[630] . E.g., Suet. Jul . 81.1–4.

[630] . E.g., Suet. Jul . 81.1–4.

[600]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 3.2–3; Plut. Profit by Enemies 6, Mor. 89B; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.12; 2 Tim 4:2–4; cf. Marshall, Enmity, 152; Rowe, “Style,” 139 (noted above). Eastern wisdom was sometimes more ambivalent (Prov 9:8; 23:9; 26:4; cf. Matt 7:6; Sent. Syr. Men. 328–32); cf. also the rhetorical ethic in Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 29.2–3 (for the futility of correcting those unwilling to heed); 40.4 (on the practice of populist rhetoric); 86.16 (on Virgil); Eunapius Lives 500.

[601]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.2. For philosophers ideally not shrinking from declaring what was profitable, see Malherbe, Philosophers, 153 (citing, e.g., Plato Clitophon 407A; Dio Chrys. Or. 11.17; 13.16). The harshest reproofs tended to belong to philosophers rather than to orators (cf. Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 161); among them, of course, the harsher Cynics were the harshest (e.g., Fredrickson, “Hardships,” 175–76), but far from Paul’s affectionate presentation here.

[602]. E.g., Men. Rhet. 2.4, 388.13–14, 27; 392.18; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.21.521; 2.16.597; cf. Sen. E. Controv. 3.pref. 3; Prov 27:9. Often pleasant speech is associated with “honey” (though some of this originally figurative usage may have come to simply mean “pleasant,” at least in Latin); e.g., Prov 16:24; Hom. Il. 1.249; Pindar Paeans 6.59; 8.78; Isthm. 2.3; frg. 152; Val. Max. 1.7.ext. 3; Pliny Ep. 4.3.3; Lucian Portr. 13; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.2.2; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.8.490; 1.22.522; 2.1.561.

[603]. Cf. also ὠφέλεια in Rom 3:1, conceptually analogous (and included in citations of profitability below, though it sometimes appears alongside συμφέρον as distinct but related).

[604]. E.g., Arist. Rhet. 1.7.1, 1363b; Rhet. Alex. 1, 1421b.24, 28–30; 1422a.3–4, 5–16; 4, 1426b.32, 34; 1427a.26–27; 6, 1427b.39–41; 1428a.1–2; 10, 1430a.27–28; 34, 1440a.1–2; 29, 1436b.10–11; Theon Progymn. 8.45; Ael. Arist. Leuct. Or. 5.11–16; Hermog. Issues 76.5–6; 77.6–19, esp. 6–7; Progymn. 1, “Fable,” 2; 5, “On Refutation and Confirmation,” 11; 6, “On Commonplace,” 14; 11, “On Thesis,” 25–26; 12, “On Introduction of a Law,” 27; Aphth. Progymn. 5, “On Refutation,” 27–28S, 10R; 7, “On Commonplace,” 35S, 20R; 14, “On Introduction of a Law,” 53S, 47R; Nicolaus Progymn. 4, “On Chreia,” 22; 6, “On Refutation and Confirmation,” 30; 7, “On Commonplace,” 44; cf. also the anonymous prolegomenon to Aphthonius Progymnasmata (fifth century or later; ed. Hugo Rabe, 74–75; Progymnasmata [ed. Kennedy], 91–92, on deliberative rhetoric’s value); commentary (attributed to John of Sardis, probably ninth century) on Aphth. Progymn. 13, “On Thesis,” 240.5. Heath, Hermogenes, 133, notes that Aristotle overemphasized “advantage” as being distinctively the concern of deliberative rhetoric (Rhet. 1358b.20–29; citing, as a corrective, Quint. Inst. 3.4.16).

[605]. E.g., Plato Alcib. 1.114–27, e.g., 114E, 118A; Hipp. maj. 295E; Xen. Mem. 4.6.8; Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 1a (Socrates); Dio Chrys. Or. 3.91–92, 94, 124; Philod. Crit. frg. 1.4; 47.7; col. 10b.10–11; 18b.1–2; 19a.3; 20b.8–9; 24a.4; Iambl. V.P. 31.204; cf. Lodge, Ethics, 62–63, 68–72. This was often associated with the Stoics; see Sext. Emp. Eth. 2.22; Cic. Fin. 3.21.69; Sen. Y. Dial. 7.8.2; Ben. 4.21.6; Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 36.9–12; 4, p. 46.36–37; 8, p. 60.10–12, 14, 16; 15, p. 96.25; 16, p. 102.35; 17, p. 108.36; 18B, p. 116.10–11; p. 118.24; frg. 27, 29; frg. 40, p. 136.19; Epict. Diatr. 1.2.5–7; 1.6.6, 33; 1.18.2; 1.22.1; 1.28.5–6; 2.7.4; 2.8.1; 3.21.15; 4.7.9; 4.8.17; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b2, pp. 14–15.22; 2.7.5d, pp. 28–29.17–29; 2.7.10a, pp. 56–57.26–27; 2.7.11h, pp. 74–75.23–24, 29–30; 2.7.11i, pp. 74–75.38; Marc. Aur. 6.27; 9.1.1; Diog Laert. 7.1.98–99; cf. Cic. Fam. 15.17.3.

[606]. E.g., Aeschines Tim. 6; Arist. Pol. 1.2.8, 1254a; Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.1.8.24; Dio Chrys. Or. 24.3; 38.49; Diog. Laert. 10.150.31 (Epicurus); 10.151.36; 10.152.37; 10.153.38; Jos. War 2.401. More generally, cf. Polyb. 21.32.1; Soranus Gynec. 1.11.42; Phaedrus 3.17.13; Sir 37:28; perhaps 2 Bar. 14:3.

[607]. On house meetings and house churches, see comment on Acts 12:12–13; for Paul’s letters suggesting his household ministry, see, e.g., Barton, “Missionary,” 44–45. Houses continued to be important in the Ephesian church if we may judge by 2 Tim 3:6; cf. 1 Tim 3:4–5, 12, 15; 5:8; 2 Tim 1:16; 4:19. On the different kinds of speech associated with either public or private venues, see Neyrey, “Teaching.”

[608]. Johnson, Acts, 360–61, also suggests a contrast with “false philosophers, whose private activities contradicted their public proclamations” (see Lucian Tim. 54).

[609]. See further Malherbe, Philosophers, 153 (citing Epict. 3.23.33–34; Dio Chrys. Or. 13.31; 32.8–11; 77/78.37–38; Synesius Dio 1.11).

[610]. For the general sentiment in antiquity, cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.78.3; Livy 3.36.2; Sipre Deut. 87.2.2; see further Keener, John, 1094; Malherbe, “Corner,” 203; comment on Acts 26:26.

[611]. See further Keener, Matthew, 378–79; also 1QpHab VII, 1–14; 1QS III, 13–14; XI, 5–9; and other sources discussed above under “(1) Withholding Nothing (20:20).”

[612]. Close contact with those far below one’s status could be viewed negatively (e.g., Polyb. 26.1.1–3, 12), but Paul “served with humility” (Acts 20:19), reframing the status issue, in any case. For Greek peristyle and other house types in Ephesus, see George, “Architecture”; Trümper, “Environment of Households,” 41. Larger cities usually had multiple house churches (Lampe, “Patrons,” 496).

[613]. E.g., Sen. E. Controv. 1.pref. 19; Plut. Cic. 7.1–2; Themist. 5.4; cf. 2 Sam 15:2.

[614]. Gaventa, Acts, 284. The balancing of “repentance with respect to God” and “faith with respect to our Lord Jesus” would also sound rhetorically appealing (cf. Rhet. Alex. 27, 1435b.39–40; 1436a.1–4), apart from the question of content. The accumulation of accusatives might also sound well crafted (cf. Rowe, “Style,” 138; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 85); two are inevitable in view of the word pair, but others follow from the double choice of εἰς, which was not at all inevitable.

[615]. Elsewhere in Acts, 14:1; 18:4. For the Jewish population in Ephesus, see comment on Acts 18:19; 19:9; for the Ionian Greek element, comment on Acts 18:19. Contrasting opposites was a good Hebrew way to include all (merism; see, e.g., Gen 1:1; Deut 6:7; Ps 1:2).

[616]. Michaels, “Paul and Baptist,” notes the similarity between Paul’s and John’s preaching in Luke, though he thinks that Luke preserves here genuine elements of Paul’s manner of preaching.

[617]. Paul in his epistles employs this language in 2 Cor 7:9–10; 12:21 (cf. 2 Tim 2:25), but for conversion only at Rom 2:4 (though the concept appears elsewhere, 1 Thess 1:9; cf. also new life in Christ, e.g., Rom 6:1–14). He can use the terminology, but Luke seems more at home with it than Paul does, perhaps because Luke grounds it in Jesus’s message whereas the Greek term held different connotations to a Diaspora audience unacquainted with the traditional concept from the prophets.

[618]. Luke 1:20, 45; 5:20; 7:9, 50; 8:25, 48, 50; 17:5–6, 19; 18:8, 42; 20:5; 22:32, 67; 24:25; Acts 3:16; 6:5; 11:24; 13:41; 14:9; 16:5; 24:14; 26:27; 27:25; cf. Luke 16:11; Acts 9:26.

[619]. Acts 8:12–13; 9:42; 11:17, 21; 13:8, 12, 48; 14:1, 27; 15:5; 16:34; 17:12, 34; 18:8; 19:2.

[620]. Luke 8:12–13; Acts 2:44; 4:4, 32; 5:14; 6:7; 14:22–23; 18:27; 19:18; 21:20, 25; 22:19.

[621]. Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22. The Petrine literature does not share this distinction; faith appears in 1 Pet 1:5, 7–9, 21; 2:6–7; 5:9; 2 Pet 1:1, 5, with repentance explicit only in 2 Pet 3:9.

[622]. Contrary to the usual consensus, even Jesus’s knowledge of his impending passion is historically likely. How could Jesus not expect his impending death when he provoked it, challenging the authorities by attacking the business in the temple? (See the discussion and sources in Keener, Historical Jesus, 287–92, 295–301; idem, Matthew, 431–33; idem, John, 522–27.)

[623]. The phrase appears seventeen times in the LXX (eighteen times if one omits the καί), usually for solemn pronouncements and occasionally for pathos (Josh 9:25; 14:10; 1 Sam 12:2, 12).

[624]. With most commentators, e.g., Johnson, Acts, 361; Fitzmyer, Acts, 677; Menzies, “Paradigm,” 207; Mittelstadt, Spirit, 122. Thus we should read it as an instrumental dative (“bound by the Spirit”) rather than a dative for an accusative of respect (“bound in my spirit”). For the connection between the Spirit and suffering in Luke-Acts, see, e.g., Luke 4:1–2; Mittelstadt, Spirit.

[625]. Johnson, Acts, 361, 370, also recognizes this Lukan context for “bound” here, seeing Acts 21:11 as making 20:22 a pun (also Dunn, Acts, 282). Wordplay was conventional in rhetoric (Rhet. Her. 4.21.29–4.22.31; Rowe, “Style,” 132; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 283–85, and the many sources cited there); for reapplying a literal word figuratively in the same context, see Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, §488. Cf., less relevant, metaclisis, although this usually involves different inflections of the same word (Rowe, “Style,” 133) rather than cognates; and other figures (cf., e.g., in Anderson, Glossary, 20). Otherwise, “bound” would be an unusual and graphic expression in Acts 20:22 (cf. the use of such expressions for emphasis in Rowe, “Style,” 127, citing descent “into” the horse in Hom. Od. 11.523 and the Cyclops lying “through” the cave in Virg. Aen. 3.63).

[626]. Rapske, Custody, 404. Paul’s expectation of “afflictions” (θλίψεις) fits the experience of the ancestors (Acts 7:10–11), the church (11:19), and warnings for the future (14:22).

[627]. Such phrases elsewhere meant that one did not know if one would return alive (MacDonald, “Farewell,” 195, compares Hom. Il. 6.361–62, 367–68), sometimes as a sign of courageous loyalty (2 Sam 15:21; Esth 4:16; cf. 1 Sam 20:14). Such phrases need not, however, be literary allusions (cf. Heb 11:8; Rom 14:8; 1 Thess 5:10; 2 Macc 6:26; Jos. Ant. 1.193); just before my future wife became a refugee because of war in the Congo, her final letter to me (Dec. 25, 1998) lamented that she did not know whether she and her family would live or die (though not in those words), with no thought of a literary allusion. Paul elsewhere expressed some uncertainty about his fate, both in Jerusalem (Rom 15:30–31) and in captivity (Phil 1:20–26).

[628]. With, e.g., Johnson, Acts, 361. Cf. also Faw, Acts, 234 (the plan to go to Jerusalem recalls Luke 9:51).

[629]. E.g., Aeschylus Pers. 176–99; Xen. Cyr. 8.7.2; Val. Max. 1.7.ext. 2 (though other versions of Alexander’s death omit this); Plut. Alc. 39.1–2; Sulla 37.2.

[630]. E.g., Suet. Jul. 81.1–4.

[631]. E.g., Jub. 35:6; cf. Luke 9:22. Conversely, Socrates notes diviners who reportedly could predict the future for others but not for themselves (Xen. Symp. 4.5).

[632]. E.g., Xen. Apol. 30; Gen 49 and many Jewish testaments. See esp. discussion in Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 221–22 (citing Xen. Cyr. 7.7.21 [most explicit]; Hom. Il. 16.849–50; 22.325; Soph. Wom. Tr. 1148ff.; Virgil Aen. 10.729–41; Plato Apol. 39C; Cic. Div. 1.47; Gen 49; Deut 31–34; testaments).

[633]. On foreknowledge of death in farewell speeches and its utility for generating pathos, see Watson, “Speech,” 200.

[634]. As noted above, see Keener, Matthew, 431–33; idem, John, 522–27.

[635]. On this concern, see again, e.g., Keener, “Apologetic.”

[636]. Cf. Johnson, Acts, 361. Those who emphasize Luke’s apologetic for Paul will particularly underline the refutation of the view that Paul’s “passion” represents divine judgment.

[637]. With, e.g., Haenchen, Acts, 591; Mittelstadt, Spirit, 123. For the dominant association of the Spirit with prophecy (and other activity associated with prophets) in early Judaism and in Luke-Acts, see Menzies, Development, 53–112, 205–77; Turner, Power, 86–104; Keener, Spirit, 10–13, 190–201.

[638]. The language of “in every city” (κατὰ πόλιν) may be stylistically Lukan (Luke 8:1, 4; Acts 15:23, 36), though it is not completely unique (elsewhere in the NT, only Titus 1:5; in the LXX, 2 Chr 11:12; Esth 8:17; 1 Macc 1:51; 2 Macc 4:36; 3 Macc 3:16; 4:4; 6:41; in Josephus, Ant. 5.352; 6.73; 8.395; 9.4, 236; 11.285; 14.215, 219, 221; 16.24; War 2.194, 572; 4.483, 621; Life 335; in Philo, Flacc. 177; Praem. 107; Prov. 2.15, 48; Sacr. 124; Spec. Laws 2.19, 181; 3.74). Cf. Luke 5:17; 10:1; Acts 8:40; Mark 6:33; Matt 9:35; Gen 41:48; 2 Chr 28:25.

[639]. E.g., Virg. Aen. 10.471–72, 503. Munck, Salvation, 305, thinks that Luke sends Paul to Jerusalem and martyrdom quickly because he has completed his Gentile mission; this reconstruction depends partly on Munck’s view of the restrainer in 2 Thess 2:6–7 (which is not Lukan).

[640]. Squires, Plan, 121–29 (on Hellenistic historiography), 129–37 (for Josephus), 137–54 (in Luke-Acts).

[641]. Watson, “Speech,” 196 (citing Quint. Inst. 10.1.48).

[642]. Cf. Watson, “Speech,” 197, noting the use of portents and oracles to foreshadow achievements in an epideictic speech (Cic. Part. or. 21.73).

[643]. E.g., Val. Max. 1.8.ext. 9; Apollod. Bib. 3.5.7 (a particularly sadistic instance, since Oedipus could not have known differently; cf. 2.8.2); Lucian Z. Cat. 12; Babr. 136; cf. Apollod. Bib. 3.12.5; Diod. Sic. 15.74.3–4; 1 Kgs 22:30, 34. Nonprophetic foreknowledge of danger could sometimes allow one to evade it (Prov 27:12; Dio Chrys. frg. in Crosby, LCL, 5:350–51). Cf. a person’s predetermined “time,” “day,” or “hour” (Hom. Il. 15.612–14; 16.441; Eurip. Alc. 24–27, 105, 147; Xen. Mem. 4.8.6; Virg. Aen. 10.503; 11.470; 12.150; Appian C.W. 2.16.116; 2.21.149; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 69.6; Sil. It. 3.134–35; Phaedrus 4.11.8; Suet. Nero 49.2; Apoll. K. Tyre 29; 1 Sam 26:10; 1 Macc 9:10; Jos. Ant. 4.315; Matt 26:18; John 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; cf. Deut 31:14; Test. Ab. 1:1 B; Tac. Agr. 45; the satire in Lucian Z. Cat. 2, 9, 15).

[644]. Aune, Prophecy, 222, thinks that Paul’s proceeding to Jerusalem functioned as evaluating prophecy. In Luke’s narrative, however, Paul accepts the prophecies as valid, simply not as revealing God’s will for his action. Aune associates διαμαρτύρομαι here with oracular oath formulas (333; cf. Rev 22:18, 20); Luke might use it, however, as the Spirit’s response to Paul’s own witness (Acts 20:21, 26).

[645]. The Paul of the epistles experienced the same uncertainty even after detention (Phil 1:19–26; 2:17; though cf. 2 Tim 4:6–8, 18).

[646]. Apollod. Bib. 2.8.2; Plut. Lys. 22.5–6; see comment on Acts 21:4.

[647]. Libanius Declam. 36.42; 44.50–52, 61; see further comment at Acts 24:18.

[648]. Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 25 (rightly noting that Luke reports fewer martyrdoms than likely occurred and that he minimizes Paul’s death).

[649]. For a helpful literary parallel (though one possibly dependent, to some extent, on Christian sources), cf. Pervo, Profit, 47: Apollonius “went to Rome in the face of gloomy warnings” (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.9–16, esp. 12); sound officials supported and tyrants hated him (7.9, 11, 16), and “the defense led to protracted proceedings that constitute a good fourth of the book.”

[650]. Watson, “Speech,” 198 (on the revisiting of themes in different sections of the speech).

[651]. See Magness, Sense, e.g., 31.

[652]. Watson, “Speech,” 196, compares this to an orator who implies that he has accepted the case only because of duty (citing Cic. Part. or. 8.28; Quint. Inst. 4.1.7); Paul, however, speaks not of the present speech but of his entire mission.

[653]. Sometimes historians could “improve” characters’ fortitude (cf. Aaron in Lev 10:19 with Jos. Ant. 3.208), but Luke’s Paul fits the epistolary Paul here.

[654]. Conzelmann, Acts, 174, citing SIG² 613.25ff.; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.16.2; 5.65.4; cf. also Schille, Apostelgeschichte, 402.

[655]. E.g., Lysias Or. 2.25, §193 (soldiers); Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.68.2–3; Rhet. Her. 3.2.3; Cic. Inv. 2.54.163; Livy 5.46.2–3; Plut. S. Sp., Anonymous 35, Mor. 234AB; see further Keener, John, 875. The stalling technique in Test. Ab. 9:6–7; 15:10 A is exceptional. For definitions, see Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b2, pp. 14–15.16–18.

[656]. Lucan C.W. 2.380–83 (trans. Duff, LCL, 85); for dying for one’s state, see also Cic. Fin. 3.19.64; cf. Cat. 4.2.3. A classical Athenian orator honors those who died for something worthwhile, since all must die eventually anyway (Lysias Or. 2.78–79, §198).

[657]. Lysias Or. 31.7, §187.

[658]. E.g., Alexander was noted for this (Arrian Alex. 5.26.7; 7.10.1–2; Plut. Alex. 45.3–4).

