[2400] . Fant and Reddish, Sites , 11.

[2400] . Fant and Reddish, Sites , 11.

[2400]. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 11.

[2401]. Riesner, Early Period, 233.

[2402]. See, e.g., Milligan, Thessalonians, xxii–xxiii; Riesner, Early Period, 337–39; McRay, “Thessalonica”; for its history, see Strabo 7 frg. 21, 24 (founded by Cassander and named for his wife); Milligan, Thessalonians, xxi–xxv; Vickers, “Hellenistic Thessaloniki.” Further on Thessalonica, see Hendrix, “Thessalonica” (and sources cited there); Fant and Reddish, Sites, 132–40; Blaiklock, Cities, 45–49.

[2403]. So John Chrysostom in Cat. Act. 17.1 (Martin, Acts, 211): Paul and his companions passed through the smaller Amphipolis and Apollonia to reach the larger Thessalonica, “since the word was to flow to nearby cities as from a source.”

[2404]. Meeks, Urban Christians, 46.

[2405]. Errington, “Macedonia,” 69.

[2406]. For the problems in such estimates, see the discussion of Ephesus at Acts 18:19.

[2407]. See Schnabel, Acts, 703.

[2408]. Jeffers, World, 57, 283 (offering the figures above except for Schnabel’s lower estimate). Ephesus’s population in this period seems likelier to have been less than half the above figure, and Thessalonica probably also should have a lower figure.

[2409]. Haenchen, Acts, 506; Conzelmann, Acts, 134; Johnson, Acts, 305 (citing Pliny E. N.H. 4.36); Riesner, Early Period, 339.

[2410]. As noted by most commentators (e.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 202; Haenchen, Acts, 506; Munck, Acts, 164; Reicke, Era, 231–32). The governor’s residence established there in the second century B.C.E. had been restored to Thessalonica after 44 C.E. (Riesner, Early Period, 339).

[2411]. For its fine harbor (Hdt. 7.121; Livy 44.10) on the Thermaic Gulf (Pliny E. N.H. 4.10.17), see Riesner, Early Period, 338.

[2412]. Meeks, Urban Christians, 46 (noting also another important road stretching from Thessalonica to the Danube). The purple-dyeing industry there (46) probably competed successfully with the stronger Tyrian purple industry (see comment at Acts 16:14) for the local market.

[2413]. With, e.g., Cadbury, Acts in History, 60–61; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 201–2. Strabo traces the Via Egnatia only as far as Thessalonica, from a western, Illyrian Apollonia, a distance supposed to be 4,280 stadia (more than 700 mi.; 535 Roman mi.; Strabo 7.7.4; 7 frg. 10, 13, 21).

[2414]. On his possibly thwarted westward plans between Thessalonica and Beroea, cf. Riesner, Early Period, 295; Trocmé, “Apôtre et Rome”; Cadbury, Acts in History, 61.

[2415]. Cf. Hock, Social Context, 29 (and 79n27 [to p. 29]), citing many examples of lodging at inns when necessary (Sen. Y. Ben. 6.15; Luke 10:34–35; Ach. Tat. 5.2.3; 7.6.6; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.39; Casson, Travel, 200–211).

[2416]. Because Lydia was engaged in trade (Acts 16:15), she would undoubtedly have some contacts in Thessalonica, perhaps even linked with the same business. Cf. below the possibility of Paul’s prior connection with Jason (based on Rom 16:21); but it is very unlikely.

[2417]. Goodenough, Symbols, 2:70–77.

[2418]. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 154–56; Riesner, Early Period, 344–45; sources cited by Stern, “Diaspora,” 160n1. Some cite the synagogue in CIJ 1:504, §693 (Hemer, Acts in History, 115), but locating where the synagogue stood is a complicated and uncertain exercise (see Riesner, Early Period, 345–46). Meeks, Urban Christians, 46, thinks a Thessalonian Jewish community likely, comparing the synagogue at the much more out-of-the-way Stobi, ca. 150 km. north on a major road from Thessalonica.

[2419]. Riesner, Early Period, 347.

[2420]. Certainly, a large Jewish community existed in later times; the twenty thousand Jews who settled there in 1492 after being expelled from Spain presumably would have preferred to settle where a Jewish community already existed. By the 1500s, Jewish residents may have constituted more than half of Thessalonica (Fant and Reddish, Sites, 134). In the 1870s, Abbott, Acts, 185, included a report of an estimated ten to twenty thousand Jews there. But the Third Reich deported about sixty thousand Jews to Poland, decimating Thessalonica’s Jewish population (Fant and Reddish, Sites, 134).

[2421]. Stern, “Diaspora,” 159n9 (citing Lifshitz and Schiby, “Synagogue samaritaine”); Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 156; Koester, Paul and World, 39; cf. sources in Riesner, Early Period, 346, who is skeptical about what some have made of the evidence.

[2422]. See Finegan, Apostles, 109–16, noting (116) that at one point in the Byzantine era, Thessalonica was said to boast 365 churches; the twenty that remain are full of Byzantine art. Arabs conquered it in 904, and the Ottomans again in 1430 (Berger, “Kaminiates”); today it is part of Greece.

[2423]. This particular pattern may not be as significant as it first appears, once we grant that synagogues were by far the most common places to find Jewish people gathered for religious instruction. Despite his distinctive emphasis on Gentiles, Paul plainly ministered to Jewish people as well (Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 1:23; 9:20; 2 Cor 11:24; McKechnie, “Paul,” 114); see much fuller comment on Acts 13:5.

[2424]. Luke knew of Paul’s work (cf. Acts 18:3; 20:34), though he never emphasizes it, perhaps because it conflicts with his emphasis on higher-status elements of Paul’s identity.

[2425]. The Philippian Christians apparently also sent him funds elsewhere (Phil 4:15; 2 Cor 11:8–9), including later in Rome (Phil 2:30; 4:10–14, 17–19).

[2426]. See Marshall, Thessalonians, 5; Bruce, Thessalonians, 18.

[2427]. In the nineteenth century, Lightfoot (citing still earlier Paley) also noted from 1 Thessalonians that Paul stayed longer than these three sabbaths, reaching also many Gentiles (Lightfoot, Acts, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]).

[2428]. Lewis, Life, 171–72, citing (for the prostitute) WO 1157.

[2429]. He could not have done it afterward, though Timothy might have done so; see 1 Thess 3:2, 6.

[2430]. On the parallels with the Jesus tradition, see Waterman, “Sources” (citing 24 parallels, mostly compelling); Wenham, Rediscovery; idem, “Apocalypse”; Keener, Matthew, 564–66; cf. also Hunter, Predecessors, 49; Barrett, Gospel Tradition, 12; Mounce, “Eschatology”; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 42; Hill, Prophecy, 130; Plevnik, “Authenticity”; Robinson, Coming, 113–14; Ford, Abomination, 22; Crossan, Jesus, 243–47.

[2431]. E.g., Barrett, Acts, 809; Dunn, Acts, 226; Riesner, Early Period, 362–63; Bruce, Acts³, 369; Peterson, Acts, 477; Schnabel, Acts, 704. Though often disagreeing with Jewett’s estimates for Paul’s itinerary, Riesner, Early Period, 312, concedes that he may well be right in suggesting three to four months for Thessalonica. For Luke’s technique of summarizing longer periods of time, see comment on Acts 9:23; even more conspicuously, compare the forty days of Acts 1:3 with Luke 24:36–53, which condenses the entire period into a single scene: Luke expects his audience to understand that he sometimes condenses time. At other times he suspects Mark of doing so (cf. Luke 6:6 with Mark 3:1; also Matt 12:9).

[2432]. This perspective is reported by Porter, Paul in Acts, 101.

[2433]. For an argument for genuine historical tradition in the sending of the Twelve, see, e.g., Keener, Matthew, 312. Teachers usually gave disciples practice for their future work, so it is intrinsically likelier that Jesus sent disciples to carry on some of his works during his lifetime than that they merely picked these practices up after his death. Even in Mark, which emphasizes discipleship failure, Jesus expects disciples to demonstrate more faith; only the particularly difficult instances (such as Mark 9:18–19, 28–29) confound them.

[2434]. Safrai, “Synagogue,” 918, citing Jos. Life 276–79; Philo Contempl. 30–32; the Tannaitic evidence for readings on Mondays and Thursdays may have taken place in the market, along with tribunals (919). If the latter evidence is relevant to the first century, it probably applies to Judea rather than the Diaspora. Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 25, also concluded that the Sabbaths are mentioned to indicate when Paul could speak to the gathered Jewish community, not to imply his inactivity on other days.

[2435]. Johnson, Acts, 305, cites Plato Rep. 5.454A. Some ancients thought that Plato introduced the question-and-answer style (Diog. Laert. 3.24), though dialectic was at least as old as Protagoras (9.8.51). On Plato’s dialectic, see Sinaiko, Love.

[2436]. Johnson, Acts, 305, cites m. Šabb. 16:1; b. Meg. 26b–27a; cf. Keener, John, 67. For rabbinic-controversy dialogues, see, e.g., Barrett, “Anecdotes”; with pagan interlocutors in general (b. Sanh. 39a; Bek. 8b; y. Meg. 1:11, §3; 3:2, §3; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:2; 4:7; Num. Rab. 4:9; 9:48; Eccl. Rab. 2:8, §2); Sadducees (b. ʿErub. 101a); Samaritans (y. Maʿaś. Š. 4:6, §5; Yebam. 1:6, §1); and minim more generally (b. Sanh. 38b, 39a; Ḥul. 84a; perhaps b. Yoma 56b–57a [if the Soncino note is correct; otherwise this may refer to a Sadducee]; Herford, Christianity, 226–27, also lists other sources; cf. Bagatti, Church, 98ff.). The baraita in b. Sanh. 43a is based on fanciful wordplays.

[2437]. In Athens, see b. Bek. 8b–9a; in Rome, see t. ʿAbod. Zar. 6:7; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 54b, bar.; for a magus, see b. Sanh. 39a.

[2438]. T. Sanh. 13:5; y. Sanh. 10:1, §7; cf. m. ʾAb. 2:14, expounded in b. Sanh. 38b. The title may be employed in its general denigrating sense for those who denied divine providence and judgment (Geiger, “’Pyqwrws”).

[2439]. Donfried, Thessalonica, 302 (arguing that they already existed in some parchment notebooks, 298–99).

[2440]. Even if Paul brought these codices with him, would his dialogue partners trust his texts during debates rather than their own scrolls?

[2441]. For the resurrection passages, cf. Holtz, “Geschichte und Verheissung.” Cf. also 1 Cor 15:3–4.

[2442]. Johnson, Acts, 305, cites Lucian Prof. P.S. 9; Jos. Life 6; Dio Chrys. Or. 17.10.

[2443]. For syllogisms, see, e.g., Cic. Inv. 1.34.57–1.35.61; Quint. Inst. 5.14.24–25; Aul. Gel. 15.26. Philosophers (e.g., Lucian Fisherman 42), especially Stoics (Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 42.15; frg. 44, p. 138.22; Epict. Diatr. 1.8.1–3; Diog. Laert. 7.1.76), were famous for syllogisms, though these were often used wrongly and hence qualified, challenged, or mocked (Arist. Rhet. 1.2.14, 1357a; 2.24.1, 1400b; Cic. Fin. 4.18.48–4.19.52; Tusc. 2.12.29; Inv. 1.47.87–89; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 82.10, 19–20; 83.9, 27; 85; Epict. Diatr. 1.22.19; 1.29.34; 2.1.38; 2.3.5; 2.21.21; Lucian Phil. Sale 22, 24, 25). In rabbinic logic, see Neusner in Sifra: An Analytical Translation, 1:38.

[2444]. Johnson, Acts, 306. On enthymemes (with various definitions), see, e.g., Rhet. Alex. 7, 1428a.19–23; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 150–57; Vinson, “Enthymemes,” 119; Kennedy, “Survey of Rhetoric,” 21; Anderson, Glossary, 44. A leg of the syllogism, when self-evident, may be omitted from being stated explicitly (Aul. Gel. 2.8).

[2445]. Luke employs the verb πείθω twenty-one times (not all of them relevant), including for persuasion from Scripture (Luke 16:31) and other exhortation (Acts 13:43); Agrippa realizes that Paul seeks to persuade him (26:28, perhaps echoing Paul’s use of the verb in 26:26).

[2446]. Cf. also Kurzinger, Apostelgeschichte, 65. Paul attributes persuasion to the Spirit also in 1 Cor 2:4–5.

[2447]. Cf. further Brocke, Thessaloniki, 114, cited in Schnabel, Acts, 705n9.

[2448]. Paul’s circle included a Jewish “Jason” (Rom 16:21); though his relation to Thessalonica is not explicit in Romans, many connect him with the Jason possibly known to Luke’s audience (Acts 17:5–9; see comment below). If the Corinthian believers met him during Paul’s first extensive stay in Corinth, it is not improbable that Jason was from Macedonia (cf. Sosipater in Rom 16:21 and Acts 20:4).

[2449]. E.g., Lührmann, “Beginnings,” 241.

[2450]. See, e.g., Donfried, Thessalonica, 22–29; idem, “Cults”; for Egyptian cults there, Koester, Paul and World, 46–54, 166; on religions in Roman Thessalonica, see now especially Steimle, Religion.

[2451]. For texts, see esp. Sokolowski, “Sarapis in Greece.” See also Donfried, Thessalonica, 22–23; Gill, “Macedonia,” 408; on the Serapion, Koester, Paul and World, 47–49.

[2452]. See Horsley, Documents, 1:29–32, §6.

[2453]. Donfried, Thessalonica, 23–25. He suggests that the sexual emphasis in the Dionysus cult may be relevant to 1 Thess 4:1–6 (pp. 24–25), and its drunkenness to 1 Thess 5:5–7 (p. 31); but sexual immorality (from a Jewish and Christian perspective) was pervasive in Greco-Roman antiquity (see Keener, “Adultery,” 7–15; further comment at Acts 15:20; 16:15), as was drunkenness (see comment on Acts 2:13).

[2454]. See Donfried, Thessalonica, 25–29, esp. 27. He notes that the Samothracian Mysteries, like the cult of Dionysus, included “frenzy” (29). Harrison, Authorities, 49–50, notes that Jewett (Thessalonian Correspondence, 127–32) finds parallels in 1 Thessalonians with the Cabiri, but Harrison also cites the caution of Koester (“Eschatology,” 443–45) and Vos (Conflicts, 140–42) on the basis of our very limited knowledge of the cult in Thessalonica. See also Concannon, “Archaeology,” 69–70.

[2455]. Some later manuscripts made the men more prominent here, comporting with the editors’ bias (Ehrman, Introduction, 484; idem, Misquoting, 185–86). Once Luke has mentioned their prominence, he does not need to specify their social power, which could be safely assumed (Arlandson, “Lifestyles,” 169–70). Aristocratic women could combine social power with traditionally “feminine” qualities (Wiersma, “Novel,” reflecting social reality as well as novels).

[2456]. The term προσκληρόω is a NT hapax legomenon but, if analogous to προστίθημι, would signify conversion (Acts 2:41, 47; 5:14; 11:24); this would also be the case if it retains its metaphoric association with κλῆρος here (cf. 1:17, 26; 8:21; 26:18).

[2457]. See, e.g., the urban “metropolites,” who despised Egyptian culture and were taxed less heavily than fellow Egyptians, though Rome considered them Egyptians (Lewis, Life, 36, 40–41).

[2458]. For further details, see Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 111.

[2459]. E.g., of Isis, in Horsley, Documents, 3:43–45, §12; Jos. Ant. 18.70; an aristocratic woman attracted to Judaism in Jos. Ant. 18.82.

[2460]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 136, following Edson, “Cults of Thessalonica.”

[2461]. E.g., Lucian Astr. 7; Parl. G. 10–11; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.81, 85; see fuller comment on Acts 7:22, 41. Both Judaism (e.g., Philo; Letter of Aristeas) and the cult of Isis (e.g., Plutarch Isis; cf. Maximus of Tyre Orationes) were more acceptable in their philosophic, noncultic forms.

[2462]. For the mention of prominent Gentile women’s support as a propagandistic device useful for Josephus, see Matthews, Converts, 29–50 (cf. also idem, “Ladies’ Aid”), who notes Josephus’s usual praise of Gentile noblewomen (40–42) and their support for Jewish causes (e.g., 45–46), patronage that he may portray as more exclusive or ideologically driven than it, in fact, was (see 47–50). Josephus may well follow a more general Jewish sentiment here (61).

[2463]. For the obedience of some wealthy persons removing the excuse of other wealthy persons (likewise the poor for the poor, etc.), see ʾAbot R. Nat. 6 A; 12, §30 B; b. Yoma 35b; 3 En. 4:3.

[2464]. So Dunn, Acts, 227, citing Acts 2:47; 13:48. The term has a broader usage, but it is easier to understand why Luke would employ this NT hapax legomenon if he intends such a specialized sense.

[2465]. Reimer, Women, 245.

[2466]. Riesner, Early Period, 350. For women patrons in house churches, see, e.g., Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 194–220; Osiek, “Diakonos.” The sense here is the common English sense closer to benefaction than to Roman patronage in its legal sense.

[2467]. See Hemelrijk, “Patronesses.”

[2468]. See Riesner, Early Period, 351; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 157; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 58; cf. Wiseman, “Macedonian Family”; although this would be truest of all in a Roman colony such as Philippi, it was relevant in all Macedonia. Historically, cf. Olympias (e.g., Aul. Gel. 13.4).

[2469]. Haenchen, Acts, 507.

[2470]. On the greater influence of men in ancient society, even Roman society, see Keener, Acts, 1:605–37, esp. 619–26, 629–37. In Rome, and apparently elsewhere (cf. Titus 2:5; 1 Pet 3:1), wives’ conversion from the husbands’ religion could even provoke the latter’s hostility.

[2471]. Women composed half of all proselytes and 80 percent of God-fearers in inscriptions, though only 40 percent of tomb inscriptions relate to them (Riesner, Early Period, 351). Cf. Matthews, “Ladies’ Aid.”

[2472]. Because elite women were less prominent in public than elite men, they probably formed a higher proportion in the church, as in Judaism (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 54; cf. Rom 16:1–2; Schüssler Fiorenza, Memory, 177).

[2473]. See Brooten, Women Leaders, 103–38; idem, “Segregated”; Safrai, “Synagogue,” 939; idem, “Segregated”; idem, “Place of Women.” In later Sardis, see Seager, “Synagogue,” 170–71.

[2474]. Cf. the principle in Prov 14:4.

[2475]. First Thessalonians 3:3 was probably an eschatological warning about affliction similar to Acts 14:22.

