[648] . Willis, Idol Meat , 13–14.

[648] . Willis, Idol Meat , 13–14.

[647]. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 108.22 (the cult might be Judaism).

[648]. Willis, Idol Meat, 13–14.

[649]. Cf. Koch, “Macella”; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 145; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 365–66; Witherington, Corinthians, 189; Smith, Symposium, 75; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 278–81. Isenberg, “Sale,” thinks that the source of meat was typically identified (and shows that this was sometimes the case, as in Vit. Aes. 51), but as others have shown (e.g., Thiselton, Corinthians, 783), often enough it was not.

[650]. Meeks, Moral World, 112.

[651]. Theissen, Setting, 129–30; Meeks, Urban Christians, 98.

[652]. Cf. Winter, Left Corinth, 6–7, 288–93.

[653]. I have treated this subject more extensively in Keener, “Adultery”; but I have adapted here esp. Keener, John, 593–95.

[654]. Johnson, Acts, 266 (citing Tob 4:12; 8:7; Sir 23:23).

[655]. Witherington, Acts, 463, limits it to sacral prostitution (which Jewish people may have expected more often than it happened in this period) to fit his thesis that the entire decree concerned temple activity. Fitzmyer, Acts, 557–58, argues, from analogy with zenut in CD IV, 12–V, 14, that it includes polygamy, divorce (IV, 20–21), and incestuous marriages (V, 7–8). The application of the prohibition against second marriages to divorce in IV, 20 (cf. Black, Scrolls, 123; Schubert, “Ehescheidung,” 27), however, is problematic, since the context concerns royal polygyny (CD V, 2; with Vermes, “Halakah”; Keener, Marries Another, 40–41); further, the text itself claims that Belial’s nets enslaved Israel, not only Gentiles (CD IV, 16). The parallel text in 11QT LVI, 18–19 prohibits only polygamy (in view of the quotation of Deut 17:17 and context instructing the king) and allows remarriage after a spouse’s death (with Yadin, “Attitude”; though Murphy-O’Connor, “Remarques,” believes that the two texts may address different issues).

[656]. In various passages, e.g., Bruce, Thessalonians, 82; Meier, Vision, 256; Harrington, Matthew, 30; Caron, “Divorce,” 312; Schedl, “Ehebruchklausel”; Wambacq, “Possibilité”; Witherington, “Exception.” For a discussion of the forbidden degrees of marriage (in Philo and later rabbis), see Belkin, Philo, 232–41.

[657]. See Barrett, Acts, 732; Keener, Matthew, 467–69; Hagner, Matthew, 1:124.

[658]. E.g., P.Oxy. 237, vol. 7, lines 19–29; stories about allowing it to prevent death from lovesickness (Val. Max. 5.7.ext. 1; Sen. E. Controv. 6.7); claims about Caligula in Suet. Calig. 23.1; 24.1; Jos. Ant. 19.204 (but Josephus justifies the same for parents of a royal proselyte in the East, 20.18); Nero in Suet. Nero 28.2; storytellers also exploited such lines (Ovid Metam. 9.454–665; 10.314–476; Parth. L.R. 2.2; 5.2–3; 11.1–3; 13.1–4; 17.1–7; 31.1; Apoll. K. Tyre 1); for exceptions for philosophers, see Hook, “Oedipus.”

[659]. On alleged Persian intercourse with mothers, see, e.g., Sext. Emp. Pyr. 1.152; 3.205; Ptolemy Tetrab. 4.10.203; Catullus 90.1–4; Dio Chrys. Or. 10.30; 21.5; Philo Spec. 3.13; Tatian 28; Tert. Apol. 9.16; Gane, “Leviticus,” 309–10; more documented, with sisters, Yamauchi, Persia, 127, 450; comment on Nabateans at Acts 9:23–25. For Egypt, see comment below.

[660]. For Jewish suspicions, see Sib. Or. 5.390–91; cf. Gen. Rab. 18:5; 52:11. Jewish people harshly condemned all kinds of incest (Gen 19:30–38; 49:3–4; Jub. 16:8; 33:1–14; 41:23–26; Philo Spec. Laws 3.19; Jos. Ant. 17.341; Test. Reub. 1:6–10; Gr. Ezra 4:24; Sipre Deut. 246.1.2; y. Ned. 2:1, §4; Taʿan. 4:5, §8; Deut. Rab. 2:21; Tg. Ps.-J. on Num 35:25; on Deut 23:10; cf. Ps.-Phoc. 179–81; Belkin, Philo, 232–41) and considered the Jewish standard stricter than Gentile practice (e.g., Sipra Qed. par. 4.206.1.2; y. Qidd. 1:1, §2; cf. Jos. Ant. 20.18). Some Gentiles might have condemned levirate marriages, though (cf. Ps.-Libanius Introduction of a Law 1).

[661]. Hesiod W.D. 328–29; Xen. Mem. 4.4.20–21; Lysias Or. 14.41, §143; Diod. Sic. 5.55.6–7; Cic. Leg. 2.9.22; Catull. Carm. 67.23–24, 29–30; 78.1–6; Val. Max. 1.8.ext. 3; Dio Chrys. Or. 66.6; Gaius Inst. 1.59–64; Plut. Rom. Q. 108, Mor. 289D; Par. St. 19, Mor. 310BC; Juv. Sat. 2.32–33; 4.8–9; Tac. Ann. 14.2; 16.8; Suet. Calig. 23–24; Nero 28; Min. Fel. Oct. 31.1; Apul. Metam. 10.3; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.10; 5.14; Iambl. V.P. 17.78; 31.210; Keener, “Adultery,” 12–14; Robinson, Criminal Law, 54–57; Ebner, “Incestus.” The story of Oedipus (Sophocles Oedipus the King; Seneca the Younger Phoenician Women) was often recalled (e.g., Soph. Antig. 863–66; Eurip. Phoen. 869; Epict. Diatr. 1.24.16; Mart. Epig. 10.4.1; Hdn. 4.9.3; cf. Justin 1 Apol. 27; cf. also discussion in Henrichs, “Oedipus”). Many regarded as shameful even Claudius’s marriage to his niece (Tac. Ann. 12.5; Suet. Claud. 26.3; 39; Dio Cass. 61.31.6); exceptions had to be made for deities (e.g., Burkert, Religion, 178; Virg. Aen. 1.45–46; Athenag. Plea 32), and the emperor may have invoked this privilege (for one theory, Green, “Claudius”).

[662]. On these, see Paus. 1.7.1; Diod. Sic. 1.27.1; Sext. Emp. Pyr. 1.152; for a discussion of frequency, see Scheidel, “Incest Revisited”; for development, Ameling, “Sibling Marriage”; Rowlandson and Takahashi, “Marriage”; more skeptically, Huebner, “Marriage” (who suggests, e.g., that one sibling was adoptive); against Huebner, with considerable evidence, Remijsen and Clarysse, “Incest”; for political motives in the Ptolemaic dynasty, see Ager, “Familiarity”; cf. ANET 467–69; in Nubia, see Adams, Nubia, 260; for the limitation mainly to the royal family until the Roman period, see Long, “2 Samuel,” 462; in some more recent cultures, cf. Radcliffe-Brown, “Taboo,” 50. These were rejected elsewhere (Diod. Sic. 10.31.1; Gaius Inst. 1.61), though Greeks allowed nonuterine, half-sibling unions (e.g., Ach. Tat. 1.3.1–2; Corn. Nep. 5 [Cimon], 1.2; cf. Corn. Nep. pref. 4). Although Jewish people felt that God tolerated brother-sister marriages in an earlier period (Gen 20:12; y. Sanh. 5:1, §4), Lev 18:9, 11 and Deut 27:22 ruled out subsequent brother-sister marriages (Sipre Num. 90.1.1) except perhaps for Gentile slaves (y. Yebam. 11:2, §3).

[663]. See, e.g., Farber, Kinship Systems, 59; Barth, “Descent,” 6; Schapera, “Kinship,” 152, 156; cf. Gough, “Mappilla,” 433; Pitt-Rivers, “Kith,” 94–95. Sometimes degrees of kinship also vary in amount of incest guilt (e.g., Elkins, “Models,” 171; Evens, “Mind,” 126; Schlegel, Dominance, 12, 69, 76, 123–24); some cultures also provide rituals for removing incest guilt (e.g., Southall, “Ideology,” 159). A few cultures prohibit all first-cousin marriages (Farber, Kinship Systems, 26–28, 31–32; for parallel cousins, Kuper, “Kinship,” 104), but most permit at least cross-cousin marriages (e.g., Mark, “Marriage”; Gough, “Variation”; Murphy and Kasdan, “Agnation,” 12). Some apply extended sibling terminology to forbidden cousins (e.g., Fields and Merrifield, “Kinship,” 27; Farber, Kinship Systems, 94).

[664]. See Graburn, “Incest Taboos,” 324; Parsons, “Kinship,” 410; cf., e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 179–80, 192; Evans-Pritchard, Kinship, 29–48; Firth, Tikopia, 280–97. Incest invites punishment by deities or society (e.g., Wilson, Rituals of Kinship, 134–35, 187; Evens, “Mind”; Nukunya, Kinship, 68; Willner, “Definition,” 152; Fortes, “Kinship,” 257; Needham, “Kinship,” 27; in magic, see Makarius, “Violation,” 233–34).

[665]. See Wilt, “Appealing to Context” (against restricting πορνείας to “incest” here).

[666]. Many modern Christian pastors at this point might lament, “Would that it were so!” See, e.g., Sider, Scandal, 22–24.

[667]. E.g., m. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:1; cf. 2 Macc 6:4; bestiality in y. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:1, §3; homosexual intercourse in Let. Aris. 152; Sib. Or. 3.185–86, 596–600; 5.166, 387; y. Qidd. 4:11, §6. Cf. Dormeyer and Galindo, Apostelgeschichte, 233, for a reaction against “laxe, hellenistische Sexualethik.”

[668]. B. Yebam. 60b.

[669]. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.199; 1 En. 8:1–2; Jub. 20:4; 33:20; Test. Ab. 10:8 A; Asc. Is. 2:5; t. Sanh. 13:8; Sipre Deut. 258.2.3; see further Keener, “Adultery,” 10–11. It is equivalent to prostitution (Sipra Qed. pq. 7.204.1.1–2; either may be condemned in CD IV, 17–18; VII, 1; VIII, 5; 1QS IV, 10).

[670]. E.g., Wis 14:24; L.A.B. 2:8; Sent. Syr. Men. 45–46, 240–51; Test. Levi 17:11; Tr. Shem 7:15; 9:9; 10:16; at greater length, see Keener, “Adultery,” 7–10.

[671]. Deut 23:17; Sir 9:6; 19:2; 41:20; 2 Macc 6:4; Jos. Ant. 4.206, 245; Philo Jos. 43; Sib. Or. 5.388; Sipre Num. 115.5.7; perhaps Jos. Asen. 7:5/6.

[672]. E.g., Job 31:1, 9; Tob 8:7; Sir 9:8; 23:5; 25:21; 41:21; Sus 8; 1QS I, 6–7; IV, 10; CD II, 16; 11QT LIX, 14; 1QpHab V, 7; Sib. Or. 4.33–34; Pss. Sol. 4:4; Test. Iss. 3:5; 4:4; Test. Reub. 3:3; 4:1, 6, 11; 6:1–3; Test. Jud. 17:1; m. Nid. 2:1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 2 A; 2, §9 B; b. Ber. 20a; Yebam. 63b; y. Ber. 9:1, §16; Ḥag. 2:2, §4; Ḥal. 2:1, §10; Gen. Rab. 32:7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 3:2; see further Keener, Matthew, 186–87; Mueller, “Faces of Lust.” Cf. Matt 5:28–30; 2 Pet 2:14; Justin 1 Apol. 15; Sent. Sext. 233; Tert. Apol. 46.11–12; for avoiding holding one’s membrum during urination, cf. b. Nid. 13a; Gen. Rab. 95 MSV; for not looking at one’s private parts, cf. y. Sanh. 10:5, §2.

[673]. Test. Iss. 7:2; Test. Reub. 4:8; b. Nid. 13b, bar.; Šabb. 64ab; Lev. Rab. 23:12; Pesiq. Rab. 24:2; see Keener, Marries Another, 16–17.

[674]. Jos. Ant. 4.245. This appears to assume that the woman had a choice, which was probably more common in Israel (prostitutes in Pss. Sol. 2:11).

[675]. Gentiles might frown on it if the woman was betrothed or married (Ach. Tat. 4.3.1–2 in context; Char. Chaer. 2.2.8; Val. Max. 4.5.ext. 1), but it was not legally punishable (Char. Chaer. 5.7.5–6; 8.8.8; Philost. Letters 26 [57]); also for immoral intentions or the appearance of such (Xen. Cyr. 5.1.8, 16–18; Cic. Cat. 1.6.13; Val. Max. 2.1.5; 4.3.ext. 1; Plut. Alex. 21.5; Men. Rhet. 2.6, 404.11–14). Stoics opposed lust because it meant that pleasure, rather than virtue, dominated one’s thoughts (e.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.37; Epict. Diatr. 2.18.15–18; 3.2.8; 4.9.3; Marc. Aur. 2.10; 3.2.2; 9.40; cf. Nock, Christianity, 19; on the dangers of other pleasures, see, e.g., Mus. Ruf. 18B, p. 116.4–22; purely descriptively, Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.10c, pp. 60–61.14–15). For diverse views on self-stimulation, see Sext. Emp. Pyr. 3.206.

[676]. E.g., Ach. Tat. 1.4–6; Apul. Metam. 2.8; Diog. Laert. 6.2.46, 69; Diogenes Ep. 35; Artem. Oneir. 1.78; Philost. Letters 10 (§50); 13 (59); 26 (§57); 58 (61); Epicurus in Max. Tyre 32.8.

[677]. E.g., PGM 4.400–405; 13.304; 32.1–19; 36.69–101, 102–33, 134–60, 187–210, 291–94, 295–311, 333–60; 62.1–24; 101.1–53; Theocritus The Spell; Lucian Dial. C. 1 (Glycera and Thais), 281; 4 (Melitta and Bacchis ¶1), 286; Lover of Lies 14–15; Apul. Metam. 3.16–18; Philost. Hrk. 16.2; Test. Jos. 6:1–8 (even if the woman was married, PDM 61.197–216 = PGM 61.39–71; Tibullus 1.2.41–58; cf. Eurip. Hipp. 513–16); cf. Frankfurter, “Perils”; Jordan, “Erotic Spell”; idem, “Formulae” (on P.Duk. inv. 729); Dickie, “Who Practised Love-Magic?”; Dunand, Religion en Égypte, 125; with regard to Apuleius, Bradley, “Apologia”; Nelson, “Fish”; in a more recent culture, Tippett, Solomon Islands Christianity, 15. For aphrodisiacs, see Pliny E. N.H. 27.35.57; 27.99.125; 28.4.19; 28.6.34; 28.80.261; 30.49.141; for antiaphrodisiacs, see 24.38.62; 32.50.139.

[678]. E.g., P.Eleph. 1.3–4; Dio Cass. 54.16.2; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 11.28.4; Livy 4.4.9–11; Gaius Inst. 1.66–92; Ulpian Rules 5.8–9; cf. Arrian Ind. 12.8; Gardner, Women, 36. In Judaism, cf., e.g., Jos. Ant. 4.244–45; t. Sanh. 4:7; y. Giṭ. 1:4, §2; Ketub. 1:5, §2; Qidd. 1:1, §8; 3:12, §8; Yebam. 6:1–9:8. On the relation between Jewish and Roman codes here, see Cohen, Law, 133–36; further documentation appears in Keener, Marries Another, 58–60, 169–70.

[679]. E.g., Williams, Homosexuality, 106–7; Rawson, “Family,” 34; Robinson, Criminal Law, 70.

[680]. Especially against abuse of slaves; Sir 41:22; Sent. Syr. Men. 347–53; Christian influence may exist in the public disapproval of Justin. Cod. 9.25. The prohibitions, however, suggested that the temptation existed (m. ʾAb. 2:7; t. Hor. 2:11; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 20:6). Christian influence in the empire eventually abolished prostitution (Robinson, Criminal Law, 69–70).

[681]. Some even viewed prostitution as a legitimate deterrent to adultery (Gr. Anth. 7.403). For prostitutes at banquets, see, e.g., Sen. E. Controv. 9.2.intro.

[682]. Epict. Encheir. 33.8. Others apparently found nothing wrong with limited male promiscuity (cf. Ap. Rhod. 1.842–909).

[683]. E.g., Demosth. Boeot. 2.8–10 (LCL, 4:486–87); Plut. Educ. 2, Mor. 1AB.

[684]. Gardner, Women, 130; Justin. Cod. 9.22. Cf. honored prostitutes of higher status (e.g., Athen. Deipn. 13.596b; Aul. Gel. 7.7.5–7; Sipre Num. 115.5.7); many, however, entered the profession through economic necessity (Terence Andr. 73–79), and most because they were slaves (Apul. Metam. 7.9; ʾAbot R. Nat. 8 A; cf. Justin. Cod. 9.20, 29). They were supposed to writhe flexibly to prevent conception (Lucret. Nat. 4.1268–77).

[685]. See, e.g., OGIS 674 = IGRR 1.1183; McGinn, “Taxation”; Lewis, Life, 141, 145, 171–72. Pay varied according to appearance and skill (e.g., CIL 4.1679).

[686]. On their being unmarried, e.g., Prop. Eleg. 2.7.7. An equestrian who engaged in this behavior could be exiled, and her husband punished if he refused to confront her activity (Tac. Ann. 2.85).

[687]. Diod. Sic. 12.21.2; Cato Coll. dist. 25; Aul. Gel. 15.12.2, 3. Prostitution was a shameful profession (Dio Chrys. Or. 64.3; 70.1; frg. 7 [Stob. Flor. 4, 23.60 {Hense, 588}; 74.60 {Meineke}]), as was brothel owning (Dio Chrys. Or. 7.133–35; Max. Tyre 5.7).

[688]. Cf. Diogenes Ep. 44; Diog. Laert. 6.2.61, 66; Mus. Ruf. frg. 12, p. 86.13–16; Artem. Oneir. 1.78; Sall. Catil. 14.6; Livy 23.18.12; Aul. Gel. 9.5.8. Some philosophers did not regard it as an ethical matter (Diog. Laert. 2.69, 74; Sext. Emp. Pyr. 3.201).

[689]. E.g., Hom. Od. 6.287–88.

[690]. Diod. Sic. 12.24.3–4; Livy 3.44.4–3.48.9.

[691]. Diod. Sic. 15.54.3; Livy 1.58.12.

[692]. E.g., Plut. Bride 42, 46, Mor. 144B, EF; Dio Cass. 77.16.5; Apul. Metam. 6.22; Athen. Deipn. 4.167e. Only a few philosophers did not condemn all adultery (Diog. Laert. 2.99).

[693]. For the gender-based double standard, see, e.g., Eurip. Pirithous frg. 1–13; Justin. Cod. 9.1; but cf. also Isoc. Nic. 40 (Or. 3.35); Diog. Laert. 8.1.21.

[694]. Probably with rhetorical overstatement, Sen. Y. Ben. 1.9.4; 3.16.3; Dial. 12.16.3; Juv. Sat. 4.1–20. On actual conditions, see Richlin, “Adultery.”

