[6258] . Lysimachus in Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.311, 318.

[6258] . Lysimachus in Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.311, 318.

[6251]. See esp. Jos. Ant. 15.89; Strabo 14.1.23; Appian Hist. rom. 12.4.23; Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 98–106; Strelan, Artemis, 49–50, 70–71. Fugitives there included debtors (Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 100) and those others wished to kill (100–102).

[6252]. Arrian Alex. 1.17.11. Similarly, those who ate fish sacred to Artemis consequently reaped awful judgments (Diod. Sic. 34/35.9.1).

[6253]. E.g., Pindar Pyth. 4.53–54 (gold in Apollo’s temple at Pytho); Cic. Fam. 5.20.5 (money stored safely in a temple); Strabo 14.1.22 (on Ephesus’s temple). D. Williams, Acts, 343, notes “temple-robbers” regarding Ephesus (citing Strabo 14.1.22; Heraclitus Ep. 7).

[6254]. Caesar C.W. 3.33, 105. Caesar himself, however, was not above pilfering temples to finance his wars (Plut. Caes. 35.2–4). Augustus claimed to restore to Asia’s temples what his rival had plundered (Res Gestae 4.24).

[6255]. Indeed, this could be inferred from some conquest narratives in the LXX; some Jews did tear down a pagan altar in an area that Jews considered their own (Philo Embassy 200, 202; Philo blames those who built the altar of provocation, Embassy 201). Strelan, Artemis, 151f., n. 43, points out that many Jews did denounce idols (citing Sib. Or. 4.28–30, possibly from late first-century C.E. Asia). Yet even some later rabbis disapproved tearing down pagan altars (ʾAbot R. Nat. 31, §66 B), though they refused to permit any idolatry (y. Giṭ. 5:9, §8).

[6256]. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.237; Ant. 4.207. Josephus may also play down Asa’s destruction of paganism (Ant. 8.286–315; see Feldman, “Asa”).

[6257]. Manetho according to Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.248–49. Hecataeus complained that Jews were unwilling to cooperate in building or rebuilding pagan temples (1.192) and that they happily helped Macedonians tear down old temples (1.193).

[6258]. Lysimachus in Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.311, 318.

[6259]. Exod 22:27 LXX (22:28 ET; see, e.g., Sanders, Judaism, 242; esp. van der Horst, “Not Revile,” on Josephus and Philo following this apologetic; on the reasons for the apologetic, see esp. van der Horst, “Zult”). Philo thus warns even against speaking against pagan deities (Mos. 2.205; Spec. Laws 1.53).

[6260]. See Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 206–7 (citing CPJ 3:119–21, §520 and other sources).

[6261]. Jos. Ant. 4.207; Ag. Ap. 2.237; Philo Mos. 2.205; all this from a remarkable exegesis of the third commandment (Exod 22:28)! Since Philo and Josephus do mock other gods, this claim was propaganda (see Goldenberg, “Ban”).

[6262]. Perhaps avenging the persecutions that many Christians had recently suffered from some pagans, yet still astonishingly different from Jesus’s or Paul’s teachings on nonresistance.

[6263]. Ancient audiences, no less than modern ones, could appreciate the narrative irony of characters within the narrative world speaking truth recognized only by the authorial audience (e.g., Char. Chaer. 1.13.10; Apul. Metam. 5.6; John 11:48, 49; 12:19; cf. the ambiguity of oracular double entendre in Aune, Prophecy, 60–61).

[6264]. Earlier sources employed ἡ ἄνθρωπος for an “unwomanly” woman, but by this period, pejorative associations appear quite minimal in documentary sources (Sosin, “Word for Woman?,” suggesting that it may function in many cases as “wife”).

[6265]. The masculine form of the noun is dominant here (ἡ θεός in I. Eph. 27.68, 215, 249, 271, 275, 313, 367, 396, 437, 462, 535, 553), but ἡ θεά appears in 27.224–25 (cf. 27.324, 407, 453–54), though ἡ θεά “never occurs alone” (Trebilco, “Asia,” 319; cf. Hemer, Acts in History, 122; Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 19:37, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]). The masculine form was, apparently, known at least to educated speakers in Asia Minor (Dio displays his knowledge of it in Or. 31.55, 65, addressing Rhodians).

[6266]. See esp. Baugh, “Phraseology and Reliability.”

[6267]. Perhaps the more influential leaders had less concern about public sentiment; it might also be relevant that Rome appointed the governor, and the city clerk may have had a brief term limit (one year); they might answer less to the public than the magistrates of the Macedonian cities did. Perhaps that Paul was already established in Corinth and Ephesus could be a factor.

[6268]. Johnson, Acts, 350, noting “case against one” (Arist. Rhet. 1402a), “bring cases” (Plato Apol. 26C), “court days” (Jos. Ant. 14.245), and “proconsuls.”

[6269]. For the Greek expression, BDAG cites Jos. Ant. 14.245; Eph. Ep. 7.436, no. 44.10; Strabo 13.4.12. The “courts” being “open” seems to occur much more rarely in smaller Apamea, where the arrival of judges seems to bring a host of others (Dio Chrys. Or. 35.15). The courts being open suggests that no festival is underway, despite the religious fervor (Libanius Descr. 29.9).

[6270]. Bruce, Acts¹, 368; Hemer, Acts in History, 123; Trebilco, “Asia,” 355; cf. Calder, Gray, and Mitchell, “Asia,” 189. Trebilco, “Asia,” 355, also notes the conjunction of ἀγοραῖοι and ἄγω in Jos. Ant. 14.245 (with the singular for the court day), IGRR 4.788.10, and other sources; this may reflect the Latin conventus agere (Conzelmann, Acts, 166). If this was an assize day, the meeting may have been conducted in the town hall adjoining the theater rather than in the theater itself.

[6271]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 309.

[6272]. A proconsul could also convene a city “assembly” (Dio Chrys. Or. 45.15).

[6273]. The standard translation of Dio Chrys. Or. 40.7; 45.4, 6, 8; 46.14 speaks of “proconsuls” but uses the different term ἡγεμών (which also means “governor” [e.g., Acts 23:24, 26, 33; 24:1, 10; 26:30], though it bears a broader semantic range than this [e.g., 1 Macc 6:57; 2 Macc 1:13, 16; 12:19; Philo Creation 17, 30, 69, 75, 78]). Perhaps Dio could refer to successive proconsuls in these cases, or proconsuls over all the provinces in that region; or Dio may employ a generalizing plural (see comment below).

[6274]. As Barrett, Acts, 937, notes, this was “an elementary and universally known fact.” Elsewhere Luke always employs the singular (Acts 13:7, 8, 12; 18:12). A quaestor and three legates assisted the proconsul in Asia (Calder, Gray, and Mitchell, “Asia,” 189).

[6275]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 251; Barrett, Acts, 937; Horton, Acts, 331n22; allowed as a possibility in Hemer, Acts in History, 123. The generalizing plural with proconsuls appears in Plut. Praecepta gerendae rei publicae (Statecraft) 813E (Trebilco, “Asia,” 356n283).

[6276]. See Tac. Ann. 13.1 (noting the use of the imperial agents Celer and Helius in the murder, as the first murder of Nero’s reign); Dio Cass. Hist. 61.6.4–5; Bruce, Commentary, 401; idem, Acts¹, 368; Riesner, Early Period, 216–17; Gasque, “Acts and History,” 55 (also mentioning another possibility, below); very tentatively, Trebilco, “Asia,” 356.

[6277]. Duncan, Ephesian Ministry, 102ff.; more tentatively, Bruce, Documents, 83; idem, Commentary, 401n70; Gasque, “Acts and History,” 55; Hemer, Acts in History, 123, 169.

[6278]. Riesner, Early Period, 216–17. On Roman means of temporarily filling emergency vacancies, see Treves and Levick, “Suffect”; Tomlin, “Vicarius.”

[6279]. If there was no proconsul at the moment, it would explain the clerk’s need to emphasize that the courts remained in session, though the clerk might well emphasize this point, in any case, as a contrast to Demetrius’s attempt to achieve justice by the mob.

[6280]. Blaiklock, “Document,” 50. Given the hyperbole in Acts 19:35, this is not impossible, especially if he refers to the emperor’s agents there (though the deputies would be more likely to exercise the proconsul’s duties).

[6281]. For skepticism about the detailed explanation, see Barrett, Acts, 937; Witherington, Acts, 599.

[6282]. One might deliberately suppress an opponent’s name in an insulting manner (e.g., Aeschines Ctes. 1; Demosth. Or. 19.120 [noted in Hermog. Inv. 4.3.179]; Cic. Agr. 24.63–64; Res Gestae 1.1; 4.24; Quint. Decl. 293.1; Libanius Speech in Character 7.1, 3; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.36–37; 40.8–9; 47.20–21; Lucian Peregr. 11–13, 22; Marshall, Enmity, 342–43; perhaps Symm. Ep. 1.65); but one would sometimes name them if this would warn against or shame them more effectively (e.g., 1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 2:17; perhaps 4Q477 2 II, 3, 5, 7, 9).

[6283]. Plut. Praecepta gerendae rei publicae (Statecraft) 813F, 825C (Trebilco, “Asia,” 344); the banishment of those who stirred violence in Pompeii in Tac. Ann. 14.17 (Trebilco, “Asia,” 345).

[6284]. Dio Chrys. Or. 34.39; needless fights would result in their relinquishing their superiors’ trust (34.40). Ionia includes Ephesus, but in a later generation and presumably involving more-provincial complaints.

[6285]. McRay, Archaeology, 40, 253–54. The state agora was 525 ft. long, with a basilica on its north that was 65 ft. wide, and dates to the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius.

[6286]. Ibid., 254.

[6287]. Ibid., map, 251, reproduced above on p. 2902.

[6288]. If 1 Tim 1:3 is construed as saying that Paul eventually returned to Ephesus, it is possible that the political situation changed (though even in the Pastorals it appears that conditions remained uncomfortable for Paul there; cf. 2 Tim 1:15; 4:14–15). But if he did, it is beyond Luke’s purview and perhaps beyond his sources (Acts 20:25, 38, though this may represent Luke’s compression of material and use of pathos).

[6289]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 40.6 (in contrast to council chamber meetings); 66.4, 29.

[6290]. Possibly, this occurred on an assize day (a good day for Demetrius to choose to stir his allies to seize someone, Acts 19:29), and the mob spilled into and interrupted regular proceedings; were that the case, however, we would expect mention of the proconsul or deputy (unless Demetrius chose this time also because of the interregnum; see comment on Acts 19:38).

[6291]. With Conzelmann, Acts, 166; Bruce, Apostle, 294. The exact expression “regular assembly” appears elsewhere in ancient sources (SIG³ 852.20, from 149 C.E.), and the idea is attested in Ephesus (I. Eph. 27.468–69, from 104 C.E.; Hemer, Acts in History, 123). For further discussion of the expression (and the view of some that the assembly here indeed was an official one), see comment on Acts 19:32.

[6292]. Ramsay, Other Studies, 205; see more fully his discussion on the lawful assembly, 203–15.

[6293]. Rhet. Alex. 36.18–20, 1443a (from the Hellenistic era). For openness to being corrected by another’s views, see Dion. Hal. Lysias 20.

[6294]. All uses of theaters in cities may have been five to twenty-five times in a year (Horsley, Galilee, 180, following Boatwright, “Theaters”), though perhaps Ephesus would have used its theater more frequently than did smaller cities. In classical Athens, popular assemblies settled even routine decisions (Judge, Pattern, 19); in later centuries, “free” cities continued to make many decisions by votes in the theater (cf. Heliod. Eth. 4.21).

[6295]. Sherwin-White, Society, 85–86, noting that the picture fits the era (though only a very few scholars date Acts as late as the mid-second century). Centralized government also increased in late second-century Asia Minor (Zuiderhoek, “Centralization”).

[6296]. Chrys. Hom. Acts 42.2 (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 252; Bruce, Commentary, 402; Sherwin-White, Society, 87; Witherington, Acts, 599).

[6297]. Sherwin-White, Society, 87; Trebilco, “Asia,” 356.

[6298]. Sherwin-White, Society, 88. Even irregular assemblies would be announced; ancients did post announcements (Kolb, “Newspaper,” 698).

[6299]. Cf. Paul’s complaint in 1 Cor 11:20–21: it is not the Lord’s supper you eat, but your own (cf. Winter, Left Corinth, 158).

[6300]. Ambiguously leaving such an impression could further serve Luke’s apologetic (even if it were a scheduled assembly), but of course, we have a mob scene that furthers his apologetic, in any case (shouting in any assembly could become out of control). Perhaps the mob was aroused on the pretext (or, likelier, assumption) of an unscheduled meeting.

[6301]. Italian pottery in first-century Ephesus (see Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger, “Factories,” 221) suggests commercial ties, though this speaks more about material than about social culture.

[6302]. Given nostalgia for the Greek past, literary sources focus on Greek elements of the culture, but archaeology demonstrates considerable Roman influence, especially among the upper classes (Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 107–15).

[6303]. See White, “Development,” 30–33.

[6304]. Men. Rhet. 2.13, 423.7, 10.

[6305]. I assume that Luke here uses αἰτία and αἴτιος interchangeably (compare Luke 23:4 with Acts 13:28).

[6306]. Crowds often supported views when together that no one afterward would defend (Pliny Ep. 2.11.6–7).

[6307]. Hostile interpreters could construe civic violence “as violations of Lex Lutatia, Lex Plautia, and possibly Lex Iulia de vi publica” (Fitzmyer, Acts, 662, following Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd ed., 1128–29).

[6308]. Tac. Ann. 14.17.

[6309]. Jones, Chrysostom, 24; Yamauchi, Cities, 81; Trebilco, “Asia,” 347.

[6310]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 339–40; Harland, Associations, 170 (citing I. Eph. 215).

[6311]. Dio Chrys. Or. 38.33–37, in Trebilco, “Asia,” 344.

[6312]. On which see comment on Acts 19:29. Unlike some other sanctuaries, the Artemis temple successfully defended its claim to the right (Tac. Ann. 3.60–63; see more fully Trebilco, “Asia,” 342–43).

[6313]. See comment on Acts 19:25. Here see Trebilco, “Asia,” 343; I. Eph. 17–19. Half a century later, proconsuls themselves were allegedly involved in corruption (Tac. Agr. 6).

[6314]. Bruce, History, 18; cf. Judge, Pattern, 24.

[6315]. See Spawforth, “Free Cities”; Bruce, History, 18.

[6316]. Pliny noted that a free city implemented its own laws, but the emperor had to decide if it could have clubs to care for the needy (Ep. 10.92). The emperor replied that “free cities,” unlike all others, could have such clubs so long as they did not abuse them “for riotous and unlawful assemblies” (10.93 [Radice, LCL, 2:283]).

[6317]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 344, citing Dio Cass. 54.7.6 and dating the loss to 20 B.C.E. (comparing also Rhodes’s loss in Tac. Ann. 12.58; others in Suet. Aug. 47). One gathers from Tac. Ann. 4.36 that Cyzicus lost the privilege because of neglecting the imperial cult as well as violence to Roman citizens, ca. 25 C.E.

[6318]. Tac. Ann. 14.17 (Trebilco, “Asia,” 345).

[6319]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 345, citing Dio Chrys. Or. 48.1.

[6320]. See Sherwin-White, Society, 83–85; Witherington, Acts, 600n171. On the circumscription of cities’ autonomy (and especially that of the municipal elites who traditionally controlled them) under the empire, see, e.g., Meeks, Moral World, 27.

[6321]. Dio Chrys. Or. 34.39 (LCL, 3:373, 375; quoted also in Meeks, Moral World, 27). “Free” speech here probably implies speech in the civic assembly.

[6322]. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 32. “Freedom” was a status that the advancing empire bestowed on cities (Appian Hist. rom. 12.12.83); in its strictest sense, it meant exemption from Roman taxation (cf. pl. liberae, Cic. Verr. 2.3.6.13; but in the first century, such exemption might be specified by immunitas [see Burton, “Immunitas,” 749]), a significant economic boon.

[6323]. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 55–56, noting that Rome did not try to force change (cf. I. Eph. 1487–88, a “polite request to add two councilors”). Apparently, the Greek model prevailed until the Flavian period.

[6324]. For a discussion of Paul’s imprisonment(s) at some point(s) in Ephesus (possible but not proven), though not necessarily on the occasion described here, see the introduction, above, to Acts 19:23–40.

[6325]. See Johnson, “Paul and Riot”; Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 156–57. An altar honoring Augustus was inside the temple precinct of the Artemisium (McDonald, “Ephesus,” 319; Yamauchi, Cities, 83).

[6326]. Kreitzer, “Clue to Acts 19.23–41” (suggesting also the dangerous political dimension of Acts 19:40); see also Riesner, Early Period, 215. Earlier scholars emphasized a ritual of sacred marriage (cf. Reitzenstein, Religions, 19–20, 25, 35–36, 118, 310–19; Ramsay, Teaching, 294–96; Angus, Mystery-Religions, 114–16; Murray, Stages, 32; Knox, Gentiles, 201; Tarn, Civilisation, 354–55; Batey, Imagery, 11), but modern research is more skeptical about sexual rituals connected with conjugal myths (Graf, “Hieros Gamos: Greece”; Lanci, “Stones,” 209–10; Koester, Introduction, 1:177; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 239) and speaks of such marriages in more restrained terms (Burkert, Religion, 108–9; Klauck, Context, 102–3, 120, 125; cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 36.56; Hdn. 5.6.5). Often marriage is employed simply as an image for something else (Wohl, “Scenes”).

Part 6: To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

[1]. The final involuntary journey will be the voyage to Rome in Roman custody in Acts 27:1–28:14, but it fits Paul’s sense of God’s calling as well (cf. 19:21; 25:11; 27:24).

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

[1]. Although Paul’s turn toward Jerusalem and Rome begins in Acts 19:21 and the riot in Ephesus merely confirms the need to leave, I have chosen to begin the new section where Luke is actually moving Paul toward Jerusalem (technically, starting in 20:3; the break between 19:41 and 20:1 is not abrupt).

[2]. Luke does not treat all elements equally: Paul himself probably saw more relevance in his extended stay in Achaia and Macedonia (Acts 20:1–6), as well as in his collection (cf. 24:17), than Luke did.

[3]. See Johnson, Acts, 10.

[4]. Gaventa, Acts, 276. In a sense, however, this alternation is not unexpected (nor are travels completely uneventful; cf. 21:4): Luke narrates accounts in various locations along the way, and travel from one location to the next must be mentioned. Perhaps he could have expanded on other locations as well but summarizes them as orators sometimes did in lists (cf. Rowe, “Style,” 148–49), though this cannot be inferred from the present itinerary in light of the itinerary form. But this approach does break up narrative nicely, lest recounting of travel details become too tedious. The travel sections also summarize the passage of time (e.g., traveling more than 150 mi. round-trip to a location where he needs to conduct some business, Pliny needs at least thirty days; Ep. 10.8.6).

[5]. Knox, Acts, 57–58. Thus much of the ground summarized in Acts 18:18–23 and 19:1 is treated in detail in 20:5–6, 13–16; 21:1–3, 7, 15.

[6]. So Conzelmann, Acts, 167 (citing, to show that it is simplified, 1 Cor 16:5; 2 Cor 2:12–13; 7:6–7, 13–16).

[7]. Burkitt, Sources, 16.

[8]. So Knox, Acts, 57–58.

