[1707] . E.g., Jdt 13:18; Wis 5:15; 2 Macc 3:31.

[1707] . E.g., Jdt 13:18; Wis 5:15; 2 Macc 3:31.

[1701]. Luke 6:35 clearly echoes Sir 4:10 at this point.

[1702]. Cf. Luke 2:14 and 19:38, but in a different sense (from his source, Mark 11:10). The only NT use outside Markan (once followed by Matthew [Matt 21:9]) and Lukan uses is Heb 7:1, from Gen 14:18.

[1703]. For parallels between this narrative in Acts and Luke 8:26–39 (such as “Most High” and salvific language), see, e.g., Twelftree, Name, 145; Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 217–18; with some other Lukan texts and sources, cf. Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 426.

[1704]. Parker, “Hypsistos”; originally Zeus was designated hypsistos as god of mountain peaks (Breytenbach, “Hypsistos,” 439). On many instances being unrelated to Judaism, see also Graf, “Hypsistos,” 651; Kauppi, Gods, 35 (citing Ustinova, Supreme Gods, 182–88); Wischmeyer, “ΘΕΟΣ ΥΨΙΣΤΟΣ.” These may cluster in the second and third centuries C.E. (Rives, Religion, 205–6), after our period. For one discussion of related expressions in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East, see Elnes and Miller, “Elyon.”

[1705]. Reimer, Women, 161–67; Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 95–97; for use by God-fearers, see 83–116.

[1706]. Sir 4:10; 7:9, 15; 9:15; 12:2, 6; 17:26–27; 19:17; 23:18, 23; 24:2–3, 23; 28:7; 29:11; 33:15; 34:6; 37:15; 38:2; 41:4, 8; 42:2, 18; 43:2, 12; 44:20; 46:5; 47:5, 8; 48:5; 49:4; 50:7, 14–21.

[1707]. E.g., Jdt 13:18; Wis 5:15; 2 Macc 3:31.

[1708]. 1QS X, 12; XI, 15; 1QH^a XII, 31; Ps 154:3, 9–10, 14 (11QPs^a 154); 1Qap Gen^ar II, 4; XII, 17; XX, 12, 16; XXI, 2, 20; XXII, 15–16, 21 (see Fitzmyer, Apocryphon, 83, for comment); 4QPrNab 1 3 (reconstructed).

[1709]. Jub. 12:19; 13:16, 29; 16:18, 27; 20:9; 21:20, 22, 25; 22:6, 11, 13, 19, 23, 27; 25:3, 11, 21; 27:15; 32:1; 36:16; 39:6. Charles, Jubilees, lxvi, opines that the title rose in popularity with the Maccabees and for a time declined accordingly.

[1710]. 1 En. 9:3; 10:1; 21:6; 40:10; 60:1, 22; 77:1; 94:8; 97:2; 98:7, 11; 99:3; 100:4; 101:6, 9.

[1711]. E.g., Philo the Poet frg. 3 (Alexander Polyhistor in Euseb. P.E. 9.24.1); Eupolemus (Alexander Polyhistor in Euseb. P.E. 9.33); Sib. Or. 1.8 (the “highest king”); 1.179, 200; 3.519, 574, 580, 719; 11.12; frg. 1.4; Let. Aris. 19, 37.

[1712]. E.g., Jos. Asen. 8:2; 8:9/10; 9:1; 11:7, 9, 17; 14:8/7; Test. Ab. 9:2, 3, 8; 15:13; 16:1, 9 A; 13:6 B; Test. Mos. 10:7; Test. Sim. 2:5; Test. Levi 3:10; 4:1–2; 5:2, 7; 8:15; 16:3; 18:7; Test. Ash. 5:4; 7:3; Test. Jos. 1:4; 3:10; 10:3; Test. Benj. 9:2; 4 Ezra 3:3; 4:2, 34; 5:4, 34; 6:32, 37; 7:19, 23, 33, 37, 42, 50, 70, 77, 78, 79, 81, 83, 87, 88, 89; 2 Bar. 17:2; still later, Gr. Ezra 1:2.

[1713]. E.g., t. B. Qam. 7:9; Sipra VDDen. pq. 6.9.2.2; VDDeho. pq. 22.67.1.1; Behuq. pq. 4.265.1.3 (quoting Lam 3:38–39); Sipre Deut. 131.1.2; 138.3.1; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 4b, bar. (from Num 24:16); B. Meṣiʿa 6a; Menaḥ. 5b–6a; y. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:5, §2. Later rabbis counted it among the divine names that are not holy but have secular usage (y. Meg. 1:9, §17).

[1714]. Odes Sol. 5:2 (Syriac but not Coptic); 6:12; perhaps Sib. Or. 2.177, 245; 8.171.

[1715]. E.g., CIJ 1:524, §725 (“the Lord of spirits and of all flesh” is certainly Jewish; cf. Num 16:22; 27:16; cf. Jer 32:27); 1:526, §728; 1:526, §§729–30; 2:30, §769 (a Jewish inscription from Phrygia).

[1716]. Goodenough, “Bosporus Inscriptions”; cf. idem, Symbols, 8:123.

[1717]. See Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 105–16. Others emphasize native Bosporan roots, playing down Jewish influences (Ustinova, “Theos Hypsistos”).

[1718]. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 86.

[1719]. E.g., Gen 14:19–22; Num 24:16; Isa 14:14; Dan 2:18–19 LXX; 3:26; 4:24, 34, 37; 1 Esd 6:31; 8:19, 21; Wis 6:3; Jos. Ant. 16.163. See PGM 12.63; 83.10–14 (though these may be Jewish; 83.14–15 includes Christian allusions as well). Lake, “Proselytes,” 94, cites, for Gentiles speaking of the Jewish God, Philo Embassy 157, 317; Celsus and Julian the Apostate; cf. Nineham, Mark, 153; Lane, Mark, 183.

[1720]. Cf. similarly Cadbury, Acts in History, 91.

[1721]. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 98–100 (quote, 100).

[1722]. Horsley, Documents, 2:46, §12. See probable pagan uses in MAMA 5.186 (despite the editors’ view [88], it is not specifically Jewish), 211.

[1723]. Twelftree, “ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,” 377, cites other uses for Zeus (Pindar Nem. 1.60; 11.2; Aeschylus Eum. 28; Soph. Philoc. 1289); cf. also Lake, “Proselytes,” 94. For Sabazios, see, e.g., Beare, Philippians, 9.

[1724]. Kraabel, “Hypsistos.”

[1725]. Trebilco, Communities, 144.

[1726]. Trebilco, “Servants of Most High God”; idem, Communities, 127–44; Rapske, Custody, 116–17; Witherington, Acts, 494–95.

[1727]. Cf. Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 221, who reasonably suggests that this phrase emphasizes that Paul is not short-tempered but very patient, commending him to Luke’s full audience.

[1728]. A problem recognized already nearly two millennia earlier; e.g., Hamm. 15–16, 18–20, 199, 213–14, 217, 219, 223, 226–27.

[1729]. Klauck, Magic, 69.

[1730]. Ibid.

[1731]. Rightly also Schnabel, Acts, 684: “An order ‘in the name of Jesus’ is a command of Jesus himself.”

[1732]. Cf. Lestang, Annonce, 85. That the phrase appears in papyri undercuts the argument that it must be an Aramaism (Conzelmann, Acts, 131, pace M. Black). Although such phrases bear similar ambiguity, cf. perhaps Mark 13:11; Matt 8:13; 9:22; 15:28; 18:1; Rev 11:13; Mart. Pol. 7.2.

[1733]. A new synthesis (in Acts, Paul’s circumcision-free but radical monotheistic embrace of Gentile converts) sometimes risks initial hostility from both sides that it synthesizes.

[1734]. In contrast to the worldview found in the NT, many cultures today view some spirits as benevolent or neutral (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 111; Shorter, Witchdoctor, 188; see discussion in the excursus at Acts 16:16), and the same was true for ancient polytheists (e.g., Hesiod W.D. 121–23; Iambl. Myst. 2.3; Gen. Rab. 24:6).

[1735]. Bruce, Acts¹, 316, attributes this ironic repetition of the verb to “Luke’s sense of humour . . . ; their ‘hope of profit’ was in fact the expelled spirit itself”; cf. also Johnson, Acts, 295; Dunn, Acts, 221. Luke and Paul focus on the demon’s expulsion, but the owners on their profit.

[1736]. Reimer, Women, 180, 183–84.

[1737]. Keener, Acts, 2:1906–42.

[1738]. See, e.g., Arlandson, Women, 99–102; Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 103–5.

[1739]. On prophecy and avoidance of sexual activity, see comment on Acts 21:9. For fear of competing with a deity sexually, cf. perhaps Paulina’s husband in Jos. Ant. 18.73, though this is not the stated motivation.

[1740]. O’Day, “Acts,” 311.

[1741]. This includes, for an example, women’s history (my wife’s doctoral area; more specifically, African-American women’s history), the focus of which does not automatically demean men (just as the focus of O’Day’s essay on women in the narrative does not thereby demean men). Maintaining one’s focus does not necessarily devalue interests outside one’s current purview.

[1742]. Reimer, Women, 151.

[1743]. Ibid., 180–84. Evidence for this action in this case is not compelling, but it is possible (and evidence against it is also lacking). Klauck, Magic, 73, may be right to attribute Reimer’s thesis here to “creative imagination,” but most historical investigations beyond the text entail some degree of this.

[1744]. If Luke wrote in the early to mid-70s C.E. and during the jailer’s lifetime or that of his children and the jailer was a citizen, it might have been indiscreet to name him; or perhaps it was indiscreet to name anyone locally except Lydia, who may have moved away or died. But whether in Philippi or elsewhere, Luke names individuals only selectively (though it seems most difficult to explain in Philippi if my hypothesis of the work’s core audience and period is correct). The Macedonian churches, including Philippi, faced considerable opposition (Phil 1:29–30).

[1745]. See, e.g., Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 124–25; fuller comment on manumission in the excursus on slavery at Acts 12:13 (Keener, Acts, 2:1906–42, esp. 1923–24) and esp. the excursus on freedpersons at Acts 6:9 (ibid., 1304–6).

[1746]. Arlandson, Women, 198–99.

[1747]. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 104. This presumes later reuse of the first-century site.

[1748]. By the early empire, however, Rome had three forums, necessary to accommodate the abundant prosecutions (Suet. Aug. 29.1).

[1749]. McRay, Archaeology, 40. On the architecture of Roman forums in ancient cities, see Höcker, “Forum” (in Rome itself, see Höcker and Hurschmann, “Forum”). On agoras, see von Reden, “Market,” 375–76; on forums, 376–77.

[1750]. Watson, “Cities,” 214. In Greek cities, typically “a main street ran along one side of the agora while the other sides” of the rectangular agora included “temples and buildings used for various civic functions” (Malherbe, “Life,” 11).

[1751]. McDonald, “Philippi,” 788. Carter in Carter and Earle, Acts, 233, has an earlier estimate of 300 by 150 feet. The later evidence presumably preserves the earlier model; Concannon, “Archaeology,” 72.

[1752]. McRay, Archaeology, 40. This forum comes from Marcus Aurelius’s period but was built over an earlier forum’s site (Fant and Reddish, Sites, 104).

[1753]. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 104.

[1754]. Ibid.

[1755]. Watson, “Cities,” 214.

[1756]. Cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 22.1; on agoras, see more fully Tomlinson, “Agora”; Kolb, “Agora.”

[1757]. Cf. also one convicted in the forum, then abused by the people assembled there (Suet. Jul. 17.2).

[1758]. See the map in Fant and Reddish, Sites, 105.

[1759]. Witherington, Acts, 496.

[1760]. With, e.g., McRay, Archaeology, 285.

[1761]. As does what is left of a large theater enlarged in the Roman period (McDonald, “Philippi,” 788).

[1762]. Tajra, Trial, 9–10.

[1763]. Sherwin-White, Society, 93; Hemer, Acts in History, 115; O’Rourke, “Law,” 175; also Koester, Paul and World, 71; Bruce, Acts¹, 317; Witherington, Acts, 496; Conzelmann, Acts, 131 (who compares other elements of local color, the forum in Acts 16:19 and lictors in 16:22). Most commentators cite Cic. Agr. 2.34.93 for the duumvirs. It is also a term exclusive to Luke in the NT, one that he uses, outside the Philippi narrative, only for Jerusalem’s civic officials (Luke 22:4, 52; Acts 4:1; 5:24, 26); for its typical, more general usage, cf., e.g., Ameling, “Strategos.”

[1764]. Tajra, Trial, 10–11. Philippi’s administration had some efficiency; in few of the empire’s cities besides Philippi and Pisidian Antioch were the locally recruited watchmen effective (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 34).

[1765]. Gill, “Macedonia,” 412. On aediles, see Gizewski, “Aediles.”

[1766]. Whenever these cities were not led by aediles (FIRA 1.167), a prefect (1.169–75), “or a state commissioner” (Gizewski, “Duoviri,” 739).

[1767]. Gizewski, “Duoviri,” 739.

[1768]. Ibid.

[1769]. See Tannehill, Acts, 203.

[1770]. Spencer, Acts, 159–60; cf. Reimer, Women, 179. Historically, Christians sometimes suffered from anti-Semitism, just as they were helped by Roman protection of Judaism (Caird, Apostolic Age, 158).

[1771]. Witherington, Acts, 502–3.

[1772]. Cf. similarly Acts Paul 3.15.

[1773]. With Johnson, Acts, 298.

[1774]. In more modern times, compare, e.g., the colonial authorities’ arrest of the West African Prophet Braide in 1916. In the name of Israel’s God, he preached, healed, and brought rain, but he denounced the three-million-gallon-a-year liquor trade, thereby reducing colonial profits (Sanneh, West African Christianity, 181–83). Cf. similarly gambling houses’ reaction against John Sung’s preaching (Sung, Diaries, 43, 52, in the latter case accusing Sung of rabble-rousing). Challenges to indigenous religious structures’ economics naturally generate objections (e.g., Tippett, Solomon Islands Christianity, 173).

[1775]. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 51. Accusers and (worse still) informers became more numerous in a time of corruption—which was often (e.g., Cic. Verr. 2.2.38.94; Pliny Ep. 4.9.5; Hdn. 7.3.2; Libanius Declam. 44.68), including in the first century (Suet. Claud. 37; Tit. 8.5; Tac. Hist. 1.2; Agr. 2). Sometimes accusers and informers were motivated by personal malice or pecuniary reward (see O’Neal, “Delation”), perhaps including in some early second-century cases against Christians (cf. Johnson, “Delatorum”). Rutledge, “Oratory,” 112–13, warns that most descriptions of delatores derive from sources (such as the senatorial class) generally hostile toward them.

[1776]. See, e.g., Rapske, Custody, 56–62; idem, “Prison,” 827; Winter, Left Corinth, 45, 60–64; idem, Welfare, 111–13; Jas 2:6; Suet. Claud. 15.4; Jos. Ant. 19.12–14 (for a reversal of the norm); later, Sherk, Empire, 205–6, §§160–61; cf. Pliny Ep. 9.5.2–3; Juv. Sat. 3.140–46. What selfish interest, it was thought, would one of high status have in prosecuting one of lower status? But when it was appropriate, rhetors could complain about money prejudicing courts against the poor (Cic. Verr. 1.1.1; 1.3.8; Suet. Tib. 33; Libanius Declam. 36.8–9).

[1777]. Rapske, Custody, 119. They would not wear characteristically Roman garb, but the toga of Roman citizens may not have been used outside Italy (Jeffers, World, 42).

[1778]. Rapske, Custody, 119, noting that until 13 B.C.E., veterans settled in colonies received land grants. They contrasted with the large indigenous population, including many Thracians, as well as Egyptian and Anatolian immigrants (Meeks, Urban Christians, 45–46; following Collart, Philippes, 389–486).

[1779]. E.g., Libanius Declam. 36.1–2, 10; 44.68, 70, 79.

[1780]. Reimer, Women, 174–75.

[1781]. See full summary in Schiemann, “Furtum,” 626.

[1782]. See also earlier, Hamm. 199, 213–14, 217, 219, 223.

[1783]. Reimer, Women, 176–78. A slaveholder might count seduction of a slave prostitute as property damage, but it would be difficult to establish in court (see Quint. Decl. 385 intro.; 385.4–5).

[1784]. Reimer, Women, 178.

[1785]. Accusers in a different case charged someone with magic (where the accusers’ real motives involved property) and failed miserably (cf. Hunink, “Introduction,” 13); one accused of magic could argue that, given fear of curses, no one who truly believed the defendant to be a sorcerer would dare accuse him of it (Apul. Apol. 26). Apart from similar commands such as “Get out” (cf. PGM 4.1243, 1245, 3013; 5.158) and perhaps use of a name (cf. Bultmann, Tradition, 223, citing Jos. Ant. 8.47; t. Ḥul. 2:21–23; Lucian Lover of Lies 10, 12), exorcisms in the Gospels and Acts appear more striking for their differences from magical exorcisms than for any similarities (see Yamauchi, “Magic?,” 133; Keener, Matthew, 285–87). Although demons were threatened or insulted (Theissen, Miracle Stories, 63–64, citing Lucian Lover of Lies 16, 31; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.4; 3.38; 4.20), magical methods of expulsion were more common.

[1786]. See Vos, “Charge,” plausibly.

[1787]. The “foreign customs” illegal for Romans in Acts 16:21 would then be magic, in which Jewish involvement was well known (cf. 8:9; 13:6; 19:13; and comment there). This charge would explain continuing trouble in Philippi after Paul’s departure (Phil 1:28–30), and as an unproved charge, it would not justify beating a citizen. The association with Judaism makes sense given the connections of magic and Judaism in some ancient perceptions (see excursus at Acts 8:9–11 in Keener, Acts, 2:1505–7).

[1788]. Witherington, Acts, 496. See discussion below.

[1789]. E.g., whether they served in the military; Isaeus Dicaeog. 46; see comment on Acts 23:1; 24:5–6.

[1790]. Witherington, Acts, 496.

[1791]. Marketing, packaging, and sound bites generally command more attention than research or nuance. Even in academia, which often retains at least a goal of objectivity, ideological politics (whether of the left or of the right) are rampant, as most honest academicians recognize (and often lament).

[1792]. Rapske, Custody, 117 (cf. 41–46); cf. O’Rourke, “Law,” 178–79; Reimer, Women, 179 (despite her emphasis on property laws here). The verb ἐκταράσσω appears nowhere else in the NT and rarely (Pss 17:5 [18:4 MT]; 87:17 [88:16]; Wis 17:3, 4; 18:17) in the LXX, but the verb it intensifies (ταράσσω) appears for Paul’s Jewish accusers in Acts 17:8, 13 (cf. 15:24).

[1793]. Rapske, Custody, 118. Riesner, Early Period, 294, thinks that Paul learned of this edict only in Thessalonica, thus turning toward Greece instead of Rome; but Claudius probably acted in 49 C.E., and Paul would have had to journey westward whether his destination now was Rome or Greece. Ramsay, Discovery, 98, thinks that the charges would appear weak because imperial policy disapproved of anti-Jewish prejudice, but in the respective settings of Paul in Philippi (in the wake of Claudius’s expulsion) and Luke (after 70 C.E.), anti-Judaism may have proved more dangerous.

[1794]. Klauck, Magic, 64.

[1795]. Ibid.

[1796]. Luke’s use of ἔξεστιν here might also suggest irony, since he usually (albeit not always; cf. Acts 21:37; 22:25) employs it for Jewish law (Luke 6:2, 4, 9; 14:3; 20:22; cf. Mark 2:24, 26; 3:4; 12:14), but it may have been the only suitable term available. Ray, Irony, 59, suggests that another irony is that the customs not lawful for Romans “are indeed adopted and practiced by the Roman jailer” (assuming that he is Roman).

[1797]. Rapske, Custody, 118. Many note the reference to Cicero (e.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 131–32; Fitzmyer, Acts, 587). The law was invoked only under extreme circumstances, e.g., with regard to the Druids (D. Williams, Acts, 287).

