[5607] . See Carter, Empire , 76.

[5607] . See Carter, Empire , 76.

[5601]. This would be the case especially if he was an aedile at this time (Witherington, Acts, 589–90, who also argues that Erastus was a common name), but the office was only for a year (Winter, Welfare, 184). During his term, he would decide monetary cases involving the city and was in charge of keeping up the agoras, streets, and city-owned buildings (184).

[5602]. For questions, see also Friesen, “Economics,” 41n41, citing idem, “Wrong Erastus.” If a Christian, Paul’s Erastus may have also been one of the problematic high-status members of the church presupposed in many current reconstructions of the background of 1 Corinthians.

[5603]. See Winter, Welfare, 182. The first two names of Erastus are missing in the extant part of the inscription, but there is space for them (Jewett, Romans, 982).

[5604]. If 2 Timothy depends on Acts, it is difficult to understand why it makes no attempt to harmonize the travel plans. They can be harmonized, but only by supposing (plausibly) that Paul revisited churches and planted others between two Roman detentions, not by virtue of any attempt to harmonize in 2 Timothy itself.

[5605]. Since Trophimus was from Ephesus according to Luke (Acts 20:4; 21:29) and remained near there in Miletus in 2 Tim 4:20, it is possible to surmise that Erastus also settled near his home. But the argument is, at best, a supporting one, since the mention of Erastus and Trophimus together does not demand parallels in all particulars. Some also suggest a possible connection between 2 Tim 4 and Acts 19 because both note Timothy (Lee, “Erastus”). Second Timothy 4 is clear, however, only that Timothy knows Erastus (and others).

[5606]. Such a scenario is inherently plausible; much opposition to Judaism in Rome apparently stemmed precisely from Jewish success in attracting Roman converts (see Gager, Anti-Semitism).

[5607]. See Carter, Empire, 76.

[5608]. Stoops, “Riot,” 73.

[5609]. Ibid., 79. Stoops notes that “mob violence led to a confirmation of the rights of the victimized Jews” in Jos. Ant. 14.244–46; 16.58–60; 19.284; War 7.107–11.

[5610]. Stoops, “Riot,” 79.

[5611]. Ibid., 73, 81. See the section on apologetics in Keener, Acts, 1:441–58, esp. 450–53, 455–56; idem, “Apologetic.”

[5612]. Stoops, “Riot,” 80, noting that Greeks started violence in another case and hence Claudius confirmed Jewish rights (Jos. Ant. 19.284–85); cf. the governor of Syria in Ant. 19.311.

[5613]. See Hemer, Acts in History, 188; Fitzmyer, Acts, 655; esp. Trebilco, Ephesus, 157–69; pace Haenchen, Acts, 576–79.

[5614]. Luke is surely right on this point: given the context of Paul’s ministry approach (esp. 1 Cor 9:21; cf. Rom 2:22), it is quite unlikely that he would have deliberately started the riot.

[5615]. See Keener, “Apologetic.” By contrast, Selinger, “Demetriosunruhen,” thinks that Luke transforms a minor incident into a major riot.

[5616]. Cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 164 (citing Pauline evidence); Dunn, Acts, 263; Johnson, Acts, 351–52; on opposition being greater than depicted in Acts 19, see also Trebilco, Ephesus, 102. See comment on Acts 20:17; comments on Luke’s apologetic for Paul, with special respect to riots, in Keener, “Apologetic.”

[5617]. During the riot, Paul is simply “sipping sherry with the high priests of the imperial cult” (Pervo, Profit, 10; cf., much more restrained, Dunn, Acts, 263). Pervo complains that Luke plays down the significance of Paul’s conflict there by claiming that Paul was planning to leave anyway (Acts 19:21); this is partly true, but the epistolary Paul was planning to leave anyway (1 Cor 16:3–8).

[5618]. Luke’s apologetic purpose calls for positive precedents with Rome; he would not wish to lend the slightest credibility to the charge (reported in Acts 21:28; 24:5).

[5619]. Cf. similarly Hanson, Acts, 195. It was the character of his narrative, an action-packed account in a single volume, to focus on the outstanding events, such as the conflict (rather than merely hostilities leading up to it).

[5620]. Contrary to some other proposals, the likeliest source of affliction in 2 Cor 1:8 is “severe persecution” (Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 116–17; see also Theodoret Comm. 2 Cor. 291 [Bray, Corinthians, 197]).

[5621]. In view of usual historiographic approaches in antiquity, the local color, details of names such as “Demetrius,” etc., also suggest that Luke builds on substantial information beyond the bare minimum of information that I contend for here.

[5622]. Riesner, Early Period, 213; Witherington, Acts, 573–74.

[5623]. See Duncan, Ephesian Ministry; see now the careful study of Omerzu, “Spurensuche” (Pauline evidence in 295–314; hints in Acts 19 in 317–22). Duncan also attributes Paul’s “captivity epistles” to this period, which I think dubious (cf. Phil 1:13; 4:22, which I think better fit a Roman than Ephesian or Caesarean provenance; but for a contrary argument, see, e.g., Hyldahl, Chronologie, 18–51; followed by Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 312n2; against their Ephesian composition, see Gielen, “Gefangener”; for a Roman provenance as the majority view, see Still, “Macedonian Believers,” 38–39; cf., e.g., Nock, Paul, 221; Meeks, Urban Christians, 63; Dunn, Beginning, 1009–10). Imprisonments were often overnight or for short stays (Hemer, Acts in History, 272); whereas 1 Cor 16:8–9 suggests ministry as well as enemies, Phil 1:13–21 suggests a long-term captivity with potentially lethal consequences. Based on Phil 2:25–26, some (e.g., Dibelius, Paul, 81) think that Paul must have written from near Philippi, but in fact travelers moved between Rome and Philippi more frequently than between Philippi and Ephesus (cf. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 105). The Onesimus connection between Col 4:9 and Phlm 10 does lean toward an Asian detention (Watson, Gentiles, 141; cf. Koester, “Ephesos in Literature,” 122; Omerzu, “Spurensuche,” 306) but not, I think, enough to outweigh the other evidence.

[5624]. Arnold, “Ephesus,” 252, notes that the view is widely held today. Some doubt the possibility of the imprisonment on the basis of Paul’s high-status friends (Acts 19:31; Conti, “Paolo ad Efeso”), but it would be easier for them to intervene for his release than to prevent an unanticipated detention. Cf. also “the tradition of Paul’s imprisonment on the western end of the wall built by Croesus” and later Christians’ pilgrimages to that site (McDonald, “Ephesus,” 319–20).

[5625]. Some (e.g., Johnston, Ephesians, 2) think that the case against it is strong. As noted above, I do not think it the source of the captivity epistles. Many note the lack of evidence, sometimes in contrast to the clear evidence for the Roman imprisonment (e.g., Knox, Gentiles, 179; Dodd, New Testament Studies, 99; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 116–17; Smith, “Letters,” 308–12).

[5626]. Cf. Jos. Ant. 3.95–99, omitting the sin of the golden calf; Luke, writing only a single-volume monograph, has a much better excuse to omit material that does not further his point.

[5627]. See Hemer, Acts in History, 272. More likely, if Paul embarrassed his patrons (see Acts 19:31), they may have deemed it politically necessary for him to leave the city for the sake of their honor as well as for his safety; the less further said, the better.

[5628]. With Riesner, Early Period, 214.

[5629]. Which Luke would not be inclined to emphasize, since he would not approve of it (Acts 24:26); but apparently, he does not believe that Paul would have allowed this either (24:26). Bribes were politically feasible in this period (Riesner, Early Period, 216, who even thinks a bribe could have been paid by the church).

[5630]. Riesner, Early Period, 217. Cf. comment on Acts 19:38.

[5631]. See, e.g., Selinger, “Demetriosunruhen”; Sherwin-White, Society, 85ff.; Trebilco, Ephesus, 104–7 (citing esp. Oster, “Commentary”; idem, “Artemis as Opponent,” 24–44; idem, “Ephesus as Center”); cf. also Weiss, “Aufruhr” (citing a particular case). Ephesian elements are so compelling that Koester thinks that Acts’ author wrote from Ephesus (“Ephesos in Literature,” xviii; given the greater focus on historical details for a single incident in Acts 16, I think this less likely), though he has also argued that it reflects the author’s day better than Paul’s (Introduction, 2:114, based on Pliny Ep. 10.96; but in view of the scarcity of our evidence, we dare not assume that Christians’ negative economic impact on local idolatry occurred only in a single generation).

[5632]. Conzelmann, Acts, 164–65 (noting that Alexander remains unexplained in the narrative); Selinger, “Demetriosunruhen”; Lampe, “Acta 19.”

[5633]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 331; Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 155–56; see esp. Sokolowski, “Testimony on Cult.”

[5634]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 332.

[5635]. Ibid., 338. A later novel probably emulating social reality portrays Ephesians nearly stoning their governor over minor conditions (the temperature of the baths; Toner, Culture, 36, citing Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.16.4). Riots were, of course, not limited to Asia Minor; they seem to have been frequent in the empire (see discussion of the imperial ideology concerning them in Kelly, “Riot Control”).

[5636]. See esp. Baugh, “Phraseology and Reliability”; noted also in Trebilco, Ephesus, 105–6.

[5637]. Some scholars also find suggestions of reliability in Luke’s unusual plural ἀνθύπατοι (Acts 19:38), though it could be a generalizing plural.

[5638]. Calder et al., “Ephesus.”

[5639]. Millar, Empire and Neighbours, 199; quoted in Gill and Gempf, “Preface,” xiii. In the same passage, Millar compares an “inscription from Ephesus of a few years earlier.”

[5640]. See Stoops, “Riot,” 74–75, 81; fuller comment on Acts 19:33–34.

[5641]. See Brinks, “Artemis.”

[5642]. For the variety of cults in Ephesus, see Strelan, Artemis, 114–18 (including worship of Hestia, 115); also Oster, “Ephesus” (esp. sect. d.1.b, esp. on Hestia, Serapis, Zeus, and Cybele).

[5643]. See esp. Harland, “Honours”; Trebilco, Ephesus, 30–37; Strelan, Artemis, 98–105; cf. Filson, “Ephesus,” 77; Aune, Revelation, 154; Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, 193; for imagery from Trajan’s time (with application to Revelation), see Oster, “Emperor Veneration.” This cult was, however, most pronounced during Domitian’s reign (Friesen, “Ephesus”; Strelan, Artemis, 94–95; Kraybill, Cult and Commerce, 27–28). A later source claims that Ephesus was willing to overlook Domitian’s incestuous marriage (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.7; Domitian himself was aware of his misdeed, 8.5).

[5644]. These “made it the chief city in the province”; but Tiberius allowed his own temple in rival Smyrna (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 151).

[5645]. The later temple to Domitian was demolished after he died, but another was built for Hadrian a few decades later (see McDonald, “Ephesus,” 319). The Domitian temple (50 by 100 m.) lay on a large terrace at the upper end of Curetes Street (Yamauchi, Cities, 84–85). Domitian’s statue was four times human size (85).

[5646]. Aune, Revelation, 154.

[5647]. McRay, Archaeology, 256; the Augustus temple was 36 by 20 feet.

[5648]. Ramsay, Letters, 231; Yamauchi, Cities, 83.

[5649]. E.g., Tac. Ann. 4.55 (Romans noting that the city was virtually exclusively devoted to this deity). Apollo and Artemis were also popular elsewhere in Ionia, at oracular shrines at Clarus and Didyma (see comment on Acts 16:16); for the massive Artemis temple in Lydia’s Sardis, see, e.g., McRay, Archaeology, 264.

[5650]. See Oster, “Artemis as Opponent”; Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 85–98; Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 32–37; Trebilco, Ephesus, 27–30; Rives, Religion, 108–10 (illustrating with Acts 19 on 109–10).

[5651]. In various compounds, about one hundred such names are attested there so far (Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 142). Of course, Artemis-compounded names appear elsewhere as well (see, e.g., Titus 3:12), but not with the same frequency.

[5652]. Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 85.

[5653]. See Oster, “Ephesus as Center,” 1728 (quoted in Witherington, Acts, 593, which brought the source to my attention). On the strength of the cult in this period, see Strelan, Artemis, 37–40. For the cult’s history, see 44–46 (perhaps associated with Ephesus as early as the eleventh century B.C.E., p. 44).

[5654]. See evidence in Trebilco, “Asia,” 326–31.

[5655]. See Pearson, “Civic Cults.” On the rivalry of cities, see comment on Acts 21:39.

[5656]. Croesus reportedly dedicated the temple (Plut. Alex. 3; Taylor, “Artemis,” 252).

[5657]. McRay, “Archaeology,” 99.

[5658]. See, e.g., Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 34.

[5659]. See R. A. Kearsley in Llewelyn, Documents, 6:196–202, §29.

[5660]. Religious activity in the empire’s cities was usually public, with a maximum of participation (Trebilco, “Asia,” 320). See discussion of the Artemisium at Acts 19:24.

[5661]. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 155–56; Trebilco, “Asia,” 331; see esp. Sokolowski, “Testimony on Cult”; cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 655–56. Those executed included a priest, a craftsman, and a slave, among others. Also in an earlier period, the Ephesians quickly rose against her temple’s plunderers (Arrian Alex. 1.17.11).

[5662]. Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.531.

[5663]. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 66–70.

[5664]. Cf. again Oster, “Ephesus as Center,” 1728.

[5665]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 150, cite Strabo 14.1.22; Ach. Tat. 7.13–8.14.

[5666]. Witherington, Acts, 587; Arnold, “Acts,” 414. On her cosmic role, see also Oster, “Artemis as Opponent”; cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 150; Arnold, Power, 21; Trebilco, “Asia,” 317–18 (though contrast Strelan, Artemis, 157–58). On fate and astrology, see the excursus on ancient astrology at Acts 2:9–11 (Keener, Acts, 1:837–39).

[5667]. Keener, Acts, 1:837–39.

[5668]. Taylor, “Artemis,” 254.

[5669]. More commonly, the birth was on Delos, as in Apollod. Bib. 1.4.1; Lucian Dial. S.-G. 315–16, ¶2. Others doubted also the Delos tradition (Men. Rhet. 2.17, 439.8–12), some preferring Lycia in southern Asia Minor (439.13–16, following Homer).

[5670]. Strelan, Artemis, 73.

[5671]. Ibid., 74; for such treatment of other cult images, see, e.g., Egelhaaf-Gaiser, “Sites,” 210 (citing CIL 2.3386; 14.2215); outside Greco-Roman tradition, Murray, Splendor, 183–84; Gurney, Hittites, 149–50; Egyptian ritual in Rives, Religion, 69; on Greek processions, see Price, “Procession”; sources in Keener, John, 722n177.

[5672]. Strelan, Artemis, 74. For myths of the Ephesian Artemis, see 53–57.

[5673]. E.g., Taylor, “Artemis,” 253; Guthrie, Greeks and Gods, 100–101, 103–4; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 149 (citing Paus. 7.2.6–8 on the pre-Greek deity).

[5674]. Tarn, Civilisation, 140.

[5675]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 34.

[5676]. Taylor, “Artemis,” 253. Fertility rituals were common to numerous traditional Greek festivals (Mikalson, “Festivals”).

[5677]. For the mother goddess in Ephesus, see also I. Eph. 107, 108, 109. Note also Demeter (I. Eph. 1210) with Kore and Pluto (I. Eph. 1228). Ramsay particularly emphasized the mother goddess cult in Asia (Luke the Physician, 130–31, 178).

[5678]. On evidence for syncretism among goddesses, see esp. Reeder, “Mother of Gods”; also comment on Acts 8:10.

[5679]. See Dunand, Religion en Égypte, 60. Isis is assimilated to Artemis in Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.13–15. For a wide assortment of maternal goddess figures, cf., e.g., Bernabé Ubieta, “Esposas.” But such associations were not limited to mother goddesses; Nike is associated with Artemis in I. Eph. 504 and probably 505. Some scholars also argue that many of the various mother goddesses, from Celtic to Indian regions, may have arisen independently (Borgeaud, “Mother Goddesses,” 237–38), presumably because of common human experience.

[5680]. The “detailed representations” date from 200 C.E. or later and may include accretions (Godwin, Mystery Religions, 158); but borrowings from Anatolian sources are probably early. Many images have been recovered, as far away as Palestine, and portrayals of the statue also appear on coins (cf. Trell, “Architecture on Coins,” 9, cited in Yamauchi, Cities, 106); for a Seleucid Ephesian statue with these appendages, see, e.g., in Cornfeld, Josephus, 17. For various views, see Yamauchi, Cities, 106–7.

[5681]. E.g., Sobol, Amazons, 110–11. Even breasts need not signify fertility if they represented Amazons’ offerings of their right breasts, but the myths connected this procedure with their infancy (Strabo 11.5.1).

[5682]. Heyob, Isis, 75 (citing Macrob. Sat. 1.20.18).

[5683]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 319; Grant, Gods, 28 (citing Min. Fel. Oct. 22.5; Jer. Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians prol. [PG 26:270BC]; Fleischer, Artemis von Ephesos, 74–88, who finds no explanation compelling).

[5684]. Mussies, “Artemis,” 94.

[5685]. See esp. thoroughly Fleischer, Artemis von Ephesos.

[5686]. Gill, “Religion,” 88 (citing Ramsay, “Sketches,” plate iii).

[5687]. Gill, “Religion,” 88 (citing Vermaseren, Corpus). (Strelan, Artemis, 89, critiques another writer’s bull testicle interpretation as based on the explicit but polemical criticism of Artemis’s temple in Passion of St. Symphorianus from ca. 180 C.E. France.) Such imagery had different uses elsewhere; cf. the tradition that a conqueror inscribed male genitals for brave races and female for dishonorable ones (Manetho Aeg. frg. 35.3); in Test. Sol. 9:4, 6, the headless demon Murder sees through its breasts and attaches to itself the heads of its victims.

[5688]. Mussies, “Artemis,” 94.

[5689]. Ramsay, cited by Strelan, Artemis, 92, who finds the bee interpretation more plausible than the breasts or testicles interpretation. Ephesus’s coins contained bee images from at least the seventh century B.C.E., and Artemis’s priestesses were from an early period called bees (Mussies, “Artemis,” 95).

[5690]. Wotschitzky, “Ephesus,” 209. Egyptians, Mesopotamians, and Syrians used these eggs to depict “the generation and endurance of life”; their fragility and rareness made them expensive “luxury items” (Briese, “Ostrich Eggs,” 290). Carthaginians employed them in graves through the second century B.C.E. and exported them to the western Mediterranean (ibid., 290–91). An association even with pre-Roman Ephesus, however, seems less strongly established.

[5691]. For fruits, see Grant, Gods, 28. Could they represent a grape cluster? (For the importance of viticulture in the vicinity, see, e.g., Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 41.)

[5692]. Arnold, Power, 25 (after noting various theories); cf. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 205–6 (also after noting various theories).

[5693]. Some have argued that the appendages are astronomical bodies, emphasizing Artemis’s rule over fate (e.g., Heinzel, “Kult der Artemis”; Oster, “Artemis as Opponent”). Others have noted pierced amber teardrop beads that may have once adorned the early statue (Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 150); this might be used to suggest that the bulbous appendages represent simply an extravagant necklace.