[2476]. Most commentators do not connect the passage with martyrdom.

[2477]. Riesner, Early Period, 352, takes συμφυλετῶν in a local, geographic sense, contending that in Koine the term had usually lost any reference to ethnicity; he includes the local Jewish community, noting that their inclusion in Paul’s passage is otherwise inexplicable (cf. similarly Donfried, Thessalonica, 200–202). Riesner, Early Period, 352, takes the aorist verbs in 1 Thess 2:15 as implying that Jews “drove us out” of Thessalonica. This case is reasonable (unless, less likely, Paul had narrated to the Thessalonians and expected them to envision here events such as Acts 8:1 or 9:29–30), though “Jews” (i.e., “Judeans”) were probably still viewed as resident aliens, and the verb could mean simply “persecute.”

[2478]. I take this passage as authentically Pauline; see esp. Das, Paul and Jews, 129–36; Schlueter, Measure; Donfried, “Test Case”; idem, Thessalonica, 198–99; Collins, “Integrity”; pace Setzer, Responses, 16–19; Schmidt, “Linguistic Evidence.” I do so, however, because I hold a high standard for the burden of proof regarding interpolations not identified by text criticism; neither context nor Pauline theology would incline me to accept the passage if the textual tradition proved more ambiguous. To omit it without textual evidence, however, then use that omission to challenge Luke’s description, is a double argument from silence offered after dismissing our only two accounts of the events!

[2479]. Paul does not normally lapse into complaints about Jewish persecution in his letters, and so when he does, it may be presumed relevant to the context rather than merely convention. It could serve as a comparison with the Thessalonian believers’ own persecution by others, but opposing Paul’s speaking to Gentiles (1 Thess 2:16) probably goes beyond Judean complaints.

[2480]. Cf. also Dunn, Acts, 226.

[2481]. Lührmann, “Beginnings,” 240, sees the presentation in Acts 17:5–7 as Luke’s apologetic, denouncing Jews, rather than Christians, as “troublemakers.”

[2482]. Likewise, the trouble in Beroea stems not from Beroean Jews but from outside agitators, Thessalonian Jews, stirring Beroean crowds (17:13).

[2483]. Witherington, Acts, 502–3.

[2484]. Munck, Acts, 165.

[2485]. With Conzelmann, Acts, 135.

[2486]. With Witherington, Acts, 507.

[2487]. E.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.213; Apul. Apol. 28, 66–67, 101.

[2488]. The term may also connote zeal; see Schnabel, Acts, 706.

[2489]. The term ὀχλοποιήσαντες may be Luke’s own coinage, though it is an obvious one (and hence may have been coined by others too); Hesychius regards it as equivalent to δημαγωγία (Bruce, Acts¹, 326). Some Thessalonian religions may have sanctioned wild behavior, at least in cultic settings (Donfried, Thessalonica, 29–31).

[2490]. Hock, “Novel,” 139.

[2491]. Cf. Rackham, Acts, 297. One phenomenon that I observed in northern Nigeria in the late 1990s was the number of unemployed rural boys consigned to city streets by urbanization and rural poverty, boys often thus susceptible, for good or harm, to imams and others willing to lead them. Some became volunteer martyrs when some more extreme teachers called for jihad.

[2492]. This may place them close to the legal action before the politarchs (on their archives probably in the agora, see Horsley, “Politarchs,” 425); but we cannot know where Jason’s house was located.

[2493]. Plato Prot. 347C; Xen. Hellen. 6.2.23 (cited in Bruce, Acts¹, 326; Johnson, Acts, 306; Witherington, Acts, 506–7). Day laborers were “the most deprived group of working people,” with “very little security in their family life” (Arlandson, Women, 98; more fully, 92–98). Although highlighted for Thessalonica in both Acts and Paul’s letters, underemployment and consequent public loitering characterized ancient Mediterranean urban life more generally (see Toner, Culture, 110).

[2494]. E.g., Arist. Pol. 1291a; Aristoph. Frogs 1015; Theoph. Char. 4.2; Hdt. 2.141 (cited in Johnson, Acts, 306; Witherington, Acts, 507). It often contrasts with the wellborn, refined, and educated (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 204). For many people’s mistrust of the unemployed, see Reden, “Unemployment,” 112.

[2495]. Most commentators (e.g., Bruce, Acts¹, 326; Conzelmann, Acts, 135; Witherington, Acts, 507; Larkin, Acts, 247; Fitzmyer, Acts, 595) here cite Plut. Aem. Paul. 38.3–4.

[2496]. For untrustworthy and fickle mobs, see, e.g., Virg. Aen. 1.148–53 (where a person of nobility quiets them); Tac. Hist. 2.29; comment on Acts 19:29; cf. also the Gospel accounts (e.g., Matt 27:22–23).

[2497]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 1.33; 32.9 (cf. 22.1); in Rome, see Stambaugh, City, 111; cf. idle loiterers, who are damned, in b. Ber. 28b, bar. All were likely men; even in modern Greek villages, the agora is mainly “male” space (Pizzuto-Pomaco, “Shame,” 30).

[2498]. His use of πονηρούς links them with such crimes as rejecting the Messiah (Acts 3:26) and evil hearts (Luke 6:45; cf. 11:13); with such characters as Herod Antipas (3:19); with Pharisees (11:39); with a signs-seeking generation (11:29); and with demons (Luke 7:21; 8:2; 11:26; Acts 19:12–16). It also contrasts them with false accusations against Paul himself (Luke 6:22; Acts 18:14; 25:18; 28:21).

[2499]. Finegan, Apostles, 108.

[2500]. Ibid. This forum’s evidence may come from the second century (McRay, Archaeology, 294), though it is likelier than not that it would have retained an older site.

[2501]. Riesner, Early Period, 376.

[2502]. Ibid., 376–77, comparing Dio Chrys. Or. 3.124–25 (while also acknowledging [378] the church’s need to respect its patrons in 1 Thess 5:12–13).

[2503]. Cf. comments in Keener, Matthew, 481–83.

[2504]. Cf. Diogenes, who busies himself instead of merely sitting (καθῆσθαι; Mus. Ruf. 9, p. 70.9–10).

[2505]. E.g., Cic. Sest. 10.22; Mus. Ruf. 9, p. 70.24–25 (on the idle who never have enough; contrast 70.26 on lovers of toil); frg. 44, p. 139.16–17 (on those lazy in study); Plut. Educ. 17, Mor. 12E (citing Pythagoras); Dio Chrys. Or. 10.6–7; 17.4; Pliny Ep. 4.16.3; 7.24.5; Max. Tyre 5.1; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.2; Hrk. 1.5; Porph. Marc. 12.210–12; Ps.-Phoc. 153–54, esp. 154; m. ʾAb. 2:2; cf. Tac. Germ. 15.

[2506]. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 2.2.23–25; Sen. E. Controv. 1.pref. 8; Plut. Demosth. 1.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.13; Tac. Hist. 2.90; 3.76; Lucian Runaways 17; Fronto Pr. Hist. 11; Iambl. V.P. 9.49; 28.153; Porph. Marc. 6.105–7.127; 4Q424 1 6; Sent. Syr. Men. 67–71; ʾAbot R. Nat. 11 A; b. Ber. 32b, bar.; Ned. 49b. For the positive example of hard work, see, e.g., Plut. M. Cato 1.3; 2.2; 4.1; Cic. 36.3; Pliny Ep. 3.5.18–20; Acts 20:35.

[2507]. Many of the wealthy of course also valued leisure but often viewed themselves as diligent in its pursuit (cf., e.g., Pliny Ep. 1.3.3; 2.8.2; Plut. Cato Minor 20.1; Symm. Ep. 1.1.2; 1.47.1; perhaps Vell. Paterc. 2.98.2–3). Others recognized its dangers (cf., e.g., Plut. Lucullus 30.3).

[2508]. See further Grant, Paul, 70.

[2509]. See, e.g., Hor. Sat. 1.9; Ovid Fasti 1.165–70; Suet. Aug. 29.1; 33.1; Vesp. 10; Meeks, Urban Christians, 66; earlier, Plut. Demosth. 15.1.2.

[2510]. See, e.g., in Polyb. 31.29.8, 10; Cic. Verr. 2.3.13.32–34; Quint. fratr. 3.1.5.15; 3.4.1; Quinct. 1.1–2; Suet. Tib. 33; Apul. Metam. 9.42; Grant, Paul, 32 (citing Apul. Metam. 10.33); Winter, Left Corinth, 61–62; idem, “Litigation.”

[2511]. Winter, Left Corinth, 62–64, though noting exceptions (SEG 8.527.9–10). He notes (63) that some rich people could even threaten to have others killed for filing against them (citing Sen. E. Controv. 10.1.2, 7, though this is hypothetical).

[2512]. See, e.g., Ferguson, Backgrounds, 51; Caird, Revelation, 22–23. For the abuse, see, e.g., Suet. Claud. 37; Tit. 8.5; Tac. Agr. 2; Hist. 1.2; Hdn. 7.3.2; Mommsen, History, 179; O’Neal, “Delation.”

[2513]. Harrison, Authorities, 54.

[2514]. See, e.g., Suet. Tib. 61.2–3.

[2515]. Many philosophers emphasized that only philosophers understood how to reign properly, perhaps developing the kingly instruction found in older wisdom texts (e.g., “Instruction of Vizier Ptah-hotep” [ANET]; Prov 1:1, 8; 31:4). For philosophers as ideal rulers, see, e.g., Plato Rep. 5.472; Quint. Inst. 2.17.28; Dio Chrys. Or. 49.13; Iambl. V.P. 27.129; in Stoicism, see Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 66.5; Plut. Flatt. 16, Mor. 58E; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11i, pp. 78–79.1–3; Lucian Hermot. 16; Diog. Laert. 7.1.122; for kings needing philosophic wisdom, e.g., Isoc. Ad Nic. 10–11; Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 62.8–9; Diog. Laert. 7.1.9; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.36; 6.31; Let. Aris. passim.

[2516]. In the reign of a mild emperor (comparable to Claudius), see, e.g., Lucian Peregr. 18–19; under a brutal one, see Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.16; 8.7. The harmless “mild” version of Cynics did not seek to upset the social order (Malherbe, Philosophers, 20–22); Jews and Christians might also be seen as more politically involved than the Isis cult, which did not scruple at favoring particular officials for aediles (Grant, “Christian and Roman History,” 24).

[2517]. Bruce, Acts¹, 326; Tajra, Trial, 33. See also Acts 12:22 and comment on Acts 12:23.

[2518]. Riesner, Early Period, 355; Hemer, Acts in History, 115. This would not grant them license to abuse a Roman citizen, but the very charge of treason (Acts 17:7) would be sufficient to taint even a citizen.

[2519]. Dio Chrys. Or. 3.47–49. Δῆμος appears in the NT only at Acts 12:22; 17:5; 19:30, 33; the first instance is technically correct whereas the others associate the legal δῆμος with unruly mobs! Yet these portraits contrast with the concord of Acts 15’s resolution, despite initial disagreement in that case.

[2520]. This was not the responsibility of local police, who, in any case, never proved very effective except in two colonies (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 34).

[2521]. E.g., Suet. Jul. 23.1 (as governor of Gaul, claiming that he was away from Rome on government business); cf. Winter, Welfare, 108–9. Romans did not consider capital trials fair in a defendant’s absence (Cic. Verr. 2.2.39.95), though one who deliberately fled would likely be assumed guilty (Aeschines Embassy 6; later, Verres himself). For examples of court summons, see P.Hib. 30, lines 13–26 (before 270 B.C.E.); P.Tebt. 303 (180 C.E.); P.Hamb. 1.4 (87 C.E.).

[2522]. On using force to get someone to court, see Lintott, Romans, 18–19. For a figurative example, see Apul. De deo Socr. 155.

[2523]. “Jason” might also be remembered in Corinth as well if he is the same Jason as in Rom 16:21 (see comment below).

[2524]. Cf. Suet. Nero 15.2, which mentions one “Caninius Rebilus” as if known; Suetonius earlier described this case but apparently forgets that he omitted the official’s name there (Jul. 76.2).

[2525]. On patronage in Thessalonica, see Hendrix, “Patron Networks.”

[2526]. Matson, Conversion Narratives, 169. One might doubt this reading because Luke does not state it, since it fits his pattern well enough to merit explicit statement; but given his frequent compression of narrative, we cannot be certain either way.

[2527]. Hock, Social Context, 29–30, following Frier, “Market in Rome,” esp. 30–34.

[2528]. Hock, Social Context, 30.

[2529]. Ibid., 30–31 (noting esp. Lucian Posts 3, 20, 37 and Paul’s refusal to be a “burden,” 1 Thess 2:9; 2 Cor 11:9).

[2530]. Hock, Social Context, 29.

[2531]. On whom see, e.g., Dräger, “Iason”; Dowden, “Jason.” Despite Luke’s occasional classical allusion (Acts 17:19), he intends no connection with the mythological Jason here. Thessaly (which also had a Jewish community, Philo Embassy 281) was not Thessalonica (apparently confused in Le Cornu, Acts, 938); Pelias the oppressor was not the same as the politarchs; and Paul is certainly not compared with Jason’s Eastern religious patron (and temporary wife), Medea the witch, who slew her brother, Pelias, her children, and Jason’s second wife (Arist. Poet. 14.12, 1453b; Apollod. Bib. 1.9.16, 24, 27–28; Cic. Tusc. 4.32.69; Hor. Epodes 3.9–14; Ovid Metam. 7.391–97; Virg. Ecl. 8.47–50; Epict. Diatr. 2.17.19; 4.13.14–15; Plut. Poetry 3, Mor. 18A; Paus. 2.3.6–7; Lucian Hall 31; Char. Chaer. 2.9.3; Philost. Letters 21 [38]; Gr. Anth. 7.354)!

[2532]. E.g., 1 Macc 8:17; 12:16; 14:22; 2 Macc 4:7, 13; 4 Macc 4:16; CIJ 1:25, §32; 1:205, §289; 2:15, §749; CPJ 1:165–66, §24; 3:179 (listing abundant evidence); Let. Aris. 49 (albeit fictitiously attributing it to a Palestinian elder); Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 80; perhaps CIJ 1:267, §341. Cf. also the rhyming Μνάσων (Acts 21:16; but see comment there).

[2533]. Some (Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 25 [from Witherington]; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 205; Milligan, Thessalonians, 133; Bruce, Acts¹, 326) suggest that it was a hellenized form of “Joshua” (which appears in the LXX and early Christianity as Ἰησοῦς, “Jesus,” Luke 3:29; Acts 7:45; Heb 4:8; 1 Clem. 12.2).

[2534]. Judge, First Christians, 565, allows Jason as a probable Roman citizen; despite the use of the name for some citizens in a colony like Philippi, however, we cannot be certain that it refers to a citizen in this case.

[2535]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 205, think this unclear, though noting that later tradition (eager to fasten on canonical personages) deputized him a bishop of Thessalonica.

[2536]. Milligan, Thessalonians, 133; Riesner, Early Period, 348; Gillman, “Jason”; Jewett, Romans, 977; Moo, Romans, 934; Dunn, Romans, 909; cf. Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” page facing p. 26 (from Witherington). Already in the church fathers, see Origen Comm. Rom. on 16:21 (CER 5:272, 274); Theodoret Interp. Rom. on 16:21 (IER, PG 82:224) (both in Bray, Romans, 378). Meeks, Urban Christians, 62, doubts the identification (as does Fitzmyer, Acts, 595; Bock, Acts, 551, is neutral) and also (with less reason—namely, the Greek name) supposes him a Gentile.

[2537]. Riesner, Early Period, 348; Jewett, Romans, 978; cf. Dunn, Romans, 909.

[2538]. It could be speculated that Jason was Luke’s close relative if Luke was from Philippi and provided the contact and if the same Lucius is in view in Rom 16:21. But “Lucius” was a common name, rendering that identification suspect; Luke would also have to be a Jewish relative of Paul’s (which is also unlikely).

[2539]. Observed by Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” page facing p. 26 (from Witherington).

[2540]. See Horsley, “Politarchs,” 425; Riesner, Early Period, 358.

[2541]. In Amphipolis and Beroea (McRay, Archaeology, 292, 295), but at least twenty of the politarch inscriptions are from Thessalonica (295, updating Schuler, “Politarchs”). For a photo of one of the earlier discovered politarch inscriptions, now in the British Museum, see Blaiklock, Cities, plate after p. 32.

[2542]. Finegan, Apostles, 108, claims that the title never occurs in Greek literature apart from Acts 17:6, 8.

[2543]. There seems a consensus on the politarchs’ title and role (Cadbury, Acts in History, 41; Bruce, Acts¹, 326; Gasque, “Acts and History,” 56; Haenchen, Acts, 506; Malherbe, “Life,” 12; Hemer, Acts in History, 115); for some of the data (out of at least nineteen inscriptions so far), see also Rossano, “Note archeologiche”; Horsley, Documents, 2:34–35, §5.

[2544]. Horsley, “Politarchs,” 426 (noting that the number may have reached even nine by the early third century C.E., IG 127).

[2545]. Horsley, “Politarchs,” 425 (for a full survey of the inscriptional evidence, see 419–31).

[2546]. E.g., 1 Pet 2:12, 15; 3:16–17. Charges included cannibalism (Justin 1 Apol. 1.26.7; Athenag. Plea 3; Theoph. 3.15) and incest (Athenag. Plea 3; Theoph. 3.4; Tert. Apol. 2.5, 20; 4.11; 7.1; Min. Fel. Oct. 31.1).

[2547]. Cf. Rom 1:8; 10:18; Col 1:6; 1 Thess 1:8. For the late second century, see, e.g., Tert. Apol. 1.7; Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 186–90. Some think that the movement reached even Pompeii before its destruction in 79 C.E. (Filson, “Christians in Pompeii”; Botha, “Research”); the Rotas-Sator Square, however, does not demonstrate this (Baines, “Square”).

[2548]. The term appears elsewhere in Luke’s extant work only at Acts 21:38 (and elsewhere in the NT only at Gal 5:12). Ironically, it is Paul’s Jewish opponents who “stir” (different term) the mob in 17:8 (cf. 17:13), fitting the Gentile stereotype falsely applied to Paul and Silas in 16:20.

[2549]. One may fill “the world” positively (Ovid Tristia 2.324; Her. 9.16; Apul. Flor. 16.48; Eunapius Lives 493; Song Rab. 1:3, §1; John 21:25 [on the hyperbole in John 21:25, see Keener, John, 1241–42) or (as here) negatively. Caligula tormented the world (Jos. Ant. 19.1) and “filled it up” with suffering (19.14). Cf. events affecting “the world” in Vell. Paterc. 2.4.6; 2.31.1–2; 2.100.1. Ironically, the God whose agents Paul and Silas are would judge the “world” they were accused of subverting (Acts 17:31).

