[4302] . E.g., Bruce, Documents , 54.

[4302] . E.g., Bruce, Documents , 54.

[4301]. Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 80.15; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.21; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b2, pp. 14–15.14–16; pp. 16–17.10–11; 2.7.11k, pp. 82–83.19–23; cf. Xen. Cyr. 1.2.1; Isoc. Demon. 40; Plut. Demosth. 1.3; Alex. 40.2; Diogenes Ep. 14. Hard work preceded all achievement (Porph. Marc. 6.105–7.127).

[4302]. E.g., Bruce, Documents, 54.

[4303]. Hock, Social Context, 22–23. For another critique of Hock here, see Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 117–19.

[4304]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 118–19. Admittedly, Acts 22:3 is more controversial than 18:3; but see comment there.

[4305]. For a more detailed defense of my position on this point, see Keener, John, 185–94; far more thoroughly and with fuller nuance, see esp. Instone-Brewer, Traditions. That rabbinic sources are cited more critically than most bodies of ancient sources except Scripture is partly (and rightly) due to their long period of transmission but may also be partly related to their connection to an extant religious tradition, for which scholars of such documents (perhaps because of the limited size of their research canons) usually raise the bar of historical analysis.

[4306]. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 15–16, notes that some of these early sources are pre-Christian. Even allowing for inaccurate attributions, they probably represent early traditions.

[4307]. Hock, Social Context, 23–24.

[4308]. In praise of hard work, see, e.g., Prov 10:4; 12:11, 24; 13:4; 14:23; Test. Iss. 5:3; ʾAbot R. Nat. 21, §44 B; b. Ber. 32b, bar. See further Safrai, “Education,” 958 (citing m. ʾAb. 1:10; ʾAbot R. Nat. 11 A); Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 440ff. In ancient Near Eastern wisdom, e.g., ANET 413, 425.

[4309]. In context, this exhortation (אהב את המלאכה) may be opposed to playing up to the authorities, depending on how coherent the redaction of ʾAbot is supposed to be.

[4310]. E.g., Ps.-Phoc. 153–54; on work versus laziness, see further discussion at Acts 17:5. Adam had to toil hard, but the later division of labor reduced humanity’s strain (t. Ber. 6:2).

[4311]. Ps.-Phoc. 158. On the difficulties of digging, see Luke 16:3; Aristoph. Birds 1432 (in Drury, Design, 79); Diog. Laert. 7.5.171; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.488; for slaves, Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.79.2; Char. Chaer. 8.8.2. For ditches, cf. Ovid Tristia 4.1.5–6; in the mines, Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.8; in agriculture, Theophr. Caus. Plant. 3.6.3–4; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.79.2; for grave digging, P.Grenf. 2.68.1; 2.76.1; 2.77.3.

[4312]. E.g., John Chrysostom in Cat. Act. 18.3–5; Hom. Acts 39; Augustine On the Work of Monks (FC 16:331–94); Sermon on Mount 2.17.57–58 (all in Martin, Acts, 223–24). Like Lucian, many could view manual labor as appropriate—at least for manual laborers.

[4313]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 99.

[4314]. Polyb. 38.12.5, from 147 B.C.E. (Grant, Paul, 15).

[4315]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 18.

[4316]. Grant, Paul, 15.

[4317]. Ibid., 16, following Spawforth, “Roman Corinth”; see also idem, “Corinth”; Sherwin-White, Levick, and Bispham, “Colonization,” 364. Julius Caesar had allowed freedmen, but Augustus required all to be freeborn (Engels, Roman Corinth, 18; on freedpersons and veterans in more detail, see 16–18, esp. 67–69). The original settlers were probably more freedmen than veterans, used in the city’s renovation (Grant, Paul, 19).

[4318]. Grant, Paul, 16, following Spawforth, “Roman Corinth.” The Greek economy was weak before the Roman period (Grant, “Economic Background,” 104–5).

[4319]. MacMullen, Social Relations, 120; Savage, Power, 85–86; Harland, Associations, 41; Martin, Slavery, 44–46, 123–24. Paul’s pride in earning his living thus need not indicate that he came from “a rather well-to-do family” (pace Dahl, Studies, 35), although, in view of Acts 22:3 and his obvious measure of intellectual training in his epistles, he probably did.

[4320]. Alciphron views farmers as valuing hard work over nonsense such as philosophy and war (Farm. 11 [Sitalces to Oenopion, his son], 3.14; 13 [Phyllis to Thrasonides, his son], 3.16).

[4321]. Spawforth, “Artisans.”

[4322]. Dio Chrys. Or. 3.56; cf. Eccl 2:24; 3:13; 5:18–19. Dio also opines that philosophers ought to be versatile enough to build what they need (Or. 71.1–6).

[4323]. Dio Chrys. Or. 7.110. No one honorable should have any connection with such professions (7.111). One should also avoid professions harmful to societal morals, such as those involving makeup, perfumes, hairdressing (7.117–18) and those of actors, creators of mimes, etc. (7.119); auctioneers and criers in the market who must engage in vulgar shouting (7.123); and brothel keepers (7.133).

[4324]. Dio Chrys. Or. 7.112–13.

[4325]. Dio Chrys. Or. 7.115 (one wonders how many poor people would have agreed).

[4326]. Cf. Riesner, Early Period, 149.

[4327]. Rapske, Custody, 111–12. “Status inconsistency” is a recognized category in sociological discussions (see esp. Lenski, “Status Crystallization”).

[4328]. Nevertheless, Still, “Loathe Labor,” may be right to question whether we find in Paul a wealthy or aristocratic disdain of manual labor.

[4329]. To pass over a matter quickly was appropriate rhetorical form if the matter might distress one’s audience (Theon Progymn. 5.52–56).

[4330]. With Martínez, “Pablo.”

[4331]. There is, however, no distinction from the work in Corinth in 1 Cor 4:12; cf. his exhortation in 1 Thess 4:11.

[4332]. See, e.g., Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 15.

[4333]. Perhaps they were engaged in Cilician imports to Jerusalem, although, as already noted, it seems likelier that Paul was a leatherworker.

[4334]. Watson, “Education,” 312. For the emphasis on the father’s responsibility, see b. Qidd. 29a, bar.; 30b. For apprenticing a son to a carpenter, see, e.g., b. Mak. 8b.

[4335]. Rabbi Judah in b. Qidd. 29a (qualified as metaphoric by some of his colleagues or successors).

[4336]. Attributed to the school of Hillel but cited in b. Šabb. 12a; Lam. Rab. 3. This may be hyperbolic; a tailor could not even walk with a needle in his garment (b. Šabb. 11ab).

[4337]. Athenians may have been distinctive in requiring children to support aged parents only if the latter taught them a trade (Vitruv. Arch. 6.pref. 3), but Vitruvius is himself grateful to his parents for teaching him a trade (6.pref. 4).

[4338]. Thür, “Kakosis.”

[4339]. PSI 871, from 64 C.E. (in Sherk, Empire, 232, §175).

[4340]. Minnen, “Women” (citing SB 18.13305; KSB 1.045; P.Heid. 4.326).

[4341]. Jeffers, World, 28. Jeffers estimates age thirteen (so also Hock, Social Context, 24); Lewis, Life, 135, finds that most linen weavers were ten to thirteen, with apprenticeship usually lasting one to three years and sometimes a little longer. For one year, see P.Oxy. 275; five years, P.Oxy. 725 (including no pay for the first two years and seven months but gradually increasing wages thereafter; the apprentice received just twenty days off annually for holidays). In some cultures, apprenticeship can last between three and seven years (Mbiti, Religions, 232, on traditional Yoruba diviners). Occasionally an apprentice started later (age twenty-five in CIG 4464, 9899, from 324 C.E.; Grant, Religions, 123).

[4342]. See Hock, Social Context, 24 (esp. notes, 76). As noted, the apprentice in P.Oxy. 725 received no pay for the first two years and seven months but gradually increasing wages thereafter.

[4343]. He appears to be young, since he still plays in Dream 2 and often cries because of his beatings in Dream 4.

[4344]. Jeffers, World, 256.

[4345]. Lewis, Life, 134–35 (with papyrological evidence).

[4346]. Also true in the ancient Near East, especially Egypt, where maintaining the hereditary trade was mandatory (de Vaux, Israel, 359).

[4347]. MacMullen, Social Relations, 97.

[4348]. Hock, Social Context, 24–25.

[4349]. See Safrai, “Education,” 964–65 (citing, before 70 C.E., a tradition in t. Beṣah 3:8; later, b. Beṣah 15b; Sipre Num. 148).

[4350]. Secular labor seems the likeliest way to understand דרך ארץ, at least on the basis of comments from later generations and the likely sense of מלאכה in the same passage; see also the earlier source in m. ʾAb. 3:17 (but contrast 4:8).

[4351]. Allegedly R. Zera in b. ʿErub. 65a. By itself the report could mean the opposite, but the context of R. Simeon b. Lakish’s claim that night was for learning suggests that the Talmudic editors understood R. Zera’s claim as it has been construed here.

[4352]. E.g., Eccl. Rab. 9:9, §1.

[4353]. For historical context that might qualify this assessment, see Marböck, “Herz.” It is possible that 1QS VI, 19–20 suggests that nine of every ten Essenes provide support for the tenth to study continually (cf. VI, 6–7; suggested to me by Orval Wintermute).

[4354]. Sipre Deut. 42.3.3; b. Ber. 35b, bar.

[4355]. Sipre Deut. 42.3.3; b. Ber. 35b.

[4356]. B. Ber. 35b.

[4357]. M. ʾAb. 3:5, if, again, correctly understanding דרך ארץ. It is so understood in later sources (e.g., Num. Rab. 19:26).

[4358]. Gen. Rab. 13:7. Laboring in the law was traced back to Adam (Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 2:15).

[4359]. Le Cornu, Acts, 674, citing Der. Er. Zuṭ. 4:3.

[4360]. Lev. Rab. 30:1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:1; Pesiq. Rab. 51:1; cf. Lev. Rab. 34:16. This had long been true of sages who were also priests (Safrai, “Education,” 964), though others may have early depended on hospitality (McNamara, Judaism, 172).

[4361]. Y. Ḥag. 1:7, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5. A later rabbi viewed God’s provision to Elijah by ravens as a reward for his dawn and evening Torah study (Lev. Rab. 19:1).

[4362]. B. Ned. 49b (late second- and early third-century rabbis).

[4363]. E.g., b. Ber. 6b; Beṣah 32b, bar.; ʿErub. 18b; Yebam. 63a; Song Rab. 2:5, §3. Rabbi Akiba allegedly even claimed (undoubtedly hyperbolically) that it was better to work on the Sabbath than to depend on others (b. Pesaḥ. 112a).

[4364]. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 3 (following Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2:745–46); Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 102 (following Klausner); cf. also Soncino 2:627n1, on Shabbat. Cf. early second-century R. Joshua as a needle maker (y. Taʿan. 4:1, §14); mid-second-century R. Johanan the sandal maker (b. Ber. 22a; Ned. 85b; Qidd. 63a; Gen. Rab. 61:3); later Abba Saul the baker (b. Pesaḥ. 34a); R. Judah the baker (b. Menaḥ. 6b); R. Abin the carpenter (b. Šabb. 23b; cf. Shammai in b. Šabb. 31a); R. Hananiah, selling money (y. Peʾah 7:4, §4); three early third-century rabbis were silk traders (Gen. Rab. 77:2).

[4365]. For tanners, see comment on Acts 9:43; for shepherds, see Keener, John, 799–802; comment on Acts 20:28. Artisans were thought to work harder than shopkeepers (b. B. Meṣiʿa 68b), but some were thought deceptive (b. B. Meṣiʿa 76a).

[4366]. Quilting is honorable in b. Qidd. 82ab (Rab Judah); a tailor appears not unfavorably in m. Šabb. 1:3; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 39a; a knowledgeable weaver appears in b. Ḥag. 15b.

[4367]. Riesner, Early Period, 154–55, thinks them mainly middle class.

[4368]. For Hillel, see b. Yoma 35b; for Akiba, b. Pesaḥ. 49b.

[4369]. E.g., Hemer, Acts in History, 233. Were one to rely on etymology, one might connect the role with Peter’s desire to build tabernacles (Luke 9:33; cf. Gen 33:17; Neh 8:15–17; Jonah 4:5; Jdt 8:5) or the making of the tabernacle in the wilderness (Acts 7:43–44; cf. Exod 25:9; 26:1). If Luke substituted this term for a clearer one to offer such a connection (which is not impossible), the nature of the connection (e.g., a double entendre for workers on a spiritual temple) would nevertheless remain open to debate (Luke not being given to allegory).

[4370]. E.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 223 (apparently the minority view in their day); Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 168; Hock, Social Context, 21; Arrington, Acts, 184; Reimer, Women, 202–3; Rapske, Custody, 107. Bruce, Commentary, 367, translates “leatherworker” but connects this with cilicium anyway (presumably because people used goatskins and other skins as well as sheared sheep when they were alive); in the later idem, Thessalonians, 34, he mentions tentmaking, “perhaps more generally ‘leather working.’ ”

[4371]. Reimer, Women, 199–200. The Old Latin MS h has a term meaning “maker of bed cushions,” most of which were of leather; Origen and Rufinus understand σκηνοποιός as sutor (“shoemaker”; Hock, Social Context, 20–21).

[4372]. Reimer, Women, 200–201. Roman military tents consisted of leather (Le Bohec, “Tabernaculum,” citing Livy 23.18.5; Tac. Ann. 13.35.3; 14.38.1), lined with straw in winter. Yet Bede Comm. Acts 18.3 suggests that the tents (used for shade) were made of wool, linen, or other substances. See full discussion in BDAG, rejecting “tentmaker” but noting the lack of hard lexical data for any position.

[4373]. Charlesworth, Trade Routes, 93 (noting for cilicium Varro Rust. 2.11, 12; cf. Mart. Epig. 14.141), who also connects this with Paul. Barr, “Tent Makers,” suggests that Aquila and Priscilla imported cilicium in Rome, where they made tents for the military. Pliny E. N.H. 8.76.203 noted that Cilicians wore goat hair garments.

[4374]. People strongly preferred sheep for wool, but goatskins made better leather after the animal’s death (see Lewis, Life, 132).

[4375]. Jones and Mitchell, “Tarsus.” On Tarsus’s fame for linen, Pekridou-Gorecki, “Linen,” 621 (along with Panopolis in Egypt [Strabo 17.1.41] and Colchis [11.2.17]).

[4376]. Applebaum, “Economic Life,” 684–85, citing reports for Jerusalem (b. Meg. 26a), Lydda (t. ʾOhal. 4:2; cf. b. Naz. 52a), and Tiberias (y. Šeqal. 2.47a).

[4377]. Lampe, “Paulus-Zeltmacher”; cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 626. Szesnat, “Σκηνοποιός,” suggests that Paul could have used various materials, including linen, leather, and perhaps cilicium.

[4378]. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 417 (noting Pliny E. N.H. 19.23–24 for awnings for stalls in the forum area); cf. Wild, “Linen.” For linen sails, see Pliny E. N.H. 19.5.22; for linen cloths used as awnings in theaters, see 19.6.23–25.

[4379]. See Peskowitz, “Textiles,” 196. Pliny E. N.H. 19.1.1–19.2.15 discusses flax (from various regions); preparing flax for linen, 19.3.16–18; on various kinds of linens, see 19.4.19–21.

[4380]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 105; Peskowitz, “Textiles,” 196. Baugh suggests that work in expensive fabrics could have brought Paul in contact with upper-class people (as in Acts 19:31; Rom 16:23). But given Luke’s Tendenz, we would expect him to emphasize the expense of the fabrics if this were the case (cf. Acts 16:14).

[4381]. Cf. Frye, Heritage, 153–57; Herbert, “Silk Road”; Casson, Mariners, 198, 204, 206; Croom, Clothing, 22; Aune, Revelation, 999; Bauckham, Climax, 355; Caird, Revelation, 228; Schneider, “Ivory.” As a luxury item, see, e.g., Suet. Calig. 52; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 2.14; 2 Bar. 10:19; Rev 18:12; cf. Croom, Clothing, 22. Some silk was available from Cos (Pliny E. N.H. 11.26.76; 11.27.77), but the highest quality was imported from China.

[4382]. Tarsian citizens despised linen workers in this period, not yet having granted them citizenship (Dio Chrys. Or. 34.21–23). This suggests that it was not the most desirable occupation for Tarsian citizens. If an advocate of the linen-working interpretation contends that Paul learned the trade later, appeal to a connection between linen work and Tarsus must also be relinquished.

[4383]. See Theissen, Setting, 104.

[4384]. See Lee, “Unrest,” 129, citing Dio Chrys. Or. 34.22; cf. Or. 32, 33, 34, 39, 46.

[4385]. If a trade with cilicium is in view, it must be one learned from his father rather than by himself (van Unnik, Tarsus, 50); but the same objection concerning citizenship would apply to his father as well.

[4386]. Cf. Goodman, State, 56 (the supposed Aramaic mistranslation behind Josephus here [Cohen, “Asinaeus”] appears improbable). Légasse, “Career,” 378–79, counters that such trades were common in Jerusalem nevertheless. Given Paul’s reputed status, however (Gal 1:14; Acts 9:1–2), his activity was not likely considered among people of status to be a shameful one, however common.

[4387]. Peskowitz, “Textiles,” 197.

[4388]. Applebaum, “Social Status,” 717. Later rabbis discussed cilicium (קילקלי, b. B. Bat. 78a).

[4389]. Rapske, “Travel and Shipwreck,” 7 (on weaving equipment’s bulk, he cites, e.g., P.Oxy. 2.264; 36.2773; 7.1035); idem, Custody, 107 (citing, for the equipment’s size, Roth, Looms, 41).

[4390]. He does not specify its nature in 1 Thess 2:9 (or 2 Thess 3:8). Although we do not know the length of his stay in Thessalonica, it was apparently involuntarily abbreviated, and so we do not know what his long-term occupational plans there were.