[9]. When one did not know the number of days’ distance a site was, it was safest to claim that the traveler “came in the usual number of days” or something similar (Xen. Cyr. 5.4.51).

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

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

[12]. An ancient writer who had only the protagonist’s letters would use them as a source but would also almost always cite them; historians liked to emphasize documentary sources where they were available. Luke’s “we” in this section identifies a simpler and more complete source of information. On Luke’s “we” material, see the discussion at Acts 16:10; for his nonuse of Paul’s letters, see Keener, Acts, 1:233–37.

[13]. E.g., Dunn, Acts, 267.

[14]. For various views of the collection, see the survey in Watson, “Collection,” 1–11, esp. 2–5.

[15]. See also Bruce, Acts¹, 369; Johnson, Acts, 357. Galatia is also included (cf. Acts 20:4; 1 Cor 16:1); the representatives from the Galatian churches may have joined Paul before his departure from Ephesus. Information about the collection would likely have been available to Luke (see Morgan-Wynne, “Traditionsgrundlage”).

[16]. See further Rackham, Acts, 370–73; Hemer, Acts in History, 188; Marshall, Acts, 322; Dunn, Acts, 267. For Paul’s movements in this section, see the discussion in Keener, “Corinthian Believers”; also idem, Corinthians, ad loc.

[17]. By way of Macedonia (1 Cor 16:5).

[18]. For one reconstruction of the conflict, see Marshall, Enmity, 264; for one view of the change in travel plans, Matera, II Corinthians, 52–53. Some matters in Corinth itself probably also changed, requiring more instruction (Winter, Left Corinth, 5).

[19]. Because I think that the “second visit” of 2 Cor 13:2 must have taken place during Paul’s hastily summarized stay in Ephesus in Acts 19:10, the threat mentioned in this verse may be older than 1 Corinthians.

[20]. In the end, however, he remains willing to carry out his threat if it becomes necessary (2 Cor 10:11; 12:19–13:2).

[21]. Given its content, it is not too surprising that this is one letter that the Corinthian church failed to preserve.

[22]. His reproof by letter instead of in person led some to accuse him of being timid in person though heavy-handed in his letters (2 Cor 10:1–2, 8–11).

[23]. Most scholars doubt its unity, though most also reject the more extreme multiple partitions. Yet an increasing minority, often under the influence of contemporary literary and rhetorical criticism, accept even the possibility that the entire letter, including 2 Cor 10–13, belongs together (Danker, “Debt”; deSilva, “Reality”; idem, Credentials, 36–43; Hester, “Unity”; Amador, “Revisiting”; Young and Ford, Meaning, 27–59; Matera, II Corinthians, 24–32; Keener, Corinthians, 146–51; Witherington, Corinthians, 333–39; Barnett, Corinthians, 16–23; D. Garland, 2 Corinthians; Lambrecht, Second Corinthians; McCant, 2 Corinthians, 20–23; Belleville, 2 Corinthians, 30–33; Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 31–33; Scott, Corinthians, 6–7; earlier, e.g., Allo, Épître aux Corinthiens, l–lvi).

[24]. The identity of “the brother” (2 Cor 8:18, 22; 12:18) is disputed; some suggest Luke (cf. Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 561–62), though the question seems ultimately insoluble (Matera, II Corinthians, 197). Apollos’s showing up with Titus would have impressed them (cf. his fame in 2 Cor 8:18; cf. 1 Cor 16:12), as would Silas’s; “the brother” might refer to Timothy (cf. 2 Cor 1:1), Paul’s most frequent envoy (1 Cor 4:17; 16:10; Phil 2:19; 1 Thess 3:2), though the brother’s confidence in the Corinthian believers (2 Cor 8:22; a major motif in this letter, 1:12, 15; 2:3; 7:4, 16; 9:4) might suggest a Corinthian (cf. 1 Cor 1:1?). Finally we can only speculate, since we are not privy to all of Paul’s earlier communication with the Corinthians, which is likely assumed. Some think that the companions could include Luke (a view mentioned in Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 561–62), but Acts reads as if he joined them in Philippi.

[25]. With many commentators, e.g., C. Williams, Acts, 229 (if Rom 15:19 is literal); Bruce, Commentary, 404; Gill, “Macedonia,” 410; Riesner, Early Period, 301. But Dunn, Romans, 864, suggests that μέχρι might mean “up to” rather than “into” (so also BDAG here) and that Paul could envision his evangelization of Macedonia as representatively covering the entire province.

[26]. Bruce, Acts¹, 369. Bruce estimates more than a year (perhaps summer 55 to late 56) in Troas and Macedonia (Commentary, 405).

[27]. The visits must be asymmetrical in duration, given the length of the first one (Acts 18:11), but he weighs each as a distinct visit even if the second one was brief, given the difficulties of travel.

[28]. It is possible that Acts 20:1–3 does not represent the same visit as 1 Cor 16:5–6 (Rapske, “Travel,” 5; cf. 2 Cor 2:1; 13:1). I am inclined to think that it is the promised visit (perhaps delayed; cf. Hemer, Acts in History, 188), taking his “second visit” as early in his stay in Ephesus, before he wrote 1 Corinthians; but if not, then at least the two passages probably suggest 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.

[29]. Witherington, Acts, 602.

[30]. Cf. Bruce, Acts¹, 369; Gasque, “Acts and History,” 55; Witherington, Acts, 601. This is the only use in the NT or Apostolic Fathers; in the LXX, see Isa 66:19; Ezek 27:13; 1 Macc 1:1; 8:9. It does appear more often in Josephus (twenty-one times) and Philo (thirty times).

[31]. Cf. also 1 Cor 16:1, 19; 2 Cor 8:1, 18–19, 23–24; 11:8, 28. The representatives from various provinces may also help explain why Paul sends greetings from “all the churches” to Rome from Corinth in Rom 16:4, 16 (he cites the authority of “all the churches” elsewhere, but only here does he send their greetings).

[32]. With Conzelmann, Acts, 167. Rom 16:1 indicates that the letter is written during Paul’s stay in Corinth.

[33]. Some may have come from the “false apostles” who may have emphasized their Judean provenance (2 Cor 11:13, 22) and apparently did not think highly of Paul’s ministry. But continuing opposition from Corinthian Jews is also likely (cf. Acts 18:12–13; 20:3).

[34]. The rescheduling for Pentecost may have providentially worked in his favor, since it was less associated with nationalist aspirations than was Passover (cf. comment on Acts 24:11).

[35]. With Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 400, though he also (probably wrongly) thinks that most of the sailors would have been Jewish. Ramsay himself admits that we lack evidence for many Jewish sailors (there were a few; m. B. Bat. 5:1; Ketub. 5:6; b. Ketub. 61b; 62b; probably assumed in sailors’ knots in m. Šabb. 15:1; b. Šabb. 111b; see further Applebaum, “Economic Life,” 688–89). They are positive in b. Qidd. 82a; negative in m. Qidd. 4:14; for angels disguised as sailors, see b. Taʿan. 24b.

[36]. Sailing from Athens to Ephesus may have taken two and a half to three weeks in certain wind conditions (Cic. Att. 5.12–13).

[37]. Passengers aboard ships brought their own food and other supplies; the crew would not be concerned with keeping tabs on all of them. Depending on the size of the Jewish community in Achaia, it is not impossible that a ship could have been chartered. Still, many ships would leave Cenchreae for Syria, and we do not know that there were massive numbers of Corinthians Jews making pilgrimage; this suggests that the plot would be coordinated with Paul’s known travel plans.

[38]. Thus Lucian recounts a plot to throw him into the water once he was out to sea, thwarted only by the shipmaster dissuading the sailors, who had been commanded by Lucian’s nemesis (Alex. 56).

[39]. E.g., Suet. Claud. 13; Dom. 2.3.

[40]. See, e.g., y. ʿAbod. Zar. 5:4, §3 (claiming that R. Ishmael had to flee Samaria, where he had spoken against Samaritan religion).

[41]. See Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 60.

[42]. Le Cornu, Acts, 1103, estimates a journey of ten to fourteen days, “depending on whether the party travelled by foot or on transport”; travel through Macedonia (Acts 20:3) implies a land journey. Such journeys could employ different means, but given the party’s size, walking would be likeliest, for all or most of the journey.

[43]. If he had traveled temporarily with Paul and his colleagues to Corinth, then returned to Philippi, this could allow an identification with “Lucius” in Rom 16:21. It would not, however, demand it, since they could have simply agreed to meet the narrator in Philippi.

[44]. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 234. On Paul’s coworkers (especially in the letters), see further Ellis, “Coworkers.”

[45]. Haenchen, Acts, 581.

[46]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 144; see also comment on Acts 13:5. In many cultures, people learn their trade, including as cultic practitioners, by apprenticeship rather than schooling (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 232–33).

[47]. See the discussion in Meeks, Urban Christians, 7–8 (also attributing Colossians, Ephesians, and possibly 2 Thessalonians to these circles).

[48]. Sanders, Judaism, 128.

[49]. A contrast with Sceva’s seven “sons” (Acts 19:14) is possible but far less likely.

[50]. Riesner, Early Period, 269, suggests that Titus may have replaced Silas for this journey, though of lower rank. Talbert, Corinthians, 185, suspects that some of Paul’s companions are not named. It is unlikely that the author of Luke-Acts is Titus, especially given the lack of “we” material in Acts 15, where Titus was present (if Gal 2:1–10 is identified with Acts 15).

[51]. Marshall, Acts, 324. Cf. Titus 1:5, but the ministry depicted in the Pastorals must derive from a later period in Paul’s life than can be accommodated in Acts.

[52]. Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 18, including n. 1. An author might avoid praising those closest to him to avoid the charge of bias (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.33.628).

[53]. We could identify Luke with Titus, except for 2 Tim 4:10, but this would be forced, in any case (even if Titus’s movements might passably fit the “we” narrative, why would Paul use differing names for the same person in differing epistles?). On the argument that Titus is Timothy (skillfully articulated in Fellows, “Titus”), see comment on Acts 16:3.

[54]. The form for “Beroean” fits exactly the evidence of local inscriptions (see Hemer, Acts in History, 124; he notes a divergent form found in Athens in IG 3.2.2395, but possibly referring to a different town). That Luke specifies Sopater’s father might allow that the Pauline circle included more than one Sopater, but even if this is the case, that both of them appear in Corinth at the same time suggests that Luke and Paul speak of the same one.

[55]. As commonly suggested; e.g., Origen Comm. Rom. on 16:21 (CER 5:272, 274; Bray, Romans, 378); Dunn, Romans, 909; Riesner, Early Period, 348; Jewett, Romans, 978.

[56]. Jason could be Secundus (as his Latin name), as part of the Thessalonian delegation, but this is only a possibility.

[57]. CIG 2.1967; Milligan, Thessalonians, 134.

[58]. E.g., Mart. Epig. 1.2.7 (a freedman); 5.80.7, 13 (a learned and eloquent Secundus); 7.92.3; 12.75.3.

[59]. E.g., CIJ 1:117, §164 (if reconstructed correctly; from the Via Appia); 1:432, §595 (Greek words written in Hebrew letters); 1:432, §595 (“Secundos son of Secundos,” in Greek letters); cf. also “Deuterus” (the Greek equivalent, transcribed into Latin), 1:161, §225.

[60]. Riesner, Early Period, 350–51.

[61]. Thessalonica was the provincial seat (see comment on Acts 17:1) but, unlike Philippi, not a colony, and so Roman citizenship would have been rarer.

[62]. Perhaps from charges of stirring unrest raised by Asian Jews and rendered plausible by events in Acts 19:29.

[63]. Cadbury, Acts in History, 54n21.

[64]. They were, in fact, the first to desire to contribute (2 Cor 8:10; 9:2), unless this is rhetorical exaggeration meant to encourage them.

[65]. Jewett, Romans, 928, doubts whether they were prepared; but Paul in Rom 15:26 describes both churches in the same way, and it is no more appropriate to exclude Corinth from “Achaia” than to exclude Philippi or Thessalonica from “Macedonia.”

[66]. Probably because that Gaius also appears as a Macedonian with Aristarchus, the Western text changes “Derbe” to “Doberus,” in Macedonia near Philippi. The name Γάϊος was, however, common, and this is likely a case of later tradition combining disparate individuals with the same name (cf. Marshall, Acts, 324).

[67]. The “Gaius” here need not be a Roman citizen (Judge, First Christians, 561). We cannot identify Gaius Titius Justus with the epistles’ Titus, because of both his provenance and Pauline chronology. The letters’ Titus was, more likely than not, from South Galatia (like Gaius here), converted on Paul’s first mission there.

[68]. According to very early tradition (on my uncertain but working assumption that the movements in the Pastorals reflect a period after Paul’s first Roman imprisonment), Paul later returned near Ephesus and told Timothy to remain there, before he himself left for Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3). Paul later urged him to come see him in Rome (2 Tim 4:21), but Timothy was arrested and, after Nero’s death, released to return to the eastern Mediterranean (Heb 13:23).

[69]. Cf. Barreto, Negotiations, 117.

[70]. The ethnic designation Ἀσιανός was common in this period (Hemer, Acts in History, 124).

[71]. Tychicus remained a significant coworker in 2 Tim 4:12; Titus 3:12. One could argue that Timothy and Tychicus joined Paul later; but Luke may have simply omitted their presence in Acts 27:2, perhaps abbreviating or (less likely) for ideological or apologetic reasons.

[72]. Based on the pagan Greek Τύχη, Fate (Robertson and Dietrich, “Tyche”; Τύχη is pervasive in the literature, e.g., Isoc. Paneg. 26; Demon. 29; Demosth. Philip. 4.38; Diod. Sic. 31.4.1; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.21.1; 9.25.3; Plut. Chance, Mor. 97C–100A; see excursus on fate at Acts 2:23 [Keener, Acts, 1:927–38]); compare the analogous name “Epaphroditus” (Hawthorne, Philippians, 120; cf. Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.34; Lucian Affairs 16). Tyche is designated a “savior” in one inscription from Ephesus (I. Eph. 1238); Tychicus is from Asia.

[73]. In Rome, it was the twelfth most common cognomen in inscriptions (it appears at least 297 times; Hemer, Acts in History, 236). A Jewish inscription from the Via Appia mentions one Trophimus and his daughter Trophimē (CIJ 1:121–22, §169), though clearly Paul’s Trophimus is a Gentile (Acts 21:28–29).

[74]. On the Jewish analogue, cf., e.g., Nickle, Collection, 130; De Ridder, Discipling, 125. Since Corinth and Philippi are not represented, Le Cornu, Acts, 1099, suggests that some of the coworkers stand for the Diaspora churches as a whole rather than for their localities. Additional possibilities are that Luke may represent Philippi, and it is possible that Paul might represent Corinth himself; or they may have failed to provide a representative; or Titus (who is for other reasons unnamed) became their representative (cf. 2 Cor 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18); or Luke’s list may well simply be incomplete. See further brief discussion below.

[75]. See, e.g., discussion in Pearson, “Associations,” 136–37.

[76]. See esp. Meeks and Wilken, Antioch, 27.

[77]. Galatia is represented, on the South Galatian view (1 Cor 16:1; Gaius and Timothy in Acts 20:4); so also Asia (Tychicus and Trophimus in Acts 20:4).

[78]. Marshall, Enmity, 13–21, 257 (widely followed, e.g., Watson, Second Corinthians, 118; Matera, II Corinthians, 250; Watson, “Boasting,” 82); cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 40.16; Pliny Ep. 8.6.9; perhaps Fronto Ep. graec. 4.2–3. One could refuse politely under some conditions (Pliny Ep. 6.28.2; Fronto Ep. graec. 5).

[79]. Some may have wished to insult him, but not likely the majority, since 2 Corinthians sounds as if, whatever the conflict (even at its rhetorical strongest in 2 Cor 10–13), they will receive him; Luke also claims that he stayed for up to three months (Acts 20:3), presumably winter.

[80]. Likewise, if Achaia failed, the unity of the church would not best be served by Luke’s emphasizing this point for Macedonian readers.

[81]. The “ministry to the saints” in 1 Cor 16:15 seems to be a regular designation by Paul for the collection (2 Cor 9:1, 12), especially given the context (1 Cor 16:1).

[82]. Matera, II Corinthians, 202.

[83]. Marshall, Acts, 324.

[84]. Tannehill, Acts, 246–47.

[85]. Some (including Porter, Paul in Acts, 30) see two “we” sections (Acts 20:5–15 and 21:1–18) in 20:5–21:18. Whatever this view may have to commend it in terms of source criticism, this division evades the obvious in terms of the narrator’s flow of thought: if Luke was with Paul on the voyage before and after the speech (and its immediate setting), it makes little sense to suppose that he temporarily disappeared during the speech, simply because (having digressed from the voyage to focus on an action exclusive to Paul) he briefly stops mentioning himself (or the rest of the group). With our view that the author is the narrator, the distinction does not even work source-critically.

[86]. With, e.g., Witherington, Acts, 168 (suggesting that Luke was the sort of peripatetic physician attested in Greek epitaphs), 604 (noting that Luke does not insert “we” where it would be most helpful from a purely narrative standpoint and that Greek historians included themselves in narratives only when present). Such eyewitness testimony was crucial in Greek historiography (605).

[87]. Cf. also Hemer, Acts in History, 124.

[88]. From 20:3–4, it appears that the Macedonian and other coworkers were with Paul in Corinth and therefore would have sailed with him for Syria, rather than that they awaited him in Macedonia (or already in Troas, 20:5) en route to Syria. A letter Paul wrote from Corinth attests that at least two of these workers were with Paul in Corinth (Rom 16:21), and he may name there only those known to some of his audience in Rome. Jason may have accompanied him to Corinth (Rom 16:21) but planned to return to Macedonia afterward.

[89]. Lucius is apparently Jewish in Rom 16:21 whereas Luke is probably Gentile in Col 4:14 (cf. 4:11); the pairing of Luke and Aristarchus in 4:14 fits Acts’ “we” following Paul to Rome, so that Luke is a likelier narrator here than the Lucius in Rom 16. See this commentary’s introductory chapter on authorship (Keener, Acts, 1:402–22) for further discussion.

[90]. For further details on Troas, see Trebilco, “Asia,” 357–59.

[91]. See Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 384.

[92]. Dunn, Acts, 268. It would not be much more (or less) speculative to suggest that Paul delayed to persuade Luke to join them. If Paul sent the others on ahead, it may have been with an exhortation (such speeches were conventional for teachers or others sending off subordinates; Men. Rhet. 2.5, 395.8–12).

[93]. See Trémel, “Actes 20, 7–12” (though some of his structuralist observations are less profound than the apparently deliberate inclusio).

[94]. Cf. 2 Cor 2:14–16; 4:7–5:10, esp. 4:14. Even in his conclusion (Acts 28:30–31), Luke ends on an upbeat note rather than with Paul’s death; although this may say something about his market sensibilities, it probably also reveals something of his theological disposition (far more easily comparable to many OT narratives emphasizing divine providence than to Greek tragedy).

[95]. These connections are emphasized by Johnson, Acts, 358.

[96]. In Luke’s usage, this includes Passover (Luke 22:1); this was not unusual usage in this period (cf. Philo Spec. Laws 2.150, though distinguishing them; Jos. Ant. 2.317; 9.263–64, 271; esp. 14.21; 17.213; 18.29; 20.106; War 2.10; distinguishing them in Ant. 3.249; 10.70).

[97]. Cf. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 254, who allow that possibly “Paul and his companions celebrated” this festival. Diaspora Jewish communities (e.g., in Hierapolis in Asia) did keep Pentecost (CIJ 2:36, §777).