[2550]. Witherington, Acts, 507n164; cf. Judge, First Christians, 462. On this expulsion, see comment on Acts 18:2.

[2551]. Witherington, Acts, 508n168 (following MacMullen, Enemies, 144ff.).

[2552]. Ἀναστατόω, as in Acts 21:38; “throughout the world” in this case refers to the empire (cf. Luke 2:1; Acts 11:28) and fits other hyperbolic complaints against Paul’s ministry (Acts 24:5; cf. 19:27), perhaps allowing Luke to implicitly praise its geographic range.

[2553]. With, e.g., Marshall, Acts, 279.

[2554]. Robinson, Criminal Law, 19. On maiestas, or treason, see more fully ibid., 74–78. Maiestas was a capital offense (Quint. Decl. 260 intro. with [esp.] 260.5–6), but declaimers could associate forms of treason with exile (Quint. Decl. 266 intro.) as well as death (Quint. Decl. 272 intro.; probably implied in Quint. Decl. 294 intro.; 348 intro.).

[2555]. Cases ranged from mere disobedience or offending state symbols, which could be punished mildly at times, to offenses inviting execution (Gizewski, “Maiestas,” 186). This crime could be investigated by torture or other means outside normal law (187). Classical Athens had also defined treason against the state fairly broadly (Thür, “Prodosia”).

[2556]. Robinson, Criminal Law, 76.

[2557]. Ibid.; Ungern-Sternberg, “Seditio.” Simply reading a poem to lament the death of a member of the imperial family when, in fact, the person was not dead could bring execution (Tac. Ann. 3.49–51). Beating a mere citizen was punishable generally, but beating a magistrate could be construed as maiestas (Quint. Decl. 252.5); most relevant, “seditious incitement” counted as maiestas (Rowe, World, 73, citing Tac. Ann. 1.72). Despite the emperor’s refusal of the label, sources in the East (and a few in the West) call him “king” (Rowe, World, 97–98).

[2558]. Robinson, Criminal Law, 78–80.

[2559]. Even today a number of interpreters find Paul’s message to be subversive against the empire or imperialism (cf. Eisen, “Streitwagen”; Horsley, “Assembly,” 386–92; “Society” [and see more generally Paul and Empire]; Pascuzzi, “Battle”; Elliott, Liberating; Wright, “Perspective on Paul”; “Paul and Empire”; Perspectives, 169–90, 237–54; Long, “Political Theology”; Keesmat, “Capital” [e.g., 62, seeing love of enemies as counterimperial]; for a survey of relevant recent perspectives, see Carter, “Empire”; Harrison, “Paul,” 147–50; cf. also approaches in Kim, Introduction, 13–14), even though most comparable groups did seek to function peacefully within the empire (and had little practical alternative). Cf. also anti-kingship in Vinson, “Touch” (although in light of ancient sources I am not persuaded by this reading of Luke 19:11–27; see my similar critique in my review of Preaching Matthew, on Graves and May, Matthew, a mostly helpful book); in Luke-Acts as a whole, essays in Rhoads, Esterline, and Lee, Empire; cf. observations in Keener, Acts, 2:1754, 1784–86, 1799, 1963–64. Classicists also read other texts in light of the dominance of imperial models (e.g., Coffee, “Theseus”; Harrison, “Paul,” 152). Some, however, warn that many recent approaches to imperial studies go too far (see, e.g., Miller, “Imperial Cult”; Strait, “King”; McKnight and Modica, Caesar, 18–19, 213–14), arguing, for example, that empires are not all the same (as ancients eventually recognized; Fitzpatrick, “Carneades”). Definitions of “anti-imperial” matter; most would concur that Paul’s monotheism relativized the emperor’s role and condemned his worship, but also that he did not foment violent revolution. For attempts to nuance judgments or compare Paul with the range of ancient options, see, e.g., Punt, “Agency,” 54; Zerbe, “Politics,” 72–73; Lopez, “Visualizing,” 77; Wright, Paul, 312–43. Paul, like other minority subjects in empires, experienced hybridity (Barreto, Negotiations, 50–51; see discussions of hybridity on 45, 49–53, 140–80, esp. 140, 166–80; for a probable example of such hybridized perspectives on the empire, see Taussig, “Melancholy,” 291).

[2560]. See esp. Judge, “Decrees.”

[2561]. Witherington, Acts, 508 (citing also the discussion in Cassidy, Society, 89–91); more briefly, Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 426; Donfried, Thessalonica, 34, 249. But cf. Galinsky, “Cult.”

[2562]. On the imperial claim to provide “peace and security,” see Ovid Her. 9.15; Weima, “Peace”; Herz, “Emperors,” 310–11; Bowley, “Pax”; Koester, “Silence,” 341; Donfried, Thessalonica, 34; for suspicions about it, see, e.g., Seneca’s critique in Huttner, “Zivilisationskritik.” But note also White, “Peace and Security”; he argues that this was not a “widely recognizable political catchphrase” (382n1), although texts do mention them together (392).

[2563]. Judge, First Christians, 395–403, argues that in this period the emperors (literally, supreme military commanders) were not called kings in Roman sources (though allowing it in some Greek sources, 400–401). While this nomenclature reflects imperial propaganda, however, emperors exercised more power than their client kings. Even seeking a client kingdom without Caesar’s blessing could be deemed dangerous political overreaching (see, e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.245, 252).

[2564]. Cf. Brown, Death, 968; Tajra, Trial, 36–42. On the charge (and its flexible application in this period), see Balsdon and Lintott, “Maiestas.” Tiberius was not the only paranoid emperor (e.g., Hdn. 1.13.7), but he reportedly viewed even negative remarks as maiestas (e.g., Dio Cass. R.H. 57.9.2; 57.19.1; 57.23.1–2; cf. Caligula, 59.11.6), leading to many false accusations (57.4.5–6). Among Romans, treason was the greatest crime (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.80.1). Earlier rulers had of course also treated it harshly (see, e.g., Turin Judicial Papyrus, trans. Ritner, in Hallo and Younger, Context of Scripture, 3.8, pp. 27–30).

[2565]. Bruce, Thessalonians, xxiii. That Jesus was thought to be descended from David (Rom 1:3), is called “Christ” (e.g., Rom 1:4; 9:5; 1 Cor 15:3), and has a kingdom (e.g., Rom 15:12; 1 Cor 15:24–25; Col 1:13; 2:10) would, even without the accounts in the Gospels, lead most ancient hearers to assume that he was crucified on the charge of treason (see Allison, Jesus, 398).

[2566]. Dig. 48.4.1.1; Blinzler, Trial, 213; cf. also Cic. Fam. 3.11.2. One accused of treason complained that he had not spoken of either the emperor or his mother, noting that the charge technically applied only to that crime (Tac. Ann. 4.34). Even a tetrarch’s desire to be named “king” like his brother-in-law might lead to banishment (Jos. Ant. 18.244–46, 252; War 2.182–83; though in this case false accusations were the primary cause, Ant. 18.247–51; cf. War 2.183).

[2567]. Cf., e.g., Tac. Ann. 2.50; 3.38; 4–5 passim (e.g., 4.17–21, 30, 60, 66, 69–70, 74; 5.3–6).

[2568]. Grant, Christianity and Society, 13. Donfried, “Rethinking,” suggests that Paul’s gospel used potentially political language in tension with the empire’s language; indeed, even Jewish apocalyptic imagery with its earlier Eastern roots could be laid against images of the Augustan new era in Virgil. Some modern ethicists have also understood Paul’s eschatology politically (see discussion in Kroeker, “Messianic Ethics”). Walton, “State,” 34–35, argues that Luke is often positive toward the empire but not uncritically; by raising Jesus, God reversed Rome’s verdict and hence demonstrated that he is over Caesar.

[2569]. Cf. Brown, Death, 1217; Blinzler, Trial, 236; Hdn. 1.13.4–6; 3.5.6; 4.6.1.

[2570]. Harrison, Authorities. See, e.g., 47–69, on the imperial gospel at Thessalonica, suggesting competition with Roman politics; and 71–95, on how the antichrist figure in 2 Thess 2 may evoke the emperor cult. He notes (with others) the imperial parousia (56–57), apantesis (59–60), and peace and safety (61–62), though parousia (paralleled in Matthew) could be pre-Pauline. Cf. idem, “Paul,” 150–74, esp. 154–60.

[2571]. For literary foils, see, e.g., Hom. Od. 1.8; Dion. Hal. Demosth. 33; cf. Culpepper, Anatomy, 135; Keener, John, 539, 545–46.

[2572]. For Jesus’s not posing a specific political alternative, cf., e.g., Casas García, “Ambiente.”

[2573]. See on that passage Danker, New Age, 24. Some thus find in the subversion charge an element of truth (cf. Hays, Moral Vision, 125–29; Lestang, Annonce, 119–20). Pelikan, Acts, 189, finds historical irony in the early potential reception history of the passage: within a few centuries, the emperors themselves proclaimed Jesus another king.

[2574]. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 135; Green, “Anuncio.”

[2575]. Smith, “Correspondence,” 274, following Hendrix, “Thessalonicans,” 170–73, 179.

[2576]. McRay, Archaeology, 294, cites IG 10.2.31; on the imperial cult there, see Donfried, Thessalonica, 36–38.

[2577]. Gill, “Macedonia,” 415. The Serapeum was farther west, nearer the sea (Gill, “Macedonia,” 415).

[2578]. Cf., e.g., Plut. Cic. 36.1 (earlier); Rev 17:10; Aune, Revelation, 951.

[2579]. Cf. Fears, “Ideology of Power”; cf. the nationalistic, mythical revision of old Pharaonic ideology in later periods (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 244).

[2580]. Riesner, Early Period, 379–81.

[2581]. Cf. McRay, Archaeology, 294, noting from an inscription that they shared a temple or were closely related.

[2582]. Sherwin-White, Society, 103; Donfried, Thessalonica, 32; Judge, First Christians, 456–57. Luke elsewhere employs δόγμα for both Caesar’s (Luke 2:1) and the Jerusalem church leaders’ (Acts 16:4) decrees.

[2583]. Judge, “Decrees”; idem, First Christians, 460–62; Riesner, Early Period, 356–57; Witherington, Acts, 508; Hemer, Acts in History, 167; Donfried, Thessalonica, 32–33. On the loyalty oaths to Caesar, including the pledge to report disloyalty, see also Judge, Pattern, 34–35.

[2584]. The title continued to be passed to successors after the time of Julius Caesar and hence would not specify one particular emperor (Fitzmyer, Acts, 596).

[2585]. See also more extensive discussion in Judge, First Christians, 458–60; he cites later jurists on 459–60 (Paulus Sent. 5.21.1–2; Ulpian in Comparison of the Mosaic and Roman Laws 15.2). Cf. also later imperial decrees against astrologers (Tac. Hist. 2.62; Suet. Vit. 14.4; Dom. 15; earlier, Val. Max. 1.3.3; generally, cf. Robinson, Criminal Law, 77, 93–94; MacMullen, Enemies, 133; Koester, Introduction, 1:316). Past edicts could still function as precedents, even if not legally in force. Perhaps citing such imperial precedents rather than already obvious public policy might function to amplify the charge rhetorically. Rowe, World, 99, notes that the issue is not a decree with this specific wording; certainly the law’s spirit treated such actions as treason.

[2586]. Hardin, “Decrees.” On the city’s associations, see Nigdelis, “Associations”; Ascough, Associations.

[2587]. Riesner, Early Period, 357.

[2588]. Judge, First Christians, 462, notes that the similarity of language in 17:6 could recall Claudius’s recent reproof to Alexandrian Jews (noted above), in turn informing the recent ban on “messianic agitators” in Rome. Because the present passage omits mention of “Christ,” he thinks it less likely; but local Jews might naturally connect the title “Christ” with kingship.

[2589]. E.g., Val. Max. 5.6.pref.; 5.8.3; 6.3.6.

[2590]. Witherington, Acts, 508. For Thessalonica’s dependence on its relationship with Rome for prosperity, see, e.g., Green, “Patrón.”

[2591]. Riesner, Early Period, 357.

[2592]. Winter, After Corinth, 66.

[2593]. With Haenchen, “Acts as Source Material,” 274.

[2594]. Riesner, Early Period, 386–87.

[2595]. Believers in Thessalonica and Corinth admittedly experienced the surrounding culture differently, and hence differed in their social boundaries (see Barclay, “Thessalonica and Corinth”).

[2596]. Meeks, Urban Christians, 63 (on this legal liability for household heads in general, see also 76 and 221n10 [to p. 76]).

[2597]. On which see Keener, John, 913. Guest friends might even send their son to avenge the death of a former host (Philost. Hrk. 46.2).

[2598]. Riesner, Early Period, 358. Anyone tempted to doubt this conclusion need only consider the usual punishments for maiestas.

[2599]. Dunn, Acts, 229.

[2600]. Riesner, Early Period, 358; Dunn, Acts, 228–29.

[2601]. By contrast, Barrett, Acts, 816–17, thinks that Jason and his colleagues are also the object, citing the “brothers” in Acts 17:6. This is possible, though the charge against Jason is only that he welcomed those guilty of maiestas.

[2602]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 206; Conzelmann, Acts, 135; Tajra, Trial, 43; Fitzmyer, Acts, 597; Witherington, Acts, 509.

[2603]. In the papyri, see Lewis, Life, 187–88.

[2604]. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.12.2; Aul. Gel. 16.10.8.

[2605]. Lysias Or. 23.9–10, §167; cf. Thür, “Katengyan” (citing also Demosth. Zenoth. 29; Isoc. Trapezidicus [Or. 17] 12). The older Roman practice depended more on friends (Livy 3.13.8; 25.4.8–10; 39.41.7; 43.16.5; 46.7–8), but later it became more common for a person to post his own bail (Aul. Gel. 16.10.8).

[2606]. A person’s friends might pay his fine to prevent his humiliation (Appian Hist. rom. 2.8.2).

[2607]. C. Williams, Acts, 198 (following Ramsay, Traveller and Citizen, 231); Tajra, Trial, 43; O’Rourke, “Law,” 175.

[2608]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 35.

[2609]. See Hardin, “Decrees.” Cf. Ascough, “Mission,” 81, on this church growing like an association.

[2610]. E.g., Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 426; C. Williams, Acts, 198; Bruce, Acts¹, 327; Hemer, Acts in History, 186; Riesner, Early Period, 359; Witherington, Acts, 509; Donfried, Thessalonica, 39. For continued Jewish hostility as the point, see D. Williams, Acts, 296, citing the context of 1 Thess 2:14–16.

[2611]. Paul was not detained in Corinth simply by effective work; he would not have spoken then of “Satan” as hindering him (1 Cor 16:8–9), which better characterizes opposition (cf. 2 Cor 12:7, which I apply to his persecutions in 11:23–24; 1 Cor 4:11, also using κολαφίζω).

[2612]. With Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 33; Riesner, Early Period, 359.

[2613]. Horsley, “Politarchs,” 425.

[2614]. Cf. 1 Thess 2:14–15 with the report of Stephen’s death, though ἐπάθετε is aorist and Paul specifies the death of only Jesus and the prophets here.

[2615]. See Donfried, Thessalonica, 41–43, 161.

[2616]. Nevertheless, the possibly Macedonian provenance I have suggested for Luke-Acts would allow for Beroea to be better known to hearers there than in many other parts of the empire; see discussion of Beroea below.

[2617]. Polyb. 10.33.2–5; Arrian Alex. 4.24.4–5; 4.27.2; Sil. It. 15.807–8; 2 Sam 18:3; 1 Kgs 22:35; John 16:32.

[2618]. So Riesner, Early Period, 359. Although his language here is conventional (see Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse”), anxiety that his speedy departure has sent the wrong message is a plausible reason for the convention’s relevance here.

[2619]. Likewise, concern for Paul’s honor may inform Luke’s emphasis that Paul did not simply flee dishonorably in Acts 14:20 and 16:40 and may explain why Acts 20:16 does not provide further detail for Paul’s avoidance of Ephesus.

[2620]. Cf., e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.159.

[2621]. E.g., Philost. Hrk. 31.6 (though in that case it fails); cf. Eurip. Iph. Taur. 1025–26.

[2622]. E.g., Hor. Ep. 1.2.32–33; Xen. Eph. Anthia 2.11; Gen. Rab. 92:6; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 119; cf. thieves in Catull. Carm. 62.34–35; Exod 22:2–3; Sib. Or. 3.238, 380; Lewis, Life, 123; Schiemann, “Furtum,” 626.

[2623]. Cadbury, Acts in History, 60–61; Hemer, Acts in History, 115–16; Trocmé, “Apôtre et Rome”; Riesner, Early Period, 295. Cf. the similar turn southward in Acts 14:6.

[2624]. Dunn, Romans, 864, points out that μέχρι could mean “up to,” and hence as far as, the province rather than into it (also Talbert, Romans, 329).

[2625]. Does Luke omit the Illyrian mission (whether here or elsewhere) because Greeks and Macedonians would have considered these people less “civilized” or advanced? Or because it was too brief or not successful enough to warrant space in his compressed account of Paul’s travels? But cf. 2 Tim 4:10.

[2626]. Luke is interested enough in Paul’s mission and evangelization of peoples (Acts 1:8) that he probably would not have omitted it in any detailed section, especially since, by his day, there were churches in that region (2 Tim 4:10; Titus 3:12).

[2627]. With Riesner, Early Period, 296, 359–60; Haacker, Theology, 17.

[2628]. Judge, First Christians, 451, rightly points out that Paul’s fugitive status determined his turn to Beroea, rather than new word of Claudius’s expulsion (pace Harnack and Bornkamm); the timing is roughly correct (Acts 18:2), but the decree may have reached Macedonia before Paul’s flight (helping to explain local hostility in Philippi and Thessalonica).

[2629]. Gill, “Macedonia,” 416. Schnabel, Missionary, 272, also notes that Beroea had a Jewish community, whereas Pella and Edessa further to the west may not have had one.

[2630]. Riesner, Early Period, 295, thinks that Paul would have viewed the Greek mission as a fulfillment of Isa 66:19. This is possible after the fact, though I doubt that it was part of Paul’s original program.

[2631]. Strabo mentions that this Macedonian Beroea was earlier inhabited by Thracians (Strabo 7 frg. 25).

[2632]. Cic. Pis. 36.89 (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 206; Bruce, Acts¹, 328; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 157; Larkin, Acts, 249; Witherington, Acts, 509).