[659]. If a large group of Romans fled, one-tenth would be beaten to death and the others punished (Polyb. 6.38.1–4).

[660]. Bowersock, Fiction as History, 55–76, contrasting the renderings in this period with the louder Philoctetes of Sophocles.

[661]. Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 60. To show a particular virtue even to the end, during death, was praiseworthy (Val. Max. 4.5.6).

[662]. Likewise, some warlike peoples looked forward to death in battle so that they might die gloriously (Val. Max. 2.6.11).

[663]. For Socrates’s bravery in the face of death, Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 60, cites Xen. Mem. 1.2.1; 4.8.2; Apol. 33–34; Plato Apol. 40CE; he also notes that Diogenes was employed similarly (Epict. Diatr. 1.24.3–10).

[664]. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 69.6; 93.2; 98.10; 101.8, 10; Nat. Q. 6.32.12. For Stoics valuing virtue by reason over innate tendencies toward self-preservation, see Hossenfelder, “Oikeiosis,” 68; for Stoics avoiding irrational emotions such as fear, see Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 73. A Cynic could define the heart of philosophy as being ready for any fortune (Diog. Laert. 6.2.63).

[665]. Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 76.18–22.

[666]. Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 76.23–24. A philosopher should not fear when facing dangers (8, p. 66.10).

[667]. Mus. Ruf. frg. 22, p. 130 (counting each day as one’s last).

[668]. Mus. Ruf. 17, p. 110.1; cf. also the philosophically trained woman, in 3, p. 40.35; p. 42.1–4. Still, even philosophers struggle with it and need to overcome it (6, p. 56.2).

[669]. Mus. Ruf. 17, p. 110.2–3.

[670]. Mus. Ruf. 17, p. 110.12–13.

[671]. In keeping with Roman and Stoic thought (see comment on Acts 16:27), dying well might require suicide rather than awaiting a less honorable death (Mus. Ruf. frg. 28, p. 132). Certainly, Stoics argued that it required remaining virtuous rather than free from suffering (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11q, pp. 98–99.4–7).

[672]. Cf. Phil 1:23–26 for a similar thought in Paul.

[673]. I adapt here material from Keener, John, 1004–5.

[674]. Plut. S. Kings, Epameinondas 2, Mor. 192C; see some other sources in Keener, John, 875. Roman military oaths also demanded willingness to die on behalf of the state (IGRR 3.137; OGIS 532; ILS 8781 in Sherk, Empire, 31; cf. praises of Gaius Caesar in CIL 11.1421; ILS 140 in Sherk, Empire, 34); Iphigeneia is prepared to die to save (σῶσαι) Greece (Eurip. Iph. Aul. 1420).

[675]. Hengel, Atonement, 9; cf. deSilva, Honor, 136–37. See, e.g., Eurip. Alc. 12–18; Heracl. 547–601; Andr. 413–15; cf. Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 4.pref. 15; but such self-sacrifice is voluntary and not expected (Eurip. Alc. 689–90; some writers, e.g., Lucian, seem to have rejected it [see Pervo, “Friends”]). On slaves for masters, e.g., Appian Bell. civ. 4.4.26; one man also offered his life for a boy with whom he was infatuated (Xen. Anab. 7.4.7–10). Some similarly died because of love for spouses (cf. Apollod. Epit. 3.30; Val. Max. 4.6.2–5; 4.6.ext. 1–3); Cicero would have preferred his own death to his daughter’s (Fam. 9.11.1).

[676]. E.g., Livy 10.28.12–18; 10.29.1; Vell. Paterc. 1.2.1–2 (a leader); Lucan C.W. 2.380–83; Libanius Speech in Character 22.4.

[677]. Ach. Tat. 3.3.5. In a summons to war, some people scrambled to have others fight (and hence die) in their places (Xen. Ages. 1.24).

[678]. Isoc. Demon. 25; Val. Max. 4.7.pref.

[679]. Eurip. Orest. 652 (Orestes, in war); Aul. Gel. 1.3.4–8 (lawcourt); Max. Tyre 15.9; Philost. Hrk. 51.12; P.Oxy. 32.5, 8–14 (second century C.E.).

[680]. E.g., Eurip. Orest. 1069–74, 1155; Iph. Taur. 674–86; Char. Chaer. 4.3.5; 7.1.7. Cf. Sent. Syr. Men. 406–7; Syr. Men. Epit. 22–23. Romances also emphasized this for lovers (e.g., Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11; 2.1, 7; 3.5; 4.5; 5.4).

[681]. E.g., Diod. Sic. 10.4.4–6; Epict. Diatr. 2.7.3; Mus. Ruf. 7, p. 58.23; Val. Max. 2.6.11; 4.7 passim (e.g., 4.7.2); cf. Iambl. V.P. 33.235–36; cf. others in Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 225.

[682]. Jacobs, “Love,” 42–44 (on Akiba). The sages reported Akiba’s own devotion in martyr accounts; cf., e.g., Urbach, Sages, 1:416–17, 443.

[683]. Jacobs, “Love,” 47. Leaders of the community had to act with the benefit of the community in mind (Exod. Rab. 27:9, citing R. Nehemiah, late second century).

[684]. E.g., y. Ber. 9:5, §3 (Akiba); cf. 4 Macc 6:27–30; 9:7; for Akiba’s devotion in martyrdom, see Urbach, Sages, 1:416–17, 443; Jacobs, “Love,” 42–44.

[685]. Deut. Rab. 2:24 (probably late, though citing early Tannaim).

[686]. Preferring a mean, see Arist. N.E. 9.8.2–5, 1168b. Stoic ethics can also begin with love of self (Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 54; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 14.1; 121.24; Epict. Diatr. 2.22.15; Marc. Aur. 5.2). Self-respect could also be honorable (Plut. S. Rom., Cato the Elder 9, Mor. 198F).

[687]. E.g., Arist. N.E. 9.8.1, 1168a (on the common opinion); Hierocles Love 4.27.20 (in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 93); Sext. Emp. Pyr. 1.90; Sen. Y. Nat.Q. 1.17.6; 4A.pref. 2; Plut. Flatt. 1, Mor. 49A; Praising 19, Mor. 546F; Epict. Diatr. 1.19.11; Philost. Hrk. 40.4–5; Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.49; 3.231; Sacr. 3, 32, 52, 58; Worse 32, 68, 78; Posterity 21, 52, 180; Unchangeable 16; Conf. 128; Names 221; Dreams 2.219; Jos. 143; Spec. Laws 1.344; 4.131; Rewards 12; Embassy 84, 193; Jos. Ant. 5.215; 2 Tim 3:2; Sent. Sext. 138. In Philo Prelim. St. 130, it is the greatest evil; for “lovers of self” contrasted with “lovers of God,” see Flight 81; cf. 2 Tim 3:2–4.

[688]. Both ancient and modern interpreters sometimes have found this appropriate self-love presupposed in the command to love neighbor as self (see Grant, Paul, 41; but cf. Young, “Commandment”).

[689]. More common was the idea that if one lost everything else, one still had oneself (Cic. Att. 3.5; cf. Luke 12:4) or one’s skills (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.26.614). “Fulfilling an office or ministry” was one conventional topic in epideictic orations (Watson, “Speech,” 197, citing Cic. De or. 2.85.347).

[690]. For τελειόω and other “perfection” vocabulary in Luke-Acts, see Peterson, Perfection, 33–34.

[691]. E.g., Men. Rhet. 2.7, 406.14–24 (for the wedding night); 410.11–13; Hermog. Inv. 4.10.199 (citing Demosth. Or. 3.28).

[692]. E.g., Iambl. V.P. 9.49. Cf. also Cousland, “Athletics,” 142 (citing Epict. Diatr. 1.24.2; 4 Macc 17:11–16); Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 288–90.

[693]. See Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 131. For gymnasiarchs, see I. Eph. 6.6; 442; 633.3; 666a.9 (reconstructed); 702; 724.3; 824; 833; 924a; 938a; 980; 994; 1042; 1060; 1382a; 1552; 1587; 1603; 1722; 1882; 1944 (named Theophilus); 2069; 2948a; 2950f; 3016; 3058; 3062; 3071; 3422. The cognate verb appears fifteen times; the office (γυμνασιαρχία) five times; and “gymnasium” about as frequently as “gymnasiarch” (e.g., 6.17, 21; 295.9; 621; 633; 644; 661.19). Jews living in the Diaspora were familiar with the office (Jos. War 1.423; Philo Good Person 6).

[694]. Racecourse images appear widely, e.g., the royal hippodrome in Tg. Onq. on Gen 14:17 (meant literally). That the games were viewed as offerings honoring the gods (Pucci, “Circuses,” 210) might also influence the metaphor’s relevance for Paul, though this would be, at most, a subsidiary consideration, given the frequent usage in moralists.

[695]. Applicable especially to apostolic ministry of teaching (Acts 1:17, 25; 6:4; 21:19) but also to service to the poor (6:1; 11:29; 12:25; cf. Luke 10:40).

[696]. Rhetoricians could employ different terms to reinforce a point (Anderson, Glossary, 33, citing Quint. Inst. 9.3.49; cf. synonymia, i.e., synonomy, in Rowe, “Style,” 133).

[697]. E.g., a man to his wife in P.Oxy. 528.6–9 (apparently heartfelt: weeping by night, mourning by day).

[698]. Men. Rhet. 2.15, 431.13–15; 431.31–432.2.

[699]. Men. Rhet. 2.15, 430.10–12.

[700]. Cic. Fam. 14.1.1.

[701]. Men. Rhet. 2.15, 432.2–6.

[702]. Men. Rhet. 2.15, 432.9–14.

[703]. Men. Rhet. 2.15, 433.28–434.1.

[704]. In successive clauses, repetition of a word would constitute anaphora (on which see Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 86, noting Rhet. Her. 4.13.19; Rowe, “Style,” 131; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 579; Lee, “Translations: Greek,” 779; cf. also Demet. Style 5.268). Watson, “Speech,” 200, suggests instead epibole here, because more than one word is repeated, and suggests that the phrase serves as transition from the exordium to the probatio.

[705]. Both uses of “knowing” involve perfect forms of οἶδα, though the former appears as a participle. By itself, this is not very significant, since the verb appears nineteen times in Acts (almost 74 percent in the perfect tense) and the alternative verb γινώσκω appears only sixteen times in Acts.

[706]. In secular Greek, this often meant repeating the words of a ruler (Siegert, “Homily,” 426–27; cf. Exod 36:6; 2 Kgs 10:20; 2 Chr 36:22; Esth 6:9, 11).

[707]. For the kingdom as both present and future in Luke-Acts, see Nolland, “Salvation-History,” 68–70; for kingdom teaching in Paul’s letters, see Donfried, Thessalonica, 233–52.

[708]. Watson, “Speech,” 200, identifies this as an example of synonymy, “a form of amplification based on repetition” (citing Cic. Part. or. 15.53); for synonymy, see further Watson, “Rhetorical Questions,” 304.

[709]. The message is not associated with John the Baptist so much (see Luke 16:16; contrast Matt 3:2). Historically, Paul’s kingdom teaching probably does reflect knowledge of this aspect of Jesus’s teaching (see Donfried, Thessalonica, 248–51).

[710]. This fits other possible echoes of Luke 10 in this speech (e.g., Luke 10:3 in Acts 20:29; Luke 10:4 in Acts 20:33–35).

[711]. Unlike Matthew (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14) and Mark (Mark 1:15), Luke does not include the noun phrase “gospel of the kingdom”; also unlike them, he communicates the same concept by speaking of “gospelizing” (εὐαγγελίζω) the kingdom (Jesus in Luke 4:43; 8:1; 16:16; Philip in Acts 8:12).

[712]. Kilgallen, “Ephesian Elders,” sees Acts 20:25 as one of the speech’s central claims, along with 20:28.

[713]. Watson, “Speech,” 200–201, suggests that this is the rhetorical device emphasis (as in Rhet. Her. 4.25.67; Quint. Inst. 8.3.83; 9.2.64), sometimes “used for amplification” (Quint. Inst. 9.2.3). For a different approach to rhetorical emphasis, see Anderson, Glossary, 41–42; Rowe, “Style,” 127.

[714]. For attempts to reconstruct the history of Paul’s death from later sources, see Finegan, Apostles, 22–25; the earliest of these sources is 1 Clem. 5.6–7.

[715]. E.g., the fall of Troy in the tenth year (Hom. Il. 12.15; not narrated within the Iliad itself); Bruce, Acts³, 12–13n6, compares Achilles’s death being predicted but not narrated (Hom. Il. 20.337; 24.538–40; see also 21.110; 23.80–81), though he does not think that Acts clearly indicates Paul’s death. Because Hector was Troy’s last defender (6.403; 22.506–7), his death implies its fall. The Odyssey predicts but does not narrate Odysseus’s final trial (Hom. Od. 23.266–84). Without directly addressing Medea’s unpleasant slaying of Pelias, the Argonautica (written after Euripides) hints at that tradition (Ap. Rhod. 3.64, 75, 1135; 4.241–45). That Mark probably ends without resurrection appearances (Mark 16:8) hardly means that Mark wanted his readers to doubt that they occurred (cf. 14:28).

[716]. See, e.g., Wilson, Pastoral Epistles; Quinn, “Volume.” Because a commentary on Acts is not the place to enter a lengthy discussion of the Pastorals’ authorship, I will seek to accommodate various scholarly perspectives in the following comparison.

[717]. Multiple imprisonments are not intrinsically implausible, as 2 Cor 11:23 reveals (though none of these are in Rome). Accepting the likelihood of early tradition in the Pastorals, Koester, Paul and World, 77–78, argues for Paul’s release and subsequent ministry in the East, followed by a new imprisonment and martyrdom (in Philippi, in his view).

[718]. Conzelmann, Acts, 174.

[719]. The obstacles to returning that probably stand behind Acts 20:16 (see comment there) and that could appear insurmountable during Paul’s final journey to Jerusalem may have diminished over time. In Luke’s immediate context, however, the problem with returning is what Paul will face in Jerusalem, not an obstacle in Ephesus. This focus fits the period of Paul’s life that Acts will cover.

[720]. See Keener, John, 1196–1200; idem, Acts, 1:789–93.

[721]. Early traditions sometimes sought to harmonize the sources, but the tradition of Paul’s martyrdom in Rome and at least some details surrounding it probably predate the collection and comparison of all the sources. Cf. 1 Clem. 5.7 (without specifying the location); fuller comment at Acts 28:30–31.

[722]. If I am mistaken in my interpretation on Acts 28:30–31, this position would make best sense of the evidence.

[723]. The alternative to “independently” is that the Pastor was extremely careless with his sources.

[724]. That Paul historically felt accountable to God for his calling is clear (1 Cor 9:16–17), and that he would give account for making Christ known (1 Cor 4:2, 5; 2 Cor 5:10–11).

[725]. Watson, “Speech,” 201, notes claims of innocence in Jewish farewell addresses (1 Sam 12:2–5; Jub. 21:2–3). For forensic witness “this day,” cf. the expression in Gen 31:48; 1 Sam 12:5. For testifying against wrongdoers, see, e.g., Jub. 4:19, 22.

[726]. He also calls on his hearers as witnesses (1 Sam 12:2–5), as Paul does. With Samuel’s questions, compare the protests in the Hittite Crossing of the Taurus 2 (trans. Hoffner; in Hallo and Younger, Context of Scripture, 1.73, p. 184).

[727]. Cf. also Lysias Or. 8.3, §112 (Let anyone mention any bad treatment they have received from me, or any good treatment they failed to receive when requesting it); 10.22–23, §118.

[728]. Trans. Adams, LCL, 281–83. Likewise Xen. Anab. 5.8.4–5, defending himself by offering a series of rhetorical questions that must be answered negatively. For the rhetorical force of repeated questions, see, e.g., Hermog. Inv. 2.7.125; 3.10.155; 4.4.186–87; 2 Cor 11:29; cf. 2 Cor 7:11.

[729]. Cicero follows such an ironic question with ironic affirmations in Sest. 69.145–46.

[730]. For another protest of a “wronged” leader, cf. Tullius in Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.33.1–36.3 (demanding what he had done wrong); for a defense of one’s integrity, e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.29.1–8.35.5. Tacitus’s speech for manipulative Poppaea employs the same form (Ann. 14.61).

[731]. Daniel of Susanna’s blood in Sus 46 (some find a particularly close parallel in Sus 46 Θ; Marshall, “Acts,” 596); one of another’s before a deity in Apoll. K. Tyre 32. On the horror of shedding innocent blood judicially, see, e.g., Aeschines Embassy 88; 2 Kgs 21:16; Xen. Eph. Anthia 4.2 (praying that his innocent body would not “pollute” the Nile); figuratively, Prop. Eleg. 2.17.1–2. For blood on one’s hands figuratively, see, e.g., Isa 1:15; Ezek 23:37, 45; Matt 27:24.

[732]. For “this day” evoking LXX style (hence claiming authority and reliability), see Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 294. That one “testifies this day” is not, however, common (Gen 31:46–48; cf. Deut 31:21).

[733]. E.g., Lysias Or. 16.10, §146; cf. comment on Acts 24:16.

[734]. E.g., Aeschines Embassy 180–81.

[735]. In Ezekiel, Ezekiel the prophet is himself such a watchman (Ezek 33:7), and if he does not warn the people, he is responsible (33:8, as with the watchman in 33:6); if he does warn them, they bear the responsibility (33:9, as with the watchman in 33:3–4). Their responsibility is this: those who know of their sins have the opportunity to repent (33:10–20). God announces judgment on Jerusalem and exile because of Israel’s sins (33:21–29).

[736]. For texts on moral purity in antiquity, see comment on Acts 15:9; 18:6; Keener, John, 996.

[737]. On the sense of this claim, see comment on Acts 20:20; Paul reiterates, hence reemphasizes, that thought here.

[738]. On enthymemes, see Rhet. Alex. 7, 1428a, lines 19–23; Vinson, “Enthymemes,” 119; Kennedy, “Survey of Rhetoric,” 21; Anderson, Glossary, 44; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 150–57; in Paul’s letters, Holloway, “Enthymeme.”

[739]. With Watson, “Speech,” 201 (citing, on enthymemes, Arist. Rhet. 1.2.13–14, 1357a; 2.22–26; 3.17, 1418a6–1418b17; Rhet. Alex. 10; Quint. Inst. 5.10.1–3; 5.14.1–4, 24–26).

[740]. Paul sometimes speaks of his audience’s perseverance in terms of rewards (Gal 4:11; Phil 2:16; 1 Thess 3:5), but perhaps because their perseverance itself is his reward (Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19; cf. 3 John 4).

[741]. Including patterns in historical books, considered to be by the prophets.

[742]. The term is one of Luke’s favorites; in Paul, it can refer to human plans (1 Cor 4:5; “counsel of the heart” is a familiar LXX phrase, e.g., Sir 37:13; cf. the contrast in Prov 15:22) or to God’s plan (Eph 1:11).

[743]. See Squires, Plan, 75–76.

[744]. Watson, “Speech,” 203, finds censure, noting that in epideictic rhetoric, the person censuring should “appear to be ‘doing so from goodwill’ ” (citing Rhet. Her. 3.6.11); this fits his comparison of the warning to ἀπειλή (202; the term can also mean “warning,” “rebuke,” or even, as in the NT, “threat”). The principle is relevant also for other forms of courageous speech.

[745]. Cf. a dying mother exhorting her children and grandchildren to live in harmony (Val. Max. 2.6.8).

[746]. Talbert, Acts, 183, compares Paul’s exhortations in Acts 20:18–35 with those of Jesus: leaders must feed others (Acts 20:28; Luke 12:41–48), remain alert (Acts 20:29; Luke 12:35–40), and avoid greed (Acts 20:33–35, esp. 35). Though not explicit in Talbert, the last fits Luke 12:14–34; other connections may include 12:32.