[98]. See Keener, John, 171–232, here esp. 174.

[99]. Suggested in Keener, “Festivals.” Former pagans in Egypt may have assimilated Easter to festivals of rising deities such as the Isia (which originated early but continued past the third century; see Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 56, citing P.Oxy. 36.2797), but Easter originated in the Passover setting.

[100]. Irvin and Sunquist, Earliest Christianity, 79; Euseb. H.E. 5.24.

[101]. The argument is not foolproof, since it depends on a particular way of reckoning Passover in relation to the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Barrett, Acts, 952), but this reckoning seems more probable than not.

[102]. Bruce, Commentary, 406; Hemer, Acts in History, 124, 169; Gill, “Macedonia,” 399; Riesner, Early Period, 218–19.

[103]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 254.

[104]. With Bruce, Acts¹, 371. This fits the shift in the narrative’s character to an eyewitness source; thus, e.g., Cicero’s letters sometimes comment on his travel details. One day he was unable to sail, he notes, because the winds were contrary (Att. 5.12).

[105]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 254.

[106]. Cf. Riesner, Early Period, 315–16.

[107]. See Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 400.

[108]. Keener, Acts, 1:223–24, 445–47.

[109]. Cf. here also the valuable argument of Perry, “Paul in Acts.”

[110]. Cf. Keener, “Festivals.” Although this continuance probably was most relevant for Jewish believers, most early Gentile believers probably recognized that it was a Jewish faith, grounded in the biblical heritage, to which they were converting.

[111]. Hemer, “Observations,” 9.

[112]. Riesner, Early Period, 316, dates Paul’s departure from Philippi to April 15 (on the premise that the year was 57 C.E.).

[113]. The five “being reckoned inclusively in the ancient manner” (Hemer, “Observations,” 9).

[114]. “Whether or not the journey involved another” day as well (ibid.).

[115]. Ibid., 10.

[116]. Ibid.

[117]. Riesner, Early Period, 316 (commenting that Pentecost was probably on May 29 this year).

[118]. Sailors counted it prudent to prepare in case winds delayed a ship at sea (Philost. Hrk. 53.9).

[119]. Witherington, Acts, 639.

[120]. Though having attended many festivals in Jerusalem while growing up, Paul had missed them for many years, and in older subjects with religious backgrounds, religious devotion is sometimes mixed with nostalgia. That Paul likely observed Jewish festivals we have already suggested above in the comment on Acts 20:6.

[121]. Cf. also Ellison, Mystery, 22. It is also clear that Paul in his letters can calculate time sometimes by festivals: he expects the Corinthians to understand his plan to stay in Ephesus till Pentecost in 1 Cor 16:8.

[122]. In Rom 11:16, he uses the image in a context of Jewish and Gentile relations, but the firstfruits may refer here to the patriarchs. Elsewhere in the NT, the term ἀπαρχή appears only at Jas 1:18; Rev 14:4.

[123]. Noted also in Keener, “Festivals.”

[124]. Le Cornu, Acts, 1106. Given the divergent itinerary of the Pastorals, this hosting may purport to represent a later occasion; but guests often stayed with the same hosts, and Carpus remains the only named host there for whom we may venture a guess.

[125]. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 92.

[126]. Ibid. Hemer notes (84) that this was the temple of Apollo Smintheus; Hom. Il. 1.37–39 mentions the cult as being at Tenedos and at Chryse, and Strabo shows that it remained the area’s religious center even in his own time.

[127]. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 92–93.

[128]. Historically, we know that Paul had to leave sooner than he might have otherwise done during his previous ministry there (2 Cor 2:12–13).

[129]. Historically, Paul was certainly able to speak at some length, especially given the oral character of Romans; though it need not have been dictated all in one session, it was likely dictated at normal speaking speed rather than “syllable by syllable” (Richards, Letter Writing, 206).

[130]. Cf., e.g., Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 105. This is not at all unusual under the circumstances, as those of us in similar pastoral situations can testify. E.g., in one such situation, where I was leaving the next morning and thus had a limited amount of time (in a Bible school that I was briefly visiting), I taught (interactively) from 3:00 p.m. Saturday afternoon until 5:00 a.m. Sunday morning; about twenty students stayed throughout.

[131]. See comment on Acts 24:5; briefly, Keener, Acts, 1:260.

[132]. Sen. E. Controv. 7.pref. 1 (LCL, 1:5). He speaks of the trumpet blowing three times during his speeches, possibly figurative for the three-hour-long night watches, hence implying excessively long speeches.

[133]. Sen. E. Controv. 7.pref. 8.

[134]. Men. Rhet. 2.4, 391.19–28; 392.9–14; 393.23–24.

[135]. See, e.g., Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 38.25–26; 4, p. 42.34–35; Dio Chrys. Or. 55; Pliny Ep. 5.12.1; 6.17.1–3. See further comment on Acts 2:37.

[136]. R. Williams, Acts, 140; cf. Larkin, Acts, 288–89; in antiquity, Chrys. Hom. Acts 43 (“the Lord’s day”). For this particular Semitic expression (“the first day from the Sabbaths”), see Luke 24:1 (from Mark 16:2; also found in John 20:1, 19).

[137]. Ign. Magn. 9.1 (if the “Lord’s day” is Sunday); Barn. 15.9 (the eighth day); Meeks, Urban Christians, 143. Other texts also mention the “Lord’s day” (Rev 1:10; Did. 14.1), usually held to specify the same time (Vanni, “Giorno”; but note Strand, “Day”; Lewis, “Ignatius”). On the gradual developments, see the careful study of Bacchiocchi, Sabbath to Sunday.

[138]. Justin 1 Apol. 67 (trans. Dods and Reith, ANF 1:186); Iren. On Easter (i.e., frg. 7, ANF 1:569) also links Sunday with Jesus’s resurrection. Early Jewish tradition added that the earth was dry from the flood (perhaps the first day of a new creation) on a Sunday (4Q252 1 II, 2, added to Gen 8:14; cf. 4Q252 1 I, 17).

[139]. The Sabbath itself may have been a weekly commemoration of God’s act of creation (Exod 20:11–12).

[140]. There may be a reference to postbiblical festivals in 4Q409 1 I (unless this fragmentary text refers to known festivals by different names).

[141]. Winter, Left Corinth, 134–35; cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 136. Some civic cults held rites only annually (cf. Philost. Hrk. 52.3, 5, 8). For Roman concerns about unregulated meetings, see, e.g., Livy 39.15.11; 39.18.9; Tac. Hist. 2.54.

[142]. Harland, Associations, 168.

[143]. See, e.g., Luke 4:16, 31; 13:10; Acts 13:14, 27, 42, 44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4; cf. Luke 14:1.

[144]. Though they may have had little choice culturally, Luke specifies only their obedience, probably analogous to that of other pious law observers in his narrative (Luke 1:6; 2:21–24, 25; 23:50–51; Acts 21:20; 22:12). Luke’s usage of Sabbath language was brought to my attention by Anthony Kent.

[145]. Nevertheless, they continued to measure time by Jewish feasts (Acts 20:6, 16; 27:9; 1 Cor 16:8; cf. 1 Cor 5:7).

[146]. Usually recognized by exegetes, and sometimes pointed out with particular force today by Adventist and Messianic Jewish scholars.

[147]. Cf. Ign. Magn. 9.1 (the “Lord’s day” replacing the Sabbath); Barn. 15.9 (celebrating the eighth day, against [15.8] the Sabbath). Cf. discussion in Keener, Revelation, 86–87 (arguing against the change of day in the first century).

[148]. E.g., Athanas. Homilies (TLG 2035.669; J. Ford, ed., The Gospel according to St. Mark: Illustrated [2nd ed.; London: J. Masters, 1864], 435; from Oden and Hall, Mark, 240).

[149]. His public rationale in the empire was veneration of the sun (Chadwick, Early Church, 128; cf. discussion in Hinson, “Worshiping,” 20).

[150]. Pace Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 344. The day dedicated to the sun was, however, Mithras’s holy day, as they note. Greeks reckoned the month’s ninth day as sacred to the sun (Dion. Hal. Epid. 3.266–67).

[151]. Cf., e.g., Grant, Gods, 40–41.

[152]. Among non-Christian Jewish sources, possibly as early as L.A.E. 51:2, an emphasis on the seventh-day resurrection may polemicize against the Christian eighth-day tradition; cf. Marmorstein, “Attitude,” 388, though cf. minim in b. Taʿan. 27b. Jewish-Christian practice suggests that the move away from the seventh day was not uniform in early Christianity and may have coincided with movement away from Judaism (Tonstad, Meaning, 300–302); cf. a comparable change of fast days in Did. 8.1 (and the probable replacement of thrice-daily Jewish prayers in 8.2–3).

[153]. See Isichei, History, 49 (for some later indigenous churches, see 256); Irvin and Sunquist, History, 46, 49, 218; from a plausible Adventist perspective, note also the discussion in Bradford, Sabbath Roots, passim, esp. 98, 108–9, 113, 145–50; Heye, Sabbath in Ethiopia, esp. 37–39, 48, 60; Tolbert, “Roots.” In China, cf. the indigenous True Jesus Church (Zhaoming, “Chinese Denominations,” 444–45; Anderson, Pentecostalism, 134), which also influenced the Spirit of Jesus Church in Japan (Anderson, Pentecostalism, 140–41).

[154]. So Barrett, Acts, 951–52, who does not find Sunday to be theologically significant in the NT.

[155]. Conzelmann, Acts, 169, is uncertain which option is preferable.

[156]. Rackham, Acts, 376–77; Banks, Community, 41; Fitzmyer, Acts, 668; Wall, “Acts,” 277.

[157]. Bruce, Commentary, 408n25; Marshall, Acts, 325–26; Witherington, Acts, 606; Riesner, Early Period, 218; Bock, Acts, 619 (tentatively, citing also Rordorf, “Sonntagnachtgottesdeinste”).

[158]. Cf. Luke 12:38, where his division of the night into three watches corresponds to a frequent Jewish reckoning, in contrast to the normal Roman division into four watches in Mark 13:35 (so Jeremias, Parables, 27; but see comment on Acts 12:4). This designation, however, probably reflects authentic Jesus tradition; the four shifts of soldiers in Acts 12:4 may imply the Roman watches (naturally adopted by Agrippa; see comment on Acts 12:4 for further details).

[159]. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 105; Twelftree, People, 137. Banks, Community, 40, allows this possibility, though preferring the idea of regular meetings on this day.

[160]. Or perhaps more accurately, house meetings were occurring daily, with believers probably meeting and eating in one another’s homes as often as possible but not every house hosting meal meetings every day.

[161]. Cf. Capper, “Reciprocity,” 514.

[162]. See discussion and sources in Keener, Acts, 1:555–62, esp. 561–62.

[163]. Perhaps especially prevalent in a town so strategically located for trade by ship and land.

[164]. See discussion below.

[165]. Ground-floor apartments were more often larger ones (Jeffers, World, 56).

[166]. Tannehill, Acts, 250; Gaventa, Acts, 279–80; Pervo, Acts, 513 (perhaps most persuasively citing Luke 12:35). Earlier, Bede Comm. Acts 20.7–8 applies it to explaining “the more enigmatic sayings” in Scripture.

[167]. Except perhaps in one discursive comment on narrative setting (Luke 22:53). One might make an argument for Luke 24:1, but it is, at best, ambiguous and probably not relevant; other cited examples are not relevant at all. One may contrast the thoroughgoing use in John or the Qumran literature (see 1QS III, 3, 19, 25; X, 2; 1QM I, 1, 11; XIII, 5, 15–16; XIV, 17; 1QH^a XVII, 26; XX, 9; XXI, 15; 4Q177 III, 8; 4Q186 1 III, 6; 4Q257 III, 5; 4Q299 5 2; 4Q491 8–10 I, 14; 4Q548 1 10, 13, 15–16; in the Fourth Gospel, cf. esp. Koester, Symbolism, 123–54; Keener, John, 382–85, 387).

[168]. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 188. An allusion to lamps in the tabernacle might be more conceivable if the term were used thus in the LXX (though cf. Rev 4:5 and the cognate in Exod 37:21; 1 Kgs 7:49; Zech 4:2–3).

[169]. Cf., e.g., Plut. Cic. 22.3–4; most pervasively in the literature, torches in weddings: Aeschylus frg. 275, lines 831–32; Eurip. Tro. 343–44; Virg. Aen. 4.338–39; 7.388; [Culex] 246; Ecl. 8.29; Catull. Carm. 61.15, 77–78, 94–95, 114; 64.25, 302; 66.79; Ovid Her. 4.123; 6.42; 11.101; 12.137–38; 14.10; Fasti 2.558, 561; Tristia 4.5.33; Pont. 3.2.55; Metam. 1.483, 763; 4.758–59; 6.430; 10.6; Val. Max. 7.1.1; Lucan C.W. 2.356; Sen. Y. Med. 37–38; Statius Theb. 2.259; Silv. 3.4.53–54; 4.8.59–60; Sil. It. 2.184; Plut. Rom. Q. 2, Mor. 263F; Alciph. Fish. 22 (Thalasserôs to Euploüs), 1.19, ¶1; Ach. Tat. 2.11.1; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.8; Men. Rhet. 2.6, 404.23–24, 32; 2.7, 409.10; Matt 25:1 (also sometimes funerals; Ovid Fasti 2.562; Her. 2.120); but weddings used torches partly because they were at night (Men. Rhet. 2.7, 410.19–25).

[170]. Le Cornu, Acts, 1107, 1110, emphasizes Shabbat lamps; but in the dark, one needed lamps regardless of the day. For Sabbath lamps, see m. Šabb. 2:1; b. Šabb. 21a; Gen. Rab. 11:2; 12:6; Pesiq. Rab. 23:6; for Hanukkah lamps (at a different time of year), see b. B. Qam. 30a; 62b; B. Meṣiʿa 118b; Šabb. 21b; Sukkah 46a; y. Sukkah 3:4, §3; Pesiq. Rab. 2:1; 3:1; 6:1; 8:1; Goodenough, Symbols, 1:152.

[171]. Rackham, Acts, 379. For the symbolic use of light in festivals, see, e.g., Jos. Ant. 12.325; Ag. Ap. 2.118; m. Sukkah 5:3–4; b. Sukkah 52b–53a; see also Safrai, “Temple,” 895. Cf. the use of torches in sacred processions and other nocturnal rituals in Lucian Alex. 39–40; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.2, 10; Char. Chaer. 1.1.4–5; cf. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 54; but this must be expected at night.

[172]. On torches, see Forbes, Technology, 6:125–31; see 6:131–39 for candles; to prevent fire, often even palaces used special pans (6:128–29).

[173]. Pryce and Gill, “Lighting.”

[174]. Ibid.

[175]. On their evolution, see, e.g., Sussman, “Lighting”; for classification, e.g., Goodenough, Symbols, 1:139–64; for Diaspora Jewish lamps, 2:101–8.

[176]. Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 102.

[177]. Hobart, Medical Language, 48; C. Williams, Acts, 230; Bruce, Acts¹, 373; Blaiklock, Acts, 165; Marshall, Acts, 326; Longenecker, Acts, 305 (adding “lack of oxygen”); Fitzmyer, Acts, 669; Larkin, Acts, 290; tentatively, Barrett, Acts, 953; for the warmth and smoke drifting through the window, see Wilkinson, Health, 87.

[178]. Though it might be drifting past him. Further, does the smell of oil lamps have this effect on those accustomed to it? I and most others I know who used oil lamps in Africa (e.g., Charlemagne Nditemeh, confirmed May 22, 2012; Médine Moussounga Keener) did not report this effect (one reported the opposite effect), but another source (Alice Kadon, June 1, 2012) did report it (both Charlemagne Nditemeh and Alice Kadon also noted its effects on the eyes). Still, I assume that such an illustrious list of commentators, at least the earliest of whom may have used oil lamps, presumably have good reason to note it.

[179]. Granted, it may have done so, but the connection between oil lamps and falling asleep is by no means conventional or obvious in itself unless (and this is possible) one was conditioned to associate such conditions with sleep (but the likelier association is with midnight).

[180]. Conzelmann, Acts, 169.

[181]. Cf., e.g., Jub. 23:4; thus, e.g., one could write during darkness but not once the light went out (Cic. Att. 7.7).

[182]. Conzelmann, Acts, 169, records this view of some, based on later charges that Christians acted in the dark (refuted in Min. Fel. Oct. 9; Tert. Apol. 8–9; cf. Eph 5:11–12; comment on Acts 26:26); Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu, 151 (on suspicions about nocturnal meetings, see 151–55; idem, Acts, 177–79). Talbert connects this with concerns that would arise over a dead boy in a nocturnal cultic setting (Mediterranean Milieu, 156) in view of charges of cannibalism and infanticide by pagans against pagans (156–57), against Jews (157), and against Christians (157–58); by Jews against Christians (158); and by Christians against pagans (159–60) and deviant Christian groups (159). Given other raisings in Luke-Acts, that one should occur at night might be coincidental, but it might raise concerns. Eutychus might be on the edge of puberty; he sounds like a youth in Acts 20:9 but a boy (or slave) in 20:12. Many interpreters believe that he was a youth (in his twenties) but also the “child” of someone present (see Overstreet, “Concept,” 558).

[183]. E.g., Menander Sikyonioi 225. Bede Comm. Acts 20.9a (Martin, Acts, 246; L. Martin, 160), quoting Jerome De nominibus hebraicis (CSEL 72:145, 29/30), allegorizes this to apply to his raising, while construing the name in Hebrew for “senseless” to apply to his youthful “fall” from virtue.

[184]. See Hemer, Acts in History, 237. In various forms, it appears as a probably Jewish name as well in Rome and elsewhere (CIJ 1:80, §115; 1:166, §232; 1:315, §412; 2:26–27, §763). For similar names, see, e.g., Eutyches (Εὐτύχης), a first-century C.E. gem cutter (Michel, “Eutyches”); Eutyc(h)ius, a fourth-century C.E. Latin grammarian (Gatti, “Eutyc[h]ius”); the fourth- to third-century B.C.E. sculptor Eutychides (Neudecker, “Eutychides”); the second-century C.E. Latin grammarian Eutychius Proculus (Gatti, “Eutychius Proculus”). With a wordplay, note the donkey driver Eutychus whom Augustus met and viewed as an omen (Kienast, “Eutychus”).

[185]. See Safrai, “Home,” 734–35, with full documentation. Herr, “Window,” notes recessed frames (but for temple windows, 1 Kgs 6:4; Ezek 41:16); birds also perched on windowsills (Isa 60:8; Zeph 2:14).

[186]. E.g., Blue, “House Church,” 210, fig. 20.

[187]. For windowsills, on which one could lay objects, see, e.g., b. Šabb. 147b; Qidd. 50a; cf. ʿErub. 98b. The first-floor, second-century C.E. window in Clarke, Houses, 291, fig. 178, appears to be at least two bricks thick. Cf. also the thickness of the windows in Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 19, fig. 2.2; 24, fig. 2.7 (perhaps two bricks deep); 104, fig. 5.7; plate 2, between pp. 148 and 149.

[188]. Purcell, “Houses, Italian,” 731–32. Or often in Rome, wood (still in the third century, Hdn. 7.12.5–6; Packer, “Housing,” 82).

