[3006] . Aeschines Ctes . 252.
[3001]. Isoc. Areop. passim, pleading for a restoration of its full power against the dangers of democracy; Plut. Demosth. 14.4. As early as Solon, membership depended on wealth rather than on class (Cadoux and Rhodes, “Areopagus,” 151).
[3002]. They also assumed the Areopagus’s authority in other mythical cases of manslaughter and murder (Apollod. Bib. 3.15.1, 8). Poseidon there charged Ares with murdering his son (Androtion Atthis 1, frg. 3, in Maximus the Confessor Prologue to Comm. Ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite, PG 4.17). For the mythical history of Athens and its deities, see Dyer, Athens, 24–69.
[3003]. See esp. Lysias Or. 26.11–12, §176 (though this may be somewhat hyperbolic to arouse concern about Evandros).
[3004]. E.g., Lysias Or. 6.14, §104 (one who admitted guilt suffered death); cf. a kidnapping charge in Lucian Phil. Sale 7.
[3005]. Lysias Or. 10.11, §117; Or. 1.30 (On the Murder of Eratosthenes); Lucian Anach. 19 (set in the sixth century B.C.E.). The name’s mythical origin derived from Ares being tried in the court on the original hill (Paus. 1.28.5).
[3006]. Aeschines Ctes. 252.
[3007]. Even here justice is the court’s expected standard (Xen. Mem. 3.5.20).
[3008]. Cic. Att. 1.14, 16. The satirist Lucian (Hermot. 64) praises them for meeting in the dark to avoid prejudice for particular speakers; but that this was their regular practice (and hence should be inferred for this narrative) may be safely doubted.
[3009]. Aul. Gel. 12.7.4 (the difficult case was referred to the Areopagus by the proconsul).
[3010]. Val. Max. 2.6.4; Plut. Solon 22.3. Writers also praised the later, similar activity of Augustus and ten assistants, who evaluated the conduct of Roman knights (Suet. Aug. 39).
[3011]. See Jones, “Polybius of Sardis.” For its earlier, smaller putative origins, see Androtion Atthis 2, frg. 4a (in PG 4.16).
[3012]. Horsley, Documents, 1:82, §31.
[3013]. We need not suppose that all members were always present; but members of a municipal elite frequently devoted their time to politics.
[3014]. E.g., Lucian Dial. C. 7 (Musarium and Her Mother ¶2), 296–97.
[3015]. See, e.g., Alciph. Paras. 36 (Oenochaeron to Rhaphanochortasus), 3.72, ¶2 (probably socially accurate though fictitious). At least by the late second century C.E., hereditary status appears required for membership (Horsley, Documents, 1:82, §31).
[3016]. Cic. Balb. 12.30; they had to surrender their Roman citizenship, but Roman and other municipal citizenships were no longer mutually exclusive by Paul’s day (see comment on Acts 21:39).
[3017]. This might be true of some of Paul’s leading dialogue partners in the Agora as well; in the early second century, only Roman citizens could head philosophic schools in Athens (CIL 3.12283; ILS 7784; FIRA 1.79; in Sherk, Empire, 184, §144).
[3018]. Cadoux and Rhodes, “Areopagus,” 152.
[3019]. Apul. Metam. 10.7; Juv. Sat. 9.101; cf. Plut. Demosth. 26.1. It retained even capital authority (Tac. Ann. 2.55, on 18 C.E.; Witherington, Acts, 516n195).
[3020]. Ramsay, Discovery, 101.
[3021]. Cadoux and Rhodes, “Areopagus,” 152; Rhodes, “Areopagus,” 1047.
[3022]. Cic. Fam. 13.1.5 (where it also rescinds a decision); Att. 5.11.
[3023]. Men. Rhet. 2.3, 385.12–13.
[3024]. Horsley, Documents, 1:82, §31; McRay, “Athens,” 140. A more democratic body had seized much of its power in an earlier era (Plut. Cim. 15.2).
[3025]. E.g., IG 2.2.3277, in Nero’s reign (Sherk, Empire, 115, §78A); Dio Chrys. Or. 50.2 (a half century later). Cf. the council hall of the “Five Hundred,” elected for one-year terms, near the Stoa Basileios (Paus. 1.3.5; cf. 1.5.1). Cf. Athenian Agora, 81, for what the excavators thought was a large lawcourt.
[3026]. Gill, “Achaia,” 447. Its functions in the Roman period are far less obscure today than when Cadbury, Acts in History, 51–52, wrote.
[3027]. The term ἄγω need not imply official action (the verb appears thirty-eight times in Luke-Acts; cf. Acts 9:27; 11:26; 13:23; 20:12; 21:16; 23:18; as recently as 17:15), but when context warrants (as it more often than not does in Acts), it bears a more official sense (e.g., Luke 22:54; 23:1, 32; Acts 5:21, 26–27; 6:12; 8:32; 9:2, 21; 18:12; 19:37; 21:34; 22:5; 23:10, 31; 25:6, 17, 23; cf. Luke 19:27).
[3028]. For cogent arguments supporting a trial here, see esp. Barnes, “Apostle on Trial.” Conzelmann, “Areopagus,” 219, correctly objects that Luke’s other trial narratives are unambiguous. Some sort of hearing is in view (cf. Rowe, “Grammar,” 37: “Paul is actually on trial”), since the Areopagus was a court (e.g., Tac. Ann. 2.55; see discussion above), but it could be simply a licensing hearing (see discussion below). What is clear is that Paul would not be invited merely to entertain or lecture this body.
[3029]. Abbott, Acts, 195, regards “May we know?” (Acts 17:19) as a polite Greek way of speaking; but it might instead (or additionally) display eloquence. Cf. Eccl 8:17 LXX, where even the wise are not “able to know” God’s work; here the answer to their question might be an implied “No” by Luke (cf. Acts 21:34; 1 Cor 2:14). Still, the use of δυνάμεθα in Acts 17:19 may also signal “a polite request” (so Parsons and Culy, Acts, 335). Their use of βουλόμεθα (17:20) might reflect the Stoic use of βούλησις for a positive expression of rational desire (though not itself a virtue; see Arius Did. 2.7.5b, pp. 10–11.16–21, esp. 19; see Pomeroy, 106n9).
[3030]. Though “ignorance” (Acts 17:23) may invite eager questioning for the purpose of learning (Philost. Hrk. 19.1), this is Paul’s positive characterization of the situation in the story world, not theirs.
[3031]. Probably held by most scholars, with minor variations, e.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 212 (noting that control of lecturers in the Agora would be a major task); Conzelmann, Acts, 139 (citing Plut. Cic. 24 for the council’s addressing “educational questions”); Judge, Pattern, 26; Hemer, “Paul at Athens,” 349; Johnson, Acts, 314; Witherington, Acts, 515–17; Dunn, Acts, 234.
[3032]. Reicke, Era, 233. Whether the Areopagus would have micromanaged to this extent is less clear, but the assembly’s own religious activity is clear; Paus. 1.24.2 mentions a depiction of the Areopagus offering a bull. Rural travelers often stopped to pray or make a small offering when coming across altars or other consecrated sites (see Apul. Flor. 1.1–3), but no one could stop for all the many sites in Attica.
[3033]. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 151 (following esp. Geagan, Athenian Constitution, 50); Winter, “Introducing Gods”; McRay, “Athens,” 140. Cf. perhaps later Roman law in Paulus Sent. 5.21.12 (Walaskay, Acts, 171). Monotheistic Israel was, if anything, even more opposed to “new gods” (Deut 32:17).
[3034]. Reicke, Era, 233; Dupont, Salvation, 31. Nonphilosophers might sometimes consider themselves competent to evaluate philosophers (Symm. Ep. 1.29).
[3035]. Winter, Left Corinth, 36–37; idem, Philo and Paul, 149–51 (who may be right that Paul avoided this procedure in Corinth, 1 Cor 2:1); see also Pogoloff, Logos, 176–77 (who cites, e.g., Sen. E. Controv. 7.pref. 8–9); Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 152.
[3036]. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 229–30.
[3037]. Ibid.; Robertson, Luke, 197.
[3038]. Diog. Laert. 2.116. In Hellenistic times, another philosopher was nearly brought before it for inappropriate speech (2.101).
[3039]. Although ancients often established comparisons by calling one a “new” so-and-so, our first association of a “new Socrates” (καινὸς Σωκράτης) with Christians appears in Lucian Peregr. 12, where Lucian thinks that Palestinian Christians so hailed a (temporarily) Christian philosopher. (That contemporary Christian sources nowhere warn against Peregrinus, among many other “false teachers,” suggests that Lucian might overestimate his importance among the Christians.)
[3040]. It has more positive uses (e.g., Acts 9:27; 11:26; 17:15; 20:12; 21:16), and so the context must be determinative. For cognates applying to being led to punishment, see comment on Acts 12:19.
[3041]. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 516–17, for whom it is adversarial, though not necessarily from malice.
[3042]. Ibid., 515. Haenchen, Acts, 518, however, cautions that Socrates’s judges were not the Areopagus.
[3043]. E.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 212; McDonald, “Athens,” 9; Cadbury, Acts in History, 52; Bruce, Acts1, 333; Carter and Earle, Acts, 255; Haenchen, Acts, 518; Dupont, Salvation, 31; Conzelmann, Acts, 139; Meeks, Urban Christians, 26; Grant, Gods, 50 (citing also Favorinus in Diog. Laert. 2.40); Witherington, Acts, 515; Talbert, Acts, 152; Pervo, Acts, 425–27; Rowe, World, 31; Dupertuis, “Speech,” 165; see esp. Sandnes, “Paul and Socrates” (cf. further comment at Acts 17:32). Most scholars also cite Plato Apol. 24B. Some go further, suggesting that Luke uses the allusion to invite a fresh hearing of Socrates himself (a model later developed by Justin Martyr; Reis, “Areopagus”). Some also make the analogy more influential for Acts as a whole (cf. Alexander, Context, 43–68; Dupertuis, “Socratizing Paul”) than it may warrant, though I do appreciate some of the arguments and concur strongly that Luke presents Paul as a sage. With respect to arguments that the later hearings in Acts recall Socrates, it should be noted that by their nature martyr traditions, whether of Socrates or Maccabean martyrs, share many common elements.
[3044]. Note also Dio Chrys. Or. 43.9; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.11; Hermog. Method 9.424; esp. Plato Euthyphro 3B (καινοὺς . . . θεούς, noted in Bruce, Acts1, 333). On the last text, cf. Hare, Euthyphro, 4: “Euthyphro thinks Socrates means his ‘divine sign.’ . . . But Meletus may have been equally interested in the new gods of the Ionian physicists with whom Socrates was associated in the popular imagination.”
[3045]. Val. Max. 1.1.ext. 7 (LCL, 1:39); another version claims simply that he sometimes opposed conventional beliefs. Max. Tyre 3.8 reverses the charges, claiming that it was the Athenians who introduced new gods.
[3046]. Reportedly, Socrates simply responded by asking if Aristophanes wished “to use him for some other role” (Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 78.12–14 [trans. Lutz, 79]).
[3047]. A valuable apologetic; see the introduction, Keener, Acts, 1:454–56.
[3048]. See Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 212, citing also Anaxagoras, Protagoras, and Chrysippus the Stoic (for the last, see Cic. Nat. d. 1.15.39).
[3049]. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.267; Servius Comm. in Verg. Aen. 8.187; see Wardle, Valerius Maximus, 135.
[3050]. On the Pythia, see comment on Acts 16:16.
[3051]. Val. Max. 3.4.ext. 1; Pliny E. N.H. 7.31.119; 7.32.119; 7.34.120; Paus. 1.22.8; Lucian Dance 25; Apul. Metam. 10.33.
[3052]. On his own δαίμων, see, e.g., Xen. Mem. 1.1.2 (meaning the deity that directed him, 1.4.2, 10, 13; 4.8.1, 5–6); Plut. Alc. 17.4; Sign Soc. 10, Mor. 580C; Apul. De deo Socr. 157; Apol. 27; Socrates Ep. 1; discussion in, e.g., Kleve, “Daimon”; Brickhouse and Smith, “Sign.” Hence the charge of introducing new δαιμόνια (e.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.11). Apollonius’s δαίμων probably reflects the model of Socrates (Du Toit, “Vorstellung”).
[3053]. E.g., Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 1a; Epict. Diatr. 1.9.1, 22; 1.17.12 (via Xen. Mem. 4.6.1); 3.12.15; 3.21.19; 3.22.26; 3.23.22; 3.24.38; 3.24.40; 4.1.41; 4.7.29; Encheir. 32.3; Marc. Aur. 11.23, 39. A critic of Plato might claim to desist on the basis of his regard for “Socratic wisdom” (Heracl. Hom. Prob. 79.1 [Russell and Konstan, 129]).
[3054]. See the survey in Tiede, Figure, 30–42; cf. Lucian Dem. 11 (in Johnson, Acts, 313–14); Apul. Flor. 2.1 (as a Platonist); De deo Socr. 167 (noted with a different enumeration in Rives, Religion, 41); Plut. Poetry 2, Mor. 16C. Though without a commitment to particular applications, Plutarch uses him as a model (Pelling, “Plutarch’s Socrates”).
[3055]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 78.12–14; 18B, p. 118.16–18; Sen. Y. Ben. 5.6.2–7; 5.7.5; 7.8.2; Epict. Diatr. 1.25.31; 1.29.65–66; 2.26.6; 3.1.19–23; 3.5.14–19; 3.23.32; 3.24.60; 4.1.159–60; 4.5.2–4, 33; 4.8.22–23; 4.9.6; 4.11.19; Encheir. 33.12; 51.3; Marc. Aur. 1.16.9; 6.47; 7.19, 66; 8.3; 11.25, 28; cf. Sen. Y. Ben. 7.24.1–2. Stoics would not follow his dissembling (an ironic way to mock the sophists); see Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 88–89.10–11. Cicero deemed Stoic controversial views to be Socratic (St. Par. 4, in Irwin, Philosophy, 334, §509).
[3056]. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 1.3.12–13; 2.18.5; Epict. Diatr. 1.12.23.
[3057]. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 4.7.1; 7.25.4; Ben. 5.4.3; Diogenes Ep. 28 (to the Greeks); Dio Chrys. Or. 3.1, 29; cf. Sen. Y. Dial. 7.27.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 13; 43.8–12; 54. He even appears as a model disputer (Epict. Diatr. 2.12.5); people became his zealous followers (1.19.6).
[3058]. Still, Lucian was ready to have fun with the charge of Socrates corrupting youth, especially Alcibiades (True Story 2.19; Dial. D. 419 [6/20, Menippus and Aeacus ¶6]; Phil. Sale 15–16; cf. Eunuch 9; Ps.-Lucian Affairs 23, 54). Such behavior does not fit some early depictions (e.g., Xen. Mem. 1.3.8–12; Symp. 4.54) or later interpretations (e.g., Corn. Nep. 7 [Alcibiades], 2.2–3; Plut. Alc. 6.1) of Socrates, though Alcibiades’s amorous inclinations toward Socrates are laughed at in Plato Symp. 222C (cf. also Alcibiades’s comments about Socrates and others in 223A). But Epicurus believed that Socrates was attracted to Alcibiades (Max. Tyre 32.8).
[3059]. Regularly recalled in ancient literature, e.g., Lucian Indictment 5; Philod. On Death 33.1–4.
[3060]. Xen. Mem. 4.8.2 (the greatest example); the model martyr in Epict. Diatr. 1.29.16–18 (citing Plato Apol. 30C; Crito 43D); 2.2.8–9 (citing Xen. Apol. 2–3); 2.6.26; 3.18.4; 4.1.123, 162–69; 4.4.21; Marc. Aur. 7.66; probably the template for Seneca’s death, recorded in Tac. Ann. 15.62–63 (perhaps even the Athenian-type poison in 15.64) and perhaps parodied in Petronius’s in 16.19. Nonphilosophers sometimes took a different approach; the wisest man was done in by the wicked (Apul. Metam. 10.33).
[3061]. Xen. Apol. 28; Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 1d; Diog. Laert. 2.35.
[3062]. For knowledge about poisons in antiquity, see Touwaide, “Poisons” (for executions, 451).
[3063]. Max. Tyre 3.2, 8 (echoing Plato Apol. 39CD; he also emphasizes that they were not qualified to evaluate him, 3.1, 5, 7; cf. 1 Cor 2:15); cf. similarly Xen. Apol. 29; Epict. Diatr. 4.1.123. Some of Socrates’s attempted imitators, however, were too explicit (Epict. Diatr. 2.2.17–18).
[3064]. Aune, Environment, 36 (emphasizing its use by “competing Socratic schools”). Some outside the guild challenged earlier philosophers’ idealizations of Socrates (e.g., Athen. Deipn. 5.215–16), though usually arguing from silence (e.g., 5.219ab). Others suggested that some of Socrates’s students contributed to tyranny (Quint. Decl. 268.8), or satirized him as sexually involved with the youth he instructed (as noted above, cf. Lucian Eunuch 9; Phil. Sale 15–16; Dial. D. 419 [6/20, Menippus and Aeacus 6]; rejected by Dio Chrys. Or. 37.32; 43.9). Although not reviling him, the Epicurean Philodemus views Socrates’s economic views as impractical (Prop. col. 5.5–14).
[3065]. Lutz, “Musonius,” 3, for Musonius (citing Origen Cels. 3.66; esp. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.46; Julian Ap. Let. 16 [to the high priest Theodorus]). The first-century Mara bar Serapion may compare Jesus to Socrates.
[3066]. Trapp, Maximus, 24, citing, e.g., Plato Apology; Xenophon Apologia Socratis; Crito (Suda, s.v. “Crito”); Lysias (in Plut. Mor. 836b); Cic. De or. 1.231; Libanius Declam. 1.13–21; 2.127–47. Maximus of Tyre’s apology (Or. 3), claiming that he offered no defense, appears unique (Trapp, Maximus, 24–25).
[3067]. Not necessarily deliberate parallels with Socrates’s teaching; although some find these (most prominently, Betz, Sokratische Tradition), Judge, “Paul and Socrates,” 670–83, finds especially contrasts.
[3068]. Stern, Authors, 1:8–11 (esp. 1:10, where they are “philosophers by race”). Satlow, “Philosophers,” seeks to explain Theophrastus’s inference.
[3069]. Megasthenes Indica 3, comparing the exotic wisdom of India (Stern, Authors, 1:46).
[3070]. Also comparing Indian philosophers (Stern, Authors, 1:50).
[3071]. Gager, Anti-Semitism, 39; Stern, Authors, 1:93–96, 131–33; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:255–61.
[3072]. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:255; Gager, Anti-Semitism, 39.
[3073]. E.g., Jos. Ant. passim in Mason, Josephus and New Testament, 65–69. Cf. the possible association of Solomon with philosophers in Feder, “Solomon,” 35–36, though the images are not fully clear. Historically, Israelite literacy was probably similar to Greek literacy, concentrated among the elite (see Young, “Israelite Literacy”).
[3074]. Mayer, “Abrahambildes,” 125–26.
[3075]. Aristob. frg. 3 (Euseb. P.E. 13.12.1–2; OTP 2:839); frg. 4 (Euseb. P.E. 13.13.3–8; OTP 2:840–41). For the idea, see further Charlesworth, “Introduction to Fragments,” 775.
[3076]. Cf. Socrates as “lawgiver” in Proclus Poet. 6.1, K116.13–14.
[3077]. A view later developed by Christian apologists as well (e.g., Justin 1 Apol. 59; he cites in 1 Apol. 54ff. other pagan myths and philosophers that expropriated biblical ideas). The earlier Jewish apologist Artapanus even attributed to Moses the founding of Egypt’s animal cults (Euseb. P.E. 9.27.6; Collins, “Artapanus,” 893).
[3078]. Philo Good Person 57; Eternity 18–19; Mos. 1.1–3, noted by Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 163.
[3079]. See Sterling, “Platonizing Moses.”
[3080]. See Cohen, “Virtues and Laws.” Philo did allow that Moses learned Egyptian and Chaldean wisdom (Mos. 1.23–24), which was valued as exotic in Philo’s day.