[4391]. Hock, Social Context, 21 (following Zahn on the latter point); also Rapske, Custody, 106–7; Reimer, Women, 202–3; Jeffers, World, 27; Applebaum, “Social Status,” 716; Le Cornu, Acts, 470. They cite, e.g., Livy 5.2.7; 37.39.2; Tac. Ann. 13.35.3. Lampe, “Paulus-Zeltmacher,” counters that most of Hock’s sources on tents refer to fabric.

[4392]. Raw skin was far less durable and flexible than leather, requiring preparation (Anderson-Stojanovic, “Leather,” 339).

[4393]. Rapske, Custody, 107; Jeffers, World, 28; against the very tentative objection in Stagg, Acts, 189. It was, of course, possible for some workers to perform the entire range of work from tanning to the final product (e.g., ILS 7555, from Rome; Sherk, Empire, 229, §173H).

[4394]. Hock, Social Context, 24 (also describing the workers as bent over their work).

[4395]. Jeffers, World, 26. For shoemaking, see discussion at Acts 12:8; for awnings, see Pliny E. N.H. 19.6.23–25. One could also construct awnings from linen (Pekridou-Gorecki, “Linen,” 620).

[4396]. Jeffers, World, 42. “The two Jewish makers of hobnail boots (caligae) buried at Corycus belong to a later period, but . . . might, like Paul, have been working for the Roman army” (Applebaum, “Social Status,” 716).

[4397]. Hock, Social Context, 33–34, esp. 34.

[4398]. See, e.g., Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 17; Witherington, Corinthians, 209. For “tents” at the Isthmian Games, cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 9.22 (though ἐσκήνουν may simply refer to residence).

[4399]. E.g., Strabo 8.6.20; cf. Livy 33.32.3.

[4400]. Gill, “Achaia,” 452; for theatrical props, cf. Welborn, “Correspondence,” 208, following BDAG. Tents must have shaded the many market stalls in Corinth’s massive open forum (Engels, Roman Corinth, 13).

[4401]. Hock, Social Context, 34.

[4402]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 118; Jeffers, World, 25, 28. Conditions were better in Greece than in Egypt, but long workdays seem likely. For siestas, see comment on Acts 8:26; 19:9; 26:13; also Keener, John, 592.

[4403]. Jeffers, World, 61.

[4404]. Hock, Social Context, 33 (followed by others, e.g., Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 118; cf. Chilton, Rabbi Paul, 87–88).

[4405]. Hock, Social Context, 33.

[4406]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 119. This social activity characterizes many societies that I have observed and seems odd only to people from busy urban mobile societies like my own (where people drive everywhere and tend to stay inside and, for different reasons, mistrust strangers).

[4407]. Lysias Or. 24.19–20, §170 (noting perfumers, barbers, and shoemakers).

[4408]. Xen. Mem. 4.2.1 (LCL, 269); this is classical Athens, but the principle probably remains applicable.

[4409]. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 170.

[4410]. As a setting for evangelism, see esp. Hock, Social Context, 41; idem, “Workshop.” Meeks, Urban Christians, 29, describes this thesis as “not implausible.” Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (Vogels, 296; Bray, Corinthians, 299) thinks that Paul did his primary teaching at night, after his workday, but our knowledge of Paul suggests that he probably spoke every chance he had (cf. 1 Thess 2:9; 3:10).

[4411]. Hock, Social Context, 38–41; cf. Malherbe, Philosophers, 69. Cynics generally lacked access to more respectable forums (and were thought to sometimes insult their hosts when they were brought into such forums).

[4412]. That is, in this respect, he resembles the early Moravian missions movement and early efforts by William Carey more than the more massive typical efforts of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Protestant missions. This is not intended as a critique of the latter, which generally faced a different cultural situation; some of the latter (e.g., Hudson Taylor’s China Inland Mission, like the Jesuits in Asia long before) were quite serious about cultural identification. For “tentmaking” in missions today (self-support in the cross-cultural setting), see, e.g., Peever, “Tent-Making.”

[4413]. Hock, Social Context, 33 (documenting all the points in this paragraph copiously, 83nn70–79).

[4414]. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 213.

[4415]. Such supplies could often be borrowed when one began in a new town (Jeffers, World, 28); some tools might have been given Paul after his apprenticeship (Hock, Social Context, 25), but of course, he would not have them now.

[4416]. In terms of “scenes,” the introduction could be Acts 18:1–4, but I have chosen to keep the synagogue material (18:4–8) together; 18:4 may be connected with 18:1–3, but no more than the first part of 18:5 is.

[4417]. Tannehill, Acts, 221.

[4418]. Ibid., 222.

[4419]. Ibid., 223, following Benjamin Hubbard.

[4420]. Ibid., 226.

[4421]. See Meeks, “Aliens,” 130.

[4422]. Cf. Jeffers, World, 208.

[4423]. Smith, “Egyptian Cults at Corinth”; briefly, Malherbe, Social Aspects, 76.

[4424]. See Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 80 (citing Philo Flacc. 57; following Applebaum, “Social Status”).

[4425]. Judging from Greek anti-Judaism in Alexandria, this may have acted to their advantage; they appeared less threatening.

[4426]. Cf. polytheistic cultic activity in guilds in Harland, Associations, 115–36; Kraybill, Cult and Commerce, 117–23. For the problem for Christians, see, e.g., Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 89–90; Metzger, Revelation, 36–37; Talbert, Apocalypse, 20.

[4427]. Winter, Left Corinth, 288–93.

[4428]. The Lechaeum was Corinth’s cardo maximus, its main north-south street (McRay, Archaeology, 335; Romano, “Planning,” 30). It ran 3,150 m. from the forum’s rostra, where it was 24 Roman ft. in width, north to the Lechaeum harbor (Romano, “Planning,” 30).

[4429]. Winter, Left Corinth, 294. The aedile was in charge of grain. An inscription for the meat market, the macellum, remains (295).

[4430]. Winter (ibid., 288–94) thinks that the harsher policy was enacted after Paul left, creating the new situation that required advice in 1 Cor 10:25. This is plausible, though the textual evidence (Pauline and extrabiblical) renders this action historically certain at neither time (Winter’s arguments are always well informed, but on the degree of speculation involved in some of his proposals, note Dunn, Beginning, 783).

[4431]. Thus Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 10, cite Philo Embassy 281; Rom 16:21; probably 1 Cor 7:18–19 (to be relevant to Paul’s hearers); and with Acts 18:2, 8, 17, they cite 1 Cor 1:1, 14; 16:19. Possibly relevant (esp. 1 Cor 1:24), Kwon, Corinthians, 105, also cites the emphasis in 1 Cor 1:22, 24; on 110, Kwon also plausibly cites the likelihood of Jewish freedmen at Corinth’s founding in 44 B.C.E. (given Pompey’s import of Jewish slaves to Rome in 61 B.C.E.; following Vos, Conflicts, 187–88).

[4432]. So CIJ 1:518, §718. The inscription has long drawn comment (e.g., Cadbury, Acts in History, 86), though Koester, “Silence,” 340, doubts its usefulness because of the uncertainty of its date (possibly much later than Paul, McRay, Archaeology, 319–20).

[4433]. E.g., Welborn, “Correspondence,” 208, following West, Inscriptions, 79. Cf. also the probably fifth-century C.E. capital with Jewish symbols (Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 10).

[4434]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 626 (also noting that the marble stone was probably originally from a lintel over the entrance); McRay, Archaeology, 320. Deissmann, Light, 16n7, regarded its writing as lower class and poor (if this does not reflect his romanticist bias).

[4435]. The Lechaeum Road also contained the “meat market” (above).

[4436]. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 75. Diaspora synagogues seem to have had commercial connections (Rosenfeld and Menirav, “Synagogue”).

[4437]. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 162.

[4438]. Sanders, Judaism, 200.

[4439]. The Sardis synagogue is the largest yet excavated, with a prime piece of real estate (see Seager, “Synagogue”); but this is, undoubtedly, a particularly extravagant example.

[4440]. McRay, Archaeology, 320.

[4441]. Paul’s denial in Acts 24:12 applies only to Jerusalem, where he arrived only recently (24:11). The Western text adds that Paul was inserting Jesus’s name (presumably where appropriate in the Scripture reading; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 461).

[4442]. Philosophers had introduced the value of conversational dialogue into even political rhetoric (cf. Kennerly, “Sermo,” emphasizing Stoic influence in Cicero), but disagreements could become heated. Indeed, “philosophers so often attacked each other that the abuse they heaped on each other became stereotyped” (Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 12).

[4443]. Strelan, Artemis, 207.

[4444]. See esp. Ulmer, “Advancement,” noting parallels between early rabbinic teaching and diatribe.

[4445]. E.g., Plut. Statecraft 7, Mor. 803CD; Diog. Laert. 1.35; 6.2.33, 51, 74–75; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.540–42; see further discussion and sources (including in Jewish sources, such as t. ʿAbod. Zar. 6:7; Sanh. 13:5) in Keener, John, 65–68.

[4446]. Though perhaps not as loosely as often assumed (cf. Stanley, “Jew nor Greek”; but see Rajak, “Location,” 11–13; Forbes, “Paul,” 127–28; discussion at Acts 14:1); at the very least, it refers to hellenized urban people distinct from either “barbarians” (Rom 1:14) or Jews (1:16).

[4447]. As in the later inscription found there; but by the second century, Greek was becoming Corinth’s dominant language, in any case.

[4448]. See, e.g., Noy, “Writing”; further comment at Acts 28:17.

[4449]. See, e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 35. The term πείθω was, for Cicero, so connected with specifically oratoric persuasion that he introduces this Greek term into his Latin text to make the point (Brut. 15.59).

[4450]. Most note the gift here (C. Williams, Acts, 210; Bruce, Commentary, 370; Conzelmann, Acts, 152; Dunn, Acts, 242).

[4451]. He notes that only the Philippians sent him funds more than once in Thessalonica (Phil 4:15–16), and they continued to do so after he left Macedonia (Phil 4:15; 2 Cor 11:8–9), even in Rome (Phil 2:30; 4:10–14, 17–19).

[4452]. He also emphasizes that Titus (who appears twelve times in Pauline literature yet, surprisingly, never in Acts) did not exploit them (2 Cor 12:18).

[4453]. Those who receive teaching should share resources with their local church teachers (Gal 6:6), recognizing that the benefit of spiritual things outweighs that of natural things (1 Cor 9:11; Gal 6:7–10; cf. Rom 15:27; 2 Cor 9:6).

[4454]. See Hemer, Acts in History, 187.

[4455]. With, e.g., C. Williams, Acts, 24; cf. the omitted detail observed in Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 33 (from Witherington).

[4456]. As noted earlier, comparisons of other ancient biographies yield the same kinds of differences; see Keener, “Otho,” 338, 348–51.

[4457]. Barrett, Acts, 865, suggests that Luke might use the double coordinating conjunction in Acts 18:5 to emphasize “both Silas and Timothy, implying an earlier occasion when only one of the two came down from Macedonia.”

[4458]. This would account for both the first person plural in 1 Thess 3:2 and the singular in 3:5. Alternatively but less likely, Silas may have remained in Thessalonica the entire time. But this view is problematic if the first person plural in 1 Thessalonians reflects a genuine “we.”

[4459]. Goulder, Competing Mission, 225, argues that Silas must be the source who introduced overrealized eschatology into both Corinth and Thessalonica (1 Cor 4:8; 2 Thess 2:2), but this hardly fits the “Jerusalem perspective” that he attributes to him (224). The suggestion that Silas broke with Paul due to the latter’s break with Corinth’s synagogue (cf. Phillips, Paul and Acts, 171) similarly speculates from silence.

[4460]. E.g., Dion. Hal. Demosth. 58; probably Eurip. frg. 1066 (from Stob. 4.29.40); further Milligan, Thessalonians, 131; Lyons, Autobiography, 69; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 105. Ibid., 105–7, is surely correct that Paul uses both literary and “real” plurals; see the analysis in Lyons, Autobiography, 14–15. Commentators note Paul’s varied use of first person plurals, including at times an authorial “we” (Watson, Second Corinthians, 8). Scholars disagree as to whether those listed with Paul in opening lines are coauthors (in favor, e.g., Murphy-O’Connor, “Co-authorship”; Milligan, Thessalonians, 132; against, e.g., Byrskog, “Co-senders”). Multiple authors could be named up front (Cic. Fam. 16.1.title; 16.3.title; 16.4.title; 16.5.title; 16.6.title; 16.9.title; 16.11.1), and Richards notes that mere secretaries would not be named as coauthors (Letter Writing, 105). But not all Pauline plurals reflect even possible coauthors (though to me the statistics in Lyons, Autobiography, 14n39, do appear to suggest that 1–2 Thessalonians and 2 Corinthians do exhibit a much higher level of plurals).

[4461]. Le Cornu, Acts, 995, compares also teaching attributed to Hillel in t. Sukkah 4:3.

[4462]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9; 1 Cor 1:12; 3:4–5; 2 Cor 10:10–12; cf. Phil 1:17; Pogoloff, Logos, 176 (citing Sen. E. Controv. 7.pref. 8–9); Winter, Left Corinth, 36–37; Grant, Paul, 26, 52; cf. Welborn, Politics, 1.

[4463]. For the technical sense, see m. Sanh. 7:5; comment on Acts 6:11. In later rabbinic sources (as in t. Šabb. 13:5; Sipre Deut. 331.1.2; ʾAbot R. Nat. 16 A), one should hate minim (schismatics, probably often Jewish followers of Jesus); they were worse than idolaters (t. Šabb. 13:5; cf. b. Giṭ. 45b; Hor. 11a; Šabb. 116a; Herford, Christianity, 173–77). (A third-century Amora, however, warns against cursing even a min; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 4b; Sanh. 105b; cf. Bagatti, Church, 108.) That intra-Jewish conflicts about Jesus became severe is clear in later rabbinic sources (see Keener, John, 194–214, esp. 197–203, 209–12) but is suggested already in this period if the conflicts behind Suetonius’s report about Claudius’s expulsion involved Jesus (see comment on Acts 18:2).

[4464]. The plural ἱμάτια suggests simply “garments” rather than the narrower usage for the outer cloak (of which Paul would be wearing but one, though it is, presumably, the outer cloak the shaking of which would be visible). Luke does not specify whether this was a pallium, appropriate to Greek sages (on which see Croom, Clothing, 51; cf. Eunapius Lives 471) or, much more likely here, a garment including his Jewish fringes.

[4465]. Commentators often note Neh 5:13 here (Karris, Invitation, 171; Fitzmyer, Acts, 627, viewing it as protesting innocence; Witherington, Acts, 549; Bock, Acts, 579).

[4466]. With Witherington, Acts, 549, though he rightly notes also that in this case, Paul is not leaving town. Shaking out one’s garment before folding it was part of taking care of it (Pesiq. Rab. 10:11), perhaps to keep it clean; this could fit the image here (implied in Acts 13:51) of being “clean” from their blood. More relevant may be priests shaking out their robes while cursing someone (Lysias Or. 6.51–52 [Against Andocides]), in Shiell, Reading Acts, 160).

[4467]. Soards, Speeches, 100.

[4468]. E.g., Exod 22:3; Lev 17:4; Num 35:27; Deut 19:10; 21:7–9; 22:8; 1 Sam 25:26, 33; 2 Sam 21:1; 1 Kgs 2:32; Ezek 7:23; cf. also Matt 23:35; 27:25; Acts 5:28; Sib. Or. 5.359.

[4469]. Josh 2:19; 2 Sam 1:16; 1 Kgs 2:32, 33, 37; Ezek 18:13. Normally one expects a verb rather than simply “your blood on your head” (1 Kgs 2:32–33, 37; Ezek 33:4), but it can also be assumed (2 Sam 1:16; even if not, for ellipsis, cf. Rowe, “Style,” 135; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 580; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 87).

[4470]. Others (e.g., Tannehill, Acts, 223; Peterson, Acts, 511) also cite here Ezek 33:4.

[4471]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 18B, p. 118.4; Porph. Marc. 24.374–76. Cf. moral purity also in more common usage, e.g., Men. Rhet. 2.10, 416.7–8; see, more fully, comment on Acts 15:9.

[4472]. Leviticus suggests cleansing by blood (cf. Lev 14:14, 17, 25, 28, 52; 16:19; Ezek 43:20; Heb 9:13–14, 22) and cleansing from a flow of blood (Lev 12:7), but neither is comparable in sense. That blood must be washed off (Lev 6:27; 1 Kgs 22:38; Ezek 16:9; for an ironic inversion, Rev 7:14) at least suits the image.

[4473]. In both cases, this reflects God’s sovereign plan to save Gentiles (Luke 2:32; Acts 1:8; Rom 11:11, 32–33; cf. Nolland, “Salvation-History,” 76–81).

[4474]. On critiques of indecisiveness or fickleness, see Keener, Corinthians, 159.

[4475]. For the judgment’s being local, see also Witherington, Acts, 549 and comment on Acts 13:46; for compatibility with Pauline theology, see also C. Williams, Acts, 23–25.

[4476]. Judge, Rank, 13; Bruce, Commentary, 371; Jeffers, World, 206; Lestang, Annonce, 194 (probably); more tentatively, Meeks, Urban Christians, 63. Jews could have mixed names, but a double Roman name (e.g., CIJ 1:275, §352, though written in Greek letters; cf. also 1:413, §561, a gerousiarch, presumably of a synagogue, though I am reading the third element, “Philippus,” as Greek) probably indicated Roman citizenship. “Titius” was Latin (e.g., Mart. Epig. 7.55.5). On why he cannot be identified with the Titus of Paul’s letters, see Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 18:7, forthcoming (courtesy of Witherington).

[4477]. Jeffers, World, 204.

[4478]. Ibid., 206. “Justus” was a reasonably respectable cognomen (Judge, Rank, 36n20).

[4479]. Judge, Rank, 13 (also idem, “Roman Base”), finds the proportion (one-third of the ninety-one persons) ten times higher than his large control group from inscriptions.

[4480]. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 75.

[4481]. Though cf. Jewett, Romans, 980; Adams, “Placing,” 26–27; Keener, Romans, 191; he may have simply hosted many traveling Christians. The description (cf. also 1 Cor 14:23) seems to contrast with the probably family-style “churches in the houses of so-and-so” (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phlm 2; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 156).