[189]. Others could also sit in windows (e.g., b. B. Bat. 20a). A proper house should have windows (m. B. Meṣiʿa 8:9; b. B. Meṣiʿa 101b), which ideally should admit light (m. B. Bat. 2:4; b. B. Bat. 7ab; 22ab), and Amoraim cited Dan 6:11 (6:10 ET) in support of praying in a room with windows (b. Ber. 31a; 34b); for lowering items through windows, cf. b. Beṣah 36a. “Egyptian” windows, as opposed to “Tyrian”-style windows, were small windows through which one could not place one’s head (m. B. Bat. 3:6).

[190]. Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 307n4; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 101, 116.

[191]. See, e.g., Whitehouse, “Glass.” A glass factory appears even in Cana, within sight of Jesus’s Nazareth (Charlesworth, “Archaeology,” 39–40; Richardson, “Khirbet Qana,” 132).

[192]. Forbes, Technology, 5:182–84; cf. Platz-Horster, “Techniques,” 863 (noting some in the cities buried by Vesuvius in 79 C.E.); Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 116. Palestinian use is probably well after 70 C.E. (Safrai, “Home,” 734). Though Stern and Schlick-Nolte, Early Glass, attest widespread ancient use of glass, their relative silence about windows is telling. In Palestine, cf. Safrai, “Home,” 734 (noting that it was probably rare before 70 C.E.).

[193]. Jeffers, World, 59.

[194]. E.g., the shops at Assos in Dinsmoor, Architecture of Greece, 294.

[195]. This is in Elisha’s house (2 Kgs 13:14), which does not seem wealthy (2 Kgs 5:9, with no gate, if the same dwelling).

[196]. Cf. Judg 5:28 (suggesting seclusion); Prov 7:6; Song 2:9; Test. Jos. 14:1.

[197]. For window curtains on rings, see Hurschmann, “Curtain” (citing Juv. Sat. 9.105); for a skin/curtain, cf. Jos. Asen. 10:2.

[198]. Carcopino, Life, 35–36; McRay, Archaeology, 84.

[199]. Whether for leisure (Pliny Ep. 2.17.22; 9.36.1) or for his eye trouble (7.21.1–4, esp. 7.21.2). Windows could protect against bad weather (2.17.4); shuttered windows were sometimes as large as doors (2.17.5).

[200]. Note, e.g., those in massive Egyptian (Vitruv. Arch. 6.3.9) and Greek (6.3.10) halls; formal architects of carefully designed buildings were concerned to provide adequate window lighting (1.2.7; 6.6.6–7). Insulae were less light-friendly, but at night, Troas’s streets would be dark, in any case.

[201]. Herr, “Window,” based on modern examples in the region.

[202]. Admittedly, if Rahab was an innkeeper, she would have had a larger “house” (Josh 2:1), and David was a prince (1 Sam 18:27; 19:11).

[203]. Blue, “House Church,” 204, fig. 13. Syrian windows tended to be narrow (Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 314).

[204]. Carcopino, Life, 35–36. Cf., e.g., in Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, a small window above an entrance (plate 8, directly before p. 149; cf. also p. 159, fig. 7.11, for another window above an entrance); a very small window, through which one could fit only if one climbed up and squeezed through to get out (i.e., deliberately; 165, fig. 7.15). Small windows also characterized mezzanine apartments above first-floor shops (Packer, “Housing,” 81), though they are not relevant here.

[205]. Carcopino, Life, 35. Cf. the large first-floor windows in the wealthy corridor in Clarke, Houses, 246, fig. 149. Wealthy buildings could have large enough windows (see, e.g., Stambaugh, City, 294, plate 2; 296, plate 4; 297, plate 5; many buildings in the Rome model, 301, plate 9; 321, plate 30). See esp. Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, passim: spacious windows to illumine the atrium in Herculaneum (p. 19, fig. 2.2); a huge first-floor window (taking up much of a wall; 24, fig. 2.7); a spacious ground-floor window in an atrium (49, fig. 3.16); some large windows (on single-story homes; 128, fig. 6.6); a more moderate-sized window in the middle of the height of a wall (128, fig. 6.7); a huge, square first-floor window in a wealthy home’s atrium, taking up most of that wall (plate 7, between pp. 148 and 149); another large wall window (p. 171, fig. 7.21). For large windows in some Galilean homes, see, e.g., Meyers, “Gendered Space,” 46, fig. 1 (fourth to fifth century C.E.); larger still, 47, fig. 2 (a second- to third-century C.E. wealthy house).

[206]. E.g., Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 307 (on Ostia and Rome); for drawings of Ostian-type buildings with their large windows, see esp. p. 309, fig. 130 (on all floors); also 308, fig. 129 (though large windows appear only on the higher floors).

[207]. Stambaugh, City, 172–73.

[208]. Herr, “Window”; Höcker, “Window,” 649–50; cf. Dickie and Payne, “House,” 772. Cf., e.g., the window in Clarke, Houses, 258, fig. 158 (not large, and before one could fall from it, one would need to climb into it). In p. 291, fig. 178, wide windows start just below the top of the door (averaging 2 m., 6.6 ft.); they are roughly the same size on the second floor but appear to be placed lower on the wall. Cf. the large windows (for light) just beneath the ceiling, above the wide doors of a restaurant, in Stambaugh, City, 315, plate 24 (cf. the similar description in Carcopino, Life, 27). Cf. some smaller windows, but large enough, on a less impressive building (Stambaugh, City, 322, plate 31).

[209]. E.g., Blue, “House Church,” 204, fig. 13.

[210]. Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 300.

[211]. Packer, “Housing,” 80 (on Rome). But even rows of windows on a particular floor might characterize apartments (80).

[212]. E.g., Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 24, fig. 2.7 (though, being of brick, it would not feel comfortable).

[213]. Ibid., 45, fig. 3.9. Of course, because it is an atrium, there is no “floor” on the second level, and the second level is not a full story.

[214]. Ibid., 104, fig. 5.7.

[215]. Ibid., plate 2, between pp. 148 and 149.

[216]. The “third floor” in Greek (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 642, cite P.Oxy. 1.99.5, from 55 C.E.; 8.1105.9, from 81–96 C.E.; and later 1.75.18; P.Lond. 1164[e].7), American English, and many other languages is the “second floor” (but three stories) in British English (Naden, “Another Stor[e]y”) and most of Europe. A fall from such a height “need not be fatal” (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 256), but someone too asleep to try to break his fall could land in a deadly position. Even a wide-awake person in such a fall could sustain serious injury (e.g., Jun Kim, interview by author, Baguio, Philippines, January 24, 2009; he shared with me his recovery from a head injury caused in this way).

[217]. Hock, “Ethnography,” 108, citing Char. Chaer. 2.11.1; 3.1.2.

[218]. Churches probably met in a wide variety of housing types (with, e.g., Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 9).

[219]. Insulae grew in urban areas, such as Rome, where space was at a premium (e.g., Clarke, Houses, 26). Single stories were more common in Syria and Palestine, though even here some buildings were tall, with multiple stories (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 109, citing Pomponius Mela De situ orbis 2.7.6; Strabo 16.2.13, 23). Single stories predominated except in the large cities (Jeffers, World, 54).

[220]. McRay, Archaeology, 84.

[221]. Ibid., 82. Many also lived in one-floor tabernae, but insulae are more characteristic of excavations in Rome and Ostia (Stambaugh, City, 174–75; Packer, “Housing,” 80). Storey, “Skyscrapers,” argues that tall buildings were, for all their attestation, not the norm.

[222]. E.g., White, Origins of Architecture, 1:34, 41; 2:144.

[223]. With Marshall, Acts, 326; Witherington, Acts, 607. For wealthier multistory “residential complexes,” Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 109, cites McKay, Houses, 212–17.

[224]. Pompeii and Herculaneum also had multistory buildings (Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 74). Rome had some three-story buildings by the third century B.C.E., and they grew much higher in the late republic and early empire (Carcopino, Life, 24–25), occasioning many complaints about their dangerous height (25–26, citing complaints of height in Cic. Agr. 2.96; Vitruv. Arch. 2.8.17; Strabo 5.3.7; Juv. Sat. 3.190–96).

[225]. McRay, Archaeology, 84.

[226]. Ibid., 88. For an insula in Perga, see Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 170.

[227]. Owens, City, 54 (the insula-unit pattern also appears in other classical cities, p. 71); Cobet, “Miletus,” 894. Greeks used rectangular blocks to give more access to the street; Romans emphasized fairly square, uniform blocks, though in practice their insulae reveal considerable diversity (Owens, City, 156). Most buildings in third-century B.C.E. Delos are exactly two stories (Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 300).

[228]. On the unpleasant situation of Roman insulae, see Carcopino, Life, 26–32; Stambaugh, City, 157, 175. See esp. Packer, “Housing,” 81, who notes Seneca the Younger’s awareness of the flimsiness of the tenements (Ben. 4.6.2; 6.15.7; Ira 3.35.4–5). Even after Nero’s renovation of part of Rome (Tac. Ann. 15.43; Suet. Nero 16.1), complaints continued (Mart. Epig. 1.108.3; 1.117.6–7; 3.30.3; 4.37; 5.22; 6.27.1–2; 7.20.20; 8.14; Juv. Sat. 3.6ff., 166, 190–202, 223–25, 235, 268–77; 11.12–13). Packer notes (“Housing,” 82) that Trajan prohibited new buildings higher than 60 ft. (Aur. Vict. Epit. Caes. 13.13); Aul. Gel. 15.1.2–3 thought that tenements would be good investments if they did not burn down so often.

[229]. McRay, Archaeology, 87–88.

[230]. Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 139 (residential, and also high monuments). Archaeologists note forty-seven blocks from Roman Ilium, near Troas, “usually measuring 360 (N-S) x 180 (E/W) Roman feet” (Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 138).

[231]. Stambaugh, City, 172.

[232]. Ibid., 177–78. For second-floor balconies in some Western insulae, see also Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 109, fig. 5.9; 112, fig. 5.14.

[233]. Stambaugh, City, 178.

[234]. Ibid., 172–73 (eight cubicles on the ground floor, and so more on upper floors). For light reaching the central room (the medianum), see also Clarke, Houses, 27–28.

[235]. Jewett, Romans, 959, argues that many of the so-called house churches in Rome were, in fact, “tenement” churches in insulae.

[236]. See Heid, “Romanness,” 407.

[237]. Cf. González, Acts, 235. Some see humor in Eutychus’s falling asleep during Paul’s long preaching (Pelikan, Acts, 149); implausible for those within the narrative world, it is not impossible on the larger narrative level (given the comic upturn). But Paul preaches long because he must leave the next day, and ancients often viewed a pupil’s sleeping negatively, and so, even if his narration might be humorous on some level, Luke’s point is serious.

[238]. Even the verb καταφέρω (used here twice, half the Lukan and NT uses; found in the passive form with reference to sleep) was commonly used for sleep in medical literature (elsewhere, see BDAG), which also distinguished ὕπνος βαθύς from lighter sleep (Hobart, Medical Language, 48–49). Luke twice in the same verse repeats Eutychus falling asleep (with the present and then aorist participles).

[239]. If he was too hot, it would not have been a “deep sleep”; but as noted above, he would not likely be hot in the window.

[240]. For an example, see the diagram in Smith, Symposium, 16.

[241]. Especially if it was a meal at a time to which one was unaccustomed (Hippocr. Reg. Ac. Dis. 42).

[242]. Even if it was later than the average evening meal (e.g., at sundown, when even shopkeepers could attend), that was many hours earlier than midnight.

[243]. So Conzelmann, Acts, 169. Although this Greek term need not mean a youth (Acts 7:58), it must do so when conjoined with παῖδα in 20:12 (unless it means “servant,” as sometimes in Luke-Acts). In itself, it reflects no lack of zeal (7:58; 23:17).

[244]. I have taught hundreds of students in marathon teaching sessions (in at least six-, eight-hour, or longer segments), including many (in fact, mostly) college-age students who were quite eager; I have no experience from which to evaluate adolescents, but “youth” may range him in his twenties (see Overstreet, “Concept,” 558). As I am aging, I find my own body less inclined to endure such sessions.

[245]. Cf. Luke 7:7 (a servant); 9:42 (a child); but more relevant for a resuscitation, the child in 8:51, 54; see especially the cognate νεανίσκος for the raising of a lad in 7:14. Philo defines “boy” as ages nine to fourteen (Creation 105, often cited here), but usage could vary.

[246]. E.g., Lysias Or. 13.45, §§133–34; Demosth. Leoch. 18; Statius Silv. 2.1.52–54; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.25.610; Luke 7:12; for young women, see the tomb inscription in Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 11, §21; Judg 11:37–39; Soph. Antig. 891; Eurip. Hec. 416; Heracl. 579–80, 591–92; Hipponax frg. 68, in Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 16, §31; Paus. 3.19.4; Safrai, “Home,” 776–77; for the ideal of one’s children surviving one, see, e.g., Vell. Paterc. 1.11.6.

[247]. Although I am working from the premise that a fall into the street (perhaps from the long hall) is likely, it is also possible that he fell into an inner courtyard (depending on the direction the window faced). On his age, see Overstreet, “Concept,” 558.

[248]. See Stambaugh, City, 188–89 (on Rome); for the antiquity of paving, e.g., Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 106; Roman influence made paving a common urban feature sponsored by civic benefactors (Owens, City, 157). Troas was prosperous enough to afford this, though the current state of our knowledge is incomplete.

[249]. Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 139, notes the Hellenistic stone foundations of buildings in earlier, nearby Neandria. For larger windows facing an inner courtyard, see Höcker, “Window,” 649–50; for windows opening onto a courtyard, cf. also m. B. Bat. 3:7; b. B. Bat. 59b.

[250]. Antioch was exceptional in having these (Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 106).

[251]. E.g., Sen. E. Controv. 2.1.15; Statius Silv. 2.4.6; Lucian Nigr. 22; see fuller comment on Acts 2:15.

[252]. Cf. minimal night patrols in Rome (Jeffers, World, 31, 61); wealthy persons on Roman streets at night brought their own guards (61).

[253]. Barrett, Acts, 954.

[254]. He is accused of sloth in Arator Acts 2 (Schrader, 81); likewise, of negligence in Bede Comm. Acts 20.10; cf. perhaps also Bede Comm. Acts 20.9A (L. Martin, 160–61; Martin, Acts, 246). But contrast Chrys. Hom. Acts 43 (Martin, Acts, 245–46): Eutychus was zealous and so was willing to sit even in the window. He fell asleep not because of indifference but by “necessity of nature” (cf. Mark 14:38). Arterbury, “Downfall,” correctly notes many metaphoric uses of “sleep” in antiquity (see on this point also comment on Acts 20:31), though it is important to note that Luke’s sort of historical narrative was more apt to communicate lessons by examples—possibly including the negative one here—rather than as a series of symbols inviting allegorization. Luke’s narratives do not consistently lend themselves to allegorization (as opposed to plainly symbolic narratives like Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress), but the negative nuances of these figurative uses in part reflected negative perceptions of some literal behaviors.

[255]. Nero reportedly punished Vespasian for falling asleep during Nero’s singing (Suet. Vesp. 4.4).

[256]. Some sources warn against excessive sleep as a form of laziness (e.g., Sent. Syr. Men. 67–71).

[257]. E.g., 1QS VII, 10 (also noted by Barrett, Acts, 954); 4Q266 10 II, 5–6.

[258]. E.g., the story of R. Judah ha-Nasi in Song Rab. 1:15, §3; 4:1, §2. Sometimes readers also complained that particular works made them laugh or put them to sleep (a speaker in Tac. Dial. 21).

[259]. Philost. Vit. soph. 2.8.578, whose narration suggests that most understood that this was too harsh; hearers sometimes did fall asleep. For a comparison of Greek and some Roman views of sleep, especially among medical writers, and their influence on later monastic approaches, see Dossey, “Greeks.”

[260]. E.g., Alciph. Farm. 18 (Eunapê to Glaucê), 3.21, ¶¶1, 3; Philost. Hrk. 25.14 (citing Hom. Od. 10.31). See further discussion on alertness at Act 20:28 and esp. 20:31.

[261]. Cadbury, Acts in History, 9, cites P.Oxy. 3.475 (182 C.E., on a genuine incident); it appears as a means of suicide in y. Kil. 9:3, §3. Aristophanes jests that Euripides creates lame heroes because he writes in an elevated room (Acharn. 410–11). Other hazards of sleep locations include bird droppings in the eyes (Tob 2:9–10).

[262]. On which see Bloch, “Elpenor” (citing Hom. Od. 10.551–60; 11.51–83; 12.10; Apollod. Epit. 7.17; Hyginus Fabulae 125.11–12; Ovid Metam. 14.252; Tristia 3.4.19–20; Juv. Sat. 15.22).

[263]. Agreeing with MacDonald, “Eutychus and Elpenor,” on Hom. Od. 10–12 (though he may press the connection too far in seeing a deliberate allusion here). Marcus Aurelius playfully points out the troubles that came when Ulysses (Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.4.2) or Agamemnon (1.4.3) slept. People in real life could also fall fatally from windows; see, e.g., P.Oxy. 3.475, noted above.

[264]. Hom. Il. 10.471–97; cf. Euripides Rhesus (probably genuinely Euripidean, though this is hotly debated; see Norwood, Greek Tragedy, 291–95).

[265]. E.g., Hom. Il. 10.465–514; Virg. Aen. 9.314–66 (though cf. 9.375–445); cf. Hom. Il. 10.326–27; Plut. Cam. 33.4; 1 Sam 26:12.

[266]. In contrast to throwing oneself down from a height (Luke 4:9–12), falling accidentally seems more covered by the spirit of Ps 91:11–12 (cf. 91:10).

[267]. On sleeplessness in antiquity, see discussion at Acts 16:25 and esp. at Acts 2:15.

[268]. Such a case of medical insight appears in Apul. Flor. 19.2–7, especially 19.7.

[269]. Le Cornu, Acts, 1112, notes that the rabbis diverged over whether the boys raised through Elijah and Elisha were genuinely dead (she believes that Eutychus probably was). But Luke alludes back to the biblical accounts directly, rather than to later rabbis, and the most natural reading of those accounts is that the boys were, indeed, dead (thus the child’s life returning, 1 Kgs 17:21–22; the child “died” or was “dead,” 2 Kgs 4:20, 32).

[270]. Cf. also Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 2:191. For comparisons and contrasts with the Elijah and Elisha narratives and with Acts 9:36–42, see, e.g., Stipp, “Vier Gestalten”; Kowalski, “Fenstersturz”; Pervo, Acts, 512–13; for comparisons with 9:36–42 and Luke 7:11–17, see, e.g., Lindemann, “Einheit,” 243–48; note also the comments and comparison chart in Keener, Acts, 2:1710–11. Bede Comm. Acts 20.10 (Martin, Acts, 246) homiletically notes points of contrast to highlight the parallel raising: Eutychus died through negligence at night, Tabitha through weakness by day; Eutychus fell down, but Tabitha was placed in an upper room; Paul was present and went down whereas Peter was summoned and went up.

[271]. The term here could contrast with Eutychus’s fall in the previous verse but probably simply reflects common idiom (especially for falling on the neck, Acts 20:37; Luke 15:20; Gen 33:4; 45:14; 46:29; Tob 11:9, 13; 3 Macc 5:49; Song Rab. 8:1, §1); Luke uses the verb here eight times, and the cognate in Acts 20:9 twenty-six times.

