[5005] . Riesner, Early Period , 286.

[5005] . Riesner, Early Period , 286.

[5001]. Bruce, Commentary, 379. Luke certainly summarizes the itinerary hastily, employing a common verb for “go” five times in Acts 18:18–23 (Parsons, Acts, 261, comparing Rhet. Her. 4.14.21), not including other verbs for travel.

[5002]. Hemer, Acts in History, 120; Riesner, Early Period, 285–86.

[5003]. The North Galatian interpretation does not fit this passage geographically at all (Mitchell, “Galatia,” 871, citing also the fourth-century Pontic bishop Asterius, who read this passage as Mitchell does).

[5004]. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:4. The Meander route passed from Ephesus through Phrygia to Apamea; another route from Apamea led to Pisidia (MAMA 7:ix). Wilson, “Routes,” 478, notes the intersection of the Southern Highway (leading west into Asia) with the Via Sebaste near Comama.

[5005]. Riesner, Early Period, 286.

[5006]. That he traveled to locations in order (καθεξῆς) may not be significant, since it was difficult to travel otherwise, but its mention and repetition occasionally (Luke 8:1 for Jesus’s travels; Luke 1:3 and Acts 11:4 for recounting events sequentially), if not purely stylistic, may indicate a preference for a methodical approach.

[5007]. Acts 18:18, 22–23; 19:1; 20:1–6, 13–15, with the non-Ephesian raising in Troas in 20:7–12 being simply too good to omit.

[5008]. Witherington, Acts, suggests Ephesian church officials (168) or Priscilla and Aquila (562; Dunn, Acts, 249, allows either them or Apollos); this is likely at least for Acts 18:24–26, though their information could have been mediated to Luke through various intermediary sources (not least Paul himself). At the least, Luke’s “we” met the elders at 20:15–18.

[5009]. See discussion of ancient historiography and chronology in Keener, Acts, 1:193–94.

[5010]. The primary connection is mention of John’s baptism in both (Fitzmyer, Acts, 643; cf. 637). Hedlun, “Reading,” envisions a purity conflict hindering the welcome of Gentiles, but with Apollos rehabilitated for Luke’s audience here and tongues as a new purity marker in 19:6. (The suggestion has cohesiveness, but the use of immersion in purifying Gentiles might count against it.)

[5011]. Koester thinks that the church of Luke’s time must have been divided among disciples of John, followers of Apollos, a Pauline church, and (in Rev 2:1–7) an apocalyptic circle (“Ephesos in Literature,” 133); unfortunately, this reflects the common redactional fallacy of reading narratives as precise mirrors of the audience (as a “community”). The church was plainly divided, however, among Jew and Gentile at some points (cf. Eph 2:11–22); and for followers of John as likely persisting, see also Keener, John, 388–91. Trudinger, “Milieu,” attributes most of the Johannine literature, Hebrews, Ephesians (from Paul), and part of Luke to Ephesus; I am more skeptical of Hebrews and Luke.

[5012]. Missing the one whom John proclaimed and his baptism (Luke 3:15–16), these disciples “represent a degenerate form of John’s heritage” from Luke’s perspective (Tannehill, Acts, 234). Unlike Apollos, they are in the process of conversion (Turner, Gifts, 45).

[5013]. See the discussion in Barrett, Acts, 885–86; Tannehill, Acts, 233; on the meaning of “boiling in [the] Spirit,” see also Barrett, Acts, 888, and comment on Acts 18:25.

[5014]. Wolter, “Apollos und Johannesjünger,” proposes a plausible, almost opposite interpretation: Luke expects us to read the Spirit deficiency of the disciples in Acts 19:1–7 back into Apollos, seeing Paul as bestower of the Spirit. The lack of rebaptism and Luke’s favorable view of Priscilla and Aquila, however, probably point instead to the more common view. If we read into the contrast with 19:1–7, it could be significant that the Spirit is imparted through Paul, but even if Apollos lacks the Spirit already (18:25), the contrast here would be with Priscilla and Aquila, whom Luke portrays favorably.

[5015]. Dunn, Acts, 249.

[5016]. For rhetorical rivalry, see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 24.3; Suet. Tib. 11.3; Lucian Prof. P.S. 22; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.8.490; cf. 2.10.588. For disciples’ dividing in Corinth, see Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9 (often noted; e.g., Savage, Power, 31; Winter, Left Corinth, 37–40).

[5017]. For their collegiality rather than rivalry, see also (here) Wall, “Acts,” 252–53 (citing Hays, 1 Corinthians, 67–73; cf. also Keener, Corinthians, 137; Mihaila, “Relationship”; Bruce, Corinthians, 32). Leading figures could be friends despite popular assumptions that they were rivals (e.g., Cic. Brut. 1.2–3; cf., albeit somewhat fictitiously, Apul. Flor. 18.39–41); cf. later the Wesleys and Whitefield (most of the time).

[5018]. Noting that Luke’s predilection to emphasize relative harmony means that he focuses on that aspect of the reality, not that he fabricates it, pace the old Tübingen School; Luke does not always portray their harmony (15:39); and Paul and Apollos were colleagues (1 Cor 16:12).

[5019]. The construction in 18:24 can sometimes apply to a Diaspora Jew’s area of birth or residence rather than ethnicity (4:36; 18:2). Most of the missionaries and chief leaders in the movement remained Jewish at the beginning, especially if the estimates in Friesen, “Demography,” 357, are anywhere close to accurate (78 percent of the transients named in Paul’s churches were fairly clearly Jewish, compared with a much lower estimate for the membership—though it would be harder to be sure in the membership’s case).

[5020]. See Witherington, Acts, 564. Names compounded with various Greek deities were common in Roman Jewish tombs (CIJ 1:lxvii); among such other deity-compounded names, see 1:64, §91; 1:166, §232; 1:344, §467. Given the preponderance of -Yah names in the OT, the adoption of such pagan theophorics is interesting. Cf. pagan weekday names in Revelation of Ezra (OTP 1:601–4), but this document may be quite late.

[5021]. Lightfoot, Notes, 153; Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 207.

[5022]. Cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 466 (following on this point Zahn, Introduction, 270n10; Offermann, “Apollos”); but Kilpatrick, “Apollos-Apelles,” thinks “Apelles” original (and the same person as Apollos). The name “Apelles” was not infrequent (e.g., Rom 16:10; Suet. Vesp. 19; Jerome in Puech, “Gospels,” 349–50), being especially attached to one of antiquity’s most famous painters (Cic. Att. 2.21; Fam. 1.9.15; Strabo 14.1.25; Val. Max. 8.11.ext. 2; Theon Progymn. 1.86; Pliny E. N.H. pref. 26; Dio Chrys. Or. 63.4–5; Plut. Flatt. 15, Mor. 58D; Isis 24, Mor. 360D; Fort. Alex. 2.2, Mor. 335A; Alex. 4.2; Pliny E. N.H. 35.32.50; 35.36.79–97; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.3.1; Eloq. 1.6; Lucian Posts 42; Portr. 3, 7–8; Slander 2–5).

[5023]. E.g., Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 2:161.

[5024]. E.g., Kee, Origins, 97.

[5025]. Johnson, Acts, 331. See Jos. Ant. 2.75; War 6.295; Ag. Ap. 1.236; Philo Posterity 162; Mos. 1.2; Embassy 142, 310.

[5026]. Cf. Kee, Origins, 97.

[5027]. Some suggest that Philo had a direct influence of some sort on Apollos, e.g., Howard, Criticism, 160.

[5028]. Although it is technically true that being from Alexandria does not suggest connections with Philonic thought (Strelan, Artemis, 214), Philo’s thought is probably partly representative—and perhaps the most influential example—of elite Hellenistic Jewish learning there.

[5029]. Externally his role is corroborated in Jos. Ant. 18.259–60. That a member of his school became a Christian before the ethnic conflict of 115–17 C.E. probably explains the preservation of his corpus (and other Alexandrian Jewish works; see Sterling, “School”). Given Alexandria’s role in the development of Middle Platonism (Engberg-Pedersen, “Scene,” 3), Philo’s thought also would have appeared mainstream there.

[5030]. See esp. Tobin, “Philo and Sibyl.” Philo may reflect the primary approach of the Alexandrian Jewish elite.

[5031]. See Le Cornu, Acts, 1028–29 (although Jos. Ant. 17.149–50, which she cites, need not specify this); Strelan, Artemis, 213 (suggesting, as a secondary possibility, the sayings of the Jesus tradition).

[5032]. Scholars cite Demet. Style 38; Lucian Cock 2 (Witherington, Acts, 564n11); see also Jos. Ant. 17.149; perhaps War 1.13 (if it does not refer to learning more generally). In the fifth century B.C.E., Greeks spoke not of rhetoric but of τέχνη λόγων, the art of speech (Kennedy, “Survey of Rhetoric,” 3), yet the LXX misses an opportunity to render Moses’s protest that he is not איש דברים, a man of words, by ἀνὴρ λόγιος in Exod 4:10.

[5033]. Philo Posterity 53; Names 220; Cher. 116; possibly Virt. 174 (cf. Witherington, Corinthians, 130; Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 36 [from Witherington]; idem, Acts, on Acts 18:24, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]; Kwon, Corinthians, 142; Lane, Hebrews, l–li, citing further Orth, Logios, 46); Plut. Cic. 49.5 (Pogoloff, Logos, 181); so also Meeks, Urban Christians, 117. See esp. Winter, “Philo among Sophists,” 183–85 (cited by Lane).

[5034]. On rhetoric in Alexandria, see Pogoloff, Logos, 183–87 (for Philo, 181–83); in more detail, cf. Smith, Rhetoric in Alexandria; Winter, Philo and Paul, 19–112.

[5035]. Pogoloff, Logos, 187; for Egyptians as too controlled by their emotions, cf. Hdn. 1.17.6; see esp. Dio Chrys. Or. 32.68, discussed below. Typical Alexandrian rhetoric was “Asianist,” perhaps classing it as demagoguery with the elite (Pogoloff, Logos, 187). On “Asianist” rhetoric (a Koine rhetoric, or a caricature thereof, against which anachronizing, Atticist purists reacted), which appears in inscriptions, some rhetorical schools, Ignatius, and 4 Maccabees, see Koester, Introduction, 1:103; Calboli, “Asianism”; cf. idem, “Atticism,” 325; Kennedy, “Survey of Rhetoric,” 18; Rowe, “Style,” 156; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 68; some consider 2 Peter similar to this bombastic category (Reicke, Epistles, 146–47; Thurén, “Writings,” 600). Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 283, thinks that “Asianism” was simply “a handy term of abuse” for Atticists (certainly, it is abusive in Dionysius of Halicarnassus On Ancient Orators). The Rhodian style was said to blend both styles (Quint. Inst. 12.10.18); even the Atticist style had various subcategories (Cic. Or. Brut. 9.28); and no less an orator than Pliny the Younger thought purist Atticism too bland (Ep. 9.26.2).

[5036]. Pogoloff, Logos, 189, 274.

[5037]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.43 (one left Alexandria for Egypt); Eunapius Lives 493.

[5038]. See, e.g., Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436b.34–36; Cic. Pro P. Quinct. 1.2; 24.77; Sall. Jug. 85.31; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.9; 12.16; 32.39; 42.1; 46.7; 47.1, 8; Men. Rhet. 2.4, 391.14–15; also notes about opponents’ rhetorical advantages (see comment on Acts 24:13; 25:10; e.g., Cic. Pro P. Quinct. 1.1; 26.80–27.85).

[5039]. Philost. Vit. soph. 2.18.598.

[5040]. But God’s Torah also expresses his power (Urbach, Sages, 1:93–94).

[5041]. Winter, Philo and Paul, 154–55 (citing Arist. Rhet. 1.2.2.1; Quint. Inst. 2.15.2–4; Dio Chrys. Or. 33.3).

[5042]. Cf. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 2:161. These other Lukan references are the only canonical uses of “powerful in speech,” though the idiom is quite close to 4 Macc 16:14 (“more powerful in deeds and speech”).

[5043]. Greek and Jewish Alexandrians distinguished themselves carefully from Egyptians, but Luke’s audience might think of their common location.

[5044]. On the earliest churches in Egypt, see, e.g., Patzia, Emergence, 138–40; also Pearson, “Christians.” Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 259, suggest that Alexandria’s being evangelized later than Antioch and Rome explains the NT silence; this is possible, but it might not appear simply because it did not belong to the Pauline or Jerusalem circle that collected the bulk of our earliest documents.

[5045]. Pliny E. N.H. 5.11.62 praises it (and places it 12 mi. from the mouth of the Nile). We depend mostly on literary sources, since ruins and the movement of the coast have left little archaeological access (Pearson, “Alexandria”). For archaeological work, including recent underwater archaeology, see McKenzie, “Glimpsing Alexandria”; for its many monuments, now known through underwater archaeology, see Empereur, “Diving.”

[5046]. Pucci, “Circuses,” 212, also assigns each about five hundred thousand inhabitants; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 103, estimate about five hundred thousand for Alexandria, as does Rathbone, “Alexandria,” 62. Alexandria may have had up to three hundred thousand free persons, plus slaves (Diod. Sic. 17.52; Crawford, “Population”; Jansen-Winkeln, “Alexandria”). For one legendary story of its divinely guided founding, see Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.30–33; for Alexandria, see further Bell, “Egypt,” 294–98; Pouderon, “Alexandrie”; esp. Pollard and Reid, Rise and Fall; for Roman Egypt, see further Friedländer, Life, 1:355–62; Millar, Empire and Neighbours, 182–94; Sandy, “Hellenistic Egypt,” 476–77; Lewis, Life, passim; Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt.

[5047]. On Alexandrian scholarship (particularly in philosophy and mathematics), see Clarke, “Alexandrian Scholarship.” Well-to-do metropolite parents (Greek-speaking citizens of the nome capitals) sent boys to Alexandria for advanced learning (Lewis, Life, 63); a significant percentage would have been Greeks (cf. the high estimates of Greeks in a nome in Hansen, “Update,” 277). It is the intellectual connection that has led some (including Luther) to identify Apollos as Hebrews’ author (see comment in Bruce, Peter, 79–83, who thinks that it could be any Alexandrian).

[5048]. On the library, and uncertainty about its fate, see further Clarke, “Alexandrian Library.” Possibly Domitian rebuilt it (Suet. Dom. 20; see Rolfe in LCL, 2:380 n. c).

[5049]. Argyle, “University.”

[5050]. Men. Rhet. 1.3, 360.23–24.

[5051]. Winter, Philo and Paul, 19–39, on P.Oxy. 2190, esp. p. 20. On rhetoric in Alexandria, see further Winter’s discussion of Dio Chrys. Or. 32 (pp. 40–59) and Philo’s works (60–112).

[5052]. Winter, Philo and Paul, 98.

[5053]. For a perspective on their critic: he believed that the proper way to watch horse races was in silence (Dio Chrys. Or. 32.80).

[5054]. Cf. similarly Hdn. 4.8.7 (Herodian stereotypes other peoples as well; for positive stereotypes of groups, see 3.3.5; 3.7.2; 3.11.8). He also criticized their sexual immorality (Dio Chrys. Or. 32.91). The Roman elite also disdained populist rhetoric more generally as “passionate, aggressive and frenzied” (Hall, “Delivery,” 231, citing Cic. De or. 3.214; Brut. 223, 224, 225, 241; Clu. 77), although they played on emotion where necessary (Hall, “Delivery,” 231–32, citing Brut. 274–78, 284, 317).

[5055]. E.g., Mittag, “Unruhen,” surveys sixteen examples of unrest from 203 to 48 B.C.E.

[5056]. Romans, he says, had reorganized the city properly (Strabo 17.1.13). Some Egyptians did become Alexandrian, and then Roman, citizens, but this was exceptional (Pliny Ep. 10.6.1–2; 10.7).

[5057]. Tcherikover and Fuks in CPJ 1:61.

[5058]. See Bowman and Rathbone, “Administration in Egypt.”

[5059]. Lewis, Life, 31–32; cf. 9–17. For Roman contempt for Egyptians, see 185; cf. also verbal assaults in Dio Chrys. Or. 32.31 and elsewhere (196).

[5060]. Cf. similarly Tac. Hist. 1.11: Egypt’s “civil strife” stemmed from Egyptian “superstition” and ignorance of laws (LCL, 1:21).

[5061]. E.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.41 (but with a higher view of Alexandrians); P.Giss. 40, col. 2.27–29 (215 C.E.); Hdn. 1.17.6; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 51.3 on the lax morals and luxury of Canopus, at the westernmost branch of the Nile. Alexandria was known for sarcasm and “unchecked impudence,” even against emperors (Friedländer, Life, 1:359). Regarding hostility against Egyptian religion, see comment on Acts 7:41.

[5062]. See, e.g., Venit, “Tomb”; cf. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.42. The Egyptian temple of Serapis there exercised wide influence throughout the Hellenistic world (see McKenzie, Gibson, and Reyes, “Serapeum”).

[5063]. See Rajak, “Jewish-Greek Literature,” 795. On Judaism in Alexandria in general, see CIJ 2:356–66 (epigraphic evidence); Lewis, Life, 25–31 (including all Egypt); Clarke, “Alexandria,” 24–25; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 165–67. A Jewish text praises Alexandria as a source of prosperity (Sib. Or. 11.220); for Jewish assimilation in Egypt, see Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 103–24.

[5064]. Papyri suggest that Egyptian Jews probably resembled their neighbors physically (Fikhman, “Appearance”).

[5065]. Literally “a hundred ten-thousands,” but the figure literally translated “ten thousand” was often employed hyperbolically (e.g., Jos. Ant. 19.1, 67; Iambl. V.P. 28.135; see comment on Acts 21:20), presumably by Philo as well (cf. “thousands” in Abr. 1). Philo has political reason to inflate the numbers or estimate on the high side (in Flacc. 43 he divides Alexandria into two parts: Jews and non-Jews).

[5066]. Delia, “Population of Alexandria,” suggests five to six hundred thousand residents, of whom perhaps 30 percent were Jewish. Their numbers grew under Ptolemy Soter; some estimate a million in all Egypt (Caird, Apostolic Age, 21; Jeffers, World, 213), though this may be questionable in view of Alexandria’s total population and the probable concentration of Jews there. Some think that more Jews lived in Egypt than in Palestine (Sandmel, Judaism, 257). The Zenon Papyri attest much trade between Egypt and Palestine as early as the third century B.C.E. (Cook, “Zenon Papyri,” 1301).

[5067]. Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 41.

[5068]. Philo Flacc. 55; Caird, Apostolic Age, 21.

[5069]. Tcherikover and Fuks in CPJ 1:8 (citing SB 589, second century B.C.E.; Philo Embassy 132; t. Sukkah 4:6; b. Sukkah 51b; y. Sukkah 5.55a; near Alexandria, OGIS 726, third century B.C.E.); see comment on Acts 6:9.

[5070]. Tcherikover and Fuks in CPJ 1:8, noting evidence in Upper but especially Lower Egypt (SB 5862, 6832, 7454, 8939; OGIS 96, 101, 129, 134, 138, 432).

[5071]. Deissmann, Light, 45 (the earlier texts are especially the Elephantine Papyri).

[5072]. Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 63–71.