[4482]. Goodspeed, “Gaius Titius Justus”; Blue, “House Church,” 174; tentatively Bruce, Commentary, 371 (following Ramsay and Goodspeed); Jewett, Romans, 980. Fitzmyer, Acts, 627, notes this proposal as possible but speculative. Dunn, Acts, 243, finds him possibly also in the “Justus” in Col 4:11 (contrast Judge, Rank, 36n20), but it seems unlikely that this patron is Paul’s traveling fellow worker (the title appears elsewhere; see comment on Acts 1:23).

[4483]. Stambaugh, City, 94.

[4484]. Probably the only hearers in Rome who would know who Gaius (Rom 16:23) was were those who had been in Corinth, such as Prisca and Aquila (Rom 16:3–5), but this would be true of some others from whom Paul sends greetings. This is why Paul specifies Gaius’s role.

[4485]. Cf. the nuanced verdict of Dunn, Romans, 910: the identification fits our information, but it is too limited to be certain.

[4486]. Blue, “House Church,” 175. Paul’s letters, the character of which tends to be more private than that of Acts, tend to use single names “for private citizens” (Jeffers, World, 204–5).

[4487]. Lampe, “Patrons,” 496, refers to the households of Stephanas (1 Cor 16:15) and Crispus (Acts 18:8); more certain is Phoebe from nearby Cenchreae (Rom 16:1).

[4488]. Jeffers, World, 77; see in detail (on beginnings in homes) White, Origins of Architecture, 1:26–59.

[4489]. Cf. Stowers, “Status, Speaking, and Teaching.”

[4490]. The church’s flexibility in using homes but not temples or sacrifices undoubtedly fostered its growth by reducing the cost of its expansion in new areas (cf. Witherington, Acts, 398).

[4491]. See Winter, Left Corinth, 135, 186–87 (citing Vitruvius and esp. Owens, City, 145). For the inside architecture, see, e.g., deSilva, Honor, 193.

[4492]. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 156. During the empire, triclinia grew larger than in an earlier period and eventually could host up to about twenty comfortably (see Dunbabin, “Convivial Spaces”).

[4493]. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 156–58, notes roughly fifty as both the size of a normal home and the total of named members plus their families suggested by Luke and Paul for Corinth. Similarly, Witherington, Corinthians, 114, estimates sixty, with about 10 percent wealthy (but exercising through their dependents a disproportionate influence). But some homes were large enough to hold more members than the usual estimate (Balch, “Houses”).

[4494]. It is highly doubtful that the named members, who are samples and overrepresent the higher-status members (cf. 1 Cor 1:26), with their families constitute the entire church. Cf. the uncertainty in Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 11.

[4495]. Most think that the largest homes could hold only fifty, with smaller homes holding closer to ten or twenty members (Jeffers, World, 81). This was, presumably, usually the case, though the poorer the hosts and guests, probably the more willing to accommodate additional numbers by packing themselves more tightly.

[4496]. Paul might disallow this if, as wealthier members might insist, it was decided by status (cf. also Jas 2:3–4); “seating” in 1 Cor 14:30 may thus be more consistent. Still, seating was expensive and at a premium: e.g., Galilean synagogues included especially floor space but also benches along the walls for elders and seating on the platform (cf. Riesner, “Synagogues in Jerusalem,” 184; Sanders, Judaism, 201; Lachs, Commentary, 367).

[4497]. The Craneion was widely known (e.g., Lucian Dial. D. 329, 1 [1] Diogenes 1); it was a wealthy suburb of Corinth (Plut. Alex. 14.2; cf. also Blue, “House Church,” 153–54), which existed also in old Corinth (Xen. Hell. 4.4.4). Even to a writer in Rome, property in a Corinthian suburb could symbolize wealth (Martial Epig. 5.35.3).

[4498]. Jewett, Romans, 980–81. Dunn, Romans, 910, questions this hypothesis, since the phrase echoes a LXX phrase for meetings of Israel (e.g., Deut 31:30; 1 Sam 17:47).

[4499]. Malina and Pilch, Acts, 130, even think that he is Jewish. Another formally possible explanation for the proximity of his house to the synagogue—namely, that the local Jewish community targeted him for conversion because he was a rich neighbor—is implausible. Such an explanation overestimates both the proselytizing and pecuniary zeal of most of Diaspora Judaism as well as the likely success of such a random exercise.

[4500]. Witherington, Corinthians, 24.

[4501]. Cf. inscriptions honoring synagogue patrons (some of them not members but benefactors who undertook this like other community projects), who helped them build their facilities (White, Origins of Architecture, 1:77–85).

[4502]. See esp. ibid., passim.

[4503]. See Padilla, Speeches, 149, emphasizing the honor-shame aspect.

[4504]. I guess this because Gaius, also baptized here, was a prominent member (Rom 16:23) and Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16) seems to have achieved leadership in the church (16:15–17; though this may have come partly from seniority).

[4505]. Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 18:8, forthcoming (courtesy of Witherington), notes, in light of 1 Cor 1:14, that most of the converts here, unlike Crispus, were not baptized by Paul’s hands, suggesting (on his view) that Silas and Timothy aided.

[4506]. E.g., Mart. Epig. 5.32; 10.2.10; 10.14.2, 10; Tac. Hist. 2.10.

[4507]. The latter’s identity is clearly Roman (with a tria nomina, though in Greek letters), but his Jewishness is only probable. Cf. also Jos. Life 33, 382, 388.

[4508]. Gill, “Achaia,” 451; Judge, First Christians, 562.

[4509]. Johnson, Acts, 323 (who is not finally sure whether Sosthenes is Crispus’s replacement or a colleague, 329). Appealing to Acts 13:15 to support multiple synagogue rulers, see, e.g., Lenski, Acts, 759.

[4510]. On evidence for regional variation of synagogue leaders’ titles and functions, see Trebilco and Evans, “Diaspora Judaism,” 287.

[4511]. Rajak, “Community and Boundaries”; Winter, Left Corinth, 204–5. Most scholars accept the well-to-do qualification for the office (e.g., Meeks, Urban Christians, 57); if Crispus was responsible for the synagogue building, he would be chosen partly for his ability to contribute funds for this purpose when necessary (Theissen, Setting, 74, citing most relevantly CIJ 1:548, 766, 1404; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 72). Cf. already Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 225: not head of the synagogue but “one of the prominent men” with this title (citing Justin Dial. 137).

[4512]. Some also suggest as an additional possibility that Corinth, as a large city, may have had more than one synagogue (Nunnally, Acts, 322); this is quite possible (though cf. perhaps the later local inscription, “synagogue of the Hebrews,” in the unlikely event that this counts either way).

[4513]. With Winter, Left Corinth, 296.

[4514]. So, e.g., Chrys. Hom. Acts 39 (Martin, Acts, 228) (even presenting Sosthenes as an example of suffering for Christ in Acts 18:17); Myrou, “Sosthenes”; for a recent and serious defense, see Fellows, “Renaming.” Judge, First Christians, 564, views Sosthenes here as a possible Roman citizen (such citizens could use Greek names).

[4515]. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 73; cf. Jeffers, World, 81. That they ultimately reached other social dependents is possible, though none of these offices necessarily had formal “clients.”

[4516]. Pearson, “Domestic Religion,” 301. Family shrines were certainly well known in Corinth (see Williams, “Corinth and Domestic Religion”).

[4517]. Theissen, Setting, 93; Meeks, Urban Christians, 57, 59; cf. earlier Lightfoot, Notes, 152; Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 397.

[4518]. For discussion, see, e.g., Koester, “Silence,” 339–40; Gill, “Erastus”; Theissen, Setting, 75–83; Winter, Welfare, 180–96; Gill, “Élites,” 112; McRay, Archaeology, 331–33; Meeks, Urban Christians, 58–59; Yamauchi, Stones, 116, 118; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 160; Furnish, II Corinthians, 25; Goodrich, “Quaestor” (following Theissen in preferring the position of quaestor; citing Achaian evidence); idem, “Responding”; Weiss, “Quästoren” (questioning whether Caesarean colonies such as Corinth had quaestors). In contrast to the suggested identification and implied status, see, e.g., Hemer, Acts in History, 235.

[4519]. But he may well have been aedile later than the title in Rom 16:23 (see Walters, “Civic Identity,” 416; Jeffers, World, 195). Others doubt that the status in Rom 16:23 was so great (e.g., Hemer, Acts in History, 235; cf. Meggitt, “Status of Erastus”). If he was not a civic slave, he would have been economically and socially free to travel (Winter, Welfare, 196); the question is merely whether one of his status would likely have done so in the company of those of lower status (such as Timothy). If he became a quaestor, he probably was a local decurion beforehand (Goodrich, “Quaestor,” 113), probably preventing lengthy travel.

[4520]. If Titius Justus (Acts 18:7) lived on the first floor of an insula, he would have had easier access to water, though in this period the public water supply was not available for private homes (Carcopino, Life, 38).

[4521]. Pliny E. N.H. 4.4.10–11, esp. 4.4.11, suggests 7.5 mi. from each.

[4522]. Landon, “Beyond Peirene,” 43. None of the above-ground streams in the area, however, was perennial (Engels, Roman Corinth, 12).

[4523]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 76. Their system of water resources reflected an understanding of hygiene better than that of most subsequent eras (the nineteenth-century Thames, e.g., was full of human waste, breeding cholera; p. 78).

[4524]. E.g., Watson, “Cities,” 214. On their character as public space (with libraries, shops, etc., nearby), see, e.g., McRay, Archaeology, 43–44.

[4525]. Robinson, “Fountains,” 111–12.

[4526]. See, e.g., in McRay, Archaeology, 328–29.

[4527]. Pointed out by Meeks, Urban Christians, 237n49.

[4528]. See also comment on Acts 19:5. See more generally Stambaugh, City, 201–6; Meister, “Thermae”; Carcopino, Life, 254–63; McRay, Archaeology, 42–48; sample sources in Shelton, Romans, 309–14. For one excavation report, see Yegül, “Complex.”

[4529]. See DeLaine, “Baths”; Pearson, “Gymnasia,” 436.

[4530]. McRay, Archaeology, 42.

[4531]. Ibid., 43; among the civic essentials in Libanius Maxim 3.3.

[4532]. Killebrew, “Baths,” 284.

[4533]. Fagan, “Genesis.”

[4534]. Pliny E. N.H. 36.64.189. The size of the baths would be proportionate to the number of people they were intended to accommodate (Vitruv. Arch. 5.10.4).

[4535]. Pearson, “Gymnasia,” 436.

[4536]. See discussion in Owens, City, 159–60. Romans had already concerned themselves with finding appropriate water sources for buildings; see, e.g., Vitruv. Arch. 8. For aqueducts and leaden and earthen pipes, see Arch. 8.6.1–15.

[4537]. Vitruv. Arch. 5.10.1–5.

[4538]. See, e.g., Lucian Hipp.

[4539]. Massa, Pompeii, 114.

[4540]. Pearson, “Gymnasia,” 436; Stambaugh, City, 202–3 (placing the tepidarium before the caldarium); Cosgrave, History of Costume, 77 (starting with the sweating room, the sudatorium, then the hotter calidarium, followed by the tepidarium and the frigidarium); McRay, Archaeology, 45 (moving from coldest to hottest; cf. also Massa, Pompeii, 114). The design may have varied by location. Apollonius allegedly took only cold baths, associating hot baths with weakness (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.16).

[4541]. Vitruv. Arch. 5.10.2. Slaves could tend fires outside; Cosgrave (History of Costume, 77) notes, “Hot air flowed under the floor and via hollow tiles in the walls and then out through chimneys in the roof. Inside, the heat could be so intense, that those in the hot chambers wore wooden clogs to avoid scalding their feet.” On Roman hypocausts (for baths), see Forbes, Technology, 6:43–57. Some even suggest that the daily hot baths lowered male fertility and contributed to Rome’s low birth rate (Devine, “Birth-Rate”).

[4542]. Vitruv. Arch. 5.10.1.

[4543]. Stambaugh, City, 204, on one from Trajan’s time; McRay, Archaeology, 43–44.

[4544]. Apoll. K. Tyre 13; cf. Stambaugh, City, 205; Cosgrave, History of Costume, 77. Inns located near baths sacrificed quiet for convenience of access (Casson, Travel, 210).

[4545]. E.g., Stambaugh, City, 205; Watson, “Cities,” 214; Killebrew, “Baths,” 285; McRay, Archaeology, 43; Cosgrave, History of Costume, 77; Jeffers, World, 29. Compare the Greek gymnasium with baths (cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 118).

[4546]. Dupont, Life, 263. Contrast starkly, e.g., the more difficult access to bathing in Elizabethan England. The closing of public baths, like the closing of public entertainments, represented mourning (Apoll. K. Tyre 7); one might also abstain while undergoing initiatory purification (Paus. 9.39.5) or for health reasons while fasting also from anointing, food, and drink (Pliny E. N.H. 28.14.53).

[4547]. So, e.g., Pliny E. Ep. 7.21.3; Fronto Eloq. 1.4; Apul. Flor. 16.2; cf. further Fagan, “Bathing.” Cf. also therapeutic hot springs (see, e.g., Vitruv. Arch. 8.3.4; Pliny E. N.H. 31.31.59–61; Philost. Hrk. 23.30; further comment and sources in Keener, Acts, 1:327).

[4548]. Tac. Hist. 3.32.

[4549]. E.g., Apul. Metam. 2.2. They are pervasive in the literature, e.g., Mart. Epig. 12.82; Juv. Sat. 6.419–23.

[4550]. Cosgrave, History of Costume, 77; Jeffers, World, 29.

[4551]. Vitruv. Arch. 1.2.7 (in the later half of the day); 6.4.1; Suet. Vesp. 21 (after morning business and siesta); Lucian Cock 7 (before a banquet). But cf. Alciph. Paras. 24 (Chascobuces to Hypnotrapezus), 3.60, ¶1, where they seem to be done by midday. The elite might arrive about midday, when the baths were warmest for their arrival (Winter, Left Corinth, 189).

[4552]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 118–19; Jeffers, World, 29.

[4553]. Suet. Gramm. 23.

[4554]. Pliny Ep. 10.23.1–2; 10.24; 10.70.1, 3.

[4555]. See, e.g., Men. Rhet. 1.3, 365.20–21 (listing it among the three sample parts of a city); Apoll. K. Tyre 51 (among the select elements central to a city’s identity).

[4556]. E.g., Suet. Titus 7.3; Stambaugh, City, 204.

[4557]. Dupont, Life, 264.

[4558]. Stambaugh, City, 205 (citing, as an example of ostentation, Petron. Sat. 27–28); for ostentatious trains of attendants, see also Lucian Nigr. 34. Sometimes the rich would have their own baths (Pliny Ep. 1.3.1; 1.4.1); but this was probably rare (cf. Cosgrave, History of Costume, 77), and Suetonius praises the emperor Titus for bathing with commoners (Tit. 8.2; but contrast Polybius’s hostile assessment of Antiochus IV in Polyb. 26.1.12). The hygienic question of sharing baths arose especially in comic jibes at particular individuals’ uncleanness (Mart. Epig. 2.42) or in a warning such as Iambl. V.P. 18.83 (which might involve ritual purity).

[4559]. E.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.44 (59).

[4560]. Lucian Nigr. 34 (LCL, 1:133).

[4561]. Balch, “Families,” 268; Ward, “Baths”; cf. McRay, Archaeology, 45. Conventions varied by time and place (Ferguson, Backgrounds, 80; Pearson, “Gymnasia,” 436). Early Romans would not even bathe naked with sons-in-law (Plut. M. Cato 20.5–6); in the late republic, a woman being near bathing men remained potentially scandalous (Cic. Cael. 15.36).

[4562]. Carcopino, Life, 258.

[4563]. Cynics might condemn them altogether (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.42–43; cf. Apollonius’s later commendation of Demetrius for his frankness, 6.31, 33); Diogenes reportedly viewed bathers as effeminate (Diog. Laert. 6.2.40). Cf. also Pythagoreans (Apollonius’s own teaching in Philost. Ep. Apoll. 8, 43; Iambl. V.P. 18.83 [but this was not against all bathing; cf. 21.98]). Even the Stoic Seneca avoided the baths, warning that their heat can dehydrate the body (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 108.16).

[4564]. Pliny E. N.H. 33.54.153 (in the context of condemning luxury, not sexual promiscuity). Other writers also praised the sacrifice of luxury in abstaining from baths for a time (Fronto Ad Ant. imp. 1.5.3) or avoiding excess baths (Dio Chrys. Or. 77/78.41). Like other luxuries, it could weaken soldiers (Livy 23.18.12).

[4565]. Carcopino, Life, 258 (citing, in addition to Pliny, Quint. Inst. 5.9.14; Mart. Epig. 3.51, 72; 7.35; 11.47; perhaps Juv. Sat. 6.419); McRay, Archaeology, 47–48; Massa, Pompeii, 115. Ward, “Baths,” finds only a single inscription from Lusitania suggesting different times for men and women.

[4566]. Grant, Paul, 46 (citing Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.42, though also evidence that shows that the baths cannot have been new if the story is otherwise accurate).

[4567]. Dayagi-Mendels, “Hygiene,” 302; Killebrew, “Baths,” 284–85; for the spread especially in the Roman period, see Wright, “Building Materials,” 377. Later rabbis claimed that Hillel regarded washing in a bathhouse as a religious duty, to honor God’s image (Lev. Rab. 34:3).

[4568]. For a photograph, see Corneld, Josephus, 482; for the steam room, see 488.

[4569]. Killebrew, “Baths,” 285. In addition to private bathhouses, Jews used some public ones shared with Gentiles (y. Šeb. 8:11); R. Gamaliel II could justify bathing in the Bath of Aphrodite, arguing that the statue was hardly treated as a goddess (m. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:4). An Amora associates public baths with revelry (Lev. Rab. 5:3).

[4570]. E.g., t. Nid. 6:15.