[272]. Since the boy was, technically, still dead, some might have required Paul’s purification on reaching Jerusalem (though Le Cornu, Acts, 1112, notes that his sojourn in Gentile lands would have required the same); but Diaspora Jews could not well come to Jerusalem for regular purification, and more than seven days of Paul’s journey remained (e.g., Acts 21:4). (This could be more of an issue in the case of a Nazirite vow, but many questions surround the interpretation of 21:24–26.) Nor did the Jesus movement seem to observe such rules in the case of resuscitations (see comment on Acts 9:39).

[273]. As Dunn, Acts, 268, notes, this could have been Paul’s practical model as easily as Luke’s literary one (cf. also Twelftree, Paul, 263). Johnson, Acts, 356, notes the parallel but the lack of “verbal echoes.”

[274]. With, e.g., Reimer, Women, 51.

[275]. See Theissen, Miracle Stories, 58–59 (citing Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.38; 4.10, 45; 7.38; Lucian Lover of Lies 11; IG 4.128). The imperative here echoes a verb in Mark 5:39 (though omitted in Luke 8:52; Parsons, Acts, 287).

[276]. In Greek epic, one might also expect gory details of the wound (e.g., Hom. Il. 16.577–78).

[277]. This is the response of the believer, in contrast to Luke 8:53; the contrast is perfectly credible. When, in about 1995, a student whom I knew collapsed and other students thought he was dead, a minister friend prayed for him, and he regained consciousness. Her adherents celebrated the resuscitation whereas her detractors ridiculed it as fakery or coincidence.

[278]. E.g., Philost. Hrk. 4.2; 7.9, 11; 8.2, 8; Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, l (Roman numeral 50); the uncertain verdict of Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.45; cf. Klauck, Context, 174; Keener, John, 262; see further comment in idem, Acts, 1:348–49; cf. 344–46.

[279]. Bowersock, Fiction as History, 99–100, 104–8, 118–19; e.g., Apoll. K. Tyre 25–26. There were many exceptions; e.g., a hero displayed his power by resuscitating a dead fish in Hdt. 9.120.1–2.

[280]. With Fitzmyer, Acts, 669; Lenski, Acts, 829; Schnabel, Acts, 836; pace Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 186–87. One could digress here to note the excavated necropolis and elaborate memorials for the dead in the Troad (see Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 139)—but in this case, the people do not end up needing a burial spot (and many Christians might have used different burial arrangements, like Jews, in any case).

[281]. Quadratus frg. 2. For reports of raisings in Christian history subsequent to Acts, see the summary in Keener, Miracles, 543–49; for more recent accounts from various cultures, see 551–79.

[282]. Thus inscriptions (CIG 3577, 3582) seem to associate the local Apollo Smintheus (whose temple was 15 mi. south) with Asclepius (Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 93).

[283]. E.g., Vitruv. Arch. 8.3.4; Pliny E. N.H. 31.31.59–61; see more fully the discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:327.

[284]. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 93.

[285]. Jeffers, World, 31.

[286]. Ibid., 61.

[287]. Including combat; Hom. Il. 2.387; 7.282; 8.529–30; 11.209; 14.259–61; Apollod. Epit. 4.2; Ap. Rhod. 4.1059; Polyb. 5.86.1–2; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.48.3; Caesar Alex. W. 1.11; Gallic W. 2.11; Cic. Fam. 1.2.3; Arrian Alex. 1.19.2; Sil. It. 5.678; 13.254–55; Philost. Hrk. 58.4; their uncommonness made night attacks all the more devastating (Hom. Il. 10.100–101; Arrian Alex. 1.4.1).

[288]. E.g., study, in Plut. Demosth. 8.4; 12.5–6; Cic. Att. 7.7; 13.26, 38; 1QS VI, 6–7; t. Šabb. 1:13; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3b; Ber. 43b, bar.; ʿErub. 18b; 65a; Tamid 32b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 7:4; Exod. Rab. 47:5; Lev. Rab. 19:1; Num. Rab. 15:16; Safrai, “Home,” 745. Luke certainly knew about fishermen (Luke 5:5, perhaps in counterpoint to 6:12).

[289]. Ἱκανός as applied to time in 20:11 (in the phrase that could be translated “a long time”) could apply to many days (Luke 20:9; 23:8; Acts 8:11; 9:23, 43; 14:3; 18:18; 27:7, 9) but here simply means “at great length” (cf. Luke 23:9). For staying up to converse at night, see Bishop, “Sleepless Nights” (based on a traditional Palestinian custom, sahrah); nocturnal study, see comment on Acts 2:15; rabbis allowed staying up late to discuss Torah but not idle matters (ʾAbot R. Nat. 29 A).

[290]. Cf., e.g., Philost. Hrk. 43.1, where the guest, listening eagerly, is unwilling to leave.

[291]. Cf. Jos. Life 84 (for other loyalties); see comment on Acts 13:13.

[292]. With González, Acts, 236.

[293]. Eating around dawn was an older custom for Greeks, less often practiced by this period (Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 3; cf. Smith, Symposium, 20).

[294]. Tannehill, Acts, 250–51. That Luke mentions it here (when, in fact, Paul likely ate at every stop) may suggest the importance of the connection with death and resuscitation (framing it in Acts 20:10, 12). (Others also emphasize the connection between the Lord’s Supper and raising of the dead here [e.g., Heil, Meal Scenes, 269–91, esp. 291; Kowalski, “Fenstersturz”]. Some may press the point too far in a later eucharistic sense, but the evocation of the Last Supper is probably deliberate.) On the Lord’s Supper in Pauline theology, see, e.g., Marshall, “Lord’s Supper.”

[295]. See also comment on Acts 16:11. In rhetoric, one could list various matters in quick succession for cumulative force (ἐπιτροχασμός, in Anderson, Glossary, 54). Itineraries normally serve a different literary function; although, by evoking Aegean geography, Luke might evoke such cumulative force.

[296]. Krasser, “Reading,” 554.

[297]. See Max. Tyre 16.6.

[298]. See Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xc.

[299]. Larkin, Acts, 292.

[300]. Contrast poetry, which could ignore proper travel times between locations (Dio Chrys. Or. 52.7). Cf. also supernatural voyages (e.g., Tac. Hist. 4.84).

[301]. The height above the harbor was ca. 700 ft. Assos was also a fertile area that had supplied wheat for Persians (Strabo 15.3.22). For its prominence and subsequent decline in relation to Troas, see Trebilco, “Asia,” 359–60 (though, as he notes, we know of some first-century C.E. buildings constructed there); for epigraphic evidence on Assos, see Merkelbach, Inschriften von Assos; for a summary of excavations and the city’s prosperity in the early empire, see Rose, “Hope.”

[302]. E.g., Yamauchi, Cities, 21–29; Talbert, Barrington Atlas, 56, C2. This assumes travel in a straight line, which is probably too generous. As noted below, Paul probably took the main road, which was probably nearly double the length.

[303]. One of the more speculative—but possible—proposals is that he waited to be sure that Eutychus was recovering fully (Bruce, Commentary, 409); one of the most honest is that we do not know for sure (Conzelmann, Acts, 171).

[304]. Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 123, wonder if there is a connection between Paul’s cloak left in Troas (2 Tim 4:13) and this land journey. Perhaps potential assassins were on the ship (cf. Acts 20:3), but Luke would surely have known this if it were the case, and his silence on the matter would be surprising; nor would Paul likely have traveled by land alone.

[305]. Especially when winds were contrary or because of other obstacles, travelers might take part of the journey on foot (Pliny Ep. 10.15.1; 10.16.1; 10.17A.1).

[306]. Strabo 14.1.2, claiming, e.g., that Ephesus was only 320 stadia from Smyrna by land but a coastal voyage was just under 2,200.

[307]. See Talbert, Barrington Atlas, 56, C2–3. In addition to the shorter distance, Paul, as an able-bodied and independent person, may have preferred to temporarily evade being at the mercy of sailing weather or ship’s cargo or port schedules, whereas his colleagues may have preferred to rest their legs. This explanation would fit the active Paul whom we meet in the NT, but our evidence is insufficient to be certain here.

[308]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 360; Hemer, Acts in History, 125; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 257–58; Haenchen, Acts, 587.

[309]. Bruce, Commentary, 409. Sailors usually felt safer hugging the coastline than sailing into the open sea, even the Aegean (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 1.2; see further Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, 5n4).

[310]. Mark Wilson, personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011.

[311]. Cadbury, Acts in History, 61, also suggests the possibility that he did not travel on foot.

[312]. Riesner, Early Period, 316; Trebilco, “Asia,” 360. This would be the case especially if the winds were uncooperative.

[313]. For the verb applying to meeting one who was already present, cf., e.g., Luke 14:31; Jos. Ant. 1.219; 2.184; 6.275; 12.290. Luke, the only NT author to employ the term, uses it in various ways, reflecting its wide semantic range.

[314]. Mitchell, “Assos,” 194; on its important artificial harbor, see also Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 92.

[315]. Yamauchi, Cities, 23 (estimating twelve to fifteen thousand inhabitants at that time).

[316]. Mitchell, “Assos,” 194; cf. Schwertheim, “Assos,” 184. For excavations relevant to this period, see Wescoat, “Assos,” 224.

[317]. It was a “notable” (ἀξιόλογος) city (Strabo 13.1.66).

[318]. Schwertheim, “Assos,” 186 (noting that it was later replaced by a Byzantine church); Fant and Reddish, Sites, 164; cf. Wescoat, “Assos.”

[319]. Yamauchi, Cities, 28–29; Klauck, Context, 323–24 (citing Price, Rituals, catalogue no. 13).

[320]. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 164–65. For archaeological work on Assos in the 1990s, see Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 139–40 (for the rest of the Troad, 137–44). Further on Assos, see Yamauchi, Cities, 21–29; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 161–66.

[321]. Pliny the Elder also believed that a “flesh-eating” sort of stone was produced in this vicinity (N.H. 2.98.211).

[322]. Wilson (personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011) estimates 30 miles (48 km.).

[323]. See, especially thorough and useful, Constantakopoulou, “Islander.”

[324]. Further on Mitylene, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 80–83; Sonnabend, “Mytilene” (for its prominence, 471); Wallace and Williams, World, 200. Lesbos was also known for its wines (Dio Chrys. Or. 6.13).

[325]. This, like many other cities, figures prominently in Apollonius King of Tyre (33–46), which occurs mostly in Asia and Syria. Strabo provides his estimated distances: 50 stadia from the Larisaean Rocks on the road to Methymna (Strabo 9.5.19), 70 stadia from Malia, 120 from Canae, and 120 from Arginussae (13.2.2).

[326]. Strabo 13.2.2 (LCL, 6:141). Excavations have also found moles in the harbor. The city’s “walls, extending on to the mainland,” encompassed roughly the same acreage as Athens (Shipley and Roueché, “Mytilene”).

[327]. So also Fant and Reddish, Sites, 82.

[328]. Shipley and Roueché, “Mytilene,” noting that it controlled land there. Josephus mentions it as a stop in sailing (Ant. 15.350; 16.20).

[329]. For examples of her poetry, see Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 4–6. Her poetry probably does include lesbian elements (Stigers, “World”; Winckler, “Gardens”; Hartmann, “Homosexuality,” 469), and she likely did have lesbian relationships (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.30), although Sappho and her circle of women friends eventually married and had children (Grant, Social History, 12). Rhetoric was, apparently, important in Lesbos as well (cf. Tac. Dial. 15). For its Aeolian origins, see also Vell. Paterc. 1.4.4.

[330]. Shipley and Roueché, “Mytilene.” Earlier, by surrendering to Alexander and demonstrating loyalty to him, Mitylene gained his favor (Quint. Curt. 4.5.22; 4.8.13). Mitylene’s Roman favor differed somewhat: in contrast to Rhodes, Mitylene betrayed Roman interests and regained freedom because of Pompey’s friendship with a citizen (Vell. Paterc. 2.18.3).

[331]. Sonnabend, “Mytilene,” 473.

[332]. Tac. Ann. 14.53 (on Marcus Agrippa, in Augustus’s day).

[333]. Cadbury, Acts in History, 28. For Egyptian cults there, see Koester, Paul and World, 148, 165.

[334]. Larkin, Acts, 292. If Passover was April 7, Pentecost would be May 29 (Riesner, Early Period, 316).

[335]. Shipley, “Chios,” 323. Pliny E. N.H. 5.38.136 gave as estimates 125 or 134 Roman mi. in circumference. On Chios, see also Carroll, “Chios”; for one modern report, see Stark, Ionia, 42–50.

[336]. Shipley, “Chios,” 323.

[337]. Ibid.; Larkin, Acts, 292.

[338]. Pliny E. N.H. 2.112.245; for the 94 mi. from Samos, see 5.38.136. Wilson (personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011) estimates 65 mi. (105 km.) from Mitylene to Chios.

[339]. Shipley, “Chios,” 323; for the known Ionian association with Chios and Samos, see, e.g., Vell. Paterc. 1.4.3.

[340]. Earlier, Chios fell to Alexander’s soldiers (Quint. Curt. 4.5.14–18) but was afterward on good terms with Alexander (4.8.12); he had liberated Chios, Cos, and Lesbos (3.1.19).

[341]. Bruce, Acts¹, 375.

[342]. Suet. Tib. 8 (Tiberius was the advocate, who later continued to retain sympathies for cities in Asia Minor devastated by earthquakes, 48.2).

[343]. Part of the island that was harborless produced “the best of the Grecian wines” (Strabo 14.1.35 [LCL, 6:243]). Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, 199, note that Chios was “renowned for its wine, grain, and figs.” The island also had famous marble quarries (Strabo 14.1.35; Pliny E. N.H. 5.38.136; 36.5.46; 36.8.50) and produced splendid marble statues (N.H. 36.4.22; 36.4.11–14). For epigraphic sources, see Corsten, Inschriften von Kios.

[344]. Paterson, “Wine,” 1622. For Chios’s respected wines, see Dio Chrys. Or. 6.13; esp. Pliny E. N.H. 14.4.25; 14.9.73; it was also known for large wine jars (Lucian True Story 2.40); for its figs, Pliny E. N.H. 15.19.69.

[345]. For the tradition of Homer’s birthplace there, Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, 199, cite also Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi 13–15. Lucian True Story 2.20 denies that Homer was from there (perhaps in jest; 1.7 alludes to a fanciful Chian author). Cf. Pliny E. N.H. 32.7.16 (LCL, 8:475) for “the Shrine of the Old Men” there.

[346]. See Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.21, where Apollonius leaps onto a Rhodes-bound ship without even touching shore.

[347]. See Arnold, “Acts,” 423.

[348]. The term παραβάλλω could simply mean they “approached” (one of the definitions in BDAG), but their itinerary makes sense of their anchoring there overnight rather than risking a night crossing (Fant and Reddish, Sites, 118). Wilson (personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011) estimates that Samos was 84 mi. (135 km.) past Chios.

[349]. Further on Samos, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 116–25; Sonnabend, “Samos”; Wineland, “Samos.” For complete publication of archaeological work in Samos, see Milojčić et al., Samos; for early history, see Shipley, History of Samos. Samos was well known on the Greek mainland; cf., e.g., the ten Athenian generals there in 441/40 B.C.E. in Androtion Atthis frg. 38 (see commentary in Harding, Androtion, 144–48).

[350]. Ephesus and Samos could lie close on itineraries (e.g., Jos. Ant. 16.23).

[351]. A few manuscripts (including 𝔓^41vid as well as the Western text) mention Trogyllium, which was across the strait on the Ionian coast. This stop was logical for a coasting vessel between Samos and Miletus, though the textual evidence is not strong (Ramsay, Church in Empire, 155; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 478); I would guess it an inference based on knowledge of the common route (in still later times, the city might also wish to be mentioned). Trogyllium was well known historically (Abbott, Acts, 220).

[352]. Pliny E. N.H. 5.37.135 lists as estimates for its circumference 87.5 and 100 miles.

[353]. He mentions that the city was mostly on level ground but that part of it went up to the mountain.

[354]. Souza, “Harbours,” 667.

[355]. Apul. Flor. 15.1 speaks of Samos as “opposite Miletus,” about a day’s sailing. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 258, think that Paul’s company coasted north of Samos to put in farther south at Miletus. Touching the island’s northwest makes sense of omitting Ephesus (to the east), but if they harbored, they may have chosen the better harbor.

[356]. Xenophon of Ephesus also reports the same route from Samos to Cos and Rhodes (Hock, “Novel,” 139, citing Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11.2–6); in Jos. Ant. 16.16–17, Herod sailed to Rhodes, Cos, Chios, and Mitylene. More than half a millennium earlier, another Xenophon notes the proximity of Rhodes to Cos, Miletus, and (farther north) Ephesus (Hell. 1.5.1).

[357]. He repeats the 94 mi. from Chios in Pliny E. N.H. 5.38.136. His estimates lack modern precision but are informative to us because they approximate the relations among the locations as perceived by Paul’s and Luke’s contemporaries. Chios, Cos, and Lesbos also appear together in texts (e.g., Quint. Curt. 3.1.19).

[358]. Shipley, “Samos.”

[359]. Pliny E. N.H. 5.37.135.

[360]. It was well watered; Pliny E. N.H. 5.37.135 lists three rivers and two springs. Samos yielded a special kind of stone used for gold polish (36.40.152). Poor in crops except olives (Apul. Flor. 15.2), it nevertheless had many residents and tourists (15.3). Larkin, Acts, 292, notes that it was famous for art and the manufacture of deep red pottery. Many Greeks knew the story of a legendary ruler of Samos who was exceptionally blessed (Hdt 3.41–44; Libanius Narration 11).

[361]. Lucian Runaways 9. In legend, Aesop sojourned there (Vit. Aes. 101).

[362]. Lucian Slander 18. Lucian also mentions a tyrant of Samos in the classical period (Charon 14; Dance 54).

[363]. Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.162; Lucian Cock 4; Phil. Sale 3; True Story 2.21; Lexiphanes 19; Apul. Flor. 15.12–13; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.1, 32.

[364]. Iambl. V.P. 6.28.

[365]. He notes that Marc Antony had seized the three larger statues but Augustus restored two of them.

[366]. Tinh, “Sarapis and Isis,” 103.

[367]. Klauck, Context, 323–24 (citing Price, Rituals, catalogue no. 10).

[368]. See also Apul. Flor. 15.4; on its treasury, see 15.5–6. On peacocks as the animal sacred to Hera in Samos’s temple, see Hünemörder, “Peacock,” 661.

[369]. Cf. also CIJ 2, §954 (Stern, “Diaspora,” 154).

[370]. Sib. Or. 3.323 mentions its judgment (among other well-known locations in 3.319–23).

[371]. On Miletus, see further Cobet, “Miletus,” esp. 889–90, 894; Yamauchi, Cities, 115–27; Trebilco, “Asia,” 360–62; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 243–54; Schnabel, Mission, 1231–33; McRay, “Miletus”; for one modern perspective, Stark, Ionia, 171–84. For archaeological work there in the 1990s, see Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 151–54 (on Ionia more generally, 146–64).

[372]. Yamauchi, Cities, 118, thinks that Paul landed at the Lion Harbor; he also notes (126) that this was the location of the sanctuary of Apollo Delphinius (the dolphin). For the sixteen-columned harbor gateway with its processional way and sidewalks, see Edwards, “Miletus,” 27.

[373]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 672; cf. Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.113 (estimating 1.25 mi. between Miletus and the Meander).

[374]. Trebilco, “Asia,” 361. Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.112 calls Miletus the capital of Ionia.

[375]. Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 154 (noting that roughly a third had already been identified by 1906). On Milesia (Miletus’s peninsula, which differs from the city’s frequently shifting territorium), see Lohmann, “Milesia.”