[5073]. Tcherikover and Fuks in CPJ 1:61. This was a major problem in the early Roman period (CPJ 2:25–107, §§150–59b, sect. 8, “ ‘The Jewish Question’ in Alexandria”). But Honigman, “Philon,” argues that a few Jews, like Philo, were granted citizenship without apostasy, and Barclay notes (Jews in Diaspora, 66–70, specific texts in 67–69) persuasive evidence for a minority of Jews who were Alexandrian citizens (CPJ 144, from 13 B.C.E.; Philo Migr. 91; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.38–72). Claudius’s edict (P.Lond. 1912) protected their rights to religious practice but apparently banned them from citizenship (see comment below).

[5074]. Tcherikover and Fuks in CPJ 1:63. Alexandrian Judaism was, however, intensely hellenized (1:25–47); the alternative was being classed with Egyptian fellahin or forging a status more analogous to the favored Greeks (Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:39).

[5075]. For the conflicts, see Bell, “Egypt,” 308–12.

[5076]. E.g., Feldman, “Pro-Jewish Intimations.”

[5077]. Ben Zeev, “New Perspectives” (also rightly highlighting the socioeconomic differences within the Jewish community). This conflict may, however, have had other causes; citing Philo, Kerkeslager, “Absence,” argues that Roman imperialism, rather than Jewish-Hellenist conflict, led to this violence. Josephus claims that Alexandrian Jews agitated because of Caligula (Ant. 19.278). For the mocking of Agrippa, see Philo Flacc. 36–39 (he visited Alexandria, Flacc. 103).

[5078]. Some have even suggested that the conflict may have hastened his departure (Pogoloff, Logos, 187, as a possibility), but since it was more than ten years before this narrative, we lack reason to suppose this to be the case.

[5079]. It was, as CPJ 2:37 notes, copied down by a careless scribe.

[5080]. Jos. Ant. 19.280–86 reads it favorably on behalf of the Jewish residents, but while he preserves Claudius’s gist, he omits what is not beneficial to his case. Alexandrian Jews like Philo, who had integrated into the city, could no longer raise their Jewish descendants as Alexandrian citizens, and could have viewed the outcome only as disastrous (Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 58–60).

[5081]. Cf. Acts of the Alexandrian Martyrs, in which advocates of Alexandrian Greek rights were martyred by the emperors (CPJ 2:55–107, §§154–59).

[5082]. Ben Zeev, “Greek Attacks.”

[5083]. See evidence in CPJ 2:225–60, §§435–50; Lewis, Life, 25–31; Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 78–81. Jews’ destruction of the famous Serapeum and other sacred precincts confirmed long-standing Greek prejudices that they were sacrilegious (Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 79, noting also CPJ 437, in which a mother entreats Hermes to protect her son from being roasted by Jews).

[5084]. Frankfurter, “Egyptian Response to Revolt.”

[5085]. Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 81, noting esp. Euseb. H.E. 4.2; CPJ 375–403, 460.

[5086]. Cf. Hull, Spirit in Acts, 181–82.

[5087]. Alternatively, he lacked opportunity to be baptized in the Spirit because Paul was not present (which would favor the view that Luke subordinates Apollos here); but imparting the Spirit was not limited to apostles (Acts 9:17), and no such deficiency is here explicit.

[5088]. Bruce, Acts¹, 351; Hull, Spirit in Acts, 184. This suggestion might increase in plausibility if those who postulate a Galilean origin for Q are correct (note the careful work of Reed, Archaeology, 170–96), but certainty remains elusive. They seem correct to emphasize its Galilean perspective, but this could be simply Galilean tradition passed on by the apostles in Jerusalem (cf. Dunn, Perspective, 27).

[5089]. Cf. Bruce, Peter, 71. In contrast to the split among Roman Jews (see comment on Acts 18:2), the internal divisions in Alexandrian Judaism of 41 C.E. involved militant extremists rather than Christians (Bruce, Peter, 72–74).

[5090]. I am referring not to gospel traditions passed on by the apostolic guarantors but to many voices peripheral to their movement. Moreover, Apollos’s information here seems correct, but it is incomplete.

[5091]. Koester, “Ephesos in Literature,” 128. For the suspected rivalry behind the text here, see also Crowe, Acts, 142–43. For the issue of baptism both in this section and in 1 Cor 1–4, see Witherington, Corinthians, 84.

[5092]. This text suggests the unity of Apollos with Paul’s associates, as in 1 Cor 16:12. But the point could bear repeating if the more competitive model of many Corinthian believers themselves continued (1:12; 3:4–6, 22; 4:6). Whether with Paul and Apollos or not, such rivalry among “schools” apparently characterized Corinthian (and sometimes other Greco-Roman) society (esp. Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9; on divisions more generally, see comment on Acts 15:25).

[5093]. Unless we are to read their deficiency back into Apollos (Wolter, “Apollos und Johannesjünger”). But then we would expect Priscilla and Aquila to baptize him and would expect Luke to make explicit mention of this baptism. Shauf, Theology, 143, argues rightly that the passage ultimately focuses more on Apollos’s contribution to the ministry (18:27–28; cf. 18:24) than on his deficiency (briefly in 18:25, with the correction in 18:26).

[5094]. Bruce, Peter, 74–76. Gnosticism developed among the elite in Alexandria and elsewhere, reading Christian texts in light of Platonism, but it did not develop instantly. We lack clear evidence for full-blown first-century Gnosticism either from that movement’s (if it may be called a movement at all) supporters or from its detractors (see, e.g., Yamauchi, Gnosticism).

[5095]. Cf. earlier Chrys. Hom. Acts 40 (arguing that his zeal attracted the Spirit without baptism, like Cornelius’s; but then we must note that Cornelius was afterward baptized). The suggestion that baptism was simply not as necessary as in later times (Witherington, Acts, 567) may fit Paul (1 Cor 1:14–17) but does not well fit Luke (Acts 2:38; 19:5).

[5096]. See Marshall, Acts, 303–4; Barrett, Acts, 885; Dunn, Acts, 250.

[5097]. Bruce, Commentary, 382n56; idem, Acts¹, 351; Bock, Acts, 592; Shauf, Theology, 139; Byrne, Romans, 379 (though he sees God’s Spirit in Rom 12:11); Fitzmyer, Romans, 654 (the human spirit in both places). Johnson, Acts, 332, argues that it is not clear and that Luke avoids calling Apollos “full of the Spirit” (a phrase perhaps inappropriate for one not yet more fully instructed). For Zeus’s “boiling” hot character, see Heracl. Hom. Prob. 23.6.

[5098]. For God’s Spirit here, see, e.g., Hull, Spirit in Acts, 182; Arrington, Acts, 188; Tannehill, Acts, 232–33; Dunn, Acts, 250; Trebilco, Ephesus, 118; Peterson, Acts, 525; Green, “Acts,” 758; Nunnally, Acts, 324; Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 18:25, forthcoming (courtesy of Witherington); cf. Theodoret Interp. Rom. on 12:11. Despite his lack of Christian baptism (a theological problem for them), most early Christian commentators believed that the text refers to the Holy Spirit (John Chrysostom in Cat. Act. 18.26–27; Ammonius in 18.25; Didymus the Blind in 18.28 [all in Martin, Acts, 230–31]). Compare the language in 1QS IV, 4–5 (Le Cornu, Acts, 1032); in context, this passage probably refers to God’s Spirit (cf. 1QS II, 3; III, 19–IV, 2; IV, 21). On the Spirit in the scrolls, see, e.g., Chevallier, Ancien Testament, 52–57; Brown, Essays, 147–49; Johnston, “Spirit”; Bruce, “Spirit in Qumran Texts”; cf. (more on the human spirit) Pryke, “Spirit.”

[5099]. In the culture, cf. Chevallier, Ancien Testament, 39, 54; Isaacs, Spirit, 71; perhaps 2 Tim 1:7; Test. Jud. 16:1; Test. Dan 1:6.

[5100]. E.g., Keener, Romans, 148. Fee, Presence, 610–13, offers evidence for both views regarding Rom 12:11 but ultimately concludes tentatively in favor of the human spirit—in large measure because he thinks that 18:25 can mean only this. He considers Käsemann’s view, that 18:25 refers to the divine Spirit, “certainly incorrect” (612n422), though he nowhere else treats 18:25 in this volume. If we discount Fee’s certainty on 18:25 (and on this point we should), the bulk of his evidence points in the other direction.

[5101]. With Barrett, Acts, 888. Tannehill, Acts, 233, adds the emphasis on Apollos’s speech (Acts 18:24–26) to the probability that Luke intends the Holy Spirit.

[5102]. With Tannehill, Acts, 233; cf. also Bruce, Acts³, 407.

[5103]. In Acts 11:15, Peter hardly means the very beginning of his speech, although he, admittedly, had not gone far past the narratio.

[5104]. So the complaint of Mus. Ruf. 6, pp. 52.29–54.2, as well as the lament of many seminary and university professors today!

[5105]. E.g., Men. Rhet. 1.3, 363.7; for the Pharisees, Jos. War 1.110; 2.162; Life 191; Acts 22:3; 26:5; see esp. Luke 1:3.

[5106]. Witherington, Acts, 567n20.

[5107]. Talbert, Acts, 166 (citing Acts 11:30; 12:25; 13:2, 7, 13, 50; see also 1:13; 2:37; 3:1, 3, 11; 4:13, 19; 5:29; 7:14; 8:14; 14:12; Luke 9:26; 18:20; 22:8; probably 8:19–21, 51; 14:26; perhaps 2:16, but cf. 2:38, 48), applying this principle to Priscilla as “the dominant religious authority” of the two. Cf. also Parsons, Acts, 260.

[5108]. Spencer, Acts, 184. Nevertheless, Spencer complains (184), Luke omits the content of her speech. But this omission is also true for many summaries in Acts if they add nothing to what has already been said (e.g., Acts 17:11; 18:4; 19:8–9; or briefly, 9:20; 17:2–3); moreover, Luke’s focus in the second half of Acts is on Paul (see comment on Acts 18:18). Summaries are all that the male Apollos gets in this context also (18:25–28).

[5109]. Gaventa, Acts, 265.

[5110]. See, e.g., especially in Judaism: Jos. Ant. 3.67 (added to Exod 18:14); m. ʾAb. 3:11; b. Sanh. 101a; 107a; Schiffman, Law, 97–98; Beer, “Lykwdm”; cf. Plut. Old Men 23, Mor. 795BC; for gentleness, cf. 1QS V, 25; Gal 6:1; Philod. Crit. frg. 38.

[5111]. Often observed (e.g., Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 227). On Paul’s women coworkers, see, e.g., McGinn, “Co-workers.” Women probably typically taught women (Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 13; cf. Titus 2:4); the practice here differs, though the usual conventional ideal partly separating public and private spheres is not breached. Some also find favorable implications for women in ministry and Christian leadership in Acts 18:26 (e.g., Barnes, “Finishing,” 244).

[5112]. Heine, Women, 43–44; Witherington, “Anti-feminist Tendencies”; idem, Acts, 506, 567n22; Ehrman, Introduction, 484; idem, Misquoting, 186. Heine, Women, 44, also notes Tert. Fug. 12, which omits Priscilla when praising Aquila’s service to Paul.

[5113]. Many commented on it, e.g., (in Bray, Romans, 370–71) Pelagius Comm. Rom. on Rom 16:3; Chrys. Hom. Rom. 30 (on 16:3); Theodoret Interp. Rom. on 16:5 (IER, PG 82:220). Pelagius Comm. Rom. on 16:1 (de Bruyn, 150–51; Bray, Romans, 369) employs her as a model for deaconesses in the East; Chrys. Hom. Rom. 31 (on 16:6; Bray, Romans, 372) allowed women to teach, though not from the pulpit.

[5114]. Ephesus may have claimed foundation by Amazons (e.g., Strabo 11.5.4; Plut. Gk. Q. 56, Mor. 303DE), but it was culturally like most Greek cities in this period (the old Ionian influence from gender-hierarchical Athens would be far more relevant than older myths about the Amazons). Current practice (with, e.g., a small number of women priestesses in Asia; see, e.g., Gardner, Women, 67–68; esp. Kearsley, “Asiarchs, archiereis,” noting that the title did not come by marriage) was probably somewhere between.

[5115]. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:634–37, 883–84; idem, “Education”; Sigountos and Shank, “Public Roles”; Paige, “Matrix,” 231–33.

[5116]. On this situation in 1 Cor 14:34–35, see, e.g., Keener, “Learning”; idem, Corinthians, 118–19; idem, Paul, 70–100; on the same passage, see also quite helpfully Jervis, “Reconsideration”; Paige, “Matrix.” On the issue of gender in general, see again Keener, Acts, 1:597–638.

[5117]. Reimer, Women, 210–11.

[5118]. Arlandson, Women, 145–46, hence suggesting a background with some money and prestige.

[5119]. E.g., Iambl. V.P. 36.267; Meeks, Urban Christians, 23. See discussion at Acts 17:34 and in Keener, Acts, 1:630–32, 635; idem, “Education,” 752–54, 758.

[5120]. See Winter, Wives, 115–16; Keener, Acts, 1:634–37; idem, “Education.”

[5121]. The exception would be if we admit significant feminist influence from the Artemis cult, as some have argued (for all their commendable erudition and information; e.g., Kroeger and Kroeger, Woman, 50–54). But devotion to Athena produced no egalitarian impetus in classical Athens, and there is little reason to look for it in Ephesus either (most scholars do not find it there; cf., e.g., Baugh, “World,” passim, e.g., 32 [though, in light of his own data, 45–47, his skepticism about women’s weaker education, 45, seems curious]).

[5122]. For the dichotomy, see, e.g., Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 104, §107; Pliny Ep. 4.19.4; 1 Tim 5:14; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 57–58. On the frequent public/private gender divide, see Keener, Acts, 1:604–5, 634–35; idem, “Head Coverings,” 443.

[5123]. See Keener, Acts, 1:597–638, esp. 634–37.

[5124]. Cf. discussion in Winter, Left Corinth, 135.

[5125]. As noted above, this probably refers to asking questions (Keener, Paul, 70–100; idem, “Learning”; idem, “Perspective,” 228–30); but cf. also the later 1 Tim 2:11–12, which, for the conservative situation in Ephesus, restricts even teaching (for the particular situation there, cf. 1 Tim 5:13; 2 Tim 3:6–7).

[5126]. The private setting may have helped, reducing shame (Arlandson, Women, 146). Ammonius in Cat. Act. 18.25 (Martin, Acts, 231) praises Apollos’s zeal for salvation, that despite his own learning in the Scriptures, he was ready to learn from a woman.

[5127]. Reimer, Women, 209 (citing Chrys. Salutate Priscillam et Aquilam [Hom. Rom. 16:3] 2.1). Commentators often agree here (e.g., Horton, Acts, 314).

[5128]. Johnson, Acts, 332 (citing, for the use of the term, also Plato Laws 4.711B).

[5129]. E.g., Kim, Letter of Recommendation, 119; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 170; Johnson, Acts, 332; Witherington, Acts, 568; Parsons, Acts, 263.

[5130]. Probably they were Judeans (cf. 2 Cor 11:22, though it need not be interpreted so strictly); it is also unlikely that Apollos, especially if he used allegorical hermeneutics (but even if he did not), would be accused of teaching “according to the letter” (3:6–7).

[5131]. In a later period, some rabbis warned (b. Sanh. 38b) that only the most skilled should debate with minim (possibly Jewish Christians); Jewish Christians’ opinions were deemed dangerous (b. ʿAbod. Zar. 16b–17a; Ber. 12b; Eccl. Rab. 1:8, §§3–4; independently confirmed in Justin Dial. 35). Some reported that the rabbinic movement was mostly more skilled in Tannaitic tradition than in Scripture itself (b. ʿAbod. Zar. 4a, possibly contrasting this with Christians).

[5132]. Pogoloff, Logos, 264–71. On lectures at banquets, see, e.g., Max. Tyre 22; Slater, “Introduction,” 2–3.

[5133]. Cf. the usual, very public use of the term (even for public records, treasuries, roads, etc.) in 2 Macc 6:10; 3 Macc 2:27; 4:7; Jos. Ant. 4.78, 238; 8.55; 13.214, 261, 265–66; 14.113, 187–88, 191, 219, 243, 253, 255, 319–20; 16.146–47, 164; 17.232; 19.223, 326; 20.113; War 2.228, 455, 564; 4.140; 5.344, 518, 568; 7.61; Life 6, 199; Ag. Ap. 1.9, 11, 20–21, 107; Shep. 22.2. For the contrast with “private,” see, e.g., Jos. Ant. 3.55, 233, 251. Still, use of the Scriptures here makes it difficult to imagine that Luke means something like a court setting; at most, some debates may have occurred in the marketplace, where amateur speakers might try to gather crowds with their rhetoric or wisdom (cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 32.10, criticizing those who declaimed only in halls instead of in public).

[5134]. The Corinthian believers and Paul himself may have accorded Apollos a more significant role; see Wilson, “Apostle Apollos.”

[5135]. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:441–57.

[5136]. C. Williams, Acts, 216; cf. Bruce, Commentary, 382.

[5137]. Kent, Inscriptions, nos. 136 (p. 64), 138 (pp. 64–65).

[5138]. See, e.g., the person from Ephesus who bought a burial place in Corinth (Kent, Inscriptions, no. 303 [pp. 118–19], though this is probably late third to early fourth century C.E.); apparently a triumphant athlete or artist lists Ephesus among the locations of victory (Kent, Inscriptions, no. 370 [p. 143]; late second to early third century C.E.).

[5139]. Dunn, Acts, 252. In support of historical tradition here, see Trebilco, Ephesus, 130–32; cf. also Haya-Prats, Believers, 16–17, who suspects a pre-Lukan source in 19:1–7 based on grammatical patterns. The claim that the “John” referenced here reflects (before Luke’s redaction) the Johannine tradition, which the Paulinists in Ephesus opposed (Price, “Paulus absconditus [2002]”; idem, “Paulus absconditus [2003],” using the late second-century Acts of John; on this dating, see, e.g., Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 6), is implausible. There was a real John the Baptist (see esp. Meier, “John the Baptist”; Webb, Baptizer) and no need to conflate Johns, given the commonness of their names (on which see comment on Acts 1:13). Johannine tradition reflected in the Fourth Gospel moves the Jerusalem tradition, in fact, in a more Pauline direction (cf. Keener, John, passim, e.g., 998–99). Pervo, Acts, 469, is skeptical of Luke’s portrait of the Christian movement’s beginnings in Ephesus; he cites as highly skeptical Fieger, Schatten; as less skeptical Thiessen, Christen in Ephesus; and as “least skeptical” Trebilco, Ephesus.

[5140]. See discussion in Tannehill, Acts, 233–34; Turner, Gifts, 45; Fitzmyer, Acts, 637, 643; Dunn, Acts, 254; idem, Beginning, 760.

[5141]. Though see 10:47. The difference is possibly that Apollos, unlike Cornelius, has apparently already experienced one baptism—namely, John’s.

[5142]. See Keener, John, 388–91; see further Simon, Sects, 92. Some also associate Eph 4:5 with this movement (Longenecker, Ministry and Message, 70). Conversely, some (esp. Robinson, Studies, 49) doubt the hypothesis of a Baptist sect, since we lack evidence external to the NT.

[5143]. See Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9; Suet. Tib. 11.3; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.8.490; Winter, Left Corinth, 35–40; idem, Philo and Paul, 184–86; Pogoloff, Logos, 175; Witherington, Corinthians, 130.

[5144]. Haenchen, Acts, 556–57, thinks that polemic “against the Baptist sects was urgently required.”

