(1) Crispus and Corinthian Christians
Of these alternatives, I tentatively deem the fifth one of the most likely, allowing for the possibility that Gaius is Luke’s Titius Justus. But the likeliest of five uncertain alternatives, none of which is more than 50 percent probable, still remains only speculation; that is, an educated guess may be better than an uneducated one, but in the end it remains a guess.
It is probable that many Jews lived in the area around the synagogue and that Titius Justus’s patronage had focused on their community; perhaps he moved there because of his appreciation for Judaism, or perhaps the synagogue was built in a mixed boundary area to be near a wealthy patron’s home, or both.[4499] Those who normally attended synagogue would run no risk of missing this new preaching site; newcomers or wavering members of the synagogue could be tempted to visit whenever they attended the synagogue; and the opposing groups were continually confronted with each other. That despite this proximity the hostile parties did not come to blows, that Titius Justus’s home suffered no vandalism, and that it was apparently more than a year before anyone attempted to bring a legal complaint (in a highly litigious society) suggest a degree of self-restraint despite strong feelings on both sides. If Titius Justus was as well-to-do as we may suppose, he may also have been well connected to the current administration; this would have offered further incentive for restraint until the arrival of a new governor in Acts 18:12.
Many of Corinth’s elite, by Paul’s day, had achieved wealth not through a long aristocratic lineage but through mercantilism. “Such members of the nouveau riche,” Witherington notes, “were those most likely to affect culture by entertaining Sophists, preferring their more popular rhetoric of display and entertainment to serious discourse.”[4500] Such might be the citizens most prone toward offering patronage to groups that some more traditional Roman nobles might have considered in poor taste, whether to a local synagogue or to a Jewish sect that had just split from it. Titius Justus may have been the synagogue’s patron and shifted his patronage to Paul and his group.[4501] On the frequent inception of associations, synagogues, and other groups in homes, which were then often adapted for fuller use, see discussion at Acts 12:12.[4502] For the expense of homes and other issues relevant here, also see discussion at Acts 12:12.
V. CRISPUS’S FAITH AND BAPTISM (18:8)
Although Luke reports that many were converted, the conversion of a synagogue leader and his household invited special comment (18:8). On ἀρχισυνάγωγος, see comment on Acts 13:15; such a title appears to have been usually based on status, and his conversion may have both embarrassed the detractors and led to more conversions.[4503] (As noted at 13:15, some who bore this title could be Gentile benefactors; that the God-fearer Titius Justus did not receive this title in 18:7, however, could suggest that in Corinth it applied to Jewish leaders.) Paul’s first extant letter to the Corinthian church incidentally confirms an early convert named Crispus, probably a person of status in the church;[4504] Paul’s letter indicates that Paul personally baptized him (1 Cor 1:14; though Acts could simply indicate that he was an early convert).[4505]
(1) Crispus and Corinthian Christians
Crispus was a common Roman name,[4506] used in both masculine and feminine forms by Jews in Rome (CIJ 1:89, §126; 1:92, §132) and elsewhere (2:26, §762).[4507] Although certainty is not possible, Crispus’s Latin cognomen probably identifies him as a Roman citizen,[4508] but we cannot be sure. That we have so many Latin names in the Corinthian church (Rom 16:22–23; 1 Cor 16:17) probably suggests that some were Roman citizens, as were all full citizens of Corinth (though the environment would have also invited resident parents to give children single Roman names even without citizenship and the tria nomina).
We also cannot be certain if Luke intends to present Crispus as the only officer at the time holding the title “ruler of the synagogue,” since Sosthenes holds this office in Acts 18:17 (and Luke employs the plural in 13:15).[4509] Probably, usage varied from one location to another,[4510] and especially if the title was often honorary, associated with benefactors,[4511] it might be conferred on multiple individuals.[4512] (Theft of another community benefactor would also further explain the remaining synagogue leaders’ hostility.)[4513] If a single “ruler” for the Corinthian congregation is in view (the word is articular here), Sosthenes (who appears more than a year later, 18:17; cf. 18:11) may be the chosen replacement. That they would have first chosen a ruler with a Latin name might be significant, and Sosthenes’s lack of one might suggest that Paul had appealed to Roman elements within the synagogue. But again, these are possibilities, not necessarily probabilities, especially since we cannot be sure the synagogue had only one ruler at a time.