[5694]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 319–20; pace the connection with sacred prostitution in the sources cited in Arnold, Power, 183nn129–30 (to p. 27).

[5695]. Lanci, “Stones,” 206–10, notes the debate about their existence in the ancient Near East (though perhaps questioning too much [212–14] textual evidence, including Athen. Deipn. 13.573; Strabo 8.6.20–21; esp. Hdt. 1.199). Certainly many types of cult prostitution are questioned; see, e.g., Bird, “End,” 75–77, as cited in Monson, “Kings,” 105n273.

[5696]. Most scholars have argued for fertility associations with much of ancient religion (“The Telepinus Myth” [ANET 126–28]; “Poems about Baal and Anath” [ANET 129–42]; Bright, History, 118–19; Dunand, Religion en Égypte, 77–78, 91–92; Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 37–46; Gasparro, Soteriology, 29, 43–49; cf., in old Greek, as opposed to Roman, Corinth, Merker, Sanctuary, 311); it is difficult to suppose that ancient farmers did not at least seek the blessings of agricultural deities (e.g., Epict. Diatr. 3.21.12)! Supposed features such as the “sacred marriage,” however, are highly questionable (see Graf, “Hieros Gamos: Term”; Renger, “Hieros Gamos”; Graf, “Hieros Gamos: Greece”).

[5697]. Strelan, Artemis, 91 (agreeing with Oster, “Ephesus,” 548).

[5698]. Her festival was associated with young men and women finding spouses (at least in Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.2; on annual dances to Artemis, cf. also Callim. Hymns 3 [to Artemis], line 266), but this is not the only festival with such a distinction (Lam. Rab. proem 33; cf. Judg 21:19–21).

[5699]. Sourvinou-Inwood, “Artemis,” 184 (citing Bammer, Heiligtum).

[5700]. Though understandably common; cf., e.g., Caird, Revelation, 29; Kroeger, “Classicist’s View,” 228. Even the mother goddess cult of central Anatolia was hellenized, although retaining the mother’s centrality (Roller, “Great Mother”).

[5701]. Strelan, Artemis, 90–91.

[5702]. Haenchen, Acts, 575 (depending on Taylor, “Artemis,” 252); cf. Caird, Revelation, 29. For Diana as goddess of the hunt, see, e.g., Pliny Ep. 1.6.3.

[5703]. Filson, “Ephesus,” 75.

[5704]. Bruce, History, 328–29 (like Filson, emphasizing the many breasts). See also Murray, Stages, 80; the first-century B.C.E. setting in Tarn, Civilisation, 173.

[5705]. LiDonnici, “Artemis and Worship.” Although a fertile, welcoming mother goddess (with or without erotic connotations) seems not to comport well with a somewhat misandrous virgin huntress, we should remember that syncretism did not value consistency (see, e.g., Orphic Hymns and PGM, passim). The suggested Lukan contrast (Grassi, “Matrix”) of Artemis as mother with Jesus’s mother, Mary, fails on both historical (regarding Artemis) and literary (Luke does not identify Artemis as “mother,” nor Mary as “from heaven,” etc.) grounds.

[5706]. See Wolf, “Virgin of Guadalupe”; accessibly, see in Lessa and Vogt, Reader, 114; cf. Irvin and Sunquist, History, 32. For connections between Asia’s mother goddess and the earliest attested veneration of Mary there, see Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 131. At Ugarit, see Kaiser, “Pantheon,” 154 (although Anat’s “virgin” title there is, in fact, contradicted by her activity in myth as well as function).

[5707]. Despite syncretism, Artemis and Cybele could be portrayed as distinct; cf., e.g., in Sardis, Hanfmann, and Waldbaum, “Kybele and Artemis”; Yamauchi, Cities, 68–69.

[5708]. Strelan, Artemis, 45 (emphasizing that her festival is on the Greek Artemis’s birthday).

[5709]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 320; Strelan, Artemis, 45. For the Hellenistic or classical image of Artemis the huntress in addition to the apparent fertility associations, see Aurenhammer, “Sculptures,” 254–55.

[5710]. Strelan, Artemis, 48–49. She is a virgin (Mart. Epig. 10.92.8) comparable to Minerva (Athena; 9.23.1).

[5711]. Strelan, Artemis, 72 (citing Aristoph. Clouds 598–601; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.5.1).

[5712]. Strelan, Artemis, 72 (citing Ach. Tat. 7.13.3; Artem. Oneir. 4.4). A prostitute dreaming that she entered the temple was freed and left that profession (Artem. Oneir. 4.4); a married woman dreamed that she entered, and hence died (the penalty for married women entering; 2.12) (73).

[5713]. Already about 125 B.C.E. Antipater of Sidon portrayed Ephesian Artemis as a virgin (Mussies, “Artemis,” 94). The protection of virgins fits earlier Greek tradition about Artemis: the Danaids entreated Artemis to prevent them from being forced to marry (Aeschylus Suppl. 1030–32), but Fate could not be thwarted (Suppl. 1048–51).

[5714]. Libanius Or. 5 (summarized in Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 150); some of the imagery (especially hunting and capturing men) recalls the Amazons.

[5715]. E.g., Pindar Pyth. 2.9; 9.6 (παρθένος; also a huntress); Callim. Hymns 3 (to Artemis), lines 4–6; cf. “chaste” (ἁγνή) in Hom. Od. 20.71. For Artemis in Greek religion, see Burkert, Religion, 149–52; Guthrie, Greeks and Gods, 99–106.

[5716]. See, e.g., Apoll. K. Tyre 48, from late antiquity; at a different Artemis temple, cf. Sen. E. Suas. 3.2; cf. Barthell, Gods, 27; cf. also chastity (i.e., no immoral sex) for Isis’s worshipers, Apul. Metam. 11.19. Against proposals of cult prostitution in Ephesus, see Baugh, “Cult Prostitution” (also doubting it in Corinth). Although some priestesses (and priests) served purely honorary roles, R. A. Kearsley, in Llewelyn, Documents, 6:26, §1, shows that some were more active. On the spiritual value that some attached to virginity, see comment on Acts 21:9.

[5717]. Sen. E. Suas. 3.2.

[5718]. Still, see also Pliny E. N.H. 16.79.213–15 in the first century C.E. Inscriptions show married priestesses (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 36), which better suits the high status associated with the position. LiDonnici, “Megabyzos Priesthood,” argues that the eunuch priesthood existed only briefly in the late classical period; noting the limitation of sexual abstention to one year in Paus. 8.1.3, Mussies, “Artemis,” 95, suggests that Hadrian’s anticastration decree (Dig. 48.8.4.2) initiated the change. Callim. Hymns 3 (to Artemis), lines 4–6, shows the ideal of virginity for Artemis’s followers. Kearsley, “Neokoros,” 206, shows that this requirement cannot have applied to priests in the imperial cult.

[5719]. On these, see comment on Acts 8:27 (under “Castration and Status”).

[5720]. Men. Rhet. 1.2, 355.16–17; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.5.574. See Borchert, “Ephesus,” 116, citing Strabo 14.1.4; 1.21; for the perspective of Ephesus as a traditionally Greek city in the novels, see Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 83–84.

[5721]. Xen. Anab. 5.3.4 (though not in the temple per se, 5.3.9).

[5722]. Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 85–98.

[5723]. Barth, Ephesians, 2:661; cf. Kroeger, “Classicist’s View,” 227–29, 233.

[5724]. Though we do learn of high priestesses in Asia who served independently of their husbands (Kearsley, “Asiarchs, archiereis”).

[5725]. They supposedly founded the Artemis sanctuary and served as its first priestesses (Paus. 4.31.8, noted by Trebilco, “Asia,” 333n193). Amazons also allegedly fled Ephesus from Dionysus (Plut. Gk. Q. 56, Mor. 303DE; Paus. 7.2.7). We read of a person named (or nicknamed) Ἀμαζόνος in I. Eph. 941.

[5726]. See Sobol, Amazons, 110.

[5727]. Aurenhammer, “Sculptures,” 252–55, for Artemis; 255–64 for other goddesses. Photos of Artemis statues appear in Ephesus guidebooks, e.g., Gökovali, Guide, 62–65.

[5728]. Aurenhammer, “Sculptures,” 264–69.

[5729]. Ibid., 264.

[5730]. Strelan, Artemis, 93 (noting her as a patron of both virgins and young men).

[5731]. Mortal women also could be prominent in some myth and drama without its affecting women’s roles in the larger society (cf. Willner, “Oedipus Complex”; Foley, “Conception”).

[5732]. Though the speeches probably overrepresent women’s repression; for an evaluation of the various sources, see Gould, “Position in Athens.”

[5733]. See, e.g., Pomeroy, Goddesses, 57–119, though Fleming, “Dames,” 78, notes that Pomeroy uses Athens as the extreme patriarchal foil for everything else (Skinner, “Dames,” critiques Fleming in turn); further discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:606, 608.

[5734]. Strabo 14.1.23; Apoll. K. Tyre 48; Riesner, Early Period, 215; Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 36; see esp. Kearsley, “Asiarchs, archiereis” (who shows that the title was not always honorary). Cf. the priestess of Hestia (if I correctly understand the inscription) in I. Eph. 508. On women and priesthoods in the East in general, cf. also Gardner, Women, 67–68; Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 259–62, 279–80. In the West, the empress probably served as the primary model for priestesses in the imperial cult (Hemelrijk, “Empresses”).

[5735]. Though North, “Priests,” 1245, is right that Greeks (unlike, mostly, Romans) used both female and male priests (cf. also Kearns, “Women in Cult,” 1625), North’s association of priests with deities of their own gender is overstated.

[5736]. E.g., the temple of Ceres in Cic. Verr. 2.4.45.102. But all Rome’s shrines of Diana except one admitted male worshipers (Plut. Rom. Q. 3, Mor. 264C).

[5737]. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 181–82; Bruce, Commentary, 398. On this festival, see Strelan, Artemis, 57–61; Mussies, “Artemis,” 96. Ephesus was not idiosyncratic in its practices; Athens had a special festival and month (cf. discussion in Stallsmith, “Thesmophoria”; some in idem, “Thesmophoros”; Nilsson, Folk Religion, 24–26).

[5738]. Taylor, “Artemis,” 254. On holy days honoring Artemis, see esp. R. Oster in Horsley, Documents, 4:74–82, §19; on sacred processions in this cult (and archaeological evidence), see Knibbe, “Via Sacra”; on the cult and burial along the Processional Way, see Thür, “Way”; for earlier Ionian festivals, see Graf, “Ionian Festivals.”

[5739]. See Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.2 (cf. the scene in Char. Chaer. 1.1.4–5). Against the Greek street grid, the older Curetes Street is diagonal, belonging to the traditional procession route to Artemis’s temple (Fant and Reddish, Sites, 189).

[5740]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 321, on the sixth of Thargelion (cf. Englhofer, “Birthday,” 671); see Strelan, Artemis, 61–65. This fits the Greek Artemis’s birthday (45) and places it close to Athens’s traditional date for the Thargelia, a summer festival of Apollo also celebrated in some Ionian cities (Graf, “Thargelia”; Nilsson, Folk Religion, 27–28; after purification on the sixth [Cohoon in Dio Chrysostom, LCL, 1:382–83n2], Apollo was worshiped on the seventh of Thargelion, the twelfth month; cf. Burkert, Religion, 226–27, 265); Apollo was the Greek Artemis’s twin brother. Cf. the Spartan Artemis festival on the sixth of Boedromion (Sourvinou-Inwood, “Artemis,” 183), a month sacred to Apollo in the Attic calendar (the fourth month; Parker, “Boedromia”; Burkert, Religion, 226), though Athens had two other months dedicated to Artemis (Burkert, Religion, 226). On days sacred to various deities, cf. Dion. Hal. Epid. 3.266–67.

[5741]. Klauck, Magic, 104. Such long-distance processions also appear elsewhere, e.g., the 30 km. between Eleusis and Athens (Price, “Procession,” 906).

[5742]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 339. Moreover, as we shall note further below, courts would not literally “be in session” (19:38) if the festival were in process.

[5743]. If Acts 20:1–3 does not represent the same visit as 1 Cor 16:5–6 (so Rapske, “Travel,” 5; cf. 2 Cor 2:1; 13:1; but contrast Hemer, Acts in History, 188), at least it suggests the same travel pattern (avoiding winter travel; cf. Acts 27:9), and 20:1–3 may fulfill the hope of a winter stay abandoned on an earlier trip.

[5744]. If they happened during the later Artemis festival (May–June), the gap would be less. If they did not happen during a festival, the grounds for speculation grow thinner.

[5745]. In the Gospel, he is more favorable toward the ναός in Jerusalem (Luke 1:9, 21–22), but even in the Gospel, 23:45 may suggest judgment. Although God deigns to dwell in Israel’s temple (1 Kgs 8:27), sin could banish God’s presence (Ezek 9:3–11:23; cf. Sipra Qed. pq. 8.205.2.1; par. 4.206.2.6; Sipre Deut. 258.2.3; 320.2.1; see further early Jewish discussion in Keener, John, 410).

[5746]. See Strelan, Artemis, 140–43.

[5747]. Judge, Pattern, 40; cf. Strelan, Artemis, 142. Normally, however, Hephaistos was naturally patron deity of smiths (Proclus Poet. 6.1, K92.9–13); each craft was consecrated to some deity (Poet. 5, K48.27–28).

[5748]. See comment on Acts 4:18–22; or Keener, John, 732–33. For another example of elite disdain toward artisans, see P.Oxy. 51.3617 in Toner, Culture, 140 (about a weaver).

[5749]. Members of the elite viewed smiths as typically rude (Libanius Or. 15.77, as quoted in Toner, Culture, 142, in his comments on the popular frequency of vulgarity and coarse swearing, which Luke’s audience might have imagined accompanied the silversmiths’ speech in Ephesus).

[5750]. Wealthy and prominent artisans in Ephesus include a silversmith (I. Eph. 2212), a fisherman and/or fish dealers (I. Eph. 14, 803, 984, 1008, 1387), a linen worker (I. Eph. 2446), and shippers (I. Eph. 946, 1487–88; Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 114–16).

[5751]. Cf. Marcus Antonius Hermeias (Crocker, “Silversmiths”) and comments on (another?) Demetrius below. On crafts in the Roman world, including silverwork, see Evans, “Crafts.” Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.1 seems to assume that artisans were numerous in Ephesus.

[5752]. For Roman views on the proper treatment of likenesses in art, see Perry, “Diligentia.” Apparently by the early second century, even Roman law took interest in the quality of skilled workers’ products, holding them responsible for their work (Martin, “Imperitia”).

[5753]. Even some higher-status artisans might be supposed to have questionable values; Lucian Phal. 1.11–12 speaks of a skilled coppersmith (but notes him as a bad man).

[5754]. Cf. even Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.20 (criticizing the selling of gods).

[5755]. Schnabel, Acts, 803, suggests that he may have been “the master of the guild of the silversmiths” (following Selinger, “Demetriosunruhen,” 245); see also Trebilco, “Asia,” 341 (as a possibility; following Ramsay, Church in Empire, 128). “No little profit” is litotes for much profit; on the figure litotes, see, e.g., Rowe, “Style,” 128; on understatement in rhetoric, Rhet. Her. 4.38.50; cf. Caird, Language, 134, who notes that litotes is a familiar Greek figure, not a Hebrew one. Luke uses the figure often (or not rarely; e.g., 1:5; 12:18; 27:13–14, 20).

[5756]. Cf. Chrys. Hom. Acts 42: their interests were economic, with religion as a pretext. Human behavior has not changed much; one might compare religious broadcasting stations today that permit broadcasters who set dates for Christ’s return, denounce fund-raising rivals, etc., but bring funds to the station.

[5757]. Spawforth, “Artisans.”

[5758]. See, e.g., McRay, Archaeology, 88.

[5759]. At least by John Chrysostom’s day, they appear rare enough that Chrysostom himself adds “perhaps” when comparing them with small copies of temples (Hom. Acts 42.1, Armenian catena 346, in Haenchen, Acts, 572). But we do have some evidence for such shrines (below).

[5760]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 245.

[5761]. Because objects in silver and gold were often later melted down for reuse, evidence in these metals is naturally scarcer than terra-cotta evidence (Witherington, Acts, 590).

[5762]. See, e.g., Haenchen, Acts, 572; esp. Trebilco, “Asia,” 336–37.

[5763]. Fleischer, Artemis, 27–34, also provides an inventory of terra-cotta statuettes of Artemis.

[5764]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 246; Conzelmann, Acts, 165 (citing also Artem. Oneir. 2.33). Roman Egypt also mass-produced “terracotta altars and figurines” (and shrines) “for domestic display” (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 54); for terra-cotta figurines of deities there, see 132–34. For figurines in general (perhaps medallions, but probably statuettes, given the context about statues), see Pliny E. N.H. 34.18.48.

[5765]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 336, citing Oberleitner, Funde aus Ephesos, 56 no. 20.

[5766]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 337; cf. Sherwin-White, Society, 91 (noting, “It is not surprising that no models in precious metal have survived from antiquity”). We read of extravagant heavy silver dishes (Pliny E. N.H. 33.52.145) but do not expect many to have survived.

[5767]. For terra-cotta images of Artemis in a niche, see IGRR 1.467 (Hemer, Acts in History, 121). The domestic niche statue in Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 34, is in the traditional Greek form. The Artemis temple was sacred because it housed Artemis’s image (Strelan, Artemis, 73).

[5768]. Many figurines recovered in Egypt bear “miniature shrines” (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 54).

[5769]. Witherington, Acts, 590, following Reeder, “Mother of Gods,” 424–28. Syncretism blended various feminine deities (Reeder, “Mother of Gods”).

[5770]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 337 (following Seltman, “Wardrobe of Artemis,” 44–47).

[5771]. Perhaps in the pre-Christian period, the deity statues, besides being more common than the shrines to begin with, would have been melted down more rarely than the shrines because of religious scruples.

[5772]. He could be calling all the other shrine makers (in view of the economic threat posed by Paul’s preaching), but if the guild here is that of silver workers (note “our wealth,” Acts 19:24) or of metalworkers more generally, concerns about the religious-tourist industry would still affect their overall work.

[5773]. For bronze statues of deities, see, e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 34.9.15. For a range of metal deity images from the ancient Near East, Monson, “Kings,” 104n254, cites Negbi, Gods, esp. 199; Roaf, Atlas, 76–77; Baines and Málek, Atlas, 212–19.

[5774]. Haenchen, Acts, 572; Conzelmann, Acts, 165.

[5775]. For evidence for votive use, see Reeder, “Mother of Gods”; sources in Trebilco, “Asia,” 338; esp. IGRR 1.467 (Hemer, Acts in History, 121; Trebilco, “Asia,” 337); Kauppi, Gods, 94–101 (including on votive offerings generally); for votive offerings more generally, see Frateantonio, “Votive Offerings”; in the ancient Near East, see Renger, “Votive Offerings.”

[5776]. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 134–36 (some home altars may have also been used for offerings, 137–38).

[5777]. Ibid., 140. Further west, wealthy Apuleius claims that he gave a skilled woodworker the choice of what to make (Apol. 61).

[5778]. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 140–41.

[5779]. Ibid., 55.

[5780]. Klauck, Magic, 104.