[4571]. Safrai, “Home,” 762 (citing t. Ketub. 7:6; though noting that he could not restrict her from going to the baths at reasonable hours, y. Ketub. 7.31b). Rabbi Meir allegedly urged divorce in such a case (Num. Rab. 9:12); even talking with another man could allow divorce without the ketubah (m. Ketub. 7:6).

[4572]. Eliav, “Bath,” helpfully. Nakedness in the baths could defile tefillin under some circumstances (t. Ber. 2:20; y. Ber. 2:2, §§3, 6); one should not meditate on Torah in a bathhouse or a latrine (b. ʿAbod. Zar. 44b). Jews might see other Jews naked in the bathhouse (e.g., t. B. Qam. 9:12) but should fulfill religious duties only in parts of the bathhouses where people were clothed (t. Ber. 2:20). The bath might be an Amora’s only waking time away from studying Torah (Deut. Rab. 8:6).

[4573]. E.g., at bathhouses, b. Qidd. 39b–40a; at latrines, b. Ber. 62a; Šabb. 67a; cf. also ruins (b. Ber. 3ab, bar.) and cemeteries (ghosts in b. Ber. 18b). Later the Gentile philosopher Porphyry supposedly cast a demon from a bath (Eunapius Lives 457); as early as Hesiod, Greeks held a superstition about the danger of washing in water where another has washed (W.D. 753–54). Before he sinned (and hence became vulnerable to their power), Solomon was said to have heated his public baths by demonesses (Eccl. Rab. 2:8, §1; Song Rab. 3:7, §5).

[4574]. E.g., t. Ber. 6:17; b. Ber. 60a, bar.; y. Ber. 9:4, §2. The reminder of circumcision when one is in a bathhouse (t. Ber. 6:25) might concern protection.

[4575]. B. Ber. 60a, bar.

[4576]. Paus. 2.3.5 (noting that others were built at the city’s expense). First-century Rome had some two hundred baths (Jeffers, World, 29). For a probable first-century bath in Corinth’s gymnasium area, see Wiseman, “Gymnasium Area.”

[4577]. Biers, “Baths in Corinth,” 303, 305.

[4578]. Ibid., 305–6. For more early baths, see 307–8.

[4579]. Ibid., 308; Biers, Bath, 28–29, 61–62. On this bath, see Biers, Bath; the cumulative area for its baths is ca. 600 sq. m. (Bath, plate 38).

[4580]. Since only three of those discovered predate him; Biers, “Baths in Corinth,” 317.

[4581]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 96 (in case the Christians had occasion for baptisms during the Isthmian Games!).

[4582]. Roebuck, Asklepieion, 96–99; on the setting, cf. 1, 3; cf. also the east water basin, 26–28. Cf. Finegan, Apostles, 148. The map in Engels, Roman Corinth, 151, places the Asklepieion ca. 500 m. from the forum.

[4583]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 13; on its large pool, see further 100.

[4584]. Many sanctuaries’ springs were dedicated to deities (see Schachter, “Springs”), which might raise the same problem as food offered to idols (Acts 15:20).

[4585]. Pliny E. N.H. 4.4.11. For the high quality of the water and the spring’s prominence in Greek Corinth, see Lienau and Meyer, “Peirene,” 680 (citing for its prominence Pindar Ol. 13.61–62).

[4586]. Dio Chrys. Or. 36.46; Robinson, “Fountains,” 121, cites Statius Silv. 1.4.25–30; 2.7.2–4; Theb. 4.51–69; cf. coins in MacKendrick, Stones, 419. For more on the story of Bellerophon and Pegasus, see Robinson, “Fountains,” 118–20, including a Pompeian wall painting (119–20); on the constellation Pegasus (one of the twenty-one constellations north of the zodiac), see Hübner, “Constellations,” 1189. For the mythical Peirene, daughter of river deities, from whom the spring is named, see Junk, “Peirene.”

[4587]. McRay, Archaeology, 319–20.

[4588]. Robinson, “Fountains,” 118 (citing Eurip. Medea 68–69).

[4589]. Robinson, “Fountains,” 112–13. For Peirene’s new Roman façade, see 121–25. Strabo provides our earliest extant connection between Peirene on the Acrocorinth and the lower Peirene in the city (Strabo 8.6.21; Robinson, “Fountains,” 121). The “upper,” Roman Peirene, in the Acrocorinth’s southeast, was not on the same site as the original Peirene despite the transferral of the name (Lienau and Meyer, “Peirene,” 680). At the site of the Upper Peirene, a pool remains, at least 10–12 ft. deep (Fant and Reddish, Sites, 66–67).

[4590]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 77.

[4591]. Robinson, “Fountains,” 113.

[4592]. E.g., Apollod. Bib. 1.9.28; Paus. 2.3.6–7; Philost. Letters 21 (38); Gr. Anth. 7.354. Medea also had killed her brother (Apollod. Bib. 1.9.24) and helped Jason kill Pelias (1.9.16, 27).

[4593]. Robinson, “Fountains,” 134–38 (contrasting earlier assumptions, e.g., in MacKendrick, Stones, 420).

[4594]. Robinson, “Fountains,” 139.

[4595]. Ibid.

[4596]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 77.

[4597]. Landon, “Beyond Peirene,” 45–47 (cf. sixteen springs besides Peirene in Engels, Roman Corinth, 77).

[4598]. Landon, “Beyond Peirene,” 48–51.

[4599]. Ibid., 52–54.

[4600]. Owens, City, 163.

[4601]. Cf., e.g., m. Ter. 5:6; ʿEd. 1:3; 7:3–4; t. Miqw. 2; Sipra Sh. par. 9.118.1.1; comment on Acts 2:41.

[4602]. E.g., Diod. Sic. 7.5.5 (Aeneas); Char. Chaer. 2.3.5 (Aphrodite); Apul. Metam. 11.3–7 (Isis); Jos. Life 209–10 (a person appeared to him). See fuller comment at Acts 16:9–10; for the importance of dreams and other epiphanies for divine guidance in ancient thought, see Squires, Plan, 103–12 (esp. Josephus, 108–12).

[4603]. Iambl. Myst. 2.10; cf. Proclus Poet. K114.3–4, 9–10, 23–24.

[4604]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 100–101; see further comment in Keener, Acts, 1:326–27.

[4605]. See Keener, Acts, 1:327–29.

[4606]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 105. As a healing deity, Serapis was sometimes assimilated to Asclepius (Tac. Hist. 4.84).

[4607]. Aune, Prophecy, 267.

[4608]. Such dream oracles could also include the promise “I am with you” (Gen 26:24; 28:15). The assurance form was not originally purely oracular; it also applied to other assurances from one in power (“Do not fear,” 50:21). (For the rhetorical function of exhortations not to fear, cf. Hutson, “Timid”; although, in this case, the present imperatives probably mean “Stop being afraid” and “Keep on speaking”; see Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 172, §336.3.)

[4609]. Less relevant for Luke’s ideal audience, which is biblically literate, but relevant for some hearers who would not be, the command not to fear sometimes accompanied ancient pagan epiphanies. See esp. Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 2.13: Ammon appeared to Alexander in his sleep, promising that he would face no harm, because he was with him; Conzelmann, Acts, 152, cites Hdt. 1.9; Aristoph. Frogs 1092; Lucian Dial. G. 20.7.

[4610]. Aune, Prophecy, 267.

[4611]. People could also offer the same assurance and its grounds: Do not fear, because we will be with you (Ezra 10:4). The language of deities being “with” one appears elsewhere (e.g., Pliny Ep. 1.5.5). On Christ’s omnipresence in Luke-Acts (rather than an “absentee Christology”), see Turner, Power, 305.

[4612]. Jesus also offers such an assurance oracle as a healer in Luke 8:50, in a call oracle in 5:10, and in his teachings in 12:4, 7, 32 (not a Lukan invention; cf. Matt 10:26, 28, 31; Mark 5:36; 6:50). Matthew is also fond of the assurance (see Matt 1:20; 14:27; 17:7; 28:5, 10).

[4613]. The promise applies specifically to Corinth, and so the criticism of Mac. Magn. Apocrit. 4.1–7 (that Paul was beheaded in Rome) appears to succeed only because it omits the context (“many people in this city”).

[4614]. Oratory filled a major role in first-century Corinth; see, e.g., Winter, Left Corinth, 36; cf. also rhetorical studies on 1 Corinthians, esp. Pogoloff, Logos; Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation.

[4615]. Cf. Hubbard (“Commissioning Accounts”) for a comparison of Acts 18:7–11 and esp. 9:10–19 with OT commissioning accounts.

[4616]. It does not likely refer to a large number of believers in Corinth prior to Paul’s arrival (though a number may have come recently from Rome; cf. Acts 18:2), since Paul himself traces the founding of the church mainly to conversions after he arrived (1 Cor 4:15; 16:15), not to massive immigration beforehand.

[4617]. The term λαός usually applies to the Jewish people in Luke-Acts; many, however, think that it here echoes the Gentile “people” for God in Acts 15:14, suggesting the new people of both Jew and engrafted Gentile (Bruce, Acts¹, 346; Tannehill, Acts, 224; Dunn, Acts, 243–44).

[4618]. With Marshall, Kept, 94 (who emphasizes foreknowledge rather than predestination of individuals); Aune, Prophecy, 267. God’s plan is a dominant motif in Luke-Acts; see comment on Acts 2:23.

[4619]. Le Cornu, Acts, 1000–1001 (noting Rom 11:1–4 and comparing with Elijah Paul’s Benjaminite ancestry, zeal, and prophetic calling).

[4620]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 226 (citing also Acts 27:10 and, a more helpful example of “prophetic license,” 21:11).

[4621]. For the distinction, see Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 197–98, §§390–91, with the example of Acts 5:3.

[4622]. Reports of supernatural protection also appear in some modern evangelism accounts (e.g., in Myanmar, Khai, “Pentecostalism,” 269; idem, Cross, 143; elsewhere, Ising, Blumhardt, 266; cf. the various sources cited in Keener, Miracles, 274–75), although mixed with other accounts, as in Acts, of less pleasant outcomes.

[4623]. Noted in Porter, Paul in Acts, 101.

[4624]. The summers in Corinth were said to be mercifully breezy because of air currents meeting on the isthmus (Dio Chrys. Or. 6.3, cited in Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 93).

[4625]. Philostratus does report Apollonius’s widely reported signs in Corinth (Vit. Apoll. 4.25, here overcoming a phantom).

[4626]. Pliny E. N.H. 4.5.18 wrongly has four years. On the Isthmian Games, see, e.g., Rothaus, Corinth, 84–92; Decker, “Isthmia”; McRay, Archaeology, 317–19.

[4627]. With, e.g., Gill, “Achaia,” 452.

[4628]. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 16.

[4629]. For a history of the imperial games in Corinth, see West, Inscriptions, 30–31, 48–73 passim. On the games, see also Engels, Roman Corinth, 18; Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 5.

[4630]. Winter, Left Corinth, 271, 276–77.

[4631]. E.g., three or four in Epict. Diatr. 3.4.11; Dio Chrys. Or. 8.15; Lucian Anach. 9; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.43; Iambl. V.P. 10.52; two in Rhet. Her. 4.3.4; Dio Chrys. Or. 31.21; Suet. Nero 25.1; Max. Tyre 34.8.

[4632]. E.g., Aeschines Ctes. 179; Epict. Diatr. 3.22.52; Lucian Posts 13; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.7. The wreath was wild olive (Lucian Anach. 9; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.19).

[4633]. Soph. El. 49; Ovid Metam. 1.445–47. The garland was laurel (Ovid Metam. 1.448–51, 553–67; Lucian Book-Coll. 10); laurel was sacred to Apollo (Phaedrus 3.17.3). Cf. comment on Acts 16:16.

[4634]. The wreath was parsley or wild celery (Lucian Anach. 9).

[4635]. The wreath was (withered) wild celery or (later) pine (Diod. Sic. 16.79.3; Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.15; Dio Chrys. Or. 66.5; Plut. Table 5.3.1–3, Mor. 675D–677B [Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 99]; Lucian Anach. 9; Broneer, “Crown”; idem, “Games,” 16–17).

[4636]. Broneer, “Corinth,” 95. The Olympics had long held pride of place (Pindar Ol. 1.4–7).

[4637]. Their location at a Poseidon sanctuary (Engels, Roman Corinth, 96) might have rendered them problematic for his warning against syncretism in 1 Cor 8:10 (although Paul would not have partaken of the food). Neither he nor other Diaspora Jews could have avoided proximity to pagan statues and temples; to be in a sacred enclosure deliberately could be viewed differently unless outsiders could distinguish between participation and proclamation. But it is not clear that the games had yet been moved to the Isthmian sanctuary when Paul visited (Winter, Left Corinth, 271), and Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 17, points out that in Miletus Jews held special seats in the theater.

[4638]. This is true whether or not he alludes to these games in particular, as commentators frequently believe (e.g., Broneer, “Games,” 17; Krentz, “Games,” 351–53), in 1 Cor 9:24–27. Athletic illustrations were common (e.g., Isoc. Ad Nic. 11; Cic. Att. 13.21; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 80.3; Schwankl, “Lauft”; Garrison, “Metaphor”; Pfitzner, Agon Motif; see fuller comment on Acts 13:25), but given the location of Paul’s audience, it is the Isthmian Games that would first come to the audience’s minds (likewise in Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.34; certainly far likelier than Paul’s supposed recollection of Tarsian games in Glover, Paul, 11). Others used these games for illustrations (Dio Chrys. Or. 8.11–13, 27; 9.11–12, 16–18).

[4639]. Dio Chrys. Or. 8.5; see further comment below.

[4640]. Pliny E. N.H. 4.5.18 (noting their fame). They appear frequently in ancient literature, e.g., Callim. Aetia 3.59.7.

[4641]. In general at festivals, see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 35.15; 40.26; 41.10; for crowds at the Isthmian Games, Livy 33.32.1; Strabo 8.6.20; Dio Chrys. Or. 8.5–6; Casson, Travel, 80. Visitors to the games could be described as going to Corinth; Alciph. Court. 2 (Glycera to Bacchis), 1.29, ¶1.

[4642]. At some point in the first century, it appears likely that girls also participated in these games (Kent, Inscriptions, 29; also SIG³ 802, in Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 16). Much earlier, Ionians took their wives and children to public games with them (Thucyd. 3.104.3).

[4643]. Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9 (the context is the Isthmian Games, 8.6). Speeches at festivals often focused on the subject of the festival (Dion. Hal. Epid. 1.258; Men. Rhet. 1.3, 365.27–29; 365.30–366.28) or on encouraging the athletes (Dion. Hal. Epid. 7.283–92).

[4644]. Dio Chrys. Or. 8.10. His crowd consisted of visitors from Ionia, Italy, Libya, and elsewhere (9.5).

[4645]. E.g., Appian Hist. rom. 9.9.4 (in 196 B.C.E.); Suet. Nero 24.2 (Nero, undoubtedly echoing the earlier “liberation”).

[4646]. Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.14; Paus. 2.1.6.

[4647]. Crosby in Dio Chrysostom, LCL, 4:15n4.

[4648]. Aeschylus Athamas frg.; Apollod. Bib. 3.4.3; Paus. 1.44.8; 2.1.3; scholiasts on Pindar Isthm., Argum. pp. 514, 515 (Frazer in Apollodorus, LCL, 1:320–21n3); cf. Gebhard, “Rites,” 203; Koester, “Melikertes”; idem, Paul and World, 180–91; for an early report of the sanctuary, see Broneer, “Contests.” On myths about the Isthmian Games in earlier times, see Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.15.

[4649]. Dio Chrys. Or. 9.1.

[4650]. Dio Chrys. Or. 9.22.

[4651]. Dio Chrys. Or. 9.10–11; commentators on 1 Corinthians sometimes compare the wreath of 1 Cor 9:25 with Isthmian wreaths. An Isthmian official comes off rather badly also in Philost. Ep. Apoll. 36. The most coveted, high-status office in Corinth was that of the official in charge of these games (Engels, Roman Corinth, 97); the officials had to help sponsor the games (18). Although many contests now awarded money, the most honored festivals, such as this one, continued to award wreaths (Decker, “Prizes,” 889).

[4652]. Paus. 2.2.2 (see Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 14).

[4653]. Winter, Left Corinth, 271.

[4654]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 96. The temple also held statues of the victors (Paus. 2.1.7).

[4655]. Ramsay, Pictures, 276, infers from Rom 15:24, 28 Paul’s confidence that he could communicate in Latin in Spain; but we cannot rule out partial dependence on interpreters (cf. Acts 14:14).

[4656]. After 70 C.E., blaming Jewish opposition would counteract anti-Jewish prejudice against the Christian movement (blaming Nero would have helped in some circles, though perhaps not in Greece).

[4657]. Paul’s distaste for taking the community’s internal matters to court (1 Cor 6:1–8) might reflect this historical experience as well, but it is readily explicable without recourse to this experience.

[4658]. See Sherwin-White, Society, 104–5, emphasizing the absence of this information in extant historians. 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]).

[4659]. Sherwin-White, Society, 105.

[4660]. Bruce, Acts¹, 346. As a province of the second rank, it was governed by officials who had previously been praetors and usually before they became consuls (346–47). Traditionally, praetors drew lots for provinces, but matters could be rigged (Cic. Fam. 5.2.3).

[4661]. Slingerland, “Gallio Inscription,” gives a seven-year window; but cf. the forceful and convincing response in Murphy-O’Connor, “Paul and Gallio.”

[4662]. See further Riesner, Early Period, 202–11.

[4663]. Jewett, Chronology, 39 (citing Dio Cass. 60.11.6 for April 1 but noting that the departure date was later moved, 60.17.3). Delays in judges’ appointments were sometimes accepted (Metzger, Outline, 61–76), but those circumstances are not relevant here. Governors were normally not to leave office before their successors arrived (Suet. Jul. 18.1); a governor’s arrival could be delayed by adverse travel conditions to the interior (Pliny Ep. 10.17A.1), but these would be irrelevant in a voyage to Corinth.

[4664]. If he stayed for nearly two full years, this would change the chronology, but his sickness probably sent him away earlier in his term.