Since Crispus was an early convert (1 Cor 1:14), Sosthenes also seems a believer (1:1), and both are described by Luke as “synagogue rulers” (Acts 18:8, 17), it is possible that these are two names for the same person (allowing frustrated members of the synagogue community to beat their former leader Crispus in 18:17).[4514] This proposal is ultimately unlikely, however; why would Luke change names without an explanation connecting them? (That Paul likewise uses both names reinforces the objection.) More likely, Sosthenes was simply a fellow synagogue ruler with Crispus or his replacement; for further discussion, see comment on Acts 18:17.
Luke reports household conversions for a centurion (11:12, 14–15), Lydia the merchant (16:15), a state worker (16:31–34), and this synagogue ruler. In at least most of these incidents, the “households” could mean extended households, including servants.[4515] Those familiar with Roman household cults would find intelligible the notion of entire households being converted.[4516]
Named Corinthian Christians—aside from the plainly temporary residents Paul, Timothy or Silas, Prisca, and Aquila—include the following:
Of these who are named, we know at least several who were leaders, including Stephanas (1 Cor 16:15–16, though possibly in an informal way) and especially Phoebe (Rom 16:1–2, in an explicit way), and also Sosthenes if he was from Corinth (1 Cor 1:1). Some others apparently had quite high status in society, such as Erastus (Rom 16:23) and probably those with homes large enough to host churches (Phoebe in 16:2; Gaius in 16:23), or travel (16:1–2), or send others (1 Cor 1:11) on business.
It seems surprising that Luke, eager to report persons of status, omits mention of Erastus the city οἰκονόμος (Rom 16:23), especially if he was an aedile.[4518] Luke does not name Paul’s unconverted patrons in Acts 19:31, and it is also possible that the Erastus of Rom 16:23 was an unconverted patron rather than a convert. It is also possible that he fell away or—especially if he is the same Erastus in Acts 19:22 (see comment there), who later traveled with Paul—somehow lost status.[4519] But it also may be that none of these possibilities is correct. Luke’s coverage of Corinth is not lengthy enough to provide more than an outline and a sample of Paul’s ministry there.
(2) Water Sources in Corinth
The location or locations for the baptisms here are not specified, but in the case of Corinth (as in the case of a few other cities), we have sufficient archaeological evidence to demonstrate that an abundance of adequate sources of water were available.[4520] Corinth was several miles from either coast on the isthmus,[4521] and so nearer bodies of water would have been preferable. Although Corinth’s average rainfall is only fifteen inches (40 cm.), it was well watered; Corinthians tapped underground springs by tunnels and reservoirs cut through rock and with wells and cisterns.[4522] Preindustrial cities often derived their water from wells susceptible to cholera and typhus or from polluted rivers, but the Greeks and Romans depended on natural springs and used aqueducts to transport water to the cities.[4523]
A private pool or natural body of water might have been sufficient, but if Paul wished to make a public statement, he could have used public fountains or public baths. Since the baths were public space also used for lectures,[4524] they would have provided an ideal place to make an open “statement” if no religious or political scruples of the Christians prevented it. Although Greeks in Corinth had venerated local springs, we have little evidence of this in current, Roman Corinth.[4525] Pools for swimming also appear near major fountains.[4526]
Although public baths were perhaps not the most common location for baptism, Apuleius speaks of Isis priests at Cenchreae (Corinth’s Aegean port town) washing an initiate at the nearest available bath (Metam. 11.23).[4527] Before returning to Corinth’s bath complexes, it is helpful to give a sketch of what can be known about baths in the Greco-Roman world.
