[3612] . Dibelius, Acts , 51.

[3612] . Dibelius, Acts , 51.

[3601]. E.g., Sib. Or. 3.701; m. ʾAb. 2:9, 13; 3:14; Sipra Emor pq. 9.227.1.5; Behuq. pq. 5.266.1.1; among Greeks, cf. Diog. Laert. 6.2.38.

[3602]. As noted above, 4Q266 18 V, 9–10; Sir 43:27; Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.44.

[3603]. Stonehouse, Areopagus, 2, rightly complains about some earlier scholars who contrasted this speech with Paul on the basis of the speech’s alleged pantheism here.

[3604]. Most regard Aratus as the direct source, but cf. Farrar, Life and Work, 696–98.

[3605]. SVF 1.527, 537, from Stob. Ecl. 1.1.12 (Grant, Gods, 78; Renehan, “Quotations,” 40); among first-century Stoics, Seneca Ep. Lucil. 107.11; Epict. Diatr. 4.1.131; 2.23.42 (a shorter version but including the same line); 4.4.34. In contrast to the previous line in Acts 17:28, this one is indisputably poetry (Renehan, “Quotations,” 40).

[3606]. Besides references above, see, e.g., Sen. Y. Ben. 5.14.1; 6.11.1; Epict. Diatr. 1.17.11; 3.23.32.

[3607]. Bruce, Acts¹, 338; idem, History, 45.

[3608]. Cf. Platonic background in Horsley, “Formula”; an adapted Stoic formulation in, e.g., Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 130; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 145; Thiselton, Corinthians, 635; however adapted, the content may reflect the Shema. For Johannine usage, see Keener, John, 300–301, 341–63. Cf. also Col 1:15–20, paralleling Logos language even more clearly.

[3609]. E.g., Hunter, Gospel according to Paul, 11; Fitzmyer, Acts, 611; Pervo, Acts, 439.

[3610]. Luke merely changes the epic and Ionic dialect form εἰμέν to ἐσμέν, more appropriate for his audience (Renehan, “Quotations,” 40). Luke’s quotation is in metrical form, “a half hexameter with three accents” (Klauck, Magic, 88).

[3611]. Renehan, “Quotations,” 40. The idea is widely attested (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 30.26; as early as Plato Tim. 37C; Conzelmann, Acts, 144–45; Talbert, Acts, 156).

[3612]. Dibelius, Acts, 51.

[3613]. E.g., Alciph. Fish. 3 (Glaucus to Galateia), 1.3, ¶2.

[3614]. See Malherbe, Social Aspects, 43. For anthologies, see esp. Cameron, “Anthology” (cf. also Harrison, “Ecloga”). J. Hilton, “Introduction” (to Florida), 124, cites as early examples Aul. Gel. pr. 2–3 and notes observations in Pliny Y. Ep. 3.5.10; Aul. Gel. 17.21.1; Lucian Pisc. 6; and Philost. Vit. soph. 565; the use of anthologies for quotations continued in Western medieval education, where original sources were harder to come by (Evans, Wycliffe, 132). Because poetry was studied at the primary level, Luke could have been exposed to Aratus without advanced rhetorical training; only Homer was more widely read than Aratus’s Phaenomena (Padilla, “Παιδεία,” 427).

[3615]. Conzelmann, Acts, 145; Grant, Paul, 8.

[3616]. See esp. van de Bunt–van den Hoek, “Aratus’ Phainomena.”

[3617]. Edwards, “Quoting Aratus.” Aristob. 12.7 makes the change to “clarify” Aratus (Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 152); Barclay argues, though, that Aristobulus retains the Stoic conception in 12.6–7 (155).

[3618]. Though Hellenistic Jews occasionally adopted even the name “Zeus,” as noted above. It is possible but improbable that Eusebius, our source for Aristobulus’s quotation (usually cited as P.E. 13.12.6–8, esp. 13.12.6; OTP 2:840–41 has P.E. 13.13.6–7, but this may be a typographical error for 13.12.6–7 [cf. Aristob. frgs. 3, 5 in OTP 2:839, 841]), conforms it to the tamer version in Acts 17; Aristobulus does not shy from Zeus’s name (frg. 4.5) but specifically claims that he replaced “Zeus” with “God” in Aratus to provide the true sense (frg. 4.7).

[3619]. Most commentators on 1 Corinthians recognize the proverb’s attestation in Menander Thais frg. 187 (Bruce, Corinthians, 150; Winter, Left Corinth, 98–99; Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 289); Dio Chrys. Or. 18.6–7 recommends Menander highly for rhetorical use. Others note that Menander himself may have borrowed it from Euripides (Renehan, “Quotations,” 29–31; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 42–43). The Pauline citations of pagan sources in Clement of Alexandria are probably not authentic (see Landau, “Unknown Apostle”).

[3620]. That letter is also full of rhetorical devices—more than normally approved in a letter—probably to counter complaints of Paul’s inadequate rhetorical skill (cf. 1 Cor 2:1–4; 2 Cor 10:10; Keener, Corinthians, 29).

[3621]. He grew up in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3) but probably spent a number of years in Tarsus after his call to the Gentiles (see comment on Acts 9:30).

[3622]. A late first-century C.E. writer believed that many great poets had written even since the time of Cicero (Plut. Cic. 2.4).

[3623]. See also Hemer, Acts in History, 118.

[3624]. I provide briefer surveys of the “father” title for God or deities in Keener, Matthew, 217–18; idem, John, 401–2, 877–79. The image might bear a different nuance in different cultures; many African cultures view God as a “father” both as creator and as someone available to help his children (Mbiti, Religions, 63).

[3625]. E.g., I. Eph. 101–4; Hom. Il. 2.371; 8.69, 245, 397; 10.154; 11.66, 80, 201, 544; 14.352; 15.637; 16.250, 253; 17.46, 645 (quoted in Longin. Subl. 9.10); 22.60, 209; 24.461; Od. 4.340; 5.7; 7.311; 12.63; 13.51; 14.440; 15.341; 16.260; 17.132; 18.235; 24.376, 518; Hesiod W.D. 169; Aeschylus Prom. 40, 53, 947, 984; Suppl. 139; Eurip. Med. 1352; frg. 1082; Danae frg. 1132.27; Aristoph. Wasps 652 (“our father”); Hipponax frg. 62; Pindar Nem. 5.33; Ol. 1.57a; 2.28; 7.87–88; 14.12; Pyth. 3.98; 4.23; Aratus Phaen. 15; Pliny Ep. 1.7.1 (quoting Hom. Il. 16.250); Dio Chrys. Or. 12.75; Max. Tyre 11.12; Orph. H. 15.7; 19.1; as γεννήτωρ, e.g., Aeschylus Suppl. 206 (in a literal genetic way for the Danaidae; such mythological examples of descent from Zeus could be multiplied, e.g., Philost. Hrk. 39.3).

[3626]. E.g., Virg. Aen. 1.691; Georg. 1.121, 283, 328, 353; 2.325; Val. Flacc. 1.498; 3.249; Catull. Carm. 64.21; Sil. It. 3.137, 163; often as “omnipotent father,” Virg. Aen. 1.60; 3.251; 4.25; 6.592; 7.141, 770; 8.398; 10.100; 12.178; Ovid Metam. 1.154; 2.304, 401; 3.336; 9.271; as genitor, Virg. Aen. 12.843; Val. Flacc. 1.531; Sil. It. 4.417; 17.475; Statius Silv. 5.3.207; Theb. 5.146; Fronto Fer. als. 3.8.

[3627]. E.g., Hom. Il. 3.276, 320, 350, 365; 7.179, 202, 446; 8.236; 12.164; 13.631; 15.372; 17.19, 645; 19.270; 21.273; 24.308; Od. 12.371; 20.98, 112, 201; 21.200; 24.351; Soph. Oed. tyr. 202; Aristoph. Acharn. 223–25; Menander Dyskolos 192; Pindar Nem. 8.35; 9.53; 10.29; Isthm. 6.42; Ap. Rhod. 4.1673; Aratus Phaen. 15–16, esp. 15; Sil. It. 10.432; Dio Chrys. Or. 36.36; see further discussion in Keener, Matthew, 217–18. So addressed by other gods; e.g., Hom. Il. 8.31; 22.178; Od. 8.306; 12.377 (even when they are his siblings, because it remains his title—e.g., Il. 5.757, 762; 19.121; Od. 13.128).

[3628]. E.g., Hom. Il. 8.31 (“father of us all,” by a deity); Dion. Hal. Epid. 2.262; Hor. Odes 1.12.13–18; Plut. S. Kings, Alexander 15, Mor. 180D; Dio Chrys. Or. 74.27 (supplying “father” from the context); cf. 36.35; Macrob. Sat. 4.5.4 (using Virg. Aen. 6.123; van der Horst, “Macrobius,” 226); syncretistically, PGM 22b.1–5. Among the philosophically inclined, see Plato Tim. 28C; Plut. Plat. Q. 2.1, Mor. 1000E–1001C, esp. 1000E); Table 8.1.3, Mor. 718A; Max. Tyre 2.10; 11.5, 9; Proclus Poet. 6.2, K164.16–17 (cf. 6.1, K107.16–17; 134.23–24).

[3629]. E.g., Hom. Il. 1.503, 534, 578–79; Eurip. Pirithous frg. 4.7; Phaedrus 1.2.13; Virg. Aen. 9.495; Ovid Metam. 2.848; 9.245; Val. Flacc. 4.1; Catull. Carm. 64.298, 387; Ovid Fasti 3.285; Sil. It. 5.70; 17.342; Libanius Speech in Character 11.3. Thinkers could also call God “father of himself” (Iambl. Myst. 8.2), i.e., “self-begotten” (cf. PGM 1.342–43; 13.62; Sib. Or. 1.20; 3.12). He is also “god of fathers” (Epict. Diatr. 3.11.5).

[3630]. Hor. Odes 1.12.49; Plut. Alex. 27.6; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.74; Max. Tyre 41.2. Among Stoics, see Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus (Stob. Ecl. 1.1.12). The trees could also call Zeus their “father,” as their creator (Babr. 142.3).

[3631]. E.g., Hom. Il. 1.544; 4.68; 5.426; 8.49, 132; 11.182; 15.12, 47; 16.458; 20.56; 22.103, 167; Od. 1.28; 12.445; Hesiod W.D. 59; Theog. 457, 468, 542; Sh. Her. 27; Eurip. Chrysippus frg. 839.1–2; Ovid Metam. 14.807; Diod. Sic. 1.12.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 2.75; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.30; even Philo Spec. Laws 2.165; cf. Phaedrus 3.17.10; for “father of gods and king of humans,” Virg. Aen. 1.65; 2.648; 10.2. Philosophers, perhaps especially Platonists, gave a philosophic interpretation of Homer’s phrase (Cornutus Summ. 9 [Lang, 9, line 1], in Grant, Gods, 78; Max. Tyre 35.1; Iambl. V.P. 8.38; Proclus Poet. 6.2, K164.29). The conjunction of fatherhoods appears pre-Homeric, paralleled at Ugarit (Gordon, Civilizations, 233).

[3632]. Dio Chrys. Or. 4.27.

[3633]. Dio Chrys. Or. 4.19–21.

[3634]. Dio Chrys. Or. 12.42. Zeus was patron deity of fathers (Epict. Diatr. 3.11.5; see also Oldfather in LCL, 2:80n1). For Zeus “of the ancestors” (cf. the biblical “God of our ancestors”), see, e.g., Soph. Ajax 387; Aristoph. Clouds 1468, 1469.

[3635]. E.g., Plut. frg. 46 (from scholia on Hesiod W.D. 327–34, in Plutarch: Moralia, LCL, 15:132–35 [Sandbach]); Jos. Ant. 4.262. On parents as the divine image, see, e.g., Hierocles Parents 4.25.53 (in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 91); Philo Spec. Laws 2.2; for the aged, SPap 3:476–77, §116; for parents as representatives of deity, see Aeschines Tim. 28; Val. Max. 5.6.pref.; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.42; SPap 1:320–21, lines 27–28; cf. Philo Decal. 51, 106–7, 120; Spec. Laws 2.224–25; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.206; b. B. Meṣiʿa 32a, bar.; Qidd. 30b, bar.; Pesiq. Rab. 23/24:2.

[3636]. Dio Chrys. Or. 1.40; 12.77.

[3637]. Pindar Ol. 2.17 (“father of all”).

[3638]. Mart. Epig. 10.28 (father of years and of the world).

[3639]. Val. Flacc. 1.651, 659.

[3640]. Val. Flacc. 1.828 (of subterranean regions); Fronto Ad verum imp. 2.1.4.

[3641]. Sil. It. 5.395. Also “Father Tiber” in Statius Silv. 1.6.100.

[3642]. Orph. H. 4.1 (in mythology, the father of Cronus, the Roman Saturn).

[3643]. Sil. It. 11.458 (in mythology, he merited the title before Jupiter, whose father he was).

[3644]. Iambl. V.P. 8.35. Cf. also, syncretistically, Father “Adonai” in PGM 1.305, identified with Apollo in 1.298. “Paternal Apollo” had a temple in Athens (Paus. 1.3.4; cf. also Athenian Agora, 48), but this means “Apollo of our ancestors.”

[3645]. Val. Max. 1.8.6; Fronto Bell. parth. 1.

[3646]. Val. Flacc. 2.256. Antony allegedly wished to be a new “Father Liber” (Vell. Paterc. 2.82.4).

[3647]. Orph. H. 12.6 (but the Orphic Hymns are notoriously syncretistic).

[3648]. Augustus is father of mortals, as Jupiter is of immortals (Ovid Fasti 2.130–32). See further Res gestae divi Augusti (in deSilva, Honor, 195; Judge, Pattern, 32–33); in detail, see Peppard, Son of God, 60–67.

[3649]. E.g., Res gest. 35.1 (Sherk, Empire, 50, §26); ILS 5863 (Sherk, Empire, 155, §112); Pliny Ep. 8.6.10; Hdn. 2.2.9; 2.6.2; Kent, Inscriptions, nos. 77 (p. 40; Claudius), 99 (Trajan), 104 (Hadrian), 111 (Commodus); CIG 3176 A.4 (M. Aurelius; in Boeckh, Inscriptions, 2:725). For the abbreviation, see Kent, Inscriptions, nos. 77, 104, 111, 113. This title fit well with his claimed patronage of the empire (Lampe, “Patrons,” 493–94).

[3650]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 64.14; Epict. Diatr. 1.6.40.

[3651]. Stoics in Diog. Laert. 7.1.147; Marc. Aur. 10.1 (“begetter” of all).

[3652]. E.g., Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus (Stob. Ecl. 1.1.12); Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 110.10; Epict. Diatr. 1.9.4–5, 6, 7; 1.13.3–4; 3.22.82. Cf. Mus. Ruf. 18a, p. 112.23–25 (in van der Horst, “Musonius,” 309). Sen. Y. Dial. 1.1.5 refers specifically to a good man (cf. Epict. Diatr. 1.19.9).

[3653]. Mus. Ruf. 16, p. 104.30; Epict. Diatr. 1.3.1; 1.19.12; Dio Chrys. Or. 4.22.

[3654]. Apul. De deo Socr. 123–24.

[3655]. Dio Chrys. Or. 30.26; cf. 12.27, 29, 39, 43, 47, 61, 75, 77 (Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 78).

[3656]. See Jeremias, Prayers, 12; Chen, Father, 73–111.

[3657]. E.g., Apoc. Mos. 35:2 (God so addressed by angels).

[3658]. Philo Creation 135; Conf. 170; Mos. 2.238; Decal. 32, 51, 105, 107; Spec. Laws 1.14, 22, 32, 41, 96; 2.6, 165; 3.178, 189; Virt. 64, 77, 218; Rewards 24; Contempl. 90; Eternity 13; Embassy 115, 293; cf. perhaps QG 2.60. For the Logos as father of humanity, cf. Conf. 41.

[3659]. God as “begetter” in Sib. Or. 3.296, 604, 726; 5.284, 328, 360, 406, 498, 500.

[3660]. PGM 22b.1–26 (Pr. Jac. 22.4–5).

[3661]. Sib. Or. 3.278; cf. Philo Spec. Laws 2.165.

[3662]. E.g., Theoph. 1.4; Athenag. Plea 13; 27.

[3663]. See Wis 2:16; 3 Macc 5:7; 6:8; 7:6. For one extensive survey, see Chen, Father, 113–43.

[3664]. E.g., m. Soṭah 9:15; t. Ber. 3:14; B. Qam. 7:6; Ḥag. 2:1; Peʾah 4:21; Sipra Qed. pq. 9.207.2.13; Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.15; Sipre Deut. 352.1.2; b. Ber. 30a, bar.; 30b; 32b; 35b; 57a; Šabb. 116a; 131b; Pesaḥ. 85b; 112a; Roš Haš. 29a; Yoma 76a; Sukkah 45b; Meg. 13a; 14a; Soṭah 10a; 12a; 38b; B. Bat. 10a; Sanh. 94a; 101b; 102a; 102b; ʿAbod. Zar. 16b; Zebaḥ. 22b; y. Sanh. 10:2, §8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:9; Lev. Rab. 1:3; 7:1; 35:10; Song Rab. 7:11, §1; Tg. Neof. 1 on Deut 33.24; Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 1:19 (see Maher, Targum, 163n38). The phraseology must predate later rabbinic sources (cf. Mark 11:25; Luke 11:13) but in the NT appears especially in Matthew, the source closest to rabbinic usage (Matt 5:16, 45, 48; 6:1, 9, 14 [= Mark 11:25], 26, 32; 7:11 [= Luke 11:13], 21; 10:32–33; 12:50; 15:13; 16:17; 18:10, 14, 19, 35; 23:9).

[3665]. Goshen-Gottstein, “God the Father” (excepting Jesus’s special sonship).

[3666]. Boer, Fatherhood, 25.

[3667]. Jub. 1:25, 28; Tob 13:4; Wis 11:10; Jos. Asen. 12:14 MSS; Test. Job 33:3 MSS, 9; cf. Test. Ab. 16:3; 20:12, 13 A; Pr. Jos. 1. For the righteous as a child of God, see Wis 2:13, 16.

[3668]. See the survey in Chen, Father, 145–229 (for application to Israel and to believers in Jesus).

[3669]. E.g., Homeric quotations in Alciph. Paras. 20 (Thambophagus to Cypellistes), 3.56, ¶2 (where it is criticized); PGM 4.2145–50 (where it is unquestioned). Of course, ancients also knew how to evoke or infer larger contexts when this appeal was useful (e.g., m. ʾAb. 3:2; b. Sanh. 38b; fuller comment on Acts 8:32–33).

[3670]. E.g., Cic. Inv. 1.8.11 (Ulysses and Ajax); 1.13.18 (Orestes and Clytemnestra).

[3671]. Sen. E. Suas. 3.5–7; 4.4–5. Joint testimony from otherwise contradictory sources was especially useful (Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 61, §19D).

[3672]. E.g., Brutus in Appian Bell. civ. 4.17.130 (using Eurip. Med. 332).

[3673]. Plut. Table 9.1, Mor. 736D–737C; see esp. 737C, regarding εὐκαίρως and ἀκαίρως quotations.

[3674]. Like Paul though less so, Epictetus may have been hard pressed on this point, but he knew at least Homer and, in addition, some Plato and Xenophon and some conventional quotations, perhaps from Chrysippus (Oldfather, “Introduction to Epictetus,” xi); but his slaveborn background undoubtedly limited his early opportunities.