[695]. E.g., Eurip. Hipp. 403–18; Hor. Sat. 1.2.38, 49, 64–100; Ep. 1.2.25–26; Odes 1.15.19–20; Juv. Sat. 6.231–41; Epict. Diatr. 2.4; 2.10.18; 2.18.15; Plut. S. Kings, Alexander 3, Mor. 179E; Corn. Nep. 15 (Epaminondas), 5.5.

[696]. Artem. Oneir. 3.11; Sib. Or. 1.178; 3.38, 204; 5.430; Ps.-Phoc. 3; cf. Epict. Diatr. 3.3.12.

[697]. E.g., Sall. Catil. 25.3–4; Cic. Invect. Sall. 5.15–6.16; Appian Hist. rom. 7.9.56; Mart. Epig. 2.47, 49; 3.26.6; 6.45.4; 6.91; 9.2.

[698]. Robinson, Criminal Law, 67–68; Gardner, Women, 131–32; Richlin, “Adultery,” 227; cf. Ps.-Phoc. 177–78. The penalty, however, was merely infamy (Robinson, Criminal Law, 69).

[699]. Keener, Acts, 2:1929–33.

[700]. Observations from Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 8 (from Witherington).

[701]. Cf. t. Demai 2:24. In Genesis, the image develops the forbidden food of Gen 2:17 (blood is associated with life also in 4:10); the consequence for violation in both cases is death (2:17; 9:5), foreshadowing the danger of disobeying Israel’s food laws (Lev 11), especially regarding blood (Lev 17). Cf. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 72, though waxing homiletically eloquent on the matter. Later, cf. Qur’an 16.115.

[702]. By contrast, Barrett, Acts, 733, takes “blood” to be bloodshed, as in Greek and rabbinic idiom, and thinks that πνικτοῦ would make “blood” redundant.

[703]. The sense in Jub. 7:24 seems to be different.

[704]. Gilders, “Blood,” argues that Gen 9:4–6 (read together with other texts) is the source of all that Jubilees says about blood.

[705]. The term for “strangled” appears with this application only in Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25 in extant literature (Dunn, Acts, 206), but the meaning seems clear enough.

[706]. Munck, Acts, 140–41; Bruce, Acts¹, 300; Johnson, Acts, 267.

[707]. Polysyndeton characterizes the abundant lists in Arius Didymus Epitome of Stoic Ethics; the device conveys a sense of quantity (Hermog. Method 11.426–27, citing as an example Demosthenes Or. 9.26). In rhetoric, see Rowe, “Style,” 134–35; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 86 (citing Quint. Inst. 9.3.50–52); Anderson, Glossary, 103 (citing Demet. Style 54, 63 in support and 194 against); Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 367; briefly, Plath, “Polysyndeton.”

[708]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 33.23. For asyndetic vice lists, see, e.g., Rom 1:29–31; Gal 5:19–21; Col 3:5, 8.

[709]. Magical papyri may attest strangulation to transfer life essence to an idol, and priests sometimes ate some of the blood (Witherington, Acts, 464; blood pudding in Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 278). Houston, “Foods,” 331, suggests that the prohibition may originally have related to sacrifice.

[710]. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 278; Klauck, Context, 16.

[711]. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 278.

[712]. Ibid., 278–79.

[713]. Jos. Ant. 14.261; Winter, Left Corinth, 288–93.

[714]. The Jewish prohibition of pork (Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8; cf. Isa 65:4; 66:3, 17) became so widely known that it was almost proverbial (see comment on Acts 10:12). Most other ancient Near Eastern (Nissen, “Pigs,” 245, on temples) and Mediterranean (Schneider, “Pigs”) peoples did not object to pork. More widely on ancient human-pig relations, see Albarella et al., Pigs.

[715]. Winter, Left Corinth, 296–99.

[716]. The point of the blood taboo in Scripture is respect for blood as the vehicle of, or as at least representative of, life (Gen 9:4; Lev 17:11, 14; Deut 12:23; see further Müller, “Leben”; Wenham, Leviticus, 245 [and Milgrom, “Prolegomenon,” which he cites]; for life in the blood, cf. Vervenne, “Blood”); cf. Jos. Ant. 1.102; esp. Philo, e.g., Worse 80, 81, 84; Heir 54, 60, 63, 65; Spec. Laws 1.205; most explicit in 4.122–23).

[717]. Klauck, Context, 19.

[718]. Cf. Hill, Hellenists, 143–46 (Jerusalem Christians were not opposing table fellowship with Gentiles but providing limits to make it more appropriate); but some doubt that table fellowship with Gentiles is the primary issue here (cf. Bauckham, “James,” 463–64; Gaventa, Acts, 222).

[719]. Even most Diaspora Jews continued to keep kosher (in Asia Minor, see Trebilco, Communities, 18).

[720]. See discussion of the kashrut at Acts 10:12.

[721]. I explain this interpretation in Keener, Corinthians, 72–73, 84. Instead of both reflecting a common source, Goulder, “Letters,” 104, thinks that Acts 15:20 reflects Luke’s knowledge of 1 Cor 8–10, but dependence on this source alone appears to beg the question of their dissimilarities.

[722]. Paul could have accommodated them for the sake of the unity of the church. That this was an important concern for him is revealed by his collection (Rom 15:26–27). That Paul felt that his gospel was at stake at this meeting (Gal 2:2, 5) suggests that it did matter to him what the Jerusalem leaders and assembly ultimately concluded.

[723]. See, e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 72–73, 84; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 395.

[724]. See also Dunn, Acts, 197; Nanos, Mystery, 133, 149–50, compares Paul’s approach to preventing stumbling with that of the decree. Paul may not view idol food as harmful in itself (see, e.g., 1 Cor 8:4, 8–9; deSilva, Honor, 298), but this may represent rhetorical posturing in view of his solid opposition in 1 Cor 10:20.

[725]. Knox, Jerusalem, 227. Knox sees pagan idolatry and immorality as moral mandates and food as an issue only because of early Christians’ common meals (226).

[726]. This is no small observation, particularly since Paul did not always match his arguments to his reasons; cf. Keener, Paul, 31, 46. For the stumbling-block principle here, see also Faw, Acts, 164.

[727]. Some have argued for a heavier biblical subtext in 1 Cor 5–7, at least in terms of allusions (see Rosner, Ethics).

[728]. He is far more apt to appeal to a consensus of “all the churches” (1 Cor 11:16; 14:33).

[729]. Bauckham, “James,” 464–65. Arguments for echoes in Rev 2:14, 20 (also Witherington, Acts, 466) are tenuous because idol food and sexual immorality were the commonest expressions of pagan immorality. If εἰδωλόθυτος is a distinctively Christian term, texts using it could echo the decree, but it appears in other early sources (1 Cor 8:1, 4, 7, 10; 10:19); moreover, it is not exclusively Christian (4 Macc 5:2).

[730]. Le Cornu, Acts, 851.

[731]. Tert. Apol. 9.13 (LCL, 51, 53). Wallace and Williams, Acts, 71–72, note that the claims of abstention from blood in this passage, Min. Fel. 30.6, and Euseb. H.E. 5.1.26 all occur in contexts refuting claims of Christian cannibalism; they allow that these sources could depend on the decree in Acts.

[732]. Wood, “Ethics,” 258. Food customs related to the decree might be in view in the forbidden foods of Lucian Peregr. 16 (so LCL, 5:18–19n2), but these could be simply idol food in general (which Christians rejected) or even Jewish Christians’ kashrut. Augustine believes that the rule was useful for uniting Jew and Gentile but irrelevant in the largely Gentile church of his day (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 32.13).

[733]. Using an index of Scripture citations in Tertullian, I estimate that several of Tertullian’s works cite the Gospel of Luke about twice as often as they do Acts (closer to sixteen times as often in his anti-Marcionite work, but for obvious reasons there), and Matthew about three times as often.

[734]. Whatever James means by ἀρχαίων here, it is safe to venture that he implies greater antiquity than the early years of the Jesus movement or the Gentile mission (as in Acts 15:7; cf. 21:16); it does not require the measure of antiquity suggested in 3:21, 24.

[735]. Schwartz, “Futility,” takes the γάρ as indicating the futility of imposing the law on Gentiles, who will not keep it.

[736]. In practice, most Diaspora congregations included both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 18:4–8; 19:8–10), and the theoretically distinctive missions overlapped (cf. Bruce, Peter, 31–32).

[737]. For the emphasis on unity here, see, e.g., Park, “Principles.” Nevertheless, the arrangement is somewhat deficient as a “missions model,” appearing to be dictated primarily by the mother church (which may have had some hierarchical tendencies; cf. Acts 15:19). But this negative observation is also mitigated somewhat by four factors suggesting that Luke would not transculturally apply this as a model for all “mother churches’ ” behavior: first, the newer churches were only a few years old; second, the Jerusalem church is not any mother church but held a special role in salvation history; third, the Antioch church representatives (most vocally Paul and Barnabas) had given voice to concerns of the Diaspora churches; and fourth, the decree would do more in practice to protect the Diaspora churches from traveling Jerusalemites’ interference (perhaps Luke’s primary interest in it) than to actually force implementation of its prescriptions far from Jerusalem (e.g., we never hear of Paul, in his letters or Acts, delivering decrees after 16:4).

[738]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 178 (citing also Dalman for the same idiom in Aramaic).

[739]. Aune, Environment, 128; cf. Porter, Paul in Acts, 76. Crowds sometimes demonstrated favorable responses (see, e.g., Acts 15:3).

[740]. See Aune, Environment, 128; cf. Trapp, “Letters,” 847.

[741]. Because Luke is writing “salvation history,” Schwank, “Wort,” compares this scene to the law proceeding from Jerusalem in Isa 2:3.

[742]. See Patte, Hermeneutic, 100–101; even in the Diaspora, t. ʿOr. 1:8 (in R. Jose ha-Galili’s name, thus early second century); Sanh. 3:10; Sipre Deut. 59.1.2; 188.1.2; perhaps y. B. Qam. 4:1, §3; Giṭ. 5:6, §3; by the early third century, they even sent messengers to try to enforce their decrees, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; cf. perhaps (but not clearly) CIJ 1:438–39, §611. Gerhardsson, Memory, 307, thus sees this council as propagating a very limited halakah.

[743]. For the thorny questions involved here, see, e.g., Neusner, Traditions; idem, New Testament; Keener, John, 185–94; for synagogue zodiacs, see excursus on astrology at Acts 2:9–11 (Keener, Acts, 1:837–39).

[744]. Cited by Witherington, Acts, 467 (following Johnson, Acts, 276).

[745]. On the shaliach, see discussion in Keener, John, 310–15, and sources cited there. Influential people are chosen both for their representative value and because they may need some flexibility to apply this decree concretely on the ground; cf. their prophetic abilities in Acts 15:32.

[746]. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 89–90 (citing Josephus, ossuaries, and other sources).

[747]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 178 (citing also Test. Jud. 8:2). Lightfoot thought him probably Joseph’s brother (“Third Notebook on Acts,” 10, from Witherington).

[748]. Williams, “Names,” 101–2.

[749]. A non-Jew in Jos. Ant. 18.52.

[750]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 564; Williams, “Names,” 95. Kaye, “Portrait of Silas,” argues that Silas stops appearing in the text once, in Corinth, the mission is no longer based in the synagogue (fitting Acts 15:22). Historically, however, we can be certain that he was active in Corinth and remained so afterward (2 Cor 1:19) as well as before (1 Thess 1:1).

[751]. E.g., Furnish, II Corinthians, 135; Marshall, Thessalonians, 48. Contrast Schmithals, Apostle, 88, who argues that it is a Greek and Roman name that simply sounded similar to his Jewish name, “Silas.” The name “Silvanus” usually implies Roman citizenship (Judge, First Christians, 562).

[752]. Originally the satyr Silenus (elsewhere associated with satyrs; cf. Ovid Metam. 4.26; 11.89–90, 99; 14.609), naturally blended with the Italian Silvanus.

[753]. Rives, “Silvanus”; cf. further on this deity Holzhausen, “Silvanus”; Dowden, “Silvanus”; Dorcey, Silvanus; on satyrs generally, see, e.g., Janowski, “Satyrs.” Well over a thousand inscriptions from the western Roman Empire mention this deity (Rives, Religion, 15). Older portraits of woodland deities like Pan were wilder and more dangerous, but some became more domesticated in time (cf. Kantzios, “Pan”).

[754]. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 207.

[755]. So Le Cornu, Acts, 845; on such encyclicals, see comment on Acts 9:2.

[756]. Judge, Athens, 135–36, argues that historians such as Luke could employ letters differently from speeches (see comment at Acts 23:25).

[757]. Witherington, Acts, 467–68, suggests that it could have been available even in Philippi. Luke does not mention it beyond South Galatia, however. Lightfoot argues for Luke’s access, noting that “we” begins soon after (“Third Notebook on Acts,” page facing p. 10, from Witherington).

[758]. Fronto Ad verum imp. 2.1.14 (noting both preserved and composed letters in histories).

[759]. Görgemanns, “Epistolography,” 1146 (citing Thucyd. 7.8–15).

[760]. Also see Keener, Acts, 1:406–14.

[761]. See Aune, Environment, 169 (citing Ach. Tat. 1.3.6; 5.18.2–6; 5.20.4–5; Char. Chaer. 4.5.8; 8.4.2–3, 5–6). Authors composed pseudepigraphic letters for propaganda, fiction, or simply rhetorical practice (cf., e.g., Görgemanns, “Epistolography,” 1146; Cook, Dogma, 51; see further Keener, Acts, 1:403); sometimes letters were also forged (Arrian Alex. 6.12.3).

[762]. E.g., usually paraphrased notes in 1 Macc 10:18–20, 25–45; 11:29–37; 13:35–40; Tac. Ann. 2.65; 3.16, 53–54; 4.39; 6.6; 15.13, 24; 16.24, 27; even more often mentioned (cf., e.g., Tac. Ann. 1.5; 2.42, 78, 79, 88; 3.35, 47; 4.70; 5.2, 3; 6.12, 15, 29; 12.19; 14.10; 15.8).

[763]. Aune, Environment, 169 (citing possible examples in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.7, 24; 2.46; 4.22, 27, 46; 6.29; 8.7.3). For the longevity of respected manuscripts, see Evans, World, 75–76, following esp. Houston, “Evidence.” The personal correspondence of a respected figure such as Cicero could be published. Personal letters were often retained, and authenticated copies could be made for use in court (Apul. Apol. 78); they became public documents when necessary (86). Nevertheless, forged changes in letters (84) or forged letters (Polyb. 5.42.7; 5.50.11; Arrian Alex. 6.12.3; Tac. Ann. 16.17 [cf. 5.4]; Apul. Apol. 87; Metam. 4.16; 2 Thess 2:2; cf. Jos. Life 356; Suet. Vesp. 6.4) remained real dangers, though using forged documents in court was legally punishable (see, e.g., Robinson, Criminal Law, 38).

[764]. Aune, Environment, 128; cf. Klauck, Letters, 420. For the rhetorical value of including letters, see Pliny Ep. 7.9.8.

[765]. E.g., most papyri; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.46. The average length of extant papyrus letters (from a total of about fourteen thousand) is 87 words (Richards, Letter Writing, 163); on average, Cicero’s run to roughly 295; Seneca’s, 995; and Paul, on the very long side, 2,495 (Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 113). For at least pretending to honor the ideal of brief letters (on the ideal, see Demet. Style 4.228; also Isoc. Ep. 2.13; Libanius [Characteres epistolici] 50, in Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 113), cf. Pliny Ep. 2.5.13; 3.9.27, 37; 4.5.3 (Pliny did not like brevity, 9.13.26; 9.20.1; 9.32).

[766]. Klauck, Letters, 420. See further Rosenmeyer, Fictions; comment on Acts 23:26–30.

[767]. Though it was more likely interpretively expanded on. Luke himself may well exercise the usual literary freedom to cast the decree in his own words (or what he remembers of it from Paul), at least in the case of a few words offering strategic connections to his larger narrative. Some of the key wording, however, is likely pre-Lukan, as is probably the concern regarding blood. Pervo, Acts, 381, objects that a decree applying only to Gentiles in mixed Diaspora churches and allowing Jews to continue to observe the law would have been virtually unworkable. Against Pervo’s skepticism on this point, this seems precisely what Paul urged in his letters (Rom 14; 1 Cor 7:18; 9:20–21; Gal 2:14; 5:6; 6:15).

[768]. See Llewelyn, Documents, 7:13–22, §1; cf. earlier the Persian system (Xen. Cyr. 8.6.17–18; Llewelyn, Documents, 7:2–5, §1) and that of Ptolemaic Egypt (7:5–13, §1). Remijsen, “Postal Service,” contends that the efficiency of the Ptolemaic and Roman mail service demanded greater interest in precision with hours than previously. Unlike the earlier Persian and Ptolemaic postal services, however, Rome depended on messengers dispatched as needed rather than regular mail couriers (Kolb, “Postal Services,” 690).

[769]. Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 379; White, “Tradition,” 103.

[770]. Ramsay, Letters, 15.

[771]. Nicholson, “Confidentiality.” On the use of messengers, see, e.g., Cic. Fam. 14.1.6; Cicero and other wealthy persons could use freedpersons or servants (3.1.2; 9.15.1). A wealthy person might send letters daily so that his friend would have messengers by whom to send letters back (Att. 12.42); another might promise to send daily news if the correspondent provided letter carriers (Quint. fratr. 2.12.5).

[772]. In 54 B.C.E., Cicero in Rome received a letter from Caesar in Britain in twenty-six days (Cic. Quint. fratr. 3.1.8.25).

[773]. ZPE 22 (1976): 51 (in Stowers, Letter Writing, 62–63); Cic. Fam. 5.5.1; Att. 1.5, ¶3; Diogenes Ep. 6.

[774]. Cic. Fam. 1.7.1; Att. 1.13, ¶1; 4.1. Whereas some messages could be entrusted to Gentiles (provided it was not the day before the Sabbath), a scrupulous priest might avoid doing so (t. Šabb. 13:11).

[775]. Cic. Att. 1.9.

[776]. Cic. Fam. 3.11.1; 7.18.1; 16.21.1 (after forty-six days).

[777]. Cic. Fam. 2.1.1. This was a believable alternative to someone’s not having written (2.10.1; 2.13.1; 4.4.1). Protesting lack of letters was one way to display affection (e.g., 2.2.1; 14.10.1; 15.20.2; 16.25.1; 16.26.1; Pliny Ep. 2.2.1–2; 2.11.24; 2.12.7; 3.17.1–2; 4.11.16; 6.1.2; 6.4.5; 9.2.1–2; Fronto Ad verum imp. 2.2; Ad Ant. imp. 1.4; 2.3).

[778]. Mail speed probably improved during the empire (Charlesworth, Trade Routes, 86), but even then letters traveling even by messenger could take months (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 50.1).

[779]. Cic. Ad Brut. 4.1 (2.4.1).

[780]. Cic. Fam. 4.10.1; Att. 1.12; 7.10. Others wished to wait for news (Att. 8.14).

[781]. Cic. Fam. 15.17.1; 15.18.1; Att. 1.10.

[782]. Llewelyn, Documents, 7:27–28, §1.

[783]. Xen. Cyr. 4.5.34; Col 4:7; Danker, Corinthians, 109.

[784]. Paul’s epistles and 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:2; 2 John 3; Rev 1:4; 1 Clem. 1.1; Ign. Smyrn. 12.2.

[785]. Cf., e.g., 2 Macc 1:1; 2 Bar. 78:2; on wish-prayers, see Wiles, Prayers, 25–29. Of course, the NT adaptation as a wish-prayer involving both Father and Son was distinctively Christian (Keener, Corinthians, 21).