Excursus: Baths in Greco-Roman Antiquity[4528]
Baths were important to Roman social life.[4529] Although Greeks had built baths earlier for hygiene,[4530] it was Roman culture that made them a social institution, and bathhouses characterized Roman cities.[4531] Scholars generally suggest the origins of bath complexes in the hot baths associated with gymnasia in the Greek world of the fourth century B.C.E.[4532] Some suggest that Romans adopted baths in the third century B.C.E., perhaps from Campania.[4533] The most famous baths in Rome were those built by Agrippa.[4534] By the first century, Roman baths existed as far north as Bath, England.[4535]
Romans became skilled in hydraulic engineering and aqueducts to maintain water supplies.[4536] They designed their baths carefully both for utility[4537] and for beauty.[4538] The baths in Pompeii occupy a space 165 by 175 feet; the corridor from the atrium to the dressing room has golden stars on a blue ceiling.[4539]
The visitor to the baths would first enter the dressing room (apodyterium), then might proceed to the hot chamber (caldarium), a warm chamber (tepidarium), and finally the domed chamber for the cold bath (frigidarium).[4540] Architects designed the furnace beneath the floor of the caldarium to distribute the heat there;[4541] water from the frigidarium helped keep the tepidarium tepid.[4542] Baths sometimes had lecture halls and libraries attached,[4543] and people also played ball there;[4544] they were also used for exercise.[4545]
Most Romans bathed daily.[4546] Baths were considered helpful for health[4547] and could be used for washing in emergencies unrelated to leisure.[4548] But baths were especially part of the day’s leisure,[4549] constituting an activity the Romans considered characteristic of civilized life.[4550] People typically went to the baths in the afternoon, before evening banquets;[4551] following the morning’s work, they could socialize in the afternoon with “business associates” and others “for several hours” while relaxing in the baths.[4552] Someone who went to the baths multiple times each day, however, was considered addicted to luxury.[4553]
Public-works projects sponsored by cities with sufficient funds included baths,[4554] which were characteristic of any romanized city;[4555] emperors also displayed beneficence by building them.[4556] The admission fees were low enough (in Rome, just a quarter as, a nominal amount for most persons)[4557] that nonaristocrats could find leisure there as well as aristocrats although, even naked, the wealthy could flaunt their wealth (with servants and clients).[4558] The rich could be carried from a bathhouse in a sedan chair,[4559] some “carried by servants almost as if they were corpses on their way to the graveyard.”[4560]
Some other sensitivities may have reduced the attractiveness of public baths for baptisms. During the republic, Roman baths segregated genders, but starting in the first century, Roman men and women could bathe together naked.[4561] Although women concerned about their reputation could bathe in balneae designed exclusively for women, many others preferred the mixed baths, which offered a wider range of activities.[4562] Some philosophers rejected or sought to reduce the use of bathhouses, most often on the grounds that luxury breeds decadence;[4563] Pliny the Elder, another first-century writer, also complained about the ensuing decadence.[4564] After numerous scandals, Hadrian, in the early second century, decreed different times for male and female bathing.[4565] (In Rome about 62 C.E., Demetrius the Cynic was said to have criticized baths as worthless;[4566] perhaps he repeated such harangues when he settled later in Corinth, but this would be after the time of Paul’s ministry there.)