[3675]. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 116 (citing Dio Chrys. Or. 7.97–102).

[3676]. See Johnson, Acts, 316; Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 78 (citing in the polemic against idols, e.g., Wis 13:6–19; 15:16–17). On God’s image in the OT, see, e.g., Merrill, “Image.” See comment on the “living God” above and esp. at Acts 14:15.

[3677]. This was a common Jewish argument with a pedigree back to Isa 46:5–7 and other texts; see also discussion on Acts 17:24. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 530. It is a fortiori foolish to worship something of lesser intelligence than ourselves. (It is also of lesser worth than ourselves; most philosophers also recognized the limited worth of gold and silver; see comment on Acts 2:44–45.)

[3678]. The term χάραγμα suits idols (Rev 13:16–17; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4; cf. a cognate verb in 3 Macc 2:29; contrast χαρακτήρ, for Christ [Heb 1:3], for humanity [1 Clem. 33.4], or for Christ’s image in Christians [Ign. Magn. 5.2]; God’s image in many of the fifty-three uses in Philo). But it applies to any stamped image (see BDAG; LSJ; more fully, Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 683, citing, e.g., P.Oxy. 1.144.6).

[3679]. So also Conzelmann, Acts, 145; Johnson, Acts, 316. Against inferring deities’ image from mortals’ derivation from them, see Rowe, World, 38, though Paul’s coordinating conjunction may suggest that Acts 17:29 is a consequence, rather than correction, of ideas implicit in 17:28.

[3680]. E.g., Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus (in Stob. Ecl. 1.1.2); Sen. Y. Dial. 1.1.5; Mus. Ruf. 17, p. 108.8; Plut. frg. 46 (from scholia on Hesiod W.D. 327–34, in Plutarch: Moralia, LCL, ed. Sandbach, 15:132–35); Max. Tyre 2.3; Iambl. Myst. 7.4; Porph. Marc. 16.267; cf. Pindar Nem. 6.4–5; Cic. Leg. 1.22.58–59; Marc. Aur. 10.8.2; Russell, “Virtue”; Dillon, Middle Platonists, 192. Diogenes so called good people in Diog. Laert. 6.2.51; for specific persons, e.g., Iambl. V.P. 19.91; for the mind, Porph. Marc. 13.233–34 (cf. also 26.413–14, 419–20).

[3681]. E.g., 4Q504–506 8 4; Jub. 6:8; Sib. Or. 3.8; Sir 17:3; Wis 2:23; 4 Ezra 8:44; L.A.E. 13:3; 14:1–2; 15:2; 37:3; 39:2; Apoc. Mos. 10:3; 12:1; 33:5; 35:2; Test. Naph. 2:5; 2 En. 30:10; 44:1; 65:2; Philo Creation 69, 139; Mos. 2.65; Spec. Laws 3.83; m. ʾAb. 3:14/15; t. Yebam. 8:7; Mek. Bah. 8.72ff.; 11.111ff.; b. B. Bat. 58a; Gen. Rab. 14:3; 34:14; Exod. Rab. 30:16; Lev. Rab. 34:3; Deut. Rab. 4:4; Midr. Pss. 17:8; cf. Moore, Judaism, 446–49; for Israel in God’s image, ʾAbot R. Nat. 44, §124; for the human spirit or mind, Ps.-Phoc. 106; Philo Spec. Laws 1.171; 3.207. For subsequent humans made in the image of Adam (yet distinct), see m. Sanh. 4:5; b. Sanh. 38a, bar. In haggadah, angels initially could not distinguish Adam from God (Gen. Rab. 8:10; Eccl. Rab. 6:10, §1).

[3682]. Although 1 Cor 15:28 and some other passages (Eph 1:23; 4:6) may sound pantheistic out of their context, they reflect broader early Jewish language that, though dialoguing with Stoics, was not pantheistic (4Q266 11 9–10; Sir 43:27; Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.44; see Kister, “Fragment”).

[3683]. For gods’ not being identified with statues, see Heracl. frg. 5; Plut. Isis, Mor. 379cd; Lucian Z. Rants 7; for the living represented only by what is living, Dio Chrys. Or. 12.83 (Conzelmann, Acts, 145; cf. Macrob. Comm. 1.2.16 in van der Horst, “Macrobius,” 226); cf. Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.14. Others could proudly describe deity statues as “gods that we ourselves” made (Alciph. Court. 1 [frg. 3; Phrynê to Praxiteles]).

[3684]. Persians were thus foolish to worship fire while neglecting all the other elements (Max. Tyre 2.4). Yet Herodotus taught that Persians had long rejected the use of images, worshiping natural forces directly (Hdt. 1.131).

[3685]. Later Neoplatonists interpreted consecrated images as merely “reflected forms” of deity (Ritner, Mechanics, 246–47). Others treated idols as deities’ bodies (“The Theology of Memphis” 60 [ANET 5]) or dwellings (Rothaus, Corinth, 138); for statues’ activities, see, e.g., Caesar C.W. 3.105; Val. Max. 1.8.2–4; Plut. Cam. 6.1–4; Philost. Hrk. 19.4 (though others considered this fraudulent, e.g., Lucian Alex. 12, 14, 26; Felton, “Statues”; cf. simulated movements in Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 147). On ritualized animation of statues in late antiquity, influenced by Neoplatonic theurgy, see Johnston, “Statues”; but Halusza, “Statues,” questions the existence of formal rituals for this purpose.

[3686]. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 73, cites Dio Chrys. Or. 12.49–63 (perhaps relevant, in the context of attacking Epicureans, 12.36–38). Later Iamblichus (Myst. 3.28) has to address the question: the gods are incorporeal; so how can humanly made images represent them? More harshly, see Iamblichus Letter 18.1–3 (Stob. Anth. 3.11.35).

[3687]. See Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 67–72.

[3688]. Epicureans lacked use for idols, but they also denied contact with deities; see discussion in the excursus at Acts 17:18. Paul rejects idols more consistently and behaviorally; see Jipp, “Speech,” 585.

[3689]. E.g., Celsus defends the worship of images against Christian critiques (Cook, Interpretation, 91–94).

[3690]. Grant, Paul, 66–67; cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 145.

[3691]. Jews and Christians readily exploited pagan works that presented even a soft monotheism or aniconic sentiments, to invite a purer, more consistent approach (see, e.g., Ps.-Euripides in Clem. Alex. Protr. 6.68.3 [Attridge, “Fragments of Pseudo-Greek Poets,” OTP 2:828]). Greeks could recognize as hubris representing something great on a lesser scale (e.g., Athens in the hypothetical declamation in Hermog. Inv. 1.2.102).

[3692]. E.g., Plut. Apoll. 14, Mor. 108E.

[3693]. E.g., Jos. Ant. 10.180. (On Josephus’s general sense for τὸ θεῖον, cf. Shutt, “Concept”). Strabo 16.2.35 so describes Israel’s aniconic deity. The adjective appears elsewhere in the NT only in 2 Pet 1:3–4 but is used by Philo for the Logos (Flight 13) and by Ps.-Aristeas for the law (Let. Arist. 4); of some 40 uses in the LXX, the vast majority are in the Maccabean literature (2 Macc 3:29; 4:17; 9:11; 3 Macc 2:5; 7:11), mostly in 4 Maccabees (1:16, 17; 4:13, 21; 5:16, 18; 6:21; 7:7, 9; 8:22; 9:9, 15, 32; 10:21; 11:27; 13:16, 19; 17:11, 16, 18, 22; 18:3, 22), most of these relevant uses.

[3694]. Conzelmann, Acts, 145, cites Strabo 16.2.35; Hecataeus of Abdera (FGH 264 frg. 6); Tac. Hist. 5.4.

[3695]. Pliny E. N.H. 34.19.54. On Phidias the sculptor, see, e.g., Neudecker, “Phidias,” and sources cited there.

[3696]. So Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.20, where Apollonius reproves the captain for selling gods.

[3697]. For gold statues, see Pliny E. N.H. 33.24.82–83.

[3698]. For silver statues, Pliny E. N.H. 33.54.151 (even though many thought these first used for Augustus statues, they are earlier). Cf. 33.46.131, where Egyptians paint their silver with portraits of Anubis. See comment on Acts 19:24.

[3699]. For bronze statues, see Pliny E. N.H. 34.9.15.

[3700]. Deut 7:25; 29:17; Pss 115:4; 135:15; Isa 2:20; 30:22; 31:7; Ezek 16:17; Hos 8:4; Rev 9:20; cf. perhaps Dan 11:8; 1 Pet 1:18.

[3701]. The adjective often appears in early Jewish sources (e.g., Exod 31:3; 35:31; Wis 18:9; Sir 6:35; 2 Macc 3:29; 4:17; 3 Macc 7:11; Let. Aris. 4 [cf. 31]), esp. (as noted above) 4 Maccabees (1:16, 17; 4:13, 21; 5:16, 18; 6:21; 7:7, 9; 8:22; 9:9, 15, 32; 10:21; 11:27; 13:16, 19; 17:11, 16, 18, 22; 18:3, 22); more than two hundred times in Josephus (e.g., Ant. 10.180; on his general sense for τὸ θεῖον, cf. Shutt, “Concept”); more than five hundred times in Philo (e.g., the “divine word,” Flight 13). Some also praised Jewish people for rejecting Egyptian images, preferring τὸ θεῖον (Strabo 16.2.35).

[3702]. Rowe, “Style,” 136, sees it as an example of hyperbaton (citing Jerome Ep. 14.10 as another example); for the meaning of “hyperbaton,” see also Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 87 (citing Rhet. Her. 4.32.44; Quint. Inst. 8.6.62–67); for another example, Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 580.

[3703]. Insinuatio, with Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 36 (citing Rhet. Her. 1.9–11); Witherington, Acts, 518; Parsons, Acts, 248 (citing Quint. Inst. 4.1.42–50). Witherington points out that forensic speeches (though I believe this one more deliberative) build “toward the decision of the judges” (3.11.5–6) but that Paul’s forensic speeches build toward the resurrection (Acts, 530).

[3704]. As generally noted, e.g., Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 27; Dupont, Salvation, 31.

[3705]. On God’s image in Paul, see, e.g., Clines, “Image.”

[3706]. Like Justin (1 Apol. 5; cf. Holte, “Logos,” 165; Bauer, Orthodoxy, 206; Barnard, “Study,” 160; idem, “Logos Theology,” 140; Chadwick, “Defence,” 295), Clement of Alexandria (cf. Barnard, “Logos Theology,” 137), and even Tertullian (Apol. 21.10); cf. Ign. Magn. 8; Diogn. 7; Tatian Or. Gks. 5; more generally, see Rainbow, “Christology,” 666. Cf. also John’s Logos, though it is less “philosophic” (Keener, John, 341–63).

[3707]. Cf. Col 1:15; Heb 1:3; John 1:18; 14:7–9.

[3708]. Philo Conf. 97, 147; Dreams 1.239; 2.45; Drunkenness 133; Eternity 15; Flight 101; Heir 230; Plant. 18; Spec. Laws 1.80–81, 171; 3.83. Cf. Plut. Isis 29, Mor. 362D; 43, 368C; 54, 373B; 377A.

[3709]. Philo Creation 16 (but esp. people, 69); Dreams 2.45; cf. Plant. 18, 20, 22. As in some Middle Platonic thought, Philo’s Logos is a determinate pattern which is God’s image (Creation 17–19, 25, 31); thus God made the world as a copy of his divine image, the Logos being his archetypal seal imprinted on them (Creation 16, 26, 36). In later rabbis, God the builder used Torah as his architect, consulting Torah with its plans and diagrams (Gen. Rab. 1:1). Cf. angels in God’s image in Gen. Rab. 8:11; 14:3; Exod. Rab. 30:16.

[3710]. Rousseau, “Conversion,” 387.

[3711]. Schenkeveld, “Philosophical Prose,” 204–5; Furley, “Protrepticus.” Some scholars argue that Paul’s letter to the Romans reflects this rhetorical mode (Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 385–86, 431; Stowers, Letter Writing, 113–14; more likely, in Paul’s prior preaching, Aune, Environment, 219; in a broader sense, Stowers, Letter Writing, 128; idem, Diatribe, 182); I am skeptical regarding Romans but grant that the historical Paul sometimes employed this mode (1 Thess 1:9), as in Acts.

[3712]. E.g., Diog. Laert. 4.16; 6.2.56; Val. Max. 6.9.ext. 1; Wilken, “Collegia,” 272; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 45–46, 144; Stowers, Letter Writing, 37, 112–13; Lutz, “Musonius,” 27–28; esp. Nock, Conversion, 164–86. Some schools allowed for instant transformation whereas others emphasized the process (Stowers, “Resemble Philosophy?,” 91–92). For philosophic transformation, see, e.g., Lucian Downward Journey, 24.

[3713]. Cf. Xen. Apol. 19; Mem. 1.2.12–18, 26; Aeschines Tim. 171–73; Plut. Alc. 7.3; t. ʿEd. 3:4; ʾAbot R. Nat. 27 A; 34, §76 B; Mark 2:18, 24.

[3714]. E.g., Val. Max. 6.9.ext. 1; cf. also those who abandoned wealth (Diog. Laert. 6.5.87; Diogenes Ep. 38).

[3715]. Stowers, “Resemble Philosophy?,” 91.

[3716]. Ibid., 92.

[3717]. Stoics believed that the ideal wise person would not need to “change” thinking (μετανοεῖν), since such changing of thought (μετάνοιαν) shows that they did not think wisely to begin with (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 96–97.5–8; naturally, Luke’s view of μετάνοια is stronger than this; see comment on Acts 2:38). Stoics would, however, differentiate themselves from the ideal wise person.

[3718]. Gen 6:3, 7; 4 Ezra 3:8–10; 2 Pet 3:9; cf. Aug. Ep. 153; Wm of Thierry 2.4, Levy, Krey, and Ryan, 85.

[3719]. So Lucian Tim. 1–4. Green, “Acts,” 757, notes that Greeks would expect divine punishment for wrong worship, so Paul must explain why it has not happened.

[3720]. This is a significant feature of Luke’s perspective (see further Conzelmann, “Areopagus,” 229; Soards, Speeches, 190–92), though hardly limited to him; cf. 1 Pet 1:14; Eph 4:18; for a later analogy, see Muhammad’s designation of pre-Islamic times as “Times of Ignorance” (Moffatt, General Epistles, 104–5).

[3721]. The Roman Empire regularly experienced new political situations that altered previous decrees (see comment on Acts 18:2) and sometimes even the validity of military travel documents (Tac. Hist. 2.54), and so the conception of a new judicial situation would appear intelligible, not arbitrary.

[3722]. Goppelt, Times, 85.

[3723]. Haacker, Theology, 144, shows the compatibility of the two sources (noting that repentance and judgment in Acts 17:30–31 imply guilt and that Rom 1:21–22 speaks of ignorance; he also compares Rom 3:25–26).

[3724]. Luke employs καινός in Acts only in 17:19, 21, but in so doing, he may recall the new garments, wine, and covenant in the Gospel (Luke 5:36, 38; 22:20; the only uses in the Gospel); adding the often-synonymous νέος does not change the picture (the only relevant occurrences here are Luke 5:37, 38–39; 5:38 employs the adjective normally used with wine in the papyri).

[3725]. Hansen, “Preaching,” 315–17; Witherington, Acts, 530.

[3726]. On its relation to Luke’s theme, see Dupont, Salvation, 32 (recalling also the implicit universalism in Acts 17:26). Rhetorically, “all everywhere” underlines emphasis, and it is used by another Diaspora Jew for repentance (Philo Virt. 174–75; for argument that this Philonic passage includes Gentile conversion, see Bekken, Word, 85–90; cf. Spec. Laws 2.167; Virt. 64; Good Person 15; Etern. 68).

[3727]. Klauck, Magic, 120, thinks that Luke may use it more to encourage the members of his audience about their faith’s intellectual viability than to intend this speech as a model for evangelism. But presumably, it also provides one model for how they can contextualize intellectually as needed.

[3728]. Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (Vogels, 12–13, 18–19; Bray, Corinthians, 12, 17) condemns those who succumb to the temptation of avoiding preaching matters not believed by the “world,” including the resurrection.

[3729]. With Dunn, Acts, 237.

[3730]. E.g., Xen. Mem. 1.1.19; Wis 2:1–24; Gen. Rab. 67:4; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 4:8; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 4:8; especially applicable, among Greek intellectuals, to Epicureans (Plut. Pleas. L. 23, Mor. 1103D; Aul. Gel. 9.5.8). For Paul, an argument from creation can have moral implications (e.g., Rom 1:25).

[3731]. Not surprising for the one who ordains the “seasons” (Acts 17:26).

[3732]. E.g., Val. Max. 1.1.16–21; 1.1.ext. 1–9; Philost. Hrk. 16.5; 53.17; among philosophers, cf. Epict. Diatr. 2.8.14; for the true God, Jdt 9:9; Bar 2:13, 20; CD VIII, 3; Jub. 15:34; Sib. Or. 1.179, 321; 3.759. Even philosophers who attributed many disasters to natural causes allowed that deities could send judgments when necessary (Hierocles Gods 1.3.53–54 [in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 87]).

[3733]. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 2.19.26; Porph. Marc. 18.302–4; on propitiating such wrath, cf., e.g., Polyb. 3.112.9; Diod. Sic. 14.77.4–5; 27.4.3; Plut. Thes. 18.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 33.38; Sir 45:16; 1 Macc 3:8; 4 Macc 17:21–22; Wis 18:20–21; Sib. Or. 3.625–28, 632; Rosenberger, “Rites,” 275. For the deity’s lacking emotion, see, e.g., Max. Tyre 9.2; Apul. De deo Socr. 146–47; for deities’ anger being simply allowing foolish mortals to go their way, see Iambl. Myst. 1.13 (cf. Rom 1:18, 24).

[3734]. E.g., Plut. Pleas. L. 23, Mor. 1103D; Wis 2:1–24; Gen. Rab. 67:4; 1 Cor 15:32–33; 2 Pet 3:3–4.

[3735]. Cook, Interpretation, 97. Appeals to pathos, however, were common in rhetoric (see comment on Acts 20:19), especially recommended in (though not limited to) one’s peroratio toward the speech’s end (Sumney, “Πάθος,” 147).

[3736]. Cook, Interpretation, 97–98.

[3737]. See Adams, Stars, 107–9.

[3738]. Ibid., 109–14; for a comparison with Jewish views, see 127.

[3739]. Ibid., 114–24; for a comparison with Jewish views, see 128–29.

[3740]. Ibid., 118–20.

[3741]. With, e.g., Bruce, Acts¹, 340; cf. Ps 72:2; Isa 16:5; Rev 19:11; Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 120. As Dunn, Acts, 237, notes, “righteousness” was an OT covenant term (Pss 31:1; 35:24; 45:8; Isa 26:2; 45:21), as opposed to the Greek understanding of simply required “duties towards the gods.”

[3742]. See Jdt 16:17; 1 En. 10:6, 12; 84:4; 94:9; 96:8; 97:3; 98:8; 99:15; Jub. 16:9 (that this reference is eschatological is disputable); 24:30; 36:10; 1QpHab XII, 14; XIII, 2–3; 1QM I, 11; VII, 5; 4 Ezra 7:38; 2 En. 50:4, 5A; 51:3; Test. Levi 1:1; cf. Test. Mos. 1:18; Matt 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36; 2 Pet 2:9; 3:7; 1 John 4:17.