[786]. E.g., 1 Macc 10:18; 12:6, 20; Demosth. Ep. 1.1; Diog. Laert. 7.1.8; 10.1.83; Char. Chaer. 4.5.8; 8.4.5. This form is often discussed by commentators, e.g., Kelly, Peter, 39. It might be significant that this form, rather than the “grace and peace” formula used by many other early Christians (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:2; 1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2; Titus 1:4; Phlm 3; outside Pauline literature, 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:2; 2 John 3; Rev 1:4; 1 Clement title), remained dominant in James’s circle (Jas 1:1). Though the greeting was common, it is interesting that the only other extant first-century Christian letter using this greeting is the letter attributed to James (possibly with some of the same editorial assistants), though it appears widely in Ignatius’s early second-century letters (Ign. Eph. title; Magn. title; Trall. title; Rom. title; Smyrn. title; Pol. title).

[787]. E.g. (sampling SPap for a chronological range), P.Cair.Zen. 59060.1 (257 B.C.E.); PSI 333.1 (256 B.C.E.); P.Cair.Zen. 59154.1 (256 B.C.E.); 59426.1 (260–250 B.C.E.); 59192.1 (255 B.C.E.); 59251.1 (252 B.C.E.); P.Hib. 54.1 (ca. 245 B.C.E.); P.Eleph. 13.1 (222 or 223 B.C.E.); P.Paris 43.1 (154 B.C.E.); 47.2 (152 B.C.E.); P.Oxy. 292.2 (ca. 25 C.E.); BGU 1079.2 (41 C.E.); P.Oxy. 299.1 (late first century C.E.); P.Giss.Univ. 21.2 (second century C.E.); P.Tebt. 421.1 (third century C.E.); see also Kim, Letter of Recommendation, 11.

[788]. Dio Cass. 69.18; Lucian Slip 1–7 (earlier they had been interchangeable; cf. Tob 7:1, 4–5). The evening greeting, ὑγίαινε, also appears in letters, but not as often: cf. health wishes of various kinds in, e.g., P.Lond. 42.2–5; P.Giss. 17.4; 80.13; P.Giss.Univ. 20.38; 21.11; P.Cair.Zen. 59060.1; P.Eleph. 13.1–2; Cic. Fam. 14.8.1; 14.11.1; 14.15.1; 14.16.1; 14.17.1; 14.21.1; 14.22.1; 14.23.1; 14.24.1; 15.1.1; 15.2.1; 15.19.1; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.7 (22); 5.8 (23); 5.25 (40); 5.59; Diog. Laert. 8.4.79; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 48; 2 Macc 9:19; 11:28, 33, 38; 3 Macc 7:1–2, 9; CPJ 1:244f., §132.18–19; Let. Aris. 35, 40–41, 46; 3 John 2; see further Deissmann, Light, 151, 154, 179–80, 184, 188, 192–94, 201–2; Kim, Letter of Recommendation, 15–16, 25–34; Weima, Endings, 34–39. Both appear in 3 Macc 7:1 (purporting to be a letter).

[789]. That Luke employs the title for Gentiles first in this chapter (also 15:1) could be significant (see Trebilco, “Self-Designations,” 32–34, 49).

[790]. This does not mean that the community officially viewed them as members of God’s people; the designation can be applied to Gentiles who are allies, as in 1 Macc 12:6, 10, 21; 14:20, 40.

[791]. Richards, Letter Writing, 163, based on about fourteen thousand ancient private letters.

[792]. Syria adjoined Cilicia (Pliny E. N.H. 5.22.91), separated by Mount Amanus (5.18.80); foreigners could mention them together because of their general proximity (5.35.129; cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 31.163).

[793]. Hemer, Acts in History, 179; Bruce, Acts¹, 307; Fitzmyer, Acts, 564–65; Green, “Syria and Cilicia.” Cilicia itself consisted of two disparate regions joined simply for administrative purposes (Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 133).

[794]. Rowe, “Style,” 151–52 (citing Quint. Inst. 9.4.19; Demet. Style 2.29); Anderson, Glossary, 94–101 (including [p. 96] Demet. Style 10–35); Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 346–47; cf. Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, §464; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 17–18. The final clause should carry rhythm, and Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 23 thought that the period should be able to be spoken in one breath (Anderson, Glossary, 100); Quint. Inst. 9.4.122–30 might define “any complete sentence” as a period (Glossary, 101).

[795]. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 120; Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, §464.

[796]. Malherbe, “Theorists,” 17.

[797]. Some orators in Cicero’s day remained unable to construct these (Cic. De or. 3.198, in Anderson, Glossary, 99). One may distinguish between periods in the strict sense and periodic-type sentences (e.g., Hermog. Inv. 4.3.176).

[798]. Cicero wanted to keep them rare even in judicial speeches (Or. Brut. 221–26, in Anderson, Glossary, 99), and Pliny was not impressed by them (Pliny Ep. 5.20.4). Historians could write complex sentences (cf. Philo Posterity 53), but some Atticist critics disapproved (Dion. Hal. Pomp. 4).

[799]. Trapp, Maximus, xxxiv (noting that these appear rarely in Maximus of Tyre but appropriately: Or. 2.10; 10.9; 11.12; 21.7–8; 41.2).

[800]. Cf. the high level of Greek and rhetorical sophistication in the canonical Epistle of James, which also claims Jerusalemite origin (a claim that is more plausible than often granted; allowing redaction of James’s material, cf., e.g., Martin, James, xxxi–xxxii; Davids, James, 2–13; Mayor, James, i–lxv; Robinson, Trust, 68–69; Painter, James, 24; Dunn, Beginning, 1128–29; uncertain, see Sidebottom, James, 19–24).

[801]. Cf. the rhetorical value of preparatory words (e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 104–5).

[802]. E.g., Dion. Hal. Lysias 9; Cic. Quinct. 3.11–9.33; Tac. Dial. 1–3, 19. Even ancient Hittite covenants had narrative prologues (cf. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 58–60; Bright, History, 151; Weinfeld, “Covenant Making”; Kline, Treaty, 43).

[803]. Aune, Environment, 128.

[804]. Johnson, Acts, 276, compares those who, according to Paul, genuinely were from James (Gal 2:12); but on my reading, this is a later incident, one related to the table fellowship implications of the salvation question rather than (in contrast to Acts 15:1, at least the way Luke stated it) to salvation itself.

[805]. See Marshall, Enmity, 341–48. The non-naming is conspicuous in Aeschines Ctes. 1; Dio Chrys. Or. 40.8–9; 47.11, 20–21; 51.3; Lucian Peregr. 11–13 (Jesus as simply “that crucified sophist” in Peregr. 13); Hist. 17; see also Demosth. Or. 19.120 (noted in Hermog. Inv. 4.3.179); Cic. Agr. 24.63–64; Res Gestae 1.1; 4.24; Quint. Decl. 293.1; Libanius Speech in Character 7.1, 3.

[806]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 12.36; 47.23; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 247, §76D. This is, however, far from always the case, including in Luke’s writing (e.g., Acts 10:23; 11:20).

[807]. Cf. Munck, Acts, 143. Preparing for unexpected turns in advance was also good rhetoric (Hermog. Inv. 4.12.202); the letter could prove controversial for some.

[808]. Lightfoot noted this arrangement of names in 15:12, 25 (Lightfoot, Acts, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]). Luke also reverses the names in 14:12, 14, possibly because the speakers in 14:12 identified Barnabas with the higher deity. Before 13:9, Barnabas is always named before Saul (11:30; 12:25; 13:2, 7; cf. 13:1).

[809]. Cf. also τάραχος in Acts 12:18; 19:23 and ἐκταράσσουσιν in 16:20; perhaps used as a synonym for the term in 15:19 (though the present term may be stronger). Larkin, Acts, 227, compares a violent use of the same language in Jos. Ant. 14.406 (rendering, “ravaging” your souls; see further BDAG). Ἀνασκευάζοντες (“subverting”) was also appropriate military language for plundering (Bruce, Acts¹, 302, citing Vett. Val. 2.7; 176.9; 199.33; BDAG shows the verbs combined at Vett. Val. 212.20). The term differs from the one used in Acts 15:19 (a canonical hapax legomenon), and so it is, at most, possible that, but unclear whether, Luke seeks to evoke it.

[810]. Such disturbance is more relevant to the term’s use in this text than is the philosophic goal of being ἀτάραχος (Epict. Diatr. 2.5.2; 4.8.27; Diog. Laert. 10.85; 10.144.17; cf. Test. Dan 4:7; Test. Job 36:3/4–5; ἀπαθείας in Crates Ep. 34, to Metrocles).

[811]. See also Spawforth, “Homonoia,” for the Greek political ideal; in Rome, Purcell, “Concordia,” for “the cult of personified harmonious agreement” (375; see here also Bloch, “Concordia,” 681; Livy 24.22.1; 24.22.13; Jos. Ant. 14.145, 219, 222; Suet. Tib. 20; rejected in Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.14); on personified Strife, see, e.g., Hom. Il. 4.440–43; Cypria 1; Nünlist, “Eris.” The Muses bring concord in Iambl. V.P. 9.45. I draw most of the treatment of the background of this issue from Keener, John, 1061–62; cf. also some discussion on unity at Acts 1:14.

[812]. This is not to attribute to Greeks an individualistic concept that transcended group loyalties; see Martin, “Anti-individualistic Ideology.”

[813]. Heraclitus Ep. 9; Babr. 15.5–9; Hdn. 3.2.7–8; cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.36.2–3; Rhet. Her. 3.3.4; Gen. Rab. 34:15. See fuller comment at Acts 21:39.

[814]. E.g., Cic. Fam. 1.8.1–2; 8.14.1; Handb. Elec. 45; Corn. Nep. 25 (Atticus), 7.1–11.6; Plut. Cic. 3.1–2; Pliny Ep. 6.6.3, 5–9; Tac. Dial. 36; Suet. Jul. 72; Aul. Gel. 6.19.6. Such a mentality required shared enemies (e.g., Lysias Or. 9.10, 13, §115; Iambl. V.P. 35.248–49); on enmity, see Marshall, Enmity, 35–69. This partisanship also occurred in Roman patronage (see, e.g., deSilva, Honor, 116; Winter, Left Corinth, 189–90).

[815]. E.g., Xen. Mem. 4.4.16; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.53.1; Livy 2.33.1; 5.7.10; 24.22.1, 13, 17; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 94.46; Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 64.13; Max. Tyre 16.3; Men. Rhet. 2.3, 384.23–25. On the ideal of unity in antiquity, see now esp. Thompson, One People, 19–134 (worthy of more detailed interaction but published after I finished the primary draft of this commentary).

[816]. Babr. 85.

[817]. Dion. Hal. Epid. 4.271 (in a marriage); Val. Max. 2.6.8 (spoken to children and grandchildren by one about to die, as in testaments); Mus. Ruf. 13B, p. 90.6–14; Men. Rhet. 2.7, 411.15–18; cf. Corn. Nep. 25 (Atticus), 17.1–2.

[818]. Val. Max. 4.2 passim; Plut. Themist. 12.6–7; Suet. Jul. 73; Tac. Hist. 2.30.

[819]. E.g., Hom. Od. 1.369–71; Cic. Att. 1.3; 1.5; 1.10; Tac. Hist. 2.5; Iambl. V.P. 7.34; 9.45; 27.126; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.485.

[820]. E.g., Hom. Il. 1.255–58; Livy 2.60.4; 3.66.4; Babr. 44.7–8; 47.

[821]. Sallust Jug. 73.5; Livy 3.66.4; cf. Thucyd. 3.81.2, 4.

[822]. Hom. Il. 1.255–58; Polyb. 3.104.1 (generals’ rivalry).

[823]. Hdn. 8.8.5.

[824]. E.g., one’s enemies (Babr. 44.7–8); for slaves in a household (Plut. M. Cato 21.4); see further comment on Acts 23:6–7.

[825]. E.g., Sall. Jug. 73.5; Plut. Sulla 4.4; 7.1; Aul. Gel. 6.19.6; Corn. Nep. 7 (Alcibiades), 4.1; 25 (Atticus), 7.1–11.6.

[826]. See esp. Winter, Philo and Paul, passim. Some teachers also used competition to spur on their students (Suet. Gramm. 17).

[827]. Dio Chrys. Or. 24.3; Lucian Prof. P.S. 22; Eunapius Lives 493–94; cf. Libanius Declam. 36.13, 43; Pogoloff, Logos, 176.

[828]. E.g., Plut. Cim. 8.7; Aul. Gel. 17.4.3–6; cf. Polyb. 6.11.9; Dio Chrys. Or. 52; Pliny Ep. 7.9.3; 7.20.2–3; 7.30.4–5; Paulsen, “Competitions”; Schmidt, “Competitions.” Note the need for self-defense in most of Terence’s prologues (e.g., Andr. 1–27; Self-T. 16–52; Eun. 1–45; Phorm. 1–23; Moth. 1–57; Brothers 1–25) and in Phaedrus 2.9.7–11; 3.prol. 23; 4.prol. 15–16.

[829]. E.g., Demosth. Ep. 1.5; Rhet. Alex. 1, 1422b.33–36; Men. Rhet. 2.4, 390.14–16; Hdn. 3.2.8.

[830]. Dio Chrys. Or. 34.17; 38.5–8; 40.26 (in marriage, see 38.15; in nature, see 40.35–36, 38); also “friendship,” e.g., in 38.11; 39.2; 40.26; “reconciliation” in 38.11, 47; 39.2; also linked with friendship in 40.36. Also allegedly Apollonius of Tyana (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.15; 6.38). Cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 48.14.

[831]. Cf. Israel in the wilderness in Mek. Bah. 1.108ff. (Lauterbach, 2:200)!

[832]. E.g., I. Eph. 1264. See also personified Concord (see, e.g., Purcell, “Concordia”).

[833]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 38.6, 10; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 4.1. It was standard in Stoic ethics (Erskine, Stoa, 59; in Zeno, Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 75; cf. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11b, pp. 64–65.4–7; 2.7.11k, pp. 84–85.26–27; 2.7.11m, pp. 88–89.13–16; a similar idea in 2.7.5 L, pp. 34–35.31–32).

[834]. Josephus employs the term twenty-four times; see especially prayer for Israel’s concord (Ant. 4.50); the idealized experience of Israel’s concord (Ag. Ap. 2.179, 283); Pharisaic experience of concord (War 2.166); cf. the exhortation of sons to concord (Ant. 16.133; War 1.457). Philo employs the term thirteen times (see esp. Decal. 14, 132; Spec. Laws 1.70, 295; Virt. 35, 119; Rewards 92, 154; in marriage, cf. Spec. Laws 1.138).

[835]. Among Gentiles, cf., e.g., Lucian Par. 30 (using ὁμολογία).

[836]. So m. ʾAb. 5:17.

[837]. The term was not always positive; see mob enmity in Acts 7:57; 18:12; 19:29; cf. 12:20; Jos. Ant. 15.277. The term appears elsewhere in the NT only at Rom 15:6; but more than thirty times in the LXX, esp. in Job (Job 2:11; 3:18; 6:2; 9:32; 16:10; 17:16; 19:12; 21:26; 24:4, 17; 31:38; 34:15; 38:33; 40:13), Judith (Jdt 4:12; 7:29; 13:17; 15:2, 5, 9), 3 Maccabees (3 Macc 4:4, 6; 5:50; 6:39), 1 Esdras (1 Esd 5:46, 56; 9:38), and Wisdom of Solomon (Wis 10:20; 18:5, 12); seven times in Philo (especially positive are Conf. 58; Mos. 1.72). Although we cannot rule out coincidence in usage, Luke may here adapt the decree’s language to fit his usual usage in Acts (providing literary continuity), or he may derive from this document his usage elsewhere (for the same reason).

[838]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 38.15; 39.3, 5, 8; see esp. Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 76–77, 79 (citing esp. Isoc. Paneg. 138; Philippus [Or. 5] 45; Archidamus [Or. 6] 9, 25, 34, 37, 93; Thucyd. 1.113.2; 1.122.2; 1.140.1; 2.55.2; 6.17.4; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.23.2; 49.3; Jos. Ant. 7.60, 276). On “speaking the same thing,” see esp. Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 68–69 (citing esp. Dio Chrys. Or. 4.135; 34.17; Ael. Arist. Or. 23.31, 42, 43; 24.29, 52; Jos. Ant. 10.107; 17.35; 18.375, 378, in addition to earlier sources in J. J. Wettstein). On “unity” in Paul, see esp. Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation; now also Damgaard, “Brugen.”

[839]. Also noted by Le Cornu, Acts, 815.

[840]. See, e.g., t. Ber. 4:15; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 36a; Ber. 37a; Song Rab. 1:1, §5; widely acknowledged (e.g., Rivkin, Revolution, 238). On majority opinion of sages, see discussion in Petzel, “Bürgschaft.”

[841]. Urbach, Sages, 1:586. This happened, perhaps most obviously, when the majority shifted from the Shammaite to the Hillelite position (see comment on Acts 5:34); for later rabbis, following Shammaite practice could incur judgment (b. Ber. 11a). On courts annulling other courts’ decisions, see b. ʿAbod. Zar. 36a. Later rabbis seem astonished by their own traditions of earlier Shammaite dominance (Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 87–88).

[842]. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:17; Gen. Rab. 79:6; Eccl. Rab. 10:8, §1. The majority must win even when it is wrong (y. Moʾed Qaṭ. 3:1, §6).

[843]. B. B. Meṣiʿa 59b; so also Le Cornu, Acts, 835 (citing additionally m. ʿEd. 1:5; t. Ber. 4:12; Sanh. 3:4).

[844]. Dio Chrys. Or. 3.47, 49.

[845]. Pliny Ep. 2.12.5–6.

[846]. Penner, “Discourse,” 89–100. Particularly noteworthy, Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.145–46 portrays Israel’s constitution in a manner analogous to Acts (91). Others also note the element of apologetic in Josephus’s emphasis on Israel’s unity (e.g., Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 127–28).

[847]. See Runia, “Hairesis-Model.”

[848]. E.g., Pervo, “Meet Right.” Contrast with Pervo’s overly ready skepticism on this point the carefully researched approach (and observations of genuine issues of unity and conflict in antiquity) in Thompson, One People, 14–16; idem, “Idealization.”

[849]. Hill, Hellenists, 108. Hill himself notes (146), “There never existed a truly law-free mission to the Gentiles. Even Paul expected of his Gentile converts obedience to some (indeed many) Jewish laws” (e.g., concerning homosexual behavior, Rom 1:26–27; probably 1 Cor 6:9).

[850]. With also Bruce, Commentary, 313–14. On its being strategic, see also Gaventa, Acts, 46; for keeping unity, also, e.g., Bock, Acts, 506 (508 for flexibility on secondary issues and unity on the primary ones).

[851]. Grant, Paul, 26.

[852]. Luke elsewhere applies the term ἀγαπητός only to Jesus (Luke 3:22; 20:13; cf. Mark 1:11; 12:6), but early Christians often used it affectionately for other Christians (e.g., Rom 16:5, 8, 9, 12; 1 Cor 4:14, 17; Phil 2:12; 4:1; 2 Tim 1:2; Phlm 16; Heb 6:9; Jas 1:16, 19; 1 Pet 2:11; 4:12; 2 Pet 3:1, 8, 14, 15, 17; 1 John 2:7; 3:2, 21; 4:1, 7, 11; 3 John 1, 2, 5, 11; Jude 3, 17, 20). This practice continued in the early second century (1 Clem. 1.1; 7.1; 12.8; 16.17; 21.1; 24.1–2; 35.1, 5; 36.1; 43.6; 47.6; 50.1, 5; 53.1; 56.2, 16; Ign. Magn. 11.1; Trall. 8.1; Smyrn. 4.1; Pol. 8.2). Lightfoot (“Third Notebook on Acts,” 10, from Witherington) observes that 2 Pet 3:15 speaks thus of Paul.