[5145]. It is not his primary audience, at least, if we may extrapolate from the nature of his sources to the congregations with whom he was most in touch.

[5146]. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:556–57.

[5147]. See discussion below. Though more than twelve were likely present at Pentecost, they were emphasized there (Acts 1:2, 26; 2:14, 37). Turner, Power, 389, is right (against F. S. Spencer), however, that they do not specifically indicate Apollos as Paul’s “forerunner” in Ephesus.

[5148]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 236, suggest that the “upper country” might refer to “hinterland” from an Ephesian point of view (cf. perhaps Tob 8:3).

[5149]. From Mitchell, Anatolia, map 7, 1:120. Traveling from Perga on the Via Sebaste, beyond Comama one would reach the road’s junction with the Southern Highway; one could follow it west to Apamea and on to Ephesus (Wilson, “Route,” 478). Any possible routes from North Galatia would have taken longer (depending on where in North Galatia Paul would be leaving from); but probably Paul, who most likely had not visited North Galatia previously, had little reason to do so now.

[5150]. Calder, “Introduction, 7,” ix.

[5151]. Witherington, Acts, 570.

[5152]. Hemer, Acts in History, 187. This route reached “Ephesus by the Cayster valley north of Mt. Messogis” (120; cf. also Bruce, Acts¹, 353; Peterson, Acts, 528n5).

[5153]. Riesner, Early Period, 285–86; see comment on Acts 18:23. Most of the interior would be “high country,” however, compared with coastal Ephesus (Le Cornu, Acts, 1041). Travel through the highlands would have avoided the scorching heat of a land journey around Ephesus in the summer (Pliny Ep. 10.17A.1)—though Paul was probably by now inured to it, in any case (cf. 2 Cor 11:27, for cold weather).

[5154]. Witherington, Acts, 560. For discussion of Ephesus, see comment on Acts 18:19.

[5155]. Cf. Munck, Acts, 187; Bruce, Acts¹, 353; idem, Commentary, 384–85; Ervin, Conversion-Initiation, 59; Shelton, Mighty in Deed, 134; Norris, “Christians Only”; Arrington, Acts, 191; Menzies, Empowered, 221–25; Porter, Paul in Acts, 85 (preferring Menzies’s case here to Dunn’s); Miller, Empowered for Mission, 227; Strelan, Artemis, 232–35; Le Cornu, Acts, 1042; Malina and Pilch, Acts, 135; Nunnally, Acts, 326–27; Pervo, Acts, 468 (“ ‘Christians’ of a sort”). Haenchen, Acts, 556, takes the disciples as Christians though he doubts Luke’s condensed report.

[5156]. See Hull, Spirit on Acts, 112.

[5157]. E.g., Johnson, Acts, 337. Perhaps they believed in Jesus (Acts 19:2) and were “disciples” (of Jesus, 19:1) but regarded John as almost a cult figure (Pelikan, Acts, 208; this would explain why Luke emphasizes that the least in the kingdom is greater than John [Luke 7:28; but this is Q material: cf. Matt 11:11]). Some scholars offer a mediating approach: at first apparent disciples (to Paul), but then recognized as not truly regenerate (Larkin, Acts, 272); this may well be correct (if, as I argue, they were not Christians), but we should note that Luke offers the narrative from his own perspective, not from that of an internal observer (Paul; thus it does not explain “disciples” in Acts 19:1). Ash, “John’s Disciples,” argues for their rebaptism to follow Christ and receive the Spirit.

[5158]. Green, Holy Spirit, 163–64; Turner, Power, 390–91; Witherington, Acts, 570; Chance, Acts, 343; McDonnell and Montague, Initiation, 38; Trebilco, Ephesus, 128–29; Peterson, Acts, 529; Green, “Acts,” 758; Schnabel, Acts, 788; Thiselton, Spirit, 361. Dunn, Acts, 256, seems more nuanced here than in earlier works.

[5159]. In the end, as Porter notes (Paul in Acts, 85), the case is not clear enough to warrant extrapolating Luke’s theology primarily from this passage.

[5160]. These are references to “the” disciples, rather than the more obvious “his” disciples (or “disciples of the Lord,” e.g., Acts 9:1).

[5161]. Ervin, Conversion-Initiation, 59. The claim of some scholars that Acts 19:1 is the only anarthrous use of “disciples” in Luke-Acts (Dunn, Baptism, 84; Witherington, Acts, 570) neglects the other “certain disciples” of Acts; omitting them because they are singular would be a case of narrowing the evidence so far as to create a grammatical rule to one’s liking.

[5162]. John’s “disciples” appear elsewhere in gospel tradition, in Mark (Mark 2:18), Q (Matt 11:2//Luke 7:18–19), John (John 1:35; 3:25), and, most relevant here, Luke (Luke 5:33; 7:18–19), including in an unparalleled instance (11:1); cf. further Webb, Baptizer, 87–88. The authorities did not seek to crush John’s followers, perhaps because his approach differed from nationalist wilderness prophets and his followers were unarmed and because Antipas was less brutal than Rome’s governors (377–78).

[5163]. Also Strelan, Artemis, 238. In this case, we could read plausibly, with some classical Pentecostal scholars, that these “disciples” simply had not yet received the Spirit in the sense that Luke normally emphasizes, i.e., baptism in the Spirit as an empowerment for ministry (Horton, Spirit, 159–62), as suggested above in the comment on Acts 8. As Shauf, Theology, 91, notes, both pro- and anti-Pentecostal, and pro- and antisacramental, interpreters make much of the passage.

[5164]. E.g., Strelan, Artemis, 238.

[5165]. Strelan, ibid., 242 (who does take them as Christians, 232–35), thinks that they respected Jesus as the prophet after John but expected the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the more graphic apocalyptic terms painted by John, rather than just “Christian prophecy and glossolalia.”

[5166]. Certainly, if true followers of Jesus appear only in contact with the larger movement of Jesus’s Spirit-empowered followers, these twelve do not qualify, but Luke may allow isolated cases of believers who simply lack access to more information (Luke 9:49–50; cf. Mark 9:38–39). Yet if their understanding of even Jesus’s identity is lacking, they would not meet even this lesser criterion. Our earliest extant documents may not provide sufficient information about the early followers of John to explain fully what was happening here. The theological debate as to whether they could “receive the Spirit” subsequent to faith sometimes motivates the discussion, but even if, as I am suggesting, they were John’s and not Jesus’s disciples, they do not seem to have received the Spirit (in the Lukan sense of empowerment to speak God’s message) at the precise moment of their faith (Acts 19:5–6).

[5167]. The teachings of John would fit the foundational message in Heb 6:1–2, though these elements also appear together in Judaism in general (cf. Delville, “Prosélytisme juif,” comparing basic catechesis for Gentile converts to Judaism, though I do not agree that Hebrews addresses Gentile converts). Perhaps Paul could have met them in the synagogue (though Luke reports his revisiting it only at Acts 19:8; cf. Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 478, who suggests that the Jesus movement and John’s disciples had contact in Ephesus through the synagogue).

[5168]. Caird, Apostolic Age, 57. For such signs in this passage, see Acts 19:6.

[5169]. The exception would be if a third party, not much interested in the distinctions among Jewish baptistic sects, referred Paul to them as fellow Christians.

[5170]. E.g., Horton, Spirit, 159–61; idem, Acts, 317–18. Bede Comm. Acts 19.2 (Martin, Acts, 232–33; L. Martin, 153) expects this event to follow baptism, but because he believes that it normally accompanies the laying on of hands. The verb πιστεύω with the preposition εἰς here refers to faith in Jesus (Acts 10:43; 11:17; 14:23; probably equivalent to πιστεύειν ἐπί, 16:31 and 22:19, and πιστεύω with the dative, 18:8 and cf. 26:27; 27:25), although πιστεύω with εἰς seems particularly characteristic of Johannine sources (Jeremias, Theology, 159n2; cf. Hawthorne, “Concept”).

[5171]. With Dunn, Baptism, 86–87, supporting a coincident aorist. As Sim, “Relevance Theoretic Approach,” ch. 2 (in my version, 40n47), notes, “Aorist participles are particularly underdetermined.”

[5172]. Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 175, §339.

[5173]. Marshall, Acts, 306.

[5174]. Though this, too, is debated, since some argue plausibly that repentance is a condition but not necessarily temporally coincident (see comment on Acts 2:38; and now esp. Elbert, “Acts 2:38,” citing significant evidence from Koine constructions).

[5175]. Dunn, Acts, 253, 255. See discussion at Acts 1:4–5; 2:38.

[5176]. Mason, Josephus and New Testament, 158, preferring Josephus’s report. But that Josephus and the early Jesus movement had different foci qualifies, rather than excludes, the evidence of either (see Meier, “John the Baptist”).

[5177]. The argument that they expected the Spirit but did not associate the Spirit with holiness (cf. Strelan, Artemis, 239) falters on this standard title and on the association of the two in early Judaism (e.g., 11Q17 IX, 5; 1 Thess 4:8; cf. 1QS IV, 5; 4Q257 V, 2).

[5178]. CD II, 12; 1QS III, 7; IV, 21; VIII, 16; IX, 3; 1QSb II, 22, 24; 1QH^a IV, 38; VI, 24; VIII, 20–21, 25, 30; XV, 9; XVII, 32; XX, 15; XXIII, 28, 32; 1Q34bis 3 II, 7; 1Q39 1 6; 4Q171 IV, 25; 4Q213a 1 14; 4Q255 2 1; 4Q257 III, 10; 4Q266 2 II, 12; 4Q270 2 II, 14; 4Q287 10 13; 4Q422 I, 7; 4Q427 8 II, 18; 4Q444 1 1; 4Q504 1–2 V, 15; 4 5; 4Q506 131–132 11; 4Q509 97–98 I, 9. On the Holy Spirit as purifier from sin in the Qumran scrolls, see, e.g., Bruce, “Spirit in Qumran Texts,” 52–54; less plausibly but in passing, Johnston, “Spirit,” 33, connects this with Qumran’s purifying baths.

[5179]. CD V, 11; VII, 4; 4Q266 3 III, 5; 4Q270 2 II, 11; 4Q416 2 II, 6; 4Q418 8 6; 4Q436 1 II, 1. Many of the Qumran texts speak of the human spirit, but Pryke, “Spirit,” 345 (allowing only seven for God’s Spirit but seventy-two for the human spirit, among the four major, earlier published scrolls), may overestimate the proportion.

[5180]. See Keener, Acts, 1:530–36, and sources noted there.

[5181]. See ibid., 1:536–37.

[5182]. See ibid., 1:890–96 (esp. 890–94).

[5183]. Against Conzelmann’s emphasis, the Spirit in Acts is a foretaste of the future kingdom rather than a substitute for it; see discussion of Lukan eschatology in Keener, Acts, 1:518–19, 524, and especially now Haacker, “Geist.”

[5184]. With, e.g., Hull, Spirit in Acts, 110–11; Holwerda, Spirit, 1; Bock, Acts, 599; Horton, Acts, 318; cf. Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 19:2, forthcoming (courtesy of Witherington). (Johnson, Acts, 337, thinks that they merely did not know that the Spirit was received in connection with baptism; in practice, this might amount to the same thing.)

[5185]. In at least one line of tradition, they should have heard of the Spirit even in their baptism (Matt 28:19), which would certainly explain Paul’s question about their baptism.

[5186]. The phrase τί οὖν (“What, then?”) was more generally a standard phrase in Greek grammar; see, e.g., Epict. Diatr. 1.1.7, 13; 1.2.17; 1.8.11, 14; 1.9.30; 1.10.12; 1.11.20, 27, 28; 1.12.10, 21, 30; 1.16.10; 1.17.14; 1.18.18, 21, 22; 1.19.4, 16; 1.20.13; 4.12.19; Plut. Educ. 15, Mor. 11D; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 380, §126D (τί δαί;); Marc. Aur. 6.26; Rom 3:3, 9; in Latin, cf. Cic. Rosc. Amer. 1.2; Tusc. 3.20.46; Sen. Y. Dial. 3.6.1; 3.8.7; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.12; Ad verum imp. 2.1.4. See some other references under Acts 21:22.

[5187]. Shauf, Theology, 156, rightly underlines here “a stock theme of Luke’s regarding John’s baptism—i.e. its contrast with baptism of the Holy Spirit.” For baptism “in” or “into” Jesus’s name, see discussion at Acts 2:38; 8:16; also Martin, Worship, 127; Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 199.

[5188]. That is, it is based on Luke’s whole story rather than on John’s initial perspective within the narrative world (see Johnson, Acts, 338).

[5189]. At least from Luke’s perspective but probably also historically; cf. Keener, Matthew, 127, 130–31, and sources there.

[5190]. Haenchen, Acts, 553, resists the term “rebaptism” even here, arguing that from Luke’s perspective, this was their first “true baptism.” This verdict may be too harsh toward Luke’s picture of John’s baptism; Luke 16:16 predicts something new without denigrating what preceded. On Acts 19:1–7 emphasizing the need for Christian baptism, see Paroschi, “Baptism.”

[5191]. With Bruce, Commentary, 386. Chrys. Hom. Acts 40 opines that the Ephesian disciples had the baptism of repentance but not of forgiveness, for they (unlike Apollos) did not yet have the Spirit.

[5192]. For Roman period baths, see, e.g., Bammer, “Ephesus,” 254.

[5193]. Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” map, 1027–28. The baths of Varius are later, as are the Pollio fountain and Trajan’s baths (Fant and Reddish, Sites, 188, 190–91). Probably, two long-distance water pipes into the city date to this period (Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1026).

[5194]. McRay, Archaeology, 259. On the Selinus and the Marnas, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 184; the aqueduct was from Augustus’s era (201–2).

[5195]. Meeks, Urban Christians, 237.

[5196]. For several among many examples from recent centuries, one might consider the Moravian Pentecost of 1727; the Wesleyan revival; experiences surrounding the U.S. Great Awakenings; revivals in India in the 1850s through the 1870s; Indonesian revivals of the 1860s and 1916–22; the Welsh revival of 1904–5; the revival at Pandita Ramabai’s orphanage in 1905; the Korean revival of 1907; the renewal experience at Duquesne University in 1967; and some recent renewal movements (from North America to Mozambique). Luke’s perspective may reflect especially outpourings in early Christian memory, but diverse experiences of the Spirit also dominated in the OT, in which prophetic renewal movements rose periodically, such as in Samuel’s era (cf. 1 Sam 3:1 with 10:5–6; 19:20–24) or the era of Elijah and Elisha (e.g., 1 Kgs 18:13, 22, 39; 2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 7). The Chronicler reports renewals of worship in special periods (e.g., 1 Chr 25:1–6; cf. 1 Chr 6:31–32; 15:16, 28–29; 16:4–6, 41–42; 23:30; 2 Chr 8:14; 20:18–22, 28; 29:25; 30:27; 31:2; 35:2–5; Ezra 3:10–11; Neh 12:24, 27–47). Prophets could also call Israel back to the foundational covenant in the Scriptures (e.g., 1 Kgs 22–23). Balancing elements of these various revivals, when they did not occur together, was vital.

[5197]. My doctoral student Thomas Lyons plans to explore further the diversity of corporate outpourings in Acts and the analogous range of diversity of such experiences in modern church history.

[5198]. It is not necessary to revisit here the debate as to whether “Pentecost” is an inaugural or repeatable event, a debate heavily and unnecessarily divided by semantics. The seminal experience of the Spirit was certainly Pentecost, but Luke is also interested in continuing corporate experiences of the Spirit (just as Paul is interested in individuals continuing to receive the Spirit, a presumed interest also of Luke in Acts 2:38–39).

[5199]. Acts 13:52 appears to depict a corporate experience, yet without narrating it in detail or addressing the extent to which it began with a particular occasion (the relevance of the imperfect tense may be debated; the verb is apparently employed here as a synonym for πίμπλημι in 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9; and the contrast with 13:45). The primary fruit explicitly associated with that Spirit experience was joy.

[5200]. Turner, Gifts, 45. Although the delay is not significant, they do not appear to be simultaneous in a precise sense, a distinction that ancients could also recognize (cf., e.g., the distinction between the act of slaying in sacrifice and the offering of the victim afterward, Siebert, “Immolatio,” 744).

[5201]. Shauf, Theology, 155–56. Curiously, Hull, Spirit in Acts, 114, denies that laying on hands is related to Spirit reception here, viewing the connection as irrelevant also in Acts 8 (104–5) and 9:17 (102–3). The recurrence of an apparent connection in so many texts suggests a pattern of some sort rather than irrelevance. Laying on hands to impart the Spirit may not be a standard baptismal ritual before 200 C.E. (Marshall, Acts, 307), but in our effort to avoid anachronism, we should not deny the model (albeit occurring sometimes rather than always in Acts; cf. 6:6) on which the later ritual was based. Augustine apparently believed that in apostolic times, the Spirit and tongues followed the laying on of hands but that this did not always occur through laying on hands in his day (Retract. 1.13.7 [PL 32:604–5], cited in Kelsey, Healing, 185). At least in later tradition, rabbis believed that prophets could receive the prophetic Spirit through other prophets (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:4; Bowman, “Prophets,” 208, citing Lev. Rab. 10:2); cf. 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6.

[5202]. Chrys. Hom. Acts 40 takes the tongues and prophesying here as confirming their current Spirit reception and hence the deficiency of their former baptism that failed to impart it. Attempts to firmly distinguish the experience of tongues speaking in Acts 10:46 and 19:6 from that in 2:4 are exegetically unfounded, especially since tongues demonstrated that the later Christians received the Spirit “in the same way” that the first ones did (10:47). See, e.g., Forbes, Prophecy, 51n16; Everts, “Tongues or Languages?” In the later cases, no one was present who understood the languages (in contrast to the Diaspora Jews at Pentecost), but this is not a difference on the level of the speakers’ experience. At Acts 2:4, this commentary surveyed various views of the reported experience, including glossolalia that Luke developed as xenoglossy; for a more recent collection of claims of xenoglossy, some supported by multiple attestation, see May, Witnesses to Pentecost.

[5203]. Miller, Empowered for Mission, 229, suggests that the Spirit coming “on” them evokes Acts 1:8. We could also suggest 2:17–18 (which could have helped shape the language of 1:8) or 10:44–45 (which clearly does evoke Pentecost; 11:15), but these cases all point in the same direction.

[5204]. It would be a logical fallacy to claim that if B (genuine tongues) is present only when A (the Holy Spirit) is present, then A (the Holy Spirit) is present (or complete) only when B (tongues) is present. In geometric logic, B is a member of the set A, so that A includes, but is not identical with, B. See fuller discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:824–31. (What distinguishes Acts 2 is not inspired speech but multilingual hearers.)

[5205]. In Acts 13:52, the only specified evidence is joy; but that summary is Luke’s most concise account of a group being filled with the Spirit, and the imperfect might suggest continuing experience (though the imperfect form of the verb need not connote this; cf. 7:23; 9:23; 13:25).

[5206]. He might even acknowledge the possibility of Christians distinct from unbelievers who are unfamiliar with tongues speaking (1 Cor 14:23; but this may simply refer to those unfamiliar with the language).

[5207]. He also believed that they could seek particular gifts (1 Cor 12:31; 14:1), though he emphasizes this point to urge them to seek especially gifts that build up the congregation, such as prophecy (12:31–14:1).

[5208]. See much fuller discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:816, 823–24, 828–30; idem, “Tongues.”