[3081]. E.g., t. ʿAbod. Zar. 6:7; b. Bek. 8b–9a. For the rabbinic-controversy dialogue form, see Keener, John, 67, and sources there. They portrayed Balaam and a Gadarene Cynic as the greatest philosophers (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; Gen. Rab. 65:20; Lam. Rab. proem 2). Cf. similarly philosophic respect for Jewish sages in Let. Aris. 200–201.
[3082]. On Pythagoreanism, see, e.g., Albrecht, Iamblichus; Minar, Politics; Thesleff, Texts; Vogel, Pythagoras.
[3083]. See, e.g., Gorman, “Pythagoras Palaestinus”; Dillon, Middle Platonists, 143; cf. Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 11. Later Pythagoreans, at least, believed that he learned exotic foreign wisdom in Phoenicia (Iambl. V.P. 3.14) and Egypt (4.19). Some find Pythagorean influence in some rabbinic tradition (Jacobson, “Shoes,” on b. Šabb. 61a, but this might simply reflect detailed interest in halakic precision) or on Letter of Aristeas (Berthelot, “Interprétation symbolique”) or find parallels with Nazirite practice (Green, “Pythagoras”); for a comparison of food practices, see Grant, “Dietary Laws”; cf. comment on Acts 10:12.
[3084]. See Stern, Authors, 1:93–96 (defending the tradition’s authenticity, 1:93–94).
[3085]. Clem. Strom. 1.22.150; Euseb. P.E. 9.10.14.
[3086]. For skepticism concerning the origin in Numenius, see Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 59–60. Edwards, “Numenius,” provides a very different objection, that Numenius’s views derived, in turn, from a superficial knowledge of Jewish apologists.
[3087]. The idea that Greeks plagiarized Jewish tradition (or even that their tradition bears close cultural similarity to Moses) is unlikely (the genres are not even comparable) and could be defended only on the basis of a heavily hellenized interpretation of Moses. Jewish tradition did, however, hold the undeniable advantage of antiquity, lending some credibility to these claims. Further, Greek wisdom did depend on Near Eastern varieties (cf. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:149), which some Israelite wisdom developed earlier, and some Greek intellectuals may have borrowed from Jewish material (Horsley, Documents, 3:123–25, §96, if he interprets correctly the document in question).
[3088]. Some Greeks readily claimed that philosophy was a pre-Greek phenomenon, though noting (correctly) that Greeks developed it (e.g., Diog. Laert. 1.prol.).
[3089]. Cf. Green, “Pythagoras.”
[3090]. See the essays in Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, esp. 11–32.
[3091]. See esp. Sterling, “Recherché”; cf. also others, e.g., Kamsler, “Philo.”
[3092]. E.g., Dillon, “Reclaiming” (Philo being both an orthodox Jew and a Platonist); idem, Middle Platonists, 182; Früchtel, Vorstellungen; Runia, “Middle Platonist?”; Sterling, “Platonizing Moses.” One cannot attribute this ideology to later influences (given the medieval date of the current corpus), since a third-century codex preserves Philonic samples (Royse, “Papyrus”); later gnostic parallels reflect dependence on a similar source (Wilson, “Philo and Gnosticism”). Alexandria was a center of Middle Platonist development (Engberg-Pedersen, “Scene,” 3).
[3093]. Cf. Dodd, Interpretation, 65–66; idem, “Background,” 337; Dillon, Middle Platonists, 80–83; Wilson, “Philo and Gospel,” 48. Philo quotes Heraclitus (see Royse, “Heraclitus”), may use both Stoic and Middle Platonic senses of τέλος (Besnier, “Migration et telos”), may use the Stoic notion of pre-emotion (Graver, “Προπάθειαι,” noting Philo QG 1.79), and makes eclectic use of Stoic and other terminology (often in a non-Stoic manner, Rist, Terminology). (Long, “Allegory,” argues that Philo’s approach to allegory, however, differs substantially from that of the Stoics.) Philo probably incorporated even Peripatetic (Aristotelian) elements (see Bos, “Philo”). Some suggest that he wished to present Judaism as a universal religion to his Greek intellectual contemporaries (Hadidian, “Philonism,” 214); others, that he simply responds to Alexandrian Platonism, which was already eclectic (Dillon, Middle Platonists, 182). Reydams-Schils, “Stoicized Readings,” argues that pre-Philo Alexandrian Judaism was more Stoic on many points, forcing Philo’s attention to these elements.
[3094]. Philo Creation 119; Good Person 13 (praising him); Contempl. 57, 59. Cf. also Eternity 13, 14, 16, 27, 38, 52, 141; he disagrees in Creation 133. Perhaps following the more eclectic Platonism of his day, he can value as useful for education verses in Homer (Od. 17.485–86) that Plato himself (Rep. 2.380D–381D) rejects (Jacobson, “Rejection”).
[3095]. On Platonic elements, see, e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 176–78; idem, John, 560. On its natural theology in light of Greek culture, see, e.g., Collins, “Natural Theology”; Poniży, “Recognition.”
[3096]. See, e.g., Rost, Judaism, 109–10; Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 21–22.
[3097]. Van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides,” 565–66.
[3098]. Charlesworth, “Introduction to Fragments,” 775. Cf. Collins, “Aristobulus,” 831: “The five fragments of Aristobulus’s work seem to be part of an extended attempt to relate Jewish tradition to hellenistic culture.” For Stoic elements in Wisdom of Solomon, see Wright, Paul, 238–43. Some find Greek philosophic influence in Sirach (Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 16–18; Kaiser, “Rezeption”); the claims of Stoicism in Sirach, however, are likely exaggerated (Mattila, “Ben Sira”), as also in most of the LXX (Cook, “Philosophy”). Goff, “Instruction,” finds ideas compatible with Stoicism but not clear evidence for Sirach’s knowledge of Stoic works.
[3099]. See Lafargue, “Orphica,” OTP 2:795–97 (introduction); and 799–801 (translation).
[3100]. Wilken, “Christians,” 107–10 (yet also as a religious association devoted to Christ, 110–18); idem, “Social Interpretation of Apologetics”; Aune, Prophecy, 229. Judge, First Christians, 615, notes that synagogues offered churches a closer model, but outsiders were more apt to confuse them with philosophic schools. Strelan, Strange Acts, 14–26, contends that most outsiders would have viewed Christians as strange, including (14–16) their one God without a major civic cult. By Luke’s day, with no temple in Jerusalem, this might be especially the case.
[3101]. For a first-century B.C.E. example of a cultic group with ethical requirements, see Seesengood, “Rules.” Associations normally had at least rules governing conduct at banquets.
[3102]. See Silvanus in Klauck, Context, 29; further rustic examples in Rüpke, “Kult.”
[3103]. Pelikan, Acts, 190 (following Jaeger, Christianity and Paideia, 29). On ancient “monotheistic” trends in philosophy (perhaps more often monistic), see comment on Acts 8:10.
[3104]. See Judge, “Scholastic Community,” 137.
[3105]. See, e.g., Schmeller, “Gegenwelten” (also examining why nineteenth-century scholars failed to recognize the analogy).
[3106]. Wilken, “Social Interpretation of Apologetics,” 444–48.
[3107]. Wright, “Justin Martyr’s Testimony,” 86.
[3108]. Wilken, “Collegia,” 277; see Judge, Athens, 65 (regarding an Arabic fragment).
[3109]. In Peregr. 11, Lucian calls Christians a θίασος and a συναγωγή, but in Peregr. 13, the governor, fond of philosophy, releases Peregrinus the Christian; in Peregr. 15, Peregrinus appears before his town as a Cynic philosopher, but in Peregr. 16 he is still exploiting Christians.
[3110]. Christian scholars continue to use the speech today to encourage ministry to intellectuals in various cultures (e.g., Onwu, “Acts 17:16–34 in Africa”). Cf. Irvin and Sunquist, History, 171–72, on Ricci as a sage.
[3111]. See Talbert, Acts, xvi–xviii. Josephus’s ideal audience, however, is much more Hellenistic elite than Luke’s, which probably mitigates much of the force of this comparison.
[3112]. Armstrong, “Later Platonism,” 74ff. (noting that they also distinguished their views from Platonism). Although Stoic ethics were useful, later Christians exploited Platonic theology and teaching on immortality (Pelikan, Acts, 192) once Platonism became dominant in the intellectual culture. Plato’s Phaedo influenced Greg. Nyssa On the Soul and the Resurrection (Pelikan, Acts, 192).
[3113]. Latourette, First Five Centuries, 19. Cf. Gaston, “Influence,” for Neoplatonism’s influence on the Apologists (though overemphasizing influence on trinitarian concepts, which also had other sources).
[3114]. Trapp, Maximus, p. l (Roman numeral 50), who regards Clement as superior to Maximus of Tyre.
[3115]. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.23 (cited by Pelikan, Acts, 102).
[3116]. Cf. Reis, “Areopagus.” Cf. Dafni, “Septuaginta,” for the reception of Plato in Justin.
[3117]. Cf., e.g., Keener, “Heavenly Mindedness”; further, Philonic and other parallels noted by most commentators on Col 1:15.
[3118]. Cf. the superiority of unlearned apostles to philosophers in Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. 4.6 (Bray, Corinthians, 16, on 1 Cor 1:25); and the inability of many philosophers to apprehend the truth (Aug. Letter to Consentius 120).
[3119]. Cited in Bray, Corinthians, 180.
[3120]. Cited in ibid., 292.
[3121]. Josephus, emphasizing the Jewish priority on Jewish learning, notes the difficulty with which he has made his own presentation (Ant. 20.263–64).
[3122]. Or even (to the extent of typical Jewish apologists) adherence to an ethnic faith (though full Christian conversion would entail embrace of the Jewish Scriptures and heritage).
[3123]. Bruce, Acts3, 66, following Norden, Agnostos theos, 333.
[3124]. E.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.21–22; Ep. Apoll. 70.
[3125]. That all Athenians did nothing else is plainly Lukan hyperbole (with, e.g., Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 181), which we encounter in many other texts (e.g., Acts 11:28; 19:10).
[3126]. The adjective is comparative in form. Luke’s depiction might apply even to many of us academicians today.
[3127]. The uses of καινός in Acts 17:19 and 21 are its only two occurrences in Acts (in addition to Luke 5:36, 38; 22:20).
[3128]. Although Luke omits the parallel in his Gospel, this particular formulation of their interest probably reflects the language of Mark 1:27.
[3129]. Those at school in Athens often amused themselves with sophistries and enigmas (Aul. Gel. 18.2).
[3130]. Polybius likewise criticizes those who sat around in Rome merely criticizing the generals without aiding the war effort (Polyb. 29.1.1–3).
[3131]. E.g., Wikenhauser, Apostelgeschichte, 198; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 455; Bruce, Commentary, 352; idem, Documents, 89; Haenchen, Acts, 520; Johnson, Acts, 314; Fitzmyer, Acts, 606; D. Williams, Acts, 304; Pervo, Acts, 429; Talbert, Acts, 153 (citing, from Athenians themselves, Thucyd. 3.38.4; Demosth. Philip. 1.43; Ep. Philip 156–57; Soph. Oed. Col. 260; also, e.g., Aelian Var. hist. 5.17). Conzelmann, Acts, 140, adds Aristoph. Knights 1260–63; one might find also relevant Hermog. Inv. 3.5.146, 149 (though cf. 144). The literary parallels have suggested to some that Luke depended here on tradition about the Athenians rather than on firsthand acquaintance (Barrett, Acts, 833); since the “we” ended in Philippi, this may well be the case here.
[3132]. Others cite Demosthenes’s challenge that the Athenians went about seeking new information when the time demanded action rather than mere words (Demosth. Philip. 1.10).
[3133]. Another orator praised novelty (καινοπρεπές) but used invention with a proper “sense of proportion” (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.33.627 [LCL, 311]).
[3134]. See Gray, “Athenian Curiosity.” Talbert, Acts, 153, cites Aug. Conf. 10.35, regarding the vanity of mere religious curiosity without desire for God.
[3135]. Witherington, Acts, 517. In a more positive vein, Areopagites were, apparently, known for not passing on others’ stories or information (Alciph. Fish. 16 [Auchenius to Armenius], 1.13, ¶1, contrasting this with passing on secrets).
[3136]. Goodman, State, 80 (citing m. Yad. 4:3; t. Soṭah 7:9).
[3137]. Cf. the negative character of always seeking what is new or novel in Max. Tyre 36.2. Zeus complains about mortals’ addiction to novelty in Lucian Icar. 24; Lucian himself mocks novelty seeking in Posts 26. Dio Chrys. Or. 8.10 points out that Diogenes the Cynic drew a crowd of visitors at the Isthmian Games, but not of Corinthians themselves, who were already accustomed to him (cf. also 9.4).
[3138]. With Hansen, “Preaching,” 311.
[3139]. See, e.g., Eunapius Lives 495–96; Litfin, Theology, 65, 104–6; Glad, “Adaptability,” 19; for philosophers, Max. Tyre 1.2; Diog. Laert. 2.66; Martin, Slavery, 94–95; for others, 1 Cor 9:19–23; Thebaid frg. 8; Marshall, Enmity, 71–73. For cultural adaptability, see, e.g., Ap. Rhod. 2.1017; Hdn. 4.7.3–4; 4.8.1–3; 5.5.5. One prominent example was Alcibiades, in Corn. Nep. 7 (Alcibiades), 11.2–6; Plut. Alc. 23.4–6. Various writers did condemn excessive adaptation that diluted convictions (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 4.123–24; Ps.-Phoc. 49; Litfin, Theology, 115–17).
[3140]. Mitchell, “Accommodation,” 208.
[3141]. See Kilgallen, “Acts 17,22b–31.”
[3142]. Certainly, many philosophers were found at the Areopagus in Lucian Fisherman 42 (even if he means the literal site rather than the council, he emphasizes that philosophers appeared throughout Athens). This may be an external stereotype, but it is clear enough that Athenians valued their heritage and reputation for philosophic learning.
[3143]. E.g., Nock, Christianity, 96.
[3144]. With, e.g., Klauck, Magic, 83. Some points could connect with other cultures as well (see, e.g., Isizoh, “Areopagus Speech”), but the speech focuses on acceptable biblical concepts that overlap with Stoic thought.
[3145]. See Litwak, “Prophets.” For OT texts supporting the claims in the speech, see Arnold, “Acts,” 391.
[3146]. See, e.g., Gourgues, “Dossier fermé?” (also idem, “¿Expediente cerrado?”).
[3147]. See, e.g., Torrey’s early critique (Composition, 49–50) of Norden’s Agnostos theos for emphasizing dependence on a work of Apollonius of Tyana that is not even extant. Norden’s belief that the second-century speech was interpolated here into Acts further evades the text’s obvious Lukan characteristics (Conzelmann, “Areopagus,” 225–26). Norden’s view that the unknown god reflects the unknown deity of Gnosticism (cf., e.g., in the 1923 edition, Agnostos Theos, 65–67, 102–3, 115–16, 312ff.) has been largely abandoned; see Haenchen, Acts, 521n1.
[3148]. Downing, “Pagan Theism and Speeches,” citing here esp. Dionysius of Halicarnassus; cf. also idem, Cynics, 212.
[3149]. Rose, Parke, and DeLaine, “Monotheism”; Kahn, “Xenophanes”; Bloch, “Monotheism,” 172.
[3150]. Cf., e.g., Nock, Christianity, 96.
[3151]. See, e.g., Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 11–32.
[3152]. Siegert, “Homily,” 435–37.
[3153]. See also Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 209; Haenchen, Acts, 530. Kaiser, “Rezeption,” suggests the Stoic idea of providence in Sir 39:12–35 and 42:15–43:33 (but cf. Mattila, “Ben Sira”). For early Christian use of Hellenistic Jewish apologetic, see esp. Gager, Kingdom, 126–29.
[3154]. E.g., Philo Plant. 129; Tartarus in Sib. Or. 1.10, 101–3; Nereus in 1.232 (and perhaps in Test. Job 51:2/1); Hephaistos in Sib. Or. 2.19; demythologized Titans in 1.307–23; 2.231; 3.110–13; Amaltheia’s horn in Test. Job 1:3; the Elysian plain in Sib. Or. 2.337–38 (though this is probably later Christian redaction); an epithet of Poseidon applied to God in 2.15; see esp. the synthesis of Greek and Jewish figures in Cleodemus in Alexander Polyhistor (Euseb. P.E. 9.20.2–4; Jos. Ant. 1.239–41, in Doran, “Malchus,” 887). Jewish art substituted symbols similar to pagan analogues (Goodenough, Symbols, 4:209) and sometimes simply took over pagan symbols (Symbols, vols. 7–8). Even rabbis knew the river of fire (Pesiq. Rab. 20:4).
[3155]. Those comfortable with both worlds valued cultural competence in both cultures (e.g., Let. Aris. 121–22); see fuller comment at Acts 22:3.
[3156]. On the hellenization of early Judaism in general, see, e.g., Avi-Yonah, Hellenism; Tarn, Civilisation, 233–34; Tcherikover, Civilization; Lieberman, Hellenism; Engberg-Pedersen, “Introduction”; Albright, Stone Age, 256–75; Bright, History, 417; Boer, Morality, 88; Sampley, “Introduction,” 4–5; Rajak, “Location”; esp. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, esp. 1:103ff., 252. It grew significantly under Herod (Jacobson, “Kings”), though Palestine achieved its fullest hellenization only in the third century C.E. (Meyers, “Challenge”). This reflects the broader hellenization of the entire eastern Mediterranean region (cf. Simon, “Identität”; Goodman, State, 175), and it succeeded best where it challenged traditions least (Goodman, State, 88). Earlier Romans had also resisted hellenization (Goldstein, “Acceptance,” esp. 69–70).
[3157]. See, e.g., Chancey and Meyers, “Jewish”; Chancey, “Milieu”; cf. Meyers and Meyers, “Sepphoris” (noting some). Some scholars rightly warn that Hengel and some others have overstated the evidence (Feldman, “Hellenism”); differences between rural Palestinian and Greek Diaspora Judaism remain, the former retaining connections with the Aramaic cultures of the East (see Wasserstein, “Non-hellenized Jews”). Yet even places such as Beth She‘arim reveal Hellenistic influences (Levine, “Beth-She‘arim,” 311).
[3158]. E.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.255.
[3159]. E.g., Jos. Ant. 1.222. Kamesar, “Endiathetos,” compares Philo with D-scholium on Hom. Il. 5.385.
[3160]. Jewish law reveals close correspondences to the larger Roman legal context (Cohen, Law, esp. 15–30; Jackson, “Roman Influence”; cf. idem, “Family Law”), though both may reflect many earlier Near Eastern antecedents.
[3161]. For an allegedly Hasmonean example, see b. Menaḥ. 64b, bar; Soṭah 49b; note also the warning that learning Torah full-time allows no time to study Greek wisdom (b. Menaḥ. 99b). The ban against Greek ways (Urbach, “Self-Isolation,” 284–85) did not ultimately prevent much enculturation (284–87).
[3162]. More complete in b. Soṭah 49b; Giṭ. 58a; B. Qam. 83a; many cite this tradition (e.g., Davies, Paul, 6; Longenecker, Paul, 58n198). Whether this applies to Gamaliel I or II, it suggests a continuity of tradition in that household (relevant for Acts 22:3); the rabbis otherwise viewed Greek language as safer than Greek wisdom. The prohibition of teaching it may have applied mainly to children rather than to adult study (Lieberman, Hellenism, 100–102).
[3163]. Lieberman, Hellenism, 112–14.
[3164]. Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 219 (conceding Stoic ethics but noting that rabbis, unlike Philo, cared only for the praxis, not the theory); Cook, “Philosophy,” finds little technical philosophy even in the LXX. Contrast Gordon, Near East, 290n19, who contends that the form of rabbinic literature more closely resembles Epictetus than it does OT Wisdom literature. Roshwald, “Ben Zoma,” even finds similarities to Plato and Aristotle in m. ʾAb. 4:1; Hallevy, “Mhsbt,” postulates the dependence of rabbinic approaches to reproof on Hellenistic ethics.