[853]. Paul himself reports acceptance and endorsement of his ministry by the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:7–9), though not mentioning the wording or suggesting that it was reported to the churches. Paul’s wording is stronger than here, and so the moderate wording here is not at all unbelievable. (Paul’s wording may portend the Peter-Paul parallelism in the very structure of Acts.)

[854]. C. Williams, Acts, 185; see especially Schnabel, Acts, 649, who rightly notes the lack of lexical support for “risked.” The argument for the traditional translation does not rest solely on broader lexicography, however; just as the passage does not import every possible sense of the verb, its particular application of the verb rests on its Lukan usage and its reference to Barnabas and Paul here.

[855]. The Psalmist pleaded that God not “hand over” (παραδῷς) his “life” (ψυχήν) (Ps 73:19 LXX; cf. the idea in LXX Pss 26:12 [παραδῷς με]; 117:18; 118:121; cf. entrusting one’s spirit to God, Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59); here believers “hand over” their own lives. Luke often mentions Jesus’s “name” in Acts, but perhaps the proximity of the quotation about people (albeit Gentiles) called by God’s name (Acts 15:17; cf. 15:14) is significant.

[856]. On forgery, which was not uncommon, see, e.g., Livy 40.55.1; Pliny Ep. 6.22.3–4; 10.58.3; 10.65.2; Suet. Aug. 33.2; Claud. 9.2; 15.2; Vesp. 6.4; Jos. Life 356; Robinson, Criminal Law, 36–39. Judicial rhetoric often contended that the opposing side’s documents were forged (Quint. Inst. 5.5.1). Chrys. Hom. Acts 33 (Martin, Acts, 190) suggests that letters by themselves could be falsified but others came with Paul and are attested as trustworthy.

[857]. With Johnson, Acts, 277. Named letter bearers were often expected to elaborate the circumstances noted in letters (Head, “Letter-Carriers”; Xen. Cyrop. 4.5.34). Letter bearers also often supplemented the content of letters with news and the like; see Cic. Fam. 14.1.6; Symm. Ep. 1.11.2; 1.28; 1.46; 1.87; P.Oxy. 32. In some cases news could be safely conveyed only orally (Cic. Fam. 2.4.1; 2.5.1; 2.12.1; 3.1.1; 4.4.2; Quint. frat. 3.8.2).

[858]. E.g., 11QT LXI, 6–7; LXIV, 8; CD IX, 3–4, 17–23; Jos. Life 256; Ant. 4.219; Test. Ab. 13:8 A; b. Sanh. 37b, bar.; y. Giṭ. 4:1, §2; cf. m. Roš Haš. 1:7; 2:6. See further Daube, “Witnesses”; Vliet, No Single Testimony. Among early Christians, see 2 Cor 13:1; 1 Tim 5:19; Matt 18:16.

[859]. From Haenchen, Acts, 453; Fitzmyer, Acts, 566.

[860]. E.g., Schnabel, “Reading Acts,” 259.

[861]. For the Spirit and ethnic unity in Acts, see also Wenk, “Power”; on the Spirit and the Gentile mission, see, e.g., Philip, Pneumatology, 204–24; for the Spirit and institutional authority (at least in this case), see Casalegno, “Espírito Santo.” Horton, Acts, 265, views Peter’s speech in Acts 15 in terms of Paul’s “wise message” (1 Cor 12:8).

[862]. E.g., cf. 2 Cor 13:14; Matt 28:19; esp. John 14:16, 26; 16:9–10, 14–15. In Paul, see further Fee, Presence, 839–42; in John, Keener, John, 954–71.

[863]. For discussion of the thesis of the Spirit’s personality in Acts, see Shepherd, Narrative Function, 255–56; Gaventa, Acts, 38; cf. further discussion in Hur, Reading, 129–80; Choi, “Personality,” 101–222.

[864]. Aune, Prophecy, 265–66. Cf. an inscription that includes a divine decree (IG 12.3.178; third century C.E., in Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 323). Prophecies could be written down (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 28.7; Jer 30:2; 36:2, 28; Rev 1:19; 2–3; Jub. 23:32; 2 Bar. 50:1–2; 4 Ezra 12:37; 14:22, 25–26). Some scholars view even the wording of the statement as a “sentence of holy law,” but it does not easily fit the form they propose for it (Hill, Prophecy, 106, critiquing Käsemann).

[865]. Aune, Prophecy, 222.

[866]. BDAG cites Xen. Oec. 17.9; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.10; P.Giss. 19.18; for “load” used figuratively, cf. also, e.g., Hierocles On Marriage (Stob. Anth. 4.67.24). Otherwise Rev 2:24 may echo the Jerusalem decree, being violated by some in that church (Rev 2:20). For emotional “burdens,” see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 41.12; Moses lamented that the “burden” of the people proved too heavy (Num 11:11, 17; Deut 1:9; but these do not use the same term).

[867]. Conzelmann, Corinthians, 139. Witherington, “Thoughts,” allows that the term might have originated in Jewish Christian circles, but 4 Macc 5:2 is probably independent of those circles.

[868]. See, e.g., Stowers, Letter Writing, 20; esp. Weima, Endings, 29–34; for examples, see 2 Macc 11:21, 33; 3 Macc 7:9; Jos. Ant. 11.130; Life 227; Ign. Eph. 21.2; Magn. 15.1; Tral. 13.2; Rom. 10.3; Phld. 11.2; Smyrn. 13.1–2; Pol. 8.3; Mart. Pol. 22.1; in letters outside closings, e.g., 2 Macc 9:20; 11:28; 3 Macc 3:12; 7:1; Jos. Ant. 12.51, 56, 148; 13.166; 14.190, 306; Life 366. Cf. the Latin closing Vale (e.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 93.12; 96.5; 97.16; 98.18; 99.32).

[869]. On letters for public reading, see, e.g., Cic. Fam. 3.3.2; on public readings, see Keener, Acts, 1:46–49; for readings in congregational settings, see comment on Acts 13:15; on circular letters to Diaspora communities, see comment on Acts 9:2; among Christians, cf. Col 4:16; Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1; Rev 1:4; Mart. Pol. 20.1; perhaps Eph 1:1.

[870]. Then again, some argue, partly from the prevalence of inscriptions, that many urban people were expected to be able to understand them (cf. Evans, World, 64, with other evidence on 63–74) even if they could not write well (as attested by spelling irregularities in popular graffiti; cf. ibid., 71–73).

[871]. Oral performance of a rhetorically sophisticated document was important (cf. Keck, “Pathos,” 78–79, 83; Witherington, Corinthians, 107).

[872]. People could gather at a synagogue not only for the regular Sabbath but also for a specially called fast day (Jos. Life 290).

[873]. Banks, Community, 38; Blue, “House Church,” 175.

[874]. Johnson, Acts, 279.

[875]. It also is an appropriate response to the greeting χαίρειν in Acts 15:23 (“joy” is another meaning of the same term).

[876]. Tannehill, Acts, 192–93.

[877]. The only other NT references; the earlier LXX usage seems to more emphasize leaning or dependence rather than the sense here. In view of different wording and the commonness of the terms shared, a connection with Rom 1:11–12 (used to imply the apostolic decree in Romans; so Nanos, Mystery, 210–11) seems implausible.

[878]. For prophecy employing first-person discourse, see, e.g., Acts 13:2; Rev 2–3. Some modern claims that NT prophecy is couched less authoritatively seem to me to overlook most concrete examples of NT prophecy.

[879]. Cf. 3 Macc 6:27; Greek Ahiq. 32.1. For “go in peace,” see, e.g., Exod 4:18; Judg 18:6; 1 Sam 1:17; 20:42; 2 Sam 15:9, 27; 2 Kgs 5:19; Tob 10:12; Jdt 8:35; Jub. 12:29; 18:16; 19:30; 21:25; 27:11; 31:27; Ahiq. 6.7; 7.21; cf. also 11Q12 9 4, 6. It need not mean, however, as the English idiom might convey, that they simply sent them off without violence (contrast 1 Kgs 12:18)! Garland, 1 Corinthians, 761, doubts that the use of this traditional formula necessarily implies reconciliation in 1 Cor 16:11 (cf. Jas 2:16).

[880]. E.g., Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 12 (from Witherington); idem, Acts (forthcoming, from Witherington); Ehrhardt, Acts, 91; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 439.

[881]. Cf. also Conzelmann, Acts, 123. This was demonstrated to me by my wife, who, unaware that the verse is a variant (and using a French translation that did not acknowledge it), asked me how it could possibly fit its context.

[882]. Witherington, Acts, 470n456. In this case, Paul may have summoned him from Jerusalem (472) because he could officially speak for Jerusalem, could interpret the decree, and was probably a Roman citizen, which would help in colonies such as Troas, Philippi, and Corinth (473). Paul did not yet know that he was going to these sites, but it would also be helpful in Pisidian Antioch and Lystra and perhaps Iconium.

[883]. Luke probably cut one detail “too many and failed to notice the anomaly” that remained (Dunn, Acts, 210).

[884]. I adapt here Keener, John, 38–39.

[885]. More loosely, if one allows for hyperbole and figurative language, one may compare the conflicting claims for Cassandra and Laodice in Hom. Il. 3.124; 13.365–66. Likewise, sleep came on Zeus in 1.610–11, but 2.2 reports that Zeus could not sleep that night. Cf. perhaps the Muse (Od. 1.1) and Muses (24.60).

[886]. One could reconcile the accounts by postulating that an involuntary fall could be slowed by the deity. Nevertheless, Lucian finds myths about Hephaistos even more contradictory than this in Dial. G. 241 (17/15, Hermes and Apollo 1).

[887]. Though not completely unheard of. Some ancients also critiqued inconsistencies in Homer; see Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xli–l. See further comment in Keener, Acts, 3:2655–56.

[888]. Many inconsistencies in Valerius Flaccus’s version of the Argonautica, however, may stem from the work’s being unfinished (Mozley, “Introduction,” viii; the end of Val. Flacc. 8 is incomplete).

[889]. So F. G. Moore in LCL, 8:142n1.

[890]. Why did the Romans not hunt Damon in Plut. Cim. 1.5–6 (though they do appear in 2.1–2)?

[891]. Writing one of our few examples of historical novels, but drawing on earlier biographies and here probably reflecting the confusion of traditions.

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

[1]. Torrey, Composition, 42, emphasizes Acts’ second half’s homogeneity, though this may not take adequate account of the “we” sections.

[2]. Dunn, Acts, 213, probably overstates this, since the only undisputed letters left (which he counts as exceptions), Romans and Galatians, together make up 40 percent of these cities addressed (and the only place we would expect from the first journey would be Galatia, Cyprus being Barnabas’s territory), and the disputed letters do not help the case (most reflect Paul’s ministry in Acts 19:10).

[3]. Dunn, Acts, 212–13, may overstate this, and he bases it on his view of the conflict of Gal 2:13.

[4]. Johnson, Acts, 10. Some have objected to the somewhat anachronistic language of “missionary journeys” (cf. Townsend, “Journeys and Missionary Societies”). The danger of anachronism is genuine; but we lack better, widely recognized alternative terminology, and the analogy communicates something helpful.

[5]. See Riesner, “Pauline Chronology,” 25.

[6]. On the sequence of events matching Paul’s letters where we can be certain about the sequence there, see Campbell, “Journeys,” 81–87; Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu, 203–4; Trebilco, “Itineraries.”

[7]. Jewett, Chronology, 59–61. For a very helpful chart comparing the chronological details of Jewett, Lüdemann, Hyldahl, Donfried, Riesner, Murphy-O’Connor, Hengel and Schwemer, Schnelle, and Wedderburn, see Dunn, Beginning, 499.

[8]. Jewett, Chronology, 62 (allowing time for Paul’s indecisiveness in Acts 16:7, and other factors; but even on such matters, the time we allot to, e.g., indecisiveness is guesswork). This pushes the council earlier than the usual estimate of 48–49 C.E.

[9]. The necessary imprecision is noted by others, e.g., Dunn, Beginning, 514–15.

[10]. With Riesner, Early Period, 312, who also questions the lengths in Antioch, Troas, and Philippi, though he accepts that three to four months might be correct for Thessalonica.

[11]. On “avoidance” or withdrawal as a common social response to conflict, cf. Malina and Pilch, Letters, 347, 354–55.

[12]. Nor perhaps would he have wished to cover some details that may have been available to him, such as the confrontation between apostles at Antioch, which likely occurred during this period (Gal 2:11–14; Dunn, Acts, 210).

[13]. With a range of meaning; elsewhere in earliest Christian literature, only Titus 1:5; Mart. Pol. 5.1; Ign. Rom. 9.3; in the LXX, 2 Chr 11:12; Esth 8:17; 1 Macc 1:51; 2 Macc 4:36; 3 Macc 3:16; 4:4; 6:41.

[14]. Knox, Acts, 51–52.

[15]. Turner, Grammatical Insights, 95, contends that the imperfect tense of the verb indicates the initial tentativeness of Barnabas’s suggestion; but it could simply imply (if anything) a persistent suggestion. From Barnabas’s aorist infinitive and (in Acts 15:38) Paul’s repetition of the verb with a present infinitive, Turner infers (ibid.) that Barnabas intended for Mark to come, but only Paul assumed that meant that Mark would stay.

[16]. For praiseworthy rulers showing mercy to enemies, see, e.g., Polyb. 1.72.3; Diod. Sic. 27.16.2; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.54.2; 3.99.7; 39.7.3–6; Val. Max. 5.1.ext. 1a; Arrian Alex. 1.17.12; 4.19.6; Appian Hist. rom. 10.4.24; Corn. Nep. 8 (Thrasybulus), 2.6; Hdn. 1.2.4; cf. also Jos. Life 353; Sipre Deut. 323.4.1; see further Good, King, 47–49. On the theme in general, see esp. Good, King.

[17]. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 71.

[18]. Rejection of friendship typically led to enmity, and it became part of the political web of alliances and enmity relations in Roman society; see Marshall, Enmity, passim.

[19]. Ibid., 67–69.

[20]. On the virtue of loyalty, see Crook, “Loyalty”; with respect to friendship, see discussion in Keener, John, 1009–10; idem, “Friendship,” 382–83.

[21]. Some older laws mistrusted and sentenced to death relatives of persons executed for treason (Quint. Curt. 6.11.20; 8.6.28; 8.8.18, though not enforced). Some leaders excused persons who acted from loyalty to siblings, since it was expected (e.g., Tac. Hist. 2.60).

[22]. In the real world, not Luke’s narrative world, since Luke does not draw the connection. Luke might avoid the connection, in fact, to protect Barnabas here; for apologetic to avoid the appearance of nepotism, see, e.g., Jos. Ant. 4.26–28, 34, 58.

[23]. See comment on Acts 12:17. One must be willing to prefer the wise to one’s parents (Dio Chrys. Or. 12.10). Cf. m. B. Meṣiʿa 2:11; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §10.

[24]. E.g., Ap. Rhod. 1.1302–8 (Heracles against the sons of Boreas); Soph. Philoc. passim (Philoctetes against Odysseus, although, for a more understanding appraisal of Odysseus’s pragmatic role, see Norwood, Greek Tragedy, 162–67, 179).

[25]. Berry and Heath, “Oratory and Declamation,” 409; e.g., Sen. E. Controv. 1.1.intro.; 1.6.intro.; 1.8.7; 2.1.intro.; 2.4.intro.; 3.3; Hermog. Issues 33; 40.20; 41.1–13.

[26]. See P.Cair.Masp. 67353 (569 C.E.); Isaeus Menec. 35; 43; in Roman law, see Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 137; for the revocation of wills, e.g., P.Oxy. 106 (135 C.E.); for the usual (but not certain) presumption of disinherited sons’ guilt, see Hermog. Issues 47.1–6; the disinheritance could be challenged at times if the grounds were inadequate (Val. Max. 7.7.3; Hermog. Issues 38.12–17).

[27]. Among Stoics, e.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 87.4–5; 94.50; Epict. Diatr. 1.4; 2.17.39–40; Encheir. 12–13; 51.2; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.7b, pp. 44–45.25–26; Marc. Aur. 1.17.4 (on his other studies); Diog. Laert. 7.1.25 (Zeno); 7.1.91 (Posidonius); Motto, “Progress”; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 70–71; Deming, “Indifferent Things,” 390; Meeks, Moral World, 50. In its Stoic form, this doctrine was often criticized or lampooned (e.g., Cic. Fin. 4.24.67; Plut. Progr. Virt., Mor. 75A–86A; Lucian Hermot. 63). Among other philosophers, e.g., Stowers, “Resemble Philosophy?,” 91; Diog. Laert. 2.93 (Aristippus); cf. progress toward virtue in Isoc. Demon. 12; in other education, Quint. Inst. 2.7.1; Lucian Soph. 6; Jos. Ant. 20.263; Gal 1:14.

[28]. See Gill, “Character-Development.”

[29]. But cf. “Lines from Columbanus” (probably Catonian), line 27, in Minor Latin Poets 1:630–31: one who loves his son will discipline him with a rod (also Prov 13:24).

[30]. Johnson, Acts, 282 (citing 2 Macc 4:19; 4 Macc 5:17; Acts 28:22); though it may be used differently (e.g., 2 Thess 1:11).

[31]. When multiple volunteers were available, someone leading a mission could choose his companion (Hom. Il. 10.227–36).

[32]. E.g., Quint. Curt. 3.7.14–15. One could also test others (3.6.9, 12).

[33]. Greco-Roman culture generally criticized fickleness and unreliability; for fickleness, see comment on Acts 2:47.

[34]. Elsewhere Pythagoras tests a student to whet his appetite (Iambl. V.P. 5.23–24).

[35]. Xen. Mem. 1.2.12, 18, 26.

[36]. Xen. Mem. 1.2.12.

[37]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.19; 4.37–38; cf. 5.43.

[38]. Also Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.37, 39.

[39]. Dio Chrys. Or. 40.16, 23; cf. Marshall, Enmity, 257; Watson, “Boasting,” 82; Pliny Ep. 8.6.9.

[40]. See Dewey, “Oral-Aural Event,” 151–57, esp. 152–53 (and 153n16 on Plato’s use of mimesis involving emotional identification with characters).

[41]. Some historians excelled in presenting different sides as sympathetically as possible for both rhetorical and literary reasons; see, e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3 (the Albans); 9.39.1–6 (patricians and plebeians); Livy 21.1.3 (Romans and Carthaginians). In another genre, Homer highlights the heroism of Greeks and Trojans alike, later allowing for Euripides’s Trojan Women and, more fully, the Roman appropriation of Aeneas (Virgil’s Aeneid).

[42]. Cf. Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 13 (from Witherington): “Barnabas acted on natural but personal considerations, Paul recognized his public duty.” (Given his setting in Victorian England, however, there can be little doubt which of these two approaches Lightfoot found nobler.)