[5209]. Conzelmann, Acts, 160.

[5210]. Bornkamm, Experience, 38–39, notes that second-century “Christian prophets” continued to associate their messages with tongues (citing Origen Cels. 7.8ff.).

[5211]. Not surprisingly, since Luke rarely reports the goings-on in church meetings, except perhaps in Acts 2:42, 46.

[5212]. If the Corinthian church was later divided over the value of the gift and the division fell along the lines of Paul’s and Apollos’s followers (which is not clear), the glossolalists were more likely the Pauline faction (cf. again Acts 18:24–19:6).

[5213]. Luke rarely reports spectacular phenomena at conversions, yet he may have offered enough of them, where they occur in his sources, to make his point. Judaism did not prime early Christians to expect the need for any necessary sign of “initial evidence” (see Turner, Power, 448–49), although one would ideally expect prophetic empowerment to sooner or later be expressed in prophetic ways.

[5214]. Some compare prophesying here with magnifying God in Acts 2:11 and 10:46 (Bruce, Acts¹, 355), but that activity may have involved especially praise (see comment there). Although prophecy and praise were by no means exclusive (e.g., 1 Chr 25:1–3; Ps 46:10; Hab 3:1; cf. 1 Sam 10:5; 2 Sam 23:1–3; 2 Kgs 3:15), Luke typically employs “prophecy” more specifically when that is what he means (e.g., Luke 1:67, 70, 76; 2:36; Acts 21:9–10). On prophecy further, see the extensive excursus at Acts 2:17 (Keener, Acts, 1:886–909).

[5215]. For the distinction this entails, see, e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.11.10; Paus. 8.29.1; Levinsohn, Connections, 121–36. This construction appears thirty-two times in Luke-Acts (60 percent of the NT’s fifty-three uses), twenty-eight of them in Acts. It is a stylistic feature; of thirty-seven occurrences in the Apostolic Fathers (including two in Papias fragments), seventeen appear in 1 Clement, twelve in Ignatius, and seven in Martyrdom of Polycarp but only one in Hermas. In the LXX (fifty-six times if one counts all the Maccabean literature), it tends to predominate in works written in Greek (and appears only seven times in the Pentateuch, the first part translated), esp. 1 Esdras (eight times); 3 Maccabees (seven times); and 4 Maccabees (sixteen times).

[5216]. Turner, Gifts, 226; idem, Power, 395; cf. 446–47.

[5217]. Barrett, Acts, 898. Luke regularly qualifies estimates with “about” (e.g., Acts 1:15).

[5218]. He sometimes estimates in multiples of ten (Luke 3:23; 9:14; Acts 1:15; 2:41), though not always (Luke 9:28).

[5219]. Ephesus was also the chief of the twelve traditional Ionian cities (McDonald, “Ephesus,” 319, citing Strabo). Others see “twelve” as symbolic for a complete group (Langner, Hechos, 371); for various symbolic uses of the number twelve in antiquity (e.g., “the twelve” deities, Apul. De deo Socr. 121), see comment at Acts 1:26.

[5220]. With Goulder, Type and History, 29; earlier, Bede Comm. Acts 19.7 (Martin, Acts, 235; L. Martin, 154) (who also cites the 120).

[5221]. The educated were sometimes more skeptical than the masses (see Keener, Acts, 1:344–48; but cf. 348–49), though generally less skeptical than modern Western thought, at least in the twentieth century (cf. 355–58). Certainly, sages and mystics were not viewed as mutually exclusive (cf., e.g., Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 31–32, 99–113, 171–80, esp. 180).

[5222]. And the traditional revivalistic reaction against it. Even in antiquity, the combination of sage with miracle worker probably became dominant especially later, possibly partly under Christian influence (cf. Tiede, Figure, 99; Gallagher, Divine Man, 173; Holladay, Theios aner, 237; Kee, Miracle, 37, 297–99).

[5223]. On “bold” speech, see comment at Acts 4:13. The participles explain how he did so; for διαλεγόμενος, see comment on Acts 18:4; for πείθων, see comment on Acts 17:4. For the “kingdom,” see comment on Acts 1:3, 6; for preaching the kingdom, cf. Acts 8:12.

[5224]. For this practice, see comment on Acts 13:5; on the synagogue in Ephesus, see the introduction, above, on Ephesus at Acts 18:19.

[5225]. The three months are in addition to, rather than included in, the roughly two years of Acts 19:10; thus the overall estimate of parts of three years in 20:31 (Haenchen, Acts, 559; Barrett, Acts, 903). Bruce, Acts¹, 356, suggests the fall of 52 C.E. to the summer of 55.

[5226]. See the excursus on synagogues at Acts 6:9 (Keener, Acts, 2:1298–1302).

[5227]. Lake, “Proselytes,” 75; Moore, Judaism, 1:324.

[5228]. About a century later, Justin debated the Scripture (e.g., Dial. 39) with a Jewish interlocutor, probably in Ephesus (Dial. 1; Barnard, Justin Martyr, 39; Williams, Justin Martyr, 1n1), if (as was common even in fictitious or augmented dialogues) Trypho reflects a genuine individual.

[5229]. Jesus had warned that others would “ostracize” (ἀφορίσωσιν) his followers (Luke 6:22); here Paul apparently initiates the separation (note ἀφώρισεν).

[5230]. Thus the separation was “not of his making” here (Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 93).

[5231]. Cf. Mark 7:10; 9:39; Theophr. Char. 28 (e.g., 28.1, always looking for the worst in someone to criticize).

[5232]. This hardening was God’s plan from the beginning (Exod 4:21; 7:3); early in the narrative, the text merely says that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, as God had said (7:22; 8:19; 9:35; cf. 13:15), but soon afterward the narrative grows more explicit that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (9:12; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8). He also hardened Pharaoh’s soldiers (14:17) and Sihon, king of Heshbon (Deut 2:30). Cf. 4Q365 2 5; 3 3; 4Q422 III, 7, 11.

[5233]. This idea is echoed in Heb 3:8, 13, 15; 4:7, by means of Ps 95:8.

[5234]. For hardening in Rom 11 as blindness to truth, see, e.g., Haacker, Theology, 89; cf. Philo Spec. Laws 1.304–6; Test. Levi 13:7 (using a different term); for “hard” disposition, see, e.g., Jos. Ant. 6.296; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11o, pp. 96–97.28; cf. Jub. 48:17; 1 En. 5:4; 4Q487 1 II, 3; 4Q497 1 4. But Rom 11:25 is clear that the hardening is temporary (Haacker, Theology, 92; Das, Paul and Jews, 111; Harrington, God’s People, 12–13; Johnson, Romans, 178).

[5235]. Cf. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 513.

[5236]. Koester, “Ephesos in Literature,” 129.

[5237]. See much fuller discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:462–70, and sources noted there.

[5238]. See Keener, John, 194–214.

[5239]. See Keener, John, 148.

[5240]. See Tac. Dial. 15.3; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.8 (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 126); also see Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:85.

[5241]. I. Eph. 672A/B, 676A, 678A, 735, 811, 2100, 3029, 3051, 3080–81 (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 127).

[5242]. I. Eph. 20A, 984 (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 127).

[5243]. I. Eph. 426, 3047 (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 127).

[5244]. I. Eph. 611, 1539, 1548, 3901, 4340 (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 127).

[5245]. Lucian Phil. Sale 13. I have used much of this material regarding Paul’s “school” also in Keener, “Teaching Ministry.”

[5246]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 648 (citing Plut. Alex. 7.3; Dion. Hal. Isoc. 1; Demosth. 44); probably rhetorical schools in Dio Chrys. Or. 51.2. It originally meant “leisure” (cf. Gehrke, “Leisure,” 374–75) but took on the meaning “school” (Johnson, Acts, 339, adding Arist. Pol. 1313b; Epict. Diatr. 3.21.11). On Tyrannus and this σχολή, see Yamauchi, “Tyrannus.”

[5247]. Meeks, Moral World, 41. At times there were established schoolhouses (e.g., Jewish teaching in Robbins, Jesus the Teacher, xxi, 101, 105; in Middle Eastern communities today, Eickelman, Middle East, 141; b. Qidd. 29b, but these were not yet standard even in the earliest rabbinic sources; see Goodman, State, 75); for teaching outside, see Young, Parables, 214; Safrai, “Home,” 762; among Romans, though usually inside, see Jeffers, World, 255; in homes, Watson, “Education,” 312.

[5248]. Jeffers, World, 58, 255.

[5249]. Probably a bust of Hermes and Athena on reversing faces, or perhaps of Athena alone atop a herm pillar. A statuette of Hermes or Mercury might also be associated with magic (cf. Hunink’s comment on Apul. Apol. 61, in 84n155), but this was only one of a number of possible associations, and perhaps not even the point of Apuleius’s accuser’s criticism (he alleged that it resembled a corpse, Apol. 63).

[5250]. That pagan symbolism also existed in Tyrannus’s lecture hall is likely, assuming that Paul did not have sole use of the facilities.

[5251]. Jeffers, World, 254. Where a town employed a single teacher for all boys of a given age-group, the numbers might be larger (cf. Plut. Cam. 10.1, speaking of the Greek custom).

[5252]. See esp. the excellent and careful studies of Caragounis, “Scholarship”; Wilson, “Scholarship”; Kaster, “Scholarship”; Tosi, “Lexicography” (including encyclopedias in the imperial period, p. 469). The more formal canon of liberal arts derives from late antiquity (Christes, “Artes liberales”).

[5253]. On age categories, see, e.g., Keener, Acts, 2:1447–48, and sources cited there; on ages and schooling, see discussion at Acts 22:3, esp. the section “Stages of Education.”

[5254]. E.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 239; Haenchen, Acts, 559n2; Witherington, Acts, 574.

[5255]. E.g., Latourette, First Five Centuries, 16 (on philosophers’ lectures, following Dill, Society, 289–333).

[5256]. Cited here by Johnson, Acts, 339; Winter, Philo and Paul, 45.

[5257]. Cf. one speaker’s preference for the real rhetoric of the courts to the artificial rhetoric of declamation schools (Tac. Dial. 34–35).

[5258]. Hemer, Acts in History, 121n53; idem, “Audeitorion,” 128; Yamauchi, Cities, 100; uncertainly, McRay, Archaeology, 251, 261. The nearby sarcophagus of a second-century rhetorician (I. Eph. 426) could suggest rhetorical activity nearby (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 122–23). The Celsus library, from long after Paul, held roughly twelve thousand volumes (Evans, World, 65), but what sorts of library resources were available to first-century Ephesian readers is uncertain. On libraries, see, e.g., Veenhof, “Libraries,” 355–56; Nielsen, “Library”; Vössing, “Libraries.” For libraries in Rome later destroyed by fire, see Galen Grief 12b, 18.

[5259]. McRay, Archaeology, map, 251.

[5260]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 311–12; Witherington, Acts, 575.

[5261]. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 89–90. Earlier he regarded Paul as lecturing as a philosopher there (idem, “Life,” 35); later he writes of “a hall that could have been used by a guild or a school” (idem, Moral Exhortation, 23). The Latin term schola applies both to schools and to club halls (“Schola,” 64).

[5262]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 124. Guild patrons are sometimes named (124; I. Eph. 636, 646, 727, 3025).

[5263]. “Or both if he was a rich rhetorician like Herodes Atticus” (Witherington, Acts, 575).

[5264]. Ibid. Professors of rhetoric were often demanding and were known to berate and beat unprepared students (Libanius Anecdote 3.7; cf. t. B. Qam. 9:11). (Like Quintilian [Inst. 1.3.13–17; 2.4.10], Paul would probably have disapproved; cf. Eph 6:4.)

[5265]. Cf. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 93.

[5266]. For the uncertainty, see, e.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 239. The later library of Celsus in Ephesus was named for its patron, who was buried there (MacKendrick, Stones, 422).

[5267]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 123 (citing PWSup 12.1603).

[5268]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 121. Others also include, among Ephesian inscriptions naming Tyrannus, I. Eph. 1001.5; for this precise period, 54–59 C.E., see 20b.40; for 92–93 C.E., 1012.4 (Hemer, Acts in History, 120; Trebilco, Ephesus, 144).

[5269]. It also appears in nearby Magnesia for a Jew (CIJ 2:18, §753); a famous orator later bore the name (Weißenberger, “Tyrannus”).

[5270]. Hemer, Acts in History, 234.

[5271]. Possibly even one known to Luke’s audience, and thus not described; see Aletheia, “Localización,” who notes also that Alexander appears as if known, and supports an Ephesian destination for the letter (brought to my attention by Richard Fellows, personal correspondence, Feb. 26, 2013).

[5272]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 154–55 (citing, e.g., I. Eph. 2065).

[5273]. E.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 239; Bruce, Acts¹, 356; idem, Commentary, 388–89; Trebilco, “Asia,” 312n86; Larkin, Acts, 275; Witherington, Acts, 574; Bock, Acts, 601; cf. Yamauchi, Cities, 99.

[5274]. It is possible that we should envision Paul doing manual labor only early in his ministry here, but if so, Luke does not clarify this for us.

[5275]. The Western tradition of Paul’s work from morning until 11:00 a.m. also appears in Ambrosiaster’s comments regarding 2 Cor 11:23 (Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles [Vogels, 292–93; Bray, Corinthians, 297; cf. Vogels, 296; Bray, Corinthians, 299]; also noted by Conzelmann, Acts, 163).

[5276]. Bruce, Acts¹, 356.

[5277]. Bruce, Commentary, 388–39; idem, Acts¹, 356; Witherington, Acts, 574.

[5278]. E.g., Polyb. 9.17.3; Catull. Carm. 32.10; Sil. It. 13.637–38; Plut. Themist. 30.1; Heliod. Eth. 4.8; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.13; Philost. Hrk. 11.7; 16.3; 2 Sam 4:5; see esp. fuller comment on Acts 26:13; Keener, John, 592. Some scholars worked also at night, but it was considered unusual (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.21.518) or due to exceptional diligence (e.g., Cic. Fam. 1.2.4; Val. Max. 8.7.ext. 11); some studied from dawn till noon (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.20.514).

[5279]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 239 (comparing Mart. Epig. 9.68; 12.57; Juv. Sat. 7.222ff.).

[5280]. Watson, “Education,” 311–12 (with advanced Jewish education often in the evening). Most Gentile schoolchildren studied from early until “evening with a break for a midday meal” (Stamps, “Children,” 198). Normally children were exempted from study from July through October and for many holidays (Jeffers, World, 256).

[5281]. One teacher with just a few students would receive between one and four of them in the afternoon while he reclined (Suet. Gramm. 24).

[5282]. Suet. Gramm. 4 (LCL, 2:405). For philosophers and morning lectures, see also Lucian Tim. 54. Apollonius allegedly instructed disciples in the morning and crowds in the afternoon (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.16).

[5283]. Witherington, Acts, 574–75.

[5284]. Ibid.

[5285]. Apollonius allegedly exhorted the city to abandon its frivolous dances, pantomimes, androgynous activity, and noise and turn instead to the serious pursuit of philosophy (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.2); he taught philosophy there again, 8.24.

[5286]. Jeffers, World, 25 (so also agrarian workers, Reden, “Working Hours,” 746). Public business was done by afternoon, but merchants remained active (Stambaugh, City, 200).

[5287]. Witherington, Acts, 574–75.

[5288]. See, e.g., Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 13.

[5289]. Culpepper, School, 138.

[5290]. Winter, Left Corinth, 36; see discussion on Acts 17:19. On successfully moving from visiting lecturers to popular lectureships, see Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 229–30.

[5291]. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 206.

[5292]. See ibid. Though not as influential as myth or cult, some philosophers in antiquity attracted significant popular attention (Rives, Religion, 41).

[5293]. Cf. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 124–25.

[5294]. With Witherington, Acts, 574–75.

[5295]. See Judge, “Scholastic Community,” 126–27; for Paul as a Christian philosopher (as well as Jewish sage) in Acts, see Malherbe, Philosophers, 150–54. That Gamaliel’s aristocratic household also fostered Greek education (t. Soṭah 15:8) may be significant in this situation, though Judge is probably right to give greater weight to Paul’s subsequent acquisition of these skills.

[5296]. Also Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 119–30.

[5297]. I. Eph. 811, 984, 3047, 3057, 3062 (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 127–28).

[5298]. Cf. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 128–30.

[5299]. Ibid., 114–16.

[5300]. Ibid., 64. Nor are Roman names predictors of wealth there (68–69).

[5301]. See Grant, Paul, 52, 54.

[5302]. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 15.

[5303]. On Paul and philosophy, see discussion at Acts 17:22–31.

[5304]. Stowers, “Resemble Philosophy?,” 81–102; cf. Schmeller, “Gegenwelten”; with respect to early Christians’ ethical emphasis, Meeks, Moral World, 114. Because Jews and Christians had both teachers and learners, Galen viewed them as “schools” founded by Moses and Christ (Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 107). See discussion at Acts 17:19–20.

[5305]. Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 105, noting that “this basic school structure” was widespread and not “distinctively Hellenistic.” Schools often studied texts associated with their founders (e.g., Platonic texts as noted in Culpepper, School, 79; Stoic writers in Oldfather, “Introduction to Epictetus,” xiv). For schools of the prophets, cf. Culpepper, School, 186–88; for disciples of the prophets, see, e.g., CD VIII, 20–21; Mek. Pisha 1.150–53; Sipre Num. 93.1.3; schools of rabbis, e.g., Carmon, Inscriptions, §183 (pp. 84, 184–85); possibly Philo’s school (Culpepper, School, 199–209; cf. Mack and Murphy, “Wisdom Literature,” 391).

[5306]. For analogies between philosophic schools and associations, see Wilken, “Collegia,” 279.

[5307]. Stowers, “Resemble Philosophy?,” 94–95.

[5308]. See Sterling, “School.”

[5309]. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 78 (attributing this situation partly to Stoicism’s current predominance of teachers from high-status backgrounds). Cf. also Stoic elements in Paul in Downing, Cynics, 267–82 (contrast the scarcity of Epicurean elements in Paul, in ibid., 282–86).

[5310]. See esp. Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse.” Downing, Cynics, passim, offers numerous connections with Paul (probably too generously).

[5311]. The common Stoic imagery in Ephesians, joined with some Platonic imagery in Colossians (cf., e.g., Keener, “Heavenly Mindedness”), would fit this picture of intellectual development in Paul’s writings if we accept them as Pauline (as I do); others have also noted the philosophic language there (Ramsay, Teaching, 10–11, though attributing it to the audience). By contrast, Paul’s use of rhetorical devices varies from one letter to another, but not in any chronologically discernible sequence (see the statistics in Harvey, Listening, 286).

[5312]. Norden cautiously in 1898; T. S. Duncan less cautiously in 1926 (so Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 283).

[5313]. Ibid.

[5314]. Ibid. (doubting whether the style in any pure form ever existed). Some do find significant elements of Asiatic rhetoric, however, in the rhetorical flourishes of Ephesians (see esp. Witherington, Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians, 4–6, which I am currently inclined to find fairly persuasive).

[5315]. There was, however, at some point a specifically “Ionian” mode of declamation, which rhetoricians might wish to learn (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.27.619).

[5316]. Stowers, “Diatribe,” 74 (citing, e.g., Aul. Gel. 1.26). “Formal exegesis” was important in Neoplatonism (see Finamore and Dillon, “Introduction,” 7), but in antiquity, most philosophy was more a matter of the way of life than of exegeting texts (cf. Blyth, “Cicero,” noting that it was especially Western appropriation of an element in Cicero that led to a shift in perspective).