[3165]. Lucian Hermot. 48. Although those with elite training, such as Seneca, knew the tenets of rival schools (such as Epicureanism), ordinary teachers of philosophy might have had only secondhand knowledge of schools other than the tradition in which they were taught.
[3166]. See Hock, “Paul and Education,” 208–9, on his citation in 1 Cor 15:33 and his abundant LXX quotations; Forbes, “Paul,” 132–35.
[3167]. Litfin, Theology, 139.
[3168]. As noted already by Cic. De or. 1.47; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 342–43, §114D.
[3169]. Pogoloff, Logos, 37–39. For Plato and rhetoric, see also Cic. Or. Brut. 3.12; Philost. Letters 73 (13); Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 42.
[3170]. Pogoloff, Logos, 57.
[3171]. This may be rhetorical humility (as in, e.g., 1 Cor 2:1–3; Sall. Jug. 85.31; Sp. G. Cotta 4; Cic. Quinct. 1.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.9; 32.39; 47.1); Marcus Aurelius likewise claims his own ignorance in Greek (Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.6.2), utterly unconvincingly.
[3172]. Trapp, Maximus, xxxiv.
[3173]. The “grand” style was used for great subjects (Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 368.9; cf. Thielman, “Style of Fourth Gospel,” 173–75, citing Philo Worse 79; Heir 4; Longin. Subl. 9.3), such as hymns to deities (Max. Tyre 11.1; Men. Rhet. 1.1, 335.21–22); this approach was supposed to follow Homer (Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 369.8–9).
[3174]. Neither does he display the bombast, wordplay, and rhythm associated with Hellenistic Asianism (for discussion, see Winterbottom, “Asianism”). On the various styles, see, e.g., Shiell, Reading Acts, 45–49 (suggesting that Luke normally uses the mediating “sophistic” style, 169–70).
[3175]. Witherington, Acts, 43, esp. n. 155; cf. Bruce, Acts3, 66. By the most optimistic count of optatives, more than 40 percent of NT occurrences are in Luke-Acts.
[3176]. Gempf, “Before Paul Arrived,” 132. (He suggests [n. 20] that Paul “standing” [Acts 17:22] violates “the convention of the seated preliminary.” Still, given the situation, one wonders whether the Areopagus would have offered him a seat; he was not a renowned orator, and they may have lacked significant interest beyond his novelty.)
[3177]. On periodic style, see Rowe, “Style,” 151–52; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 347; comment on Acts 15:24–26.
[3178]. On these figures, see Rhet. Her. 4.31.42; Rowe, “Style,” 128; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 579–80; Anderson, Glossary, 23, 52–53.
[3179]. C. Williams, Acts, 204.
[3180]. I derive this list from Satterthwaite, “Acts,” 369, who summarizes these points from Morgenthaler, Lukas und Quintilian, 331–34. Pervo, Acts, 432, also notes the end rhyme in Acts 17:25 (ζωὴν καὶ πνοήν) and other features.
[3181]. Witherington, Acts, 517–18.
[3182]. Porter, Paul in Acts, 165.
[3183]. See the correct emphasis on divine praise in Lestang, “Louange”; but the peroratio of Acts 17:30–31 (which Lestang treats instead as praising God’s present activity), unlike most of the rest of the speech, does not readily fit this category.
[3184]. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 57; Satterthwaite, “Acts,” 360. The exordium fits deliberative speeches (Zweck, “Exordium”).
[3185]. Witherington counters (Acts, 518) that Luke may simply omit the speech’s original narratio because it would reiterate Acts 17:18–19; but our question is the final form of Luke’s speech, not any reconstructed tradition behind it.
[3186]. Witherington, Acts, 518.
[3187]. Satterthwaite, “Acts,” 360. Martin, “Approaches,” 247, identifies the components similarly, except assigning Acts 17:23 entirely to the narratio without mention of a propositio. So also Dormeyer and Galindo, Apostelgeschichte, 265, with an exordium (Acts 17:22), narratio (17:23), argumentatio (17:24–28), and exhortatio (17:29–31).
[3188]. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 57.
[3189]. For the more prosecutorial character of Acts 17:29–31, see Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 130.
[3190]. Dupont, Salvation, 31.
[3191]. See Johnson, Acts, 318–19, who attributes the accuracy in this picture to Luke’s literary skill, developing a contact into a complete scene. In 1 Thess 3:1–2 Paul is explicit about his location rather than his ministry; but from what Paul’s letters reveal of him we may be confident that his sojourn in Athens (he remained there when he sent Timothy, so it was not simply an overnight stop en route to Corinth) involved ministry, not simply sightseeing.
[3192]. See Keener, Acts, 1:406–14; also the excursus at Acts 16:10 on the “we” material.
[3193]. On debates concerning the authenticity of speeches in Acts, see Keener, Acts, 1:271–319 and sources cited there; also (published too recently for me to cite in vol. 1) Adams, “Sources.”
[3194]. Hemer, “Paul at Athens.”
[3195]. Witherington, Acts, 519n205. Numerous other local “Athenian” connections are possible, but many could reflect a tourist’s acquaintance with Athens in Luke’s case as easily as Paul’s.
[3196]. Ibid. Some scholars argue that Luke had a hand also in the Pastorals. Whether the quotation stems from tradition about Epimenides is debated (see discussion on Acts 17:28).
[3197]. Klauck, Magic, 94; Porter, Paul in Acts, 150, 167–70; Dunn, Acts, 231–32; Bruce, Apostle, 244; Gärtner, Areopagus, passim; Shields, “Areopagus Sermon and Romans”; Hemer, “Areopagus Address”; Gempf, “Athens,” 52–54; R. Williams, Acts, 127–28; Polhill, Acts, 377.
[3198]. Paul in both cases is presenting a case, not offering to change his position in dialogue with others (cf. on this point Van Til, “Credo,” 7). Views of cosmology varied widely in antiquity (see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 30).
[3199]. Dio Chrys. Or. 12.28–29, 34, 36–37. The design argument could also be deployed against suicide (Cic. Fin. 5.12.35–36); for design in nature, cf. also Plut. Isis 76, Mor. 382A; Max. Tyre 27.8.
[3200]. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.23–24. See also Heraclitus Ep. 4 (cf. 9). First-century B.C.E. Stoics, however, identified the divine nature with the world (Gelinas, “Ex gradibus entium,” esp. on Cic. Nat. d. 2).
[3201]. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.25.
[3202]. Diod. Sic. 12.20.2.
[3203]. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.3–6. Later rabbis contended that Abraham reasoned back to a first cause and hence discovered the true God (Gen. Rab. 38:13; also noted by Davies, Paul, 29); the rabbis accepted both first-cause and design arguments (Pearl, Theology, 8–9).
[3204]. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.7.
[3205]. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.10. For the intellect as the gift of God or Nature, see, e.g., Cic. Parad. 14; Leg. 1.5.16; 1.8.25. For Stoics, “Nature” could be God; see, e.g., Sen. Y. Ben. 4.7.1; 4.8.1–3.
[3206]. Epict. Diatr. 1.16.8.
[3207]. E.g., Plato, in Diog. Laert. 3.8; cf. Lucan C.W. 7.1; Max. Tyre 6.5; 11.12 (comparing mind and law; he regards God as pure Mind, 27.8); Frank, Aspects, 109. In Philo, see Wolfson, Philo, 1:332–47 (though Philo criticizes the Stoic affirmation of natural law, 345); elsewhere in Jewish sources, Sib. Or. 3.757; for God’s “laws” in nature, see, e.g., 1 En. 72:2; 73:1; 74:1; 76:14; 78:10; 79:1–2; 1QM X, 12–13. See the discussion on universal law at Acts 15:20.
[3208]. Diog. Laert. 7.1.88. On divine law meaning living according to nature, see also Epict. Diatr. 2.16.28; on one law and Logos in the universe, see Marc. Aur. 7.9. For a full discussion of natural law in Stoicism, see Watson, “Natural Law.” Zeno himself reportedly lived consistently, not lamenting the loss of his possessions (Galen Grief 48).
[3209]. E.g., Diog. Laert. 7.1.89; Cic. Fin. 2.11.33–34; Tusc. 5.28.82; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 30.11; 66.37–39; 90.4; 110.10; 118.12; Dial. 1.4.15; 6.7.1, 3; 7.13.1; 8.5.1–2, 8; Ben. 5.8.2, 5; 7.19.5; Mus. Ruf. 14, p. 92.6–8; 17, p. 106.21–22; p. 108.1–4, 7, 16, 26; p. 110.12–13; frg. 40.18–19; Epict. Diatr. 1.2.6; 1.4.14, 29; 1.6.15, 20; 1.11.17; 1.12.17, 19; 1.26.2; 4.11.9–18; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b3, pp. 16–17.18–19, 26–28; 2.7.5b5, pp. 20–21.16–17; Marc. Aur. 1.9.1; 1.17.5; 2.9, 11–12, 16–17; 3.1; 3.2.2; 3.9, 12; 4.1, 5, 9; for further discussion or documentation, see Brisson, “Nature”; Long, Philosophy, 120, 148–49, 188; Keener, Paul, 42–43, 66. Stoics reasoned ethics both from nature and from virtue or happiness (see Annas, “Ethics”).
[3210]. Among others, e.g., Arist. N.E. 8.12.7, 1162a; Rhet. 1.15.6, 1375ab; Poet. 4.18, 1449a; Pol. 1.1.4, 1252b; 1.1.8–9, 1252b–1253a; Rhet. Her. 3.22.35; Cic. Inv. 2.53.161; Leg. 1.10.28; 1.12.33; 2.4.10; 3.1.3; Off. 1.16.50; Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 5; Dio Chrys. Or. 33.63; Plut. Educ. 5, Mor. 3C; Tac. Hist. 4.64; Diogenes Ep. 7, 21; Porph. Marc. 25.387–89; 28.440–43; 31.484; 35.534–35; even Justin. Inst. 1.2.1–2. Contrast Hor. Sat. 1.3.113–17; Sext. Emp. Pyrr. 3.220.
[3211]. E.g., Klauck, Magic, 120; deSilva, “Wisdom of Solomon,” 1274; Haacker, Theology, 103–4; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 91; Hooker, “Adam,” 299; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 52; Bruce, Books, 169; Bornkamm, Experience, 53. Naturally, I do not agree with the scholars who date Wisdom of Solomon too late for Paul’s use (ca. 50 C.E.; earlier estimates include 50 B.C.E., but the point is simply that it needed to be in wide circulation before Paul wrote). Elsewhere in early Judaism, see, e.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.190, 192; cf. 1 En. 2:1. Philo argues from divine order in the world, though balancing this with divine ineffability (Mondin, “Esistenza”; on ineffability in Philo, see Wolfson, Philo, 2:94–164, esp. 110–38); cf. also Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.167.
[3212]. Kennedy, Epistles, 26; Poniży, “Recognition.” Dafni, “Natürliche Theologie,” recognizes the major emphasis in Stoicism and Wisdom of Solomon and also notes some OT antecedents.
[3213]. Wolfson, Philo, 2:73–93; for his natural theology, see also Di Mattei, “Physiologia.”
[3214]. Wolfson, Philo, 2:75–83. For Platonic antecedents, see 2:74.
[3215]. E.g., Test. Naph. 3:3.
[3216]. Cf. Longenecker, Paul, 54–58. Other early Christians also argued that God revealed himself in his works (Theoph. 1.5–6).
[3217]. Cf., e.g., Stuhlmacher, Romans, 44 (citing Jewish thought); Jewett, Romans, 153–54 (less persuasively, contrasting Jewish thought). Grant, Paul, 9, argues that for both Paul and Philo, God’s revelation in nature offered at least some profit to everyone. Owen, “Scope,” 142–43, thinks that Paul would have preferred to idolaters the philosophers reasoning about God from nature. Patristic interpreters typically read this natural revelation as inseparable from the revelation in Jesus Christ (Vandermarck, “Natural Knowledge”). For the (usually limited) patristic perspectives on natural theology, see, e.g., Reasoner, Full Circle, 11–13 (for Aquinas, Calvin, and others, see 14–17); for patristic readings specifically of this speech, see Sánchez Cañizares, “Filosofia.” See also Bray, Romans, 34, 37–38, who cites texts where God’s truth is obvious in creation, such as Origen Comm. Rom. on 1:19 (CER 1:136–42) and on 1:20 (especially regarding philosophers) (CER 1:142); Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (Vogels, 39, 41); Apollinaris of Laodicea in Pauluskommentare 59.
[3218]. O’Rourke, “Rom 1,20,” 306.
[3219]. Some of those who deny natural theology in Rom 1:19–25 reflect a Barthian prejudice against natural revelation in general.
[3220]. Reicke, “Theologie”; Johnson, “Knowledge,” 73; Ott, “Röm. 1, 19ff,” 50; cf. Coffey, “Knowledge,” 676; Hooker, “Adam,” 299; Dennison, “Revelation.”
[3221]. Cranfield, “Romans 1.18,” connects the two “revelations” by predicating both on the gospel, but this weighs too much on the connective γάρ.
[3222]. Bruce, “New Testament and Classical Studies,” 237–38; see also idem, “Paul and Athenians”; idem, Commentary, 354; cf. also others, e.g., Peterson, Acts, 486–87. Another classicist, A. D. Nock, concurred with Dibelius that the speech was not Pauline, but on the basis of 1 Cor 9:22, he warned that contrary to the speech’s most ardent critics, Paul would have “tried to meet” pagans “halfway” (Nock, Essays, 831).
[3223]. E.g., Witherington, Acts, 519n205; Polhill, Acts, 377. Fitzmyer, Acts, 602, points to echoes even of Paul’s OT phrasing.
[3224]. See Dunn, Acts, 232.
[3225]. Paul’s military imagery in the passage probably reflects philosophic language for battling rival ideologies or opinions (Diogenes Ep. 10; Philo Sacr. 130; Conf. 128–33; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 109.8–9; 117.7, 25; Diog. Laert. 6.1.13); see further discussion in Malherbe, “Antisthenes”; idem, Philosophers, 101; Keener, Corinthians, 217.
[3226]. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 60–63.
[3227]. Torrey, Composition, 53, conceding that nothing in the speech is impossible to Paul but contending that, as a whole, it does not sound Pauline and, more potent (in his view), ancient historians simply composed their speeches, a practice followed by Luke. The discussion of speeches in the commentary introduction (Keener, Acts, 1:271–319, allowing for variation in ancient historiographic practice) responds to the second objection.
[3228]. Conzelmann, Acts, 146–47. Conzelmann regards it as a purely Lukan “literary creation” (“Areopagus,” 218), though it may contain elements from a hellenized Jewish source (Acts, 147–48).
[3229]. Barrett, Acts, 825. On the differences, see also Vielhauer, “Paulinism,” 37, who doubts that this natural theology can be Pauline.
[3230]. The grammar is heavily conditional (see Porter, Paul in Acts, 147–48).
[3231]. That Paul himself, according to many scholars, contemplated the solution before the plight helps account for the diversity of soteriological images (forensic, ontological, political, etc.) in his letters.
[3232]. Cf. similarly Gasque, Criticism, 213.
[3233]. See, e.g., Cic. Nat. d. 2.16.44; 2.54.133–58.146; Tusc. 1.19.44; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.50; 117.6; cf. also Dio Chrys. Or. 12.27–29.
[3234]. For such readings, see, e.g., Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics; Malherbe, Philosophers; idem, Moral Exhortation; I also noted parallels in Keener, Corinthians, passim. Much philosophic language circulated widely among intellectuals; it did not require adherence to or training in a particular school of philosophy. Those who cannot detect any language familiar from popular philosophy in Paul’s letters may fail to do so in many cases because they are not themselves familiar with popular ancient philosophy.
[3235]. With, e.g., Hemer, “Areopagus Address”; Sabugal, “Areópago”; Dunn, Acts, 231–32; Fitzmyer, Acts, 602.
[3236]. See Porter, Paul in Acts, 150. For comparisons of these speeches with Paul’s letters, see, e.g., Baum, “Paulinismen,” on Acts 17, pp. 425–26 (Acts 17:31, comparing Rom 1:4; 2:5, 16), 427 (Acts 17:27 with Rom 1:19; 10:20), 428 (Acts 14:15 and 17:30 with 1 Cor 15:34; Rom 3:25b–26a; four parallels with 1 Thess 1:9), 429–30 (Acts 17:29 with 1 Cor 3:11; 11:7; Rom 1:23), 431 (Acts 17:23 with Gal 4:8; Rom 1:20; Eph 3:9; Col 1:16–17; 1 Tim 6:13).
[3237]. See Keener, Acts, 1:313–16, esp. 407–9.
[3238]. If not knowing exactly what Paul said, Luke might have given him “what he should have said” (Grant, Paul, 9).
[3239]. There is no indication that such information belonged to Luke’s notes, as did his travel material in the “we” narratives, and so whatever information Luke had would likely also be filtered through his memory as well as his literary design.
[3240]. See esp. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” esp. 79.
[3241]. In some versions, however, he remained silent (e.g., Max. Tyre 3.7–8; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.2).
[3242]. See esp. Downing, “Pagan Theism and Speeches.” Neyrey, “Epicureans and Theodicy,” rightly compares Paul’s appeal to common ground with Stoics with his appeal to common ground with Pharisees in Acts 23:6–10. Luke may address several implied audiences (Gray, “Implied Audiences”).
[3243]. See esp. Downing, “Common Ground” (citing Jos. Ag. Ap. 2; Ant. 8.102–29).
[3244]. Orators would repeat a term in different inflections to identify the subject of speech; θεός is inflected here “in four cases”: the dative (Acts 17:23), the nominative (17:24, 30), the accusative (17:27), and the genitive (17:29; Parsons, “Progymnasmata,” 58; idem, Acts, 249). This theme comports well with Gaventa’s reading of Acts as a whole (Acts, passim). For characterization of God in this speech, see Cheng, Characterisation, 118–23.
[3245]. Witherington, Acts, 520, cites, e.g., Demosth. Exord. 54. For further discussion of this form of address in ancient literature generally and in Acts in particular, see the comment on Acts 2:14.
[3246]. The opening exordium of a speech was so important that one rhetorical collection provides fifty-six selections of it (Demosthenes Exordia [LCL, 7:86–193]), though these prove less complimentary than other sources advise.
[3247]. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436a.33–39; Cic. Or. Brut. 40.137; esp. Quint. Inst. 4.1.1, 35. It was good for a speech to introduce the main point in its opening words (so Pliny Ep. 2.3.3). For examples of introducing points, in various sorts of works, see, e.g., Virg. Aen. 1.1–6; Sen. E. Controv. 1.pref. 21; Dio Chrys. Or. 38.8; Soranus Gynec. 1.intro. 2; 1.1.3; 2.5.9 (25.78); Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.1. The exordium of Apuleius’s Apologia summarizes the work (Asztalos, “Apologia”).
[3248]. Diaspora Jews were well aware of conventional exordium patterns (see Klauck, “Rhetorik: Exordium,” on 4 Macc 1:1–12). On seeking to make a favorable impression on the judge more generally, see Arist. Rhet. 2, esp. 2.1.1–9, 1377b–1378a.
[3249]. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436a.33–39; 1436b.17–1438a.2; 36, 1441b.36–1442b.27; Cic. De or. 1.31.143; 2.80; Inv. 1.15.20; Quint. Inst. 3.7.23–24; Decl. 338.2; Hermog. Inv. 1.1.94–95. See further Heath, “Invention,” 103 (citing, e.g., Cic. Inv. 1.20–26; Rhet. Her. 1.6–8; Quint. Inst. 4.1; Hermog. Inv. 93.4–108.17); Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 175–76; Calboli Montefusco, “Exordium,” 272.
[3250]. Butler, LCL, 2:8–9. Heracl. Hom. Prob. 59.6–7 interprets Priam’s opening words to Achilles (Hom. Il. 24.486–87) as a short proem establishing rapport.
[3251]. Tac. Dial. 19 (LCL, 65).
[3252]. Dion. Hal. Lysias 17 argues that the most effective part of a speech should come at the beginning, praising the audience when it is relevant. It could also start with self-commendation (also Lysias 17), but as Kennedy notes (New Testament Interpretation, 130), Paul lacked credible grounds (on his audience’s presuppositions) to offer this. Failure to even seek favor by oblique self-praise could seem arrogant (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.535), but excess boasting in one’s proem could be ill regarded by the Athenian assembly (Xen. Mem. 4.2.3–5).