Hellenistic and especially Roman culture had spread the use of public baths, even in Judea.[4567] Archaeologists have examined, for example, the heating stones beneath the floor of Masada’s bath.[4568] At the same time, Jews and Christians regarded public bathing as decadent.[4569] Judean bathhouses were separated by gender,[4570] and a husband could divorce his wife if she bathed together with men.[4571] Jewish baths and the activities surrounding them resemble Roman baths, except for segregating genders, reducing nakedness, avoiding sculptures, saying prayers, and closing baths on the Sabbath.[4572]
Later Jewish sources also report some spiritual dangers associated with bathhouses, since (especially after the proliferation of demonology in the succeeding centuries) bathhouses and latrines were regarded as preferred haunts for demons.[4573] Thus some rabbis said that when entering a bathhouse, one should pray for one’s death to atone for one’s sins;[4574] some others, by contrast, countered that this fearful prayer simply opened the door to demonic attacks.[4575]
In the second century, Pausanias pointed out that baths were scattered throughout Corinth; although he attributes one of these to Hadrian’s time in the early second century, many others may have been earlier.[4576] Earlier excavations already attested nine Roman baths (and a possible tenth) in Corinth;[4577] the earliest is from the Augustan period, north of the Peribolos of Apollo.[4578] (The famous bath on the Lechaeum Road was not built until about 200 C.E.)[4579] From Pausanias’s claim that many parts of the city had them, we must infer that there were also other baths not yet discovered.[4580] Nearby Isthmia also had baths.[4581]
Corinth’s Asklepieion, away from the agora in a more recreational area, was connected with Lerna and its spring house, which continued in use until the late fourth century.[4582] Passersby on the Lechaeum Road could wash or even swim in its large pool.[4583] It is not likely, however, that Christians would have preferred for their baptisms a spring house so closely associated with the Asclepius cult.[4584]
The most famous water source is the spring of Peirene,[4585] said to have been formed by a blow from Pegasus’s hoof.[4586] It was south of the probable site of the Corinthian synagogue.[4587] Already in classical Greek times the fountain was a busy public location, with people sitting, playing, talking, and watching passersby.[4588] Like Glauce, Peirene was a surviving fountain from old Corinth; it was one of the Romans’ first rebuilding efforts in the city and was a major source of water for new Corinth.[4589] Peirene was Corinth’s largest spring, producing about “18 cubic meters per hour.”[4590]
Glauce, by contrast, was restored but not “romanized.”[4591] Some think that its name’s connection with the victim of Medea’s anger[4592] might stem from a Roman desire for ancient connections rather than from earlier Greek tradition.[4593] In neither case do we know of cultic activity at these sites in the Roman period;[4594] religious scruples thus posed fewer obstacles to the use of these sites than to use of the pool by the Asclepius sanctuary. Peirene was also a very public location. “Transients, tourists, and pilgrims might have stopped to see Peirene, to drink its fine water, and to wash off the dust of the road.”[4595] The fountain’s water replenished Peirene’s swimming pool in addition to serving public baths and eventually flushing the city’s latrines.[4596]
Many other springs have been discovered since the archaeological sources noted above, for a total of twenty-four known so far.[4597] These include the Cheliotomylos fountain house (probably discontinued before Roman times)[4598] and a Roman period fountain house in Trench 46.[4599] Fountain houses served a useful purpose, but in the East they were also often elaborately decorated.[4600]
It seems unlikely that Paul followed stricter Palestinian rules (although these were widely followed in Palestine)[4601] about the necessity of using freshwater (e.g., rainwater) rather than drawn water. Though natural fountains were freshwater, wells or artificial pools without a natural supply (rain, streams, fountains) would not be.
d. Jesus’s Promise of Protection (18:9–11)
The Lord’s appearance to Paul in a night vision encourages Paul to keep speaking in Corinth; despite the hostility of the synagogue in Acts 18:6, he will not face charges until 18:12, and even these prove ineffective. Although Paul had many stories of persecutions elsewhere to tell the Corinthian Christians (2 Cor 11:23–25), he faced no potentially life-threatening hostility in Corinth until a much later occasion, and even then the plot was betrayed and apparently not well coordinated (Acts 20:2–3). The division of Corinth’s Jewish community was quite different from what Paul had faced in Thessalonica (17:5, 13), and his Thessalonian opponents had not pursued him here (or at least had not yet proved sufficiently effective to be worth mentioning). The Lord apparently assures Paul in this passage that matters in Corinth differ from earlier cities and hence Paul can stay here for a long time (18:11).