[5317]. Cf., e.g., Stowers, Diatribe, 18; Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 93–103; Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 93, 200, 370; Enslin, Ethics, 41–42; others, however, suggest that Paul and diatribes may have simply both depended on conventional language that occurred outside diatribe (Nock, Christianity, 93). For its presence in others’ epistles, see Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 129; Aune, Environment, 168; idem, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 165; Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 96; cf. speaking styles in rhetorical letters in Malherbe, “Theorists,” 15. Paul could have acquired the style easily, since it was employed in schools in markets and by philosophers whom bypassers would hear (Stowers, “Diatribe,” 80–81). Similar material appears in other Hellenistic Jewish sources (39–41).

[5318]. See Stowers, Diatribe, 175; Malherbe, Philosophers, 5–6, 22–33 (noting Epictetus, Bultmann’s source); cf. Lutz, “Musonius,” 6–7n13; for its being a form rather than a genre, Donfried, “Presuppositions,” 134; Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 155. The style may not, in fact, make this case by itself, but a street preacher without regular disciples would have to reckon with a shorter attention span. Styles in diatribe varied; diatribe served a range of instructional settings (Stowers, “Diatribe,” 73; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 243); but what we usually mean by the term contains dialogical form (Porter, “Diatribe,” 296; cf. Kustas, “Diatribe”; on characteristics more extensively, see Stowers, Romans, 86–93, 122–33).

[5319]. For a comparison of diatribe with early rabbinic argumentation, see Ulmer, “Advancement.” If one casts the net widely enough, one finds diatribal similarities in a range of texts (Backhaus, “Kohelet,” finds it in Ecclesiastes); it was more of a dialogical style than a genre.

[5320]. Stowers, Diatribe, 183.

[5321]. See Pogoloff, Logos, 176.

[5322]. Philosophers were known for converting profligates (e.g., Polemo through Xenocrates, Val. Max. 6.9.ext. 1; on moral transformation through philosophy, see further Diog. Laert. 4.16; 6.2.56; Wilken, “Collegia,” 272).

[5323]. Winter, Philo and Paul, 20–25, citing esp. P.Oxy. 2190.

[5324]. We often read of students of rhetoric; e.g., I. Eph. 2101, 2202, 2211 (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 126).

[5325]. See Winter, Philo and Paul, 30–34.

[5326]. Eunapius Lives 469. Socrates sent a student to hear a relevant lecturer, though sometimes with challenging questions (Xen. Mem. 3.1.1–3, 11); cf. John with Jesus (John 1:36–37).

[5327]. E.g., Plut. Demosth. 2.2.

[5328]. See, e.g., Socrates (Xen. Mem. 4.2.8); Jesus (John 1:38–39; 2:2, 11).

[5329]. See, e.g., Luter, “Deep.”

[5330]. See, e.g., Backhaus, “Hörsaal.” This seems much more optimistic than what we have, e.g., in John’s Gospel, but it addressed a different environment. Paul’s various speeches in Acts also present him as an ideal proclaimer (Quesnel, “Paul prédicateur”).

[5331]. I adapt this list from Witherington, Acts, 575.

[5332]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 154–55. Some others also allow that the Asiarchs might be Paul’s benefactors (Keener, Background Commentary, 380; Dunn, Acts, 258).

[5333]. With Haenchen, Acts, 559; Barrett, Acts, 903. The time specified is not unusual; Cicero studied six months with a philosopher and then studied rhetoric (Cic. Brut. 91.315), spending a total of two years abroad (in Asia and Rhodes, 91.316); Apollonius allegedly taught in Greece for two years before moving on (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.24).

[5334]. Bruce, Acts¹, 356.

[5335]. Assuming that Paul did not write the letter in the period of Acts 18:18–23; but Paul usually wrote his letters while staying in a location (at least longer letters, such as 1 Corinthians and Romans), and mutual contact would be simpler once he settled in Ephesus.

[5336]. Luke’s lack of record of these events is understandable when he summarizes two years in a single statement, then adds only a few examples germane to his point.

[5337]. With, e.g., Trebilco, “Asia,” 310.

[5338]. See also Trebilco, Ephesus, 137–38. The point is that people from every part of the province heard, which is plausible enough in Ephesus, which drew many visitors from the rest of the province (Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:37, noting Pliny E. N.H. 5.120).

[5339]. See also Trebilco, Ephesus, 140–45. For the phrase “Jews and Greeks,” always in that sequence, see also Acts 14:1; 18:4; 20:21; comment on Acts 14:1. This combination may reflect Pauline influence or the language of that circle of early Christianity (1 Cor 1:22, 24; 10:32; 12:13; cf. Rom 1:16; 2:9–10; 3:9; 10:12; Gal 3:28); the sequence varies only in Col 3:11. One could think that he reached Jews first in the synagogue for three months (19:8), then Greeks in the school of Tyrannus afterward (19:9–10), but the frequent pairing of the terms suggests that he continued to reach both in the new venue.

[5340]. Cf., e.g., Ovid Tristia 2.324: Caesar spread his exploits everywhere (omnia); Statius Theb. 6.249–54 (rumor can call a crowd “from all fields and cities” to watch); Philost. Hrk. 28.10 (“The Lesbians and all the rest of Aeolia, as well as their Ionian neighbors, request oracles there” [Maclean and Aitken, 91], though this cannot literally mean every individual); Lucian Alex. 2 (he filled the entire empire with his robberies).

[5341]. Sometimes, however, rumor (fama) was not wrong (Tac. Agric. 9).

[5342]. E.g., rumors of conspiracy (Tac. Ann. 14.58), of catastrophic losses in Germany (Hist. 4.12), of mass exile (Ann. 4.46); rumors exaggerating enemy numbers (4.23); a false rumor of a leader’s death (Hist. 1.34; 4.34) or survival (Jos. Ant. 19.134; Tac. Ann. 2.82–83) or that the enemy had fled (Tac. Hist. 2.42); or even deliberately false rumors (disinformation; Hist. 4.38, 54; Ann. 4.24). Panic facilitated rumors’ reception (e.g., Pliny Ep. 6.20.15).

[5343]. Rumor (fama) could spread through Rome news both true and false (Sil. It. 6.554) and rapidly from city to city (4.1–7), though often growing in exaggeration when spread (4.8–9). Personified Rumor could quickly shroud a region in panic (Statius Theb. 4.369); rumors could reach even the underworld quickly as the dying brought reports (Val. Flacc. 5.82–85). (On the personification of rumor, see Scheuer, “Fama.”)

[5344]. E.g., Symm. Ep. 1.49; 1.95.3; 1.102. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:700, note that in the first century couriers could get a letter from London to Rome in one week; seventeenth-century Sabbatianism “spread from Turkey and Palestine throughout the whole of Europe in less than three years”; the Reformation’s most significant changes spread through much of Europe in five years. Likewise, the modern scholarly idea of first-century Christian communities totally isolated from one another is historically naive (see discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:187–88).

[5345]. It was, indeed, shifting from a traditional city-state function to its role as an administrative center (Calder, Gray, and Mitchell, “Asia,” 190).

[5346]. Within a city itself, gossip with neighbors or in shops also spread word quickly (Stambaugh, City, 139–40; Jeffers, World, 31); neighborhood taverns, where people congregated for hot food and entertainment, may have especially circulated rumors (Toner, Culture, 109). See further Acts 19:29.

[5347]. Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.1 (CAGN 128). Shortly thereafter in the same novel, word about the couple spread throughout Rhodes (Anthia 1.12).

[5348]. This is true even if at least part of the Pauline circle felt that Asia did not embrace his teaching fully (2 Tim 1:15).

[5349]. See the view of one speaker in Tac. Dial. 7.

[5350]. Calder, Gray, and Mitchell, “Asia,” 190.

[5351]. With Bruce, Commentary, 389; Hemer, Acts in History, 187; Dunn, Acts, 253; Barrett, Acts, 905; Bock, Acts, 601; Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 19:10, forthcoming (courtesy of Witherington). For the understanding that a teacher multiplied his influence, see Libanius Anecdote 3.2 (on Isocrates).

[5352]. Dunn, Acts, 253.

[5353]. E.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 110.14, 20 (he cites especially his primary teacher, Attalus, as in Ep. Lucil. 108; he agreed especially with him); Eunapius Lives 458; cf. t. Yebam. 3:1; Mek. Pisha 1.135–36; Sipre Deut. 48.2.6.

[5354]. E.g., Seneca respectfully disagrees with a Pythagorean teacher of his, Sotion (Ep. Lucil. 108.17, 20, 22).

[5355]. See deSilva, Honor, 134–35.

[5356]. Barrett, Acts, 905–6.

[5357]. For the spread of the Christian movement by the late second century, see Tert. Apol. 1.7. It is interesting to contrast Pliny’s more active hostility toward Christians (Ep. 10.96) with Tacitus’s more passive approach (criticizing Nero’s mass executions [Ann. 15.44] although, given Tacitus’s anti-Semitism [Hist. 5], he resented simply Nero’s excesses); Tacitus was governor of Asia (BCH 621–22).

[5358]. See Mitchell, Anatolia, 1:98.

[5359]. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 63. On churches spreading especially in Asia’s cities (helped by Diaspora Judaism’s presence there), see Stark, “Christianizing the Empire.”

[5360]. E.g., Günther, “Gescheiterte Mission.”

[5361]. On Johannine Christianity in Ephesus, see also Keener, John, 146–49; Smalley, John, 148–49; Fenton, John, 16; Trudinger, “Milieu”; Witherington, Wisdom, 29; Rodríguez Ruiz, “Composición.”

[5362]. E.g., Court, “Rivals,” 402–3; for one recent study, including a survey of views, see Lémonon, “Christianismes.” See also Strelan, Artemis, 128, arguing that by the end of the century, Johannine Christians outnumbered Pauline ones in Ephesus (further on the competing community, perhaps “Johannine,” 169–72). Strelan’s ultimate conclusions are more balanced, however, suggesting that instead of necessarily being in conflict, Pauline and Johannine traditions were two coexisting streams, where successive leaders could reflect one or another tradition (301–2).

[5363]. Probably at least hundreds of the thousands of Judean Christians displaced by the Judean-Roman war of 66–73 C.E. settled in Ephesus; “Johannine Christianity” was more Jewish than Gentile (in contrast to the Pauline churches by this period). Nevertheless, the Fourth Gospel’s author offers a vision that is more Pauline (e.g., John 14:23; 15:4; cf. Keener, John, passim, e.g., 998–99) than related to Paul’s circumcisionist detractors (cf. John 7:22–23); he also welcomes non-Jews (4:4–42; 10:16). The author of Revelation combats the same vices as Paul does in his letters (Rev 2:14, 20; cf. 1 Cor 8–10 as many now argue it should be interpreted, e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 73).

[5364]. This notion of competition (rather than perhaps succession of teachers) is forced-choice logic, since the presence of a Johannine circle need not compete with other Christians (see Keener, John, 149–52; on comparison’s not always implying hostility, see also, e.g., Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 376.31–377.2; 2.3, 378.18–26; 380.30–31; 2.6, 402.26–29; 403.26–32; 404.5–8; 2.10, 417.5–17; Philost. Hrk. 13.3–4; 27.4; 37.2; 38.1; Keener, John, 916–17).

[5365]. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 127, citing the “churches of Asia” in 1 Cor 16:19, and information about other churches (Col 4:13) apparently founded through Paul’s coworkers (1:7; 2:1). See more fully Trebilco, Ephesus, 138–40.

[5366]. Strelan, Artemis, 129–30. Strelan does allow that Paul may have been successful among Jews there (171; contrast 128). The view that Luke could mean by “Greeks” simply “Diaspora Jews” (mentioned, 255) fits neither Luke’s nor Paul’s usage. And if Paul’s message spread to outlying regions beyond Ephesus, Gentile involvement is even more likely.

[5367]. Cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 601. For Ephesus as the destination or part of the destination, see, e.g., Ramsay, Teaching, 432 (comparing 2 Cor 1:1); Robinson, Ephesians, 11; Ford, Revelation, 389; Trudinger, “Milieu”; Arnold, Power, 5–6, 165; Hoehner, Ephesians, 78–79, 144–48. Most accept western Asia Minor (e.g., Lincoln, Ephesians, lxxxi–lxxxiii). Some early emendations in texts universalized, rather than localized, works (Gamble, “Formation,” 186); but most scholars doubt that “Ephesus” was original (e.g., Cadbury, “Dilemma,” 93; Santer, “Text,” 248 [despite the unusual solution]).

[5368]. Friedländer, Life, 1:343. See much fuller discussion and sources in Keener, Acts, 1:326–29.

[5369]. Beck and Thomas, “Education,” 508; Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 131.

[5370]. He appears less than Zeus (I. Eph. 1239–43) and about the same as Dionysus or Demeter. Pergamum emphasized Asclepius far more (Hom. Il. 5.446–48; Statius Silv. 3.4.23–25; Paus. 2.26.9; Lucian Icar. 24; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.9.1; Hdn. 4.8.3; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.11, 34; Vit. soph. 1.25.536; 2.25.611; Ramsay, Letters, 284–86; Klauck, Context, 157; Koester, Introduction, 1:182; Kee, Miracle, 104; Casson, Travel, 131).

[5371]. On signs prophets, see Keener, Acts, 1:335, 340–41, and sources cited there (esp. the initial, groundbreaking works by Barnett).

[5372]. So Ashton, Religion, 174–77. Favoring the plausibility of Luke’s portrait here, see Trebilco, Ephesus, 149–52. Pervo, Acts, 473, remarks sarcastically that Luke’s message here is that “human misery, the fruit of Satan’s power, is being wiped off the face of the earth”; a more balanced assessment should recognize that Luke recognizes divine intervention alongside continued suffering (see, e.g., Acts 19:23–34!).

[5373]. Conzelmann, Acts, 163 (citing Vettius Valens); see more fully BDAG and sources there (including 3 Macc 3:7; Jos. Ant. 2.120; 6.292; BCH 22 [1898]: 89; SIG 528.10; BGU 36.9; P.Oxy. 899.14; examples from Wettstein). Luke expresses this by way of negation, using litotes (as in Acts 19:23; Witherington, Acts, 579).

[5374]. Cf. Acts 5:12–16, where Luke also notes healing through the apostles’ hands and then miracles beyond their touch.

[5375]. Noted by most literary observers, e.g., Goulder, Type and History, 31. García Recio, “Agarrar,” argues for even ancient Mesopotamian parallels to the sick praying while touching a garment (as in Luke 8:44).

[5376]. Although not specified in Luke 8:43–48, this pattern obtains frequently in Luke’s Gospel (see comment on Acts 19:10).

[5377]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 74. It was immigration that caused population increase.

[5378]. Ibid. On sickness in the cities, cf. also Stark, Cities, 28.

[5379]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 75.

[5380]. Ibid., 76.

[5381]. Infinitives of result naturally follow the conjunction ὥστε here (see Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 197–98, §391).

[5382]. T. Šabb. 12:12. One could lay on a poultice to protect a wound but not treat it with a scroll on the Sabbath (y. Šabb. 6:3, §7).

[5383]. Although σουδάριον appears in magical texts, it never functions as an agency for cures (Trebilco, “Asia,” 313).

[5384]. Ibid. (citing OLD [1976 ed.] 1859). It could function as a towel or as a sweatband around the head.

[5385]. C. Williams, Acts, 221; Bruce, Acts¹, 357; idem, Commentary, 389n22; idem, Apostle, 292; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 90; Larkin, Acts, 276; Witherington, Acts, 579–80; Dunn, Acts, 259. A σουδάριον was not used exclusively for sweat (Luke 19:20; John 11:44; 20:7); the connection with σιμικίνθιον, however, might support this usage. The latter term renders the Latin semicinctium, an apron (LSJ, s.v. σημικίνθιον), i.e., a semigirdle or belt. Still, even this piece of clothing was in general usage, not restricted to the workplace (Leary, “Aprons”; cf. Jeffers, World, 43–44; Prov 31:24). Because it can bend in Petron. Sat. 94.8, Strelan, Strange Acts, 197, suggests that it is “a thinner version of the cinctium,” i.e., the girdle (ζώνη), which people of both genders “commonly” wore (see comment on Acts 21:11). (The association with childbirth magic in Pliny E. N.H. 28.9, also cited by Strelan in Strange Acts, 197, was not applied to men.)

[5386]. Conzelmann, Acts, 163, citing Ammonius (linen bands on the head and others held in the hands); also Theophylact (for handkerchief; so BDAG, though disagreeing). Hesychius construed it as some sort of bandage (BDAG).

[5387]. See Strelan, “Acts 19:12” (citing various ancient authors); followed by Parsons, Acts, 270 (noting Suet. Nero 25.3, 51; Quint. Inst. 6.3.60; 11.3.118).

[5388]. Scholars’ apparel would constitute a more expensive “medicine” than sweat rags, so it is difficult to imagine this happening often. The present infinitives here could suggest (although need not demand) iterative force (cf. Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 166, §318; 172, §§335–36; 174, §337; Robertson, Grammar, 1081).

[5389]. So, e.g., Horton, Acts, 322, arguing against a normative model here. Ultimately, the details of how people acquired the cloths may only be guessed, given the conciseness of Luke’s account. Theodor Zahn suggested that Priscilla, with whom Paul was staying, lent people his items, which they afterward returned (Klauck, Magic, 98, citing Zahn, Apostelgeschichte, 681–82); this is, of course, speculation.

[5390]. Twelftree, Name, 149.

[5391]. Kee, Miracle, 215; cf. Aune, “Magic,” 1537.

[5392]. See Plut. Pyrr. 3.4–5; Artapanus in Euseb. P.E. 9.27 (Trebilco, “Asia,” 313); see further Theissen, Miracle Stories, 63. Contrast the conception of “power” in Ephesians (which Arnold, Power, 36–37, even suggests may polemicize against a pagan “ ‘substance’ view of power”).

[5393]. The exodus tradition was foundational for thought about past miracles (Num 14:11, 22; Josh 24:17; Judg 6:13; Neh 9:10; Pss 78:11, 43; 105:27; 135:9), including as a paradigm for present signs (Jer 32:20–21) and those of the eschatological exodus (Mic 7:15). In early Judaism, see further Eve, Miracles, 244, 377.

[5394]. Cf. Polhill, Acts, 402.

[5395]. Substances could have spirits in them, as with demons in some oil (b. Sanh. 101a; cf. further sources cited in Alexander, Possession, 29, 32, 34). That the Greek term translated “phylactery,” which often has a magical use (see, e.g., Becker, “Phylakterion”), could be applied to tefillin does not suggest magical connotations in all its uses.

[5396]. They went further in the direction of magic (with spells and amulets) than Luke’s Paul did, but many of the examples in Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 267, can be paralleled in the OT (e.g., 2 Kgs 13:21). Magic spells did, however, persist in the Christian period (Lewis, Life, 97); for Egyptian priests and magic-working, see Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 228, 236–37.