[43]. In terms of forbearance or avoiding undue harshness, rather than precisely the Aristotelian mean between extremes (Arist. N.E. 2.7.1–9.9, 1107a–1109b; E.E. 2.3.1–5.11, 1220b–1222b; cf. Cic. Fin. 3.22.73; Hor. Sat. 1.1.106–7; Ep. 1.18.9; Plut. Dinner 20, Mor. 163D; 21, Mor. 164B; Diog. Laert. 1.93; Let. Aris. 223, 256; Ps.-Phoc. 36, 59–69b, 98; Wolfson, Philo, 2:277).

[44]. Val. Max. 5.8.5 (LCL). Likewise, Valerius praises those who value duty to country above family when he praises the former value, but he saves examples of the latter for when he praises the latter value; ideally, one could risk one’s life for both fatherland and father (5.4.ext. 7), but when they were in conflict, he did consistently value loyalty to country higher (5.6.pref.).

[45]. E.g., Publ. Syr. 10. I here expand on Keener, Matthew, 453.

[46]. Sipra Qed. pq. 4.200.3.3; Sipre Deut. 1.3.2; b. ʿArak. 16b, bar.; Šabb. 119b; Tamid 28a, bar.; Gen. Rab. 54:3; see also Manson, Sayings, 210.

[47]. Sipre Deut. 173.1.2; y. Sanh. 7:6, §2.

[48]. Moore, Judaism, 2:153.

[49]. Plut. Flatt. 32, in Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 115.

[50]. God honored reproof, but he punished public (as opposed to private) reproof (b. Sanh. 101a).

[51]. Edersheim, Life, 378, cites b. Šabb. 119b; Tamid 28a; ʿArak. 16b; see Beer, “Lykwdm.”

[52]. E.g., m. ʾAb. 3:11; b. Sanh. 107a; other references in Urbach, Sages, 1:253.

[53]. For offenses such as anger and pride; 4Q477; Eshel, “Rebukes.”

[54]. Cf. Schiffman, Law, 97–98; Davies, Sermon, 79; Brown, “Scrolls,” 4. Qumranites detested disrespect for fellow members of the community (e.g., 1QS VI, 26–VII, 9; VII, 15–16).

[55]. Public admonition thus represented the form of rebuke reserved for the severest of circumstances (cf. Gal 2:14; t. Kip. 4:12). The text offers no indication that the dispute was public, though the church clearly knew that the apostles had separated (Acts 15:40).

[56]. Cf. Prov 3:12; 13:24; 19:18; 23:13; 27:5; Sir 7:23; 18:13; 30:2, 13; elsewhere, cf. Confuc. Anal. 152 (14.8). Nevertheless, wisdom might demand withholding reproof at times (Prov 9:7–8; Sir 20:1).

[57]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 12, p. 86.24–27; cf. 9, p. 76.8–11; frg. 41.

[58]. Cf. Mus. Ruf. 10, pp. 78.31–80.6; frg. 39; Lutz, “Musonius,” 29.

[59]. See Beneker, “Chaste Caesar.”

[60]. E.g., Arrian Alex. 4.7.4; 4.8.1–4.9.6; Plut. Cimon 2.4–5; Corn. Nep. 11 (Iphicrates), 3.2; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.21.602–3; passim in Suetonius’s topical arrangements.

[61]. David Bauer (“Friendship”) has pointed out that Silas as a Roman citizen and Timothy as half-Greek may have proved more suited to the mission that ensued in Asia than Barnabas and Mark would have been. The conflict is portrayed negatively, yet God still accomplishes his purposes through limited persons (see comment on 13:26) and through humans’ sinful actions (e.g., 2:23; cf. Judg 14:4).

[62]. Bede Comm. Acts 15.39a is quick to emphasize that no sin is involved, since agitation is acceptable if the cause is just.

[63]. The epistles portray Mark more favorably (probably reflecting a later stage of his historical career, including his relationship with Paul in Rome, Phlm 24; Col 4:10; for Mark in Rome, cf. 2 Tim 4:11; 1 Pet 5:13, although Lightfoot [“Third Notebook on Acts,” 13, from Witherington] thinks that 1 Peter probably refers to a different Mark, the Gospel’s author). Black, “Mark in Acts,” thinks that Luke employs Mark as a foil for Barnabas and Paul, and doubts that Luke knew of Mark from the epistles. It is conceivable that Paul’s followers divided (probably more by personality than by theology) over his legacy after his death, which would explain why Luke plays down Mark, Sosthenes (1 Cor 1:1; Acts 18:17), and Titus (and possibly diminishing Timothy’s role) while favoring, e.g., Luke and Aristarchus. But neither Mark nor Sosthenes, and possibly Titus, appears in sections covered by the “we” material, and so further detail about them might simply be irrelevant. Barnabas and Silas receive their due; after them, Luke has less obligation to report all Paul’s companions. That Luke would neglect some characters “secondary” to his narrative seems plausible, at least to me and if only for anecdotal reasons: I remember clearly the involvement of some close friends in particular events twenty years ago, but only when consulting my journal did I recall the key role played by some other individuals that I had nearly forgotten.

[64]. Theon Progymn. 5.52–56; for focusing only on matters relevant to one’s purpose, cf. Satterthwaite, “Acts,” 345, who cites in this respect Lucian Hist. 56–57; Cic. De or. 3.27.104–5; 53.202–3; Quint. Inst. 8.4; Longin. Subl. 11–12; cf. Lucian Hist. 6.

[65]. Dunn, Acts, 209; Conzelmann, Acts, 123; Hill, Hellenists, 126; Barrett, Acts, 752.

[66]. Lightfoot suspected that tension from the incident in Gal 2 contributed toward the distrust that led to the split here (“Third Notebook on Acts,” 12 [from Witherington]).

[67]. Indeed, Paul seems to expect his audience to be surprised by Barnabas’s stance (“even” Barnabas), which is not what one would expect if Barnabas became an advocate of separate eating (instead of merely trying to avoid offense).

[68]. Note the same critique from Munck, Acts, 147. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 219, point out that the two would hardly have worked together so long unless they shared a common mind on basic theological matters, including Christology and salvation. Paul explicitly says that they together defended Paul’s gospel in Jerusalem (Gal 2:1, 9), though Paul was the dominant voice (2:2, 7).

[69]. See also Johnson, Acts, 288.

[70]. Cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 218: Paul and Barnabas had a “partnership in teaching and mission lasting almost ten years,” and this “was possible only because despite all differences, there was a fundamental theological agreement between the two people involved.”

[71]. See Schnabel, Acts, 662.

[72]. With also González, Acts, 182.

[73]. Haenchen, Acts, 476 (rejecting his gospel); Dunn, Acts, 209 (withdrawing its authorization); cf. Bruce, Thessalonians, 38 (relations weakened); Stuhlmacher, Romans, 143 (Paul separated himself).

[74]. Including, it appears, in that very letter (cf. Gal 4:16–20).

[75]. On the use of invective in enmity relations, see Marshall, Enmity, 46–69; for misrepresentation of enemies, see 56–61.

[76]. Luke also leaves the implication that Paul deliberately visited the church at Antioch in Acts 18:22.

[77]. Dunn, Acts, 210–11, though recognizing these as qualifying, not contradicting, his previously stated assessment.

[78]. Pace Haenchen, Acts, 476. Johnson, Acts, 287–88, also doubts that Galatians clearly attributes the division to the disagreement.

[79]. Hill, Hellenists, 126. Granted, Paul did not tout his victory here as he did with the conflict in Gal 2:6–10 (so Dunn, Beginning, 489–90), but consequently inferring Paul’s loss constitutes a colossal argument from silence.

[80]. Peter was not insisting that Gentiles be circumcised; rather, he probably was seeking to be “all things to all people” (1 Cor 9:20–22, esp. 20), as many note (Hill, Hellenists, 129; Cousar, Galatians, 47; cf. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 283), or perhaps was concerned about the Jerusalem church’s witness to fellow Jerusalemites (Hansen, Galatians, 63; cf. Gal 6:12). For Paul, a higher principle of the gospel and free evangelism were at stake.

[81]. Cf., e.g., Plut. Ages. 21.4–5; Alsup, “Type”; Robbins, “Pronouncement Stories”; idem, Rhetoric; Poulos, “Pronouncement Story”; Barrett, “Anecdotes”; in Jewish contexts, cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 3:16–28; 10:3; t. ʿAbod. Zar. 6:7; Sanh. 13:5. Jewish use appears rarer (Robbins, “Introduction,” xvi), perhaps because of the representative genres available; cf. VanderKam, “Pronouncement Stories” (19 examples, mainly in Testament of Job and Ahiqar); Greenspoon, “Pronouncement Story”; and esp. Porton, “Pronouncement Story,” who alone deals with the Jewish equivalent of “sage” narratives found in the Greek parallels. Yet Porton may underestimate the value of the rabbinic texts, which cite Scripture as in the NT texts (see Theissen, Gospels, 120n143). These do, admittedly, become dominant especially in the Amoraic period, however, probably because of the primarily halakic character of Tannaitic texts preserved. In rabbinic controversy-dialogues (e.g., b. Roš Haš. 32b), the rabbis debate pagan interlocutors in general (e.g., b. Bek. 8b; Sanh. 39a; y. Meg. 1:11, §3; 3:2, §3; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:2; 4:7; Num. Rab. 4:9; 9:48; Eccl. Rab. 2:8, §2); pagan philosophers (t. ʿAbod. Zar. 6:7; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 54b, bar.; Bek. 8b–9a; cf. b. Sanh. 39a), including “Epicureans” (possibly used in its general denigrating sense of those who denied divine providence and judgment; t. Sanh. 13:5; y. Sanh. 10:1, §7; cf. m. ʾAb. 2:14, expounded in b. Sanh. 38b); Sadducees (b. ʿErub. 101a); Samaritans (y. Yebam. 1:6, §1); and minim (schismatics) in general (b. Sanh. 38b; 39a; 43a; Ḥul. 84a; perhaps b. Yoma 56b–57a; more sources in Herford, Christianity, 226–27).

[82]. For challenge-riposte and honor-shame, see, e.g., Malina and Rohrbaugh, Gospels, 41–42; Malina, Windows, 8; Robbins, Texture, 76–77, 80–82.

[83]. Cf. the strong cognate in Acts 17:16. Its connotations are not violent in its other NT reference (Heb 10:24); it is a medical analogy in Ign. Pol. 2.1.

[84]. So Bruce, Acts¹, 306.

[85]. This was permissible in the Greek world, even when one was writing about persons viewed as semidivine (Eunapius Lives 461; cf. 459) or about one’s own teacher (e.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 2.21.602–3).

[86]. Chrys. Hom. Acts 34 (Martin, Acts, 193) praises Barnabas for his virtue of kindness and Paul for his of austerity, citing their separate gifts and the positive final outcome.

[87]. Cf. also Fitzmyer, Acts, 571, who draws from it the moral that dissensions remain in the Christian community despite harmony on other points.

[88]. E.g., a rhetorical critic might compare a writer’s best and worst passages (the method is explicitly discussed in Dion. Hal. Thuc. 35, end).

[89]. With Johnson, Acts, 282, though he wrongly thinks that Luke judges Barnabas badly for returning to his homeland (283; why should this be more negative than his initial mission to Cyprus alongside Paul in Acts 13?); cf. Kisau, “Acts,” 1328 (criticizing Paul). Luke employs ἀποχωρέω only twice (Acts 13:13; Luke 9:39) and ἀποχωρίζω only once (Acts 15:39); in the NT, each appears only once outside Luke’s work.

[90]. Chrys. Hom. Acts 34 (Martin, Acts, 193) attributes this to God’s plan, so that each minister received the appropriate role.

[91]. E.g., Cic. Phil. 8.5.16; Prov. cons. 1.2; Plut. Contr. A., Mor. 452F–464D (entire essay); Educ. 14, Mor. 10B; Diog. Laert. 1.70; Philost. Hrk. 27.10–11; 45.6; for dangers of anger, see, e.g., Val. Max. 9.3; Babrius 11; earlier, Ahiqar in ANET 429. See most fully Harris, Restraining Rage.

[92]. Plut. S. Rom., Cato the Elder 16, Mor. 199A; Hor. Ep. 1.2.61–62; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 18.14 (quoting favorably Epicurus); Philost. Ep. Apoll. 86.

[93]. See Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.10c, pp. 60–61.8–14; Diog. Laert. 7.1.114.

[94]. E.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 123.1–2; Dial. 3–5; Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.21; 16, p. 104.18 (emphasizing self-control); Epict. Diatr. 1.15.1–5; 2.19.26; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.10e, pp. 62–63.15–16; 2.7.11s, pp. 100–101.6–7; Marc. Aur. 6.26; cf. Sen. E. Controv. 2.pref. 2; Mus. Ruf. frg. 36, p. 134.14–16. Typical moralists urged control of anger, but Stoics such as Seneca, its eradication (Hoof, “Differences”).

[95]. Lucian Dem. 51 (quoting Demonax); Diog. Laert. 8.1.23; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 86–87, 96; Iambl. V.P. 22.101. An Epicurean scientifically attributed anger to heat in the soul (Lucret. Nat. 3.288–318); but whereas Epicureans viewed anger more negatively than Aristotle, they denied the Stoic view that it could be eradicated (Procopé, “Epicureans,” 188–89).

[96]. Publ. Syr. 214; Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.1.13.37–39; Hor. Sat. 1.3.76–77; Val. Max. 4.1.ext. 1–2; Plut. Rage frg. 148; Bride 39, Mor. 143E (in marriage); Solon 21.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 3.34; 4Q477 2 II, 4; Max. Tyre 25.6 (on the power of philosophic rhetoric); cf. Libanius Invect. 7; on restraining all such passions, e.g., Cic. Off. 1.29.102; 1.38.136; 2.5.18. It depicts the masses’ behavior (Lucian Charon 15). An orator should not become angry but might feign it when appropriate (Isoc. Ad Nic. 23).

[97]. Philod. Crit. frg. 12 (though he seems to allow the use of insults for securing attention in frg. 21); cf. Iambl. V.P. 22.101. An angry or irritable sage could appear hypocritical (Lucian Hermot. 9, 18, 80; Runaways 19, 27). One should also wait until a person’s anger has subsided to correct him (Isoc. Demon. 31).

[98]. Sir 20:3; Ps.-Phoc. 57 (drawing on the same idea as CD IX, 4–8; cf. Lev 19:17); Test. Dan 2–4 (esp. 2:2; 3:6); m. ʾAb. 2:10; b. Qidd. 40b–41a; Pesaḥ. 113b; Gen. Rab. 49:8; further in the rabbis, Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 464–65, §1306–12; among Christians, Jas 1:19–20; Did. 3.2; 4.10; 15.3; 1 Clem. 13.1; 46.5; 63.2; Ign. Phld. 8.1; Poly. Phil. 12.2; Barn. 19.7. Cf. Sir 8:16; the fine levied in y. B. Qam. 8:6, §1; the eschatological cessation of human anger in Sib. Or. 3.377.

[99]. Hillel in b. Šabb. 31a.

[100]. See, e.g., 4 Macc 1:24; 2:16–17, 20; 3:3; cf. Hadas, Aristeas, 199, on Let. Aris. 253. One non-Hellenistic approach included gluttony to reduce anger (Ahiq. 189 [saying 91]).

[101]. E.g. Hor. Ep. 1.2.59–62; Ps.-Phoc. 57–58. Thus it was best to grow angry only slowly and with forethought (Publ. Syr. 628, 695).

[102]. Iambl. V.P. 2.10; cf. Lucian Dem. 7. Cf. Josephus’s depiction of the Essenes (War 2.135), who did, in fact, restrict anger (CD IX, 4–6; 1QS V, 25).

[103]. E.g., Plut. Brut. 29.2; Corn. Nep. 25 (Atticus), 17.1–2. So also other genuine recollections, e.g., Sen. E. Controv. 2.pref. 2.

[104]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 46.1; Gen. Rab. 74:1; cf. Aul. Gel. 1.26. Aristotle viewed unrestraint in anger as less shameful than unrestraint in passions (N.E. 7.6.1, 1149a), but Seneca found Aristotle too soft on anger (Sen. Y. Dial. 3.9.2).

[105]. See Plut. Br. Love 17, Mor. 488BC (deSilva, Honor, 172–73); Publ. Syr. 184; Sir 20:3.

[106]. The sun going down (as in Eph 4:26; Poly. Phil. 12.1) is idiomatic for a long time (Dio Chrys. Or. 10.20; cf. Deut 24:15; b. Ber. 2a; y. Taʿan. 3:11, §4); cf. also the warning against couples sleeping apart from anger in Plut. Bride 38, Mor. 143D. This saying recalls Ps 4:5 LXX (4:4 ET; cf. b. Ber. 4b; 5a; Ruth Rab. 8:1) and may also evoke a Pythagorean saying that had become a commonplace (Nock, Christianity, 97; Johnston, Ephesians, 21).

[107]. Marshall, Enmity, 18–21, 39–43, 68.

[108]. Ibid., 18–20.

[109]. So Chrys. Hom. Acts 34 (noting that despite the sharp disagreement, they parted for the greater good, not from anger).

[110]. Usually acknowledged; e.g., Johnson, Acts, 283; Dunn, Acts, 210. Cf. the eventual reconciliation of George Whitefield and the Wesleys despite their continuing theological differences (Noll, History, 91–92).

[111]. Cf. 1 Sam 20:8. Even romances could claim that lovers argued, but they emphasized that lovers reconciled readily and gladly (Char. Chaer. 1.3.7).

[112]. Marshall, Enmity, 44.

[113]. Ibid., 42–43, citing, e.g., Sen. Y. Ep. 95.63.

[114]. It does contain some genuine knowledge of Cyprus (cf. Acts Barn. 18–19, in Young, “Aphrodite Cult”). My summary of its content follows Finegan, Apostles, 78.

[115]. Papias frg. 3.16; Papias in Euseb. H.E. 3.39; probably followed by Iren. Haer. 3.1.1, also cited in Euseb. H.E. 5.8.2 (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:8).

[116]. The tradition of Mark in Alexandria is not secure before John Chrysostom (Best, Mark, 35, noting that earlier tradition focuses on Rome; Anderson, Mark, 26, suggesting that Chrysostom follows Euseb. H.E. 2.16.1). An Alexandrian provenance for Mark is defended in Barnard, “Mark and Alexandria” (cf. Finegan, Records, 67ff.); but Rome is more common (e.g., Jeremias, Parables, 27; Longenecker, Christology, 18; Lane, Mark, 24–25).

[117]. Finegan, Apostles, 78.

[118]. Tert. On modesty 20 (in González, Acts, 182); cf. Robinson, Redating, 217ff. (followed and summarized by Hill, Prophecy, 144–46). This view was probably a guess (Hagner, Hebrews, xxi); besides other, more-often-named candidates, Silas could be added as one possibility.

[119]. With Bruce, Acts¹, 306–7.

[120]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 572.

[121]. Ramsay, Pictures, 172.

[122]. Also the discussions in Keener, Matthew, 580–81; idem, John, 823–24.

[123]. Tarsus was accessible on the road from Cappadocia through the Cilician Gates (Strabo 12.2.7; Täuber, “Cilicia”).

[124]. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 156–57. On Judaism in Syria, see Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 242–58 (for the Roman period, 249–58).

[125]. See the map in “Trade Routes”; with a wider range of possibilities, cf. Talbert, Barrington Atlas, 66, A–F 1–3.

[126]. Riesner, Early Period, 278; cf. Finegan, Apostles, 92. They might have traveled from Cilicia Trachea, north through the Calycadnus river valley, but they probably left from Cilicia Pedias (where Tarsus lay), north over the Via Tauri, then on to Derbe to the west-southwest (see Talbert, Barrington Atlas, 66).