[747]. See also Kilgallen, “Ephesian Elders” (along with Acts 20:25). Luke’s audience may have visualized (and the lector may have reenacted) the gesture of insistence or emphasis—namely, pointing one’s finger to the ground (for the gesture, see Shiell, Reading Acts, 74–76); the voice would be energetic (88, citing Quint. Inst. 11.3.164).

[748]. Or Acts 20:31, 33–35. Rhetorical structures were rarely as neat as the ideals in the handbooks.

[749]. I include in the following survey not only προσέχω, which does occur, but also synonyms such as βλέπω.

[750]. In Greco-Roman rhetoric, see Watson, “Speech,” 202 (noting the device called comminatio, ἀπειλή; Arist. Poet. 19.1456b.7–9; Cic. Or. Brut. 40.138). In the Israelite tradition, where parallels are abundant, one may start with the obvious case of the Shema (Deut 6:4; cf. 5:1; 9:1; 20:3).

[751]. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 1.3.9 (ὁρᾶτε . . . καὶ προσέχετε); 1.6.22 (ὁρᾶτε); Marc. Aur. 10.8.1 (πρόσεχε); Deut 4:9, 23; 6:12; 8:11; 11:16; 12:13, 19, 23, 30; 15:9; 24:8; Prov 4:1, 20; 5:1, 3; Sir 1:29; 6:13; 7:24; 11:33; 13:8, 13; 16:24; 17:14; 28:26; 29:20; Tob 4:12, 14; 4 Ezra 5:32; 7:49; 10:38; 2 En. 2:1; 58:1; m. ʾAb. 3:11; cf. Philo Migr. 8, 174; Dreams 2.263.

[752]. Test. Dan 1:2; Test. Ash. 6:1; Test. Reub. 2:1; cf. 1 Chr 28:10.

[753]. That they should watch over both themselves and their flocks here fits 1 Tim 4:16.

[754]. Lampe, “Wolves,” 255, thinks that προσέχετε (cf. Luke 21:34; Matt 7:15; 10:17; 16:6; perhaps Luke 12:1) and γρηγορεῖτε (cf. Mark 13:35, 37) reflect the language of the Gospels. He thinks that Acts 20:29 is characteristic of the emphasis on eschatological tribulation in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic (253–54), though orators not uncommonly portrayed their own generation as particularly depraved (Cic. Sest. 1.1).

[755]. Using γρηγορέω, as in Acts 20:31, see, e.g., Luke 12:37; Mark 13:34–35, 37; Matt 24:42–43; 25:13; 1 Cor 16:13; Col 4:2; 1 Thess 5:6, 10; 1 Pet 5:8; Rev 3:2–3; 16:15; Did. 16.1; Ign. Pol. 1.3. Cf. 1 En. 82:3; 4Q418 55 4, 7, 9; Song Rab. 5:2, §1; for spiritual awakeness or sleep, see, e.g., Max. Tyre 10.6; Marc. Aur. 6.31; for recognition of danger as “awakening,” see, e.g., Val. Max. 7.2.3; Tac. Hist. 3.55; cf. Rom 13:11; Vell. Paterc. 2.1.1. For figurative comparison with night vigilance (on a ship), see Dio Chrys. Or. 3.65; Lucian Indictment 2.

[756]. The verb γρηγορέω can easily carry the literal sense (Neh 7:3; 1 Macc 12:27; Jos. Ant. 7.48; 11.47; cf. Mark 14:34–38; Matt 26:38–41), and the figurative sense sometimes contextually invokes this image (including in the other Lukan use, Luke 12:37).

[757]. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 3.3.28; 5.3.44; Anab. 4.5.19; Livy 24.28.2; 24.37.4; cf. Tac. Hist. 3.76; Fronto Ad verum imp. 2.1.19. For the night watch, see also, e.g., Polyb. 14.3.6; for texts praising soldiers staying awake for the army’s good, Hom. Il. 10.159, 164; Sil. It. 9.4–5; Dio Cass. 73.3–5; Jos. Ant. 3.50; for faithful servants watching for masters, Aeschylus Ag. 1–25. The captain of the temple guard could beat any guard whom he found asleep (m. Mid. 1:2).

[758]. Hom. Il. 10.309–12, 416–21; Thucyd. 4.32.1; Xen. Cyr. 1.6.35; Polyb. 11.3.1; Virg. Aen. 9.314–66, 375–445; Diod. Sic. 3.55.1; 19.95.5–6; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.47.1; 7.11.2–3; 9.34.4; Livy 24.46.4; 36.23.10–36.24.6; 44.33.8–9; Sall. Jug. 58.1; Tac. Ann. 4.48; Plut. Cam. 23.6; 33.4; Jos. Ant. 18.356, 370; War 6.68–69; Life 405; cf. Polyb. 3.67.2; Dio Chrys. Or. 5.20. For the taking of cities thus, see, e.g., Thucyd. 2.2.3; Xen. Cyr. 7.5.21; Polyb. 7.15.6; 7.18.1–10; Plut. Cam. 35.3; for escape from cities thus, Polyb. 1.19.12.

[759]. Hom. Il. 2.387; 7.282; 8.529–30; 11.209; 14.259–61; Arrian Alex. 1.19.2.

[760]. Hom. Il. 10.100–101; Arrian Alex. 1.4.1. The same was true for midday attacks, when guards might take naps (Thucyd. 6.100.1; Polyb. 9.17.3; Jos. Ant. 7.48).

[761]. See Dio Cass. R.H. 55.26.4–5; Suet. Aug. 30.1; Purcell, “Vigiles”; Clarke, “Italy,” 472–73.

[762]. E.g., Alciph. Farm. 18 (Eunapê to Glaucê), 3.21, ¶1; Philost. Hrk. 4.3. Some rabbis viewed teachers of the law as Israel’s true guardians (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; y. Ḥag. 1:7, §2).

[763]. Virg. Ecl. 3.34. The strict owner of a flock could require a shepherd to repay any sheep found missing (Gen 31:38–39), and David apparently assumed that his protection of sheep against animals and bandits would be welcomed (1 Sam 25:7, 15–16).

[764]. E.g., Hom. Od. 2.11; Longus 1.21; Libanius Descr. 2.7; Fable 1.1–2; Chrys. Hom. Acts 17. Shepherds used dogs and crooks to protect themselves or their sheep (Marcus Aurelius in Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.12).

[765]. E.g., Aristoph. Wasps 952; Virg. Georg. 3.406–8; Phaedrus 3.15.1; Babr. 93.3–11; Plut. Demosth. 23.4; Val. Flacc. 1.158–59. When shepherds knew that a colleague had a useful dog, they sometimes wanted to keep their flocks near his (Xen. Mem. 2.9.7; for flocks mingling, see, e.g., Luke 2:8; Polyb. 12.4.11–12).

[766]. Cf. Exod 22:31. For dogs as scavengers, see the excursus on burial and mourning practices at Acts 8:2 (Keener, Acts, 2:1471–82). Philo often mentions them in more positive ways for his more hellenized audience, however (Worse 55; Dreams 1.49; Abr. 266; Decal. 114; Rewards 89; cf. Giants 35; Spec. Laws 4.121).

[767]. Cf., e.g., tyrants’ sexual abuse of subordinates (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.36.1; 7.8.1; 11.10.3; Livy 3.44.4–3.48.9; Suet. Dom. 1.3; Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.100–101; 2.212; Life 259).

[768]. Lövestam, “Nyckel,” in particular develops the parallels with Ezek 34 throughout Acts 20:28–35, following the hint of Ezek 33:6, 8 in Acts 20:26; see also idem, “Address”; Aubert, Motif, 90.

[769]. Shepherds (and kings) should protect, rather than mistreat, their flocks (Dio Chrys. Or. 4.44); sheep and goats might rebel against abusive keepers (49.2).

[770]. For this use of τίθημι, see esp. 1 Cor 12:28; BDAG compares also Appian Illyrica 13.37; scholiast on Pindar Odes 1.58b; 2 Macc 5:21; Athenag. Plea 12.2.

[771]. Barrett, Acts, 974. Philosophers have long spoken of different and often compatible levels of causation; for various forms of causality in Aristotle, see, e.g., Deacon, “Emergence,” 113; for the history of approaches to causation, see briefly Wilcox, “Blind,” 170–71.

[772]. Meeks, Moral World, 122; for the early second-century distinction between overseers and elders, distinct from the NT sources (including the Pastorals), see, e.g., Ign. Magn. 2.1; 3.1; 6.1; 7.1; Trall. 3.1; 12.2; Phld. pref.; 10.2; Pol. 6.1. See patristic evidence in Lightfoot, Philippians, 181–269. City bishops did not emerge at the same speed everywhere; in Rome, they appear in the late second century, even then not yet succeeding completely in uniting all churches under their leadership (Lampe, “Patrons,” 496).

[773]. See also Schnabel, Acts, 845, citing esp. Merkle, Elder, 67–160. The title ἐπίσκοπος does suggest the governing function (with, e.g., Du Plessis, “Rule,” 28). Bede Comm. Acts 20.28 allows the “bishops” here to be priests rather than bishops over cities. Caird, Language, 81–82, rejects the language of “bishops” as anachronistic for NT usage, since there were multiple overseers in one congregation in Phil 1:1.

[774]. See Tyson, “Authority in Acts.”

[775]. As most NT commentators note (e.g., Scott, Pastoral Epistles, 30–31; Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 73; at greater length, see Beyer, “Ἐπίσκοπος,” esp. 610–14).

[776]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 678 (citing Aeschylus Eum. 740; Aristoph. Birds 1022–23; Plato Laws 6.762D; 9.872E); Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 54; Goppelt, Times, 188; Rhodes, “Episkopos.” See, e.g., the overseer of the Vestal virgins (Plut. Numa 9.5); a satrap (Appian Hist. rom. 11.9.53); a supervisory caste in India (Arrian Ind. 12.5); the verb cognate ἐπισκοπέω applies also to royal activity (Epict. Diatr. 3.22.72).

[777]. Selwyn, Peter, 182 (citing also Philo Migr. 115).

[778]. Johnson, Acts, 362 (citing Plato Laws 7.795D); also for guardians (cf. Rep. 6.506B, noted in Selwyn, Peter, 230). For Plato’s guardians, see Lodge, Ethics, 389–90.

[779]. E.g., Num 4:16; 31:14; Judg 9:28; 2 Kgs 11:15; 2 Chr 34:17; Neh 11:9, 14, 22; Isa 60:17; 1 Macc 1:51; so also Jos. Ant. 10.53; 12.254. See also Beyer, “Ἐπίσκοπος,” 614–15.

[780]. Jeffers, World, 80. Latin could employ speculatores, the equivalent of ἐπίσκοποι, as in Jub. 40:4.

[781]. See Beyer, “Ἐπίσκοπος,” 614–15, and sources that he cites.

[782]. E.g. (of more than thirty references), 1QS VI, 12, 20; CD IX, 18, 19, 22; XIII, 6, 7, 13, 16; XIV, 8, 11, 13; XV, 8, 11, 14; 4Q265 1 II, 5; 4Q275 1 3.

[783]. E.g., Brown, “Scrolls,” 7; Cross, Library, 232; Yamauchi, Stones, 138–39 (following Albright, Horizons, 49); Vermes, Scrolls, 19; McNamara, Judaism, 139–40; Johnson, Acts, 362; Fitzmyer, Acts, 679; Goppelt, Times, 188–89; Daniélou, Theology, 349; Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 73–74; cf. Thiering, “Mebaqqer,” 72, 74 (who even thinks that Christians adopted the office from Essenes!). On the office, cf. further Harrison, “Rites,” 27; for possible identification of the term with pqd, which can be translated ἐπίσκοπος in the LXX, see Cross, Library, 233; also Driver, Scrolls, 522 (who is more interested in mbqr in rabbinic texts). Cf. the comparison of the mebaqqer with the Athenian practice (Steiner, “Mbqr”). For a particularly nuanced comparison of the mebaqqer and NT ἐπίσκοπος (arguing that this is not the source of the NT usage, which has plurality of elders), see Humble, “Mebaqqer.”

[784]. CD IX, 18–22; 4Q266 11 16. Cf. Eshel, “4Q477” (though here the overseers probably only recorded the rebukes, Hempel, “Who Rebukes?”). The overseer may command banishment in 4Q266 6 I, 12 (and other matters in 4Q271 3 14–15).

[785]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 679; cf. Beyer, “Ἐπίσκοπος,” 619. Though the Hebrew and the Greek terms share a common etymology and some similar functions, Fitzmyer doubts a direct connection (Essays, 293–94, esp. 294; idem, “Christianity in Light of the Scrolls,” 247–48). Might the Hebrew term have been adopted and employed with analogy to the Greek in the Hellenistic era?

[786]. See Num 4:16; 31:14; Judg 9:28; 2 Kgs 11:15, 18; 12:11; 2 Chr 34:12, 17; Neh 11:9, 14, 22; Isa 60:17; 1 Macc 1:51.

[787]. Tannehill, Acts, 258.

[788]. For the ancient reluctance to appoint novices, see, e.g., for testing haberim, t. Demai 2:12; for testing judges, t. Šeqal. 3:27; Ḥag. 2:9; Sanh. 7:1; cf. 1QS VI, 16–17; Suet. Tib. 54.1; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 60. On testing, see further comment below. These instructions made more sense in an older church such as Ephesus than in a more recent one (Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 78).

[789]. In the new churches, Luke depicts Paul waiting as long as possible (Acts 14:21–23, visiting churches after their founding), though this was probably initially shorter than the ideal.

[790]. On the principle of testing leaders before promotion, see, e.g., Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.1.4.14–1.1.5.16; Colum. Rust. 1.8.2; Let. Aris. 264; t. Ḥag. 2:9; y. Taʿan. 4:2, §8; for preliminary testing in other settings, cf. Thucyd. 4.80.3–4; Polyb. 3.31.7–8; Caesar C.W. 2.32–33; Mus. Ruf. frg. 45, p. 140.1; frg. 46, p. 140.8–9; Plut. Educ. 7, Mor. 4C; Heraclitus Ep. 9; Gaius Inst. 1.199–200; Iambl. V.P. 17.71–72; 20.94; 1QS VI, 14–23; in other societies, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 218, 247; in early Jewish sources, see comment above.

[791]. For discussion, cf. Keener, Marries Another, 89–95, 100–103; idem, “Husband.”

[792]. Cf. also Cadbury, “Names for Christians,” 390.

[793]. Here I am adapting material from Keener, John, 799–802; cf. also 805–6 (on the relationship between shepherds and sheep), 809–12 (on pasturing); idem, “Shepherd.” Although I develop here my earlier work, for a much fuller and more recent exploration of the image, especially its royal application, see Aubert, Motif, 90–92 (in Dio Chrysostom), 126–216.

[794]. See, e.g., Artem. Oneir. 2.12; cowherds as rulers of their cattle, Xen. Cyr. 1.1.2.

[795]. Before the Israelite period, see the Sumerians and subsequent Mesopotamian sources, such as “Lipit-Ishtar Law Code” prol. (ANET 159); Hamm. prol. 1.50; epil. (ANET 164, 178); for Israel and the ancient Near East, see, e.g., Bruce, Time, 49; for Egypt, see Kügler, “König”; Manetho Aeg. 2, frg. 43, 45, 47–49 (Fifteenth to Seventeenth Dynasties); generally, Niehaus, Themes, 39, 41–42, 45, 48–50; Aubert, Motif, 127–32 (for ancient Near East), 132–44 (for ancient Israel).

[796]. Anacharsis Ep. 7, to Tereus; Greek writers about Persian warrior-rulers, Aeschylus Pers. 74–75; Xen. Cyr. 8.2.14; applied to generals (Sil. It. 7.123–27) and guiding philosophers (Eunapius Lives 464); shepherds could also view erotic love as a shepherd (Longus 3.12; 4.39). See further Koester, “Spectrum,” 14; this emphasis and others in Aubert, Motif, 145–87 (Roman sources in 187–96). Aubert also notes that many motifs of leadership in Paul’s Miletus speech fit ancient kingship motifs (317–29), which naturally served as a repository for many ancient reflections on leadership.

[797]. Thus Moses is both Israel’s shepherd and judge (L.A.B. 19:3, 10). See further this emphasis and others in Aubert, Motif, 196–216.

[798]. Manetho Aeg. 2, frg. 43 (Fifteenth Dynasty); 45 (Sixteenth Dynasty); 47–49 (Seventeenth Dynasty). On shepherds in Egyptian and OT sources, see Kügler, “König.”

[799]. Compare Hom. Od. 4.291 (ruler) with 4.24 (shepherd). It could also apply to usurpers (4.532).

[800]. Hom. Il. 4.296; 8.81; 10.73; 11.370, 842; 13.411; 16.2; 19.386; 23.389; Od. 17.109; 18.70; 24.456. The expression is sometimes equivalent to “captains of the people” (Il. 11.465). Philo Good Person 31 notes the Homeric royal usage.

[801]. Hom. Il. 1.263; 5.144, 513; 6.214; 10.406; 11.92; 13.600; 15.262; 20.110; 22.277.

[802]. Hom. Il. 2.85, 243, 254; 4.413; 7.230; 10.3; 11.202; 19.35, 251; 24.654; Od. 3.156; 14.497; Xen. Mem. 3.2.1. For Atreus, Hom. Il. 2.105; Menelaus, see Od. 4.24.

[803]. Hes. Theog. 1000 (Jason); Max. Tyre 19.2 (Socrates).

[804]. Sil. It. 7.126–30.

[805]. Dio likes the image: a king who would not even care for his people as a shepherd cares for his flock is a tyrant (Dio Chrys. Or. 3.41). A good king must be like a shepherd to his people (1.13), for who cares for sheep better than a shepherd (1.17)? A foolish king is like a foolish shepherd (1.28).

[806]. Koester, Symbolism, 17, citing Virg. Ecl. 1.1–5.

[807]. Koester, Symbolism, 17. Shepherds were generally impoverished workers, like farmers (cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 7.103; 72.1), and were thought to relieve their sexual appetites by vulgar means (6.20).

[808]. Abel’s shepherding appears positively in Jos. Ant. 1.53; Greeks portrayed Hesiod as a former shepherd, whether favorably or unfavorably (Callim. Aetia 1.2.1; Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 80.25–27; Max. Tyre 38.2).

[809]. Thus the irony implied in Hdn. 7.1.2; Paris of Troy was a poor shepherd (Ovid Her. 5.79; Val. Flacc. 1.549), but only before his royal blood was discovered (Ovid Her. 16.51–52); for many shepherds near Troy, see Philost. Hrk. 18.2–5; 22.3–4. Cf. Jeffers, World, 21.

[810]. E.g., Tooley, “Shepherd,” 23; Malina and Rohrbaugh, Gospels, 118.

[811]. E.g., Appian Hist. rom. 1.2 (fragments); Livy 39.29.9; Xen. Eph. Anthia 3.12 (cf. Anderson, “Xenophon,” 154n17, citing also Ach. Tat. 3.9ff.; Heliod. Eth. 3.5ff.). Cf. shepherd-bandits in the Nile Delta (Rutherford, “Boukoloi”).

[812]. In CD XII, 8–9, one should not sell beasts to Gentiles lest they sacrifice them idolatrously.

[813]. B. Sanh. 25b, though one rabbi notes that this is the case only in Palestine.

[814]. In t. Sukkah 2:5, those who “raise small cattle” are evil like counterfeiters and perjurers.

[815]. E.g., y. Sanh. 3:5, §1.

[816]. ʾAbot R. Nat. 41 A.

[817]. So y. Sanh. 3:5, §1.

[818]. Y. Ber. 4:7, §1.

[819]. But cf. MacMullen, Social Relations, 2, arguing that they were outcasts (citing Firm. Matern. Math. 3.5.23; 4.13.7; Orig. Cels. 1.23; and modern Lebanon).