[3743]. E.g., Isa 2:12; 13:6, 9; Ezek 13:5; 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31; 3:14; Amos 5:18, 20; Obad 15; Zeph 1:7, 14; Mal 4:5; cf. Rom 2:5; 2 Pet 3:10, 12; Rev 16:14.

[3744]. Hom. Od. 11.568–71; Virg. Aen. 6.431–33, 566–69; 1 En. 69:27; 3 En. 16:1; Test. Ab. 12:16–13:4 A; 10:8–11:8 B; see further comment on Acts 10:42. Posthumous judgment is assigned to the deity Plouton in Orph. H. 18.16; in Egyptian ideology, see Book of Dead spell 125d (p. 101); spell 180, S-5, 9 (p. 191).

[3745]. E.g., Sib. Or. 4.183–84; 1 En. 9:4; 60:2; 62:2; 47:3 with 46:2; Test. Ab. 20:3 A (“judge of all”).

[3746]. Stagg, Acts, 187, here interprets “man” as Daniel’s “son of man,” though Paul’s Athenian hearers in the narrative world would not understand this. Cf. the chosen emperor (Harrison, “Paul,” 167–70).

[3747]. Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus, 38–39, notes that Rom 1:3–4 also calls Jesus a man but Paul, who includes the passage, hardly has only an adoptionist Christology. In the context of this speech, the use of “man” (masculine) rather than the generic “person” might support the possible Adam allusions in Acts 17:26 and 29.

[3748]. Chrys. Hom. Jn. 3 appeals to Jesus’s own messianic secret to argue that it was sufficient for Paul’s hearers at this juncture to acknowledge the resurrection.

[3749]. Dunn, Acts, xxii. Some carry this notion too far, explaining away even the present text (Robinson, Studies, 143n13; idem, Coming, 28; see critique in Marshall, Historian and Theologian, 176). The use of μέλλω here may suggest also imminence (Mattill, Last Things, 43–45), as often (though not always) in Acts (e.g., Acts 3:3; 5:35; 16:27; 20:3).

[3750]. Acts 3:19–21; 10:42; Luke 3:9, 16–17; 6:23–25; 10:12–15; 11:31–32; 12:42–48; 13:25–30; 17:22–37; 18:8; 21:27–28. For Luke’s eschatology, see comment on Acts 1:6.

[3751]. E.g., Rom 1:18; 2:2–3, 5, 8, 16; 3:6; 9:22; 14:10; 1 Cor 4:5; 11:29; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 Thess 1:10; 5:9; 2 Thess 1:5; see Porter, Paul in Acts, 123; Travis, “Judgment.” Judgment concludes the Acts speech (for rhetorical reasons) and begins the argument of Rom 1:18–32, but both emphasize God’s holding the world accountable for his revelation in nature (Porter, Paul in Acts, 146).

[3752]. Several commentators suggest a Stoic connection here (e.g., Witherington, Acts, 526; Porter, Paul in Acts, 123).

[3753]. See Diog. Laert. 7.156; van der Horst, “Cosmic Conflagration”; Adams, Stars, 114–24; much fuller comment at Acts 3:21.

[3754]. Already mocked in 17:18. For discussion of resurrection concepts, see Keener, John, 1169–77; most fully Wright, Resurrection, passim (for the absurdity to Greeks, see 32–38); Anderson, Raised, 48–91 (for Jewish sources), 92–114 (for Greek sources, including their disinclination to accept resurrections in real history). Vouga, “Paradoxie,” 189–90, usefully compares the “foolishness” of preaching with 1 Cor 1:17 (although the point in 1 Cor 1 is the cross whereas, in Acts 17:30–31, characteristic for Luke, it is the resurrection). Rowe, World, 39, rightly notes that no ancient philosophic school could have accepted Paul’s premise without scuttling its own cosmology.

[3755]. Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.27.

[3756]. E.g., Plato Cratyl. 400BC; Philo Dreams 1.139; cf. Epict. frg. 26 (in Marc. Aur. 4.41); Patterson, Immortality, 20–21. Cf. also the image of a prison (Gnom. Vat. 464 [in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 110]; Sen. Y. Dial. 12.11.7; Epict. Diatr. 1.1; 1.9.11–12; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.26; Philo Dreams 1.139; Diogn. 6; Essenes according to Jos. War 2.154).

[3757]. Aeschylus Eum. 647–48, cited by many (Bruce, Acts¹, 340; idem, Commentary, 363–64; Harris, “Dead,” 295; Hemer, Acts in History, 118; Witherington, Acts, 532; Fitzmyer, Acts, 612; Talbert, Acts, 157). Some (see Peterson, Acts, 503, citing also Hom. Il. 24.551; Aeschylus Ag. 1360–61; Soph. El. 137–39) cite additional sources.

[3758]. Kauppi, Gods, 86. For more extensive possible intertextual connections (though only the Areopagus connection seems compelling to me by itself), see Kauppi, Gods, 83–93, noting the term ἀνάστασις in Aeschylus Eum. 647 (pp. 85–86) and the Furies becoming “new gods” in the Athenian pantheon (comparable to Paul’s foreign deities in Acts 17:18; pp. 89–90). He demonstrates that classical plays were still performed and so Aeschylus could remain known in this period (91).

[3759]. For a discussion of pagan objections, see Cook, Interpretation, 55–61. On resurrection appearances, see comment on Acts 1:3; for discussion of Jesus’s resurrection and ancient views about resurrection, see Keener, John, 1167–78.

[3760]. Cf. Bultmann, Theology, 1:77, for the close connection between resurrection and divine judgment in NT preaching (though Bultmann excessively downplays the significance of future eschatology). Paul may have focused on Jesus’s resurrection rather than that of believers when he preached among Gentiles (cf. Martin, Body, 120–21; 1 Thess 4:13–14), though he must have said something of the latter (when explaining in more detail to believers) to make the former intelligible.

[3761]. See van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides,” 569, on Ps.-Phocylides.

[3762]. Cf. Lang, “Self,” 167: not the altar inscription, but Jesus’s resurrection, is the focus of this speech.

[3763]. E.g., Xen. Anab. 1.6.7; 2.2.10; 2.3.26; 5.4.11 (πιστά); see further BDAG; cf. also Lightfoot, Acts, forthcoming (courtesy of Witherington).

[3764]. The traditional modern dichotomy between subjective “faith” and objective “reason” that invited Kierkegaard’s “leap into the dark” should not be read into ancient texts or language.

[3765]. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 94–95.20–21.

[3766]. Scholars cite, e.g., Arist. Rhet. 3.13, 1414b8 (Robinson, Ephesians, 171); N.E. 1173a; Jos. Ant. 15.69 (Witherington, Acts, 532n257); the exact phrase in Vett. Val. 277.29–30 (Bruce, Acts¹, 340); note “confirmation” in Hierocles Elements of Ethics 2.2. In the imperial period, however, usage was shifting to a different term (Kennedy’s introduction [p. 61] to Hermog. Inv. 3).

[3767]. On this sense there, in view of the conjunction with another rhetorical term, ἀπόδειξις, and discussion of rhetoric in the context, see also Winter, Philo and Paul, 160.

[3768]. Paul’s contemporary Musonius Rufus felt that even novices needed not many proofs but just the right ones (1, p. 32.3, 5, using ἀποδείξεων). Paul’s letters also present Jesus’s resurrection as a demonstration of his identity (Rom 1:4; Baum, “Paulinismen,” 425–26).

[3769]. See Cic. Quinct. 25.78–80; Isaeus Hagnias 50.

[3770]. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 57. Speeches often build toward an emotional climax; see, e.g., Hermog. Inv. 3.13.162–63; 4.4.189, 191.

[3771]. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 57, notes the interruption technique but also notes the literary completeness of the speech. Interruption was a common literary technique both in novels and in historiography (Aune, Environment, 127; see now esp. and extensively, Smith, Rhetoric of Interruption).

[3772]. Cf. Porter, Paul in Acts, 124, arguing against Dibelius that the speech is not complete.

[3773]. For sneering remarks (with nostrils drawn together) as a rhetorical device, see Anderson, Glossary, 78; for mockery, 126.

[3774]. Johnson, Acts, 317, compares ridicule of speeches in Lucian Peregr. 7–8, 34.

[3775]. See Conzelmann, Acts, 146–47 (on responses to “divine men”); 4 Macc 5:22.

[3776]. E.g., 4 Ezra 7:76, 79, 81; b. Roš Haš. 17a; Eccl. Rab. 8:8, §1; 2 Pet 3:3, 7.

[3777]. E.g., 1QH^a X, 10–12; 4Q162 I–II; 4 Macc 1:5; 5:27–28; Test. Jos. 2:3; Deut Rab. 5:15; Lam. Rab. proem 17; cf. Jos. Ant. 5.144.

[3778]. Cf. the well-known statues of tyrannicides in the Agora (Athenian Agora, 58).

[3779]. See, e.g., the rhetorical device ἀλλοίωσις (meaning a) in Anderson, Glossary, 16–17; also rhetorical comparison.

[3780]. E.g., Haenchen, Acts, 526 (not Paul “but the audience has failed” [thinking that one group, probably the Epicureans, mock while others politely request a deferment]); cf. Blaiklock, Acts, 142. Gray, “Athenian Curiosity,” compares the characterization of hearers in Acts 17:32 as “busybodies,” matching 17:21–22.

[3781]. See Witherington, Acts, 532; Fitzmyer, Acts, 612.

[3782]. The comparison with Socrates might include provoking interest for hearing more in the future (Sandnes, “Paul and Socrates”).

[3783]. Cf. Acts 2:12–13, employing a cognate of the same term as here (Johnson, Acts, 317). John employs the same technique (John 7:40–43; 9:16; 10:19).

[3784]. Hansen, “Preaching,” 311–13; Croy, “Philosophies and Preaching”; Le Cornu, Acts, 973; Blaiklock, Acts, 142; Green, “Acts,” 757. Cf. already Cadbury, Acts in History, 45–46 (where also the completion of a debate could be postponed; cf. Lucian Z. Rants 45, 51).

[3785]. Lucian Peregr. 13.

[3786]. Certainly, agreement to disagree on some points yet promising to meet again for further discussion is viewed as amicable in Tac. Dial. 42.

[3787]. Anyone who might know his Jewishness would expect him to be acceptable to the synagogue; but members of the Areopagus would not expect to hear him there, and so the marketplace must be in view.

[3788]. It is doubtful that Acts 17:33 intends irony (though cf. Mattioli, “Ironia di Paolo”). It need not even indicate Paul’s giving up on Athens (though he does necessarily move on to a more fruitful location in 18:1); his session ended, he could hardly do otherwise than leave.

[3789]. Some scholars view them as plausible inventions (cf. Gill, “Dionysios”); but while we cannot prove their existence at this remove, if Luke was simply inventing, why would he name two of them, in contrast to his not naming converts in many other places (e.g., the unnamed men and women in Acts 17:4)? The names are not symbolic, nor does Luke elaborate about them. We would not typically expect such inventiveness in most other historical monographs.

[3790]. Athenian culture understood loyalty to Rome, in what Romans called “Attic faith” (Vell. Paterc. 2.23.4), so genuine converts would have cultural understanding of loyal faith (cf. Luke’s “believed” in 17:34). On disciples as “adherents,” see the argument in Wilkins, Discipleship. Some view Luke’s Pauline converts here as plausible inventions (cf. Gill, “Dionysios”); but while we cannot prove their existence at this remove, if Luke were simply inventing, why would he name two of them, in contrast to the lack of naming of converts in many other places (e.g., the unnamed men and women in 17:4)? The names are not symbolic, nor does Luke elaborate on them. We would not expect this in most other historical monographs.

[3791]. Concurring with, e.g., Packer, Acts, 148–49; Losie, “Speech on Areopagus,” 232–33; Winter, “Athenians”; Gempf, “Before Paul Arrived,” 140 (noting the difference in situation in Corinth); Parsons, Acts, 249; against, e.g., Ramsay; Case, Origins, 127; Dupont, Salvation, 30; Neil, Thessalonians, 62; Franklin, Interpreter, 85–86. Ramsay, Traveler, 194–95 (idem, Traveller and Citizen, 252) cited 1 Cor 2 to indicate Paul’s disappointment, but Ramsay himself later concluded (Teaching, 111) that his earlier book had not allowed “sufficiently for adaptation to different classes of hearers,” that Luke would not likely have included this account “had he not considered it typical” in addressing such an audience, and that Paul probably continued to employ the method in the less common settings when he addressed audiences similar to the Areopagus.

[3792]. With Winter, “Athenians”; cf. Hamm, Acts, 84; Stonehouse, Areopagus, 32–33; Richardson, “Debate,” 159, 163. It is true, however, that Paul’s connections with Judaism were closer and his numerical successes greater in synagogues (cf. the careful study in Schnabel, “Paul in Athens”).

[3793]. As Stonehouse, Areopagus, 36, notes, Paul offers no indication that he previously preached differently. Skillful speakers also often pretended to demean their skills (e.g., Apul. Flor. 20.6; False Preface 4.108; Keener, Corinthians, 34), though some higher-status Corinthian believers were dissatisfied (2 Cor 10:10; 11:6).

[3794]. Dunn, Acts, 238; Witherington, Acts, 533.

[3795]. Dunn, Acts, 238; Pervo, Acts, 442.

[3796]. Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 87; Witherington, Acts, 533; Schnabel, Acts, 743. Paul seems to have forgotten others (1 Cor 1:14–16) and perhaps has reason to count only converts known in Corinth (if indeed Stephanas was originally from Corinth).

[3797]. Paul’s “firstfruits of Achaia” may refer to those in the specific area around Corinth, to whom he is writing (Garland, 1 Corinthians, 767; Schnabel, Acts, 743).

[3798]. From the names, Koester, Introduction, 2:109, infers the founding of a church there (though he regards the speech as Luke’s composition).

[3799]. Later another Dionysius, bishop of Corinth in 170 C.E., encourages the Athenian church and preserves an earlier tradition that Dionysius the Areopagite was the Athenian church’s first bishop (Euseb. H.E. 3.4.10–11; 4.23.3; Grant, Paul, 57; D. Williams, Acts, 309; Le Cornu, Acts, 974; cf. Bede Comm. Acts 17.34); but this is the sort of tradition that could also have developed from Acts 17:34. A church was named for him in Athens (Finegan, Apostles, 138); Aristides was a Christian apologist in Athens as early as 125 C.E. (140), and Athenagoras followed there later in the second century (142).

[3800]. Spawforth, “Achaia”; Olshausen, “Achaia,” 80; on Athens as a free city, see also Pliny E. N.H. 4.7.24. Sparta was another (Cartledge, Hodkinson, and Spawforth, “Sparta,” 1432; Olshausen, “Achaia,” 80). (Athens also lay outside the Peloponnesus [Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.15], but Roman Achaia was broader than this.) One might informally include Athens in the Roman province of Achaia (cf. Pliny Ep. 8.24.2–4), but we cannot insist on it here.

[3801]. See Keener, “Athens”; briefly, idem, “Corinthian Believers,” 49.

[3802]. This is evident, e.g., in privileges accorded to higher-status persons in court (later explicit in the laws, Callistr. Dig. 47.21.2; Paulus Sent. 5.23.14.19; Shelton, Romans, 9–11; Krause, “Honestiores,” 473). A minority culture also appreciates validation from voices in the dominant culture.

[3803]. A title for one of the judges in the Areopagus; see, e.g., Lucian Anach. 19; sources in BDAG. Such Areopagites were apparently well-to-do and of high status (e.g., Lucian Dial. C. 7 [Musarium and Her Mother ¶2], 296–97).

[3804]. Jeffers, World, 187; Barrett, Acts, 855; Johnson, Acts, 318 (citing Arist. Pol. 1273b–1274a). On decurions, see comment on Acts 13:50.

[3805]. Bonz, Past as Legacy, 167, thinks that Dionysius symbolizes a convert character type rather than an individual; but this assessment rests on her assignment of genre to epic, not on any specific historical evidence. Indeed, even epics often drew characters from tradition (though perhaps more so in Homer or Silius Italicus than Virgil).

[3806]. See Lintott, “Dionysius.” For one approach to these works, see Stang, “Dionysius.”

[3807]. He apparently uses even ἄνδρες inclusively in Acts 17:34 (Bock, Acts, 572; for this more general usage, see also BDAG).

[3808]. Hemer, Acts in History, 232.

[3809]. Witherington, Acts, 532–33. Contrast “gazelle” in Acts 9:36; but had Luke invented the name to correspond, the “Damalis” form would have made more sense. Cf. δάμαρ, “wife” (cf. esp. epic Greek).

[3810]. Women were also rarely rhetoricians and even more rarely (if ever) judges in the Greek world. Had she exceptionally belonged to this court, Luke surely would have capitalized on this mark of status.

[3811]. Haenchen, Acts, 518, citing Ps.-Demosthenes 25.23.

[3812]. Hemer, “Paul at Athens,” 349.

[3813]. See, e.g., Xen. Oec. 7.17–22, 30; Lysias Or. 3.6, §97; Plut. Bride 32, Mor. 142D; Gould, “Position in Athens,” 47, 50; Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 297; Grant, Social History, 5; Keener, “Head Coverings,” 443; see the nuanced position in Llewellyn-Jones, Tortoise, 190–98. Some sources may exaggerate, but seclusion was stricter at Athens (and in Persia) than in most other locations for which we have evidence (though it was probably more widespread, e.g., Hom. Od. 18.184; in early Rome, Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.21.2; 8.39.1; Hellenistic marriage contracts in Verner, Household, 38). Among other strict classical Athenian customs, e.g., changes of will under a woman’s influence were considered invalid (Isaeus Philoct. 29–30). Separation of male and female spheres still characterizes Mediterranean culture, though it is not inflexible and must be nuanced (see Pizzuto-Pomaco, “Shame,” 29–38, 41, 45; for Hellenistic antiquity, 72–74; for early Jewish cultures, 112–17; for ancient Roman culture, 173–80).

[3814]. See, e.g., Keener, “Marriage,” 688–89, and sources there.

[3815]. See Keener, Acts, 1:620–24, 629, 634, 637; idem, “Head Coverings,” 443.

[3816]. Ramsay, Traveller and Citizen, 252; followed too readily by Keener, Background Commentary, 374 (without committing to this background for Damaris). On the courtesans, see Henry, “Hetairai”; for examples, see Alciph. Court. frg. 5 (set in classical Athens); Lucret. Nat. 4.1268–77; for the dangers, see, e.g., Mus. Ruf. 12, p. 86.13; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.90; 70.1; frg. 7 (Stob. Flor. 4, 23.60 [Hense, 588]; 74.60 [Meineke]); Plut. Educ. 2, Mor. 1AB; Lucian Tox. 13; Diog. Laert. 6.2.61, 66 (though some philosophers demurred, 2.69, 74). An Attic courtesan (ἑταίρα) sometimes became famous (e.g., Lucian Fly 11; cf. Athen. Deipn. 13.596b); they could charge well (Lucian Dial. C. 14 [Dorio and Myrtale 1], 319; 7 [Musarium and Her Mother ¶1], 295–96) and have high-class lovers (Cock 19). Courtesans might also reject lovers whom they found repulsive (e.g., Alciph. Court. 17 [Leontium to Lamia], 2.2; Lucian Dial. C. 13 [Leontichus, Chenidas, and Hymnis], 315–19) or remiss in their payments (Lucian Dial. C. 12 [Joessa, Pythias, and Lysias ¶1], 310–11; Alciph. Court. 9 [Petalê to Simalion], 1.36; 15 [Philumena to Crito], 1.40; Aelian Farmers 9 [Chremes to Parmenon]; Philost. Letters 23 [45]), or they might sleep with the ugly, who pay more (Lucian Dial. C. 6 [Crobyle and Corinna ¶4], 295). Yet the profession was dishonorable (Alciph. Court. 2 [Glycera to Bacchis], 1.29, ¶3), and it was honorable to avoid them (Aul. Gel. 15.12.2, 3); it was not honorable to be born from them (Sen. E. Controv. 2.4.5; Lucian Z. Rants 52; Diog. Laert. 6.2.62), and the lovers’ wives might also take offense (Plut. Alc. 8.3–4).