[2633]. A possible route was 30 mi. west on the Via Egnatia to Pella, mounted during the night, then roughly 20 mi. southwest to Beroea (Gill, “Macedonia,” 410).

[2634]. See Riesner, Early Period, 360.

[2635]. Errington, “Beroea.”

[2636]. As often noted (Conzelmann, Acts, 136; Gill, “Macedonia,” 415; Witherington, Acts, 509; Fitzmyer, Acts, 597; see Macleod in Lucian, LCL, 8:107). In the first century, it is well enough known to appear in Pliny the Elder’s list of western Macedonian towns (N.H. 4.10.33). Some of the evidence (for the titles νεωκόρος and μητρόπολις) dates from later, from Nerva’s reign (Errington, “Beroea”).

[2637]. Riesner, Early Period, 360. It had Syrian cults by the second century (Gill, “Macedonia,” 409) and the mother goddess by the late second or third or fourth (Koester, Paul and World, 177–79), and it lay beside a large river that emerged from a mountainous ravine ca. 5 mi. away (Abbott, Acts, 187). Beroea lay between the coastal lowlands and the hill country; 2 mi. to the east, the land was below 250 ft. (76 m.) above sea level; roughly the same distance to the east, it rose to more than 2,000 ft. (more than 600 m.) above sea level; within 8 mi., it was more than 9,000 ft., rising into Mount Bermion (Talbert, Barrington Atlas, 50, 3B). On Beroea, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 38–41 (though not enough remains for much archaeological comment); Pattengale, “Berea.”

[2638]. Despite probable meetings on the Sabbath (cf. Acts 16:13), we cannot be certain that the missionaries went to the place of prayer (16:16) only on the Sabbath, or how many days (16:18) the mantic person followed them before Paul expelled the spirit, nor whether they might have rested in Amphipolis or Apollonia if the Sabbath intervened, so we cannot know when in the week they arrived.

[2639]. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 157; Schnabel, Missionary, 272n35, citing Noy, Inscriptiones, 1:76–87.

[2640]. They may have been (or temporarily become) what Judeans called a “house of study,” including on weekdays (so Dunn, Acts, 229; weekdays may not have been normal in this period, however). In later sources, scrolls were present at synagogue services (e.g., b. Yoma 68b; 69a; Taʿan. 28a; Soṭah 40b; 41ab; Giṭ. 19b; for synagogues as related to, but distinct from, houses of study, see, e.g., b. Ber. 64a; Meg. 29a; B. Meṣiʿa 21b, 24a; Sanh. 111b; ʿAbod. Zar. 38a; for children’s schooling there, b. Qidd. 30a). But see Ciampa, “Examined,” 540–41.

[2641]. See Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 60 (citing Plut. Lect., Mor. 46D–47D).

[2642]. For noble birth as the subject of epideictic, see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 29.2–3.

[2643]. The prejudice was that, in general, noble birth could prove more apt to predispose one toward noble behavior; cf. Eurip. Danae frg. 329 (Stob. 3.7.5); Aeschines Tim. 42; Lysias Or. 30.1–2, §183; Dio Chrys. Ep. 1; Theon Progymn. 9.15; Char. Chaer. 2.10.7; Eunapius Lives 498; Jos. Ant. 19.164; see further comment at Acts 23:6. Such noble birth was distinct from wealth (Eurip. Meleager frg. 527 [Stob. 4.29.31]; frg. 1066 [Stob. 4.29.40]; Alcmene frg. 95 [Stob. 4.31.35]; Arist. Rhet. 2.9.11, 1387a; Phaedrus 27.1–2; Apul. Metam. 7.2); it was an advantage by fortune (Eurip. Heracl. 302–3), a topic for encomium (Demosth. Epitaph. 4; Rhet. Alex. 35, 1440b.17–19), and sometimes evident by sight (Philo Jos. 106). Many felt humiliated by low birth (Plut. Educ. 2, Mor. 1AB); others rejected being intimidated by those nobly born (e.g., Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 42.1).

[2644]. See, e.g., Eurip. Alexander frg. 61c (from Stob. 4.29.7); Dio Chrys. Or. 77/78.17; Epict. Diatr. 1.6.34; 1.9.32; 2.19.19; 4.6.33; 4.10.11; 4.11.19; Wis 8:3; 2 Macc 14:42; 4 Macc 6:5, 22, 30; 8:4; 9:13, 22, 24, 27; 10:3, 15; 12:14; 13:11; Philo Sobr. 56. This did not always accompany “genetic” nobility (Dictys frg. 336 [Stob. 4.29.1]; Arist. Rhet. 2.15.3, 1390b; Philost. Letters 28 [47]; Philo Abr. 265).

[2645]. Cf. also 1 Cor 4:3–4; 9:3; 14:24; for the cognate noun, Acts 25:26; 3 Macc 7:5.

[2646]. Johnson, Acts, 307–9.

[2647]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.24 (LCL, 2:389).

[2648]. E.g., Corn. Nep. 1 (Miltiades), 7.5–6; 2 (Themistocles), 8.1–7; 3 (Aristides), 1.1–5; 7 (Alcibiades), 4.1–2; Babr. 4.6–8; 31.23–24; 64.10–11; Phaedrus 1.21.1–2; 2.7.14–15; 3.5.1; 4.6.11–13; Tac. Hist. 4.47; Philod. On Death 35.4–5.

[2649]. Luke also uses σαλεύω, a graphic term that he elsewhere applies to physical shaking (Acts 4:31; 16:26), to describe their “disturbing” or “inciting” of the crowds (see BDAG).

[2650]. It is Paul’s isolation, not the temporary limitation of the rest of the team to two members, that is unusual; as in the gospel tradition (Mark 6:7), heralds traditionally traveled in pairs (Hom. Il. 1.320). For Paul’s dependence on colleagues in Acts, see, e.g., Murray, “Evangelism.”

[2651]. With, e.g., Gill, “Achaia,” 441; cf. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 15. The land journey would have been ca. 222 mi. or 357 km. (Peterson, Acts, 485).

[2652]. McRay, Archaeology, 297.

[2653]. On Thessaly’s history, see concisely Helly, “Thessaly,” and sources cited there.

[2654]. Hemer, Acts in History, 116.

[2655]. Riesner, Early Period, 361. He notes that Dion hosted a famous shrine of Dionysus and, along with Cassandreia, was one of Macedonia’s first two Roman colonies; it held the high honor of ius italicum. For the possible journey to Pydna or Methone, see Schnabel, Acts, 711.

[2656]. After this, we hear little of the Beroean church until a bishop there is mentioned in 343 C.E. (Schnabel, Mission, 1169).

[2657]. E.g., 1 Kgs 19:21; 2 Kgs 5:20; 6:15; 8:4; Diog. Laert. 7.1.12; 7.5.170; t. B. Meṣiʿa 2:30; cf. ʾAbot R. Nat. 27, §56 B; y. Soṭah 5:5, §4. See also Joshua’s subordinate “apprentice” role (Exod 24:13; 33:11; Josh 1:1; cf. CD VIII, 20–21; Mek. Pisha 1.150–53; ʾAbot R. Nat. 11, §28 B).

[2658]. Witulski, “Erzählstrategien,” views the passage as climactic within Acts 15:36–19:40.

[2659]. E.g., Dalton, “Areopagus”; Flemming, “Contextualizing in Athens”; Ukachukwu Manus, “Areopagus Speech”; Samuel, “Paul on Areopagus”; Isizoh, “Areopagus Speech”; Losie, “Speech on Areopagus,” 221–38; Schütz, “Prédication” (for homiletics); Haak, “Approach”; Tipei, “Speech” (on natural theology as a common ground); Campbell, “Scratching”; expressing concerns about some uses, see Yarnell, “Bridges”; for an alternative grammar from Stoicism rather than common ground, see Rowe, “Grammar.” African readings tend to focus on praxis (Reed, “Acts 17:16–34”) and proper contextualization (LeMarquand, “African Readings,” 495); cf. Muthuraj, “Mission.” For an examination of earlier use for models of inculturation (as well as debates about orthodoxy) in patristic sources, see Fiedrowicz, “Rezeption.”

[2660]. See, e.g., Zweck, “Areopagus Speech”; Vakayil, “Dialogue” (respectful and sensitive proclamation); further discussion below.

[2661]. With, e.g., Maloney, “Cultures.”

[2662]. On Athens, see further, e.g., the survey in Fant and Reddish, Sites, 12–38; Schnabel, Mission, 1170–74; Martin, “Athens” (and sources cited there); briefly, Eckey, Apostelgeschichte, 389–90; or Paus. 1. For bibliography on this passage, see, e.g., Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 441–42.

[2663]. Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 103, estimate the population at a quarter of a million at most in the period of Pericles; it had probably shrunk considerably since that time. The walls of Athens proper were ca. 7.5 mi. around; eleven of its gates are known by name, and there were others as well (Abbott, Acts, 190).

[2664]. Finegan, Apostles, 126 (citing Paus. 1.32.1).

[2665]. Finegan, Apostles, 126.

[2666]. Ibid.

[2667]. See, e.g., Pliny Ep. 8.24.2 (the originator of civilization); Char. Chaer. 3.4.18; 3.10.8. Athens remained Greece’s most important city in the second and early first centuries B.C.E. (cf. the Isis aretalogy in Horsley, Documents, 1:11–12, §2). An entire traditional branch of Greek historiography (in Athens) dealt with Attica’s local history (Harding, “Atthis”).

[2668]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 600–601.

[2669]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 113. Corinth eventually made more sense as Paul’s long-range goal.

[2670]. Meeks, Moral World, 24 (even calling Athens “a museum of the past”); cf. Engberg-Pedersen, “Scene,” 3.

[2671]. Argyle, “University.”

[2672]. On the city’s continuing reputation, see, e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 4.24 (Witherington, Acts, 513). Some philosophers spent years cultivating learning there (Philod. On Death 38.7–8, first century B.C.E.).

[2673]. Lucian Nigr. 12–14 (also simplicity in contrast with luxury, but Lucian is mocking philosophy).

[2674]. E.g., Aelius Aristides Panathenaic Oration; Plut. Fame Ath., Mor. 345C–351B. Cf. Isocrates’s much earlier Panathenaicus.

[2675]. Literature also originated there in Pliny Ep. 8.24.2.

[2676]. Corn. Nep. 25 (Atticus), 3.3 (LCL, 291–93). The claim about antiquity was certainly false, as its minimal role in Homer (if even that is original) demonstrates.

[2677]. Demosth. Ep. 3.11 (though DeWitt and DeWitt in LCL, 7:233, translate παιδεία here as “culture” rather than “instruction”).

[2678]. Apul. Flor. 18.16; 20.4.

[2679]. Athenian Agora, 59–63; Gill, “Achaia,” 441–42; McRay, Archaeology, 58, 305; MacKendrick, Stones, 386, 392–94; Paus. 1.8.6. Cf. the later date in Owens, City, 140, perhaps due to its renovation. The roof collapsed in the mid-second century, and it was rebuilt with a smaller seating capacity (Athenian Agora, 62).

[2680]. See Tomlinson, “Odeum”; Athenian Agora, 59–63; on these structures (often connected with theaters, as at Athens) in general, see Balty, “Odeum” (for another example, see the odeum in Gortyna, in Sanders, Crete, 65–66).

[2681]. Even in the Second Sophistic, some regarded Atticist purists as too fastidious (Pliny Ep. 7.12.2–4); Atticism valued the style of classical orators, versus the intervening Hellenistic rhetoric (Calboli, “Asianism,” 156; idem, “Atticism,” 325; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 68).

[2682]. Conzelmann, Acts, 138, notes that Athens continued to be remembered as the birthplace of learning (Cic. Flacc. 26.62) and attracted tourists for its history and festivals, and visitors for its intellectual reputation (Ovid Ep. 2.83; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.17; Cic. Fin. 5.2.5; cf. Weeber, “Travels,” 876). On its welcoming climate, see Eurip. frg. 981; cf. Medea 829–30, 837–39.

[2683]. Lutz, “Musonius,” 17. For another critique of Athens’s games, see Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.22.

[2684]. Lüdemann, Paul, 126, believes that Paul ministered in Athens because Luke’s failure to report persecution there (in contrast to Luke’s preferred narrative pattern) renders his narrative more likely.

[2685]. Later traveling speakers such as Dio Chrysostom also gave orations in various cities (cf. also Apul. Flor. 1.2 and the note by Hilton in Apuleius’s Rhetorical Works, 137n4), a model probably appealing also to Luke’s audience. That Luke offers no oration in Corinth or Ephesus, however, shows that Luke does not seek to create for Paul contextualized speeches for each major locality.

[2686]. Other ancient narratives also report divided responses to claims (e.g., Apul. Flor. 19.7); certainly this happened at times after speeches (e.g., Tac. Ann. 14.45; Hist. 4.43–44). Some scholars think that Paul counted his visit to Athens a failure, on the basis of 1 Cor 1:17–2:5 (Knox, Gentiles, 25–26; Case, Origins, 127; Neil, Thessalonians, 62; Dupont, Salvation, 30), but this belief depends on a misunderstanding of that passage (see, e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 35), which never addresses Athens (though Paul had come from there; cf. 1 Cor 2:1; 1 Thess 3:1; Acts 18:1). Both views assume that Paul did try to evangelize there.

[2687]. Malherbe, Philosophers, 151–52.

[2688]. See Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics (though I see it less in the pattern that Engberg-Pedersen presents and more in the many texts where commentators have traditionally found it); idem, “Stoisk” (with comparisons and contrasts; also in idem, “Relationship”); Paige, “Stoicism”; esp. (for comparisons on more individual points) deSilva, “Paul and Stoa”; Thorsteinsson, “Paul”; for comparison and contrast with Seneca, cf. Lightfoot, Philippians, 270–333; Sevenster, Seneca; Rincón Alvarez, “Mensajes” (though Seneca can be used even to inform less philosophically sophisticated works, e.g., the Fourth Gospel; see Lang, “Abschiedsreden”). Engberg-Pedersen’s heavy dependence on Cicero’s portrayal (Paul and Stoics, 46) may, however, invite adjustment, since we know that Cicero added to Aristotle (see Fortenbaugh, “Cicero”) and he may have distorted Stoicism as well (Erskine, “Cicero”) or neglected apocalyptic (Wright, Paul, 1389–90). For Paul and popular philosophy, see, e.g., Malherbe, Philosophers; idem, “Philosopher”; Holloway, “Paul”; for some (less relevant here) comparisons between early Christian writers and Plato, see, e.g., Gawlina, “Paulus und Plato.” This is not to claim that either Luke or Paul directly studied with philosophers: from about age 15, Greek boys were exposed to some philosophic views; ideas were hawked on street corners; samples appeared in handbooks (Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 13; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 10; cf. Glover, Paul, 23; Deming, “Indifferent Things,” 388).

[2689]. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 26.

[2690]. For the speech as a model for apologetics, see Charles, “Engaging the Mind”; Witulski, “Erzählstrategien”; for Luke’s audience’s missionary preaching, Zweck, “Areopagus Speech”; for evangelism and formation, see Geraghty, “Before Areopagus.” O’Neill, Theology, 170, thinks that Luke invites readers to follow the model of Dionysius in Acts 17:34. Flender, Theologian, 88, thinks the speech’s purpose is “to open the pagan mind to the Christian message” and make it relevant.

[2691]. O’Neill, Theology, 170.

[2692]. Dupont, Salvation, 30.

[2693]. Lucian Fisherman 42.

[2694]. Comparisons with classical Athens or Sparta should flatter his audience, Dio Chrys. Or. 50.2 notes.

[2695]. With Rome, it remained a standard for comparison (Men. Rhet. 2.14, 427.1–3). Aesop proves wiser than one who boasts of study under Athens’s philosophers in Vit. Aes. 36. One’s rhetoric might be worthy of note even in Athens (Symm. Ep. 1.2.1).

[2696]. Some members of the Herod family, however, became Athens’s benefactors, apparently admiring it (see IG 2.2.3449; Sherk, Empire, 80–81, §42F).

[2697]. Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 125. Philosophers’ applauding Jewish doctrine is likewise helpful apologetic in Let. Aris. 200–201.

[2698]. Aune, Environment, 33.

[2699]. See discussion and sources in Keener, Acts, 1:233–37. Normally those dependent on letters cited them, thereby displaying their research.

[2700]. Although “we” in 1 Thessalonians may often be Paul, Silas, and Timothy (1 Thess 1:1), it is sometimes explicitly Paul alone (1 Thess 2:18; see comment below). Some make ἐπέμψαμεν in 1 Thess 3:2 an epistolary aorist, so that Paul is presently sending Timothy from Athens, but this is implausible if the earlier part of letter is from Corinth (cf. Donfried, Thessalonica, 218–19).

[2701]. Bruce, Acts¹, 330; Witherington, Acts, 510. Witherington, citing Rom 16:21 with Acts 20:4, also suggests that perhaps Sopater of Beroea and others traveled with Timothy to Corinth; this is not impossible, though it assumes that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians during Acts 18 rather than during 20:2–3.

[2702]. Neil, Thessalonians, 62.

[2703]. Riesner, Early Period, 362; Donfried, Thessalonica, 209–19, esp. 218–19. In this case, we would read καταλειφθῆναι not as implying where Timothy “left” him but as simply stating that he was left alone (cf. the use in Rom 11:4).

[2704]. Observing the divergences, Fitzmyer claims that “Luke’s information is either abridged or inaccurate” (Acts, 598). Sometimes ancient writers left matters unclear because they abbreviated too much (one possibility, if Lucian and Apuleius had a common source, in Lucian Lucius 7 [cf. Apul. Metam. 2.11]; 24 [cf. Apul. Metam. 6.29]; 38; 44 [Apul. Metam. 9.39]; 54; but Apuleius might expand and clarify).

[2705]. In any case, Paul may be in Corinth rather than Athens when Timothy reaches him, so that there is no inherent tension between 1 Thess 3:1 and Acts 18:5 (see Conzelmann, Acts, 136).

[2706]. Compare, e.g., Mark 11:11–25 with Matt 21:12–22; or Mark 14:53 and 15:1 with Luke 22:66.

[2707]. Comparisons of other ancient biographies yield the same kinds of differences; see Keener, “Otho,” 338, 348–51; also Licona, “Biographies.” Preliminary explorations by some of my students, following works on Galba (noted by Liesel Ackey and by my doctoral student Benson Goh) and (with much greater variation) descriptions in varying works of Josephus (noted by Jordan Henderson), have yielded similar results.

[2708]. See Keener, Acts, 1:143–47; also idem, John, 18–19; idem, Matthew, 18; 2 Macc 2:24–25, 28; Theon Progymn. 4.37–42, 80–82.