[4665]. Bruce, Corinthians, 19–20; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 12–13; Porter, “Inscriptions,” 533–34; Gill, “Achaia,” 449–50; Longenecker, Ministry and Message, 68. A minority argue for 50–51 (e.g., Le Cornu, Acts, 1003).

[4666]. Bruce, Commentary, 374; Witherington, Acts, 552. This is an inscription of Claudius in Delphi (SIG³ 801); see the text conveniently in Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 173–76; or Fitzmyer, Acts, 621.

[4667]. More precisely, January 25–August 1, 52 C.E. (CIL 3.476; 6.1256; Bruce, Corinthians, 19–20; most fully, Fitzmyer, Acts, 622).

[4668]. Gill, “Achaia,” 437. One may also read the inscription as if Gallio has by this point left Corinth (Witherington, Acts, 552); this reading would clinch the date but is not necessary, since Gallio could report by letter as easily as in person.

[4669]. See the vigorous case for it in Fitzmyer, Acts, 622–63.

[4670]. E.g., Bruce, Corinthians, 19–20; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 12–13.

[4671]. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 149–50; Bruce, “Paul,” 685.

[4672]. Jewett, Chronology, 40 (citing Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 104.1). Winter, “Gallio,” 291, 297–99 (citing esp. Ep. Lucil. 104.1; Pliny E. N.H. 33.62), counters the charge that Gallio was a “hypochondriac.”

[4673]. Bruce, Commentary, 354, citing Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 4.1. After his consulship, he took another cruise from Rome to Egypt for health reasons (Pliny E. N.H. 31.33; Bruce, Commentary, 354). A governor traveling to a province might face health complications, especially if traveling by land under harsh conditions (Pliny Ep. 10.17A.1). One might speculate that Gallio’s strict disposition (expressed in Acts 18:14–17, differently from his brother’s strict moralism) exacerbated his health problems, but this can be only speculation.

[4674]. West, Inscriptions, 34.

[4675]. Riesner, Early Period, 209–10; Gill, “Achaia,” 437.

[4676]. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 150; idem, “Paul and Gallio.” But others have argued that Gallio was still proconsul in 52 C.E. (see Oliver, “Epistle of Claudius”; noted by Witherington, Corinthians, 50).

[4677]. Riesner, Early Period, 210.

[4678]. Gill, “Achaia,” 449–50. Bruce, “Paul,” 685, suggests the fall of 50.

[4679]. See Fitzmyer, Acts, 622–23.

[4680]. As in many court cases, Luke draws on realities (in this case, intra-Jewish conflict between the Jesus movement and other Jews is well attested; see discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:461–77, esp. 462–63), but he selects and compiles such examples in a way that reinforces his apologetic case.

[4681]. For an earlier discussion of epigraphic evidence relating to Gallio, see Deissmann, Paul, 261–86, but more is now available.

[4682]. Bruce, Commentary, 373.

[4683]. E.g., Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 4.pref. 12; 5.11.1. Cf. also works that Seneca dedicated to him (the entirety of Dial. 7 is dedicated to him [7.1.1]).

[4684]. Bruce, Commentary, 374; Witherington, Acts, 551; D. Williams, Acts, 317 (citing Sen. Y. Ep. 104.1; Pliny E. N.H. 21.33; Tac. Ann. 15.73; Dio Cass. 61.35; also see Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 4A.pref. 11).

[4685]. Jeffers, World, 60.

[4686]. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 151–52 (citing Tac. Ann. 15.73, but the passage is not at all clear that Gallio was killed at this time, and Nero spared Seneca’s wife).

[4687]. Although Tiberius made Achaia and Macedonia imperial provinces, Claudius restored them to the senate (Suet. Claud. 25.3).

[4688]. Gasque, “Acts and History,” 55. Luke often prefers naming places by city centers (Cadbury, Acts in History, 39–40).

[4689]. Broneer, “Corinth,” 91–92; Gill, “Achaia,” 449; McRay, Archaeology, 333–35. See the inscription regarding work there in Kent, Inscriptions, no. 322 (pp. 128–29), probably from the first half of the first century.

[4690]. McRay, “Corinth,” 230. For prosecutions in forums, see, e.g., Suet. Aug. 29.1; for a conviction and public response before a rostra, see, e.g., Suet. Julius 17.2. On the Roman Rostra, see, e.g., Richmond, Strong, and DeLaine, “Rostra.”

[4691]. E.g., Suet. Jul. 6; Vit. 15.2; Libanius Topics 5.7; also eulogies (Suet. Tib. 6.4; Calig. 10.1).

[4692]. McRay, “Corinth,” 230. Others have argued for the Augustan period (Gill, “Achaia,” 449), which might still be within memory of the oldest residents.

[4693]. Corinth’s version of the rostra was modeled after Rome’s (McRay, Archaeology, 334). The general image of a “judgment seat” would be even more widely understood (e.g., Jub. 43:2); βῆμα appears already in this sense in 2 Macc 13:26, and of its twenty-four occurrences in Josephus, often in this sense (e.g., Ant. 13.84; 14.228; 18.57; 19.310; 20.130; War 1.185).

[4694]. Furnish, II Corinthians, 26, with supporting evidence.

[4695]. Fant and Reddish, Sites, fig. 17, p. 58; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 158.

[4696]. Stambaugh, City, 197–98. When they had to be indoors (for rain, baths, etc.), wall paintings could remind them of outside.

[4697]. McRay, “Corinth,” 228. On the forum in Roman towns, see DeLaine, “Forum”; Vitruv. Arch. 5.1 passim; for the primary one in Rome, see Richmond, Strong, and Patterson, “Forum Romanum”; in Corinth, see Sanders, “Urban Corinth,” 22–23; Engels, Roman Corinth, 13, 60–62. The forum was ca. 200 m. east-west and 100 m. north-south (Sanders, “Urban Corinth,” 22).

[4698]. McRay, Archaeology, 85; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 102 (both noting that sewers carried the waste into cess trenches, on which see also Carcopino, Life, 40). Jerusalem lacked indoor latrines even in the Upper City (Avigad, Jerusalem, 143).

[4699]. See Hurschmann, “Household Equipment,” 550; cf. y. Ber. 3:5, §5. One might employ a sponge afterward (Hurschmann, “Hygiene, Personal,” 605; cf. Shanks, “Channels”). The Qumran sectarians may have had distinctive toilet practices (Harter et al., “Toilet Practices”; but cf. also Magness, “Toilet Practices”). The very poor who could not afford even an as for using public facilities used jars (Carcopino, Life, 42); these were sometimes unloaded from the windows, to the occasional dismay of passersby below (42–43, 46, citing, e.g., Juv. Sat. 3.269–72).

[4700]. For latrines in Rome, see Friedländer, Life, 4:284–85; Carcopino, Life, 42; for an example near some baths in Corinth, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 64. On Roman public latrines, chamber pots, etc., see also Koloski-Ostrow, “Latrines.” Naturally, public toilets allowed little privacy (Stambaugh, City, 133; Carcopino, Life, 41); this was true even for most toilets at an imperial villa, apart from those for the emperor and his prominent guests (Jansen, “Distinctions”).

[4701]. Watson, “Cities,” 214.

[4702]. McRay, “Corinth,” 228. Lechaeum was the more important port, since Corinth was oriented more toward Italy (Salmon, “Lechaeum”).

[4703]. Gill, “Achaia,” 451–52.

[4704]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 160.

[4705]. Parkes, Conflict, 66. He suggests that the community had already sought to silence Paul internally (2 Cor 11:24), but those beatings were probably not in Corinth, because Paul did have followers and support there (Acts 18:9–10); apparently left the synagogue over the theological controversy (18:4–7), retaining some leaders’ support (18:8); and, most important for those who accept only the evidence of Paul’s letters, would have probably worded the phrase differently had some of the Corinthian believers witnessed one of the beatings (e.g., 2 Cor 12:12; Phil 4:15; 1 Thess 2:1–2, 9–11).

[4706]. Jos. Ant. 14.235; cf. 19.283; Grant, Christianity and Society, 38; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 41; Moffatt, First Corinthians, 62–63; Thiselton, Corinthians, 425.

[4707]. Winter, Left Corinth, 295 (following Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 433).

[4708]. Probably early summer 51, though scholars are not unanimous about the date.

[4709]. Hemer, Acts in History, 119. Jewish tradition recognized that an edict remained in force only while a magistrate was in office (cf. Katzoff, “Edicts and Ta‘anit”), and so a new magistrate could set a new course (Ferguson, Backgrounds, 50), though precedents were very important (cf., e.g., Cic. Att. 6.1). The new governor would also bring staff with him (Pliny Ep. 10.15.1).

[4710]. McRay, Archaeology, 318, mentioning it as one possibility because nationalism would be at its peak. But they could expect antiforeign sentiment against themselves to counterbalance such hopes.

[4711]. See, e.g., Cic. Verr. 2.2.38.94; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 51; see further comment at Acts 16:20–21. Technically, delator is usually a hostile term for more neutral activities such as denouncer (index), witness (testis), and especially prosecutor (accusator; see Rutledge, “Oratory,” 113).

[4712]. Cic. Verr. 2.5.54.141.

[4713]. See Rapske, Custody, 56–62; further discussion at Acts 16:20–21. This was not always the case, however, at least in theoretical declamations (Quint. Decl. 343.15; 344 intro.). Paul may well also have had tacit or explicit support from local persons of status, such as Erastus (Rom 16:23), if he favored Christians at this time; Crispus, a synagogue leader who agreed with Paul; Titius Justus; or some other persons who may have had wealth or influence.

[4714]. For malicious accusers, see, e.g., Libanius Declam. 44.68–69, 79. For the backlash against such accusers if political tides turned, see, e.g., Mommsen, History, 179.

[4715]. Winter, Welfare, 108–9; Witherington, Corinthians, 162. Fines could be imposed for refusing a court summons in classical Athens (Aeschines Tim. 46: one thousand drachmas!). In Quint. Decl. 300 intro.; 300.3 (possibly hypothetical), a person chooses a judge and, when dissatisfied with the verdict, appeals to a public court; in any case, appealing to the governor here seeks high-level support. Magistrates could grant postponements to trials, but the law was designed to prevent excessive delays (lex Irnitana 10 A, as understood by Metzger, Outline, 56, 60, 91).

[4716]. Luke probably substitutes Roman procedure for the earlier Jewish language (cf. Matt 5:25; Jeremias, Parables, 27n10). Some regard this as originally an eschatological “crisis” parable (Jeremias, Parables, 43–44; Caird, “Expounding”; cf. Sipre Deut. 309.1.1). Given the prejudice against the poor in lawsuits in the empire (Petron. Sat. 14; Gaius Inst. 4.183; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 113; contrast Publ. Syr. 98; ʾAbot R. Nat. 33, §73), the parable could appeal to Jesus’s hearers’ fears.

[4717]. Witherington, Corinthians, 162 (following Chow, Patronage, 76), citing Tac. Ann. 11.5–7 for the lawyer’s salary (eight times a duumvir’s annual salary; obviously, this example lies at the upper extreme).

[4718]. Lewis, Life, 186–87. Use of local vernaculars varied from one place to another, with Greek and Latin most widespread in urban centers (Brunt, “Romanization,” 170–72).

[4719]. Already in the first century B.C.E., Cicero’s son practiced declaiming both in Latin and in Greek (Cic. Fam. 16.21.5). Cicero himself declaimed in both until becoming praetor (Suet. Rhet. 1), yet Cicero regarded lack of Latin proficiency as shameful (Brut. 37.140). Rome would prefer for Greek-speaking areas a governor who could speak Greek well (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.36). In a later period, at least the better-educated members of the citizen assembly in Carthage, in the Latin-speaking West, apparently understood or appreciated much Greek alongside their Latin; see Apul. Flor. 18.38–39; False Preface 5.113.

[4720]. Augustus studied Greek poetry but spoke publicly only in Latin, in which he was fluent (Suet. Aug. 89.1); Tiberius spoke Greek fluently but insisted on use of Latin in the senate (Tib. 71). Rutledge, “Philhellenism,” views Tiberius as the most philhellenic early emperor (even more than Nero).

[4721]. Claudius not only wrote novels in Greek but acknowledged it and Latin as languages of the empire, replied to Greek envoys in Greek, and noted the Greek character of Achaia (Suet. Claud. 42); at the same time, Claudius revoked the Roman citizenship of a Greek aristocrat who did not know Latin (16.2). After him, Nero could argue in either Latin or Greek as appropriate to the western or eastern empire (Nero 7.2). Titus as a boy composed in both languages (Tit. 3.2), and Domitian sponsored competitions for declamation in both languages (Dom. 4.4). Pliny thought translating Latin into Greek and vice versa the best use of leisure (Ep. 7.9.2).

[4722]. E.g., Virgil’s Aeneid displays familiarity with Greek stories (as Suet. Vergil 21 emphasizes). A soldier addresses a Greek-speaking peasant in Latin in Lucian Lucius 44 but in the narrative in Apul. Metam. 9.39 then shifts to Greek.

[4723]. Conversely, even during the empire, not all Greeks approved of all Roman customs (Grant, Paul, 131; Aul. Gel. 19.9.7).

[4724]. For Roman mistrust, Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 59.7; Bowersock, Augustus, 75; Goldstein, “Acceptance,” 69; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 113; Aune, Environment, 28; Reekmans, “Views,” 124–25, 127–28; Russell, “Emasculation”; especially early, see, e.g., Florus Carm. 7; Rhet. Her. 4.2.4–4.3.4; Cic. Tusc. 1.1.1; Polyb. 39.1.1–12. For gradual hellenization, MacMullen, “Hellenizing”; Swain, “Culture”; for appreciation, see, e.g., Rhet. Her. 2.30.47; 3.23.38; 4.1.1; Cic. De or. 3.34.137; Plutarch’s parallel (Greek and Roman) Lives; Pliny Ep. 8.24.2–4; 10.11.3; for Nero’s philhellenism, see Griffin, Nero, 208–20 (for philhellenism generally, as a category already among ancient Greeks, see Ferrary, “Philhellenism”). Some Greek and Roman differences were merely cultural (e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.8.1; Quint. Inst. 8.6.31; Corn. Nep. pref. 5–7; cf. Stowers, Letter Writing, 29–30). This difference between Greek and Roman culture affected the nature of homosexual intercourse (Vilbert, “Origines”; Harrell, Divorce, 36; Pomeroy, Goddesses, 229; Verstraete, “Slavery”), though a major Roman objection was to the junior partner’s freeborn status (Williams, “Greek Love”).

[4725]. Winter, “Captatio benevolentiae,” 526 (citing P.Thead. 14), on Acts 24:2–21, which he thinks was surely in Greek.

[4726]. Even a Greek-speaker who lived and taught in Rome for a while might not have become fluent in Latin (Plut. Demosth. 2.2); certainly that appears true of many Jewish residents of Rome (see comment on Acts 18:4; also on 28:17). Some Latin was known, however, even in Palestine (see Porter, “Latin Language”).

[4727]. See Adams, “Romanitas.”

[4728]. Winter, Left Corinth, 278–79 (citing P.Magd. 18; P.Ryl. 114).

[4729]. Cf. also Herm. 90.8; sources in BDAG, including Philo Alleg. Interp. 3.212; esp. Jos. War 7.438.

[4730]. Familiar in forensic rhetoric; cf. παρὰ τοὺς νόμους as opposed to κατὰ τοὺς νόμους in Rhet. Alex. 19, 1433b.21–23.

[4731]. Molthagen, “Konflikte,” argues that Christianity was not reckoned a crime in itself until the time of Nero; prosecutions in Acts were for other reasons.

[4732]. Witherington, Acts, 552; Dunn, Acts, 244; Le Cornu, Acts, 1006; Parsons, Acts, 253. Walaskay, Acts, 171, compares Paulus Sent. 5.21.12: Roman law forbade teaching new religions.

[4733]. Of course, there were underlying ethical considerations (cf., e.g., Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 76.16–17; p. 78.7–9; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.22; Diog. Laert. 6.2.54; Grant, Paul, 32; Horsley, Corinthians, 86; probably Rom 12:14, 17–21; in associations, Smith, Symposium, 110; not always observed in practice, e.g., Lucian Eunuch 1–3; Icar. 16), not least of which was Jesus’s instruction (Matt 5:39–40; Luke 6:29; Paul elsewhere in Rom 12 may echo some of Jesus’s ethical sayings, e.g., Davies, Paul, 138; Schoeps, Paul, 56; Hunter, Predecessors, 46, 126; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 13; Wenham, “Paul’s Use,” 15–17; esp. Thompson, Clothed; cf. Brown, “Parallels”).

[4734]. Ideally, Romans did not force peoples to break their own cultures’ laws (Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.73).

[4735]. Cf. Winter, Left Corinth, 279–80.

[4736]. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:450, and sources noted there.

[4737]. Winter, “Imperial Cult,” 99–103; earlier, see Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 171; Robertson, Luke, 194.

[4738]. Lewis, Life, 190.

[4739]. Suet. Aug. 33.1. Even a visiting patron in the countryside could be so besieged with petitions as to have no leisure (Pliny Ep. 9.15.1–2).

[4740]. See Pliny Ep. 10.21.1; 10.22.1–2; 10.27–28; 10.77.1; 10.78.1–2.

[4741]. Winter, Left Corinth, 59 (citing Dio Cass. R.H. 52.7.5; SEG 9.8A.18).

[4742]. Winter, Left Corinth, 44–45.

[4743]. Ibid., 60; Winter, Welfare, 108; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 50–51. Jury courts handled particular categories of crimes, leaving the rest for magistrates (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 32).

[4744]. Winter, Left Corinth, 45–46 (following Kunkel, Introduction, 66; Robinson, Criminal Law, passim).

[4745]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 32, assign adultery, forgery, murder, bribery, and treason to this category; but cf. some of these assigned to governors above.

[4746]. Winter, Left Corinth, 295 (following Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 433). Jews dissatisfied with local Jewish courts’ verdicts could also appeal to the governor, which constituted, in effect, a limit on the enforcement of Jewish discipline in Diaspora communities (Safrai, “Self-Government,” 408). Paul’s submission to corporal discipline in the synagogues (2 Cor 11:24) suggests that in most cases, he did not employ this right, exercise of which some Jews would have considered traitorous.