Night visions, typically in one’s sleep, were familiar and widely accepted in antiquity.[4602] Although some later Platonist philosophers thought that only angels and demons, not true deities,[4603] could appear as if visible, the vast majority of ancients were more inclined to accept the substantial lore that suggested otherwise. Pagan Corinthians were very familiar with the shrine of Asclepius on the north of the city, where Asclepius appeared to sleeping supplicants to provide either healing or instruction for healing.[4604] The same was true for Asclepius’s cult center at Epidaurus in this region.[4605] People also often came to Serapis shrines for the same purpose, and Corinth had two of them.[4606] The biblically informed, however, will think of biblical precedent, and the reader of the rest of Acts will also be familiar with revelations from the true God in this way (2:17; 16:9).
I. ASSURANCE (18:9–10)
The Lord’s words include the conventional and necessary components of assurance oracles, including the admonition and reason.[4607] Though Paul’s letters do not describe individual visions, he is clear that he experienced many of them, far more than Luke may have reported (2 Cor 12:1, 9; probably 12:2–5). Luke provides only a few samples, and the incidental way he mentions some (Acts 22:17–21) suggests that he may have known of others he did not have space or need to report.
The divine exhortation “Do not fear” appears in earlier biblical dream oracles (e.g., Gen 15:1; 26:24).[4608] That the allusion here is biblical[4609] is clear from the fact that, for example, as here, the command is often linked with the divine promise “I will be with you” in Isaiah (Isa 41:10; 43:1–2, 5),[4610] appropriate to one bearing the servant’s mission (Acts 13:47). But it is also common elsewhere, either in divine oracles or in other promises based on them (Deut 20:1; 31:6; 1 Chr 28:20; 2 Chr 20:17; Jer 42:11; 46:28), including in night revelations (Gen 26:24). God’s promise to be with someone often accompanies a divine calling or command, particularly when special encouragement is needed (Gen 26:3; 31:3; Exod 3:12; Josh 1:5; 3:7; Judg 6:12, 16; Jer 1:8, 19; cf. 1 Kgs 11:38; Matt 28:20). That God (here the Lord Jesus) would be “with” a person or a people was the ultimate basis for assurance, the reason fear was unnecessary.[4611]
Perhaps most relevant for Paul’s own mission would be God’s promise to one of his prophets, Jeremiah (Jer 1:8, exhorting Jeremiah not to fear, because God was with him). Jeremiah was a “prophet to the nations” (1:5) as Paul was an apostle to the nations or Gentiles (Rom 11:13; Acts 26:17; cf. 1 Tim 2:7). The formula also applied to others carrying out a divine mission (e.g., Hag 2:4), perhaps especially to the earlier Joshua, who had large shoes to fill with Moses’s departure (Deut 31:8, 23; Josh 1:9; 8:1). The promise to Jeremiah, like the one to Paul here, includes the emphatic “I” alongside the verb (in Jer 1:8, 19; 42 [49 LXX]:11; 46 [26 LXX]:28; cf. Hag 1:13; 2:4).
Elsewhere in Luke-Acts, divine revelations encourage the receiver not to fear. Sometimes this exhortation is meant to assure the person fearful of the vision itself (Luke 1:13, 30; 2:10). But other times it is the circumstances they fear (Acts 27:24),[4612] and this seems to be the case here. Paul has faced discouraging circumstances in other cities; the Lord now encourages him that he will not be run out of Corinth.[4613] Later, in a hostile setting, the Lord encourages him again to take courage, because the Lord will see to it that Paul fulfills what the Lord called him to do (23:11). On God’s being “with” someone, see, for example, Luke 1:66; Acts 10:38; comment on Acts 7:9.