[5397]. In these examples, the object was separated from the living prophet. But cf. also Moses’s staff, though not detached from him (Exod 4:17; 7:17, 20; 8:5, 16, 17; 9:23; 10:13; 14:16; 17:5, 9). Parsons, Acts, 278–79, very helpfully cites parallels in early Pentecostalism (unrelated to later corrupted gimmicks) and, 279–80, parallels regarding relics. Popular literature offers many other modern examples (for one in Nigeria, e.g., Folwarski, “Point of Contact”; in southern Africa, Koch, Zulus, 106; in India, ibid., 105; in connection with Azusa Street, Robeck, Mission, 106; with Wigglesworth and other early Pentecostals, Wacker, Heaven, 94; more recently, e.g., Stewart, Only Believe, 149; and expectations, e.g., Sung, Diaries, 90); so also earlier history (besides the use of relics attributed to saints, cf., e.g., oil from the cave of Gäbrä-Seyon; Michael, “Gäbrä-Seyon”).

[5398]. See also Keener, Matthew, 303–4 (with many; but on Matthew, cf. differently Levine, “Responsibility,” 384). Luke is well aware of Levitical purity laws (Luke 2:22–24 with Lev 12:2–8). Strelan, Strange Acts, 192, treats the effectiveness of holy power as analogous to the contagion of corpse impurity.

[5399]. Cf. power in Luke 1:17, 35; 4:14; 24:49; Acts 1:8; 4:33; especially power for healing or exorcism in Luke 4:36; 5:17; 9:1; Acts 3:12; 4:7; 6:8; 10:38; and such power coming forth in Luke 6:19.

[5400]. Contemporaries also seem to have agreed; thus, e.g., people were cured by merely seeing Abraham in Gen. Rab. 39:11. For other examples underlining the special expression of power in long-distance healings, see, e.g., b. Ber. 34b, bar.; Bultmann, Tradition, 225.

[5401]. See MacMullen, Christianizing, 28, 40–41, 60–61, 112–13 (followed by, e.g., Wagner, Acts, 473–74).

[5402]. For the association of Solomon with exorcism, see also Betz, “Miracles in Josephus,” 220–21.

[5403]. See Thomas, Deliverance, 282.

[5404]. Others also point to this account in connection with Ephesian practices (Arnold, Power, 30–31; Trebilco, “Asia,” 313), though it may not be distinctively Ephesian.

[5405]. E.g., I. Eph. 1255; Dio Chrys. Or. 76.5; see further the excursus “Demons and Spirit Possession” on “daimones,” at Acts 16:16.

[5406]. Paul’s letters naturally focus more on the cosmic dimension of evil whereas Luke’s narrative genre more readily recounts exorcisms. To exclude any particular category of signs because Paul does not mention them—when he does not specify any particular category—would exclude all categories, inferring the opposite of Paul’s claim simply on account of the miserliness of one’s methodology. Cf. Twelftree, Paul, 261.

[5407]. Hobart, Medical Language, 47.

[5408]. Compare also some 156 uses in Josephus (e.g., Ant. 1.92, 103, 202, 230, 309; 2.31, 33, 97, 133, 137; 3.14, 48, 69, 83; War 4.355, 412, 465; 5.99; 7.34, 63, 66–67, 76, 111, 205, 319); some 46 uses in Philo (e.g., Cain 23; Abr. 30; Jos. 25); and occasionally in the Apostolic Fathers (1 Clem. 5.7; 2 Clem 17.3; Mart. Pol. 3.1; Quadratus 2).

[5409]. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 204–5. Shauf, Theology, 196–218 (esp. 217–18), questions “antimagical” apologetic in this passage, noting (229–30) that magic appears only in 19:19, and there only for some of those confessing in 19:18. This objection is technically true, but there may be contextual reasons for specifying only this sin in 19:19. At the very least, this passage involves a power encounter comparable to Philip’s superiority over Simon’s power in 8:9–13.

[5410]. Arnold, Power, 22–24. The connection arose partly from the Greek association of Artemis with Hecate, and appears also in Tatian Or. Gr. 8.2, but the connection is considerably weakened if texts mentioning Hecate are discounted (Mussies, “Artemis,” 95).

[5411]. Cf. Bates, “Sons,” 417, 420. Although Williams, Miracle Stories, 144, views the current form of the story as legendary, he finds “nothing historically improbable in the idea that an incautious exorcist might receive a thrashing at the hands of a violent lunatic!” For the consistency of various features with what is known of ancient Ephesus, exorcists, and the spirit possessed, see comment below and the excursus at Acts 16:16.

[5412]. See Keener, Spirit, 103–9. Garrett, Demise, 36, also argues that Acts 13:10 counters the accusation of Luke 11:15, and Shauf, Theology, 224, finds echoes of Luke 11:14–23 here.

[5413]. Many Gentiles envisioned Moses himself as a magician (e.g., Apul. Apol. 90; Gager, Moses, 134–61), but Luke’s ideal audience is more biblically informed (see, e.g., Luke 2:22; 9:30, 33 and passim).

[5414]. For Jesus’s exorcisms as demonstrations of God’s kingdom overcoming Satan’s (as suggested in Luke 11:18–20), see also Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 141; idem, “Kingdom”; cf. their eschatological significance in Theissen and Merz, Guide, 309. In a larger Jewish context, cf. the observations in Vermes, Religion, 130, concerning 4Q510 1 4.

[5415]. The number of Sceva’s sons probably matches that of the spirits in Luke 11:26 only by coincidence, since they are unsuccessful, not paralleled with spirits, and Luke 11:26, in fact, implies a total of eight.

[5416]. Garrett, Demise, 97–98, is helpful but may go too far in assuming that pagan exorcists could no longer cast out spirits. Bates, “Sons,” 420, argues that their appeal to Paul misconstrues Jesus’s power.

[5417]. The passage in Luke 9 seems to stand in tension with our present passage, a tension that invites caution in drawing the boundaries. But see especially the requirement of faith implied in 9:40–41. Eve, Miracles, 337, thinks the tension a deliberate contrast between right and wrong models of exorcism (here “adjuring,” a magical technique used by demons in Mark 5:7).

[5418]. See esp. Arnold, Power, 14–16 (including the reference to magi in Clem. Alex. Exhort. 2.19). Inscriptions also mention “magi” there (I. Eph. 3817A.8, in a probably cultic context [3817A.2, 6]; cf. I. Eph. 3820C), though the designation was not limited to “magicians” (see comment on Acts 8:9–11).

[5419]. Filson, “Ephesus,” 78; Trebilco, “Asia,” 314 (citing Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.15; 5.8; Plut. Table 7.5).

[5420]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 314. On amulets, see Versnel, “Amulets”; Becker, “Phylakterion”; Ritner, Mechanics, 51–55, 244–45.

[5421]. Argued by Arnold, Power, 22–24.

[5422]. The link is denied by Strelan, Artemis, 83–88, esp. 87.

[5423]. Yamauchi, “Magic?,” 140–41.

[5424]. See Graf, “Exorcism,” 270–71.

[5425]. With, e.g., Strelan, Artemis, 262. The term does not specify either way, since it means just moving around; within a single city, e.g., Josh 6:7, 11, 15; 1 Tim 5:13; Jos. Ant. 5.27; 11.178; Philo Jos. 120; further, e.g., Job 1:7; Heb 11:37; Jos. Ant. 8.182. One wonders whether Luke’s contextual use (six verses, or about 120 words, apart) of a similar-sounding περίεργα (Acts 19:19) might be deliberate, coincidental, or—perhaps somewhat most likely—unconscious (the meaning is not related); neither term (or its cognates) appears elsewhere in Luke-Acts (out of some 2,150 verses).

[5426]. See, e.g., Liefeld, “Preacher,” 246; Furnish, II Corinthians, 178; further comment at Acts 20:29, 33–35.

[5427]. Lucian Lover of Lies 31, 33. For Egypt’s association with magic, see, e.g., ʾAbot R. Nat. 28 A; 48, §132 B; b. Qidd. 49b; Gen. Rab. 86:5; Exod. Rab. 9:6; 20:19; Horsley, Documents, 1:47–51; Hom. Od. 4.228–34; Lucian Lover of Lies 31, 33; Apul. Metam. 2.28; Heliod. Eth. 6.14; Dauphin, “Amulet”; Frankfurter, “Magic”; idem, Religion in Egypt, 198–237; Klauck, Context, 213.

[5428]. For Jewish magical practices and Acts 19, see helpfully Arnold, “Sceva,” 10–19.

[5429]. Incant. Text 3.8–9; 50.7–8; Test. Sol. 2:4; 5:5; 8:5–11; 18. For exorcism by a name (as well as other formulas), see Leicht, “Mashbia‘.”

[5430]. Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 252–53. For invoking a more powerful spirit to enforce a womb exorcism, see Faraone, “New Light.”

[5431]. New Testament scholarship has often emphasized the use of name invocation in healing (e.g., Bultmann, Tradition, 223), magic (Bietenhard, “ὄνομα,” 243), or confronting spiritual enemies (Twelftree, “ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,” 376; Bultmann, Tradition, 232). For forcing the demon to reveal its identity, see Deissmann, Light, 261 (third century C.E.); for having to use the demon’s name for exorcism, sometimes requiring trying various forms, see Tarn, Civilisation, 353.

[5432]. Garrett, Demise, 106 (contrasting the more knowledgeable Hermas). Name invocation was not limited to Ephesus, and the index to the inscriptions lists ὀνομάζω only at I. Eph. 45a.3, a sixth-century Christian reference to invoking God.

[5433]. Cf. Luke 8:30; Mark 5:9 (though the question was not unusual; cf. Gen 32:27; Judg 13:17).

[5434]. This approach to manipulating a deity appears in Jewish magic, so treating the divine name (Pr. Jos. 9–12).

[5435]. E.g., Scholem, Gnosticism, 86 (regarding an amulet); Pfeiffer, Scrolls, 143 (regarding incantation bowls); Arnold, “Sceva,” 10. Josephus might reveal awareness of such a practice in his own day when he attributes to Essenes careful guarding of the sects’ secrets about angelic names (War 2.142).

[5436]. Test. Sol. 5:2, 6–7; also the name of the angel by which that demon was thwarted (5:9).

[5437]. See Scholem, Gnosticism, 32–33, 45.

[5438]. So Pulleyn, “Power of Names.” See further, e.g., Urbach, Sages, 1:130. Not all who used the name for power viewed their practices as magical (cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:124–34); see comment on Acts 3:6, especially for the use of name outside magic.

[5439]. E.g., Jos. Ant. 2.276; in the third century C.E., CIJ 2:69–70, §821. This was probably originally to prevent hearers from using it lightly (so y. Yoma 3:7). Some later Platonic thinkers viewed the supreme deity as too great to name or define (Apul. Apol. 64).

[5440]. Invoking a deity’s secret name would invite help (PGM 1.216–17). Thus a later Christian sage could warn that those with names are named by those more powerful and so “God” is not a name but a conception (Sent. Sext. 28). On mysterious activity and secret names being especially powerful, see further Theissen, Miracle Stories, 64 (citing, e.g., on “hidden names,” PGM 4.1609–11); Bruce, Apostle, 292. In some societies today, shamans cannot reveal secrets such as the identity of their guardian spirit (Harner, Way of Shaman, 95).

[5441]. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.68.3. Ancients sometimes feared that deities had unknown names; this was reflected in their use of “whoever the deity is” in invocations (Aune, Revelation, 1056, citing Aeschylus Ag. 160; Eurip. Tro. 885–86).

[5442]. Aune, Revelation, 926–27, citing for its secret name Plut. Rom. Q. 61; Pliny E. N.H. 28.4.18; and for the gods being enticed, Servius Comm. in Verg. Aen. 2.351.

[5443]. Harrauer, “Agnostos Theos.”

[5444]. Pliny E. N.H. 28.4.18–19; cf. Plut. Rom. Q. 61, Mor. 278F. Cf. also Aune, Revelation, 926–27, citing these same texts; and for the gods being enticed, Servius Comm. in Verg. Aen. 2.351.

[5445]. E.g., the Samaritan bronze amulet in CIJ 2:217, §1168. Israel’s God is named frequently in magical texts (e.g., Knox, Gentiles, 41–42), widely adopted by Gentile magicians (Wilson, Gnostic Problem, 201; Tiede, Figure, 170); Smith, Magician, 69, claims that YHWH’s name appears more than three times as often as “that of any other deity.” Magical texts multiplied divine names (Pr. Jos. 9; CIJ 2:62–65, §819) or permutations of the sacred name (e.g., Incant. Text 69.6–7; from Germany, CIJ 1:485, §673; 1:486, §674; 1:490, §679). They could include the divine name among a list of angels invoked (1:517, §717; 1:523, §724; 2:90–91, §849); “Iao” was normally a divine name (2:81, §833; 2:90–91, §849; 2:92, §851; cf. Diod. Sic. 1.94.1–2), though two permutations of it appear as sons of Sabaoth in Test. Sol. 18:15–16. The divine name “Iao” appears frequently in ancient magical papyri and curses (Nock, Conversion, 62–63) as well as on amulets (MacMullen, Enemies, 103).

[5446]. See Demet. Style 2.71.

[5447]. Incant. Text 20.11–12.

[5448]. Klauck, Context, 213.

[5449]. For other examples of texts blending pagan, Jewish, and Christian elements, see, e.g., Goodenough, Symbols, 2:174–88; Arnold, Power, 18; for other examples of magical texts with angelic names, see Simpson, Literature of Egypt, 455–57 (probably late Christian). Josephus claims that Essenes swore to preserve angels’ names (War 2.142), perhaps envisioning their proper use.

[5450]. Cf. Lesses, “Speaking with Angels”; Scholem, Gnosticism, 32–33. It was impious not to heed adjurations in Zeus’s name (Vit. Aes. 135, 138).

[5451]. See Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 457 (citing, e.g., P.Lond. 121.242); the second- or third-century C.E. Jewish inscription in Kotansky, “Remnants”; cf. the use of oaths in PGM 1.80–82, 167; 36.307, 347–48; 39.19–20; Test. Sol. 11:6; Theissen, Miracle Stories, 57; Twelftree, “ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,” 375; even our English word “exorcise.” Bruce cites PGM 574.3018–20 (Commentary, 390; idem, History, 328n38). In the second century, Lucian Lover of Lies 16 satirizes a Palestinian (perhaps Christian) exorcist who “adjures” (ὅρκους ἐπάγων) the demon. Shauf, Theology, 208, protests that the term appears much more widely than in exorcism contexts; while his objection is technically true, this is an exorcism context.

[5452]. See, e.g., PGM 3.420; 4.1231–36 (in the context of 4.1227–64); 83.14–15; for the persistence of magic in Christian Egypt, see Lewis, Life, 97. Cf. the fourth-century Christian interpolation in PGM 13.289–93 by a member of “the newly Christianized criminal class” (Betz, Magical Papyri, 180n68). Ghosts of those who died violently might be considered particularly useful in magic (cf. Eve, Miracles, 336), since their corpses were (PGM 1.248–49; 2.49–50; 4.342–43, 1390–95, 1402–3, 2211–17; 57.5–6; 58.5–9; 67.21; 101.1–3), and these ghosts were more malevolent (Plut. Cimon 1/6; 6.5–6).

[5453]. Achtemeier, “Miracle Workers,” 160 (citing Origen Cels. 1.6, 60; 2.50; 6.40); cf. Eve, Miracles, 347. See Matt 7:22. Bede Comm. Acts 19.13 (Martin, Acts, 237) suggests that sometimes God allows even the wicked to cast out demons with the right name, so as to honor the name.

[5454]. See, e.g., Smith, Magician, 62–64. Jesus’s name also appears on a Jewish incantation bowl (Levene, “Name”), though some think by an opponent of a Christian (Shaked, “Jesus”). Gospel of Philip 56 opines that “Jesus,” unlike “Christ,” was the same in every language and hence constituted a “hidden name.”

[5455]. Cf. Chrys. Hom. Acts 41 (Martin, Acts, 237), who notes that Sceva’s sons acted secretly but were shamed publicly: “The name has no power,” he opines, “unless it is spoken in faith.” Formulas that are more like written prayers (perhaps PGM 128.1–11) might have been acceptable on analogy with the sweat cloths of Acts 19:12. Some have argued that even some errant Pauline Christians may have used Jesus’s name magically (Winter, Left Corinth, 164–83), but this argument depends on reading “Jesus” as vocative in 1 Cor 12:3a when a nominative is more likely (the accusative variant would also be against it). Smith, Magician, 62–64, notes later use of Jesus’s name in magic but anachronistically treats it as much earlier.

[5456]. See t. Ḥul. 2:22–23; Urbach, Sages, 1:116; Herford, Christianity, 103–11; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 40; Pritz, Nazarene Christianity, 96–97. Bruce, Acts¹, 358, cites t. Ḥul. 2.22–23; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 27b; y. Šabb. 14:4; Abod. Zar. 2:2.

[5457]. E.g., Plut. Caes. 16.2; Appian Bell. civ. 2.9.60; Dio Cass. 56.16.1 (Fitzmyer, Acts, 649); also Hor. Ep. 1.17.1. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 241, point out the Greek form of the Latin name in CIG 2889. On cognomens as personal names in the East, see comment on Acts 13:9; whether Sceva was a Jewish Roman citizen is hard to say. The occasional suggestion of the Latin “Scaevus” as a nickname (“Left,” “Unlucky”) and the Greek Σκαιός (“Left-Handed,” which had negative connotations; cf. Aratus Phaen. 6, 8; Plut. Rom. Q. 78, Mor. 282EF; Iambl. V.P. 28.156; Eccl 10:2; 4Q266 10 II, 13–14; Test. Ab. 12:10, 12 A; b. Ber. 61a; Sanh. 107b, bar.; Matt 25:33; Court, “Right”; in later Ethiopia, Pankhurst, Chronicles, 62) seems less likely (Σκεῦος would be easier). Others suggest the Hebrew “Sheva,” perhaps for one born on the seventh day (Le Cornu, Acts, 1055–56).

[5458]. The cognomen could mark a Roman citizen, but to be certain, we would need his nomen (Hemer, Acts in History, 234).

[5459]. See Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 271, arguing persuasively that the directives in Jos. Ant. 14.228–40 presume a significant number of them.

[5460]. “Sons” here could mean “apprentices” or “disciples” (cf. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 177; on disciples as “sons” of their teachers, see, e.g., Porph. Marc. 1.6–8; 4 Bar. 7:24; Sipre Deut. 34.3.1–3, 5; 305.3.4). Gordon, Civilizations, 252 (citing Hom. Il. 4.193–94, 204, for physicians), suggests that members of some ancient guilds may have been “sons of” an early practitioner of the trade; this is clearly attested for physicians (see Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 375.14; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.44) but not clearly for all trades. Shirock, “Exorcists,” makes a good case in favor of the classical Christian view that the “sons” are Jesus’s disciples; but Pharisees would hardly be persuaded by a self-evident appeal to disciples’ exorcism, and early Christians had polemical reasons to interpret as Shirock does. Jesus may thus mean members of the critics’ circle.

[5461]. Munck, Acts, 191, questions whether they were necessarily brothers. An itinerant Egyptian cult’s priesthood could function as hereditary (see the example in Klauck, Context, 63–64). We should not doubt their sonship because of their number, however, since many sought to have large families (Le Cornu, Acts, 1057).

[5462]. North, “Priests,” 1245.

[5463]. E.g., the use of the seven vowels (Demet. Style 2.71).

[5464]. Luke need not invent the number; contrast, e.g., Philip’s four prophetic daughters (Acts 21:9) when seven might have served better (or three to match Job 42:13)!