[4747]. Winter, Left Corinth, 279.

[4748]. This would be to “endure” them, possibly adding that nuance to the stricter legal sense of ἀνέχομαι, which is probably primary (on which see Fitzmyer, Acts, 630).

[4749]. Gallio seems to have been on exceptionally good terms with Claudius (see Winter, “Gallio,” 295). A public official sitting on the bēma all day could gain public favor by his availability to hear cases (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 10.19.1), but Gallio has no need of such favor, especially from resident aliens.

[4750]. Witherington, Acts, 551.

[4751]. Cic. Flacc. 4.9–9.20 (against Greeks).

[4752]. That Claudius calls Gallio his friend in the Gallio inscription reflects Roman political friendships, not the sharing of all ideas (Claudius himself was not consistently anti-Jewish); but if the emperor appeared anti-Jewish, anyone with such convictions would feel free to follow suit.

[4753]. Chow, Patronage, 78–79.

[4754]. Ancient sources portray him as the sort of person who would follow protocol strictly (Winter, “Gallio,” 301–2).

[4755]. Ibid., 299–301.

[4756]. Ibid., 301. Lightfoot, by contrast, takes this description of Gallio as consistent with his indifference to the following “tumult” (Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 18:17, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]).

[4757]. Winter, “Gallio,” 301.

[4758]. Even though leading rhetoricians disliked flowery rhetorical figures in judicial rhetoric, crowds enjoyed them (Anderson, Glossary, 127, citing Rhet. Her. 4.32; Quint. Inst. 4.1.9; 4.3.2; 9.3.100–102; 12.8.3; Pliny Ep. 2.14). Gallio, however, is not using deliberate rhetorical figures but speaking in a fashion shaped by his rhetorical training; indeed, both Gallio’s natural and adoptive fathers were orators.

[4759]. Cf. Soards, Speeches, 101 (“more an explanation than an effort to persuade”).

[4760]. Romans were particularly well known for their laws, in contrast to Greeks, known for philosophic virtues (Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 369.30–31); this tendency appears in Luke as well as everywhere else in ancient literature.

[4761]. Val. Max. 2.8.2 (LCL, 1:203).

[4762]. Apul. Flor. 9.10–11.

[4763]. Winter, “Gallio,” 301, regards Gallio’s response here as polite; yet Acts 18:15 sounds disapproving (as Winter [302] also recognizes).

[4764]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 630 (following Schlier, “ἀνέχω,” 359n2).

[4765]. Sherwin-White, Society, 100.

[4766]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 32.

[4767]. Cic. Verr. 2.3.3.6. But erring on the side of clemency toward the accused was better than erring toward harshness (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.29.621).

[4768]. See Rapske, Custody, 67–70; Le Cornu, Acts, 1004–5 (following Sherwin-White, Society, 13ff.); Ferguson, Backgrounds, 50; cf. even the assumed freedom of ordinary judges in Quint. Decl. 300.2.

[4769]. Sherwin-White, Society, 102 (followed by Witherington, Acts, 554; Le Cornu, Acts, 1010).

[4770]. On the “questions,” ζητήματα, see comment on Acts 25:10. Gallio’s “if it were . . . but [it is not]” can function as rhetorical antitheton (see Hermog. Inv. 4.2.173–76, esp. 176).

[4771]. Val. Max. 3.4.ext. 1; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 71.7; Diog. Laert. 2.30. In the fifth century B.C.E., rhetoric was called “the art of speech,” τέχνη λόγων (Kennedy, “Survey of Rhetoric,” 3). For examples of pedantic attention to detail or trivia, see, e.g., Hor. Ep. 1.18.15–16; Aul. Gel. 2.26; 13.26; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.10c, pp. 60.31–63.8; 2.7.11f, pp. 70–71.15–19; such light discussions were common at banquets (Smith, Symposium, 51–53). Philosophers could make a pastime with words, e.g., Plato Phaedr. 278AB; Gorg. 489BC. Rhetoricians could, when useful, argue against such hair-splitting use of words (Lysias Or. 10.6–7, §116), critique the bad arguments of politicians (Dion. Hal. Demosth. 3), and recognize that excessive demands for precision can simply stir hostility (Dio Chrys. Or. 40.20). One should not waste words (Men. Rhet. 2.4, 393.25–30; see comment on brevity at Acts 24:4).

[4772]. See, e.g., Aul. Gel. 6.2, 7, 9–11, 17, 21; 7.5, 6, 12, 15, 16; 8.1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 14; 9.6, 12, 14; 10.1, 5, 11, 13, 20, 24, 26, 29; 11.1, 2, 3, 7, 13, 15; 12.3, 9, 10, 14, 15; 13.3, 6, 10, 21, 25, 30. Matters of style and grammar were essential in speech writing (e.g., Aul. Gel. 1.7, 10, 16, 22; 2.3, 5, 6, 9, 14, 17, 19, 20; 3.14; 4.1, 7, 16, 17; 5.4, 8, 20, 21; some of these are defending the grammar of Virgil and other earlier writers, e.g., 5.8). For other grammatical, etymological, and similar discussions, see Aul. Gel. 15.3, 5, 9, 13, 15, 27, 30; 16.5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17; 17.13; 18.7 (18.7 is on the philosopher Favorinus); 18.8, 12; 19.8; 20.6; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 4.3.2–3, 7, 12. Though mostly pedantic, sometimes court cases could turn on the meaning of words in laws (e.g., Hermog. Issues 65.1–8, esp. 4–6).

[4773]. Aul. Gel. 14.5; cf. the debate over the use of a term in Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.3–4. Precise meanings of words become subjects for serious debates in the midst of casual conversation (Fronto in Aul. Gel. 19.10.5–14, embarrassing a grammarian); grammarians (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.9) and sophists (Lucian Soph. passim, e.g., 9) were ashamed of inadvertent solecisms (on these, cf. Rowe, “Style,” 122–23); logical conundrums (e.g., Fronto Eloq. 1.14) offered another form of quibble.

[4774]. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 45.5; 48; Philo Good Person 80; cf. Iambl. V.P. 33.232. They also argued against pedantic discussions (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 49.12; 88.37; 117.31; Max. Tyre 18.6), even among some philosophers (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 48.6–7, 12; 71.6; 88.42; Max. Tyre 1.8; Fronto Eloq. 4.3); some complained that Zeno, Stoicism’s founder, simply invented new terms rather than new ideas (Cic. Fin. 3.2.5; 4.8.19; 4.20.56). Such leisurely pastimes squander precious time in one’s life (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 45.5; 48.12).

[4775]. E.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 82.24; cf. 117.25.

[4776]. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 108.23. Yet Seneca does affirm the value of philosophers’ investigating word meanings and arguments (89.9, 11, 14; though philosophers’ and philologists’ approaches differ, 108.30) and allows the use of wordplays and syllogisms to gain attention, so long as one turns then to ethics (108.12).

[4777]. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 75.1–4; 108.7; esp. 115.1–2.

[4778]. Mus. Ruf. frg. 44, p. 138.26–30.

[4779]. E.g., Aul. Gel. 1.15. Gregory of Nazianzus warns against babblings without purpose (Or. 27.1, quoting 1 Tim 6:20 and 6:4; so Pelikan, Acts, 201). In later rabbis, compare pilpulistic approaches and gematria.

[4780]. Winter, After Corinth, 279 (and idem, “Gallio,” 305), notes that λόγος could apply to “a declaration of legal immunity,” which could refer to the accusers’ possible request that Jewish Christians not share their immunity from the demands of the imperial cult. He may be right about the concern for immunity from the imperial cult, but given the term’s broad semantic range, we cannot hang this conclusion on the term. Even the proposal that “word” indirectly recalls the Christian message (cf. Soards, Speeches, 102) falters on the term’s broad semantic range.

[4781]. See Meeks, Moral World, 63–64. Cf. a century earlier Cic. Att. 6.1 (LCL, 22:431), during Cicero’s governorship in Cilicia: “Greek cases are to be settled according to Greek law.”

[4782]. Judge, Pattern, 68.

[4783]. See Winter, “Gallio,” 306.

[4784]. North, “IDEIN PERI”; Barrett, Acts, 874–75. Padilla, Speeches, 157, accepts both this possibility and Bruce’s suggestion (Acts³, 396) of the Latin perfect uideritis.

[4785]. For Matthew’s literary use, see Keener, Matthew, 658. Cf. Marc. Aur. 5.25. Had Luke had Matthew’s material in his own tradition, he could have paralleled Jesus and Paul here (though he sometimes does omit potential parallels from Mark in his Gospel; see introductory comments on Acts 6:8–8:1).

[4786]. Noting the consistency with the rest of Acts, and Luke’s dramatic irony, see Padilla, Speeches, 161.

[4787]. Apul. Flor. 9.12.

[4788]. See Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 427; Bruce, Message, 56; idem, Commentary, 373. Paul’s accusers would not likely try to arraign him twice on the same charge before the same magistrate (cf. Quint. Decl. 266 intro., though cf. 300 intro.). Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 169, is undoubtedly correct that Luke preferred to emphasize Paul’s high status and favorable treatment rather than his harsh treatments (with some action-packed exceptions, e.g., Acts 16:20–23). But for Luke to be selective does not mean that he fabricates what he includes; the narrative of this case’s dismissal is plausible.

[4789]. Pliny Ep. 10.65.2 notes that he would have depended on previous governors’ precedents had there been any; the emperor replies that he also finds no precedent among his predecessors (10.66.1). On the value of precedents for Luke’s apologetic, see the sources and discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:450–53.

[4790]. If they are Jews, then they share Judaism’s legal privileges, which some include even as a religio licita (Winter, “Gallio’s Ruling”).

[4791]. Winter, Left Corinth, 279–80. The imperial cult became a provincial, rather than merely a local, matter there ca. 54 C.E. (see 269, 274).

[4792]. Ibid., 296–97 (who thinks that this Jewish privilege was revoked after Paul’s departure).

[4793]. See the survey and sources in Keener, Acts, 1:452–53.

[4794]. Apologetic pervades Luke’s passion narrative: the disciples’ only swords (Luke 22:36) were to number Jesus as a transgressor (22:37); they were few swords (22:38), and Jesus opposed their use (22:51), a stark contrast with his seditious accusers (22:52–53).

[4795]. Pervo, Profit, 38. (Pervo elsewhere complains that Luke overemphasizes Paul’s sufferings for dramatic effect. But Luke certainly does emphasize positive precedents vis-à-vis the Roman government.)

[4796]. That is, even Luke’s portrayal is more nuanced than some allow: persecution is not pervasive (rarely in the empire, even under Decius, was it universally enforced equally harshly), nor are all governors favorable (Felix offers better in Acts 24:22 than Pilate offered Jesus, but he does not release Paul).

[4797]. Cf. also Keener, “Corinthian Believers,” 51.

[4798]. Haenchen, Acts, 536 (citing, for the lictors, Zahn, Apostelgeschichte, 658; cf. Wikenhauser, Apostelgeschichte, 170); Witherington, Acts, 555. Cf. Ezek 34:12 LXX; Wis 17:8; but this sense is not clear in 1 Sam 6:8 LXX. In view of the dangers to officials from mobs, Parsons, Acts, 256, allows the possibility that Gallio was concerned for his safety, but his retort in Acts 18:14–15 does not seem calculated to avoid controversy.

[4799]. Winter, “Gallio,” 302–3.

[4800]. For the view that what Gallio ignores is the irrelevant charges of 18:15, see Winter, “Gallio,” 302–3, cited by Padilla, Speeches, 145. But the passage of so much intervening action since 18:15 renders an allusion to 18:15 less likely.

[4801]. Winter, “Gallio,” 304–5.

[4802]. Cf. the language of Martha’s complaint in Luke 10:40, the only other use of μέλει in Luke-Acts (also negative uses in Mark 4:38; John 10:13; 12:6; though the use for impartiality in Mark 12:14 could favor Winter’s argument).

[4803]. An orator could plead that if his case be not heard, truth itself will be violently driven (repulsa) from the tribunal (Cic. Quinct. 1.5).

[4804]. With Witherington, Acts, 554–56.

[4805]. With, e.g., Winter, Left Corinth, 5; cf. Talbert, Acts, 163.

[4806]. So, e.g., Lenski, Acts, 759–80.

[4807]. Flogging before a tribunal was not abnormal if the person was duly tried (e.g., Val. Max. 5.8.1), but Philo and Josephus both report miscarriages of justice.

[4808]. Cf. Winter, “Gallio,” 304.

[4809]. With, e.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 630 (as a guess); Malina and Pilch, Acts, 132. Even an unsuccessful prosecution was a matter of shame (Witherington, Acts, 555–56).

[4810]. So John Chrysostom (who, admittedly, knew the language and customs better than do Western scholars today) in Hom. Acts 39 (Martin, Acts, 228); followed by some (Myrou, “Sosthenes”; Fellows, “Renaming”). A former leader might have maintained his title after the split (Acts 18:7–8), especially if the new community called itself a “synagogue” as well (cf. Jas 2:2, but nowhere in Luke or Paul). But more likely, the synagogue had multiple leaders.

[4811]. Barrett, Acts, 875.

[4812]. Crowds often flocked to trials to be entertained by the oratory (Witherington, Corinthians, 163); they would, of course, obtain far more entertainment in the governor’s court than in the lower ones.

[4813]. E.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 171; Bruce, Acts¹, 348; idem, Commentary, 375; Judge, Pattern, 41; Bornkamm, Paul, 69. Schnabel, Acts, 765, notes (but does not endorse) the possibility that both Jews and Gentiles beat Sosthenes.

[4814]. Johnson, Acts, 329.

[4815]. Although popular support of the masses for (or against) a hero appears in novels (Pervo, Profit, 35), novels at this point reflected social reality. A forum was also a social center and could be crowded (cf. Stambaugh, City, 111).

[4816]. Apul. Metam. 3.2 (though it turns out to be a mock trial); Diod. Sic. 40.5a.1. For noise in courtrooms, see also Pliny Ep. 6.33.3–4.

[4817]. Dio Chrysostom’s mistrust of mobs as irrational reflects class assumptions (see comment on Acts 4:21) but also the instability of first- and second-century C.E. Alexandria (see Barry, “Aristocrats”). Hubbard, “Urban Uprisings,” focuses on the issue of urban crowd unrest for this passage (though allowing for the specifically anti-Jewish element); unrest could follow a judge’s verdict, among other things.

[4818]. E.g., Lysias Or. 3.16–18, §§97–98 (Athens, probably after 394 B.C.E.; not necessarily in the courts). Egyptian papyri attest considerable public violence also on an individual level (Bryen, “Visibility”).

[4819]. Cf. also Mattioli, “Ironia di Paolo.” It is comic, in the sense of ironic, from the narrative perspective but obviously not from Sosthenes’s perspective within the narrative world.

[4820]. On unreliable characters in ancient sources, see, e.g., Proclus Poet. 6.1, K110.8–9.

[4821]. See Tannehill, Acts, 228–29.

[4822]. So, naturally, most commentators (e.g., Neil, Acts, 197; Bruce, Acts¹, 348; Johnson, Acts, 329; Barrett, Acts, 875; Le Cornu, Acts, 1011). For the plurality of synagogue rulers in many synagogues, see comment on Acts 13:15.

[4823]. E.g., Barrett, Acts, 875; Hays, First Corinthians, 15. Much earlier, Theodoret Comm. 1 Cor. 165 (PG 82:227–30; Bray, Corinthians, 4).

[4824]. Haenchen, Acts, 536n5, rightly warns of the tendency in the history of exegesis to conflate different people with the same name. Given limited information, NT scholars sometimes overuse the information that we have available.

[4825]. That the name “occurs often” (Haenchen, Acts, 536n5) should be qualified; it does occur, but it was not one of the most common names in our sources.

[4826]. This proposal makes sense, as Witherington notes (Acts, 556), if Sosthenes was later converted; cf. Karakolis, “Schlugen.”

[4827]. Barrett, Acts, 875.

[4828]. For “synagogue leader” often being an honorary title for significant donors, sometimes Gentile ones, see comment on Acts 13:15.

[4829]. So most commentators (with varying levels of certainty), in the event that it is the same Sosthenes (Bruce, Acts¹, 348; idem, Commentary, 375n35; Fitzmyer, Acts, 630; Hays, First Corinthians, 15).

[4830]. Whatever the narrator’s perspective on Paul’s irony, Paul, at least within the narrative (Acts 28:19) and also in Paul’s epistolary ethos (Rom 9:1–5), would not wish trouble to come against his ethnic community even if its leaders were showing him hostility (cf. 11:28).

[4831]. With, e.g., Witherington, Acts, 572. Pervo, Acts, 469, is skeptical of Luke’s portrait of the Christian movement’s beginnings in Ephesus; he cites as highly skeptical Fieger, Schatten (see review in Skinner, “Review of Fieger”); as less skeptical, Thiessen, Christen in Ephesus; and as “least skeptical,” Trebilco, Ephesus.

[4832]. Knox, Acts, 57–58.

[4833]. Much of this material, which often supplements Mark and Q, may have been oral material that he collected during his time in Judea (Acts 21:8–27:2, explicit in 21:8–18; 27:1–2).

[4834]. Johnson, Acts, 10.

[4835]. Dunn, Acts, 246.

[4836]. Witherington, Acts, 557. Cf. Jos. War 2.313.

[4837]. Some suggest a desire to reach Jerusalem for the Passover of 52 C.E., in early April, or (likelier) the March 22 Passover of 53 C.E. (in either case, after the March 5–10 shipping opened; Larkin, Acts, 268; Witherington, Acts, 558).

[4838]. The verb ἀποτάσσομαι appears again in 18:21; elsewhere in Luke-Acts only at Luke 9:61; 14:33 (and in the NT at Mark 6:46; 2 Cor 2:13; it is more common in 1 Maccabees [1 Macc 4:61; 6:50; 11:3; 15:41]).

[4839]. That Priscilla’s name occurs before Aquila’s may be significant; see Acts 18:26 and comment at Acts 18:2.