[5781]. Yamauchi, Cities, 88. Cf. also the terra-cotta statuette of Artemis from fifth-century B.C.E. Boeotia (Klinger, “Statuette”).

[5782]. Deissmann, Light, 112–13. The incident is regularly cited; e.g., Yamauchi, Cities, 107; idem, Stones, 118; Bruce, History, 328; Thompson, Archaeology, 398; Trebilco, “Asia,” 349–50n257; cf. Finegan, Light from Past, 267.

[5783]. See Pliny E. N.H. 33.54.151; Paus. 1.5.1.

[5784]. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 142–43; Crocker, “Silversmiths”; Trebilco, “Asia,” 336; and Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 113, cite I. Eph. 425.10; 547 (1, 2); 585–86; 636.9–10 (mentioning the temple); 639.9–10; 2212a.6–7, 17; 2441; cf. also Hemer, Acts in History, 235; Strelan, Artemis, 137. For discussion of I. Eph. 6.2212, see Horsley, Documents, 4:7–10, §1.

[5785]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 341.

[5786]. I. Eph. 2212a.6–7 (in Hemer, Acts in History, 235–36; Trebilco, “Asia,” 336). For other connections between silverwork and Artemis, see Pliny E. N.H. 33.154; I. Eph. 586 (Trebilco, “Asia,” 337).

[5787]. Dio Chrys. Or. 40.9 (possibly exaggerating to excuse having torn these down for his building projects).

[5788]. Admittedly, we cannot be sure who were organized by Demetrius and who just heard as word spread, since word quickly spread beyond his initial audience (Acts 19:29).

[5789]. Witherington, Acts, 591, thinks of “workers in lead, marble, and semiprecious stones” as well as silver workers.

[5790]. That he is in Ephesus is implied in 2 Tim 4:15 (since Timothy is apparently still located there; 1 Tim 1:3; 2 Tim 1:18; 4:12). Cf. the bad coppersmith in Lucian Phal. 1.11–12. Coppersmiths are also attested in Ephesus; see I. Eph. 2.554 (McRay, Archaeology, 259).

[5791]. Harland, Associations, 61–74; Strelan, Artemis, 140–43; cf. Dionysus in theatrical associations (Harmon, “Technitai,” 202).

[5792]. Harland, Associations, 77.

[5793]. Smith, Symposium, 105.

[5794]. Ibid., 103–4.

[5795]. See Harland, Associations, 115–60; Kraybill, Cult and Commerce, 29, 123–41.

[5796]. Bruce, Apostle, 293 (citing Hicks, “Demetrius the Silversmith”).

[5797]. Haenchen, Acts, 571–72n2.

[5798]. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 143–44 (citing T. Flavius Pythio in I. Eph. 5.1578a.11–12).

[5799]. I. Eph. 2212a.6–7 (in Hemer, Acts in History, 235–36; Trebilco, “Asia,” 336).

[5800]. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 165; Trebilco, “Asia,” 338n210; cf. Haenchen, Acts, 572n1; some follow Ramsay, Church in Empire, 112–45. Cf. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 144: the connection is, at best, “entirely speculative.”

[5801]. See, e.g., I. Eph. 876; 898; 904a.7; 1261; 3258; references consume nearly two full columns in the index to I. Eph. (vol. 8.2, pp. 54–55). Brookins, “Name,” 511, counts 1,838 in antiquity.

[5802]. Hicks, “Demetrius the Silversmith”; cf. idem, “Postscript” (replying to Ramsay).

[5803]. Ramsay, “Paul at Ephesus”; idem, Church in Empire, 112–45; see Trebilco, “Asia,” 338n210.

[5804]. See MacMullen, Social Relations, 69–73, 129–35; Neh 3:8, 11; see also comment on Acts 18:3.

[5805]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 98. The temple was said to be near the harbor though it was actually northeast of the city (see comment on Acts 19:27). Some earlier reports placed the silversmiths’ shops in the agora (MacKendrick, Stones, 422), closer to the theater.

[5806]. Cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 77/78.3–4; see further discussion at Acts 18:3.

[5807]. MacMullen, Social Relations, 77, 82; Meeks, Urban Christians, 31–32; Stambaugh, City, 150; Harland, Associations, 74–83 (though the degree of the religious element varied, it was always present, p. 77).

[5808]. MacMullen, Social Relations, 74–76, esp. 74; for guilds’ collective activism, see also Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 120; Cooper, “Crafts,” 906 (for erecting a statue); for guild activity here, see also Johnson, Acts, 347.

[5809]. Noted, e.g., by Trebilco, “Asia,” 340; cf. Strelan, Artemis, 142.

[5810]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 341–42.

[5811]. Ibid., 338–39. Some think that the inscription was originally from Ephesus, but Trebilco argues reasonably that it could be from the city where it was found, despite the proconsul’s intervention.

[5812]. Stoops, “Riot,” 83.

[5813]. So Witherington, Acts, 593.

[5814]. On ties between the temple of Artemis and the local economy, see Trebilco, “Asia,” 324–26.

[5815]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 23–24 (following, on the price estimate, Broughton, “Asia Minor,” 517). Both sides in the war drained Asia’s resources (Calder, Gray, and Mitchell, “Asia,” 189).

[5816]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 24–25.

[5817]. Ibid., 27. Caesar’s allowance for local tax collection instead of publicani (48 B.C.E.) and the city’s new role as “the assize center for the region” helped it economically (26, 28–29). Trade, including the slave trade, also advanced the economy (44–46). Ephesus did not experience serious economic decline until the third century (30–31).

[5818]. On Asia’s trade and prosperity, see further Levick, “Economy”; see signs of luxury in McRay, Archaeology, 88. A later philosopher also condemned the city for its idleness and entertainment, as such philosophers were wont to do (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.2).

[5819]. It seems to have generated more revenues than any other source in the province (Parsons, Acts, 274, citing I. Eph. 1a.18). Longenecker, Ministry and Message, 70, argues that commerce was declining by the mid-first century C.E., furthering dependence on pilgrims connected to the Artemis cult.

[5820]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 39.

[5821]. Pindar Pyth. 4.53–54; Caesar C.W. 3.33, 105; Juv. Sat. 14.260–62; Cic. Fam. 5.20.5; Corn. Nep. 23 (Hannibal), 9.3; Hdn. 1.14.3; Lucan C.W. 9.515–16; “Interest,” 851; Millett, “Banks,” 232; Rosenberger, “Temple Economy,” 264–65; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 126; Koester, Introduction, 1:90; cf. Dan 1:2; for Jerusalem’s temple, see 2 Macc 3:6–7; 4 Macc 4:3–7; Pesiq. Rab. 10:1. For temples as cultural repositories (museums), see Shaya, “Temple”; for banks other than temples, see, e.g., Andreau, “Banks.” The wealthy probably kept some money in their homes, but they deposited most to gain interest (Jeffers, World, 23). Some reported that the Artemis temple also lent money (Nicolaus of Damascus frg. 65), though Dio Chrysostom denied it (Mussies, “Artemis,” 94). A temple giving Apollonius money because of his closeness to the gods (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.17) is fictitious.

[5822]. For the Artemisium, see Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 98–99. On divine punishment for any violation of temples’ sanctity, see comment on Acts 19:37. But Roman law treated theft of purely private property from a temple as merely theft, not sacrilege (Robinson, Criminal Law, 31).

[5823]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 39; Strelan, Artemis, 76–79; Taylor, “Artemis,” 254; Trebilco, “Asia,” 325; Rosenberger, “Temple Economy,” 264; Mussies, “Artemis,” 94. Cf. Strabo 14.1.22, which mentions money on deposit in the Ephesus temple at various times. Cohoon in Dio Chrysostom, LCL, 3:60–61n1, on Dio Chrys. Or. 31.54, cites also CIG 2.2953b; Plaut. Bacch. 312; Caesar C.W. 3.33; Aristides Or. 42.522; and moneylending in Nicolaus of Damascus frg. 65.

[5824]. Taylor, “Artemis,” 254; Thompson, Archaeology, 398; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 150; Arnold, Power, 20–21; Trebilco, “Asia,” 324–26.

[5825]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 39–40.

[5826]. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 143 (citing I. Eph. 7, 2.3501–12); cf. also Arnold, Power, 21. The property also contained “sacred fish and herds of deer” (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 150, citing Dio Chrys. Or. 31.54; Strabo 14.1.29).

[5827]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 40; cf. Strelan, Artemis, 77.

[5828]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 41, suggesting that much of it may have been sold in the city, in the market of “Sacred Wine Tasters” (citing I. Eph. 728, 2076; SEG 35.1109). For economic reasons, however, much of Asia’s wine went for export (Kraybill, Cult and Commerce, 66–67; Bauckham, Climax, 362); Domitian’s later attempts to restrict Asian viticulture appear to have been unsuccessful (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.21.520).

[5829]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 42; Scherrer, “Ephesos from Roman Period,” 8–9.

[5830]. Riesner, Early Period, 215.

[5831]. The Artemis cult was probably the city’s “most distinct source of prestige and revenue” (Filson, “Ephesus,” 75). Some vows to the Ephesian Artemis were carried out not in the temple but in sacrifices offered to her on other plots of land bought and devoted to her (Xen. Anab. 5.3.4, 9, though these officers would hardly soon feel welcome again in Asia). For the wealth of other temples, see, e.g., Pindar Pyth. 4.53–54.

[5832]. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 143.

[5833]. Ibid.

[5834]. With, e.g., Reicke, Era, 230–31.

[5835]. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 143, citing I. Eph. 1a.28; 2.419a; 3.945, 951, 966. Ionian cities traditionally had officials expected “to keep the streets and sanctuaries clean and free from obstructions” (Gomme and Rhodes, “Astynomoi”).

[5836]. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 148 (on I. Eph. 1a.17, 18, 19a, 19b).

[5837]. See, e.g., Horster, “Professionals,” 331. Like other civic offices, civic priests were often expected to provide expenditures from their own resources as civic benefactions (see, e.g., North, “Priests,” 1245).

[5838]. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 148 (citing I. Eph. 1a.17, 18, 19a, 19b); on the mismanaged funds, see also Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 159–63. On the rapid transition from hereditary aristocracy in Ephesus to the nouveau riche, see discussion at Acts 18:19.

[5839]. Cf. Weiss, “Aufruhr.” Treasurers of temples had long been public offices in Ionian cities; see MacDowell, “Tamiai,” for classical Athens. The temple treasurer was a high-status role for which someone might temporarily leave his duties in the courts (Pliny Ep. 10.3A.1). Violating temple treasuries generated anger (Jos. War 2.175–76; cf. Life 199; Suda, in Sherk, Empire, 75), as did misdirection of any funds from public treasuries (App. C.W. 2.6.41; Lysias Or. 25.19, §173; 27.7, §178; 27.16, §179; Plut. Cic. 17.2; Caes. 35.2–4).

[5840]. Grant, Gods, 27. About 160 C.E.., changes in religious fashion had again caused decline, again inviting a proconsul to encourage the cult (SIG 867; Grant, Gods, 27). Strelan, Artemis, 79, suggests some decline and loss of some independence to the city from ca. 200 B.C.E. to ca. 100 C.E.; nevertheless, Artemis’s cult remained strong throughout this period (ibid., 37–40).

[5841]. The comparison is often cited; e.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 247; Munck, Acts, 197; Grant, Gods, 27; cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 165. Governors could intervene in cities’ finances, certainly by Trajan’s time (cf. Burton, “State”).

[5842]. This fits Luke’s emphasis; his Gospel challenges the economic interests of a religious elite (Luke 16:14; perhaps 19:45–46; 21:2–4) and perhaps implies even the vested economic interests of the empire (23:2).

[5843]. Cf. also later accounts where pagan husbands could threaten to betray Christian wives to the government.

[5844]. Guillaume, Islam, 31.

[5845]. Chadwick, Reformation, 46–48; Bergendorff, Lutheran Reformation, 37–41; for the theses themselves, see conveniently Luther, Selections, 489–500. Erasmus and others within the church had already critiqued the abuse of indulgences (e.g., Chadwick, Reformation, 38).

[5846]. E.g., Tippett, Solomon Islands Christianity, 173; Yohannan, Revolution, 145.

[5847]. Stoops, “Riot,” 84.

[5848]. Economic and political interests often find religious justification (noted by González, Acts, 231; cf., e.g., religious resistance to outlawing the slave trade in nineteenth-century Morocco in Gordon, Slavery in Arab World, 164–65; Lewis, Race and Slavery, 3, 58; and in the Arabian peninsula in Lewis, Race and Slavery, 80–81); likewise, cf. the British’s colonial resistance to Prophet Braide for challenging their rum industry in West Africa (Sanneh, West African Christianity, 181–83); other illustrations at Acts 16:20–21. Although there are many exceptions, tolerance often accompanies prosperity (a pattern that generally fit Christianity’s acceptance in Roman Asia), but economic threats often produce scapegoating of minorities (cf., e.g., the rise of fascism in the Weimar Republic, bankrupted by vengeful Allies; Kantowicz, Rage of Nations, 291–308).

[5849]. Cf. religious iconography on a shop façade in Potts, “Piety.”

[5850]. Assemblies could compel the council’s attention by shouts expressing its sentiments (see Trebilco, “Asia,” 357; Jones, Chrysostom, 97).

[5851]. Tannehill, Acts, 243–44.

[5852]. E.g., I. Eph. 7, 1.3263.7–9; 2.508–9.

[5853]. Possibly, he was even the guild master that year (Trebilco, “Asia,” 341; cf. Witherington, Acts, 591; D. Williams, Acts, 338), though this is not clear.

[5854]. Cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 125. Some even allowed professional guilds to fix prices for their merchandise (e.g., t. B. Meṣiʿa 11:23–25).

[5855]. Harland, Associations, 41. For the possibility of exceptional advancement of the newly wealthy in Ephesus, see comment on Acts 18:19.

[5856]. Rhetorically trained historians could portray the sort of leader who stirred troops to battle readiness without concern for prudence (Tac. Hist. 4.71); even supporters of Artemis might have viewed Demetrius according to this impetuous “character type.”

[5857]. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 585n112, 591; but see Pervo, Acts, 493, for “alliteration and assonance” (especially the four words in Acts 19:25 beginning with ἐ- and “seven with a smooth vowel”). Even some upper-middle-class homes in Ephesus reveal appreciation for classical learning (see the wall paintings displaying scenes from Euripides and Menander in Yamauchi, Cities, 97), but if an upwardly mobile silver worker wished to flaunt any learning, it might still sound silly to better-educated aristocrats (cf. Trimalchio in Petron. Sat. 35, 48, 52 [confusing Medea with Cassandra!], 55–56).

[5858]. In Lucian Prom. 5, Prometheus opines that an artisan should be a good speaker, but Hephaistos (the artisan) recognizes his limitations and defers to Hermes, an orator.

[5859]. Cf. Rothschild, Rhetoric of History. For Luke as a physician, see the discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:410–16, although, given lack of regulation, not all physicians were equally educated (e.g., some midwives and others may have learned only as apprentices). Even if, with the tradition, he was a Greek physician, increasing the likelihood (though not providing certainty) that he was a freedman, he might have had more rhetorical knowledge than a craftsman (albeit not tertiary training). It is the text of Acts, however, that offers the most convincing evidence that Luke was educated; although its rhetoric is not elite, it far exceeds the ordinary capacity displayed in most extant papyri.

[5860]. See Hall, “Delivery,” 232, citing Cic. De Or. 2.185–90, and offering among his examples Verr. 2.1.40–54, 64–70; 2.4.26–54; 2.5.160–63; Rosc. Am. 145–46; Clu. 199.

[5861]. Pliny Ep. 4.7.3, developing a saying in Thucyd. 2.40.3; cf. also Prov 21:29; 29:9.

[5862]. See the discussion of Luke’s historiography in Keener, Acts, 1:90–220.

[5863]. See Keener, Acts, 1:258–319, esp. 271–319, for discussion, details, and sources.

[5864]. The address “men” is exclusively Lukan in the NT (not including addresses to husbands specifically, Eph 5:25; Col 3:19; 1 Pet 3:7), though only Luke includes set speeches; and only in Acts (some twenty-nine times). It does appear in the LXX (e.g., 1 Esd 3:24; 4:2, 12, 32) and 1 Clement (conjoined with “brothers” in 16.17; 37.1; 43.4; 62.1).

[5865]. I. Eph. 1239–41; possibly 1262; Zeus Sabazios, 1242; Zeus Soter, 1243.

[5866]. Also an oracle fragment of Apollo of Didyma, I. Eph. 1252, though he appears less than Zeus and less than one might expect in a city dedicated to his sister Artemis. Zeus and Apollo appear together in I. Eph. 101–2. Ephesus claimed that, against majority Greek opinion, Apollo and Artemis were born not at Delos but at their Ortygian grove (Tac. Ann. 3.61). For sacred groves, see, e.g., Deut 16:21; Ovid Fasti 2.67; 6.9; Pliny E. N.H. 12.2.3; Paus. 5.10.1; 8.38.2, 5; Lucan C.W. 3.399–425; Libanius Description 2.8; see also Baudy, “Tree Cult,” 887; Keener, “Nativity Cave,” 64–66; reportedly among British Druids (Tac. Ann. 14.30); Germans (Tac. Germ. 9); possibly in Scythopolis (Nieto Ibáñez, “Grove,” interpreting Jos. War 2.466–71) and in the ancient Near East (Monson, “Kings,” 60); in traditional religions, see Mbiti, Religions, 67; Numbere, Vision, 203. Deities and spirits were thought to live in groves (Ovid Am. 3.1.1–2; 3.13.7–8; Fasti 3.295–96); people could pray in (Fronto Ad Verum Imp. 2.6) or even invoke (Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.9.2) groves. People sometimes decorated trees with sacred bands (Hurschmann, “Tainia”). Groves could be dedicated to Zeus (Eurip. Hyps. frg. 752h.10, 14), Clementia (Statius Theb. 12.491–92), the hero Achilles (Philost. Hrk. 54.9), or, more relevant here, Apollo (Paus. 1.21.7, in Athens; Athen. Deipn. 8.333DE, in Lycia). Different trees were sacred to different deities (Phaedrus 3.17.1–4; cf. also Ramsay, Other Studies, 241; Baudy, “Tree Cult,” 886; Eitrem, Croon, and Dietrich, “Trees”), e.g., the oak to Jupiter and myrtle to Venus (Phaedrus 3.17.1–4); the olive to Athena (Pliny E. N.H. 12.2.3; cf. Androtion Atthis frg. 39; Lucian Anach. 9; Dion. Hal. Epid. 1.259; Hermog. Progymn. 7 [On Encomion].18); and most relevant here, the bay (a kind of laurel) to Apollo and Artemis (Ovid Metam. 1.553–67; Pliny E. N.H. 12.2.3; Phaedrus 3.17.3; Hünemörder, “Laurel,” 301; cf. also apples in Lucian Anach. 9).

[5867]. For the Serapis temple, see I. Eph. 1230.

[5868]. For Meter, see Aurenhammer, “Sculptures,” 255–57; for Hecate, 257–60; for Aphrodite, 260–62.

[5869]. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 187.

