabbinic texts also suggest moral consequences for denying resurrection and judgment, which they viewed together).

[1385]. Cf. also L.A.E. 51:2; Apoc. Mos. 10:2; 28:4; 41:2; 43:2.

[1386]. 4Q521 2 II, 12 (this could be the activity of the Messiah in line 1 but is far more likely God, in lines 4–11); 7 + 5 II, 5–6; probably also II, 8 (reconstructed). On the likelihood of resurrection in Qumran texts, see Puech, Données qumraniennes; Sanders, Judaism, 370; cf. Ulrichsen, “Troen.” But the supposed resurrection of the Teacher of Righteousness is based on inference from a reconstructed text (cf. 4QpPs 37 2 2–4 in Dupont-Sommer, Writings, 272), which other scholars have reconstructed quite differently.

[1387]. E.g., Stemberger, “Auferstehungslehre”; in the Targumim, see, e.g., Tg. Hos. 14:8; McNamara, Targum, 136.

[1388]. This is true though Josephus, adapting his depiction of Jewish “sects” to Greek schools such as the Pythagoreans and Middle Platonists, depicts the Pharisaic confidence in more acceptable Hellenistic terms suggesting reincarnation (Ant. 18.14; War 2.163; 3.374; Ag. Ap. 2.218).

[1389]. They condemned a few others for its denial besides explicit Sadducees; e.g., y. Sanh. 10:2, §11. Other texts regularly defend the resurrection long after the Sadducees themselves had ceased to be an issue (e.g., Lev. Rab. 27:4; Lam. Rab. 3:23, §8), but that the rabbis would engage in “textbook apologetics” (not uncommon in some more traditional religious circles today) would not be surprising, given the variety of hypothetical legal situations that they also surveyed.

[1390]. Also 2 Macc 7:9, 14, 23, 29; 2 Bar. 30:1; L.A.B. 3:10; Test. Ab. 7:16 B; cf. Test. Jud. 25:1–4; Test. Zeb. 10:2; Apoc. Ezek. intro. See more fully Osborne, “Resurrection,” 933 (who, in addition to those above, cites 1 En. 46:6; 51:1–2; Pss. Sol. 13:9–11; 14:4–10; 4 Ezra 4:41–43; 7:32–38; 2 Bar. 49:2–51:12; 85:13). See also Anderson, Raised, 48–91; in Scripture, Raharimanantsoa, Mort, 363–426.

[1391]. Rahmani, “Glwsqmwt”; cf. Goodenough, Symbols, 1:164–77. Ossuaries belong especially to the Roman imperial period and the pre-Israelite Chalcolithic period (see Silberman, “Ossuary”).

[1392]. Levine, Hellenism, 65–67, argues plausibly that ossuaries are irrelevant to belief in the resurrection (they could adapt the Roman custom of secondary burial of cremated ashes).

[1393]. Finegan, Archeology of New Testament, 208.

[1394]. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 237; cf. Wright, People of God, 320–34; Schuller, “Resurrection.”

[1395]. Some evidence exists in contemporary Egyptian Judaism, but Philo himself never mentions the doctrine (Wolfson, Philo, 1:404). The Samaritans may well have accepted it, though our evidence here is, as with most Samaritan evidence, late (see MacDonald, Samaritans, 376). For Rome ca. 100 C.E., Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 289, cite CIJ 1:272–74, §§348–50.

[1396]. See Garte, “Resurrection.”

[1397]. One might think that more facticity stands behind Paul’s assertion in Acts 23:6 than the narrative otherwise supports, but see also 24:15.

[1398]. For Pythagorean and other Greek notions of reincarnation, see Diod. Sic. 10.6.1; Iambl. V.P. 18.85; Max. Tyre 10.2; Croy, “Neo-Pythagoreanism,” 739; Pythagorean-Orphic ideas in Thom, “Akousmata,” 105; Epimenides and Pythagoras in Blackburn, “ΑΝΔΡΕΣ,” 191; Athen. Deipn. 15.679A; in Roman literature, Virg. Aen. 6.747–51; Sil. It. 13.558–59; for the evil only, Val. Flacc. 3.383–96. Cf. “rebirth” in reincarnations in Plato Meno 81BC (cf. Phaedr. 248AB, 248E–249B); Virg. Aen. 6.747–51; Plut. Div. V. 32, Mor. 567EF.

[1399]. In practice, some high-priestly families may have borrowed Greek ideas of an afterlife, or at least customs related to them; cf. the skull with a coin in the mouth, recalling Greek practices related to paying Charon, the ferryman across the Styx, and some other evidence in Evans, World, 98.

[1400]. Also b. Sanh. 90a (attributed to a Tanna).

[1401]. See, e.g., Porton, “Diversity”; Boccaccini, “Multiple Judaisms”; Goodman, “Essenes”; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 255–56 (noting also some common elements in most of Judaism, hence not “multiple Judaisms”); Keener, John, 181–85.

[1402]. See, e.g., discussion at Keener, Corinthians, 122–23; for various views of the problem on this question in Corinth, see Thiselton, Corinthians, 1172–76; Martin, Body, 105–8. Although multiple problems are plausible (Zeller, “Front”) and overrealized eschatology is probably not the key issue (Horsley, Corinthians, 200–201; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 699; Martin, Body, 105–6; Hays, First Corinthians, 259), I suspect that the Corinthians’ tendency to conform Paul’s Jewish message to their Greek and Roman values unites many of them; cf. Chrys. 1 Hom. Cor. proem (NPNF 1.12.1–2; Bray, Corinthians, 2). For pagan objections against the Christian understanding, see, e.g., likely Porphyry in Mac. Magn. Apocrit. 4.24 (Porphyry’s 90–92); Cook, Interpretation, 55–58, and esp. 59–61; Remus, Conflict, 8.

[1403]. Apul. Apol. 1, 3.

[1404]. Cf. Rom 5:6–10; 6:3; 8:34; 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11; 11:26; 15:3; 2 Cor 5:14–15; Gal 2:20–21; Phil 2:8; Col 1:22; 2:20; 1 Thess 5:10; for his mention of the “cross” or “crucifixion” specifically (for Jesus or for believers with Jesus), cf. Rom 6:6; 1 Cor 1:13, 17–18, 23; 2:2, 8; 2 Cor 13:4; Gal 2:20; 3:1; 5:11, 24; 6:12, 14; Eph 2:16; Phil 2:8; 3:18; Col 1:20; 2:14.

[1405]. So Rapske, Custody, 147, though noting that it is not in fact a trial (Acts 22:30; 23:28); cf. the verb for genuine judicial hearings in 25:9–10, 25. Paul makes the same claim as here in the judicial hearing in 26:6.

[1406]. For eschatological judgment, cf. 10:42; 17:31; 24:25; Luke 6:37; 10:14; 11:31; 20:47; possibly 11:19; 12:58; 19:22; 23:40. Luke employs the term in other ways, but the context of resurrection suggests a play on judgment here.

[1407]. Witherington, Acts, 691; Le Cornu, Acts, 448 (citing t. Sanh. 7:9; m. Sem. 3:4; b. Hor. 13b). For examples of rabbis as “fathers” or disciples as “children,” see Keener, John, 921–23 (including Philost. Vit. soph. 1.490; 1.25.536, 537; 4 Bar. 2:4, 6, 8; 5:5; 7:24; t. Sanh. 7:9; Sipre Deut. 34.3.1–3, 5; 305.3.4).

[1408]. Cf. Reicke, Era, 159; Finkelstein, Pharisees, 76; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 181; Cohen, Maccabees, 162. The Pharisees were not coextensive with haberim, however, though there was significant overlap before 70 C.E. (cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 187; Rivkin, Revolution, 175; Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 58). Haberim were distinct from amme haaretz (e.g., t. Demai 2:5, 14–15, 19; 3:6–7; 6:8; Maʿaś. 2:5; ʾAbot R. Nat. 41 A; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 70b; y. Demai 2:3) but in some sources could include even Sadducees (b. Nid. 33b, Amoraic). Those who agreed to tithe and keep food pure, then reneged, were no longer welcome (t. Demai 2:9); nor could they refuse even one part of the agreement (t. Demai 2:5; b. Bek. 30b).

[1409]. So most scholars (e.g., Deissmann, Paul, 93). “God of our ancestors” (Acts 24:14), however, is more general.

[1410]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 718. By contrast, Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 11, is skeptical of the claim, though he thinks (implausibly) that Paul was from Galilee; Pharisees in Tarsus seem still more difficult.

[1411]. With Witherington, Acts, 691.

[1412]. Thus one Athenian orator even argued that Athenians were stronger militarily than Spartans precisely because the latter felt such need to train for war (Thucyd. 2.39.1)!

[1413]. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 35, 1440b.23–1441a.5, esp. 1440b.29–32; Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 370.9–28; Gorg. Hel. 3. This is also common in honorary inscriptions (deSilva, Honor, 163), histories (e.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.59.2, treating ancestry among assets), and biographies (Xen. Ages. 1.2; Corn. Nep. 2 [Themistocles], 1.2; 7 [Alcibiades], 1.2; Suet. Aug. 1–2; Tib. 1.1–2.4; 3.1; Tac. Agr. 4; Eunapius Lives 498). Some viewed character as inborn, not changed (e.g., Eurip. frg. 1068, from Stob. 4.30.3; 1113, from Stob. 4.29.35; Phoenix frg. 810; Dictys frg. 333, from Stob. 4.30.5; Pindar Ol. 11.19–20; 13.12; cf. Galen Grief 60); others recognized that character changed (Val. Max. 6.9.pref.–6.9.9; cf. 2 Chr 24:17–22).

[1414]. On the parallel passage in Matthew, see Keener, “Brood of Vipers.”

[1415]. Lucian Z. Rants 52 (the portrayal is satirical).

[1416]. Philost. Vit. soph. 2.25.611; cf. Pindar Pyth. 10.12. If virtue or ability did not persist, one could figuratively claim that a person’s line thus had ended (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.544); one with honorable ancestors could make dishonorable choices (e.g., Isaeus Dicaeog. 47); one might shame dishonorable behavior by challenging its departure from honorable ancestors (Libanius Speech in Character 14.2). It was insane to boast in ancestors’ merit yet act oppositely (Isoc. Peace 41–53, quoted in Dion. Hal. Isoc. 17).

[1417]. E.g., Cic. Invect. Sall. 5.13; Val. Max. 2.7.5; Mart. Epig. 2.56; Pliny Ep. 6.31.4–5; Gaius Inst. 3.221; P.Eleph. 1.6–7; Sipra Emor par. 14.242.1.11.

[1418]. Aeschines Embassy 78–79, 147–50; Ctes. 172. Demosthenes’s response carried later opinion: Aeschines’s father was a slave and his mother a prostitute, and he imitated the latter (Demosth. Or. 18.129–30; Libanius Invective 4.2–3).

[1419]. Rhet. Alex. 35, 1441a.5–13. Thus, e.g., noble birth is irrelevant for Dionysius of Miletus, who achieved honor by his own labor (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.22.521–22); but one with honorable ancestors could be dishonorable by behavioral choices (Isaeus Dicaeog. 47), and injustice made one ignoble regardless of ancestry (Eurip. Dictys frg. 336, in Stob. 4.29.1).

[1420]. Also, e.g., whereas noble birth could count as a virtue in one’s favor in court, an opposing defendant’s father was a public slave (Lysias Or. 30.1–2, §183). Theophr. Char. 28.2 provides an example of how many people expected one from a bad family to turn out badly. One could invent a negative ancestry to explain bad behavior (Hom. Il. 16.33–35); one could insult an opponent’s parents (Lysias Or. 10.2, §116; Plut. Cic. 26.6).

[1421]. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 199. Cf. Indian philosophers according to Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.30.

[1422]. Klauck, Context, 31 (noting that in many places, priesthoods were inherited).

[1423]. With Bruce, Commentary, 453.

[1424]. Bornkamm, Paul, 25.

[1425]. Especially the older German Protestant interpretation as interpreted through the grid of the old Tübingen hypothesis. Luther’s analogy-of-faith hermeneutic plays a role in it, but it addressed a specific polemical situation; the Tübingen hypothesis developed this approach far beyond Luther.

[1426]. See Rhyne, Faith, 120.

[1427]. See esp. Sanders, Paul and Judaism.

[1428]. Maddox, Purpose, 40.

[1429]. That is, he need not accept all their oral traditions (Jos. Ant. 13.297), though even these may appear in some of his letters (see Davies, Paul, passim; cf. perhaps Pss. Sol. 3 in Lührmann, “Pharisaic Tradition,” if Psalms of Solomon is taken as Pharisaic [cf. Rost, Judaism, 119]; but some take it as non-Pharisaic [Sanders, Judaism, 453–55]).

[1430]. E.g., Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 111 (emphasizing zeal); Nock, Paul, 30 (as a Pharisee but not a rabbi); Bruce, Commentary, 452–53; Witherington, Acts, 691 (emphasizing the resurrection); cf. even Chrys. Hom. Acts 49.1 (though he views the claim as true primarily by means of ancestry). Segal, Convert, 182, 283–84, instead views Paul as a convert from Pharisaism, whose Pharisaic background shapes the categories of his new faith.

[1431]. Ramsay, Other Studies, 89–90 (quotation, 90). See similarly Davies, Introduction, 27–28.

[1432]. Anderson, Glossary, 49–50, on ἐπάνοδος; for a more general analogy, cf. pp. 16–17.

[1433]. The conjoining of the terms with two conjunctions, more explicit than necessary, could serve the rhetorical function of polysyndeton, albeit much more briefly; it emphasizes abundance (Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 367), and Luke might underline their disagreements with Pharisaism.

[1434]. E.g., Philo Abr. 1; indeed, it could be used even more broadly for the entire biblical canon (Sipre Deut. 32.5.12; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:13).

[1435]. Gen 16:7, 9–11; 19:1, 15; 21:17; 22:11, 15; 24:7, 40; 28:12; 31:11; 32:1; 48:16; Exod 3:2; 14:19; 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2; Num 20:16; 22:22–27, 31–35.

[1436]. This is admittedly an argument from silence, but in this case, where other Sadducean distinctives are reported, also an argument from probability.

[1437]. Moore, Judaism, 1:68 (on developed angelology, 1:404); Sandmel, Judaism, 157; Simon, Sects, 27 (including demonology); Finkelstein, Pharisees, 1:179; Mason, “Chief Priests,” 176; cf. Bock, Acts, 672. Most of the writers affirming the resurrection also exhibit developed angelologies (cf. Finkelstein, Pharisees, 1:178).

[1438]. See Parker, “Angel,” making a plausible case. Paul later does receive an angelic revelation (Acts 27:23).

[1439]. E.g., 1 En. 1:2; 72:1; 74:2; 75:3; Jub. 1:27; 2:1; 32:21; 4 Ezra 4:1; 3 Bar. 1:8; 5:1; 6:1.

[1440]. Lachs, “Pharisees and Sadducees on Angels”; Viviano and Taylor, “Sadducees, Angels, and Resurrection”; Fitzmyer, Acts, 719; Fletcher-Louis, Angels, 58–59 (noting Luke 20:35–36).

[1441]. Though Luke might not employ this term consistently (see comment at Acts 19:16), he nearly always does (Luke 1:6–7; 5:7; 6:39; 7:42; Acts 8:38).

[1442]. Riesner, Early Period, 391, suggests angelic existence even in Dan 12:2–3 (citing 8:10, but this text is also open to interpretation). Cf. 1 En. 51:5 (Knibb, not Isaac, who also numbers it as 51:4; it follows the resurrection in 51:1); Enoch’s transformation—though not clearly a resurrection—into an angel-like state in 2 En. 22:8–10. For future, angelic existence (not always with respect to the resurrection), see sources in comment on Acts 12:15.