[820]. Sanders, Judaism, 461–64; for their importance, cf. also MacMullen, Social Relations, 2, following Büchler, Conditions, 35. That people depended on them no more raises their status than would a landowner’s dependence on ass-drivers or a municipal aristocracy’s dependence on rural peasants.

[821]. Sanders, Judaism, 461–64. He cites (464) Let. Aris. 112–13 and Philo Spec. Laws 1.133; but both texts speak of the people as a whole, and both derive from Egypt, where Jewish shepherds are known in the Ptolemaic period (CPJ 1:15). He could also have cited an apologetic work that does not mind mentioning that Israelites were once shepherds (Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.91; Gen 46:32; 47:3); but views of past shepherds did not necessarily determine approaches to present ones. Without changing the general aristocratic disdain for shepherds, some imperial texts romantically idealized (and distorted) the rustic past of the republic (e.g., Virgil’s Eclogues).

[822]. MacMullen, Social Relations, 15; see further 1–2 (citing Marc. Aur. Ep. ad Front. 35; Lucian Book-Coll. 3). In Diocletian’s later edict (301 C.E.), shepherds, like other general laborers (such as farmworkers and sewer cleaners), made roughly half the wages of carpenters or stonemasons and far less than other skilled laborers (Toner, Culture, 19). Epict. Diatr. 2.9.3 uses sheep as a symbol of carnality.

[823]. Especially in the many cases when shepherds were distinct from the sheep’s owner (Polyb. 9.17.6; John 10:12; sources in MacMullen, Social Relations, 3); hirelings were also less inclined to care about the property (flocks and otherwise) than an owner was (Virg. Ecl. 3.3–6; Babr. 3.5; Phaedrus 2.8.27–28; 3.3.4–5, 16–17; Alciph. Farm. 18 [Eunapê to Glaucê], 3.21, ¶¶1–3; cf. Colum. Rust. 1.7.7; Statius Theb. 9.189–91). As with tenant farmers, most shepherds in the rural empire worked for others (MacMullen, Social Relations, 3; Bailey, “Shepherd Poems,” 6).

[824]. See MacMullen, Social Relations, 120.

[825]. For a partial analogy that helps one grasp the sensitivity of such behavior, in the late 1990s and early twenty-first century some farmers in some states in the Middle Belt of Nigeria reportedly reacted violently against Fulani herdsmen who repeatedly let their cattle graze on the farmers’ land. Many factors played a role in such conflicts, but the values conflict between pastoralist nomads and agrarian society was reportedly among them.

[826]. Cf. also Aubert, Motif, 47.

[827]. Mitchell, Anatolia, 1:146, esp. n. 29. Troas and Mysia also had many shepherds (Philost. Hrk. 18.2–5; 22.3–4; 23.6).

[828]. See also the hero Protesilaus as a physician of sheep, bees, and trees (Philost. Hrk. 4.10).

[829]. E.g., Hesiod Theog. 1.22–34; Dio Chrys. Or. 2.8; Lucian Conversation with Hesiod 7; Libanius Comparison 5.21; Symm. Ep. 1.53.2; esp. Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 80.25–27 (who opines that the occupation helpfully allows time to think, p. 80.27–29); Lucian Book-Coll. 3 (who grants the hard work involved). But even in these traditions, he was a former shepherd, before the Muses met him (Callim. Aetia 1.2.1; Max. Tyre 38.2). Aesop was also a shepherd (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.15).

[830]. Paris was a negative example in Greek tradition (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 11.12).

[831]. E.g., Ps 77:20; Isa 63:11; 1 En. 89:35; L.A.B. 19:3, 10; Sipre Deut. 305.3.1; y. Sanh. 10:1, §9; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:8; Exod. Rab. 2:2; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 40:12 (Moses, Aaron, and Miriam); possibly 1Q34 and 1Q34 bis 3 II, 8 (Wise, Scrolls, 186; fragmentary); see further Meeks, Prophet-King, 311–12 (esp. on Mek. Pisha 1 on Exod 12:1); Glasson, Moses, 95–96; Odeberg, Gospel, 315–17. Rabbi Nehemiah understood Isa 63:11 to mean that all Israelites became shepherds as Moses was (y. Soṭah 5:4, §1). Moses’s title may relate to his occupation (Exod 3:1), but it is hard to suppose (with Enz, “Exodus,” 213) that the good shepherd of John 10:1–18 recalls Exod 3:1.

[832]. Exod. Rab. 5:20.

[833]. 2 Sam 5:2; 1 Chr 11:2; Ps 78:70–72; Ezek 34:23; 37:24; 4Q504 1–2 IV, 6–8; Gen. Rab. 59:5. The title also relates to his prior occupation (1 Sam 16:15, 34–37; Ps 78:70–71).

[834]. Mek. Pisha 1.162–63 (Simeon ben Azzai).

[835]. 4 Ezra 5:18.

[836]. Num 27:17; 1 Kgs 22:17; Jer 3:15; CD XIX, 8–9; Mek. Pisha 1.162–63. The prophets also applied the title ironically to unjust leaders (Isa 56:11; Jer 22:22; 23:1–4; 25:34–36; Zech 10:3; 11:5, 15–17; 13:4–7); the shepherds were often responsible for the scattering of God’s people (Jer 10:21; 50:6–7; Ezek 34:1–10).

[837]. E.g., the Teacher of Righteousness at Qumran (Painter, John, 42). Derrett, “Shepherd,” 26–28, argues that the relevant passage in John’s Gospel uses “shepherd” as teacher; God is their owner, he claims, not their shepherd.

[838]. Thus the mebaqqer of Qumran, watching over his group of Essenes (CD XIII, 9).

[839]. Mic 5:4; Jer 23:1–6; Ezek 34:23; Pss. Sol. 17:40; cf. Zech 13:7; Tg. Neof. 1 on Exod 12:42 (as a new Moses); Longenecker, Christology, 48–49. Cook in DSSNT 214 thinks that 4Q165 frg. 1–2 may apply to the Teacher of Righteousness.

[840]. In 1 En. 89:59–60, 62–63, it is the seventy nations appointed to judge Israel.

[841]. Pss 23:1–4; 28:9; 74:1–2; 77:20; 78:52; 79:13; 80:1; 100:3; Isa 40:11; Jer 13:17; 31:10; Ezek 34:11–17; Mic 7:14; Zech 9:16; 10:3; Sir 18:13; 4Q509 IV, 2–4 (possibly, but fragmentary); 1 En. 89:18; L.A.B. 28:5; 30:5; Philo Agr. 50–53; b. Ḥag. 3b; Pesaḥ. 118a; Exod. Rab. 34:3; Lam. Rab. 1:17, §52; Pesiq. Rab. 3:2; see further Marmorstein, Names, 100–101. For Shamash as “my shepherd,” see the Akkadian source in van der Toorn, “Shepherd,” 771.

[842]. Pss 77:20; 78:52; 80:1; Isa 40:11; 63:14; cf. Exod 13:21; 15:13; Deut 8:2; Pss 78:14; 106:9; 136:16; Neh 9:12; Isa 48:21; Jer 2:6, 17; Hos 11:3–4; Amos 2:10. A seventh-century B.C.E. Assyrian hymn calls the sun deity a shepherd (ANET 387); so earlier Marduk, over other deities (Enuma Elish 7.131, in Heidel, Genesis, 59).

[843]. E.g., Pss 74:1; 77:20; 78:52; 79:13; 80:1; 100:3; Isa 49:9; 63:11; Jer 13:17; 31:10; Mic 2:12; 7:14; Zech 9:16; 10:3; 4Q266 11 13; 1 En. 89:16–24, 51–53; L.A.B. 23:12; 30:5; Sipre Deut. 15.1.1; Exod. Rab. 24:3; Pesiq. Rab. 9:2; 26:1/2; cf. Bar 4:26. God was thus “Lord of the sheep” (1 En. 89:16, 20, 26, 33, 50, 52, 54, 70; 90:20).

[844]. Greek shepherds had patron deities (see Prescendi, “Pales”; Baudy, “Parilia,” 531); by contrast, one patron deity protected all of Israel (Ps 23:1).

[845]. See Isa 56:11; 63:11; Jer 3:15; 10:21; 12:10; 22:22; 23:1–4, 34–36; 50:6; Ezek 34:2, 7–10; Mic 5:5; Nah 3:18; Zech 10:2–3; 11:5, 8, 15–17; cf. 1 En. 89:59–90:25; 4 Ezra 5:18; 2 Bar. 77:13. Cf. the ultimate Davidic ruler in Mic 5:4; Pss. Sol. 17:45.

[846]. E.g., Phaedrus 4.5.23–24.

[847]. Lewis, Life, 132; Ruffing, “Sheep,” 383.

[848]. Hesiod W.D. 202–11. For earlier animal fables, see, e.g., Ahiq. 120–22 (saying 36); 118–20 (saying 35).

[849]. The obedience of sheep also appears elsewhere, e.g., Epict. Diatr. 1.16.5. The “hearing” of sheep may include an allusion to Ps 95:7 (cf. Heb 3:7), but on a shepherd “leading” sheep, see also 2 Sam 5:2 and 1 Chr 11:2 (David); Ps 78:52 (God); and Jer 50:6 (the wicked leaders of Israel).

[850]. E.g., Pss 74:1; 77:20; 78:52; 79:13; 80:1; 100:3; Isa 49:9; 63:11; Jer 13:17; 31:10; Zech 9:16; 10:3.

[851]. L.A.B. 23:12; 30:5; 1 En. 89:16–24; 4Q266 11 13; Sipre Deut. 15.1.1; Exod. Rab. 24:3; Pesiq. Rab. 9:2; 26:1/2. (Sir 18:13; Philo Agr. 50–53; and y. Ber. 2:7, §2, appear to be exceptions.) Early Christians applied the image to the church (Minear, Images, 84–87; Ladd, Theology, 108); on the shepherd image in early Christianity, see also Keener, “Shepherd,” 1091–93.

[852]. Christ was, of course, the chief shepherd (John 10:2, 11, 14, 16; Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25; 5:4; Rev 7:17; Mart. Pol. 19.2; cf. Mark 6:34).

[853]. He also noted that God could rule as shepherd in their stead if need be (Ign. Rom. 9.1; cf. Ezek. 34:11).

[854]. He does, however, claim less than apostolic authority for the bishops (Ign. Rom. 4.3; cf. Mart. Pol. 16.2). The shepherd is different in Hermas, a sort of guardian angel, an “angel of repentance” (Herm. Vis. 5.25.3, 7; Mand. 12.49.1; Sim. 2.51.1; 8.67.4; 8.68.5–8; 8.70.1; 8.72.1; 9.79.6; 9.82.7; 9.84.1; 9.87.1; 9.88.1; 9.100.5; 9.110.1; 10.111.1; 10.114.5). Hermas uses the title “shepherds” even for evil angels (Sim. 6.61.5–6.62.2; 6.63.2).

[855]. Tannehill, Acts, 258–59. The verb appears in the NT only here, in Luke 17:33, and in 1 Tim 3:13. But for what it is worth, the cognate περιποίησις might function analogously in Mal 3:17; both Eph 1:14 and 1 Pet 2:9 employ this noun to reflect the idea in Exod 19:5; 34:9; Deut 4:20; 7:6; 14:2.

[856]. The term in Rom 3:25, however, refers to the mercy seat; but even this is used figuratively for the place of atonement in 4 Macc 17:22. On the sense here, cf., e.g., Hengel, Atonement, 45; Haacker, Theology, 131–32.

[857]. For Jesus and atonement, see, e.g., Morris, Cross in New Testament, 218–19, 404–5; for human blood and propitiation, see 4 Macc 17:21–22; for this and related ideas in Paul, survey, e.g., passages in Ware, Synopsis, §33, pp. 61–65. For fuller discussion, see comment on Acts 7:60. Peterson, “Atonement Theology,” shows the presence of sufficient appreciation for atonement in Luke’s theology to suggest (71) that he would have accepted that sense in Acts 20:28 (see concisely idem, Acts, 570).

[858]. Pace Barrett, Acts, 977, who doubts that Luke would have considered how the blood effected salvation. Parsons, Acts, 300, also finds vicarious atonement here; cf. also Marshall, “Acts 20.28”; for background on how vicarious atonement was understood in Judaism of this period, see, e.g., Kim, “Atonement”; idem, “Concept of Atonement,” 16–97; idem, “Targum Isaiah 53”; idem, “Hellenistic Thought.” Jesus’s blood was already prominent in early Christian soteriology (e.g., Rom 5:9; 1 Cor 10:16; Eph 2:13), and Luke’s ideal audience would probably be familiar with the idea of Luke 22:20 even before Luke’s Gospel; see 1 Cor 11:25; cf. Mark 14:24. In later rabbis, cf. God forgiving Israel on account of the blood of Passover and circumcision (Exod. Rab. 15:12).

[859]. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 480–82. Those reconstructing texts, as in, e.g., Acts 20:28, often consider theological factors; cf. Schmid, “Eklektische Textkonstitution.”

[860]. For a discussion of Jesus’s deity in the Synoptics, see, e.g., Benoit, Jesus, 1:47–70; for the view of the ancient Nazarenes (as opposed to Ebionites, Iren. Her. 5.1.3), see Pritz, Nazarene Christianity, 110.

[861]. One could speak of kin in terms of “flesh” and “bone” (often in the OT); this does not supply the language, but it might ease the comprehension of the expression. But for the “kinship” approach to blood here as problematic from an LXX perspective, see Schnabel, Acts, 847. The link between human blood (representing human life, also in Lev 17:11, 14; Deut 12:23) and God’s image (Gen 9:4; Jub. 6:8; Philo Dreams 1.74) is more distant.

[862]. See, e.g., with varying degrees of certainty, Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 233–38; Cullmann, Christology, 313; Cranfield, Romans, 2:467–68; Longenecker, Christology, 138; Harris, Jesus as God, 143–72. That the language is praise may make Paul’s interest devotional rather than dogmatic (Burridge and Gould, Jesus, 94), but this does not appreciably lessen the import.

[863]. For Titus, see Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 144–45; Cullmann, Christology, 313; Harris, “Titus 2:13,” 271; idem, Jesus as God, 173–85; Longenecker, Christology, 138; for the Granville Sharpe rule applicable here, see, e.g., Dana and Mantey, Grammar, 147. Second Thessalonians 1:12 is possible (Bultmann, Theology, 1:129; Longenecker, Christology, 138–39), but it is less clear and may not be applicable (Harris, Jesus as God, 265–66; Bruce, Thessalonians, 156–57).

[864]. Many later writers were more explicit (John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rev 1:17–18; cf. Heb 1:8–9; 2 Pet 1:1), especially in the second century (Ign. Eph. 7.2; 18.2; Rom. 3.3; Pol. 8.3; Iren. Her. 3.19; cf. Pliny Ep. 10.96; Justin 2 Apol. 13; perhaps Lucian Peregr. 11). For the diverse range of views regarding exalted characters within Jewish monotheism, see Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 32–48.

[865]. Some sophists employed shocking claims to grip their hearers’ attention (e.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 2.29.621; cf. the figure of controversia in Quint. Inst. 9.2.65–95; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 88; cf. emphasis, giving a term an unusual sense to grab attention, Rowe, “Style,” 127; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 579). Others used obscure teachings to weed out less committed disciples (see Xen. Mem. 4.2.8–40; Diog. Laert. 3.63; 8.1.15; John 6:52–58; Keener, Matthew, 378–79).

[866]. E.g., 1 John 1:7 (cf. 1 John 1:9; the variant in Rev 1:5). Jewish readers, however, would understand such images in terms of ritual purity (e.g., Lev 8:15; 14:52; 16:19; Ezek 43:20; Heb 9:13–14, 22; Jos. Ant. 2.312; cf. Barn. 5.1).

[867]. Matters had changed by the early second century, either making the variant more intelligible or reflecting the same figure that Luke uses (possibly generated by this text); see Ign. Eph. 1.1; cf. 3 Bar. 4:15. Later, Bede Comm. Acts 20.28b (L. Martin, 162; Martin, Acts, 254) finds “blood of God” acceptable because of the Son’s oneness with the Father (and uses this interpretation to combat Nestorianism).

[868]. Bruce, Commentary, 416n59; Witherington, Acts, 623; Walton, Leadership, 91, 94–99; more tentatively, Marshall, Historian and Theologian, 173; Harris, Jesus as God, 131–41; D. Williams, Acts, 358 (comparing also Rom 8:31–32; Eph 1:6); Metzger, Textual Commentary, 481.

[869]. Bruce, Commentary, 416n59. On this use of yachid, see Keener, John, 414–15, on John 1:14.

[870]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 680, rightly regards it as “a last-ditch solution”; but his trinitarian interpretation (referring to God, Spirit, and then “blood,” implying Jesus) is also strained (not because of its dependence on metonymy but because the “trinitarian” elements are not of the same character and Luke nowhere else teaches or assumes a developed trinitarian schema sufficiently clear to read it in here, where it is not clear). That “blood” here means “kin,” as often in Greek (cf. Acts 17:26 in the Western text; Dolfe, “ ‘Blood’ and Acts 20:28”), hence “Son,” is brilliant but also strained (Luke 22:20 suggests Jesus’s blood is in view; note also Luke’s use of “blood” elsewhere, where it does not mean “Son”).

[871]. On shocking language as a rhetorical device, see, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 88; and figures mentioned above. One could even coin words (though usually recommended against in prose; e.g., Fronto Eloq. 1.4) for such effect; see Anderson, Glossary, 83–84; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.13.1.

[872]. Cf. Marshall, Historian and Theologian, 173.

[873]. Morris, Cross in New Testament, 140–41, rightly notes the emphasis here on the great cost to God, rejecting (140) “the bizarre interpretations of purchase so common in patristic theology.”

[874]. Perhaps from guilt (cf. Rom 5:9; Eph 1:7; 1 John 1:7; Rev 1:5); surely for himself (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23). Luke certainly believes in the accomplished and future “redemption” of Israel (Luke 1:68; 2:38; 21:38; 24:21), though he emphasizes the aspect of deliverance more clearly than the “ransom” element of the language (cf. Acts 7:35). The association with blood appears in a diverse range of early Christian sources (Eph 1:7; Heb 9:12; 1 Pet 1:18–19; 1 Clem. 12.7).

[875]. Paul’s letters often emphasize concern for the church while he is physically absent (e.g., 1 Cor 5:3; Phil 1:27).

[876]. Though acknowledging the farewell character of Acts 20:18–35, Aune, Prophecy, 320, suggests that the “I know” reflects prophetic speech; but his evidence (Rev 2:2, 9, 13, 19; 3:1, 8, 15) is too general to establish his case (cf., e.g., John 4:25; Acts 26:27; Rom 7:18).

[877]. Witherington, Acts, 619; cf., e.g., also Jos. Ant. 2.184; 7.247; 8.61; 11.191; 18.373; War 7.19, 240; Philo Heir 265; Prelim. St. 121; Names 171. “Departure” could provide a metaphor for death (cf., e.g., Jos. Ant. 4.315), but we cannot automatically read it into the term; an argument for such a metaphor here would require clarification from the context, which is part of the matter under dispute.

[878]. On the ancient use of metaphor, see briefly Rhet. Her. 4.34.45; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 85; Anderson, Glossary, 73–77 (cf. 14); Rowe, “Style,” 124–26; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 578.

[879]. Cited in Talbert, Acts, 182.

[880]. Although Luke’s pattern for the Gentile mission is especially from Isaiah (see esp. Pao, Isaianic Exodus), it appears interesting that in the context in Ezek 3:5–7, Israel proves no more receptive to the message than foreigners are.

[881]. The image of God’s people as a scattered flock is common (1 Kgs 22:17; 2 Chr 18:16; Ps 44:11; Jer 10:21; 23:1–2; 31:10; 50:17; Ezek 34:6, 12; Mic 2:12; Zech 11:16; 13:7) and carries into the Jesus tradition (Mark 14:27; Matt 26:31; cf. John 16:32), though Luke does not seem to develop it. The image of lost sheep appears often in early Jewish sources (Aubert, Motif, 337, emphasizing the Apocrypha).