[3817]. Bruce, Commentary, 364.

[3818]. E.g., Cic. Scaur. 5.8 (where he points one out to denounce her).

[3819]. Isaeus Pyrr. 13–14; Cic. Cael. 20.49; Plut. Alex. 38.1. This situation was changing in Rome by this period, but apparently not much in Greek culture (deSilva, Honor, 184, following Osiek and Balch, Families, 69).

[3820]. Winter, Wives, 37.

[3821]. Murray, “Convivium.”

[3822]. See Reimer, Women, 247 (for probable opposition to such a philosopher, Reimer cites Livy 34.2.8–12).

[3823]. See Harper, “Women in Philosophy”; Harich-Schwarzbauer, “Philosophers.” For three earlier women philosophers, see, e.g., Lucian Eunuch 7. Some ancients mistrusted women in philosophy, suspecting that male philosophers were using them sexually (Lucian Runaways 18).

[3824]. See Dorandi, “Epicurean School,” 1074; Smith, Symposium, 58.

[3825]. E.g., Iambl. V.P. 36.267. Pythagoras’s wife, Theano, was known for her wisdom (Diog. Laert. 8.1.43).

[3826]. E.g., Lucian Eunuch 7; Diog. Laert. 2.86; 4.1. Although Hipparchia was a woman Cynic, she is the only exception that we know for that sect (Diog. Laert. 6.7.96–98).

[3827]. Especially where relevant for virtue (Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 42.31–37; p. 48.1–26).

[3828]. In practice, we know of no women disciples of Musonius (Meeks, Moral World, 46), but our state of knowledge is incomplete. Musonius’s doubt that women could use technical knowledge might represent a concession to more chauvinistic criticism or an observation about opportunities available in the culture. See fuller discussion on women in philosophy in Keener, Acts, 1:630–32, 635.

[3829]. Unless, of course, she had been an Epicurean, a connection that would not have helped Luke’s case. But if she was an Epicurean, conversion through the message attributed to Paul in this chapter would seem a special act of grace!

[3830]. For an example of a nonphilosopher woman with an aptitude for philosophy, see, e.g., Porph. Marc. 3.37.

[3831]. Witherington, Acts, 532n262, following Winter, “Introducing Gods.”

[3832]. The Eridanus flows through Athens, and the Ilissus, to the city’s south (Finegan, Apostles, 126).

[3833]. Athenian Agora, 74–75.

[3834]. Ibid., 80.

[3835]. This reduction in external threats allowed Paul to settle, but it also reduced the necessary social cohesion of the group and allowed more persons of status to join. It allowed the conditions, in other words, for the status conflicts found in the Corinthian correspondence (Walters, “Civic Identity,” 416–17; rightly following Barclay, “Thessalonica and Corinth”).

[3836]. See Padilla, Speeches, 146, conceding the possible stitching (for which he cites Conzelmann, Acts, 151; Krodel, Acts, 341), but emphasizing the united product (with reference to Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 2:247–48; Haenchen, Acts, 538–41).

[3837]. Doughty, “Fictional History in Acts 18.”

[3838]. For one fuller reconstruction of Paul’s relationship with the Corinthians, based especially on the extant Corinthian correspondence, see Keener, “Corinthian Believers.”

[3839]. Conzelmann, Acts, 151; Lührmann, “Beginnings,” 241.

[3840]. E.g., on reconfiguring Roman and Jewish identity here, cf. Penner and Vander Stichele, “Point de Vue,” 202–3.

[3841]. Anonymity to protect from persecution is unlikely; massive Corinth, as opposed to Macedonia’s cities, seems to have ignored the new cult far more than it persecuted it.

[3842]. See, e.g., Dollar, “Theology of Healing,” 12. Luke may know more than he reports, but if Paul’s letters are part of his knowledge base, they represent only one part among many.

[3843]. Cf. Johnson, Acts, 325 (who suggests Luke’s possible dependence on Aquila and Priscilla here); Witherington, Acts, 537.

[3844]. Esp. Witherington, Acts, 537. I have added several to his list (including some from Goulder, Competing Mission, 223) as well as omitted his weaker connection of fear in both (Acts 18:9; 1 Cor 2:3; a connection also in Dunn, Acts, 243–44; cf. Keener, “Corinthian Believers,” 47).

[3845]. Cf. Grant, Paul, 10.

[3846]. For idolatry and Gentiles, see, e.g., 1QpHab IV, 9–14; Wis 13:1–3; Sib. Or. 3.29–32; Test. Naph. 3:3; Rom 1:21–25; for homosexual intercourse, see, e.g., Sib. Or. 3.185–86, 596–600, 764; 4.34 (possibly); 5.166, 387, 430; Sipra A.M. par. 8.193.1.7; Rom 1:26–27; cf. m. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:1; the reported lack of this offense among Israelites in y. Qidd. 4:11, §6.

[3847]. One might contrast 1 and 2 Thessalonians, which lack explicit Scripture quotations. Extensive Jewish apocalyptic imagery there (and texts such as 1 Thess 4:5) make Jewish elements probable there as well, but these elements may reflect especially his teaching among them (1 Thess 1:9–10; 2 Thess 2:5; cf. 1 Thess 2:11–12; 4:1–2) and do not appeal to Scripture formulas. That the Corinthian correspondence (especially 2 Corinthians) is more restrained in apocalyptic imagery may fit a more fully hellenized Judaism (Philo, for example, lacks such imagery), the language of which Paul increasingly learned how to adapt.

[3848]. Explaining Paul’s special “loving affection” for them (so Ambrosiaster Comm. proem [Vogels, 3–4; Bray, Corinthians, 1]).

[3849]. As a professor (and former student), I can say confidently that, at least in the modern United States, even a four-year Bible college or three-year seminary with hours of classes and assigned readings each week does not, on its own, guarantee biblical literacy unless students have background or continue to study Scripture.

[3850]. For more detail on Corinth, see, e.g., Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, passim; idem, “Corinth”; Engels, Roman Corinth; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 45–67; Schnabel, Mission, 1181–86; Perkins, Corinthians, 5–15; briefly Eckey, Apostelgeschichte, 411–12; Ciampa and Rosner, Letter, 2–3; for one survey, see McGraw, “Corinth”; for one survey of archaeological data, see Dunken, “Connection”; for a critique of neglect (and misuse) of archaeological data, see Oster, “Misuse.” Three kilometers from the Gulf of Corinth, Corinth lay on two terraces (60 and 90 m. above sea level), below the Acrocorinth (Sanders, “Urban Corinth,” 11).

[3851]. For the function of this motif, see comment on Acts 14:8–10 (but also Paul’s own theological perspective in 1 Cor 4:11). At least in Thessalonica, Paul probably stayed longer than Luke emphasizes.

[3852]. Paul also leaves Ephesus after opposition comes to a head there (Acts 19:41–20:1). Luke basically presents Paul simply staying ahead of the opposition, with fierce opposition following every step of his ministry.

[3853]. Others have also noted the progress in Acts from itinerant to settled ministry (e.g., Legrand, “Apostle to Pastor”).

[3854]. Towner, “Practice,” 417–36.

[3855]. See further documentation in Furnish, II Corinthians, 9. Most fully on Corinth, see Paus. 2 (the subject of which is Corinth). On Achaia, see briefly Spawforth, “Achaia”; Olshausen, “Achaia”; Pattengale, “Achaia”; Pliny E. N.H. 4.5.12–13. Nero granted all Achaia free status (N.H. 4.5.22). For Corinth as strategic, see Patella, “Headquarters.”

[3856]. On Diogenes in Corinth, see also, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 4.12; 9.4; he divided his years between Athens and Corinth (Dio Chrys. Or. 6.1) until finally moving to Corinth (Or. 8.4–5). For other philosophers in Corinth, see Lucian Dial. D. 329, 332 (1/1, Diogenes 1–2); Book-Coll. 19; patristic commentators believed that pagan philosophies affected the church there (Ambrosiaster Comm. proem [Vogels, 3–4; Bray, Corinthians, 1]; Theodoret Comm. 1 Cor. 163–64 [PG 82:226–27; Bray, Corinthians, 3]; Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. proem [NPNF 1.12.1–2; Bray, Corinthians, 2]).

[3857]. Pliny E. N.H. 35.5.15–16.

[3858]. Various writers celebrate it (Virg. Aen. 6.836–37; Vell. Paterc. 1.13.1–2). Sib. Or. 3.487–88 may speak of this destruction (though 5.214–16 predicts a future destruction), and the memory of the event remained fresh even past Paul’s time (Suet. Galba 3.4, assuming knowledge of it). Grant, Paul, 18, notes Mummius’s claim (ILS 20; Cic. Fam. 4.5.4; Resp. 2.7) but also notes evidence of habitation that calls into question the destruction’s extent. (See fuller discussion below.)

[3859]. Cf. Strabo 8.4.8; 8.6.23 (regarding it as deserted from 146 to 44 B.C.E.); and other sources. Although the general did repair some nearby temples (Polyb. 39.6.1), Rome mostly ignored and destroyed Corinth’s ancient artistic masterpieces (39.2.1–2; cf. 39.3.3). The ruins of old Corinth lay north of the Acrocorinth; on this height, see Strabo 8.6.21.

[3860]. Bruce, Acts¹, 342; Reicke, Era, 232; Fitzmyer, Acts, 624. This observation would limit the value of Ps.-Aristotle’s generalization (Physiognomics 808a, 30–33, noted in Malina and Pilch, Acts, 8) that Corinthians had small faces.

[3861]. McRay, Archaeology, 335.

[3862]. Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 8, note the estimate in Walbank, “Foundation,” 107, of twenty thousand to fifty thousand for Roman Corinth.

[3863]. Following Wiseman, many think that new Corinth held more people than old Corinth, with estimates of 12,000–145,000 (Horsley, Documents, 3:60, §20). McRay, “Corinth,” 228, cites estimates ranging from 150,000 to 300,000; Witherington, Corinthians, 18, offers the lower estimate of seventy thousand to eighty thousand for Paul’s time, close to Winter’s eighty thousand (Left Corinth, 294); see comment below.

[3864]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 157.

[3865]. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 36 (citing also, on the theater, Paus. 2.4.5); McRay, Archaeology, 331.

[3866]. For one-tenth as a common estimate for theater size in proportion to population, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 342, 344.

[3867]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 79–84 (esp. 84), estimates 80,000 for the city proper and 20,000 more for the outlying area (estimating a population density comparable to that of Pompeii); cf. also Winter, Left Corinth, 220; Welborn, “Correspondence,” 207. We might guess that the poorer areas of Corinth would have had a higher population density than Pompeii, but the excavations have not thus far confirmed this suspicion.

[3868]. Fee, Corinthians, 2n5. One summary of centers of the empire lists Athens, Corinth, and Rome (Epict. Diatr. 3.22.84).

[3869]. See Jos. War 3.29; comment on Acts 11:19–20.

[3870]. E.g., Theissen, Setting, 100–101 (noting especially the first half of the first century); Blomberg, Poverty, 184–85; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 11; Robertson and Plummer, First Corinthians, xi–xii; Bruce, Corinthians, 18.

[3871]. Engels, Roman Corinth, passim, esp. 27–33, 131–42. On its mercantile prosperity (in old Corinth), see further Casson, Mariners, 71–75; Tarn, Civilisation, 100. For trade, see, e.g., Thiselton, Corinthians, 6–12; Koester, Introduction, 1:86; for manufacturing, see Witherington, Corinthians, 9–11. Its original colonists had engaged in commerce in Rome, and some had looted the tombs of earlier Greek residents to gain more wealth (Engels, Roman Corinth, 90, citing Strabo 8.6.23).

[3872]. Its strategic location on the isthmus was well known (e.g., Cic. Agr. 2.32.87; Sen. Y. Med. 35–36). The isthmus was famous (Apul. Metam. 1.1), and this was the best-known isthmus in Greek and Roman texts (Lienau and Olshausen, “Isthmus”); this location involved Corinth in trade from the first (Thucyd. 1.13.5).

[3873]. With Blaiklock, Cities, 57. On Poseidon, see Bremmer, “Poseidon,” and discussion of Corinth’s religion, below. For stories concerning sailors there, see, e.g., Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.2–3; Fronto (Naber, 237; LCL, 1:57); for ships there, e.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.10.

[3874]. Thucyd. 1.13.2.

[3875]. For Corinth’s connections with the rest of the empire, see, e.g., from a later period, Kent, Inscriptions, nos. 303 (pp. 118–19), 370 (p. 143).

[3876]. Catalogued in Pliny E. N.H. 4.4.10.

[3877]. Suet. Nero 19.2; Lucian Nero 1 and passim; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.24; Sib. Or. 5.32, 217–18; 8.155 (possibly 11.180, but this may refer to Xerxes’s canal). For failed canal attempts, see also Tac. Ann. 15.42 (also Nero); Philost. Vit. soph. 2.1.551–52; Engels, Roman Corinth, 59–60; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 52–53; Grant, Paul, 16–18; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 137; for other, more successful, canals, see Badian and Potter, “Canals”; Tac. Ann. 11.20 (cf. 12.56–57).

[3878]. Salmon, “Diolkos”; Lohmann, “Diolkos”; Sanders, “Urban Corinth,” 13; Engels, Roman Corinth, 58–59; Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 2; McRay, Archaeology, 313–15; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 55–56; Thiselton, Corinthians, 1; Ciampa and Rosner, Letter, 2.

[3879]. Sanders, “Urban Corinth,” 13.

[3880]. E.g., Pindar Ol. 13.4. Cf. Strabo 8.6.19, quoting Hom. Il. 2.569ff.

[3881]. Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.36.

[3882]. E.g., Gr. Anth. 6.40 (cf. a wealthy man in 7.619); a Corinthian suburb in Mart. Epig. 5.35.3. Cf. a rich man from Corinth as early as Hom. Il. 13.663–64.

[3883]. Chrys. 1 Hom. Cor. proem (NPNF 1.12.1–2) (Bray, Corinthians, 2).

[3884]. See Engels, Roman Corinth, 33–39.

[3885]. Corinth had to devote more public space to servicing those passing through town than did most other cities (ibid., 61–62). For the service sector of Corinth’s economy, see 43–65; for “services provided to merchants, travelers, and tourists,” see 50–52. Others suggest, however, that Engels’s emphasis on service rather than consumer culture in Corinth remains “controversial” (Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 5); at this remove, determining precise proportions devoted to particular sectors of the economy is difficult at best. For its competitiveness in business, see Horsley, Corinthians, 31 (citing Apul. Metam. 10.19.25); wealth apparently surpassed aristocratic birth as a status marker there (Horsley, Corinthians, 26; Witherington, Corinthians, 24).

[3886]. See Jones, Chrysostom, 27.

[3887]. Harland, Associations, 89–112.

[3888]. See, e.g., Horsley, Corinthians, 27.

[3889]. See Mattusch, “Corinthian Bronze.”

[3890]. McRay, Archaeology, 326.

[3891]. Pliny E. N.H. 34.1.1.

[3892]. Pliny E. N.H. 34.3.6; Plut. Or. Delphi 2, Mor. 395BC. Before this, Delian bronze was the most famous (Pliny E. N.H. 34.4.9), then Aeginetan (34.5.10).

[3893]. Pliny E. N.H. 34.3.8. The mixture of gold and silver made them particularly attractive (37.12.49).

[3894]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 36–37. Certainly, not all supposed Corinthian bronzes were authentic (Pliny E. N.H. 34.3.7); it was widely known that “Corinthian” lampstands were not genuinely made from the compound (34.6.12).

[3895]. Jacobson and Weitzman, “Bronze.” This aspect need not have troubled ancients, just as today we do not expect all Swiss cheese to come from Switzerland, French fries from France, German shepherds from Germany, etc. On Corinthian bronze, see further comment at Acts 3:2, on the Beautiful Gate.

[3896]. Jeffers, World, 60, on Rome.

[3897]. See esp. Alciph. Paras. 24 (Chascobuces to Hypnotrapezus), 3.60, ¶1; cf., e.g., Thiselton, Corinthians, 183. Meggitt, Poverty, might overstate the case, but he helpfully provides the relevant data. The original colonists were poor (Grant, Paul, 15), nearly a century earlier.

[3898]. Jongkind, “Another Class.”

[3899]. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 119–20 (citing Alciph. Paras. 3.60, also noted above).

[3900]. Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 141, 183; Carcopino, Life, 27–28; cf. Stambaugh, City, 90.

[3901]. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 119–20; Blue, “House Church,” 153–54. The Craneum existed in old Corinth as well (Xen. Hell. 4.4.4), where it was a leisurely suburb (Plut. Alex. 14.2). Apparently, philosophers also spoke at the Craneum; see Lucian Dial. D. 329 (1/1, Diogenes 1).

[3902]. Cicero moved his residence to the Palatine to allow readier access for more people (Plut. Cic. 8.3–4).

[3903]. Theissen, Setting, 69–96.

[3904]. Ibid., 99; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 75. The social level may have risen by the time of 1 Clement, or the author may simply focus on the elite (cf. Chow, “World”).

[3905]. Dio Chrys. Or. 31.121; cf. Jones, Chrysostom, 32.

[3906]. E.g., Plato Laws 3.677B; Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 84.10–11; Lucian Nigr. 16; Philo Good Person 76. See discussion of urban versus rural life in the commentary introduction (Keener, Acts, 1:589–96, esp. 595–96).

[3907]. Cic. Resp. 2.7–8 (Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 48; Grant, Paul, 14).

[3908]. Some ancient writers connect the two (Grant, Paul, 14–15, citing Cic. Resp. 2.7–8; Polyb. 38.19–22; 39.2). For the old city’s immoral reputation, see, e.g., Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 56–57; Grant, Paul, 20. Some of these reports may have circulated as propaganda from Corinth’s rival, Athens (Conzelmann, Corinthians, 12).

[3909]. Pindar Encomia frg. 122.

[3910]. Aristoph. Lys. 91. This is often noted (e.g., Fee, Corinthians, 2). Classical Greek employed the verb Κορινθιάζω for sexual immorality (Bruce, Commentary, 367n4).

[3911]. See Strabo 8.6.20; 12.3.36; in Aul. Gel. 1.8.4, it is applied specifically to the wealthy courtesan Lais. Commentators often cite this saying (e.g., Haenchen, Acts, 533).

[3912]. Dio Chrys. Or. 8.5.

[3913]. Often noted (e.g., Engels, Roman Corinth, 98; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 222; Robertson and Plummer, First Corinthians, xii–xiii), although many question its accuracy (e.g., Conzelmann, Corinthians, 12; Fee, Corinthians, 3, following Conzelmann, “Mädchen”); it may have originated as Athenian propaganda. Some wrongly associate it with new Corinth (Bruce, Corinthians, 18–19). The sense in Hor. Ep. 1.17.36, however, involves cutthroat business competition (Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 57).