[1443]. Although the context is immortality (Ps.-Phoc. 105–15) and the passage speaks of “gods” rather than “angels” (Ps.-Phoc. 104). Jewish magical texts could also conjoin immortality and being made an angel (Pr. Jos. 19), as could Philo (Sacr. 5; cf. Dreams 1.115).

[1444]. Cf. 1QM X, 12 (cf. XII, 1); 1 En. 46:7; see comment on Acts 12:15.

[1445]. E.g., 1 En. 17:1; 2 En. 20:1; 29:3 (esp. A); 3 En. 15:1; 47:4; 4 Ezra 8:22; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:3; Pesiq. Rab. 16:2. Some also claimed that angels were partly water and partly fire (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:3); some later rabbis claimed that Gabriel was made of fire but Michael was made of snow (Deut. Rab. 5:12).

[1446]. For stars as fire, see, e.g., Varro L.L. 5.10.59; Cic. Resp. 6.15.15; Nat. d. 2.15.39–40; Diog. Laert. 9.6.33; cf. 1 En. 14:11–15; 72:4. But ultimately, some argued, even humans contained fire (Epict. Diatr. 3.13.14–15), and souls (like everything else) would return to the primeval fire (Marc. Aur. 4.21).

[1447]. Cf., e.g., Test. Ab. 3:6 A (on Michael); also Philo, identifying unbodied souls in the air with angels (Conf. 174; Plant. 14; Spec. Laws 1.66; further, Wolfson, Philo 1:366–85). Cf. various views on the nature of daimones in Dillon, Middle Platonists, 317–19.

[1448]. So does Pharisaic doctrine if, as I shall argue, the “spirit” or “angel” is linked with Jesus’s appearance to Paul; for Pharisees, “resurrection” was a future notion, so that if “Jesus” appeared to Paul, it would be as a “spirit” or “angel,” not as resurrected. See comment below.

[1449]. Luke may use the angelic mode as an explanatory or apologetic analogy, but despite angelomorphic characteristics of Jesus’s resurrection body, he clearly distinguishes it from angels (Fletcher-Louis, Angels, 62–69). Jesus was transfigured before the resurrection and remains bodily afterward; moreover, an angelic Christology is inadequate (70–71).

[1450]. See discussion in Thiselton, Corinthians, 1276–81; also Garland, 1 Corinthians, 734; Fee, Corinthians, 786; Keener, Corinthians, 132; Gundry, “Physicality,” 216–17; Ladd, Theology, 370; idem, Last Things, 82–83; Ridderbos, Paul: Outline, 544.

[1451]. Stars were often viewed as angels, as noted above; see further Keener, Corinthians, 131.

[1452]. One could see Luke 24:37, 39 as a response to a “spirit-resurrection,” but it probably simply protests that Jesus is bodily, not a ghost, since postmortem apparitions were believed common.

[1453]. Daube, “Sadducees and Angels”; followed also by Witherington, Acts, 692.

[1454]. See further Jos. War 2.165, 374–75; Ant. 18.16; Ag. Ap. 2.30.

[1455]. Luke omits the “ghost” cry of Mark 6:49 but also the entire pericope that contains it (for fear of ghosts, see, e.g., Lucan C.W. 1.11; Dio Cass. 42.11.2–3; Alexander, Possession, 30–31); but cf. Luke 24:37.

[1456]. Cf. the overlap with the future use of heaven (in eschatological dualism) and the present use (in vertical dualism) in Revelation and other apocalyptic literature (cf. Lincoln, Paradise, passim).

[1457]. With Dunn, Acts, 277. Cf. similarly Luke 23:47.

[1458]. Technically, the sentence lacks its apodosis, but this may be safely assumed (cf. Luke 13:9); on aposiopesis, see Rhet. Her. 4.30.41; Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, §482; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 583.

[1459]. With Tannehill, Acts, 286; Johnson, Acts, 399, 401; Witherington, Acts, 693. Less likely, perhaps they theoretically grant, for the sake of argument, that he might even be resurrected as an angel or, as they prefer, a postmortem spirit.

[1460]. Cf. the role of Elijah in later rabbinic literature: he was sent to settle rabbinic disputes (ʾAbot R. Nat. 2 A; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 36a; Ber. 3a; Giṭ. 42b; Ḥag. 9b; Qidd. 79a; Menaḥ. 32a; y. Ber. 9:2, §3; Ter. 1:6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:22) or provide other information (b. B. Meṣiʿa 85b; Ketub. 106a; Sanh. 113b; Yoma 19b–20a; Gen. Rab. 71:9), was sometimes described in a role comparable to that of angels (b. Ber. 4b; 6b; Šabb. 33b; Deut. Rab. 5:15; Tg. Rishon on Esth 4:1; cf. b. B. Meṣiʿa 59b; 85b), and was often sent on divine errands to aid rabbis (b. ʿAbod. Zar. 17b; Taʿan. 21a; y. Ketub. 12:3, §6; Kil. 9:3, §4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 18:5; Gen. Rab. 33:3). But because Elijah had not died, his angel-like intermediary role is of different character.

[1461]. Mason, “Chief Priests,” 153. Johnson, Acts, 401, views them negatively here; Witherington, Acts, 693, more favorably.

[1462]. See also discussion in the commentary introduction, Keener, Acts, 1:471–72.

[1463]. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:455–56, 468–69.

[1464]. Mason, “Chief Priests,” 153.

[1465]. The backlash against Judaism that followed Judea’s revolt probably affected Pharisees less than others, given their freedom to reorganize at Yavneh.

[1466]. If the Pharisees still support Paul at Acts 24:9, they have not made the journey to Caesarea to make their minority report known. It could have served Luke’s purpose to mention their support again had it continued. But Paul’s reference to belief in the resurrection (24:15) suggests that not all his accusers were Sadducees.

[1467]. Pliny the Younger did not mind emotion in court when he stirred it (Ep. 9.23.1).

[1468]. Nevertheless, he contends that order was maintained in previous generations, closer to Paul’s day (Pliny Ep. 3.20.5).

[1469]. In Char. Chaer. 5.8.4, only respect for the king prevents conflict from escalating beyond words, but it seems to imply that blows were rare in trials. Even in fierce debate, senators in Rome normally spoke in turn (Plut. Cic. 20.3); such procedure was apparently standard in the Sanhedrin (e.g., m. Sanh. 4:2) and mandatory at Qumran (1QS VI, 8–13; VII, 9–10).

[1470]. Cf. 2 Sam 12:31; Libanius Topics 1.22; 2.18; 3.1 (forensic but perhaps hyperbolic); for the terrible fate of dismemberment, see, e.g., Hom. Od. 18.339; 22.474–77; Livy 8.24.14; Diod. Sic. 16.16.4; 17.83.9; 33.15.1; 34/35.8.1; 34/35.12.1; 34/35.14.1; Arrian Alex. 4.7.3–4; Appian Hist. rom. 3.6.1; 4.11; Paus. 2.2.7; Matt 24:51. The verb διασπάω also applies to punishment (as dismemberment) by an angry deity in Lucian Dial. G. 250 (23/19, Aphrodite and Eros 1).

[1471]. See Tajra, Trial, 98–103; Sherwin-White, Society, 32–43; Keener, John, 1107–9. The claim that Luke assumes the Sanhedrin’s capital authority here (Pervo, Acts, 571) makes no sense of the textual data that we note here; what the Sanhedrin may have supplied was a verdict about a capital offense on which Rome could act.

[1472]. Jos. Ant. 15.289; Polyb. 15.33.9; Appian Hist. rom. 8.13.92; Plut. Caes. 68.3 (διέσπασαν). A daimon acts thus in Philost. Hrk. 56.10.

[1473]. E.g., Lucian Sat. 8; Peregr. 2; Paus. 2.2.7; Philost. Elder Imag. 1.18; cf. Appian Hist. rom. 8.13.92. Most of these texts rehearse the account of Pentheus’s death in Euripides’s Bacchanals.

[1474]. Plut. Love St. 1, Mor. 772C; a boy in Max. Tyre 18.1; both young women and male youths in Tac. Hist. 3.33.

[1475]. Lucian Career 6 (διεσπάσαντο, in a dream).

[1476]. After all, one reason for requiring that governors rather than locals try Roman citizens was to ensure that local Roman citizens would never suffer for their loyalty to Rome. In this case, though, while Paul suffers for his preaching to Gentiles (Acts 22:21–22), the heart of his supposed offense is preaching the resurrection (23:6; 24:21).

[1477]. According to later tradition, the members were seated in a semicircle (e.g., m. Sanh. 4:3; b. Ḥul. 5a; Sanh. 14b; 37a; Soṭah 45a; Exod. Rab. 5:12; Eccl. Rab. 1:11, §1).

[1478]. McRay, Archaeology, 110; Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 86–87, 142 (citing m. Sanh. 11:2; Mid. 5:3–5; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 8b); Le Cornu, Acts, 1229. In other sources (many of them later and derivative), for the Chamber of Hewn Stone, see, e.g., t. Šeqal. 3:27; b. Yoma 25a; Eccl. Rab. 1:1, §1; for the Temple Mount, e.g., Num. Rab. 19:26.

[1479]. Brown, Death, 350.

[1480]. McRay, Archaeology, 110. Le Cornu, Acts, 1230, sees the Xystus as a plaza “used for exercise and speeches, . . . connected to the Temple Mount by a bridge”; see further Jos. War 4.581; 5.144; 6.191, 325, 377; also Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 142, concerning Jos. War 2.344. Agrippa had a palace near here (Ant. 20.189).

[1481]. With Witherington, Acts, 693.

[1482]. See Finegan, Archeology of New Testament, 109. On Jerusalem map B, BrillPauly 6:1171, the putative council house near the Xystus is perhaps 400 m. to the south from the Antonia, along the side of the temple, then less than 100 m. west to reach the council house (less than 100 m. farther to the Xystus). See fuller discussion at Acts 22:30.

[1483]. Rapske, Custody, 9–10 (noting also the confinement of the insane to protect them and others, in Dig. 1.18.13–14; 48.9.9).

[1484]. See Skinner, Locating Paul, 130.

[1485]. Caesarea would be a necessary stop for those returning home after the journey.

[1486]. The earliest Christians seem to have felt surprise when pagans proved more tolerant of them than did fellow monotheists. But Rome in the provinces was primarily interested in order, not theology.

[1487]. See Tannehill, Acts, 292.

[1488]. Rapske, Custody, 395. The interpretation of some ancient writers, such as Apuleius, was more ambiguous, allowing both (Apul. De deo Socr. 162–66).

[1489]. In the LXX, for an angel (Zech 1:11) or the Lord (Amos 9:1); cf. also apparitions in Wis 18:17. This is not the most common use of the term (seventy-six times in the LXX), but it might have influenced Luke nonetheless. The immediate context employs it for Lysias’s rescue of Paul; perhaps the nuance of “stand” here might also recall Jesus’s support for Stephen in Acts 7:56 (using ἵστημι). Although Aune, Prophecy, 431n133, finds parallels in revelatory-dream experience, Luke uses the word also for revelations when awake (Rapske, Custody, 419).

[1490]. Larkin, Acts, 331, compares the clear divine activity in the book of Esther, where God is not named. God is mentioned in Esther’s acrostic, which would eventually be noticed; other writers also employed acrostics (e.g., Ps 119; Sib. Or. 8.217–50), including in Babylonia (Soll, “Acrostics”).

[1491]. Cf. similarly the plight of believers in Damascus caused by the collaboration of Saul with the high priest in Acts 9:1.

[1492]. Likewise, when Hellenists tried to have Paul killed (Acts 9:29), his allies learned of it and sent him away (9:30); when Gentiles and Jews tried to kill Paul and Barnabas (14:5), the apostles learned of it and fled (14:6). This seems one of Luke’s favorite ways of reporting opposition, but it may also help explain how Paul survived so much.

[1493]. That revolutionaries could act quickly is clear from Jos. War 4.356 (Le Cornu, Acts, 1259), although this example reflects a later stage in the escalation of the violence.

[1494]. With Padilla, Speeches, 198–99, who also notes that Luke thereby also slows the narrative to increase suspense (following the observation of Gaventa, Acts, 318, regarding Luke’s “lingering” on the point).

[1495]. See Saldarini, Community, 34–36; cf. Tomson, “Israel”; my fuller discussion of the phrase in the Fourth Gospel, Keener, John, 214–23, 227.

[1496]. BDAG cites Hdt. 7.9; Polyb. 4.34.6; Jos. War 4.601.

[1497]. BDAG cites numerous texts; with ποιέω, as in Acts 23:13, cf. Polyb. 1.70.6; Diod. Sic. 3.57.5; Hdn. 7.4.3.

[1498]. E.g., Jos. Life 202; Ant. 20.163. In Rome, cf., e.g., the leaders’ foiled conspiracy against Gnaeus Pompeius (Cic. Sest. 32.69); cf. with Caligula (Jos. Ant. 19.132), Nero (e.g., Tac. Ann. 15.52–54; cf. false charges in Jos. Ant. 20.153), Parthian officials (Jos. Ant. 20.54), the intrigues of the Herodian court (e.g., War 1.472, 485, 523, 673) or of earlier high priests (e.g., Ant. 11.300). Pervo, Acts, 581n9, cites Philo Flacc. 20–24 for an ancient example of a plot and (588) Jos. Ant. 15.282–91; cf. also comment on Acts 20:3. Some might execute “justice” themselves to preempt a governor’s mercy (Caesar in Vell. Paterc. 2.42.3).

[1499]. E.g., Jos. Ant. 15.282; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.29.3.

[1500]. Cf. Chrys. Hom. Acts 49: “fasting the mother of murder!” (Pelikan, Acts, 261). For this as an example of false piety, see also Bede Comm. Acts 23.12 (L. Martin, 176; Martin, Acts, 280). Cf. perhaps the Pharisees in Luke 5:33, although this may not be negative (paired with John’s disciples).

[1501]. See Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 182–85; Kümmel, Promise, 31; Palmer, “Vow”; cf. Ziesler, “Vow.”

[1502]. E.g., m. ʾAb. 3:13; conjoined with mourning in Gen. Rab. 92:5; cf. Num 6:4; 30:2; 11QT LIII–LIV. It was crucial to specify the precise parameters of one’s vows (b. Pesaḥ. 2a, bar.).

[1503]. Polyb. 16.30.4–5 (their desperation is viewed as courage, 16.32.1); Appian Hist. rom. 6.6.33. One binds another through an oath by Artemis to cooperate (Xen. Eph. Anthia 3.5).

[1504]. E.g., Jos. Ant. 15.282 (with daggers under their cloaks); 20.77; cf. (in false accusations) Ant. 6.253; Ag. Ap. 1.261; 2.99.

[1505]. See, e.g., Versnel, “Votum.”

[1506]. E.g., Isoc. Demon. 13. Some oaths were considered morally helpful (e.g., Num. Rab. 15:16; Ruth Rab. 6:4), though some were harmful (e.g., Apoc. Mos. 19:2). A very early Jewish teacher allegedly made people accountable to God for vows merely offered in one’s heart (y. Sanh. 6:6, §2).

[1507]. E.g., Hesiod W.D. 190, 194. Nevertheless, even pagan deities sometimes broke them (Hom. Il. 15.36–44).

[1508]. E.g., Hom. Il. 1.273; 14.158; Soph. Oed. tyr. 646–48; Xen. Cyr. 4.6.10; Apul. Metam. 2.5; Exod 20:7. Oaths were sacred (Aul. Gel. 6.18), and deities would be thought to watch over them (e.g., Isis in the aretalogy in Grant, Religions, 132). One could swear by deities precisely because one expected them to see and hear everything (Xen. Cyr. 5.4.31; Iambl. V.P. 28.155; cf. Keener, John, 531–32).