[5465]. A possible sense here (Fitzmyer, Acts, 649). Fitzmyer also suggests a Jewish apostate serving as a priest in the imperial cult in Ephesus, but it is most unlikely that a Jew would obtain this position (or if, like Tiberius Alexander, he did achieve local prominence, that Luke would have called him Jewish). More plausibly, Arnold, “Sceva,” 10, suggests a descendant of Zadokites.

[5466]. The high priests had opposed Jesus’s name (Acts 4:17–18; 5:28, 40–41; 9:14); now some who claim to belong to such lineage try to manipulate his name.

[5467]. E.g., in Rome, CIJ 1:271, §346; 1:272, §347; 1:291, §375; 2:42, §785; in Syria (in Aramaic), 2:72, §824; a priest from Egypt (though found in Judea), 2:136, §930; see further 1:c–ci.

[5468]. See CIJ 1:c (though cf. 1:369, §504, ἱερευσάρχων, which Frey renders gérousiarque). In Asia Minor, see, e.g., MAMA 4.4, 67; “high priest of Asia,” 4.66; “great high priest,” 4.235.

[5469]. Munck, Acts, 191; Dunn, Acts, 259; also Johnson, Acts, 340 (as one possibility). Pervo, Acts, 477n19, opines that Luke either was misled or misrepresented them.

[5470]. Barrett, Acts, 909, thinks that Luke would know better than Juvenal here. Ancient documentation concerning women “priests” may refer to women of priestly descent with special honors and rights in the synagogue (see Brooten, Women Leaders, 73–99, esp. 95).

[5471]. Noted by Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 241.

[5472]. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 26 (citing Apul. Metam. 8.3–6).

[5473]. The learned leading priests in Egypt in the Jewish Let. Aris. 6 are probably Egyptian (Let. Aris. 140).

[5474]. Dunand, Religion en Égypte, 123, 125; Ritner, Mechanics, 220–22; cf. Frankfurter, “Curses.” One should test with water an ass before buying it in Alexandria, in case it was actually a board (b. Sanh. 67b).

[5475]. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 226, 234, 236–37. Cf. the Egyptian priest in Apul. Metam. 2.28–30 (emphasized by Mastin, “Scaeva,” who also points to Jewish magicians’ high reputation).

[5476]. See esp. Tilborg, Ephesus, 101–7.

[5477]. E.g., Pelikan, Acts, 149; cf. González, Acts, 223 (noting the sarcasm).

[5478]. Witherington, Acts, 581n93. A demon does use Jesus’s name in Luke 8:28, but the only parallel to the current situation is that spirits know Jesus’s identity (here Acts 9:15); it is Jesus (in Luke 8:30) who demands the demons’ names. The “house” here might evoke the house to which an exorcised spirit returned in Luke 11:24 (though οἶκος appears some fifty-five times in Luke-Acts); for literal houses in Roman Ephesus, see George, “Architecture.”

[5479]. For magicians gaining knowledge, see PGM 1.175–77; Aune, Magic, 45. Spirit mediums are used in many cultures in order to divine truth (see the excursus at Acts 16:16).

[5480]. See Aune, Prophecy, 61–62, 269. In modern Christian exorcisms in Brazil, a spirit’s refusal to exit is often attributed to moral failures in the exorcist (Johnson, “Authority,” 106), but that perception might be based on this text.

[5481]. Cf., e.g., 1 Sam 25:11 (defined as an insult in 25:14); John 9:29; Mark 14:71; Matt 7:23; 25:12; comments in Keener, Matthew, 254, 598, 654–55; cf. m. Šebu. 8:3, 6.

[5482]. Sipre Deut. 305.3.3; ʾAbot R. Nat. 12 A.

[5483]. Test. Sol. 3:2; for the use of rings with the divine name in the Solomon tradition, see also b. Giṭ. 68a; for rings like Solomon’s, Jos. Ant. 8.47. The claim not to know Solomon is probably worded as a deliberate insult against his dignity (cf. Exod 5:2; expressing skepticism of paternity, 1 Sam 25:11; though cf. Mark 14:71).

[5484]. Ancient interpreters could also notice the parallels; see Chrys. Hom. Acts 41. For demons’ knowledge of supernatural truth without accompanying obedience, see Jas 2:19; for a demon learning of a rabbi’s skill in the law, cf. Dibelius, Tradition, 150 (though I do not find his citation).

[5485]. Cf. Simon being humbled: he moves from thinking he can purchase God’s power to be like Peter and John (Acts 8:19) to asking them to pray for him to be spared judgment, in lieu of depending at all on his own prayer (8:22–24; Job 42:8–9); though partial in Exod 8:28; 1 Kgs 13:6; 1Q20 XX, 28; Philo Abel 69.

[5486]. It is striking that the demon’s response and unwillingness to play along seem to display elements of individual personality, not fitting modern attempts to theologize ancient demonization reports as purely symbolic projections of cosmic evil (though the cosmic dimension of evil also appears in ancient sources).

[5487]. In perhaps another reversal of that narrative, the exorcists, rather than the swineherds, “flee” (Luke 8:34, though using φεύγω rather than ἐκφεύγω; but Luke probably uses these terms interchangeably, cf. Luke 21:21, 36). On the shame often associated with nakedness, especially in Jewish circles, see comment on Acts 7:58.

[5488]. Supernatural strength can also come from God (e.g., Judg 14:6, 19; 15:14; Test. Jud. 2:1–7; perhaps 1 Sam 11:6–7).

[5489]. Cf. Pervo, Profit, 63, remarking on Luke’s humorous irony here: “Even the demons know better than to allow such shenanigans.” Idem, Acts, 478, compares “the boisterous climax” with the violent humor in Plaut. Casina 758–954. For humor here, see also Shiell, Reading Acts, 182–84; for the “reverse” exorcism here, see also Talbert, Acts, 169; for stripping in ironic reversal, cf. Keener, “Inverted Guilt.” Green, “Acts,” 758, compares exorcists’ invoking Jesus as “Lord” (19:13) and the demonized man “lording over” (a cognate term) them.

[5490]. E.g., Jos. Ant. 8.48; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.20 (cf. a different confirmation in 4.10). Many note these outward demonstrations in ancient sources (e.g., Alexander, Possession, 144–46, though doubting them for Jesus). In some cultures, spirits exiting the possessed can thereupon infect a bystander (in Sri Lanka, see Obeyesekere, “Possessed,” 253).

[5491]. Cf. Luke 9:42; Mark 5:5; for insanity, cf. Hdt. 6.75 in Alexander, Possession, 79; in some ancient cults, see Sen. Y. Dial. 7.26.8; Lucian Lucius 37; 1 Kgs 18:28 (and perhaps Roberts, “New Parallel”; also sources cited in Monson, “Kings,” 79); comment on the Galli at Acts 8:27. This also appears in some examples of possession observed in anthropological sources today, e.g., in Lee, “Sociology,” 42, 47 (among !Kung Bushmen); Schmidt, “Psychiatry,” 145 (in Sarawak, Borneo); Fox, “Witchcraft,” 185 (among the Cochiti, in New Mexico); Jochim, Religions, 154 (spirit mediums at the Ma-Tsu festival in Taiwan); Mbiti, Religions, 106, 225–26 (various cases of African spirit possession, though sometimes without injury); Morton, “Dawit,” 221 (in an Ethiopian wuqabi cult group; verbal and emotional abuse).

[5492]. In anthropological literature, there are modern examples of the possessed being dangerous more generally (e.g., Gelfand, “Disorders,” 165, among the Shona; Obeyesekere, “Possessed,” 251; see further discussion at Acts 16:16).

[5493]. With Klauck, Magic, 100.

[5494]. The LXX employs the term positively of God’s Spirit coming on someone (1 Sam 10:6; 16:13), sometimes to provide supernatural strength (11:6). If one could construe the “spirit” as the verb’s subject, “both of them” might refer to the spirit overpowering both the demoniac and the exorcists, but the subject is clearly ἄνθρωπος.

[5495]. That Mark (Luke’s source) betrays no special interest in the violence that he reports probably suggests that it does not stem simply from literary interests (Twelftree, “ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,” 382–83).

[5496]. Theissen, Miracle Stories, 57 (citing b. Pesaḥ. 112b–113a).

[5497]. See, e.g., Keener, “Possession,” 231–33; idem, Miracles, 797–98.

[5498]. Murphy, “Aspects of Shamanism,” 58; for strength making restraint impossible, see also Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 208; Field, “Possession,” 5; Oesterreich, Possession, 22–23; Filson, “Study,” 154; Betty, “Evidence,” 16, 20; Koch, Zulus, 45, 191; for destructiveness, Eliade, Rites, 71; Gelfand, “Disorders,” 165, 170; Schmidt, “Psychiatry,” 145; Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 227; Matt 8:28; for self-laceration, see Fox, “Witchcraft,” 185; Ising, Blumhardt, 174, 326–27. Possession trance can also yield such violent behavior among less mature !Kung Bushmen (Lee, “Sociology,” 41–43, 47). See further examples in the excursus on demons and spirit possession at Acts 16:16, in the section on possession behavior.

[5499]. Pace the apparent reading in Chance, Acts, 347. For spirits transferred to others during exorcisms, cf., e.g., Obeyesekere, “Possessed,” 253 (noted above).

[5500]. Perhaps the guild maintained seven members because of the number’s mystical significance in antiquity (see comment on seven at Acts 6:3), but as noted above, it may also be coincidence. (Certainly, they cannot be related to the Seven of Acts 6:2–3 the way the twelve of 19:7 evoke the initial twelve apostles. The twelve of 19:7 are not among Paul’s traveling companions, and the seven here are certainly not righteous.)

[5501]. Haenchen, Acts, 564; Witherington, Acts, 581n94 (citing P.Lond. 336.13 and other texts).

[5502]. For the idiom of fear falling, cf. Gen 15:12; Exod 15:16; 1 Sam 11:7; Job 13:11; Dan 10:7; Rev 11:11.

[5503]. The imperfect probably suggests continuing action here, hence a cascading effect as the message continued to spread. For μεγαλύνω for praising God, see Luke 1:46; Acts 10:46 (otherwise, Luke 1:58; Acts 5:13; Luke has more than 60 percent of NT uses of the term; in the Apostolic Fathers, it appears only in 1 Clem. [three times]).

[5504]. Cf. also 1 Chr 17:24; Neh 9:5; Pss 86:9, 12; 148:13; Isa 12:4; 24:15; 25:1; Rom 15:9; 2 Thess 1:12; Rev 15:4. Luke elsewhere employs this same verb for praising God (Luke 1:46; Acts 10:46) and honoring his agents (Acts 5:13); for God’s “magnifying” human names, see Gen 12:2; 1 Kgs 1:47.

[5505]. Or at least someone knowledgeable from his circle. But against many scholars (many deny Pauline authorship, e.g., Knox, Gentiles, 182; Bornkamm, Paul, 86; Nineham, “Authorship”; Kirby, Ephesians, 165; Mitton, Ephesians, 4–11, 38; Johnston, Ephesians, 4–5; Lincoln, Ephesians, lix–lxxiii; Mealand, “Extent”; neutral but relatively favorable, see Cadbury, “Dilemma”), a strong case can be made for Paul’s authorship of Ephesians, with or without freedom for an amanuensis; see Hoehner, Ephesians, 2–61, 114–30 (with a thorough argument); Sanders, “Authorship”; Roon, Authenticity, 37–44 (for external evidence); Barth, Ephesians, 1:3–6; Burkitt, Church and Gnosis, 18–19; Robinson, Redating, 63; Arnold, “Ephesians,” 240–42; Wright, Paul, 56–61. (As Heil, “Believers,” 80, notes, an increasing number of scholars affirm Pauline authorship, and opinions are “more evenly balanced” than some critical scholars concede.) Some who doubt Pauline authorship allow for a reworking of Pauline material (e.g., Williams, “Catechesis,” 96). If Ephesians has nearly a hundred “non-Pauline” words (Johnston, Ephesians, 5), Robertson and Plummer, First Corinthians, xlix–li, list nearly a hundred unique to 1 Corinthians in the NT. Ephesians certainly diverges less from typical Pauline style than some of Tacitus’s or Lucian’s generally accepted works diverge from some of their others.

[5506]. As noted earlier, if Ephesians was a circular letter to a region, the manuscript evidence at Eph 1:1 indicates that the audience included at least Ephesus, which was probably also the most significant city addressed.

[5507]. E.g., De Wet, “Signs,” 1–2, 89, 110–11, 114–15, 119–21 (and passim; on Acts, p. 51); Tippett, People Movements, 80–84, 164–67; Johnson, “Growing Church,” 54–58; Pothen, “Missions,” 308. On the usefulness of people movements in missions, see, e.g., Pothen, “Missions,” 308–11.

[5508]. As noted by most commentators, e.g., Polhill, Acts, 405; Dunn, Acts, 260–61; Sim, “Relevance Theoretic Approach,” 40n47 (in my version).

[5509]. So also Eve, Miracles, 336.

[5510]. Cognates do not always carry the same sense, but it is likelier than not; no such connection appears with Luke’s other use of the noun (Luke 23:51).

[5511]. Conzelmann, Acts, 164, appears to view Luke’s wording as problematic.

[5512]. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 277, citing (370) Athanas. Fest. Let. 42. Even 1 Corinthians might attest magical use of Jesus’s name among Christians (Winter, Left Corinth, 164–83), but this interpretation is unlikely (see comment on Acts 19:13).

[5513]. Although this can be amply documented, it is common knowledge in many regions; I have observed it and have also heard these observations from many colleagues from West and Central Africa, including from my wife. Such practices usually remain more popular especially in rural areas where less contrary teaching is available. Cf., e.g., Christian spirit mediums in Firth, Ritual, 295, 303 (and other accommodations, 327–28); some Christians’ attraction to spirit possession in Shorter, “Spirit Possession,” 125.

[5514]. But the confusion may be limited to certain sections (e.g., Test. Sol. 18) that may represent sources inadequately redacted when incorporated into the work. The work mentions Artemis (Test. Sol. 8:11). For the magical use of Scripture in PGM, see Judge, “Magical Use”; on magical syncretism, see further comment at Acts 8:9–11.

[5515]. For new Christians struggling with fetishes, see, e.g., Thomas, Walls, 115; cf. Jenkins, New Faces, 110–13; syncretism in Kassimir, “Politics,” 257; Danfulani, “Conflict”; Dasuekwo, “Charms”; MacPhail, “Path,” 187–99; Ma, “Santuala,” 66; similar struggles with syncretism or Christopaganism in Luzbetac, Church and Cultures, 218, 239–48; my wife and some of my associates also have firsthand knowledge of such activities. For syncretism in some other religions, see, e.g., Adeniyi, “Interaction,” 60; Ferchiou, “Possession Cults,” 213; Williams, “Bwaya,” 122–25; Giles, “Spirits,” 61–62, 71; Nicolini, “Notes,” 121; Butler, “Materialization”; Accoroni, “Healing Practices,” 7–11.

[5516]. On failure to engage local traditions of power leading to syncretism, see Ranger, “Dilemma,” 364–65; cf. discussion in Hiebert, “Excluded Middle,” 39.

[5517]. Later, cf., e.g., Aug. Tract. Jn. 6.17.2 (complaining about some Christians’ secret use of astrology).

[5518]. See Fitzmyer, Acts, 651 (though he concludes that “confession” refers to confession of sins); Conzelmann, Acts, 164; Sim, “Relevance Theoretic Approach,” 28.

[5519]. By itself also not technical, as it appears nineteen times in Luke-Acts, and only here in a magical context. But the noun appears only twice in Luke-Acts, and only here in immediate proximity to the verb.

[5520]. Significant only because of its proximity, since Luke’s other seventeen uses of the verb are nonmagical (none appears in Luke’s other accounts of magicians) and the magical use is clear here only because it is specified (cf. Gal 5:21).

[5521]. See the evidence in Egyptian magic in Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 233. Magic must be kept secret (PGM 1.192–94; also Klauck, Context, 230, citing PGM 130–31; 141; Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 64, citing PGM 1.130–32; cf. Reitzenstein, Religions, 33, on magicians’ trade secrets); cf. the need for privacy in Ovid Metam. 7.255–56; Apul. Apol. 53; perhaps even a superstition regarding medicines in Pliny E. N.H. 28.5.28 (if this is the meaning). It was dangerous for one who saw a goddess drinking blood to ever divulge this (PGM 4.2474–90). In Jewish tradition, some demons (probably modeled after Prometheus) divulged some heavenly secrets for magic (1 En. 9:6–7; 64:2; 65:6).

[5522]. Bruce, Commentary, 391; idem, History, 328 (including n. 39); Schnabel, Acts, 799. Cf. references to the rejection of fetishes in Keener, Miracles, 846n407, 847, 848n419, 850n433, 851n438, 851n443 (appendix B).

[5523]. Luke himself uses the term elsewhere only in Luke 10:21 (for praise) and 22:6; he uses the cognate ὁμολογέω for openly affirming allegiance to Christ (12:8; Q material as in Matt 10:32), as in Pauline (Rom 10:9–10; 1 Tim 6:12; cf. Acts 24:14) and Johannine literature (1 John 2:23; 4:2–3, 15; 2 John 7; Rev 3:5). Ἀναγγέλλω is a fairly common term that nowhere else in the NT bears a specialized magical sense (fourteen times, five times in John; five times in Acts, including here). See comment on Acts 7:60. Against a magical reading of the vocabulary here, see more emphatically Shauf, Theology, 227–28.

[5524]. Conzelmann, Acts, 164 (citing Did. 4.14; less pertinently, 2 Clem. 8.3; Barn. 19.12); Dunn, Acts, 260. In many parts of the world, Christians still employ this text as a model for renouncing occult connections (e.g., Bottari, Free, 66–70, esp. 67). Johnson, “Authority,” 102–6, reports that in Brazil, those leaving occult groups for Pentecostalism must renounce their former ties; usually they are thought to be delivered from demonic ties immediately, but sometimes the demon must be expelled; it cannot, however, possess Christians.

[5525]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 2, p. 38.16 (ὁμολογεῖν).

[5526]. See especially Keener, Acts, 2:1460–61.

[5527]. Garrett, Demise, 96, argues that the book burners have become converts, since the section is framed with the church’s growth. Shauf, Theology, 229–30, is correct to observe that the magic practitioners of 19:19 constitute only part of the group confessing in 19:18. Nevertheless, they appear significant, as the only ones specified.

[5528]. Witherington, Acts, 582. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 107, suggests that some of these wealthy members may have begun as Paul’s customers if he worked with expensive fabrics (Acts 18:3; 20:34).

[5529]. Certainly, it was more difficult for the illiterate to practice magic (Lucian Lucius 11).

[5530]. The price may suggest the number of people who burned the books and the sacrifice this required of them (since they did not try to resell them), rather than the wealth of the owners. Practitioners of magic would spare no expense to obtain it, since magic itself was thought to yield wealth (or other benefits).

[5531]. E.g., McCown, “Ephesia Grammata”; Filson, “Ephesus,” 78; Bruce, Documents, 89; Conzelmann, Acts, 164; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 180; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 149; Barrett, Acts, 913; more generally for mysterious speech, Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 19:19, forthcoming (courtesy of Witherington). Scholars find the expression in Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.15; 5.8; Plut. Table 7.5, Mor. 706DE (Bruce, Apostle, 291, also suggests Athen. Deipn. 12.548c; Fitzmyer, Acts, 651, adds Menander frg. 371).