[4840]. With, e.g., Murray, “Evangelism.” See further discussion of this principle at Acts 13:1. Although they would also provide a private house for the mission, Blue, “Influence,” 484, may overemphasize this factor as a reason for their accompanying Paul.

[4841]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 39.

[4842]. Munck, Acts, 180; also Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 229; Haenchen, Acts, 542, 545 (following Holtzmann); Arrington, Acts, 183; D. Williams, Acts, 326. Bede Comm. Acts 18.18 (L. Martin, 150) cites manuscripts that imply that Priscilla and Aquila shaved their heads but follows Augustine (Ep. 82.2.8) and Jerome (Ep. 112.9) in applying the verb instead to Paul.

[4843]. This is one of the fairly common professions in the papyri of Roman Egypt (Lewis, Life, 136); on barbers, see further Carcopino, Life, 157–64. Barbershops were known for being repositories of gossip (Polyb. 3.20.1–5) and other information (Lysias Or. 23.3, §166), though barbers’ skill with sharp objects made them helpful medically as well (Stambaugh, City, 136; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 71). Many Romans cut hair twice a month (Pliny E. N.H. 28.5.28); shaving of the beard entered Rome ca. 300 B.C.E. (7.59.211). Rich Romans had their own barbers and hairstylists, whom they could use daily (Carcopino, Life, 157). Galileans had barbers available in marketplaces, though some discouraged the vanity of excess use (Goodman, State, 59–60). On barbers shaving, Abbott, Acts, 227, compares nineteenth-century Middle Eastern custom.

[4844]. Palestinian rabbis mistrusted Gentile barbers (t. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:5; y. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:2, §5); people made regular use of barbers (Lewis, Life, 136; Goodman, State, 59–60; ILS 7414), but a hostile one could prove dangerous (Mart. Epig. 3.74.1–2). Diaspora Jews were, however, probably less scrupulous, though they would have likely used fellow Jews when available. Paul might not object (1 Cor 9:21), but especially for a religious vow, he might have preferred to identify more with his people at this point. The style of haircuts that Romans gave also differed noticeably from that of Palestinian Jews (b. Meʿil. 17a).

[4845]. Dupont, Life, 265. (Scissors were in use, including for cutting hair and beards; Hurschmann, “Scissors,” 96.) A barber who left large, uneven patches of beard angered the person whom he shaved (Alciph. Paras. 30 [Gymnochaeron to Phagodaetes], 3.66).

[4846]. E.g., some scholars according to Barrett, Acts, 877 (citing Juv. Sat. 12.81–82).

[4847]. See Burkert, Religion, 68–70; idem, Mystery Cults, 12–15; for Romans, see, e.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.25.4; in general, see Hahn, “Prayers,” 240–41; Rives, Religion, 11.

[4848]. Plut. Isis 4, Mor. 352C; Artem. Oneir. 1.22; Apul. Metam. 11.10. Cf. service to Osiris, Apul. Metam. 11.30. This was a traditional custom from Egyptian priests (Lewis, Life, 92; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 135; Brenk, “Image,” 221), who, Herodotus claimed, shaved their bodies every third day to maintain ritual purity (Hdt. 2.37; Blackman, “Purification,” 480–81).

[4849]. Though less often noted, priests of Heracles also shaved their heads (Sil. It. 3.28).

[4850]. In addition to two in Corinth itself, which were linked with the Serapis temples there (Engels, Roman Corinth, 103). Although later in date, Apuleius’s account of Isis rituals at the beginning of sailing season at Cenchreae (Metam. 11.8–17) has emphasized this temple for later readers (Engels, Roman Corinth, 103–4; Nock, Conversion, 56).

[4851]. Cf. Engels, Roman Corinth, 105. On the Isis cult, see further Koester, Introduction, 1:183–91; Martin, Religions, 76–78; Grieshammer, “Isis”; Takacs and Haase, “Isis”; Tinh, “Sarapis and Isis”; Pomeroy, Goddesses, 217–26; Heyob, Isis; Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 236–48; esp. in earlier Egypt, Assmann, “Isis”; on the cult’s history, see esp. Heyob, Isis, 1–36. For the cult of Serapis, see, e.g., Nock, Conversion, 49–55; for its alleged origins, Tac. Hist. 4.83–84. It did not include true ecstasy (Burkert, Mystery Cults, 113); although the myth of Isis stems from ancient Egypt (e.g., “The Theology of Memphis” [ANET]), the mystery cult was originally a Greek product (Burkert, Mystery Cults, 2–3, 40–41; Heyob, Isis, 57; pace the emphasis in Bleeker, “Initiation”), mixing Greek and Egyptian elements (Heyob, Isis, 45–47). For initiation as it was done in the time of Apuleius, see Metam. 11.23–24.

[4852]. Meeks, Urban Christians, 18 (following Scranton, “Harbor-Side Sanctuaries”). Merkelbach, “Osiris-Fest,” suggests an initiation on the night of December 24–25; if this was common (at least by Apuleius’s era), perhaps it was meant to follow Rome’s Saturnalia?

[4853]. Heyob, Isis, 36; for popularity, see also Kee, Miracle, 105–45; but cf. Rives, “Popular.” As Fate becomes an increasing issue in subsequent centuries (see comment on Acts 2:23), Isis appears as a deliverer from fate (Apul. Metam. 11.22; cf. Tinh, “Sarapis and Isis,” 113).

[4854]. See Heyob, Isis, 37–52, esp. 52. Isis made husbands love their wives (Horsley, Documents, 1:20, §2); but Isis’s role as a feminist icon (“the patron saint of the Egyptian women’s movement,” in Barth, Ephesians, 2:656–57) may be overstated (if intended literally). For women’s perceptions of Isis, see Heyob, Isis, 53–80.

[4855]. Pomeroy, Goddesses, 223; Meeks, Urban Christians, 25. See Heyob, Isis, 81–110, esp. 81–83: only 18.2 percent of Isis inscriptions mention women; whereas 48.6 percent are female in Athens and 37.1 percent in Rome speak of women, figures are less elsewhere (e.g., none of the seventy-five inscriptions at Rhodes; in Delos, only 11.3 percent; in Pompeii, 14.3 percent).

[4856]. Dunand, Religion en Égypte, 70 (noting [69] the assimilation with Hathor); cf. Heyob, Isis, 76 (noting representations of her with Harpocrates but that this emphasis is minimal in inscriptions). She is “mother of all” in Apul. Metam. 11.4. By contrast, immortality is probably not an emphasis there (Wagner, Baptism, 112).

[4857]. Heyob, Isis, 36.

[4858]. E.g., Val. Max. 1.3.4; Pomeroy, Goddesses, 223; cf. Juv. Sat. 6.511–29; Grant, Christianity and Society, 60. One who escaped by disguising himself as a priest of foreign Isis loved his life too much, according to the verdict of Val. Max. 7.3.8.

[4859]. Juv. Sat. 6.489; cf. Jos. Ant. 18.65, 79 (cf., e.g., Reitzenstein, Religions, 118; Grant, Gods, 35, noting that Josephus is not the only writer to connect Egyptian and Jewish expulsions under Tiberius, Tac. Ann. 2.85; Suet. Tib. 36). For the most part, the claim of immorality was a slander (perhaps related partly to Osiris’s missing phallus; Plut. Isis 18, Mor. 358B). Apuleius’s apologetic portrayed Isis’s priests as chaste (Metam. 11.19) and quite supportive of Rome (11.17); he may also portray the cult as antimagical (Schmidt, “Einweihung in Mysterien”).

[4860]. E.g., Jos. Ant. 18.70. In first-century Pompeii, a decurion might invest popularity in rebuilding an Isis temple (White, Origins of Architecture, 1:30–31).

[4861]. Grant, Gods, 34 (citing, e.g., Tert. Apol. 6.8.10; Dio Cass. 47.15.4); but cf. the claim of tolerance for the republic in Frank, Aspects, 42. Caligula readmitted it to Rome ca. 40 C.E. (Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 343; Burkert, Mystery Cults, 2); Egyptian cults became prominent under the Flavians (Heyob, Isis, 26–27) and flourished especially under the Antonines (28–33).

[4862]. E.g., Job 1:20; Hom. Il. 16.844–50; 23.46; Eurip. Alc. 216, 427, 512; El. 241, 335; Hipp. 1425–26; Isaeus Nicost. 7; Quint. Curt. 10.5.17 (here Persians); Plut. Isis 4, Mor. 352D; Arrian Alex. 7.14.4; Suet. Calig. 5; Lucian Sacr. 15 (here Egyptians); Hdn. 4.8.5; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.36; Hrk. 19.6; 51.13; Athen. Deipn. 12.523b; Cosgrave, History of Costume, 51; cf. perhaps Deut 21:12–13; Artem. Oneir. 1.22; in Corinth, cf. Paus. 2.3.7; tearing the hair in Eurip. El. 150; Andr. 1209–10; Ovid Metam. 11.682; Sen. E. Controv. 2.4.1; Quint. Curt. 10.5.19. Conversely, one could also let one’s hair grow long in mourning (Lucan C.W. 2.375–76; Gen. Rab. 98:15), perhaps after shaving it.

[4863]. Aeschylus Lib. 6–7, 167; Soph. El. 900–901; Eurip. El. 91, 515, 520; Orest. 96; Alc. 101–3; Ovid Her. 11.116; Metam. 13.427–28.

[4864]. Dio Chrys. (if authentic) Or. 64.3; Tac. Germ. 19; cf. Thompson, “Hairstyles,” 113 (citing Lucian Syr. G. 6). For shaving and disgrace, see also Mart. Epig. 2.67; Test. Job 23:7–10; 24:10; 25 (see OTP 1:849 n. e); Conzelmann, Corinthians, 186n46, citing Aristoph. Thes. 837.

[4865]. A woman might shave her head because of sickness (Lucian Dial. C. 12 [Joessa, Pythias, and Lysias ¶5], 314), but she was ashamed and wanted no one to know (315); shaving her head reduced her beauty (Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.5; Ach. Tat. 5.19.2; for a boy, Diog. Laert. 7.3.166; cf. Deut 21:12). Shaving half the head contributed to asceticism (Lucian Peregr. 17) and could be humiliating (Plut. Demosth. 7.3; cf. 2 Sam 10:4, for beards; 1 Chr 19:4). A philosopher might view shaved heads as indifferent (cf. Lucian Peregr. 17; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.34), but generally, philosophers discouraged unnecessary shaving (e.g., Mus. Ruf. 21 passim).

[4866]. Domitian in Morgan, “Achilleae comae”; cf. Croom, Clothing, 65 (citing Suet. Otho 12); Artem. Oneir. 1.21–22; esp. Apul. Apol. 74 (on one who was considered desirable “before this baldness started to disfigure him,” trans. p. 95); Cosgrave, History of Costume, 78 (noting that many viewed baldness as a “deformity”).

[4867]. Sometimes the practice apparently was associated with people of means (Alciph. Paras. 7 [Psichoclastes to Bucion], 3.43, ¶1).

[4868]. See Mumcuoglu and Zias, “De-loused.”

[4869]. See Green, “Pythagoras.”

[4870]. Epict. Diatr. 1.2.29; see comment on philosophers’ beards in the excursus “Paul as a Cynic Preacher?” at Acts 14:8–10 (Keener, Acts, 2:2140–41).

[4871]. See Brawley, “Paul in Acts,” 143–44; idem, Luke-Acts and the Jews, 156; cf. Ravens, Restoration, 251–55; Carras, “Observant Jews,” 697–703.

[4872]. See Heath, “Invention,” 91–92; cf. Soranus Gynec. 1.2.5.

[4873]. The oft-expressed emphasis on “orthopraxy” above “orthodoxy” (cf., e.g., Davies, Paul, 73) may be overstated when it comes to some segments of Judaism, but common allegiance to Torah did define common Judaism more than any illusory consensus of opinion on details (or how to practice them) did.

[4874]. Conzelmann, Acts, 155.

[4875]. See further Dunn, Theology of Paul, 716–22; Longenecker, Paul, passim; others, e.g., Rosner, Law, 50; cf. Kidwell, “Law.” Haacker, Theology, 146, warns against de-Judaizing all of Paul in light of Galatians and notes that Paul’s letters are too occasion oriented to give us a balanced picture of him.

[4876]. Bruce, History, 318; cf. even more strongly Nanos, “Churches,” 12–13.

[4877]. See, e.g., Roetzel, Paul, ix; see further discussion of this anachronistic tendency in Keener, John, 214–28, esp. 215 (see also Schottroff, “Aspects,” 205–7), where I have argued that even the Johannine community retained its Jewish identity (a position far more controversial than that Paul did so). The rise of a modern Messianic Jewish movement (for varied perspectives, see Rudolph and Willitts, Introduction; Rausch, Messianic Judaism; Cohn-Sherbok, Messianic Judaism; Harris-Shapiro, Messianic Judaism), analogous to the church fathers’ Nazarenes (see esp. Pritz, Nazarene Christianity; Skarsaune and Hvalvik, Believers), and the more-sensitive portrayal of Judaism occasioned by the Holocaust and the discovery of the Qumran scrolls have forced more-nuanced consideration of such issues than was usually the case earlier.

[4878]. Cf. Larsson, “Paul: Law and Salvation.”

[4879]. Hill, Hellenists, 146 (citing homosexual behavior in Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9).

[4880]. The explanation for his behavior here is suggested by Didymus the Blind in Cat. Act. 18.18 (Martin, Acts, 229). Some early Christian interpreters recognize Paul’s action as fulfilling Nazirite law but aver that Paul acted thus not because he believed the law still valid for Christians but so as to avoid offense to Jews (Jerome Ep. 75; Bede Comm. Acts 18.18 [both in Martin, Acts, 228–29]).

[4881]. Barrett, Acts, 859, argues that a vow, unlike the Sabbath, was not mandatory and hence not simply cultural identification. The argument need not follow: one could identify even further by “voluntary” means.

[4882]. Pauline scholars widely affirm Paul’s Jewish identity today, e.g., Davies, Paul; Sanders, Paul and Judaism; Stegner, “Jew, Paul the”; idem, “Jewish Paul.” Jewish scholars with competence in the NT increasingly concur with Christian scholars in reading Paul in terms of his Jewish setting (see Segal, “Exégètes juifs”).

[4883]. Nanos, Mystery, 18. Not all would go as far as Nanos, but it is significant that the emphasis on Paul’s Jewishness comes especially from scholars most familiar with Jewish thought.

[4884]. See C. Williams, Acts, 24; Jervell, Unknown Paul, 58; Witherington, Acts, 557; cf. Horn, “Nasiräat.”

[4885]. Hanson, Acts, 187.

[4886]. Haenchen, Acts, 546. Ancient writers, like modern ones, were capable of misunderstanding their sources (cf., e.g., the proposal concerning Ben Sira in Egger-Wenzel, “Terminology”).

[4887]. Johnson, Acts, 330.

[4888]. Haenchen, Acts, 545 (citing Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2:747ff.).

[4889]. Haenchen, Acts, 543, so reads Jos. War 2.313 (though one might argue that Josephus thinks of thirty-day vows [cf. m. Naz. 1:3] or an earlier shaving, they are less natural ways to read him).

[4890]. B. Yoma 16a; Naz. 45a.

[4891]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 230; Hanson, Acts, 187; Johnson, Acts, 330; Dunn, Acts, 246–47; Le Cornu, Acts, 1016–17; noted as a possibility in Schnabel, Acts, 767. The imperfect εἶχεν would thus apply to the general matter, preceded by the action of the aorist participle, though it could seem to cover the entire period (the variety of possible uses of imperfects allows but does not require this interpretation).

[4892]. Jewish evidence is not so easy to come by, but we should recall that most of our massive Jewish evidence on vows is rabbinic and from either Palestine or Babylonia, probably not sympathetic to the concerns of the Mediterranean Diaspora (though one might hope Babylonian rabbis would have proved more sympathetic, the sources postdate the temple’s destruction, in any case). Gentiles, of course, could not undertake Nazirite vows (cf. b. Naz. 61a; Num. Rab. 10:7).

[4893]. Dunn, Acts, 246–47; Johnson, Acts, 330. The imperfect form of the verb here may suggest that some aspect of the vow was already in place (cf. the present participle in Acts 21:23); unfortunately, the LXX does not supply Luke’s idiom (which appears only here and in 21:23).

[4894]. Dunn, Acts, 247.

[4895]. See discussion below and in the excursus “Paul as a Cynic Preacher?” at Acts 14:8–10 (Keener, Acts, 2:2131–42).

[4896]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 12.15; 35.2; Lucian Phil. Sale 2; Peregr. 15; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.36. In contrast to Cynics, Stoics, though bearded, wore their hair short (Lucian Runaways 27; Hermot. 18). See fuller comment in the excursus “Paul as a Cynic Preacher?” at Acts 14:8–10 (Keener, Acts, 2:2131–42, esp. 2140–42).

[4897]. E.g., Hom. Hymns 3.450 (to Pythian Apollo); Pindar Isthm. 1.7; 3.14; Dio Chrys. Or. 36.17; 72.5; Lucian Dial. G. 215 (8/5, Zeus and Hera ¶5); Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.7; Hrk. 27.13; 29.5; 31.1; 38.3; 42.1, 3. For ancients more generally, e.g., Hom. Il. 4.533; Od. 2.408; Sil. It. 15.671; the statue in Apul. Flor. 15.7. See fuller comment in the excursus “Paul as a Cynic Preacher?” at Acts 14:8–10 (Keener, Acts, 2:2131–42).

[4898]. E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 14.9.4; Pliny E. N.H. 6.32.162; 11.47.130; Dio Chrys. Or. 35.11; Heliod. Eth. 2.20.

[4899]. Haenchen, Acts, 545; cf. Le Cornu, Acts, 1016. Lightfoot calls it “not strictly a Nazirite vow,” noting that “it was modified by the circumstances” (contrasting Acts 21:24; Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 18:18, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]).

[4900]. Haenchen, Acts, 546. He argues that the only reference to Diaspora Jews’ fulfilling a Nazirite vow requires them to come to Jerusalem thirty days in advance (Jos. War 2.313; cf. perhaps m. Naz. 3:6); this would not, however, address vows that were not Nazirite.