[1509]. Oaths involved self-curses, whether explicit or implicit; see Hahn, “Prayers,” 242.

[1510]. A false oath by God’s name profaned it, inviting God’s punishment (e.g., Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11; Sipra Qed. par. 2.199.1.6); so also with other deities (Plut. Lys. 8.4). Although some Jewish people directly invoked God in oaths (e.g., 1 En. 98:6; Jub. 36:7), some warned against using God’s name lest one profane God’s name if one breaks the oath (Philo Spec. Laws 2.4–5; cf. 1 En. 69:13–16; Pesiq. Rab. 22:6); Jewish teachers had to arbitrate which oaths were binding as allusions to God’s name (m. Šebu. 4.13; cf. CD XV, 1–5; Smith, Parallels, 136). The further removed the oath was from explicitly invoking God’s name, the less danger swearers faced for violating it (Schiffman, Law, 137–38; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 53–54); even some Gentiles swore by lesser objects (e.g., Lucian Phil. Sale 16; Athen. Deipn. 9.370BC; cf. Welborn, Politics, 169–72). Some later teachers had to insist that all roundabout substitutes for vows were equivalent to vows (m. Ned. 1:1; Naz. 1:1). See further Keener, Matthew, 192–95.

[1511]. Cf. Mikalson, “Oaths.”

[1512]. E.g., Hom. Il. 3.276–80; Eurip. Med. 752–55; Aeschines Tim. 114–15; Demosth. Timocr. 151; Polyb. 3.25.7–9; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.89.4; 7.43.1; Livy 10.38.10; 21.10.9; Corn. Nep. 17 (Agesilaus), 2.5; an inscription of 3 B.C.E. (IGRR 3.137; OGIS 532; ILS 8781; in Sherk, Empire, 31, §15); Alciph. Fish. 13 (Evagrus to Philotherus) 3.3, ¶4; Babr. 50.17; Paus. 2.2.1; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.3; cf. further Ferguson, Backgrounds, 117, 184; Mbiti, Religions, 277. Cf. the “exactors of justice,” some goddesses by whom some people swore (Rose, “Praxidikai”); “Oath” punished violators (Hesiod Theog. 231); or Zeus was the “guardian of oaths” (Lucian Tim. 1). Nevertheless, people did swear false oaths (Aeschines Tim. 114–15; Dio Chrys. Or. 74.14–15; Lucian Phal. 1.1; Max. Tyre 36.2; 1 Macc 7:18; more positively, Ach. Tat. 5.21.5–7), e.g., concerning their innocence (Jos. Life 101); a corrupt society believed the rich and rejected the oaths of the poor (Juv. Sat. 3.140–46). Some ancients noted that deities often did not avenge false oaths (Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.21), an observation useful to skeptics (Lucian Tim. 2–3).

[1513]. E.g., 1 En. 6:4–6 (two hundred fallen angels); y. Giṭ. 4:3, §1; Lam. Rab. 1:16, §48; cf. Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11; further Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 51. Later Jewish legal experts also demanded punishment of those who swore oaths that they could not keep (y. Sukkah 5:2, §1). The tractate b. Šebuʿot (containing rules on oaths) consumes some 300 pages in the standard Soncino translation; b. Nazir, on Nazirite vows, is some 250 pages; most relevant, b. Nedarim, on vows, is also substantial.

[1514]. E.g., t. Ḥag. 3:33; Šabb. 13:5; Sipra V. D. Deho. par. 4.7.3.2; b. Šabb. 16b–17a; 116a; y. Yoma 1:1. One could offer such oaths lightly, as in “May I die if . . .” (Cic. Fam. 8.15.2; 15.19.4; cf. 1 Cor 9:15).

[1515]. E.g., b. B. Meṣiʿa 85a. The Roman Regulus, always swearing by his son (e.g., Pliny Ep. 2.20.5–6), had to bury his, too (4.7.2).

[1516]. E.g., MAMA 7:xxxv–xxxvi; 1.25, 126, 294, 425, 437; Tac. Ann. 2.69; Test. Jud. 11:3–5; b. Taʿan. 23b (and other texts at Acts 3:6); Graf, “Curse” (sometimes used against competition, 1019); Klauck, Context, 223–26; Harder, “Defixio,” 175; Jordan, “New Curse Tablets”; Haensch, “Inscriptions,” 185–86; in Qumran texts, see, e.g., Fraade, “Rhetoric.” Curses even reinforced ancient laws (Assmann, “Justice”) but were often used against rivals (Winter, Left Corinth, 165). In traditional African society, see, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 204, 257–58, 276.

[1517]. Fronto Ep. graec. 1.5; 5.4; 8. One finds this invocation repeatedly, e.g., in Dio Chrysostom (Or. 4.44, 109; 17.20–21; 28.11; 31.22, 32, 81; 32.47, 48, 67, 77, 95; 33.30, 35, 39, 45; 34.9), including some occasional references to others’ speech (7.48; 9.16; 31.12, 41, 43, 45, 57, 59, 99, 139; 32.51; 34.16); also elsewhere, e.g., Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b10, pp. 24–25.11; 2.7.7a, pp. 44–45.12; 2.7.11f, pp. 70–71.17; as an emphatic claim in Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 42.2, 11; 4, p. 44.29; p. 48.13; 9, p. 72.23; p. 74.17; p. 76.8; 10, p. 76.25; 12, p. 86.14, 20; 15, p. 96.17–18; p. 98.17–18; 16, p. 102.14; p. 106.2; 20, p. 124.8, 17; 21, p. 128.21, 36; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 247, §§75D–76D; 297, §95D; 345, §115D; 352, §117D; 380, §127D. It appears even in Josephus (e.g., Ag. Ap. 1.255; probably 2.263).

[1518]. Fronto Ep. graec. 2.1. More fully, Fronto calls “the gods” to witness in Ad Ant. Pium 7. Cf. an affirmation of truth in Mus. Ruf. 2, p. 38.17; swearing by “the gods” in Dio Chrys. Or. 31.32; 33.33; an oath “by all the gods” was particularly emphatic (47.14).

[1519]. Fronto Ad Ant. Pium 2; 4; Ad M. Caes. 4.3.5; 5.59; Ad verum imp. 2.1.5. This invocation appears elsewhere (e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 28.2.4; 28.16.58).

[1520]. E.g., Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11 (Artemis and the sea); 3.5 (Artemis); Dio Chrys. Or. 33.45 (listing several).

[1521]. Zeus instituted this oath to honor this river, his ally (Apollod. Bib. 1.2.5); the gods themselves swore by it (Lycophron Alex. 706–7). For ancient Near Eastern analogues, see Gordon, Civilizations, 257.

[1522]. CIL 2.1963 (Sherk, Empire, 138–40, §97); Suet. Claud. 11.2; Apul. Metam. 9.42; CPJ 2:213–14, §427.

[1523]. Malina and Rohrbaugh, Gospels, 55. Cf. merchants exploiting others by false oaths (Libanius Comparison 4.7).

[1524]. See, e.g., Rhet. Alex. 7, 1428a.19–23; Schiemann, “Ius iurandum”; earlier, e.g., Exod 22:11; Hamm. 20, 23, 131; Eshn. 37; de Vaux, Israel, 157. For especially strong curses to deter perjurers, see discussion in Faraone, “Curses.”

[1525]. Polyb. 3.25.6–9; 7.9.2–3; cf. Xen. Cyr. 4.6.10; with heavy curses, Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.43.1. Thus the gods would punish with defeat a nation that broke its treaties (Livy 21.10.9; also in contests, Xen. Anab. 3.1.22).

[1526]. Ovid Pont. 3.3.68. Cf. YHWH swearing by himself (Heb 6:13); the rabbis told, perhaps facetiously, of a rabbi refusing to release God from a lesser vow (b. B. Bat. 74a).

[1527]. See Hunter, Predecessors, 46; Laws, James, 222–23; Davids, James, 189–90; Blank, “Schwört”; Ito, “Authenticity”; cf. discussion on the priority of forms in Ropes, James, 301; Dibelius, James, 250–51; Sidebottom, James, 60. Aspects of Matthew’s version of the saying are more Semitic than the form in Jas 5:12 (Laws, James, 222–23; Davids, James, 190), but James’s version is simpler (McKnight, James, 426), and some elements in James’s wording may be more original (Ropes, James, 301).

[1528]. Some other sages warned against casual oaths (Sir 23:9–13; cf. Ropes, James, 302), though there was disagreement among them (Sipre Deut. 265.1.1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 26 A; 32, §72 B) and nearly everyone accepted oath taking as valid (though limited in its application, e.g., Jos. Ant. 15.370; 17.42; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 53). Guelich, Sermon on Mount, 214, notes a difference but (in view of Jesus’s frequent use of hyperbole) may overemphasize it.

[1529]. Iambl. V.P. 9.47; 28.144, 150 (though they allowed swearing by implying—not naming—Pythagoras [also 29.162]; true oaths were better than false, 28.155); Diog. Laert. 8.1.22; cf. Diod. Sic. 10.9.2; if swearing, one must do so truthfully (Iambl. V.P. 28.144, 155). Priests of Jupiter also had to avoid oaths during their term of office (Livy 31.49.7). Kollmann, “Schwurverbot,” notes parallels but thinks Jesus’s motivation (e.g., eschatology) different.

[1530]. Because oath taking in a deity’s name was so serious, some discouraged it except under extreme circumstances (Isoc. Demon. 23; Sen. E. rhetorical frg. 2); if one consistently told the truth, hearers would value one’s word more highly than other people’s oaths (Isoc. Nic. 22; Cic. Balb. 5.12). Cf. further Ropes, James, 302.

[1531]. Jos. War 2.135; Ant. 15.370–71; Hippol. Ref. 9.17.

[1532]. Jos. War 2.139–42; Hippol. Ref. 9.19; cf. 1QS V, 8; Black, Scrolls, 94, 120; LaSor, Scrolls, 119. The Scrolls themselves indicate that some Essenes continued to take some kinds of oaths (Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 53; McNamara, Judaism, 197). Other groups were also joined by oaths (e.g., Jos. Ant. 15.282; Mysteries in Angus, Mystery-Religions, 78–79; Klauck, Context, 116–17; in other societies, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 276); Martin, James, lxix, 199–200, relates Jas 5:12 to Zealot initiatory oaths, which might have some relevance here. Emperors (IGRR 3.137; OGIS 532 in Sherk, Empire, 31, §15; CIL 2.172 in Sherk, Empire, 78, §41; Jos. Ant. 18.124; 19.247; Epict. Diatr. 1.14.15; Pliny Ep. 10.52; Judge, Pattern, 34; Robinson, Criminal Law, 77; Rabello, “Condition,” 704; Harris, “Oaths”), rulers such as Herod (Jos. Ant. 15.370), and the military (Livy 6.38.8; 10.4.3; cf. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 39–40) also demanded oaths of loyalty; the temple guards allegedly swore oaths to protect the temple (Let. Aris. 103–4).

[1533]. Josephus claims that an Essene’s word was more reliable than an oath (War 2.135); Philo claims that their abstention from oaths declared their commitment to truth (Good Person 84; also Vermes, Religion, 35). Philo himself affirmed that although keeping oaths was good, not swearing because one’s word was as good as an oath was even better (Decal. 84–85); an honorable person’s word should be as truthful as any oath (Spec. Laws 2.2; so God’s word, Sacr. 93; cf. Philo with the rabbis and Roman law in Belkin, Philo, 140–78).

[1534]. Grant, Religions, 45, observes that the line between an oath’s “self-imprecation” and a magical curse against another is thin. See now esp. Park, Herem, 116, with respect to voluntary herem in Lev 27:28–29.

[1535]. E.g., Num 21:2–3; Deut 13:15; 20:17; Josh 6:17, 21; Judg 1:17; 1 Sam 15:3; 1 Macc 5:5.

[1536]. Horbury compares here the later Birkat Haminim (Horbury, “Benediction,” 39); the use of ἀνάθεμα clearly predates the Greek-speaking church (cf. Nock, “Vocabulary,” 135), and this term translates herem in the LXX (Lightfoot, Galatians, 77; Garnet, “Light,” 25). For the form “Let them be accursed,” see also, e.g., Deut 27:15–26; Deissmann, Light, 303; for “Let their name be blotted out,” e.g., Gen. Rab. 65:2; “Let his bones crumble,” Pesiq. Rab. 21:2/3.

[1537]. On the form of these, see Wiles, Prayers, 119–20. On “cursing” and “accursed” in Pauline theology, see, e.g., Fung, “Curse.”

[1538]. Dunn, Acts, 307.

[1539]. Sometimes a Gentile would devote his enemies to death, or himself to death provided he could slay his enemies; this was a sort of vow and curse (see Versnel, “Devotio 1”; idem, “Devotio,” 327–28).

[1540]. Barrett, Acts, 1072, thinks that the synagogue ban is here in view.

[1541]. So ibid. Cf., e.g., Jephthah’s vow in Judg 11:30–35.

[1542]. Various commentators cite m. Ned. 3:1–3 (e.g., Bruce, Acts¹, 413; Arrington, Acts, 230; Larkin, Acts, 331; Witherington, Acts, 694). Later rabbis expected rabbis to absolve people from vows (cf., e.g., b. B. Bat. 74a; y. Giṭ. 4:7, §2); they had acquired the role of cancelling bad vows (e.g., t. Pisha 2:16), extending an OT privilege accorded male guardians of women (Num 30:3–15; though later rabbis did not extend the privilege to the husband’s agent, b. Naz. 12b). Romans also recognized means to absolve from oaths (Suet. Tib. 35.1).

[1543]. But even in this case, they would have a disadvantage. Armies that breakfasted performed better than those unable to do so (Xen. Hell. 4.5.3; Anab. 5.4.22, 30; 6.5.21; Polyb. 3.71.11–3.72.6; cf. also Xen. Anab. 4.3.9–10; Cyr. 1.2.11).

[1544]. Paul might have relatively few guards close to him, especially if the tribune considered him innocent; for transport through the temple court, he would not likely have a full century with him, and the guards would be forced to march in a fairly narrow column or columns, making them vulnerable to an abrupt attack from their (left) side. For the lethal effectiveness of unexpected suicide attacks, one need only consider many terrorist strikes today.

[1545]. Lucian Ship 28.

[1546]. Cf. 1 Sam 22:2; Jos. Life 105, 145; War 1.204, 311; Xen. Eph. Anthia 4.1; 5.2–3.

[1547]. E.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.88.3 (an assassination plot); Sen. Y. Troj. 250–51; Jos. Life 170; Ant. 16.69; 19.300; see discussion at Acts 7:58.

[1548]. E.g., Jos. War 2.409, 566; cf. Ant. 20.199. The pattern may cross cultures; in a situation with which I have some familiarity, during the past two decades in Nigeria’s Middle Belt, some Christian youth wanted to retaliate for continued jihadist attacks even while elders continued counseling patience.

[1549]. See discussion at Acts 1:8.

[1550]. Josephus also reveals some resistance among the younger elite in this period (e.g., War 2.426; cf. Ant. 20.199).

[1551]. I have many anecdotal reports from friends in numerous countries on multiple continents; Amnesty International has amassed thousands (note also Gary Haugen’s work with International Justice Mission). For one modern example of repression generating a religiously based resistance movement, see Horsley, Religion and Empire, 47–73 (which he parallels more generally to Judean resistance, 74–92).

[1552]. With also Witherington, Acts, 719. Le Cornu, Acts, 1262, suggests that perhaps the assassins wanted to “set the Sanhedrin up as ‘fall guys.’ ” But since the Sanhedrin would not itself participate in the murder, it would not be legally liable under Jewish (Le Cornu, Acts, 1262–63) law; similarly, Roman law did not regard exhortation to a crime (except treason) as liable for the crime, but other forms of complicity existed (Robinson, Criminal Law, 19–20). It appears that perpetrators might secure the tacit approval and cooperation of the elite, but it was understood that the elite should normally not propose such actions (Acts 9:1; cf. 26:10) and hence bear some responsibility for them.