[5870]. Useful for stirring indignation rhetorically; Luke’s audience might imagine here a common gesture for indignation: the hand raised, with fingers together and pointed toward the mouth (though not necessarily near it; Shiell, Reading Acts, 63). The expected inflection for indignation would be shrill, intense, and quick (Cic. De or. 3.58.217–18; Quint. Inst. 11.3.63; 6.2.27–28; all in Shiell, Reading Acts, 88). For gestures of reproach and refutation, see 69–71. Dividing up a charge into components (cf. “not only” here and in 19:27) allowed one to rhetorically augment charges (Hermog. Inv. 1.2.101–2).

[5871]. Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.1 (CAGN 128).

[5872]. Ironically, the charge in Jerusalem is offered by the very witnesses who know that he was charged in Ephesus with attacking the Artemis temple by preaching monotheism (Acts 21:27–29, because he embraced Gentiles).

[5873]. Ancients, admittedly, debated the boundaries between criticism and slander; if it was illegal for a comedy to mock anyone by name, was it also illegal simply to provide actors with masks alluding to the people (Hermog. Issues 88.12–14).

[5874]. See esp. Rom 1:23; 1 Cor 8:4–6; Gal 4:8; 1 Thess 1:9, though Paul’s letters do not denounce specific cults any more than he does in Acts. (The claim that his “tolerance” of idol food in 1 Cor 8 suggests otherwise misreads that chapter; see Garland, 1 Corinthians, 395; Keener, Corinthians, 73.) People in Ephesus could speak of the highest god (θεὸς ὕψιστος, I. Eph. 1234–35), but this claim did not carry the element of exclusivism (see comment on Acts 16:18).

[5875]. With Witherington, Acts, 591.

[5876]. With, e.g., Johnson, Acts, 347; Padilla, Speeches, 182 (emphasizing irony: invective at the textual level that functions as encomium at the subtextual level). In Luke’s optimistic view, many intellectuals respected monotheism, though the masses resented it (Stoops, “Riot,” 83; cf. Strelan, Artemis, 137–38 [perhaps including Strelan’s application of Heraclitus Ep. 4 to Ephesus, though the epistle is almost certainly inauthentic]; see introduction, above, to Acts 17:22–31).

[5877]. For convicting people by their own mouths, cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 20:40; Luke 19:22; Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.219; b. Giṭ. 56b–57a; Num. Rab. 16:21; Xen. Anab. 1.6.9; Cyrop. 3.1.1–12; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 311, §101.

[5878]. See comment on Acts 14:15–17; also Keener, “Monotheism.”

[5879]. Conzelmann, Acts, 165, notes that Demetrius’s character in the narrative world “naively identifies the temple replicas with the gods (is Luke intentionally portraying him as stupid?).” Given frequent Jewish mockery of idolatry (cf. comment on Acts 14:15; 17:18), the answer is likely yes. One might describe statues as “gods we created” (e.g., Alciph. Court. 1 [frg. 3; Phrynê to Praxiteles]), but the Jewish and Christian tradition would always view this pejoratively (e.g., Isa 31:7).

[5880]. See BDAG; LSJ, s.v. For the verb, see 2 Macc 4:33; 4 Macc 2:11; Jos. Ant. 3.9; 4.89; 10.133; 11.56; 12.20; 14.287; War 2.351, 620; Philo Eternity 107; Flacc. 141; Migr. 225; Spec. Laws 2.26; Virt. 213; Worse 10, 71.

[5881]. Spencer, Acts, 187, citing Malina and Neyrey, “Conflict,” 109, 119–20. In persuasion theory, labeling A as part of B because one’s audience thinks favorably of B remains a common technique, unethical (at least as sometimes used; McLaughlin, Ethics, 146–47) but conventional in modern politics. (The logic is flawed: if A = B, then by the transitive property of equality, if B = C then A = C; but if A is merely part of the set B, or merely portrayed as B, then the equation with C is illogical and its assertion deceptive.)

[5882]. See Shiell, Reading Acts, 76–77 for gestures of aversion; but more likely, here are gestures of indignation, on which see 62–65, 88.

[5883]. Witherington, Acts, 592. For honor/shame, see, e.g., Robbins, Texture, 76–77.

[5884]. Riesner, Early Period, 215. This religious tactic for fund-raising was not new; cf. fund-raising at ancient Mari (cf. Paul, “Prophets,” 1160). But CIG 2954 does not refer, as earlier suggested by some, to Artemis’s being dishonored (see Oster, “Acts 19:23–41 and Inscription”; it actually speaks of her being honored).

[5885]. It is common Greek, e.g., in eastern Asia and western Galatia (MAMA 4.142, 165, 272) and in Phrygia and Caria (6.3, 53, 66, 249, 392).

[5886]. See esp. Baugh, “Phraseology and Reliability”; cf. earlier Bruce, Acts¹, 367. The title is not, of course, unique to Artemis of Ephesus; cf., e.g., Demeter in Menander Sikyonioi 187, 224.

[5887]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 319. Most of the relevant inscriptions use μεγίστη. Strelan, Artemis, 57, 144, suggests that the cry was shorthand for the entire mythology of the cult (on which myths, see 53–57). Although such a claim may be stated too strongly, the Ephesian Artemis would surely evoke such broad associations to Ephesians. It may also be shorthand for the hymns to Artemis (see, e.g., Philost. Ep. Apoll. 67).

[5888]. Commentators have long noted the use of this phrase in inscriptions and sometimes in Xenophon as well (Ramsay, Traveller and Citizen, 279; Bruce, Acts¹, 364; Thompson, Archaeology, 400; Hemer, Acts in History, 121; Witherington, Acts, 592; Fitzmyer, Acts, 658).

[5889]. See Taylor, “Artemis,” 251; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 150 (citing Libanius Or. 5.29); Grant, Gods, 28; esp. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 153–55. This does not include other shrines of Artemis not labeled “Ephesian” (cf., e.g., Val. Flacc. 2.7, 301). Some argue that the Ephesian Artemis influenced even Nabateans (so Kampen, “Cult”; but the Essene connection is extremely tenuous).

[5890]. Bruce, Commentary, 399n59; Trebilco, “Asia,” 332, citing Wernicke, “Artemis,” in 1896.

[5891]. Such hyperbole was common; cf., e.g., Eunapius Lives 493 (Proharesius “filled the οἰκουμένην with his rhetorical reputation”); or, to a more restrained extent, Luke himself in Acts 19:10, 17, 20 (see comment on Acts 19:10).

[5892]. Graf, “Artemis,” 65.

[5893]. For Artemis and the Amazons, see also Paus. 4.31.8 (Trebilco, “Asia,” 333n193); Pomeroy, Goddesses, 5.

[5894]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 336.

[5895]. Pliny the Younger’s later complaint to Trajan (Ep. 10.96) is also hyperbolic, but not at all close to the same extent. Still, cf. spiritually displacing a cosmic ruler in Luke 10:17–18.

[5896]. On this technique, see, e.g., Nicolaus Progymn. 7, “On Commonplace,” 43; for examples, see Lysias Or. 4.5–6, §101; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 83.9; 113.20; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 218 (on Rom 3:8); cf. Heath, “Invention,” 93–94.

[5897]. Though the charges may not have seen trial (see comment on Acts 19:38–39), Demetrius may have tried to save his honor by at least threatening to bring them.

[5898]. See, e.g., Xen. Anab. 5.3.12; Livy 1.45.2 (reporting its fame in the mid-sixth century B.C.E., if accurate).

[5899]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.2; Macrob. Sat. 5.22.4 (van der Horst, “Macrobius,” 227); Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.15; Apoll. K. Tyre 48. On this temple, see more fully Strelan, Artemis, 68–76; for a survey of archaeological work on it in the 1990s, see Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 150.

[5900]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 323, citing I. Eph. 17–19, esp. 18b.1–3. Many in Luke’s ideal audience had probably never seen the temple, but they might think of Ionic temples (Vitruv. Arch. 3; for temple architecture in general during the empire, see Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 213–30; for Greek temples, see Höcker, “Temple”; for Roman, Nielsen, “Temple”).

[5901]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 40.8; Lucian Icar. 24.

[5902]. Hdt. 1.92 (Fitzmyer, Acts, 657). Taylor, “Artemis,” 252, emphasizes the mid-sixth-century beginning (citing Livy 1.45; Pliny E. N.H. 16.213); McDonald, “Ephesus,” 319, has the seventh century. For the early coin hoard discovered there, see, e.g., Williams, “Coins,” 143.

[5903]. A legend claimed that the temple burned on the day Alexander was born, portending harm for Asia (Plut. Alex. 3.3–4); it is possible that the year at least was the same (356 B.C.E.). Timaeus remarked that Artemis was then away from the temple, attending Alexander’s birth (so Cic. Nat. d. 2.69 in Laistner, Historians, 7). The person burned the temple to seek fame for himself (Lucian Peregr. 22).

[5904]. Pliny E. N.H. 36.21.95–97 reports all Asia Minor building the temple for 120 years and (36.21.97) a miraculous completion that kept the architect from suicide.

[5905]. See Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 151.

[5906]. See, e.g., Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 104–5.

[5907]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 322–23. Cited figures vary slightly depending on what is counted, what era, and when the book was published: the raised platform, approached by steps, was 418 by 239 ft., 127 by 73 m. (Thompson, Archaeology, 400; Yamauchi, Cities, 103) or 425 by 225 ft. (Witherington, Acts, 587; his ultimate source is probably Pliny E. N.H. 36.21.95); the temple proper, 343 by 164 ft. (Thompson, Archaeology, 400; Yamauchi, Stones, 118; Thompson follows Parvis, “Ephesus,” 67ff.) or 361 by 180.5 ft. (Yamauchi, Cities, 103, who follows Keil, Ephesos, 49). The altar was 20 ft. square and the sanctuary 70 ft. wide (Thompson, Archaeology, 400).

[5908]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 322–23. It did have rivals, however—namely, the Heraeum at Samos and the 358-by-167-foot Apollo temple at Didyma, especially under Hadrian; the latter had 108 columns more than 64 feet in height (Clarke, “Spaces,” 263).

[5909]. Pliny E. N.H. 36.21.95 (often mentioned; e.g., Yamauchi, Cities, 103, following Bammer, Architektur, 21). The altar was found in 1965 (Cities, 104). For comments on the earlier (sixth century B.C.E.) Diana temple’s columns, see Pliny E. N.H. 36.56.179.

[5910]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 657 (citing Strabo 14.1.20–23; Ach. Tat. 8.2–3); McDonald, “Ephesus,” 319; Brodersen, “Seven Wonders”; Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1025; Grant, Gods, 28 (“first among the Seven Wonders of the World”); Pervo, Acts, 492; Mussies, “Artemis,” 94. The Seven Wonders continued to be mentioned in the first century (see, e.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 11.1.1), though their specific content varied among authors (Höcker, “Wonders,” 724).

[5911]. Bammer, “Ephesus,” 252.

[5912]. Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.115 says that two streams, both named Selinus, encompassed it. Hemer, Letters, 50, suggests comparisons with the portrait of paradise in Revelation.

[5913]. Bruce, Commentary, 364; cf. Strelan, Artemis, 69; for its being outside the city, see also CIG 2963c (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 247). Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.2 estimated less than a mile; the map in Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1027–28, also suggests less than 1,000 m.

[5914]. The same text in Philostratus also mentions construction of a new banquet hall.

[5915]. See Aune, Environment, 127, for ancient parallels to the technique; also Keener, Acts, 1:970–71; esp. Smith, Rhetoric of Interruption.

[5916]. Being “filled with anger” (Acts 19:28) gives way to the city’s being “filled with confusion” (19:29), though the connection may not be deliberate (Luke employs these cognates thirty-five times).

[5917]. Pervo, Profit, 34–35; Johnson, Acts, 348; Gaventa, Acts, 273, citing Heliod. Eth. 4.19.5; 7.8–9; 8.9; 10.8, 17; Char. Chaer. 1.5.3; 3.4.4–18; in Ephesus, Ach. Tat. 7.9.

[5918]. Ramsay, Enemies, 163–92; Gaventa, Acts, 273.

[5919]. Strelan, Artemis, 152, citing Cic. Flacc. 17–19. Likewise, Dio Chrysostom felt that public assemblies of the δῆμος, “the people,” easily degenerated into mob rule (Or. 3.47–49).

[5920]. Johnson, Acts, 348; Witherington, Acts, 592n146; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 160; they cite, e.g., Philo Embassy 243; Jos. War 2.402; 5.420; 7.42 and esp. War 7.46–62, esp. 57 (all earlier than the novelistic uses cited above). See most thoroughly Trebilco, “Asia,” 350.

[5921]. The Western text adds, “and running into the street,” along with a number of other concrete details in Acts 19:25–37 that do not alter the meaning and may simply follow the rhetorical practice of amplification.

[5922]. Witherington, Acts, 593n150 (on the density, following White, “Development,” 40–48).

[5923]. Meeks, Urban Christians, 28–29.

[5924]. For trampling due to panic, see, e.g., Livy 24.39.5.

[5925]. Cf. Ael. Arist. Or. 1.467, 471 (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 247); Bel 18 (Bruce, Acts¹, 365); applied to God, see 1 Chr 16:25; Pss 48:1; 96:4; 145:3; 147:5; Bel 41 (cf. the abuse in Acts 8:10). “Great” also could mean “greatest” in Koine (Matt 5:19; 22:36; Mussies, “Greek,” 1042), but since they were uttered by polytheists, the sense of the acclamations usually would not be superlative. For acclamations toward emperors and others, see Badian, “Acclamation”; Hurschmann, “Acclamatio.”

[5926]. Partisan political acclamations occurred in public assemblies (Dio Chrys. Or. 40.26–27; also Welborn, Politics, 12–13; on partisans for guilds, 13–14); here, of course, the cries were not “partisan,” since the vast majority of Ephesians would have concurred.

[5927]. The typical Dionysiac acclamation was εὐοῖ (Lucian Dion. 2, 4, 5); at marriage celebrations, Hymen was acclaimed (Catull. Carm. 61.4–5, 39–40, 49–50, 59–60, 117–18, 137–38, 142–43, 147–48, 152–53, 157–58, 162–63, 167–68, 172–73, 177–78, 182–83; 62.4–5, 10, 19, 25, 31, 38, 48, 66; Ovid Her. 12.143); elsewhere, e.g., ἰή ἰή (Athen. Deipn. 8.363B).

[5928]. Lucian Alex. 38.

[5929]. See Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 1. If the gesture resembled that for adoration, people could lift their hands above their heads, “toward the right” (Shiell, Reading Acts, 67–69, esp. 67). The corresponding gentle voice, however (Quint. Inst. 11.3.64, in Reading Acts, 88), is not likely in a setting of public outcries of acclamation.

[5930]. Stoops, “Riot,” 87 (following MacMullen, Enemies, 170, 339n10).

[5931]. Hock, “Novel,” 139.

[5932]. Localized forms of deities had a long history; see, e.g., Jer 2:28; Gordon, Civilizations, 233.

[5933]. Strelan, Artemis, 46.

[5934]. Conzelmann, Acts, 165. These occurrences might fit a broader pattern if we take “great” as a predicate adjective (cf. predicate nominatives in Metzger, “Translation,” 125), but in any case, one should not read too much into the article.

[5935]. Meeks, Urban Christians, 28–29 (citing, as an example, Philo Flacc. 25–43); cf. Jeffers, World, 31. Popular culture used gossip as a means of social regulation; cf. Toner, Culture, 139.

[5936]. The theater faced the harbor, though a long distance from it, and is visible from the site of the old harbor even today.

[5937]. With Malina and Pilch, Acts, 140 (for their understanding of “collectivist personality,” cf. idem, Letters, 343–47).

[5938]. Finegan, Apostles, 163–64, noting that the street’s harbor gateway has Hellenistic foundations.

[5939]. Ibid., 164; McRay, Archaeology, 252–53. In its final form, the street included gymnasia and bath complexes (MacKendrick, Stones, 422).

[5940]. At some point, there were shops on this street (I. Eph. 547) near the agora.

[5941]. MacKendrick, Stones, 422, brought to my attention by McRay, Archaeology, 258. MacKendrick apparently follows Miltner, Ephesos. It is possible that some silverwork was produced and sold there, perhaps especially for tourists, without this being the primary location of the silver workers.

[5942]. Hemer, Acts in History, 121n53; idem, “Audeitorion,” 128.

[5943]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 311–12. Perhaps a critic could not absolutely rule out “Tyrannus’s hall” as a nickname for a judge’s courtroom, but this is not a likely title for a courtroom, and identification as a judicial site does not support the conjectural association with Paul’s teaching.

[5944]. Finegan, Apostles, 163, noting that Augustus and Nero improved the earlier, Hellenistic marketplace. It was 360 ft. (110 m.) on each of its four equal sides, was surrounded by shops and double stoas, and was full of statues of hundreds of famous people (163; McRay, Archaeology, 253).

[5945]. Even residential neighborhoods might yield many people, though fewer than this; cf. the insula-type plan documented already in Ionian Miletus (Owens, City, 54).

[5946]. Finegan, Apostles, 163.

[5947]. See, e.g., the map in McRay, Archaeology, 251.

[5948]. Some of Luke’s audience might know that Ephesus’s civic assemblies met in the theater (Stoops, “Riot,” 84–85, noting Sherwin-White, Society, 87; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 248).

[5949]. Stoops, “Riot,” 84 (citing MacMullen, Enemies, 171–72).

[5950]. Schnabel, Acts, 806, lists this as one of the possible uses for the theater.

[5951]. Theaters were partly to exhibit plays during festivals for the gods (Vitruv. Arch. 5.3.1); for a range of various public functions, see, e.g., Apul. Flor. 5.1–2 (cf. 18.4).

[5952]. Finegan, Apostles, 158.

[5953]. Rives, Religion, 114.

[5954]. Hemer, Acts in History, 121, citing, e.g., OGIS 480.8–9 (104 C.E.); I. Eph. 28.9–10 (Latin), 19–20 (Greek); 29.19–20. For other cities, Trebilco, “Asia,” 349n252, cites Cic. Flacc. 16; Dio Chrys. Or. 7.24; 40.6; Tac. Hist. 2.80. For Greek theaters, see Vitruv. Arch. 5.6.1–2; Isler, “Theatre,” 383–87; for differences between Greek and Roman theaters, Vitruv. Arch. 5.7.1; for Roman theaters and amphitheaters, see Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 271–89; in Rome, see Pliny E. N.H. 36.24.113–20; for theaters in Roman Syria, Retzleff, “Theatres.” For the historic development of theaters’ structure, see Tomlinson, “Theatres.”

[5955]. Char. Chaer. 3.4.4 (the reference to the assembly is 3.4.3).

[5956]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 349, cites SIG³ 883.26–27.

[5957]. Rhodes, “Ekklesiasterion.”

[5958]. Ibid. The stepped seats were, ideally, in stone or even marble (Vitruv. Arch. 5.3.3). For a popular performance, a theater might not easily seat all the residents who came (Apul. Flor. 16.11–13).

[5959]. McRay, “Archaeology and NT,” 99, indicates that a sort of town hall abutted the theater (perhaps relevant for Acts 19:35, 38–39). But the courts themselves would be in the state agora farther east, as would be the effective city hall for state business (McRay, Archaeology, 253–54).