[127]. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:155.

[128]. For a recognition of cursory summary, rather than detailed, scenes in Acts 16:1–5, see rightly Plümacher, Lukas, 107.

[129]. Pliny E. N.H. 5.27.99 notes that there are so few passes in the Taurus Mountains that they bear the name “Gates”: the Armenian, Caspian, and—the pass that Paul would have taken—Cilician. “Gates” began as their local name (Quint. Curt. 3.4.2); they were easily defensible (3.4.4–5, 11), since the passages were said to be so narrow that no more than four could walk side by side (3.4.12). Tarsus was near them (Hild, “Tarsus”); Wilson (personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011) estimates 123 miles (198 km.) from Antioch on the Orontes to Tarsus; a further 25 miles (40 km.) to the Cilician Gates; and a total of 130 miles (209 km.) from Tarsus to Derbe.

[130]. See Hemer, Acts in History, 111; Riesner, Early Period, 281; Witherington, Acts, 473.

[131]. Täuber, “Cilicia” (also noting the gates’ role in military campaigns; e.g., Xen. Anab. 1.4.4; Arrian Alex. 2.4.3; Dio Cass. 74.7.2). Abbott, Acts, 117, notes that the mountains are visible from Tarsus. On mountain passes generally, see, e.g., Sauer, “Passes.”

[132]. Mitchell, “Cilician Gates”; cf. Judge, “Cilicia”; on the Cilician Gates further, see also concisely Schnabel, Mission, 1129.

[133]. On the difficulty of such mountainous journeys in winter, see Rapske, “Travel,” 4; comment on Acts 13:14.

[134]. See Schnabel, Acts, 663, for details.

[135]. Bean and Mitchell, “Cilicia,” 330 (united for administrative purposes during the republic). Eastern Cilicia was one of the most fertile parts of Asia (331), ca. 100 mi. (160 km.) long; for details, see Judge, “Cilicia,” esp. 699.

[136]. For how this is handled by translations in Acts 16:1, see Ellington, “Who’s Who.”

[137]. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 149, suggests that their joint mission of delivering the decrees explains the shift to the plural in Acts 16:4; but the decrees are not mentioned after this whereas the plural is. The alternative to such conjectures would be to posit careless conflation of written sources (or, more likely, of Luke’s notes) here, a solution that, though plausible, is equally conjectural.

[138]. Levick, Roman Colonies, 191n1. For material in this section, I drew on Keener, “Interethnic Marriages,” 33–38.

[139]. Not that proselytes’ children would be deemed unfit if the rest of the marriage was normal; Tannaim regarded offspring of proselytes as full Israelites (Bonsirven, Judaism, 56; Fee, Corinthians, 302n29, citing m. Ketub. 4:3; Yebam. 11:2). (Amoraim applied this principle even to a child in the womb when the mother was converted; b. Sanh. 58a; elsewhere, De Ridder, Discipling, 98.)

[140]. Some scholars suggest that Jewish communities in Asia Minor were less rigorous than those in Judea (Bruce, Commentary, 322); this was probably at least the case for the more assimilated Jewish communities, which must have included Phrygia (see comment on Acts 14:11). Still, most Asian Jews observed the Sabbath and food laws (Trebilco, Communities, 17–18). On some issues, Tannaim allowed those living in the Diaspora more latitude (cf. e.g., t. Šabb. 8:5, for a proselyte living among Gentiles).

[141]. So Werman, “Jubilees 30” (surveying different approaches).

[142]. A minority opinion in y. Sanh. 2:6, §2.

[143]. A Jew marrying an idolatrous woman was bad in Jos. Ant. 18.344–45, 349 (undoubtedly made worse in this case because she began as an oppressor’s wife, 18.340–43).

[144]. On interethnic marriages in the OT, see also Hays, “Perspective”; comment on Acts 7:29. It appears negatively in Gen 26:34–35; 27:46; 28:1; but for various reasons, there is no judgment against it in Gen 41:45; Exod 2:21; Ruth 4:13 (Bar, “Intermarriage,” 103–4; Keener, “Interracial Marriage,” 4–11).

[145]. E.g., Jub. 20:4; 22:20; Philo Spec. Laws 3.29; Test. Levi 9:10; McKnight, “Proselytism,” 839–40; Lange, “Daughters”; cf. also Conzelmann, Acts, 125, following Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2:741, on rabbinic evidence; Le Cornu, Acts, 860, citing Jubilees.

[146]. See Skemp, “Ἀδελφός.” Untainted descent is meritorious in Num. Rab. 9:7. Endogamy appears in various societies; cf., e.g., caste endogamy (Béteille, “Race,” although this is nonracial, 444–45, 448, 461; cf. Barnouw, “Customs,” 16–17), a practice known in Greco-Roman antiquity (Arrian Ind. 12.8).

[147]. Jub. 30:7 (on Jub. 30 but also other sources, cf. Werman, “Jubilees 30”). Religious intermarriage is equivalent to giving one’s children to Molech (Jub. 30:10). The Lord opposes such behavior (30:11); a biblical foundation for this in 30:12 is the deceitful claim of Dinah’s brothers in Gen 34:14.

[148]. Deut 7:3–4; Ezra 9:12, 14; 10:2, 10–11; Neh 10:30; cf. Gen 24:3, 37; 28:1; Num 25:1. The concern was especially pagan religious assimilation (see, e.g., Bar, “Intermarriage,” 100–102; Keener, “Interracial Marriage,” 12–13; though Lange, “Intermarriage,” argues that the issue in Ezra is especially cultic). Later, Islam warned against mixing believers and nonbelievers (Qur’an 60.10).

[149]. In another, later version, Judah proselytized her before marrying her (Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 38:2, also noting that her father was a merchant, perhaps implying that he need not have been Canaanite).

[150]. E.g., L.A.B. 9:5; ʾAbot R. Nat. 45, §125 B; Pesiq. Rab. 40:3/4; 49:2; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 38:25–26; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 38:25; Tg. Ruth 3:15; Bamberger, Proselytism, 195–99; Johnson, Genealogies, 159–66; cf. Heb 11:31; b. B. Bat. 91a; Daube, New Testament and Judaism, 33. Ruth was a model proselyte (Butting, “Bedeutung”); in some traditions, many prophets descended from Rahab (Sipre Deut. 357.2.1; cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 13:5).

[151]. Sharp, “Zeal”; but cf. Himmelfarb, “Levi,” arguing that the larger issue (in many texts of the Maccabean era) was priests not marrying unfit Jews. The document prohibits any form of intermarriage that could be understood as prohibited in Scripture, including to those with crushed testicles and those from hostile peoples (4QMMT B 39–44); priests dared not intermarry with the people (B 80–82), though the children of mixed unions could remain holy (B 75–76). The issue was to avoid profaning Israel’s seed, not fear of contracting impurity (Hayes, “Intermarriage”). Some scholars also argue that Pseudo-Philo Biblical Antiquities was written to oppose intermarriage (DesCamp, “Women”).

[152]. Kalimi, “Esther.” Esther’s marriage posed problems to later rabbis, too, who were uncomfortable with her voluntarily bearing a mixed child (Esth. Rab. 8:3; although commentators are divided, in the book of Esther itself her being added to the king’s harem was very likely not voluntary). Marriage of a priest’s daughter to a Gentile (cf. Lev 19:8?) is “fornication” (see 4Q513 2 II, 2, 5).

[153]. Morisi, “Origine.”

[154]. Le Cornu, Acts, 861, cites t. Qidd. 4:16; b. Qidd. 68b; Yebam. 45a; 47a. On the offspring of a Gentile or slave with an Israelite woman being a mamzer, see also m. Yebam. 7:5; y. Giṭ. 1:4, §2; for slaves, m. Qidd. 3:13; cf. m. Giṭ. 9:2). On the wider definition of mamzerim more generally, see Jeremias, Jerusalem, 337–42; rabbis preferred one learned in Torah, however, to an ignorant high priest (m. Hor. 3:8).

[155]. Le Cornu, Acts, 861, cites b. Yebam. 23a; Qidd. 68b.

[156]. So Test. Jud. 11:3–5 (though Shelah did not die, 13:3).

[157]. So Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:3 (the detractor in the passage merits punishment). In ʾAbot R. Nat. 36 A, R. Eliezer thinks that pagans’ children who die as minors (though the editor thinks that he refers to wicked Israelites) will be damned, though R. Joshua disagrees; in t. Sanh. 13:2, they will not share the coming world or be judged (cf. further Marmorstein, Merits, 40–41; Moore, Judaism, 2:386).

[158]. See Tac. Hist. 5.5 (though presenting it as a contrast with supposed promiscuity among Jewish people). By contrast, Tacitus more favorably presents the Germans as “untainted by intermarriage with other races” (Germ. 4, explaining their distinctive blue eyes and red hair).

[159]. Jos. Asen. passim; m. Qidd. 3:5; b. Yebam. 92b; B. Meṣiʿa 16b; McKnight, “Proselytism,” 844; cf. the tradition that Job married Jacob’s daughter Dinah (L.A.B. 8:8; Test. Job 1:4–6; Gen. Rab. 76:9; b. B. Bat. 15b). Later rabbis asked the status of a child of a proselyte who had been circumcised but not yet immersed (y. Qidd. 3:12, §8). Although Simeon and Levi appear to have the final word in Gen 34:31, their killing of those willing to join Israel is ultimately excessive (49:5–7).

[160]. This could mean that they became believers in Jesus before Timothy, but in view of 2 Tim 3:11, 15, it is likely that the author praises their Jewish faith, which he accepts as genuine (though πιστῆς in Acts 16:1 does indicate a believer, perhaps from Paul’s first journey there; 10:45; 16:15; Luke does not employ the title in Luke 1–2, where we might expect it if he defined it more generally). It was common to credit those who raised young people when the latter turned out well (Rhet. Alex. 35, 1441a.16–19).

[161]. So y. Qidd. 1:1, §8. More generally, Jewish people had to observe biblical prescriptions on priests’ marriages (cf., e.g., t. Sanh. 4:7; at length, see y. Yebam. 6:1–9:8); a priest who married one of inappropriate status could be removed from the priesthood (y. Šeb. 6:1, §9). Normally, the husband’s status vis-à-vis the priesthood determined the status of both members (y. Ketub. 1:5, §2).

[162]. Quint. Curt. 8.4.25 (because of Alexander’s passion, 8.4.25–26); Arrian Alex. 7.4.8.

[163]. Arrian Alex. 7.12.2. The children could, however, be raised as Macedonians.

[164]. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.1.2.

[165]. Apul. Apol. 24, citing Cyrus’s mixed heritage as Mede and Persian.

[166]. Baugh, “Marriage,” 105.

[167]. Rhodes, “Epigamia” (citing, e.g., SIG³ 421, 472 for treaties; for honorary grants to individuals, e.g., IG 5.1.961).

[168]. E.g., Aeschines Embassy 78; Ctes. 172; Lucian Parl. G. 4.

[169]. Schiemann, “Conubium,” 758; Gardner, Women, 32; Stambaugh, City, 93. Naturally, this left many children even in Roman households (especially those born to slaves or concubines) “illegitimate” (Gardner, Women, 143).

[170]. See Gaius Inst. 1.66–92. Jewish and Roman laws regulating the status of children born to irregular marriages appear to be related; see Cohen, Law, 133–36.

[171]. See Sivan, “Rabbinics.” Many Christian women were married to pagan husbands, a situation that caused serious difficulties (see MacDonald, “Married to Unbelievers”).

[172]. For such unions between people of different legal status, see esp. Weaver, “Status,” using especially inscriptions; also Llewelyn, Documents, 6:17 §1. Plut. Educ. 2, Mor. 1AB, seems to treat it as a moral issue. Mixed marriages may have become more problematic in the late empire (Grubbs, “Marriage”).

[173]. Lewis, Life, 41–43.

[174]. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 11.28.4; Livy 4.4.9. The ban was repealed “within a few years” (Lintott, Romans, 19).

[175]. Primarily for demographic reasons (far more aristocratic men than women, Dio Cass. 54.16.2), but cf. an additional proposal in McGinn, “Missing Females?”

[176]. O’Rourke, “Law,” 180. Josephus objected to free persons marrying slaves altogether, and he or his tradition read this into Israel’s law (Ant. 4.244–45).

[177]. In the time of Claudius, Tac. Ann. 12.53; cf. Weaver, “Status,” 151. Inscriptions in Asia Minor do, however, testify of mixed slave-free households (Martin, “Slave Families,” 214–22, esp. 214).

[178]. See Deming, Celibacy, 144.

[179]. The mention of fathers would normally take precedence (though rabbis noted that Scripture could mention either first); certainly, they were not normally omitted in such descriptions when they were equally pious.

[180]. Pomeroy, Goddesses, 158, 169; Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 139; Yarbrough, “Paul,” 410. Women could not adopt, since they lacked legal power over even their birth children (Gaius Inst. 1.104).

[181]. Jeffers, “Families,” 141; cf. idem, World, 246. In earlier Rome, the dissolution of mixed marriages might leave sons with Roman fathers, and daughters with the non-Roman mothers (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.1.2).

[182]. Marshall, Acts, 259, says that the Greek verb tense in Acts 16:3b suggests that the father was already dead. At least in the United States, when the mother gains custody of children, the children tend to lose contact with paternal kin (Anspach, “Kinship and Divorce”). In the case of a remarriage, Roman law recognized legal paternity through marriage to the mother over biological paternity (see Schwartz, “Callirhoe’s Choice”); educating another’s child made one an adoptive parent (Jacobson, “Adoptive Parents”).

[183]. See Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 272–73.

[184]. See Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 130 (citing sine manu marriages and related matters in Gaius Inst. 1.111, 145, 171); Verner, Household, 33, 39; Keener, “Marriage,” 687–88; see further Keener, Acts, 1:608–9.

[185]. Gen. Rab. 17:7, making the wife the primary influence (but this may represent a rare opinion or be ad hoc). Rabbis also envisioned cases in which a husband, but not a wife, obeyed Pharisaic interpretations of tithing rules (t. Demai 3:9).

[186]. Cf. moralists’ advice on beginning children’s education with a nursemaid of good character and articulate in Greek (e.g., Plut. Educ. 5, Mor. 3DE; Carcopino, Life, 104; cf. Tac. Dial. 29); who better to teach virtue than a mother from a people known for attention to their moral customs?

[187]. See Schnabel, Acts, 664–65.

[188]. See also Xen. Cyr. 1.2.3; Rhet. Alex. pref. 1421a.17–18; Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 48.5–6; Plut. M. Cato 20.3; Crates Ep. 33; Men. Rhet. 2.3, 385.22–23; Iambl. V.P. 31.206; cf. Petron. Sat. 4. Not everyone, however, shared these ideals (Dixon, Roman Mother, 141).

[189]. E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.23.19; “Lines from Columbanus” (probably Catonian), line 27, in Minor Latin Poets 1:630–31; Plut. M. Cato 20.2–8; cf. Verner, Household, 134. It was best to school children nearby so that fathers could rear their children strictly (Pliny Ep. 4.13.4).

[190]. Stahlmann, “Gender Roles,” 744. The mother would also be responsible for discipline if the father was unavailable (e.g., Plut. Coriol. 1.2, where the father was deceased).

[191]. Cf. Sir 7:23; Wis 3:11–12; 4 Macc 18:9–19; Let. Aris. 248; b. Qidd. 29a, bar.; Safrai, “Education,” 947 (citing t. Qidd. 1:11; Sipre Deut. 46; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.178; Philo Embassy 210); idem, “Home,” 770; Goodman, State, 72 (citing, e.g., t. Ḥag. 1:2).

[192]. So b. Soṭah 21a (Amoraic). The emphasis on the mother’s role in Malina, Windows, 71, 82, is probably most appropriate at a young age (see helpfully Lincoln, Ephesians, 400, 406; cf. 2 Kgs 4:18–19; in some other traditional cultures, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 169).

[193]. M. Qidd. 3:12; Yebam. 7:5; t. Qidd. 4:16.

[194]. Cohen, Law, 140 (noting that the issue of dispute, settled in the child’s favor by later Amoraim, was whether the child was legitimate); Schiffman, “Crossroads,” 118–19; idem, Jew, 9–17 (dating the tradition as early as Ezra 9:2, though this claim is disputable); Falk, “Law,” 510; Le Cornu, Acts, 861 (citing m. Bik. 1:4; y. Yebam. 13a; Qidd. 41a; b. Yebam. 17a; 23a; Qidd. 68b). A proselyte’s status was much closer to Israelite if his or her mother was Jewish (m. Bik. 1:4–5); this might suggest a situation like Timothy’s, but it may also suggest a tradition in which maternal descent was insufficient. Some Amoraim even averred that women exercised the greater moral influence (Gen. Rab. 17:7).

[195]. Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2:741; Boismard and Lamouille, Actes, 2:287. Schiffman, Jew, 17, notes that this was the criterion by which the Tannaim evaluated Gentile Christians.

[196]. Falk, Jesus, 18, noting that Paul was therefore with the halakah to circumcise Timothy.

[197]. Cf. Cohen, “Matrilineal Principle in Perspective” (also idem, Beginnings, 263–307, cited in Pervo, Acts, 388); Hadas-Lebel, “Mariages mixtes.” Cohen proposes its origin in the many women converting to Judaism but also in the Mishnah’s concern for varied kinds and Roman laws concerning status (“Origins of Matrilineal Principle”). Slater, “Emergence,” relates the emerging of that principle to rabbis’ understanding of masculinity and status.

[198]. Cf. Cohen, “Was Timothy Jewish?”; also see idem, Beginnings, 363–77, cited in Barreto, Negotiations, 69n27.

[199]. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 12–16, esp. 16. Cf. Johnson, Acts, 284, and Talbert, Acts, 137: it is not documented before the Mishnah, but Luke seems to assume it. Some argue that Philo attests an emphasis on having a Jewish mother (see Niehoff, “Identity”).

[200]. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 17.

[201]. Children took the father’s rank in most unions (Livy 4.4.11, on plebeians and patricians; in Jewish unions involving priests, cf. y. Ketub. 1:5, §2). Romans, like others, were more tolerant of their men intermarrying than of their women doing so.

[202]. Ulpian Rules 5.8 (third century C.E.; available in Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 192, §195); Buckland, Roman Law, 99; Dixon, Roman Mother, 18; Jeffers, “Families,” 133–34.

[203]. With, e.g., D. Williams, Acts, 275. It is not hard to see why a Gentile might balk at this particular rite, which some viewed as mutilation (e.g., Plut. Cic. 7.5; see discussion of circumcision at the introduction to Acts 15).

[204]. Cf. similarly Bruce, Acts¹, 308. Some Gentile Christian exegetes, such as Ambrosiaster, and some medieval exegetes viewed him as Jewish (Fitzmyer, Acts, 575, disagreeing).

[205]. See Keener, “Interethnic Marriages,” 33–38; and esp. Barreto, Negotiations, 61–118 (esp. 92; cf. his discussion of hybridity in 45, 49–53, 140–80, esp. 140, 166–80; his use of Hemer, Acts in History, 56–58, for guidelines for the study of ethnicity). Barreto views “Greek” as an ethnic marker (Negotiations, 110–13), rightly rejecting the proposal that “Greek” functions here only as a status marker (Negotiations, 73n40, 110n164), although the title carried status in some non-Greek areas (such as rural Egypt). Timothy collapses “exclusive categories” of Jew and Greek (117), embodying both ethnic identities and thus bringing them together (118); cf. also idem, “Difference.”