[1553]. Cf. 1QpHab VIII, 8; IX, 4, 9; XI, 4; XII, 2, 8; 4Q171 IV, 8; Jos. Life 216; Test. Mos. 5:4; 2 Bar. 10:18; Test. Levi 15:1. Notably, Josephus experienced their corruption in his own day, during the period of Agrippa II (59–65 C.E.; cf. Sanders, Figure, 324), the period depicted here; e.g., Ananias’s servants beat poorer priests to seize their tithes (Jos. Ant. 20.181, 206). Corrupt priesthoods were common targets of polemic in the ancient Near East through the first century (Crocker, “Corrupt Priests”). I discuss these issues in somewhat more detail in Keener, Matthew, 613.

[1554]. Cf. Jos. War 4.347; 6.114. Josephus wants to play down the complicity of the “best” class, at one point denying the involvement of the Perean Jewish elite (Ant. 20.2) even though he immediately afterward admits that Fadus punished three of their elite because they had helped to author the disorder (20.4). Josephus favored the elite against the revolutionaries (e.g., Pastor, “Strata”).

[1555]. Goodblatt, “Priestly Ideologies,” suggests that some of the ideology for resistance emanated from priestly circles.

[1556]. That Josephus believes that Felix arranged this through a Jewish aristocrat suggests that Felix believed that some Jewish aristocrats had better access to and communication with the brigands than Josephus sometimes likes to admit.

[1557]. A former prisoner of the revolutionaries (Jos. Ant. 20.208–9), he may be an ancient example of the curious phenomenon of prisoners sometimes identifying with their captors. The aristocratic priestly resistance and that of Josephus’s “brigands” were not, however, generally on good terms (e.g., War 4.147–48, 160; 5.16).

[1558]. Jos. Ant. 20.255, on Gessius Florus, who allegedly protected them for gain. This may be “urban legend,” a conspiracy theory, useful for Josephus, implicating Rome in a manner that helped exonerate ordinary Judeans. Nevertheless, papyri suggest collusion at times between Egyptian bandits and the establishment there (McGing, “Bandits”).

[1559]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 723. Terms for “precision” can fit legal or other public settings (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 40.20).

[1560]. Jewish (Tob 7:10–11; 1 Macc 7:18; 1QS X, 22; Let. Aris. 206, 252; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.79; Ps.-Phoc. 7; Sib. Or. 3.38, 498–503; Test. Dan 3:6; 5:1–2; Eph 4:25) and Gentile (Plut. Educ. 14, Mor. 11C; frg. 87; Diog. Laert. 1.60; Phaedrus 4.13; Corn. Nep. 25 [Atticus], 15.1; cf. Diog. Laert. 7.1.110) authors condemned it, though some exceptional circumstances justified it (Xen. Mem. 4.2.14–15; Sen. E. Controv. 10.6.2; Quint. Inst. 2.17.27; 12.1.38–39; Exod 1:19; 1 Sam 16:2–3; 21:2, 5, 8, 13; 2 Sam 12:1–7; 17:14; 1 Kgs 20:39–41; 22:22; 2 Kgs 8:10; 2 Chr 18:22; Jer 38:27; Test. Jos. 11:2; 13:7–9; 15:3; 17:1). In the epic period, deception for useful purposes could indicate cleverness (Hom. Od. 19.164–203, esp. 203; Gen 27:19, 24; 30:31–43), though Odysseus’s cleverness (e.g., Soph. Philoc. 54–55, 107–9, called “wisdom” in 119, 431) appeared unscrupulous to some (Soph. Philoc. 1228).

[1561]. See discussion in Keener, John, 912–13.

[1562]. See, e.g., Jos. Ant. 20.163; Life 106–7, 148, 216; War 2.450–54, 534; 5.100, 402. Felix was no better (Ant. 20.161).

[1563]. Thus no one need suspect any wrongdoing on their part apart from the “inside” report that assassins invited their participation in this way; in fact, the leaders never have the opportunity in the narrative to show whether they would have agreed to the request, until Acts 25:2–3.

[1564]. As noted on Acts 22:30; 23:10; see fuller comment there and Finegan, Archeology of New Testament, 109; McRay, Archaeology, 110; Jerusalem map B, BrillPauly 6:1171. If Netzer, “Reconstruction,” 47 (argued on 48–51), is correct in his argument that the Antonia extended further south than some think, the distance would be fairly short.

[1565]. When a prisoner was not viewed as a threat, guards might maintain greater distance from the prisoner (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.31).

[1566]. Cf. War 5.317. Josephus prepares ambushes in Life 321, 400–401; his enemies do so in 405–6; cf. the chief biblical model in Ant. 5.45–46, 160–61, 172 (cf. also 5.242–47, 304, 309; 6.135; 7.128; 9.51–52); others in Ant. 13.11, 20, 94, 159–60, 227, 375; 14.399, 409, 441–42, 472; War 1.53, 90, 252, 256, 258, 287, 294, 300, 349; 5.446; 6.366. Cf. also Dan and Gad preparing an ambush in Jos. Asen. 24:19/16–17.

[1567]. In addition to the immediate context, contrast Luke 6:11 with Mark 3:6, and note Luke 13:31.

[1568]. Although novels also used family members or slaves to communicate messages (Johnson, Acts, 404, cites Xen. Eph. Anthia 2.3.2–8; Char. Chaer. 3.1.1–3), fiction simply imitated reality (cf., e.g., slaves in Cic. Fam. 9.15.1). Assuming an argument from extratextual silence, Pervo, Acts, 582, denigrates the nephew as a “deus ex machina,” a designation normally reserved for obviously supernatural intervention (when a plot can do no better); by this reasoning, any human aid unattested elsewhere might be so designated!

[1569]. So Knowling, “Acts,” 471. Alternatively, he could have come for the festival (Arrington, Acts, 231); though this might make their connecting in Jerusalem more difficult, the nephew could have learned of Paul’s detention from being present at the riot or from the same source that revealed the plot.

[1570]. Van Unnik, Tarsus, 51; Conzelmann, Acts, 194. The argument that he would have had no one else to stay with, however (cf. Dunn, Acts, 307), probably underestimates ancient Jewish hospitality (though finding lodging for Gentile delegates in homes would have been more difficult).

[1571]. Not themselves parents of Paul’s nephew, because he is young and they were in Rome before Paul started this journey. If they were literally imprisoned “with” him (Rom 16:7; cf. the term in Phlm 23; Col 4:10), we cannot specify when: perhaps grabbed by crowds in Ephesus (Acts 19:29), dragged before Gallio in Corinth (18:12), endangered along with Aquila and Prisca (Rom 16:3–4), or in Paul’s early period not much discussed in Acts (earlier imprisonments in 2 Cor 11:23). But if they were simply imprisoned “like” him yet were believers before him (hence likely in Jerusalem), Paul may have aided in their detention (Acts 8:3; Gal 1:23).

[1572]. Cf. Mark 6:4; Luke 1:58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Acts 10:24; John 18:26; Tob 6:11; 2 Macc 5:6; 8:1; 12:39; 15:18; BDAG; perhaps Jos. Life 177; Ant. 8.249. Closer, see Lev 18:14; 20:20; 2 Sam 3:39; an honorary usage in 1 Esd 3:7; 4:42; 1 Macc 10:89; perhaps 3 Macc 5:44.

[1573]. If we accept Luke’s testimony about Prisca and Aquila and Timothy, however, they are Jewish or at least partly Jewish (Acts 16:1; 18:2), yet they lack Paul’s label “kin” in Rom 16:3–5; Paul does not explicitly label all Jewish people in Rom 16 “kin.” Those whom he does so label all have Greek or Latin names (consonant with Hellenists and Roman citizens), so we cannot rule out the Jewishness of others who lack exclusively Jewish names in his greetings. Paul might well have evangelized among his own relatives first and sought early support among any who were already believers. Still, Paul was as capable of varying his vocabulary as anyone else, so while it seems likely that if we have any named relatives of Paul, his “kin” in this chapter are among them, it is simply likelier that we do not have any of his named relatives. Whether Andronicus and Junia were relatives or not, they were converted before him (Rom 16:7) and hence lived in Judea or Galilee; their Greek and Roman names suggest that they were Hellenists and hence belonged to the Jerusalem church rather than being Galileans. Junia may be a Roman citizen; one would not expect most Jerusalemites to adopt a Roman name without good reason (especially based on the name of a goddess, though such divine names are common in the Diaspora). Judge, Rank, 36n18, suggests that as a Latin nomen, rather than a praenomen, “Junia” should indicate Roman citizenship. Bauckham, Women, 185–86, who identifies her with Luke’s Joanna, suggests that she could have received this name from being part of the Herodian aristocracy in Tiberias. But she could also be of freed descent and have belonged to the same synagogue as Saul in Acts 6:9. Given the relatively small number of Jewish Hellenists who were also Roman citizens, there is a reasonable possibility (though not a probability) that she was a relative of Paul’s. Such a suggestion would, however, remain at best a guess, as a number of Jewish slaves freed in Rome, hence becoming Roman citizens, must have returned to Jerusalem as an ancestral homeland—enough to constitute the foundation of at least one significant synagogue (see comment on Acts 6:9). As “apostles,” Andronicus and Junia might have founded the Roman church; perhaps they were expelled with Prisca and Aquila (Acts 18:2) and like them later returned. Again, we can offer only guesses.

[1574]. In the case of uncles and nephews, cf., e.g., Gen 14:14–16; Lev 25:49; 1 Sam 14:50; 1 Chr 27:32; Tob 1:22; 11:18.

[1575]. Cf. further deSilva, Honor, 168 (noting Tob 5:8–14); Malina and Pilch, Acts, 161. Although Romans punished those who harbored bandits, they did not punish as severely those who had harbored relatives, recognizing the demands of kin ties (Robinson, Criminal Law, 28).

[1576]. E.g., Isaeus Dicaeog. 30; Demosth. Steph. 1.53.

[1577]. Lam. Rab. 1:5, §31. It is hard to say how much of the story is true; parts of the story line seem borrowed from Josephus.

[1578]. E.g., Aeschines Tim. 193–95.

[1579]. Likewise, many emphasized friendships over kin ties (Val. Max. 4.7.pref.; Prov 18:24; 27:10; cf. 1 Sam 19:4); philosophers stressed the priority of philosophy over kin ties (e.g., Diog. Laert. 7.1.33; cf. Luke 14:26; 18:29).

[1580]. This offense may resemble mingling with outsiders in line 6.

[1581]. Cf. the discussion of relatives in MacDowell, “Ankhisteia.” Romans, however, viewed as odd some German tribes’ closer ties with nephews than with sons (Tac. Germ. 20).

[1582]. Pliny the Younger’s own uncle adopted him (Ep. 5.8.5; cf. 6.16.4).

[1583]. Josephus focuses on the next generation, in which Gamaliel’s son Simon was prominent (Life 190, 309; War 4.159).

[1584]. Artapanus (third to second century B.C.E.) recounts a plot against Moses, thwarted when a conspirator warned Moses (Euseb. P.E. 9.27.16).

[1585]. The Zealots who betrayed the oath of safety they had offered to the Roman garrison in the Antonia (Jos. War 2.450–56) may have followed the same principle (for parallels to such treachery, Diod. Sic. 30.4.1; Livy 21.10.9; Appian Hist. rom. 6.8.43; 6.9.52; 6.10.60; Corn. Nep. 1 [Miltiades], 4.1). Others opined that oaths were so binding that even pirates respected them (Sen. E. Controv. 1.6.12).

[1586]. Thus, e.g., slave revolts were sometimes foiled through slaves sympathetic to slaveholders (Livy 4.45.2; 32.26.9, 14; in more recent times, e.g., Wilmore, Religion, 55, 61); or more positively, in local hostilities elsewhere, a person might escape through the warning of a sympathetic neighbor tied to the opposition (Boer, Decades of Blood, 85–86), or a preacher might escape a plot through another’s inside knowledge of it (Sung, Diaries, 53; Numbere, Vision, 201; Lynch-Watson, Robe, 41; one overhearing, Trousdale, Movements, 174; cf. Esth 2:22).

[1587]. E.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.88.2–3; Tac. Hist. 2.24 (one commander’s plan was leaked to enemy generals); Suet. Aug. 10.3 (Octavian’s plot to assassinate Marc Antony). Earlier, cf., e.g., Neh 4:12.

[1588]. This Jesus/Joshua belonged to the aristocratic priestly family (Life 193; esp. War 4.160).

[1589]. Various commentators (Conzelmann, Acts, 194; Marshall, Acts, 368; esp. Johnson, Acts, 404) cite Lucian Peregr. 12–13; Paul Thec. 18–19; Acts of Andrew 14; Pass. Perp. 3. Female relatives were apparently common (Lysias Or. 13.39–40, §133).

[1590]. If Paul’s sister married another Roman citizen, presumably from the “synagogue of freedpersons” to which Paul had belonged (Acts 6:9; cf. 7:58).

[1591]. See Rapske, Custody, 381–83 (noting that bribery was part of the cost assumed for helping prisoners in Apost. Const. 5.1.1).

[1592]. Witherington, Acts, 695; cf. also Fitzmyer, Acts, 723 (not “maximum security” or even an ordinary prisoner). Although prison guards were also expected to stay awake (see comment on Acts 16:27), sentries in the Antonia would certainly be active; but it is probably not yet night (Acts 23:23).

[1593]. See, e.g., Mare, Archaeology, 160–61; Netzer, “Reconstruction.” Soldiers played games there (e.g., Mare, Archaeology, 163; Finegan, Archeology of New Testament, 161). Cf. also the palatial residence in Acts 23:35, although Luke does not draw a connection by identifying the barracks here as a palace.

[1594]. Rapske, Custody, 382.

[1595]. Ibid., 148.

[1596]. Ibid., 265.

[1597]. See Stevenson, “Army,” 226. On centurions, see further discussion at Acts 10:1.

[1598]. Rapske, Custody, 381–82.

[1599]. Cf. Keener, John, 536, and sources there.

[1600]. Presumably this is about 9:00 p.m. (NRSV); if Pentecost has just ended, the time might be a bit later.

[1601]. Rapske, Custody, 148–49 (noting the diminutive in Acts 23:18, 22 and the tribune taking him by the hand, 23:19); Le Cornu, Acts, 1266. But diminutives, including this one (see BDAG), often carry little force in Koine.

[1602]. As well documented for numerous countries in publications by Amnesty International and others (the Lord’s Resistance Army in northern Uganda being one prominent recent example [cf., e.g., McDonnell and Akallo, Girl Soldier]; in Myanmar, cf. Falise and Loviny, “Soldiers”; likewise, my wife witnessed this phenomenon during her time as a refugee in Congo).

[1603]. Although children could perform significant cultic roles (Mantle, “Roles,” on third- and fourth-century C.E. Rome), children below seven lacked legal liability; until puberty, the burden of proof favored them, but not absolutely (Robinson, Criminal Law, 16); others below twenty-five “might perhaps also get some benefit from their lack of full age,” but it was limited (17). If we ignore the force of the diminutive, however, the young man may be twenty-five or older. Children could not legally testify (e.g., t. Sanh. 9.11; Justin. Inst. 2.10.6; Schiemann, “Intestabilis,” 875), but a young man would be more credible.

[1604]. Larkin, Acts, 332, notes that the period applies to ages twenty-two to twenty-eight (at least in the scheme in Philo Creation 105), though he thinks that the taking by the hand (Acts 23:19) points to an age earlier in that range.

[1605]. Dunn, Acts, 307.