[3253]. E.g., Aeschines Ctes. 1. Or confidence that the audience is favorably disposed (Dio Chrys. Or. 41.1).
[3254]. Cic. Sest. 1.2. Cf. Aeschines Tim. 178 (though not in the opening): You are cleverer than others, hence pass fine laws.
[3255]. Cf. also Stowers, Letter Writing, 99 (citing P.Oxy. 3069). In a speech, the praise of Dio Chrys. Or. 34.7–8 precedes reproof; in Philod. Crit. tablet 4 I, praise might also need to follow reproof.
[3256]. Some did criticize Athenians much more harshly than Paul does here.
[3257]. So Fronto Eloq. 3.4.
[3258]. Bruce, Acts1, 335; idem, Commentary, 355; Witherington, Acts, 520 (both citing Lucian Anach. 19). Athenians were reportedly less impressed with flattery than Romans were (Eunapius Lives 493).
[3259]. By contrast, Fronto, a rhetorician, suggests that Socrates regularly dissembled (dissimulatum), pretending ignorance, to entrap his dialogue partners (Ad M. Caes. 3.15.2); but even Fronto admits that philosophy cared much less about exordia than rhetoricians did (Eloq. 3.4).
[3260]. Witherington, Acts, 520; Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 29 (from Witherington); see esp. Villiers and Germiquet, “Superstition”; idem, “Religio.”
[3261]. Polyb. 9.19.1; Plut. Rom. Q. 61, Mor. 278F; Alex. 75.2; Iambl. V.P. 3.14. For the negative use of the Greek term δεισιδαιμονία and its closest Roman equivalent, superstitio, see, e.g., Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 134–35.
[3262]. That it could be used both ways appears to be clear from sources in BDAG.
[3263]. Versnel, “Deisidaimonia.” For the Latin use, see, e.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.48; Pliny E. N.H. 16.95.251 (on a Druid practice); Pliny Ep. 6.2.2 (on appeal to soothsayers).
[3264]. See Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.10b, pp. 60–61.3–5, esp. 4; 2.7.10c, pp. 60–61.24–30, esp. 29. Epicureans also sought to banish superstition (Lucret. Nat. 6.1–42; Cic. Fin. 1.18.60; 4.5.11).
[3265]. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 74. Balch also points out that an earlier Stoic could teach about Moses’s God in a praiseworthy way but hold that Moses’s successors were “superstitious” (Strabo 16.2.37), an approach that would allow Paul, while praising earlier Stoic thought, to critique the current debased Stoicism.
[3266]. In Plut. Pleas. L. 21, Mor. 1101CD (cited by Johnson, Acts, 314); also in his essay Superstition (Περὶ δεισιδαιμονίας [Moralia, LCL, 2:452–95]); he also includes foreign practices such as Judaism in the category “superstition.” By “superstition,” Plutarch means something like “religion as a compulsive obsession born of fear and as compulsive ritual” (Klauck, Context, 409; see further 407–12).
[3267]. Judaism was also portrayed as superstitio; e.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.7; cf. Pers. Sat. 5.179–84.
[3268]. See Burkert, Religion, 272–74.
[3269]. See, e.g., Let. Aris. 42, 255, 261. See comment on Acts 10:2. Jews were more typically viewed as hating pagan religion (Jos. Ant. 20.77).
[3270]. Grant, Gods, 19 (citing esp. Koets, Deisidaimonia); Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 326 (citing Polyb. 6.56).
[3271]. With Chrys. Hom. Acts 38; Conzelmann, Acts, 140 (noting also that ὡς makes the comparative into a superlative); Johnson, Acts, 314; Dunn, Acts, 234; Porter, Paul in Acts, 143–44; Gaventa, Acts, 250; Pervo, Acts, 433.
[3272]. Cf. also Porter, Paul in Acts, 143–45. Even Epicureans would respect deities’ transcendence, but they would not accept a deity’s immanence.
[3273]. Most commentators cite Soph. Oed. Col. 260; Paus. 1.17.1; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.130 (Conzelmann, Acts, 140; Johnson, Acts, 314; Witherington, Acts, 520; Fitzmyer, Acts, 606–7; Porter, Paul in Acts, 144). See also Paus. 1.24.2–3 (1.24.2 referring to the Areopagus itself); the gods’ love for Athens in Libanius Encomium 5.2; further comment at Acts 17:16.
[3274]. Thus some scholars can take the cognate negatively also in Acts 25:19 (Witherington, Acts, 520) whereas others take it positively (cf. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 165; BDAG, noting Luke’s positive view of Roman tolerance). We probably should regard σεβάσματα in Acts 17:23 negatively in light of Jewish usage (Wis 14:20; 15:17; Jos. Ant. 18.344; cf. esp. 2 Thess 2:4; so Witherington; Bruce, Acts1, 335), but Luke held no reservations about employing positively the cognate σέβομαι (Acts 13:43, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7, 13; idolatrous only in 19:27). Stonehouse, Areopagus, 17, notes its ambiguity here.
[3275]. Cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 140 (as part of the captatio benevolentiae, it is meant positively, “though the reader knows what was said in vs. 16”); Klauck, Magic, 81–82; Rowe, “Grammar,” 40. On the meaning of captatio benevolentiae, see briefly, e.g., Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 89.
[3276]. The dominant nuance (though the earliest meaning was predominantly positive); see Versnel, “Deisidaimonia.”
[3277]. See examples in Anderson, Glossary, 81–82 (esp. Demet. Style 291; for producing humor, see Cic. de Or. 2.250–54; Quint. Inst. 6.3.47–51 [though Quintilian does not appear to favor it, cf. also 6.3.62, 87]).
[3278]. For instructions how to secure or maintain the goodwill of variously disposed audiences in a deliberative speech, see Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436b.17–1438a.2, esp. (for hostile audiences) 1436.38–1438a.2; in a forensic speech, 36, 1441b.36–1442b.27, esp. 1442a.22–1442b.27.
[3279]. The tone had to remain light in such an introductory speech; arrival speeches, in general, emphasized joy (Men. Rhet. 2.3, 385.7–8).
[3280]. Winter, Left Corinth, 36.
[3281]. Quint. Inst. 3.7.27; cf. Men. Rhet. 1.2, 352.10–353.3.
[3282]. White, “Oration,” 95 (suggesting that Favorinus probably pointed to the corresponding statues in the forum at these points).
[3283]. Le Cornu, Acts, 961, points out that Jewish travelers could not help but see objects of pagan devotion along the roads. Halakah prohibited closely examining them (m. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:4), but Le Cornu notes the rabbinic allowance to accommodate local culture (Der. Er. Rab. 5:5; 7:7) and, far more relevant here, missionary accommodation (t. Ber. 2:24). Paul examined them for reaching the culture (like other Jewish apologists), not out of personal interest (as Luke makes clear in Acts 17:16), and reading inscriptions while passing by did not require detailed meditation.
[3284]. Talbert, Acts, 153, observes that Heraclitus Ep. 4 so employs an ambiguous altar inscription to begin to explain proper worship; van der Horst, “Unknown God (2),” 884, cites Heracl. Ep. 4 and Diog. Ep. 36.
[3285]. An exception was specifically noteworthy (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.35.2). On altars in antiquity, see, e.g., Höcker and Prayon, “Altar”; Athenians devoted these to deified virtues as well (Mercy, in Paus. 1.17.1).
[3286]. Commentators cite Paus. 1.1.4; Diog. Laert. 1.110; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.3.5; Tert. Nat. 2.9 (Deissmann, Paul, 287–91; Lake, “Unknown God,” 240–41; McDonald, “Athens,” 9; Bruce, Acts1, 335–36; idem, Apostle, 239; Conzelmann, Acts, 140–41; Johnson, Acts, 315; Gill, “Achaia,” 446; van der Horst, “Unknown God (2),” 882–84; cf. Dyer, Athens, 193, for Ps.-Lucian Patriot 9). Although some of these may be separate altars each to an unknown deity (Paus. 1.1.4 could be so read), Paus. 5.14.8 and later writers clearly refer to multiple unknown gods (Witherington, Acts, 521–22, adding Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.3).
[3287]. So Norden, Agnostos theos, 121. Some, however, emphasize the possibility that some of the altars may have specified a single deity (e.g., McRay, Archaeology, 304); it might be wisest to acknowledge the possibility but regard the plural as more likely (as in Klauck, Magic, 82). Lang, “Self,” 167, notes an anonymous god in Strabo 3.14.16; 17.2.3 (the latter postulates a nameless god in Meroë).
[3288]. Jerome Commentary on the Epistle to Titus 1.12 (often cited, e.g., Cadbury, Acts in History, 51; Conzelmann, Acts, 141; Grant, Paul, 7–8; Polhill, Acts, 371; Pervo, Acts, 433; van der Horst, “Unknown God [2],” 883). The singular appears in Lucian Patriot, but this is likely a Christian work (Lake, “Unknown God,” 240–41; see Lucian Patriot 9 [LCL, 8:433]). Hemer, Acts in History, 117, suggests “generalizing plurals” or that Paul may have fixed on a particular altar and its unknown deity.
[3289]. Klauck, Magic, 82; Talbert, Acts, 153 (citing the change of Hesiod W.D. 289–92 in Philo Sobr. 150); van der Horst, “Unknown God (2),” 884 (citing Philo Sobr. 150; Aristobulus in Euseb. P.E. 13.12.7).
[3290]. Finegan, Light from Past, 276–77; cf. also Pfeiffer, World, 35; Witherington, Acts, 522.
[3291]. Harrauer, “Agnostos Theos.” Kisau, “Acts,” 1331, compares the “shadowy” supreme deity of African traditional religions with this passage’s unknown god.
[3292]. Pagans sometimes viewed Israel’s God as “nameless” (Jos. Ant. 12.261; see Le Cornu, Acts, 960).
[3293]. Perhaps like the more famous Athenian plague of 430–426 B.C.E. (Thucyd. 2.47–58; 3.87; perhaps Dio Chrys. Or. 64.16; Sallares, “Plague”; but Touwaide, “Disease,” 550, is certain that it was typhoid fever), the exact character of the disease cannot be identified; on epidemics in antiquity, see Nutton, “Epidemic Diseases.”
[3294]. Diog. Laert. 1.110; cf. an allusion to Epimenides purifying Athens in Menander Koneiazomenai frg. 2. This account is also emphasized by some other commentators, e.g., Cadbury, Acts in History, 47–50; Stonehouse, Areopagus, 12–13; Bruce, Commentary, 356n39; see also Dyer, Athens, 192 (though noting somewhat differently Chrys. Hom. Acts 38). Historically, Epimenides may have lived later (Griffiths, “Epimenides,” citing Plato Laws 1.642D).
[3295]. Cf. Apollod. Bib. 3.12.3 and Lycophron Alex. 29, for the founding of Troy; Eurip. Archelaus test. iiia.5 (from Hyginus Fab. 219), for the founding of Aegeae; 1 Sam 6:7, 9.
[3296]. During pestilence, gods had to be pacified (Hom. Il. 1.10; Dio Chrys. Or. 33.38; Suet. Tit. 8.3–4; Vit. Aes. 142; cf. Rosenberger, “Rites,” 275; after a fire, Tac. Ann. 15.44; earlier, CTH 407, in Gurney, Aspects, 48; ANET 396; for Romans, after prodigies, Distelrath, “Prodigium,” 932), and people inquired of seers to discover what had gone wrong and how to rectify the situation (Hom. Il. 1.62–64; Dio Chrys. Or. 31.97; Vit. Aes. 142; Quint. Decl. 323 intro.; 326 intro.; 329 intro.; 384 intro.; Libanius Confirmation 2.16; cf. 2 Sam 21:1; Apollonius volunteers the information in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.4, 10; 8.5; in modern times, Ekechi, “Factor,” 294). Cf. also Tac. Hist. 5.3 (where Egypt expelled the Hebrews as “hateful to the gods” and the cause of their plague; cf. Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.256–57). Plagues could follow war (Thucyd. 2.47.3; 2.52.1) or lack of food (Polyb. 1.18.10–1.19.1; cf. Livy 3.32.2; for potential famine after plagues, cf. Livy 4.25.4, 6), and people might move to escape plagues (Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 6.1.6–7).
[3297]. Apollod. Bib. 3.15.8; cf. similar circumstances in 2 Sam 21:3–9; the Carthaginian myth in Albright, Yahweh, 234–35. Cf. Greek propitiatory human sacrifices in more historical times (cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 8.14 and Cohoon in the Loeb note; Hengel, Atonement, 27; Lightfoot, Notes, 201; cf. Plut. Themist. 13.2–3; more certainly from early sources, expulsion in Becker, “Scapegoat Rituals,” 48; Burkert, Religion, 82–84; cf. Rosól, “Etymology”); among Romans (Livy 22.57.6; sources according to Suet. Aug. 15; though cf. limitations in Schultz, “Murder,” arguing for usually nonsacrificial ritual murder); the popular story of Iphigeneia (e.g., Aeschylus Agamemnon 205–26; softened in subsequent versions, e.g., Eurip. Iph. Aul.; Cypria bk. 8; Ovid Tristia 4.4.81–82; Libanius Narration 5); hypothetical cases in Quint. Decl. 326 intro.; 384 intro.; Hermog. Inv. 3.15.169; an old Tyrian practice alleged in Quint. Curt. 4.3.23; also in some other cultures in time of drought (Mbiti, Religions, 235, on earlier Akamba culture); other references to human sacrifice, e.g., Hom. Il. 23.175–76; Eurip. Erechtheus frg. 360; Apollod. Bib. 2.5.11; Lycophron Alex. 229; Cic. Resp. 3.9.15; Virg. Aen. 10.517–20; Ovid Metam. 13.447–48; Sen. Y. Troj. 360–70; Sil. It. 4.791; Appian C.W. 1.14.117; Arrian Alex. 1.5.7; Tac. Ann. 14.30 (concerning Druids); Lucian Sacr. 13 (probably recalling Iphigeneia); Plut. Par. St. 35, Mor. 314CD; Tert. Apol. 9.2; Judg 11:34–36 (probably); 2 Kgs 3:27; Glueck, Rivers, 61; Albright, Yahweh, 152; Ritner, Mechanics, 162–63 (classical Egypt); Stager and Wolff, “Sacrifice”; Stager, “Eroticism at Ashkelon”; Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 185; in later cultures, Laguna, “Childhood,” 15, 19; Mbiti, Religions, 241; Tippett, Solomon Islands Christianity, 13; Jenkins, New Faces, 101–2.
[3298]. Thucyd. 2.47.4 (they finally gave up when it proved ineffective).
[3299]. Some ancients viewed plagues as the wrath of deities (Diod. Sic. 14.69.4–14.71.4; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.68.2), a perspective certainly common among Jews (4Q418 127 3; Sib. Or. 3.603; Test. Jud. 23:3; Pesiq. Rab. 15:14/15). Some others viewed plagues’ cause as random chance (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.68.2); some denied that gods would send plagues (Max. Tyre 22.7), or complained about plagues that could not be stopped by sacrifices (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.42.1; 10.53.4–6). Heracl. Hom. Prob. 6.5 allegorizes the Homeric attribution of a plague to Apollo (Hom. Il. 1.43–53); instead, the sun causes such plagues (Heracl. Hom. Prob. 6.6; 8.4–5).
[3300]. Klauck, Magic, 83, even suggests a biblical allusion as well as an Athenian one: Isa 45:15 calls God “a hidden God,” who will cause foreigners (Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Sabeans) to recognize him (45:14; cf. Exod 33:20–23). This allusion is not clear in Luke’s text, but it may have commended itself to some biblically informed members of his audience.
[3301]. Cf. Val. Max. 2.5.6; also the Roman senate in time of plague (Livy 40.19.4–5).
[3302]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 129; Virg. Aen. 2.351; 4.576; Catull. Carm. 34.21–22 (in Aune, “Religion,” 923); Men. Rhet. 2.17, 446.8–9; cf. Aeschylus Ag. 160–61. The danger of neglecting a deity, even unintentionally, could be great (e.g., Hdt. 6.105 in Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 39; also Pindar Hymns frg. 37; Ap. Rhod. 3.64–65; Apollod. Bib. 1.9.15; 3.14.1).
[3303]. Schnabel, Acts, 727, citing Lambert, “Regulations,” 153.
[3304]. Schnabel, Missionary, 102–3, and Witherington, Acts, 519, following esp. Winter, “Introducing Gods,” 84–87. For Cynic denunciation of cult objects, see Downing, Cynics, 213.
[3305]. Van der Horst, “Unknown God,” 187; cf. Malina and Pilch, Acts, 127. Van der Horst also suggests an altar to the true God by God-fearers (“New Altar?”; both summarized in Witherington, Acts, 522). This seems more plausible than the reapplication of an old hero tomb (cf. Wycherley, “Athens”). Bede Comm. Acts 17.23 (L. Martin, 142) homiletically avers that “God was known in Judaea, but not accepted there, and he was unknown in Achaia, though there he was greatly desired.” Yet even in Athens, only a few embraced Paul’s message (Acts 17:32–34).
[3306]. Cf. the hermai (cf. Wycherley, “Athens”) and other idols commented on in Acts 17:16. Rhetorically, it was best to provide multiple testimonies, even from sources that might conflict on other points (e.g., Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 61, §19D). Külling, Geheimnis, focuses on the revelation of secret things in Acts 17:16–34.
[3307]. See Grant, Gods, 22, 26.
[3308]. This passage is widely discussed; e.g., in Isaacs, Spirit, 27; Simon, “Jupiter-Yahvé.” On Greek deity language for Israel’s God, see Wolfson, Philo, 1:28–39.
[3309]. For further discussion of Greek and Roman writers assimilating Israel’s God to their own pantheons, see also Fernández Marcos, “Religión judía.”
[3310]. See Koester, Introduction, 1:195; cf. Siegert, “Gottesfürchtige,” 144–45 (as noted in Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 50).
[3311]. The textual evidence in Val. Max. 1.3.2 is notably suspect (Lane, “Sabazius and Jews”), and Valerius may misrepresent Jewish belief (Johnson, “Sabaoth/Sabazios”). Perhaps this association involved a misconstrual of “Sabaoth” (cf. some sixty times in the LXX, mostly in Isaiah; CIJ 2:62–65, §819; 2:90, §849; 2:91, §850; 2:109, §§875–76; Sib. Or. 1.304, 316; 2.239; 12.131; Apoc. Zeph 6:7; Test. Sol. 1:7; 18:15; 22:14; Apoc. Ab. 17:13; PGM 3.220f., 655; 4.390, 3054; 5.479; 7.311f., 1012; 12.264; 13.146; 18a.1–4; 22b.20; 35.20, 28–29; 36.198, 349; 83.15–18; Rom 9:29; Jas 5:4), translating the common Hebrew phrase in Scripture (cf., in Hebrew, CIJ 2:327, §1398).
[3312]. See also Rose and Hornblower, “Euhemerus”; Klauck, Context, 261; Fusillo, “Euhemerus.”
[3313]. See Euhemerus Sacr. Hist. 6 (ca. 300 B.C.E.; e.g., in Grant, Religions, 74–76). Manetho (Aeg. frg. 1.1 [from the Armenian version of Euseb. Chron. 1. p. 93]) treated Egyptian gods as literal rulers of Egypt before human rulers.
[3314]. Fusillo, “Euhemerus,” esp. 161. Some ancients believed that early thinkers had fashioned the gods and their festivals after mortal analogies (Athen. Deipn. 8.363D).
[3315]. See, e.g., Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 31; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 98; excursus on Stoicism at Acts 17:18.
[3316]. Dio Chrys. Or. 62–63.
[3317]. Dio Chrys. Or. 33 (again while allegorizing Heracles’s stories). Plato also allegorized frequently (e.g., Laws 1.636CD; 2.672BC; cf. also 7.822AC; 10.899E–900; 12.941B).
[3318]. Grant, Gods, 61. See, e.g., Diod. Sic. 1.25.7; 1.44.1.