[5960]. McRay, “Archaeology and NT,” 99.

[5961]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 350n257. The theater also included 120 statues of Cupids and Nike (“Victory”; Yamauchi, Cities, 94–95).

[5962]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 349n257; Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 98; McRay, “Archaeology and NT,” 99.

[5963]. Thompson, Archaeology, 400.

[5964]. Philo, defending the Jewish cause in Alexandria, similarly blames an anti-Jewish crowd for causing universal confusion during a time of unrest (Embassy 120; noted by Stoops, “Riot,” 84). Luke’s Scriptures often portrayed confusion or panic in the enemies of God’s servants (e.g., Exod 14:24; 23:27; Deut 7:23; 1 Sam 5:9, 11; 14:20; Ps 48:6; Zech 14:13).

[5965]. Greek theaters normally had a ground level for the orchestra (where the chorus was; Vitruv. Arch. 5.6.1–2).

[5966]. Conzelmann, Acts, 166; Finegan, Apostles, 162. The rounder estimate of 25,000 is frequent (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 248 [“nearly 25,000”]; Kurzinger, Apostelgeschichte, 73; Bruce, History, 328; idem, Acts¹, 365; idem, Commentary, 399; Yamauchi, Stones, 118; higher in Schille, Apostlegeschichte, 387). For an aerial photograph, see, e.g., Finegan, Light from Past, photo 116.

[5967]. Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1026.

[5968]. McRay, “Archaeology and NT,” 99.

[5969]. Scherrer, “Ephesos from Roman Period,” 8 (also noting “its monumental shape,” I. Eph. 2.411; 7.4123).

[5970]. Segal, “Theaters,” 199.

[5971]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 348. By way of comparison, the arenas of most amphitheaters (most larger towns built these in the first two centuries C.E.; more than two hundred remain) were only ca. 2,000 sq. m. (Nielsen, “Amphitheatre,” 609).

[5972]. Segal, “Theaters,” 199.

[5973]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 349, citing also, for “impromptu gatherings” in theaters, Diod. Sic. 16.84; Char. Chaer. 3.4.3–4; 8.7.1.

[5974]. Conzelmann, Acts, 166 (citing PWSup 2.1564–78; also comparing Char. Chaer. 1.5.3, though there it is the marketplace into which the populace rushed, shouting).

[5975]. Stoops, “Riot,” 84 (citing Jos. War 2.487; 7.47, 106; Philo Flacc. 41, 74, 84, 95, 173; and MacMullen, Enemies, 341n2).

[5976]. So, e.g., Baird, Corinthian Church, 49; Witherington, Corinthians, 143; cf. Pucci, “Arenas,” 113; Fitzgerald, Cracks, 140. A theater was emblematic of a public place; to be ridiculed there was particularly shameful (e.g., Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 78.16, ἐν θεάτρῳ λοιδορηθείς).

[5977]. See Boatwright, “Theaters.”

[5978]. E.g., Suet. Jul. 10.1; Calig. 27.1; Claud. 34.1–2; Nero 12.1; Marc. Aur. saying 6 (from Dio Cass. 71.29.3); Hdn. 1.15.2–6; 3.8.9; Jos. Ant. 14.210; Friedländer, Life, 2:62–74; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 162; Pucci, “Arenas,” 111; idem, “Circuses,” 210; Shelton, Romans, 351; on the capture of animals for these spectacles, see Pliny E. N.H. 8.24.64–8.25.65; Epplett, “Capture”; Weeber, “Environment,” 1007. Specifically in Corinth’s amphitheater and theater, see Dio Chrys. Or. 31.121; Romano, “Planning,” 40; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 96; Winter, “Imperial Cult,” 95; Grant, Paul, 20; at Ephesus, Yamauchi, Cities, 92–94; cf. Arnold, “Festivals.” Not everyone approved (Cic. Fam. 7.1.3; Lev. Rab. 13:3); this included Christians (Athenag. Plea 35; cf. Tert. Spect. passim).

[5979]. With, e.g., Fee, Corinthians, 770–71 (others also object to its being literal, on the basis of Paul’s Roman citizenship, e.g., Strachan, Second Corinthians, 51; Héring, First Corinthians, 172; Johnston, Ephesians, 2; Bruce, History, 330; for exceptions, Moffatt, First Corinthians, 254–55). Being condemned to the beasts was intended as capital punishment (e.g., Diod. Sic. 36.11.3; Val. Max. 2.7.13; Suet. Calig. 27.3; Claud. 14; Apul. Metam. 10.29; Schiemann, “Decollatio”; O’Rourke, “Law,” 174; cf. Dig. 48.8.11.2, in Sherk, 236, §178B), later used to kill Christians (Mart. Pol. 3.1; 4.1; 12.2). There were occasional exceptions, where popular demand led to the criminal’s freedom (Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.8.2; cf. Gaius Inst. 1.13; perhaps Lucian Lucius 52).

[5980]. E.g., Polyb. 1.67.6; 1.81.7; Cic. Mil. 12.32; 31.85; Pis. 1.1; Sest. 7.16; 33.71; Rosc. Amer. 22.63; Ovid Her. 10.1; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.31; 103.2; Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 78.27–28; 14, p. 92.21; 18B, p. 116.14, 18; Epict. Diatr. 1.3.7, 9; 2.9.5; 4.1.127; 4.5.21; Dio Chrys. Or. 8.14–15, 21; 32.26; 77/78.29; Plut. Bride 7, Mor. 139B; Statecraft 5, Mor. 802E; R. Col. 2, Mor. 1108D; Demosth. 26.4; Alex. 22.2; Cic. 46.4; Philod. Crit. frg. 52.2–3; Diogenes Ep. 28; Max. Tyre 15.2; 33.7–8; Marc. Aur. 3.16; 4.16; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 3.2; Porph. Marc. 29.463–65; Eunapius Lives 472; Sipre Deut. 306.28.2; cf. Xen. Mem. 2.3.4; Hiero 7.3; Malherbe, Philosophers, 88–89; idem, “Beasts.” This included tyrants (Cic. Att. 5.16; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.30; 4 Macc 12:13; cf. Lysias Or. 2.19, §192) and informers (Philost. Hrk. 4.4); for the body, cf. Max. Tyre 7.5; 33.8. Application to “Judaizers” (Osborne, “Wild Beasts,” 229) appears implausible.

[5981]. Reason (Polyb. 6.6.4; Cic. Tusc. 1.33.80; Off. 1.4.11; Stoics in Cic. Fin. 2.14.45; 2.33.109–10; Epict. Diatr. 2.9.3; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 403, §137D; Max. Tyre 6.1–4; Stoics in Diog. Laert. 7.1.85–86), education (Iambl. V.P. 8.44), rational speech (Ael. Arist. Panath. 2, 150D; Def. Or. 379, §126D; 398, §135D; Libanius Declam. 36.35), or marriage versus promiscuous copulation (Dion. Hal. Epid. 2.262; cf. Xen. Mem. 1.2.30) distinguished humans from animals.

[5982]. They might be perceived as Paul’s accomplices; for “accomplices” in Roman law, see Robinson, Criminal Law, 19–20. These were only a small part of Paul’s ministry “staff” in Ephesus (see 1 Cor 16:10, 12, 15; Koester, “Ephesos in Literature,” 121).

[5983]. Cf. 4 Macc 5:4; Prov 6:25; perhaps the cognate ἁρπάζω in Acts 23:10. Sometimes something not human does the seizing (cf. Luke 8:29; Acts 27:15; 2 Macc 3:27; the cognate in Acts 8:39), or what is seized is not human (2 Macc 4:41). In the NT, the term appears only in Luke-Acts.

[5984]. From reports from my Nigerian friends who have lived through various supposedly spontaneous mob actions in several different cities of northern and middle-belt Nigeria, it appears that those who wished to slaughter pastors already knew precisely where they lived.

[5985]. See the account in Jos. Ant. 15.89; Dio Cass. 48.24.2; also Appian Bell. civ. 5.9, although he confuses the city; in a novel, some cite Ach. Tat. 7.13. In 88 B.C.E., Ephesians slew Romans who took refuge in the temple, clasping images of the goddess (Appian Hist. rom. 12.4.23). Cf. the later complaint, in Philost. Ep. Apoll. 65, of robbers and kidnappers residing there, perhaps related to the issue of refuge. For this temple as an asylum, see Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 98–106.

[5986]. Cf. Tac. Ann. 3.60, 63 (on abuse); Suet. Tib. 37.3 (on Tiberius’s abolition of many asylum privileges; cf. Nock, “Developments,” 495). On shrines, sanctuaries, and sometimes statues for asylum, see, e.g., Exod 21:14; 1 Kgs 2:28–29; Hesiod W.D. 327; Aeschylus Suppl. 83–85, 509, 750–52; Eurip. Herc. fur. 48; Heracl. 61–62, 69–72, 77–78, 123–25, 364–66; Andr. 253–54, 260, 411–12, 565, 859; Aristoph. Knights 1311–12; Xen. Hell. 4.3.20; Thucyd. 3.81.5; Polyb. 9.29.4; Diod. Sic. 11.89.6–8; 16.58.6; 17.41.8; Cic. Sest. 38.80; Corn. Nep. 4 (Pausanias), 4.4–5; 5.2–3; 17 (Agesilaus), 4.6; Livy 35.51.1–2; 45.5.3–8, 11–12; Vell. Paterc. 1.9.4–5; Quint. Decl. 265.13; Libanius Refutation 2.1, 12; Confirmation 3.8; Appian Hist. rom. 12.1.7; 12.4.23; 12.8.53; Quint. Curt. 4.4.13–14; Tac. Ann. 3.61–63 (Ephesus’s Artemis temple is 3.61); Plut. Demosth. 29.1, 5; Alex. 42.1; Sulla 31.5; Arrian Alex. 2.24.5; Tac. Hist. 1.43; Lucian Peregr. 19; Philost. Hrk. 31.4; Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 375.15–17; Hermog. Issues 33–34; Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.4; Jos. Ant. 20.165–66; also at the family hearth (Lysias Or. 1.27 [On the Murder of Eratosthenes]; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.1.4); even imperial statues could provide such sanctuary (Pliny Ep. 10.74.1; Suet. Aug. 17 [disregarded]; Tac. Ann. 3.36; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.15). To drag people from, or slay people at, altars or temples was an atrocity (Polyb. 9.29.4; Jos. Ant. 20.165; Vit. Aes. 134, 139; cf. also Nieto Ibáñez, “Grove,” on Jos. War 2.466–71) and could invite divine judgment (e.g., Eurip. Tro. 69; Apollod. Bib. 1.9.8, 16). Thus at least in declamations any injury to another in a temple could be punished severely (Quint. Decl. 265 intro.), and a priest could remit one sentence (Quint. Decl. 284 intro.).

[5987]. Cf. Danker, Corinthians, 131 (comparing OGIS 494.13–14). Perhaps, in 2 Cor 8:19, Paul had the cognate ἐκδημέω fresh in his mind (in the NT only at 2 Cor 5:6, 8–9), though this assumes the unity of at least most of 2 Cor 3–8.

[5988]. With Barrett, Acts, 929, who compares similar uses in Jos. Life 79; Plut. Otho 5 (and perhaps IG 12 [8].186.9). On the term’s use for traveling companions, see Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 605 (citing OGIS 494.13; SIG 657.9 = SIG³ 1052.9).

[5989]. If so, they were much less easily deterred from service than Mark had been (Acts 13:13; 15:38).

[5990]. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 231.

[5991]. We know, e.g., of an Aristarchus son of Aristarchus who was a politarch (Cadbury, Acts in History, 54n21), though Paul’s Aristarchus was certainly not a politarch, given Paul’s banishment from there (Witherington, Acts, 507n163). There were also some earlier famous men by this name (in Samos, see Toomer, “Aristarchus”; in Samothrace, Lockwood, Browning, and Wilson, “Aristarchus”; in Tegea, Brown, “Aristarchus”).

[5992]. An inscription mentions “Gaius and Aristarchus of Macedonia” (Milligan, Thessalonians, 134), not surprising because, again, both were common names.

[5993]. If they are the same person, it is more likely because Luke speaks too concisely for full clarity (i.e., Gaius joined Paul’s mission from Derbe [cf. Acts 14:6, 20; 16:1] but came to Ephesus by way of ministry in Macedonia, alongside Aristarchus) rather than from the accuracy of the Western text in 20:4.

[5994]. See, e.g., Jeffers, World, 206. It was among the four most popular praenomens (Stambaugh, City, 94).

[5995]. Stoops, “Riot,” 85 (citing Jos. War 7.47; Ant. 16.59; 18.81–84; Suet. Tib. 36; Tac. Ann. 2.85).

[5996]. For the importance of citizenship in Greek cities, and Ephesus in particular, see Strelan, Artemis, 31–34 (though [p. 34] noncitizens may have constituted 80 percent of a polis’s population). Strelan, 144, cites Cic. Moral Duties 1.34 to the effect that foreigners were welcome so long as they did not interfere with local religion and custom; although Ephesus had a more cosmopolitan mentality than Cicero’s first-century B.C.E. Rome, the sentiments touching the Artemis cult would have proved similar.

[5997]. Philost. Ep. Apoll. 67.

[5998]. Since Paul appears as a sage (Acts 19:9), we may assume that his wish (βουλομένου) here is understood as rational (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b10, p. 24), even if its lack of fulfillment proves providential.

[5999]. Although retreat was often viewed as dishonorable, it was sometimes wiser than pretending useless courage (e.g., Babr. 1).

[6000]. Paul had sought to disseminate his message with smaller audiences (Acts 19:9–10), but addressing public assemblies was especially important for those wishing to address public beliefs and actions (Dio Chrys. Or. 32; see Winter, Philo and Paul, 45). Serving the communal good was a criterion for judging the value of philosophy (Plut. R. Col. 33, Mor. 1126E), a criterion by which Paul’s accusers fail miserably (see Acts 19:40).

[6001]. See Judge, Pattern, 14; comment on Acts 12:22. It appears regularly in provincial inscriptions (in Asia Minor, e.g., MAMA 4.5, 15, 52, 64, 66, 122, 124, 128, 131, 133, 137, 146, 147, 150, 158, 159, 165, 267, 276, 296, 301, 315). But as here, Dio felt that public assemblies of the δῆμος, “the people,” easily degenerated into mob rule (Or. 3.47–49; Luke also applies this term to mobs in Acts 17:5; 19:30, 33; excepting only 12:22).

[6002]. The only use in the Apostolic Fathers, Mart. Pol. 10.2, is also less than positive.

[6003]. Retreat and especially individuals’ flight in battle were viewed as dishonorable (e.g., Lysias Or. 14.5–6, §140; Polyb. 6.37.10–13; 6.38.1–4; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.9.4; 9.9.9; Sil. It. 10.7; Plut. Luc. 15.7; Suet. Jul. 60, 62; Max. Tyre 3.8; 15.10; 33.3; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 2.9; Eph 6:13–14); cf., e.g., those who abandoned their shields in battle (Aeschines Tim. 29; Polyb. 18.26.5; Val. Max. 2.7.ext. 2; Tac. Germ. 6; Suet. Jul. 67; Max. Tyre 3.7; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.24.528); shields were well known in Ephesus (I. Eph. 2039, lines 8–9) and connected with heroism (I. Eph. 3803 frg. b, line 9). Fleeing public trial could also be construed as admission of guilt (e.g., Quint. Decl. 249.5).

[6004]. Malina and Pilch, Acts, 140–41, compare typical Middle Eastern behavior in which a person may wish to act spontaneously but companions are expected to intervene and prevent harm.

[6005]. Strelan, Artemis, 145.

[6006]. See also Keener, “Asiarchs,” esp. 135–39.

[6007]. Taylor, “Asiarchs,” 256; Cadbury, Acts in History, 42–43; Thompson, Archaeology, 402.

[6008]. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 137.

[6009]. Mehl, “Asiarchy.”

[6010]. Klauck, Context, 31–32.

[6011]. Taylor, “Asiarchs,” 258. Some men held the office more than once (Kearsley, “Asiarchs [1994],” 365–66). In Rome, the pontifex maximus appointed priesthoods for life (Lintott, Romans, 133).

[6012]. See Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 138–49. For an example of their prominence, see, e.g., Mart. Pol. 12.2.

[6013]. Sherwin-White, Society, 90.

[6014]. E.g., Taylor, “Asiarchs,” 258 (though noting [262] the title’s use before the imperial cult began); Gasque, “Acts and History,” 56; Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, 193–94; Yamauchi, Cities, 109; Mehl, “Asiarchy.” I was also among them (Keener, Background Commentary, 380). More nuanced, some argue that the priests were selected from among the Asiarchs (Bruce, Commentary, 400), as in Dio Chrys. Or. 35.10.

[6015]. Gasque, “Acts and History,” 56; cf. Bruce, Documents, 84.

[6016]. Strabo 14.1.42 notes that many well-to-do people lived in Ephesus and that some of its citizens were always among the Asiarchs (McRay, Archaeology, 255).

[6017]. R. A. Kearsley, in Horsley, Documents, 4:53–55, §14; Kearsley, “Asiarchs (1994),” esp. 366; cf. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 138; on Asiarchs, cf. also Kearsley, “Asiarchs (ABD).” One distinction is that women were sometimes high priests (cf. also Klauck, Context, 318–19), but we know of no women Asiarchs from Ephesus and only one from elsewhere.

[6018]. Cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 35.10, where Asiarchs apparently rule the priests of the imperial cult (in Yamauchi, Cities, 109). For portrait statues of one imperial priest from later (second-century C.E.) Ephesus, see Dillon, “Portraits.”

[6019]. On this office, both in the East (as ἀρχιερεύς) and in the West (as flamen or sacerdos), see Ferguson, Backgrounds, 164. They would supervise religious banquets (e.g., CIL 3.550, in Sherk, Empire, 165, §125).

[6020]. West, Inscriptions, no. 68, line 9 (who also notes that πρῶτος was a title for officials in Asia, citing, e.g., OGIS 528, 544, 545, 549, 652).

[6021]. On these implications and a contrast with the Qumran scrolls, see Ladd, Young Church, 93–94; cf. Keener, John, 1017–18 (cf. 149–52). Cf. similar pictures of positive relationships with members of Gentile religious establishments in Gen 41:45, 50; Exod 3:1; 18:17–24; Dan 1:17. For Christian connections with non-Christians in Acts, see, e.g., Tannehill, Shape, 222–37.

[6022]. With McRay, “Ephesus and New Testament.” Matters were quite different a century later, when one apologist complains that Christians are the only group whose customs are not tolerated (Athenag. Plea 1).

[6023]. Cf. also Johnson, Acts, 349. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 92–93, rightly noting that Luke mentions the connection to emphasize Paul’s status, supposes that Luke engages in rhetorical σύγκρισις (comparison) here. But while some kinds of comparison honor one by putting one in a more prominent category (cf., e.g., Fronto Ad Ant. imp. 1.2.4; Men. Rhet. 2.14, 427.1–3) and Luke often uses comparison, the image is more that of patrons in this passage.

[6024]. Meeks, Urban Christians, 62 (though not denying that any of Luke’s claims of high status might be true).