[882]. E.g., Hom. Il. 3.10–11; Max. Tyre 19.2; Isa 31:4; Jer 49:19; 50:44; Amos 3:12; Zech 11:3; John 10:1–2, 10; 1 En. 89:65; 4 Ezra 5:18; see MacMullen, Social Relations, 2; Keener, John, 812–13.

[883]. E.g., Themistius Speeches 1.9d–10d (317–88 C.E.); John 10:12.

[884]. E.g., Aeschylus Suppl. 352–53. Sheep flee strangers but follow their shepherd’s signals (Polyb. 12.4.2–4; John 10:3–4).

[885]. Conzelmann, Acts, 175; see also Talbert, John, 167.

[886]. Lone wolves rarely ventured into farm country (Aratus Phaen. 1124–28), though cf. farmers battling wolves in Libanius Comparison 5.10.

[887]. E.g., storms (Aratus Phaen. 1104–12).

[888]. E.g., Hom. Il. 10.485; Statius Theb. 9.189–91; Mart. Epig. 9.71; Mic 5:8; 1 En. 89:55; against cattle, cf. Epict Diatr. 1.2.30; against people, Hom. Il. 22.262; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.39; Num. Rab. 18:22; as predators generally, see, e.g., Ovid Metam. 1.505; Mart. Epig. 1.60; Babr. 97; 103; 105.2–3; 106.15; 107.1; 136; Phaedrus 2.1; used of Rome in Sib. Or. 11.290–91. A shepherd might fear one (Max. Tyre 32.1; cf. Ps 152:2), but cf. the courage in 1 Sam 17:34–37.

[889]. Cf. MacMullen, Social Relations, 2; Shelton, Romans, 159 (citing Fronto Letters 2.12). For reports of shepherd-bandits, cf. Rutherford, “Boukoloi.”

[890]. E.g., Pindar Pyth. 2.84; Virg. Ecl. 2.63; Georg. 1.130; Phaedrus 1.8; Babr. 53.1–2; 94; Longus 2.16, 22; 4.15; Alciph. Farm. 18 (Eunapê to Glaucê), 3.21, ¶¶1, 3; Callim. Iambi 12.202.70; Apollod. Bib. 2.5.6; Lycophron Alex. 102–3, 147; Aeschylus Ag. 1259; fawns in Aeschylus frg. 23 (Glaucus [LCL, 2:393]); baby goats in Callim. Iambi 12.202.70; birds in Apollod. Bib. 2.5.6; domestic animals in Philost. Hrk. 33.14. Wolves are fierce, though kind to their cubs (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.14). Lucan C.W. 7.826 portrays them as scavengers, but this is rare. On the often violent portrayal of wolves, see also Hünemörder, “Wolf,” 691.

[891]. Aeschylus Suppl. 351.

[892]. Lucian Lucius 33.

[893]. E.g., Xen. Ages. 1.22; y. Ber. 1:5, §8; Šeqal. 5:1.

[894]. E.g., Hom. Il. 22.263; Aristoph. Wasps 952; Ap. Rhod. 2.123–24; Virg. Aen. 9.566; Ecl. 3.80; 5.60; 8.52; Ovid Metam. 1.232–37, 304, 505; 5.626–27; 6.527–28; Fasti 2.85–86, 800; Pont. 1.2.17–18; Tibullus 1.1.33–34; 2.1.20; 2.5.88; Phaedrus 1.1; Babr. 89; 93.3–11; 102.8; 105.1; 113.2–4; 132.1–4; Longus 1.11, 21–22; Apollod. Bib. 1.9.2; Statius Theb. 10.42–48; Plut. Demosth. 23.4; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.2; 2.7; Libanius Fable 1 (the LCL note cites also Aesop Fab. 158).

[895]. E.g., Cic. Mil. 12.32; 31.85; Pis. 1.1; 1 Cor 15:32; 2 Pet 2:12. See further detail in comment on Acts 10:11.

[896]. E.g., for the immoral, as in Cicero’s application of lupa, she-wolf (Mil. 21.55); or for Paris (Lycophron Alex. 102–3, 147). But more often for predators; see, e.g., Ovid Fasti 2.800; Plut. Demosth. 23.4 (the image of Paris in Lycophron Alex. 102–3, 147 also fits here). Chrys. Hom. Jn. 23, on John 2:11–22, calls the devil a “wolf.” For wolf-like physiognomy, see Hünemörder, “Wolf,” 691.

[897]. Heroically, Hom. Il. 16.156–57, 352; 22.263; Virg. Aen. 9.566; Statius Ach. 1.704–8. In Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 2.7, Darius compared Alexander to a wolf among sheep.

[898]. Hom. Il. 22.263, 265.

[899]. Phaedrus 1.8.5–12; 1.10.9; Libanius Fable 1.1 (sheep being very gullible, 1.2). In addition to Matt 7:15 one may think of the fable of the wolf in sheepskin (Wojciechowski, “Aesopic Tradition,” 106, suggesting a possible common source). The theme of dressing in skins to deceive is common, including a human trying to sneak forward disguised in a wolf skin (Eurip. Rhesus 209–15; Longus 1.21) or seal skin (Hom. Od. 4.435–55), an ass disguised in a lion skin (Babrius 139), or Odysseus’s men escaping Polyphemus under the sheep (Hom. Od. 9.425–63; cf. Apollod. Epit. 7.8; Libanius Encomium 2.17).

[900]. Vell. Paterc. 2.27.2 (Romans, according to their enemies); Phaedrus 1.16.5; Mus. Ruf. 14, p. 92.21–22; Gen 49:27; a rapacious enemy in Artem. Oneir. 2.12; cf. Paris as a “hungry” wolf in Lycophron Alex. 147. In a Greek novel, one goatherd complained that no wolf had successfully seized any goats but that now the enemy (invaders) had taken the goats and would harm them (Longus 2.22). Thieves and wolves are often listed together as enemies of one’s animals (Virg. Georg. 3.406–8, which also lists roving “Spaniards” in a sense equivalent to “robbers”; Babr. 128.14).

[901]. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 1.3.7, 9; for cleverness, Plut. Cleverness 16, Mor. 971A. For wolves symbolizing unfaithful friendships, see Wordelman, “Divides,” 227; also perhaps Lucian Tim. 8. A writer links the Lycus River with “wolf” because of its forcefulness (Quint. Curt. 3.1.5).

[902]. Alciph. Farm. 5 (Agelarchides to Pytholaüs), 1.26, ¶3. Cf. all the selfish in Mus. Ruf. 14, p. 92.20–25.

[903]. One early Christian portrait of false teachers was that they greedily exploited God’s people (2 Pet 2:3, 14–15; cf. 1 Tim 6:5).

[904]. Lycophron Alex. 102–3.

[905]. Isa 11:6; 65:25; Matt 7:15; 10:16; Luke 10:3; John 10:12; 4 Ezra 5:18.

[906]. Jer 5:6; Hab 1:8; 1 En. 56:5–6; 89:55; also Exod. Rab. 5:20; Lam. Rab. 1:17, §52. A rabbinic parable compares Israel with a wolf, and its inferior enemies with dogs, but this is just to emphasize Israel’s superior strength (Johnston, “Interpretations,” 596, citing Sipre Num. 137).

[907]. Ezek 22:27; cf. Zeph 3:3. Derrett, “Shepherd,” 43, argues that Jewish law did not punish a hired shepherd who fled from a robber or wolves but it did not excuse him from fending off a single wolf, as here (m. B. Meṣiʿa 7:9, 11; but cf. b. B. Meṣiʿa 93b).

[908]. See, e.g., Matt 7:15; John 10:12; later, Did. 16.3; Ign. Phil. 2.2; Justin Dial. 35.3; 1 Apol. 16.13 (Conzelmann, Acts, 175); for other negative wolves, see 2 Clem. 5.2–4. The Jesus tradition and early Christianity applied the image both to false prophets within (Matt 7:15; Acts 20:29) and to external opposition (Matt 10:16; Luke 10:3).

[909]. Alciph. Farm. 18 (Eunapê to Glaucê), 3.21, ¶¶1–3.

[910]. Alciph. Farm. 21 (Philopoemen to Moschion), 3.24, ¶¶1–3.

[911]. So Themistius Speeches 1.9d–10d (317–88 C.E.).

[912]. Max. Tyre 6.7 (Trapp), second century C.E.; cf. the analogous images of exploitive shepherds in Ezek 34:2–10.

[913]. Aeschylus Ag. 1259; Babr. 101, 105 (cf. 90–91, 95); y. Ber. 1:5, §8; also compared to foxes, Plut. Comparison of Lysander and Sulla 3.1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:24; stronger than other beasts in Ach. Tat. 2.21.1. Cf. 1 Sam 17:34–37; Mic 5:8. A wolf rarely ventured by itself into farm country (Aratus Phaen. 1124–28).

[914]. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 4.11.4; Dio Chrys. Or. 62.7; Babr. 1; Phaedrus 1.5; Philost. Hrk. 27.3; 1 Macc 3:4; cf. Pindar Pyth. 5.58; “lion-hearted” in Hom. Il. 7.228; Od. 11.267. The image was a regular one for warriors, e.g., Il. 5.136, 161, 299, 476, 782; 7.256; 10.297, 485; 11.239, 548; 12.293, 299; 13.198; 15.592; 16.752, 756, 823; 17.109, 133; 18.161, 318–22; 20.164; 24.572; Od. 4.724 (bravery); 6.130 (strength); 22.402; 23.48 MSS; Virg. Aen. 12.6; Philost. Hrk. 35.2; a general in Plut. Luc. 12.1.

[915]. E.g., Artem. Oneir. 1.37; 2.12; Babr. 65; Max. Tyre 25.3; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.14.497; Hrk. 33.21; 35.6; 48.3. For rulers, e.g., Gen 49:9–10; Rev 5:5; Alexander waging war, Plut. Alex. 2.3; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.8; 2.7; in some other societies, cf. Mbiti, Religions, 242. Some claimed that lions had the keenest vision and never slept (Manetho frg. 88, from Etymologicum magnum, s.v. Λεοντοκόμος).

[916]. E.g., Corn. Nep. 18 (Eumenes), 11.1; Epict. Diatr. 1.3.7; Dio Chrys. Or. 2.29; Babr. 65; Philost. Hrk. 25.15; pitiless (here, of Achilles) in Hom. Il. 24.41 (contrast Pliny E. N.H. 8.19.48, who fancies that lions show mercy). Because the lion was king of the beasts (e.g., Mart. Epig. 1.60.1–5; Babr. 65.6; 98.5; 102.1; Phaedrus 4.14.2), it appears readily as a metaphor for tyrants or evil rulers, Ap. Rhod. 2.26–29; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.30; Ezek 32:2; 4Q167 2 2; Jos. Ant. 18.228; 2 Tim 4:17; Gentile oppressors in 1 En. 89:55; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 13:15. But for tamed lions, see, e.g., Statius Silv. 2.5; Ach. 1.858–60; Philost. Hrk. 33.21.

[917]. Statius Ach. 861–62; Babr. 92, 139; cf. Men. Rhet. 2.6, 402.5–6; Test. Ab. 17:14 A.

[918]. “Not sparing” could also express mercilessness, as in Job 16:13 LXX.

[919]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 84.4–6; Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse.”

[920]. Court, “Rivals,” 402–3. See also Price, “Paulus absconditus (2002)”; idem, “Paulus absconditus (2003),” remarkably contending that the original tradition behind “disciples of John” in Acts 19:1–4 referred to John son of Zebedee.

[921]. False teachers seem more threatening within the church here (though not exclusively here; cf. Acts 8:19; 15:1–2), but this is because this speech is Paul’s only long speech to the church in Acts (as well as in a section containing “we” narrative).

[922]. Cf. also the elders being protected by the message of God’s “grace” (Acts 20:32); but this is not the only place Luke employs that expression either (14:3).

[923]. Although my work on the Synoptics will show that I value redaction criticism in its place, I am convinced that reading individuals in texts as symbols for hypothetical later communities aligned with them is the sort of rampant speculation that has helped discredit more responsible redaction criticism.

[924]. Keener, Acts, 1:570–71.

[925]. See Keener, John, 149–52.

[926]. See discussion in, e.g., Hunter, Predecessors, 46–48, 126; idem, Gospel according to Paul, 58–60; Davies, Paul, 137–40; Schoeps, Paul, 56; Gerhardsson, Origins, 33; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 13; Ladd, Theology, 514; Richardson and Gooch, “Logia,” 52; Pfitzner, “School”; Stuhlmacher, “Theme,” 16–19; Gerhardsson, “Path,” 75–96; Dunn, Theology, 189–95; Donfried, Thessalonians, 233–52; esp. Kim, New Perspective, 259–90; Thompson, Clothed. Others have also found Paul and Jesus more compatible than some have supposed (see, e.g., Still, Jesus and Paul).

[927]. In Keener, John, a 1,636-page commentary.

[928]. E.g., ibid., 998–99, 1003, 1037, 1039.

[929]. Lüdemann, Paul, 15–16, seeing this as a major purpose; but opposition to “heresy” surfaces too rarely to see it as a major function of Luke-Acts. Despite Talbert’s usual brilliance on most other points, his early work on this topic, Luke and Gnostics (1966), fails to persuade.

[930]. See Yamauchi, Gnosticism; Smith, Gnostic Origins; Keener, John, 164–69, and sources cited there.

[931]. Lampe, “Wolves,” 255.

[932]. Not that this does not itself reflect what early Christian writers considered a theological misunderstanding. Cf. also Jer 6:13; 8:10; Ezek 22:27–28; 1 Tim 6:5–10; 2 Pet 2:14–15; Did. 11.6, 12; warnings to church leaders in 1 Tim 3:8; Titus 1:7, 11; 1 Pet 5:2.

[933]. Though each group might be more inclined to link competing groups with charlatans, they recognized that there were hypocrites even in their own group. On stock language used to criticize rival teachers (sophists, magicians, etc.), see Liefeld, “Preacher,” 272–84.

[934]. Plut. Lect. 12, Mor. 43F.

[935]. Philod. Crit. frg. 60.8–12 (the mention of γόητες is in 60.8).

[936]. In contrast to the Jewish opponents in Galatia, those in Corinth need not be “Judaizers”; after all, most early Christian missionaries were Jewish (see, e.g., Bruce, Corinthians, 174; Witherington, Corinthians, 346; Lambrecht, Second Corinthians, 6; Keener, Corinthians, 144–46; for surveys of the Judaizing hypothesis, without agreeing with it, see esp. Sumney, Opponents, 15–42; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 928–32). Nor ought we to infer “Judaizing” opponents on the basis of 1 Clement and other later sources (pace Lampe, “Wolves,” 267–68).

[937]. Later, cf., e.g., Col 2:8, 16, 18–23; for eschatological false prophets, see 2 Thess 2:9; Mark 13:22; Rev 13:13–14; Did. 16.3–4 (this might reflect or influence Jewish tradition; Test. Jud. 21:9; perhaps Sib. Or. 3.63–68; on the antichrist tradition, though mostly later, see Keener, Matthew, 573–75). Cf. Marshall, Acts, 334. Dunn’s skepticism about parallels to this announcement in the undisputed Pauline letters (Acts, 273) is thus unnecessary.

[938]. See comment on Acts 10:11; cf. also Keener, Matthew, 416–17.

[939]. Luke’s audience might here envision Paul gesturing toward his audience (for gestures toward persons or objects, see Shiell, Reading Acts, 57–62) and/or, a gesture of aversion, turning his face from where his gesture pointed (a turning used only for abhorrence or aversion; see Shiell, Reading Acts, 76–77, citing Quint. Inst. 11.3.70).

[940]. Though “among you” is a common expression, including in Luke-Acts (Luke 11:5, 11; 12:25; 14:28, 33; 15:4; 17:7; 21:16; Acts 6:3; 27:22; some instances reflect Q—see Matt 6:27; 7:9) and Deuteronomy (Deut 1:15, 23; 4:3; 13:5; 17:7; 19:19; 21:9, 21; 22:21, 24; 24:7). (Still, it is perhaps too inelegant for Josephus [only Ant. 4.208; 8.228; 19.304] and Philo [Drunkenness 14, 28; Mos. 1.290].)

[941]. Even Jesus (Luke 22:4, 6) and Paul (cf. 2 Tim 4:10) found trust betrayed, although, in Luke’s account, Jesus was not caught off guard (Luke 22:21–22, 48).

[942]. Cf. also power seekers (3 John 9–10), which is most explicitly in view in Acts 20:30.

[943]. Probably circulated around Ephesus; if, as seems likely, it was a circular letter, the manuscripts containing “Ephesus” (Eph 1:1) at least testify that Ephesus’s church was unambiguously included in—and, as the largest city and church, probably the primary recipient of—the letter.

[944]. Esp. 1 Tim 1:3; 2 Tim 1:18; 4:12. Since Titus addresses similar problems, one could argue that the letters’ settings are incidental, but more likely the false teachings were widespread.

[945]. All Asia had turned from Paul (2 Tim 1:15); the warning of a present, eschatological apostasy (1 Tim 4:1; 2 Tim 3:1–7, 13; 4:3–4) is probably relevant as well.

[946]. Cf., e.g., early American Methodism, when institutional offices became more coveted than the ministry of circuit riders (Noll, History, 174, also noting other, analogous North American religious movements). I have heard similar reports from some second- or third-generation Christians from the Congo and northern Nigeria.

[947]. Mark 13:34–37; Matt 24:42–43; 25:13; 1 Thess 5:6, 10; Rev 3:2–3; 16:15. But this connection is less clear in Mark 14:34, 37–38; 1 Cor 16:13; Col 4:2; 1 Pet 5:8; and here. The idea is probably also present in Rom 13:11, but the connection is not clear in Eph 5:14. For an eschatological backdrop here, see Dunn, Acts, 274; Conzelmann, Acts, 175–76 (who thinks that Luke has “transposed” it according to his different eschatology); on Luke’s hortatory and present eschatology in Acts 20, see esp. Nielsen, Fulfilled.

[948]. E.g., Isoc. Demon. 21; Rhet. Alex. 20, 1433b.29; Cic. Font. 13.28; Amic. 22.85; Fam. 13.75.1; Epict. Diatr. 4.4.29; 4.13.23; Pliny Ep. 8.24.1, 10; Philod. Crit. col. 14b; Marc. Aur. 8.36; Porph. Marc. 10.187–89; m. ʾAb. 3:8; Rom 15:15; 2 Pet 1:12–13; 2 Tim 2:14; Titus 3:1. Johnson, Acts, 364, cites Isoc. Demon. 9, 11; Lucian Dem. 1–2; Nigr. 6–7; Plut. Educ. 13, Mor. 9F; Progr. Virt. 15, Mor. 85A; cf. also Aune, Environment, 191.

[949]. The idea also appears in Luke 22:61; 24:8; Acts 11:16; and esp. (in exhortation form) Luke 24:6.

[950]. Esp. 1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 2:5; also in Gal 2:10; Eph 2:11; Col 4:18; cf. 1 Thess 1:3; 2 Tim 2:8; using different terminology, Rom 11:18.

[951]. E.g., Mark 8:18; John 15:20; 16:4 (cf. 14:26); Heb 13:7; Rev 2:5; 3:3; 2 Clem. 17.3; Poly. Phil. 2.3; using different terminology, John 2:17, 22; 12:16; Heb 13:3; 2 Pet 1:12; 3:2; Jude 17.

[952]. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 4.13.23; Marc. Aur. 8.36; Iambl. V.P. 22.101; Rom 15:14; 1 Cor 4:14; Col 1:28; 3:16; 1 Thess 5:12, 14; 2 Thess 3:15; often in Philo (e.g., Worse 3; Posterity 68; Giants 46); cf. Pss. Sol. 13:9; Stowers, Letter Writing, 125–27. Speeches could include censure and comfort; see Hermog. Method 36.454.