That Paul should continue speaking God’s message[4614] fits the possible allusion to Jeremiah’s call noted above (cf. also comment on Acts 9:15–16). God tells Jeremiah to go wherever God sends him (Jer 1:7) and not to fear the opposition, because the Lord is with him to rescue him (1:8). God touches his mouth (1:9; cf. earlier Isa 6:6–7; cf. Isa 51:16), places words in his mouth (Jer 1:9), and commissions him to build, plant, and tear down (1:10; cf. 2 Cor 10:8); others would oppose him, but God would rescue him (Jer 1:19).[4615]
The Lord’s “many people in this city” (Acts 18:10) may refer to those who are already his people, who will protect Paul. This probably does not refer to the already converted believers, however, since their number is not yet large (though it may be influential and has grown quickly, 18:7–8).[4616] It is also unlikely that it refers to the Jewish community as a whole,[4617] since those who were not believers would not likely protect Paul (unless the Lord means that although they are not believers, they will not seek Paul’s harm for more than a year). It is even less likely that it simply refers to those strategically placed to help Paul without being believers (such as Gallio, who is not “many”—though he certainly proves to be God’s agent of protection in the following context; cf. Isa 45:1). More likely, then, it refers to those who will be supportive though they are not yet believers (Luke 10:6; cf. Matt 10:11). The point may reflect God’s compassion on those he wishes to be converted (cf. Jonah 4:11, though the LXX wording is not close); that they belong to the Lord suggests that even if not yet converted, they will be (cf. Zech 2:11). In this case, the Lord encourages Paul that his mission will prosper because he has much more work there to do. The Lord will protect Paul for the sake of believers yet to be converted.[4618] Thus Paul must continue speaking (Acts 18:9). That Paul may take courage because of God having many might evoke 1 Kgs 19:18, where many have not yet succumbed to Baal worship.[4619]
No one would lay hands on Paul with the outcome of harming him (rather than the intention of harming him; cf. 18:12). Some scholars have complained about Luke’s consistency, since some in Corinth eventually did attack Paul (Acts 18:12).[4620] But that no one would “attack [Paul] to harm” him undoubtedly represents an infinitive of result rather than a more common infinitive of purpose;[4621] that is, “no one will attack you with the result of harm to you.”[4622]
II. PAUL’S LENGTHY STAY (18:11)
One difference between the Lukan and the epistolary Pauls about which some scholars have complained is Paul’s intimacy with churches such as Corinth in his letters in contrast to his offering speeches and moving on in Acts.[4623] This portrayal is something of a caricature; Luke’s focus is what befits the telling of a story, and in a congregation such as Thessalonica, he does not take time to develop much the bonding between Paul and his followers. He does, however, mention a lengthy stay in Corinth (18:11; he also records no speech there),[4624] departing from the proposed distinction.
What might Paul have been doing during his lengthy stay in Corinth, the details of which Luke mainly omits? Clearly, Paul was founding the Corinthian church, bringing many to follow Christ (1 Cor 4:15; 2 Cor 10:14); he regards as false apostles others who claimed equal rights as the churches’ founders (2 Cor 11:12–13). Paul reminds the Corinthians that they themselves witnessed many signs and miracles that properly confirmed his apostolic ministry there (12:12). That Luke—despite his frequent mention of miracles—omits them in his summary of Corinth illustrates that he merely offers samples, which do not always overlap with the selective samples in Paul’s letters.[4625]
Regarding Paul’s teaching in Corinth, he claims that he preached the “foolishness” of the gospel there (by the standards of Greek philosophy and Greco-Roman rhetoric, 1 Cor 1:18–2:16) but could not expound more “deeply,” because most of the Corinthian Christians were immature. A sign of their immaturity was that they were deeply affected by the partisan divisiveness and competition of their culture (3:1–5). Seeking a good reception for his two volumes in Achaia as well as Philippi, Luke may not have wished to highlight the Corinthian church’s problems.