[3914]. Pembroke, “Prostitution.” Excavations do not allow such large numbers servicing the actual site of the Aphrodite temple (Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 55–56). Saffrey, “Aphrodite à Corinthe,” is skeptical even that they were dedicated to Aphrodite.

[3915]. Some commentators thus understandably doubt their applicability to new Corinth (Stendahl, Paul, 57; Fee, Corinthians, 3), though some suggest that we also lack evidence of improvement (Barrett, 2 Corinthians, 2).

[3916]. Lucian Affairs 51 (for heterosexual love).

[3917]. Mart. Epig. 10.70.11–12 (with the preceding context).

[3918]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 93–95, 97; for her continuing prominence, see, e.g., Paus. 2.4.6; 2.5.1; Alciph. Paras. 24 (Chascobuces to Hypnotrapezus), 3.60, ¶3. The apparent punning association with Aphrodite in Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.34 could simply refer to luck. By themselves, associations with Aphrodite would not have maligned the city’s morality (Engels, Roman Corinth, 99), yet outsiders, at least, did connect Corinth’s prostitutes with Aphrodite (Athen. Deipn. 13.573CD), who was naturally their patron deity. Greek intellectuals often allegorized Aphrodite’s unsavory roles (e.g., Heracl. Hom. Prob. 28.4–5).

[3919]. Barrett, 2 Corinthians, 2; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 56; Koester, Introduction, 2:109.

[3920]. Cf. Rom 5:20 if Paul might have extended the principle; 1 Tim 1:15–16.

[3921]. Some Latin was in use even in Palestine (Porter, “Latin Language”), but basic reading comprehension of a language is far below the fluency required to orate or debate in it. Roman citizens in the provinces might learn Latin for prestige, but it was not required (see Adams, “Romanitas”). Josephus’s Greek may have acquired increasing Latin influence over time (Ward, “Latinisms”) if this appearance is not due to his editors. Some (circumstantial) evidence suggests that Paul had acquired some Latin, but this allows, rather than requires, that assumption (see Porter, “Speak Latin”).

[3922]. Cf. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 186; Jewett, Romans, 76–77, 79. Ramsay long ago suggested (Pictures, 276) that Paul was “confident that he could address the audiences of the cities there in Latin”; if not, he must have planned to acquire some proficiency or some bilingual translators in Rome (if Latin-speakers would listen to translation). The Jewish presence was, apparently, negligible (Bowers, “Communities”); appeal to local languages (cf. Jewett, Romans, 79) would probably not be feasible at the mission’s beginning. On Spain and its official Roman administration in this period (though most people were unaffected by it), see Pliny E. N.H. 3.1.6–3.3.30; 4.22.117–18. The account in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.47 could be based on Paul.

[3923]. For the estimate, see, e.g., Witherington, Acts, 639; cf. also Riesner, Early Period, 316 (“about one week”).

[3924]. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 47–48.

[3925]. Winter, “Imperial Cult: Corinthian Church.”

[3926]. Winter, Left Corinth, 269, 274. Its emphasis on the emperor’s birthday might make starker the polemical elements of Luke 2:10–14 for any of Luke’s audience in Corinth.

[3927]. Horsley, Corinthians, 27.

[3928]. Although scholars may debate degrees of cultural influence, Corinthian culture was clearly mixed. In postcolonial terms, romanization was “hybridization” (see Stanley, “Hybrid,” 112).

[3929]. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 186, 189.

[3930]. Winter, Left Corinth, 11, citing Charles Williams II, former director of Corinth’s excavations (though Winter recognizes [16n61, citing Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 3] that much may have been rebuilt after the earthquake of 77 C.E.). From 44 B.C.E., its design was Roman (Walbank, “Foundation”). Even before much of the archaeological work was available, Friedländer, Life, 1:342, admitted that Roman Corinth was at least half Roman.

[3931]. Gill, “Roman Colony in Achaea.” For thorough imitation of Rome’s architecture, see Winter, Left Corinth, 8–11, and sources he cites (esp. Engels, Roman Corinth, esp. 59; Williams, “Refounding”); for coins and inscriptions in Latin, see Winter, Left Corinth, 11–15 (though conceding that ostraca have been found in Greek); Ridgeway, “Sculpture.”

[3932]. Kent, Inscriptions, 19.

[3933]. E.g., in MAMA, where Latin texts appear in Asia, e.g., in MAMA 4.70, 236; elsewhere in Asia Minor, MAMA 5.197, 202; in eastern Phrygia, MAMA 7.8, 9, 14a, 14b, 134, 193, 305, 319, 320 (where Phrygian and especially Greek texts far outnumber them). The contrast with Egypt is even clearer (Lewis, Life, 61).

[3934]. Grant, Paul, 19. For Roman land planning in Corinth (especially just after Paul’s time), see Romano, “City Planning,” esp. 299.

[3935]. Witherington, Corinthians, 50–51 (following Hayes, “Roman Pottery”).

[3936]. Walbank, “Aspects of Coinage,” 348.

[3937]. Robinson, “Fountains,” 139. This observation would be true, however, only of elites, not of the Greeks in the surrounding countryside; as abundant allusions to the Greek past in Greek literature demonstrate, Greeks had long cultural memories. Refounding cities with new charters and settlers had long given them a new character (e.g., Yamauchi, Persia, 101–2).

[3938]. Winter, Left Corinth, 15–19; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 3.

[3939]. All the Greek references in this table derive from Meritt, Inscriptions; the Latin ones are in West, Inscriptions.

[3940]. Kent, Inscriptions, 18–19: no Greek inscriptions from the reigns of Caligula or Claudius and one from Nero; twenty-seven Latin inscriptions from Caligula and Claudius and eleven from Nero.

[3941]. Some cognomens in Latin inscriptions remain Greek names (such as Theophilus, Alexiades, and Eurycles), but more are in Latin (cf. West, Inscriptions, index, 151–53).

[3942]. Thiselton, Corinthians, 3–5. Similar situations appear in some societies today where public activity is conducted in prestige (often former colonial) languages rather than indigenous ones.

[3943]. E.g., Willis, “Corinthusne?”; Walters, “Civic Identity,” 409; Grant, Paul, 18; McRay, “Corinth,” 230; Paige, “Matrix,” 225; Furnish, II Corinthians, 10.

[3944]. Winter, Left Corinth, 24–25; cf. Schnabel, Brief, 16.

[3945]. Grant, Paul, 19; cf. Koester, Paul and World, 38 (“much later” and irrelevant for Paul’s time).

[3946]. Early tensions between Roman Corinth and Greek towns of Achaia were gradually resolved (Walters, “Civic Identity,” 406–8). Still, even later some other Greeks felt that romanized Corinth had abandoned its heritage (Winter, Left Corinth, 4–5, citing Ps.-Julian On Behalf of the Argives [Let. 198] 407, 409D).

[3947]. As late as the second and third centuries C.E., Roman Jews were mostly Greek-speaking, with some Latin (see Leon, Jews of Rome, 75–92 [esp. 75], 256; Noy, “Writing”; Stambaugh, City, 95; Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 105). Among Roman Jewish inscriptions, see CIJ 1:6–143 for those in Greek; 1:143–97 for those in Latin; and 1:228–32 for Aramaic or Hebrew.

[3948]. Bookidis, “Religion,” 152; Millis, “Origins,” 23–29; Concannon, “Archaeology,” 78–79.

[3949]. Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 7.

[3950]. Walters, “Civic Identity,” 404–5, noting also that Greeks continued to view themselves as Greek (following Woolf, “Becoming Roman,” 128).

[3951]. Walters, “Civic Identity,” 403.

[3952]. Robinson, “Fountains,” 116; Walters, “Civic Identity,” 404.

[3953]. Willis, “Corinthusne?”; Grant, Paul, 18; Oster, Corinthians, 16; cf. Engels, Roman Corinth, 70, 95. After the revival of Greek influence, Pausanias believed that all Corinthians descended from colonists, not the residents of old Corinth (Paus. 2.1.2), but Pausanias may have been interested in (or known about) only the elite.

[3954]. Following here Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 3.

[3955]. Harrison, Grace, 23.

[3956]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 95–96.

[3957]. See Gebhard, “Rites,” esp. 203, emphasizing that elements of continuity exceed earlier expectations.

[3958]. Bookidis, “Religion,” 159. Roman cults were centered in the forum, but Greek cults adopted by the Romans were retained; also some earlier Greek cultic sites were preserved as monuments, though not in use because not relevant (163).

[3959]. Merker, Sanctuary, 311; cf. Furnish, II Corinthians, 6. Even Roman knowledge to dedicate the temple specifically to Demeter and Kore suggests some continuity (Engels, Roman Corinth, 95).

[3960]. Williams, “Roman Corinth,” 243.

[3961]. See Romano, “Planning,” 59. For the forum in the early Roman period, see Sanders, “Urban Corinth,” 22–23.

[3962]. E.g., Bookidis, “Religion,” 141, 164.

[3963]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 70; Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 7; Witherington, Corinthians, 7. Even in most Roman colonies, most of the residents were not Roman citizens (Jeffers, World, 255).

[3964]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 70–71.

[3965]. Ibid., 71–73 (though noting that the major influx came in the second century).

[3966]. Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.26.

[3967]. Horsley, Corinthians, 25; cf. Litfin, Theology, 141.

[3968]. Walters, “Civic Identity,” 397.

[3969]. Ibid., 408. Although the initial civic identity was Roman, it was rapidly shifting in the first century (410).

[3970]. Cf. Thiselton, Corinthians, 783.

[3971]. Walters, “Civic Identity,” 409 (against B. Winter). Walters argues (403–10) that a choice between Greek and Roman is not necessary.

[3972]. Walters, ibid., 403, argues for “a sizeable Greek population” all along.

[3973]. Kent, Inscriptions, 18.

[3974]. Some names there are also not Roman, e.g., Phoebe (Rom 16:1), Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16; 16:15, 17), and Sosthenes (if he was a local believer; cf. 1 Cor 1:1; Acts 18:17).

[3975]. Writing to Corinth (1 Clem. 1.1). That Greek was the language of philosophy even in Rome (Christes, “School,” 81) probably would not affect Clement.

[3976]. Grant, Paul, 19. Of course, the Greek element dominated throughout second-century Corinth. Cf. also Mart. Pol. 22.2.

[3977]. Plutarch complained that despite living for a time in Rome and Italy, he had never had opportunity to become fluent in Latin, given his other work (especially philosophy students; Plut. Demosth. 2.2).

[3978]. Stern, “Diaspora,” 159. On the Jewish community there, see esp. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 162–66; Furnish, II Corinthians, 20–22; Gill, “Achaia,” 450.

[3979]. For archaeological data, see esp. Sanders, “Evidence”; on the fourth and fifth centuries, see Limberis, “Ambiguities.” Within the first century, in addition to Paul’s Corinthian correspondence, we have 1 Clement.

[3980]. See, e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 4.7.24 (55 mi. between Athens and the isthmus; Corinth lay on the south side of the isthmus). Luke’s μετὰ ταῦτα, “after these things” (cf. Luke 5:27; Acts 13:20; 15:16), is a common chronological transition marker both in the LXX (e.g., Gen 15:14; 23:19; 41:30; Num 8:22; 12:16; 2 Sam 3:28; 8:1; 10:1; 13:1; 15:1; 21:18; Esth 1:4; 3:1; 1 Esd 1:14; 5:1, 51; Tob 10:14; 11:1; 1 Macc 1:5; 11:54; 13:20; 14:24) and elsewhere (Let. Aris. 179; Xen. Anab. 6.4.12; Philo Mos. 2.268; Spec. Laws 1.199; Jos. Ant. 5.132, 210; 6.85, 310; 7.368; 8.307 [and often]; John 5:1; Rev 4:1; cf. 1 En. 89:30; Jub. 14:1; 2 Bar. 4:4; 7:1; 13:1; 22:1; 31:1; 39:5; 53:8; 67:5; 68:2, 7; Jos. Life 427).

[3981]. See esp. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 9–10, 56.

[3982]. McRay, “Athens,” 139, calls first-century Athens “a provincial backwater, a small university town” of roughly twenty-five thousand. Corinth hosted many rhetors (Kent, Inscriptions, nos. 226, 264, 268, 269, 307) and philosophers (nos. 124, 268).

[3983]. E.g., Lucian Dem. 57 (the Athenians desiring to hold a gladiatorial show to compete with Corinth); Lucian Affairs 51 says that Corinth (associated with heterosexual love) must yield to Athens (associated with philosophy and the “higher” homosexual love).

[3984]. Grant, Paul, 13–14; Engels, Roman Corinth, 113.

[3985]. Grant, Paul, 14; cf. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 76–77.

[3986]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 35 (by the fifth century, Attica supplied about 75 percent of Corinth’s lamps).

[3987]. Finegan, Apostles, 142–44.

[3988]. McRay, Archaeology, 320.

[3989]. E.g., a speaker praising a city could include favorable myths about it; Dion. Hal. Epid. 1.257.

[3990]. See Walbank, “Aspects of Coinage,” passim.

[3991]. West, “Introduction,” 28.

[3992]. Schachter, “Corinthian Cults.” Cf. Theseus’s exploits on the isthmus in Paus. 2.1.3 (in Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 7–9); veneration of a wooden statue of Dionysus made from the pine tree where Pentheus perished (Paus. 2.2.7; Otto, Dionysus, 157).

[3993]. So Arist. Poet. 14.12, 1453b.

[3994]. E.g., Pindar Ol. 13.53; Ovid Metam. 7.391–97; Epict. Diatr. 2.17.19, 22. In addition to condemning Jason’s ingratitude, part of the story’s moral may also have been that even if consorting with a sorceress yields short-term profit, it is dangerous in the long term. Medea’s act is one of the most commonly recited in antiquity (cf., e.g., Apollod. Bib. 1.9.28; Hor. Epodes 3.9–14; Virg. Ecl. 8.47–50; Cic. Tusc. 4.32.69; Plut. Poetry 3, Mor. 18A; Dio Chrys. Or. 66.16; Epict. Diatr. 4.13.14–15; Lucian Hall 31; Philost. Letters 21 [38]; Char. Chaer. 2.9.3; Gr. Anth. 7.354; Gessert, “Myth”).

[3995]. Paus. 2.3.6–2.4.5, esp. 2.3.6–7.

[3996]. See Bookidis, “Religion,” 146; cf. Kovacs, “Introduction to Medea,” 286; Broneer, “Corinth,” 84. Medea supposedly established the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth (Plut. Mal. Hdt. 39, Mor. 871B).

[3997]. Lucian Dance 42; Apology for “Salaried Posts in Great Houses.” Artwork depicting Bellerophon and Pegasus was therefore common in the city (Engels, Roman Corinth, 99).

[3998]. Paus. 2.1.1 (Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 4–5).

[3999]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 13. For Corinthian cults see also Schnabel, Brief, 19–21.

[4000]. Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 6, noting the association of both deities with the sea. Despite Aphrodite’s connection with sea foam, however (see comment at Acts 13:6), Corinth may have venerated her for other reasons.

[4001]. Koester, “Melikertes,” 355–66. The cult was originally Greek (Gebhard, “Rites,” 203); Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 6, list Melikertes alongside Bellerophon as a distinctively Corinthian cult.

[4002]. See Stroud, Demeter.

[4003]. Bookidis, “Sanctuaries of Corinth,” 255, 257.

[4004]. Ibid., 257.

[4005]. Ibid.

[4006]. Winter, “Imperial Cult,” 94–95.

[4007]. See West, Inscriptions, no. 68, line 9 (pp. 50–51).

[4008]. Kent, Inscriptions, nos. 51, 52, 53 (p. 32).

[4009]. E.g., ibid., no. 81 (p. 42).

[4010]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 101. Poseidon has three; four are to various personifications; and most others (such as Serapis and Isis) have just one each (102).

[4011]. Paus. 2.4.6–7; Bookidis, “Sanctuaries of Corinth,” 257; cf. Engels, Roman Corinth, 103–6; Tinh, “Sarapis and Isis,” 102; Koester, Introduction, 2:109. For early epigraphic attestation, see Kent, Inscriptions, no. 57 (inv. 2414) (p. 57). On the development of Serapis worship, see sources in Gordon, “Sarapis”; Lefebvre, “Diffusion”; generally, Koester, Introduction, 1:183–91. Late fourth-century C.E. panels in the Isis temple at Cenchreae contain “many Egyptian and Nilotic motifs” (Engels, Roman Corinth, 105). Asian and Egyptian elements in Corinth’s religious mix are noted as early as Robertson and Plummer, First Corinthians, xiii; Moffatt, First Corinthians, xvii, though some think the findings unimpressive when compared with other port cities (Conzelmann, Corinthians, 12; cf. Broneer, “Corinth,” 88, who suggests that Corinth, with its many foreigners, may have been “peculiarly receptive”). See also comment at Acts 18:18.

[4012]. Nock, Conversion, 48. We know of Egyptians buried at Corinth (Lucian True Story 2.22) and of administrators of Egypt who moved to Corinth (Kent, Inscriptions, nos. 136 [p. 64], 138 [pp. 64–65]).

[4013]. Bookidis, “Sanctuaries of Corinth,” 257–58.

[4014]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 113.

[4015]. It may have also prevented Paul’s further journey westward at this time (Haacker, Theology, 17); though I believe that the edict would not expel Roman citizens, it might shrink his normal pool of synagogue hearers, and it would have made Jewish messianists like Paul feel far less welcome.

[4016]. He even composed twenty volumes of Etruscan history and eight of Carthaginian in Greek (Suet. Claud. 42). For discussion of Claudius, see, e.g., Benko, “Early Empire,” 53–56.

[4017]. In an aristocratic culture obsessed with rhetoric, however, portrayals of Claudius’s speech deficiencies would create political problems (Osgood, “Vox”). He could be viewed as intellectually weak despite his interest in the humanities (Tac. Ann. 6.46).

[4018]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.27, 29, 32.

[4019]. Riesner, Early Period, 90–97.

[4020]. The consul himself smashed the doors of the Isis temple with an axe (Val. Max. 1.3.4). Wardle, Valerius Maximus, 149–50, thinks these reported events of 139 B.C.E. likely historical; cf. also Rajak, “Jews,” 798.

[4021]. Dio Chrys. Or. 32.8; Dio Cass. 65.13 (Winter, Philo and Paul, 43–44).

[4022]. See also discussion in Wiefel, “Community in Rome,” 88–89; Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 75–78; for bibliography, see Feldman in Josephus, LCL, 9:422. Rochette, “Tibère,” argues that it fits Tiberius’s early reign without suggesting personal anti-Judaism. Suetonius says that astrologers who agreed to abandon their profession were pardoned but military-age Jews were “assigned to provinces of unhealthy climate, ostensibly to serve in the army,” while other Jews and those like them were banished (Tib. 36 [LCL, 1:345]).

[4023]. Contrast Tac. Ann. 2.85, where those so deported to battle Sardinian brigands were freedmen “infected” with Jewish and Egyptian superstition. For an “exile” to Sardinia (albeit, in this case, not at all severe), see 14.62.

[4024]. Jos. Ant. 18.81–83. Some are highly skeptical (perhaps overly so) of Josephus’s version (Moehring, “Persecution in A.D. 19”), but allowing that Josephus depicts one genuine incident, the severity of Tiberius’s response suggests that it belonged to a larger pattern (Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 299).