[376]. Souza, “Harbours,” 667; see Burton, “Portoria.”

[377]. Ure, Cook, Sherwin-White, and Roueché, “Miletus.” Cf. the harbor of Ephesus in comment on Acts 18:19–21.

[378]. Ibid., and ample bibliography there.

[379]. Edwards, “Miletus,” 26; so also Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.112.

[380]. Ure, Cook, Sherwin-White, and Roueché, “Miletus”; for the Ionian connection, see, e.g., Vell. Paterc. 1.4.3. For its other titles (“Pitousa” and “Anactoria”) see Edwards, “Miletus,” 26 (citing Hdt. 1.17–20, 141; 6.6; Arrian Alex. 1.18). For the Greek design and architecture in the classical period, see Owens, City, 54.

[381]. Ure, Cook, Sherwin-White, and Roueché, “Miletus”; Kahn, “Anaximander”; idem, “Anaximenes”; idem, “Thales”; Bodnár, “Milesian School” (though noting that they were not a unified “school”). For Thales being from Miletus, see also, e.g., Apul. Flor. 18.30; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.5; Ep. Apoll. 68; for Anaximander, also Apul. Flor. 15.20.

[382]. Edwards, “Miletus,” 26. Yamauchi, Cities, 120, 122, calculates it at 525 by 645 ft. (164 by 196 m.).

[383]. Edwards, “Miletus,” 26; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 245.

[384]. Lucian Affairs 1 (with Macleod, LCL, 8:151n1). A famous courtesan attached to Pericles was also from Miletus (Lucian Cock 19). Cf. “Milesian Tales.”

[385]. Yamauchi, Cities, 126.

[386]. Strabo 14.1.5. Naturally, such a large enclosure lacked a roof, as Strabo points out. For close connections with Apollo’s temple in Didyma, 10 mi. (6 km.) south of Miletus, see Edwards, “Miletus,” 27 (Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.112 has 22 Roman mi.); Dio Chrys. Or. 40.8; on Didyma, see the excursus “Pythoness Spirits” at Acts 16:16, esp. sect. 2, “The Delphic Pythia”; on sacred groves, see 2892–93n5866 above.

[387]. A cult of Dionysus is also attested there in this period (Yamauchi, Cities, 119, following Vermeule, Art, 219, 463).

[388]. For Apollo and healing, cf., e.g., Hom. Il. 5.446–48; 16.526–31; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.56–57. For Miletus and Apollo, see also Tac. Ann. 4.55.

[389]. Yamauchi, Cities, 126.

[390]. Klauck, Context, 323–24 (citing Price, Rituals, catalogue nos. 7–8); Yamauchi, Cities, 119 (on Caligula). For Egyptian cults, see Koester, Paul and World, 154–55.

[391]. CIJ 2:14, §748 (Stern, “Diaspora,” 152). On the Jewish community in Miletus, see further Stern, “Diaspora,” 145; Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 148–49; Trebilco, Communities, 56 (with the caveat that the supposed synagogue excavated there probably was not one); Fant and Reddish, Sites, 247; Yamauchi, Cities, 125.

[392]. Edwards, “Miletus,” 27.

[393]. The customary route to Miletus over open sea would deliver them south of Ephesus much more quickly than would hugging the coast of the long promontory between Smyrna and Ephesus.

[394]. Especially if they needed to make arrangements regarding appointments or work in Ephesus on short notice! Perhaps Paul had already sent a message from Troas for them to be ready (since he knew the vessel’s course before booking passage, Acts 20:13–16), and they merely awaited precise word of when he would reach Miletus.

[395]. Ramsay, Traveller and Citizen, 294, estimates only three; but Haenchen, Acts, 590, argues that it was at least two days each direction (32 mi. straight, but more by land route, including a crossing of the Meander).

[396]. Mark Wilson, unpublished paper sent to me in personal correspondence, Aug. 8, 2012. His calculations regarding the Gulf of Latmus follow first-century topography as opposed to its modern form. Passengers could undoubtedly find passage on boats ferrying cargo, as is common in many parts of the world today.

[397]. Conzelmann, Acts, 171.

[398]. Barrett, Acts, 960 (also observing that although he might have invented a speech in Ephesus, he lacked reason to invent one to Ephesians in Miletus).

[399]. E.g., Marshall, Acts, 328; Johnson, Acts, 356; Dunn, Acts, 269. Barrett, Acts, 960, suggests that the money may have been safer in Miletus than in Ephesus, yet it is difficult to know why (if it would be confiscated to cover fines, one would expect that Paul’s associates remaining in Ephesus would have already been forced to cover him; cf. Acts 17:9). Although it is true that Paul returns to other scenes of trouble (Rapske, “Travel,” 16), he apparently does not do so as long as legal obstacles remain insurmountable (cf. Acts 17:10; 1 Thess 2:18).

[400]. Conzelmann, Acts, 171. Cf. Rakocy, “Tradycja.”

[401]. Paul’s mention of the “sentence of death” (2 Cor 1:8–9) may be no more literal than his beasts in the arena (1 Cor 15:32), but it implies considerable opposition, which may have remained despite Paul’s safety afterward (2 Cor 1:10–11). It would not be the only location where official opposition long prevented his return (cf. 1 Thess 2:18).

[402]. Cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 672.

[403]. E.g., Marshall, Acts, 328; Dunn, Acts, 269. For several independently plausible possibilities, see Trebilco, Ephesus, 173–74.

[404]. Dunn, Acts, 269.

[405]. Witherington, Acts, 639; see further comment above.

[406]. Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 390.

[407]. This is especially the case if, with Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 258, they touched merely on the northwest of Samos. As noted above, however, this reconstruction is uncertain.

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

[409]. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 134; Hemer, Acts in History, 125.

[410]. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 134. In this view, which is possible, Paul apparently decided in retrospect that the detour was just as well for his travel schedule.

[411]. Cf. Bruce, Commentary, 412; Marshall, Acts, 328; Hemer, Acts in History, 125.

[412]. The plans in Acts 20:13 and 20:16 were formulated beforehand.

[413]. Such skipping sometimes happened (Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 390); despite the size of Paul’s company, other factors may have taken precedence.

[414]. Rapske, “Travel,” 31.

[415]. With Rapske, “Travel,” 17; Witherington, Acts, 609; Le Cornu, Acts, 1119. Quick departures might also help wealthy persons evade patronage invitations (cf. Symm. Ep. 1.3.4), though Ephesian believers would not be looking to Paul for money (despite Acts 20:34).

[416]. E.g., Pliny the Younger expected to be detained for a day but no more (Ep. 4.1.6), but he was of more distant social rank.

[417]. At least one must provide better reason for declining than one’s preference for another’s company. Suitability of accommodations for the purpose at hand is a legitimate excuse, but one must nevertheless spend time with all those who have a claim on one’s friendship. Even refusing to attend a banquet could be offensive, without a good excuse, because attendance was expected; see, e.g., Xen. Symp. 1.7; Callim. Hymns 6 (to Demeter), lines 72–73; Cic. Fam. 16.9.3; Phaedrus 4.26.17–19; Sir 13:9–10; cf. Derrett, Audience, 43; Scott, Parable, 171; for failing to come after accepting the invitation, Pliny Ep. 1.15.1 (but playfully); Luke 14:18–21.

[418]. I base this suggestion on personal observations, experiences, and conversations in some West and Central African cultures, and so the customs may not be pervasive (but cf. also Richards, Letter Writing, 192–93, on the lengthy hospitality obligations in Indonesia, and this passage; Gilliland, “Missionaries,” 258, on African farewells). Yet such cultures seem closer to ancient Mediterranean culture than the busy, less relational academic Western milieu in which I usually live. For rabbinic farewell conventions, see Ehrlich, “Rituals.”

[419]. E.g., Luke 19:5–6; Jos. Asen. 3:2–3/3–4; Eurip. Alc. 1039–41; Pliny Ep. 3.4.5; 6.14.1; 6.28.1–2; Lucian Dem. 63; Lucius 3; Affairs 9. A giver’s hospitality obligated the receiver socially (e.g., Pliny Ep. 3.4.5; 4.1.4–5), and too great a gift could overwhelm reciprocity obligations (cf. probably, e.g., 6.32.2; Fronto Ep. graec. 5.8).

[420]. Cf. letters expressing longing to see the other, e.g., P.Oxy. 528.6–9; Cic. Fam. 8.15.2; 16.1.1; Pliny Ep. 6.1.1–2; 6.4.1–5; 6.7.1–3; 6.14.1; 7.5.1–2; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.4; 2.10.3; 2.14; 3.9.2; 3.19; 4.5.3; 4.7; 6.6.1; Rom 1:11. See particularly P.Giss. 17 (in Richards, Letter Writing, 13–14).

[421]. Fronto Ad Verum Imp. 1.3, from Lucius Verus; Symm. Ep. 1.102; cf. Symm. Ep. 1.20.3; eagerness for visits in Symm. Ep. 1.11.2; 1.62; the frequent protest of letters’ being too few or too brief, e.g., Cic. Att. 1.5, ¶3; 1.9, beginning; 1.12, final ¶; 7.10; 12.12, end; Fam. 2.1.1; 2.10.1; 2.13.1; 4.4.1; 7.14.2; 11.24.1; 12.9.1; 14.10.1; 15.20.2; 16.25.1 (Cicero Jr.); 16.26.1; Ovid Tristia 4.7.21–26; Dio Chrys. Ep. 3, 5; Pliny Ep. 2.2.1–2 (quite playfully); 2.11.24; 2.12.7; 3.17.1–3; 4.11.16; 6.4.5; 6.7.2; 9.2.1–5; the (usually) playful banter in Symm. Ep. 1.1.1; 1.5.2; 1.16.2; 1.18; 1.23.1–4; 1.26; 1.27; 1.30; 1.33; 1.34.1–2; 1.36; 1.39; 1.42.1; 1.45.1; 1.47.2; 1.50.1–2; 1.57; 1.80; 1.82; 1.85; 1.88; 1.91; 1.93; 1.95.1; 1.97; 1.98. The tone of Lucius Verus to Fronto in Fronto Ad verum imp. 2.2 is light, but it does appear that Fronto was not writing sufficiently (Ad Ant. imp. 1.4; 2.3), although, when he writes, his letter is full of affection (Ad verum imp. 2.1).

[422]. Cf. the defense in Fronto Ad Verum Imp. 1.4.1–2; 2 Cor 1:15–17; cf. also, regarding visits, Symm. Ep. 1.20.3; regarding letters, 1.5.1; 1.14.1; 1.16.1; 1.35; 1.47.1; 1.59; 1.61; 1.83.

[423]. E.g., Judg 19:9–10; Ap. Rhod. 1.861–64.

[424]. On travelers arriving in late afternoon or evening needing to stay the night, see Luke 24:29; Hom. Od. 3.345–58; Alciph. Farm. 34 (Pratinus to Megaloteles), 3.36, ¶1; Gen 19:2–3; Judg 19:6, 7, 20; John 1:39; Luke 24:29.

[425]. The Corinthians wished Favorinus to stay longer, though they finally settled for making a statue of him instead (Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.8).

[426]. For a sense of the offense caused by failure to come if it was believed that one could do so, see 2 Cor 1:15–17.

[427]. Cf. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 68; Meeks, Urban Christians, 66.

[428]. On a succession in Luke-Acts from Jesus to the Twelve, to Paul, to the Ephesian elders, see Talbert, Patterns, 96. Paul’s successors are not limited to Ephesus (e.g., Acts 14:23), but this passage certainly underlines the demand for continuity (probably more as an exhortation than an institutional observation). For the emphasis on and characterization of God in this speech, see Cheng, Characterisation, 118–23.

[429]. Barrett, Acts, 960; Witherington, Acts, 615; Trebilco, Ephesus, 175.

[430]. Witherington, Acts, 616.

[431]. Philost. Vit. soph. 2.27.619. It is possible that it was not yet in vogue in this period.

[432]. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 155. For one extensive list of studies on the passage, see Pervo, Acts, 515–16.

[433]. E.g., Michel, Abschiedsrede. Pervo, Story, 73, contends that, as a testament, it applies to all Christians and hence reveals situations within Luke’s audience; the latter claim need not follow from the testamentary genre (though most historians and testament writers alike arranged speeches with their audience in view). One might write a literal testament in a different dialect than one’s other writings (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.35), but this was not common enough to lead us to expect a different style here.

[434]. Dunn, Acts, 269: Luke does not use the genre of a testament, though his motivation is similar. Cf. use of the insights but with qualifications in Nelson, “Leadership,” 113–16, 122–23 (summarized in Walton, Leadership, 57–58).

[435]. Perdue, “Sage”; cf. Seneca’s hortatory farewell in Tac. Ann. 15.62–63 (noting a more extensive original); for a predeath speech as social commentary, e.g., Ann. 6.48. I am here adapting material from Keener, John, 896–97. For the literary motif of a dying person’s words, see Englhofer, “Ultima verba” (noting on 89 that these words could be authentic).

[436]. E.g., deathbed visions in y. Soṭah 9:16, §2; ʿAbod. Zar. 3:1, §2; Jacob in Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 49:1; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 49:1. Ancients also expected some who were dying to have special insights about the future (Dio Chrys. Or. 30, esp. 30.8, 10–24, 26–44), or sometimes efficacious curses (Hom. Il. 22.355–60).

[437]. Cf., e.g., Xen. Apol. 30; Aune, Prophecy, 178; many references in Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 221–22. People also believed that deities sometimes warned people in advance of their own death (e.g., Plut. Alc. 39.1–2; but contrast Xen. Symp. 4.5).

[438]. E.g., 1 Kgs 2:1–9; Mbiti, Religions, 109.

[439]. So Michel, Abschiedsrede, for Paul’s Miletus speech here (Acts 20:18–35).

[440]. Testaments typically sought to provide for those left behind; in the Fourth Gospel’s farewell discourse, Jesus does this especially through the Paraclete (see Müller, “Parakletenvorstellung”).

[441]. See Robbins, Jesus the Teacher, 174–75.

[442]. E.g., ibid.; Bauckham, Jude, 131–35.

[443]. E.g., 4Q542 (cf. Falk, “4Q542”); in Jubilees, see Lambert, “Testaments”; cf. survey in Walton, Leadership, 56–58. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, though in some respects closer to a Stoicizing Jewish moralism than to the rabbis, are paralleled conceptually by two Targumim, where the most expansive part is on the blessings to the patriarchs (Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 49; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 49); this is especially significant in the earlier Targum Onqelos, which is sparing in additions except here (Tg. Onq. on Gen 49).

[444]. This includes moral and philosophic words as well as (Xen. Cyr. 8.7.25) directions for his burial.

[445]. Cf., e.g., the reported deathbed concerns of Johanan ben Zakkai (ʾAbot R. Nat. 25 A; b. Ber. 28b; Gen. Rab. 100:2).

[446]. E.g., Gen 47:29–49:33; Deut 31:1–33:29; Josh 23:1–24:30; 1 Kgs 2:1–10; cf. 1 Sam 12. On Genesis, cf. Endres, Interpretation, 199–201.

[447]. Including both testaments and broader farewell speeches, e.g., Jub. 36:1–11; 5Q542 (on which see Falk, “4Q542”); Tob 4:3–21; 14:3–11; 1 Macc 2:49–69; Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; 2 En. 2:2; y. Ketub. 12:3, §§12–13; Taʿan. 4:2, §8; Tg. Onq. on Gen 49; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 49; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 49 (in each case, the most expansive part of the Targum); Bauckham, Jude, 131–35; in conjunction with deathbed visions, e.g., y. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:1, §2; Soṭah 9:16, §2; Tg. Neof. on Gen 49:1; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 49:1. On testaments, see further McNamara, Judaism, 89–92; Kolenkow, “Testament”; Collins, “Testamentary Literature”; in the rabbis, cf. Saldarini, “Deathbed Scenes.” Testament of Abraham may be a nontestament because of Abraham’s refusal to die and hence failure to prepare (see Kolenkow, “Role”; cf. Test. Ab. 15:7–10).

[448]. E.g., Plato Phaedo; Xen. Cyr. 8.7.6–28; Babr. 47; cf. Men. Rhet. 2.15, 430.9–434.9. These differ from the farewell speech genre (propemptikon), in which one wishes farewell to a traveler (Men. Rhet. 2.4, 395.4–30; Stowers, Letter Writing, 55–56). Haraguchi, “Farewell Discourse,” suggests elements of both Greek-tragic and biblical farewell discourses here.

[449]. E.g., Luke 22:14–38 (Kurz, “Luke 22:14–38”); John 13–17 (cf. Käsemann, Testament, 4; O’Day, “John,” 737–38; see esp. Segovia, Farewell, 308–9); Mark 13 (Robbins, Jesus the Teacher, 174–75); 2 Peter (Bauckham, Jude, 131–35).

[450]. Also Witherington, Acts, 613, 619; cf. correctly MacDonald, “Farewell,” 200; on farewell discourses, see briefly Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 182–83. For parallels in Greco-Roman farewell discourses, see esp. Alexander, “Exhortation,” 114–22 (cited in Walton, Leadership, 31); Walton, Leadership, 58–60. Peter’s only “farewell discourse” is the brief command in Acts 12:17 (and then he reappears in 15:7, as Paul does throughout Acts 21–28).

[451]. See esp. Alexander, “Exhortation,” 340–42 (noted in Walton, Leadership, 31).

[452]. MacDonald, “Farewell,” 191 (see also idem, Imitate Homer, 69–102), intriguingly argues that the closest parallel is Hector’s farewell to Andromache (Hom. Il. 6.113–502), echoed (192–94) especially in Virg. Aen. 12.433–35, 438–43. But despite MacDonald’s diligence, the nine “parallels” with Acts 20 (194–98) do not appear compelling; some, such as pathos or invoking deities, are not unusual; some “echoes” are more plausible than others, but on the whole, given the vast space covered in the Iliad speech and the change of sequence (and the motifs not reproduced), the “echoes” are extremely tenuous (MacDonald [199] attributes the change of sequence to Luke’s rearrangement as a chiasmus). Even cumulatively, the “parallels” are no stronger than for testaments in general. Even if Hector’s speech constitutes one literary influence here—which is by no means certain—it is not obvious that it would be the primary or only one (1 Sam 12 is, in fact, closer; see below, passim). Homer may have affected the telling of subsequent Greek farewell scenes, but this effect at most suggests indirect influence.

[453]. Watson, “Speech,” 190–91. Soards, Speeches, 105, notes that “farewell addresses” were epideictic but that Paul departs from some epideictic conventions, even using the past to address the future. Analogous kinds of speeches were also epideictic (e.g., the later Nicolaus Progymn. 8, “On Encomion and Invective,” 47).

[454]. Watson, “Speech,” 191.

[455]. Despite ancient concerns about self-praise, even a speech of gratitude or honoring another person could be used as an excuse to praise oneself (see, e.g., Flor. 16.34–43; 17.2); likewise one could use a warning to detractors to praise oneself (e.g., Apul. Flor. 9.1–6).

[456]. Although epideictic included both praise and blame (see, e.g., Men. Rhet. 1.1, 331.15), most epideictic speeches focused on praise rather than blame (see Rountree, “Genre”), though some have used epideictic as a catchall category (Keck, “Pathos,” 80).