[1798]. Cf. similarly Le Cornu, Acts, 900.

[1799]. Daniel, “Anti-Semitism,” 53 (citing, most relevantly, Juv. Sat. 14.100–102).

[1800]. Le Cornu, Acts, 897, notes rabbinic sources and emphasizes the requirement of fringes (Num 15:37–41; Deut 22:12).

[1801]. See Barreto, Negotiations, 151–52.

[1802]. Ibid., 161–62.

[1803]. See ibid., 140, emphasizing the postcolonial approach to hybridity (170), a theme already highlighted in Acts 16:1–3 (186). Barreto argues that Paul’s claim in 16:37 involves not so much citizenship as ethnicity (167); he acknowledges (169) that the narrative does assume Paul’s citizenship (22:28; one may also note that Philippi’s officials would have no reason for anxiety on learning that they beat a “Roman” who was not a citizen), and that Ῥωμαῖος at least often includes citizenship, but argues that Luke highlights the ethnic dimension (174–75). Barreto concludes by asking how the ambiguous ethnic boundaries in 16:1–3, 37–38 fit apologetic historiography (186); presumably he has in mind the frequent ethnic dimension of that genre (see discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:109, 155, 162–63, following the extensive work of Sterling, Historiography).

[1804]. Barreto, Negotiations, 172, 176. Paul thereby exposes the charge’s prejudicial assumptions about Jewish citizenship claims; such claims were a hot issue, leading in Alexandria even to pogroms (see discussion below).

[1805]. As “a colony rather than a commercial centre” (Hemer, Acts in History, 114).

[1806]. On which see, e.g., Meagher, “Twig”; Daniel, “Anti-Semitism”; Goodenough, Symbols, 54; Nanos, Mystery, 64–68 (though noting some positive attitudes as well); Das, Debate, 193–97; for summaries of both positive and negative attitudes, cf. Soramuzza, “Policy,” 277–97; Gager, “Outsiders,” 105–16.

[1807]. See Cohen, Maccabees, 47–49; Sevenster, Anti-Semitism, 36–56. It was also not rooted in economic or social relationships (Anti-Semitism, 57–88). Still, as an ancient religion, Judaism could not be excused and dismissed as the faith of mere “noble savage” barbarians, amplifying the polemic (cf. Yavetz, “Judeophobia”).

[1808]. See Friedheim, “Remarques.”

[1809]. Jos. Ant. 18.81–83. Scholars compare Suet. Tib. 36; Tac. Ann. 2.85; but note that Dio Cass. 57.18.5a attributes the expulsion to Jews’ success in making proselytes, a claim that Josephus would, no doubt, prefer to suppress (Smallwood, Jews, 203–5, thinks that Tiberius’s expulsion really stemmed from this factor; for Roman resentment of such success, see comment below).

[1810]. See MacMullen, Social Relations, 58. Even discomfort with Etrurians remained; see discussion in Bittarello, “Construction.”

[1811]. See Keener, Paul, 140–42.

[1812]. See esp. Grant, Paul, 82–84.

[1813]. Yavetz, “Authors.” On “noble barbarians,” see introduction to Acts 8:26–40.

[1814]. Even many provincials were eager to show loyalty to Rome (see inscriptions in Sherk, Empire, 207–10, §164).

[1815]. Maintaining ancestral customs was good, and deviation from such customs was bad (Cic. Resp. 5.1.2).

[1816]. He provides other proofs of their unreliability in Cic. Flacc. 5.12–9.20.

[1817]. The conflicts date to the era of Pompey, but on this Cicero passage, Grant, Gods, 41, claims, “This ‘chauvinism’ pervades Roman religiosity.” Cf. Tacitus’s complaint (Hist. 5.8): the Jewish people were the most difficult subject people under successive empires and even refused hellenization.

[1818]. Hor. Sat. 1.5.100–101 (LCL, 73). Plutarch lists Judaism among superstitions (Superst. 8, Mor. 169C); Persius treats it as a base superstition (Sat. 5.179–84), comparable to that of the priests of Cybele (5.185–88). Lopez, Apostle, xiv, suggests that Romans considered Jews “a particularly pernicious people” among their subjects.

[1819]. Gager, Anti-Semitism, 58, finds Juvenal most threatened by Judaism’s appeal to Romans (probably the point of discussion about circumcision and the fountain). Denouncing Eastern customs, Juvenal complains that the filth of the (Syrian river) Orontes pours into the Tiber (Sat. 3.62).

[1820]. See esp. Juv. Sat. 14.96–106; cf. Rochette, “Juifs et Romains”; circumcision and food customs in Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.137–38. Later rabbis considered responses to such polemic (b. Meʿil. 17a). On Roman anti-Judaism, see also Nanos, Mystery, 64–67 (though dating it too late; idem, “Churches,” 17).

[1821]. More often Jews, as a minority, were simply neglected; though often mentioned by Gentile writers (as Josephus is quick to emphasize; see Stern, Authors, passim), they do not appear in proportion to their commonly assumed numbers (cf. Feldman, “Reflections on Jews”) if those assumed numbers are correct. Some scholars argue that Posidonius of Apamea (the probable source for Strabo 16.2.34–46; Diod. Sic. 34–35.1.1–5) thought that Moses was honorable but that Judaism declined to a much worse state afterward (Berthelot, “Poseidonios d’Apamée”); Tacitus employed this idea of Jewish decline with greater hostility, and it continued to appeal to later writers (through the nineteenth century; Bloch, “Posidonian Thoughts”).

[1822]. Their unwillingness to assimilate to Roman society generated much of the antipathy (cf. Rochette, “Juifs et Romains”).

[1823]. This criticism of exclusiveness was repeated often (see Sevenster, Anti-Semitism, 89–145, esp. 143–44; Smallwood, Jews, 123; Parkes, Conflict, 20–21), though some other groups may have also asserted their distinctive identities (see the exploration of Millar, “Community and Culture”).

[1824]. Tac. Hist. 5.5 (Church and Brodribb, 659). For Tacitus’s anti-Jewish approach, see Feldherr, “Tacitus’ Jews” (emphasizing his portrait as a mirror image of Rome, e.g., 315). Tacitus borrowed his anti-Jewish material from Egyptian and Greco-Egyptian priestly sources (Heinen, “Ägyptische Grundlagen”); though he may have added some positive material to these sources (Rokéah, “Tacitus and Antisemitism”), he reports their claims credulously and can hardly be described as a Judeophile. Charges such as worship of the ass’s head (Tac. Hist. 5.4) had to be refuted by Christian as well as Jewish apologists (Tert. Apol. 16.1–4).

[1825]. Apollonius refused to enter Palestine because of Jewish bloodshed (during their war against Rome; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.27). Appian reports that Judeans paid a higher poll tax than other nations because Judeans rebelled so often (Hist. rom. 11.8.50).

[1826]. See Daniel, “Anti-Semitism,” 58–62 (suggesting [62] that the rabbis worked hard to counteract this stereotype but that some may have warranted it). Juvenal denounced Judaism as secretive (like a mystery cult) and not even courteous to other religions (Sat. 14.102–3); Jews (subversively) flout Rome’s laws for their own (14.100–101).

[1827]. In Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.148, Apollonius charges the Jews as atheists and haters of humanity. Josephus admits that Jews do not fellowship with those whose customs are contrary (Ag. Ap. 2.257–58) but replies that many other peoples share the same restrictions (2.259) and, unlike some (2.260), they at least welcome those who would join them (2.261).

[1828]. Euphrates, in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.33 (LCL, 1:541).

[1829]. See Parkes, Conflict, 25–26 (continuing in the Christian period, 107, 120; cf. Robinson, Criminal Law, 95–98); Gager, Anti-Semitism, 55–56; Tajra, Trial, 21–24; Yavetz, “Judeophobia”; cf. Koester, Introduction, 226–28, on the initial competition of cultures. This was a concern in the Claudian era (Cadbury, Acts in History, 80). Rochette, “Trimalchion,” finds it even in Petronius’s Trimalchio scene, but this may read too much into Petronius. Jews were successful in Rome (Leon, Jews of Rome, 250–56) and may have had special success with the indigenous Roman population (256, tentatively), which would appear particularly threatening.

[1830]. Thus, their popularity among many Gentiles (on which see Gager, Anti-Semitism, 67–88; Cohen, Maccabees, 49–58; Bornkamm, Paul, 7) stirred resentment among others (see Gager, Anti-Semitism, 59–61).

[1831]. For Gentile resentment of Jewish proselytism, see Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 32–33, 85–91 (citing esp. Val. Max. 1.3.3; Hor. Sat. 1.4.139–43; Juv. Sat. 5.14.96–106; Epict. Diatr. 2.9.19–21; Suet. Tib. 36; Dom. 12, 15; Dio Cass. 57.18.52; Dig. 48.8.11.1; Celsus in Origen Cels. 5.41.4–6). (This much is true despite the misnomer of Jewish “missionaries” that some have averred; see comment on Acts 1:8.)

[1832]. Stern, “Greek and Latin Literature,” 1157; on Seneca, see 1150. Cicero seems to have simply denounced ethnicities of “all opposing witnesses” equally (1144–45).

[1833]. Resentment against Jewish proselytism probably also played a part in later persecution of Christians (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 195).

[1834]. Feldman, “Pro-Jewish Intimations,” thinks that Apion was sometimes reinterpreting earlier positive views toward Jews (e.g., in Hecataeus).

[1835]. Philo also complains that Flaccus so degraded urban Alexandrian Jews, who had always been chastised with rods like other Alexandrians, that they were now flogged like rural Egyptians (Flacc. 78, 80).

[1836]. Smallwood, Jews, 141. Greeks saw Roman protection of Jewish rights as preferential treatment (139); for Rome, such treatment was the only alternative to intolerance and persecution (Parkes, Conflict, 9).

[1837]. See also CPJ 2:36–55, §153.

[1838]. Ben Zeev, “Greek Attacks.”

[1839]. Frankfurter, “Egyptian Response to Revolt.” Cf. an apparently Greco-Egyptian prophecy partly directed against the Jews (CPJ 3:119–21, §520), dated to the third century C.E. on paleographic grounds.

[1840]. So Hata, “Moses within Anti-Semitism.”

[1841]. Stern, “Greek and Latin Literature,” 1118.

[1842]. See Goodman, “Trajan”; cf. Rochette, “Juifs et Romains.”

[1843]. Rapske, Custody, 120–21.

[1844]. Ibid., 125, 129.

[1845]. For tearing off garments before beatings, Conzelmann, Acts, 132, cites Livy 8.32.11; Tac. Hist. 4.27; Diod. Sic. 17.35.7; many commentators note the practice (e.g., Lemerle, Philippes, 35n3 [Festugière, “Lemerle,” 133]).

[1846]. Missionaries tore their own clothes over pagan worship (Acts 14:14), and here pagans tear their clothes because of a success against a pagan spirit. Given the standard customs in each case, however, there may be no deliberate literary connection.

[1847]. Rapske, Custody, 218–19; on prisons’ unsanitary conditions, see 216–17.

[1848]. Cf. Cicero’s diatribes against Verres—common as injustice was, it never played well in court, especially not when presented in such emotion-laden language. Luke’s description here is accurate and is not detailed, but it could still stir emotion appropriate to a courtroom case.

[1849]. Most scholars agree that the clothes here are those of Paul and Silas, rather than the officials tearing their own garments for mourning (cf. Acts 14:14; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 195; Cadbury, “Dust and Garments,” 273; Haenchen, Acts, 496).

[1850]. Tajra, Trial, 25.

[1851]. Ibid., 11–12; Bruce, History, 18; Kurzinger, Apostelgeschichte, 63; cf. Drummond, “Fasces.” The tradition of rods goes back to Etruria (Lintott, Romans, 16).

[1852]. Tajra, Trial, 12.

[1853]. On tribunes lacking imperium, cf. Derow, “Tribuni plebes,” 1550 (this excludes “military tribunes with consular power”; idem, “Magistracy, Roman”); on the fasces as symbolizing imperium, see Derow “Imperium,” 752; Staveley and Lintott, “Lictores.” Pliny E. N.H. pref. 4 speaks of the fasces of the emperor’s genius; for officials’ fasces, see also, e.g., Symm. Ep. 1.1.3, 5; 1.58.

[1854]. Libero, “Fasces,” 359; Gizewski, “Lictor,” 543 (suggesting more in the imperial period). Each Vestal and flamen Dialis also had a lictor; an official of lower rank had to demonstrate respect by lowering “his fasces before an official of higher rank” (543).

[1855]. Staveley and Lintott, “Lictores” (noting that the exceptions to their path-clearing were Vestals and matronae).

[1856]. Libero, “Fasces,” 359 (not, however, to a brothel).

[1857]. Gizewski, “Lictor,” 543–44.

[1858]. Libero, “Fasces,” 359; cf. Gizewski, “Lictor,” 543. For their involvement in arrests, Gizewski cites (544) Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 10.31; Livy 2.29; Tac. Ann. 6.40; Aul. Gel. 13.12; for punishments, especially whippings, Cic. Verr. 5.54; Livy 2.5.8; Val. Max. 3.8.1; Sen. E. Controv. 9.2.22. For their clearing a crowd, Tac. Ann. 2.69.

[1859]. Staveley and Lintott, “Lictores.” Outside Rome, they traditionally wore a red cloak instead of the toga (ibid.), but a colony would likely simulate the situation in Rome. (Even in Rome, average persons would not wear togas all the time [Vout, “Myth”], but those executing an office would surely be wearing it.) See further Gizewski, “Lictor,” 543 (citing Livy 2.55 for their not being slaves; Plut. Rom. 26 for togas in the city; and, for military apparel in a military camp, Cic. Pis. 23; Varro L.L. 7.37; Livy 31.14; 41.10; 45.39).

[1860]. The highest-ranking lictor held the place closest to the consul (Val. Max. 2.2.4a; cf. 1.7.5); one stripped of office would need to send his lictors away (Suet. Jul. 16). Outside Rome, the axes symbolized Roman authority (Libero, “Fasces,” 359); it is usually argued that axes were removed during the republic. Horster, “Professionals,” 334, suggests that lictors could not punish after the late republic, the fasces retaining only symbolic value; but cf. 2 Cor 11:25 (as noted below).

[1861]. O’Rourke, “Law,” 175 (noting that fines, as in Acts 17:9, were probably more common).

[1862]. Especially for slaves; see comment on torture in the excursus on slavery at Acts 12:13 (Keener, Acts, 2:1920–22).

[1863]. Hor. Sat. 1.2.41–42.

[1864]. P.Flor. 61; Jos. War 2.269; cf. Dig. 48.2.6; Philo Flacc. 75.

[1865]. Jos. War 2.306, 308; 5.449; 7.200, 202; Livy 33.36; see Blinzler, Trial, 223; Brown, John, 2:874. For preliminary flogging with lictors’ rods before execution, see Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.30.5–6; Val. Max. 5.8.1.

[1866]. Thus they could be used to enforce discipline, even against a victorious military leader who had won by disobeying an order (Val. Max. 2.7.8).

[1867]. Cf. Brown, John, 2:874 (though he rightly notes [idem, Death, 851] that many would not have recognized fine distinctions between flagellatio and verberatio).

[1868]. Apul. Metam. 7.30.154; Cod. theod. 8.5.2; 9.35.2; Goguel, Jesus, 527; Blinzler, Trial, 222.

[1869]. Rapske, Custody, 124.

[1870]. Idem, 125.

[1871]. Blinzler, Trial, 222–23 (citing Cic. Verr. 2.4.39.85; Philo Flacc. 75; for severe physical damage, see also Jos. War 2.612; 6.304).

[1872]. Philo Flacc. 78–80.

[1873]. Dig. 48.19.10; 68.28.2; Blinzler, Trial, 222.

[1874]. Bruce, Commentary, 340.

[1875]. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 154.

[1876]. Cf. Bruce, Commentary, 340 (though his example of Cic. Verr. 2.5.161–62 was apparently not one of Verres being unable to hear but of him being unwilling to hear).

[1877]. Rapske, Custody, 128–29.

[1878]. Ibid., 121–23. Ascough, “Technique,” finds these characteristics of crowds in ancient novels such as Chariton’s (cf. also Pervo, Acts, 408), but as Rapske’s data show, novels here reflected basic social reality. In earlier times, Macedonian rulers had even sometimes (though not regularly) allowed popular assemblies to decide capital cases (Anson, “Assemblies”).

[1879]. When a Roman citizen beaten with rods protested his citizenship to a corrupt governor, the governor had him crucified against Roman law (Cic. Verr. 2.5.62.162).

[1880]. McDonald, “Philippi,” 788.

[1881]. Cf. Vout, “Myth.”

[1882]. Haenchen, Acts, 504; also, almost verbatim, Dunn, Acts, 222. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 132, protests that instead, appealing to his citizenship would have probably led to his release, since, even before knowing his citizenship, officials planned to release him the next day. But Paul could not have known that the officials would consider the offense light enough for release the next day, and it might be unlikely, given the missionaries’ detention in the inner prison, that this was the officials’ original plan (at least during the emotion of the moment). Perhaps plans to release them early stemmed from Lydia and others speaking privately on his behalf away from the mob; also, he and Silas had already been beaten, and so some punishment and, certainly, public humiliation had been inflicted already.

[1883]. Cf. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 427 (suggesting that Paul did not yet trust Rome to protect against abuse).

[1884]. Cf. Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 741, who suggests (among other proposals) that Paul initially sought to follow Christ’s suffering (Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 6–7), or to avoid exempting himself from suffering that his followers would have to face.

[1885]. Why would citizenship, any more than knowing Sergius Paulus, do any more than delay inevitable hostility for the gospel’s sake? Jews knew well the potential for Gentile hostility, and although a Roman citizen from a well-to-do family might have greater openness to the Roman system, Paul was well aware of competing perspectives and experiences. He has probably never appealed to his citizen privileges before this point, but divine vindication through the earthquake and the jailer’s conversion might motivate him to finally challenge the status brokers on their own terms. Possibly, experience with abuse in Judea gave him little hope of success in appealing to his citizenship, until someone, such as this narrative’s jailer, explained that his citizenship would be taken more seriously in a model colony such as Philippi (though the jailer was not suggesting that they protest their release, 16:36). For Paul’s probable experience of vulnerability and marginalization as a Jewish provincial, see, e.g., Lopez, “Visualizing,” 90–91 (though not viewing him as a citizen). Hellerman, “Servants,” 88–89, plausibly suggests that they refused to avail themselves of a privilege unavailable to much of the new church (only 40 percent of residents were citizens).

[1886]. Cf. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 7. Schnabel, Acts, 687, suggests that in the xenophobic context of the immediate protest, appeal to their Roman citizenship could have also appeared a public disavowal of their Jewish identity, which was clearly not desirable.

[1887]. Rapske, Custody, 130–31; cf. Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 741; Apul. Apol. 89. Typically, the registration occurred on the ninth day after birth (Jeffers, World, 201, following Crook, Law of Rome, 201). For birth registration, Black, “Law,” 213–14, cites Schultz, “Registers,” but notes that these laws probably postdate 4 C.E., yet Paul probably was born in Tarsus after 4 C.E. (though one wonders if the system was immediately implemented for every birth in every city from the year of its inauguration). On the keeping of public records, see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 31.86.

[1888]. Rapske, Custody, 131; cf. also Sanders, “Birth Certificate”; Jeffers, World, 201–2. For military travelers’ diplomata, see Tac. Hist. 2.54; cf. Kolb, “Postal Services,” 690.

[1889]. Rapske, Custody, 132. For a letter certifying a citizenship grant, see Pliny Ep. 10.107.

[1890]. Rapske, Custody, 133; cf. Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 741; Schnabel, Acts, 687. Paul’s only witnesses from Tarsus would probably have been Jewish relatives there, some perhaps alienated from him, many perhaps reluctant to make a long voyage; but someone could confirm records in the citizen registry.