[3319]. Klauck, Context, 281; cf. Let. Aris. 136.
[3320]. Probably second century B.C.E., addressing Greeks; cf. “dead” gods in Sib. Or. 3.588. See also 3.121–55; the death of Titans in 3.156–58.
[3321]. See Garstad, “Belus.”
[3322]. Gardner, Leadership, xxiv.
[3323]. Grant, Gods, 61.
[3324]. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 72 (following here Nauck, “Komposition der Areopagrede,” 17–18, 24–26, 29, 30–31, 34–35; esp. 30–31 on Acts 17:30–31). Nauck also finds some possible antecedents in Pss 33; 74:12–17; 89; 148 (“Komposition der Areopagrede,” 29), but the model remains more Hellenistic-Stoic than Nauck allows (Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 72–73). Dunn, Acts, 230–31, recognizes Stoic elements but emphasizes Jewish monotheism presented universally.
[3325]. That they need to know of a deity they do not know could function as an assumed premise (cf. enthymemes in, e.g., Vinson, “Enthymemes,” 119, 122, 131; Anderson, Glossary, 44–46).
[3326]. Cf. Gempf, “Before Paul Arrived,” 141, comparing Paul’s confrontation of Corinthian “wisdom” in 1 Cor 1:18–31; Vouga, “Paradoxie,” 189–90, also compares the “foolishness” of preaching with 1 Cor 1:17. For ignorance as the preconversion state of Gentiles in Acts, see Stenschke, Gentiles.
[3327]. E.g., Sext. Emp. Pyr. 3.218–38 (concerning the existence and nature of deities). On Skepticism, see Striker, “Sceptics” (with bibliography); Hankinson, Sceptics; more briefly, Murray, Philosophy, 23–24. The Skeptic phase of Platonic thought had, however, waned in vigor by this period (Striker, “Sceptics,” 1363). Epictetus protested that one could not know that nothing was unknowable (Diatr. 2.20.4–5). For agnostics regarding deities’ existence, see Diog. Laert. 9.4.24; 9.8.51.
[3328]. E.g., Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 78, §25; Lucian Hermot. 48; mocked in Athen. Deipn. 5.218F.
[3329]. Some still followed his method of confessing ignorance (Lucian Hermot. 53; cf. Philost. Vit. soph. 1.480–81).
[3330]. For Stoics, knowledge meant certainty as opposed to mere opinion (Diog. Laert. 7.1.47; cf. Herillus in 7.3.165; Long, Philosophy, 122; Dillon, Middle Platonists, 64–65); some others followed this approach (Dio Chrys. Or. 68). Some defined wisdom as the ability to “know” what was good (Anacharsis Ep. 2.9–11). Stoics defined piety or worship as knowing how to serve the gods (Diog. Laert. 7.1.119; cf. also knowledge of virtue in Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 62.8–9) and could emphasize knowing good from evil (Marc. Aur. 2.1, 13). Some thinkers, however, argued that knowledge could be deployed for vice as well as virtue (Arist. E.E. 8.1.1–3, 1246a). For a fuller discussion of Plato’s view of knowledge, cf. Gould, Ethics, 3–30.
[3331]. Nilsson, Piety, 47–48; Grant, Religions, xxii–xxiii; Allen, Philosophy, 19; Marshall, Enmity, 192–93, 201; also Plut. Demosth. 3.2. Diog. Laert. 1.40 attributes the proverb to Thales.
[3332]. E.g., Plato Alcib. 1.129A; Charm. 164E–165A; The Lovers 138A; Xen. Mem. 3.9.6; 4.2.24; Diod. Sic. 9.10.2; Epict. frg. 1; Plut. Flatt. 25, Mor. 65F; Profit by Enemies 5, Mor. 89A; Dinner 21, Mor. 164B; E Delph. 17, Mor. 392A; 21, Mor. 394C; Hippol. Her. 1.15. Allusions are also frequent, e.g., Antisthenes in Diog. Laert. 6.1.6; Epict. Diatr. 1.2.11; 1.18.17; Cic. Fin. 3.22.73; Sen. Ep. Lucil. 35.
[3333]. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 3.1.18; Plut. Letter to Apollonius 28, Mor. 116CD; E Delph. 2, Mor. 385D; Or. Delphi 29, Mor. 408E; R. Col. 20, Mor. 1118C.
[3334]. For survey, see Reiser, “Erkenne.” For uses different from the original sense, see, e.g., in magic, Betz, “Maxim in Papyri”; for divinization, Cic. Tusc. Disp. 1.22.52; Plut. Pomp. 27.3; Porph. Marc. 32.485–95; Betz, “Hermetic Interpretation.” Philosophers sometimes also linked divinization with knowledge of God (Winslow, “Religion,” 246).
[3335]. E.g., Arist. N.E. 4.3.36, 1125A; Plut. Flatt. 1, Mor. 49B; Profit by Enemies 5, Mor. 89A; E Delph. 17, Mor. 392A; cf. a similar sense in Thales, according to Diog. Laert. 1.36; proper knowledge of the diseases of one’s soul, in Diogenes Ep. 49; knowledge of oneself in the larger context of nature, in Cic. Fin. 5.16.44; other applications in Plato Charm., passim; Alcib. 1.129A; The Lovers 138A; Juv. Sat. 11.23–28.
[3336]. See Epict. Diatr. 2.24.19; Marc. Aur. 8.52.
[3337]. E.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.48; Nat. Q. 1.pref. 13; Mus. Ruf. 53, p. 144.24–25; Plut. Isis 2, Mor. 352A; Heraclitus Ep. 4; Porph. Marc. 11.194–95; 13.229; 17.282; 20.331; 21.347–48; 22.355, 359; 24.379–81; Philo Conf. 145; cf. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.1; Pyth. Sent. 16. See esp. Keener, John, 235–43, esp. 237–38, 240.
[3338]. Porph. Marc. 13.229; 22.355.
[3339]. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b2, pp. 16–17.13; 2.7.5b12, pp. 26–27.14–15. All the virtues involve knowledge (2.7.5b1, pp. 12–13.13–22, esp. 13–14, 18, 20–22). Nevertheless, knowledge of God was rare (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 31.10); for its difficulty in Platonism, see Nock, “Gnosticism,” 267; for divine ineffability (by natural means) in Philo, see Wolfson, Philo, 2:94–164, esp. 110–38; Mondin, “Esistenza.”
[3340]. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b12, pp. 26–27.13–14 (the term “ignorance” is in line 14). For “ignorance” (ἄγνοια) as a category of vice, see 2.7.5b, pp. 12–13.7–8; for ignorance as involved in vice, 2.7.5b1, pp. 12–13.22–25; opposing ignorance, see also Epict. Diatr. 1.26.7; 2.14.19–20; beyond Stoics, Pyth. Sent. 28. For opinion and ignorance, cf. Meinwald, “Ignorance.”
[3341]. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b13, pp. 26–27.30–31; 2.7.5b13, pp. 28–29.1–2.
[3342]. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 94–95.3–5 (esp. 5), 16–18. One should not express a mere opinion if lacking certain knowledge (2.7.11m, pp. 94–95.13–16). On opinion and ignorance, see the discussion in Meinwald, “Ignorance.”
[3343]. Ancient speakers (like modern scholars) might report views they considered erroneous, lest they be thought “ignorant” of them (Heracl. Hom. Prob. 53.5).
[3344]. Isa 45:20; Wis 14:18, 22; Jos. Asen. 13:11–13; in Paul, cf. Rom 1:21–22; 1 Thess 4:5; cf. Külling, Geheimnis, 38. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 74–75, notes that improper worship leads to immorality in many texts (Rom 1:23–27; Strabo 16.2.35, 37, 39–40; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.29.36–37) but in Acts 14:15–17 and here to idolatry.
[3345]. See fuller discussion in Keener, John, 239–43. For discussion regarding Qumran, cf., e.g., 1QS X, 12; XI, 3; 4Q174 f1 3ii4; Allegro, Scrolls, 132–33; Price, “Light from Qumran,” 26; Flusser, Judaism, 57–59; Lohse, Colossians, 25–26. Philo of Alexandria offers a Diaspora Jewish example of articulating knowledge of God (see, e.g., Conf. 145; Alleg. Interp. 3.103) but often follows Plato regarding divine ineffability (see Wolfson, Philo, 2:94–164, esp. 110–38; Mondin, “Esistenza”).
[3346]. For Paul’s sometimes reserving the harshest tone for late in a letter, see Gal 5–6 and esp. 2 Cor 10–13 if, as an increasing minority of scholars is arguing, 2 Corinthians is a unity. (For arguments for unity, see, e.g., Young and Ford, Meaning, 27–59; Danker, “Debt”; deSilva, “Reality”; idem, Credentials, 36–43; Hester, “Unity”; Amador, “Revisiting”; Matera, II Corinthians, 24–32; Allo, Épître aux Corinthiens, l–lvi; Keener, Corinthians, 146–51; Belleville, 2 Corinthians, 23–33, esp. 30–33; Witherington, Corinthians, 328–39; Barnett, Corinthians, 16–23; Garland, 2 Corinthians; McCant, 2 Corinthians, 20–23; Scott, Corinthians, 4–7.)
[3347]. God is the primary subject of the speech, as even the repetition of θεός in different cases emphasizes (Parsons, “Progymnasmata,” 58).
[3348]. Cf., e.g., Wis 13:1–9; Wolfson, Philo, 2:74–83.
[3349]. Hermog. Progymn. 11, “On Thesis,” 25. Theoretical theses were those that could not be tested empirically but were matters of the mind alone (later also Aphth. Progymn. 13, “On Thesis,” 49S, 41R).
[3350]. For philosophic emphasis on change, see Nock, Conversion.
[3351]. On these figures, see Rhet. Her. 4.31.42; Rowe, “Style,” 128; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 579–80; Anderson, Glossary, 23, 52–53.
[3352]. Gen 24:3; Ezra 5:11; Jdt 9:12; cf. “God of heaven” (a phrase that grew more dominant in the Persian period) in Gen 24:7; 2 Chr 36:23; Ezra 1:2; 5:12; 6:9, 10; 7:12, 21, 23; Neh 1:4, 5; 2:4, 20; Ps 136:26; Dan 2:18, 19, 37, 44; 5:23; Jonah 1:9. Cf. “God of all” in Jub. 30:19; 31:13, 32. The phrasing persisted; centuries later, cf. Qur’an 38.67; 44.7; 45.36.
[3353]. E.g., Hesiod Theog. 467–70 (where these siblings mate to produce other deities).
[3354]. Though naturally applied to the highest God (Sen. Y. Dial. 7.8.4, God as “ruler of the universe”), it applies differently as well (for Helios in PGM 4.641). Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 75, notes that Greeks could call God “ruler of the universe” (Dio Chrys. Or. 12.27) but that Epicureans specifically denied this (12.37).
[3355]. E.g., Char. Chaer. 3.3.16; Plut. Isis 1, Mor. 351DE; Table 8.2.4, Mor. 720A; cf. Plato Alcib. 1.124C; Strabo 16.2.35; earlier, cf. Gen 41:39.
[3356]. Jeremias, Theology, 10, 187–88; Incant. Text 36.1; also “God of heaven and earth” (4 Bar. 5:32; Test. Sol. 1:6).
[3357]. “World” (κόσμον) here refers to all creation (“the universe,” Mundhenk, “Note”; cf. Marc. Aur. 4.2); hence this Creator is “Lord of heaven and earth” later in the verse.
[3358]. Wilson, Gentile Mission, 198, cites Gen 1:1; Isa 42:5; 2 Macc 7:28; Plato Tim. 28E, 76C; Epict. Diatr. 4.7.6. Cf. also, e.g., Gen 1:16, 25–27; 2:2–4, 18; Wis 2:23. Wilson also notes (198) that although κόσμος is not the typical OT term, Josephus and Philo used it, and Luke’s biblicizing “heaven and earth” indicates this sense.
[3359]. Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref. 3; Philost. Hrk. 25.8; cf. Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 379, §126D. For God as Creator, Porter, Paul in Acts, 118–19n56, cites also Corp. herm. 4.1; Philo Creation 2; Aristob. frg. 5.
[3360]. Apart from Epicureans, most recognized divine design in nature (Dio Chrys. Or. 12.29, 34, 36–37; cf., e.g., Plut. Isis 76, Mor. 382A; Let. Aris. 132); creation did not result from chance or human hands (a Pythagorean in Diod. Sic. 12.20.2). The supreme deity was present in, and known by, his works (Epict. Diatr. 1.6.23–24; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.190, 192; cf. 2.167). Design in nature also showed something about the divine nature, such as that it was spherical (Cic. Nat. d. 2.17.45–46), that it was revealed by nature and not human religion (Heraclitus Ep. 4, 9), and that the gods were benevolent (cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.50) and cared for people (Xen. Mem. 4.3.12–13).
[3361]. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.3–6.
[3362]. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.7.
[3363]. Epict. Diatr. 1.16.8.
[3364]. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.10; cf. Rom 1:19. Many believed that knowledge of deity was especially evident in the design of humans (Cic. Nat. d. 2.54.133–2.58.146; Leg. 1.22.58–59; Sen. Y. Ben. 6.23.6–7; cf. Cic. Fin. 5.12.35–36; Let. Aris. 156–57) and especially their minds (Cic. Nat. d. 2.59.147–2.61.153; Porph. Marc. 26.410–11) and was innate in them (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 117.6; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.27–28; Iambl. Myst. 1.3). Some also adduced, in favor of deities’ existence, the universal pervasiveness of belief in them (Cic. Tusc. 1.13.30; cf. Max. Tyre 11.5).
[3365]. See Dio Chrys. Or. 12.27, 28, 34, 37, 75, 84 (in Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 75).
[3366]. E.g., Philo borrows various philosophers’ arguments for God’s existence (Wolfson, Philo, 2:73–93), including Plato’s argument from creation (74) and material from Stoic sources (75–83); cf. also Mondin, “Esistenza.”
[3367]. Paul would have, undoubtedly, learned some of this apologetic as a Hellenist student (see comment on Acts 22:3), and the prior existence of the apologetic may have also reduced accusations of excessive accommodation to Gentiles on this count.
[3368]. Obviously, this would include later gnostic opposition to the material world (Iren. Her. 1.1–3; esp. 1.26.1; Hippol. Her. 6.28–29), reflecting later Platonic ideas (cf. Iren. Her. 1.17) despite Neoplatonist disapproval (Plot. Enn. 2.9.8; cf. Keener, John, 375–76). Jesus’s bodily resurrection, promising a restored world (Acts 17:31), challenges similar prejudices (cf. Tiede, “World”).
[3369]. For the debate, see, e.g., Stokes, One and Many; Wardy, “Eleatic Pluralism.” Parmenides held to the oneness of being (Bodnár, “Eleatic School,” 892). Others doubt that Parmenides was a monist, at least in the fullest sense (cf. Barnes, “Parmenides”; Jones, “Parmenides”), or that he seeks monism on a level higher than the problematic material kind (Finkelberg, “Parmenides”); Mourelatos, “Alternatives,” suggests that his monism stems from rejecting the concept of contraries. For one survey of philosophers advocating monism vs. those who affirmed elements, see Furley, Formation; for a survey of philosophic monism from Parmenides through Plotinus, see Rist, “Monism”; for Aristotle’s opposition to monism, Spangler, “Criticism.”
[3370]. Cf., e.g., Pindar frg. 140d (in Clem. Alex. Strom. 5.14.129); Plut. Isis 9, Mor. 354D; Virg. Georg. 4.221–22, 225; Aeschylus frg. 34 (in Clem. Alex. Misc. 5.14, p. 718; H. W. Smith and H. Lloyd-Jones in Aeschylus, LCL, 2:403, add Philod. Piety 22); perhaps in some form, Pliny E. N.H. 2.1.1; 2.4.13; Iambl. V.P. 28.151; Aristob. frg. 4 (Euseb. P.E. 13.13.5).
[3371]. See Cic. Nat. d. 2.7.19–20; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref. 13; Dial. 7.8.4; Ep. Lucil. 95.52; Marc. Aur. 4.40; Diog. Laert. 7.1.134; 7.1.148; cf. also Epict. Diatr. 1.6.23–24 (which could be omnipresence). For Stoic pantheism, see also Baltzly, “Stoic Pantheism”; Klauck, Context, 353–54. Cf. Lightfoot’s catchy if slightly overstated summary: “The Epicureans made the world independent of God. The Stoics made it identical with God” (Lightfoot, Acts, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]); Lightfoot believed that Paul found common ground with Stoics here without accepting pantheism.
[3372]. For an evaluation of Zeno’s pantheism, see, e.g., Jacquette, “Divinity” (suggesting that the critique in Cic. Nat. d. 3.20–24 rests on a misunderstanding, though Zeno’s case was flawed); for a discussion of the monism attributed to the early Stoic Chrysippus, see Gould, Philosophy of Chrysippus. Stoics developed ways to hold together the deity’s immanence in the world with monism (so Todd, “Monism”). Stoics often viewed themselves as heirs of Heraclitus; Heraclitus frg. 50 probably tends toward pantheism (Allen, Philosophy, 41).
[3373]. E.g., an Epicurean in Cic. Nat. d. 1.10.24; 1.13.34; a commoner in Lucian Hermot. 81.
[3374]. The attribution to Jews of a sort of pantheistic approach (Strabo 16.2.35–37; see Ludlam, “’Lwhy”) was certainly misplaced; even texts that speak of God as “all” in some sense also speak of him as Creator (4Q266 11 9–10; Sir 43:27; Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.44; see Kister, “Fragment”). The mutual interdependence of all things (e.g., Marc. Aur. 6.38; 7.9) appeared less objectionable (Philo Cher. 109–10). Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 155, does find pantheism in Aristobulus 10.5 (but this is omnipresence); 10.15 (more plausible but not necessary); 12.4, 12 (but this is providence); 12.6–7 (the Aratus quotation), but it seems unclear to me that even Aristobulus intends the language this way.
[3375]. See Judge, First Christians, 720. For the universe’s eternity, see, e.g., Aristotle De Philosophia; Pliny E. N.H. 2.1.1; Hippolytus Her. 1.9 (on Parmenides); for the debate, see also Diod. Sic. 1.6.6; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 3.22.1; further comment at Acts 3:21.
[3376]. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 75.
[3377]. For the Logos in creation, see also Philo Creation 20, 26, 31; Migr. 6; cf. Athenag. Plea 4; Keener, John, 341–47, 375–77, esp. 376.
[3378]. Cf. Plato Tim. 29A–30; Philo Creation 16–19, 25, 31; Conf. 171; Plut. Table 8.2.4, Mor. 720AB; Plot. Enn. 3.2.
[3379]. Some think the passage rejects the idea of a demiurge (Bruce, Commentary, 356; Fitzmyer, Acts, 608).
[3380]. Some apply the term ναός especially to the temple proper within the temple precincts (Robinson, Ephesians, 71).
[3381]. Speakers often gestured toward objects within view (Shiell, Reading Acts, 57–62, esp. 57), and Paul may well have gestured toward handmade temples in the area (on which see comments above).
[3382]. Conzelmann, Acts, 141, cites Lucian Sacr. 11; the Stoic Seneca in Lact. Div. Inst. 6.25; Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 76, cites Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 90.28–29; 95.48. Without opposing temples, a poet wondered what house could enclose a deity (Eurip. frg. 968 in Bruce, Commentary, 357; Fitzmyer, Acts, 608); other thinkers spoke of the universe full of God’s presence (Diogenes in Diog. Laert. 6.2.38; see comment on Acts 17:27–28). Cf. Persians (probably Zoroastrians) in Hdt. 1.131.
[3383]. Diog. Laert. 7.32–34; Plut. Mor. 1034B (cited in Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 75; Conzelmann, Acts, 141; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 461; Fitzmyer, Acts, 608).
[3384]. Cited in Clem. Alex. Strom. 5.11.76 (in Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 316–17) and applying both to temples (cf. Acts 17:24) and to divine images (cf. 17:29). Cf. Sen. Y. frg. 123 (in Lact. Div. Inst. 6.25; Selwyn, Peter, 193): God dwells not in stone temples but in hearts.