[457]. Thus Pervo, Acts, 518, is right to regard the speech as primarily deliberative, with “apologetic and epideictic elements”; see also Parsons, Acts, 291. The deliberative function is captured in hortatory applications today, often for leadership formation (e.g., in Barnes, “Finishing,” 240; Gilliland, “Missionaries,” 260–70). Hortatory material is also common in Paul’s letters (e.g., Malherbe, Philosophers, 50–56).

[458]. A potentially “forensic” aspect as well, defending Paul (note the speech’s repetition of “witness” and “testimony”), relevant perhaps to part of Luke’s purpose in the larger work. On Luke’s apologetic for Paul, see, e.g., Keener, “Apologetic”; to the extent that any of the three usual rhetorical categories apply, literary apologetic in Josephus and Luke could include epideictic elements, but Josephus, at least, sometimes also is concerned with legal precedents. Nevertheless, probably the three classifications are not adequate for the sorts of literary works here considered.

[459]. See Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.16.1. Genuine panegyric is not only emotional but also uses hyperbole and is typically elaborated and often rhythmic (Hermog. Inv. 1.5.106–8; 4.1.171, depending on earlier works; for epideictic hymns for the divine, cf. Men. Rhet. 1.1, 333.15–1.1, 339.2). Cic. Or. Brut. 13.42 opines that epideictic is suitable for parades but not the forum.

[460]. Watson, “Speech,” 197.

[461]. Especially effective, he notes (ibid.), “when praising someone” (cf. Quint. Inst. 3.7.15–16).

[462]. Watson, “Speech,” 197, cites Arist. Rhet. 1.9, 1367b32; Rhet. Alex. 3.1426a.35ff.; 35.1440b.14ff.

[463]. Watson, “Speech,” 197, cites Arist. Rhet. 1.9, 1366a4–1366b6; Cic. De or. 2.84.343–44; 2.85.346; Rhet. Her. 3.6.10; 3.8.15.

[464]. For the speech as primarily deliberative in character, see also Witherington, Acts, 613. For life relevance of the model in a Roman setting, see Lang, Kunst, 315–35.

[465]. For mixed genres, overlapping, and varieties in classification schemes, see, e.g., Stowers, Letter Writing, 51; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 419; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 97. For the categories, see, e.g., Dion. Hal. Isoc. 20; Theon Progymn. 1.74–76; Hermog. Issues 34.21–35.2; Men. Rhet. 1.1, 331.4–9; Diog. Laert. 7.1.42; Kennedy, “Genres”; idem, Art of Rhetoric, 7–18.

[466]. Biographies may serve an encomiastic purpose (cf. Shuler, Genre) yet be moralistic as well; see Keener, Acts, 1:56–59, esp. 58; idem, John, 14–16.

[467]. On the Gentile mission, see the sources and discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:437–40, esp. 440–41, on model for mission; on the apologetic for Paul, see 223–24, 441–47; idem, “Apologetic.” Gaventa, “Ecclesiology,” argues that the church (and God’s activity in it) is the speech’s focus.

[468]. Stowers, Letter Writing, 55; long used in poetry, Robbins, “Propemptikon,” 20. The nature of the speech depended on the relative status of the traveler and speaker (Men. Rhet. 2.4, 395.4–30; Stowers, Letter Writing, 56). For rabbinic farewell conventions, see Ehrlich, “Rituals.”

[469]. Men. Rhet. 2.4, 393.31–394.4 (συντακτικὴ λαλιά). For the opposite analogue, an “arrival speech,” cf. 2.3, 384.25–27; 2.4, 394.13–29; arrival speeches could also be addressed either to the city or to the person coming to it (2.3, 385.7–8).

[470]. On the importance of not reading the genre’s common forms into the particular text without attention to the text itself, see also Walton, Leadership, 60.

[471]. Although Acts 20:18–35 is not strictly dependent on 1 Sam 12:1–25, the parallel character of these models (cf. Kurichianil, “Speeches”) is instructive, and Samuel’s speech provides multiple allusions. Le Cornu, Acts, 1137, compares both 1 Sam 12 and Num 16:15. Cf. Hubbard, Redaction, for OT commissioning language as relevant to Matthew’s climactic commission (in Matt 28:16–20).

[472]. Cf. Lövestam, “Nyckel,” for motifs such as the watchman of Ezek 33:6, 8 (cf. Acts 20:26) and the shepherds of Ezek 34 (cf. Acts 20:28).

[473]. These passages are particularly emphasized by Kurz, “Luke 22:14–38.”

[474]. These are the only two references to wolves in Luke-Acts (Luke 10:3 is from Q, Matt 10:16); but for “flock,” cf. Luke 12:32; 15:4–7.

[475]. For example, healing (Luke 10:9) is not mentioned in the speech (though it happened in Ephesus, Acts 19:12), where it might sound like self-boasting, which ancient rhetoric discouraged.

[476]. On which see at length Kurz, “Luke 22:14–38”; Walton, Leadership, 100–117 (including impending suffering; the efficacy of Jesus’s death; leadership; and money).

[477]. Kurz, “Models,” 175–76; cf. idem, “Luke 22:14–38.”

[478]. This observation is in line with the commentators above who think that Luke addresses his own “generation” through the speech, though some of them are too skeptical of historical tradition in the speech.

[479]. Tannehill, Acts, 253. The sequence might be coincidental if other parallel elements were introduced, but the repetitions are certain. Cf. Talbert, Acts, 180–81 (“you know,” Acts 20:18, 34; “and now,” 20:22, 32; “I know, therefore,” 20:25–26, 29, 31; the charge in 20:28); MacDonald, Imitate Homer, 98 (with the same asymmetry characterizing many proposed chiasmi).

[480]. When other criteria were inadequate, ancients could also evaluate speeches’ authenticity on the basis of stylistic criteria (Dion. Hal. Lysias 11), though these were freestanding, not speeches in histories.

[481]. Johnson, Acts, 367.

[482]. Walton, Leadership, 1, noting that it is “widely recognised as paralleling the language and ideas of the Pauline epistles.”

[483]. From a rhetorical standpoint, see Watson, “Speech,” 184.

[484]. E.g., Haenchen, Acts, 596 (based on grounds since refuted; see Trebilco, Ephesus, 181–83); Lambrecht, “Farewell Address.” For one fuller survey of views regarding authenticity, see Bock, Acts, 623–25.

[485]. Syreeni, “Paradigms,” 49. For Paul being modeled after Jesus, cf. Acts 20:19, 24, 35.

[486]. See Barrett, “Address to Elders” (the speech is meant to continue Pauline tradition for Luke’s generation). Anthologies were common and appear even in the Qumran scrolls (4Q265; see comment on Acts 17:28).

[487]. Noted in this connection, e.g., by Bruce, Acts¹, 377 (who thinks that Luke was present and took notes); Hanson, Acts, 38 (who also argues [21–28] that Luke knew Paul personally); Walton, Leadership, 14–17. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:233–37.

[488]. Unless we should suppose that the narrator of Acts 20:14–15, coming with Paul to Miletus, disappeared when the reported action took place, reappearing only when Paul left Miletus, coincidentally together with the narrator (21:1). The narrator omits himself from the action in all the narratives, but the context clearly shows that he was present.

[489]. See Hemer, “Ephesian Elders”; Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, 111; Witherington, Acts, 171; cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 675 (suggesting possible dependence on “his Pauline source”); Marshall, Acts, 329.

[490]. See Witherington, Acts, 610–11; Pervo, Dating Acts, 111–33 (Pervo thinks Acts dependent on Paul’s letters, but the parallels are not evenly distributed among his Lukan speeches). There are some close parallels with the Pastorals, which may reflect similar circumstances (Barrett, Acts, 965) or even the same historical source from Ephesus (Donelson, “Cult Histories”). Still, it is not easy to reconcile Paul’s movements in the Pastorals with Acts without postulating a second Roman imprisonment (which is plausible).

[491]. See, e.g., in Barnes, “Finishing,” 240; Gilliland, “Missionaries,” 260–70.

[492]. On which see, e.g., Malherbe, “Paul as Pastor” (esp. on 1 Thessalonians, 126–28). Paul’s own ministry style was flexible, reflecting both the compassion and the sternness of a parent (e.g., 1 Cor 4:14–21; 2 Cor 12:14; 1 Thess 2:7, 11; cf. the thesis of Joubert, “Shifting Styles,” even if one might differ on the examples).

[493]. Malherbe, Philosophers, 152–54.

[494]. See ibid., passim (e.g., on 1 Thessalonians, 49–66; but esp. 67–77, even if his conclusion, 77, may be overstated).

[495]. See esp. Ware, Synopsis, §§75 (pp. 138–41, on being set apart for God in Acts 20:32 and, e.g., Rom 6:17–23; 1 Cor 1:2, 30–31; 6:11; Eph 5:25–27; 1 Thess 4:3–8; 5:23–24; 2 Thess 2:13–14), 92 (pp. 166–71, on the consecrated ones’ inheritance, in Acts 20:32 and Rom 4:13–15; 8:15–21; 1 Cor 6:9–11; 15:50–57; Gal 3:15–18, 26–29; 4:1–7, 28–31; Eph 1:13–21; 3:1–7; 5:3–5; Col 1:12; 3:22–25; Titus 3:4–7), 112 (pp. 202–5, on overseers, in Acts 20:28 and, e.g., Rom 12:8; 1 Cor 12:28; Phil 1:1; 1 Thess 5:12–13), 117 (pp. 212–16, warnings against deceivers, in Acts 20:29–31 and, e.g., Rom 16:17–20; 2 Cor 11:1–4, 12–15; Gal 1:6–9), 152 (pp. 278–79, self-support, in Acts 20:33–35 and, e.g., 1 Cor 4:12; Eph 4:28; 1 Thess 2:9; 4:10–12; 5:14; 2 Thess 3:6–12), 156 (pp. 282–85, on Paul’s handling of money, in Acts 20:33–35 and 1 Cor 9:1–18; 2 Cor 11:5–21a; 12:11–18; Phil 4:10–20; 1 Thess 2:9–12; 2 Thess 3:7–9).

[496]. Walton, Leadership, 140–85; he also shows (203–12) that these parallels reflect dependence not on 1 Thessalonians but on authentic Pauline tradition. He observes (186–92) some parallels with Ephesians but notes that they are far less close than with 1 Thessalonians. For one mostly favorable evaluation of Walton’s study, see Elbert, “Miletus Speech” (esp. 268).

[497]. Hanson, Acts, 203, includes recalling the past (Phil 1:5; Col 1:6; cf. also, e.g., 1 Cor 2:1–5; Gal 4:13–14), tears (2 Cor 2:4; cf. also Phil 3:18), and protesting innocence (1 Thess 2:3–11; 2 Cor 7:2). Dunn, Acts, 271, adds others, most notably “profitable” (Acts 20:20; 1 Cor 6:12; 10:23; 12:7; 2 Cor 8:10; 12:1).

[498]. Porter, Paul in Acts, 117. Four of these also appear in Kistemaker, Acts, 11–12; see others in Trebilco, Ephesus, 177–80. Emphasis on the speech’s Pauline language appears already in Lightfoot, Acts, “speech of Paul at Miletus” (forthcoming; courtesy of Witherington).

[499]. The verb appears elsewhere in Acts only at 7:7 (though in the Gospel at Luke 15:29; 16:13); it appears sixteen times in Pauline literature, in this sense in Rom 14:18; Eph 6:7; Col 3:24; 1 Thess 1:9; cf. Rom 7:25.

[500]. The exact match appears only in Eph 4:2 in the NT; the term ταπεινοφροσύνη is also mostly from Paul’s later years (Eph 4:2; Phil 2:3; Col 2:18, 23; 3:12; elsewhere in the NT, only 1 Pet 5:5). Cognate evidence is more ambiguous; the cognate adjective appears three times in Paul (against once in Luke); the verb, only once more in Paul than in Luke.

[501]. It is also Lukan (Acts 14:1; 18:4; 19:10, 17), though in the Diaspora, Pauline, section of Acts. This division probably came naturally to Paul as a Hellenist in Jerusalem.

[502]. More general athletic imagery, including running, is common in Paul, as among other Diaspora teachers (1 Cor 9:24, 26; Gal 2:2; Phil 2:16; 3:12–14; see more fully Pfitzner, Agon Motif).

[503]. Eleven times in Pauline literature, most of them undisputed references; four other times in Luke-Acts (one in a summary of Pauline speech, Acts 13:43), with four other uses in the NT. “The grace of the Lord” or “our Lord” appears twice in Luke-Acts (15:11, 40) and eleven times in Paul (mostly undisputed; with only one other use in the NT).

[504]. Seven times in Paul (six undisputed).

[505]. Mainly Pauline in this sense, though see also Acts 9:31; perhaps 1 Pet 2:5, 7.

[506]. Porter, Paul in Acts, 117–18.

[507]. Hanson, Acts, 203, doubts that Paul would point out his own virtues, as in Acts 20:18–21, but cites parallels; and Paul clearly does use himself as a model (e.g., 1 Thess 1:6; 1 Cor 4:16; 11:1). Although Paul often reasons with his churches, “bending down” to them (like Stoic sages, Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 81–130 passim), sometimes he writes more authoritatively, representing Christ (127, on Philippians; see 2 Cor 5:20).

[508]. Plümacher, “Luke as Historian,” 398.

[509]. See Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse.”

[510]. For a summary of five divergent views, see Porter, Paul in Acts, 116–17.

[511]. Conzelmann, Acts, 173.

[512]. Witherington, Acts, 613–14.

[513]. With his limited space, it may simply be unnecessary in Luke’s summary.

[514]. Watson, “Speech,” 199, regards Acts 20:18b–24 as the exordium and thinks that the speech, being epideictic, omits the narratio. This appears to me much less persuasive.

[515]. Cf. Kilgallen, “Ephesian Elders,” who may be right to find both Acts 20:25 and 20:28 central. If the speech were primarily epideictic rather than primarily deliberative in function, one might make 20:26 the thesis, but it is likelier that 20:26 simply climaxes the example.

[516]. For a comparison of different handbooks’ ideal structures, see Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 64; actual speeches required rhetorical flexibility on various matters (e.g., Cic. Quinct. 10.35; Or. Brut. 46.156; Pliny Ep. 4.14.3) and often diverged widely from theory (Wuellner, “Arrangement,” 57; Heath, Hermogenes, 4). Against the excessive tendency of some rhetorical critics to impose such constraints on texts, see, e.g., Black, Rhetoric of Gospel, 21.

[517]. Paul’s example precedes (Acts 20:18–25), accompanies (20:31), and follows (20:33–35) his primary exhortations.

[518]. Conzelmann, Acts, 112, 173.

[519]. Witherington, Acts, 611.

[520]. Although Paul is not visiting Ephesus at this time, he is bidding the elders farewell (Acts 20:25), making the farewell speech model relevant. We should keep in mind, however, that neither rhetorically sophisticated nor simple speakers felt constrained to follow models in rhetorical handbooks such as the one I cite here. Further, Luke expects his audience to know that he abbreviates speeches (2:40); perhaps Paul’s use of a complimentary exordium, at least, is assumed?

[521]. Men. Rhet. 2.15, 430.30–31.

[522]. One should not, however, do only an encomium (Men. Rhet. 2.15, 431.1–13).

[523]. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 7.11.1 (delicately, cf. 7.18.1); Mus. Ruf. 9, p. 74.13–19; cf. Fiore, “Exemplification,” 233–34; Fowl, “Imitation”; Seneca’s words before death in Tac. Ann. 15.62. On the use of examples, see further Anderson, Glossary, 87–88.

[524]. See Clarke, “Imitators”; Ehrensperger, “Imitators.” Kwon, Corinthians, 86–87, is probably right to contrast Paul’s call to imitate “the crucified Christ and his suffering followers” with the Roman ideal of imitating the powerful; at length, see the contrast in Harrison, “Imitation.”

[525]. Kurz, “Models,” 175–76 (Luke 22), 176–85 (narrative, including 177–82 for history; 182–83 for biography; 183–84 for other narrative genres). For positive mimesis, as opposed to the negative form sometimes cited, cf. also Kim, Introduction, 112–15 (citing Aristotle, as against Plato).

[526]. Hermog. Progymn. 9, “On Ethopoeia,” 21–22 (elaborating a fictitious speech from present to past to future); 10, “On Ecphrasis,” 22 (elaborating actions in the past, present, and future); the later Nicolaus Progymn. 10, “On Ethopoeia” (present, past, and future).

[527]. Pace Bruce, Commentary, 413.

[528]. Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse.”

[529]. As I have argued elsewhere (Keener, “Apologetic”).

[530]. Marshall, Enmity, 353 (citing Plut. Praising, Mor. 540C–541E). For “necessity” as a justification, see also, e.g., Hermog. Method 25.442–26.443.

[531]. Plut. Praising 15, Mor. 544D.

[532]. For disciples imitating teachers, see, e.g., Xen. Mem. 1.2.3; Quint. Inst. 1.2.26; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.21; Jos. Life 11; b. Ber. 62a; Kirschner, “Imitatio”; for an extreme example, see Sen. E. Controv. 9.3.12–13; so also for other leaders (e.g., Ap. Rhod. 1.363–64).

[533]. See Watson, “Speech,” 194–95 (on the exordium, which he takes as Acts 20:18b–24, though Kennedy has 20:18b–27). On ēthos, see comment on Acts 24:5, 11; briefly, Anderson, Glossary, 61–63; on the importance of the speaker’s character in persuasion, see McTavish, “Priest.”

[534]. Dion. Hal. Lysias 8 offers this observation.

[535]. On the distastefulness of self-praise, see, e.g., Thucyd. 1.86.1; 3.61.1; Isoc. Nic. 46 (Or. 3.36); Publ. Syr. 597; Cic. Fam. 5.12.8 (though noting that self-boasting possesses ample precedent); Val. Max. 4.1.6a; 7.2.ext. 11b; Quint. Inst. 11.1.15, 17, 22; Dio Chrys. Or. 45.2; Plut. Praising 19, Mor. 546F; Alex. 23.4; M. Cato 14.2; 19.5; Comparison of Aristides and Marcus Cato 5.2; Cic. 24.1–2; Pliny Ep. 1.8.4–6; 9.19.4–5; Phaedrus 1.11.1–2; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.27.616; Jos. Ant. 19.318; Ag. Ap. 2.135–36; Prov 27:2; ʾAbot R. Nat. 22, §46 B.

[536]. See Quint. Inst. 11.1.18–19; Plut. Praising, Mor. 539A–547F (e.g., 15, Mor. 544D); Hermog. Method 25.441–42 (citing Isoc. Or. 1.1). For examples, see Demosth. Fals. leg. 174; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.1.1; Cic. Pis. 1.2; Dio Chrys. Or. 57 (esp. 57.10); Pliny Ep. 1.8.13; 7.4.10; 9.15; Lucian Harm. 4; Fronto Ad Ant. imp. 1.2.9; cf. Dion. Hal. Isaeus 10–11; Lysias 17. See further comments in Forbes, “Self-Praise”; Marshall, Enmity, 353–54; Watson, “Boasting,” 78–81; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 81–84; Peterson, Eloquence, 113–14; Wojciechowski, “Boasting,” 105–6; cf. also Fitzgerald, Cracks, 107–14; Lyons, Autobiography, 68–69; Forbes, “Comparison.”

[537]. See Marshall, Enmity, 354–56; Watson, “Boasting,” 81–95; see further Forbes, “Self-Praise.” Judge, First Christians, 700, 707, views Paul as parodying ancient boasting practice. For John Chrysostom’s accurate insight regarding Paul’s forced boasting in 2 Corinthians (e.g., Hom. 2 Cor. 22.2; 23.3 [Bray, Corinthians, 287–88]), see Mitchell, “Perspective.”