[1891]. Rapske, Custody, 132 (citing Cic. Verr. 2.5.161, 167–68). A corrupt governor who crucified a citizen claimed that the man only falsely claimed to be a citizen (to which Cicero replied that this constituted an admission that the man’s claim went unheeded; Ag. Verr. 2.5.64.165). Counterfeit documents, in general, constituted a punishable offense (Robinson, Criminal Law, 38).

[1892]. Rapske, Custody, 133. This is a worst-case scenario but one that could have been plausibly entertained. Rapske also thinks (ibid.) that a Roman claim might alienate the God-fearer converts or appeal to an advantage that the converts did not have available, but I think that this is less likely and that Paul’s treatment as a citizen would later provide precedent for citizen members of the church and those under their patronage (Phil 1:7, 24).

[1893]. Cf. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 426.

[1894]. Cf. also Rapske, Custody, 306n109. If, as I have suggested, Luke spent considerable time in Philippi, he would know the church’s story of its origins; for a detailed argument that Philippians echoes that story found in Acts 16, see Hellerman, “Servants.”

[1895]. Some scholars think that Paul’s greatest pain there was the shame to his Roman honor (Frame, Thessalonians, 93; Milligan, Thessalonians, 16), but this is questionable. The term for “shamed” and its relevant cognates include deliberate and serious insult (e.g., Demosth. Aristocr. 141; P.Hal. 1.210–13; Diod. Sic. 36.15.1–2; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 10.35.3; Epict. Diatr. 2.17.20), often through violence (BDAG; Fisher, “Hubris,” 732; cf. Eurip. Tro. 69; Aeschines Tim. 16; Polyb. 6.7.5), including punishments (Plut. Cic. 36.3, associated with beating with rods and tearing off garments); even a flogging was humiliating (Quint. Inst. 1.3.13–14), and a public one still more so (cf. even a heavy fine, Appian Hist. rom. 2.8.2). The incident would have been humiliating whether or not they were Roman citizens (with Bruce, Thessalonians, 25). Various Pauline commentators connect Paul’s report in 1 Thessalonians with the incident depicted here (e.g., Milligan, Thessalonians, 16; Best, Thessalonians, 90; Bruce, Thessalonians, 25).

[1896]. E.g., Hom. Il. 2.265–70; Quint. Curt. 8.6.7; Test. Jos. 2:3; cf. Hellerman, “Servants,” 93. Even striking someone entailed shame (Hamm. 202–6; Gaius Inst. 3.220; P.Hal. 1.203–5; Plut. Alc. 8.1; Matt 5:39; Job 16:10; Lam 3:30; m. B. Qam. 8:6; cf. Jeremias, Sermon, 28; idem, Theology, 239; Moore, Judaism, 2:151n3; Daube, New Testament and Judaism, 260–61; Lachs, Commentary, 106).

[1897]. Toner, Culture, 134, citing Libanius Or. 1.228 and emphasizing the humiliation involved for persons of status (though we might suppose a similar effect on persons without status).

[1898]. E.g., Isaeus Cleon. 39; Aeschines Tim. 28–29; Lysias Or. 24.13, §524; Rhet. Alex. 4, 1426b.34–35; Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 48.3; cf. McGinn, “Feminae probrosae”; Kamtekar, “ΑΙΔΩΣ”; Kaster, “Shame”; Robbins, Texture, 76–77. Moral associations are frequent; e.g., Eurip. El. 44–45; Rhet. Alex. 1, 1421b.37–38; Dion. Hal. Epid. 7.291; Mus. Ruf. 2, p. 38.16; 3, p. 38.29–30; 4, p. 44.19; 8, p. 62.8–9; 16, p. 106.11; 18B, p. 116.4, 17–20; frg. 24; frg. 51, p. 144.8–9; Dio Chrys. Or. 4.43, 115; 18.9; 33.50, 60; Lucian Fisherman 42; Icar. 21; Iambl. V.P. 20.95; 31.203; Porph. Marc. 9.158–60; 13.223, 226.

[1899]. All acknowledged it as terrible when innocent men were beaten with rods (Aul. Gel. 10.3.3, 7) or killed (10.3.5, 7).

[1900]. Epict. Diatr. 3.22.54 (in Johnson, Acts, 296).

[1901]. Cf. esp. ὑβρίζεσθαι, Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 76.18; ὕβριν, 76.19; ὑβριστικόν, 76.21, and the use of αἰσχρόν in 76.19–20, 29; p. 78.4, 7; see also Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, p. 92.4–6; Diogenes Ep. 20.

[1902]. See Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 98 (citing, on disreputable mobs, Polyb. 6.4.6; 6.57.59; Plato Laws 2.670B; Philo Mos. 1.197). But while Lentz is right to view Luke as contrasting Paul with the rabble, he probably goes too far in claiming that the issue here is one of status, not just of citizenship (136). Historically, of course, high status would help one’s case more than citizenship alone could (125), and this is relevant to the final quarter of Acts.

[1903]. Cf., e.g., Lucian Peregr. 14 (where the governor forgoes even the scourging, to prevent its propaganda value for Peregrinus).

[1904]. Rapske, Custody, 12–14; cf. Appian Bell. civ. 1.3.26.

[1905]. Rapske, Custody, 9, 16–20.

[1906]. Ibid., 125. So Vitruv. Arch. 5.2.1, cited by various scholars (e.g., Finegan, Apostles, 105): “The treasury, prison, senate-house are to adjoin the forum” (LCL, 1:263); in Rome, see, e.g., Plut. Cic. 22.2.

[1907]. Rapske, Custody, 125 (cf. 444, fig. 12). That the jailer moves them so freely to his own quarters, as if unconcerned with witnesses, might suggest that the area was not primarily residential (Acts 16:34), though even here his guards would have witnessed the action.

[1908]. “Basilica A,” with a crypt (McRay, Archaeology, 288, reporting that it was treated as Paul’s prison since the fifth century C.E.). The crypt, when discovered in 1876, still held paintings of Paul’s imprisonment (Finegan, Apostles, 104–5, reporting that it dates from the seventh century C.E.).

[1909]. Rapske, Custody, 125–26, doubting that the tradition predates the tenth century C.E.

[1910]. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 108.

[1911]. Bruce, Commentary, 336; Matson, Conversion Narratives, 156; cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 583.

[1912]. For the chronological objection, see also Rapske, Custody, 261–62; Ascough, Lydia, 25; cf. Blaiklock, Cities, 42 (possibly the grandson of a founding veteran). “Lands beyond the Po . . . were divided among the veterans” after the battle at Philippi (Suet. Vergil 19). On veterans generally, see Schneider, “Veterans” (esp. 352–53).

[1913]. Gill, “Macedonia,” 413. Most military retirees settled “near their last camp” (Thompson, “Military,” 994; see also Southern, Army, 166).

[1914]. We do read of the use of “veteran” troops as the most expert (Tac. Hist. 2.14; cf. Ann. 2.80; 3.21; 4.73; 15.26; Suet. Jul. 38.1; nearly retired in Tac. Ann. 4.4), but the discussion here concerns retired veterans settled in a colony. We lack much clear evidence of their involvement with local politics or economies (Campbell, Army, 222–23).

[1915]. Thompson, “Military,” 994, noting that under Augustus this was twelve thousand sesterces; Jones, Empire, 161 (citing ILS 6105; SEG 17.584). Augustus had settled perhaps 120,000 veterans by 29 B.C.E. (Res Gestae 3.15), throughout the empire (including Macedonia; Res Gestae 5.28), and paid out significant largesse (Res Gestae 3.15–16). Some practices persisted; for a land grant (under Trajan in the early second century C.E.), see Hyginus De condicionibus agrorum (Sherk, Empire, 161, §119; the earliest land grants were small, as noted in Roselaar, “Assidui”). Land grants remained common until Hadrian’s time (Southern, Army, 166–67). Veterans also were exempt from some taxes (see, e.g., CIL 16.146 in Sherk, Empire, 145–46, §103; Llewelyn, Documents, 6:147–48, §19; Thompson, “Military,” 994); on veteran privileges, see Gaius Inst. 1.57.

[1916]. Lewis, Life, 22, 24. Many veterans joined local ruling classes (Jeffers, World, 174). Their imperial patrons’ dilemma was to grant them choice land without displacing earlier landowners (Suet. Jul. 38.1; Aug. 13.3).

[1917]. Rapske, Custody, 261–62 (though prison directors made better wages, even as slaves, than legionaries, 259). For their relatively high status in colonies, see, e.g., Meeks, Moral World, 34; Campbell, “Veterans.”

[1918]. See Matson, Conversion Narratives, 156 (comparing him [157] to Cornelius). Macedonia itself was demilitarized in 14 C.E., and so few active soldiers lived in the vicinity (Rapske, Custody, 262).

[1919]. Although Hellenistic Egypt favored free workers, classical Athens and Rome both used public slaves for this purpose (Rapske, Custody, 244–47); in times of war, prisoners could sometimes be made public slaves (Le Bohec, “Prisoners of War,” 878), but probably not often in roles such as this. Schnabel, Acts, 690 (esp. n. 51), notes that the jailer’s slave status would explain his fear of execution. The more status-laden language of “household” (Acts 16:31–34) may weaken this interpretation but would not necessarily refute it.

[1920]. Rapske, Custody, 262–63; see 252 for the use of public slaves in guarding prisoners (citing Pliny Ep. 10.19–20). Cf. Joseph’s role as a slave who oversaw much of the work in a prison (Gen 39:21–23).

[1921]. Cf. Pliny Ep. 10.31.2; 10.32; Jones, Empire, 243; Meeks, Urban Christians, 58.

[1922]. Rapske, Custody, 259–60. For financial gifts to the δεσμοφύλαξ to gain favor for a prisoner, see, e.g., Lucian Tox. 31.

[1923]. Ammonius in Cat. Act. 16.31–32 (Martin, Acts, 204) claims that the jailer was the Stephen of 1 Cor 16:15, but this suggestion is implausible; that text claims him as the firstfruits of Achaia, not Macedonia.

[1924]. For probable protective anonymity in the passion narrative, cf. Theissen, Gospels, 186–88.

[1925]. Rapske, Custody, 254–56. Epict. Diatr. 1.29.65–66 believes that Socrates’s guard returned his kindness with compassion (using Plato Phaedo 116D, 117D). Rabbis also could regard as destined for life a jailer who guarded his captives’ morals (Abrahams, Studies [1], 61, citing b. Taʿan. 22a).

[1926]. Rapske, Custody, 256–59.

[1927]. Ibid., 258. Sometimes the state placed spies in prisons to secure information for convicting prisoners (257). For jailers’ reputation for depravity, attributed to association with criminals, see Philo Jos. 81, 84 (Rapske, Custody, 264; Schnabel, Acts, 691n57).

[1928]. Pliny Ep. 3.9.14–15; one thinks of similar claims at Nuremberg and other genocide hearings in subsequent times.

[1929]. Rapske, Custody, 259.

[1930]. Ibid., 259–61.

[1931]. Rapske, “Prison,” 827. Traditional prisons elsewhere might also employ an inner prison for extra security at night (Anderson, Shore, 322). Abbott, Acts, 181, thought that the inner prison would be entered only through an aperture in its ceiling, but this does not make the best sense of “doors” in Acts 16:26–27. (He may be right about the “filth, vermin, lack of air and light.”)

[1932]. With Conzelmann, Acts, 132.

[1933]. See also Ammonius in Cat. Act. 16.23; Chrys. Homilies concerning the Statues 1.16 (both in Martin, Acts, 204–5).

[1934]. Commentators cite Hdt. 9.37 (e.g., Johnson, Acts, 296; Witherington, Acts, 497); see also Lysias Or. 10.16, §117; Lucian Dem. 50.

[1935]. Rapske, Custody, 9, 25–28. Luke may not mention chains because this situation was exceptional or because chains were assumed, but he seems not to assume chains as a deterrent to flight (Acts 16:27).

[1936]. See Jer 20:3; 29:26; cf. 2 Chr 16:10; Job 13:27; 33:11. Abbott, Acts, 181, notes that they were still used occasionally in the Middle East in the nineteenth century.

[1937]. Rapske, Custody, 127.

[1938]. Ibid., 126–27. For chains as a means of torture, see Rapske, “Prison,” 828.

[1939]. Rapske, Custody, 127; Tajra, Trial, 26; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 196; Bruce, Commentary, 336.

[1940]. Rapske, Custody, 127.

[1941]. Gal 3:13; cf. Brown, Death, 947; Fitzmyer, Acts, 337.

[1942]. Cf. Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29, the term’s other uses in Acts. Luke 22:52 refers to clubs but reflects the usage of Mark’s passion tradition (Mark 14:43, 48).

[1943]. Rapske, Custody, 20–25.

[1944]. Ibid., 22.

[1945]. Ibid., 9.

[1946]. Ibid., 126.

[1947]. Ibid.; Tajra, Trial, 26; Conzelmann, Acts, 132; Bruce, Acts¹, 318 (citing Euseb. H.E. 5.1.27; OGIS 483.181; Pass. Perp. 3.5–6; Mart. Pion. 11.3–4). In a different culture, see, e.g., Hunt, History and Legacy, 108, 125, 127.

[1948]. Max. Tyre 36.4 (Trapp, 286), developing Plato’s image of the cave.

[1949]. In some early Christian texts, suffering for spreading the gospel seems a prerequisite for the end (Rev 6:10–11; cf. Col 1:24). In the narrative, God does work their situation for some good (the detention and the pythoness’s proclamation concerning “salvation” help lead to the jailer’s conversion; because Lydia is an Asian foreigner in Philippi, the jailer may be the first fully “Philippian” [and “European”] convert).

[1950]. Rapske, Custody, 202–3. For prisoners being kept in the inner cell, see the Codex theodosianus and Lucian Toxaris.

[1951]. Rapske, Custody, 196–97 (noting that Athens had only eight cells to house many prisoners).

[1952]. Rapske, “Prison,” 828; cf. also idem, Custody, 204.

[1953]. For sickness in prison, see, e.g., Val. Max. 1.1.21; Rapske, Custody, 220–21; idem, “Prison,” 829 (citing, e.g., Sen. E. Controv. 9.1; Plut. Cim. 4.3; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.35; 7.26; 8.22).

[1954]. Caird, Revelation, 35; Rapske, Custody, 12–14.

[1955]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.26, though this is in Rome and is Philostratus’s fiction.

[1956]. Rapske, Custody, 279–80 (also noting that they were sometimes executed there).

[1957]. Ibid., 281.

[1958]. E.g., Polyb. 9.18.6; Ovid Metam. 10.368.

[1959]. E.g., late-night parties (Statius Silv. 2.4.6; see further comment at Acts 2:15); an exceptionally studious person (Pliny Ep. 3.5.8); robbers returning late (Lucian Lucius 22); surprising enemies (Jos. Ant. 5.305; Life 318); madness (Philo Flacc. 169); or a visiting church founder (Acts 20:7, another night scene with its own miracle [20:10–12]).

[1960]. Also, e.g., Plut. Cic. 15.1; Pliny Ep. 6.20.4; cf. ʾAbot R. Nat. 29, §§60–61 B.

[1961]. Cf. shaking at midnight in crisis (Job 34:20); but such a connection (with the earthquake, Acts 16:26) would probably stretch too far. For a supernatural prison liberation at midnight, see also the tradition in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.30, although this is later.

[1962]. Schnabel, Acts, 688 (esp. n. 48).

[1963]. There were, of course, a wide range of causes for sleeplessness, including anxiety, talking late into the night, and unpleasant conditions (see comment on Acts 2:15), though it was never healthy (Fronto Ep. graec. 6).

[1964]. Rapske, Custody, 204; idem, “Prison,” 828.

[1965]. Rapske, “Prison,” 828, citing Jos. Ant. 18.204; 2 Tim 4:13. But cf. Acts 12:8.

[1966]. See Exod 22:27; Deut 24:13.

[1967]. Rapske, “Prison,” 828 (citing Lucian Tox. 29); idem, Custody, 127 (citing Lucian Tox. 150–51).

[1968]. Rapske, Custody, 337. This could be especially true if the wounds attracted insects, which the missionaries, in stocks, could not swat away.

[1969]. Interrupted sleep was annoying (Lucian Cock 1), and happy singing could annoy those trying to mourn (Lucian Dial. D. 336 [3/2, Dead to Pluto against Menippus 1]; cf. Prov 27:14). For an example of prisoners annoyed at others’ religious singing (for another religion), see Anderson, Shore, 308 (although, with everyone in chains, it does not sound as if anyone complained). Another prisoner sang hymns in the middle of the night, entertaining his companions, who came to realize that he was insane (347).

[1970]. At least those who had genuinely committed some.

[1971]. Later rabbis opined that David played the harp at midnight to stir everyone for Torah study (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 7:4). Le Cornu, Acts, 906, observes that the tikun chatzot, “or midnight prayer,” specifically based on Ps 119:62, “was only instituted in the sixteenth century.”

[1972]. Some later rabbis allowed the evening recitation of the Shema as late as midnight (m. Ber. 1:1). On the historical level, Paul’s letters reveal him as a person of much prayer (e.g., Rom 1:9; 1 Cor 14:13, 18; as often noted, e.g., Sequeira, “Prayer”; Montague, “Prayer”; Cothenet, “Prière”).

[1973]. This is embracing the way of the cross. Paul does speak out (Acts 23:3), but he never resists personal persecution violently; Jesus, too, spoke truth in the face of hostility (Luke 22:52–53, 67–70; 23:3).

[1974]. One might infer from 1 Thess 2:2 that Paul, historically, felt the shame acutely, though the text is not explicit about his feelings. See further discussion below.

[1975]. Conzelmann, Acts, 132 (also Johnson, Acts, 300; Talbert, Acts, 146), cites the Bacchae praising Dionysus in prison (no reference), Socrates writing paeans there (Epict. Diatr. 2.6.26), and Joseph praising God there (Test. Jos. 8:5). The textual variants in Test. Jos. 8:5 (Charles, 195) do not affect the sense; Test. Jos. 9 speaks of his prayer at night that God heeded (Haenchen, Acts, 497). For prisoners praying or singing, Rapske, “Prison,” 829, cites Plato Phaedo 60DE, 61AB, 117BC; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.31, 38; Tibullus 2.6.25–26; Talbert, Acts, 146, notes Mart. Pion. 11.5–6; 18.12. For reports of prayers in prisons, see esp. later Christian apocryphal acts (Rapske, Custody, 333–37). To connect parallels of praising God in prison with the narrative’s supposedly legendary character (cf. Koester, Paul and World, 72), however, would make modern accounts of the same legendary. Luke draws connections with Acts 5:41 and especially Luke 6:23, but it is hardly necessary to assume that any portrayal of someone following Jesus’s teaching on the subject must be legendary.

[1976]. Some ancients critiqued Epicurus for affirming—while viewing pain as an evil—that the wise man could be happy under torture (Cic. Tusc. 2.7.17).

[1977]. See Le Cornu, Acts, 907.

[1978]. Here the disciple, Damis, fears that this will interrupt the other prisoners, but Apollonius insists that it will help them.

[1979]. Paul’s letters, including those from prison (Phil 1:3–4, 9; Phlm 4, 6), reveal how central prayer was to his ministry (Rapske, Custody, 337, following esp. Wiles, Prayers, passim).

[1980]. Paul urged (Phil 4:4; 1 Thess 5:16) and practiced (2 Cor 6:10; Phil 1:18) regular rejoicing but at least sometimes also experienced much sorrow (Rom 9:2; cf. Phil 2:27).

[1981]. See Epict. Diatr. 1.6.1; 4.7.9; Marc. Aur. 6.16; fuller comment at Acts 5:41. For admonitions not to lament legal condemnation, see, e.g., Mus. Ruf. 9, p. 76.5–11 (cf. 16, p. 106.1–6). To an imaginary interlocutor bemoaning his fate of being beheaded alone, Epictetus challenges, “Must everyone else also be beheaded to comfort you?” (Epict. Diatr. 1.1.18).