[6025]. Gill, “Élites” (esp. in Corinth, and esp. Rom 16:23, pp. 111–12). Meeks himself finds contacts with persons of relatively high status in Paul’s epistles (Urban Christians, 55–61). Trebilco, Ephesus, 167–68, compares Sergius Paulus in Acts 13:4–12 (a passage whose reliability he defends). The Asiarchs could represent part of what Paul means by an open door for his ministry in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8–9a), along with his “many adversaries” (16:9b).

[6026]. Although the wealthy flaunt their tria nomina on inscriptions, poorer citizens do not use their full name, perhaps suggesting that not everyone there emphasized this status marker (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 180–93).

[6027]. Others also count it a factor: Llewelyn, Documents, 6:155, §20 (along with Paul’s being a teacher); Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 155–56; Witherington, Acts, 585.

[6028]. Witherington, Acts, 595, argues that because Asiarchs promoted the imperial cult (albeit not necessarily as priests; see below), they would view the relatively small number of Roman citizens as “their core constituency.” Apparently, Roman names, at least, eventually became more popular in Ephesus (Philost. Ep. Apoll. 71).

[6029]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 155–56. Baugh opines that this would make Paul of higher status; this claim is true so long as one refers to the nature of his citizenship (and not his standing in Ephesus!). One Asiarch whose name we know from 55 C.E. was Titus Claudius Hiero (Riesner, Early Period, 215).

[6030]. See most fully Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 119–30.

[6031]. Even his previous credentials could be counted significant (see Acts 22:3), especially if Jewish wisdom, like its Egyptian and Babylonian counterparts, was counted exotic because not universally available (and cf. the Jewish reputation in magic, 19:13). Unlike most other Jews, he was making his Jewish wisdom available to Gentiles without requiring any publicly visible commitments to ethnic Israel, even attending a synagogue.

[6032]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 126–28. He rightly notes (128–30) that Paul’s letters display rhetorical skills, but we may doubt that they reveal a professional teacher of rhetoric.

[6033]. Perhaps in addition to the fact that, being new, he was not already supported by other patrons. Those seeking office in republican Rome would seek “friendship” with all the prominent people (Cic. Handb. Elec. 29–30; Strelan, Artemis, 146). Popularity with the masses was no more stable and predictable then (when historians portrayed them as fickle, e.g., Tac. Hist. 2.29) than it often is in political-opinion polls in democracies today.

[6034]. McRay, Archaeology, 255.

[6035]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 154–55, citing, e.g., I. Eph. 2065. Some doubt that Paul would have patrons, given his work in Acts 20:34 (Strelan, Artemis, 271). Probably, Paul did work to support himself and his colleagues, at least during part of his time in Ephesus (cf. Acts 18:3, 5), but did accept support for other aspects of the mission, such as rent for the school of Tyrannus in 19:9. The term ὑπηρετέω in 20:34 can be translated “serve” or “assist” and need not indicate that Paul’s labor paid all the expenses. The specific term “patron” was sometimes avoided for the sake of the client’s honor (cf. Chow, Patronage, 25).

[6036]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 155, citing Plut. Phil. Power, Mor. 776–79. One may take Seneca’s fate for a worst-case scenario, but more often high connections proved profitable.

[6037]. Observers evaluated people’s status on the basis of the retinues accompanying them (Tac. Agr. 40). Paul’s impact in Ephesus in Acts 19:10–20 is comparable to that of Jesus as indicated by the Gospel’s descriptions of Jesus’s “entourage,” which can be understood in patronal terms (see deSilva, Honor, 135).

[6038]. Ephesian architecture (probably even for Romans living there) did not readily accommodate the exact patron-client relations typical in Rome; cf. Trümper, “Environment of Households,” 41–42 (though allowing that Romans simply adapted themselves to the local architecture). Architecture was important to the patron-client system in Rome (Balch, “Paul, Families, and Households,” 265).

[6039]. Winter, Left Corinth, 188–90; Lintott, “Cliens,” 451 (citing Suet. Vesp. 2.2; Mart. Epig. 2.18; 3.46). “Political” support involved honor; the specifically political element was less important politically now than during the republic.

[6040]. Cf. Lucian Posts 35–36; Hock, Social Context, 58; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 24.

[6041]. To pay another in cash, rather than by giving gifts or honor, demeaned him as an employee (Marshall, Enmity, 32; cf. Apoll. K. Tyre 10) and hence would not be useful to Paul’s ministry.

[6042]. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 149.

[6043]. This pattern characterized honorary inscriptions, which were pervasive (e.g., CIL 14.409; ILS 6146, in Sherk, Empire, 240, §182; Jewett, “Shame,” 554–55); for honoring patrons, see further Engels, Roman Corinth, 87; deSilva, Honor, 20n2; Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 148.

[6044]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 163, attributes this to the elite’s using priesthoods for their own benefit (thus the mismanagement of the Artemisium’s funds noted above). Although this factor may be true, lack of piety is not the issue; polytheists could accommodate other gods and in Asia were mostly accustomed to Jewish practice.

[6045]. On Sardian Judaism (though most of the evidence is later), see, e.g., Kraabel, “Judaism in Asia Minor,” 198–240; Meyers and Kraabel, “Remains,” 184–92; Seager and Kraabel, “Synagogue.”

[6046]. Meeks, “Aliens,” 131 (for Jewish groups, citing esp. Lifshitz, Donateurs et fondateurs).

[6047]. Trebilco, “Communities,” 568; Rajak, “Synagogue within City” (noted by Winter, Left Corinth, 204–5). The donors in Ostia in White, “Synagogue in Ostia,” 53–66, esp. 62, may be Gentiles. Riesner, Early Period, 215–16, thinks that Asiarchs helped to protect Jewish rights for the emperor (citing Jos. Ant. 14.227, which does not mention Asiarchs) because of the emperor’s involvement in the issue (16.165), but this perspective may overstate the evidence.

[6048]. Trebilco, “Communities,” 568; Das, Debate, 75 (on the priestess in the imperial cult in CIJ 2, §766).

[6049]. For enmity networks, see, e.g., Aeschines Tim. 54–57; Dio Chrys. Or. 13.1; Pliny Ep. 2.11.8; 3.9.25; Hdn. 1.13.6; Iambl. V.P. 35.248–49; cf. Marshall, Enmity, 67–69; for partisan strife, e.g., Sall. Jug. 73.5; Cic. Fam. 1.8.1–2; 8.14.1; Plut. Cic. 3.1–2; Suet. Jul. 72; Aul. Gel. 6.19.6. Enmity networks reflected friendship networks, which appear even more frequently (e.g., Pliny Ep. 10.4.1; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 4.1).

[6050]. This might also help explain how the city official knows Demetrius’s name in Acts 19:38; if the information was supplied by Paul or his colleagues by means of the Asiarchs (a plausible speculation), Paul’s supporters probably recognized or knew the name of their opponent because it was not his first act of opposition.

[6051]. Johnson, Acts, 349.

[6052]. Keener, Background Commentary, 380; Witherington, Acts, 595; Parsons, Acts, 369 (following Keener, “Asiarchs”). On “friendship” language for patronage, see, e.g., deSilva, Honor, 96–99; Keener, “Friendship,” 381–82; discussion in idem, “Asiarchs.”

[6053]. I have treated friendship at greater length in Keener, John, 1004–15; idem, “Friendship”; cf. earlier idem, “Pneumatology,” 350–63; see further discussion in Culy, “Friend,” 55–108 (cited in Parsons, Luke, 73); Fitzgerald, Friendship; Gehrke, “Friendship”; Reibnitz, “Friendship.” The material here is adapted from Keener, John, 1006–9.

[6054]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 15, p. 96.28–29; Dio Chrys. Or. 4.42; 12.76; Epict. Diatr. 2.22; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5e, pp. 30–31.5–6; 2.7.5g, pp. 32–33.3–4; 2.7.11k, pp. 84–85.26–27; 2.7.5 L, pp. 34–35.20; 34.30–37.1; 2.7.11m, pp. 88–89.13–18; Iambl. V.P. 16.69–70; 33.229–36; Libanius Anecdote 1. On types of friendship, see Marshall, Enmity, 24–32; Keener, “Pneumatology,” 351–55.

[6055]. E.g., Arist. E.E. 7.1234b–1246a; N.E. 8–9; Plut. Many Friends, Mor. 93A–97B; Dio Chrys. Or. 3.94–115; Cicero De amicitia; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 3 (“On True and False Friendships”); 9 (“On Philosophy and Friendship”); Lucian Toxaris; Theophrastus (according to Aul. Gel. 1.3.10–11). See Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 85, 144; Sevenster, Seneca, 172–77.

[6056]. Plutarch, e.g., weaves together both Greek and Roman traditions of friendship (see O’Neil, “Plutarch on Friendship”).

[6057]. In ancient Israel, see, e.g., 2 Sam 15:37; 16:16–17; 1 Kgs 4:5; 1 Chr 27:33; perhaps 13:3.

[6058]. Diog. Laert. 1.54 (Pisistratus, offering a position to Solon).

[6059]. Diod. Sic. 17.31.6; 17.39.2; 17.100.1. For friends of Cassander, see 18.55.1.

[6060]. Diod. Sic. 33.4.4a.

[6061]. Vell. Paterc. 2.90.1; Epict. Diatr. 4.1.45–50; Mart. Epig. 5.19.15–16; Pliny Ep. 1.17.1; 1.18.3; 3.5.7; Tac. Ann. 3.30; 4.31, 34, 39–40; Suet. Aug. 66; Horace 2; Hdn. 4.3.5; inscriptions in Deissmann, Light, 378; cf. Friedländer, Life, 1:70–82; 4:58–74. For this designation’s broad (and fictitious) application to the ruling class, see Pliny Panegyr. 42.3; Lintott, “Cliens,” 452. Of Jewish tetrarchs and rulers, only King Agrippa I adopted this title in his coins; see Meyshan, “Coins.” The probably late and fabricated evidence of CPJ 2:71–72, §156a; 76, §156b, nevertheless reflects earlier custom.

[6062]. 1 Macc 10:20; 15:28, 32; 2 Macc 7:24; Let. Aris. 40–41, 44, 190, 208, 225, 228, 318; Jos. Ant. 12.366 (though cf. 12.391); 13.146, 225; Life 131; Corn. Nep. 9 (Conon), 2.2; 18 (Eumenes), 1.6; Char. Chaer. 8.8.10; cf. Sipre Deut. 53.1.3; Gen. Rab. 34:9. Cf. perhaps Sib. Or. 3.756 (probably second-century B.C.E. Alexandria); Deissmann, Studies, 167–68. The Roman title “Friends of the People” reflects an office advocating for the people but of less rank than that of being a leader in the senate (Cic. Sest. 49.105; Prov. cons. 16.38). John 19:12 probably refers to this position of honor; see Sherwin-White, Society, 47; also many commentators (Brown, John, 2:879; Barrett, John, 543; Michaels, John, 309; Stauffer, Jesus and Story, 133).

[6063]. E.g., Hom. Il. 3.93, 256; 4.17; 16.282; Virg. Aen. 11.321.

[6064]. E.g., Lysias Or. 2.2, §192; Aeschines Embassy 30, 39; Demosth. Navy 5; Fals. leg. 62; Ep. 3.27; Strabo 8.5.5; Dio Chrys. Or. 38.8, 11; 39.2; 40.16, 23, 26, 36–37; Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.109 (but cf. similar interests in 1.111); 2.83; Libanius Anecdote 1.6; cf. Rhet. Her. 3.3.4; Max. Tyre 35.7–8; Philost. Hrk. 35.4.

[6065]. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 3.2.23; Arrian Alex. 1.28.1; 4.15.2, 5; 4.21.8; 7.15.4; Plut. Pel. 5.1; 29.4; Plut. S. Kings, Epameinondas 17, Mor. 193DE; Comparison of Lycurgus and Numa 4.6; Corn. Nep. 7 (Alcibiades), 4.7; 5.3; 7.5; 14 (Datames), 8.5; 23 (Hannibal), 10.2; Jos. Life 30, 124.

[6066]. E.g., Polyb. 1.62.8; 14.1; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.28.7; 3.51.1; 5.26.4; 5.50.3; 6.21.2; 6.95.1; 8.9.3; 8.36.3; 15.7.2; Diod. Sic. 14.30.4; 14.56.2; 17.39.1; 17.54.2; 19.66.6; 19.67.1; 21.12.6; 31.5.3; 32.16.1; 33.28b.4; 40.1.2; Livy 6.2.3; 27.4.6; 43.6.9; 45.12.6; Sall. Jug. 14.17; 102.6; Tac. Ann. 4.26; Suet. Jul. 11; Hdn. 4.7.3; 4.15.8; 1 Macc 12:1, 3, 8; 14:40; Jos. Ant. 18.101; cf. 1 Kgs 5:1; 2 Macc 11:14. For further discussion in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, see Balch, “Friendship.”

[6067]. Often in Plutarch (e.g., Ages. 23.6; Pomp. 70.4; Statecraft 13, Mor. 806F–809B; Phil. Power 1, Mor. 776AB; Old Men 6, Mor. 787B); but also elsewhere (e.g., Jos. Ant. 19.341; Pliny Ep. 6.6.3; Fronto Ad am. 1.8; Apul. Flor. 16.36–37; 17.4; Ach. Tat. 4.6.1–3). Contrast the older Stoic values of Chrysippus in Diog. Laert. 7.7.189; later, Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11c, pp. 64–65.26–30; but cf. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 74. Even among Greeks, whereas Aristotle notes friendships based on goodness, pleasure, or utility (E.E. 7.2.9–13, 1236a; 7.10.10, 1242b; N.E. 8.13.1, 1162ab), he assigns most to utility (E.E. 7.2.14, 1236a).

[6068]. Pliny Ep. 6.18.2; cf. 3.11.8–9; 6.6.5. One anxious for another’s friendship might thereby merit it (7.31.1). It was appropriate to honor friends (7.28.1–3).

[6069]. Stowers, Letter Writing, 29, going on to note the use for clients. Cf. Judge, Pattern, 33–34 (in the context of imperial friendships): “Not simply a spontaneous relationship of mutual affection. It was a status of intimacy conferred on trusted companions.” Amicitia also affected the Judean elite (Avidov, “Peer Solidarity”).

[6070]. Friedländer, Life, 1:225.

[6071]. Cf. Stowers, Letter Writing, 29: “It is doubtful that any but those with some wealth and leisure could attain either the Greek or the Roman ideal of friendship.”

[6072]. E.g., Cic. Verr. 1.7.18 (one must be careful what one says about friends of rank); for his letters of recommendation, see, e.g., Fam. 7.5.2–3; 13; on friendship in his letters, see Fiore, “Theory.”

[6073]. E.g., Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 1; Val. Max. 7.8.7; Tac. Ann. 16.32; Philost. Hrk. 4.3; 10.2; Kent, Inscriptions, no. 265, line 5; cf. AE 1912.171 (in Sherk, Empire, 235); Symm. Ep. 1.28; 1.30; 1.37.1; 1.106. Iambl. V.P. 22.101; 33.230 admonishes respect for benefactors in a friendship. I include here examples of benefaction beyond technical patronage. Cf. cities’ “friends,” though these might not be benefactors (Libanius Anecdote 1.7).

[6074]. Mart. Epig. 3.36.1–3; 3 Macc 5:26; Symm. Ep. 1.29; 1.103; 1.106; probably P.Oxy. 2861 (in Stowers, Letter Writing, 63); cf. Mus. Ruf. 15, p. 98.5–6; deSilva, Honor, 99. See also, e.g., a magician dependent on a spirit (PGM 1.172, 190–91).

[6075]. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 149, citing Pliny Ep. 2.6.2; 7.3.2; Sen. Y. Ep. 94.14.

[6076]. Val. Max. 7.8.7 (LCL, 2:185). Friendship entailed generosity toward friends (Apul. Apol. 23), whatever the status relationship.

[6077]. See Konstan, “Patrons.”

[6078]. Meeks, Urban Christians, 30; cf. Aune, Environment, 166–67; esp. and most fully Marshall, Enmity, 1–24. See, e.g., Alciph. Farm. 12 (Cotinus to Trygodorus), 3.15; Fish. 7 (Thalassus to Pontius), 1.7; most fully and helpfully Evans, “Friendship,” 202, on mutual obligation in private letters. Seneca regarded the bestowal and receiving of favors as society’s primary bond (Ben. 1.4.2, in deSilva, Honor, 96).

[6079]. See Horsley, Documents, 4:17–18, §3 (from Saittai, close to Ephesus).

[6080]. Iambl. V.P. 31.188.

[6081]. See Stowers, Letter Writing, 30.

[6082]. See ibid., 28–30, 39, 60; cf. Gould, Love, 143–45; perhaps Cic. Amic. 5.18. Plut. Table 4.intro., Mor. 660A, advocates befriending only the good while showing goodwill toward all. Age-group associations appear in other cultures as well (cf. the Masai; Mbiti, Religions, 165–66).

[6083]. Culpepper, School, 101; Stowers, Letter Writing, 66; Meeks, Moral World, 57; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 143; Smith, Symposium, 58; Dorandi, “Epicurean School,” 1074.

[6084]. Diog. Laert. 10.120; 148.27–28; Cic. Fin. 1.20.65–70; cf. Philod. Prop. 24.27–29. The view of the Epicurean Lucretius in Nat. 5.1019–23 sounds like later social contract theories. Stoics, by contrast, valued friendship for its own sake (Cic. Fin. 3.21.70).

[6085]. Arist. E.E. 7.9.1, 1241b. Nevertheless, Aristotle treats friendship in especially political terms (for relations in a classical polis); see Schroeder, “Friendship,” 56 (for the Peripatetic tradition, cf. 45–56).

[6086]. Diog. Laert. 5.31 (Hicks, LCL, 1:478–79; cf. Arist. Rhet. 2.4.28, 1381b33, from LCL note). Any kind of friendship could exist either between equals or with one as a superior (Arist. E.E. 7.3.2, 1238b; 7.10.10, 1242b; N.E. 8.7.1, 1158b; 8.13.1, 1162ab); Aristotle further defined “equality” more proportionately than quantitatively (N.E. 8.7.2–3, 1158b).

[6087]. See Thom, “Equality”; Iambl. V.P. 29.162; 30.167.

[6088]. Hom. Il. 18.81–82.

[6089]. Hadas, Aristeas, 189.

[6090]. P.Oxy. 32.5–6 (second century C.E.); cf. Phlm 17–19.

[6091]. E.g., Diod. Sic. 17.37.6; Cic. Fam. 7.5.1; 13.1.5.

[6092]. E.g., Cic. Fin. 1.20.70; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.63.

[6093]. For dying for one another, see Diod. Sic. 10.4.4–6; Val. Max. 2.6.11; 4.7 passim (e.g., 4.7.2, 6); Epict. Diatr. 2.7.3; Mus. Ruf. 7, p. 58.23; Libanius Anecdote 1.22 (cf. risking lives in 1.19–20); cf. Iambl. V.P. 33.235–36; Diog. Laert. 10.120; for dying together, see Eurip. Orest. 1069–74, 1155; Iph. Taur. 674–86; Char. Chaer. 4.3.5; 7.1.7; cf. Sent. Syr. Men. 406–7; Syr. Men. Epit. 22–23; cf. dying with lovers in the romances (e.g., Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11; 2.1, 7; 3.5; 4.5; 5.4). See more extensive comment in Keener, John, 1004–5.