[2709]. Witherington, Acts, 510.

[2710]. With, e.g., C. Williams, Acts, 24. Matthew similarly feels freedom to abridge his sources, e.g., omitting messengers in Mark 5:35 (cf. also Luke 7:3–6//Matt 8:5–8).

[2711]. Conzelmann, Acts, 136.

[2712]. Pliny E. N.H. 4.7.24 claims that Athens was 5 mi. inland from its ports, Piraeus and Phalerum.

[2713]. Plut. Themist. 19.2–4; Paus. 1.1.2. Many ancients report sailing into Piraeus (e.g., Lucian Ship 1, 9; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.17; cf. Pliny E. N.H. 4.7.24) or Phalerum (cf. Pliny E. N.H. 4.7.24). On Piraeus, see further Garland, Piraeus; idem, “Piraeus.”

[2714]. Abbott, Acts, 188. Abbott claims (190) that the walls around the ports were roughly as large as the walls around Athens itself.

[2715]. See further Dunbabin, Eliot, and Hornblower, “Long Walls.”

[2716]. McRay, Archaeology, 299 (skeptical of the tradition).

[2717]. Abbott, Acts, 189.

[2718]. This altar is singular in Lucian Patriot 9, but this source is Byzantine, reflecting dependence on Acts 17:23. Citing the altars at Phalerum, Dyer, Athens, 191–92, thinks that Paul arrived there (but also notes on 192 that such altars “were not uncommon in the Attic demes”).

[2719]. See Spawforth, “Phaleron.”

[2720]. Eickstedt, “Piraeus,” 289; McRay, Archaeology, 299. On the population of Piraeus in this period, see Grigoropoulos, “Population.”

[2721]. Finegan, Apostles, 128. The term δρόμος can mean a running course or public walkway; the walking distance from Piraeus to the city was not considered great (see Galen Grief 40).

[2722]. Le Cornu, Acts, 951.

[2723]. Broneer, “Athens,” 3–4. Temples were common on an acropolis (Owens, City, 4), but Athens outdid most others (see discussion below; for the Acropolis in Pausanias and nineteenth-century archaeology, see Dyer, Athens, 353–440).

[2724]. Gill, “Religion,” 85–86 (citing Paus. 1.28.2); for the more general sight of Athena’s temple there, see Paus. 1.1.1.

[2725]. Eickstedt, “Piraeus,” 286.

[2726]. For Poseidon’s prominence in artwork on the Acropolis, after the Persian Wars, see Bäbler, “Poseidon,” 677.

[2727]. Witherington, Acts, 512. For the term’s strength, see also Bruce, Acts¹, 331.

[2728]. McRay, “Athens,” 139; cf. MacKendrick, Stones, 424; Rives, Religion, 55. This probably means only five thousand “voting citizens” (Haenchen, Acts, 517, following voting records), but such citizens were always a minority of Athenian residents (Polhill, Acts, 365).

[2729]. He also narrates, among other things, the portrayal of a bull dedicated by the Areopagus (Paus. 1.24.2). From a less favorable perspective, Apollonius, who rejected animal sacrifices, thought the Athenians too addicted to these (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.19).

[2730]. Grant, Gods, 45; the huge numbers in Rome in Toner, Culture, 149, citing Pliny E. N.H. 36.121. Cf., e.g., the many statues of Rhodes (Dio Chrys. Or. 31). Schnabel, Acts, 722, notes that Pliny (Pliny E. N.H. 34.36) even estimates 73,000 statues in Rhodes, “with ‘no fewer’ in Athens” and sanctuary cities.

[2731]. As commentators often observe (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 209, citing Livy 45.27; Paus. 1.17.1; Strabo 9.1.16; Soph. Oed. Col. 260; others, repeating the citations, e.g., Bruce, Acts¹, 335; idem, Commentary, 355n34; Conzelmann, Acts, 138); Malherbe, “Life,” 11–12. Cf. also Val. Max. 1.1.ext. 7; Paus. 1.24.3.

[2732]. This was the (generally) annual procession on the Panathenaic Way to the Acropolis, for honoring Athena; the Parthenon’s friezes depict it eloquently, including “warriors, maidens, sacrificial beasts and even a wheeled ship” (Athenian Agora, 63). Bases along the way held dedications. Thousands could watch “from the high terraces and steps of the Middle Stoa and the Stoa of Attalos” (63).

[2733]. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 33, point out that this temple was one of antiquity’s most massive: “135 feet wide and 340 feet long with 104 Corinthian columns, 55 feet tall, constructed from 15,500 tons of Pentelic marble.” Construction had stopped in 164 B.C.E.; although Augustus resumed construction, it was Hadrian who completed it in 130 C.E.

[2734]. On Deucalion, briefly, see comment on Acts 14:11.

[2735]. Jones and Ormerod, LCL, 1:97.

[2736]. LCL, 1:110. This was allegedly where Aegeus hurled himself into the sea thereafter named for him (Paus. 1.22.4–5).

[2737]. For Hermes and gates in general, see further Johnston, “Gates,” 705.

[2738]. McRay, Archaeology, 302, regards this as “a legitimate assumption,” but since Paul was a missionary rather than a tourist, it cannot be taken for granted. On the Acropolis, see also, e.g., Fant and Reddish, Sites, 24–32. From the marketplace, one would take the Panathenaic Way up to the Acropolis (Finegan, Apostles, 128).

[2739]. McRay, “Athens,” 139; idem, Archaeology, 301 (citing IG 2².3271, lines 4–5).

[2740]. McRay, “Athens,” 139.

[2741]. Describing statues was a conventional rhetorical exercise (Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xli), and they often drew the attention of historians (Polyb. 4.78.3–5).

[2742]. Dio Chrys. Or. 40.8 lists it among the world’s most famous temples. It is named after “the virgin,” a title also translated into Latin in Mart. Epig. 9.23.1. On the Parthenon, see further Höcker, “Parthenon.”

[2743]. E.g., Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.12; Lucian Sacr. 10; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.9.1; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 70; Vit. Apoll. 4.22. On Athena and Athens, see also Graf, “Athena,” 117–18.

[2744]. On sacred caves in antiquity, see discussion in Keener, “Cave”; cf. also, e.g., Apul. Flor. 1.3.

[2745]. See Wycherley, “Athens” (though he may overestimate their applicability to this passage); Gill, “Achaia,” 444; Witherington, Acts, 512 (citing Livy 45.27; Paus. 1.14.1–1.15.7). The hermae were square (Paus. 1.19.2), and Athenians were the first to erect these (Paus. 1.24.3).

[2746]. Gill, “Achaia,” 444–45. For statues of tyrannicides, cf., e.g., Libanius Topics 4.6.

[2747]. On which see Athenian Agora, 56–58. Along with a temple of Demeter and probably one of Athena, this temple had been moved from the surrounding countryside (Gill, “Achaia,” 442). Gaius Caligula was honored at the Ares temples as a “new Ares” (IG 2.2.3250; Gill, “Achaia,” 442–43).

[2748]. Gill, “Achaia,” 444. On the Stoa of Zeus, see also Athenian Agora, 50–52 (noting that some identify this with the Stoa Basileios, where the Areopagus sometimes met, 51–52).

[2749]. Gill, “Achaia,” 445; cf. Camp, “Athens, Topography,” 206.

[2750]. McRay, “Athens,” 140; likewise, idem, Archaeology, 306 (citing Vitruv. Arch. 1.6.4; Varro Rust. 3.5.17; IG 12.5.891); MacKendrick, Stones, 385; for discussion of ancient views of the winds, see comment on Acts 2:2. Sometime in the first century, a latrine with sixty-six seats was added near the tower (McRay, Archaeology, 306). For deity statues (and esp. Fortune) in the city center, see Libanius Descr. 25.2.

[2751]. Farnell, Cults, 1:348, allowed for the possibility of an Athena Hygeia in Athens but regarded Asclepius’s daughter as the likelier dominant recipient of entreaties for health.

[2752]. Cf. the statues of Egyptian kings (Paus. 1.8.6) and of Philip and Alexander (1.9.4). Marketplace statues of mortals preserved their memory (Libanius Anecdote 3.19).

[2753]. Paintings of myths were also pervasive. One building on the left of the Acropolis’s gateway contained various paintings, e.g., about Diomedes, Odysseus, Orestes, and Polyxena (Paus. 1.22.6; none of these were deified); other myth paintings and deity paintings, 1.24.3. Depictions in 1.25.2 include the war with the giants, the Athenians battling the Amazons, etc.

[2754]. McRay, “Athens,” 139.

[2755]. Gill, “Achaia,” 442.

[2756]. Ibid. On the Agora over the centuries, see also comments in Camp, “Athens, Topography.”

[2757]. Athenian Agora, 42–44, covers the peribolos (enclosed sacred court) of the eponymous heroes; for the altar of Zeus Agoraios, see 44–45; the (later) statue of Hadrian, 45; seats and stairway to temple of Hephaistos, 45–46; temple of Hephaistos, 46–47; temple of Apollo Patroos, 48–49; temple of Zeus Phratrios and Athena Phratria, 49–50; and the Stoa of Zeus, 50–52. On the peribolos and altar of the Twelve Gods, see 55–56; the temple and altar of Ares, 56–58. For the Eleusinion mentioned by Pausanias, with dedications to Eleusinian deities, see 82–83. A forum was a natural site for temples (e.g., Pliny Ep. 10.49.1–2; Owens, City, 4).

[2758]. Gill, “Achaia,” 443–44.

[2759]. Ibid., 453, emphasizing that this must be an eyewitness account. But while Luke might have visited Athens (perhaps en route to visit Paul in Corinth if he had reason to do so) sometime during his sojourn in Macedonia, he is not with Paul on this occasion (contrast the “we” in much of Acts 16), and his report of this occasion is not firsthand. Ruins of many temples remain in Athens—e.g., the Hephaesteum (Finegan, Apostles, 130), the Erechtheion on the Acropolis (135), and the temple of Olympian Zeus (136).

[2760]. Cadbury, Acts in History, 28.

[2761]. McRay, “Athens,” 139; Gill, “Achaia,” 444. Altars could be consecrated to celebrate even Augustus’s safe return to Rome from abroad (Res Gestae 1.11; 2.12).

[2762]. Gill, “Achaia,” 443.

[2763]. Sherk, Empire, 115, §78A.

[2764]. Gill, “Religion,” 86. Athens controlled the rites (Burkert, Mystery Cults, 4).

[2765]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.17 (mentioning philosophy students stripped to enjoy autumn heat there).

[2766]. See Corn. Nep. 7 (Alcibiades), 3.5; Plut. Ten Or. 2, Andocides, Mor. 834CD; Lucian Dem. 11; Diog. Laert. 6.2.39; Athenag. Plea 4; Tatian Or. Gks. 27; cf. Mylonas, Eleusis, 224–25. For their popularity among Greeks, see also, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 12.34; cf., e.g., Sheldon, Mystery Religions, 23–24; Reitzenstein, Religions, 432.

[2767]. Winslow, “Religion,” 241; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 342; cf. Lucian Dem. 34. For Roman appreciation and involvement, see, e.g., Cic. De or. 3.20.75; Leg. 2.9.21; 2.14.36.

[2768]. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 158–62; Schnabel, Mission, 1174 (citing, e.g., CIJ 1:712–15). These include a Jewish resident in the second century B.C.E. (IG 2.2.12609), a first-century C.E. Ammia from Jerusalem (IG 2.2.8934), and a Jewish immigrant from Asia Minor in the first centuries B.C.E. or C.E. (IG 2.2.7931; Stern, “Diaspora,” 158). For synagogues in Greece in general, see Goodenough, Symbols, 2:70–77. For other foreign cults in Athens, see, e.g., the Serapis temple in Paus. 1.18.4 (but the Athenians had introduced his worship from Ptolemy).

[2769]. Dunn, Acts, 232, suggesting that Luke is characteristically portraying Paul as more faithful to Judaism than are the local synagogues (cf. Acts 19:26, 33).

[2770]. Further on agoras in general, see Kolb, “Agora”; von Reden, “Market,” 376–77; comment on Acts 16:19. On Athens’s Greek agora, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 19–23.

[2771]. On the temple of Hephaistos, see, e.g., Athenian Agora, 46–47; Paus. 1.14.6.

[2772]. On the Stoa of Attalus, see, e.g., Athenian Agora, 65–67.

[2773]. McRay, “Athens,” 139; idem, Archaeology, 40, 302. Philosophers still debated in Athens’s agora in the late second century (Lucian Eunuch 1; Indictment 8).

[2774]. McRay, Archaeology, 302–5.

[2775]. Ibid., 305.

[2776]. Ibid., 304–5.

[2777]. Ibid., 41, 306. On Athens’s Roman forum, see further Fant and Reddish, Sites, 32; on forums generally, von Reden, “Market,” 376–77. It was begun by Julius Caesar and finished by Augustus (Owens, City, 140).

[2778]. McRay, “Athens,” 139–40; idem, Archaeology, 305. McRay notes (306) that this forum “was 364 feet long by 321 feet wide” and Rome’s was 430 by 295 ft., but whereas Rome’s forum was “for public business” (following Appian Hist. rom. 2.102), Athens’s “was used for commercial purposes.”

[2779]. McRay, Archaeology, 302.

[2780]. Ibid., 306.

[2781]. Hock, Social Context, 42, as a possibility, though he thinks Paul probably dialogued near the stoa.

[2782]. Malherbe, “Life,” 35; Liefeld, “Preacher,” 36 (citing Stoic examples in Hor. Ep. 1.12.20; Sat. 1.1.120–21; 2.3.32–33); cf. Barrett, Documents, 75–76. On philosophers and means of support, see comment on Acts 18:3.

[2783]. Johnson, Acts, 312, thinks that Paul adapts the method for the first time here (for Cynics’ “open-air” preaching, he cites Epict. Diatr. 3.22.26–30; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.9); Liefeld, “Preacher,” 220, also thinks this approach different from Paul’s usual strategy (because impromptu). But Dunn, Acts, 232, rightly recognizes that Acts 14:9 also implies the same strategy.

[2784]. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 290. For Pauline parallels, see comment on Acts 14:8–10.

[2785]. Ramsay, Discovery, 96; Haenchen, Acts, 517; Conzelmann, “Areopagus,” 219; idem, Acts, 139 (comparing διελέγετο with Plato Apol. 19D), though admitting that Luke elsewhere employs the term for preaching (Acts 17:2; 18:4, 19; 19:8–9; 20:7, 9); Hansen, “Preaching,” 310 (citing Plato Apol. 17; cf. Apol. 23); Barrett, Acts, 829 (comparing παρατυγχάνοντας here with ἐντυγχάνω in Plato Apol. 29D); Dunn, Acts, 232. The practice itself was more widespread than Socrates, so that only Luke’s more explicit allusion in Acts 17:19 clarifies the connection here.

[2786]. Gill, “Achaia,” 445–46.

[2787]. Conzelmann, Acts, 139; cf. also Ramsay, Discovery, 96.

[2788]. Haenchen, Acts, 517 (citing Acts 2:12–13; 14:4; 23:6; 28:24); Neyrey, “Epicureans and Theodicy,” 121. For two groups, see also perhaps Luke 7:32 (though this is not specifically Lukan redaction; Matt 11:17).

[2789]. See Neyrey, “Epicureans and Theodicy,” 121; later but independently, Keener, Background Commentary, 372–73; also others, e.g., Klauck, Magic, 78; cf. Lang, Kunst, 251–314 (note p. 258 on Acts 17:18); idem, “Self,” 169; Schnabel, Missionary, 171–73 (also noting smaller common ground with Epicureans on 173, and contrasts with both on 174–78; see also idem, Acts, 746–48). Witherington, Acts, 534, rightly notes that Paul’s speech conflicts with both (his emphasis on immanence in Acts 17:27–28 conflicts with Epicurean thought, but his distinction of God from creation and an epistemology of direct revelation as well as nature in Acts 17:30–31 conflict with Stoic thought); Winter, “Public,” 136–38, finds correspondences in Paul’s speech with Epicureanism. But Paul’s thought accords much better with Stoicism and would have accorded reasonably well until Acts 17:30. Paul’s letters may also start with common ground; Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 363, contends that Paul starts the body of Romans (Rom 1:18–3:20) with assumptions that Judaism shared (this is surely true at least in 1:18–32).

[2790]. For some common ground with Epicureans, see also Schnabel, Missionary, 173, noted above.

[2791]. So Soards, “Setting,” 45; Hansen, “Preaching,” 311. Epicureans could conceivably have spoken of foreign deities as well, but they rejected local ones also (see discussion below).

[2792]. Hansen, “Preaching,” 311, 313; Croy, “Philosophies and Preaching”; idem, “Epicureanism,” 326.

[2793]. Neyrey, “Epicureans and Theodicy,” 121–22. Paul’s letters reflect far more Stoic than Epicurean influence; see, e.g., Downing, Cynics, 267–86.

[2794]. Cf. Lucian Alex. 38 (for the view of followers of Alexander). Some scholars see Epicurean elements in the Corinthian Christians’ views (cf. 1 Cor 15:32; Tomlin, “Epicureans”), though this might reflect Paul’s polemic.

[2795]. Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 124 (following Glad, Paul and Philodemus, 9 and n. 16); later, cf. Ambrose Letters to Priests 59 (Bray, Corinthians, 167).

[2796]. Lucian Hermot. 14–15, 25–27, 29–30. One might summarize the major options as Epicureans, Stoics, Platonists (or Skeptics), and Peripatetics (Par. 27; Hermot. 16); a fuller list would add Pythagoreans (Fisherman 43).

[2797]. On a Middle Platonist—specifically, on the Middle Platonist Plutarch—see Klauck, Context, 401–26; esp. Plut. Plat. Q., Mor. 999C–1011E.

[2798]. Lucian Eunuch 3 (noting two chairs for each school); Philost. Vit. soph. 2.2.566 (on Herodes). See also Johnson, Acts, 313; Witherington, Acts, 514. Another school (without a chair) was that of the Skeptics; they denied any natural universals, even for morality (Lucian Indictment 25; Diog. Laert. 9.11.101), and suspended judgment on what they could not know (Sext. Emp. Pyr. 1.2.5–6), without asserting everything to be false (1.7.14). Others claimed that they denied knowledge, knowing nothing (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 88.44; Lucian True Story 2.18; Phil. Sale 27). They denied the validity of arguments (Diog. Laert. 9.11.74, 79, 90, 102); with more nuance, cf. Aul. Gel. 11.5.1–8, esp. 11.5.8 (Academics affirm that nothing can be known with certainty whereas Pyrrhonians doubt that even this statement is knowable).