[953]. The term appears only twelve times in the LXX (1 Sam 3:13; Job 4:3; 23:15; 30:1; 34:16; 36:12; 37:14; 38:18; Job 40:4; Wis 11:10; 12:2, 26; also in Pss. Sol. 13:9).

[954]. So Malherbe, Philosophers, 153 (citing Dio Chrys. Or. 77/78.37–38; Plut. Lect., Mor. 43–44A; Flatt., Mor. 70D–71D). In the NT, the phrase “each one” is Lukan (Luke 16:5; Acts 2:3; here; cf. Luke 4:40; Acts 2:6; 17:27) and Pauline (1 Thess 2:11; cf. 1 Cor 12:18; Eph 4:7, 16; Col 4:6; 2 Thess 1:3), but it also appears elsewhere (e.g., 4 Macc 4:26; 5:2; 8:9; 16:24; Jos. Ant. 19.305; Philo Conf. 46; Eternity 56; Hypoth. 7.3; Mos. 2.291; Matt 26:22; Rev 21:21; Herm. 53.3; 67.5; 69.4; 77.2; 94.2; 95.5; Diogn. 8.3).

[955]. Aristotle urged use of rational arguments to generate pathos (Kraftchick, “Πάθη,” 48–50), but Paul’s letter to the Romans used pathos as an appeal to stir or sway audience emotion (52–53); Paul employs it in his letters, formally like Roman orators but appealing to arguments like Aristotle (56). On Aristotle’s use of emotion, see Hall, “Delivery,” 232; Walde, “Pathos,” 599.

[956]. Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (Vogels, 296; Bray, Corinthians, 299) divided the labor as Paul working during the day and teaching at night. Hock, Social Context, 31, thinks that Paul started work before dawn and then worked much of the day.

[957]. “Day and night” (perhaps more Semitic) appears seventeen times in the OT, twice in Luke-Acts, and five times in Revelation; “night and day” appears four times in the OT, once in Mark, three times in Luke-Acts, and five times in Paul. “Day and night” appears in 1QS VI, 6; 1QH^a XVI, 30; XVIII, 17; 4Q389 frg. E.2; 4Q412 1 10; 4Q508 41 2; 11QT LVII, 10; 1 En. 18:6; 24:1; 72:22, 37; 104:8; 2 En. 11:2; 13:1; 16:7; Jub. 6:4 (cf. 25:2); 2 Macc 13:10; Jos. Ant. 5.60; 6.223; 12.347; 13.217; War 3.174; 5.31; 6.301; Exod. Rab. 47:5; twenty-seven times in Philo (e.g., Creation 56, 80; Conf. 151; Migr. 111, 157). “Night and day” appears in 1 En. 82:8; Sib. Or. 4.13; 4 Ezra 9:44; Philo Plant. 118; Heir 164; Abr. 155; Jos. 86; Mos. 2.122; Spec. Laws 1.156; 3.17, 39; Virt. 6; Rewards 151; Jos. Life 11; Ant. 2.274; 7.367; 16.260; War 1.492; 5.274; Ag. Ap. 1.164. The Greco-Roman evidence is also mixed, e.g., “day and night” in Diod. Sic. 38/39.9.1; Cic. Fam. 14.3.2; Att. 7.9; Handb. Elec. 44; Vat. 11.26; Tac. Ann. 4.74; Quint. Decl. 299.5; and “night and day” in Cic. Tusc. 5.25.70; Hor. Sat. 1.1.76; Vell. Paterc. 2.41.3; Libanius Topics 5.5; Porph. Marc. 10.177–78. The contrast that some commentators make between Gentile and Jewish usage is thus exaggerated.

[958]. This must have become familiar in early Christianity (1 Tim 5:5; 2 Tim 1:3; Rev 4:8; 7:15; cf. Ode 8:71). This undoubtedly comes from the OT (e.g., Lev 8:35; 1 Chr 9:33; Neh 1:6; Ps 88:1; Jdt 11:17; 2 Macc 13:10; cf. Ps 134:1); for Scripture study, see Deut 6:7; Josh 1:8; Ps 1:2. Studying in shifts may appear in 1QS VI, 6–7; praising in shifts in Test. Adam 1–2 (possibly redacted in the third century C.E.).

[959]. E.g., Gen 31:39–40; Neh 4:22; Quint. Inst. pref. 2; Diod. Sic. 38/39.9.1; Apul. Apol. 5; cf. 1 Sam 25:16; Isa 21:8.

[960]. Applebaum, “Economic Life,” 657 (citing m. B. Meṣiʿa 9:11).

[961]. A well-to-do Stoic might value leisure but recognized that many even in the elite preferred the activities of public life (Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 4A.pref. 1); but Plut. Cic. 36.3 praises Cicero’s diligence and long work days. Epicureans preferred a quietist withdrawal from public life (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 68.10; Max. Tyre 15.8; Jos. Ant. 19.32; cf. Warren, “Diogenes Epikourios”; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 25; idem, Moral Exhortation, 148; Meeks, Moral World, 57; Hock, Social Context, 46; Smith, Symposium, 58), but most disagreed (cf., e.g., Plut. Phil. Power, Mor. 776A–779C; Pliny Ep. 7.3.2; Max. Tyre 15.3–10).

[962]. Cf. Hock, Social Context, 31. Such hard work was necessary for those seeking prosperity (Hesiod W.D. 381–82).

[963]. For this sense of merism, see, e.g., Walton, Genesis, 71; Konkel, Kings, 273, though this is not the technical ancient rhetorical definition (on which see Anderson, Glossary, 70).

[964]. Gen 1:14–18; 8:22; Deut 28:66; 1 Kgs 8:29, 59; 2 Chr 6:20; Neh 4:9; Esth 4:16; Pss 1:2; 32:4; 42:3; 55:10; 121:6; Isa 27:3; 28:19; 34:10; 38:12–13; 60:11; 62:6; Jer 9:1; 14:17; 16:13; 33:20, 25; 36:20; Lam 2:18; Hos 4:5; Zech 14:7; cf. 3 Macc 5:11; Mark 5:5; Rev 12:10; 14:11; 20:10. Often this language applied to the pillar and cloud (Exod 10:13; 13:21–22; 40:38; Num 9:16; 14:14; Deut 1:33; Neh 9:12, 19; cf. Ps 78:14; Isa 4:5). Cf. also 4 Ezra 9:44; Exod. Rab. 47:5.

[965]. E.g., Cic. Att. 7.9; Fam. 14.3.2; Vat. 11.26; Tusc. 5.25.70; Virg. Georg. 3.341; Hor. Sat. 1.1.76; Sil. It. 1.604; Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 84.10; Arrian Alex. 7.11.4; Tac. Ann. 4.74; Men. Rhet. 2.3, 384.29–30; Porph. Marc. 10.177–78; Symm. Ep. 1.3.4 (working night and day); 1.53.1; Jos. War 6.301. Cf. “neither darkness nor day” in Sil. It. 6.562.

[966]. As Watson, “Speech,” 203, points out (citing, for hyperbole, Rhet. Her. 4.33.44; Longin. Subl. 38.1–6; Cic. De or. 3.53.203; Quint. Inst. 8.6.67–76; Demet. Style 2.124–27). On this figure, see further Rhet. Alex. 11, 1430b.16–19; Cic. Or. Brut. 40.139; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.7; Rowe, “Style,” 128; Anderson, Glossary, 122–24; for examples, see Philost. Hrk. 48.11; Song Rab. 1:15, §3. One should, however, avoid hyperbole in propositions and other places where literal language was expected (Rhet. Her. 2.20.32).

[967]. Cf. the son who spends “night and day” in banquets and brothels (Sen. E. Controv. 2.1.15): this means that he does this during night and during day, not that he commits all twenty-four-hour days to these activities.

[968]. Hock, Social Context, 31.

[969]. For various possible reasons for sleeplessness, see comment on Acts 2:14–15.

[970]. E.g., Hom. Il. 2.387; 7.282; 8.529–30; 11.209; 14.259–61; Philost. Hrk. 58.4; see comment on Acts 4:3; Keener, John, 779.

[971]. E.g., Scopelian, who studied all night (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.21.518); Cicero, unable to sleep (Att. 13.26, 38); obviously night guards (Val. Max. 8.1.damn.6). Some also urged late retiring and early rising as part of vigilance in household management (Philod. Prop. col. B.6–10; col. 11.30–41, disagreeing); cf. Prov 31:15.

[972]. Jeffers, World, 25, 28, 61.

[973]. Cf. also Acts 16:9, 25; 17:10; 18:9.

[974]. With Barrett, Acts, 903. Some add the “some time longer” of Acts 19:22 (Witherington, Acts, 576; Riesner, Early Period, 217–18); although this is possible, this might be reckoned in the “two years” if the latter was meant to cover the entire period till Paul’s departure.

[975]. Watson, “Speech,” 204 (citing Rhet. Alex. 3.1426a.35ff.). He also finds among conventional epideictic topics here beneficence (Arist. Rhet. 1.9, 1366a4–1366b6; 1366b17; Cic. De or. 2.11.46; 2.84.343–44; 2.85.346) and acting habitually honorably (Arist. Rhet. 1.9, 1367b32; Rhet. Alex. 3.1426a.35ff.).

[976]. An attorney should identify with the person he represents in court (like an actor with his role), so feeling his position and weeping (Quint. Inst. 6.2.34–35). Tears on behalf of others were honorable (Appian Hist. rom. 8.12.81; 8.19.132), though restraint might also be honorable (8.12.82, 86).

[977]. E.g., Arrian Alex. 7.11.5; 7.12.3. Caesar’s tears motivated his soldiers’ loyalty (Suet. Jul. 33).

[978]. E.g., Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.3.3; Arrian Alex. 7.11.5; 7.12.3.

[979]. The public reader of Acts might move a hand toward the cheek and sound tearful here (Shiell, Reading Acts, 71, 88).

[980]. E.g., Sall. Sp. G. Cotta 5; Sen. E. Controv. 1.7.10; Dio Cass. 8.36.5; Libanius Declam. 44.78–81; more fully Arist. Rhet. 2 (even if this specific work was not widely used in this period); Quint. Inst. 5; Hermog. Method 31.448; cf. Hall, “Delivery,” 230–34; Mack and Robbins, Patterns, 55. Invective rhetoric appealed especially to anger, hatred, fear, and pity (Quint. Inst. 6.2.20); Quintilian applies the term πάθος especially to violent emotions (6.2.8–9, dividing emotional appeals into πάθος [pathos] and ἦθος [ēthos], but I employ the term more generally for any sort of emotional appeal. For various definitions of the term in antiquity, see, e.g., Kraftchick, “Πάθη,” 48–49, 52–56.

[981]. Both sides would appeal to it (Quint. Inst. 6.1.9).

[982]. E.g., Olbricht, “Pathos as Proof,” 7. For a discussion of Plato’s views, see 8–12; for Aristotle’s, 12–17. Perdue, “Rhetoric,” 192–93, finds emotional appeal in Wisdom of Solomon.

[983]. Dion. Hal. Isaeus 3.

[984]. One discredited opponents by using the opposite technique (Rhet. Alex. 36, 1445.12–26). For one example of a speech with tears generating sympathy, see Jos. Ant. 17.106.

[985]. Quint. Inst. 4.1.33.

[986]. Pliny Ep. 2.11.12–13; 4.9.22.

[987]. E.g., Sall. Pomp. 1; Libanius Declam. 36.1–3.

[988]. Lysias Or. 10.27–28, §118 (also appealing to patriotic sentiments).

[989]. Cic. Mil. 38.105.

[990]. Cicero was so effective at pathos that Caesar was moved to acquit his enemy whom Cicero was defending (Plut. Cic. 39.6).

[991]. Cic. Sest. 69.144 (the use of pathos then continues to the end of the speech in 69.147).

[992]. Cic. Sest. 69.145–46; cf. Rab. Post. 17.47. Cf. a similar approach by Dio Chrys. Or. 40.12, complaining that Prusa was adding to his famous sufferings. A leader could ask what he had done, thereby protesting that he had been wronged (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.33.1–36.3; see comment on Acts 20:26).

[993]. Cic. Quinct. 30.91.

[994]. Cic. Or. Brut. 40.138.

[995]. Cic. Brut. 93.322 (LCL, 5:281).

[996]. Hall, “Delivery,” 227–28, notes that Cicero parades relatives before audiences to move them to pity (citing Flacc. 106; Font. 46, 48; Planc. 102; Sull. 88; Sest. 144–46; Verr. 2.1.151). A woman could be portrayed as baring her breasts before a judge to invoke pity; see Alciph. Court. 4 (Bacchis to Phrynê), 1.31, ¶4 (for a nonforensic example, cf. Hom. Il. 22.79–83).

[997]. Val. Max. 8.1.abs.2 (many of the acquittals in this context stem from appeals to pathos); cf. the prosecutor’s warning against succumbing to this approach in Libanius Topics 1.27.

[998]. Lysias Or. 7.41, §§111–12; for other appeals citing mothers, see, e.g., Aeschines Embassy 148.

[999]. Lysias Or. 20.35–36, §161; Aeschines Embassy 179.

[1000]. Cic. Font. 21.46–47.

[1001]. Lysias Or. 27.12–13, §§178–79; Libanius Topics 1.27, 29; 2.20; for complaints about the opponent’s use of pathos, Hall, “Delivery,” 228, cites Cic. Rab. Post. 24 and also Cicero’s lost Pro Vareno, as noted in Quint. Inst. 6.1.49; others denounced Cicero’s use in Verr. 2.1.151. Appeals to pity generally appear only when defendants know that they cannot be acquitted (Nicolaus Progymn. 7, “On Commonplace,” 45). But one could also make such an appeal after a convincing array of facts (Isaeus Menec. 44, 47). For appeals to pity, see also Anderson, Glossary, 54; note prosecution examples (rejecting pity for the defendant or advocating it for the victims) in Libanius Topics 1.11, 27–30; 3.14; 4.19; 5.11–12.

[1002]. Hermog. Progymn. 6, “On Commonplace,” 14; Aphth. Progymn. 7, “On Commonplace,” 35S, 20R; Nicolaus Progymn. 7, “On Commonplace,” 44.

[1003]. Hermog. Progymn. 6, “On Commonplace,” 14.

[1004]. Lysias Or. 13.46, §134. For pathos on behalf of the victim, see also, e.g., Cic. Cael. 24.60.

[1005]. E.g., Aeschines Embassy 5; Tim. 122.

[1006]. Sen. E. Controv. 4.pref. 6.

[1007]. E.g., Cic. De or. 2.46.189–90; Fredrickson, “Tears,” 175 (citing Quint. Inst. 6.2.25–28). Thus Pliny claims that he “gave full play to [his] feelings of wrath and indignation” (Ep. 6.33.10 [LCL, 1:479]).

[1008]. For an example of explicit anger, see Apul. Apol. 78. A Stoic, of course, would demur (cf. Sen. E. Controv. 2.pref. 2; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 75.1–3). Isocrates elsewhere feigns being so overwhelmed emotionally that he does not know what to say (yet in speeches preserved in writing; Antid. 140, 310, 320); but aporia was a common technique (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 47.12; see comment on Acts 25:20).

[1009]. Pliny Ep. 2.11.3. Of course, Pliny himself was not averse to passionate rhetoric (Ep. 6.33.9–10; 9.26.2) or to stirring his audience (9.23.1).

[1010]. Pliny Ep. 2.11.6.

[1011]. Some occasions invited a greater display of emotion than did others (Men. Rhet. 2.5, 395.26–30).

[1012]. Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 170 (believing that their views had widespread effects on rhetoric); Anderson, Glossary, 61 (citing SVF 3.451). Yet unlike most others, Stoics rejected such emotion altogether (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 116.1).

[1013]. Mus. Ruf. frg. 36, p. 134.14–16.

[1014]. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 75.2–3. Though approving the use of pathos, Cicero himself disapproved excessive physical displays of emotion, such as frequent stomping (Brut. 43.158).

[1015]. Cf. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 29.

[1016]. Leigh, “Emotions.” For Cicero, see Olbricht, “Pathos as Proof,” 17–19; for Quintilian, 19–21. Cicero could note his emotional appeals openly, portraying them as just (e.g., Sest. 2.4).

[1017]. Elliott, Feelings, 16–53.

[1018]. See, e.g., Sumney, “Rationalities”; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 181–82; Martin, “Voice of Emotion,” 181–202; Kraftchick, “Πάθη,” 61–63. Although noting that intonation and gestures were important factors contributing to building pathos (cf., e.g., Dion. Hal. Isoc. 13; Val. Max. 8.10), Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 341, recognizes the use of pathos in Paul’s letters.

[1019]. See Sumney, “Πάθος,” 160.

[1020]. E.g., Cic. Fam. 1.9.1; 2.1.1–2; 2.2.1; 2.3.2; 2.10.1; 6.15.1; 7.14.2; 10.23.7; 12.12.1; 12.30.3; 15.20.2; 15.21.1, 3; Fronto Ad Ant. imp. 1.3–4; 1.5.2; Ad M. Caes. 5.2; 5.52 (67). Some scholars (e.g., Aune, Environment, 171) may play down feeling in letters too much; letters should reflect the writers’ personality (Malherbe, “Theorists,” 15; Demet. Style 4.227).

[1021]. In the NT, the phrase appears especially in Luke (Luke 4:40; 16:5; Acts 2:3, 6; 17:27; 20:31; 21:19, 26) and Paul (1 Thess 2:11; 2 Thess 1:3; Eph 4:7, 16), and especially Paul (1 Thess 2:11; Col 4:6; cf. Eph 5:33) uses it for personal exhortation. Elsewhere in the NT, only at Matt 26:22; Rev 21:21; in the LXX, see, e.g., 4 Macc 4:26; 5:2; 8:5, 9; 13:13, 18; 14:12; 15:19; 16:24.

[1022]. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 48 (citing Plut. Flatt., Mor. 70D–71C).

[1023]. Cic. Handb. Elec. 44; cf. Theophr. Char. 24.7 (an arrogant person allows visitors only at daybreak).

[1024]. My division of the speech here is difficult; this statement could go with the previous or the following unit, since there is no definite break in thought.

[1025]. E.g., Rhet. Her. 4.53.66; Men. Rhet. 1.1, 333.21–24; Hermog. Progymn. 9, “On Ethopoeia,” 20; for examples, see Hor. Sat. 2.1.58; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.10; 77/78.33; Fronto (Naber, 211, §7); Men. Rhet. 1.1, 342.6–9; 2.6, 404.29–405.13; Sipre Deut. 305.3.3; cf. sources in Keener, John, 347, 350–51, 353, 359–60.

[1026]. Watson, “Speech,” 204 (citing, on personification as amplification, Cic. De or. 3.53.205; Part. or. 16.55). The lavish language of Acts 20:32 fits the divine subject (cf. Jude 24), which could even use especially “grand” rhetoric (Max. Tyre Or. 11.1; Men. Rhet. 1.1, 335.21–22; 2.1–2, 368.9; cf. Ps.-Longinus Sublime).

[1027]. The language of 2 Cor 10:8 and 13:10 suggests that at least some of Paul’s usage echoes Jer 1:10.

[1028]. See Acts 14:3; cf. Luke 4:22; though also cf. Eph 4:29; Col 4:6. This sort of construction appears elsewhere (e.g., “word of his power,” Heb 1:3; “message of the kingdom,” e.g., Matt 13:19; most relevant, “message of the cross,” 1 Cor 1:18; “message of truth,” 2 Cor 6:7; Eph 1:13; Col 1:5; 2 Tim 2:15; Jas 1:18 [cf. also Ps 119:43]; “message of life,” Acts 5:20; Phil 2:16; 1 John 1:1).

[1029]. Lohse, Colossians, 36 (cf. better p. 7).