Paul must have taught some Jesus tradition also, because he not only cites it for the Corinthians (7:10; 11:23–25; cf. 15:3–8) but also calls Peter by his Aramaic name as if they know it (3:22; 9:5; 15:5) and uses some Aramaic they seem to know (16:22). He is also clearly reminding them of some of these traditions, not teaching them for the first time (“what I delivered to you,” 11:23; 15:3; cf. 11:2).
Paul may have lectured to passersby (or discussed the gospel over work) at the local games during his sojourn in Corinth. The Isthmian Games occurred every two years[4626] and should have occurred during Paul’s stay (Acts 18:11);[4627] they were held in the spring of 49 and 51 C.E.[4628] When combined with the imperial games[4629] every fourth year (i.e., every other celebration of the Isthmian Games), the Isthmian Games were the Great (as opposed to the Lesser) Isthmia.[4630] There were four Greek games, often mentioned together:[4631] the Olympic,[4632] the Pythian,[4633] the Nemean,[4634] and the Isthmian.[4635] The Isthmian “were the most splendid and best attended” of the pan-Hellenic festivals next to the quadrennial Olympics.[4636]
Whether or not Paul attended the Isthmian Games, which would have occurred during his stay there,[4637] he would have known about them,[4638] and it seems plausible that he would have made use of them somehow to reach people passing through, as Diogenes the Cynic reportedly did.[4639] The Isthmian Games were well known among educated urban people throughout the Roman world.[4640] Large numbers would gather from many diverse cities, discussing current events, at the Isthmian Games (Polyb. 18.46.1).[4641] (Both genders would also be present.)[4642] Many gave readings and orations besides other entertainments;[4643] a local preacher might be ignored by the Corinthians, who were accustomed to him, yet draw a crowd of visitors.[4644] It was a strategic place to make announcements that would reach all Greece.[4645]
Traditions attributed the founding of the games to Poseidon and Helios,[4646] or to Poseidon alone, or to others;[4647] they had long included what began as funeral rites for Melikertes-Palaimon.[4648] It was said that the Cynic Diogenes attended the games merely to observe human behavior[4649] and that some visitors, sufficiently entertained by Diogenes, left the games before their completion.[4650] The officials tolerated Diogenes’s activities until he went so far as to don a victor’s wreath![4651] After Corinth’s destruction, the custody of the games passed to the Sicyonians, but after Corinth’s restoration, Corinth again achieved stewardship.[4652] The games were restored to the site of Isthmia itself in the 50s C.E.[4653] The location of the games, once restored to Isthmia, was a stadium belonging to the Isthmian sanctuary of Poseidon.[4654]
Regardless of Paul’s level of engagement in the Isthmian Games, he would not have missed an opportunity to learn aspects of the broader culture. Given Corinth’s romanization (noted above), Paul would certainly have learned Roman culture and probably the Latin language better.[4655] Staying with two Jewish immigrants from Rome, at least at the beginning, would have also helped prepare him for his future stay in Rome (Acts 28:16). Even peripheral members of Luke’s audience would know that Corinth was highly romanized and might recognize the direction of the narrative if they were familiar with Paul’s later ministry in Rome.
e. Gallio Refuses Paul’s Case (18:12–17)
Luke provides a favorable legal precedent, showing that Jesus’s followers are not subversive against Rome but were wrongly accused by Jewish disputants over theological differences.[4656] At the same time, he shows the fulfillment of Jesus’s promise of protection in 18:9–10.