[6094]. The usage of friendship language for benefaction relationships may have influenced the use of friendship language in the relationship between philosopher and disciple (Diog. Laert. 6.2.36; Iambl. V.P. 31.187; Stowers, Letter Writing, 39).

[6095]. In the Greek and Jewish ideal, one could trust one’s friends with one’s secrets (Sir 6:9; 22:22; 27:17 [on Sirach’s specifically Jewish adaptation of the Greek friendship ideal, see Corley, “Caution”]; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.207; cf. Isoc. Demon. 24–25; Philo Sobr. 55) and could speak the truth rather than flattery (Isoc. Ad Nic. 28; Sen. Y. Dial. 10.15.2; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.82; Plut. Flatt. 17, Mor. 59A; 24, Mor. 65AB; Educ. 17, Mor. 13B; Lucian Posts 1; Max. Tyre 14.6). For the ideal of intimacy in friendship, see more fully Keener, John, 1009–11. Affection was a heavy emphasis in the classical conception of φιλία, including what we mean by friendship (Konstan, “Friendship”).

[6096]. Cf., e.g., the sycophancy that the emperor cult could engender (Caesar as greater than other gods, Val. Max. 1.pref.). In the Augustan period, the cults of Artemis and Augustus both probably lay in the political area north of the temenos (Scherrer, “Ephesos from Roman Period,” 5–6).

[6097]. The χρυσοφόροι, the board of wardens or trustees (νεοποῖαι), and the college of curates in Ephesus all helped administer the temple and its wealth (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 36). (Another spelling is νεωποιοί.) Neōpoioi administered temple property and finance (Cheesman, “Neopoioi,” 648), a range of meaning that might overlap with neōkoros in this period (cf. Williams, “Neokoros,” 639).

[6098]. In forensic polemic, association with someone charged with a crime could implicate one (e.g., Quint. Decl. 307.6). More generally, moralists advised avoiding the company of the disreputable, including those convicted of a crime, whether in traditional Greek (Theophr. Char. 29.2; Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 84.16, 21–22; Crates Ep. 12; Socratics Ep. 24; Diod. Sic. 12.12.3; 12.14.1; Diog. Laert. 1.60; Babr. 9–12) or in Judean (Ps 1:1; Sir 6:7–12; 12:13–18; 13:1; Let. Aris. 130; Ps.-Phoc. 134; m. ʾAb. 1:6–7; 2:9; Sipre Deut. 286.11.4; ʾAbot R. Nat. 16, §36 B; Luke 5:30) culture; see discussion in Keener, Matthew, 297. Pervo, Acts, 495–96, complains about these Asiarchs’ nonintervention in the (consequently implausible) narrative but seems to miss the honor element here; their behavior makes perfect historical sense given their role as Paul’s (patronal) “friends.”

[6099]. In response to my “Asiarchs,” Richard Fellows has plausibly suggested to me (personal correspondence, June 3, 2007) that this embarrassment is why Luke leaves them anonymous, when otherwise their names (had Luke known them) could have been helpful (cf. Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1; 13:7, 12).

[6100]. For fidelity in patron-client relationships, see, e.g., Rhet. Her. 3.3.4; Cic. Fam. 13.46.1; Tac. Dial. 10 (cf. Tacitus’s outrage in Ann. 16.32); Suet. Calig. 16.4; Kent, Inscriptions, no. 265, line 7; cf. Crook, “Loyalty”; deSilva, Honor, 115–16; on loyalty to friends, see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 3.86; Pliny Ep. 1.17.1; Panegyr. 42.2; Fronto Ad Ant. Pium 3.4; Sir 6:7–12; cf. (lamenting its failure) Dio Chrys. Or. 66.28; Pliny Ep. 6.10.5; Phaedrus 3.9.1; Sent. Syr. Men. 282–84.

[6101]. Patronage could help a person in court (Chow, Patronage, 75). Friendships with the imperial family sometimes even placed persons above the law (e.g., Tac. Ann. 1.75; 2.34; Suet. Tib. 33; Chow, Patronage, 77), but Asiarchs could not provide that much favor. Even Pliny as governor “had to act cautiously when prosecuting some of the strong men” (Pliny Ep. 2.11; cf. 3.9; 5.4, 13; Chow, Patronage, 78).

[6102]. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 182, suggests that “their advice amounted to a command” because they “presided over the theatre.”

[6103]. Cf. the similar concern for believers left behind in Acts 16:37–40. Rousseau similarly had to leave France, not only for reasons of safety but “partly to avoid embarrassing his patrons” (Brown, Thought, 297).

[6104]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 350, cites Dio Chrys. Or. 40.3, 29; 47.18–20; 48.2, 10.

[6105]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 350, provides numerous examples (Livy 31.15.2; 34.50.4; Jos. War 7.46–48; Ant. 19.24; Dio Chrys. Or. 7.25; 46.10; 48.3; Tac. Ann. 1.77; 6.13; 11.13; Hist. 1.72; Hdn. 1.12.5).

[6106]. See Dio Chrys. Or. 7.25–26; Jones, Chrysostom, 21, 58 (in Yamauchi, Cities, 81).

[6107]. Is Satan’s kingdom here divided (Luke 11:18)?

[6108]. Employing the term συγχέω; cf. Acts 19:29, employing σύγχυσις; more positively, συγχέω in 2:6; 9:22.

[6109]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 34.21 (cf. 45.15, convened by a proconsul); Lucian Peregr. 15; Diogenes Ep. 9; Char. Chaer. 8.7.1; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.38 (using the verb); Libanius Anecdote 3.13; see Gomme, Cadoux, and Rhodes, “Ekklēsia.” It could apply even to an army assembly (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.94.1; Philost. Hrk. 33.10, 13; 48.6, 8). Public speech in the assembly could be contrasted with the less civic speech in the agora (Dio Chrys. Or. 51.2; Lucian Indictment 8). For the LXX use for Israel, see comment on Acts 7:38.

[6110]. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.87.1; 7.17.2; 11.50.1.

[6111]. Jos. Ant. 13.114.

[6112]. Jos. War 1.550, 666; 4.162, 255.

[6113]. Cf. the Salutaris inscription cited earlier and comments in Deissmann, Light, 113.

[6114]. Rhodes, “Ekklesia,” 868.

[6115]. Witherington, Acts, 596. Believers might also hear an ironic contrast with the churches, although adult Greek-speakers would have known the civic sense of the term first.

[6116]. Strelan, Artemis, 149.

[6117]. Pervo, Profit, 61. Bruce, Commentary, 400, finds here “Luke’s Greek sense of humour” (cf. idem, Acts¹, 366; Pelikan, Acts, 149). For misinformed mobs today, cf., e.g., Shortt, Christianophobia, 146.

[6118]. There is no hint of persecution in Ephesians or the depiction of Timothy’s own ministry in the Pastorals. Moreover, Rev 2:1–7 omits mention not only of persecution but even of any challenge from the strong local imperial cult.

[6119]. See Cic. Brut. 93.322; Pliny Ep. 8.21.1; for examples, see Cic. Fam. 9.25.2; Pliny Ep. 1.21.1–2; for praise of humor or wit, e.g., Cic. Fin. 4.26.73; Brut. 43.158; Suet. Vesp. 23.1–4; Fronto Fer. als. 3.5.

[6120]. Some argue that Alexander was a Jewish believer in Jesus rather than a representative of the synagogue with which Paul had been in conflict in Acts 19:8–9; I view this proposal as less consistent with Luke’s narrative (our only extant source), but see comment below under “Luke’s Source?”

[6121]. So (as a probability) Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 38 (from Witherington). This Alexander could instead be the false Christian teacher of 1 Tim 1:20 (his apparent colleague Hymenaeus claims Christian faith in an errant form in 2 Tim 2:17–18); but again, the name is a common one. Strelan, Artemis, 148, rightly critiques the identification of Luke’s Alexander with that of 2 Tim 4:14. It is likelier that the two hostile Alexanders of the Pastorals should be identified than that either should be identified with the one in Acts 19 (Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 216; cf. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 67–68, 593; Fee, Timothy, 22). The “harm” of 2 Tim 4:14 could involve, as perhaps with Luke’s Alexander (cf. Acts 21:27–29), legal accusation (cf. Fee, Timothy, 244–45), but the terminology does not imply this (see BDAG).

[6122]. E.g., I. Eph. 17.68; 597; 898.3, 4; 1977a; 1987; 2018; 3031; 3429 (the full list consumes nearly three full columns in the index of I. Eph. [vol. 8.2, pp. 9–10]). Cf. the metropolitan named Alexandros (son of) Demetrios (I. Eph. 3429.25). Brookins, “Name,” counts 1,443 individuals so named in antiquity.

[6123]. E.g., I. Eph. 614.18; 1020.7 (perhaps six passages).

[6124]. Stoops, “Riot,” 86, doubts that the name is simply from a source: “The surprise is intended to direct the reader’s attention to the issue of Jewish rights.” Alexander does perform this narrative function, but this need not explain his unexplained, sudden appearance, which probably stems instead from Luke’s compression of too much of his material in too little space.

[6125]. See discussion and sources in Keener, Acts, 1:452–53 (esp. Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights; Rajak, “Charter,” 112–14).

[6126]. Trebilco, Communities, 13. For Jewish privileges in Ephesus, established by the Seleucids and continued by Rome, Hemer, Acts in History, 122, cites Jos. Ant. 12.119, 125–26; 14.225–30, 263–64.

[6127]. Trebilco, Communities, 183–84.

[6128]. Cf. Judge, Patterns, 41; Bruce, Commentary, 400.

[6129]. For brief discussion, see Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 271.

[6130]. Dunn, Acts, 264, doubts that they would dissociate themselves from Paul’s anti-idolatry teaching (reading the split of Acts 19:8–9 as far more amicable than the text seems to allow [258]; also Parsons, Acts, 276); but there is a difference between holding a belief and “rocking the boat” by preaching it to outsiders whom it might offend.

[6131]. Cf. how fully local Jews of nearby Smyrna became part of civic life there (e.g., Gibson, “Inscriptions of Smyrna”).

[6132]. Cf. the prediction of the demise of Ephesus’s Artemisium in Sib. Or. 5.293–94 (probably from late first- to early second-century C.E. Egypt).

[6133]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 96–97, doubts that Ephesus had the sort of long-term anti-Judaism found in Alexandria and argues that even if it did, it does not reflect the Jewish community’s normal status there (e.g., Dio Chrysostom held high status in Prusa yet caused unrest, Or. 46). Although he is likely right about long-term anti-Judaism, negative stereotypes can still flare in a mob situation.

[6134]. Stoops, “Riot,” 85 (citing Jos. War 7.47; Ant. 16.59; 18.81–84; Suet. Tib. 36; Tac. Ann. 2.85).

[6135]. Strelan, Artemis, 150.

[6136]. Ibid., 150–51n40.

[6137]. For the same principle of irony, cf. John 11:48 (see Duke, Irony, 87–88; Keener, John, 855; on irony, see Cic. Brut. 292; Rhet. Alex. 21.1434a.17–19, 27–29; Duke, Irony, 8–12; O’Day, Revelation, 12–19; Anderson, Glossary, 39, 108; Rowe, “Style,” 128–29; Keener, John, 223).

[6138]. Although there were specific gestures for quieting a crowd (see comment on Acts 12:17), Shiell, Reading Acts, 148–50, thinks that the intensity of the mob setting here required instead (149) the gesture starting an exordium (extending the hand, with the middle finger and thumb pressed together and the others outstretched).

[6139]. Diod. Sic. 18.67.1–2. They proved unable to defend themselves (18.67.3–4).

[6140]. The verb for interruptions in the following citations from Rhet. Alex. is θορυβέω, which generally refers to making an uproar in the assembly by either cheering or jeering (LSJ), the latter being the clear sense in the passages (cf. Acts 17:5). Such a “tumult” (Lucian Indictment 12) could even lead to denunciations and, indeed, “choking” (Indictment 13).

[6141]. Judge, Pattern, 26–27.

[6142]. We are uncertain, for instance, how the acclamation “Sweet is the truth” was conducted at the Egyptian festivals of Thoth (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 53–54, citing Plut. Isis 68, Mor. 378B). Pervo, Acts, 486, observes that “Artemis failed to respond”; it is not clear that anyone expected Artemis to do so, but if some did, one might think of 1 Kgs 18:26, 29.

[6143]. This should be obvious, since such chants can arise in crowds of similar size today without amplification or prior coordination.

[6144]. Preexisting chants would be widely known; e.g., at the end of the nocturnal mourning rites for Osiris, a coordinated shout arose, “Osiris has been found!” (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 53, citing Plut. Isis 39, Mor. 366F). Cultic songs were also known, and some used them during drinking at festivals (Libanius Descr. 29.7).

[6145]. Cf. Cic. Brut. 93.324; Quint. Inst. 11.2.1–51; Tac. Dial. 38.

[6146]. Lampe, “Acta 19,” 75–76. The position that Alexander is a Jewish Christian is summarized in Strelan, Artemis, 134, 148; Rowe, World, 47. That the crowd denounces Alexander because they recognize him as a friend of Paul and fellow Christian (cf. 150) makes little sense of our current narrative; it took the crowd a few moments, probably based on what he was trying to say, to recognize that he was Jewish (Acts 19:34), and Luke suggests that most of the crowd did not realize the object of its hatred (19:32). The proposal that Alexander is a non-Christian Jew sympathetic with Christians on idolatry (Shauf, Theology, 252–53, tentatively) is not impossible but seems less in keeping with Luke’s narration than the majority view that he wishes to dissociate the Jewish community from Paul (cf. 19:9; 21:27).

[6147]. So Strelan, Artemis, 134. Yet earlier (128) he doubts that the Pauline mission resulted in many converts in Ephesus. The smaller the Christian movement, the less likely would be an anti-Christian riot, and certainly without Paul being involved, if it comes from his time.

[6148]. Ibid., 134.

[6149]. For some Johannine Christians settling in Asia after the Judean revolt, see Keener, John, 144, 147; Beasley-Murray, John, xlvi; Bruce, Peter, 121–22 (citing early evidence from Polycrates in Euseb. H.E. 3.31.3–4; 5.24.2); Aune, Revelation, l (Roman numeral 50), 164 (citing IGRR 4.1431.29; CIJ 2, §742.29); for massive emigration from Judea after the war, see (from Aune, Revelation, l) Jos. Ant. 20.256.

[6150]. See Keener, Acts, 1:383–401, and also 406–14.

[6151]. On the apologetic value of this speech, see Padilla, Speeches, 182–88.

[6152]. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 132.

[6153]. See Rüpke, “Commentarii,” 628.

[6154]. Provided relations were good, the clerk would probably wish to discuss the matter with the governor as quickly (and perhaps as informally) as possible. Probably, however, Asia’s governors generally were on good terms with Ephesus; e.g., a later writer can portray the governor attending plays in Ephesus’s theater (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.5).

[6155]. Paul’s Corinthian correspondence, at least, is clear that Paul faced serious troubles in Ephesus before the riot portrayed here.

[6156]. Given the explicitly pagan sentiment of the speech (Acts 19:35–37), which builds rapport with the clearly religious audience, the paradox of Roman support in the face of sporadic Jewish resistance appears deeply paradoxical; it also has apologetic value.

[6157]. Hall, “Delivery,” 231 (cf. also 229–30), although orators like Cicero were still ready to exploit emotion when it was to their advantage (231–32). Hall’s description applies more directly to sober Roman elite culture than to Greeks, but it is nevertheless relevant more widely. Thus a Greek-speaker from early imperial Asia Minor criticizes the more emotional style of Alexandrian oratory (Dio Chrys. Or. 32.68).

[6158]. Elites and literate people influenced by them feared populist disorder to such an extent that members of the elite sometimes passed laws regulating taverns, the neighborhood restaurants where people congregated for hot food, entertainment, and gossip (Toner, Culture, 109). Whereas Luke portrays the Jerusalem apostles contending with Jerusalem’s elite, he portrays Paul’s relationship with the Ephesian elite more favorably.

[6159]. In Apul. Flor. 9.10–12, a herald acts in this way to prepare for the proconsul, who would speak more quietly. A tribunal was smaller than a theater; the latter might require all the more assistance.

[6160]. Witherington, Acts, 594. Ancient theaters were designed with acoustics in mind (Vitruv. Arch. 5.3.4–8; 5.8 passim; for sounding vases, see 5.5, esp. 5.5.1); for ancient theories on acoustics, see Barker, “Acoustics” (and cf. idem, “Music,” 1008–10, on melodic structure). Rome designed even temporary wooden theaters with acoustics in mind, but it was more essential in stone and marble theaters, which absorbed more sound (Vitruv. Arch. 5.5.7).

[6161]. In Tac. Hist. 3.20, although many were speaking, the general’s honor and authority enabled him to gain silence before speaking. Some Romans expected even the rabble to quiet themselves when spying a person of nobility (Virg. Aen. 1.148–53).

[6162]. Greek theaters have a ground level for the orchestra (where the chorus was; Vitruv. Arch. 5.6.1–2), but the speaker would use the platform.

[6163]. Shiell, Reading Acts, 161 (citing Jos. War 2.611; Plut. Mor. 207E). Shiell (162) compares someone in Diod. Sic. 18.67 who sought to silence a crowd; although it could not hear him, it could see his gestures. Someone reading Acts publicly would probably imitate this gesture (162–63).

[6164]. Apparently people in the early empire did believe that elite speakers could quell riots with speeches (see Virg. Aen. 1.151–52).

[6165]. The title γραμματεύς is common in Ephesian inscriptions (more than eighty times, e.g., I. Eph. 8.17; 21 I.34; 23.22), though not always for the same position; elsewhere in Asia Minor, e.g., MAMA 5.204.11.

[6166]. Sherwin-White, Society, 86–87, notes that this office was less prominent than the clerk of the assembly (below); the offices merged in the early third century. For the γραμματεύς of the council (βουλῆς), see, e.g., I. Eph. 8.20–21, 46. For various uses of the public title, see Gomme and Rhodes, “Grammateis.”

[6167]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 661; cf. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 249; “clerk” of the citizen assembly is probably implied in Demosth. Or. 18.265 (as cited in Hermog. Method 15.431–32). For the clerk of the people (δήμου), see, e.g., I. Eph. 21 I.10–12; 24 B.5–6; probably also in 21 I.28; 27 A.8.

[6168]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 351. Most note the office’s elevation (Hemer, Acts in History, 122; Johnson, Acts, 349).

[6169]. Sherwin-White, Society, 86.

[6170]. Ibid.

[6171]. Ibid., 87. His office was in the prytaneum, the main civic building (McRay, Archaeology, 254).

[6172]. Conzelmann, Acts, 166, citing SEG 19.984.34–35; McRay, Archaeology, 255, citing I. Eph. 2.461, 508, for Aristio; also T. Flavius Pythio in Horsley, Documents, 4:49–51 (both from about the late first century).

[6173]. Cf. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 151. On the importance of those in high office maintaining positive relationships with colleagues, see, e.g., Plut. Statecraft 20, Mor. 816A.

[6174]. Rhodes, “Bureaucracy.”