[1606]. Tacitus also remarks that Felix “practised every kind of cruelty” (Hist. 5.9 [LCL, 2:191]).

[1607]. Paul might have risked the information with the tribune, in any case, lacking better options, but risking his nephew’s safety would be a different matter.

[1608]. Love of honor often positively motivated noble behavior (Xen. Hiero 7.3; Philost. Hrk. 23.23; 45.8), though others urged avoidance of it (e.g., Diogenes Ep. 4; Socrates Ep. 6; Diog. Laert. 6.1.8). Lysias may underestimate the antipathy of locals for referring matters to Felix (cf. the variant in Acts 24:7), but he could probably safely expect Felix to privately ignore the inappropriate complaint.

[1609]. Polite requests were sometimes implicit (e.g., John 1:38; 2:3; see discussion in Keener, John, 470–71, 503).

[1610]. For reciprocity expectations, see, e.g., Pliny Ep. 6.6.3; Statius Silvae 4.9; Libanius Anecdote 1.20; Symm. Ep. 1.104; Herman, “Gift”; Highet, “Reciprocity”; Harrison, Grace, 1, 15, 50–53, 196, 348, esp. here 40–43; cf. Eurip. Hypsipyle frg. 759a.63/1584. For examples of gratitude for benefaction, Xen. Cyr. 6.4.7; Sir 3:31; for promises that a recipient of benefaction will be grateful, see recommendations in Cic. Fam. 13.22.2; 13.25.1; 13.26.4; Pliny Ep. 3.2.6; 4.13.10. For one nuanced comparison of Paul and Seneca on reciprocating benefaction, see Blanton, “Account-book” (noting differences on, e.g., 404, 408).

[1611]. See generally Rhet. Alex. 36, 1442a.11–12; Val. Max. 5.2; in return for benefaction in, e.g., Sen. E. Controv. 9.1.intro.; 9.1.9; Pliny Ep. 2.13.9; 7.15.3; 7.31.7; Fronto Ad Ant. Pium 9.1; Hermog. Method 7.421; cf. Pliny Ep. 2.5.19; 5.2.1–2; Fronto Ad verum imp. 1.5. DeSilva, Honor, 109–10, notes that it was a duty (Cic. Off. 1.47–48) and a form of justice second only to religious piety (Dio Chrys. Or. 31.7). For gratitude toward deities, see, e.g., Ael. Arist. Panath. 21, 161D–162D; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 437.7–9; Diog. Laert. 8.1.24; toward nature, Porph. Marc. 35.534–35.

[1612]. DeSilva, Honor, 109, notes Sen. Y. Ben. 1.4.3; 2.35.3–4; 5.11.5; Arist. N.E. 8.14.3, 1163b 12–15; see also, e.g., Eurip. Hypsipyle frg. 759a.63 (1584); Peliades frg. 608; Libanius Comparison 2.9.

[1613]. Xen. Mem. 2.2.2–3; Cyr. 1.2.6–7; Rhet. Alex. 36, 1442a.13–14; Polyb. 6.6.6; Cic. Att. 8.4; Val. Max. 2.6.6; 2.6.7a; 5.3; Vell. Paterc. 2.57.1; 2.62.5; 2.69.1; Quint. Decl. 333 intro. (actionable); 368 intro. (a legal charge); 372.1; 376.6; Sen. Y. Ben. 1.10.4; Ep. Lucil. 81.1, 28; Heracl. Hom. Prob. 4.4; Pliny Ep. 8.18.3; Suet. Claud. 25.1; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11k, pp. 80–81.21–25; Lucian Fisherman 5; Tim. 35; Iamblichus Letter 15 (Stob. Anth. 2.46.16); Jos. Ant. 19.361; 2 Tim 3:2; Buckland, Roman Law, 88, 130; Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 148. DeSilva, Honor, 110, notes that it was sacrilege against the Graces (citing Sen. Y. Ben. 1.4.4; Dio Chrys. Or. 31.37).

[1614]. The exception would be if Paul was not an honorable person; but Lysias has been treating Paul as honorable since Acts 22:30, and Paul’s implicit request for help shows that he understands the social rules. If Lysias is a Greek, Paul’s further ability to communicate in good Greek idiom (21:37) and culture, given his many years in Achaia and Ephesus, could not have hurt their relationship.

[1615]. Stoics emphasized not being disturbed by news (Epict. Diatr. 3.18.1–9; 3.24.25–26); Luke elsewhere presents Paul as a sage but is not specific here.

[1616]. Although one could regard an informant as a biased source of secondhand information, Lysias takes the information seriously, since preempting the next day’s invitation is why he sends Paul out by night.

[1617]. If, as I have argued, Luke writes after Jerusalem’s destruction, no one can be harmed by Luke recounting the story. Although omission of the name at an earlier date (or perhaps even later under some circumstances) could be protective anonymity, Luke may well have simply forgotten the youth’s name—if he ever knew it.

[1618]. Even today discovery of injustices that are suppressed from public knowledge can generate indignation when one expected otherwise (I report my own experience in Keener, “Mayhem”). In cases that I have observed, the indignation seems somewhat less among those who expect such behavior.

[1619]. Rapske, Custody, 265–66; followed also by Schnabel, Acts, 934.

[1620]. For keeping a secret from a centurion guard, see Jos. Ant. 18.231.

[1621]. A person of status might even be personally watched over by a centurion (Tac. Ann. 11.37; cf. 2.67; 13.9), perhaps chained to him (Jos. Ant. 18.202–3; Rapske, Custody, 31), and they might even become friends (Jos. Ant. 18.230–31). A centurion could also be dispatched to notify one that he would be executed (Tac. Ann. 15.61) or to perform an execution (Ann. 14.59); centurions could be mentioned in addition to other soldiers guarding a high-status prisoner (14.64). On centurions being assigned special duties, see, e.g., Campbell, Army, 47. For “Paul the prisoner,” cf. Eph 3:1; Phlm 1, 9.

[1622]. See Witherington, Acts, 696. Contrast Johnson, Acts, 404, who remarks that Paul’s status has grown, since “he ‘summons’ the centurion and sends him on an errand!” One doubts that this growth in status would strike Luke or his first audience so oddly, though they might revel in its irony.

[1623]. Greeks, which Lysias is by birth, also had high respect for the beauty of youth (Xen. Mem. 1.3.8–12; Dio Chrys. Or. 21; 36.8; Lucian Ship 2, 22; Peregr. 9; Alex. 5–6, 41; Phil. Sale 15, 17; Max. Tyre 19.4; 20.9; Philost. Hrk. 26.4, 10; Ep. Apoll. 10 [50]; 58 [61]; Ovid Metam. 3.351–52; Val. Max. 4.3.ext. 1; Quint. Curt. 6.5.23; Quint. Decl. 292; cf. also Vell. Paterc. 2.7.2; 2.97.3). But while this might be one conceivable motivation for Lysias’s gentleness, it offers Luke little incentive to report it. The left hand had negative connotations in the East (1QS VII, 15; 4Q266 10 II, 13–14; 4Q270 7 I, 5; Gaster, Scriptures, 106n64); for preferring the right, see, e.g., Plut. Rom. Q. 78, Mor. 282E; Eccl 10:2; Test. Ab. 12:10 A; Court, “Right”; Lachs, Commentary, 394; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:424 (citing Plato Rep. 10.614C; Virg. Aen. 6.540–43).

[1624]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.27 (elsewhere, the Persian king holds out his hand to have the sage brought in, 1.29; cf. Esth 5:2; 8:4).

[1625]. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.2.1.

[1626]. Plut. Coriol. 23.5; Jos. Life 370.

[1627]. Quint. Curt. 3.12.17. It communicated assurance of mercy in 6.7.35 (the revocation of which is protested in 6.10.11, 14); in the portrait noted in Lopez, Apostle, 49, it signified clemency toward the conquered.

[1628]. One could grasp another’s hand to force him or her to flee danger more quickly (Pliny Ep. 6.20.12), but this reflects a transcultural sort of urgency rather than custom. Extending the right hand could welcome an emissary (Let. Aris. 179) or serve as a greeting (Hom. Od. 20.197).

[1629]. Quint. Curt. 4.2.17.

[1630]. Val. Max. 1.7.5; Longus 3.32.

[1631]. Xen. Cyr. 6.3.36.

[1632]. An adult son with his mother in Virg. Aen. 1.408.

[1633]. Quint. Curt. 3.6.12.

[1634]. Xen. Hell. 5.1.3.

[1635]. Quint. Curt. 3.6.17.

[1636]. Hom. Od. 19.415; 24.398, 410; Aeschylus Ag. 34–35.

[1637]. As normally, I report the source instead of passing judgment on its historical content; Josephus’s description sometimes diverges from our extant later Roman sources.

[1638]. One could also still their fear (Rev 1:17; perhaps Isa 41:10, 13).

[1639]. Quint. Curt. 8.6.21 (thereby rescuing the brother from penalty).

[1640]. Soph. Philoc. 812–13; Oed. Col. 1632; Eurip. Heracl. 307–8; Xen. Cyr. 4.2.7, 17–19; 8.4.25–26; Ap. Rhod. 4.99–100; Corn. Nep. 14 (Datames), 10.1; Virg. Aen. 3.610–11; 8.124 (welcome and nonhostility); 10.517; Livy 25.16.13; Tac. Ann. 2.71; 15.28; Hist. 15.1 (during adoption); cf. also Lightfoot, Galatians, 110; Betz, Galatia, 100; Wansink, “Law,” 990. This included a pledge of protection, support, or safe-conduct (Livy 30.12.18; Jos. Ant. 18.326, 328, 334; 20.62; War 6.345, 433). One could swear an oath while clasping right hands (Soph. Philoc. 942; Wom. Tr. 1181; Eurip. Hel. 838–39; Med. 21); breaking a pledge of the right hand was perfidious (Val. Max. 9.2.1; Jos. War 2.450–56; cf. Cic. Phil. 13.2.4; even slaughtering the surrendered was evil, Thucyd. 3.68.1–3). Some resented Pythagoreans offering this gesture of good faith only to fellow Pythagoreans (Iambl. V.P. 35.257). See discussion on hand clasping in Keener, “Pillars,” esp. 51–55.

[1641]. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 4.6.10; 5.2.14; 6.1.48; Anab. 2.3.28; 7.3.1; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.84.4; Virg. Aen. 11.165, 178, 292; Livy 45.12.6; Tac. Hist. 1.54; 2.8; 2 Macc 12:12; Jos. Life 30. To rebel again after giving the right hand was treacherous (Xen. Anab. 1.6.6–7).

[1642]. Xen. Hell. 4.1.38.

[1643]. The right-handed handshake communicated warmth (Hurschmann, “Gesture,” 834), used for greetings and farewells (idem, “Greetings,” 1022; e.g., greeting in Hom. Od. 20.197; Virg. Aen. 1.514–15; Diogenes Ep. 33; Jos. Asen. 5:7/11; for clasping hands in a suicide farewell, Plut. Themist. 31.5). Good gifts came through the right hand, not the left (Polyb. 38.10.8).

[1644]. Waiting for the tribune’s “promise” (NRSV “consent”) in Acts 23:21 might contrast ironically with awaiting God’s promise in 26:6–7, but this suggestion probably presses too much into the coincidence of language.

[1645]. This is fortunate, since a “mere” boy might not be believed concerning a conspiracy (Quint. Curt. 6.10.15).

[1646]. Whatever their relative citizenship status, the nephew is a youth, is likely intimidated, and quite likely would see the wisdom in the instruction anyway. The tribune also fills a position normally assigned to equestrian rank and controls hundreds of armed subordinates. His instructions would thus function as a command. The command to silence would not include getting word to Paul, who was already privy to the matter.

[1647]. Noted here also by Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 210.

[1648]. Offending Jerusalem’s difficult elite was impolitic; less than a decade earlier, the Roman tribune for Jerusalem had been summoned to Rome, tried, and then executed back in Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. 20.132, 136).

[1649]. D. Williams, Acts, 389, following Sherwin-White, Society, 54. A potentially capital case had to be referred to the governor (Pliny Ep. 10.30.1).

[1650]. See Walaskay, Came to Rome, passim.

[1651]. This does not suggest that Luke disbelieved Mark’s report; such abuse was undoubtedly commonplace (cf. Brown, Death, 877; Keener, John, 1121). The United States publicly admitted the abuse of some prisoners in Iraq in 2004 (without official approval, it has also occurred in U.S. domestic prisons); with even less safeguards in many nations, abuse of prisoners remains common (I have received oral reports, but Amnesty International has documented far more) and reflects the danger inherent in the human temptation of power over others.

[1652]. Rapske, Custody, 154; idem, “Travel,” 12.

[1653]. Rapske, “Travel,” 12. The case might be different in a novel, but as I have argued (Keener, Acts, 1:77–80, 166–257), normal novels simply do not contain the level of historical information found in Acts, which conforms better to a work of history.

[1654]. With, e.g., Marshall, Acts, 369.

[1655]. Iambl. V.P. 2.11 (Pythagoras); Xen. Eph. Anthia 3.10; cf. Eurip. Iph. Taur. 1025–26. Small numbers were also harder to track at night (cf. Plut. Nat. Phen. 24, Mor. 917F–918A).

[1656]. 2 Kgs 25:4; Jos. War 2.550–53.

[1657]. Tac. Agricola 40; Soph. Ajax 47; Antig. 494; El. 1493–94; Eurip. El. 90; Iph. Taur. 1025–26; Livy 27.5.18; Ovid Metam. 7.192; Lucian Phal. 1; Hermog. Issues 50.14–16; Max. Tyre 19.4; Libanius Topics 1.8; Judg 6:27; 1 Sam 28:8; 2 Kgs 25:4; Gen. Rab. 74:7; Pesiq. Rab. 8:2; John 3:2.

[1658]. For beacon fire or smoke signals in Roman armies, see Southern, Army, 229–31 (noting, e.g., Caesar Gall. W. 2.33; C.W. 3.65). A messenger could also be sent ahead (Jos. Life 90), but this contingent’s speed would also render that preparation unnecessary.

[1659]. Seventy was a common symbolic number (e.g., Gen 46:27; Num 11:16, 24; Judg 8:30; Fensham, “Seventy”) but is not used that way here.

[1660]. Normally the auxiliary officers commanding the cavalry were the highest ranked and first to be promoted to a legion (Campbell, Army, 47).

[1661]. The evidence against it is late and slender, too, but at least exists.

[1662]. Noted in D. Williams, Acts, 390.

[1663]. Unattested before the sixth century C.E., when Joannes Lydus reports it as a technical military term (Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus De thematibus 1.5; from BDAG). For what it is worth, etymologically it would seem to involve “taking with the right hand,” which would fit spearmen (as often noted; e.g., Bock, Acts, 681).

[1664]. Theophylactus Simocatta Historiae 4.1 (seventh century C.E.; from BDAG). Such light-armed auxilia descended from earlier Roman use of foreign specialist mercenaries (Coulston, “Mercenaries”) and the republic’s use of velites, light-armed skirmishers (Campbell, “Velites”; Southern, Army, 92–93). On slingers, see, e.g., Link, “Slinger”; idem, “Staff Sling”; Southern, Army, 88 (on earlier use).

[1665]. Bruce, Acts¹, 416. Cf. the lixae if they were paramilitaries contracted to work with legions (as in Feig Vishnia, “Shadow Army”), but they may have been merchants or other civilians (as in Thorburn, “Lixae”; cf. also Cuvigny, “Sens de misthios,” for civilian lixae instead of mercenaries in Jos. War 3.126; 5.49).

[1666]. Bruce, Acts¹, 416.

[1667]. Bruce, Commentary, 458n32, conversely emphasizes the half left behind, doubting that this force would weaken the Antonia. I am not certain whether many commentators are estimating the garrison’s festival strength or from the size of units known from the Flavian period.