I. HISTORICITY OF THE APPEARANCE BEFORE GALLIO
A novelist would not dare fabricate a precedent about the ruling of a recent, historical, named figure, nor would an ancient novelist have cared to research the details that Luke has accurately provided. Luke would hardly dare invent an official hearing before a named proconsul in recent memory. Records of decisions could be checked, and fabricating precedents wholesale would not commend Luke or his colleagues to Roman authorities when claims of such precedents were inevitably raised before them.[4657]
Nor ought we to count against the account’s essential likelihood the supposed ability of Luke to check the basic information without a direct source: Luke would not have had easy access to the proconsul’s name from precisely the correct year if he were simply fabricating an account many years after the fact; how would he even know in what years to place Paul in Corinth?[4658] Senate archives were available only to high-ranking Romans; access via corrupt clerks is first attested in the third and fourth centuries.[4659] That Achaia was governed by a proconsul would be easier to know or assume (it was true in 27 B.C.E.–15 C.E. and, more recently, from 44 C.E. onward),[4660] but the naming of the specific official is more striking. Moreover, had Luke been inventing precedents, we might expect him to have granted Paul a full acquittal rather than the dismissal of a case out of anti-Jewish prejudice. Luke likes to offer speeches, but Paul is not afforded the opportunity for one here. Luke certainly employs this case to serve his overall apologetic purpose, but it is unlikely that he would have fabricated it.
II. DATE
Despite a small number of detractors,[4661] most scholars agree that the Gallio inscription allows us to pinpoint to within a year or two the time when Gallio was in Corinth.[4662] This is important for the study of Acts and Paul’s life because it provides the surest external referent for Luke’s chronology of Paul’s ministry.
It seems likely that Claudius ordered provincial officials to leave Rome by April 1 (or, at latest, mid-April), to ensure smooth transitions for their assuming office on July 1.[4663] Gallio did not finish his term of office,[4664] and so his first (and only complete) year would thus run from July 1 of one year to July 1 of the following year—in the majority view, from July 1, 51 C.E., to July 1, 52.[4665] An inscription[4666] mentions him in the twenty-sixth acclamation of Claudius (other sources identify this as in the first seven months of 52 C.E.)[4667] and seems to make an inaugural date in the summer of 52 unlikely (though see the comment below): Claudius has already received a report from him.[4668] To most scholars this suggests that he probably left Rome in April of 51 and arrived in Corinth by May. The later possibility, in 52 C.E., is also reasonable (since he is said to have left “immediately,” whatever this means);[4669] some mention this later date as plausible but less likely than the earlier date.[4670]
In any case, we must date Paul’s appearance before Gallio early in the proconsul’s tenure because this was the only part of his tenure he served; he departed before completing his term.[4671] He may have become ill because of the Corinthian climate; Seneca reports that the illness was due to the location.[4672] In any case, he cut short his tenure in Achaia for health reasons, taking a cruise;[4673] he may have been succeeded by one Turcianus.[4674]
It thus seems likely that Paul’s accusers brought the case to Gallio early in his term of office.[4675] Some scholars even aver that Gallio held office only between July and October 51 C.E.,[4676] which would require the hearing to be early (but this dating is debated). A secondary, supporting argument in favor of this earlier dating of the case is the desirability of bringing difficult cases to new and potentially open-minded governors (Acts 25:2–3). On this dating, Paul may have arrived in Corinth in February or March of 50 C.E.[4677] or, more generally, late 49 to early 50.[4678] One could argue against a date in 51 if one assumes that Gallio must have remained in proconsular office in Corinth at the time of Claudius’s mention of him in 52 C.E. This assumption is not, however, necessary; even if the report was before Claudius in early 52, it could have been delayed in reaching him over the winter (see comment on Acts 27:9).
If Seneca’s language that Gallio left Corinth “immediately” is meant literally, it is possible that he arrived in May of 52, reported on conditions to Claudius by letter, finished the summer, and then sailed before the seas closed in late October; in this case, Paul appeared before him in the summer or early fall of 52, with Paul arriving a year later than in the previous estimate.[4679] During the summer, a report could reach Rome fairly quickly, and hence, even if Gallio sent the report after July 1, it could reach the emperor within July. Yet this approach requires a very tight chronology and seems somewhat less probable than the earlier dating that allows more time. Both dates for the beginning of Gallio’s term (51 and 52) can be defended, but the 51 date appears somewhat simpler and currently has more supporters. In either case, we can pinpoint Paul’s appearance before Gallio to within a year or two and establish a relative Pauline chronology on this basis.