[538]. Cic. Ag. Caec. 11.36; 12.37, 40.

[539]. Marshall, Enmity, 124–29.

[540]. Ibid., 353–54. Certainly Romans valued the ideal of glory (Judge, First Christians, 59–70, esp. 69–70), which provided incentive for community service (cf. 63, 69–70).

[541]. Hermog. Issues 46.14–17.

[542]. See Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse.”

[543]. E.g., Xen. Mem. 4.1.1; 4.2.40 (Socrates); Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 84.9–10 (συνεῖναι; cf. 6, p. 52.7); cf. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 223; Gerhardsson, Origins, 16–17; Mark 3:14.

[544]. Cf. also the rhetorical “Do you not know?” (Rom 6:3, 16; 7:1; 11:2; 1 Cor 3:16; 5:6; 6:2–3, 9, 15–16, 19; 9:13, 24).

[545]. E.g., Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 22. Stoic logic also reasoned from the known to prove what was yet unknown (Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 32.27), and appeals to agreed knowledge did not require proofs (Acts 10:37; Rhet. Alex. pref. 1421a.4–6). At least some ancient writers of letters of recommendation appealed to the letter receiver’s knowledge of the recommendee (Symm. Ep. 1.22, 67, 75, 81) or to common knowledge (1.94).

[546]. E.g., Aeschines Embassy 44 (referring to the accuser’s words). Hermog. Method 5.418 cites the example in Demosth. Or. 21.1.

[547]. Aeschines Embassy 56 (trans. Adams, LCL, 201), 122–23; Tim. 89; Isoc. Nic. 46 (Or. 3.36); Isaeus Pyrr. 40; Jos. Life 257–58; 1 Thess 2:10; John 3:28. In Luke’s Gospel, Luke 11:48; 24:48; see esp. OT legal language in Josh 24:22; Ruth 4:9–10.

[548]. It would not be true of all of them, and “from the first day I moved to Asia” employs an element of hyperbole suitable for the emphasis needed in speech emphasizing pathos.

[549]. In the now dominant view that Rom 16 addresses Rome and not Ephesus (with, e.g., Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 24–35; esp. Gamble, Textual History).

[550]. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436a.33–39; Sen. E. Controv. 1.pref. 21 (noting that not all follow this practice); Dio Chrys. Or. 38.8.

[551]. Cf. the rhetorical device of homoeoptoton; see Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 85 (citing Rhet. Her. 4.20.28; Quint. Inst. 9.3.78); Rowe, “Style,” 138 (offering as examples the fivefold series in Chrys. De laudibus sancti Pauli apostoli 3 and the threefold series in Aug. Ep. 41.1); Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 581 (citing Rom 12:11–12); cf. Rhet. Alex. 28, 1436a.5–14.

[552]. Mentioning subjects as if they were heads of a larger outline, implying much more information, was called by some rhetoricians epitrochasmus (Rowe, “Style,” 148–49).

[553]. Cf. the rhetorical practice of insinuating more acts than one could state (cf. Anderson, Glossary, 88–89) or remarking that one lacks time to mention the items that one does, in fact, briefly mention (Lysias Or. 3.44–45, §100; 31.20, §188; Cic. Cat. 1.6.14; Flacc. 15.34; Verr. 1.5.14; 2.3.24.59; Agr. 24.63–64; Cael. 13.31; 24.60; see fuller comment on Acts 24:19), using the ironic practice of paralipsis (Rhet. Alex. 21, 1434a.25–26).

[554]. Cf., e.g., Epict. Diatr. 1.11.33; Max. Tyre 12.10; see esp. Fitzgerald, Cracks, esp. 43–44, 59; idem, “Affliction Lists,” esp. 17.

[555]. On disciples as servants, see, e.g., Zeno in Diog. Laert. 7.1.12; Cleanthes in 7.5.170; Exod 24:13; 33:11; Josh 1:1; 1 Kgs 19:21; 2 Kgs 5:20; 6:15; 8:4; t. B. Meṣiʿa 2:30; cf. ʾAbot R. Nat. 27, §56B; y. Soṭah 5:5, §4.

[556]. Keener, Acts, 2:1926–27.

[557]. In early Judaism, see Jos. Ant. 3.212; m. ʾAb. 3:12; Sipre Deut. 38.1.4; ʾAbot R. Nat. 15, 38 A; 29, §§60–62 B; 41, §111 B; b. Meg. 28a; Pesaḥ. 66b; Soṭah 32b, bar.; Taʿan. 20b; y. Sanh. 6:6, §2; Soṭah 9:13, §2; Taʿan. 4:2, §§8–9; Num. Rab. 9:20; Maher, “Humble”; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 117; Keener, John, 904–7. Rabbis could also reprove those failing to help the community by failing to exercise proper authority over it (Sipre Deut. 16.2.2); true leaders were expected to lead (e.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.115.5). Imperial claims to reject honor, of course (cf., e.g., Res Gestae 1.4; 2.10; 4.24; Vell. Paterc. 2.89.4–5; 2.103.3; 2.122.1–2; 2.124.2), are probably no more ingenuous than those of Sejanus (Vell. Paterc. 2.127.4).

[558]. This is Luke’s only text that employs ταπείνωσις except Luke 1:48, which describes Mary as a “servant” who has been lowly.

[559]. See, e.g., esp. for ταπεινο- language, Marshall, Enmity, 323–24; Lincoln, Ephesians, 235; Lucian Posts 4. Other negative uses include being abased by circumstances (e.g., Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 48.7).

[560]. See, e.g., for πρᾳο- cognates, Mus. Ruf. 16, p. 104.18; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.37; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11s, p. 100.4–7 (avoiding anger); Lucian Alex. 61. Lowliness (in the sense of ταπεινός) could elicit pathos (Dio Chrys. Or. 13.10); sometimes it was appropriate (9.20). Most considered modesty more honorable than self-boasting (Symm. Ep. 1.2.6; 1.16.2; 1.43.1–2).

[561]. E.g., Ptolemy as a gentle (πρᾷος) and kind king (Polyb. 39.7.3–4), showing mercy rather than revenge (39.7.5–6); cf. Let. Aris. 257; for a governor, Men. Rhet. 2.4, 389.8; for a rabbi, e.g., b. Šabb. 31a. Many texts value a ruler’s mercy and kindness, e.g., Polyb. 1.72.3; 3.99.7; 39.7.3–6; Diod. Sic. 27.16.2; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.54.2; Corn. Nep. 8 (Thrasybulus), 2.6; Res Gestae 1.3; Vell. Paterc. 2.25.2–3; 2.29.3; 2.52.4; 2.56.1; 2.85.5; 2.86.2; 2.87.2–3; 2.98.2–3; 2.114.1, 3; 2.122.1; Arrian Alex. 1.17.12; 4.19.6; Appian Hist. rom. 10.4.24; Suet. Jul. 74.1; 75.1; Aug. 51; Vesp. 12; 14; Tit. 9.1; Hdn. 1.2.4; Babr. 102.3; Iamblichus Letter 1, frg. 1 (from Stob. Anth. 4.5.76); Matt 21:5; cf. also Jos. Life 353; Sipre Deut. 323.4.1; despite Achilles’s more commonly vengeful personality, Hom. Il. 24.507–8, 665–70; see further Good, King, 47–49; Konstan, “Clemency”; Harrison, Authorities, 139, 141. Such clemency could be impractical, however, in some settings (Cic. Ad Brut. 24.10 [1.15.10]). Gentile philosophers did struggle with the concept of pity when it violated notions of justice (cf. Judge, Athens, 185).

[562]. See esp. Good, King, passim.

[563]. Though Zeus was king because of his power, he was “father” because of his gentleness (Dio Chrys. Or. 1.40).

[564]. For relinquishing status, see, e.g., Winter, Left Corinth, 69; on status issues in Corinth, cf. also the seminal Theissen, Setting; Malherbe, Social Aspects.

[565]. E.g., Quint. Curt. 4.10.23. Cf. our discussion of leaders’ praiseworthy “gentleness” or clemency at Acts 20:19.

[566]. E.g., Diod. Sic. 17.69.4 (cf. the emphasis on Alexander’s kindness and generosity in this context, 17.69.9). On weeping for others’ sorrow, see, e.g., Sir 7:34; Rom 12:15; Cic. Fam. 14.3.1; 14.4.1; 13.1.1.

[567]. E.g., Appian Hist. rom. 8.12.81; 8.19.132 (though the consuls emphasized stern discipline instead, 8.12.82, 86); Plut. Caes. 41.1; 48.2.

[568]. E.g., Gen 29:11; 37:35; 42:24; 43:30; 50:17; 1 Sam 1:7, 10; 20:41; 30:4; 2 Sam 1:12; 3:32; 2 Kgs 20:3, 5, 19; 2 Chr 34:27; Ezra 3:12; 10:1; Neh 1:4; Esth 8:3. Also in later Jewish biblical historiography (e.g., Jos. Ant. 4.51; 7.202–3).

[569]. E.g., Hom. Il. 1.348–49; Od. 4.113–19; 16.190–91, 214; 23.231–32; Soph. Ajax 819–20 (though he had previously thought lamentation only for the weak); Ap. Rhod. 1.535; Arrian Alex. 7.11.5; 7.12.3.

[570]. Malina, Windows, 24–25, citing examples from Plut. Caes. 5.2; 11.3; 41.1; 48.2; Cic. 47.2; John 11:30–36; and Acts 20:37.

[571]. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.8.6 presents it as praiseworthy by Roman standards that the ruler would not even shed a tear on seeing his sons justly executed. Cf. also, e.g., Ovid Fasti 4.845–48; Val. Max. 4.1.13; 5.10; 7.2.ext. 2b; Cic. Fam. 5.16.6; Pliny Ep. 3.16.3–6.

[572]. For the attempt to minimize grief, see, e.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 1.4.5; 1.5.8; 6.7.1; 11.4.1; Ep. Lucil. 99.1–2, 4–8; Epict. Encheir. 14; Lucian Dial. D. 336–37 (3/2, Dead to Pluto against Menippus 1–2); Philost. Vit. soph. 2.1.557–58; 2.16.597; Ep. Apoll. 55, 58; Iambl. V.P. 32.226; 33.234; outside philosophers, e.g., Soph. El. 1171–73; Eurip. Hipp. 834–35; Plut. Consol. 2, Mor. 608C; Jub. 19:3–4; Jos. Ant. 3.208; Sent. Syr. Men. 463–69; Pesiq. Rab. 30:1. Stoics regarded grief negatively (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.10c, pp. 60.31–62.8), though they might indulge others (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 99.15–16, 26–27; 104.2–3; Dial. 6.7.3). Yet even Marcus Aurelius could be moved to tears (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.1.561), and nonphilosophers certainly allowed grief (e.g., Catull. Carm. 68.19–26; Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.3.1–2; Att. 12.38–41; Fam. 4.5–6; 5.16.3; Pliny Ep. 5.16.8–10; 8.5.1–3; 8.16.3–4; 9.13.4; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.9 [24]; Nep. am. 2.7; Gr. Anth. 7.339–40, 389). Heraclitus allegorizes Zeus’s tears for Sarpedon (Hom. Prob. 42.1, on Hom. Il. 16.459).

[573]. An example of feigned sincerity might be Herodes, extemporaneously declaiming with tears in his eyes as he defended an assigned position from the past (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.5.574). Yet genuine grief could also add passion to one’s speech, even if only by way of remembering one’s own loss (Sen. E. Controv. 4.pref. 6).

[574]. Hall, “Delivery,” 230.

[575]. For emotion in rhetoric, cf., e.g., Dion. Hal. Isoc. 13; Cic. Brut. 43.158; De or. 2.46.189; 2.45.191; Quint. Inst. 5 passim; 6.2.8–9; Pliny Ep. 6.33.10; 9.23.1; 9.26.2; Men. Rhet. 2.5, 395.26–30; Roman handbooks in Kraftchick, “Πάθη,” 52–53, 56.

[576]. E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.10.1; Livy 1.26.12. Describing the tears of one wronged can also move the audience (cf. Lysias Or. 32.10, §505; Cic. Rab. Post. 17.47; Rosc. Amer. 9.24); tears added pathos to narratives (e.g., Tac. Hist. 3.25). In a cultic/dramatic setting, consider laments for Adonis and others (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 45.6; cf. Plut. Nic. 13.7).

[577]. E.g., Cic. Cael. 24.60; Quint. Decl. 267.13. In letters, see Cic. Fam. 14.3.1; 14.4.1; Pliny Ep. 5.21.6; 2 Cor 2:4; Phil 3:18.

[578]. Hall, “Delivery,” 228, emphasizes Quint. Inst. 6.2.36.

[579]. E.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 1.19.512; 2.9.582; 2.10.586. On tears most fully, see Fögen, Tears.

[580]. See Anderson, Glossary, 61–63.

[581]. See Elliott, Feelings.

[582]. In secular Greek, πειράζω always referred to testing or proving, never enticement to sin (Gibson, “Testing,” 1207–11).

[583]. It may also parallel Jesus’s words in Luke 22:28 about his own past trials (Tannehill, Luke, 239–40).

[584]. Watson, “Speech,” 196 (citing Cic. Inv. 1.16.22; Rhet. Her. 1.5.8; Quint. Inst. 4.1.9); one could “amplify” this effect by listing examples (citing Quint. Inst. 8.4.26–27; Longin. Subl. 12.2). Often the speaker noted circumstances that made the speech difficult, but one could also elicit sympathy by mentioning other hardships.

[585]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 7, pp. 56, 58.

[586]. Cf. joy in affliction in Jas 1:2; 1 Pet 1:6; cf. Rom 5:3. On the practice of celebrating one’s afflictions, see comment under “Midnight Worship” at Acts 16:25.

[587]. Rhetoricians preferred to elaborate sufferings vividly (e.g., Men. Rhet. 2.13, 423.19–25), valuable for augmenting pathos.

[588]. Fitzgerald, “Affliction Lists,” 16–17 (quote, 17). They also demonstrated the character of other heroes, e.g., Odysseus (Max. Tyre 34.8).

[589]. E.g., Ovid Metam. 13.262–67; Fasti 2.696–99 (in this case deceptively); Plut. Alex. 50.6; Arrian Alex. 7.10.1–3; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.62.3; Livy 45.39.17; Val. Max. 7.7.1; cf. Sall. Pomp. 1–2; Caesar C.W. 1.72; Sil. It. 9.350–51; Val. Max. 3.2.24; or citing dangers one had faced (e.g., Aeschines Embassy 168–69; Cic. Cat. 4.1.2; 1 Cor 15:30). Hall, “Delivery,” 228, cites Cicero’s appeal to his client’s scars in Rab. Post. 36; and also Cicero’s objection when opponents try the same tactic (Cic. Pro Vareno, cited in Quint. Inst. 6.1.49).

[590]. E.g., Cic. Verr. 2.5.1.3; Sen. E. Controv. 1.4.2; Quint. Inst. 6.1.30; Jos. War 4.360. Likewise, wounds could be displayed in corpses to stir indignation (Ovid Fasti 2.849; Plut. Caes. 68.1).

[591]. Assumed, e.g., by Cicero in Flacc. 1.1 (though he may have ultimately overplayed this claim over the years).

[592]. Watson, “Speech,” 198, notes that exordia typically introduced points “to be further developed in the probatio [citing Cic. De or. 2.80.325; Quint. Inst. 4.1.23–27] . . . and reiterated in the peroratio [citing Arist. Rhet. 3.14, 1414b1; Rhet. Alex. 35.1440b.5ff.].” The suggestion that apologetic elements in Paul’s speech do not fit its context (Plümacher, “Luke as Historian,” 398) does not reckon with similar elements in analogous speeches (esp. 1 Sam 12).

[593]. Gaventa, Acts, 285, compares it with Luke’s frequent use of litotes.

[594]. Watson, “Speech,” 197 (citing Rhet. Alex. 35.1440b.5ff. for the use of this in the introduction in epideictic speeches).

[595]. Conzelmann, Acts, 173.

[596]. See, e.g., Yamauchi, Gnosticism; Smith, Gnostic Origins; Keener, John, 164–69.

[597]. Conzelmann, Acts, 174, also cites Qumran for an example of secret teachings (1QpHab VII, 1–14; 1QS III, 13–14; XI, 5–9), and polemical language in Iren. Her. 1.1; Tert. Praescr. 22–23; they were common also in many other groups, including in Judaism. Some Jewish people believed that God had entrusted Israel with special “mysteries” in his law (cf. Test. Levi 2:10; Test. Jud. 16:4; t. Qidd. 5:21; Exod. Rab. 19:6; Esth. Rab. 2:4). Sages sometimes spoke of the “hidden things,” such as the laws of creation, concealed from most of humanity (Deut 29:29; 1 En. 4:1–3; 41:1–8; 49:2; 52:2; 59:1–3; 103:2; 106:19; Wis 7:21; 1QH^a V, 13–14; 1QM XIV, 14; 2 Bar. 48:3), or “hidden things”/“mysteries” in the righteous’ teachings, concealed from humanity or from the wicked (Wis 2:22; Ps.-Phoc. 229; cf. Ps 25:14; Prov 3:32; conventional wisdom in Job 11:6; 15:8; for the wicked’s secrets, see Wis 14:23; 1 En. 16:3; 1QM XIV, 9; 2 Thess 2:7). The Qumran community believed that God had revealed to its leaders mysteries hidden from other readers of Scripture (1QpHab VII, 4–5, 13–14; 1QH^a X, 13–14; XVII, 23–24; XIX, 9–10, 16–17; XX, 11–13; 1QS VIII, 1–2, 12; IX, 13, 17–19; cf. 1QS V, 11–12; XI, 3–5; 1QM III, 9; XVII, 9; 4 Ezra 14:45–47). Although most mainstream Jewish teachings were available to the public (cf. John 18:20; b. Sukkah 49b; cf. Goodman, State, 74), many Jewish teachers apparently held particular teachings to be too esoteric for public teaching (e.g., b. Pesaḥ. 119a; Pesiq. Rab. 22:2; esp. regarding the throne-chariot, in t. Ḥag. 2:1; b. Ḥag. 13a, bar.; 14b, bar.; Šabb. 80b; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §§63–64; cf. 4QS140; and creation, in m. Ḥag. 2:1; t. Ḥag. 2:1, 7; ʾAbot R. Nat. 39 A; b. Ḥag. 15a, bar.; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §15; Gen. Rab. 1:5, 10; 2:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5; 2 En. 24:3; I borrow much of this note from Keener, Matthew, 378–79).

[598]. Noted here also by Johnson, Acts, 360, who cites the same idiom in Plato Apol. 24A. Rhetoricians could use such candor, claiming to risk losing the audience’s favor but, in fact, fortifying the audience’s appreciation for the speaker’s courage (Rowe, “Style,” 139); Paul’s letters may use this technique (Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 581, though his example [Rom 9:1] is not the best). The comparison with Hector refusing to “shrink from” battle (MacDonald, “Farewell,” 196) is too narrow (though legitimate as one illustration among many).

[599]. See Rowe, “Style,” 139 (and his examples in Demosth. Olynth. 1.1.16.1; Cic. Cat. 1.1.3). Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 581, portrays Rom 9:1 as an example of this approach, but 1 Cor 3:3 or Gal 4:16 might be closer.

↑ Back to top