[1668]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 726; cf. also the astonishment of Conzelmann, Acts, 194; and Barrett, Acts, 1078, who rightly rejects the suggestion that two hundred belonged to the local police, who would be taken from the Levites (clearly unsuitable for this mission; cf. comment on Acts 21:30).

[1669]. Campbell, “Auxilia,” 225; idem, “Auxilia,” 420; cf. Southern, Army, 333.

[1670]. See Reicke, Era, 140 (citing five hundred foot soldiers and one hundred horsemen); cf. Parker, Watson, and Coulston, “Cohors” (noting that units nominally of one thousand were used from Nero’s time onward).

[1671]. Estimates that the Antonia could have held an entire legion grossly overestimate the possibilities (countered in Saddington, “Note”).

[1672]. Campbell, “Auxilia,” 225.

[1673]. Parker, Watson, and Coulston, “Cohors.”

[1674]. How many soldiers the Antonia accommodated is a legitimate question, but it could only be less comfortable with greater numbers stationed there. The number of troops left there, however, ultimately remained a matter of the governor’s discretion (cf. Jos. War 2.331).

[1675]. Barrett, Acts, 1078.

[1676]. Johnson, Acts, 405, though also noting evidence for the other side.

[1677]. He might also be accused of estimating numbers too high (cf. 1 Thess 1:8). Certainly Paul would not have counted his escort, particularly in the dark. Then again, Paul may have heard the number in 23:23; Lysias could have given instructions in front of Paul, particularly if the former wished to impress on the latter Lysias’s diligence on Paul’s behalf.

[1678]. A number of scholars do regard Luke’s numbers here as reliable (e.g., Rapske, Custody, 154; idem, “Travel,” 11–12; Witherington, Acts, 697).

[1679]. Gaventa, Acts, 321 (citing Jos. Life 200; War 2.224–31, 417–24; 4.128–34, 326–33; Ant. 20.108–17).

[1680]. Campbell, “Equites.” If they could carry messages, they certainly could convey a prisoner.

[1681]. See Campbell, “Equites,” 5 (citing Jos. War 3.96–97). In 38 C.E., an auxiliary horseman’s pay was three hundred sesterces (Speidel, “Pay Scales”).

[1682]. Gaventa, Acts, 320–21 (acknowledging arguments for both sides).

[1683]. Conzelmann, Acts, 194.

[1684]. For spies and military intelligence, see Southern, Army, 225–29; comment on Acts 9:26.

[1685]. If the idea occurred to the centurions, Paul might also have been hooded during departure, but in the dark and in the large and fast-moving company leaving Jerusalem, he might not be recognized anyway. There were gates in Jerusalem’s walls close to the Antonia, and the detachment likely exited there instead of parading through the city’s streets.

[1686]. A dangerous suicide attack, certainly, but Acts 23:21 guaranteed this determination anyway. Those who escaped adequately by night might be hard to catch up to (Jos. War 2.551–54).

[1687]. Even if the enemy outnumber one’s force, one should not let them know this (Thucyd. 5.8.2; Jos. War 2.543; for deceiving them, see Suet. Jul. 63; Judg 7:19; Jos. War 2.551; 6.68–69). Forces with smaller numbers did sometimes win; see Rhet. Alex. 8, 1429b.6–22; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.8.1; Corn. Nep. 1 (Miltiades), 5.4–5; 14 (Datames), 8.3; 16 (Pelopidas), 2.3; 18 (Eumenes), 5.2; 23 (Hannibal), 10.4; cf. Suet. Jul. 66; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 3.2. One could not, however, count on such possibilities (Thucyd. 2.89.1–2; 2.90.4–6).

[1688]. Or even left it at full strength between Passover and Pentecost without his attendance for the latter. Others suggest festival strength here (Witherington, Acts, 657).

[1689]. Although Luke does not mention the cavalry returning to Jerusalem here; they may have remained in Caesarea. Also, perhaps Paul arrived before Pentecost (cf. Acts 20:16), troops are still needed in the Antonia, and Felix simply did not come (whether because of convenience, other duties, or concern for safety on the roads).

[1690]. Broughton, “Roman Army,” 440–41 (Rapske, “Travel,” 12n51). Apparently shortly after this period, the size of all auxiliary units rose considerably (Campbell, “Auxilia,” 225). The first cohort was twice as large as other cohorts (Parker and Watson, “Centurio,” 310), but such would not be stationed in Jerusalem.

[1691]. Even in a city, night was more dangerous (Stambaugh, City, 201; cf. Song 5:7).

[1692]. Haenchen, Acts, 648.

[1693]. E.g., Gen 14:15; 2 Kgs 8:21; 2 Chr 21:9; Jer 6:5; these were common in the ancient Near East (Kitchen, Reliability, 322). Cf. likewise attacks that were started at twilight (1 Sam 30:17; Polyb. 14.4.1–14.6.1).

[1694]. Quint. Curt. 4.13.4 (though Alexander views this as cowardice, 4.13.8–9); 2 Macc 8:7 (guerrilla raids); cf. fighting by moonlight in Tac. Hist. 3.23; continued pursuit at night in Quint. Curt. 7.9.16; a wrongly supposed night attack leading to a severe night counterattack in Suet. Otho 8.2; Tac. Hist. 1.80; Plutarch Otho 3.3. Pompey thus destroyed the army of Mithridates of Pontus in 66 B.C.E. (Mommsen, History, 261).

[1695]. On how fire signals were conducted, see Polyb. 10.43.1–10.47.11; see comments on them above. Such fire signals were used in Judah at least as early as 589/588 B.C.E. (Lachish Ostracon 4). Passwords were also used (Tac. Hist. 3.73), though unnecessary here. Earlier Hellenistic signaling was more complex than among Romans (Kolb, “Telegraphy,” 223).

[1696]. Bands of robbers were known to grow (cf. the fantasy in Lucian Ship 28). Romans knew that whoever says, “I had not expected,” is shamed in war (Val. Max. 7.2.2).

[1697]. Although Fadus rooted out bandits (Jos. Ant. 20.5), they were already widespread under Cumanus, Felix’s predecessor (20.124), and still more so under Felix (20.160). The low-level insurgency and serious insecurity bred instability.

[1698]. E.g., Hom. Il. 3.10–11; Catull. Carm. 62.34–35; Phaedrus 1.23.3–4; Job 24:14; Jer 49:9; Obad 5; Matt 24:43; Sib. Or. 3.238, 380; cf. Lewis, Life, 123.

[1699]. In various sources, a homeowner could kill a thief if he came at night or armed (Cic. Mil. 3.9; Exod 22:2–3; Eshn. 13; cf. Eshn. 12). For Roman law, see Zimmermann, “Theft,” though Justinian writes later.

[1700]. Under Felix’s predecessor Cumanus, some Jews angry about the temple’s profanation robbed a servant of Caesar (Jos. Ant. 20.113), to which Cumanus responded by plundering neighboring villages (20.114), as if assuming that they harbored the robbers. Some Galileans joined forces with a robber for “patriotic” acts against the Samaritans (20.121); people were united with the robbers (20.124); other robbers stirred the people against the Romans, burning and plundering the villages of any that proved uncooperative (20.172). The robbers plundering and burning villages in 20.185 (when Festus arrived), however, sound less like social bandits. For discussion of “social bandits,” see comment on Acts 21:38.

[1701]. Cf. Xen. Cyr. 2.4.13; 2.4.22–23. For Judean bandits in this period in the hill country, see, e.g., Jos. Ant. 20.121; War 2.511; earlier, cf. Ant. 14.422; 15.120; for finding refuge in the Judean hills more generally, cf. 1 Sam 23:14; Ezek 7:15–16; Jos. War 2.504; cf. L.A.B. 6:11, 18; 27:11; elsewhere, Diod. Sic. 34/35.2.22; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.10.3; Appian Bell. civ. 4.17.130; Arrian Alex. 4.24.2.

[1702]. E.g., Xen. Anab. 5.2.28; Plut. Alex. 20.1–3. Other situations afforded similar advantages (Thucyd. 4.10.4).

[1703]. Normally, if one’s force clearly outnumbered enemy troops, one should send not all of them (cf. Josh 7:3) but one’s fastest troops to inflict damage quickly, protecting the slower forces from harm (Xen. Cav. Com. 8.10–14).

[1704]. Great speed in the dark would be of little value, though perhaps moonlight in a clear sky could have allowed them to see the road enough to charge quickly through even a blockade to try to spirit their prisoner to safety.

[1705]. In battles, Romans used cavalry especially to guard the legions’ flanks (Campbell, “Cavalry,” 54, noting that they became more offensive from the third century C.E. on), but this would prove irrelevant on a road, especially in the hill country. If attacked, the cavalry might break through and spirit the prisoner to safety; but if such an attempt were thwarted through an obstructed road, the speed of horses would provide less help in close-quarters combat, and the value of their height would be offset by the easy targets they made for archers in hiding (though archers’ normal effective range of 500–600 ft., or 150–200 m. [Lazenby, “Archers,” 144], would have been reduced in the dark). Romans used mainly foreign auxiliaries as archers (Ramsay, Letters, 58), but their archers could prove formidable (e.g., Tac. Ann. 4.47); see discussion in Southern, Army, 211–12. Archers typically would start the battle (Libanius Description 1.6). Although Greeks had long had archers (Xen. Mem. 3.3.1; Cretans in Vell. Paterc. 2.34.1), the best archers were associated with the East (e.g., Xen. Anab. 4.4.16; Sen. Y. Med. 710–11; Pliny E. N.H. 16.65.160; Sil. It. 3.612–13; Tac. Ann. 6.35; 15.7, 9, 11; Lucian Hermot. 33; Tox. 8; for more examples of Eastern archers, see Aeschylus Lib. 161; Catull. Carm. 11.6; Ovid Pont. 1.1.79; 1.5.50; 1.7.9; 2.1.65; Plut. Pomp. 70.3; Lucian Ship 34; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.12.593; Eunapius Lives 465), even in the case of the mythical Amazons (Aeschylus Suppl. 287–88; Pindar Ol. 13.87) or ancients from Asia Minor (Philost. Hrk. 39.2; 40.2); the only exceptions among Greeks were the Cretans (Paus. 1.23.4). (Cf. also strong Nubian archers; Yamauchi, Persia, 113–14; in a later period, Isichei, History, 31.)

[1706]. The bandits would attack and kill members of a larger force if it appeared not to offer resistance (Jos. War 2.541–42), and would slay any caught outside the ranks (2.544).

[1707]. As Abbott, Acts, 236, points out, noting the instability of the times, “The soldiery had been already twice required to rescue Paul.”

[1708]. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 1.4.18–19; Rhet. Alex. 1, 1422b.41–42; 1423a.1–2; 8, 1429b.1–6; Diod. Sic. 13.111.1; Plut. Themist. 9.4; Diog. Laert. 1.83; cf. Hom. Od. 16.237–39; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.23.11; Cato Distichs 2.10; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.30.

[1709]. Val. Max. 7.2.2; cf. Publ. Syr. 148; Sall. Catil. 1.5; Babr. 85.

[1710]. Johnson, Acts, 405.

[1711]. Rapske, Custody, 154.

[1712]. Jos. Ant. 20.161–72; War 2.253–65, esp. 264–65, 271; with Rapske, “Travel,” 11–12. This point is conceded by Barrett, Acts, 1078.

[1713]. Emphasized in Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 66.

[1714]. Ibid., 65–66; Witherington, Acts, 697.

[1715]. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 66.

[1716]. Johnson, Acts, 405.

[1717]. Cf., e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.88–89; 20.135–36; War 2.245.

[1718]. As noted, military incompetence was a punishable offense (Rapske, Custody, 154). Cf. also the possible concern that Lysias could be accused of having accepted a bribe to allow Paul’s assassination (the Western text in Metzger, Textual Commentary, 489).

[1719]. Armed escorts also appear in fictitious narratives (e.g., L.A.B. 6:9), but precisely because these narratives at this point mirror genuine practices.

[1720]. Further on Caesarea, see comment on Acts 10:1.

[1721]. See further Broughton, “Roman Army,” 439–40; comment on Acts 10:1.

[1722]. On paganism there, see, e.g., Lease, “Caesarea Mithraeum”; Bull, “Mithraic Medallion”; Gersht, “Reader of Scroll”; nearby, Hirschfeld and Peleg, “Gemstone.”

[1723]. Given similar reports from some conflicts in northern Nigeria today (two sides’ conflicting versions in Jos, Jan. 2010), such factors are not impossible, but again as sparks igniting already simmering tensions.

[1724]. Granted that, as already noted, Josephus often inflates numbers (or estimates high) and that no one would have achieved a precise count, in any case, the massacre seems horrendous and, given its swiftness, probably premeditated and coordinated.

[1725]. Those familiar with violent ethnic conflicts in various parts of the world today (cf., e.g., in Boer, Decades of Blood) will recognize the similarity with Josephus’s reports. For the divergent customs that raised tensions between Palestinian Jews and Gentiles, see Rappaport, “Yhsy.”

[1726]. Rapkse, Custody, 155.

[1727]. It is used for riding animals in, e.g., P.Oxy. 2153.20 (third century C.E.); Jos. Ant. 8.241 (BDAG).

[1728]. Certainly they would not risk bringing any vehicles for heavy transport; though the army used these (see Dorsey, “Carts,” 434), they would defeat the purpose of speed and mobility (cf. Apul. Flor. 21.2–5). Any gift to the Jerusalem church would have probably already been delivered (and, I have argued, probably accepted) in Acts 21:18; if not, Paul’s companions would likelier deliver it in Jerusalem than send it with possibly corrupt soldiers.

[1729]. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:414–16; Weissenreider, Images, 335, 365–66.

[1730]. But even here it would represent Felix’s special favor, since all cohorts had their own physicians (in 210 C.E., police cohorts of one thousand in Rome each had four physicians; Friedländer, Life, 169).

[1731]. Hadas, 663 (“with all the instincts of a slave” [Moore, LCL, 2:193]). Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 211, speaks of this as one of Tacitus’s “unforgettable epigrams,” and Lake and Cadbury (Commentary, 293) speak of Felix’s being so “immortalized.” How much Tacitus and Suetonius depend on Josephus for this perspective may be debated. For extensive discussion on Felix, especially from Josephus, see Gill, “Policy,” 21–25.

[1732]. See Knox, Jerusalem, 357.

[1733]. Jos. War 2.247; Ant. 20.137; Tac. Ann. 12.54. Complaints about freedmen with too much power occur even as early as Cic. Rosc. Amer. 49.141. One first-century writer complains even of “mere” equestrians achieving membership in the senate (Pliny E. N.H. 5.1.12), but a freedman pretending to be an equestrian was a criminal offense (MacMullen, Social Relations, 105). On freedpersons, see comments at Acts 6:9 and 12:13.

[1734]. Nevertheless, emperors continued to assign important tasks to freedmen in a later era as well (e.g., Pliny Ep. 10.84; esp. the official in 10.85–10.86A). Claudius also used other freedmen as governors (Pliny E. N.H. 33.52.145). Apollonius is portrayed as inveighing against allowing royal slaves and freedpersons to be too arrogant, shortly after the era of Claudius’s and Nero’s cronies (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.36, to Vespasian).

[1735]. Tac. Ann. 12.53; cf. Suet. Claud. 28.

[1736]. Pliny Ep. 7.29.2–4; 8.6.1–4.

[1737]. Though considered corruption today, in the Roman aristocracy, patronage secured advantages; cf., e.g. (though the system might be more endemic by Symmachus’s day), Symm. Ep. 1.28 (Salzman, p. 67): our long friendship and your consequent actions assure “me that your office means power for me.”