[4025]. See Williams, “Expulsion in A.D. 19.” Many Roman Jews, like others in Rome, were poor; Roman sources portray many as beggars and peddlers (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 161).

[4026]. E.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.19.1; 2.24.2; 2.68.2; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.50; 6.1; 8.1; 13; 19.1–2; 46.12; Pliny Ep. 4.11.4–6; 7.19.5; 8.14.24–25; 10.56.2–4; Tac. Ann. 3.68–69; 4.19, 63; Suet. Aug. 54; 65.1, 3; Tib. 35.2; Lucian Peregr. 18; Max. Tyre 15.9; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.42. It provided even an image for philosophers (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11i, p. 78.30–32); it was also used in earlier times (Lysias Or. 6.15, §104). In declamations, one could be banished five years for involuntary homicide (Quint. Decl. 244 intro.; 244.3; 248 intro.; 248.11–12; 296 intro.; 305 intro.; cf. 285 intro.); it could be revoked under special circumstances (254 intro.). For exile during the empire, see Rapske, “Exiles,” 316–22.

[4027]. E.g., Apul. Metam. 7.6. Even during the early empire, it could be depicted figuratively as death (Grebe, “Exile”).

[4028]. See more fully Schiemann, “Deportatio”; Aune, Revelation, 80–81; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 35; Ramsay, Letters, 83–85. Fugitives were de facto exiles (Libanius Comparison 3.15) and could end up more formally banished (Vell. Paterc. 2.24.2; Quint. Decl. 280.10).

[4029]. Some debated whether exile or death was worse (Mus. Ruf. frg. 43, p. 138.12–15; Philo Abr. 64). Cf. alleged loss of citizen rights during exile (Quint. Decl. 244.1); in at least the hypothetical case in Quint. Decl. 366 intro., children of traitors are also exiled.

[4030]. E.g., Callistr. Dig. 47.21.2 (in Sherk, Empire, 205, §160; 206, §161AB); Paulus Sent. 5.23.14, 19 (in Sherk, Empire, 206, §161AB); Apul. Metam. 10.12; cf. Suet. Aug. 65.1–2; Jos. Ant. 18.79–80.

[4031]. E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.5.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 54.4; Plut. Cic. 33.1; Pliny Ep. 7.19.6; Tac. Hist. 2.84; Ann. 12.22; 14.48; Suet. Jul. 17; Corn. Nep. 8 (Thrasybulus), 1.5; 23 (Hannibal), 7.7; cf. Schiemann, “Deportatio.” Confiscation was a frequent penalty under a variety of circumstances; cf. Lysias Or. 18.20, §151; 19.1, §152; 29.9, §182; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.15.6; Sall. Catil. 51.43; 52.14; Cic. Phil. 11.6.15; Rosc. Amer. 2.6; Fam. 14.4.4; Appian Bell. civ. 4.5.31; Corn. Nep. 7 (Alcibiades), 4.5; 6.5; 8 (Thrasybulus), 3.1; 10 (Dion), 7.1; Plut. Sulla 31.4; Suet. Jul. 14; 82.4; Max. Tyre 12.10; Hdn. 7.3.2; CPJ 2:251–52, §445; 2:255–57, §448; Tob 1:20; Jos. Life 370.

[4032]. The state could confiscate funds for any reason possible (BGU, vol. 5, passim), e.g., a person to whom a will bequeathed property is unable to attend to it (5.16.51–5.17.55). Some considered such confiscation of goods an act of greed (Tg. Neof. 1 on Exod 20:14/17; on Deut 5:21). Seizure of property shamed the person (Cic. Quinct. 15.50) and was originally intended to be a rare penalty (16.51); confiscated property could then be sold (e.g., P.Oxy. 513). Having engineered Cicero’s exile, Clodius had his house destroyed (Vell. Paterc. 2.45.1–3).

[4033]. Ovid Tristia 4.4.46; 4.9.11–12; Tac. Ann. 3.68. Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.43 (for part but not all); Pliny Ep. 4.11.13.

[4034]. E.g., Lane, Hebrews, lviii. I think that it was written instead from Rome to an audience in the East; Heb 13:24 (although many interpret “those from Italy” differently; e.g., Lane, Hebrews, lviii; Montefiore, Hebrews, 254; cf. Moffatt, Hebrews, 246–47). Thus I see it at most as an analogous situation. The application to Corinth (Montefiore, Hebrews, 19), where we lack evidence of state persecution, is even less probable.

[4035]. E.g., Ovid Tristia 1.1.1–34; 3.2.1–30; 4.9.13–14; Claasen, “Exile.”

[4036]. Mus. Ruf. 9; Epict. Diatr. 1.29.7; 4.7.14; cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 13.4–5; 46.12; Galen Grief 55.

[4037]. Sen. E. Controv. 6.2 (though this may be hypothetical).

[4038]. Robinson, Criminal Law, 76. Cf. the alleged right to kill any exile found inside the borders (Quint. Decl. 305 intro.; 305.10–12; 351 intro.; 366 intro.); some may have tried to return discreetly (244.1; 296 intro.; 296.4).

[4039]. E.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.100.5; Epict. Diatr. 1.25.20; 2.6.22; 3.24.100, 109, 113; 4.4.34; Plut. Exile 12, Mor. 604B; Juv. Sat. 1.73; Pliny Ep. 3.9.34; 6.22.5; 6.31.6; 8.14.12; Tac. Ann. 1.3, 53; 3.68–69; 4.13, 22, 30–31, 71; 13.43; 14.63; Hist. 1.46; Suet. Aug. 19; Calig. 14, 15; Galba 10; Lucian Tox. 17; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.16; 8.5; Vit. soph. 2.32.626–27. Some exiles were, however, allowed anywhere so long as they did not return home (Plut. Exile 12, Mor. 604B; cf. Lucian Peregr. 18). Cohen, “Julia,” argues that Augustus initiated this practice.

[4040]. But one could be placed under surveillance even in Campania (Tac. Ann. 14.60).

[4041]. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 169–70.

[4042]. See Richardson, “Synagogues,” 17.

[4043]. Ibid., 19.

[4044]. See Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 169–70.

[4045]. Rutgers, “Policy,” 93–116, esp. 116. Certainly, they were never treated as “capitulated foreigners,” who were never permitted (officially) within 100 mi. of the city (Gaius Inst. 1.27).

[4046]. See P.Lond. 1912 = CPJ 1.153; Jos. Ant. 19.280–85, 290; for Petronius’s enforcement of this policy, see Jos. Ant. 19.302–11. For discussion, see Riesner, Early Period, 99–101; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 138–39; further, Feldman’s bibliography in Josephus, LCL, 9:429–31.

[4047]. See Riesner, Early Period, 97–98, 101–2; Das, Debate, 165; some of this depiction may be Josephus’s propaganda (though appeals to Claudius would be of limited value in the Flavian period), given the minimal interest in Agrippa in the (admittedly not pro-Jewish) Roman historians. On Agrippa’s initial expansion of Jerusalem’s walls, see archaeological data in the notes in Cornfeld, Josephus, 338–40, on Jos. War 5.148–55.

[4048]. Riesner, Early Period, 97.

[4049]. Ibid., 105–7 (citing Tac. Ann. 11.4; 12.1.2; 12.22, 52, 59).

[4050]. E.g., Petron. Sat. 16–26; Plut. Superst. 2, Mor. 166A–B; Juv. Sat. 3.62 (on Juvenal in general in this regard, cf. Reekmans, “Views,” 125); Jos. Ant. 18.64–80. The prejudices were also against Judaism; e.g., Plut. Table 4.6.1–2, Mor. 671C–672C; Superst. 8, Mor. 169C; Juv. Sat. 14.100–103; Tac. Hist. 2.4; 5.5; Suet. Aug. 93; Tib. 36; Pers. Sat. 5.179–84. The prejudices were far harsher, however, in an earlier period (e.g., Livy 25.1.11–12; 39.15.2–3; 39.18.9; Val. Max. 1.3.2–4).

[4051]. Lake, “Chronology,” 460 (though emphasizing that Suetonius is explicit in citing a specific incident).

[4052]. Suet. Tib. 36.

[4053]. Tac. Hist. 2.62; Suet. Vit. 14.4.

[4054]. Suet. Dom. 15; cf. Euseb. Chron. 93–95 in Reicke, Era, 293. Such expulsions of astrologers had early precedent, as far back as the second century B.C.E. (Val. Max. 1.3.3); on the persecution of astrologers, see further MacMullen, Enemies, 133; Friedländer, Life, 1:185; Robinson, Criminal Law, 77. Emperors, of course, had reasons to mistrust groups who could undermine their power by predicting their demise.

[4055]. Noted, e.g., by Soramuzza, “Policy,” 296.

[4056]. See here Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 305.

[4057]. Riesner, Early Period, 170.

[4058]. For this number in the early empire, see, e.g., Clarke, “Italy,” 466; Das, Paul and Jews, 56; Leon, Jews of Rome, 135–36. Others estimate thirty to forty thousand (e.g., Cullmann, Peter, 79); at least thirty thousand (Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 295); but Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 170, counted even his own lower estimate of thirty thousand daunting for an exodus.

[4059]. Philo Embassy 157 (although addressing a period before Claudius’s reign); cf. Tac. Ann. 2.85.4. Some think that Philo Embassy 157 might respond to Claudius’s expulsion by comparing Augustus’s greater favor (Watson, Gentiles, 172–73); this is possible, but while Philo was active ca. 40 C.E., we cannot be certain that he remained active politically as late as 49.

[4060]. Riesner, Early Period, 151, 199.

[4061]. Das, Paul and Jews, 56 (citing Tac. Ann. 1.22; he notes that the expulsion in 12.52 proved “impotent”); idem, Debate, 162–67, esp. here 164. The silence of Tacitus and especially Josephus are inexplicable for a full-scale expulsion (Debate, 163–64, though the Tiberian expulsion he notes included a significant military draft).

[4062]. Noted, e.g., by Soramuzza, “Policy,” 296; Lane, Hebrews, lxiv–lxv, favoring the partial expulsion only. Nanos, Mystery, 376–77, even suggests limiting the effects to a single house meeting or synagogue (though it seems unlikely that historians would have then mentioned it); he notes (375–76) Acts 28:22, but see comment there. Some of Nanos’s objections are reasonable, but they are also necessary to maintain his thesis that Gentile Christians remained in the synagogues and were to submit to their expectations for righteous Gentiles (289–336), which most do not find the most persuasive reading of the evidence.

[4063]. Leon, Jews of Rome, 24, takes this factor into consideration, though he ultimately concludes (27) that Luke’s “all” is an error.

[4064]. Jewett, Chronology, 37; Fitzmyer, Acts, 620; cf. Hoerber, “Decree of Claudius,” who applies it only to the leaders. Generally, the hyperbole appears intended as obvious and not potentially misleading, but it is possible that Luke might have considered this such an obvious case.

[4065]. Stern, “Diaspora,” 180–82, esp. 182.

[4066]. E.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 170; Rutgers, “Policy,” 106; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 136.

[4067]. Lane, “Social Perspectives,” 204.

[4068]. Lane, Hebrews, lxv.

[4069]. Knox, Jerusalem, 255; Das, Paul and Jews, 58; Jewett, Romans, 60; “trouble makers” in Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 306. Perhaps the minority who attacked Jewish believers were expelled (Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 81).

[4070]. Haenchen, Acts, 538; Leon, Jews of Rome, 27; Jewett, Chronology, 37; Rutgers, “Policy,” 126; Lane, “Social Perspectives,” 206.

[4071]. Walters, “Impact,” 177. No one would have enforced an expulsion against God-fearers (and hence Gentile Christians); see Das, Debate, 171–81.

[4072]. I have elsewhere argued that this remained mostly true even half a century later (cf. Keener, John, 214–16, 223–28), though my perspective probably remains a minority position.

[4073]. Suetonius speaks of Nero’s suppression of Christians, a “new” superstition, in Nero 16.2 (cf. greater detail on probably the same matter in Tac. Ann. 15.44). But while Suetonius and his source for those events knew Christians as a discrete group, their identity would have been less understood to sources in Claudius’s reign. Given what we know about Judaism, however, it is plausible that the events behind the source refer to followers of one “Christ,” likely Jesus.

[4074]. Bacchiocchi, “Rome and Christianity,” thinks that Romans managed to distinguish nonpolitical Christianity from political Jewish messianic movements until the middle of Nero’s reign (ca. 62).

[4075]. Whatever other grounds may be offered for thinking Suetonius’s claim an overstatement, modern skepticism that wholesale expulsions of populations can take place should be dismissed from consideration. Modern Western reluctance to believe fellow humans capable of ethnic or religious oppression often produces revisionist interpretations, but such historical naiveté founders on the much worse atrocities of the twentieth and (so far) twenty-first centuries. A history of subsequent pogroms against Jewish people, as well as massive cross-migration or genocide during severe ethnic conflicts in Turkey and Greece (in the early twentieth century), modern Africa, the Balkans, Indonesia, and elsewhere, render massive emigration plausible in principle, whether or not we conclude that it occurred in this case.

[4076]. For discussion of the evidence, see Frey in CIJ 1:lxxiii.

[4077]. Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 80. One could respond that reporting the more recent occasion would not fit Josephus’s purposes, but Josephus is hardly Dio’s only source. Moreover, Josephus’s audience remained within living memory of 49 C.E., less than half a century earlier.

[4078]. See Walters, “Impact,” 177n11.

[4079]. Riesner, Early Period, 199–200. Das, Paul and Jews, 64, makes a case that Paul’s audience in Romans is Gentile (Rom 1:5–6, 13), hence that apparently all Jewish believers in Jesus were expelled; but the Jewish believers cannot remain gone when Paul writes (16:3, 7, 11). Haacker, Theology, 13, notes that in the context in Suetonius, entire groups were expelled; he also suggests (13–14) that Rom 1:8 might allude to the event (but here cf. 1 Thess 1:8; news of Christians even in the capital would encourage other Christians and would spread).

[4080]. Cf. Watson, Gentiles, 169, who suggests that Luke’s hyperbole “all the Jews” and his initial failure to specify Aquila and Priscilla as Christians may fit his apologetic suppression of the same cause noted in Suetonius.

[4081]. Haenchen, Acts, 538. Lightfoot sees Priscilla and Aquila as possibly “among those for whom the edict was directly intended” (Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 18:2, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]).

[4082]. Perhaps they were members of the most involved synagogues, or religious spokespersons involved on either side of the debate, or most Christians and their open sympathizers.

[4083]. Jewett, Chronology, 99, estimates January/February 50; Schnabel, Missionary, 104, estimates February or March of 50.

[4084]. E.g., Nock, “Developments,” 500; Brändle and Stegemann, “Formation,” 125–26; Howard, “Beginnings in Rome”; Slingerland, “Suetonius and Cassius Dio”; Porter, “Chronology,” 206; Bruce, Acts¹, 343; Hoerber, “Decree of Claudius”; Reicke, Era, 205; Hengel, Acts and History, 108; Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 458; Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 78–82; Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 11–16; Jewett, Romans, 18–20; Das, Debate, 158–61; Kruse, Romans, 1; Bird, “Romans,” 179. For this as the majority view, see also Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 9; Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 73.

[4085]. E.g., Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 171–81 (identifying Suetonius’s and Luke’s reports with Dio despite some differences in each, p. 177); Pervo, Acts, 446; as a possibility, Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 491. Lightfoot suggests that it fits a number of measures in 52 C.E. (Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 18:2, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]), but while these reveal the same xenophobic spirit, other chronological data now available (but not available to Lightfoot, though he was aware that Gallio may have become governor in 51; commentary on Acts 18:12) work against this date.

[4086]. With others; cf., e.g., Das, Debate, 167–71; Slingerland, “Suetonius and Cassius Dio.” A second expulsion in his reign, however, seems implausible (Das, Debate, 157).

[4087]. Dio Cass. 60.6.7; at the same time he disbanded clubs and taverns (60.6.7).

[4088]. For the view that it contrasts with Tiberius’s expulsion, see Slingerland, “Acts 18:1–17 and Lüdemann’s Chronology,” 689 (noting that Dio there employs the same verb); tentatively, Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 303–6, esp. 305–6.

[4089]. So also Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 134–35 (though he ultimately concludes that the expulsion was only partial).

[4090]. Riesner, Early Period, 179; Nock, “Developments,” 500; Fitzmyer, Acts, 620; Dunn, Romans, xlix; Watson, Gentiles, 171; Slingerland, “Acts 18:1–17 and Luedemann’s Chronology.”

[4091]. See also Hemer, Acts in History, 167; Fitzmyer, Acts, 620.

[4092]. With, e.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 620. Likewise, we do not have 41 C.E. in Tacitus, since the first six years of Claudius’s reign are missing there (Leon, Jews of Rome, 24).

[4093]. So Riesner, “Pauline Chronology,” 13 (citing Levick, Claudius, 121; Botermann, Judenedikt); Witherington, Acts, 540 (citing Benko, Rome and Christians, 18; Levick, Claudius, 121).

[4094]. Orosius dates the expulsion to the ninth year of Claudius’s reign (January 25, 49 C.E., to January 24, 50 C.E.; Hist. 7.6.15). The event is also mentioned in the Teaching of Addai 7b–11a (in Syriac; McRay, Archaeology, 19). Some preachers confused details (see, e.g., Chrys. Rom. 30.2–3, Burns, Romans, 383).

[4095]. Josephus’s silence is not surprising. Although he mentions Tiberius’s expulsion, his account includes an apologetic perspective; if the Claudian expulsion was less thoroughgoing, he may have had apologetic reason not to emphasize it. The same apologist omits the golden-calf incident in Exodus.

[4096]. Slingerland, “Orosius’ Historiarum,” contends that Orosius invented the Josephus reference, so that any time between 42 and 54 C.E. would work (not 41, because Suetonius’s expulsion should not be identified with Dio’s account). Some argue that Orosius depends on Luke (cf. Leon, Jews of Rome, 24), but would Orosius know enough about Gallio’s accession to deliberately confirm a date in Acts not otherwise knowable?

[4097]. Hemer, Acts in History, 168.

[4098]. Lightfoot notes that from 15 to 44 C.E. the title “proconsul” would not have been appropriate in Corinth (citing Tac. Ann. 1.76; Suet. Claud. 25; Dio Cass. 60.29; Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 18:12, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]).

[4099]. On Italy, see, e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 3.5.38–74; Italian citizens had been Roman citizens since the first century B.C.E. (Stambaugh, City, 93; Lintott, Romans, 101). But given the likely reach of Claudius’s edict, we should assume that this couple came specifically from Rome.

[4100]. E.g., Donfried, Thessalonica, 72, 99–117; Lüdemann’s and Slingerland’s views, summarized in Porter, “Chronology,” 206; Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 9; Kreitzer, Corinthians, 15. Some suggest that Luke’s theological agenda leads to the conflation here (Donfried, Thessalonica, 72), but given what we observe of his historiography elsewhere (especially his interest in chronology, Luke 3:1), it is difficult to see how his chronology (of travel narratives after the Syrian ministry) is theologically motivated. Donfried, Thessalonica, 76–98, thinks that 1 Thessalonians reflects an “early Paul” distinct from his later letters, but one may grant this without assuming that about an additional eight years are necessary.

[4101]. Cf. similar but more plausible arguments for conflation in 2 Kgs 18–19 in Bright, History, 298–309 (cf. also Gordon, Near East, 237n3), though many disagree (e.g., Yamauchi, Stones, 77–78).