[1982]. Praise the gods (Marc. Aur. 6.16) or providence (Epict. Diatr. 1.6.1) for whatever happens; people should never find fault with God’s works (Sen. Y. Dial. 7.15.4; Epict. Diatr. 1.14.16; Marc. Aur. 6.16).

[1983]. Cic. Parad. 16–19 (cf. also Leg. 1.23.60); Sen. Y. Dial. 7.16.1–3.

[1984]. Epict. Diatr. 1.4.1. Seneca claimed to achieve the ideal of remaining undistracted by noise (Ep. Lucil. 56).

[1985]. Those who complain of their fate suffer it involuntarily (Sen. Y. Dial. 7.15.6) whereas one should find some comfort in every situation (9.10.4). Cf. also the notion of true bonds not being those on neck, arms, or legs but moral bondage (Dio Chrys. Or. 18.10; see Keener, John, 750–51).

[1986]. Galen the physician also resisted being distressed (see Grief 1, 4–5, 11, 29–30, 48, 50b, 71, 79b), though he did recognize limits (71–72a).

[1987]. Le Cornu, Acts, 906, notes that if they prayed “structured liturgy” at midnight, it would have been “the evening Shema,” which could be recited as late as midnight (and in practice later; cf. m. Ber. 1:1); allowances were made for those in unusually difficult circumstances (cf. 4:4). Rather than (or in addition to) liturgical prayer, however, they may well have been singing a spontaneous charismatic composition (1 Cor 14:15, 26; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16; if this is part of the meaning of a “new” song, cf. perhaps Pss 33:3; 40:3; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1; Isa 42:10; Jdt 16:13; Rev 5:9; 14:3; Philo Mos. 1.255).

[1988]. E.g., 2 Chr 29:30; Sir 47:8; Jos. Ant. 6.166–68, 214; 7.305.

[1989]. Cf. hymns of thanks to God in Test. Job 43; Essenes’ almost continuous use of hymns in Hippol. Ref. 9.16; Sib. Or. 3.246 describes Scripture as the “hymn” (ὕμνον) of the law. Philo speaks of “hymning” God from a pure mind (Plant. 126, 129, 135; Agr. 80). “Hymning” was also a heavenly activity (e.g., Test. Ab. 20:12–13 A).

[1990]. Rapske, “Prison,” 829 (cf. also idem, Custody, 347), documents prisoners’ “philosophical and religious ministrations to others in writing” (Plato Phaedo 60DE; Cic. Verr. 2.5.112; Tac. Ann. 6.39; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.46; Poly. Phil. 13.2; Ign. passim) “and conversation” (Plato Crito; Phaedo; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.26–42; m. Giṭ. 6:7). Early Christian literature provides many examples of witness and preaching while one was in prison (Rapske, Custody, 352).

[1991]. “We are all here” may be Luke’s way of wording it (cf. Acts 10:33).

[1992]. Rapske, Custody, 277–78.

[1993]. Music was an integral part of good education (Arist. Pol. 8.5.9–10, 1340b; cf. Townsend, “Education,” 142); at banquets, see, e.g., Hom. Od. 1.153–55, 325–26; 4.17–19; 9.3–6; 17.270–71; Max. Tyre 22.3; Athen. Deipn. 15.694BC; Sir 32:3–6; Smith, Symposium, 35, 136–37 (for drunken singing, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 32.55; Plut. Table 1.1.5, Mor. 614F–615A); at weddings, Xen. Hunt. 1.8; Catull. Carm. 61.4–62.66; in military settings, Val. Max. 2.6.2 (with dancing, Xen. Anab. 6.1.5–13; Quint. Inst. 1.11.18–19); for work, Robbins, “Work Songs.” On Greek and Roman music more generally, see Fless and Moede, “Music”; Friedländer, Life, 2:337–65; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 154–55.

[1994]. See, e.g., Men. Rhet. 1.1, 331.19–23; 2.1–2, 369.5–7; 2.17, 437.13–15; at Roman state festivals, Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 177; for the emperor, Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 377.25–26; the heroized deceased, 2.9, 414.25–26; Philost. Hrk. 53.10; in itinerant Eastern cults, Lucret. Nat. 2.618–20; Lucian Syr. G. 50; Carcopino, Life, 133. Both Greeks and Romans had always used music in worship (Rose, “Music”), as did Egyptian priests (Demet. Style 2.71); earlier, see, e.g., in Hittite (Gurney, Hittites, 153–55, 202) and Canaanite (Rainey, “Kingdom,” 124) festivals and ceremonies.

[1995]. See Parker, “Hymns,” for the three senses of the term. In the narrower sense, hymns listed the deity’s epithets, powers, activities, interests, and especially the deity’s origins (theogony) and offered prayers to the deity (ibid.).

[1996]. Men. Rhet. 2.17, 444.16–17 (for other hymns to Apollo, 437.19–20). Cf. analogous language for the true God in Philo Dreams 2.292.

[1997]. Narratives could portray heroes playing instruments or singing (e.g., 1 Sam 16:16; Sir 47:8; Jos. Ant. 7.305–6; Philost. Hrk. 33.36; cf. Suet. Titus 3.2), and songs could celebrate past heroes’ acts (1 Sam 18:7; 29:5; Xen. Cyr. 1.2.1; Philost. Hrk. 17.3; 23.13).

[1998]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 32.57 (but cf. 1.8); Iambl. V.P. 15.64–65, 68; 25, esp. 25.110–13; Myst. 3.9; cf. Test. Job 14; Philost. Hrk. 45.6.

[1999]. E.g., Aul. Gel. 4.13; Iambl. V.P. 29.164; 1 Sam 16:16–23.

[2000]. E.g., Hesiod Theog. 1; Pindar Nem. 3.1–5; frg. 150; Ap. Rhod. 1.22; Virg. Aen. 9.525–29; Ovid Fasti 6.8; Her. 21.232; Pont. 3.4.113–14; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.31.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.; Lucian Alex. 9; Max. Tyre 38.2; Philost. Hrk. 7.5–6; 25.4, 8; 45.7; 53.4; 54.12–13; Iambl. Myst. 3.9; cf. Lindblom, Prophecy, 99; Guthrie, Orpheus, 36. For music and ecstasy, see, e.g., Plut. Table 1.5.2, Mor. 623B; Prince, “EEG,” 134; Gelfand, “Disorders,” 162.

[2001]. 1 Sam 10:5; 2 Kgs 3:15; 1 Chr 25:1–3; 11Q5 XXVII, 11; Sib. Or. 3.489–91; L.A.B. 32:14; Mek. on Exod 14:31 and 15:1 (Smith, Parallels, 64); y. Soṭah 5:4, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 9:2; 1 Cor 14:15; Eph 5:18; Col 3:16. For exorcism, see 1 Sam 16:23; 11Q5 XXVII, 10; 11Q11; Jos. Ant. 6.166–69; L.A.B. 60. Cf. Orpheus’s power to move stones and animals (Apollod. Bib. 1.3.2; Ovid Tristia 4.1.17–18; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.62; 35.9; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 4.1; Phaedrus 3.prol. 57–59; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 443.3–6; Philost. Hrk. 23.2; 33.28); similarly Amphion (Apollod. Bib. 3.5.5) and Arion (Aul. Gel. 16.19.14–16; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 443.6–10). Jewish art apparently associated the figure of Orpheus with David (Narkiss, “Elements,” 184).

[2002]. E.g., 1QS X, 9; Test. Job 43; this was also the activity of angels (e.g., Test. Ab. 20:12 A; 2 En. 17:1). Cf. eschatological worship in, e.g., Rev 19:4; Sib. Or. 3.715, 726; t. Pisha 8:22; b. Sanh. 91b; Taʿan. 31a; Num. Rab. 15:11; Eccl. Rab. 1:11, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 21:1.

[2003]. E.g., 2 Macc 10:38; Jdt 16:1–17; Jos. Ant. 3.64; Rev 15:2–3.

[2004]. E.g., 1 Esd 5:59–60; Jos. Ant. 11.62; War 2.321; m. Kelim 15:6; Roš Haš. 4:4; b. Sukkah 50b; 51a.

[2005]. See Mikalson, “Pannychis.”

[2006]. Cf. priests in Ps 134:1; but the incident of Samaritans defiling the temple by night suggests that it was relatively quiet at night in the NT period (Jos. Ant. 18.29–30).

[2007]. Cf. Charlesworth and Sanders, “More Psalms.”

[2008]. Flint, “Psalms and Hymns,” 850–51; see, e.g., 4Q380; 4Q381; 4Q88; 11Q5–6; 4Q448. Some doubt whether the hymns in the Thanksgiving Hymns were used liturgically at Qumran (Schuller, “Thanksgiving Hymns”), but it is difficult to think that only Christians and Therapeutae (e.g., Philo Contempl. 84) sang; Israel had practiced these in corporate worship in the temple (Jos. Ant. 7.80, 364; 12.323, 349; 12.142). Praising God was apparently connected with his covenant (1QS X, 9–12).

[2009]. See Oesterley, Liturgy, 73–76, 84–85; Fiedler, “Herkunft.” Still, the songs in 1 Cor 14:26, Eph 5:19, and Col 3:16 may represent fresh compositions (Barrett, Spirit, 123). Hymns are attested in synagogues only in the Diaspora, but perhaps because the temple supplied this need for Judeans (cf. Sanders, Judaism, 207). Josephus calls the psalms “hymns” (Ag. Ap. 1.40).

[2010]. See m. Pesaḥ. 5:7; 9:3; 10:5–7; Sukkah 3:10; 4:8; t. Pisha 8:22; Sukkah 3:2; b. Pesaḥ. 117a; Šabb. 21b, bar.; Sukkah 38b; cf. Moore, Judaism, 2:42; Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 255–56; Barclay, Train a Child, 42; Safrai, “Religion,” 809.

[2011]. Cf. Conzelmann, History, 74; Hunter, Predecessors, 37; Hengel, Jesus and Paul, 78–96. Many scholars find pre-Pauline “hymns” in Paul’s letters (Sanders, Hymns, 24–25; Martin, “Hymns”; Porter, “Creeds”), though some of these cases may simply represent exalted rhetoric (Greek and Latin hymns have distinctive meter; see Furley, “Hymn”; Fuhrer, “Hymn”); rhythm was sometimes appropriate even to prose (Arist. Rhet. 3.8.1, 1408b; Cic. Or. Brut. 20.67; 50.168–69.231; cf. Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 25; Rowe, “Style,” 154; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 380, although noting that prose rhythm was less frequent in this period).

[2012]. Cf. Theissen, Miracle Stories, 102–3, 277; Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 58; Conzelmann, Acts, 132; cf. Pervo, Profit, 18–24; idem, Acts, 409–11; Twelftree, Paul, 256–57. For examples of divine releases, see, e.g., Apollod. Bib. 3.5.1; further discussion at Acts 5:19; 12:7, 10. This tradition had been appropriated in Hellenistic Judaism long before Luke (Artapanus in Euseb. P.E. 9.27.23).

[2013]. Resemblances to the Dionysus story are cited as early as Celsus (Origen Cels. 2.34; Bruce, Acts¹, 319). These are more plausible than comparisons with Lucian Tox. 28–33 (as in Zeller, “Parallele”; Pervo, Profit, 23–24). Weaver, Epiphany, 224, rightly responds that any analogies to the latter are limited and formal at best, probably due to common cultural assumptions, such as the frequent imprisonment of the innocent and imprisonment’s stigma; moreover, Luke’s emphasis is not moralistic (like Lucian’s on friendship). Instead, it focuses on God’s power (as in Euripides’s Bacchanals).

[2014]. Cf. Thomas, “Upside-Down,” who suggests that here (God overturning the prison) as elsewhere in Acts, God subverts the world order.

[2015]. MacDonald, “Lydia,” 108. For state distrust of Bacchae and for Dionysiac motifs in Acts, see also Matthews, “Elite Women,” 111–21. (I have also argued elsewhere for the relevance of state distrust of the Bacchae, but because Rome’s conflict with this cult happened more than two centuries earlier, it should be viewed as part of traditional Romans’ larger mistrust of Eastern cults in general, including groups such as worshipers of Isis; see Keener, Paul, 140–42.)

[2016]. MacDonald, “Lydia,” 109, arguing that “Lydia” was Dionysus’s cult center. This connection was questionable given more important associations with the dyeing industry and the widespread dissemination of Dionysus’s cult by this period (on the latter, see, e.g., Avi-Yonah, Hellenism, 36; Burkert, Mystery Cults, 2–3; Koester, Introduction, 1:180; Harland, Associations, 46).

[2017]. MacDonald, “Lydia,” 109–10. Given the massive number of references to purple in antiquity, this minor association would carry little weight, as noted above.

[2018]. Ibid., 110. Luke’s “pythoness” language evokes specifically Apollo and Delphi rather than Dionysus; since Luke portrays even this as negative, he is not simply suppressing a maenad connection.

[2019]. Weaver, Epiphany, 270 (adapting somewhat from Seaford, “Thunder”).

[2020]. The maenads sing during the epiphany; Paul and Silas sing during the earthquake.

[2021]. Dionysus’s voice comes unexpectedly; in Acts, the earthquake is sudden.

[2022]. In Euripides, the maenads hear Dionysus’s voice without seeing him; in Acts, Paul’s voice is heard from within the cell.

[2023]. Pentheus grips his sword but cannot retain it; the guard draws his own to kill himself.

[2024]. Dionysus’s devotees call him the “greatest light” (Eurip. Bacch. 608); the jailer asks for a torch.

[2025]. Pentheus, to attack the light (Eurip. Bacch. 628); the guard, to meet Paul and Silas.

[2026]. Dionysus’s devotees fall with trembling (τρόμον, Eurip. Bacch. 607) at his epiphany, and Pentheus “collapses”; the jailer drops ἔντρομος in front of Paul and Silas.

[2027]. In contrast to Pentheus, Dionysus’s devotees celebrate his epiphany; the jailer is converted.

[2028]. Although Dionysus escapes, he claims that he will not run off (Eurip. Bacch. 659); all Paul’s colleagues remain in the cell.

[2029]. E.g., drawing the sword and prostration are possible links, but their different functions and arrangement leave the connection uncertain.

[2030]. Weaver, Epiphany, 271.

[2031]. On the consistent narrative pattern, see, e.g., ibid., 22.

[2032]. Cf. “shaking” of the heavens in Luke 21:26. For eschatological earthquakes, see Ezek 38:19–20; 2 Bar. 27:7; 70:8; 4 Ezra 6:13–15; 9:3; Test. Mos. 10:4; for a climactic eschatological earthquake, see 1 En. 1:6–8; 53:7; Sib. Or. 3.82, 680; Test. Mos. 10:4; Rev 6:12; cf. Bauckham, “Earthquake”; idem, Climax, 199–209. Luke 23:44–45 omits the earthquake reported in Matt 27:51, but it is also missing in Mark 15, his primary source. As divine judgments, see m. Ber. 9:2; Sib. Or. 1.187; 3.405, 449, 452, 459, 476; 5.291, 438–39; cf. Tr. Shem 7.19.

[2033]. E.g., Hom. Il. 7.445; 8.201, 208, 440; 12.27; 13.10, 34, 43, 59, 65, 89, 215, 231, 554, 677; 14.135, 150, 355, 384; 15.41, 173, 184, 205, 218, 222; 20.13, 20, 34, 57–63, 132, 291, 310, 318, 330, 405; 21.287, 435, 462; Od. 1.74; 5.282, 339, 366, 375, 423; 6.326; 7.35, 56, 271; 8.354; 9.283, 518, 525; 11.102, 241, 252; 12.107; 13.125, 140, 146, 159, 162; Aristoph. Acharn. 510–11; Eurip. Erechtheus frg. 370.48–49; Pindar Pyth. 4.32–33; 6.50; Isthm. 1.52; Philost. Hrk. 25.9; probably earlier in Baal e. II AB (vii) (ANET 135) if this is not figurative. Cf. the Jewish adaptation in Sib. Or. 3.405. For a hypothetical explanation for the background of the Homeric title, see Gordon, “Poseidon,” 660. For earthquakes as a sign of divine visitation, see, e.g., Ovid Metam. 9.782–83; 15.669–78; Lucian Lover of Lies 22 (Johnson, Acts, 300; Witherington, Acts, 497).

[2034]. Men. Rhet. 1.3, 364.17–20.

[2035]. E.g., Thucyd. 2.8.3; Ovid Metam. 15.798; Pliny E. N.H. 2.86.200.

[2036]. E.g., a coastal flood, Thucyd. 3.89.5.

[2037]. E.g., Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 6 (esp. 6.5.1–6.31.3). Williams, “Seismology,” suggests that Seneca’s naturalistic approach to earthquakes reflects a coping strategy for all life’s troubles. For a survey of ancient views of earthquakes, see Pliny E. N.H. 2.81.191–92; Krafft, “Earthquake.” Hierocles How Should One Behave toward the Gods? (Stob. Anth. 1.3.54) attributes some earthquakes to natural forces and others to divine chastisement (idem in Anth. 2.9.7 focuses on natural forces).

[2038]. Compare Jos. Ant. 6.27 with 1 Sam 7:10; this is not the same as inventing that divine activity altogether, which we must suspect Luke of doing if, in fact, Paul and Silas reported no earthquake.

[2039]. Pliny E. N.H. 2.82.195 opines that earthquakes are more frequent at night than during the day but places the worst in morning and evening. This sounds like an attempt to extrapolate a pattern from limited and essentially uncooperative data.

[2040]. Ramsay, Pictures, 184; Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 155; on unusual and random damages from earthquakes, see Pliny E. N.H. 2.82.193–94. Tremors continue near Philippi today (commonly noted; e.g., Hanson, Acts, 172; Fitzmyer, Acts, 588; Witherington, Acts, 497).

[2041]. Any shaking of the foundations, as here, was certainly dangerous (in Luke 6:48–49, strong foundations guarded against destructive shaking); for roofs collapsing in an earthquake, see Pliny E. N.H. 2.85.199.

[2042]. Against Ramsay’s view, Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 198, also contend that the fettered prisoners were not freed simply because the staples connecting them to the walls were broken loose.

[2043]. About 77 C.E., see Malalas Chronogr. 10, p. 261; probably West, Inscriptions, no. 70 (p. 54); see also Adams, “Placing,” 26. They are frequent in Greece (Sanders, “Urban Corinth,” 12).

[2044]. Strabo 12.8.18; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 6.1.13; Suet. Tib. 8; 48.2; Tac. Ann. 2.47; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.9.582; Sib. Or. 4.107–8; 5.289–91; Mitten, “Sardis,” 61–62; Yamauchi, Cities, 68–69, 78; Ramsay, Letters, 411.

[2045]. Krafft, “Earthquake”; cf. Sonnabend, “Catastrophes”; Pliny E. N.H. 2.82.195; Suet. Aug. 47. No region, Seneca the Younger opines, is immune to them (Nat. Q. 6.1.12).

[2046]. Cartledge and Sallares, “Earthquakes.”

[2047]. The verb itself does not require another person to perform the rousing (1 Esd 3:3; Jos. Ant. 11.34). Normally an earthquake in the vicinity would awaken anyone (e.g., Pliny Ep. 6.20.3–4), but if tremors were common and usually minor, one might learn to go back to sleep (as for some months in much younger days I learned to sleep through a faulty fire alarm, or once, without access to news, deemed a hurricane a thunderstorm and slept through it).

[2048]. Thus, for example, it was said to have happened in eastern Turkey in 2011; see the Associated Press report, “Turkish Prison Escape in Quake-Hit prison,” at http://news.yahoo.com/report-turkish-prison-escape-quake-hit-prison-181238307.html, accessed Oct. 23, 2011; in Haiti, see http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6100169-504083.html, accessed March 28, 2013; in Indonesia, see http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/indonesian-prisoners-escape-after-quake/511052, accessed March 28, 2013.

[2049]. Comparison between the imprisonments of the two apostles is not a solely twentieth- or twenty-first-century concern; Lightfoot also compared and contrasted the two incidents (“Third Notebook on Acts,” page facing p. 21 [from Witherington]).