[1738]. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 95, suggests that Luke contrasts Paul’s high status in Acts 24 with Felix’s low status as a freedman. Yet Luke does not specify Felix’s freed status; Luke’s ideal audience might know about Pallas’s status, at least in Roman colonies, such as Corinth and Philippi, that kept in close contact with Rome, but a smaller number would know about Felix’s status or that he was Pallas’s brother. Moreover, whatever Felix’s background, he was a governor with imperial favor. Except in the narrow sense of citizenship, Paul being born a citizen would not give him higher status than the freedman governor; imperial freedmen often wielded enormous power (cf. discussion in Keener, Acts, 2:1306).

[1739]. As was Pallas (cf. Syme, “Pallas,” 116); this could support Felix’s being manumitted by Antonia, but it could also explain Tacitus’s mistake (i.e., based on a mistaken assumption that they were manumitted together).

[1740]. Hemer, “Name of Felix,” 47–48 (tentatively); Witherington, Acts, 699n244 (but contrast 643n4); cf. Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 562. The epigraphic evidence is CIL 5.34; perhaps 6.1984 (Fitzmyer, Acts, 727).

[1741]. CIL 6.8143; Bruce, “Name of Felix”; Kokkinos, “Gentilicium.” But Hemer, “Name of Felix” (writing before Kokkinos), rejects this supposed epigraphic evidence (the epitaph of T. Mucius Clemens). Whether “Antonius” or “Claudius,” inscriptions naming descendants would also count.

[1742]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 727.

[1743]. Hemer, “Name of Felix,” 45 (he notes [48] the possibility of a textual problem in Josephus).

[1744]. Kokkinos, “Gentilicium,” 127 (critiquing Feldman, followed by Smallwood).

[1745]. It is also possible that he was freed by Antonia but that Josephus confused this with the sending by Claudius; but unless he worked purely from memory, surely Josephus would have caught the error?

[1746]. In the late republic and afterward, some accumulated additional names (so Brenk and Canali De Rossi, “Felix”; would this allow for both names?).

[1747]. Kokkinos, “Gentilicium,” 127–28 (critiquing Avi-Yonah).

[1748]. Hemer, “Name of Felix,” 45–46, critiquing Bruce’s reconstruction.

[1749]. Kokkinos, “Gentilicium,” 128 (noting Avi-Yonah; he offers [129–36] line-by-line corrections of Avi-Yonah’s reconstruction on other points).

[1750]. Ibid., 136 (arguing that they fit only the time of Felix). Kokkinos mentions (137–38) other “Tiberius Claudius Felix” inscriptions from Rome.

[1751]. Ibid., 139. Since Felix and Pallas held less favor under Nero than under Claudius, it may be significant that the document alters the previous arrangement, but at least fifteen papyri attest that Pallas owned many estates in Egypt (139). Another document from just a year later attests to Pallas’s holding land in that same village (140).

[1752]. Ibid., 141 (citing CIL 6.710, 1057, 4334, 5319, 12774, 14993, 15054–63, 15440, 15600, 15645, 17883, 26097, 28217, 37752, 38557; 15.7308, 7309a). Kokkinos then adds a new one from Sicily.

[1753]. Kokkinos, “Gentilicium,” 141 (citing CIL 6.1345, 1984, 4347, 23394, 34442). Kokkinos then adds a recent one from Rome.

[1754]. Hemer, “Name of Felix,” 47.

[1755]. Kokkinos, “Gentilicium,” 136–37.

[1756]. Conzelmann, Acts, 195. Cf. Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 562n171 (52/53–56/57).

[1757]. Hemer, Acts in History, 171; also some commentators (e.g., Peterson, Acts, 583, 642). Wikenhauser, Apostelgeschichte, 256, suggests 52/53–60/61. I have extended Hemer’s date for Paul’s departure from summer 59 to fall to allow for the datum in Acts 27:9.

[1758]. With Witherington, Acts, 643n4.

[1759]. McRay, “Archaeology and NT,” 98.

[1760]. It rests on Vardaman’s work on micrographic letters, which to my knowledge has not been published with photographs that others can confirm (see comment on Acts 24:27).

[1761]. Given his economic resources (Acts 22:28), Lysias probably has at least a degree of literacy (on a basic level sometimes found even among rank-and-file soldiers; see Evans, World, 69, on tablets from Vindolanda). But he would surely dictate this letter in any case.

[1762]. Fronto Ad verum imp. 2.1.14. Like speeches, they provided useful dramatic devices, also appearing in Greek novels (Aune, Environment, 128, 169) as well as historical works (169); see comment on Acts 15:23. Others composed “literary” letters with obviously fictitious attributions (see Trapp, “Letters,” 846).

[1763]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 727.

[1764]. Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 309.

[1765]. Cf. Görgemanns, “Epistolography,” 1146, warning that we should be ready for stylistic changes (Thucyd. 7.8–15) and sometimes even fiction; Klauck, Letters, 420 (“when necessary”). Yet historians did use documents, though usually not citing them verbatim for reasons of style (Laistner, Historians, 51).

[1766]. Thucyd. 4.118 may have introduced the practice of citing existing diplomatic texts, though many historians did not follow his example (cf. one discussion in Fox, “Thucydides”).

[1767]. Howell, “Embedded Letter”; idem, “Letter,” 160–62, noting how well Sallust Catil. 35.1–6 (cf. 34.2–36.3) fits its context.

[1768]. Klauck, Letters, 434; Howell, “Embedded Letter”; idem, “Letter,” 162–64, helpfully. The connections between innocence statements for Jesus and Paul were also not lost on earlier interpreters (John Chrysostom in Cat. Act. 23.28–30 [Martin, Acts, 282]).

[1769]. During the discussion responding to Howell’s paper, “Embedded Letter,” Howell noted that an alternate version of a letter in Sallust appears in Cicero, similar in substance despite the difference in style. Laistner, Historians, 51–52 (citing Sallust Hist. 2, frg. 98), finds fictitious a Sallustian letter to Mithridates but thinks that Sallust may have provided the gist of a letter to Pompey in Sallustian style.

[1770]. Klauck, Letters, 434n17.

[1771]. Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 309; followed by, e.g., Schnabel, Acts, 936–37 (as one possibility for how Luke knew the letter’s contents; the other, on 936, is that Paul, who heard the letter read in court, summarized its contents for Luke).

[1772]. If Luke is writing apologetic for Paul, falsified documentation (as opposed to stylistic adaptation of existing documents) could be viewed harshly (see comment on false witnesses at Acts 6:13).

[1773]. This observation is also consistent with the letter’s essential content here, which Lysias desired to be at least adequately acceptable to Paul.

[1774]. Most are found in Witherington, Acts, 698; for the fullest treatment of such transcripts, see Winter, “Official Proceedings.”

[1775]. Of “an elogium, an official report explaining a legal matter” (Witherington, Acts, 698). See also Fitzmyer, Acts, 727; cf. Goppelt, “τύπος,” 247. Sufficiently endowed authors of letters normally retained a copy (Cic. Fam. 7.25.1; Att. 13.29; Richards, Letter Writing, 158–60; cf. Cic. Att. 9.11, 13a, 14; 10.3a; Fam. 3.3.2; 11.11.1; Ad Brut. 3.1 [2.2.1]; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 99; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.26). Official documents to be disseminated also normally needed to be copied to be promulgated (cf. Esth 3:14; 8:13, where it probably further implies translation).

[1776]. Judge, Athens, 135–36 (P.Oxy. 47.3366, lines 28, 32); also E. A. Judge, in Horsley, Documents, 1:77–78 (P.Coll.Youtie 66.28, 32); note also BDAG.

[1777]. Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 309. Pervo, Acts, 583n34, reasonably objects that an official letter to the governor might be written in Latin. Although, in my view, this could help explain Luke’s editorial freedom in reporting it, it is possible that Lysias, a Greek writing for a case whose litigants would all be Greek-speaking, would write in Greek (though he would have sufficient resources to have it written in Latin). Pervo, Acts, 584, also rightly notes the absence of several expected formal elements (such as good wishes, farewell, and Paul’s tria nomina; thanksgivings were common but not mandatory). We may presume that Luke and his audience were aware that formal letters would include these (though many omitted part of the tria nomina) but that Luke omits recounting them as extraneous.

[1778]. Cf. similarly Padilla, Speeches, 202–3 (noting that the term can mean “pattern,” and suggesting here an outline rather than verbatim copy).

[1779]. Josephus refers to correspondence between Solomon and Hiram (Ant. 8.51–54), claiming that both Jews and Tyrians preserved them in their public records (8.55); but Alexander destroyed Tyre in 332 B.C.E.! For forged letters, see, e.g., Polyb 5.42.7; 5.50.11; Livy 40.55.1; Apul. Metam. 4.16; Jos. Life 356; cf. Arrian Alex. 6.12.3; Suet. Vesp. 6.4.

[1780]. Llewelyn, Documents, 7:24–25, §1. Parker, “Letters,” also argues for some genuine, adapted letters in 2 Maccabees.

[1781]. A speaker would often pause to have some document read in court before he resumed the speech (e.g., Cic. Sest. 4.11). At the very least Luke would have access to Paul’s memory of what the document claimed.

[1782]. See Cic. Fam. 7.25.1 and discussion above. They could also be recopied to another party (Cic. Att. 9.11).

[1783]. Cic. Att. 9.13a; 9.14; 10.3a, end.

[1784]. For use of a letter in court, see, e.g., Apul. Apol. 78–87.

[1785]. See Suet. Aug. 49.3; Pliny Ep. 10.63, 64; Casson, Travel, 219–25 and esp. 183 (on the certifying diploma of the carriers); Charlesworth, Trade Routes, 86; Richards, Letter Writing, 177–78; cf. Tac. Hist. 2.54–55; Pliny Ep. 10.45–46; 10.120.1–2.

[1786]. An omniscient narrator can wink at slanted speeches; cf. Char. Chaer. 8.8.4–6, where Chaereas speaks well of Mithridates, but the reader, informed earlier about Mithridates’s negative motives, understands more than does Chaereas.

[1787]. It is implausible not only in the narrative world but historically as well. Even in Acts, Paul does not volunteer his Roman citizenship easily, and certainly not in the midst of an attack by Jewish nationalists! Its implausibility could be one reason that Lysias’s testimony (Acts 24:22) does not settle the case and that Jerusalem’s elite delegation against Paul does not expect it to do so.

[1788]. The divergence counts against Haenchen’s view (Acts, 648) that Luke simply presents the Romans positively in this letter. His idea that a popular narrator would not care about narrative consistency violates our experience with ancients’ repeated recitations of epics or readings of literary works.

[1789]. Tannehill, Acts, 295–96 (citing Sternberg, Poetics, 390–440, on OT narratives). Cf. the difference between Acts 21:11 and Paul’s arrest later in that chapter.

[1790]. Barrett, Acts, 1083. Surely they would not know that he was a Roman.

[1791]. See Rapske, Custody, 152. Barrett, Acts, 1083, rightly notes that different actors in such intense situations would remember the events differently. Nevertheless, one of Luke’s accounts cannot be accurate on a central point: Lysias would hardly forget the embarrassment of a belated discovery of citizenship.

[1792]. Tannehill, Acts, 295.

[1793]. Rapske, Custody, 152–53.

[1794]. Aune, Environment, 169. I believe that prescripts and even closings remain more frequently even in letter collections than NT scholars sometimes assume (Keener, Corinthians, 148; cf. Aune, Environment, 210); thus, e.g., Pliny the Younger’s letters nearly always close with vale (e.g., Ep. 8.6.17; 8.11.3; 8.17.6; 8.24.10; 9.7.5; 9.8.2; 9.30.4; and passim), which an editor need not have preserved. Luke does omit the farewell wish (Acts 23:30) here, in contrast to 15:29 (Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 622–23).

[1795]. Matthews, “Names, Greek,” 1023.

[1796]. Bruce, Acts¹, 418. Emperors sometimes made exceptions to the normal career path (see Gizewski, “Cursus honorum,” 1021); on equestrians, see, e.g., Lintott, “Equites”; Jones, Empire, 134–40.

[1797]. Bruce, Commentary, 459–60; Conzelmann, Acts, 195 (citing, for governors in Nero’s day, OGIS 667.3–4); Fitzmyer, Acts, 727.

[1798]. His brother Pallas, however, did wear a gold ring and was treated as praetorian (Pliny Ep. 8.6.4, 14); perhaps rules were suspended for exceptional (wealthy and imperially favored) cases.

[1799]. 1 Esd 6:8; 8:9; 1 Macc 11:30, 32; 13:36; 14:20; 15:2, 16; 2 Macc 9:19; 11:16, 22, 27, 34; 3 Macc 3:12; 7:1; CPJ 1:250, §135, second century B.C.E.; 2:249, §444, from 117/118 C.E. See other sources in comment on Acts 15:23.

[1800]. E.g., CIJ 1:510, §§699–700, 702; 1:511, §§704–6, 708; 2:51, §799; 2:398, §1480; 2:399–400, §1483; 2:400, §1484; 2:400, §1485; 2:401, §1486; 2:401, §1487; 2:402, §1488; 2:408, §1494; 2:408, §1495; 2:409, §1496.

[1801]. E.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 66.1; 70.1; 77.1 (or the weather, 67.1); cf. 1 Cor 1:11.

[1802]. In a letter essay (Fronto Ad am. 1.1–2; the history is 1.1, and the explanation of the reason for it is in 1.2).

[1803]. Even in more prosperous provinces, people understood that a Roman soldier’s lie could get a peasant killed (Apul. Metam. 9.39).

[1804]. On Pilate, cf. Jos. Ant. 18.89; Benoit, Jesus, 1:142.

[1805]. Jos. War 2.245–46; Ant. 20.134–36.

[1806]. The term can mean “arrest” (e.g., Mark 6:17) but can also be negative (14:1); the context of Tertullus’s use of it suggests its honorable connotations here (but Luke’s audience may hear it otherwise).

[1807]. It is not clear that the tribune was himself in the session, except for watching from a distance, since he has to send troops down into it. He awaited their final report in Greek, not taking notes on all the deliberations.

[1808]. Some of the discussion (such as “conscience” in Acts 23:1) probably presupposes Greek usage; see comment on Acts 23:1. Tomb inscriptions indicate that Jerusalem aristocrats were widely familiar with Greek. Paul’s interest in 21:40, where he uses Aramaic, was in identifying with a crowd, not in being intelligible to the tribune; though he identifies with Pharisees on the law in 23:1–6, most in the Sanhedrin would have been aristocrats, perhaps more appreciative of Greek than those to whom Paul spoke in the temple.

[1809]. For proselytism as a major cause for Roman anti-Judaism (as well as a major source of Roman converts), see Gager, Anti-Semitism, passim. After Paul’s appeal, however, he does try to convert his judges (as Agrippa II observes, 26:28), as also Felix after the public hearing to establish the facts of the case (24:25).

[1810]. Including, under the previous governor, the execution of the tribune of Jerusalem’s cohort (Jos. War 2.246). Even if the letter would not be incorporated into the trial material—which would be unlikely—letters were normally read aloud (see comment on Acts 8:30), and he could anticipate the same for his letter to the governor (cf. 23:34).

[1811]. See discussion in Rapske, Custody, 148.

[1812]. See, e.g., Spencer, Acts, 203–4.

[1813]. Cadbury, “Law and Trial,” 301.

[1814]. For the “accusers,” see also Acts 23:35; 25:16, 18 (both passages emphasizing the Roman principle that the accused must be allowed to face and answer the accusers).

[1815]. Rapske, Custody, 153.

[1816]. Hence less chance for his opposition to win, given the fruits of previous hearings (Acts 28:21).