[1030]. See, e.g., 1 En. 1:9; 9:3; 14:23; 20:1–7; 39:5; 46:1–2; 61:8, 10; 100:5; 103:2; Jub. 31:14; 1QM X, 12; XII, 1, 7; 1Q20 II, 1; 4Q201 I, 3; 4Q403 1 I, 31; 4Q491 5 + 6 1; 1Qap Gen^ar II, 1 (see Fitzmyer, Apocryphon, 81); Sir 45:2; Test. Job 33:2; 43:10/8; probably Zech 14:5; 1Q20 VI, 20; 3 Macc 2:2; perhaps Deut 33:2; cf. 1QM VII, 6; X, 11; Jub. 15:27; Test. Ab. 16:9 A. In some texts, it is more difficult to tell whether angels or people are in view (e.g., 1QM XII, 4; XVIII, 2); although 1 Thess 3:13 is not clear, many (e.g., Ross, “Thessalonians”; Richardson, Theology, 278; Marshall, Thessalonians, 102–3) take its “saints” as angels.

[1031]. Cf., e.g., 1QS XI, 7–8; though cf. 1QH^a XIV, 16; 4Q181 1 II, 4.

[1032]. E.g., 1QM X, 9–10; XVI, 1; 1QH^a XIX, 12; 1Q34 + 1Q34 bis 3 II, 6; 4Q274 1 I, 6; 4Q511 2 I, 6; Wis 18:9; cf. Jub. 2:19; 15:27; 22:29; 30:8; 1QM XII, 1; 1QS VIII, 21, 23; IX, 6; Sib. Or. 5.161; 3.573. Schnabel, Acts, 850–51, helpfully cites Deut 33:3–4 LXX.

[1033]. E.g., 1 En. 38:4; 39:4; 50:1; 51:2; 100:5; Test. Iss. 5:4; cf. Test. Ab. 13:5 B. Clearly, 1 Enoch applies the title both to humans and to angels (with Decock, “Holy Ones”). The “holy ones” of Dan 7 are probably human (Hasel, “Identity”; Di Lella, “Likeness”; Poythress, “Holy Ones”; though Dequeker, “Saints,” argues for angels).

[1034]. See Rom 4:13; 1 En. 5:7; Jub. 17:3; 22:14; 32:19; 4Q171 II, 4, 8; III, 9; 4Q418 81 14; 2 Bar. 51:3; Mek. Besh. 7.139–40; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 35b; Ber. 4b; Gen. Rab. 11:7; Exod. Rab. 15:31. For the OT notion, see Hester, Inheritance, 22–29; in early Jewish sources, see 30–36, 84.

[1035]. Jewish people expected to “inherit” the coming world as well as the land; cf. 4Q418 69 II, 13; 1 En. 40:9; 2 En. 50:2 (cf. 55:2); Pss. Sol. 14:7; Sib. Or. 1.85; Rom 8:17; Eph 1:14; 4 Ezra 6:59; 7:96; 2 Bar. 44:13; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 35b; Ber. 4b; Qidd. 40b; Pesaḥ. 113a; y. Peʾah 1:1, §8; Qidd. 1:7, §6; Exod. Rab. 2:6; 20:4; Lev. Rab. 14:1; Pesiq. Rab. 23/24:2. By contrast, the wicked would “inherit Gehinnom” (m. ʾAb. 1:5; b. Yoma 72b), not the coming world (m. ʾAb. 3:11). 11QT LI, 15–16 may refer exclusively to the promised land.

[1036]. Watson, “Speech,” 207, citing Cic. Part. or. 15.52–17.28 (esp. 16.55–56). Cicero also suggests metaphors, of which “building” here may be one (Watson, “Speech,” 207; cf. comment on Acts 9:31). Even legal speeches appealed more to exempla than to laws (Ungern-Sternberg, “Tradition,” 148).

[1037]. Watson, “Speech,” 207, citing Cic. Part. or. 17.58.

[1038]. On the use of models, see Kurz, “Models,” 175–84; comment on Acts 20:18–27.

[1039]. Witherington, Acts, 614 (who notes that Paul also cites a saying of Jesus there, 1 Cor 9:14). From Acts 20:34, Strelan, Artemis, 271, naturally infers that Paul did not accept patronage in Ephesus; but while he rejected it for himself, I believe that he accepted it for the public ministry in Tyrannus’s hall (19:9; see comment on Acts 19:31).

[1040]. Paul did hope that the Corinthian (2 Cor 10:15–16 if I understand it rightly) and Roman (Rom 15:24) churches would help him evangelize other regions, and he accepted help from the Macedonian church (2 Cor 11:8–9; Phil 4:15–16). But he refused Corinthian support in Corinth (2 Cor 12:13–15) and was certain that the Corinthian believers could not charge Titus with having exploited them either (12:18).

[1041]. Cf. Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse.”

[1042]. E.g., Phaedrus 1.14.17–18; for this prejudice against ancient preachers and sages, see also Dahl, Studies, 32. Even a true philosopher could be hoodwinked at times (Mus. Ruf. frg. 50, pp. 142, 144).

[1043]. For Plato and the theme of sophists’ association with fees, see Tell, “Wisdom.” For Socrates’s lack of possessions, see, e.g., Apul. De deo Socr. 174.

[1044]. Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 61. Displaying one’s avoidance of covetousness strengthened one’s rhetorical ēthos (Watson, “Speech,” 205, citing Cic. De or. 2.43.182). A defense speech could include the point that one did not act from desire for gain (Apul. Metam. 3.6).

[1045]. Walton, Leadership, 172, shows parallels with Acts 20:33–35 in 1 Thess 2:5ff., 9; 4:11–12; 5:14. Paul’s presentation of himself elsewhere is also often apologetic (see, e.g., Lyons, Autobiography).

[1046]. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 285–87; Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse,” 214; Cynics against their opponents in Neumann, “Gewinn.” Thus Dio Chrysostom distinguishes himself from hucksters (Or. 35.4) who become popular solely by people’s talking them up (Or. 35.8); he notes that they go wherever crowds gather (35.15).

[1047]. Plut. Lect. 12, Mor. 43F. Others also complained that the genuine philosophers were a minority among professed philosophers (Max. Tyre 1.8).

[1048]. E.g., Lucian Dial. D. 374 (20/10, Charon and Hermes 10); Runaways 4, 20; Fisherman 42; Tim. 54–57.

[1049]. E.g., Plato Rep. 2.364BC; Laws 10.908DE.

[1050]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.41; Ep. Apoll. 3, 5, 15, 35, 51.

[1051]. E.g., Isocrates Antidosis; Against Sophists; Rhet. Alex. pref. 1421a.32–34; Max. Tyre 27.8. Philosophers, of course, had long criticized those more interested in winning debates than in truth (Plato Theaet. 164CD; against sophists, e.g., Plato Hippias major; Hippias minor; Dio Chrys. Or. 4.36–37; Philo Worse 38); for sophists as “peddlers,” see Plato Prot. 313C; Soph. 231D; Max. Tyre 27.8; cf. 2 Cor 2:17.

[1052]. Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 247, §76D. Sophists’ enemies may have had rhetorical reasons for painting them as greedy (see Tell, “Wisdom”).

[1053]. The ideal ruler employed his office only for the corporate good (Dio Chrys. Or. 1.23, 65).

[1054]. Fronto Ad Ant. Pium 9.2 (in a letter of recommendation).

[1055]. E.g., Pliny Ep. 7.31.3.

[1056]. E.g., Suet. Tit. 7.1; see comment on Acts 24:26.

[1057]. E.g., Pliny Ep. 7.31.2; see comment on Acts 24:27.

[1058]. Emperors who sent governors who were not greedy were also praiseworthy (Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 375.18–21).

[1059]. E.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 2.29.621 praises a sophist who maintained poverty despite his opportunity for profit. Stoics in this period differed regarding propriety in receiving pay (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 90–91.14–29); nevertheless, fondness for money was a vice (2.7.5f, pp. 30–31.30; cf. Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.16.1), as many other thinkers concurred (e.g., Xen. Oec. 1.22 [Socrates]; Val. Max. 9.4; Max. Tyre 5.1).

[1060]. Philost. Ep. Apoll. 42.

[1061]. Dio Chrys. Or. 54.3.

[1062]. Plut. Arist. 25.3 (Aristides even refused aid, choosing to remain poor, 25.5).

[1063]. So, e.g., Gaventa, Acts, 289 (citing Dio Chrys. Or. 32.9, 11; Lucian Nigr. 25–26); Philost. Ep. Apoll. 4.

[1064]. Plato Rep. 6.499CD (noted by Capper, “Reciprocity,” 506).

[1065]. Diog. Laert. 2.67, 94.

[1066]. Peterson, Eloquence, 67–68 (citing Lucian Posts passim; Epictetus Diatr. 3.22.69; Plato Apol. 19DE; Arist. N.E. 9.1.7; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.13; Dio Chrys. Or. 77/78.34–35).

[1067]. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 247–51, 256. Philo criticized sophists for greed, shown in their charging fees (Winter, Philo and Paul, 95–97).

[1068]. E.g., Jos. Ant. 17.327 (fortunately, Caesar was merciful, 17.338).

[1069]. E.g., Juv. Sat. 6.542–47.

[1070]. Moore, Judaism, 2:97 (citing m. ʾAb. 1:13; 4:5; b. Ber. 50a); Sipre Deut. 48.7.1. Later rabbis were also concerned about appearances regarding money (Exod. Rab. 51:2, 6).

[1071]. Overseers must not love money (1 Tim 3:3; Titus 1:7; likewise deacons in 1 Tim 3:8); some had gone astray for money (1 Tim 6:10; cf. 2 Tim 4:10).

[1072]. See Watson, “Bathe”; Witherington, Corinthians, 208.

[1073]. E.g., Polyb. 13.2.3–5; Val. Max. 9.4; Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 34.31–33; 3, p. 40.27–28; 4, p. 48.9; 8, p. 62.17; 14, p. 92.22; 20, p. 126.18–21; frg. 34, p. 134; Dio Chrys. Or. 13.32; 17; Let. Aris. 277; Jos. Ant. 15.89; Rom 1:29. Writers often included it in vice lists (Plato Laws 1.649D; 3.677B; Cic. Pis. 27.66; Mur. 6.14; Mus. Ruf. 17, p. 108.13; Dio Chrys. Or. 34.19; Lucian Charon 15; in a suffering list in Men. Rhet. 2.9, 414.9–10), but it was sometimes the foundation for other vices (Thucyd. 3.82.8; Dio Chrys. Or. 17.6; Iambl. V.P. 17.78; 1 Tim 6:10), as the worst vice (Diod. Sic. 21.1.4a).

[1074]. Esp. the noted example of Cato, Sall. Catil. 54.5; Plut. M. Cato 2.1–2; 4.1, 3.

[1075]. Val. Max. 2.9.4. By Paul’s day, the elite had, in practice, moved further beyond these traditional Roman values, but they remained among the examples recited and praised.

[1076]. Val. Max. 2.9.5.

[1077]. E.g., Sall. Catil. 54.4; Jug. 85.33; Mus. Ruf. 20, p. 126.6–7, 9–10; Philost. Hrk. 27.10–11.

[1078]. See Mus. Ruf. 20, p. 126.6–21. Some pursued austerity to be an example (Plut. M. Cato 4.1; 5.1).

[1079]. Polyb. 10.22.5.

[1080]. E.g., 1 Sam 30:6; Aeschylus Suppl. 485.

[1081]. 1 Sam 12:3; Xen. Anab. 7.6.11–22; Aeschines Embassy 160, 180–82. A leader might thus boast of his generosity, as in Res Gestae 1.5; 3.15, 17 (though Augustus, unlike Paul, did not earn his own money).

[1082]. Johnson, Acts, 365 (citing Dio Chrys. Or. 32.9, 11; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.34). Thus Bias claimed that his own possessions were in his heart, not lost by exile like those of the other fugitives (Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 3); also, true philosophers despised gold (Eunapius Lives 471).

[1083]. Mason, “Chief Priests,” 141 (on Luke 16:14, citing Diog. Laert. 6.56).

[1084]. Iambl. V.P. 34.245. The translation (Dillon and Hershbell, 239n7) compares also Plato Prot. 313D; Soph. 231D; cf. Hillel in m. ʾAb. 4:5, condemning those who profit from Torah. From a different, sophistic perspective, one stored his treasures in the hearts of those who paid for his learning (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.1.547). Fathers normally paid their sons’ fees for grammar, rhetoric, or Scripture teachers (Watson, “Education,” 311–12).

[1085]. These observations on Philostratus Vita Apollonii are from Liefeld, “Preacher,” 246, who also notes that in this work the king of India, being philosophically inclined, also lived simply (Vit. Apoll. 2.25).

[1086]. E.g., Soph. Antig. 1061 (though in this story the prophet is true and the complainer mistaken); Mic 3:5, 11; Jer 6:13; 8:10; Test. Levi 14:6 (priests); Did. 11.5–6, 9, 12. Pindar Isthm. 2.9–11 complains that all follow the adage that money matters most but notes (2.6) that the Muse was once not greedy.

[1087]. E.g., Plut. Virt. 3, Mor. 101B; Dio Chrys. Or. 6; 17; Lucian Dial. D. 436 (8/26, Menippus and Chiron 2); Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.291; cf. Hor. Ep. 1.2.55–59; Odes 2.18; 3.16; Publ. Syr. 626; Plut. L. Wealth 1–2, Mor. 523DE; Crates Ep. 11; Diogenes Ep. 46; Diog. Laert. 6.1.11; Porph. Marc. 27.429–34; 28.447–50; 29.457–59. One with modest desires might thus prove happier than another better endowed materially (Xen. Oec. 2.2–4; Val. Max. 7.1.2; Pliny E. N.H. 7.46.151; Marc. Aur. 3.12; b. Tamid 32a; cf. Arist. N.E. 1.7.6–8, 1097b; Juv. Sat. 14.308–14; Crates Ep. 35; Aul. Gel. 13.24); virtue could be sufficient for happiness (Cic. Parad. 16–19).

[1088]. E.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 9.1; 55.4; Mus. Ruf. frg. 43, p. 138.15; Epict. Diatr. 1.1.27; 2.2.3; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11h, pp. 74–75.31–32; Marc. Aur. 3.11.2; 8.45.1; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 61.4; 94.43; Sevenster, Seneca, 113; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 101. Among Cynics, cf. Diog. Laert. 6.2.23; 6.5.93.

[1089]. Cic. Tusc. 5.32.89; Diog. Laert. 10.1.11; but he did pursue absence of pain (10.128, 131).

[1090]. Lucian Icar. 29.

[1091]. Valerius Maximus wrote before Ephesus’s current phase of expansion; it was now even more prosperous. Ephesus was also Asia’s greatest emporium (Strabo 12.8.15; 14.1.24, also writing earlier). Cf. also the financial scandal in the comment on Acts 19:25 and possibly the exhortation in Eph 4:28.

[1092]. McRay, Archaeology, 251.

[1093]. See, e.g., McRay, Archaeology, map, 251, reproduced above on p. 2902.

[1094]. See ibid., 88.

[1095]. Gold and silver are linked with idols in Acts 17:29 (cf. 19:24; Deut 7:25; 29:17; Pss 115:4; 135:15; Isa 2:20; 30:22; 31:7; Ezek 16:17; Hos 8:4; Rev 9:20).

[1096]. Watson, “Speech,” 205.

[1097]. Cf. Ramsay, Letters, 429; Hemer, Letters, 199; Caird, Revelation, 56. Pliny E. N.H. 2.106.230 curiously attributes the various colors of animals in different regions to their water supplies; the most popular black wool came from Spain (8.73.191).

[1098]. Croom, Clothing, 26.

[1099]. See Josh 7:21, 24; 22:8; 2 Kgs 5:5, 22–23; 7:8; Jas 5:2–3.

[1100]. Bauckham, Climax, 355; Frye, Heritage, 153–57; Herbert, “Silk Road”; Casson, Mariners, 198, 204, 206. A smaller amount was available nearer Asia (Pliny E. N.H. 11.26.76; 11.27.77).

[1101]. Croom, Clothing, 29. In Diocletian’s price edict, when farmers might earn twenty-five denarii a day, the most expensive garments ran to eleven thousand denarii; for three thousand denarii, one could buy an extravagant “face-cloth from Tarsus—or a four-wheeled carriage (minus the ironwork)” (29). People could also hire clothes (Croom [27] cites Juv. Sat. 6.352).

[1102]. Croom, Clothing, 24 (citing Tibullus 1.2.26; Bath tablet 10).

[1103]. As Watson, “Speech,” 205, does, though he is correct that “making each successive word or phrase stronger is one type of amplification by accumulation” (Quint. Inst. 8.4.27). Gold was devalued under Nero (White, “Finances,” 233–34), but not enough to presume that garments in general would be more expensive than gold in general (whether we think in terms of volume or of weight).

[1104]. Le Cornu, Acts, 1138.

[1105]. Cf., e.g., Sir 9:8; 23:5; 25:21; 41:21; Sus 8; 1QS I, 6–7; IV, 10; CD II, 16; 11QT LIX, 14; 1QpHab V, 7; Sib. Or. 4.33–34; Pss. Sol. 4:4; Test. Iss. 3:5; 7:2; 4:4; Test. Reub. 4:1, 8; 6:1–3; Test. Jud. 17:1; m. Nid. 2:1.

[1106]. Also Jas 4:2; cf. Matt 5:28. Johnson, Acts, 364, notes that Paul singles out this command.

[1107]. Plut. Praising 15, Mor. 544D.

[1108]. Citing Arist. Rhet. 1.9, 1366a3–1366b13; 1367a19–20; Cic. De or. 2.11.46; 2.84.343–44; Her. 3.6.11.

[1109]. Watson, “Speech,” 206–7.

[1110]. See Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 114–16.

[1111]. In dreams, hands can stand for work, like that a craftsman does (Artem. Oneir. 1.13; more generally, 1.42). Some later rabbis opined that one could use one’s hands for charity or for robbery (Gen. Rab. 67:3).

[1112]. Although the mention of “labors” in the Corinthian correspondence need not be current, it probably supports the idea that he was working in Ephesus, from where he was writing (cf. also Hock, Social Context, 26).

[1113]. Marcus Cato’s work with his hands set an example (Plut. M. Cato 4.1).

[1114]. Bruce, Acts¹, 383, suggests that “exaggerated eschatological expectations” required Paul’s emphasis on working. If so, Luke has obscured this element, less relevant for his audience. Whether the grain shortages of the early 50s C.E. (Winter, Left Corinth, 216–20) affected Ephesus or not (much of Asia’s grain was for export; Kraybill, Cult and Commerce, 66–67), it would not have been relevant in the mid-50s.

[1115]. As in Acts 20:34–35, the epistolary Paul quotes one of Jesus’s sayings (1 Cor 9:14) and also insists on giving rather than receiving. Barrett, Acts, 982, thinks that in Acts 20:35 as in 1 Cor 9, the point of the saying is that preachers should be supported, a support that Paul refuses for himself in Acts 20:34. This sense for 20:35, however, is probably too narrow.

[1116]. The term διακονέω allows for the same ambiguity (Luke 8:3) and may also suggest coworkers who also helped to support the work by indirect means (Acts 19:22).

[1117]. Cf. “with me” in Luke 11:7; 15:31; 22:21; 23:43, where the person was present. In 2 Tim 4:11, Luke was, presumably, only in the same city, since Paul’s companions were free to go (4:10).

[1118]. Watson, “Education,” 311. Procuring the pay to fulfill promises was not always easy (cf. the admiral in Xen. Hell. 5.1.14).

[1119]. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 2.2.23–25.

[1120]. Cic. Sest. 10.22 (including inactivity in public affairs, 10.23). See further documentation at Acts 17:5.

[1121]. Grant, Paul, 54, cites Mus. Ruf. frg. 11, p. 80.15; p. 82.24; for his equestrian status, see Paul, 52.

[1122]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.2.