[2050]. Rapske, Custody, 30–31.

[2051]. Cf. Munck, Acts, 114; Bruce, Acts¹, 319.

[2052]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 198; Conzelmann, Acts, 132; Barrett, Acts, 795. The claim that he might still catch all the prisoners, even though they have apparently already fled the building (Barrett, Acts, 795), is questionable (cf. Acts 27:42).

[2053]. Rather than lose face themselves, the authorities might well prefer a subordinate as a scapegoat.

[2054]. In Lucian Tox. 30, a jailer retires after delegating guard duty to his servants (also noted in Talbert, Acts, 146–47).

[2055]. Insufficient custodial arrangements could be punished if a result of bribery, and judged as the officer’s negligence if only a subordinate was bribed (see Rapske, Custody, 391).

[2056]. Even if we were to conclude that his motives for suicide appear inadequate (which, by Roman standards, I do not), people both in ancient and in modern accounts have killed themselves on weak grounds. That is, the illogic could be the character’s rather than the narrator’s.

[2057]. Bruce, Commentary, 338. For suicide by sword, see, e.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.6.7; 2.27.5; 2.63.2; 2.69.2; 2.70.2–5; 2.74.4; 2.76.1; Quint. Decl. 326.8; 344 intro.; 388.2; Libanius Comparison 2.13; Speech in Character 5.5.

[2058]. Rapske, Custody, 221–23; idem, “Prison,” 829.

[2059]. Rapske, Custody, 221.

[2060]. It should go without saying that here as elsewhere my summary of ancient views is intended not to endorse but only to report a breadth of views. For views on suicide in an earlier period, see Long, “2 Samuel,” 468, following Scurlock, “Death,” 1890; Lesko, “Death,” 1766.

[2061]. E.g., Soph. Antig. 1221–22; Hdt. 1.45; Livy 42.28.11–12; Lucan C.W. 2.154–58; Alciph. Fish. 11 (Glaucippê to Charopê), 3.1, ¶4; Farm. 25 (Salaconis to Gemellus), 3.28, ¶2; Paras. 3 (Artepithymus to Cnisozomus), 3.6, ¶1; 13 (Capnosphrantes to Aristomachus), 3.49; Aul. Gel. 15.10.1–2; Apul. Metam. 7.24. Earlier, cf. a late third-millennium B.C.E. Egyptian text in ANET 405–7.

[2062]. Modern readers might be more sympathetic here. Some individuals preferred suicide to servitude (Barrow, Slavery, 55, citing Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 4.4; 70.20; 77.14; cf. Sen. Y. Ira 3.5.4). An astrologer might declare hanging oneself a fitting end for a runaway slave (Toner, Culture, 72, citing Dorotheus of Sidon Carmen Astrolog. 5.36).

[2063]. Some ancients idealized state-sanctioned suicide for those with good reasons in some other cultures (Val. Max. 2.6.7e, 8). Cf. also the stories of the interrogator who, perhaps because of the failed interrogation, hanged himself (Sen. E. Controv. 8.3.intro.) and of a youth who hanged himself after Pythagoras’s rebuke (Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 49).

[2064]. Pliny E. N.H. 6.24.2–5; Tac. Ann. 13.30; Suet. Rhet. 6; Pliny Ep. 3.7.1–2; 6.24.3–4; Diog. Laert. 4.3. Cf. Publ. Syr. 67 (LCL, 23), though not addressing suicide specifically (“Good for man is death when it ends life’s miseries”); Pliny Ep. 2.20.7–8 (medically prolonging life without healing simply tortures one); for an Indian sage with a digestive disorder, Plut. Alex. 69.3–4.

[2065]. So Heracles in Dio Chrys. Or. 77/78.44 (reviling as cowards those who shrank from this choice). Lucian Peregr. 4, 21 contrasts Heracles’s burning with the glory-craving burning of Peregrinus.

[2066]. Lucian Tox. 58 (in this case, the person contemplating it is dissuaded and survives).

[2067]. For danger of Achilles’s suicide when Patroclus died, see Hom. Il. 18.33–34; Libanius Encomium 3.19. Death in battle, however, was more honorable (Char. Chaer. 7.1.8). Vell. Paterc. 2.76.1 praises even one who killed himself to mourn a friend’s departure. On the virtue of dying for friends, see, e.g., Diod. Sic. 10.4.4–6; Val. Max. 2.6.11; 4.7 passim (e.g., 4.7.2); Mus. Ruf. 7, p. 58.23; Epict. Diatr. 2.7.3; John 15:13; Keener, “Friendship,” 383–84; idem, John, 1004–5.

[2068]. E.g., Val. Max. 4.7.5; 6.8.3, 4; Appian Hist. rom. 12.9.60; 1 Sam 31:4–5. For friends assisting in suicide, see also Plut. Caes. 69.8; for servants killing themselves in grief over a master’s death, Xen. Cyr. 7.3.15 (three eunuchs for their mistress). Cf. the assistance of freedmen in Vell. Paterc. 2.70.2; 2.71.2; the assistance of slaves was dangerous to the latter under Roman law (though refusal proves dangerous in the hypothetical case in Quint. Decl. 380 intro.).

[2069]. Suet. Jul. 89; Otho 12.2; Tac. Hist. 2.49; cf. Vell. Paterc. 2.70.3. The hypothetical tyrant in Quint. Decl. 329 (intro.) kills himself to spare his people. Some non-Romans facing capture burned themselves in their homes (Vell. Paterc. 2.74.4, after the sword; cf. 1 Kgs 16:18).

[2070]. Pliny the Younger praised as heroic another wife who helped her suffering husband to commit suicide and killed herself first (Ep. 6.24.4–5; cf. 6.24.1–2); see earlier Vell. Paterc. 2.26.3; 2.88.3. Such expectations were never, however, standard (as sati [also spelled suttee] once was in some premodern communities in India; cf. Diod. Sic. 17.91.3 and comment below).

[2071]. Over several bereavements cumulatively, Dio Chrys. Or. 64.4.

[2072]. E.g., Soph. Antig. 1175–77, 1221–43, esp. 1234–36; Xen. Cyr. 7.3.14; Ap. Rhod. 1.1063–65; Apollod. Bib. 1.8.3; 1.9.27; 3.7.1; 3.12.6; Epit. 3.30; Virg. Aen. 12.600–603; Ovid Metam. 4.119–20, 147–66; 11.783–84; Val. Max. 4.6.2–3, 5; 4.6.ext. 1; Pliny E. N.H. 6.24.2–5; Appian Hist. rom. 6.2.12; Tac. Ann. 16.34 (but prevented); Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.16; Ach. Tat. 3.16.2–3; 7.6.1; Heliod. Eth. 1.2; Apul. Metam. 8.14; Musaeus Hero 339–43; Parth. L.R. 10.4; Iambl. (nov.) Bab. St. 15 (Photius Bibl. 94.77a); Calligone frg. (from a second-century C.E. papyrus [Reardon, CAGN 826–27]); Philost. Hrk. 51.6; Libanius Narration 10.1. (For Romans, Dido was a notable example; Virg. Aen. 4.663–65; Ovid Metam. 14.80–81; Her. 7.181–82, 190; Fasti 3.545–46; Sil. It. 2.422.) This included homoerotic love (Petron. Sat. 80; Max. Tyre 20.9) and, in one story, even necrophilia (Parth. L.R. 31.2). Cf. Deianeira, who thought herself responsible for Heracles’s death (Soph. Wom. Tr. 721–22, 891, 923–35; Apollod. Bib. 2.7.7). With rare exceptions, this motif dominates in fiction more than in historical sources.

[2073]. E.g., Soph. Antig. 1282–83, 1315–16; Eurip. Phoen. 1455–57; Ovid Metam. 6.271–72; Lucian Tyr. prol.; Apul. Metam. 9.38; Niobe for her children in Libanius Speech in Character 8.11; 9.8; see esp. the story of Theseus’s father Aegeus (Apollod. Epit. 1.10; Catull. Carm. 64.241–45; Paus. 1.22.5); cf. Quint. Decl. 289 intro. (a daughter not returned); 330.13 (a mother mourning a son disowned because of her).

[2074]. Gr. Anth. 7.517.

[2075]. Apollod. Bib. 3.14.7.

[2076]. E.g., Apollod. Bib. 3.13.3; Parth. L.R. 11.3; Quint. Decl. 247 intro. (if this is not fear of execution); Lucian Dial. D. 441 (22/27, Diogenes, Antisthenes, and Crates 7); Downward Journey 6; cf. Ovid Her. 2.141–42; an unfulfilled intent in Sen. Y. Phaed. 854–55; for a statue, Lucian Affairs 16. It appears for a parent’s rejection in Sen. E. Controv. 10.3.intro.; Val. Max. 5.8.3. Mixed with shame, it applies in hypothetical declamations to a son’s adultery with one’s wife, leading to the latter’s death (Quint. Decl. 335 intro.; 335.8); or a husband’s incest with his daughter, leading to the mother’s suicide (Hermog. Inv. 4.13.209).

[2077]. Alciph. Fish. 11 (Glaucippê to Charopê), 3.1, ¶4 (the unpersuaded mother replies that the daughter must do as her father says or otherwise he will feed her to the sharks, 12 [Glaucippê to Charopê], 3.2); Quint. Decl. 344 intro. Using suicide threats to try to manipulate appears elsewhere (even with regard to deities, e.g., Firth, Ritual, 327), though others have carried out such threats.

[2078]. Demosth. Philip. 3.62.

[2079]. E.g., Polyb. 33.5.2; Diod. Sic. 12.19.2; Virg. Aen. 10.681–82; Quint. Decl. 299 intro. (impending conviction; 299.1 suggests that it concedes guilt); Sen. E. Controv. 10.pref. 7 (feeling insulted when his works were burned); Quint. Curt. 9.7.25; Tac. Ann. 6.9; 14.37; 15.71; 16.3; Suet. Galba 3.4; Plut. Alex. 70.4 (contemplated); Diog. Laert. 2.13; Corn. Nep. 20 (Timoleon), 1.6 (contemplated); cf. Medea in Ap. Rhod. 3.789–90 (faced with betraying her people).

[2080]. E.g., Apollod. Epit. 1.19; Quint. Decl. 276 intro. (rape); cf. Apul. Metam. 8.15.

[2081]. E.g., Val. Max. 1.8.ext. 3; Suet. Tib. 45 (after resisting rape); Parth. L.R. 31.1; cf. Ovid Metam. 10.378–81. See esp. the story of Iocaste, who unwittingly married her son (Soph. Oed. tyr. 1237–66; Apollod. Bib. 3.5.9; Androtion Atthis frg. 62; though cf. Eurip. Phoen. 1455–57).

[2082]. Rape by a father (Apoll. K. Tyre 2) or by others (Val. Max. 6.1.1–2; 6.1.ext. 3; Quint. Decl. 270 intro.; cf. Sil. It. 13.827) or alleged attempted seduction by a mother (Tac. Ann. 6.49); see esp. the story of Lucretia (Diod. Sic. 10.19.3; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.66.2–4.67.1; Ovid Fasti 2.830–36; Val. Max. 6.1.1; Livy 1.58.12; Sil. It. 13.821–24). Cf. the prosecution’s implication that the host sexually harassed the boy in Quint. Decl. 292 intro.

[2083]. Soph. Ajax 864–65, 898–99, 907–8; Ovid Metam. 13.388–92; Libanius Speech in Character 5 (esp. 5.5).

[2084]. Tac. Germ. 6 (on the Germans). Or faulty conviction in court (the hypothetical claim in Quint. Decl. 388.2).

[2085]. E.g., Thucyd. 3.81.3; Polyb. 2.31.2; Quint. Curt. 4.4.12; 5.6.7; Sil. It. 13.273–75; Tac. Ann. 3.46; 4.50; 14.37 (cf. 4.25, suicidally charging the enemy); Otho in Tac. Hist. 2.49; Suet. Otho 11.2; Plut. Otho 17.3; to avoid slaughter by thieves, Apul. Metam. 6.26; avoiding likely imminent death in battle or execution in Vell. Paterc. 2.6.7; 2.7.2; 2.24.1; 2.27.5; 2.38.5–6; 2.45.5; 2.63.2; 2.69.2; 2.70.2, 4–5; 2.71.2; 2.87.1; 2.119.3; 2.120.6. Cf. also to avoid captivity (Appian Hist. rom. 4.10.80; Strabo 3.4.17); some may have sought suicide to avoid battle (Quint. Decl. 377 intro.; 377.8; cf. Varus in Vell. Paterc. 2.119.3, with “more courage to die than to fight”); another killed one who wronged him, and then himself (Quint. Decl. 312 intro.).

[2086]. Diod. Sic. 16.45.4–5; 25.17.1; Livy 41.11.4–6; Quint. Curt. 5.6.7; Jos. Ant. 13.363; cf. the attempted slaying of a wife for this purpose, Tac. Ann. 12.51. For an individual who slew his family and himself, see Livy 26.15.13–15; see also the example of Masada, below.

[2087]. Diod. Sic. 20.71.4; cf. other torture in Tac. Ann. 4.45; prison in 11.2; 13.1.

[2088]. Tac. Ann. 2.31; 3.15, 42; 4.19, 28, 30; 6.29, 48; 11.3; 13.30; 15.35, 59; 16.11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 35; Dio Cass. 17.15.4; 18.4.6; 57.18.10; Hor. Odes 1.37.21–32 (Cleopatra’s noble suicide); I. Ital. 13.1.187, 189 (Sherk, Empire, 54, §28F, on Sejanus’s wife); Plut. Sulla 32.1; Appian Bell. civ. 1.8.74; 1.10.94; Apul. Metam. 1.16; Hdn. 7.9.4. Some suspected suicide to evade noncapital, but shameful, prosecution in Pliny Ep. 3.9.5.

[2089]. Corn. Nep. 23 (Hannibal), 12.5; Dio Cass. 19 frg. (in Zonaras 9.21); cf. Boudicea in Tac. Ann. 14.37.

[2090]. E.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.100.4; Tac. Ann. 12.22; 13.25; cf. 4.22. One might, however, prefer to go down fighting (16.9).

[2091]. E.g., Demosth. Philip. 3.62; Hor. Ep. 1.16.78–79; Vell. Paterc. 2.26.3; 2.27.5; 2.88.3; 2.87.1; Jos. War 6.187; Ag. Ap. 1.236 (among Egyptians, according to Manetho); Plut. Br. Wom., Mor. 253DE; Themist. 31.5; Paus. 9.17.1–2; 9.25.1; Diog. Laert. 4.64; cf. Xen. Hiero 8.12–13; Libanius Comparison 2.13; 3.16. It is not condemned in novels (Michalopoulos, “Attempts”).

[2092]. Cf. Sen. Y. Dial. 1.2.10–12; Plut. Caes. 54.1; Appian Bell. civ. 2.14.98–99; Mommsen, History, 474–75; in Lucan, see Gorman, “Aristeia.”

[2093]. Similarly, a Spartan in an earlier era killed himself, ashamed to return home as the only Spartan survivor of a battle (Hdt. 1.82). Cf. also examples in Robbins, Quotes, 409–12.

[2094]. Tac. Ann. 11.37–38; Suet. Nero 49.2. So apparently also Quint. Curt. 5.12.11, although most modern readers would agree with the character’s (Darius’s) perspective: better to die by another’s misdeed than one’s own.

[2095]. In Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and some modern European languages, suicide is always described with composites of “kill” and “self” (Daube, “Linguistics of Suicide”). Some ancients debated and defended one’s right to kill oneself (Sen. E. Controv. 8.4); one suffering might view as sadistic divine deception the optimism that prevents suicide (Chariton Chaereas and Callirhoe). Cicero likely slanders a man as having murdered his wife and hanged her to look like a suicide so that he could remarry (Scaur. 6.10–11). For a proposed distinction between legitimate and illegitimate grounds, see, e.g., Quint. Decl. 337.4–5.

[2096]. At least declamatory law forbade burial for suicides without state approval (Quint. Decl. 335 intro.; 335.1–2; 337 intro.; 337.3–5), but this cannot have always been followed (cf. Quint. Decl. 299 intro.). Josephus attributes this position also to the law (War 3.377), and he notes that other nations require the amputation of suicides’ hands, since they committed such a disgraceful act (3.378).

[2097]. Wilken, “Collegia,” 280 (a second-century C.E. burial club dedicated to Diana). A parricide who committed suicide to escape the agonizing death due parricides would have his property confiscated (Robinson, Criminal Law, 47). Suicides also receive dishonorable burials in some traditional societies (see Mbiti, Religions, 201, 208; though cf. magical means of euthanasia, 196), and some believe that their spirits wander perpetually (Filson, “Analysis,” 42).

[2098]. Lucian Dial. D. 416 (6/20, Menippus and Aeacus 4); True Story 2.21. Gr. Anth. 7.123 claims that Empedocles fell accidentally.

[2099]. The evidence was that he had been treated with hellebore, a treatment for insanity (as in Lucian Phil. Sale 23). On Ajax’s insanity and suicide, see also, e.g., Soph. Ajax; Libanius Speech in Character 5–6; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.22; cf. Hom. Od. 11.553–56, 559–60.

[2100]. Lucian also mentions Brahmans’ self-burning in Peregr. 39; Runaways 6–7 (called gymnosophists, 7). He notes Brahmans more nobly, as living a simple life, in Tox. 34.

[2101]. Griffin, “Suicide.” On various modes of suicide, see also Hooff, “Image” (surveying 106 images from ancient art); on death by hanging, see comment on Acts 1:18. A number of Flavian-period epics portray (though not approvingly) women’s suicide (Dietrich, “Suicide”).

[2102]. Griffin, “Suicide.” Sometimes also poison (see Corn. Nep. 23 [Hannibal], 12.5; Dio Cass. 19 frg.; Tac. Ann. 14.37; Libanius Comparison 3.16).

[2103]. Cf. also the client who threw himself on his patron’s funeral pyre (Pliny E. N.H. 7.36.122); Roman allies who burned themselves alive rather than betray Rome (Val. Max. 6.6.ext. 1); one who did this because he lamented Rome’s civil war (Lucan C.W. 2.158–59); one who did this to avoid dishonor (Strabo 3.4.17); Heracles, who burned himself on a pyre (Dio Chrys. 8.34); cf. Dido’s death on her pyre (Sil. It. 2.422; though the burning is usually depicted as afterward, Ovid Her. 7.190, 192; Fasti 3.545–46). Better to cast oneself into a furnace than to shame one’s fellow (b. Ber. 43b). Augustine Ep. 173, to Donatus, notes that 1 Cor 13:3 (reading “burned”) does not invite suicide; if this is the correct reading, it refers to martyrdom (cf. Dan 3:95 LXX; Dan 3:19–20; 2 Macc 7:5; 4 Macc 6:26–27; 7:12; 10:14; Jos. War 2.7).

[2104]. E.g., Cic. Div. 1.23.47; Tusc. 2.17.40; Plut. Alex. 69.3–4; Arrian Alex. 7.3.1–6 (revealing the strength of human will, 7.3.6). Indians refused to show pain when burned (Dio Chrys. Or. 68.2), and widows were burned on their husbands’ pyres (Diod. Sic. 17.91.3), supposedly voluntarily (Cic. Tusc. 5.27.78; Val. Max. 2.6.14).

[2105]. See comment below. Occasionally they succeed in novels, e.g., the aged women in Lucian Lucius 24 (used to underline the robbers’ cruelty).

[2106]. E.g., Hom. Il. 18.33–34; Diod. Sic. 4.52.5; Epict. Diatr. 2.15.4–12; Char. Chaer. 5.10.10; 6.2.8–9; cf. Test. Jos. 7:5 (while also refusing to allow the suicide threat to manipulate him); also a deity in a dream in Pliny E. N.H. 36.21.97.

[2107]. Cf. other novelistic versions of suicide in Michalopoulos, “Attempts” (esp. on Apuleius).