[2799]. Cf., e.g., Lucian Par. 30.

[2800]. See Poster, “Affections,” 24–25 (esp. Middle Platonism as an amalgam, 24); see also the nuance and examples in Stowers, “Self-Mastery,” 538–39.

[2801]. Though Plutarch opposed Epicureanism, his ethical theory betrays some Epicurean traits (Smith, Symposium, 62).

[2802]. With, e.g., Malherbe, “Life,” 32–33; Matheson, Epictetus, 25 (citing esp. Epict. Diatr. 2.20; 3.7); Klauck, Context, 334. Nevertheless, Plato commanded respect over a long period (Cic. Tusc. 1.17.39–40; 1.23.55; Sen. Y. Dial. 7.18.1).

[2803]. See Lucian Symp. 48, discussed in Smith, Symposium, 64.

[2804]. Mason, “Chief Priests,” 131–32.

[2805]. Carcopino, Life, 109, 113; MacMullen, Enemies, 46–94.

[2806]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 62.40; p. 64.1–4; Epict. Diatr. 1.8.7–8; 3.23 (e.g., 3.23.20); Tac. Dial. 31–32, 42; Anacharsis Ep. 1, to Athenians; Lucian Fisherman 43; Marc. Aur. 1.7; 1.16.4; 1.17.8; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.30; 8.6; Ep. Apoll. 1; Porph. Marc. 17.284–85; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 20.2; 40.4; 86.16; 100.1; 108.23, 38; 115.1–2; Philo Creation 45; Worse 38; Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 42–60; Pearcy, “Did Galen Understand?”; Litfin, Theology, 46–58; Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xlvii. Socrates had a special reputation for challenging sophistry (Plato Theaet. 164CD; Hippias major; Hippias minor; Xen. Mem. 4.3.1; Val. Max. 3.4.ext. 1). For a more qualified rejection of rhetoric, see, e.g., Winter, Philo and Paul, 121–25 (on Epict. Diatr. 3.23); Pogoloff, Logos, 37–39 (on Plato).

[2807]. E.g., a rhetorical sage such as Dio Chrysostom (Dio Chrys. Or. 4.123–24; 6.21; 12.5; 13.22; 54.1, 3–4); a Jewish historian (Jos. War 1.13; Ag. Ap. 1.27); and others (Xen. Hunt. 13.1–2; Isoc. Antidosis; Against Sophists; Aeschines Tim. 31; Demosth. Lacr. 40–41, 56; Val. Max. 6.2.pref.; Plut. Themist. 2.4; Educ. 17, Mor. 12F; Suet. Rhet. 1; Alciph. Court. 7 [Thaïs to Euthydemus], 1.34, ¶¶4–5; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.483; 1.15.499).

[2808]. Rhet. Alex. 15, 1432a.1–2; Dion. Hal. Lysias 18; Isaeus 16; Cic. Or. Brut. 14.46; Lucian Dial. D. 450–54 (24/30, Minos and Sostratus 1–3); Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.27 (42); cf. Rhet. Her. 3.3.6; Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 46; so also Skeptics, who denied any standard of justice (Lucian Indictment 15, 25; cf. Peripatetics in Tac. Dial. 31). Rhetoricians discussed even which vowels sounded more euphonic (Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 14).

[2809]. E.g., Aul. Gel. 5.3.7; 5.10; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 4.13. See the early rabbis in Nádor, “Sophismus.”

[2810]. See, e.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 75.1–4; 108.12; Epict. Diatr. 1.8.7; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11p, pp. 96–97.30–32; Synesius Dio, ch. 1, pp. 35ff. Petav. (in Dio Chrysostom, LCL, 5:364–87, here 5:371); cf. Schenkeveld, “Philosophical Prose,” 197–202; even Plato made significant use of rhetoric (Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 342–43, §114D; Philost. Letters 73 [13]; Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 42; Litfin, Theology, 58–59), despite his detractors (Dion. Hal. Demosth. 23). For both perspectives among Stoics, see Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 90–91.19–26.

[2811]. Winter, Philo and Paul, 98; Pogoloff, Logos, 57; but Dion. Hal. Anc. Or. 1.1 blames specifically Asianist rhetoric for eclipsing philosophy. If one had wisdom, rhetoric remained essential for persuading others of such wisdom for the common good (Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 4; Cic. Brut. 24.110; 31.117; Inv. 1.1.1; Sen. E. Controv. 2.pref. 3).

[2812]. E.g., Fronto Ad am. 1.15; cf. Speeches 2; Eloq. 3.4; Cassin, “Philosophia.” More conciliatory, Fronto Eloq. 1.18; cf. Hermog. Progymn. 11, “On Thesis,” 25. Rhetoricians defended rhetoric, praising it (Cic. De or. 3.14.55) and noting that its abuse did not discredit its proper use (Isoc. Nic. 1–9 [Or. 3.26–27]; Cic. Inv. 1.3.4–1.4.5; cf. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 33–34).

[2813]. Lucian Z. Rants 16, 27, 51–53.

[2814]. E.g., Cic. Off. 1.1.3–4; Or. Brut. 3.12–13; Quint. Inst. 1.pref. 13, 18; Dio Chrys. Or. 22, esp. 22.1–2; Plut. Cic. 13.1; 32.5; Max. Tyre 1.7; 14.8; 25 (e.g., 25.3, 6); 26.2; 27.8. Possibly, Lucian Par. passim mocks the debate altogether.

[2815]. E.g., Graeser, Plotinus and Stoics, 1–2; Pogoloff, Logos, 175; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 12; Quint. Decl. 268.9; for sophists, Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9; Suet. Tib. 11.3; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.8.490; Winter, Philo and Paul, 170–76; for the same pattern in medieval academics, see, e.g., Shelley, History, 198. One generally more tolerant example is Arius Didymus (see Pomeroy, “Introduction,” 3; citing also Strabo 14.5.4).

[2816]. See, e.g., Plut. Isis 3, Mor. 352C; Lucian Icar. 16 (both a Stoic and an Epicurean); Carousal 30, 34; Tim. 54–57; Runaways 4; Dial. D. 329 (1/1, Diogenes 1); 332 (1/1, Diogenes 2); Fisherman 42; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 3–4, 51. Cf. Zeus’s complaint in Lucian Icar. 29–31. Members of philosophic schools could never master even all the teachings of their own school (Hermot. 48).

[2817]. See Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 12; against Epicureans, see, e.g., idem, Philosophers, 82–86; cf. complaints about Epicureans abusing others (Plut. Pleas. L. 2, Mor. 1086EF; Diog. Laert. 10.1.7–8); they might ridicule early Stoic pantheism (e.g., Cic. Nat. d. 1.10.24). The earliest Epicureans probably ignored Stoics more than they combated them (Kechagia, “Rivalry”). On typical ancient stereotyped polemic in general, see Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 307.6; Johnson, “Slander.”

[2818]. Cf. Meeks, Moral World, 41.

[2819]. On Epicurus and Epicureans, see esp. Diog. Laert. 10; Bailey, Epicurus; DeWitt, Epicurus; Rist, Epicurus; Long, Philosophy, 14–74; Clay, Epicurus; relevant material in Sharples, Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics; more succinctly, Klauck, Context, 385–400; Croy, “Epicureanism”; Dorandi, “Epicurean School.” For sample texts on Epicureanism, see Shelton, Romans, 420–24. For one survey of recent publications on ancient philosophy, see Gill, “Philosophy”; idem, “Studies.”

[2820]. On Epicurean friendship, see, e.g., Culpepper, School, 101; Stowers, Letter Writing, 66; Meeks, World, 57; Stambach and Balch, Environment, 143. Epicureans valued friendship as a source of pleasure (Diog. Laert. 10.120; 148.27–28; Cic. Fin. 1.20.65–70); Stoics, by contrast, valued friendship for its own sake (Cic. Fin. 3.21.70). The view of the Epicurean Lucretius, in Nat. 5.1019–23, sounds like later social-contract theories; the Epicurean Philodemus, in Prop. 24.20–29; 24.41–25.4, urges financial generosity toward friends.

[2821]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 604. Epicurus himself was thought to have lived simply (Cic. Tusc. 5.31.89–5.32.89).

[2822]. Knowling, “Acts,” 365.

[2823]. Smith, Symposium, 58, noting that the custom continued in this period (Cic. Fin. 2.101; Pliny E. N.H. 35.5). On their communal and egalitarian ideal, see also Dorandi, “Epicurean School,” 1074; for the annual feasts and mourning honoring Epicurus and his relatives and friends, see Dorandi, “Epicurean School,” 1074–75.

[2824]. Seneca’s first-century dialogues with Lucilius concerning Epicureanism offer further support for their continuance (cf. Meeks, Moral World, 56).

[2825]. Dorandi, “Epicurean School,” 1072.

[2826]. Ibid.

[2827]. Ibid., 1073.

[2828]. Ibid., 1074. We might exclude Pythagoreans if they functioned as a continuing movement.

[2829]. Philod. Crit. frg. 45 (Konstan et al., 57). Epicurus offers correction in frg. 55.

[2830]. Lucian Alex. 61; for his bringing freedom, see also Alex. 47.

[2831]. Mastrocinque, “Choices,” 379, notes the philosophy’s appeal among the wealthy, though also noting the proliferation of a similar view of afterlife among others.

[2832]. Koester, Introduction, 1:145–47, esp. 147. An Epicurean’s freedman taught philosophy, rhetoric, and grammar (Suet. Gramm. 6), illustrating the Epicurean’s status; but another grammarian was accorded less respect because he was also an Epicurean (Gramm. 8).

[2833]. Cf. Malherbe, “Epicureans,” 47; Meeks, Urban Christians, 81–84.

[2834]. See the caution in Meeks, Urban Christians, 84.

[2835]. See Wallace and Williams, World, 129–30.

[2836]. See Nock, Conversion, passim.

[2837]. See Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 124 (following Glad, Paul and Philodemus, 9 and n. 16).

[2838]. On Epicurean views of pleasure, see, e.g., Long, Philosophy, 61–69; Irwin, Philosophy, 272–75 (§§412–18); Sorabji, Emotion, 201–3, 235; Klauck, Context, 395–98; for Epicurean ethics in general, see at length Cic. Fin. 1.5.13–1.21.72. On emotions more generally, cf., e.g., their view on anger in Procopé, “Epicureans,” esp. 188–89; Sanders, “Notion”; for Stoics on emotion, see Sorabji, Emotion, 29–333 passim. For philosophy banishing useless emotions such as pain or fear, see Val. Max. 3.3.ext. 1.

[2839]. E.g., Lucian Indictment 20–21. On a popular level, this was readily abused (Phil. Sale 19), and ordinary hedonists might think their own pleasure better than that of Epicureans (Par. 11–12). This may have appealed to many of the elite (Winter, Left Corinth, 106).

[2840]. Many ancients critiqued Epicurean views of pleasure (Lucian Hermot. 16), some even while practicing the opposite of their critique (Runaways 19). A Stoic seeking pleasure like an Epicurean was particularly hypocritical (Philost. Ep. Apoll. 5), but Pythagoreans (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.7) and others who sought pleasure acted “Epicurean.” For the contrast between Epicurean and Stoic views of pleasure, see also Frede, “Pleasure,” 367–68.

[2841]. On Epicurus’s regarding pleasure as the chief good, see also Lucian Slip 6; cf. Athen. Deipn. 12.546e; on pleasure as the τέλος (goal) of life, see Epicurus in Diog. Laert. 10.131.

[2842]. Diog. Laert. 10.131 (LCL, 2:657); cf. also 10.144.17; Cic. Fin. 1.11.37. The division into “static” and “kinetic” pleasures may reflect a later misinterpretation of Epicurus rather than his teaching (Nikolsky, “Epicurus”).

[2843]. Epicurus, in fact, advocated a simple, spartan life (Diog. Laert. 10.1.11); the claim of his twice-daily vomiting was a slander (10.1.6).

[2844]. See Brennan, “Epicurus.”

[2845]. Philod. Prop. col. 18.40–47.

[2846]. Philod. Prop. col. 4.6–15 (esp. 4.11, 13); col. 23.42–46; for love of money as a vice, see Prop. col. 17.13.

[2847]. Epicurus also said that one should pursue virtue, rather than pleasure, to yield the end of pleasure (Murray, Stages, 138). He was a “psychological hedonist” (viewing pleasure as the goal of human choices and behavior; Woolf, “Hedonist”).

[2848]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 7, p. 58.14–15; Dio Chrys. Or. 25.1; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b5, pp. 20–21.15–16; 2.7.5g, pp. 32–33.8–9; 2.7.6d, pp. 38–39.34–35; 2.7.6e, pp. 40–41.11–13; Lucian Dem. 19–20; Max. Tyre 29, esp. 29.7; cf. Meeks, Moral World, 46–47; Hossenfelder, “Happiness.”

[2849]. Cf. Plut. Pleas. L. 3, Mor. 1087D; 13, Mor. 1095C, for one critique of inconsistency in Epicurus’s doctrine of pleasure; cf. also Galen Grief 62, 68.

[2850]. Also Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.10a, pp. 58–59.8–11 (grounding it in their faulty atomic theory); Lucian Indictment 20. For another critique of Epicurean views of pleasure, see Max. Tyre 30–33, esp. 30.3–5; 31; 33.

[2851]. On Epicurean religious views, see esp. Festugière, Epicurus; Farrington, Faith of Epicurus; Obbink, “Atheism of Epicurus.” His theological views reflected his development of Leucippus’s and Democritus’s atomism; the world consisted of atoms and void, and atoms collided randomly (Rouse, “Introduction,” viii–xiii, esp. viii–ix). On Epicurean randomness or chance, see, e.g., Lucretius Nat. 1.958–1115; Iambl. Soul. 5.25, §376.

[2852]. E.g., Epicurus Let. Men. 123–24 (Grant, Religions, 157). Nevertheless, Philodemus mentions Zeus (On Death 3.32–33) and uses myths for illustrations (23.13–14). Against the religious ignorance of the masses, see, e.g., Apul. De deo Socr. 122; for their depravity more generally, 125–26.

[2853]. Erler, “Epicurus,” 1081. Although speaking as a Platonist, Apuleius (De deo Socr. 146) also describes the gods’ tranquility as impervious to “pain and pleasure.”

[2854]. Other thinkers could also critique nonphilosophers as impious (Apul. De deo Socr. 122).

[2855]. See Warren, “Diogenes Epikourios,” on the views of one Epicurean named Diogenes; cf. Cic. Fin. 4.5.11.

[2856]. Also Lucian Indictment 2. Epicureans denied even an original creation by deities (Cic. Nat. d. 1.9.21–22); being infinite, matter accidentally collected into the known world (Lucret. Nat. 1.958–1115). As Furley (“Epicurus,” 533) notes, though deities were “atomic compounds like everything else,” they lived in bliss; but while mortals should respect them, they should not expect their interest or intervention.

[2857]. This belief appears inconsistent with Democritus’s reductionist atomism, but how Epicureans finessed this inconsistency is unclear (Rouse, “Introduction,” xiv).

[2858]. Cf. also Quint. Decl. 268.11; Hippol. Ref. 1.19. On Epicurus’s denial of providence, see Long, Philosophy, 41; for his emphasis on free will (through the unpredictability of atomic swerve; opposing Stoic beliefs), see 57–61; briefly, Furley, “Epicurus,” 533. This denial of providence corresponds to Pharisaic critiques of Sadducees as well (on fate and free will, see comment on Acts 2:23; or, much more briefly, Keener, John, 572–73).

[2859]. For a survey including ancient rationalism and atheism, see Meijer, “Philosophers.” For their arguments, see Plut. [De placitis philosophorum] 1.7.1–10, esp. in Runia, “Atheists.” On Prodicus’s atheism, see Henrichs, “Notes” (though even Prodicus did not reject all deities, only the Olympians; idem, “Atheism”). But such an approach could not easily become widespread; religion is fairly pervasive in human culture (so also Arist. Heav. 1.3, 270b), probably rooted in something characteristically human (Clyde Kluckhohn, foreword to Lessa and Vogt, Reader, v–vi, here v). Others also could jest glibly about those who doubted deities’ existence (Mart. Epig. 4.21).

[2860]. So Zeus in Lucian Tim. 7 (though it is traditional religion that Lucian mocks). Apuleius, an eclectic Middle Platonist, attributes this perspective only to the ignorant (Apol. 27). In view of the evidence, Stoics held it evil to deny the existence of gods (Cic. Nat. d. 2.16.44).

[2861]. Nock, Conversion, 120.

[2862]. For the visible celestial deities, see, e.g., Apul. De deo Socr. 116–20; for the invisible twelve, 121–23; for both, 115, 128. For the heavenly deities mediating their will through daimones, see, e.g., Max. Tyre Or. 8.8; Apul. De deo Socr. 132–37.

[2863]. See Sext. Emp. Pyr. 3.218; Quint. Decl. 268.11; Winiarczyk, “Altertum?” For Epicurean “theology,” see comment on Acts 17:18.

[2864]. See Grant, Religions, 71–104; cf. also the Skeptics (discussed above); in the Roman period, Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.14.

[2865]. Cf., e.g., Momigliano, “Theological Efforts” (for trends in first-century B.C.E. Rome). Criticisms concerning the decline of traditional religion (e.g., Juv. Sat. 6.342–45) belonged to the more general critique of cultural decline.

[2866]. E.g., Ferguson, Backgrounds, 114, 252; Meunier, “Dieu chrétien”; cf. Nilsson, Piety, 115–24; Winslow, “Religion,” 242; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 326–30; Choat and Nobbs, “Formulae” (on the second to fourth centuries C.E.). Some (Sheldon, Mystery Religions, 36–37; Angus, Mystery-Religions, 71) even speak of this trend in the Mysteries (though here we find only assimilation of deities).

[2867]. Egyptologists debate the character of Akhenaton’s “monotheism” and its influence on the elite (cf. Blumenthal, “Wesen”); it was partly a political move against the priests of Amon (Sarna, Exodus, 151–57); some argue that the educated in the New Kingdom generally accepted a unity of the godhead while worshiping many gods, with Akhenaton differing by rejecting the others (Yoyotte, “Egypt,” 126). For henotheistic tendencies in Egypt, see Gordon, Introduction, 129.

[2868]. Albright, Yahweh, 231. Supposed Assyrian influence on Jewish monotheism is not at all likely (Cooper, “Prophecies”).

[2869]. See Winslow, “Religion,” 242; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 252. Among the philosophers, see Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 326–30; see also the intellectual orators Dio Chrys. Or. 31.11 and Max. Tyre 17.5 (in Winslow, “Religion,” 242). Some cite the influence of syncretism from Alexander’s conquests (Angus, Mystery-Religions, 22).