[5532]. Filson, “Ephesus,” 78; Bruce, Commentary, 392; idem, Apostle, 291.

[5533]. Arnold, Power, 15–16; Trebilco, “Asia,” 314; Graf, “Ephesia Grammata”; cf. Cadbury, Acts in History, 28. The words were ἀσκιον, κατασκιον, λιξ, τετραξ, δαμναμενευς, and τα αἰσια or αἰσιον (Fitzmyer, Acts, 651; Graf, “Ephesia Grammata”).

[5534]. Aune, “Amulets,” 113. For amulets to protect against magic, see, e.g., Grattius Cyneg. 404–7.

[5535]. Aune, “Amulets,” 114; cf. Klauck, Context, 230; a different approach in Frenschkowski, “Zauberworte.” Pliny E. N.H. 28.4.20 complains about the gibberish.

[5536]. Graf, “Ephesia Grammata.”

[5537]. Arnold, Power, 15.

[5538]. Graf, “Ephesia Grammata” (citing Pausanias ap. Eustath. Commentary on Odyssey 19.247); cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 157. Some question the sufficiency of the evidence linking the texts with Ephesus (Mussies, “Artemis,” 95, suggesting a different derivation for the expression, and noting that iconography does not support the inference of Pausanias the lexicographer in the second century C.E.). Most of these texts were probably produced in Egypt, but most scholars still think that the verbal link with Ephesus was significant (Klauck, Magic, 101).

[5539]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 314.

[5540]. Harder, “Defixio,” 175–76. Defixiones appear as early as the sixth century B.C.E. but are more complex by the empire (ibid., 176). Archaeologists have also found “dolls that could be pierced with nails for purposes of cursing or revenge” (Klauck, Context, 226).

[5541]. Translation, van der Horst, OTP 2:579; Greek text, Diehl and Young, 107.

[5542]. With, e.g., Deissmann, Light, 254; Bruce, Commentary, 391; Johnson, Acts, 341; Barrett, Acts, 913. Fitzmyer, Acts, 651, cites PGM 3.424; 13.739.

[5543]. The text is in Deissmann, Light, 259–60; I have cited only a sample of it.

[5544]. For some other examples of magical texts, see conveniently Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 331–32 (including the drowning of a cat to invoke spirits in PGM 3.1–164). Magic was in widespread use for curses against one’s rivals in sport, romance, law, and business (Winter, Left Corinth, 165; many traditional cultures in Africa also associate witchcraft with jealousy). To obtain a sense of the fears often involved: in traditional Yoruba culture today, charms are a common form of defensive magic to repel witchcraft attacks (Fape, Powers, 96–101, 111–12).

[5545]. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 254–56.

[5546]. Arnold, “Magical Papyri,” 667–68, cites a text from the late fourth century B.C.E. (mislabeled C.E. in the collection, PGM 40), others from the first century B.C.E. (PGM 20; 117; 122) and first century C.E. (PGM 16; 111), as well as 1,500 lead curse tablets, some from as early as the fifth century B.C.E. Aramaic ostraca and other sources would increase the count. Egyptian amulets sought to ward off disease demons and other dangers even before the Hellenistic period (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 275).

[5547]. See, e.g., Guthrie, Orpheus, 39; cf. Diod. Sic. 1.44.4 (cited by Fitzmyer, Acts, 651). Luke and most other NT writers may prefer βίβλος (cf. Acts 1:20; 7:42; Luke 3:4; 20:42) for a sacred text to βιβλίον (cf. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 243; though cf. Luke 4:17, 20). Yemenite Jews in modern Israel have used “sacred books (Sipre hefetz)” in exorcisms (Hes, “Role,” 375).

[5548]. See Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 505. Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 330, cite Plut. Alex. 2.7–8, but this seems to refer more to the Mysteries than to magic.

[5549]. Commentators most often cite Livy 39.16; Suet. Aug. 31.1–3; Lucian Alex. 47 (burning Epicurus’s works); Diog. Laert. 9.52 (Bruce, Acts¹, 360; Trebilco, “Asia,” 315; Witherington, Acts, 582); probably most English language commentators derive these sources from Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 243, though Lake and Cadbury note that Wettstein cited additional sources.

[5550]. Whereas Jacob merely buried the idols in Gen 35:4, the idols are burned, crushed, and only then buried in Jub. 31:2. For the view that Israelites sometimes first smashed and then buried idols during the settlement in Canaan, see Albright, Yahweh, 194–95; cf. Bright, History, 127 (for the rareness of male idols in Israelite sites, see Wright, Archaeology, 118; idem, “Temple,” 179n7). Cf. the analogy with mandatory herem in Park, Herem, 129.

[5551]. The deep likewise would swallow the idolatrous stones (L.A.B. 26:4). Later rabbis allowed books of the minim (possibly Christian Scriptures; see Schiffman, Jew, 62–64; Moore, “Canon,” 101, 112–13; cf. Urbach, “Self-Isolation,” 2:290–91; but cf. b. Ḥag. 15b; Sanh. 90b; perhaps 4 Ezra 14:45–47) to burn (t. Šabb. 13:5; cf. Herford, Christianity, 155–57), and eventually even urged the burning of law scrolls written by minim (perhaps expected to falsify them; b. Giṭ. 45b; cf. Herford, Christianity, 157–60).

[5552]. Trans. Winterbottom in LCL, 2:357. The decree came from the senate (Sen. E. Controv. 10.pref. 8) and led to his suicide (10.pref. 7); Seneca opines that it was good that such a penalty had not yet existed in the days of great writers such as Cicero (10.pref. 6–7).

[5553]. For lengthy discussions of ancient examples of book burning, Talbert, Acts, 169, and Pervo, Acts, 480, cite Pease, “Book Burning”; Forbes, “Books.” Apart from human intention, books and even libraries were extremely vulnerable to fire (see, e.g., the report in Galen Grief 4–5, 7, 12b–18, 29–30).

[5554]. Val. Max. 1.1.ext. 7 (via Nepotianus; he says Pythagoras but means Protagoras, as in Diog. Laert. 9.52).

[5555]. Tac. Ann. 4.35 (noting that copies survived and later became popular).

[5556]. Tac. Ann. 14.50 (noting that his books became most popular when banned, and forgotten once legal).

[5557]. Livy 40.29.11–14; Val. Max. 1.1.12.

[5558]. For Catullus’s other complaints about books of inferior poetry, see Carm.14 (or a book containing a speech, 44.10–21).

[5559]. Cook, Interpretation, 125 (Porphyry’s anti-Christian works, 448 and 536). In recent mass-conversion accounts (undoubtedly influenced by Acts), magic books were burned (Pothen, “Missions,” 189).

[5560]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 315; cf. also Klauck, Magic, 101–2.

[5561]. Claudius burned records against people (Dio Cass. 60.4.5).

[5562]. Hannibal in Sil. It. 6.716.

[5563]. Clodius, against Cicero (Plut. Cic. 33.1).

[5564]. E.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 179 (whose estimate is by now outdated by inflation, in any case). Luke’s estimate may be general, since ancient estimates of figures were not always accurate (see, e.g., Scheidel, “Finances”), but here Luke specifies that the number was counted, which would be plausible in such a setting. Ehling, “Anmerkungen,” suggests that the coins were really bronze asses that Luke has reported as silver to exaggerate the response, but this is speculative, since we cannot know the number of books burned or to whom the books had belonged.

[5565]. Haenchen, Acts, 567; cf. Schnabel, Acts, 799 (a year’s wage for 137 workers). The coins were not precisely a day’s wage, but the comparison communicates accurately enough to provide the general sense.

[5566]. Cf. Perkin, “Money,” 406; White, “Finances,” 232; Betlyon, “Coinage.” Yet if Frier, “Annuities,” is correct, the average per capita income in the early empire was about 380 sesterces, which translates (cf. Perkin, “Money,” 407) into about a quarter denarius per day. The value of a denarius shifted over time because of inflation.

[5567]. If the Ephesian “coppersmith” in 2 Tim 4:14 represents reliable tradition, one might even suspect Luke of emphasizing silver here to underline the literary connection in this passage; but see comment on Acts 19:25. More likely, Luke uses here his general designation for money (Luke 19:15, 23; Acts 7:16), though elsewhere he sometimes employs a more specific name for a coin (Luke 15:8; 21:2).

[5568]. Presumably, this refers to the Book of Life; see 1 En. 108:3; Jub. 30:21–23; 36:10; 4Q504 1–2 VI, 13–14; Phil 4:3; Rev 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27; probably Dan 12:1; 1 En. 104:1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:3; perhaps Exod 32:32–33; Ps 69:28.

[5569]. For the word or the people “growing,” see specifically Acts 6:7; 7:17; 12:24; this is Luke’s only use of ἰσχύω in a summary statement, though he employs the verb often (fourteen times). That signs reports draw increasingly large crowds fits modern observations (see, e.g., Lindsay, Lake, 26, 29; comment on Acts 5:14–15; 9:35, 42).

[5570]. For the supreme God as “almighty,” in addition to the OT (more than one hundred times in the LXX) and other early Jewish sources (e.g., Wis 7:25; 2 Macc 6:26; 3 Macc 5:7; Let. Aris. 185; Sib. Or. 1.66; 3 Bar. 1:3; Test. Ab. 8:3; 15:12 A; b. Šabb. 88b; Yebam. 105b; Yoma 12a; cf. the charm in Goodenough, Symbols, 2:179), see Greek sources, e.g., Aeschylus Suppl. 816; Seven 255; and, more commonly, Roman sources, e.g., Val. Flacc. 3.249; Virg. Aen. 1.60; 3.251; 4.25, 206, 220; 6.592; 7.141, 770; 8.398; 9.625; 10.100, 668; 12.178, 791; Georg. 2.325; Ovid Metam. 1.154; 2.304, 401, 505; 3.336; 9.271; 14.816; Statius Theb. 3.471; Sil. It. 3.163; 7.372; 11.122; 17.385; PGM 48.6; in Ephesus, see I. Eph. 1262. The concept appears, however, independently in some unrelated societies (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 40–41).

[5571]. Cf. Gen 25:24; Num 6:13; 1 Chr 17:11; Sib. Or. 3.645; 2 Bar. 30:1; 4 Ezra 4:36; 14:45; Test. Jud. 9:2.

[5572]. Cf. also (regarding speech) the phrasing in Gen 18:33; Exod 34:33; Deut 32:45; Jer 26:8; 43:1; 1 Macc 2:23; 3:23; Jdt 5:22; Jub. 32:20; 50:13; 2 Bar. 55:1; 4 Ezra 7:1; As. Mos. 12:1; Ahiq. 3.1.

[5573]. We may be fairly certain that Paul’s ministry in Ephesus elicited considerable criticism; it is possible that Luke’s audience may have known of this (cf. Acts 24:5; 2 Tim 1:15). Even today some authors suppose Paul’s work in Ephesus a failure (e.g., Günther, “Gescheiterte Mission”), though I believe this runs against the grain of our extant first-century testimony (see comment on Acts 19:10, 17).

[5574]. E.g., Bruce, Acts¹, 361; Arrington, Acts, 200 (noting “supernatural guidance” throughout the mission); Kee, Every Nation, 233; Dunn, Acts, 262. The verb ἔθετο occurs with the Spirit again in Acts 20:28, though apparently in an unrelated sense (as also in Isa 63:11 LXX).

[5575]. So usually in Luke-Acts (in Acts, see 1:16, 21; 3:21; 4:12; 5:29; 9:6, 16; 14:22; 16:30; 17:3; 20:35; 23:11; 27:24, 26; cf. wrong views of divine necessity in 15:5; 26:9; though, for exceptions, see 19:36; 24:19; 25:10, 24; 27:21). See esp. Tannehill, Acts, 239; Burfeind, “Muss nach Rom”; less firmly, Mittelstadt, Spirit, 122–23. Δεῖ functions in Acts as a rhetorical authenticating device (Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 185–212), particularly where the narrative could risk straining credibility (97). On δεῖ for divine necessity in Johannine literature, see Keener, John, 590.

[5576]. His movements may suggest an interest in Rome already (see comment on Acts 17:1), but Luke makes this goal, and the Spirit’s affirmation that Paul should pursue it, clear only here.

[5577]. See Luke 2:27; 4:1, 14; Acts 2:4; 5:9; 6:3, 10; 8:18, 29; 10:19; 11:12, 28; 21:4. An exception for a demonic spirit (Acts 16:18) is clear from the context, and a human spirit is always clearly identified in its very rare uses (Luke 1:47; 23:46; Acts 7:59; 17:16).

[5578]. On a smaller scale, cf. Acts 16:9–10 with 16:22–24; 17:5–8, 13. In predicting his passion, Jesus also invites his disciples to share it (Luke 9:22–26).

[5579]. Widely noted, e.g., Johnson, Acts, 357; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 536; Witherington, Acts, 589; Puig i Tàrrech, “Voyages à Jérusalem.” For suggested parallels between the journeys following these statements, see, e.g., Moda, “Paolo prigioniero.” On proposed backgrounds for Jesus’s “setting his face” in Luke 9:51, see, e.g., Leaney, Luke, 172 (plausibly citing the LXX expression); more narrowly, Tiede, Prophecy, 61, compares Isa 50:7 (cf. Feuillet, “Deux references,” finding other features of the text in Isa 53:8); Evans, “Face,” compares not only OT prophecy but Ugaritic parallels. See 2 Kgs 12:17; especially prophetic usage in LXX Jer 21:10; Ezek 6:2; 13:17; 14:8; 15:7; 20:46; 21:2; 25:2; 28:21; 29:2; 38:2; Amos 9:4.

[5580]. The trial’s outcome may be less fatal in the short run than most scholars think, but most of Luke’s audience is probably aware that Paul was eventually martyred. Coupled with the parallel with the Gospel’s passion narrative, this apparent destiny builds suspense, which is surprisingly alleviated by Luke’s “happy ending” (perhaps leaving his work more marketable but fitting the comic upturn that the resurrection provides the Gospel narratives).

[5581]. Luke’s omissions of Titus and the collection are major differences that must reflect Luke’s concerns, even if we cannot satisfactorily explain them. Perhaps the most difficult question is when Paul’s second visit to the Corinthians occurred (2 Cor 13:2; cf. 2:1); the reference to that visit should not be simply dismissed as figurative usage for Paul’s surrogates visiting them. Did it occur before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, early in Paul’s two-year stay in Ephesus and too brief to warrant Luke’s mention? (Or, less likely, after an interval away from Corinth during his eighteen months there?) If we place it after 1 Cor 16:3–8, Luke may have collapsed the two visits together, which is entirely possible (see Hemer, Acts in History, 188) but is not the simplest solution.

[5582]. See Riesner, Early Period, 233, here adapted and expanded; Witherington, Acts, 447–49; cf. also Dunn, Acts, 262; more briefly Hemer, Acts in History, 187; Fitzmyer, Acts, 652.

[5583]. Additional helpers (Acts 13:5; 16:10) did not always count in the number. This might partly reflect Luke’s conforming the accounts to the mission in the Gospel (cf. two partners in 2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1)—even Luke increases the number when necessary (cf. Acts 20:4; 21:29), though he mentions “Timothy” alongside Silas (17:14–15; 18:5) especially when Paul has left, perhaps lest Silas be viewed as alone.

[5584]. If we take αὐτῷ instead as “with him,” this would be ministry of the word, but this does not fit Luke’s normal usage.

[5585]. On the collection, see comment on Acts 20:1–4 and esp. 24:17.

[5586]. Paul wanted Apollos to come as well, but he preferred not to do so (1 Cor 16:12). Paul later plans to send Timothy to Philippi, but probably during his imprisonment in Rome (Phil 2:19). For the connection between 1 Cor 4:17 and 16:10, see comment in the table on p. 2948 and on Acts 20:1–5. Cf. also Witherington, Acts, 589; Hanson, Acts, 195; but Luke’s visit of Timothy may refer to a second one (Hemer, Acts in History, 188). On the collection, see comment on Acts 24:17.

[5587]. Hanson, Acts, 195; Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 38 (from Witherington); Theissen, Setting, 76; Brookins, “Name,” 515. A different inscription may involve a second-century Erastus, which would not be relevant (Clarke, “Erastus Inscription”).

[5588]. Household managers were often servants or freedmen (1 Cor 4:1–2; Luke 12:42; Lucian Affairs 10; Char. Chaer. 3.7.1; cf. Treggiari, “Jobs in Household,” 49; Stambaugh, City, 149; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 66), though not always (e.g., Luke 16:1–3, since he can be fired; see Bailey, Poet, 92).

[5589]. Cadbury, “Erastus”; Hemer, Acts in History, 235n40; Friesen, “Wrong Erastus,” 236–49; cf. Meggitt, “Status of Erastus.” A second Erastus who is attested in Corinth seems much later (Winter, Welfare, 192).

[5590]. See further Winter, Welfare, 180–81, 191; Yamauchi, Stones, 116, 118; Koester, “Silence,” 339–40; further sources regarding this view (and its detractors) at Acts 18:8.

[5591]. Winter, Welfare, 185–87. He might be manager of the Isthmian Games in this case, but the Roman audience would simply take it as Corinth’s leading administrator (190–91).

[5592]. Ibid., 180, 191–92; cf. now Brookins, “Name,” 510–13.

[5593]. Winter, Welfare, 192–95. Christian conversion might have motivated benefaction, though one who followed the ideals of Paul or Luke would have provided it more readily for the church than for the city. It should be noted, however, that the Alexandrian official Tiberius Alexander was in fact apostate (Jos. Ant. 20.100), despite his continued respect for Jewish practice (War 2.220).

[5594]. Winter, Welfare, 182–83. Erastus’s promise was, apparently, the paving of a street (184).

[5595]. Ibid., 181–82. Many freedpersons settled Corinth (Grant, Paul, 19); but cf. Brookins, “Name,” 513–14.

[5596]. E.g., McRay, Archaeology, 332; most conclusively, Brookins, “Name,” 511–13.

[5597]. E.g., Witherington, Acts, 589–90; see esp. Meggitt, “Status of Erastus,” citing CIL 3.2840, 9052; 4.179, 4614, 4641, 5820; 5.6821, 7232; 6.695, 1300, 1914, 1934, 5232, 5858, 7513, 8518, 8875, 9759, 9865, 9915; SEG 11.622, 994; CIG 1241, 1249, 6378; IG 2².1945, 1968, 1973, 1985, 1990, 2030, 2059; and many other references, nearly eighty in all. “Common” is, of course, a relative term.

[5598]. So Hemer, Acts in History, 235; Dunn, Acts, 262; idem, Romans, 911; Le Cornu, Acts, 1070.

[5599]. Malherbe, “Life,” 12, notes that city treasurers were often slaves or freedpersons (though he cites in support Rom 16:23); Meeks, Urban Christians, 58, notes that they were sometimes public slaves. For high-status slaves of the state, cf. Barrow, Slavery, 131; Jones, Empire, 243. Goodrich, “Quaestor,” 93–95; idem, “Responding,” 588–92, acknowledges esp. S. Friesen’s evidence for public slaves filling civic manager positions, but offers evidence for many free persons of status filling the positions as well (CIG 2811; SEG 26.1044; TAM 5.743; IAphrodMcCabe 275; ISmyrna 24.761, 771, 772; IStratonikeia 22.1).

[5600]. Winter, Welfare, 196, argues that Erastus was not a slave and hence was free to travel. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 160, believe that he was an aristocrat.

↑ Back to top