[2108]. For genuine or fictitious thwarted suicides, see, e.g., Eurip. Andr. 811–13; Sen. E. Controv. 5.1; 8.1 excerpts, intro.; Val. Max. 7.3.ext. 5; Plut. Caes. 34.3–4; Char. Chaer. 3.17.1. For friends deterring suicides, see Libanius Anecdote 1.11; Encomium 3.19.

[2109]. For a survey, see Cooper, “Philosophers” (noting that Plato opposes suicide in Phaedo but approves it for some reasons in Laws; Aristotle claims that suicide wrongs the state; Stoics accepted suicide, but not for just any reason).

[2110]. Zadorojnyi, “Cato’s Suicide,” suggests that the version in Plutarch (Cat. Min. 66–70) shows Cato’s inadequate understanding of Plato. In any case, Plato’s views on the afterlife appear to have been influential.

[2111]. Also Olympiodorus on Plato Phaedo 61C; Cic. Resp. 6.15.15; Scaur. 4.5; Plot. Enn. 1.9. For Plato’s viewing suicide as sometimes immoral, see Novak, Suicide and Morality. Some argue that Socrates viewed suicide as always wrong (Taran, “Plato”).

[2112]. Some approaches speculate on motives other than those given by Plato (e.g., Anderson, “Socrates”); some have even argued that Socrates committed suicide so that his disciples might learn to criticize their own ideas (Peterman, “Suicide”; critiqued in West, “Plato”) or that Plato’s arguments for Socrates’s suicide are ironic and Plato, in fact, did not regard Socrates’s suicide as heroic (Eckstein, Deathday). Such approaches contradicting the textual evidence are usually neither verifiable nor falsifiable (once the textual evidence has been removed from consideration) and are always speculative.

[2113]. Frey, “Suicide?”; making a case especially from Xenophon, Walton, “Suicide.” Aristotle’s alleged suicide is probably unreliable, being attested late (Chroust, “Myth,” also arguing that it was modeled after Socrates’s suicide; but the motivation in the two “suicides” differs).

[2114]. See Duff, “Socratic Suicide?”

[2115]. I speak in terms of the usual perspective in antiquity, not modern knowledge of clinical depression as itself a very painful experience.

[2116]. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 7.19.1; Diog. Laert. 2.13; 4.64; Hadrian in Dig. 28.3.6.7.

[2117]. Epictetus’s point is that philosophers should be ready to have their necks severed (Diatr. 1.1.24–25). When someone about to be killed was too afraid to expose his neck to the assailant, this inappropriate timidity would lead to a more agonizing death (Jos. Ant. 19.271).

[2118]. E.g., the attitude of some toward Antisthenes in Diog. Laert. 6.1.18–19.

[2119]. For surveys of Stoic views on suicide, see Klauck, Context, 363–65; Kerferd, “Reason” (with other views as well); Ramelli, Hierocles, 106; Sorabji, Emotions, 214–15. Some argue that Stoics accepted suicide only to prevent losing character (Wyllie, “Views,” also examining modern views); Griffin, “Philosophy,” suggests that whereas Romans had once accepted suicide only for extreme circumstances, Stoicism “glamorized” it. (Gorman, “Aristeia,” finds Stoic influence even in Lucan on this point.) Kant later rejected Stoic justifications for suicide (Seidler, “Kant”).

[2120]. Cf. Mus. Ruf. frg. 29 (Lutz, 133): “One who by living is of use to many has not the right to choose to die unless by dying he may be of use to more.”

[2121]. Various scholars argue that Seneca did not advocate suicide but expected the sage to be ready to die (so Nietmann, “Seneca”); he allowed suicide to escape disgrace (Noyes, “Seneca”); he agreed with Stoic “orthodoxy” on many points but differed on suicide (Rist, “Seneca and Orthodoxy”); and he made use of Hercules’s decision to live (Rose, “Seneca”). Seneca recommended being prepared for suicide under some circumstances (Sorabji, Emotion, 214, and the primary sources cited there). Nero forced Seneca’s suicide (Tac. Ann. 15.60–64, esp. 63–64).

[2122]. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 70.4, 6, 14–16, 20–21; 77 passim, esp. 77.15.

[2123]. Epict. Diatr. 1.2.1–3; 1.9.10–17, 20; 1.25.21; 2.1.19; 3.8.6; 3.13.14; cf. 1.1.26–27. Some argue that Epictetus approves of suicide to escape pain, just as a child quits a game when no longer pleased with it (Xenakis, “Suicide Therapy”).

[2124]. Marc. Aur. 3.1; 8.47. Cf. Dio Cass. 71.30.2, concerning Marcus Aurelius himself.

[2125]. See esp. Cic. Fin. 3.18.60 (though others argued that Nature invites love of one’s body, 5.13.37; 5.17.46–47). For Musonius Rufus, see Grant, Paul, 53 (citing Tac. Ann. 15.71); Mus. Ruf. frg. 28; more nuanced, cf. Mus. Ruf. frg. 29 (quoted above); 43, p. 138.12–15. Stoicism’s founder, Zeno, reportedly committed suicide (Sorabji, Emotion, 214, citing Diog. Laert. 7.28).

[2126]. Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.27 even depicted this as a gift to mortals (one denied to immortals).

[2127]. The list included encroaching “senility, incurable disease,” and the like (Sorabji, Emotion, 172–73, quotation from 172).

[2128]. Diog. Laert. 7.4.167; 7.5.176; Lucian Oct. 19 (on Zeno). So also some Cynics (Cercidas frg. 1; another by self-starvation in Lucian Dem. 65; also Peregrinus in Peregr. 1–2; Runaways 1; Book-Coll. 14); Cynics and Stoics shared many ideas. Cf. the Hyperboreans in the views reported in Pliny E. N.H. 4.12.89.

[2129]. Lucian Fisherman 2; Runaways 2; esp. Dial. D. 416 (6/20, Menippus and Aeacus 4); True Story 2.21.

[2130]. Sorabji, Emotion, 236, citing Cic. Tusc. 1.83.

[2131]. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 90–91.30–34; pp. 92–93.1–3.

[2132]. For suicide under religious duress as an expression of heroism in 1–2 Maccabees, see Tomes, “Heroism.”

[2133]. Some scholars relate the mass “suicide” at the temple to a Jewish expectation for priests to die when the temple falls (Goodblatt, “Suicide in Sanctuary”).

[2134]. Weitzman, “Josephus,” helpfully compares Josephus with contemporary Roman suicide narratives (in Silius Italicus, Statius, and Valerius Flaccus). Josephus elsewhere portrays Jewish courage in ways that Romans would respect (see Barclay, “Toughest”).

[2135]. Like earlier historians, he exaggerated the collective-suicide account (Cohen, “Masada,” 404). Archaeology confirms most of what Josephus could have known from the Romans, though he invented other details (Cohen, “Masada”). Cf. Newell, “Suicide Accounts” (who argues that Josephus follows literary convention; most of his narratives of individual suicides depend on his sources [286, 290]).

[2136]. Josephus personally opposed the revolutionaries but presented it to Judaism’s credit that its worst representatives, from his perspective, still displayed nobility.

[2137]. Josephus’s ideal audience would have recognized the Hellenistic intellectual character of the speech and credited it to Josephus’s, rather than Eleazar’s, prowess (Luz, “Masada”).

[2138]. Ladouceur, “Masada: Consideration”; Aune, Environment, 107–8 (providing Polyb. 36.1–5 as an example of speeches for and against; paired speeches more often appear side by side).

[2139]. See Ladouceur, “Masada: Consideration”; idem, “Josephus and Masada”; for generally negative appraisals, see Hoenig, “Sicarii in Masada”; cf. Trimble, “Masada” (preferring direct suicide to drawing lots to kill each other); more sympathetically, Kolitz, “Masada”; Jacobs, “Sanction for Martyrdom.”

[2140]. In b. ʿAbod. Zar. 18a, a rabbi’s executioner commits suicide to die with him and hence secures eternal life (Bamberger, Proselytism, 244).

[2141]. Le Cornu, Acts, 42 (citing Der. Er. Rab. 9:3; Sem. 1:4f; b. Ber. 23a; B. Bat. 3b; Taʿan. 29a; Giṭ. 57b).

[2142]. 1 Sam 31:4 (also recounted in Jos. Ant. 6.371–72); 2 Sam 17:23 (Jos. Ant. 7.229); Matt 27:5; Pesiq. Rab. 14:1; cf. the shame in Tob 3:10.

[2143]. Gen. Rab. 34:13; Pesiq. Rab. 24:1.

[2144]. Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 3:2.

[2145]. Gesundheit, “Suicide” (on Masekhet Sem. 2:1–6).

[2146]. Cf. also Jos. Ant. 12.236; 20.80; War 4.493, 598. The suicides for honor, without impending death, in Ant. 19.273 and War 6.187 involved Romans (cf. also the Gentile tradition in Ag. Ap. 1.236, 258). Cf. also the noble suicide of those who faced death and loved freedom in Philo Good Person 114, 119.

[2147]. So Latourette, First Five Centuries, 261. Those who argue the contrary typically define the category of suicide too broadly by including desire for martyrdom. In the United States, religious “orthodoxy” currently affects suicide risk (Greening and Stoppelbein, “Religiosity”).

[2148]. E.g., Droge, “Mori lucrum.”

[2149]. Amundsen, “Suicide.” In later history, cf., e.g., the Nubian virgin guarding her chastity by a deadly ruse in Du Bois, World and Africa, 186.

[2150]. Van der Horst, “Platonist” (noting that Macrobius rejected it instead as a violation of reason but also viewed it as defiling the soul). Perhaps partly because of such traditions, many studies today associate religious commitment with lower rates of suicide (see studies in Koenig, Medicine, 74–76).

[2151]. At this point, as at many others, my outline on smaller sections follows the needs of arranging my commentary rather than of dividing the thought of the text; textually, Acts 16:28 is more closely related to 16:27, though it is not unrelated to the issue of salvation that follows.

[2152]. Nonretaliation appears in many ancient sources; see, e.g., Seneca Dial. 3.6.5; 4.32.1; Mus. Ruf. 10, pp. 76.18–78.28; Max. Tyre Or. 12; Diog. Laert. 6.1.3; Sir 28:1–4; 1QS X, 17–18; CD IX, 3–6; Ps.-Phoc. 77; Jos. Asen. 23:9; 29:3; b. Ber. 17a; Šabb. 88b, bar.; Flusser, Judaism, 485, 506. The idea thus could be broadly appealing, especially insofar as Paul is depicted as a sage; most early Christian readers of Luke-Acts would also appreciate this emphasis, which distinctively pervaded early Christianity (see Talbert, Romans, 292–93). In terms of literary connections, however, Luke’s ideal audience will think first of the precedent of Jesus’s teaching in Luke-Acts.

[2153]. Conzelmann, Acts, 132.

[2154]. Athens’s had only eight cells (Rapske, Custody, 196–97), and Philippi’s was probably smaller.

[2155]. Cf. Mattioli, “Ironia di Paolo.” Cf. Moses waking the king after his own liberation (Artapanus in Euseb. P.E. 9.27.24), but that remains a hostile relationship.

[2156]. If a former friend’s hostility could imply negative things about one’s character (e.g., Isaeus Dicaeog. 40), a former enemy’s friendship could imply the opposite. It was praiseworthy to turn enemies into friends (Mus. Ruf. frg. 39, p. 136.10–16; Suet. Jul. 73; Iambl. V.P. 8.40; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.23; Diog. Laert. 8.1.23; cf. Diod. Sic. 21.21.9; 27.16.1; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.30.2; Ps.-Phoc. 142; Rom 12:20–21).

[2157]. Marshall, Acts, 272. The presence of much light is unlikely; see comment on Acts 16:29.

[2158]. Rapske, Custody, 203.

[2159]. D. Williams, Acts, 289.

[2160]. Schnabel, Acts, 690. This latter concern, however, would apply only to those short-term prisoners who had hope of legal vindication; probably most such prisoners would be in the inner prison only if all prisoners were locked there for the night.

[2161]. The verb ἐπηκροῶντο is a NT hapax legomenon (cf. the cognate in 1 Sam 15:22 LXX, a strong usage), but even the general verb “hear” (ἀκούω) is often employed in the Gospel for heeding Jesus (e.g., Luke 5:15; 6:47; 8:18; 11:31; 15:1), though these hearers had no options to go elsewhere.

[2162]. Nocturnal flight could also expose one to watchdogs (Alciph. Paras. 11 [Horologius to Lachanothaumasus], 3.47, ¶1). For a desperate flight, however, midnight might be the best time because of most enemies’ sleeping (Polyb. 1.19.12).

[2163]. Schiemann, “Effractor.” Someone thought to have broken out of prison would at least be liable for not finishing the sentence (Pliny Ep. 10.58.2).

[2164]. Lucian Tox. 33.

[2165]. Witherington, Acts, 498n123, suggests that perhaps the earthquake was too recent, but of course, this would be the best time for escape if any time was feasible.

[2166]. For one example of responses to societal suspicions (on which cf. Keener, Paul, 140–45), see apologetic lifestyles in 1 Tim 3:7; 5:14–15; 6:1; Titus 2:5, 10; Padgett, “Rationale.”

[2167]. Johnson, Acts, 300, compares his actions with the extravagant emotions displayed in Hellenistic novels (Longus 2.30; Ach. Tat. 1.4; 2.23; 5.19; Heliod. Eth. 2.1.2; 2.2.2). They would also be appropriate, however, in view of Hellenistic expectations for responses to divine visitations (Acts 14:11–13) or those of divine men.

[2168]. Elsewhere, e.g., Pss 18:7 (17:8 LXX); 77:18 (76:19); 1 Macc 13:2; Wis 17:9; BDAG compares Soranus p. 68.7–8; cf. τρέμουσα in Luke 8:47.

[2169]. Torches (see, e.g., the discussion in Keener, Matthew, 596) would provide more light than lamps. For preserved lamps in Greece (in and near Corinth), see Broneer, Lamps Corinth; idem, Lamps Isthmia; Williams, Lamps; sixty-two Roman-period lamps from Corinth’s Demeter sanctuary in Slane, Sanctuary, 7–36 (first-century glazed lamps, 26–27).

[2170]. Rapske, Custody, 199–202; cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 132. Most prisons lacked sufficient natural light, especially in inner and underground cells; they were not permitted “artificial light” (Rapske, “Prison,” 828, citing Tert. Mart. 2; Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia 27–28, in Euseb. H.E. 5.1.27–28; Pass. Perp. 3.5). Light was not always easy to come by in inner rooms even in most wealthy homes (Carcopino, Life, 35–36, noting Pliny Ep. 9.36.1).

[2171]. Luke employs the term in the vocative more than forty times, sometimes in the divine sense but often more ambiguously for the speakers in the narrative world.

[2172]. So also Allen, Death of Herod, 112.

[2173]. Theissen, Miracle Stories, 103. For theoxeny, see Pervo, Acts, 412; Jipp, Visitation, 244.

[2174]. Even from a purely stylistic perspective, Luke likes questions phrased in this way (Luke 12:17; 16:3; 20:13; Acts 4:16).

[2175]. Conzelmann, Acts, 132.

[2176]. Rapske, Custody, 263.

[2177]. Just as divine healings could exemplify “salvation” in Luke-Acts (see comment on Acts 4:9).

[2178]. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 498. That he feared this God’s wrath for abusing the God’s servants (Rapske, Custody, 264) is possible, though the fear of judgment is probably more general than that.

[2179]. Matson, Conversion Narratives, 165.

[2180]. See, e.g., Hengel, Son, 7.

[2181]. See, e.g., Socrates and Akiba in Rapske, Custody, 347.

[2182]. Ibid., 348–52.

[2183]. Dominant-culture moralists expected wives to share their husbands’ religion (Plut. Bride 19, Mor. 140D). On the father’s religious role in the Roman home, see Lyall, Slaves, 120.

[2184]. I doubt the significance of Luke’s shift from οἶκος to οἰκία in these verses (despite the argument of Vos, “Change,” who sees οἰκία as the wider familia including slaves, but οἶκος as the narrower nuclear unit promised salvation before hearing). Luke associates faith with hearing (Luke 8:12–13; Acts 4:4; 15:7; 18:8; cf. Rom 10:17); see also the discussion of these nouns at Acts 10:2.

[2185]. E.g., Val. Max. 2.7.5; Gaius Inst. 3.221; the wife’s behavior in P.Eleph. 1.6–7; P.Tebt. 104.30; Xen. Symp. 2.9–10; Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 78.16–19; Pliny Ep. 6.31.4–6; Mart. Epig. 2.56; the child’s behavior in Eurip. Hel. 136, 200–202; Xen. Apol. 31; Cic. Invect. Sall. 5.13; Plut. Themist. 2.6; Corn. Nep. 15 (Epaminondas), 10.1; Diog. Laert. 2.114; Parth. L.R. 35.1, 3–4; Sir 3:10; 22:5; 42:9–11; 4Q213 2 3–7; 4Q541 24 5; cf. Treggiari, “Symbol”; Diod. Sic. 12.12.1; Plut. Comparison of Aristides and Marcus Cato 3.1; Alex. 9.6; Bride 17, Mor. 140C; Sipra Emor par. 14.242.1.11; ʾAbot R. Nat. 7 A; 14, §35 B; praises for those who well governed their families, Marc. Aur. 1.9; 1.16.4.

[2186]. Gaius Inst. 1.55, 127–28; more generally, cf. Arist. N.E. 8.11.2, 1161a; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.23.19; Jos. Ant. 4.260; Keener, “Family,” 357.

[2187]. See, e.g., Chen, Father, 25–28. Adult children also were less restricted than minors (cf. Arist. Pol. 1.5.12, 1260b; Sext. Emp. Pyr. 3.211; Cohen, Law, 174).

[2188]. Verner, Household, 134. To depart from ancestral customs would shame the ancestors (4 Macc 9:2).

[2189]. E.g., Gen. Rab. 65:10 (Isaac for Abraham); cf. Exod 32:13; Deut 9:27; 2 Chr 6:16–17. For ancestral merit, see Keener, John, 754–55; cf. 948. In Sent. Sext. 373–75, God saves whom he will, but it is good to pray for persons’ salvation.

[2190]. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 73, expects servants here; their expense may, however, have minimized their number (see Verner, Household, 61). This is much less likely if the jailer was a servant (see comment on Acts 16:23); but prominent slaves could themselves hold slaves (Plut. M. Cato 21.7; y. Yebam. 7:1, §2; Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 119; Meeks, Urban Christians, 20).

[2191]. If, as some scholars opine, the jailer was a veteran, he might have a family from a former concubine now legally his wife (O’Rourke, “Law,” 182), but as noted in the comment on Acts 16:23, he was probably not a veteran. That women would count it shameful for men to enter the home and see them at night (at least in classical Athenian rhetoric, Lysias Or. 3.6, §97; 3.23, §98) need not rule out the presence of a wife, provided she had warning to prepare herself.

[2192]. Cf. Ramsay, Discovery, 162; also noting its precariousness, see Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 22 (from Witherington).

[2193]. See further Meeks, Urban Christians, 75–76; Jeffers, World, 81.

[2194]. Pearson, “Domestic Religion,” 301, relates such household conversions to notions of domestic religion.

[2195]. On household cults, see also Klauck, Context, 60–62.

[2196]. See Rapske, Custody, 264. The Western text makes such a natural inference explicit.

[2197]. As noted above, they may be his servants; servants were often loyal to the slaveholders in legal cases but could be tortured for information (e.g., Tac. Ann. 3.67; 4.29; Suet. Galba 10.5; see fuller comment in the excursus on slavery at Acts 12:13 [Keener, Acts, 2:1906–42]). If he is a public slave, they might be his subordinate fellow slaves.

[2198]. González, Acts, 194 (offering a modern example, 194–95).