[2870]. For Stoic pantheism, see Cic. Nat. d. 1.10.24 (an Epicurean mocking); 1.13.34 (likewise); 2.7.19–20; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref. 13; Dial. 7.8.4; Ep. Lucil. 95.52; Lucian Hermot. 81 (a commoner mocking); Baltzly, “Pantheism”; Klauck, Context, 353–54; cf. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.23–24; Marc. Aur. 4.40; perhaps also 6.38; 7.9; further discussion at Acts 17:24. But Stoics in this period often viewed deity more personally (see Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 15). Some may have also viewed Israel’s God by way of Stoic pantheism (so Ludlam, “’Lwhy,” on Strabo 16.2.35–37). For discussion of Stoic monotheism of a sort (really better, henotheism), see sources in Ramelli, Hierocles, lxxi n. 125 (including Frede, “Monotheism”; Barnes, “Monotheists”; Klauck, “Pantheisten”).

[2871]. Nilsson, Piety, 115–24, esp. 124; cf. Rose, Parke, and DeLaine, “Monotheism”; Kahn, “Xenophanes”; Bloch, “Monotheism,” 172; Philo was able to exploit the idea of mediating powers. This is comparable to some perspectives on current traditional religions (Mbiti, Religions, 37–38).

[2872]. See, e.g., Plut. E Delph. 20, Mor. 393 (on Plutarch’s Platonic “monotheism,” see Grant, Gods, 79); Max. Tyre 2.10; 11.8. Cf. discussion in Rives, Religion, 205.

[2873]. See Goodenough, Introduction, 81 (citing Philo Spec. Laws 2.165; cf. Prov. 2.41).

[2874]. Meeks, Urban Christians, 165 (following MacMullen, Paganism, 83–94).

[2875]. See Bohak, “Impact.”

[2876]. Wilken, “Collegia,” 271; see esp. Plutarch Superstition. Christians could be linked with Epicureans as “atheists” (Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 124; Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 189–90); for Christians as “atheists” (since they rejected all but one God), see, e.g., Mart. Pol. 3.2; 9.2; Justin 1 Apol. 6; Athenag. Plea 3; for the same charge against Jews, see Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.148. Jews were ready, however, to apply the title to others (e.g., Philo Flight 180; Decal. 91; Spec. Laws 1.345; to wicked Jews, Jos. War 5.566). For the historic Roman contrast between religio and superstitio, see Margel, “Religio/superstitio”; for superstitio in interreligious polemic, see Frateantonio, “Superstitio,” 953.

[2877]. Scheid, “Superstitio.” Quint. Curt. 7.7.8 regards popular diviners as superstition.

[2878]. Winslow, “Religion,” 245 (citing esp. Lucret. Nat. 5.1194ff.; Celsus in Origen Cels. 3.17); for Hellenistic critiques of traditional religion, especially from sophists, see Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 202–6 (citing Polyb. 6.56; Cic. Nat. d. 1.3.1–2; Ovid Ars 1.645; Hor. Odes 2.15.13–20; 3.6.1–8; Varro in Aug. City 6.5.1–3); Grant, Religions, 71–104.

[2879]. Sext. Emp. Pyr. 3.218 (LCL, 1:473). As a Skeptic, Sextus Empiricus himself could only summarize various views, not concur with them.

[2880]. Mattingly, Christianity, 28.

[2881]. Muñiz Grijalvo, “Elites.”

[2882]. Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 202–6 (citing Polyb. 6.56; Cic. Nat. d. 1.3.1–2; Varro in Aug. City 6.5.1–3; Ovid Ars 1.645; Hor. Odes 2.15.13–20; 3.6.1–8; Juv. Sat. 2.149–52). In a crisis, some might suppose that even “the gods” had perished (Pliny Ep. 6.20.15).

[2883]. Rexine, Religion in Plato and Cicero, 52.

[2884]. Lodge, Ethics, 284–85. Contrast the importance of religious cults in classical Greece (Polignac, “Argos”).

[2885]. Smith, “Epicurean Priest” (a head of Apamea’s Epicureans as a priest of Bel). Epicureans and civic priests tended to come from the same wealthy class of citizens.

[2886]. See Neyrey, “Epicureans and Theodicy,” 121.

[2887]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 12.36–37; the speaker in Lucian Phil. Sale 19. The gods complain against Epicureans’ views about them in Lucian’s satire (Icar. 31), and Zeus seems happy to destroy an Epicurean in Icar. 26. Euripides portrays the impious Cyclops Polyphemus as worshiping only eating, drinking, and avoiding pain (Cycl. 336–38).

[2888]. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 12. For Stoic dislike of Epicureans, see, e.g., Lucian Carousal 6.

[2889]. For their preference for political inactivity, see, e.g., Jos. Ant. 19.32 (on a mostly Epicurean senator who held important posts, but only as necessary); Malherbe, Social Aspects, 25; idem, Moral Exhortation, 148; cf. Warren, “Diogenes Epikourios.” Political quietism was more respectable after retirement (e.g., Pliny Ep. 7.25.2; though even here, cf. Plut. Old Men, Mor. 783B–797F).

[2890]. Johnson, Acts, 313 (for their rejection of traditional religion, he cites also Lucret. Nat. 2.581–725; 5.81–90, 146–94).

[2891]. For populist identification of atheists and Epicureans, see also Lucian Alex. 38, 46.

[2892]. Cic. Nat. d. 1.21.57–1.44.124; cf. the discussion in Quint. Inst. 7.3.4–5.

[2893]. Some ancients (perhaps in parody) claimed that Pythagoreans deified numbers (Lucian Phil. Sale 4; Icar. 9).

[2894]. The idea of a deity related to pure mind fits Maximus of Tyre, Porphyry, and other later writers, but it is noteworthy in this first-century eclectic Roman intellectual (though the idea of the soul’s divinity was fairly common, e.g., Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref. 12).

[2895]. Pliny the Elder mocks the ideas of marriages among gods, some staying ever old with some (like Apollo) ever young, some who alternated days of living (Castor and Pollux), etc., as children’s fantasies, corrupted further by adulterous, thieving, fighting deities (N.H. 2.5.17). He mocks further in 2.5.21–22. For other such mockery, see, e.g., Lucian Dial. G. 244 (18/16, Hera and Leto 1); Sacr. 11; the more extensive comment at Acts 14:15–17.

[2896]. Lucret. Nat. 1.102–6; 3.1–30 (through the knowledge of nature, 3.87–93); for denial of Tartarus, 3.978–1023; cf. Long, Philosophy, 42; Neyrey, “Polemic,” 410ff., 420ff. Lucretius designed his poem especially to dispel fear of death (Rouse, “Introduction,” vii). In Nat. 3, he supplemented traditional Epicurean arguments by pointing out that death was part of the life cycle (O’Keefe, “Lucretius”); in 3.832–42, 972–75, he provided the Epicurean argument that the afterlife is equivalent to the nonexistence that precedes birth (Warren, “Lucretius,” comparing Epicurus Let. Men. 125; one might also note Pliny E. N.H. 7.55.190). On Lucretius, see further Classen, “Poetry”; De Lacy, “Lucretius.”

[2897]. E.g., Cic. Leg. 1.23.60; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref. 4; 2.58.3; 6.32.12; Dial. 9.11.4–5; Ep. Lucil. 24; 80.6; 82; 98.10; Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 34.31–33; 3, p. 40.35; p. 42.1, 3–4; 4, p. 48.5–6; 6, p. 54.31–37; p. 56.1–7 (admitting that even philosophers struggle with this); 17, p. 110.1–2, 12–13; Epict. Diatr. 1.17.25; 2.1.13; 2.5.12–14; 2.18.30; Plut. Poetry 14, Mor. 37A; Max. Tyre 11.11; 36.2; Marc. Aur. 8.58; 9.3; 12.35; Iambl. V.P. 32.220, 228; cf. Diogenes Ep. 28; on a more popular level, Val. Max. 9.13.pref.; 9.13.3; cf. Test. Ab. 16:5; 17:18 A; 14:5 B; Exod. Rab. 41:7. Socrates did not fear death (Max. Tyre 3.7).

[2898]. Rouse, “Introduction,” xiii; cf. Martin, Body, 9. The spirit’s atoms do not correspond closely with those of the body, being sparser and smaller (Lucret. Nat. 3.370–95). Compare the Stoic view of the material spirit (cf. Lake, “Spirit,” 103; Scott, Spirit, 52–53; Martin, Body, 21; the soul as a body in Stoic and some other thinkers in Iambl. Soul 3.16, §371; cf. the soul consisting of fundamental, spherical atoms in Iambl. Soul 1.2, §363.2). Part of the spirit could leave the body in sleep, but full separation meant death (Lucret. Nat. 4.916–24).

[2899]. Moore, “Life,” 237; Henry, Philodemus, xvi–xvii; Lucret. Nat. 3.417–829; Philod. On Death 1; 17.3–6; 21.6–11; 28.5–13; 30.15–17; cf. Hippol. Ref. 1.19. Others also doubted an afterlife (e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 7.55.188–90; epitaphs noted in Toner, Culture, 43). Because Stoics anticipated a cyclical conflagration (see comment on Acts 3:21; 17:31), personal “immortality” even for “the wise” (cf. Sen. Y. Dial. 11.9.3; 12.11.7; Ep. Lucil. 57.9; Epict. Diatr. 2.1.17) was temporary (Bels, “Survie”; Sorabji, Emotion, 394; Klauck, Context, 358; cf. Sen. Y. Dial. 6.26.7; Marc. Aur. 4.21) except perhaps in the sense that one could be cyclically reborn. Stoics could affirm a sort of immortality by redefining terms (see Ju, “Immortality”).

[2900]. See Epicurus Let. Men. 124 (in Grant, Religions, 158); Lucret. Nat. 3.417–829; esp. 3.830–977 (e.g., 931–45, 976–77); cf. 1.102–26; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 36.9; Diog. Laert. 10.124–25.

[2901]. So also Epicurus Let. Men. 125 (in Grant, Religions, 158); thus, Lucian emphasized, Epicurus sought to teach tranquility (Alex. 47).

[2902]. Cic. Fin. 4.5.11; Nat. d. 1.20.56; cf. Diog. Laert. 10.125. Cf. also Wright, Paul, 212.

[2903]. E.g., [Eurip.] Sisyphus 12–42, esp. 12–14 (the wicked Sisyphus claiming that mortals invented gods to control morality); Wis 2:1–24, esp. 1–9; ʾAbot R. Nat. 5 A; b. Roš Haš. 17a; cf. Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 4:8; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 4:8. Denial of creation similarly leads to impious behavior (Philo Creation 9–11). For Platonists such as Proclus, atheism would remove motivation for virtue (Poet. 5, K51.11–14). Not only Plato but other thinkers were ready to employ religion and its fears as a means of social control over the masses’ morality (e.g., Polyb. 6.56.7–12, esp. 9–11; he points out that Romans are less corrupt than Greeks precisely because the former still fear the gods, 6.56.13–15).

[2904]. E.g., Plut. Pleas. L. 23, Mor. 1103D.

[2905]. For Epicurean doctrine as producing impiety, see, e.g., Aul. Gel. 9.5.8. Belief in divine judgment could produce piety (Xen. Mem. 1.1.19). Later rabbis thus posited damnation for those who denied the resurrection (e.g., m. Sanh. 10:1; cf., still later, often in the Qur’an, e.g., 17.10).

[2906]. E.g., Heracl. Hom. Prob. 4.2; 79.2–11.

[2907]. Cic. Fam. 13.1.2; Tusc. 3.20.46.

[2908]. Cic. Fin. 2.25.80 (LCL, 17:171). An orator with Platonist interests claims that Epicurus is wrongly called a philosopher (Max. Tyre 4.4, 8; 30.3).

[2909]. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 2, 4; 8.7; 9.1; 12.11; 16.7; 17.11; 18.9, 14; 19.10; 20.9; 21.3, 4; 22.5–6, 13–14; 25.4–6; 27.9; 28.9–10; 52.3 (cf. also 33.2). Seneca also endeavors to marshal Epicurean support for his position in Dial. 2.15.4; he also agrees with Epicurus in Ben. 3.4.1. For Seneca, at least, the antithesis has apparently yielded to synthesis.

[2910]. Alciph. Court. 17 (Leontium to Lamia), 2.2, portrays a young courtesan who loves another but is mistress to (and disgusted with) an aged Epicurus, more than eighty years old.

[2911]. Epictetus, preaching in Athens in the early second century C.E. (Aul. Gel. 1.2.1), contrasted true Stoics with those who merely pretend to be (1.2). In the second century, Lucian likewise criticized those who criticized Epicureans, then lived for pleasure (Runaways 19).

[2912]. Lucian Alex. 44 (the stoning was, happily, aborted).

[2913]. Lucian is mocking popular critiques of Epicureans here rather than Epicureans themselves. Despite other prevailing views, popular belief in the underworld apparently persisted on some level (cf. the influence of Virgil’s portrait in the West; Kaufmann, “Underworld”).

[2914]. See also the discussion in Urbach, Sages, 1:30; Herford, Christianity, 120; Geiger, “’Pyqwrws.” Holloway, “Beguile,” suggests some indirect Epicurean influence on Sirach, but via an eclectic philosophic milieu. A Semitic Syrian freedman in Italy was Epicurean (see Rigsby, “Hauranus”) but could have adopted his views in the West.

[2915]. M. Sanh. 10:1; t. Sanh. 13:5.

[2916]. Amoraim argued that this principle applied only to Gentile Epicureans (b. Sanh. 38b). Rabbis regarded them as worse than polytheists (Bastomsky, “View”). Amoraim may have employed the term “Epicurean” more broadly than Tannaim, applying it to those who disrespect Torah (Labendz, “Epicurean”).

[2917]. Klauck, Context, 400 (suggesting allusions in Wis 2:1–9; 1 Cor 15:32).

[2918]. Cook, Interpretation, 22.

[2919]. On Stoicism, see Long, Philosophy, 109–209; Brennan, Stoic Life; more briefly, Inwood, “Stoicism”; Koester, Introduction, 1:147–53; Wright, Paul, 213–29; for Stoic logic, see Mates, Stoic Logic; Long, Philosophy, 121–46; sources surveyed in Gill, “Philosophy”; some discussion in Liu, “Nature.”

[2920]. See, e.g., Lucian Hermot. 16; Fisherman 51.

[2921]. Lucian Phil. Sale 20.

[2922]. Murray, Philosophy, 19. Greco-Roman culture would not yet have pervaded Cilicia in that period.

[2923]. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 16.

[2924]. Koester, Introduction, 1:153; for Roman Stoics’ emphasis on ethics, see Ramelli, Hierocles, xxvii. For Stoic ethics, see Cic. Fin. 3; Long, Philosophy, 179–205.

[2925]. Meeks, Moral World, 41.

[2926]. Ibid., 114; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 11–12; Stowers, Letter Writing, 36–40; Wallace and Williams, World, 124–25; Rives, Religion, 50 (though noting the moral effects of belief in divine punishment, 51). Traditional societies differ regarding the connection between religion and ethics (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 270). Nevertheless, fear of judgment (see discussion of anti-Epicurean comments above) and of dishonoring deities could produce pious behavior (e.g., Eurip. Hypsipyle frg. 757.90–91/889–90).

[2927]. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 179; cf. Barrett, Acts, 829. Romans had long preferred Roman traditions to any Greek ideals that conflicted with these (Rexine, Religion in Plato and Cicero, 52). Still, Stoic cosmology may have influenced even Pliny the Elder’s reflections regarding metallurgy in the first century C.E. (Paparazzo, “Metals”).

[2928]. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 12; on Stoicism’s dominance in Paul’s day, also Stowers, “Self-Mastery,” 527. Paul Wendland considered Stoicism “the hallmark . . . of the Hellenistic age” (Grant, Religions, xxviii). For the demand for eclecticism that includes, but is not limited to, Stoicism, see Tac. Dial. 31 (mentioning all the major schools). Many today refine the notion of eclecticism: not random borrowing, but each school borrowing elements from the others to support their own system (Engberg-Pedersen, “Scene,” 9–10).

[2929]. See Dillon, Middle Platonists, 252; idem, “Plato,” 806. Platonism, naturally, influenced Stoicism as well (see Long, Philosophy, 118, citing Diog. Laert. 7.39; p. 151, noting how the world soul of Plato Laws 10, esp. 903BD, anticipated Stoicism). Neoplatonists viewed Stoics and Peripatetics as primary threats (Graeser, Plotinus and Stoics, 1–2). Eastern thought also influenced Stoicism (Mastrocinque, “Choices,” 381).

[2930]. Cf. Latourette, First Five Centuries, 19. For some similarities, see, e.g., Thorsteinsson, “Stoicism”; cf. also comparisons in Sarthou-Lajus, “Goût.”

[2931]. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 7.11.1; Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 32.22; 3, p. 40.17; 12, p. 86.29; 17, p. 108.12, 16, 25–27; p. 110.21–23; 18B, p. 118.8–9; frg. 51, p. 144.8–9; for definitions, see Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5a, p. 10.12–13; 2.7.10, p. 56.10, 14–16; 2.7.10b, p. 58.29–31, 36; 2.7.10b, p. 60.1–2; 2.7.10c, p. 60.18.

[2932]. Notably among Pythagoreans and Platonists (Plut. Bride 33, Mor. 142E; Pleas. L. passim [against Epicurean views]; Ag. Pleasure frgs.; Max. Tyre 1.4, 9; 7.7; 14.1–2; 25.5–6; 33.3–4, 8; 38.6; Iambl. V.P. 31.204–6; Porph. Marc. 6.103–8; 7.125–26, 131–34; 9.154–56; 14.243–44; 33.508–9; 35.535–36) but also others (Xen. Mem. 1.2.23; 4.5.3, 5; Dio Chrys. Or. 4.115; 8.20; 9.12; cf. Aeschines Tim. 42; Pliny Ep. 5.5.4), though this warning indicted most of humanity (Dio Chrys. Or. 13.13; Let. Aris. 108, 223, 277; Philo Alleg. Interp. 2.17). (For Plato, cf. Lodge, Ethics, 27–31, 65.) Leaders in particular must not succumb to pleasure (Xen. Hell. 4.8.22; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.13; 3.34; Let. Aris. 245; cf. Men. Rhet. 2.10, 416.19; Prov 31:3–5). In Jewish sources, see, e.g., Let. Aris. 278; 4 Macc 1:20–28, 33; 5:23; 6:35; Test. Reub. 2:8; Test. Jud. 13:6; 14:3; Test. Iss. 2:3; 3:5; Test. Benj. 6:2; Luke 8:14; Titus 3:3; Jas 4:1–3; 2 Pet 2:13; hundreds of times in Philo, e.g., Creation 152, 157, 165–67; Alleg. Interp. 1.75, 86, 104; often in Josephus, e.g., Ant. 2.201; 3.275; 4.143, 251. Some uses are more neutral (e.g., 4 Macc 9:31; Wis 7:2; 16:20; often in Josephus, e.g., Ant. 1.46, 293; 3.19; also among Gentiles, e.g., Ael Arist. Def. Or. 432, §147D; Max. Tyre 33.3; Ach. Tat. 2.8.3).