[1123]. Watson, “Speech,” 205 (noting Quint. Inst. 11.3.85–124 for hand gestures in rhetoric); C. Williams, Acts, 235 (“a vivid touch, suggesting that Luke remembered how Paul gestured as he spoke”). Shiell, Reading Acts, 164, suggests that Paul’s (and the lector’s) hands would be clasped, since (165) clasped hands could signify reconciliation (see comment on Acts 23:19). But one could also imagine Paul displaying calloused hands the way speakers sometimes displayed their wounds (e.g., Quint. Inst. 6.1.30; Keener, John, 1202); the lector, meanwhile, might need at least one hand to hold the manuscript (or, much less likely, a toga).

[1124]. Gestures were important to rhetoric (Cic. Rosc. Amer. 32.89; Val. Max. 8.10.2; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.537–42), though some disliked its exaggeration (Cic. Brut. 43.158; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 75.1–3; Mus. Ruf. frg. 36, p. 134.14–16); cf. Keener, Corinthians, 218–19.

[1125]. The verb, by itself, need not imply use of example (Luke 3:7; 6:47; 12:5; if it is so in Acts 9:16, it is because of usage), in contrast to ὑπόδειγμα.

[1126]. The verb (Luke 4:40; Acts 9:37; 19:12), cognate noun (Luke 5:15; 8:2; 13:11–12; 28:2), and adjective (Luke 10:9; Acts 4:9; 5:15–16; cf. the variant in Luke 9:2). This appears in a few of the references in Pauline literature (Gal 4:13; Phil 2:26–27; 1 Tim 5:23; 2 Tim 4:20), though this is not the dominant sense; is Luke using Pauline language here or his own?

[1127]. Bruce, Acts¹, 383.

[1128]. But the more specific proposal that Paul here alludes to their need to care for Trophimus, who became sick en route to Miletus (2 Tim 4:20; so Gineste, “Trophime”), does not take sufficient account of the more general character of the exhortation. As noted above, it is difficult to harmonize Acts and the Pastorals if they refer to the same journey; this is, however, a valiant attempt.

[1129]. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 625–26; on social power inversion in Paul, see, e.g., Marshall, Enmity, 376.

[1130]. Barrett, Acts, 982.

[1131]. See Brown, Apostasy, 25.

[1132]. Though the focus of the collection in his extant letters is Achaia and Macedonia (Rom 15:26), he had planned the offering mostly from Asia (1 Cor 16:1, 8, 19). The presence of an Asian representative in Acts 20:4 (specifically, Ephesian; see 21:29) strongly supports this contention; Paul invited representatives from local areas (1 Cor 16:3).

[1133]. That is, he presents himself as a model for imitation because he himself imitates Jesus (1 Cor 11:1). Grammatically, the infinitive μνημονεύειν may parallel the infinitive ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι (“to help”) rather than the participle κοπιῶντας (“working hard,” pl.), on which it might depend, but even this participle (though plural, with reference to them) depends on Paul’s example.

[1134]. Watson, “Speech,” 207, notes the conventional rhetorical topic of “upholding actions as consistent according to a moral purpose” (Arist. Rhet. 1.9, 1367b32).

[1135]. Strange, “Jesus-Tradition.”

[1136]. Thus Pythagoreans sometimes settled debates by citing Pythagoras, though this carried no weight outside the school (Val. Max. 8.15.ext. 1).

[1137]. On this saying, cf. Baker, “Justin’s Agraphon” (uncertain whether the saying is genuine); Bellinzoni, “Sources of Agraphon.” An agraphon is a saying of Jesus not written in the extant Gospels.

[1138]. E.g., Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.19.

[1139]. Heath, Hermogenes, 13–14; Gibson, “Notes,” 43, 87 (and sources there). For the importance of learning maxims, cf. Isoc. Demon. 12; Arist. Rhet. 2.21.15, 1395b; Petron. Sat. 4; Sir 18:29; Plut. Poetry 14, Mor. 35EF; Libanius Maxims; also Epicharmus Gnomai C.1–15, in SPap 3:440–43. Often they upheld aristocratic social values (Sinclair, “Sententia”).

[1140]. The development usually began by praising the saying’s author, followed by paraphrasing it, demonstrating it with analogies and examples, supporting its point by other authorities, and concluding “with an exhortation” (Heath, Hermogenes, 14). Some were also interested in the historic context of sayings (Plut. Themist. 11.2).

[1141]. Rhet. Alex. 11, 1430a.40–1430b.29; Hermog. Progymn. 4, “On Maxim,” 8–10; Aphth. Progymn. 4, “On Maxim,” 25S, 7R; Nicolaus Progymn. 5, “On Maxim,” 25–29. For the use of maxims and other forms as proofs, see Rhet. Alex. 7, 1428a.19–23.

[1142]. Silk, “Gnōmē”; Gärtner, “Gnome”; Anderson, Glossary, 30–32, 126–27; Rowe, “Style,” 148; Ramsaran, “Paul and Maxims,” 430–34; Hock, “Paul and Education,” 199–201. The epistolary Paul also uses maxims (e.g., Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 583).

[1143]. Rhet. Alex. 11, 1430a.40–1430b.3. Stenger, “Apophthegma,” notes that in contrast to some other forms authorized by their attribution, gnomes derived their authority from the universal wisdom that they conveyed.

[1144]. Rhet. Alex. 35, 1441a.20.

[1145]. Rhet. Alex. 35, 1441b.10–11 (on epideictic speeches). When it was used as a “final touch,” rhetoricians could designate the figure more technically as ἐπιφώνημα (Anderson, Glossary, 55, citing many sources supporting such a closing quote).

[1146]. Watson, “Speech,” 206, citing, for the end of a sentence, Quint. Inst. 8.5.2 (though noting Arist. Rhet. 2.21, 1394b7; Demet. Style 2.110); for the end of the element, Rhet. Alex. 35, 1441a.20ff.; 35, 1441b.1ff.; for the end of the speech, 35, 1441b.10ff., as noted above.

[1147]. Most of Cato’s Latin maxims were translated from Greek (Plut. M. Cato 2.4); most relevant here, Jesus’s Aramaic sayings could be translated into Greek.

[1148]. On which see further Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 37–38, 75–78.

[1149]. See, e.g., Pss 40:4; 41:1; 65:4; 84:4–5, 12; 94:12; 112:1; 119:1–2; 128:1; Isa 56:2; Jer 17:7; Dan 12:12; Bar 4:4; with a different term, Jdt 13:18; 14:7; 15:10. The term μακάριος appears sixty-six times in the LXX, including twenty-five times in the Psalms (including Pss 1:1; 2:12; 31:1–2 [32:1–2 MT]), eleven times in Sirach (Sir 14:1–2, 20; 25:8–9; 26:1; 28:19; 31:8; 34:15; 48:11; 50:28), and four times in Proverbs (Prov 3:13; 8:34; 20:7; 28:14).

[1150]. E.g., 1 En. 99:10; 2 En. 42:6–14; 44:5; Pss. Sol. 4:23; 5:16; 6:1; 10:1; 17:44; 18:6; 4 Macc 7:15, 22; 10:15; 17:18; 18:9; Jos. Asen. 16:14/7; 19:8 MSS; Sipra VDDeho. par. 5.44.1.1; b. Ber. 61b; Ḥag. 14b; Hor. 10b, bar. At Qumran, see 4Q525 (see de Roo, “4Q525”; Brooke, “Beatitudes”; Viviano, “Beatitudes”; idem, “Qumran”; idem, “Publication”). In early Christianity, μακάριος appears about fifty times in the NT and forty times in the Apostolic Fathers; this includes Luke 1:45; 6:20–22; 7:23; 10:23; 11:27–28; 12:37–38, 43; 14:14–15; 23:29; in Acts, only here and 26:2 (Luke-Acts constitutes 34 percent of NT uses).

[1151]. E.g., Contest of Homer and Hesiod 322; Hom. Hymns 25.4–5 (to the Muses and Apollo); Eurip. frg. 1057 (from Stob. 4.22.72); Pindar Threnoi frg. 137 (in Clem. Alex. Strom. 3.3.17; using ὄλβιος); Polyb. 26.1.13; Mus. Ruf. frg. 35, p. 134; Apoll. K. Tyre 31; Babr. 103.20–21; Philost. Hrk. 4.11; Porph. Marc. 16.276–77; Aune, Prophecy, 61, 64; Guelich, Sermon on Mount, 63–66. For some philosophic consideration of μακαριότης (although the article focuses primarily on εὐδαιμονία), see Hossenfelder, “Happiness.” For μακάριος in Stoic and Christian literature, see Vorster, “Blessedness.”

[1152]. Polyb. 26.1.13 (μακάριοί ἐστε ὑμεῖς).

[1153]. Mus. Ruf. frg. 35, p. 134 (trans. Lutz, 135), though this saying does not conform closely to the conventional beatitude form (cf. also 16, p. 104.26; Porph. Marc. 16.276–77). Stoics highly emphasized happiness or blessedness (see Vorster, “Blessedness”).

[1154]. Witherington, Acts, 626. Many who note the parallel in 1 Clement do not argue from multiple attestation (e.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 176), but it is a plausible inference.

[1155]. See discussion in Keener, Historical Jesus, and sources noted there. Similarly, pre-Matthean tradition appears in the Didache (Draper, “Didache”).

[1156]. Oral sources often long persisted after their origin. Nor are collections typically complete; thus we have fragments of Dio Chrysostom’s speeches preserved in Stobaeus (ca. 450 C.E.) and Maximus the Confessor (580–662 C.E.) that do not appear in our original collection (so Crosby, introduction to Dio Chrysostom fragments, Dio Chrysostom, LCL, 5:345). Nunnally, Acts, 351–52, suggests that Luke avoided recounting this saying in his Gospel because his source, Paul, was not an eyewitness (thus not meeting Luke’s standard noted in Luke 1:2), whether because he had it from others or (noting the view of Horton, Acts, 343–44) because he had it from revelation.

[1157]. Such criteria do not work well in their negative form unless one is clear that one’s objective is to recover the minimum that is surely historical (instead of writing as if the criteria exclude from being historical whatever does not meet them). For challenges, see, e.g., Theissen, Gospels, 5; Porter, Criteria; for a balanced approach, see Tuckett, “Sources,” 134; Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 33–34; for ancient use of this criterion, see Ael. Arist. Defense of Oratory 78, §25D. The criterion of dissimilarity has fallen hardest (see, e.g., Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:173; Brown, Death, 19; Stanton, Gospel Truth?, 143; Young, Jewish Theologian, 257).

[1158]. See, e.g., Hofius, “Sayings,” 336–60; cf. Charlesworth and Evans, “Agrapha,” 483–91, esp. 491. Many simply adapt earlier NT sayings (Charlesworth and Evans, “Agrapha,” 487). Note the brief survey and evaluation of agrapha in Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 28–29.

[1159]. Haenchen, Acts, 595n5; Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, 32–33 (following Haenchen); Conzelmann, Acts, 176.

[1160]. Conzelmann, Acts, 176, citing Plut. S. Kings, Artaxerxes 1, Mor. 173d. Another alleged Persian source appears in Thucyd. 2.97.4 (see below).

[1161]. Plümacher, “Thukydidesreminiszenz” (also idem, Geschichte, 127–34), thinks that Acts 20:33–34 depends on Thucyd. 2.97.3–4, noting similar topic, sequence, and, at some points, language. Thucydides cites the Odrysian custom “of taking instead of giving” as being the opposite of the Persian practice.

[1162]. Kilgallen, “Thucydides 2.97.4,” argues (against Haenchen) against any proverb based on Thucydides. The parallel is nowhere close to verbatim. See also the critique in Padilla, “Παιδεία,” 427–28, who finds Sir 29:9–11 closer.

[1163]. Scholars cite also Plut. S. Kings, Ptolemy son of Lagus, Mor. 181F; Epicurus in Mor. 778c; Caesar 16; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 81.17; Aelian Var. hist. 13.13 (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 264; Kee, Every Nation, 243; Johnson, Acts, 365); see also (later) Libanius Anecdote 3.16.

[1164]. Van der Horst, “Musonius,” 309, also cites here Mus. Ruf. 6, p. 56.10–11.

[1165]. Cf. Larkin, Acts, 298–99.

[1166]. Bonsirven, Judaism, 133; Jeremias, Prayers, 98; idem, Theology, 21; Moore, Judaism, 2:213; Smith, Parallels, 136; Hill, Matthew, 136–37; Perrin, Language, 28–29; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 43; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:595; Luz, Matthew, 371; Keener, Matthew, 215–16; pace Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:361–62n36; Lachs, Commentary, 118.

[1167]. See, e.g., Isoc. Demon. 21; Ad Nic. 38; Nic. 49 (Or. 3.37); Diog. Laert. 1.36, 59 (Thales, Solon); Sent. Syr. Men. 245–51; Publ. Syr. 2; cf. Arist. Rhet. 1.5.16, 1361b; Stoic parallels in Epict. Diatr. 1.11.25; Hierocles Love 4.27.20; see van der Horst, “Hierocles,” 157. In a negative form, Tob 4:15; Philo Hypoth. 7.6; later attributed also to Hillel in b. Šabb. 31a; for the idea in Judaism in a positive form, see Sir 31:15 [34:15]; ʾAbot R. Nat. 26 A; 29, §60 B; Tg. Ps.-J. on Lev 19:18; straddling both forms, Let. Aris. 207. See more extensive comment in Keener, Matthew, 248–49.

[1168]. As in Plümacher, “Thukydidesreminiszenz” (fitting Luke’s interest in Hellenistic history; though cf. again Kilgallen, “Thucydides 2.97.4”).

[1169]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 264, contend that Greek sayings were more often comparative than Jewish ones (though cf. Deut 33:24; and the influence of Greek forms on Jewish sayings).

[1170]. Keener, Acts, 1:258–319.

[1171]. He does sometimes place them in typically Greek symposium formats (esp. Luke 14:1–24; cf. Aune, Environment, 122; Smith, Symposium, 253); Diaspora Judaism adopted this format at least as early as Letter of Aristeas.

[1172]. On Jesus’s sayings in Paul’s letters in general, see, e.g., Kim, “Jesus, Sayings of”; idem, New Perspective, 259–90; Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus; Davies, Paul, 137–40; Donfried, Thessalonians, 233–52; and material cited above; on the state of discussion more generally, cf. Barclay, “Jesus and Paul.”

[1173]. See esp. Kisau, “Sharing.”

[1174]. Cf. Luke 1:45; 6:20–22; 7:23; 10:23; 11:27–28; 12:37–38, 43; 14:14; 23:29; cf. 14:15. The only other use of μακάριος in Luke-Acts is Acts 26:2, which is not relevant.

[1175]. Cf. also love of neighbor (Luke 10:27). Johnson, Acts, 365, also finds the gist in Luke 6:35–36, 38 and notes Did. 1.5; Herm. Mand. 2.4–6 (cf. Witherington, Acts, 626, probably following him).

[1176]. Because the OT was textual and he probably lacked access to a written Gospel, Paul naturally quotes the OT much more frequently.

[1177]. Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 61.

[1178]. With Mitchell, “Friends by Name,” 237–49, esp. 249; Witherington, Acts, 626.

[1179]. On this behavior of clients in the technical sense, see Winter, Left Corinth, 188–89. Reciprocity also demanded an exchange of gifts rather than monetary payment, which made the recipient an “employee” (Marshall, Enmity, 32).

[1180]. Even in the United States, religious giving tends to have positive psychological benefits by reducing stress (Krause, “Support”; idem, “Exploring”).

[1181]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 682, citing Gen 33:4; 45:14.

[1182]. E.g., Callim. Iambi 6 (such a poem is a propemptikon; on this genre, see Russell, “Propemptikon”).

[1183]. E.g., Catull. Carm. 96.1–6; Statius Silv. 2.1 (unlike most philosophers, he encourages the recipient to go ahead and grieve, 2.1.14–15); 2.6 (again, cf. weeping in 2.6.12–14); 3.3; 5.1, 3, 5. Cf. in dramas (e.g., Soph. El. 1171–73; Ajax 852; Eurip. Hipp. 834–35).

[1184]. E.g., Cic. Fam. 4.5; 5.16; Att. 13.20; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 99.1; Plut. Apoll., Mor. 101F–122A; Consol., Mor. 608B–612B; cf. Stowers, Letter Writing, 142–46. Letters of condolence are rare among the papyri (Lewis, Life, 80–81).

[1185]. See briefly Scourfield, “Consolation.” Some essays are like letters in that they are addressed to specific mourners (e.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 6; 11; 12).

[1186]. For consolatio as a genre, see Kierdorf, “Consolatio”; in rhetoric, see, e.g., Theon Progymn. 8.53; Men. Rhet. 2.9, 413.5–414.30; for speeches, e.g., Thucyd. 2.44.1–4; see comment on Acts 8:2.

[1187]. E.g., Cic. Fam. 5.6.5; 8.15.2; 10.23.7; see comment on Acts 20:16. Cf. also Paul’s “epistolary presence” (1 Cor 5:4; cf. Col 2:5; Cic. Fam. 3.11.2; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 67.2; P.Oxy. 32; Ach. Tat. 5.20.5; it should not be read metaphysically). Note also texts’ aesthetic value; see esp. Robbins, Texture, 29–36.

[1188]. I believe that this portrayal praises David, despite his severe flaws also depicted in the narrative.

[1189]. Rhet. Alex. 36, 1442a.11–12.

[1190]. See Keener, “Friendship,” 382–83.

[1191]. Grassi, Laugh, 60. On friendship in antiquity, see Fitzgerald, Friendship; Keener, “Friendship”; on love of enemies in Luke-Acts, see Owczarek, Sons. Pathos such as in this farewell scene could readily serve an apologetic purpose (for its usefulness in legal appeals, see Mauck, Trial, 146).

[1192]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 66.26; Jub. 32:20; 50:13; 1 Macc 2:23; 3:23; Matt 7:28.

[1193]. Johnson, Acts, 365–66, suggests perhaps an allusion to “what Jesus did after his farewell discourse” (Luke 22:41). This fits other parallels to that discourse, though the immediate connection with Acts 21:5 is stronger.

[1194]. 1 Kgs 8:54; 2 Chr 6:13; Dan 6:10; cf. Ps 95:6; 1 Esd 8:73. In other early Jewish sources, cf. 4Q512 11 4; Test. Jos. 8:1; As. Mos. 4:1.

[1195]. E.g., John 17:1; Lachs, Commentary, 115, cites, e.g., Luke 18:11, 13; m. Ber. 4:5; b. Ber. 10b; 26b; 30a; y. Ber. 4:1; Midr. Pss. 4:9; Tg. Esth. 4:1; cf. also 1 Chr 23:30; 35:5; Pss 24:3; 135:2.

[1196]. Especially in the East, e.g., Val. Max. 7.3.ext. 2; Char. Chaer. 5.2.2; often with connotations that Jews would have avoided, Arrian Alex. 4.11.8; Corn. Nep. 9 (Conon), 3.3; Greeks disliked it because they valued freedom (Plut. Themist. 27.3–4; Heliod. Eth. 7.19); Jews, because they venerated only one God (Esth 3:2, 5; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 19:1; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 26:35; though cf. Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 18:2; 24:48; 33:3; 42:6; 43:26).

[1197]. E.g., 3 Macc 5:50. The Gentile family of Pentephres προσεκύνησαν before Joseph in Jos. Asen. 5:7/10, but Joseph recounts that he προσεκύνησα before Pentephris in Test. Jos. 13:5. Perhaps this was less than the complete prostration that Eastern monarchs required (and to which Greeks also objected).

[1198]. PGM 13.704–5, of the deity.

[1199]. Jos. Life 138; Men. Rhet. 2.13, 423.27; Hdn. 7.5.4. One ancient Greek form of supplication included clasping the knees of the person from whom one needed help (Hom. Il. 1.427; Eurip. Orest. 382).

↑ Back to top