[2199]. Even the wounds of corpses were washed (Ovid Metam. 13.531–32). Luke does not have as much reason to mention binding wounds, and flogging-wounds on one’s back or chest might not invite binding as easily as wounds outside the torso, but perhaps the jailer also bound up some wounds as well (cf. Luke 10:34; Sir 27:21). Such bandages could be makeshift from various materials and could be called in Latin fasciae (Hurschmann, “Fasciae”) (which might have seemed an ironic contrast to the fasces that administered the blows, at least if the Latin-speaking jailer was fond of puns!).

[2200]. With Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 199. Contrast Luke 16:21.

[2201]. Rapske, “Prison,” 829 (citing Cic. Verr. 2.5.21; Tert. Mart. 2; Cyprian Ep. 47.3). One should assume the presence of rodents as well.

[2202]. Rapske, Custody, 216–17. Only a special order from Antonia and the praetorian prefect arranged for the ability of Agrippa I to bathe daily while in prison (Jos. Ant. 18.202); even then, he found better access to hygiene on his release (18.237).

[2203]. Rapske, Custody, 218.

[2204]. Also noted, e.g., by Witherington, Acts, 498.

[2205]. Chrys. Hom. Acts 36 (Larkin, Acts, 242); the same point appears in Bede Comm. Acts 16.33 (Martin, Acts, 209; L. Martin, 138).

[2206]. I am assuming here the usual earliest Christian practice of immersion borrowed from early Judaism (see discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:977–82). It should be noted, however, that at least as early as Did. 7.3 pouring was substituted for immersion if immersion was not possible. The Didache reflects a later stage of liturgical development regarding baptism than in Luke-Acts (cf. the detailed instructions in Did. 7.1–4), but for that very reason might suggest some flexibility among early Christians where necessity dictated.

[2207]. See Carcopino, Life, 38–39. Residents were supposed to keep some water in case of fire (39).

[2208]. See comment at Acts 18:8.

[2209]. E.g., Haenchen, Acts, 498; Bruce, Commentary, 338; Dunn, Acts, 223.

[2210]. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 104.

[2211]. On night watchmen in Rome, see Polyb. 14.3.6; but the involvement of the cohortes urbanae in fighting crime is debated (Nippel, “Vigiles,” 463), and in any case those patrolling Rome were too few to be of much help to poor persons in need (Jeffers, World, 61). Philippi was one of the few cities in the empire whose police force is sometimes supposed to have been fairly effective (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 34), but the police might be thought to be distracted if the earthquake had effects wider than the jail.

[2212]. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 103 (map).

[2213]. Ibid., 107. Could there have been an early tradition of Paul’s jail nearby? But this can only be speculation at this remove.

[2214]. Pliny E. N.H. 2.84.197 thought that well water became muddier directly before an earthquake, but even if the jailer believed this, it would provide no deterrent.

[2215]. Rapske, Custody, 126.

[2216]. Lighter custody might allow “visits to the public baths” along with new clothing and other benefits (Rapske, “Prison,” 829, citing Jos. Ant. 18.203, 228; Tert. Fasting 12; Dig. 48.20.2, 6), but the custody here was not light (Acts 16:23; contrast 24:23). By contrast, “barbers’ knives were a risk and so haircuts were denied” (Rapske, “Prison,” 829, citing Mart. Epig. 3.74; Jos. Ant. 16.387–88; 18.237; Lucian Tox. 30; m. Moʾed Qaṭ. 3:1).

[2217]. Rapske, Custody, 390–91, with much documentation.

[2218]. Ibid., 390. Kindness to family members who were not under sentence might be a different matter (as in the culture portrayed in Hunt, History and Legacy, 133).

[2219]. Given their location in the “inner” prison, the jailer probably would not have even allowed friends to bring food (Rapske, Custody, 213). For “inner prisons” elsewhere preventing visitors, see, e.g., Hunt, History and Legacy, 125.

[2220]. Rapske, Custody, 213.

[2221]. That his wife, daughter, or servant, in fact, did the work is possible: in that culture, functional subordinates’ service could still be expressed as if the host provided it directly (cf. Luke 11:6); the expression was “archaistic” (C. Williams, Acts, 195) and had long been conventional. But it is also possible that he humbled himself directly (cf. “lords” in Acts 16:30). Because the jailer supervised other workers (16:29) and had a household and food at hand (16:34), he may have been of sufficient means that we can imagine plates being used; both square and round shapes existed, and they could be made of metal, wood, clay, or other substances (Hurschmann, “Plate”).

[2222]. Rapske, Custody, 392.

[2223]. Ibid.

[2224]. Cf. b. Taʿan. 22a (in Abrahams, Studies [1], 61).

[2225]. Also noticed by others, e.g., Borgman, Way, 385.

[2226]. Given the most recent temporal indicator in the narrative (Acts 16:25), one might even think of sharing bread with a friend at midnight (Luke 11:5–6), but there is probably little connection here except that both situations involve a matter more urgent than sleep.

[2227]. Others also note the Lukan theme of shared food here (e.g., Borgman, Way, 383). Shared food represents fellowship and acceptance.

[2228]. Paul historically had no scruples about eating with Gentiles (Gal 2:12–15), though he would have wanted to avoid his diet’s causing needless offense (Rom 14:13–21; 1 Cor 8:13; 9:20–22). Le Cornu, Acts, 917, suggests that Paul and Silas would have eaten whatever part of the meal was kosher; this may be true, but even this assumes a somewhat liberal interpretation of kosher (since the unclean food should have “contaminated” it).

[2229]. Especially since the jailer is the host and Luke does not even provide the language of “breaking bread,” the meal is not a “Eucharist” (rightly Conzelmann, Acts, 133; Barrett, Acts, 799); but all Luke’s fellowship meals are of a piece (e.g., Acts 2:42), including with “sinners” (Luke 5:29–30; Acts 27:35) and Gentiles (Acts 11:3). See comment on Acts 27:35. “Table” here might evoke a literal table, but is surely also a metonymy for food; for background for the literal image, see Hurschmann, “Table”; Baratte, “Table Utensils.” For Paul’s adaptability in Philippi more generally, see Sourbut, “Paul in Philippi.”

[2230]. Rapske, Custody, 215. Although extant Jewish sources say less about them, some Diaspora Jews must have accepted nonkosher food if they related much to Gentiles (Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 435, emphasizing reciprocity conventions).

[2231]. Abbott, Acts, 180–81; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 200; Bruce, History, 18; Tajra, Trial, 11–12. In the earliest period, the rods were originally made of elm or birch, strapped together (Libero, “Fasces,” 359).

[2232]. Sanders, “Urban Corinth,” 13.

[2233]. Cf. Knox, Jerusalem, 245; Weaver, Epiphany, 275.

[2234]. See Hunt, History and Legacy, 253, noting that such an earthquake appeared particularly fortuitous because it had never before occurred in these villagers’ lives.

[2235]. See, e.g., Hor. Sat. 1.1.9–10; Ep. 2.1.103–5; Plut. Rom. Q. 84, Mor. 284D; Mart. Epig. 3.36.1–3; governors in Cic. Verr. 2.4.66.147; Plut. Cic. 36.3; senators for meetings, Cic. Fam. 1.2.4; Plut. Cic. 15.3; 19.1. See further Keener, John, 1098.

[2236]. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 156.

[2237]. Ibid.

[2238]. Tajra, Trial, 26.

[2239]. It was dangerous to defend at trial one charged by a malicious dictator (Plut. Cic. 3.3–4).

[2240]. Rapske, Custody, 354. The phrase might secondarily respond to the charge of stirring unrest (Acts 16:20–21; cf. this implied contrast in 24:2, 5).

[2241]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 590.

[2242]. See Cadbury, Acts in History, 70 (an example of another Roman “Silas,” 71); esp. Judge, First Christians, 562. Silvanus was among Philippi’s deities (Concannon, “Archaeology,” 72), but this was not unusual.

[2243]. Judge, Rank, 36n20.

[2244]. Bruce, Acts¹, 306. Some Jerusalem aristocrats were even Roman equestrians (Jos. War 2.308).

[2245]. See Omerzu, “Angeklagter,” 130.

[2246]. For Luke’s apologetic for Paul, see, e.g., Keener, “Apologetic.” Officials generally allowed some latitude for mere sages, in contrast to political threats, unless they went too far (see discussion in Keener, “Truth”).

[2247]. For defenses, see esp. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 6–13; Riesner, Early Period, 147–56; Adams, “Citizenship”; Theissen, “Social Conflicts,” 372–74; idem, “Social Setting,” 248–49; cf. also, e.g., Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 171–77; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 739–42. Many presentations assume it (e.g., Rowland, “Paul”).

[2248]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 144 (emphasizing with special weight experts in Roman antiquity such as Mommsen and Sherwin-White). Légasse, “Career,” 368, more modestly claims that “there is now much less hesitation than in the past to admit that Paul was a Roman citizen.”

[2249]. See esp. and most thoroughly Stegemann, “Römischer Bürger”; Lentz, Luke’s Portrait; Alvarez Cineira, “Ciudadano.” See Seul, Rettung, 356–65, for arguments for (356–58) but at greater length against (358–65) Paul’s citizenship; as Lukan redactional interpretation, 372–74.

[2250]. Koester, Introduction, 2:98.

[2251]. See esp. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait. Lentz also doubts that Paul, as a Pharisee, would be proud of Roman citizenship, but as is argued here below, it is not clear that he was proud of it, even in the way Luke frames the narratives. Lentz is correct (137) that Acts 22 includes issues of status as well as citizenship, but (pace 136) the correctness of this claim is not clear in Acts 16.

[2252]. Cf., e.g., Neyrey, “Location of Paul,” 276–78.

[2253]. By the period of Hadrian in the second century, the distinction between the honestiores, the elite, and the humiliores, the masses, became far more important and superseded the citizenship distinction (with dependents of the elite reinforcing the system; Garsney and Saller, Empire, 115–18). Ael. Arist. Or. 26.59–60 (To Rome) claims, perhaps with epideictic hyperbole, that citizenship is open to all in the empire.

[2254]. See, e.g., CIL 5.5050 (46 C.E.; Sherk, Empire, 94–96, §52); Meeks, Moral World, 34; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 77. On citizenship, see further Sherwin-White, Society, 144ff.

[2255]. E.g., Aeschines Embassy 78, 172, 173, 180 (mocking Demosthenes’s Scythian connection); Marshall, Enmity, 63–64. Rhetoricians learned how to turn the same matters to advantage or disadvantage, depending on their need.

[2256]. E.g., Xen. Ages. 1.2; Plut. Themist. 1.1; Corn. Nep. 7 (Alcibiades), 1.2; Jos. Life 3–6; Burridge, Gospels, 146, 178, 194.

[2257]. Keener, Acts, 1:51–319, esp. 116–257. Luke portrays Paul’s high status for apologetic reasons, but had Paul lacked it, Luke probably would have needed to explain his summary execution rather than his years in Roman custody (Acts 24:27; 28:30; Phil 1:7). Detention until trial could be lengthy, but given the forces ranged against Paul (cf. Rom 15:31; 1 Cor 16:9) and the use of custody merely as temporary till trial or execution (Rapske, Custody, 12–14), he probably would have faced death more swiftly.

[2258]. As already noted, citizenship claims could be confirmed or disconfirmed by records; although this consultation might be difficult for much of Luke’s ideal audience, if he ever envisioned his work reaching Cilicia or even nearby Galatia or Syria, he would be taking a serious risk, perhaps even one with potential legal consequences, to fabricate such a claim. When one’s background was not high status, one could appeal to the person’s merit rather than inventing background (cf. Symm. Ep. 1.60, a letter of recommendation).

[2259]. Which would be bad enough (with Fitzmyer, Acts, 144).

[2260]. See Hock, “Social Class,” 564 (favoring W. M. Ramsay over A. Deissmann on this point; cf. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 227); also Grant, Paul, 52 (though he overstates the closeness of Paul and Musonius Rufus); cf. Holmberg, “Methods,” 263, rightly contrasting Paul’s literary sophistication with the estimate that 90 percent of Mediterranean antiquity was illiterate. See comment at Acts 21:39 and esp. 22:3. The suggestion that Paul’s artisan work counters his high status as a citizen (Pervo, Acts, 555) neglects the many Roman artisans, the majority of Jewish Roman citizens who held citizenship because of descent from freed slaves, and possibly the demands of economic necessity (at least until a teacher could achieve a supporting clientele, but Paul rejected even that).

[2261]. See, e.g., Noll and Nystrom, Clouds, 52, 84, 101 (cf. also 69–71, 129, 217).

[2262]. On the rhetorical convention of self-boasting under duress, see Marshall, Enmity, 353–57; Lyons, Autobiography, 53–59, 68–69; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 81–84; Keener, Corinthians, 221–22.

[2263]. He follows here the rhetorical convention of “praising oneself inoffensively” (see, e.g., Plut. Praising, e.g., 1, Mor. 539AC; 15, Mor. 544D; Demosthenes Cor. 299–300; Cic. Fam. 5.12.8; Ag. Caec. 11.36–40; Quint. Inst. 11.1.19; Fronto Ad Ant. imp. 1.2.9).

[2264]. Tajra, Trial, 88. He rejects the importance of worldly status distinctions (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 1:26–27; 12:13; Haacker, Theology, 121n19). On Luke’s relativized approach to social status, cf. even (and rightly) Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 19–20, 172.

[2265]. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 8.

[2266]. Ibid., 7; Légasse, “Career,” 369.

[2267]. But so were many other orators, seeking to lower audience expectations (e.g., Isaeus Astyph. 35; Aristarch. 1; Lysias Or. 2.1, §190; 12.3, §120; 19.1–2, §152; Sall. Jug. 85.31; Sp. G. Cotta 4; Cic. Quinct. 1.1–4; 24.77; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 3.pref. 2; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.9; 12.16; 32.39; 42.1 [whoever the true author]; 46.7; 47.1, 8; Tac. Hist. 4.73), and Paul’s delivery apparently did not match his logical sophistication (2 Cor 10:10). Yet (and this is my point) his rhetoric is hardly that of a common artisan, though it is the artisans with whom Paul identifies (1 Cor 4:12; 9:15–18).

[2268]. Esp. Rom 2:17, 23; 3:27; 4:2; 1 Cor 1:29, 31; 3:21; 4:7; 2 Cor 10–12 passim; Phil 3:3–9.

[2269]. In these passages, Paul’s boasting is in his Jewish and/or Christian status because those are the issues in view; only his literary and argumentative style, and perhaps his name (see comment on Acts 13:9), reveals his likely social status.

[2270]. This was a standard justification for boasting in ancient literature (see Keener, Corinthians, 221–22).

[2271]. If his ancestry included any women slaves, some might even suspect his ancestral purity, though no one would use this against him rhetorically (given sympathy for the enslavement of fellow Jews) unless other factors warranted.

[2272]. E.g., Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 11b; Keener, Corinthians, 221–22; comment above.

[2273]. Stegemann, “Römischer Bürger,” 226. It was sometimes granted to city officials (e.g., CIL 2.1963, from 82–84 C.E.; Sherk, Empire, 138–40, §97).

[2274]. Stegemann, “Römischer Bürger,” 226.

[2275]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 175.

[2276]. Ibid., 176.

[2277]. Ibid., 176–77. For discharged military personnel, see, e.g., ILS 1986; CIL 16.1; this would, however, be less relevant for Jews; but for awards for political support or outstanding achievements, see Cadbury, Acts in History, 74–75; cf. Malherbe, “Life,” 9; Vell. Paterc. 2.16.3. By 14 C.E., Res Gestae 2.8 claims nearly five million Roman citizens, of which far less than 20 percent may have resided in Rome.

[2278]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 195.

[2279]. Jews enslaved by Pompey but redeemed by other Jews in Rome in the first century B.C.E. Although the majority remained in Rome, a number of these, by the time of Paul’s birth, could have settled elsewhere in the Diaspora or returned to Jerusalem; see full discussion at Acts 6:9.

[2280]. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 5. On Tarsian and Roman citizenship, see extended comment at Acts 21:39.

[2281]. Stegemann, “Römischer Bürger,” 220–21, 225. This objection, even if true, would not apply to Paul or other Jewish Roman citizens (noted by Josephus) in Jerusalem; Luke suggests that other Jewish Roman citizens had settled there from the Diaspora (Acts 6:9). The earlier custom of Roman citizenship’s exclusiveness (Cic. Balb. 12.29–30; Corn. Nep. 25 [Atticus], 3.1) was no longer held (see comment on Acts 21:39).

[2282]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 169. For the lack of direct link between citizenship and religious practice, see now especially Krauter, Bürgerrecht (brought to my attention by Prof. Andreas Bendlin, Feb. 28, 2012). Citizenship transcended some earlier boundaries, but it did not make ethnicity unimportant (see McCoskey, Race, 70–71).

[2283]. Jos. Ant. 14.137, 228, 231–32, 234, 235–37, 240; War 1.194; 2.308; noted in Fitzmyer, Acts, 144; Légasse, “Career,” 368; Rapske, Custody, 87–90; some cite also Jos. Ant. 12.121–23, but this might refer to local citizenship. Some Judean Roman citizens were even equestrians (War 2.308).

[2284]. Rapske, “Citizenship,” 216.

[2285]. With Riesner, Early Period, 149.

[2286]. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 209.

[2287]. Légasse, “Career,” 371.

[2288]. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 11–12 (noting that Philo claims most Jews in Rome as Roman citizens, Embassy 155, 157). Hengel gives inscriptional evidence (13–14) for Roman citizens whose nationalist loyalties were to their ancestral Judaism.

[2289]. Stegemann, “Römischer Bürger,” 221–22.

[2290]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 171–73; Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 208.

[2291]. Légasse, “Career,” 371.

[2292]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 171–73 (giving Cicero, Julius Caesar, Brutus, and Varro as examples). Cf. Tajra, Trial, 88: “He was not writing a decree, judicial brief or epitaph which would require the use of his full official Roman name.”

[2293]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 171–73; Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 8 (also noting that the tria nomina are absent in 1 Clement and in the list of Rome’s bishops, even prominent Roman ones, “until well into the third century”); cf. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 207.

[2294]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 144.

[2295]. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 133–34, also noting (133) that he was thrown to the beasts (1 Cor 15:32); but the latter claim cannot be literal, since he lived to tell about it.

[2296]. So also others, e.g., Scott, Corinthians, 217–18. Although other examples of Roman citizens being beaten with rods exist (see comment below), some Roman historians cite Paul’s case as a conspicuous example (e.g., Toner, Culture, 134–35).

[2297]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 200; Légasse, “Career,” 370 (citing Livy 10.9.4–5; Plut. Caes. 29.2; Cic. Verr. 5.62–66); Conzelmann, Acts, 133 (citing, e.g., Cic. Fam. 10.32; Euseb. H.E. 5.1.44, 50); cf. Macrob. Sat. 4.4.17 in van der Horst, “Macrobius,” 226. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 134, responds that three such exceptions for mob situations would be implausible, but this need not be the case if Paul (like Wesley or others) often found himself in mob situations (as Luke’s apologetic against Paul’s guilt inadvertently attests; see comment on Acts 24:5). Lentz himself (138) points out that “Roman law was not uniformly followed in all places of the empire.” He notes (134–35) that Sherwin-White says that the issue is Paul being beaten “uncondemned” (Acts 16:37; 22:25), hence suggests Paul had sometimes been condemned legally, then beaten. (This would be a matter that Luke would not want to report, and could involve the incidents that Luke does not report in Acts; if these legal beatings occurred before Acts 16, and if this present setting was obviously a mob situation, Paul might have good reason to avoid invoking his citizenship initially. It would prove more useful afterward.) Luke’s focus on Paul’s high status may have led him to omit some of Paul’s sufferings (with Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 169); his status did not always help, but Luke focuses on where it did.

[2298]. Riesner, Early Period, 150.

[2299]. With Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 741.

[2300]. Philo Flacc. 78–80; also Dig. 48.19.10; 68.28.2 (in Blinzler, Trial, 222).

[2301]. Goodenough, “Perspective of Acts,” 55–56 (on this basis dismissing the historicity of the entire final quarter of Acts); Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 132.

[2302]. Haenchen, Acts, 504; Dunn, Acts, 222.