[3385]. Plut. Stoic Cont. 6, Mor. 1034BC. Some cults, of course, required no temples (notably Silvanus; Klauck, Context, 29).
[3386]. Schnabel, Missionary, 173 (citing Philodemus Pros eusebeias frg. 38); cf. also Schnabel, Acts, 733.
[3387]. The first passage employs νεών, Attic for ναόν; the second, ἱερόν. Likewise, the internal intellect should be a temple for God (Porph. Marc. 19.318–19). Some Jewish authors also thought of a spiritual temple (e.g., 11Q5 XXVI, 9).
[3388]. Cf., e.g., Meunier, “Dieu chrétien.” The Greek categories of transcendence and immanence are both represented here (Acts 17:24–25a for the former and 17:27–28 for the latter), themes that helped shape a tension existing in theology to this day (see Grenz and Olson, Theology, 11–13).
[3389]. Later Christian philosophers found Paul’s reasoning helpful in approaching a transcendent deity through the via negativa (see Pelikan, Acts, 193–96).
[3390]. Cf. Dodd, “Prologue,” 16, on the philosophers’ view of divine transcendence; on God’s ineffability (possibly originating in philosophy in this period), see Wolfson, Philo, 2:110–26, esp. 111–13. For various Greek views on God’s invisibility, see, e.g., Xen. Mem. 1.4.9; Epict. Diatr. 1.6.19; Plut. Isis 9, Mor. 354D; Isis 75, Mor. 381B; Char. Chaer. 1.14.1; Max. Tyre 11.9–10; Keener, John, 423.
[3391]. The LXX of the Pentateuch apparently amplified this; see Rösel, “Theologie.”
[3392]. Conzelmann, Acts, 141. Some doubt that the Essenes used the temple (Nolland, “Misleading Statement”); others aver the opposite (Davies, “Temple in Damascus Document”).
[3393]. Gill, “Achaia,” 445.
[3394]. Witherington, Acts, 398, asking “whether in the end Christianity was more the bearer or the recipient of socialization in the Empire.”
[3395]. Cf. also spiritual sacrifices (Rom 12:1; Heb 13:15; 1 Pet 2:5) and priests (Rom 15:16; 1 Pet 2:5, 9).
[3396]. Cf. even at the temple’s dedication in 1 Kgs 8:27; 2 Chr 6:18; the OT passages did not then oppose temples per se.
[3397]. See fuller discussion of this motif at Acts 7:41, 48. Kilgallen, Speech, 93, emphasizes the connection with Stephen’s speech. For the negative use of “made with hands” in the LXX, see also Külling, Geheimnis, 67–68.
[3398]. Cf. Theoph. 2.2: idols and temples made by hands cannot be divine.
[3399]. Contrast Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.193, who argues that there should be just one temple because there is one God. But most other deities had temples at multiple sites.
[3400]. C. Williams, Acts, 203; cf. Le Cornu, Acts, 965. Epicureans would not agree with divine activity in the world, since deities were exclusively transcendent (Stagg, Acts, 185–86). Stoics, by contrast, affirmed immanence (earlier affirming even pantheism).
[3401]. E.g., 3 Macc 2:9; Philo Unchangeable 56. On its use, see esp. Marcus, “Names and Attributes,” 55 (cf. 47–48). Others cite Aristob. frg. 4 (Euseb. P.E. 13.12.3); Test. Naph. 1:6; Le Cornu, Acts, 965, points to the idea in Tanḥ. (B) Sh. 12; Gen. Rab. 44:1.
[3402]. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.190. Cf. “self-begotten” (Sib. Or. 1.20; 3.12; Apoc. Ab. 17:9; Christian sources in Sib. Or. 8.428; Sent. Sext. 26; for particular deities, PGM 1.342–43; 13.62; Book of Dead Sp. 17a, part S-2; cf. Currid, Egypt, 36, 99–100). For “unbegotten,” see Sib. Or. frg. 7; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.167; PGM 13.843; Iambl. Myst. 7.2. For the deity as self-sufficient and not contingent, see, e.g., Arist. Heav. 1.9, 279a.11–b.3; Pyth. Sent. 25; Marc. Aur. 7.16; Plut. Isis 75, Mor. 381B; Max. Tyre 38.6; in Jewish sources, Let. Aris. 211; 3 Macc 2:9; Jos. Ant. 8.111; Ag. Ap. 2.190; Philo Creation 100.
[3403]. The virtue could apply to the divine Logos (which needs no voice, Plut. Isis 75, Mor. 381B); to reason (Marc. Aur. 7.16); or, in their own view, to self-sufficient Stoics (Plut. St. Poets 4, Mor. 1058C; cf. Mus. Ruf. frg. 34, p. 135; Jews in 1 Macc 12:9). Being free from want (ἀνενδεές) was a Stoic ideal (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11h, pp. 74–75.32; cf. Philo Agr. 54; Abr. 30).
[3404]. Commentators cite Eurip. Herc. fur. 1345–46; Plato Tim. 33D; Euthyphro 12E–15E; Zeno in Clem. Alex. Strom. 5.76.1; Sen. Y. Ep. 95.47; Plut. Comparison of Aristides and Marcus Cato 4 (e.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 142); see also Porph. Marc. 11.198–99. See esp. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 43–44: θεοπρεπές characterized Greek and Greco-Jewish philosophy (Philo Sacr. 94, 101); many used antitheses or negative adjectives formed with α- or other expressions (citing more than twenty sources; on the use of abstraction and the via negativa, see also Dodd, “Prologue,” 16).
[3405]. Max. Tyre 38.6.
[3406]. Lucian Charon 12.24; Z. Rants 18 (Conzelmann, Acts, 142).
[3407]. 2 Macc 14:35; Jos. Ant. 8.111.
[3408]. Let. Aris. 211.
[3409]. Xen. Mem. 1.4.10, using θεραπείας προσδεῖσθαι.
[3410]. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.48. Epicureans such as Lucretius (Nat. 2.650) likewise emphasized God’s need of nothing (D. Williams, Acts, 305); Nunnally, Acts, 309, contrasts this ancient tradition with some modern popular teaching.
[3411]. Plut. Stoic Cont. 6, Mor. 1034C. Stoics held that only the wise were good priests, since only they understood what the gods wanted (Diog. Laert. 7.1.119).
[3412]. Porph. Marc. 18.295–98, esp. 296.
[3413]. Porph. Marc. 18.300–301; Pythag. Sent. 25.
[3414]. Arist. Heav. 1.9, 279a.11–b.3; Philo Creation 100 (on Philo here, see Dillon, “Transcendence in Philo”); cf. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.167. Many opposed Homer’s idea of “pliant” gods (Il. 9.497; see Max. Tyre 5.3; Plato Rep. 2.364Bff.; Laws 10.905D; Hierocles in Stob. Ecl. 1.3.53; 1.34.13–1.35.2; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 2.36; Trapp, Maximus, 44). For the mainly Platonist Maximus of Tyre, God was simply the supreme being in a chain of existence (Max. Tyre 11.8; not simply a gradation of hierarchy), a gradation from God to creation that Paul and Luke would have rejected.
[3415]. Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.14 (if, Pliny concedes, God exists); Porph. Marc. 11.191–92; cf. Plut. Isis 1, Mor. 351D; Apul. De deo Socr. 123.
[3416]. Dillon, “Philosophy,” 795.
[3417]. For the heavenly deities’ separation from the world, see, e.g., Apul. De deo Socr. 123, 127–29, 136; Proclus Poet. 6.1, K72.24–26; Plot. Enn. 2.1; cf. Plut. Isis 78, Mor. 382F.
[3418]. Note, e.g., Max. Tyre 11.7–12; 21.7–8; Apul. De deo Socr. 123, 132; Philost. Hrk. 25.8. Cf. those who argued for the purity of deity’s nature and hence the exclusion of evil and evil emotions from deities’ personalities (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.49–50; Max. Tyre 5.1; 9.2; 41.3; Iambl. V.P. 32.318; Porph. Marc. 9.158–60; 17.288–91; 18.14; Apul. De deo Socr. 146; Proclus Poet. 6.1, K99.18–19; cf. Jas 1:17); for Platonists, the divine must also be changeless (Max. Tyre 8.8; Philo Unchangeable 21–22; Apul. De deo Socr. 146; Proclus Poet. 6.1, K109.12–14). Philo denied accidental qualities in God (Wolfson, Philo, 2:101–10; Isaacs, Spirit, 30; cf. Philo Unchangeable 56; Alleg. Interp. 2.36; for his deity as τὸ ὄν, see Names 27; Alleg. Interp. 2.86). But the heavenly deities could mediate their will through daimones (Max. Tyre Or. 8.8; Apul. De deo Socr. 132–37).
[3419]. Iambl. Myst. 1.12, 15; 5.26 (from the Neoplatonic tradition); Apul. De deo Socr. 133.
[3420]. See Lutz, “Musonius,” 27n111 (citing Mus. Ruf. 17, p. 108.14–15); cf. Epict. Diatr. 2.1.25; Malherbe, Exhortation, 15. Socrates also spoke of the gods’ benevolence toward humanity (Xen. Mem. 4.3.12), which revealed their character and invited praise (4.3.13). From providentialists to atheists and deists, a range of views existed among philosophers (Quint. Decl. 268.11).
[3421]. Epict. Diatr. 2.14.11.
[3422]. Cf. Xenophanes’s opposition to culturally diverse anthropomorphisms (Xenophanes B 12, 14, 15, 16; Grant, Gods, 76–77).
[3423]. Chrys. Hom. Acts 38 (Martin, Acts, 219) cites Ps 50:13 to affirm that God never depended on human service or on sacrifices.
[3424]. E.g., 1QS IX, 4–5; X, 6; CD XI, 21 (without rejecting literal sacrifices, XI, 17–18); Ps 154:10–11 = 11QPsa 154; Sir 35[32]:1–4; Wis 3:6 (martyrs); Let. Aris. 234 (cf. their literal retention at Let. Aris. 172); cf. 4Q403 1 I, 39–40; Sipre Deut. 32.5.2; 306.20.3; ʾAbot R. Nat. 4 A; 8, §22 B; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 6:3; 24:5; b. Ber. 15a; Sanh. 43b; Gen. Rab. 34:9 (potential martyrs); Pesiq. Rab. 16:7; Theophrastus in Stern, Authors, 1:8–11; Flusser, Judaism, 39–44; see esp. Sanders, Judaism, 253; among Christians, e.g., Rom 12:1; Heb 13:15; 1 Pet 2:5; 1 Clem. 18.17; 35.12; 52.3, 4; Barn. 2.4–7, 10; Sent. Sext. 47; in Islam, see, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 330. But Sib. Or. 4.29–30 does reject animal sacrifices.
[3425]. It is often used for worship; e.g., Dio Cass. frg. 1.6.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 3.52; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b2, pp. 16–17.13; 2.7.5b12, pp. 26–27.14. Cf. also discussion of the term in Külling, Geheimnis, 77–79.
[3426]. As Dibelius emphasizes, this is an OT concept in Hellenistic language (Studies, 42).
[3427]. Plato Euthyphro 12E–15E (Bruce, Commentary, 357; Witherington, Acts, 525).
[3428]. Isoc. Ad Nic. 20.
[3429]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 13.35; Lucian Dem. 11; Pythag. Sent. 15, 20; Porph. Marc. 16.279–81; 17.282–84; 19.313–14, 316–17; Iambl. V.P. 33.229. When the Egyptian Apion charges Jews with offering animal sacrifices, Josephus responds that other peoples also practice these (Ag. Ap. 2.137–38) and that Egyptians refrain only because they consider the animals themselves gods (2.139).
[3430]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.1, 31–32; 4.11; 5.25; 8.7; Ep. Apoll. 27; Iambl. V.P. 11.54; 18.85 (allowing the sacrifice and eating only of animals without a rational soul); 24.108; 28.150; Diog. Laert. 8.1.22; cf. Heliod. Eth. 10.9. Cf. Theophrastus On Piety (in Porph. Abst. 2.32, in Ferguson, Backgrounds, 271).
[3431]. Rives, Religion, 39, despite the exceptions of “a few philosophical rigorists.”
[3432]. Neyrey, “Epicureans and Theodicy,” 123–25. For the end of the cosmos in Epicurean thought, however, see Adams, Stars, 109–14.
[3433]. Josephus may link Sadducees with Epicureans, as he explicitly links Pharisees with Stoics (Life 12; cf. War 2.162–63; Ant. 15.371; Neyrey, “Epicureans and Theodicy,” 130–32), connections offered by Luke in Acts 23–24 (Neyrey, “Epicureans and Theodicy,” 126–27, 129–30).
[3434]. See, e.g., Macrob. Comm. 2.3.11 (van der Horst, “Macrobius,” 226).
[3435]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 608; the contrast is somewhat more plausible in Acts 17:26, though the same caveats apply. For the myth, see Parker, “Attic Cults”; Niang, “Seeing,” 163 (citing Isoc. Panath. 12.124; De Pace 8.49; Plato Menex. 237–39a; Aristotle Rhet. 1.5.5 = 1360b31–2); Isoc. Paneg. 24; Dio Chrys. Or. 64.12; Lucian Lover of Lies 3 (mocking it); cf. Hermog. Progymn. 7, “On Encomion,” 18 (not specifying the nation).
[3436]. Cf. Kearns, “Autochthons”; cf. Erichthonius in Eurip. frg. 925; possibly earthborn Titans in Eurip. frg. 939; Argives in Libanius Encomium 1.2. Pagans had stories of people formed from stones (e.g., Apollod. Bib. 1.7.2; Ovid Metam. 1.393–94, 400–415; Statius Theb. 8.305) or dragon’s teeth (Androtion Atthis frg. 60c [in Scholion to Lycophron Alexandra 494–95 p. 179 b 24 Scheer]; Apollod. Bib. 1.9.23; 3.4.1; Ap. Rhod. 3.1355–57; Ovid Her. 6.33; Metam. 3.101–30; 7.121–30; Val. Flacc. 7.76; Sen. Y. Med. 169, 470; from dragon’s blood, Aeschylus Seven 412–13), as well as many people turned into stones by gods (Hom. Il. 24.611; Great Eoiae 16; Ovid Metam. 2.696, 705–7, 830–32; 4.276–78, 551–60; 10.241–42), by magic (Lucian Lucius 4), or even by fear (Ovid Metam. 9.224–25 [in contrast to Sophocles Women of Trachis]; 10.67–68), especially by seeing the Gorgon (Pindar Pyth. 10.47–48; Apollod. Bib. 2.4.2; Ovid Metam. 4.180–209, 230–35, 248–49, 655–60; Lucian Portr. 1, 14; Hall 19; Athen. Deipn. 8.345b; probably also Pindar Dith. 4, frg. 70d, line 41, from P.Oxy. 2445). Other creatures also were changed into stone (Epigoni frg. 3 [in Photius Lexicon; Suda, s.v. Τευμησία]; Ovid Metam. 11.59–60, 404; 12.22–23; 14.72–74; Lucian Dial. S.-G. 323–24 [14, Triton and Nereids 3]). Cf. brief comment in Keener, “Human Stones.”
[3437]. See also Isa 42:5; Wis 15:11; Philo Creation 135, 139; Jos. Asen. 12:1/2; 4 Ezra 3:5–7; cf. Isa 2:22; in animals, Gen 6:17; 7:15. The same language applies to resurrection in 2 Macc 7:23; Rev 11:11.
[3438]. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 76, who relates it (77) especially to the Stoic “ ‘breathing in’ of the Logos” (comparing especially Acts 17:28). One should do philosophy more than one breathes (Crates Ep. 6).
[3439]. C. Williams, Acts, 203, arguing that Greeks played on the two words.
[3440]. Many later manuscripts (with a wide geographic distribution and little reason for scribes to insert, except the Western tradition’s expansive tendency) read “from one blood” (for creation from blood, see Heidel, Genesis, 66–69; Schedl, History, 1:264–65; Miller, “Image,” 303–4; but probably this means a common bloodline); but “from one” seems the better reading (Barrett, Acts, 842; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 456).
[3441]. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 77. Stoics affirmed that Zeus created the cosmos from one seed (Dio Chrys. Or. 36.56; Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 56–57).
[3442]. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 77, cites Dio Chrys. Or. 12.30 for God as ancestor and 12.42 for Zeus as parent. See comment on Acts 17:28.
[3443]. For earth as the “mother,” see Aeschylus Suppl. 890; Lib. 44; Seven 16; Pindar Nem. 6.1–2; Ol. 7.38; Lucret. Nat. 2.581–99; Ovid Metam. 1.393; Fasti 2.713–19; Val. Max. 7.3.2; Pliny E. N.H. 2.63.154; Suet. Jul. 7.2; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.15. Cf. comment on Acts 14:15.
[3444]. E.g., Apollod. Bib. 1.7.2; Ovid Metam. 1.393–94, 400–415; Statius Theb. 8.305.
[3445]. See Witherington, Acts, 526. Philo connected the biblical teaching of the first man much more explicitly to Greek philosophy (see esp. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 37).
[3446]. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 142; Grant, Gods, 51; Johnson, Acts, 315; Barrett, Acts, 842; Chance, Acts, 310. Cf. ἑνός twelve times in Rom 5:12–21, though it is missing in the parallel discussion of Adam in 1 Cor 15:22, 45.
[3447]. Cf. Eph 4:24; Col 3:10. The first couple (Tob 8:6) and God’s creation of people (2 Macc 7:28) also invited frequent comment elsewhere in early Judaism.
[3448]. On this last point, see Tannehill, Acts, 212; cf. also Chance, Acts, 311; Malina and Pilch, Acts, 128. Neyrey, Passion, develops the new Adam (who resists temptation) of Luke 3 in Luke’s passion; but given the dominance of patriarchs and prophets in Acts’ speeches, we perhaps should not press an Adam Christology too far.
[3449]. See Witherington, Acts, 526.
[3450]. One prominent stream of haggadah made Adam a hermaphrodite before being divided into both genders (e.g., ʾAbot R. Nat. 27, §94 B; Gen. Rab. 8:1; 14:7; Lev. Rab. 14:1; cf. Daube, “Gospel and Rabbis,” 343, 346; idem, New Testament and Judaism, 72), although this was only one tradition (cf. ʾAbot R. Nat. 1 A; 8, §23 B). For Philo, the first man was perfect (Creation 136).
[3451]. E.g., Test. Ab. 11:9–11 A; 8:12 B; L.A.E. passim; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:3; b. ʿErub. 18b; Gen. Rab. 9:5; cf. Scroggs, Adam, 21–22. Although Adam introduced sin, he sinned only once whereas others sin far more (Num. Rab. 19:18). In L.A.B., he is a priest and patriarch (Hayward, “Figure of Adam”). Some rabbis did debate whether he would inherit the future world (Gen. Rab. 21:7), and doubted his repentance (Pesiq. Rab. 7:2).
[3452]. See, e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 14:5; b. Šabb. 55b; Num. Rab. 13:12; Eccl. Rab. 3:15, §1. He would have remained immortal had he not sinned (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:4).
[3453]. Cf., e.g., Wis 2:23–24 (though blaming the devil); L.A.E. 44:3–4; Sipre Deut. 323.5.1; 339.1.2; Gen. Rab. 16:6; Exod. Rab. 30:3; Num. Rab. 10:2; 23:13; Pesiq. Rab. 48:2; Tg. Ruth 4:22 (cf. Moore, Judaism, 1:474–76; later rabbis may have minimized the fall account, perhaps reacting against Christians [Hayman, “Fall”]). Works such as 2 Baruch could present Adam as introducing death to all (2 Bar. 54:15a; cf. 17:2–3; 23:4; 48:42–43; 56:5–6) yet each human as becoming his or her own “adam,” choosing death for self (2 Bar. 54:15b, 19; cf. 18:2; 48:45); cf. 4 Ezra 3:7, 20–21; 4:30; 7:11, 118–19 (48–49); Knibb, Esdras, 131. Cf. also Sipra in Smith, Parallels, 168–69. For the postbiblical sources in greater detail, see esp. Scroggs, Adam, 18–20; Levison, “Adam and Eve”; for various ancient views, see Baudry, “Péché dans pseudépigraphes”; idem, “Péché chez Philon”; Levison, “Adam.”