[4102]. The earlier visit hypothesis seems to me to prefer inference to the hard textual evidence of Acts’ chronology (which, as noted above, corresponds quite well with 1 Corinthians), and perhaps a desire to fill the events of years that Luke did not treat probably because Luke was historically cautious enough not to report material not in his sources. The most natural reading of Paul’s own chronology in Gal 1:17–2:1 (note esp. 1:21) is against this “early” ministry (pace Donfried, Thessalonica, 73).

[4103]. The two synagogue rulers mentioned above notwithstanding, there is no reason synagogues in some locations could not have had multiple leaders (see, e.g., Acts 13:15 and comment there; Brooten, Women Leaders, 27; Le Cornu, Acts, 1011), or Crispus might not have been forced to relinquish his position after joining a group already expelled from the synagogue (Acts 18:7–8). It is not impossible that Crispus is Sosthenes, though it is unlikely (requiring carelessness on Luke’s part, since he does not clarify their identification).

[4104]. A more significant delay would be needed; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 139, plausibly suggests that they left Rome after the edict but remained in Italy for several years before coming to Corinth (hence, “from Italy”). But then why mention Claudius’s edict? “Italy” included Rome (cf. Acts 27:1, 6; probably Heb 13:24).

[4105]. Lane, “Social Perspectives,” 205–6; idem, Hebrews, lxv; Riesner, Early Period, 201; Witherington, Acts, 541.

[4106]. Lake, “Chronology,” 460; Le Cornu, Acts, 985.

[4107]. So, e.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 170.

[4108]. A governor’s acts could be annulled by his conviction (Pliny E. N.H. 10.56.4; cf. Pliny Ep. 4.9); Jewish hearers might assume that rulers’ deaths could end their edicts or persecution (Tob 2:1; Exod 4:19). Rabbis in b. Taʿan. 29a apparently expected edicts to expire when magistrates died or left office (Katzoff, “Edicts and Ta‘anit”); an imperial decree is also annulled by the emperor’s death in b. Šabb. 33b. New emperors brought new opportunities: Dio Chrysostom, banished by Domitian, was welcomed by his successors (Or. 45.2–3); Pliny escaped trial by Domitian’s death (Ep. 7.27.14); Petronius escaped death by Caligula’s death (Jos. War 2.203).

[4109]. See Nicholas, “Edict.”

[4110]. Suet. Claud. 11.3; see further Barrett, “Claudius, Gaius, and Kings.” This was so even though Claudius had kept the senate from blotting out Caligula’s memory (Balsdon and Levick, “Damnatio memoriae”). The senate went much further with Domitian, eradicating his memory (Suet. Dom. 23.1).

[4111]. Suet. Nero 33.1 (LCL, 2:141). Galba, in turn, revoked nearly all of Nero’s grants (Galba 15.1).

[4112]. Origen Comm. Rom. on 16:3 (CER 5:244–46) naturally infers that they returned as soon as the decree could no longer prevent them. Most scholars today treat the expulsion and return as a part (or likely part) of the background to Paul’s letter to the Roman Christians (e.g., Das, Paul and Jews, 53–61; idem, Debate, 51; Gorman, Apostle, 340–42; Álvarez Cineira, “Pasos”; Crafton, “Vision,” 323–25; Harrington, God’s People, 57; Dunn, Romans, 1:liii; Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 78–82; Chilton, Approaches, 222–24; Moo, Romans, 5; Schreiner, Romans, 12–14, 797–98; Haacker, Theology, 13; Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 35–41; Grieb, Romans, 7; Watson, Gentiles, 167–74), though some demur (e.g., Nanos, Mystery, 372–87).

[4113]. Suet. Claud. 25.4 (LCL, 2:53). In the same context, Claudius abolished Druid rites (25.5), which Suetonius and his source probably regard as similarly superstitious.

[4114]. E.g., Nock, “Developments,” 500; Bowersock, Fiction as History, 119n55; Smallwood, Jews, 211 (“the only reasonable interpretation”); Mattingly, Christianity, 30; Howard, “Beginnings in Rome”; Sanders, Figure, 49–50; Brändle and Stegemann, “Formation,” 118; Riesner, Early Period, 162–66; Das, Debate, 150–58; idem, “Audience,” 41. More tentatively, Rutgers, “Policy,” 105–6; Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 178–81. Jewett, Romans, 60, notes that “most historians” apply this passage to discussions about Jesus as the Christ.

[4115]. Judge, First Christians, 436–37, notes that it is “apt for a populist leader, being of servile associations, and also current amongst Jews”; but on the last point see below regarding the sample of inscriptions available in Leon’s day.

[4116]. Leon, Jews of Rome, 25n2. Jews sometimes adopted similar-sounding Roman names (CIJ 1:lxvii; see comment on Acts 13:9), but that would not apply in this case. “Christ” reflects not a personal name but a title, translated from Hebrew; no Hebrew personal name sounds like the Greek term transliterated into Latin sources as Chrestus.

[4117]. It should be clear, however, that I am not arguing that the original reading in Suetonius was “Christos”; this argument has been offered, but the textual history favors “Chrestus.”

[4118]. E.g., Winter, “Imperial Cult,” 99–100; Nanos, Mystery, 378–79. See, most extensively, Judge, First Christians, 445–47, citing especially (447) Roman Jewish resistance to calling Jesus “Christ”; but could this title not have come from Jesus’s followers? That Tacitus does not mention Christians before Ann. 15.44 (447–48) argues from silence, since we cannot expect Tacitus to narrate every event found in Suetonius, especially if the inherited account was garbled. Non-Christian agitators existed in Alexandria (448), but were these really messianic? A stronger argument (450) is lack of Roman Jewish knowledge in Acts 28:22; see comment there.

[4119]. Keener, Acts, 1:964–70.

[4120]. Benko, “Edict.”

[4121]. Tacitus did know, but we cannot be sure that Suetonius did.

[4122]. Lane, “Social Perspectives,” 204; idem, Hebrews, lxv; cf. Janne, “Impulsore Chresto,” 537–46, cited by Lane. Chrēstos would sound like Christos because of itacism, in which vowels and diphthongs could sound like i (Fitzmyer, Romans, 31).

[4123]. As many scholars can testify, writers of long works sometimes forget details of what they wrote in different parts of the work.

[4124]. Leon, Jews of Rome, 25–26 (suggesting that Suetonius wrongly thought Christ there in person); Rolfe in Suetonius, LCL, 2:52 n. a.

[4125]. Mattingly, Christianity, 30; Leon, Jews of Rome, 25; Harris, “References,” 353–54. Cf. the confusion in PGM 4.1234, “Jesus Chrestos” (Betz, Magical Papyri, 62n168: “excellent one” rather than “anointed one”).

[4126]. See, e.g., Tert. Apol. 3.5; Lact. Div. Inst. 4.7; even Codex Sinaiticus (א) at Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet 4:16 (Lane, Hebrews, lxv; Das, Paul and Jews, 54).

[4127]. Harris, “References,” 353; Hengel, Acts and History, 106. For the personal name, see, e.g., Mart. Epig. 9.27.1, 14.

[4128]. Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 36, suggests that the specific triggering event attracting Roman attention was the expulsion of Jewish followers of Jesus from the synagogues. This is more plausible than most alternatives, but why would Claudius care about this internal action? Scourgings (cf. Matt 10:17) of members who proved to be Roman citizens would catch Rome’s attention, but Roman synagogues may not have risked this (though some in the East did, 2 Cor 11:24).

[4129]. Hengel, Acts and History, 108, citing a report, reportedly from Porphyry’s anti-Christian work, in Aug. Ep. 102.8.

[4130]. Judge, First Christians, 449. It cannot be answered that Luke wishes to avoid the impression that Christians lived in Rome before Paul (Acts 28:15; cf. 2:10), whatever he may or may not have believed about Paul’s adding an “apostolic foundation” (cf. Rom 15:20, in the view summarized in Klein, “Purpose,” 48).

[4131]. Haenchen, Acts, 538; Conzelmann, Acts, 151; Marshall, Acts, 293; Johnson, Acts, 322; Dunn, Romans, 891; Das, Debate, 155–56 (noting Luke’s same redactional tendency also in Acts 18:19–21, 26). Travelers from other parts of the empire might often end up in Corinth, but they far more often ended up in Rome (2:10; cf. the believers whom Paul knows in Rome before arriving, in Rom 16:3–16, which I take to be genuinely addressed to Rome). For further discussion of the couple, see, e.g., Müller, “Priska”; Rakocy, “Akwila.”

[4132]. With Conzelmann, Acts, 151.

[4133]. As cognomens, “Aquila” and “Prisca” both suggest citizenship (Judge, First Christians, 562).

[4134]. Judge, Rank, 36n20 (ranking it after “Paul,” “Niger,” and “Silvanus” but before such Pauline names as “Fortunatus” and “Clement”). Cf., e.g., Aquilius Niger in Suet. Aug. 11; Publius Accius Aquila in Pliny Ep. 10.106; Antoninus Aquila in Fronto Ad am. 1.7; M. Acilius Glabrio in Val. Max. 2.5.1 (Bailey in LCL, 1:160n1, cites also Livy 40.34.5–6; Amm. Marc. 14.6.8); see further discussions in Mountford and Winterbottom, “Aquila Romanus”; Campbell, “Aquilius Regulus”; Badian, “Aquilius Manius”; Honoré, “Aquil(l)ius Gallus.” Elvers et al., “Acilius,” list thirteen significant bearers of this name in the republic (99–100) and eleven in the empire (101). The name means “eagle.”

[4135]. So, e.g., Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 120. This plebeian gens can be verified from the third century B.C.E. (Elvers et al., “Acilius,” 99).

[4136]. Bruce, Commentary, 369 (suggesting this as a possible reason for her apparently higher status than Aquila); Witherington, Acts, 539. Murphy-O’Connor, “Prisca,” suggests that both might be freedpersons of the same household.

[4137]. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 207. “Prisca” means “ancient.”

[4138]. Concurring with Barrett, Acts, 861. That they would have left because others did so is possible, but this conclusion diminishes the likelihood that Luke would give the expulsion order as grounds for their emigration.

[4139]. Judge, First Christians, 444, citing Tac. Ann. 2.85.4; cf. Jos. Ant. 18.3.4–5; maybe Suet. Tib. 36.

[4140]. Meeks, Urban Christians, 59.

[4141]. The Julio-Claudian era saw a massive influx of immigrants into the capital as traders, teachers, etc. (Stambaugh, City, 90–91).

[4142]. Eight of the seventeen names known to us from that church are Latin (Theissen, Setting, 99; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 76); this would not make all of them Roman citizens, but it suggests a higher proportion than usual in eastern Mediterranean churches.

[4143]. E.g., Leon, Jews of Rome, 75–92; Noy, “Writing”; Stambaugh, City, 95.

[4144]. Stern, “Diaspora,” 159.

[4145]. The term γένος more commonly designates one’s “people” (as in Acts 13:26; Mark 7:26; 1 Pet 2:9; Tob 1:16; Jdt 9:14; 16:17; 2 Macc 8:9; 3 Macc 6:4, 9, 13; Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 44.33) but can also represent the location of one’s place of citizenship by birth (Acts 4:36), including in this context (18:24).

[4146]. Presumably, Luke refers to the Roman province of Bithynia-Pontus rather than simply the region (Witherington, Acts, 538n277). Western Pontus was joined to Bithynia in the first century B.C.E.; Nero later joined part of Pontus to Galatia in 64 C.E. (Olshausen, “Pontus,” 608). Pliny the Younger dealt with Pontic affairs as well as Bithynian, e.g., Ep. 10.75.1, 92, 93, 108.1, 110.1, 112.1; see comments in, e.g., Radice, “Introduction,” 15, 18. Persians and then Macedonians divided Pontus from Cappadocia, of which it was formerly a part (Strabo 12.1.4). On Pontus, see further Olshausen, “Pontus”; Broughton and Mitchell, “Pontus.”

[4147]. Grant, Paul, 58–59 (also noting an inscription criticizing religious charlatans there). Lucian Alex. 17 considered Pontus (or at least rural Pontus) uneducated and gullible.

[4148]. Basil Holy Sp. (Pruche, 511–13); but Grant, Paul, 59, who cites this, seems skeptical.

[4149]. Euseb. H.E. 4.23 (Grant, Paul, 59).

[4150]. I believe that the traditional prejudice that Paul (applied especially to some of the Pauline letters) was misogynist reflects more his abuse by subsequent interpreters than a proper understanding of Paul in his first-century setting (so, e.g., Belleville, Leaders; Keener, Paul; idem, “Subversive Conservative”; Dodd, Problem; Pierce, Groothuis, and Fee, Equality; for relevant hermeneutical explorations, see, e.g., Webb, Slaves). That Paul resented marriage is also unlikely (see 1 Cor 7:2–6, 9–16), though he apparently valued singleness more highly for those gifted for it (7:7–8, 25–35; cf. Keener, Marries, 78–81).

[4151]. Meeks, Urban Christians, 20, 59 (following Flory, “Family”); Flory, “Where Women Precede Men”; cf. MacMullen, “Women in Public,” 210; Bruce, Commentary, 369; Matera, Romans, 340. Sequence of names also mattered to Tannaim (Mek. Pisha 1.17–34). Men sometimes married powerful women to advance their careers (e.g., Tac. Agr. 6; cf. 1 Sam 17:25), but many warned against the dangers of marrying a wealthier wife (Aeschylus Prom. 887–93, 901–2; Callim. Epig. 1; Sen. E. Controv. 1.6.5, 7; Ps.-Phoc. 199–200; Tg. Šeni on Esth 1:16; see comment on Acts 5:1–2).

[4152]. Cf., e.g., Fee, Timothy, 249–50; Shillington, Introduction, 120–21; perhaps Nicholas of Lyra on Rom 16:3 (Levy, Krey, and Ryan, Romans, 293). Aune, Revelation, 203, regards her as a teacher and missionary.

[4153]. See Arlandson, Women, 73–82; Winter, Wives, 174–76. Some women apparently learned trades under women apprentices (Minnen, “Women”).

[4154]. Arlandson, Women, 82–91; Reden, “Work,” 743 (and esp. as sellers); Ascough, Lydia, 71–75. Gardner, Women, 239, is more confident of women’s retailing than of their producing crafts. We lack evidence of their participation in professional or craft guilds (in contrast to religious associations; Pomeroy, Goddesses, 201). Also other occupations (in, e.g., music, see Harmon, “Musicians”). Clearly the traditional elite Hellenistic notion of separate spheres for men and women is at best attenuated in such circumstances (cf., e.g., summary and sources in Keener, Paul, 22–24).

[4155]. King, “Women,” 1624, associates them especially with the lower class.

[4156]. Scheidel, “Women.”

[4157]. Greeks viewed as unusual the Ligurian practice of women working in the fields (Diod. Sic. 4.20); Israelites may have done so outside their own land especially under duress (Ruth 2:2–7), perhaps for safety reasons (Ruth 2:9), but it was safer among kin (Song 1:6). Cf. the woman receiving wages for carrying olives in P.Fay. 91 (99 C.E.). Women could also watch sheep, though again not normally mixing with large numbers of men (Longus 3.25; Gen 29:9; Exod 2:16–17; Song 1:7–8).

[4158]. This was not an ignoble profession (ILS 9727; 9730; 9732 in Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 170), but probably because of the role of hair in seduction (Keener, Paul, 29, 53), later rabbis may have sought to degrade Jesus’s mother by making this her profession (Herford, Christianity, 40–41). Hairdressers apparently catered especially to people of means (Ilan, Women, 188).

[4159]. See the discussion of physicians, including the balance of genders, in the commentary introduction, Keener, Acts, 1:416–22, esp. 419.

[4160]. For the range of occupations open to women, see Lindner, “Frau”; Saller, “Women,” 193–94.

[4161]. Saller, “Women,” 194 (based on Sandra R. Joshel’s study from CIL 6). If either men or women were more likely to report an occupation than the other gender, the samples would not be representative, but this seems unlikely.

[4162]. A wife might need to work especially if a husband was incapacitated (Tob 2:10–11; cf. Sitis in Test. Job 21:2–22:2). Traditionally, a woman unable to make enough by weaving, despite frugality (Terence Andr. 73–74), might become a courtesan (Andr. 75–79).

[4163]. Arlandson, Women, 91.

[4164]. Stahlmann, “Gender Roles,” 744.

[4165]. Men. Rhet. 1.3, 364.2–5.

[4166]. Spawforth, “Artisans” (citing, e.g., IG 2².1553–78); Pekridou-Gorecki, “Textiles,” 345.

[4167]. Reimer, Women, 205.

[4168]. We need not appeal to the probably weaker textual evidence for “they worked,” as Reimer, Women, 203–4, does (see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 461), to reach this conclusion, since “he worked” refers to Paul and leaves open the role of his hosts.

[4169]. Arlandson, Women, 91.

[4170]. Gardner, Women, 239.

[4171]. To this one might add the initial journey from Pontus—though this may have preceded his livelihood—and perhaps a later return to Asia, perhaps during persecution in Rome, suggested in the Pastorals (2 Tim 4:19). Libanius Maxim 3.6 speaks of the money needed for successful trips abroad.

[4172]. Meeks, Urban Christians, 59; cf. also Dunn, Romans, 892. Jewett, Romans, 956–57, agrees (against P. Lampe), but his additional arguments do not seem persuasive.

[4173]. See, e.g., Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 112.

[4174]. Reimer, Women, 206. He viewed tentmaking as of low status; see Chrys. Hom. Rom. 31 (on 16:5; Bray, Romans, 371).

[4175]. Reimer, Women, 207–8; cf. Richards, Letter Writing, 37. Reimer’s appeal to Paul’s poverty in 1 Cor 4:11 (cf. 2 Cor 11:9; 1 Thess 2:9; p. 208) concerns his conditions as he was traveling in, and sacrificing for, apostolic ministry and need not imply that one working full-time in one place (like Aquila and Priscilla once they were reestablished) would fare so badly.

[4176]. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 169.

[4177]. On their house church ministry, see Blue, “House Church,” 172–74; Sampathkumar, “Aquila and Priscilla.”

[4178]. Arlandson, Women, 144. But cf. Rohrbaugh, “Pre-industrial City,” 134: most businesses were so small that they could employ only family members. They were neither “at a mere subsistence level” nor “among the elite” (Gaventa, Acts, 256).

[4179]. Hock, Social Context, 32 (counting six to twelve artisans as average, 32–33). On larger centers of production in this period but usually as simply the cooperation of many small businesses, see Alonso-Núñez, “Economy,” 1177 (some also argue on a larger level for an interdependence of markets throughout the empire; Temin, “Market Economy”).

[4180]. Rohrbaugh, “Pre-industrial City,” 134.

[4181]. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 545n307.

[4182]. See Peskowitz, “Textiles,” 197. On a survey of research on ancient craft production (including textiles), see Evans, “Crafts.”

[4183]. Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 73 (in Pompeii); cf. Balch, “Houses.”

[4184]. Carcopino, Life, 26–27 (on Rome); Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 307 (on Rome and Ostia); Packer, “Housing,” 80–81 (in Rome), 84 (in Ostia).

[4185]. Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 80 (on Pompeii).

[4186]. Jeffers, World, 61.

[4187]. Stambaugh, City, 189 (citing Livy 6.25.9; Martial 1.41; 7.61).

[4188]. Jeffers, World, 61.