[206]. Barreto, Negotiations, 116, cites approvingly Wall’s perspective that Timothy’s mixed identity is an advantage for the mission (Wall, “Acts,” 227).

[207]. With Marshall, Acts, 259; cf. 1 Tim 1:2, 18; 2 Tim 1:2.

[208]. Mitchell, Anatolia, map 6, 1:99; Hemer, Acts in History, 111–12 (on the basis of current views of Derbe’s site, as against earlier ones).

[209]. Judge, First Christians, 565. Had he been a Roman citizen, it would have served Luke’s purpose to mention it, though given his selectivity we cannot hang too much weight on his silence.

[210]. The age range included here is probably the same as in Acts 7:58 (see comment there). In contrast to Saul in Acts 7:58, some envision Timothy as in his mid- to late thirties in 1 Tim 4:12 (cf. Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 2; Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 52); late twenties might be likelier (see Overstreet, “Concept,” 560–61).

[211]. E.g., Pliny Ep. 6.23.2.

[212]. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 149.

[213]. Winter, Philo and Paul, 25–30 (citing esp. P.Oxy. 2190.20–21).

[214]. E.g., Porph. Marc. 1.6–8; Eunapius Lives 486, 493; 4 Bar. 7:24; Sipre Deut. 34.3.1–3, 5; 305.3.4; b. Pesaḥ. 112a; Šabb. 25b; 31a (Hillel); Pesiq. Rab. 21:6 (Moses to Israel); 51:1; Phlm 10; Matt 23:9; John 13:33; 1 John 2:1, 18, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21; 3 John 4.

[215]. Conzelmann, Acts, 125 (following Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 4:28–29).

[216]. We do not read of many accidents, but cf. y. Šabb. 19:3, §3.

[217]. A title applied elsewhere in Pauline literature only to two other people (Phlm 10), one of these in the Pastorals (Titus 1:4) where Timothy still holds pride of place (1 Tim 1:2, 18; 2 Tim 1:2; 2:1).

[218]. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b9, pp. 22–23.30–33. See also discussion at Acts 13:13; 15:37–38.

[219]. Segal, Convert, 219, argues that Luke portrays Paul as abiding by the decree here, thereby undercutting the criticism of Acts 21:21. Cf. also Aug. Ep. 82.8, to Jerome (Martin, Acts, 196).

[220]. Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. 7.9 (using 1 Cor 9:20); Chrys. Hom. Acts 34; in Cat. Act. 16.1–3; Bede Comm. Acts 16.3 (Martin, Acts, 195–97). Some do count against the act the very Pauline texts I cite for circumcision’s moral neutrality (cf. Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 401–2).

[221]. Goulder, Competing Mission, 224, allows the account in Acts but attributes it to the urging of Silas, given his Jerusalemite tendencies. But this renders it difficult to explain why Paul would withstand many in Jerusalem (Gal 2:3–5) yet succumb to an incompatible traveling partner (with whom he kept traveling).

[222]. With most exegetes (e.g., Witherington, Galatia, 135; Wright, Justification, 113), I read Gal 2:3 as Titus not being circumcised, although it is not impossible, with some, to read it that he submitted to it willingly.

[223]. Fellows, “Titus,” skillfully defends the identification of Timothy and Titus (developing a suggestion by Borse, “Timotheus und Titus,” 34). Some evidence supports this position’s plausibility: Apart from 2 Tim 4:10, which Fellows can discount as later misinformation (“Titus,” 35–36), Timothy and Titus do not appear together. Certainly, this argument would also resolve why “Titus” does not appear in Acts. Also, “Titos” would make a good nickname, a useful shortened form for “Timotheos.” Against it would be the oddity of changing names for a person without explanation, even in same letter (2 Cor 1:1, 19 for “Timothy,” and thereafter “Titus,” e.g., 2:13), though this sometimes occurred (even in Gal 1:18; 2:7–11, 14; Fellows, “Titus,” 34–35). Moreover, “Titus” was not a particularly rare name (e.g., 2 Macc 11:34; it appears 201 times in Josephus, but this is because of Vespasian’s son); “Titius” in Acts 18:7 is closer to “Titus” than “Timothy” is, yet most do not link them. The thesis is certainly plausible, but given the uncertainty of the positive evidence, whether it is the likeliest solution depends partly on how much one thinks that the author of the Pastorals knew. I favor accurate information in the Pastorals about distinct persons more than Fellows does, believing that the concrete tradition in 2 Tim 4:10 may reflect traditional assumptions about their distinct identities within living memory of Timothy; the evidence of Acts 16:3 is also against this speculation, since the author belongs to the Pauline circle and, on my view of authorship (see Keener, Acts, 1:402–16, and comment on Acts 16:10), would have known Timothy and presumably whether or not Paul had him circumcised.

[224]. On the Pauline level, if Luke’s report is true, the Galatians would be the very ones to know of Timothy’s circumcision (on the South Galatian view) and hence would profit particularly from Paul’s recounting Titus’s noncircumcision.

[225]. With Johnson, Acts, 289–90.

[226]. See Brawley, “Paul in Acts,” 143–44; idem, Luke-Acts and Jews, 155.

[227]. Bornkamm, “Missionary Stance,” 203–4; Haenchen, “Acts as Source Material,” 271. Pervo, Acts, 388, notes this view (of Linton, “Aspect”) as possible but prefers pure Lukan invention (inverting Gal 2:3–5 to make Paul positive); yet at the time that he (or even I) dates Luke, was circumcision still “positive” among most churches, especially Luke’s Diaspora circle?

[228]. Barrett, Acts, 753. His argument, however, at least partially deconstructs because he dates Acts late enough for Luke to have known Paul’s letters while he counts Luke’s divergence from the letters against his reliability here. Even if Luke were inaccurate here, it would not imply that he lacked access to Paul at one time—only when he was writing. Conversely, if, as the “we” sections likely do indicate, he was Paul’s companion on the journey to Jerusalem, it is likely that he would have accurate information on this point (since Timothy was on the same trip, Acts 20:4). Luke would not invent the problem; see Garroway, “Heresy,” 32.

[229]. Mac. Magn. Apocrit. 3.30–36 (Porphyry’s 58–59).

[230]. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 84–85; Witherington, Acts, 474; Dunn, Acts, 216; Erdman, Galatians, 50–51; Le Cornu, Galatians, 90. Even Paul’s letters include apparently inconsistent texts (e.g., Gal 2:11–14 and 1 Cor 9:19–23) that treat two different kinds of situations (cf. Richardson, “Inconsistency”; for greater consistency, Carson, “Inconsistency”).

[231]. With, e.g., Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 16; Dunn, Acts, 216; Hengel, Peter, 61n199. See further discussion on Paul’s continuing Jewish identity at Acts 18:18.

[232]. E.g., Witherington, Acts, 476; Bence, Acts, 19; Fernando, Acts, 432; Gaventa, Acts, 46; Wright, Ethics, 188–89; Talbert, Acts, 137; Peterson, Acts, 451; Thompson, Unfolding Plan, 188–89.

[233]. So here also Clem. Alex. Strom. 7.9 (Martin, Acts, 197). The practice of local adaptation was an old (and debated) one; see, e.g., Mommsen, History, 190–91 (on Sulla); Quint. Inst. 3.7.24; Plut. Alex. 45.1–3; Alc. 23.4–6; Corn. Nep. 7 (Alcibiades), 11.2–6; Eunapius Lives 495–96; Exod. Rab. 47:5. But while Paul had to adapt to reach Gentiles (cf. Hillel in Daube, New Testament and Judaism, 336ff.; Longenecker, Paul, 207; Le Cornu, Acts, 961), Jewish culture was his own. For how Paul’s Jewish commitments in his letters cohere with Luke’s depiction of them, see Hvalvik, “Believer” (followed at length by Thompson, “Paul in Acts,” 431–32).

[234]. Useless, he claims, in boasting before God but apparently of some value for establishing his credentials against the circumcisionists. To say, “not to mention,” but then to mention something was a common rhetorical technique (see comment on Acts 24:19).

[235]. See Hodge, “Apostle to Gentiles.”

[236]. See discussion in Osborn, Justin, 159–60.

[237]. Mitchell, “Accommodation,” 202–4. Clement uses the same language to explain passages attributing human emotions to God (Strom. 2.16).

[238]. Presumably at ordination (cf. 1 Tim 5:22). On various uses of the laying on of hands, see comment on Acts 6:6.

[239]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 185, think that Luke portrays Paul as a delegate of the Jerusalem apostles (a portrayal that would obviously contradict Gal 1:17–2:10), but this overstates Paul’s subservience to Jerusalem in Acts.

[240]. It is not reported after Acts 16:4 and hence at least not explicitly reported as taught to new churches or in the period from which Paul’s relevant letters missing it derive.

[241]. The precise term στερεόω appears elsewhere in the NT only for a disabled man physically strengthened by faith (Acts 3:7, 16; cf. 9:19; perhaps relevant for analogy); cf. the more closely related use of the term in 1 Pet 5:9. For related ideas of establishing or strengthening churches, cf. Luke 22:32; 1 Thess 3:2; encouragement in Luke 22:43; cf. Eph 3:16; 2 Thess 2:17; 3:3; 1 Tim 1:12; 2 Tim 4:17; Heb 12:12; 1 Pet 5:10; Rev 3:2. For the language of something “increasing daily,” cf. the dangers in Vell. Paterc. 2.30.5; 2.91.3.

[242]. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:10, noting a triumphal arch in 50 C.E. commemorating Augustus’s triumphs in Pisidia. The new, colonnaded Tiberia Platea connected this arch with the temple complex, which could be seen by those approaching the city from miles away.

[243]. The grammar, however, is not by itself decisive; see Robertson, Grammar, 787–88.

[244]. E.g., Riesner, Early Period, 285; Witherington, Acts, 478; Longenecker, Ministry and Message, 62; D. Williams, Acts, 276–77; Blaiklock, Acts, 121–22. One may compare Φρυγία Ἀσιανή (Galen De alimentorum facultatibus 1.13.10) and the frequent “Pontus Galaticus” (CIL 3.6818; Hemer, Acts in History, 112n28).

[245]. The substantive “Ituraea” there may function adjectivally; at the very least, the area is a political unity. For Philip as tetrarch of Trachonitis, see Jos. Ant. 18.137 (cf. 18.27, 237); on Ituraea, see, e.g., Bieberstein, “Ituraea”; on Trachonitis, Pliny E. N.H. 5.16.74. Strabo 16.2.20 associates Ituraeans with Arabs.

[246]. Cf. MAMA 7:xii, emphasizing the northern part of Phrygia that is part of Galatia (citing Pliny E. N.H. 5.145).

[247]. By contrast, Pliny the Elder even conjoins Lycaonia with the province of Asia (N.H. 5.25.95), although the meaning of this description is open to debate.

[248]. Mitchell, “Galatia,” 871.

[249]. Hemer, “Phrygia,” 123. For other examples from various periods, including the first century, see Hemer, “Phrygia,” 124–35 (citing Athen. Deipn. 2.55a; 3.75B; various inscriptions; Apollod. Bib. 2.4.5; Dio Chrys. Or. 15.10; Diog. Laert. 6.1; Lucian Affairs 42).

[250]. Hemer, “Phrygia,” 124. Cf. LSJ.

[251]. Hemer, “Further Note,” 99. He offers some of the clearest on 101–2: Arist. Mir. ausc. 58 (834b); Pollux Onomasticon 7.100; Alciph. Ep. 2.4, 21; Strabo 10.3.12; Arrian Tactica 33.4; Aelian Farmers 19 (Mormias to Chremes); Sib. Or. 14.236 (late one); plus a large number of inscriptions (including IG 12.1.531, 532, 534, 895).

[252]. For the constative aorist, see, e.g., Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 171, §332; Dana and Mantey, Grammar, 196; Wallace, Grammar, 557–58; for the culminative aorist, Dana and Mantey, Grammar, 196; Wallace, Grammar, 559–61. Hemer, “Phrygia,” 125, also warns against having too much depend on the aorist character of the participle (κωλυθέντες) in Acts 16:6.

[253]. Of course, Paul had previously evangelized only some cities in Phrygia-Galatia anyway.

[254]. Conzelmann, Acts, 127 (though concurring that the first journey included the province of Galatia).

[255]. For Luke’s preference for urban centers rather than Paul’s for Roman provinces, see Cadbury, Acts in History, 39–40.

[256]. Established as such by Pompey in the second quarter of the first century B.C.E. (White and Frend, “Bithynia,” 520; Bruce, Acts¹, 310; Johnson, Acts, 285). At one time (in the first century B.C.E.), Bithynia was under the same proconsul as Asia (Vell. Paterc. 2.42.3).

[257]. Hemer, Acts in History, 179.

[258]. Also Sib. Or. 3.205–6, 401–7. This need not suggest that Paul’s contacts in a different Phrygian region would have been particularly helpful here; Lesbians exerted greater influence in the Troad by this period (Strabo 13.1.38).

[259]. Sib. Or. 3.514 links Mysia with Phrygia and (also to the south) Lycia.

[260]. Sometimes, as in Strabo 12.5.31 and 12.8.1, he mentions the part of Phrygia settled by Galatians, but he is not clear as to its location.

[261]. Greater Phrygia, south of North Galatia, was also held by a Galatian king in the first century B.C.E. (Strabo 12.5.4); the phrase could refer to Phrygia north of Lycaonia, especially on the boundary of North Galatia—but South Galatia combines the two regional titles better and is a region where Paul had already ministered. The area was intertwined; Cappadocia shares flora with Mysia (Pliny E. N.H. 24.102.163).

[262]. Paul has to go through Mysia to reach Troas (which was in Mysia), and so “passing by” it in Acts 16:8 means simply that he did not preach there (see LaSor, “Mysia”).

[263]. Riesner, Early Period, 282.

[264]. Ibid. On Pessinus, a major center of the Phrygian Cybele cult, see Mitchell, “Pessinus.”

[265]. Riesner, Early Period, 282–83. For Roman perceptions of ethnic Galatians, see introduction, above, to Acts 14.

[266]. Breytenbach, “Reasons,” 160.

[267]. Mitchell, Anatolia, 1:96.

[268]. As was Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1; Pliny Ep. 10.96, keeping in mind that Pliny was governor there). But it was not on this occasion (Acts 16:7).

[269]. For documentation for the first few centuries of the church in Pontus, see Grant, Paul, 58–59. On Pontus and Bithynia, see discussion in Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 135; comment on Acts 2:9–11. Chrys. Hom. Rom. 29 (on 15:19; Bray, Romans, 362), contends that Paul ministered in Cappadocia, but such ideas could have originated among later Cappadocian Christians.

[270]. Riesner, Early Period, 282–86, concluding (286) that he “never set foot” in the region.

[271]. Ibid., 283.

[272]. Unless one defines Mysia very broadly; in Appian Hist. rom. 12.17.118, Mysia adjoins Paphlagonia, Galatia, and Phrygia. On Mysia, see more detailed discussion in Carroll, “Mysia.”

[273]. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:3–4 (quotation, 2:3).

[274]. Riesner, Early Period, 283–84.

[275]. Ibid., 285; cf. D. Williams, Acts, 277. Schnabel, Missionary, 89, also summarizes the possible routes into Asia. The first possibility was to the northwest, across the the Karakus Dagi mountain range, which is some 6,500 feet (2,000 m.) high; this was not impassable for pedestrians. More easily, a main road leading to the southwest would have carried them to Apameia Kibotos; or Paul could have traveled west and then southwest “on the Via Sebastea, passing through Apollonia (Mordiaion, also Sozopolis), before reaching a junction of several roads, one of which leads to Apameia.”

[276]. Barrett, Acts, 767–68.

[277]. Philost. Hrk. 23.12, 16; LaSor, “Mysia”; cf. Cypria 7 (the no-longer-extant epic but summarized in Proclus Chrestomathia, which the editor [M. L. West] supplements by Apollod. Epit. 3.1–33; see GEF 73); near but distinct from the Troad in Libanius Encomium 3.8–9. It was also in Lesser Phrygia (Strabo 12.8.1; Libanius Speech in Character 16.2; Invect. 2.1–2; cf. Sib. Or. 3.401–7; 11.132), fitting the older definition of Phrygia (Lucian Judg. G. 3, 5). Bowers, “Route through Mysia,” suggests that Paul’s travel from beyond Mysia to Troas implies that he already planned to go to Macedonia, the dream of Acts 16:9 simply confirming this plan.

[278]. With Bruce, Acts¹, 311; alternatively, they entered it in Acts 16:8 only after coming opposite it in 16:7 (Barrett, Acts, 770–71). Certainly, Paul evangelized Troas more fully later (2 Cor 2:12). Because they had to traverse at least some of Mysia to reach Troas, commentators often view Luke’s wording as clumsy or based on information to which we no longer have access (Johnson, Acts, 285–86, comparing the confusion in Strabo 12.4.5).

[279]. See Breytenbach, “Reasons”; cf. also idem, Provinz, 117–18.

[280]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 478. A major road led from Antioch through Tralles and Magnesia to Ephesus (Strabo 14.2.29). For the route from Iconium to Ephesus, see “Trade Routes.”

[281]. The aorist participle κωλυθέντες might imply that they were forbidden to enter Asia even before their ministry in Phrygia and Galatia (see Barrett, Acts, 768–69, against Ramsay).

[282]. Breytenbach, “Reasons,” 160–61.

[283]. Ibid., 161–62.

[284]. Ibid., 163, notes that the gospel ultimately apparently reached the Lycus Valley (including Colossae) from Ephesus (Acts 19:10), not earlier (cf. Col 1:7; 2:1).

[285]. Breytenbach, “Reasons,” 165.

[286]. Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 391. For Paul’s presumed plans to preach in these cities (and Chalcedon), see further Schnabel, Mission, 1:842–48; idem, Missionary, 270.

[287]. Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 391.

[288]. Bruce, Acts¹, 310. Roads parted at Dorylaeum (D. Williams, Acts, 277), “the juncture of several major north-south and west-east roads” (Schnabel, Missionary, 90); for pagan superstitions about crossroads, see, e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 36.70.204.

[289]. What Strabo calls Phrygia Epictetus, as opposed to the “Galatian” Phrygia (Strabo 12.4.1; 12.5.31).

[290]. Cf., e.g., Lake, “Route,” 230.

[291]. Breytenbach, “Reasons,” 166–67.

[292]. Ibid., 167.

[293]. Ibid.

[294]. Ibid., 168.

[295]. Ibid. Schnabel, Missionary, 90, suggests that Paul probably “passed through Kadoi and, along the upper reaches of the Makestos River, through Synaos, Hadrianothera and Adramyttion before reaching Alexandria Troas.”

[296]. Breytenbach, “Reasons,” 169.

[297]. Bruce, Acts¹, 310.

[298]. Schwertheim, “Mysia,” 427.

[299]. Ibid., 426, notes that it can either border (Strabo 12.4.5–6) or include (Ptolemy Geog. 5.2–4) the Troad. More difficult are the southern borders with Phrygia (Schwertheim, “Mysia,” 427, citing Strabo 12.4.4).

[300]. Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, 63n76, note that this comes from Hom. Il. 13.6; Hesiod frg. 150.15; 151; Strabo 7.3.7, 9. Philost. Hrk. 23.11 associates the Mysians with Scythians, but while the latter were also considered mare milkers (Hesiod Catalogues of Women and Eoiae 39–40; cf. Max. Tyre 21.6; Olmstead, Persian Empire, 148), this places the Scythians too far west.