[2933]. Thus, despite popular desire for pleasures, the truly wise reject Epicurus as a philosopher (so Max. Tyre 33.2; cf. Aul. Gel. 9.5). But whereas Stoics wished to annihilate passions, Aristotelians sought only to moderate them (Dillon, “Philosophy,” 796).

[2934]. Ramsay, LCL, 255. On the Cynics, see comment on Acts 14:8–10.

[2935]. With, e.g., Avi-Yonah, Hellenism, 30.

[2936]. See, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 1.62–63; 8.33; 60.8; Plut. frg. 157 (in Betz, “Fragmenta,” 319); Iamblichus Letter 3, frg. 3 (Stob. Anth. 3.5.46); frg. 4 (Anth. 3.5.47); Iamblichus Testimonium 2 (in Olympiodorus In Gorg. 46.9.20–28 Westerink: appeal to useful myths); esp. the eclectic Middle Platonist Max. Tyre 4 passim, esp. 4.4–6, 8; also 26.5, 8–9; also Philo (also an eclectic Middle Platonist), e.g., Alleg. Interp. 1–3 passim; Posterity 7; Dreams 1.102; Plant. 36; Migr. 91–92 (nevertheless insisting on maintaining literal observance); Jos. 148 (even of Greek myth, Plant. 129); cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:57–68, 87–163; Badilita, “Exégèse”; on Pythagoreans, Mastrocinque, “Choices,” 385. Josephus notes allegory’s use to evade the immorality of deities in the original stories (Ag. Ap. 2.255). Later rabbis were less fond of the method than Philo (see, e.g., Gen. Rab. 64:9).

[2937]. E.g., Cornutus Summ. 19 (Lang, 33, line 14), in Grant, Religions, 78–79; noted also in Mastrocinque, “Choices,” 383; Cic. Nat. d. 2.28.70; cf. Murray, Stages, 202 (citing Heraclitus); Ferguson, Backgrounds, 98 (citing esp. Chrysippus and Cornutus); Ramelli, Hierocles, lv, lxxi n. 125. It was useful for defense against Epicurean challengers (cf. Lucian Z. Rants 40); nevertheless, allegory was a polyvalent method, with no controls but the systems of those employing it (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 88.5).

[2938]. E.g., Diog. Laert. 7.1.149; for the Stoic debate with Epicureans on this matter, see Quint. Inst. 5.7.35; Marc. Aur. 4.2; see further comment at Acts 2:23.

[2939]. So Malherbe, Exhortation, 15; cf. Meeks, Moral World, 47.

[2940]. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 1.1.5; Plut. Cic. 25.4; Diog. Laert. 7.1.125; among Cynics, e.g., Diog. Laert. 6.2.37; 6.2.72; cf. Antisthenes in 6.1.11.

[2941]. He claims that the ancient poets and sages knew this but just used poetic license in their descriptions (Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 2.44.1–2.45.1).

[2942]. See, e.g., Sen. Y. Ben. 4.8.1; Klauck, Context, 354; much more fully, comment on Acts 3:21.

[2943]. Klauck, Context, 353.

[2944]. Most scholars accept Stoicism as the closest philosophic school to earliest Christianity (Klauck, Context, 335), although Platonism dominated in a later era. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.11 thinks that Paul had Stoics and Epicureans in mind in his warning in Col 2:8 (Pelikan, Acts, 191).

[2945]. See Hansen, “Preaching,” 312; Winter, “Public,” 136.

[2946]. After defending one form of Stoicism in Nat. d. 2, Cicero defends Roman religion against Stoicism (Nat. d. 3).

[2947]. Plut. Stoic Cont., Mor. 1033A–1057C (particularly highlighting inconsistencies in Chrysippus); St. Poets, Mor. 1057C–1058D; Comm. Conc., Mor. 1058E–1086B.

[2948]. E.g., Lucian Phil. Sale 20–22 (mocking).

[2949]. Irwin, “Stoic Inhumanity,” 219.

[2950]. Technically, Stoicism did except the supreme deity from the dissolution (Epict. Diatr. 3.13.4; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 9.16), but even this deity was not transcendent (Klauck, Context, 354). For Stoics and the dissolution of the cosmos, see Adams, Stars, 114–24.

[2951]. See Plut. Demosth. 6.3; 7.1; 8.5.

[2952]. See, e.g., Cic. Fin. 4.26.73, one ridiculing the Stoics.

[2953]. Dio was called, e.g., a silly prater (Dio Chrys. Or. 47.8) and a nightingale (47.16). See comment on Acts 23:3.

[2954]. See Acts 26:24 (and comment there); cf. “fools” in 1 Cor 4:10; “impostors” in 2 Cor 6:8; rhetorically weak in 11:6. Among Paul’s extant letters, the Corinthian correspondence probably reflects most closely the sort of milieu found in nearby Athens.

[2955]. Conzelmann, Acts, 139; Lenski, Acts, 714; Hemer, Acts in History, 117.

[2956]. Many commentators (e.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 211; Packer, Acts, 146; Bruce, Acts¹, 333; Peterson, Acts, 490; Horton, Acts, 297–98; esp. Johnson, Acts, 313; Witherington, Acts, 515), citing Demosth. Cor. 127; Eustathius Commentary on Odyssey; esp. Plut. Busybody 2, Mor. 516C; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.20. Cf. a different bird appropriating others’ scraps in Libanius Fable 3.4. That Paul also alluded to Jesus’s parable of the sower here (Robinson, “ΣΠΕΡΜΟΛΟΓΟΣ”) seems to me unlikely; Luke would hardly portray Paul employing Judean parable rhetoric in seeking to reach Athenian intellectuals. Although Paul may well be a “sower of words” (Bede Comm. Acts 17.18b [L. Martin, 142]; citing Luke 8:5; 1 Cor 9:11), the etymological sense of the term was not its normal usage, and Luke 8:5 does not employ σπέρμα (though it employs a cognate).

[2957]. Although such a portrayal of Paul’s knowledge of Greek philosophy might well have been accurate on a historical level, it underestimates both his theological genius in establishing a missiological synthesis on the historical level and Luke’s probable intention to portray Paul as outwitting the philosophers (certainly his philosophic credentials appear established by Acts 19:9).

[2958]. Ramsay, Pictures, 195.

[2959]. See Dio Chrysostom’s use of the cognate σπερμολογία (Liefeld, “Preacher,” 219); cf. also BDAG.

[2960]. Hansen, “Preaching,” 311, noting this orator’s dilemma in Isoc. Antid. 83. The informed audience will view Paul as genuinely wise (Rowe, World, 28–29) and catch the irony: it was those who sought novelties (17:21) who accused Paul of peddling them (17:19; Rowe, World, 32–33).

[2961]. See Philost. Vit. soph. 2.31.624. I am assuming that the practice predates my evidence from the Second Sophistic; excellent as Josephus’s Greek appears to be, he nevertheless apologizes for his lack of facility in it, probably covering himself in the event that he falls short of Attic standards (Ant. 20.263–64). Certainly, after the Second Sophistic, Jerome recognizes that Paul’s style often falls short of the highest standards (Milazzo, “Sermone”; cf. Jerome Ruf. 1.17; Bray, Corinthians, 292).

[2962]. Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.26, though this text reflects a hellenizing influence in Achaia after Paul’s day.

[2963]. But while getting Attic diction right was valued, someone who reveled in Attic diction yet lacked intelligence and taste could also be ridiculed (see, e.g., Lucian Lex. passim); Lucian mocks one historian so excessively Atticist that he changes all Latin names to Greek equivalents (e.g., Kronios for Saturninus; Phrontis for Fronto; Hist. 21). Excessive atticizing was tasteless (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.17); Philostratus has to defend Apollonius for insufficient atticizing in a speech, arguing that he was being rhetorically subtle (8.6). Compare modern emphasis on high-quality French or other languages by some native speakers today.

[2964]. See, e.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.4, 7; 6.36.

[2965]. E.g., Aeschines Tim. 195 (who also mocks Demosthenes for his partly foreign blood, Embassy 22–23). Ethnocentrism was not, of course, limited to Athenians but was pervasive (e.g., Jos. Ant. 20.81).

[2966]. Blaiklock, Cities, 51.

[2967]. Athens also already had a temple of Serapis (Paus. 1.18.4), an Egyptian deity, as well as a synagogue (Acts 17:17).

[2968]. Josephus argued that the Athenians rejected the gods of other nations (Ag. Ap. 2.268), but this is polemic; it fits the stereotype of Athenian arrogance but not the reality of polytheism. Some compare Roman cultic xenophobia (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 212); though this was also limited to specific cults, the empire (in contrast to the republic) avoided officially adopting new gods in the first and second centuries (Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 170–71).

[2969]. See, e.g., Alciph. Court. 3 (Bacchis to Hypereides), 1.30, ¶1; 4 (Bacchis to Phrynê), 1.31, ¶1; Athen. Deipn. 13.590d.

[2970]. Others were charged with profaning the Mysteries in classical Athens (e.g., Plut. Ten Or. 2, Andocides, Mor. 834 CD).

[2971]. Grant, Gods, 20; cf. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.266. He became a favorite object of early Christians’ attacks in distinguishing themselves from true atheists (Athenag. Plea 4; Tatian Or. Gks. 27); in the Roman world, comparing someone to an atheist was normally tantamount to denouncing their impiety (Apul. Apol. 56).

[2972]. Socrates was, however, charged with introducing “new” divinities (Dio Chrys. Or. 43.9).

[2973]. Xen. Mem. 1.1.1; Plato Apol. 24B; cf. Euthyphro 3B.

[2974]. See Cadbury, Acts in History, 52; Packer, Acts, 146; Schille, Apostelgeschichte, 354; Johnson, Acts, 313; D. Williams, Acts, 303; Dunn, Acts, 233; Parsons, Acts, 245.

[2975]. By contrast, Dio Chrysostom contends, Socrates really honored the gods (Or. 43.10). (It was instead the accusers whose deities were new [Plato Apol. 39CD].)

[2976]. The comparison is extended in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.13. Du Toit, “Vorstellung,” thinks that Apollonius’s δαίμων (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.2) evokes that of Socrates.

[2977]. See also Dio Chrys. Or. 37.32 (this thirty-seventh oration is most often held to be by Favorinus), comparing slanders against the speaker with those against Socrates.

[2978]. In the Roman period, the Athenian elite increasingly managed public religion, but some members even became benefactors of new cults (Muñiz Grijalvo, “Elites”).

[2979]. Cadbury, Acts in History, 52; Haenchen, Acts, 518; Dunn, Acts, 234; Klauck, Magic, 78; Hamm, Acts, 82; Talbert, Acts, 152; Schnabel, Acts, 726; contrast Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 444. This interpretation would fit the philosophers’ possible disbelief that Paul could mean “resurrection” in another sense (Bowersock, Fiction as History, 103). Price, Widow Traditions, speculates that some pre-Lukan traditions accepted this pairing (arguing from silence and without offering evidence).

[2980]. Notably, Chrys. Hom. Acts 38. (The translator reasonably objects that one wonders how Paul could have spoken of “resurrection” so abstractly as to be misunderstood. Given Greek views of the body and the future, however, Paul initially may have had trouble communicating his point to such an audience adequately. One might compare attempting to communicate the certainty of future biblical promises in Japanese, where the language does not as easily accommodate such an idea.) In the nineteenth century, Lightfoot (“Third Notebook on Acts,” 28 [from Witherington]; also Lightfoot, Acts, forthcoming [from Witherington]) concurred with the Greek fathers and found no other reason that Luke would have added “the resurrection.”

[2981]. Hansen, “Preaching,” 311; cf. Bruce, Commentary, 351, following Chase, Credibility, 205–6. Such a pair would not have been offensive, e.g., the way the worship of personified Impiety and Lawlessness would be (Polyb. 18.54.10–11). If hearers would have linked ἀνάστασις with ἀναστατήρια, sacrifices given the gods when a sick person recovered (Le Cornu, Acts, 957), they might recall the history of the unknown deity (Acts 17:23); but the verbal connection is unlikely, and Paul has not yet mentioned that deity.

[2982]. E.g., SIG³ 985 = LSAM 20, lines 1–11 (in Klauck, Context, 65); Dio Chrys. Or. 1.10; 77/78.33. Also of vices (e.g., Men. Rhet. 1.1, 342.6–9; b. Ned. 32a); death (Kaiser, “Pantheon,” 136–37, 144; Hor. Sat. 2.1.58; Sir 41:1–2; Pss. Sol. 7:4; for the angel of death, see, e.g., 2 Bar. 21:23; Test. Ab. 16–20 A; 13–14 B; Sipre Deut. 305.3.3; ʾAbot R. Nat. 12 A; 25, §51 B; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:14; Num. Rab. 16:24; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 3:6; Tg. Ruth 4:22); Gehinnom (Sipre Deut. 305.3.3). On personification, see, e.g., Rhet. Her. 4.53.66; Hermog. Progymn. 9, “On Ethopoeia,” 20; Aphth. Progymn. 11, “On Ethopoeia,” 44–45S, 34R; Men. Rhet. 1.1, 333.21–24; 2.6, 400.32–401.19; 404.29–405.13.

[2983]. Fronto’s encomium on smoke and dust (Naber, 211, §7; LCL, 1:44); for one critique of such activity, see Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.30.

[2984]. See Conzelmann, Acts, 139; McKay, “Foreign Gods?” Often even paired deities would not be expected to share the same shrine (Val. Max. 1.1.8).

[2985]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 601, 605. Perhaps speaking figuratively, Dio Chrys. Or. 12.36 reviles Epicureans for worshiping just one divinity, the female divinity Pleasure.

[2986]. E.g., CIJ 1:234–35, §298; 1:378, §516; 1:424, §576; 1:597, §732; Goodenough, Symbols, 2:108; possibly CIJ 1:434, §598; cf. masculine cognates, 1:283–84, §364; 1:487, §675; 2:43, §787. If Paul had already spoken of an “unknown deity” (Acts 17:23), the plurality of altars so labeled could have also contributed to the confusion.

[2987]. See, e.g., Cic. Brut. 43.158; 93.322; Or. Brut. 40.138–39; also in an orator’s letters, which are much less strictly “rhetorical” (e.g., Fam. 7.32.1; 9.25.2). It should be kept within appropriate bounds (Or. Brut. 26.88–90; Plut. Cic. 5.4; cf. Cic. Fam. 7.32.1–3), a rule that Luke certainly observes here.

[2988]. E.g., Pss 115:4–8; 135:15–18; Isa 46:6–7; Wis 13:10–14:4. Cf. the rhetorically analogous ridicule of divine personifications in Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 113, esp. 113.20.

[2989]. Cf., e.g., the Gentile misappropriation, presupposed in 1 Cor 11:20–22, of the Last Supper: patronal ideology and perhaps Hellenistic cultic ideals replace a Passover seder.

[2990]. Hansen, “Preaching,” 315–16; cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 140. Insightfully, Rowe, World, 32–33, underlines how Luke inverts the Athenians’ charges: Paul brings “new” and “strange” things, yet the Athenians are the ones always seeking “new” things alongside “strangers” they welcome there. For reversal of charges as a conventional rhetorical technique, see comment on Acts 24:19.

[2991]. See the warnings in Aeschylus Suppl. 202–3, 917.

[2992]. On this hill (with homes on its western slope), see Goette, “Athens,” 262–63.

[2993]. See epigraphic evidence cited by Ramsay, Discovery, 103; more fully, Hemer, Acts in History, 117 (esp. n. 40, e.g., IG 3.1.706).

[2994]. Hansen, “Preaching,” 311n61.

[2995]. Even Barnes, the most commonly cited detractor (“Apostle on Trial”; cf. also Martin, “Areopagus”; McRay, “Athens,” 140; apparently Blaiklock, Archaeology, 94), concedes that it sometimes met at the Stoa Basileios; Hemer, “Paul at Athens,” 346, allows both locations but thinks that Paul’s hearing was in a colonnade of the Agora. McRay, Archaeology, 309, argues that the council, meeting at the Stoa Basileios in the fourth century B.C.E., had moved back by this period (citing the second-century Lucian Indictment 4–12). Dyer, Athens, 452, allows that Paul was tried before the Areopagus, but thinks Paul likelier simply spoke with philosophers on the hill by that name. On the literal Hill of Ares, see, e.g., Fant and Reddish, Sites, 23–24; Martin, “Areopagus”; Dyer, Athens, 451–54 (focusing on it in myth and history); it faces the Pnyx in Lucian Indictment 9 (on the Pnyx, see Dyer, Athens, 461–70).

[2996]. E.g., Fant and Reddish, Sites, 16–17. But in this case, ἐπί means “to” the council rather than “on” the hill (Fitzmyer, Acts, 605–6). The language of “bringing” with ἐπί can mean before courts (as in Matt 10:18), and this usage fits Luke’s style (Luke 23:1; Acts 9:21; 18:12; cf. Acts 8:32, “for slaughter”); this is its normal meaning in Luke with ἐπί.

[2997]. E.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 212; Stonehouse, Areopagus, 8–9; Reicke, Era, 233; Kilgallen, Commentary, 140; Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 129; Fitzmyer, Acts, 605; Witherington, Acts, 515; Chance, Acts, 307. Haenchen, Acts, 518, reasonably doubts whether sufficient room was available on the hill’s summit; Lucian (Fisherman 15) at least doubts the view it provides (contrasting the Acropolis).

[2998]. Hemer, “Paul at Athens,” 349, weighs such topographic observations in favor of the narrative’s authenticity (though it may be doubted that a longer walk should be counted against it). For the proximity, in this view, see also Wallace and Williams, Acts, 94. As noted earlier, Paul’s activity probably centered in the Roman agora rather than in the older Greek one.

[2999]. With, e.g., Bruce, Acts¹, 332; Haenchen, Acts, 517n8.

[3000]. E.g., Val. Max. 8.1.amb.2; Sen. Y. Dial. 9.5.1 (on classical Athens); Tac. Ann. 2.55; Lucian Tim. 46; Lucian Affairs 29. In Lucian Indictment 4, 12, everyone with a suit is summoned to the Areopagus.

↑ Back to top