[3454]. E.g., m. Sanh. 4:5; Pesiq. Rab. 14:8; for Adam as a type of Israel, see, e.g., 4 Ezra 3:25; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:1. Both the righteous and the wicked would issue from Adam (Gen. Rab. 8:4), since all humanity would (Tob 8:6; Sir 33[36]:10; 40:1; Wis 10:1; 4 Ezra 6:53–56; L.A.B. 37:3).
[3455]. So ʾAbot R. Nat. 1 A; 1, §8; 42, §116 B; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 23:1.
[3456]. Gen 1:26, 28; Sir 49:16; 4 Ezra 6:53–54; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:3; b. Ber. 31a; Soṭah 46b; cf. Ps 8:6–8. For Adam’s authority over the animals, see, e.g., Gen. Rab. 63:13; comment on Acts 28:5.
[3457]. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:3; Song Rab. 3:7, §5.
[3458]. E.g., 2 Bar. 4:3; ʾAbot R. Nat. 31 A; 42, §116 B; b. Sanh. 38b; Gen. Rab. 21:9; 24:2; Pesiq. Rab. 23:1; for other revelations, 2 En. 31:2; L.A.E. 25:3–27:3. The primeval light also allowed him to view the entire world (y. Ber. 8:6, §5); God showed him all his mighty works (L.A.B. 26:6).
[3459]. See Sipra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.9; ʾAbot R. Nat. 8, §22; 42, §116 B; b. Ḥag. 12a; Sanh. 38b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:1; 5:3; Gen. Rab. 2:3; 8:1; 12:6; 21:3; 24:2; 58:8; Lev. Rab. 14:1; 18:2; Num. Rab. 13:12; Song Rab. 3:7, §5; Pesiq. Rab. 15:3; cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:228; Scroggs, Adam, 49–52; for his great height in later Islamic tradition, see, e.g., Moucarry, Prophet, 86. His “cosmic” stature may stem from the late third century or later (Barc, “Taille”) but arises from rabbinic, and not gnostic, influences (Niditch, “Adam”); for his primeval beauty, see Sib. Or. 1.24. Cf. Metatron (3 En. 9:2); Abraham (Pesiq. Rab. 7:2); to a lesser extent, Moses (ʾAbot R. Nat. 9 A); the Nephilim (Gen. Rab. 26:7); and, especially in Amoraic tradition, Og (Kosman, “Story”). For tales of giants, see, e.g., Hom. Od. 11.305–20, 576–77; Philost. Hrk. 8.14; 45.5; some more-realistic cases of gigantism were also documented (e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 7.16.73–76). For one survey of Adam and Eve in midrashic literature, see Blidstein, Garden.
[3460]. B. Sanh. 38a, bar.; in Aug. Enarrations on the Psalms 96.15, he scattered to all the world after his fall. On “Adam” for Gentiles, see comment on Acts 15:17; cf. 4Q167 7 1; 4 Ezra 6:56.
[3461]. E.g., b. Ḥag. 12a; Sanh. 38b; Gen. Rab. 12:6; Num. Rab. 13:12. Some opined that he was cut down to 100 cubits (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:1; 5:3; Song Rab. 3:7, §5; Pesiq. Rab. 15:3); in Gen. Rab. 58:8, he remained tall even after death. This massive height would be restored in the coming world (Sipra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.9).
[3462]. See, e.g., ʾAbot R. Nat. 1 A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:4; 26:3; b. B. Bat. 58a; y. Šabb. 2:6, §2; Lev. Rab. 20:2; Eccl. Rab. 8:1, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 14:10; Scroggs, Adam, 48–49; in the Targumim, McNamara, Targum, 120–21; cf. b. B. Meṣiʿa 84a.
[3463]. 1QS IV, 23; CD III, 20; 1QHa IV, 27; 4Q504 8 4; 4Q511 52 + 54–55 + 57–59 2; cf. Pryke, “Eschatology,” 50. Qumran was less interested in the story of Adam’s fall (Baudry, “Péché de Qoumrân”; cf. CD X, 8; 4Q167 7–8 1; 4Q266 8 III, 7), though it mentions “Adam”; many uses are collective (cf. Thorion, “ ‘dm”; e.g., 1QS XI, 9, 14–15).
[3464]. E.g., 3 Bar. 4:16 (Greek, not Slavonic); Gen. Rab. 12:6; Num. Rab. 13:12; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 2:25. But cf. the “garments of light” after the fall (Tg. Onq. on Gen 3:21; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 3:21; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 3:21).
[3465]. E.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:1; Song Rab. 5:1, §1. He is estranged from God’s glory in Apoc. Mos. 21:6; Num. Rab. 13:2.
[3466]. See 1QS IV, 22–23; 1QHa IV, 27; CD III, 20.
[3467]. Apoc. Mos. 39:2.
[3468]. Num. Rab. 13:12.
[3469]. Sipra Behuq. pq. 1.261.1.6.
[3470]. 4Q171 1–2 III, 1–2.
[3471]. Some find in rabbinic Judaism the closest parallels to Paul’s two-Adam imagery (certainly better than gnostic; Scroggs, Adam; Hultgren, “Origin”; cf. Richardson, Theology, 245–46; for Life of Adam and Eve, cf. Bianchi, “Rédemption”; for Apocalypse of Moses, Sharpe, “Adam”), although the rabbis did not articulate a second Adam the way Paul does (“first” Adam in Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 3:22 may simply point to the rest of humanity that would follow, as in 4 Ezra 3:21, 26). An inversion of the sort of exegesis found in Philo (cf. Alleg. Interp. 2.4) may, however, be likelier (cf. Isaacs, Spirit, 78; Keener, Corinthians, 132). Genesis itself parallels Adam, Noah, and Abram, looking for a reversal of the curse (Gen 5:29; cf. also Wright, People of God, 262–63; later, cf. the apocalyptic tradition of viewing the Endzeit in terms of the Urzeit, e.g., Dahl, “Creation,” 429; Arrington, Aeon Theology, 157; note also pentateuchal connections in Postell, Adam as Israel); early interpreters may have recognized these connections (cf. 4 Ezra 3:10–11; 2 En. 70:10; Gen. Rab. 14:6; Eccl. Rab. 3:11, §2).
[3472]. Prof. John Walton shared with me this possibility in personal correspondence, Dec. 20–21, 2012.
[3473]. This includes allusions to these passages via Deut 32:8, which might allude to them. The verbal allusions are not obvious; “nations on earth” could allude to Gen 10:32, reinforcing a Noah allusion, but Luke’s wording (“nations on the face of the earth”) is closer to Deut 7:6; 14:2; “nation” and “person” appear together in Amos 9:12 (recently employed in Acts 15:17); and “one man” alludes, if anything, to Jacob (Gen 42:11). Luke’s language may echo diverse biblical language without a specific contextual allusion.
[3474]. Jesus as a particular “man” in 17:31 also makes a better contrast with Adam than with Noah, although an allusion either way is not certain.
[3475]. This image has been rightly employed by popular interpreters for ethnic reconciliation (e.g., a nineteenth-century American slave, James Curry, in Blassingame, Slave Testimony, 130–31; a Pentecostal preacher in early twentieth-century South Africa, Lindsay, Lake, 43; see more extensively Williams, “Acts,” 236–38), in contrast to the abuses made of the later part of the verse.
[3476]. See also t. Sanh. 8:4–5; b. Sanh. 38a. Rabbi Meir and his successors claimed that Adam was created from dust gathered from many regions (b. Sanh. 38ab). See further Montefiore, “Spirit of Judaism,” 39–40; Moore, Judaism, 446.
[3477]. Seneca undoubtedly thought in terms of Reason (ratio, analogous to the Greek λόγος), or cause, which shapes matter in the formation of the universe; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 65; on the creative role of the Logos, see Philo Creation 20, 26, 31; Migr. 6; Keener, John, 341–47, 376–78. The pervasive Logos was shared among all humanity (Porter, Paul in Acts, 121).
[3478]. Cf. similarly Dio Chrys. Or. 7.138; for Stoic views on equality because of common stock, see also O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 297. Paul could thus deny Greek superiority, although such a direct challenge might not suit his immediate evangelistic objective.
[3479]. For the unity of humanity in ancient thought, see Judge, First Christians, 588–94.
[3480]. E.g., Bruce, Commentary, 357–58; see comment on the Athenian belief at Acts 17:25.
[3481]. The idea of people springing from soil or rocks was common enough in Greek thought (see Apollod. Bib. 1.7.2; Ovid Metam. 1.393–94, 400–415; Statius Theb. 8.305; comment on Acts 17:25).
[3482]. E.g., Test. Ab. 3:5 A. The phrase is familiar in apocalyptic literature, e.g., Rev 3:10; 6:10; 8:13; 11:10; 13:8, 14; 17:2, 8; 1 En. 40:6–7; 54:6; 65:12; 80:7; 4 Ezra 5:6; 7:72; 13:30; 2 Bar. 25:3; 27:15; 48:32; cf. also Wis 9:10.
[3483]. Cf. Cic. Leg. 2.8.19; Mus. Ruf. 17, p. 108.9–10; 18A, p. 112.24–25; Max. Tyre 9.6.
[3484]. Cf., e.g., Pan, a deity of woodlands (Longus 2.26–31; 4.39; Paus. 1.32.7; 8.38.5); caves (Paus. 10.32.6) and wooded areas (5.10.1) could also be sacred to other deities.
[3485]. Conzelmann, Acts, 142–44 (citing 1QHa IX, 16–17; 1QM X, 12–16; see esp. 1QM X, 14–15); Fitzmyer, Acts, 609.
[3486]. Compare, e.g., ὁρίσας for “separate” in Acts 17:26 with ἀφωρίσθησαν in Gen 10:5; ὁρίζω often entails peoples’ boundaries in the LXX (Num 34:6; Josh 13:7, 27; 15:12; 18:20; 23:4; Ezek 47:20); so also ἀφωρίζω (Deut 4:41; Josh 14:4; 16:9; 21:13–18, 21–32; Ezek 45:1, 4; 48:9, 20; cf. Exod 19:12, 23), though it applies to creation’s boundaries in Prov 8:27.
[3487]. Luke’s rare term ὁροθεσία does not appear in the LXX (though it probably refers to national boundaries; see Euseb. Demonstratio evangelica 4.9, in Witherington, Acts, 527), but the closest cognate, ὅριον, does. It does apply to nature’s boundaries in the oft-cited Ps 74:17 (cf. Haenchen, Acts, 524n6), but to those of peoples in the vast majority of cases, e.g., Gen 10:19; 23:17; 47:21; Exod 23:31; Num 20:16–23; 21:13–24; 22:36; 32:33, 44; 34:2–12; 35:26–27; Deut 2:4, 18; 3:14, 16–17; 11:24; 19:3, 8, 14; 27:17; Josh 1:4; 12:2, 5; 13:2–30; 15:1–21; 16:1–8; 17:1–10; 18:5–20; 19:10–49; 21:20, 40, 42; 1 Chr 6:54, 66; 7:29; 13:5; 2 Chr 9:26; 11:13, 23; Ezek 47:13–17; 48:1–28; esp. Deut 32:8; in the Apocrypha, e.g., Jdt 1:5, 10, 12; 2:10, 25; 4:4; 14:4; 15:4, 5; 16:4; 1 Macc 2:46; 3:32, 36, 42; 5:9, 60; 6:25; 7:24; 9:23, 72; 10:31, 43, 89; 11:34, 59; 14:2, 6, 33, 34; 15:29, 30. The cognate verb usually applies to political boundaries as well.
[3488]. Passages sometimes describe together God’s activities of delineating boundaries of the seasons, the cosmos, and nations (Gen. Rab. 10:5; Num. Rab. 18:7).
[3489]. Cf. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 216; Salmeier, Restoring, 173. Later rabbis claimed that God carefully predestined the lengths of kings’ reigns (Ruth Rab. 3:2).
[3490]. On the two ages, cf., e.g., 4Q215a 1 II; 4 Ezra 7:50; 8:1; L.A.E. 51:2; t. Taʿan. 3:14; Sipre Num. 115.5.7; Sipre Deut. 29.2.3; ʾAbot R. Nat. 12 A; 22, §46 B; b. Yoma 87a; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §16; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 6:2; 9:1; Gen. Rab. 1:10; 59:6; 90:6; Exod. Rab. 30:19; 47:3; Lev. Rab. 3:1; Deut. Rab. 2:31; Song Rab. 2:2, §6; Pesiq. Rab. 16:6; 25:2; cf. also Ferch, “Aeons,” 135–51.
[3491]. Cf., e.g., the notion of the four kingdoms (Dan 2:38–43; 8:20–25; 4Q554 III, 14–21; 2 Bar. 39:5–7; 4 Ezra 12:11; Sib. Or. 8.6–11; Sipre Deut. 317.4.2; 320.2.3; the excursus on God’s kingdom at Acts 1:3 [Keener, Acts, 1:671–74]). Modern Western observers might think of the transitory character of the British Empire, the (especially short-lived) Third Reich, the Soviet empire, and perhaps now the temporary political and economic strength of the United States. In different ways, Greeks and Romans also divided history into periods (Walter, “Periods,” 791–92). Sen. E. Historical Frg. 1 divided Rome’s history into ages (corresponding with human maturation).
[3492]. See further Höffken, “Weltreiche.”
[3493]. So Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 31; Bruce, Commentary, 358n46.
[3494]. See Ps 104:9; Jer 5:22; 4 Ezra 4:19; esp. Prov 8:29; cf. Job 26:10; one perspective in Harrelson, Cult, 12. See also Apollo as the sun god in Men. Rhet. 2.17, 438.18–19, using ὅρους. God connected land and sea in 2 En. 48:6.
[3495]. See Eltester, “Gott und Natur,” 209–20 (cited by Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 55).
[3496]. E.g., Lucian Dance 37.
[3497]. Stoics according to Dio Chrys. Or. 36 (Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 56–57).
[3498]. E.g., Sir 36:11; 4Q266 11 9–10. Also in Sipre Deut. 311.1.2; implied in Sir 17:17.
[3499]. For an allusion to the table of nations here, see Scott, “Horizons,” 541–43.
[3500]. On the evil of violating ancestral boundaries, see Deut 19:14; 27:17; CD V, 20–21; cf. 1 Kgs 21:3. Compare the division in Jubilees, above, with the Greek division of the cosmos among chief deities.
[3501]. Ovid Metam. 1.135–36. On the peace of the golden age and its degeneration, see, e.g., Max. Tyre 36.1–2 and comment on Acts 2:17. Because God gave the earth in common to all (Sib. Or. 3.247, probably pre-Christian), some expected boundaries to be abolished in the end time (2.31; Christian material in 2.319; 8.209–10).
[3502]. That Seneca nevertheless owned property may suggest that his ideals had limits; boundaries serve a practical function in regulating human relations. Musonius Rufus speaks of God’s dividing humanity into genders (14, p. 92.9–10).
[3503]. For patron deities of nations, see, e.g., Pliny Ep. 7.27.2; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.9.2; cf. Iambl. Myst. 5.24. For Rome’s guardian spirit, see Plut. Fort. Rom. 11, Mor. 324B.
[3504]. For Roma, see, e.g., Aune, Revelation, 920–22; Bauckham, Climax, 344.
[3505]. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 33. Yet one might object the same for natural boundaries, since Epicureans, who diverged from the usual conception of deities (see excursus at Acts 17:18), recognized boundaries of a sort for humans within nature (see Asmis, “Order,” on Lucretius).
[3506]. Luke probably refers to the Gentiles in both of the other instances where he employs μακράν in Acts (Acts 2:39; 22:21). Gentiles might be “far” from Israel, but God was not necessarily “far” from them.
[3507]. Thus these would constitute two “parallel purpose infinitives” with an intervening digression about the nature of where they would dwell (Witherington, Acts, 526; contrast Bruce, Acts1, 337).
[3508]. See Trapp, Maximus, xxvii–xxviii (citing Max. Tyre 10.9; 11.7–12; 21.7).
[3509]. Cf. Isaacs, Spirit, 29, arguing that Philo’s view of immanence was compatible with both Scripture and Stoicism. For the pervasive character of “spirit,” cf., e.g., Max. Tyre 4.8; Long, Philosophy, 171; cf. Schweizer, Spirit, 29; Klauck, Context, 354. Humans could have communion with the divine by virtue of shared reason (Epict. Diatr. 1.9.4–5; cf. Diog. Laert. 7.138). Whereas Stoic immanence sometimes shaded into pantheism, the rabbis (who also emphasized God’s omnipresence; see Keener, Matthew, 455–56) emphasized a more selective approach to immanence (Urbach, Sages, 1:51).
[3510]. Philo Spec. Laws 1.36; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.60–61 (Conzelmann, Acts, 144; Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 77; Klauck, Magic, 86).
[3511]. Dio Chrys. Or. 12.28; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 41.1–2; Pss 139:7–12; 145:18; Isa 55:6 (Conzelmann, Acts, 144; Klauck, Magic, 87; Pervo, Acts, 438); Jos. Ant. 8.108 (Gaventa, Acts, 251); elsewhere, e.g., Deut 4:7; Pss 73:28; 75:1; Jer 23:23; Zeph 3:2; esp. Wis 6:19. A Stoic could use exactly this sort of sentiment to combat idolatry (Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 77–78; Strabo 16.2.35). God’s not being far “from each one” might parallel God’s making from “one” in Adam in 17:26, given the few Lukan uses (five) of this form of the adjective and the eleven uses in Rom 5:12–19; if so, it would underline the connection with God through initial creation.
[3512]. See Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 57 (citing Dio Chrys. Or. 12.27–30; Strabo 2.3.2), contrasting this with seeking God by obedience in the OT. Tilborg, “Acts 17:27,” suggests that the image of touching here fits Hellenistic ideas (and connects it with epiphanies elsewhere in Acts). For many thinkers, God was untouchable (Max. Tyre 11.9; Porph. Marc. 8.147–50); for Stoics, God was not in human shape (Diog. Laert. 7.1.147), and his nature was pure intellect (Epict. Diatr. 2.8.2). But of course, in any case, Luke does not intend the designation physically.
[3513]. E.g., Cic. Tusc. 1.19.44; cf. Porph. Marc. 26.410. Knowledge about the gods also led to yearning to share their immortality (Cic. Tusc. 5.25.70).
[3514]. E.g., Cic. Inv. 2.22.65; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.27–28; Iambl. Myst. 1.3; Porph. Marc. 26.410–11; cf. Rom 1:19; 2:14–15; Porph. Marc. 11.191–93; Jackson-McCabe, “Implanted Preconceptions.” For other innate knowledge (more commonly among Platonists), see, e.g., Plato Phaedo 75CD, 76A; Cic. Tusc. 1.19.44; Top. 7.31; Inv. 2.22.65–66; 2.53.161; Leg. 1.10.28; Mus. Ruf. 2, p. 38.12–14, 17–20; Max. Tyre 10.6–7; 21.7; Porph. Marc. 10.185–86.
[3515]. Dio Chrys. Or. 12.27, 32. Rational beings had communion with God (Epict. Diatr. 1.9.4–5), who authored their rationality (Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 379, §126D); only humans, as rational beings, could serve as interpreters of God’s works (Epict. Diatr. 1.6.18–19).
[3516]. Xen. Mem. 4.3.12–13; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.50.
[3517]. For the human body and nature, see Cic. Nat. d. 2.54.133–2.58.146; for the human mind, see 2.59.147–2.61.153; cf. 2.61.154–2.67.168.
[3518]. Sen. Y. Ben. 6.23.6–7.
[3519]. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 117.6 (LCL, 3:341).
[3520]. E.g., Cic. Tusc. 1.13.30; Max. Tyre 11.5.
[3521]. Witherington, Acts, 528 (citing Aristoph. Ec. 315; Peace 691; Plato Phaedo 99B; Deut 28:29; Judg 16:26; Job 5:13–14; 12:25; Isa 59:10).
[3522]. For natural theology in Wis 13, see Dafni, “Natürliche Theologie.” Poniży, “Recognition,” argues that Wis 13 develops the Gentile philosophic ideal of finding God by analogy.