[4901]. Cf. Num 30:2–3; 11QT LIII–LIV. By this period, people often promised by God to abstain from something for a specified period (cf. Acts 23:12; Mark 14:25; m. ʾAb. 3:13; conjoined with mourning in Gen. Rab. 92:5). One had to specify, however, the precise parameters of one’s vow: one who vowed not to use light, e.g., was not allowed to use even starlight (b. Pesaḥ. 2a, bar.). On kinds of vows, cf. McNamara, Judaism, 197.

[4902]. In Luke’s own narrative, Paul touches what may be a dead body in Acts 20:9–10 en route to Jerusalem (but that the boy does not remain dead would have settled matters for most of Luke’s audience, if not for everyone else; cf. Luke 7:14; 8:54).

[4903]. Cf. b. Ḥul. 89b; 100b; Num. Rab. 10:13.

[4904]. Marshall, Acts, 300; Witherington, Acts, 557, citing m. Naz. 3:6; 5:4. These texts suggest this interpretation but do not require it; m. Naz. 5:4 suggests, by contrast, that the temple was necessary for completing the vow.

[4905]. See comment above on p. 2782 and references in n. 4863.

[4906]. For this, the generally cited evidence is clear: Jos. War 2.313–14; m. Naz. 3:6; 5:4.

[4907]. For the usual thirty-day Nazirite vows, rabbis debated whether the Nazirite might cut hair on the twenty-ninth or the thirtieth day (y. Naz. 1:3, §1).

[4908]. With, e.g., González, Acts, 212.

[4909]. See Shaw, “Harborage”; Scranton, “Commercial Features”; for a summary, Fant and Reddish, Sites, 41–44; Horsley, Documents, 4:139–40, §37. For one detailed portrait of Cenchreae, see Rothaus, Corinth. On the pottery there, see Adamsheck, Pottery; for the burial grounds there (from this period and later), see Rife et al., “Cemetery Project.”

[4910]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.25; in the church fathers, e.g. (from Bray, Romans, 369), Ps.-Const. Rom. on 16:1 (ENPK 91); Theodoret Interp. Rom. on 16:1 (IER, PG 82:218–20).

[4911]. Philo Flacc. 155.

[4912]. Apul. Metam. 10.35 (LCL, 536–37).

[4913]. On the two harbors, see, e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 4.4.10.

[4914]. So Ael. Arist. Or. 46.22 (Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 115), though Aristides’s knowledge of Corinth was superficial (119).

[4915]. Ael. Arist. Or. 26.13 (To Rome) (Grant, Paul, 16). At least in Rome’s case, this claim probably contained little, if any, hyperbole.

[4916]. Romano, “Planning,” 43.

[4917]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 82.

[4918]. Ibid., estimating population from the common density of “many small modern Greek towns, 110 per hectare.”

[4919]. McRay, Archaeology, 337 (on the harbor more fully, 336–38). Put differently, Lechaeum’s harbor covered ca. fifteen hectares, with a perimeter around its quays of ca. five km.; Cenchreae’s covered ca. eight hectares, with a perimeter around its quays of ca. one km. (Engels, Roman Corinth, 58). It also had its own lighthouse (12).

[4920]. As elsewhere, many of the Roman coins bear the emperor’s image (see Hohlfelder, Coins, 29–62 passim).

[4921]. Paus. 2.2.3, in Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 17; cf. the Isis temples in Paus. 2.4.6. Rothaus, Corinth, 82, believes that Cenchreae’s Isis, Aphrodite, and Asclepius temples “have not yet . . . been located.”

[4922]. E.g., Strabo 8.6.15; Val. Max. 1.8.2; Pliny E. N.H. 4.5.18; Paus. 2.26.1–2.27.6; see Keener, Acts, 1:327–28. Its proximity to Corinth may be inferred from its inclusion in Paus. 2, as distinct from the rest of Achaia in Paus. 6.

[4923]. Apul. Metam. 11.7–18; Grant, Paul, 65.

[4924]. Scranton, “Harbor-Side Sanctuaries,” 53–79.

[4925]. Ibid., 79–90.

[4926]. West, Inscriptions, 5, 55, 66, 102, 108; Kent, Inscriptions, nos. 14, (perhaps) 23, 156. Cf. also Broneer, Temple of Poseidon (though focusing on the Greek period).

[4927]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 96.

[4928]. Ibid., 96–97. Cf. Pliny E. N.H. 4.5.18. Corinth has the earliest extant artistic portrayals of Poseidon (Bäbler, “Poseidon,” 677).

[4929]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 98 (noting that Corinthians associated her with the sea; he cites Paus. 2.1.7; Apul. Metam. 10.31). Further on Aphrodite, see discussion at Acts 13:6.

[4930]. Winter, Left Corinth, 202; Meeks, Urban Christians, 60; this probably means that she hosted a house congregation (Malherbe, Social Aspects, 98). Johnson, Romans, 233, infers that she was probably also Paul’s “financial agent” in arranging Paul’s coming trip to Rome. For patrons (including those in Corinth), see, e.g., Chow, Patronage, 64–68; discussion of patronage and patronesses at Acts 16:15.

[4931]. A very broad term (διάκονος) that Paul frequently employs elsewhere for ministry of himself or his colleagues; cf. Streeter and Picton-Turbervill, Woman, 63; Keener, “Perspective,” 216–17; idem, Paul, 238–39; somewhat differently, see Belleville, Leaders, 61–62 (translating “deacon”). In a later period, see Blue, “House Church,” 183 (following Lightfoot, Philippians, 95ff.).

[4932]. Cf. the Italian-style tomb of the elite L. Castricius Regulus near Cenchreae’s harbor (Gill, “Achaia,” 453).

[4933]. On the harbor at Ephesus, including its design, see Zabehlicky, “Harbor.” On excavations in Ephesus in the 1990s, see Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 149–51. On Ephesus in general, see further, in some detail, Oster, Bibliography; idem, “Ephesus”; Koester, Ephesos; Trebilco, Ephesus; Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos”; accessibly, e.g., Fant and Reddish, Sites, 177–207; Arnold, “Ephesus”; Hoehner, Ephesians, 79–89; Schnabel, Mission, 1206–15; Eckey, Apostelgeschichte, 421–23.

[4934]. E.g., Pliny Ep. 10.15.1; 10.17A.1; Ramsay, Letters, 186; Hemer, Letters, 15.

[4935]. Strabo 14.1.24. In Nero’s reign, we read of “opening” or “clearing” Ephesus’s port (Tac. Ann. 16.23).

[4936]. On the Caÿster’s silt, which kept moving the coastline, see Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.115; sources report this as a problem as early as 499 B.C.E. and in 129 C.E. (Yamauchi, Cities, 79, citing, for the later occasion, Euseb. H.E. 9.4.2); cf. Ramsay, Letters, 243–45. Any harbor separated from the sea’s waves risked silting (Höckmann, “Harbours,” 1138).

[4937]. Ramsay, Letters, 433. The relocation of towns could prove advantageous or disadvantageous (Men. Rhet. 1.22, 356.12–23).

[4938]. Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1026.

[4939]. Yamauchi, Cities, 79.

[4940]. Riesner, Early Period, 296. When messages had to be carried by travelers, a degree of geographic connection would prove helpful.

[4941]. Knox, Jerusalem, 296–97.

[4942]. Calder, Gray, and Mitchell, “Asia,” 189. Its wealth is often noted (e.g., Stark, Ionia, 136); see Philost. Ep. Apoll. 71 (though this is after Paul’s day).

[4943]. Rives, Religion, 55.

[4944]. Tarn, Civilisation, 173. Ephesus and Smyrna passed Miletus in size in the centuries before Paul’s coming (172). Like Ephesus, Smyrna was reputedly founded by Amazons (Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.118); Ephesus and Smyrna were rivals (cf. 5.31.120; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.8.490) but are associated in judgment in Sib. Or. 3.343–44. For Ephesus as strategic, see also Patella, “Headquarters.”

[4945]. It was also known for very good wines (Strabo 14.1.15).

[4946]. E.g., Jeffers, World, 57, 267. Earlier estimates for Ephesus’s peak (later) population include 500,000 (MacKendrick, Stones, 420).

[4947]. Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 131 (200,000); McDonald, “Ephesus,” 319 (250,000); Kee, Every Nation, 226 (more than 200,000); Trebilco, “Asia,” 307 (200,000–250,000); cf. Crawford, “Population” (among cities in the range of 100,000–300,000 free persons). It was, presumably, larger than Pergamum, which we have reason to believe had 180,000–200,000, extrapolated from Galen’s estimate of adults there (Trebilco, “Asia,” 307n68; Mitchell, Anatolia, 1:244n12). But estimates should not be based on a second-century inscription assumed to claim 40,000 male citizens for Ephesus, since the inscription was misread (Mitchell, Anatolia, 1:244n12).

[4948]. White, “Development,” 41–42.

[4949]. Ibid., 35; on the growth from the century before and after Paul, see Höcker, “Ephesus: Archaeology”; a generation or two after him, cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 40.11. Architecture (White, “Development,” 49–56) and inscriptions (57–63) attest increasing urbanization and romanization in the second and third centuries, when the population may have been growing by a thousand people a year (47). (On ancient urbanization, in addition to sources cited in Keener, Acts, 1:589–96, see now esp. Bowman and Wilson, Settlement.) Three long-distance water pipes had to be added to the original two by the mid-second century (Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1026).

[4950]. White, “Development,” 43, 46.

[4951]. As noted by Aune, Revelation, 136–37 (who thinks an estimate of 200,000–225,000 plausible for the late first century).

[4952]. See Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 131 (rivaling Antioch in size; cf. Trebilco, “Asia,” 307, and Witherington, Acts, 563, both ranking it third); McDonald, “Ephesus,” 319 (behind Antioch in size but not in importance); third or fourth (Kee, Every Nation, 226). On its importance in this period, see Trebilco, “Asia,” 305–7.

[4953]. Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1026, citing Sen. Y. Ep. 17.2.21.

[4954]. On its strategic location, see Trebilco, “Asia,” 308–11 (he connects Paul’s long stay there with its strategic importance, p. 310).

[4955]. Ibid., 309.

[4956]. Ibid.

[4957]. Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1026. In general, new Roman architecture had more effect in the western empire than in the east, which had a long tradition of building (Wright, “Building Materials,” 376).

[4958]. Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” map, 1027–28.

[4959]. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos.” For epigraphic evidence, see I. Eph.; for archaeological evidence, see, e.g., Parvis, “Ephesus” (focusing esp. on pre-Pauline Ephesus); Filson, “Ephesus” (though noting [78] that most sources besides Josephus are second century or later).

[4960]. Witherington, Acts, 563. In the winter of 30/29 B.C.E., Octavian (later Augustus) made Ephesus the residence of Asia’s proconsul (Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1026).

[4961]. Borchert, “Ephesus,” 116; White, “Development,” 35; see, e.g., Vell. Paterc. 1.4.3. The title “Ionia” could be quite ancient (cf. Gen 10:2, 4; Görg, “Ionien”).

[4962]. Men. Rhet. 1.2, 354.9–14 (for whom the Dorians were the bravest and Aeolians the strongest).

[4963]. See Walters, “Egyptian Religions”; Koester, Paul and World, 155–58. For the spread of Egyptian cults during the empire, see, e.g., Kákosy, “Egypt,” 9–13.

[4964]. Walters, “Egyptian Religions,” 283.

[4965]. Ibid., 304. More fully on Egyptian cults in Ephesus, see 281–309.

[4966]. Strelan, Artemis, 34–36, esp. 36. Normally the self-identified Greeks must have held the upper hand, but competition at least among other groups is reasonable.

[4967]. Signs of romanization appear in the first centuries B.C.E. and C.E. (Thomas, “Dead,” 292–93), although they grew in the second and third century C.E. (White, “Development,” 47).

[4968]. For the limited epigraphic evidence for Jews in Ephesus, see CIJ 2:13–14, §§745–47; Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 122–27 (including I. Eph. 5.1676–77, p. 124). On Ephesian Judaism, see further Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 143–48; Kraabel, “Judaism in Asia Minor,” 51–60 (though too skeptical of Acts); Hemer, Letters, 37–40 (suggesting they were citizens); Yamauchi, Cities, 110; Trebilco, Ephesus, 37–51; in Ephesus and all of Asia, Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 259–81; Strelan, Artemis, 192–99; van der Horst, “Judaism.”

[4969]. Although we lack clear archaeological identification of a synagogue, it is difficult, as other scholars also note (e.g., Strelan, Artemis, 189; cf. Trebilco, Ephesus, 43–44), to envision a synagogue ruler where there is no synagogue. For one Ionian synagogue, see CIJ 2:8, §738.

[4970]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 87–89. Cf. Bruce, History, 329. Jewish people had faced problems in Ionia as recently as Jos. Ant. 12.125; 16.27, 45; see discussion in Barclay, Jews, 270.

[4971]. See Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 81–86.

[4972]. Ibid., 89–94.

[4973]. See ibid., 98–100.

[4974]. The evidence convinces virtually all scholars; see, e.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 155; Hemer, Acts in History, 187; Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 468.

[4975]. Barrett, Acts, 886. For their activity (and name order), see also comment on Acts 18:26.

[4976]. With O’Neill, Theology, 74, the Christians were being well treated in the synagogue.

[4977]. Commentators cite, e.g., Jos. Ant. 2.333, 347; 7.373; Plato Alcib. 1.31, §135D; Epict. Diatr. 1.1.17 (ὡς ὁ θεὸς θέλῃ; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 499; Witherington, Acts, 558; Fitzmyer, Acts, 635).

[4978]. E.g., Hom. Il. 8.142; Xen. Hell. 2.4.17; 5.1.14; Anab. 7.3.43; Dio Chrys. Or. 45.15 (plural); cf. similarly (though in different wording) Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.23.18. For Stoics, see the discussion in Sorabji, Emotion, 219–20.

[4979]. E.g., Fronto, discussing what he hopes to do, as he has now recovered from sickness (Ad M. Caes. 5.40 [55]); likewise, M. Aurelius to Fronto (5.43 [58]; 5.55 [70], gods [plural]; Ad Ant. imp. 1.1).

[4980]. Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.11 (deis propitiis), 20; Ad am. 2.11. Cf. Symm. Ep. 1.2.2 (if Fortune permits); 1.45.1 (if the gods are willing).

[4981]. Munck, Acts, 181, suggests that the phrase is intended to indicate only the speaker’s piety, not uncertainty or that he would face danger.

[4982]. The idea might be accurate even if the words are later (Ross, “Extra Words in 18:21”; Hemer, Acts in History, 120).

[4983]. Witherington, Acts, 558.

[4984]. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 156; Stagg, Acts, 192–93 (also noting the vow of Acts 18:18); others below. Also, “greeting” was important (20:1; 21:7, 19; 25:13), but the point here may be a serious assurance of fellowship, not the modern Western idea of a casual greeting in passing.

[4985]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 231; Bruce, Acts¹, 350; Dunn, Acts, 247; idem, Beginning, 752.

[4986]. Dunn, Acts, 247.

[4987]. Witherington, Acts, 559.

[4988]. With ibid., 556. Part of the problem is that Luke’s language is terse and concise; nevertheless, his six participles elegantly communicate “the sense of rapidity and smoothness” (Pervo, Acts, 456).

[4989]. Barrett, Acts, 880.

[4990]. It might also be relevant that in a “we” section such as Acts 20:5–6, 13–17 or 21:1–3, 7–8, Luke would report the travels in more detail because he knew them, whereas his source was hardly interested in preserving them here.

[4991]. “Going up” to Jerusalem had long been idiomatic; e.g., 1 Kgs 12:28; 2 Kgs 12:17; 16:5; 24:10; 2 Chr 2:16; Ezra 1:3; 7:7; Isa 7:1; Zech 14:17; 1 Macc 4:37; 6:48; 13:2; 2 Macc 12:31; 1 Esd 2:5; Jos. Ant. 11.67, 72, 89, 93, 122, 325; 12.248, 316; 18.90, 122; War 2.40, 232, 515. Perhaps 1QM I, 3 (so Vermes, Scrolls, 124); but differently, Yadin, Scroll of War, 258.

[4992]. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 156; Stagg, Acts, 192–93; Bruce, Peter, 101n29; Witherington, Acts, 559; Riesner, Early Period, 297.

[4993]. Conzelmann, Acts, 156; Lüdemann, Christianity, 5–6.

[4994]. Some place Gal 2:1–10 in Acts 18:22, but this does not make the best sense of Galatians’ chronology, in addition to contradicting Luke’s (cf. also Watson, Gentiles, 108, although the disagreement with Barnabas in Gal 2:13 need not have precipitated the break with him and the shift to Silas).

[4995]. Witherington, Acts, 559; Riesner, Early Period, 297. See comment at Acts 18:18.

[4996]. Dunn, Acts, 247–48, thinks that Paul may have intended visits to Jerusalem and Antioch to heal the breach established in Acts 15:30–41 (on the basis of Gal 2:13–14) and that having not mentioned the breach, Luke has little to say here. This guess would be no weaker than the others if Dunn were correct about Acts 15:30–41, but I have argued that he is not. That Paul is working for unity between his churches and the two mother churches, however, could well be a factor (Riesner, Early Period, 298). If he had written Galatians already, word of his hostile rhetoric may have reached Jerusalem (via Paul’s enemies in Galatia), provoking a cool reception. A negative reception, if it occurred, would have likely encouraged Luke’s silence (Dunn, Beginning, 755).

[4997]. If Paul was forcibly prevented from fulfilling his Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18) at the time and chose to forgo it for practical reasons, Luke might not wish to mention this; but then why mention the vow to begin with in 18:18?

[4998]. Cf. Riesner, Early Period, 313; Le Cornu, Acts, 711, 1024.

[4999]. Dunn, Acts, 248. Conversely, Paul’s conflict with Peter in Antioch (Gal 2:11–14) could have occurred at this point (cf. Hengel, Peter, 57–58), which would explain the brevity of Luke’s report about Antioch (surpassed only by his omission of an even more hostile reception in Jerusalem).

[5000]. Haenchen, Acts, 548; Witherington, Acts, 559–60.

↑ Back to top