[2303]. Proving his citizenship would be difficult if he either did not bring his certificate or lost it (2 Cor 11:25; Riesner, Early Period, 149–50; Jeffers, World, 202) or if officials refused to accept the certificate’s validity.

[2304]. In another setting, Dion. Hal. Demosth. 3 quotes someone as protesting that those who tolerate governmental abuse are either foolish or paragons of patience.

[2305]. Lüdemann, Christianity, 241 (noting that the name is not common in the East); Theissen, “Social Setting,” 249 (an unusual name for a Jew if he were not a Roman citizen); Fitzmyer, Acts, 144, 590; Witherington, Acts, 683. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 49–50, objects that a Roman name does not guarantee Roman citizenship.

[2306]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 173–74 (noting I. Eph. 680, 684A, 1017, 1047, 1601A, 2260A, 3053; the exception is 3224).

[2307]. Riesner, Early Period, 145–46. Luke himself might take it as Paul’s family name rather than his personal name, first mentioning it in connection with Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:9; Rapske, Custody, 85–86; idem, “Citizenship,” 216).

[2308]. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 8–9.

[2309]. Rapske, Custody, 86; idem, “Citizenship,” 216; Judge, Rank, 36n20; idem, First Christians, 562; see fuller comment at Acts 13:9. Given Tarsus’s good relations with Pompey, Caesar, Marc Antony, and Augustus, some scholars suggest his full name as Cn. Pompeius Paulus, C. Julius Paulus, or M. Antonius Paulus (Rapske, Custody, 86); these guesses would be less relevant if, as I think, he is descended from freed Roman slaves who may have settled in Cilicia (Acts 6:9).

[2310]. If we dismiss Luke’s appeal to Paul’s early years in Jerusalem (though Luke is again our only explicit source that Paul was born in the Diaspora, Acts 9:11), we must still postulate that he moved there early enough to explain Paul’s “progress in Judaism” (Gal 1:14), persecution of Judean Christians (1:13, 23), and Pharisaism (Phil 3:5). If we appeal to Paul’s birth in Tarsus, we appeal to the same source (Luke) who reports his Roman citizenship.

[2311]. Indeed, it would be problematic for Luke to invent such a major portion of Paul’s fate in an era when much remained known about it in the churches (see Omerzu, “Fallstudie,” 248).

[2312]. E.g., Riesner, Early Period, 155–56; Légasse, “Career,” 371–72; Omerzu, “Fallstudie,” 248; cf. idem, “Angeklagter,” 131–32. Lüdemann, Christianity, 240–41, though skeptical of many points in Acts, thinks Paul a Roman citizen because Romans imprisoned him in Palestine and then transported him to Rome (also noted in Witherington, Acts, 683). A foreigner’s appeal might be possible (cf. Libero, “Provocatio”), but a citizen’s was far more normal and apt to be granted.

[2313]. Koester, Introduction, 2:99.

[2314]. Or perhaps further deferring it, if politics demanded.

[2315]. A noncitizen would have been condemned quickly, and certainly the case would not have dragged on for up to five years (Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 7). Cf. Jesus’s trial before Pilate (see my comments in Keener, Matthew, 662–67; idem, John, 1103–7).

[2316]. For an enumeration of some of the parallels, see the introduction to Acts 25:1–12.

[2317]. If, as is likely and the majority of scholars hold, Philippians was written from Rome.

[2318]. See also Minnen, “Roman Citizen.” Classicists employ such interlocking evidence for analogous cases: e.g., Aesop’s alleged slavery, his non-Greek name, and his foreign origins (perhaps from a region known for fables and for exporting slaves) may support one another (Kanavou, “Names”), though (in contrast to Acts, where our evidence is much more secure) the extant accounts are many centuries after any historical figure behind them.

[2319]. For the sexual use of slaves, see comment in the excursus at Acts 12:13 (Keener, Acts, 2:1929–33); for Jewish questions about the sexual status of even proselytes from an early age, b. Yebam. 60b. Some Romans had also objected to polluting their stock with those from slave ancestry (Suet. Aug. 40.3). For Roman Jewish avoidance of mentioning slave ancestry, cf. Fuks, “Freedmen.”

[2320]. Cf. Grant, Paul, 19; McRay, “Corinth,” 230; Judge, “Roman Base.” See Witherington, Acts, 683, who also notes Paul’s cultural versatility (1 Cor 9:19–23); though Roman citizenship was hardly a prerequisite for that skill in the East, it would have facilitated his ministry to Roman citizens.

[2321]. Judge, Rank, 13, finds the proportion (one-third of the ninety-one persons) ten times higher than his large control group from inscriptions (see also idem, First Christians, 553, 556–57, 563–66). That missionaries most easily reach those of their own social class is not difficult to document (see, e.g., Castleberry, “Impact,” 106–35, esp. 106–29, 134–35).

[2322]. On peregrini, i.e., provincials who were not Roman citizens, see Buckland, Roman Law, 96–98 (also Sherwin-White, “Peregrini”); of these, normal peregrini were eligible to become citizens. Provincials continued to dominate the Roman church longer than the church in Corinth, however.

[2323]. Haacker, Theology, 121n19.

[2324]. Lüdemann, Christianity, 241; Witherington, Acts, 683; Riesner, Early Period, 149.

[2325]. Phil 4:22 (though some dispute whether this text indicates detention in Rome itself). With Riesner, Early Period, 155–56.

[2326]. Making more plausible Luke’s suggestion that Paul had something to do with it (Acts 25:10–12).

[2327]. E.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 157; Bruce, Commentary, 341; Tannehill, Acts, 205; Dunn, Acts, 223.

[2328]. Rapske, Custody, 302–4. For other comments on the honor-and-shame dimensions of the situation, see Meeks, Moral World, 37.

[2329]. Paul’s extant letter to Philippian Christians shows that he was concerned for the church’s welfare in the face of opposition; it also may suggest his concern for the congregation’s continuing witness (on congregational evangelism more specifically, see Keown, Evangelism [for the principle in Acts, cf. idem, “Evangelism”]; though Miller, “Review of Keown,” warns that the limitations of available evidence might allow different interpretations of the data). Luke’s low-key account of the redress probably suggests that enough honor was recouped to satisfy the Christians (providing at least grounds for defending themselves) but not to persuade significant elements of the community.

[2330]. Rapske, Custody, 288–91; idem, “Prison,” 829, cites Plut. Solon 15.2–3; Paus. 6.13.1; Cic. Verr. 2.5.148; Epict. Diatr. 1.4.23–24; 2.1.35; 2.6.25; Suet. Vitellius 7.17; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 85.41. Rapske, “Prison,” 830, notes the same problems for those publicly flogged, as the apostles had also been (Dig. 48.19.28; 50.2.12). Even prisoners themselves often viewed this as a great disgrace, especially if they were of high status (Rapske, Custody, 296–97).

[2331]. Rapske, “Prison,” 830, citing Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 9.9; Lucian Tox. 18, 28–29; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.37; Antiph. Her. 18; Rapske, Custody, 293. For families’ experience of shame, see Rapske, Custody, 293–94 (citing, e.g., Pass. Perp. 5.2).

[2332]. Rapske, “Prison,” 829.

[2333]. People of status could not admit error without losing face, but they could issue new decrees that basically revoked older ones without admitting as much (cf. 2 Sam 19:29; Esth 8:8, 11; Dan 6:15, 24).

[2334]. Rapske, Custody, 87; idem, “Citizenship,” 216 (comparing also Paulus Sent. 5.25.11); cf. Black, “Law,” 213–14.

[2335]. Rapske, “Citizenship,” 216; idem, Custody, 87 (citing Cic. Arch. 4.7; Verr. 2.5.169).

[2336]. Rapske, Custody, 87.

[2337]. Casson, Travel, 198.

[2338]. Rapske, “Prison,” 827; Grant, “Social Setting,” 23.

[2339]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 200. Coercitio normally involved intervention to establish order by means of compulsion through punishment (Treves and Lintott, “Coercitio”).

[2340]. The officials would not likely have anticipated a need to show accountability for their actions beyond Philippi. Those enforcing the laws often mistreated innocent people; when mistreated, the poor had little recourse and rarely even sought redress (Toner, Culture, 162).

[2341]. Rapske, Custody, 300–302. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 135, counters that the Philippian magistrates would have nothing to fear if they used “police privilege” against one who had not yet “revealed his citizenship.” But they neither asked Paul his status nor gave him the chance to explain it (in either Acts 16 or 22). Their embarrassment for their assumption that “Jew” and “Roman” were incompatible categories (16:20–21) might be akin to the humiliation of a dominant-culture North American leader today publicly challenged for racist assumptions (e.g., for having assumed that an African-American doctor is a nurse’s aide or that a Latina professor on campus is a student), except compounded by more direct legal ramifications.

[2342]. Meeks, Moral World, 27.

[2343]. The proconsul of Macedonia resided in Thessalonica in this period (Witherington, Acts, 488).

[2344]. With Rapske, Custody, 300–302.

[2345]. E.g., Bruce, Commentary, 340 (citing Valerian and Porcian laws of 509–195 B.C.E.); Conzelmann, Acts, 133 (citing Livy 10.9.4; Cic. Rab. Post. 4.12–13; Paulus Sent. 5.26.1); Taylor, Party Politics, 87 (concerning Cicero himself); Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 23 (from Witherington); see esp. Sherwin-White, Society, 71 (for exceptions, not directly relevant here, see 72). Exceptions may reflect cases of obvious violation of established statutes (Black, “Law,” 216, following Jones, Roman Government, 59ff.). Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 124–30, argues that there were exceptions to rights of Roman citizens; governors had considerable latitude in their decisions. This point, though true, is not relevant to Acts 16 or 22, since neither are governors and both have acted already. Lentz’s point is important for Acts 24–26, where Paul’s status, including his leadership in the Nazarene movement, is more relevant.

[2346]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 201. Cf. comment on Acts 19:40; for the fasces being broken for particular misbehavior, see Libero, “Fasces,” 359. Cf. also Robinson, Criminal Law, 49: “Abuse of office, such as killing, torturing, flogging or imprisoning a citizen who was appealing to the people or the emperor, fell under vis publica.”

[2347]. “Deposition of a Witness” (153 C.E.), SPap 2:186–89 (Greek text from H. Kortenbeutel, “Ein Kaisereid,” Aegyptus 12 [1932]: 129–40, here 129–30).

[2348]. On the other hand, a Roman citizen properly condemned for a particularly heinous offense would generate little sympathy even if crucified (Suet. Galba 9.1).

[2349]. The repeated (and often climactic, e.g., Cic. Verr. 2.3.3.6; 2.3.24.59) mention of crucifixion was meant to stir special anger (2.4.10.24; 2.4.11.26; 2.4.11.26), though Cicero may have only one certain case (in addition to some from gossip). Verres allegedly executed other citizens after disguising them as pirates (2.5.28.72) and allegedly admitted to this crime (2.5.29.73–74). Ironically, Clodius is said to have gotten Cicero banished for having a citizen executed (Vell. Paterc. 2.45.1–2).

[2350]. His beheading of one citizen (Cic. Verr. 2.5.60.156) led to an outcry among all the Roman citizens in Syracuse (2.5.60.157). If he killed one citizen, he might like to have crucified all Romans (2.5.66.170, with prosecutorial hyperbole).

[2351]. Literally parricidium, which, in its strictest sense, would be “parricide”; but it may simply be a graphic way to denounce judicial murder as equivalent to private murder.

[2352]. Rapske, Custody, 304. Rapske compares Metellus waiting in prison till his opponent was shamed enough to have to desist (Dio Cass. 37.50.1–2). In a different way, Martin Luther King Jr. sought to shame his holders (see, e.g., Lomax, “Nonviolence,” 162; cf. Bennett, “Hour,” 22–23, 29–30, 54–55; Halberstam, “Peace,” 193–94; cf. others remaining in jails during the U.S. civil rights movement to make statements, in Branch, Parting, 286, 391–95; Perkins, Justice, 136–37).

[2353]. Rapske, Custody, 305.

[2354]. Hellerman, “Humiliation” (with an even stronger emphasis than I have expressed above).

[2355]. Rapske, Custody, 306; cf. Bruce, Commentary, 341. Protecting the mission may have been a paramount concern (with, e.g., Peterson, Acts, 473).

[2356]. A prisoner refusing to leave and causing an awkward situation for the jailers is intelligible; cf. the experience of Wang Mingdao, though probably for different reasons (Noll and Nystrom, Clouds, 261).

[2357]. Marshall, Enmity, passim; Plut. Many Friends 6–7, Mor. 96AB.

[2358]. Cf. further examples in Keener, Matthew, 485.

[2359]. “Siblings” (ἀδελφούς) indicates some converts in Philippi, able to gather. In Greek, the masculine is appropriate if any of the believers were male (and at the very least, one was, Acts 16:30–34, though it is not clear that the jailer could be present here), though certainly a number were not (16:13–15).

[2360]. Tannehill, Acts, 205; Rapske, Custody, 306.

[2361]. Perhaps Paul’s leatherworking tools, if he already had some at this point (see comment on Acts 18:3). Certainly, Paul was working in Thessalonica (1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:7–9; cf. 1 Thess 4:11), where he would arrive shortly (Acts 17:1).

[2362]. Cf. 17:15, where Silas and Timothy appear to remain behind for a time, though perhaps because they faced less direct danger. Lydia’s house seems the basis for a house church (Barrett, Acts, 805; Witherington, Acts, 499), and Spencer, Acts, 165, even suggests that Lydia, as the host, held a leadership role. (This is surely plausible; patrons did hold leading roles, although these were not always identical with teachers or elders.) Lydia was a longer-term resident of Philippi, and the same might be true for Luke (though from Acts 16:8–10 Troas seems likelier); in any case, it seems that only Paul and Silas were expelled (and possibly Timothy, but likelier he went with or after them voluntarily; cf. 17:14–15).

[2363]. “Brothers” can include even a majority of women but must include some men. It would not need to include the jailer, whom Paul has just left.

[2364]. It is possible, since the women would risk less persecution, that Luke omits naming men for apologetic purposes, but since he mentions the jailer, writes many years later, and does not presuppose extensive persecution, this guess is not particularly probable.

[2365]. Dunn, Acts, 224. Schnabel, Acts, 695, notes that the imperfect verb depicting the magistrates’ request could suggest repeated action, as if they insisted on the leading missionaries’ departure despite the missionaries’ desire to remain.

[2366]. In view of this Pauline text, Bornkamm, Paul, 61, doubts that the conflict in Acts 16 really ended “in such a conciliatory way” as Luke describes. It may have ended as Luke describes, yet it may have felt much less positive to any of the real participants than the way Luke optimistically portrays it at some years’ remove.

[2367]. Finegan, Apostles, 103.

[2368]. Blaiklock, Cities, 45.

[2369]. Cf. McRay, Archaeology, 283.

[2370]. Tannehill, Acts, 207; Lestang, Annonce, 123–24.

[2371]. In connection with my suggestion of a north Aegean setting for Luke’s ideal audience (Keener, Acts, 1:433–34), Richard Fellows (personal correspondence, Oct. 15, 2012) noted to me that many benefactors Luke names (including Jason, Lydia, and others) were from this region (see also on this point Lestang, Annonce, 219). Fellows also concurs that the focus of Luke’s narrative is what is relevant to how the faith came to the Aegean churches (personal correspondence, Feb. 26, 2013).

[2372]. Doubting its authenticity, see, e.g., Keck, Paul, 12–13; Koester, Introduction, 2:242; Grant, Paul, 6; Bailey, “Thessalonians”; Donfried, Thessalonica, xxiii, 51–53 (suggesting authorship by Timothy or Silvanus); favoring its authenticity, in my opinion persuasively, see, e.g., Malherbe, Thessalonians, 349–75; Dunn, Beginning, 714–15 (citing, e.g., Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 3–18; Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 17–28); Weima, Thessalonians; Marshall, Thessalonians, 23–45; Morris, Thessalonians, 29–31 (rev., 17–23); Bruce, Thessalonians, xxxix; Wright, Paul, 61; Ford, Abomination, 195–96; Mealand, “Extent”; Neil, Thessalonians, xix–xxvi; Frame, Thessalonians, 19–20, 28–37, 39–54; Milligan, Thessalonians, xxxix, lii–lxxvi; Still, “Macedonian Believers,” 36; Robinson, Redating, 53–54; Klausner, Jesus to Paul, 238; more tentatively, Best, Thessalonians, 50–58. In my opinion, the alleged “radical differences” in eschatology between 1 and 2 Thessalonians (which are to be expected in apocalyptic imagery; see Thiselton, Corinthians, 580–81) are “radically” overstated (and the complaint that the similarities must reflect imitation suggests a double standard of argument).

[2373]. Further, a work with eschatological elements resembling apocalyptic sources suggests a Palestinian Jewish author whose authority was accepted before Hellenistic elements eclipsed earlier Christian apocalyptic predilections. (Later Gentile “apocalypses,” such as Shepherd of Hermas, differ in character from their Jewish predecessors.)

[2374]. Riesner, Early Period, 366–67. For Paul and the Thessalonian church, see Milligan, Thessalonians, xxvi–xl.

[2375]. Cf., in further detail, Witherington, Acts, 446–47.

[2376]. Knox, Acts, 57.

[2377]. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 2:121; Gill, “Macedonia,” 410; Bruce, Acts¹, 324. The key itinerary is the Itinerarium Antonini.

[2378]. Hemer, Acts in History, 108.

[2379]. Ibid., 115.

[2380]. Riesner, Early Period, 313.

[2381]. So Witherington, Acts, 503. This is longer than the average pedestrian’s 20–25 miles per day (30–40 km., Weeber, “Travels,” 871), but fully plausible under duress.

[2382]. Barrett, Acts, 808; Witherington, Acts, 503.

[2383]. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 3–10, provide extensive information on Amphipolis, especially archaeological finds; see also Wineland, “Amphipolis.”

[2384]. See also Androtion Atthis bk. 8, frg. 33. Conflicts over whether Athens or Macedonia held rightful claim to Amphipolis (Aeschines Embassy 21) had earlier precipitated war (Embassy 70; cf. Libanius Invect. 3.6). The site earlier housed a Thracian town (Cormack and Hammond, “Amphipolis,” citing the “nine ways” in Hdt. 7.114).

[2385]. Riesner, “Amphipolis.” It was said that lightning had consumed a sacrifice during sacred rites there (Plut. Aem. Paul. 24.1).

[2386]. McRay, Archaeology, 289.

[2387]. Ibid. (noting [290] that Paul and Silas would surely have seen it); on the bridge, see also Fant and Reddish, Sites, 9.

[2388]. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 7. Its old tombs, however, are clearly Macedonian in style (10).

[2389]. In a report about earlier times, Philip allegedly said that he would trade Amphipolis (i.e., as a significant city) to obtain Demosthenes (Dio Chrys. Or. 2.19).

[2390]. See further Gill, “Macedonia,” 414; Riesner, Early Period, 294.

[2391]. See further Cormack and Hammond, “Amphipolis.”

[2392]. Thucyd. 4.102.2–3 (Barrett, Acts, 808; Fitzmyer, Acts, 593).

[2393]. Bruce, Acts¹, 324, translates etymologically, “taking the road through.”

[2394]. Much of rural Macedonia continued ancient regional cults along with Greek cults that the Macedonians had adopted centuries earlier (Gill, “Macedonia,” 408).

[2395]. Barrett, Acts, 808. For details on Apollonia, see Gill, “Macedonia,” 413.

[2396]. Another Apollonia lay farther west than Thessalonica on the Via Egnatia (Polyb. 34.12.2a, 7, excerpts in Strabo 7.7.4); Riesner, Early Period, 313, mentions a city to this mansio’s southwest.

[2397]. It earlier suffered under Philip of Macedon (Strabo 7 frg. 21, 35) but was rebuilt.

[2398]. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 11 (further on Apollonia, see 10–12).

[2399]. McRay, Archaeology, 289.

↑ Back to top