[301]. Riesner, Early Period, 292–93 (thinking most likely a journey from Cotiaeum to Apamea).

[302]. On the Propontis, see concisely Bean, “Propontis.”

[303]. On the Black Sea, see Olshausen, “Pontos Euxeinos.”

[304]. See Stern, “Diaspora,” 153. Further on Bithynia, see Pliny E. N.H. 5.43.148–50 (its major cities included Prusa and Nicaea, 5.43.148); Sheppard, “Bithynia”; for archaeological work on Bithynia and Propontis, see, e.g., Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 129–30, and sources cited there; further on Propontis, see Olshausen and Sauer, “Propontis.”

[305]. French, “Roads,” 57–58.

[306]. Jewett, “Mapping ‘Missionary Journey.’ ”

[307]. French, “Roads,” 56.

[308]. This need not mean that other aspects of their move northward lacked divine direction (so Dunn, Acts, 217), though this is possible; their mission, as a whole, included such direction (cf. Acts 13:1–4), but this did not guarantee direction for all details. Riesner, Early Period, 292, thinks that the “thwarted destinations” represented Lydia, Meshech, and Tubal in Isa 66:19, which Paul was using to guide him, but this proposal is too speculative.

[309]. The suggestion that the Spirit may have restrained them from heading toward Asia because a Jewish-Christian presence was already there (Riesner, Early Period, 285) is hardly compelling in its textual basis (Acts 18:24–26); aside from what Apollos knew, he “came” to Ephesus (18:24) only later, and we cannot be sure what the disciples of 19:1–7 knew, except that Luke counts it inadequate. Latourette, First Five Centuries, 82, suggests that missionaries may have already been working in Bithynia and Mysia.

[310]. The same idea of following the divine timing for ministry appears elsewhere in early Christian sources, e.g., John 11:6 (where in fact Lazarus may have already been dead; see Barrett, John, 391; Keener, John, 839–40); cf. perhaps John 4:4.

[311]. See Green, “Will of God,” 214. Magical rituals sometimes apparently practiced divination through inculcating altered states of consciousness (see Quack, “Efficacy”).

[312]. Green, “Will of God,” 215, arguing that this approach would appear compelling to pagans.

[313]. Bruce, Acts¹, 311 (though allowing the possibility of a vision or inward sense); Stählin, “Apostelgeschichte 16:7,” 250–51 (suggesting that it probably came through Paul, or perhaps Silas; cf. Acts 15:32).

[314]. Haenchen, Acts, 485 (which he seems to view negatively, 485–86). Others (Aune, Prophecy, 266; Fitzmyer, Acts, 578) refuse to decide between such alternatives.

[315]. Some ancient hearers could have been familiar with the idea of divine intuition, e.g., in interpretations of Socrates (see Apul. De deo Socr. 162, although presented more like a voice in 163, 165, and possibly visual in 166). For the Spirit and guidance in Acts, see Warrington, Discovering, 63–65 (noting Acts 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 13:4; 15:28; 16:6–7; 20:22–23).

[316]. E.g., 2 Cor 1:17–18; Phaedrus 4.prol. 8–9; on fickleness, see further comment on Acts 2:47.

[317]. Sometimes for God’s Spirit, sometimes for a purified human spirit: CD II, 12; V, 11; VII, 4; 1QS III, 7; IV, 21; VIII, 16; IX, 3; 1QSb II, 24; 1QH^a IV, 38; VI, 24; VIII, 20–21, 25, 30; XV, 9; XVII, 32; XX, 15; 1Q34bis 3 II, 7; 1Q39 1 6; 4Q255 2 1; 4Q270 2 II, 11, 14; 4Q287 10 13; 4Q416 2 II, 6; 4Q418 8 6; 4Q422 I, 7; 4Q444 1 1; 4Q504 1–2 V, 15; 4 5; 4Q509 97–98 I, 9. For discussion, cf. Chevallier, Ancien Testament, 52–57; Keener, Spirit, 9–10 and notes; Bruce, “Spirit in Qumran Texts”; Coppens, “Don,” 211–12, 222.

[318]. See, e.g., m. Soṭah 9:6; t. Pisha 2:15; 4:14; Soṭah 13:3; Mek. Pisha 1.150ff. (Lauterbach, 1:14); Mek. Shir. 7.17–18 (Lauterbach, 2:55); Sipre Deut. 22.1.2; 355.17.1–6; 356.4.1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:3; 11:16; b. B. Bat. 122a; Meg. 7a; Yoma 73b; y. Hor. 3:5, §2; Gen. Rab. 91:6; Lev. Rab. 1:3; Esth. Rab. 10:5; Song Rab. 1:1, §9; 8:9, §3; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 31:21; 35:22; Tg. Neof. 1 on Num 11:26, 28; Tg. Isa. 40:13; further Schäfer, “Geist,” 306–7.

[319]. E.g., Jub. 1:21, 23; Pss. Sol. 17:37; Wis 1:5; 4 Ezra 14:22; L.A.B. 28:6; 32:14; Mart. Is. 5:14. See further discussion on the Spirit in Keener, Acts, 1:519–28 (for Luke’s theology), 529–37 (for background).

[320]. Given texts such as Acts 2:21, 38 and divine or wisdom Christology elsewhere in the NT, a divine Christology is more likely here. But it seems to be assumed, taken for granted, rather than articulated. Certainly, it goes beyond the mere union of Christ and Spirit claimed in Pistis Sophia 61 (in Cullmann, “Infancy Gospels,” 403–4).

[321]. See Turner, Power, 304. This is true also for Paul’s “Spirit of Christ” (Rom 8:9), which matches the “Spirit of God” (Rom 8:9, 14; 1 Cor 2:11, 14; 3:16; 7:40; 12:3; Phil 3:3); cf. Turner, “ ‘Divine’ Christology,” 436.

[322]. On John 14:16–17, 26; 16:7–15, see Keener, John, 951–82, 1029–43. Some would add 2 Cor 3:17 (Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 163; Hunter, Gospel according to Paul, 35–36; Hamilton, Spirit and Eschatology, 6; Dunn, Baptism, 96), but it probably simply echoes the Exodus text’s language midrashically (see Barrett, 2 Corinthians, 122–23; Bruce, Apostle, 120–21; McNamara, Targum, 112; Matera, II Corinthians, 96; esp. and most extensively, Belleville, Glory, 256–72).

[323]. Stählin, “Apostelgeschichte 16:7”; Turner, “Spirit of Christ and Christology.”

[324]. “The Instruction of Meri-Ka-Re” (ANET 416).

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

[326]. ANET 449–50.

[327]. Pritchard, East, 1:261. Moran, “Prophecy,” 17, notes that ARM 13.23 and 13.114 from Mari “predict either victory over Babylon or at least deliverance from its threat.” For Mari and Canaan, see Gordon, Near East, 162.

[328]. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 6.4.12–13; Hdn. 8.3.7; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.2–3.

[329]. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b12, pp. 24.32–27.2; 2.7.11s, pp. 98–99.16–23; Apul. De deo Socr. 134–35. For Plutarch’s approval of divination, see Mackay, “Plutarch,” 101–2 (for portents, 103–4). For attention to omens in classical antiquity more generally, see, e.g., Rosenberger, “Omen.”

[330]. E.g., Julius Caesar (Suet. Jul. 59, 77, 81.2–4).

[331]. Meister, “Herodotus,” 269.

[332]. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:13; Toner, Culture, 44–46, and sources cited there. An Akkadian divination ritual, possibly resembling the biblical Urim and Thummim, employed black and white stones (LKA 137, trans. V. Hurowitz, in Hallo and Younger, Context of Scripture 1.127, p. 444).

[333]. Juv. Sat. 6.585, deriding the gullibility of those who accept Phrygian or Indian diviners.

[334]. Keener, Acts, 1:897–902. For divination in the OT period, see also Van Dam, “Divination,” 159–60.

[335]. Xen. Anab. 6.3.18 (praising the piety of the Greeks); 6.4.16–25; Dion. Hal. Thuc. 40; Plut. Arist. 17.6–18.2; cf. Val. Max. 1.1.2. A general who neglected to consult the omens might lead his troops to their deaths (Val. Max. 1.6.6); a truly great leader might do nothing without consulting the gods (Xen. Cyr. 1.5.6, 14; 1.6.2, 44; Val. Max. 1.2.2; cf. rulers trusted because of their piety in 1.2.1–4; 1.2.ext. 1–4). (This expression of Xenophon’s piety is noteworthy; he figures prominently in Parker, “Divination.”)

[336]. The exception might be a Middle Platonist who denied the value of prayer (e.g., Max. Tyre 5.8), but this viewpoint was a rare one (see comment on Acts 3:6).

[337]. Aune, Environment, 134.

[338]. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 101–2.

[339]. Ibid., 102n66.

[340]. Barrett, Acts, 771.

[341]. Hemer, Acts in History, 112, esp. 112–13n29.

[342]. Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 138. On Troas, see further Yamauchi, “Troas”; Blaiklock, Cities, 35–38; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 331–35. For other towns in the Troad, see Pliny E. N.H. 5.33.125–27.

[343]. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 333.

[344]. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 87–88.

[345]. Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 139.

[346]. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 333; Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 139.

[347]. Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 139.

[348]. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 87–88.

[349]. Hemer, Acts in History, 179.

[350]. This past grandeur, being primarily past, could not guarantee present honor when it was vying with more prominent cities such as Ephesus and Miletus (Tac. Ann. 4.55).

[351]. Cf. the founding date in 334 B.C.E. (Hemer, “Alexander Troas,” 81), i.e., well before Alexander’s death in 323 B.C.E.

[352]. Bruce, Acts¹, 311; see also Pliny E. N.H. 5.33.124.

[353]. E.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 579. Further on Troas, see Trebilco, “Asia,” 357–59; Yamauchi, Cities, 21; more fully, Frisch, Inschriften von Ilion. (Lampsacus, a Phocaean colony in the northern Troad ca. 50 mi. northwest of Troas, was also prosperous when robbed by Verres more than a century earlier; Wormell and Mitchell, “Lampsacus.”)

[354]. Dormeyer and Galindo, Apostelgeschichte, 245.

[355]. Julius Caesar considered making it a regional center of government (Suet. Jul. 79; Hor. Odes 3.3). It was no less pagan, however, than other locations; Priapus the fertility deity (Apoll. K. Tyre 33, further north in Lampsacus) and hero cults (Philost. Hrk. passim) flourished on the Hellespont.

[356]. Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xc.

[357]. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 94, also noting that in the first century, it appears that Ilium freely produced coins but Troas did not. The wealthier part of the late Roman city apparently faced the Dardanelles (Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 138).

[358]. Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 138, also noting a second-century B.C.E. temple of Athena there (see also Mannsperger, “Troy,” 972; in the Roman period, Korfmann, “Troy,” 978); Athena was also worshiped elsewhere in the Troad (see Pliny E. N.H. 2.97.210). (Homer arrayed Athena on the side of the Greeks, but it was assumed that Trojans also worshiped her; on her supposed image in Troy, the Palladium, see comment on Acts 19:35.)

[359]. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 88 (citing Polyb. 5.111.3–4).

[360]. From the map in Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 86 (and a comment, 92), Ilium appears fewer than 10 mi. north of Alexandria Troas.

[361]. Thus some thought that the Palladium (Athena’s image; cf. also comment on Acts 19:35) might have remained in later Ilium, unless Diomedes and Odysseus, in fact, succeeded in carrying it off (Appian Hist. rom. 12.8.53; despite the city’s destruction!).

[362]. In the Aeneid’s ideology, Troy’s death yields Rome’s birth (Krauter, Epos, 234, and sources cited there). Other allusions are frequent enough, e.g., Tac. Ann. 2.54; 4.55; 12.58; some Italian games founded by a Trojan in Tac. Ann. 16.21.

[363]. Mitchell, Anatolia, 1:208. For Trojans as Phrygians (cf. 16:6), see, e.g., Libanius Invect. 2.1–2; Speech in Character 16.2; Sib. Or. 3.205–6, 401–7; 11.132; in Homer, however, cf., e.g., Il. 2.862–63.

[364]. Especially emphasized in the later Philost. Hrk. 2.11; 11.7; 18.1–2; but the local tradition of Hector’s appearances appears in Max. Tyre 9.7.

[365]. Philost. Hrk. 25.13 complains that Homer departs from this stated subject (cf. λόγον ὑποθέμενος) after Il. 22. Homer’s actual explicit theme in the Iliad is the conflict between Agamemnon and Achilles (Il. 1.6–7) and how Achilles’s stubborn anger led to many deaths (1.1–5).

[366]. E.g., Lucian Prof. P.S. 20. For the mythology, see Stenger, “Troy”; on Homer’s popularity, see comment at Acts 17:28.

[367]. Tac. Ann. 11.11 (on Claudius’s reign).

[368]. In Dio Chrys. Or. 33.8, the actor apparently would have acted out Troy’s fall, to the displeasure of his audience in Ilium; Troy was among the most prominent cities to fall in Lucian Charon 23.

[369]. A second-century B.C.E. oracle lists it among cities to be destroyed, though the oracle purports to be an older prophecy offered before Troy’s fall (Sib. Or. 3.206). Probably pre-Christian Asian prophecies locate Troy in Phrygia (Sib. Or. 3.205–6, 401–7; 11.132); this was Phrygia in the broader sense (Strabo 12.8.1).

[370]. Borgeaud, “Excursions.” Luke has historical as well as literary interests, of course; we know that Paul did visit there at some point (2 Cor 2:12), likely including just before his voyage to Philippi (cf. Phil 4:15; 1 Thess 2:2).

[371]. Believers in Troas itself might envision this less so, since their local experience would not be limited to their knowledge of ancient traditions. I have addressed much of the material in this section in Keener, “Asia and Europe.”

[372]. In reality, fusing Greek and Asian cultures.

[373]. Between Macedonia and the part of the world including Syria (hence Judea), Phoenicia, and Egypt in Paus. 1.6.5. Schwertheim, “Troad,” 956, notes that the Troad was long “the most important European portal to the Near East.” On western Turkey as the boundary for Asia, see, e.g., Le Cornu, Acts, 78 (citing, on various boundaries, Strabo 2.5.24, 26, 31; 7.4.5; 12.8.15; Ptolemy Tetrab. 2.3.17). But for the Tanais as a boundary in the north, see, e.g., Quint. Curt. 6.2.13–14; 7.7.2–3.

[374]. Although Demosth. Philip. 3.31 complained that Macedonians were not only barbarians but even unfit as slaves, subsequent Hellenistic civilization treated both them and Ionians in Asia as culturally Greek.

[375]. Virg. Aen. 7.224; Ovid Am. 2.12.18; Apollod. Epit. 3.1; Max. Tyre 35.4; Men. Rhet. 2.13, 423.17–19; Philost. Elder Imag. 1.1. One could even depict the mythical flight of Jason and Medea from Colchis, from the generation preceding the Trojan War, as Europe opposing Asia (Val. Flacc. 8.396).

[376]. Sen. Y. Troj. 6–7.

[377]. Polyb. 3.6.4; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 444.4–5. Cf. Alexander’s alleged critique of his father’s ambition to cross Europe to Asia (Plut. Alex. 9.5, complaining that he was too drunk even to move between couches).

[378]. Quint. Curt. 4.1.38.

[379]. Livy elsewhere couples Greece and Asia (Livy 37.53.7; 38.48.3; 38.51.3) and contrasts Asia (especially Asia Minor) with Europe (especially Greece; 34.58.2–3; 37.53.13; 37.54.20).

[380]. Plut. Alex. 15.4; Philost. Hrk. 53.16. He allegedly took a sacred shield from the Trojan temple of Athena (Arrian Alex. 6.9.3).

[381]. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 81; cf. Men. Rhet. 2.17, 444.8–9.

[382]. E.g., Aeschylus Pers. 73 (they ruled Asia; Greece, by contrast, is in Europe, Pers. 799); Ael. Arist. Panath. 13, 157D–158D.

[383]. Lysias Or. 2.21, §192; 2.28, §193; Corn. Nep. 1 (Miltiades), 3.4; 17 (Agesilaus), 2.1; Philost. Hrk. 28.11.

[384]. Thucyd. 1.89.2 (Persians retreating from Europe); Val. Max. 6.9.ext. 2; Corn. Nep. 2 (Themistocles), 5.3.

[385]. Yet even Xenophon, whose Anabasis demonstrated Persia’s military weakness (providing the groundwork for Alexander’s later invasion), respected Persia’s glorious past (fictionalized in his Cyropaedia).

[386]. “Barbarian” Asia opposed Greece’s greater glory (Val. Max. 4.6.ext. 3). The frequent exclusive prejudice for classical, rather than ancient Near Eastern, foundations for modern Western civilization (e.g., Weber, Sociology; see Oakes, “Weber’s Sociology”) follows too readily the classical Greek division of the world.

[387]. Closer to our period, Pliny E. N.H. 5.33.125 reported an earlier monument to Achilles near his tomb in the Troad; cf. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.11.

[388]. Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, lix. Still, Philostratus also recognizes the continuing power of the hero Hector (Hrk. 19.3–7, especially his help in 19.4 and vengeance in 19.5–7).

[389]. Many scholars see 16:6–19:20 as a new “panel” in the expansion of the movement, among the six panels marked by summary statements; see discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:574–75.

[390]. Hammond, “Western Part of Via Egnatia”; on the Via Egnatia, see further Lolos, “Via Egnatia”; Rathmann, “Via Egnatia.”

[391]. Barreto, Negotiations, 120–24, esp. 124.

[392]. See Witherington, Acts, 486. Some, such as Hagner, Introduction, 339, do see movement from Asia to Europe here.

[393]. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 99–100.

[394]. In fact, northern Europe, such as Germany, was, in a sense, less in the Greco-Roman world’s sphere of valuable trade than India and China; though northern Europe was less distant geographically and afforded more direct contact, the contact was often confrontational. The Troad experienced hellenization as early as the late eighth century B.C.E. (Schwertheim, “Troad,” 956).

[395]. For the danger of mixing apples and oranges by confusing cultural spheres with traditional Greek continental divisions, cf. Usry and Keener, Religion, 41–44.

[396]. As noted, “Asia” in Acts 16:6 is the Roman province, not greater Asia.

[397]. E.g., Cic. Rosc. Amer. 31.103; Sall. Jug. 17.3; Vell. Paterc. 2.40.4; Pliny E. N.H. 3.1.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 4.49.

[398]. A view of some geographers noted in Sallust Jug. 17.3 (who regards Egypt as part of Asia, 17.4). The world’s primary division in Philo Mos. 2.20 is Europe and Asia, though he writes from Alexandria. Some texts mention just the two, but perhaps because only these are relevant (e.g., Eurip. Pirithous frg. 4.15–16; Dio Chrys. Or. 8.29; Libanius Anecdote 1.1). On the background and ancient understandings of the Europe/Asia distinction, cf. also Olshausen, “Europe,” esp. 209.

[399]. E.g., Aeschines Ctes. 250; Thucyd. 2.97.6; Manetho Aeg. frg. 35.3; Livy 34.58.2–3; Appian Hist. rom. 11.9.56; 11.10.63; Bell. civ. 4.17.134; Men. Rhet. 2.10, 417.13–17 (on excellent governors in both, esp. 417.14).

[400]. E.g., Appian Hist. rom. 11.2.6. Asia Minor was only a small part of greater Asia, which included, e.g., Scythia (Ptolemy Tetrab. 2.3.60).

↑ Back to top