[3523]. Cf. perhaps Lucret. Nat. 2.54, who seems to portray life as a struggle in the darkness (in tenebris) of ignorance.
[3524]. Max. Tyre 29.5.
[3525]. Porter, Paul in Acts, 148, also 122, following Porter, Idioms, 263–64. Without ruling out any access to God, Luke views full access as coming only in Christ (cf. Dumais, “Salut”); for the pessimistic view here, see also Hansen, “Preaching,” 316.
[3526]. Dio Chrys. Or. 12.28 has God near, but because of the Stoic idea of innate ideas of God in people by nature (Witherington, Acts, 529); see comment below.
[3527]. I believe that Luke and his audience could presuppose Genesis’s connection between creation in God’s image and being his children (children reflecting their parents’ image; cf. Gen 5:2–3). They might also recognize the contrast with other deity images (e.g., Wisdom uses the language both for people in God’s image, 2:23, and for idols, e.g., 13:16; 14:15; 15:15).
[3528]. Even historians, such as Luke, were expected to evoke earlier sources by mimesis or direct citation, though these included earlier historical sources (see esp. Pitts, “Citation,” published too late for interaction in my introduction). Luke’s audience might envision Paul starting with the conventional gesture for quotations: an outstretched right hand, with “a slightly drooped index finger, with the two outer fingers curved” (Shiell, Reading Acts, 56).
[3529]. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 115. See more generally Marrou, Education; Bonner, Education. On the use of proverbs, see, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 91; on the citation of popular opinion where useful, as in Acts 17:28, see Anderson, Glossary, 67.
[3530]. Watson, “Education,” 309 (noting [310] the addition of Virgil among first-century C.E. Romans); cf. also Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 115.
[3531]. The poets and other myths in Lucian Amber 3–6; Homer himself in Dio Chrys. Or. 11.19–23.
[3532]. See the range of discussion on Homer in Sandnes, Challenge, 40–58. Palestinian Jews from Maccabean through Roman times already recognized Homer as canonical (in a literary way) for Greeks (Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:74–75), though not in the same way Jewish people observed Torah (see rightly Cohen, Maccabees, 202; Gutmann, “Paintings,” 68; cf. Stanley, Language of Scripture, 339). (For the different classical use of “canon,” see Easterling, “Canon.”) Some ancients, however, may have read Homer “devotionally” (Arcesilaus in Diog. Laert. 4.31). Some could accept Homer’s inspiration (Philost. Hrk. 25.4, 8) yet critique his errors (24.1–2; 25.10–17).
[3533]. Hock, “Paul and Education,” 203. Paul’s citation of a core author from the late primary curriculum in 1 Cor 15:33 probably suggests that he had such training (208).
[3534]. Stowers, Letter Writing, 55; Sluiter, “Homer”; cf. Pliny Ep. 9.26.6–7. Alexander also allegedly thought the Iliad the best summary of military skill (Plut. Alex. 8.2), though its individualistic heroes could not have compared with the Macedonian phalanx.
[3535]. Lewis, Life, 59.
[3536]. Xen. Symp. 3.5–6; cf. Lucian True Story 2.20 (in a parody). For modern Homeric criticism, see, e.g., Willcock, “Homer,” and bibliography there.
[3537]. E.g., Xen. Mem. 1.2.20 (Theognis); Aeschines Tim. 28 (laws of Solon); Demosth. Fals. leg. 247 (citing already the recent Soph. Antig. 175–90), 255 (Solon); Plut. Phoc. 1.3 (Sophocles); Libanius Anecdote 3.36 (Hesiod); Maxim 3.10; Invect. 6.3; for Stoics close to Paul’s era, see, e.g., Mus. Ruf. 9, p. 70.29–31 (unnamed); Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 66.2 (in this case refuting Virg. Aen. 5.344); for perhaps even novels alluding to classical tragedies, see Trzaskoma, “Chariton and Tragedy.”
[3538]. E.g., Aeschines Tim. 142–52; Pindar Pyth. 4.278–79 (citing Hom. Il. 15.207); Plut. Isis 1, Mor. 351D; 26, Mor. 360F–361A; Pliny Ep. 1.7 (quoting Hom. Il. 1.528; 16.250); Dio Chrys. Or. 2.3–6 (Alexander’s view); 4.22; Libanius Encomium 1.1; 2.1; 3; cf. further Konstan, introduction, in Russell and Konstan, Heraclitus, xv–xvi. One could also cite Homer (e.g., Aeschines Tim. 128) along with Hesiod (e.g., Tim. 129; Diod. Sic. 4.7.2). Homer was, however, Hesiod’s superior (Lucian True Story 2.22); Hesiod ranked second to him (Vell. Paterc. 1.7.1). Dio Chrys. Or. 12.23 likes Hesiod (cf. also 77/78.2), but in 18.8, Homer is the best. Even Cynics like Diogenes could cite Homer (Usher, “Doggerel”); for citation of Homeric verses in magic, see Collins, “Verses.”
[3539]. E.g., Pliny Ep. 5.19.2; Chariton Chaer. 2.3.7; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.542. Gentiles quoted Homer much as Paul quoted Scripture (see Stanley, “Paul and Homer”).
[3540]. E.g., Plut. Or. Delphi 22, Mor. 405A; Thes. 34.1; for Plato calling Homer as “witness,” see, e.g., Proclus Poet. 6.2, K154.19–20. Greeks regularly cited poets as witnesses (Nicolai, “Place of History,” 18–19); likewise, an excellent orator must master philosophy, law, and history to provide the best witnesses from the past (Cic. Brut. 93.322). Respected historians too could offer “testimony” (Cic. Fam. 5.12.7).
[3541]. Diod. Sic. 16.23.5 (LCL, 7:303).
[3542]. Arist. Rhet. 1.15.13, 1375b (noting, as an example here, the Athenians’ appeal to Homer as μάρτυρι). One might cite, e.g., Demosthenes as one of one’s “witnesses” (testes, Tac. Dial. 32); or the local historian Androtion (Androtion Atthis frg. 54a, in Aelian Varia Historia 8.6); or appeal to Plato as an advocate (Apul. Apol. 65).
[3543]. Arist. Rhet. 1.15.17, 1375b.
[3544]. Fronto Ep. graec. 2.3 (LCL, 1:149; here citing Hom. Il. 9.312).
[3545]. In the first century C.E., see, e.g., Philo Abr. 10; Vell. Paterc. 1.5.1–2; Epict. Diatr. 3.11.4 (citing Hom. Od. 14.56–58). Many made him the oldest of poets (e.g., Androtion Atthis frg. 54b, from scholion [BD] to Aelius Arist. Defense of the Four [165.4]). Others cited him as originator of tragedy (Hermog. Method 33.450, perhaps alluding to Plato Rep. 10.598D).
[3546]. Contest of Homer and Hesiod 313.1 (with Hesiod); 316; 325; Heracl. Hom. Prob. 3.1; Men. Rhet. 2.15, 430.13; 2.16, 434.11; Apul. Metam. 9.13.
[3547]. Lucian Affairs 23.
[3548]. E.g., Lucian True Story 2.32 (having already established Homer’s greatness within the narrative world, whether or not this is Lucian’s opinion); cf. Libanius Refutation 1.1–3, 12; perhaps others in Confirmation 2.2. Later Platonists (Proclus Poet. 5, K43.9–10) remembered that Plato addressed “failings of the poets,” yet the Muses could not fail (Laws 669C). Proclus notes Homer’s full inspiration at some points (Poet. 6.1, K192.9–12, esp. 9), as opposed to where he writes merely from systematic knowledge (K192.12–15; cf. K186.21–25; K188.12–14), communicates symbolically, or imitates the “illusionist” poets in communicating on a popular level (K192.15–21, 26–28; thus speaking of events such as the sun “rising,” K192.23–24). Homer is “inspired” (Poet. 6.1, K102.1–2, 7–8; K120.23; K157.25–26; K159.1; K178.27–28; cf. poets in 6.1, K89.29), but when taken literally could be mistaken (6.2, K176.14–15). Not all poetry shared in full inspiration (6.2, K179.3; K182.16–20).
[3549]. E.g., Plato Charm. 161A; Theaet. 152E (along with other poets); Pyrrho the Skeptic (ca. 360–270 B.C.E.) in Diog. Laert. 9.11.67 (who was very fond of Homer); Mus. Ruf. 15, p. 98.22–24 (to illustrate a point); Crates Ep. 10 (do not ignore “what the wise Homer says” on the subject; Cyn. Ep. 61). Dio Chrys. Or. 55 argues that Socrates learned his values from Homer.
[3550]. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 116 (citing Dio Chrys. Or. 7.97–102). Lucian Conversation with Hesiod passim criticizes the poets’ (specifically Hesiod’s) failure to reveal the future.
[3551]. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 3.24.18. Seneca the Younger claims that Homer and Hesiod changed things (Ben. 1.3.6–7). For a survey of various philosophers’ views concerning Homer, see Dio Chrys. Or. 53. Dio himself portrays Homer as impious (11.19) and a liar (11.23) but elsewhere makes him the poet par excellence (18.8).
[3552]. See Rexine, Religion in Plato and Cicero, 53–63.
[3553]. Konstan, introduction, in Russell and Konstan, Heraclitus, xix–xxi.
[3554]. E.g., Max. Tyre 17.3; 26 passim; they flow from the same source (26.3), and Homer simply offered philosophy in the genre then most popular among Greeks, in verse (26.4). Maximus seeks to praise Homer while honoring Plato’s rejection of poetry in the ideal state (Or. 17 passim; cf. Plato Rep. 2.377Aff., esp. 3.398A; Trapp, Maximus, 149).
[3555]. E.g., Max. Tyre 26.5–9.
[3556]. Proclus Poet. K44.7–16; K96.11. Instead, divinities were completely pure (K65.19–23; K72.24–26; K96.9–10; K99.18–19). If poets invent stories about deities, they should accurately convey deities’ true nature (K65.29–30). It is therefore inappropriate to portray their “thievery . . ., rapes, wanderings, adulteries, wars, plotting” (K45.18–21; quotation from K45.20–21, trans. p. 9) or “crimes against fathers and tying them up and castrating them” (K72.20–26; quotation lines 21–22, trans. p. 65).
[3557]. Ibid., K80.5–6; K82.2–7; K83.8.
[3558]. Ibid., K80.10–12; K83.9–10; cf. the symbolic approach of some in K131.5–9. Thus the poets “disguised” truth (K90.92–93) with “symbolic” teaching (K134.3; K135.18–19). Another way that Proclus addresses divine misbehavior in myths is to explain that the worst acts were committed by lesser beings merely named after the higher deities who were their leaders (Poet. K147.7–10, 21–25; cf. Apul. De deo Socr. 145–46, on daimones).
[3559]. Proclus Poet. K82.10–17.
[3560]. Ibid., K90.8–14.
[3561]. Ibid., K141.16–21. Similarly, the pursuit of and wars for Helen merely teach the value of invisible beauty (K153.25–29). Even Zeus’s intercourse with Hera becomes symbolic (K132.16); this generative dyad indicates an origin of the universe (K134.10–15). Hera putting Zeus to sleep was also naturally allegorized (Homeric Problems 39.2–17; cf. Proclus Poet. K135.19–22).
[3562]. Some philosophers also consigned Homer and Hesiod to torment in the afterlife for how they had portrayed the gods (Diog. Laert. 8.1.21); Heraclitus despised Hesiod (along with Pythagoras; 9.1.1; cf. also Lucian Conversation with Hesiod). In Lucian Indictment 1, Zeus claims that humanity is misled by Homer, “a fraud.”
[3563]. Gr. Anth. 7.377 (a fitting reversal for the posthumous condemnation of Homer and Hesiod in Diog. Laert. 8.1.21!).
[3564]. Proclus Poet. K74.15–16; K74.25–31.
[3565]. As in ibid., K119.2–3.
[3566]. Robert Lamberton, in Proclus the Successor, 69n90.
[3567]. Apparently in Ps.-Phoc. 195–97 (though Hom. Od. 6.182–84 had become almost proverbial; van der Horst in OTP 2:581 n. s); Sent. Syr. Men. 78–93 (if genuinely Jewish). Cohen, Maccabees, 194, observes that Philo the Poet and Ezekiel the Tragedian “owed more to Homer and Euripides” than to biblical models. For Ezekiel’s use of Greek hypotexts, see, e.g., Brant, “Mimesis”; for his comfort with imagery even of the enthroned Zeus, see Heath, “Homer.” Philo quotes Homer explicitly at least sixteen times (Stanley, Language of Scripture, 326; see, e.g., Abr. 10; Conf. 4; Contempl. 17; Embassy 80; Good Person 31).
[3568]. See y. Sanh. 10:1, §8. Some rabbis may have known Homer, and they at least knew traditions stemming from Homer (Lieberman, Hellenism, 112–14; Le Cornu, Acts, 968).
[3569]. Even a few Greek thinkers criticized Homer’s falsehoods (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 24.1–2; 25.10–17; this though the source allows for his inspiration; cf., e.g., 25.4, 8).
[3570]. OTP 1:371 n. d3 finds an allusion to this passage or idea in Lact. Div. Inst. 1.6.9; cf. Diod. Sic. 4.66.
[3571]. Rost, Judaism, 115 (esp. on Sibylline Oracles). See the discussion of the use of philosophers (and esp. accusations that they plagiarized Moses) above.
[3572]. Justin 1 Apol. 39 (citing Eurip. Hipp. 608); Theoph. 2.37 (citing Aeschylus, Euripides, Pindar, and others); Athenag. Plea 5 (Euripides, Sophocles); 6 (citing Greek philosophers); Tatian Or. Gks. 8 (Hom. Il. 1.599; Od. 8.326).
[3573]. Renehan, “Quotations,” 44–45.
[3574]. In addition to LXX quotations (including, in some versions, some of what we call the Apocrypha), see most notably 1 En. 1:9 in Jude 14.
[3575]. Thus, e.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.15.1 notes that he will not cite fellow orators but, rather, philosophers to support his case for oratory.
[3576]. Cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 121–22; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 115. The practice of anthologizing without necessary knowledge of the earliest works also carried into Palestinian Jewish practice (e.g., 4Q265; see Abegg, “Introduction to 4Q265”).
[3577]. Conzelmann, “Areopagus,” 224; Grant, Gods, 51, citing Aristob. frg. 4 (Euseb. P.E. 13.12.6–7) (persuasive unless Eusebius’s sources tried to match it to the Acts quote).
[3578]. E.g., Max. Tyre 41.3 (Hom. Il. 14.80 with 12.327).
[3579]. Cadbury, Acts in History, 49; esp. Renehan, “Quotations,” 41, citing, e.g., Lycurgus of Athens Contra Leocratem 132; Arist. Pol. 7.16, 1335b.32–34 (possibly citing Solon frg. 19 Diehl); Arist. [Magna moralia] 2.15, 1212b.27ff. (Eurip. Orest. 667); Simplicius In Aristotelis Physicorum libros folio 73b (Agathon frg. 6 Nauck).
[3580]. On Epimenides, see Parker, “Epimenides.” Later tradition claimed that Pythagoras studied with him (Apul. Flor. 15.20). Reports of his visit to Athens appear early (J. Hilton’s notes on Apul. Florida, 157n74, cite Plato Leg. 1.642D; Arist. Ath. Pol. 1).
[3581]. Aratus Phaen. 5. On Aratus, see briefly Toomer, “Aratus”; Fantuzzi, “Aratus.”
[3582]. So also Cadbury, Acts in History, 49. Defending Epimenides, see, e.g., Lake, “Poets,” 250; supposing an unknown author, Packer, Acts, 148.
[3583]. Hemer, Acts in History, 118.
[3584]. Reasoning from human life to divine life; Bruce, Acts1, 338; idem, Message, 54. Epimenides is called a “prophet” in Titus 1:12, also fitting other traditions about him (Plato Laws 1.642D; Plut. Solon 12), and there is little reason to doubt the attribution to Epimenides in Titus 1:12 (Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.14.59.1–2).
[3585]. Bruce, Acts1, 338.
[3586]. Renehan, “Quotations,” 38.
[3587]. Ibid., 39, contends that such philosophic language cannot reflect sixth-century B.C.E. poetry, which could not yet use the language of philosophy. For philosophic elements, see Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 78: the creator made souls “moving” and “living” (Plato Tim. 37C); Zeus authors life and existence (Dio Chrys. Or. 12.43).
[3588]. Citing the flow of thought from Acts 17:28–29, Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 78, notes conventional polemic against idols, which do not reflect God and hence do not “move” or “live” (Dio Chrys. Or. 12.70; Deut 4:28; Jub. 20:7–8; Ep Jer 8, 24, 26; Bel 5; Wis 13:10–19; 15:16–17; Rev 9:20).
[3589]. Assuming that the extant paraphrase has not added the philosophic element (perhaps to conform it to Acts 17:28), the lines could easily have been assigned to Epimenides long before the era of Isho‘dad, even conceivably by the first century. Epimenides legends were already circulating before the first century (e.g., his long sleep in Varro L.L. 7.1.3; Paus. 1.14.4; later, Max. Tyre 10.1; 38.3; for other pre–Rip van Winkle traditions of long sleepers, see, e.g., 4 Bar. 5; y. Taʿan. 3:9, §4).
[3590]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 610 (citing for philosophers Plato Soph. 248E–249A; Arist. Soul 414a.12–13). For a nonphilosophic tricolon, see Suet. Aug. 98.2: it was through Augustus that the voyagers “lived, through him that they sailed, through him that they enjoyed their liberty” (LCL, 1:277; also in Grant, Gods, 60); cf. also Rom 11:36.
[3591]. Doubting that Luke would happen across such a flexible Stoic quotation, Renehan thinks that he formed it himself (“Acts 17.28”). Though Luke quotes Aratus more precisely in the next line, that quotation is quite brief. Others have also questioned whether this line in Acts 17:28 is intended as a direct quotation (e.g., Johnson, Acts, 316).
[3592]. Callim. Hymns 1 (to Zeus), lines 7–8 (in Chrys. Homilies on the Epistle to Titus, on 1:12, but not worded closely enough to suspect Chrysostom of tampering); Bruce, Acts1, 338.
[3593]. With Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 49. This argument is not foolproof; Isho‘dad could accurately quote a source extant in his day that was not itself accurate.
[3594]. See Renehan, “Quotations,” 39 (citing esp. Arius Did. Epit. 26; cf. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.38; he rejects the nonphilosophic verbal parallels in Soph. Oed. tyr. 314; Eurip. Alc. 278); cf. Schnabel, Missionary, 172.
[3595]. E.g., Virg. Georg. 4.221–22; Diog. Laert. 7.2.38.
[3596]. E.g., Aratus Phaen. 2–4; Epict. Diatr. 1.6.23–24.
[3597]. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.25; 2.8.14; see esp. 2.8.10–11 (“You are a fragment of God; you have within you a part of Him. Why, then, are you ignorant of your own kinship?” [LCL, 1:261]). Some writers also viewed Zeus as source of life; e.g., Heracl. Hom. Prob. 23.6 (Konstan in Russell and Konstan, Heraclitus, 45n3, cites also Plato Crat. 396B; SVF 528 = Arius Didymus in Euseb. P.E. 15.15). Rejecting pantheism, Bede Comm. Acts 17.28A (Martin, Acts, 220–21) interprets humanity’s being “in him” as creation by him. Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 30 (from Witherington), suggests that Paul recognized here “an element of truth” in the error of pantheism.
[3598]. Epict. Diatr. 1.15.5.
[3599]. See Diog. Laert. 7.1.134; 7.1.148; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref. 13; Dial. 7.8.4; see comment above. Cf. the discussion of Plut. E Delph. 17–21, Mor. 392A–394C, in Meeks, Moral World, 43. Aristobulus probably echoes Stoic pantheism (Aristob. frg. 4 [Euseb. P.E. 13.13.5]), just as he quotes the line from Aratus (see discussion below).
[3600]. Witherington, Acts, 529 (also doubting that the Aratus quote reflects Aratus’s views on human and divine kinship). Some suggested that one ought to “live” philosophy (Crates Ep. 6).