[6175]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 351, noting that he published the decrees made by the δῆμος (e.g., I. Eph. 27.430).

[6176]. Jeffers, World, 163, repeating much information found in Sherwin-White. Among the official’s clerical responsibilities, he would need to verify money being deposited in the temple (Witherington, Acts, 597).

[6177]. Bruce, Commentary, 400–401; Gasque, “Acts and History,” 56.

[6178]. See, e.g., Dion. Hal. Demosth. 20; Lit. Comp. 22; cf. the similar phrasing in Job 12:3. Logicians also supported reasoning from the known to prove what is yet unknown (Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 32.27). On appeals to common knowledge in rhetoric, see further Anderson, Glossary, 67 (citing, e.g., Cic. Inv. 1.48); comment on Acts 10:37. Lucian employs a Scythian as an example of one ignorant of common knowledge (Critic 3).

[6179]. Perhaps this question functions as somewhat akin to hypophora (Rhet. Her. 4.23.33) or anacoenosis (in Anderson, Glossary, 18) asking the opinion of opponents or audience (cf., e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 47.12–14, 18–20); on other sorts of rhetorical question, see, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 51, 237.

[6180]. Cf., e.g., Quint. Inst. 3.7.26; Men. Rhet. 1.1, 332.8–9; 1.2, 344.16–345.8; 1.2–3, 346.26–367.9 (esp. 1.2, 346.26–351.19; 1.3, 359.16–367.9); 2.14, 429.1–4; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.535; utopian geography in Let. Aris. 83–107; Balch, “Encomia” (citing Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.9–2.29; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.145–295). Many of Dio Chrysostom’s orations involve praise and blame for cities.

[6181]. The cities themselves did not always agree; see comment on Acts 21:39.

[6182]. Cf. Alexandria and Egypt as “nurse of cities” (Sib. Or. 5.88; 11.302).

[6183]. I. Eph. 21 I.3, 22, 41; 24 B.2; 27.4; 132; 143.36a–d; 212; 233; 236; 241; and passim. For its application to the civic office of temple wardens for the Artemis cult, see comment on Acts 19:24.

[6184]. See Stowers, Letter Writing, 80 (citing esp. Dio Chrys. Or. 33.12), 88 (citing P.Oxy. 1837), 130 (citing Pliny Ep. 9.5).

[6185]. On this date, see Friesen, “Cult,” 229–30; Price, “Neōkoros.” City titles like this one were used in competition between cities (Friesen, “Cult,” 236–39; Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 136–37); on such rivalries, see comment on Acts 21:39.

[6186]. White, “Development,” 36–37 (its use regarding the imperial cult is first identified in 89 C.E.); Witetschek, “Color.”

[6187]. See Keener, Acts, 1:285–86, 304, 308, 316–17.

[6188]. Contrast Luke’s relatively positive view of the Roman government with the more sectarian John 15:18–25 and Rev 13, both probably stemming from the 90s and probably (almost certainly in the case of Revelation) Asia Minor.

[6189]. See comment on Acts 19:24 (discussing temple wardens with the different term νεωποιός; but that term might be synonymous in the inscriptions, cf. McRay, Archaeology, 258). The title applied to those responsible for administering “a temple and its sacrifices” (Trebilco, “Asia,” 330, citing Xen. Anab. 5.3.6; Paus. 10.12.5; Jos. War 1.153; Philo Spec. Laws 1.156; Flight 90, 93–94).

[6190]. Johnson, Acts, 350, cites Philo Spec. Laws 1.156; Jos. War 1.153, “in the sense of cleaning and tending” shrines; one may add Philo Spec. Laws 2.120 (of the Levites); Dreams 2.272; Mos. 1.316, 318; 2.72, 159, 174, 276; Rewards 74; and the common usage in North, “Temple Officials,” 1482.

[6191]. Cf. the reverse sort of compliment, in portraying Jupiter as custodian of the city of Rome (Cic. Cat. 1.5.11).

[6192]. Friesen, “Cult,” 231; Witherington, Acts, 598; Oster, “Artemis as Opponent,” 30; cf. Ramsay, Letters, 232. One might suggest that the Romans later shifted the νεωκόρος title to the imperial cult partly because of its earlier use in the Artemis cult. But Rome also granted the title to other cities; in 38 C.E., e.g., Rome granted it in an informal way to Cyzicus (Friesen, “Cult,” 231).

[6193]. Any ancient city would have counted “twice neokoros” as a special ground for boasting (e.g., Synnada in Phrygia, MAMA 4.59.5, ca. 293–305 C.E.). This probably refers to Ephesus’s two imperial temples, the first of which existed long before Domitian.

[6194]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 329–30 (citing I. Eph. 300; 304; 304a; 740; 1910; 2040.4–5; 4336). Cf. also CIG 2.2972; Conzelmann, Acts, 166; Hemer, Acts in History, 122. See esp. Kearsley, “Neokoros,” 203 (on I. Eph. 3.647): “both neokoros of Artemis and three times neokoros of the emperors.”

[6195]. This is the procedure we would use for most ancient sources; those who insist on more complete evidence for claims in Acts treat it more suspiciously than we treat comparable historical sources.

[6196]. Williams, “Neokoros” (though citing only Acts 19:35 as an example).

[6197]. Cf. Thompson, Archaeology, 398, offering no evidence. The Suda reports the legend that the image originated ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (Arnold, Power, 22), but this legend could stem from Luke.

[6198]. Most note this lack of evidence (e.g., Carter and Earle, Acts, 298; Trebilco, “Asia,” 352; Fitzmyer, Acts, 661).

[6199]. Bruce, Acts¹, 367 (citing for Ceres at Enna, Cic. Verr. 2.5.187, as in Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 250; for El Gabal at Emesa, Hdn. 5.3, 5); idem, Commentary, 398; Longenecker, Acts, 298; Witherington, Acts, 598; cf. Trebilco, “Asia,” 351–52.

[6200]. Meteorites would not, e.g., be compatible with wooden statues (e.g., of a seated Athena, Strabo 13.1.41; the Tauric Artemis, Paus. 1.23.7), though decomposing (wooden) statues could be replaced (Pliny Ep. 9.39.4). Mussies, “Artemis,” 97, notes Pliny the Elder’s report (N.H. 16.213–14) that the Ephesian Artemis’s statue was made of dark wood. On the cult image of Artemis of Ephesus, see Aurenhammer, “Sculptures,” 252–55.

[6201]. Gill, “Religion,” 89, speaks of “a sacred baetyl, which had supposedly fallen out of heaven,” used for worshiping Cybele at Pessinus; see also Strobel, “Pessinus,” 861–62. Pliny E. N.H. 2.59.149–50 (esp. 150) refers to the worship of stones that fell from heaven in various locations. On diopetes objects in antiquity (fallen from the divine realm), see also Kauppi, Gods, 101–5.

[6202]. Graf, “Artemis,” 65 (citing Callim. Hymns 3 [to Artemis], line 238); he describes the typical Artemis image as “archaic . . . with removable ornaments and clothes.”

[6203]. Men. Rhet. 2.17, 445.18 (Russell and Wilson, 223), praising a statue of Apollo.

[6204]. Men. Rhet. 2.17, 445.19 (Russell and Wilson, 223).

[6205]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 353, noting the analogous claim that the symbol of the Great Mother from Pessinus, being from heaven, was not humanly made (Hdn. 1.11.1); Witherington, Acts, 598; Shauf, Theology, 255, 257; Green, “Acts,” 759.

[6206]. See other sources in Linderski, “Palladium,” 1100 (including Ovid Fasti 6.419–60; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.68–69).

[6207]. LCL, 2:39. Frazer in LCL, 2:38n2, cites on the image also Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.68ff.; 2.66.5; Paus. 1.28.9; 2.23.5.

[6208]. Appian Hist. rom. 12.8.53 (also noting that it supposedly fell from heaven)—as if Ilium had not been burned!

[6209]. For the Roman story, see Linderski, “Palladium,” 1100. See also the tradition in Plut. Cam. 20.5 (in which it remained hidden in the temple of Vesta; also Gordon, “Vesta,” citing Livy 26.27.14); Metellus honorably snatched the Palladium from flames when Vesta’s temple burned (Val. Max. 1.4.5).

[6210]. E.g., Little Iliad frg. 11 (from Paus. Collected Attic Words d.14) (GEF 133); Libanius Encomium 1.17; 2.13; Speech in Character 23.4 (with notes citing on the Palladium also Apollod. Bibl. 3.12.3; Epit. 5.10–13; Ovid Metam. 13.337–51; Virg. Aen. 2.163–68). This scene appears even in a cameo from Jerusalem (Rahmani, “Cameo”).

[6211]. Paus. 1.26.6, himself unwilling to venture an opinion on the view’s accuracy.

[6212]. Also observing in this passage that some thought that the place was named Pessinus because the statue had “fallen” from heaven; various πεσ- forms are the second aorist of πίπτω. The etymology is likely fallacious but reveals the popular strength of the connection between the legend and the location.

[6213]. Some ancients suggested a comparison with stars, which one scholar thought consisted of heavy stone that simply glowed from friction against the heavenly aether (Plut. Lys. 12.1–2). On this stone, cf. also Pliny E. N.H. 2.149–50.

[6214]. See Lucian Gout 87–88 (esp. 88, ἀπ᾽ αἰθέρος).

[6215]. Scholars cite Eurip. Iph. Taur. 87–88, 977, 1044–45, 1384–85 (e.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 250; Conzelmann, Acts, 166; Trebilco, “Asia,” 352–53; Mussies, “Artemis,” 97). See also Renehan, “Quotations,” 23, suggesting an echo (of διοπετές in Eurip. Iph. Taur. 977–78).

[6216]. E.g., the new Philip (Polyb. 36.10.1–7), as if ἀεροπετής (36.10.2).

[6217]. See also Keener, “Monotheism.”

[6218]. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 132; Pervo, Story, 68. Johnson, Acts, 350, compares similar advice in a similar setting in Heliod. Eth. 4.20.1–3.

[6219]. In the LXX, only at 2 Macc 4:31; 3 Macc 6:1.

[6220]. With Johnson, Acts, 350.

[6221]. Προπετής appears elsewhere in the NT only once (2 Tim 3:4), three times in the LXX (Prov 10:14; 13:3; Sir 9:18), and once in the Apostolic Fathers (1 Clem. 1.1); διοπετής appears in none of these sources (though it appears elsewhere; see BDAG).

[6222]. An excess of such plays on sounds might fit accusations of bombastic “Asianic” rhetoric.

[6223]. Ancient hearers would not expect an unreliable character’s words to reflect the author’s perspective (Proclus Poet. 6.1, K110.8–9), nor would monotheists expect even a civic or Roman official to speak truth regarding polytheism.

[6224]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 251; Johnson, Acts, 350; they cite 2 Macc 4:42; Jos. Ant. 4.207; War 1.654; Ag. Ap. 2.237. Most relevant here is that it was sometimes applied to trying to change religious arrangements (I. Eph. 27.217; Trebilco, “Asia,” 354); even moving sacred objects, including statues of morals, within a temple counted (Dio Chrys. Or. 31.88–89; cf. 31.82). Cf. Porph. Marc. 19.316–17, which applies the term (19.317) to sacrifices offered by those ignorant of God’s nature.

[6225]. Thucyd. 4.97.2 (though cf. the Athenian reply, 4.98.2); Appian Hist. rom. 8.12.89 (in Carthage, Rome would spare only tombs and temples). The pious Romans pillaged around a temple but not inside (Livy 36.20.3).

[6226]. E.g., Polyb. 4.67.3; Tac. Hist. 3.33; Suet. Jul. 54.1–2.

[6227]. E.g., Polyb. 4.67.3 (citing the customs and laws of humanity); 5.10.3–4; 9.35.6; 16.1.2–6; Dio Chrys. Or. 40.8; Tac. Hist. 3.71–72; Quint. Decl. 257.4.

[6228]. Aeschines Embassy 131; Livy 31.26.12; 31.30.9–10; 31.31.3; 42.3.8; Corn. Nep. 4 (Pausanias), 4.4; Appian Hist. rom. 8.20.133; Quint. Decl. 252.5. Earlier, cf. Judg 18:17; Daube, Studies in Law, 202–3. Rome was protecting the sanctity of some others’ shrines by the second century B.C.E. (see Wells, “Impiety”).

[6229]. E.g., Strabo 4.1.13; Nero was notorious for this crime (Dio Chrys. Or. 31.148; Tac. Ann. 15.44; Suet. Nero 32).

[6230]. E.g., Lucian Hermot. 37; Vit. Aes. 127–28; true even if caused by poverty (Quint. Decl. 379.5; for poverty as cause, see Libanius Invect. 6.11; Confirmation 3.4; for greed, Invect. 5.12). It was also bad luck in a dream (Artem. Oneir. 3.3). An exception to this view was Diogenes the Cynic (Diog. Laert. 6.2.73), who claimed that the gods shared everything with the wise anyway (6.2.72).

[6231]. Diod. Sic. 14.69.2 (θεομαχῶμεν); Quint. Decl. 323.5 (where the army faces a plague for harming a temple).

[6232]. Xen. Hell. 1.7.22; Plato Euthyphro 5; Diod. Sic. 27.1; Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.1.8.25; Fin. 3.9.32; Dio Chrys. Or. 3.53; Lucian Z. Cat. 16, 18; Dial. D. 450 (24/30, Minos and Sostratus 1); Sat. 7; Char. Chaer. 1.5.25; Quint. Decl. 260.17; 304 intro.; 304.3; Libanius Topics 1.15, 20; 2.13–14, 18, 23; 4.15; Nicolaus Progymn. 7, “On Commonplace,” 41; cf. Lucian Icar. 16; in a list of apocalyptic-like disasters, see Sib. Or. 2.14. Jesus, by contrast, accused the temple authorities of being robbers in the temple (Luke 19:46), as if it would hide them from divine judgment (Jer 7:11).

[6233]. E.g., Hermog. Progymn. 6, “On Commonplace,” 12. One noted for particular evil might be thought capable even of plundering divine images (Eurip. Danae frg. 328, in Stob. 3.16.6).

[6234]. E.g., Diod. Sic. 27.4.3; Val. Max. 1.1.18, 21; 1.1.ext. 3 (posthumously), 5; Corn. Nep. 17 (Agesilaus), 4.8; Pliny E. N.H. 33.24.83; Babr. 78; Phaedrus 4.11.1–13; Lucian Z. Rants 24, 32; Paus. 9.39.12 (on treasures in Pausanias, cf. Arafat, “Treasure”); Quint. Decl. 323 intro.; cf. 1 Sam 5:4; an oracle growing silent after a temple robbery in Strabo 17.1.43. A skeptic might report a god failing to avenge this insult repeatedly (Lucian Tim. 4).

[6235]. E.g., Athen. Deipn. 12.523ab; destruction by lightning for destroying a sanctuary, Paus. 9.25.10; cf. soldiers blinded by fire for trying to plunder Ceres’s temple (Val. Max. 1.1.ext. 5). Cf. punishment by angels for attempted theft of the temple treasures in 2 Macc 3:25–26. In contrast to temples offering refuge to supplicants, a temple caught fire, burning alive some temple robbers who sought refuge there, revealing the gods’ special anger for this crime (Diod. Sic. 16.58.6).

[6236]. Cf. Pleminius, who hastily restored treasures plundered from a temple of Persephone after his fleet was shipwrecked (Diod. Sic. 27.4.3).

[6237]. A plague struck the Carthaginian army after they plundered the temple of Demeter and Kore (Diod. Sic. 14.69.4); the general who pillaged Zeus’s temple fled in shame with a few survivors (14.76.3); one who ordered a sacred grove cut down was killed in judgment (Val. Max. 1.1.19). A deity might also defend its grove (Philost. Hrk. 57.13–14), and the death of trees planted to honor Nero portended his death (Suet. Galb. 1).

[6238]. Plundering temples could lead to divinely sent insanity (Livy 42.28.12). Caligula’s subsequent detractors depicted him as both insane and impious (see the excursus “ ‘Divine’ Humans” at Acts 10:25–26 [Keener, Acts, 2:1782–86]).

[6239]. Acts portrays Paul’s impious fighting against deity only in terms of his earlier persecution of Jesus’s followers (Acts 26:14).

[6240]. For his insanity, see also Polyb. 26.1.1–3. In Diod. Sic. 28.3.1, Antiochus faces just disaster for plundering Zeus’s temple at Elymaïs.

[6241]. Jos. Ant. 12.358–59; cf. 4 Macc 18:5.

[6242]. E.g., the Romans punished harshly some who stole money from the shrine of Persephone (Livy 32.1.8); likewise, Alexander earlier punished one who stole from tombs and temples (Arrian Alex. 6.30.2); all people rejected one who tried to plunder Zeus’s temple (Diod. Sic. 34/35.28.1–3); in declamations, the appropriate punishment for burning a temple is death (Quint. Decl. 331.5); one committing temple theft is tortured for information (Quint. Decl. 379 intro.); the thief’s property is consecrated to the temple (Quint. Decl. 324 intro.; 324.4). A nine-year-old boy is spared execution only through another’s intervention in Paus. 6.11.2–3.

[6243]. Xen. Mem. 1.2.62; Apol. 25; Sen. E. Controv. 8.1; Alciph. Paras. 7 (Psichoclastes to Bucion), 3.43, ¶5; Dio Chrys. Or. 31.82; Vit. Aes. 128, 132; Apul. Metam. 9.10; cf. Schiemann, “Death Penalty.” Forensic orators could raise the question of definition to resolve the conflict between the double repayment required of thieves and the death penalty applied to temple robbers (Hermog. Issues 27.8–14, cf. 27.5–8; also in 62.2–10). Technically, the charge applied only to stealing items devoted to deities (Robinson, Criminal Law, 31). In practice, some were simply imprisoned at length (Lucian Tox. 28), and even this depended on catching them (Icar. 24); but if a temple robber was hurled from the rocks, he deserved it (Phal. 1.6).

[6244]. In Lucian Lucius 41 (where they find the stolen objects in the bosom of the priests’ goddess statue; though they venerate images, it never occurs to them to charge the goddess image, rather than the priests, with the theft); cf. the pursuit of Aesop in Vit. Aes. 128.

[6245]. P.Tebt. 5.5.

[6246]. Quint. Curt. 7.5.28, 31–35. Curtius himself regards this punishment as excessive, since the suppliants were not guilty of their ancestors’ crime (7.5.35).

[6247]. Cic. Verr. 1.4.12; 2.1.4.9; 2.3.3.6; 2.4.43.93–94; 2.4.44.97; 2.4.46.103–4; 2.4.49.109–10; 2.4.56.126–2.4.60.134; Ag. Caec. 1.3; 4.11. His aides broke open the doors of another temple to seize a statue but were repelled (Verr. 2.4.44.96).

[6248]. Cic. Verr. 2.4.3.5–2.4.4.7; 2.4.45.99; see, e.g., his plunder of the treasures and art of Minerva’s temple (2.4.55.122–2.4.56.125).

[6249]. Earlier plundered also by a colleague of his (Cic. Verr. 2.3.21.54)!

[6250]. Naturally, disrespecting imperial statues raised the specter of maiestas (Nock, “Developments,” 489; probably hinted at in Apul. Apol. 85).

↑ Back to top