[4189]. This is not to suggest that people bought only from vendors of their own ethnicity, but simply to suggest that some potentially regular customers could be lost through what Gentiles might find an inconvenience. Then again, even in Rome many Gentiles respected Jewish Sabbath-keeping (see Barclay, “Undermine,” 295–98; cf. Suet. Tib. 32.2; Tac. Hist. 5.4; Dio Cass. 65.7.2).

[4190]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 118; of 806 shops in Ostia, 464 had one room (Packer, “Housing,” 85). Private specialty workshops were common during the early empire (see Cartledge, “Industry”).

[4191]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 118; Stambaugh, City, 149 (noting that it was typical), 174 (citing an example from Herculaneum); Jeffers, World, 55; Packer, “Housing,” 81; Carcopino, Life, 27; for sleeping in shops, see, e.g., Libanius Descr. 5.6. For a variety of arrangements, see Hock, Social Context, 32, with documentation.

[4192]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 110 (for housing arrangements, following Frier, Landlords, 3–20).

[4193]. Packer, “Housing,” 85 (who suggests an average living space of 1.7 rooms).

[4194]. Ibid.

[4195]. Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 80. Pompeian housing varied from one massive home of 31,000 sq. ft. to common lofts above shops at 220 sq. ft. (Balch, “Paul, Families, and Households,” 260).

[4196]. See cautions in Carcopino, Life, 23–24.

[4197]. McRay, Archaeology, 82–83.

[4198]. Arlandson, Women, 144 (following Packer, Insulae, 7ff.). DeSilva, Honor, 193, suggests living space on the second story; but the multiroomed dwelling that he cites, described in Xen. Oec. 9.2–5, would be limited to a person of some means, like most of Xenophon’s readers.

[4199]. Jeffers, World, 55. For rented lodging, see, e.g., CIL 4.138 (from pre-79 C.E. Pompeii; Sherk, Empire, 243–44, §186).

[4200]. Jeffers, World, 55.

[4201]. Ibid., 55–56.

[4202]. Ibid., 56; cf. also Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 110 (following Frier, Landlords, 3–20).

[4203]. Adams, “Placing,” 26, citing Schowalter, “Seeking Shelter,” 334n20.

[4204]. Jeffers, World, 56, 59; on sharing facilities, see further Stambaugh, City, 175, 178.

[4205]. Wallace-Hadrill, “Domus,” 18.

[4206]. Jeffers, World, 56, 60; Toner, Culture, 128; Cleary, “Sanitation”; y. Ber. 3:5, §5.

[4207]. Cleary, “Sanitation.”

[4208]. Ibid. On the unpleasant odors, see, e.g., Bradley, “Fullonica.” Those sentenced to work in cleaning public baths or sewers had demeaning work (Pliny Ep. 10.33.2).

[4209]. Hock, Social Context, 32 (citing, e.g., Lysias Or. 24.19–20; Char. Chaer. 1.12.5; Dio Chrys. Or. 46.9).

[4210]. Inscription no. 21 in West, Inscriptions, 19, found near the Lechaeum Road shops (on March 22, 1902); Finegan, Apostles, 148.

[4211]. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 168–69.

[4212]. Winter, Left Corinth, 294. Whereas Engels estimates close to this figure, Walbank estimates just twenty thousand to fifty thousand in the Roman period (Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 8n49, citing Walbank, “Foundation,” 107). Others estimate still higher; see the discussion above.

[4213]. See the map in Fant and Reddish, Sites, fig. 17, p. 58; see also McRay, Archaeology, 40; MacKendrick, Stones, 417; information in Schnabel, Brief, 18.

[4214]. See Engels, Roman Corinth, 13, 60. The forum’s open space covered 14,000 sq. m.

[4215]. Ibid., 60. The forum itself was 165 by 65 meters (Schnabel, Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, 18).

[4216]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 12.

[4217]. See Gill, “Meat-Market”; McRay, Archaeology, 326–28; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 491; pace earlier Broneer, “Corinth,” 88–89. Willis, Idol Meat, 229–30, suggests that Corinth was large enough to have more than one meat market, but we might suppose the multiple shops to be located together in the same district. Although the term macellum could apply to markets more generally (Witherington, Corinthians, 184n14), here we refer to markets in meat and fish (Plut. Rom. Q. 54, Mor. 277D; cf. Moffatt, First Corinthians, 143; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 32; Winter, Left Corinth, 294).

[4218]. Cf. Gerasa’s macellum, at the southwest of the city’s cardo maximus (Uscatescu and Martín-Bueno, “Macellum”). In contrast to Pompeii, it is possible that most meat markets carried both sacrificial and nonsacrificial meats (1 Cor 10:25; Koch, “Macella”). In at least some sources, they appear distinguishable (Isenberg, “Sale”; Fee, Corinthians, 481), but perhaps not always (Garland, 1 Corinthians, 491).

[4219]. Some portrayals of Diana in Corinth (West, Inscriptions, no. 15, line 1 [p. 13]) may reflect a statue in a Diana temple en route to Cenchreae (Paus. 2.2.3).

[4220]. Hock, Social Context, 32 (citing Plut. Sign Socr., Mor. 580E; cf. Lucian Cock 14; Pisc. 13; Dio Chrys. Or. 40.9). See fuller discussion below.

[4221]. Jeffers, World, 28.

[4222]. Richards, Letter Writing, 36–37 (quotation, 37).

[4223]. Grassi, World, 78. Cf. Luke 10:6–7. Immigrants typically face “weaker social support networks,” creating emotional strain (Toner, Culture, 64, following Aneshensel and Phelan, Handbook), so banding together is a vital strategy for emotional support.

[4224]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 41 (noting also Jones, “Claudius and Question”).

[4225]. See Das, “Audience,” 41. Certainly they were not the first local converts (1 Cor 16:15); but then again, would recent immigrants be reckoned in the “firstfruits of Achaia”?

[4226]. Meeks, Urban Christians, 29 (noting Jewish quarters in Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch; in Alexandria and Rome, see Philo Flacc. 55; Embassy 155).

[4227]. See Gordon, Civilizations, 253; Walton, Matthews, and Chavalas, Background Commentary, 475.

[4228]. So Dio Chrys. Or. 77/78.3–4 (although perhaps referring only to potential envy); cf. Eccl 4:4.

[4229]. Stambaugh, City, 150; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 118.

[4230]. Typically, even these merchants sold particular products (such as oil, vegetables, and fruits), though here and there one would encounter a general store (παντοπωλεῖον), selling “smoked fish (the most popular item), rope, mattresses,” etc. (Lewis, Life, 136, citing P.Oxy. 520, from 143 C.E.).

[4231]. Jeffers, World, 53.

[4232]. Ibid., 53–54.

[4233]. MacMullen, Social Relations, 69.

[4234]. Ibid.; cf. similarly Rohrbaugh, “Pre-industrial City,” 135.

[4235]. MacMullen, Social Relations, 69.

[4236]. Ibid., 70.

[4237]. Stambaugh, City, 150–51.

[4238]. MacMullen, Social Relations, 71; Jeffers, World, 54.

[4239]. MacMullen, Social Relations, 73. See his listing of inscriptions for trade guilds in Rome (129–31) and (mainly but not exclusively from inscriptions) the crafts’ special locations in Roman cities (132–35).

[4240]. Smith, Symposium, 96. For earlier trade guilds in the East, see Tod and Hornblower, “Clubs,” 352.

[4241]. Smith, Symposium, 90.

[4242]. Tod and Hornblower, “Clubs,” 352; Stevenson and Lintott, “Clubs,” 353.

[4243]. Cooper, “Crafts,” 906 (citing the fullones of Pompeii in the early empire, in CIL 10.813 = ILS 6368).

[4244]. MacMullen, Social Relations, 77; Meeks, Urban Christians, 32. On the banquets, see esp. Harland, Associations, 74–83 (for the religious element in the banquet, see 77).

[4245]. Monthly meetings were common (see Smith, Symposium, 108, 112). Meeting too often could generate Roman suspicion (Dig. 47.22.1; Sherk, Empire, 234, §177A); though we should not think of a network of government spies enforcing rules, occasional voluntary accusers could raise concerns.

[4246]. Harland, Associations, 168.

[4247]. Smith, Symposium, 103–4.

[4248]. Harland, Associations, 61–74.

[4249]. MacMullen, Social Relations, 82; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 125; Rives, Religion, 123–24.

[4250]. Harland, Associations, 77 (hence Serapis could be viewed as present during these meetings [Ael. Arist. Or. 45.27–28] or even as the host [P.Köln 57]).

[4251]. See Harland, Associations, 115–36; for involvement with civic imperial honors, see 137–60.

[4252]. See ibid., 239–64.

[4253]. Jewish people probably did have their own guilds in cities where a significant number of them lived (see, e.g., t. Sukkah 4:6 for Alexandria; t. B. Meṣiʿa 2:24; Applebaum, “Economic Life,” 684). Since Corinth had a known Jewish community (Acts 18:4) before the couple’s arrival, it is likely that they were not its only Jewish leatherworkers (though the Jewish community was probably not as organized into specializations as would be possible in Rome or Alexandria). Rabbis were aware (unless the example is purely hypothetical) that some larger shops in predominantly Gentile cities might include Jewish workers for Gentiles or the reverse (t. Šabb. 2:7–8), but Prisca and Aquila would, undoubtedly, prefer a Jewish colleague to a Gentile.

[4254]. In cities with multiple synagogues, “occupational and neighborhood networks” would help influence where one attended (Harland, Associations, 34; for neighborhood connections, see 36–38; for occupational connections, see 38–44).

[4255]. E.g., b. Ber. 63b.

[4256]. Hock, Social Context, 29–30 (contrasting the Cynic convention of living in the open). Pindar praised the hospitality of old Corinth (Ol. 13.3), though this is probably partly conventional.

[4257]. Hock, Social Context, 29–30. It is possible that some of Paul’s earnings contributed toward his rent (see 31) or even that they were initially his gift toward the family that was hosting him.

[4258]. In addition to their fitting the Roman category for synagogues, the more obvious and useful category initially (Acts 18:15). For Roman concern with illegal meetings, see, e.g., Dig. 47.22.1 (Sherk, Empire, 234–35, §177A).

[4259]. Mark may have reworded an earlier tradition known to Luke (cf. Luke 4:22 with Matt 13:55).

[4260]. Cf. many commentators, e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 77, 228–29, 242–43; for part of the social context, see Hock, Social Context, 58–59.

[4261]. Winter, Left Corinth, 219, cites three grain shortages in this period (with records suggesting that 51 C.E. was among them [218]; see more fully 216–23). But does not Acts 18:2–3 seem to refer to 49 or perhaps 50 C.E. rather than later, since Paul may have stopped working already in 18:5 (or at least Luke seems content to leave that impression)?

[4262]. Tac. Ann. 12.43; Suet. Claud. 18 (the latter mentioning unrest after multiple droughts).

[4263]. West, Inscriptions, 73 (citing Eusebius, Chronicorum libri duo, ed. Alfred Schoene, 2 vols. [Berlin: Weidmann, 1875–76], 2:152–53; Hieronymus Olymp. 207.1).

[4264]. Hock, Social Context, 26, also cites the present tense in 1 Cor 4:12 to support Ephesus as well as Corinth (cf. 16:8).

[4265]. See Hock, Social Context, 35–36 (and his sources), 60; Harland, Associations, 41; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 116–17; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 150; Reden, “Unemployment,” 112 (citing Arist. Pol. 4.4, 1291b; Plato Apol. 23C; Cic. Tusc. 1.1–25 and others); Padilla, Speeches, 139; cf. Luwel, “Begrip.”

[4266]. Fitzgerald, Cracks, 135.

[4267]. Aeschines Tim. 27–28.

[4268]. P.Oxy. 51.3617, as cited in Toner, Culture, 140. Toner also notes (134) that the elite viewed labor as coarsening not only the body (which often became malformed from skeletal stress) but also the morals. Such views may have extended beyond elites; on 29, Toner cites a nonelite source (Aesop Fable 103) linking craft workers with deception. Ironically, traders and craft workers (which he estimates as perhaps 30 to 40 percent of the urban population) could be counted as the most respectable members of the nonelite (Toner, Culture, 2–3).

[4269]. E.g., Cic. Verr. 2.3.4.7–8.

[4270]. Cic. Off. 1.42.150–51 (cited in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 150–51; Jeffers, World, 24; discussed in detail in Alonso-Núñez, “Ethics”). Professions that paid for intelligence (such as doctors and architects) were better.

[4271]. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.15.2; 9.25.2.

[4272]. Le Cornu, Acts, 981 (citing Statius Silv. 1.6; Mart. Epig. 1.41.4; Juv. Sat. 3.14–15; 6.542–43).

[4273]. Thus, e.g., Tarsus perhaps kept linen workers, but not all other artisans, from citizenship (Dio Chrys. Or. 34.21–23; Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 16–17); but λινουργός may have included any industrial workers (Applebaum, “Social Status,” 717). Farming was regarded as difficult toil (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 1.5) but honest labor (Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 80.12–14, 19–23); manual labor was harder for an aristocrat unaccustomed to it (Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.8).

[4274]. Men. Rhet. 1.3, 360.25–27. The exception for artistic skill is also noted in Grant, Christianity and Society, 80; on crafts in general, see Burford, Craftsmen; Evans, “Crafts.” Lucian regards even sculpting as “ugly” compared with education (Career 14).

[4275]. Men. Rhet. 1.3, 360.28–29. Although this might refer just to the “free” arts (painting and sculpture, line 30), it probably includes both arts and crafts. The distinction between skilled and unskilled craftspeople appears elsewhere (y. Moʾed Qaṭ. 1:8, §2).

[4276]. Hock, Social Context, 44.

[4277]. Polyb. 26.1.1–3 (cf. also 26.1.12).

[4278]. Lucian Dial. G. 241 (17/15, Hermes and Apollo 1) (also emphasizing his crippled state). Hera defends his useful occupation in 243 (18/16, Hera and Leto 1) (but her claim that Aphrodite loves him suggests that Lucian satirizes Hera’s willful ignorance here; see 245–46 [21/17, Apollo and Hermes ¶¶1–2]).

[4279]. Eurip. Meleager frg. 522 (from Stob. 4.22.188); Libanius Speech in Character 14.4. It was among the professions open to women (see, e.g., Lindner, “Frau”).

[4280]. Stahlmann, “Gender Roles,” 744 (citing CIL 6.11602 = ILS 8402); Reden, “Work,” 743. Cf. Prov 31:21–22 and esp. 31:24.

[4281]. He did, however, appreciate any genuine work (Xen. Mem. 1.2.57); Xenophon viewed skilled cobblers, carpenters, and the like as “slavish” (4.2.22).

[4282]. Grant, Christianity and Society, 73, citing Plato Rep. 9.590C.

[4283]. Grant, Christianity and Society, 73–74, citing SVF 1.264; Plut. Stoic Cont., Mor. 1034b; Clement Strom. 5.76.1; Origen Cels. 1.5.

[4284]. Philod. Household 23 (Malherbe, Social Aspects, 25, citing Festugière, Religion, 56).

[4285]. Hock, Social Context, 52–58, surveys the four means of philosophers acquiring support (fees, attachment to a wealthy household, begging, and labor), noting (57–58) that many had problems with philosophers’ doing manual labor. Mostly only Cynics begged, and for others, working was “the least popular option” (58–59, here 59). Apparently, Paul’s opponents in Corinth lived from wealthy households, in contrast to Paul’s labor (Hock, Social Context, 65).

[4286]. Chrysippus insisted on collecting the fee before or during the training (Plut. Stoic Cont. 20, Mor. 1043E). Lucian Hermot. 9 mocks a Stoic abusing a student behind on his fees; in Phil. Sale 24, he mocks a Stoic philosophizing about charging fees. Protagoras charged fees (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.10.494); Aristotle accepted the charging of fees in commercial relationships between teacher and student, as opposed to one of friendship (Marshall, Enmity, 227); philosophers also often were on the household payroll of rich patrons (e.g., Diog. Laert. 2.69). Sophists were known for charging fees (e.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 2.11.591; 2.21.604), but we do read of some who used a sliding scale (1.21.519) or who waived fees for the needy (2.23.606). Charging fees was standard for most schools (Watson, “Education,” 311). Philod. Prop. col. 23.23–29, regarded receiving gifts for teaching the noblest form of income (Tsouna on 100n66 cites Diog. Laert. 10.121 for a similar opinion).

[4287]. On Socrates’s opposition to charging fees (vs. sophists), see Xen. Mem. 1.6.11–13; Diog. Laert. 2.27; cf. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 41; Marshall, Enmity, 296. As noted below, some Jewish sages also valued providing Torah without concern for remuneration (Le Cornu, Acts, 674, citing Der. Er. Zuṭ. 4:3); but people ought to pay fees (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; y. Ḥag. 1:7, §1).

[4288]. Himself happy to escape apprenticeship to an ignorant trade (sculpting) and pursue learning instead (Lucian Career 8–14). Others also contrasted crafts with true learning (e.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.7, though he regards sculpting as close to educated professions, and all these professions as inferior to being a sage).

[4289]. Lucian Indictment 6–7, 8, 11.

[4290]. Lucian Runaways 17. But that the sages were uneducated members of the working class was part of their problem (Runaways 12, 14).

[4291]. For Cynics begging, see comment on Acts 3:2.

[4292]. Grant, Christianity and Society, 75, cites, for Romans’ hard-work ethos, Plutarch Cato; Pliny Panegyr. 24.2 (cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 1.21; 3.83); inscriptions in MacMullen, Social Relations, 43–44. For the range of occupations in imperial Rome, see Carcopino, Life, 173–84.

[4293]. Grant, Christianity and Society, 74–75, cites Cleanthes (SVF 1.611 from Mus. Ruf. frg. 1, p. 34.22–30); Musonius Rufus (frg. 3, p. 42.28–29; frg. 4, p. 46.27–28; cf. frg. 11); Dio Chrysostom (Or. 7.125); Stob. Flor. 85.21 = Hierocles pp. 62–63 von Arnim; Epict. Diatr. 3.12.6; 3.15.11; Marc. Aur. 1.5. Others add Cleanthes in Diog. Laert. 7.168; also Epict. Diatr. 3.26.23; Mus. Ruf. frg. 11 (Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 151; Johnson, Acts, 32). Musonius believed that hard work comported well with the Stoic ideal of self-sufficiency (Grant, Christianity and Society, 74–75).

[4294]. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 24, cites similarly Mus. Ruf. frg. 11, p. 60.9–15. Though born an equestrian, Musonius valued earning one’s living by working hard with one’s hands (Grant, Paul, 54, cites Mus. Ruf. frg. 11, p. 80.15; p. 82.24; for his equestrian status, see Grant, Paul, 52).

[4295]. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 24; idem, Philosophers, 69–70.

[4296]. Dio Chrys. Or. 1.9 (though in a passage rhetorically designed to lower audience expectations).

[4297]. Grant, Paul, 7. Cf. also Isoc. Demon. 9, 21. Elsewhere, see, e.g., Confuc. Anal. 112 (9.19).

[4298]. E.g., Plut. M. Cato 1.3; 2.2; 4.1; Cic. 36.3; Pliny Ep. 3.5.7–20. For traditional Romans, distaste for toil was a Greek vice (Polyb. 39.1.10–12).

[4299]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 7, pp. 56, 58; frg. 51, p. 144.7–8; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.9; 3.34, 85; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11b, pp. 64–65.20–21.

[4300]. Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 32.28; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5a.13; 2.7.7b, pp. 46–47.6.

↑ Back to top