[1817]. The order of march seems to have varied depending on circumstances (see Southern, Army, 188–90, citing Polyb. 6.40–41; Jos. War 3.115–26; Arrian Order of March Against the Alans 1–11), with allies or auxiliaries typically in the van and the rear and sometimes officers toward the middle; auxiliary cavalry could be (as in Polybius) in the front and the back. In this case, when the entire unit was likely comprised of auxiliaries, Paul would likely be in the middle. Southern, Army, 190, notes that centurions would sometimes go “up and down the line to keep everyone together, to round up stragglers,” etc., because “a very long line of march is more vulnerable than a compact one.” For this reason it is likely that we should envision soldiers marching several abreast (if they could keep pace) rather than single file; the condition of the Roman road might permit this, provided (as would surely be necessary) torches were used to illumine the way.

[1818]. Here they traveled from Cana (Jos. Life 86) to Tiberias (Life 90).

[1819]. Kitchen, Reliability, 168, provides many references.

[1820]. Jos. Life 394–95; Xen. Cyr. 5.8.52; Thucyd. 4.68.5; Diod. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.6.1; 9.34.3–4; Arrian Alex. 3.9.2. March songs, accompanied by flutes (Robbins, “Embaterion”), would undoubtedly be suspended when it was important to remain as inconspicuous as possible.

[1821]. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 66; others concur (cf., e.g., Bruce, Commentary, 461; Witherington, Acts, 701). Whether via Lydda or by hills through Gophna, Antipatris was a natural stop en route to Caesarea (Hemer, Acts in History, 128).

[1822]. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 66; he thinks of Luke (Acts 21:15) but at this point believes that probably it was Paul reporting to Luke, unless the “mounts” (23:24) imply Luke’s presence.

[1823]. E.g., Haenchen, Acts, 648. Pervo, Acts, 586, doubts that the situation was critical enough for a force this size to expend this effort, but see comment at Acts 23:23 on the potential dangers of night travel in the Judean hills in precisely this period. He also objects that the troops here were auxiliaries rather than regulars, but examples below include some soldiers who were not legionaries.

[1824]. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 65.

[1825]. Although the first person plural may have been awkward in 23:31, 33, it was grammatically possible; Luke does not seem to have been with Paul in the Antonia; and it is unlikely that the soldiers would transport Paul’s friends.

[1826]. Luke would not have remained in Jerusalem until leaving from Caesarea in 27:1 (especially if Luke is a Gentile), but no direct evidence addresses when he traveled and by what route.

[1827]. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 211 (42 mi.); Haenchen, Acts, 648 (40 mi.); Conzelmann, Acts, 195 (60 km.); Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 64 (ca. 45 mi.).

[1828]. In trying to ascertain plausibility, I calculated that I have been able to maintain this pace for at least several hours (or almost double the pace in half an hour, my height providing a slight advantage, my age and mostly academic schedule a disadvantage, relative to the average Roman soldier); I have admittedly not experimented for twelve hours (but cf., e.g., the account in Yamamoro and Chan, Witnesses, 25, 26). The fear of bandits in the hills could provide adrenaline, but adrenaline’s short-term boost would not surmount an entire night’s strain to unprepared muscles. I am not familiar with Roman sources addressing the need for bladder breaks along the way, but any such delays would have been brief (and to those accustomed to public toilets and chamber pots, perhaps less difficult socially than for many of us in the modern West).

[1829]. Adkins and Adkins, Life, 90.

[1830]. See Southern, Army, 223–24; on 223 she cites as one example of carrying only bare essentials Frontinus Stratagems 4.1.1. The normal baggage may have been sixty Roman pounds (Southern, Army, 223, citing Vegetius Epitoma Rei Militaris 1.19).

[1831]. Friedländer, Life, 1:192; Stevenson, “Army,” 227.

[1832]. Jones, “Army,” 206 (noting further construction and maintenance work on fortifications, roads, and bridges, though this would not likely be relevant for the Antonia cohort). Before the Roman period, Spartans, then Alexander’s army, had probably introduced the notion of military training into wider circulation (Lazenby, “Military Training”). For centuries, Romans had trained with simulated battle exercises, strengthening morale (Rance, “Simulacra pugnae”).

[1833]. Suet. Jul. 65 (LCL, 1:87).

[1834]. Tac. Ann. 15.16. Still, forty miles in a day is demanding in rugged terrain, even on horseback (see, e.g., Wigger, Saint, 127).

[1835]. Baggage was one of the factors that slowed carriages (Apul. Flor. 21.2), but horses were much faster without carriages (21.4–5).

[1836]. Barrett, Acts, 1086. He also notes the only reference in the Mishnah (m. Giṭ. 7:7), which simply places the site between Judea and Galilee.

[1837]. Rapkse, “Travel,” 13; Bruce, Commentary, 461; idem, Acts¹, 419. A Roman mile was 426 ft. (about 9 percent) shorter than an English mile (Cook, “Weights,” 1055; cf. Pryce, Lang, and Vickers, “Measures,” 943).

[1838]. The situation is analogous in many regions today where large bands of robbers attack at night, including some roads that I have traveled in less developed areas.

[1839]. Val. Max. 5.5.3 praises one who, under urgent circumstances (his brother was dying), traveled both “day and night” more than 200 mi. in difficult territory (by horse, however).

[1840]. Riesner, Early Period, 310.

[1841]. Ibid., 311 (citing Veg. Mil. 1.9); Long, “Samuel,” 384. Weeber, “Travels,” 871, suggests a normal speed of 20–25 mi. (30–40 km.) per day; a walking day was probably often no longer than this night.

[1842]. Rapske, “Travel,” 13.

[1843]. Lazenby, “Logistics,” 881.

[1844]. Witherington, Acts, 697.

[1845]. On one occasion in extremely rugged terrain, a Roman army advanced a mere seven miles (Livy 44.5.8).

[1846]. Haenchen, Acts, 648, contests this view (which he attributes to Zahn, Apostelgeschichte, 773n70), noting that the infantry return on the next day. They would not, however, be expected to march as quickly.

[1847]. Witherington, Acts, 697.

[1848]. For usual rates at two to three times that of pedestrians, see Rapske, “Travel,” 9; Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 387. Horses were also much faster without carriages (Apul. Flor. 21.2–5).

[1849]. Rapske, “Travel,” 9 (noting [n. 38] that couriers reporting Nero’s death logged 10 mi. per hour; Caesar came to Rome at 100 mi. per day); Purcell, “Postal Service,” 1234 (noting 50 mi. per day as common, but news of the Rhine army’s revolt in 69 traveled at ca. 150 mi. per day). Good messengers in ideal conditions could travel more than sixty Roman miles a day (Badian, “Tabellarii”).

[1850]. Rugged terrain rendered usual tactical formations impractical (see Southern, Army, 88, on the earlier Greek phalanx).

[1851]. Witherington, Acts, 697, complaining that “armchair scholars are ill equipped to make pronouncements about” such matters. My wife, who in 1999 traveled for days at a time with parties of refugees marching for long hours while fleeing war, and accustomed to travel by foot, concurs. She observed the steady trot of war refugees, including children, possible because the people were already accustomed to hard physical activity (few ever owned cars) and because of imminent danger. Most were not moving as quickly as implied in the texts here, but neither were they trained soldiers.

[1852]. Rapske, “Travel,” 12; Dar and Applebaum, “Road,” 99.

[1853]. Cadbury, Acts in History, 64.

[1854]. Rapske, “Travel,” 12–13. The milestone is second or third century, but “later Roman roads very frequently represent more permanent confirmations of earlier Roman choices of existing local routes”; the earliest of 450 milestones in Palestine is 69 C.E., after Paul (p. 13).

[1855]. Dar and Applebaum, “Road,” 93.

[1856]. Ibid., 93, 95.

[1857]. Map, ibid., 98.

[1858]. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 64–65; Witherington, Acts, 701. It may function as a military post in Jos. War 2.554, since Jewish pursuit of fleeing Romans stops there, and more certainly in 2.513, 515 (less clearly in 4.443); on its historic fortifications, see Ant. 13.390; 16.143; War 1.99, 417.

[1859]. For the site, see discussion in Barrett, Acts, 1085.

[1860]. E.g., Dar and Applebaum, “Road,” 93; Le Cornu, Acts, 1277. Conservative scholars (e.g., Bruce, Acts¹, 419; Witherington, Acts, 701) tend to be among those who favor Ras el-‘Ain as the military post, perhaps partly because of the shorter distance, appearing to fit the evidence of Acts 23 more easily. For Ras el-‘Ain, or Tel Aphek, see Kochavi, “Antipatris”; proximity may be implied in Jos. War 2.513. Though Luke and most of his audience would not know, Paul’s protection at Aphek could appear ironic (1 Sam 4:1; 29:1; cf. 1 Kgs 20:26, 30; 2 Kgs 13:17). For an early view about Antipatris (1843), see Smith, “Visit” (in Mattill and Mattill, Bibliography, 203, §2766). The exaggerated size of pre-70 Antipatris in Song Rab. 1:16, §3, fits a context of exaggerations.

[1861]. Cf. Rapske, “Travel,” 13–14. Herod settled Jews here, but Samaritans as well as Jews lived in the region (Le Cornu, Acts, 1277). Most Roman military camps have left only limited archaeological evidence (Campbell, “Camps,” 284; for settlements that grew up close to legionary bases, see idem, “Canabae”).

[1862]. Kochavi, “Aphek,” 151.

[1863]. With Hemer, Acts in History, 128; Fitzmyer, Acts, 729.

[1864]. Could they have stayed overnight in Antipatris (cf. Le Cornu, Acts, 1278)? Luke’s normal use of “next day” suggests otherwise (Acts 10:9, 23; 14:20; 20:7; 22:30; 25:23), though it might occasionally appear ambiguous (10:24). Luke may have been less concerned with the exact timing, especially since his source remained with the cavalry. Under normal circumstances, an army not engaging in imminent battle might rest for a few days after a forced march (Vell. Paterc. 2.113.2).

[1865]. Though the numbers would probably not be known, bandits in the countryside might have estimated the numbers on the basis of torches carried, and relayed this estimate to their comrades in Jerusalem. It would be imprudent to take chances.

[1866]. The narrative world itself signals the dangers of instability (Acts 21:38; 23:12–13).

[1867]. See Witherington, Acts, 701.

[1868]. Cf., e.g., Cic. Verr. 2.4.66.147; John 18:28; for Romans in general, Plut. Rom. Q. 84, Mor. 284D; cf. Hor. Sat. 1.1.9–10; Ep. 2.1.103–5; Mart. Epig. 3.36.1–3; Friedländer, Life, 1:86–93; Clarke, “Italy,” 475.

[1869]. Some of these soldiers may have also been from the local population in Caesarea; see comment on Acts 10:1, 7.

[1870]. With Witherington, Acts, 701; and see comment on Acts 8:30.

[1871]. E.g., Philost. Hrk. 1.1; see comment on Acts 21:39; or Keener, John, 556.

[1872]. Given John’s fate at the hands of Herod, this might have raised suspense for any first-time readers unfamiliar with the passion story (though they do not constitute Luke’s target audience).

[1873]. Conzelmann, Acts, 195 (citing Martyrdom of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice 24–27; Mart. Just. 4.7–8).

[1874]. Sherwin-White, Society, 31. See also O’Rourke, “Law,” 177; Tajra, Trial, 116–17 (citing Dig. 48.3.11 for its optional character); cf. further Apathy, “Domicilium.” Dio Chrys. Or. 40.10 notes the citizens’ rights (trans. Crosby, LCL, 4:117) of “exemption from standing trial away from home.”

[1875]. Sherwin-White, Society, 31.

[1876]. Scholars often see Felix as hoping to avoid the case (e.g., Rapske, Custody, 155). Condemning Roman citizens to death without very compelling evidence was always risky (cf. Cadbury, “Law and Trial,” 311), though it was done. Although some governors had assistants to try civil cases (Pliny Ep. 10.25), Felix’s jurisdiction is too small for that assistance.

[1877]. As generally noted (Jones, Seyrig, Sherwin-White, and Liebeschuetz, “Syria,” 1464; Cadbury, “Law and Trial,” 310; Gasque, “Acts and History,” 57; Witherington, Acts, 701–2; Taüber, “Cilicia,” 330; Green, “Syria and Cilicia”; cf. Bean and Mitchell, “Cilicia,” 330; Dio Cass. 59.8.2). Jeffers, World, 166, adds that Tarsus was a civitas libera (free city), whose citizens were not treated under the usual “provincial jurisdiction.” Topographically, Mount Amanus divided Cilicia from Syria (Pliny E. N.H. 5.18.80); their coasts, however, adjoined (5.22.91; cf. 5.35.129).

[1878]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 729; Hemer, Acts in History, 172. They were separate provinces in Cicero’s day (Sest. 25.55), though their adjacent position entailed military implications for both (Fam. 15.4.4); they shared a border in Strabo 16.2.1.

[1879]. Again, as often noted (e.g., Gasque, “Acts and History,” 57; Rapske, Custody, 155).

[1880]. Hemer, Acts in History, 172.

[1881]. Rapske, Custody, 155.

[1882]. Witherington, Acts, 702.

[1883]. Polyb. 6.27; Caesar C.W. 1.76.

[1884]. Numerous sources (Cic. Verr. 4.65; IG 14.2548; SIG 880.63; BGU 288.14; P.Oxy. 471.110; Mark 15:16) in Campbell, “Praetorium”; idem, “Praetorium [Brill]”; BDAG.

[1885]. Jos. War 2.301, 328; presumably in Philo Embassy 299.

[1886]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 296, cite the use of Hiero’s palace at Syracuse as a domus praetoria (Cic. Verr. 5.31.80). Cf. Schürer, Time of Jesus, 180–81.

[1887]. If Paul remains in this praetorium, as is likely, it helps explain Felix’s easy access to him in Acts 24:24–26.

[1888]. See Burrell, Gleason, and Netzer, “Palace”; Witherington, Acts, 702; McRay, Archaeology, 139 (following Netzer, “Promontory Palace”); McRay, “Archaeology and NT,” 97; cf. idem, “Caesarea Maritima,” 176.

[1889]. Rapske, Custody, 156.

[1890]. See Holum, “Caesarea,” 400.

[1891]. Gleason et al., “Promontory Palace.” Cf. Josephus’s “palaces” (plural) in Caesarea (Ant. 15.331).

[1892]. See Di Segni, “Chapel of Paul”; Patrich, “Chapel.”

[1893]. Gleason et al., “Promontory Palace,” suggest that the praetorium continued in use through Byzantine times.

[1894]. Rapske, Custody, 156 (citing Jos. War 3.410; 4.622–29; 7.20, 37–40; Life 414; esp. War 2.273); Le Cornu, Acts, 1281 (citing additionally, including use of the hippodrome, Jos. Ant. 17.175, 178; War 1.659; 2.269, 273). On the hippodrome, see Patrich, “Carceres.”

[1895]. Rapske, Custody, 156; idem, “Prison,” 827 (including the quoted phrase); cf. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 110–15.

[1896]. Rapske, Custody, 157. Rapske suggests (157) that he was perhaps bound as well; but Felix might have considered this unnecessary in view of Paul’s citizenship (Acts 23:27) and Lysias’s opinion (23:29), if a guard were present.

[1897]. This passage could refer simply to a centurion making arrangements for him; but cf. Acts 27:1.

[1898]. Rapske, Custody, 267.

[1899]. Prisoners’ free associates normally supplied their provisions (see comment on Acts 24:23), but this would not be possible until they arrived. Prison rations were meager, but Paul’s status presumably invited more adequate sustenance.

[1900]. Rapske, Custody, 214–15.

[1901]. With ibid., 215.

[1902]. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 51; cf. O’Neal, “Delation.” Apart from treason and blasphemy, extant Greek law also depended on accusers (Thür, “Menysis”; idem, “Kategoros,” 34).

↑ Back to top