[1214] . Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.23.

[1214] . Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.23.

[1200]. See (on speeches for a departing governor) Men. Rhet. 2.5, 395.26–30.

[1201]. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 1.4.5; 1.5.8; 6.7.1, 3; 11.4.1; Ep. Lucil. 116.1; Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.21–22; Epict. Diatr. 1.9.20; 1.29.65–66; Encheir. 14. Also some other thinkers, e.g., Philodemus Death 25.34–36; Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 2b; Socratics Ep. 21; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 55; Iambl. V.P. 32.226; 33.234; cf. Soph. Ajax 852; El. 1171–73; Cic. Fam. 4.5.6; 5.16.2 (but cf. Cicero’s demurral in 5.16.3); Dio Chrys. Or. 27.9; Plut. Consol. 2, Mor. 608C; Sent. Syr. Men. 463–69.

[1202]. Ovid Fasti 4.845–48 (though cf. 4.849–52); Val. Max. 5.10 (cf. Val. Max. 3.3.ext. 1); cf. Tac. Ann. 3.5 (and one explanation noted in 3.3); 4.8.

[1203]. Johnson, Acts, 366, citing Philo Embassy 243; Jos. War 2.402; cf. also Tac. Ann. 3.1.

[1204]. Those reunited typically kissed, embraced, and wept (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.7.1; Apoll. K. Tyre 45).

[1205]. E.g., 1 Sam 20:41; Test. Mos. 11:23; Philost. Hrk. 33.30.

[1206]. Pliny the Younger’s grief is far greater, however, when his wife dies (Ep. 9.13.4). Cf. mourning over one’s doomed people, e.g., 4 Bar. 2:5.

[1207]. E.g., Lysias Or. 32.10, §505; Cic. Verr. 2.3.18.69; Rab. Post. 17.47 (toward the speech’s end; it concludes in 17.48); Rosc. Amer. 9.24; Men. Rhet. 2.13, 423.30; Jos. Life 205, 210.

[1208]. E.g., Livy 1.26.12; 23.8.4; Cic. Sest. 11.26; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.1.561; cf. Appian Hist. rom. 8.12.81; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.18.3 (crowds moved by the sight of young men’s relatives weeping before they faced death); Tac. Ann. 4.9 (the senate moved to tears by Tiberius’s speech).

[1209]. E.g., Quint. Inst. 4.2.114; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.19.512; 2.9.582; 2.10.586; Libanius Declam. 36.41. Cf. the use of visual aids to further stimulate such signs of sympathy (Quint. Inst. 6.1.30).

[1210]. E.g., Aeschines Ctes. 157; Libanius Descr. 17.7; Hermog. Inv. 2.7.124; 3.15.169–70.

[1211]. Polyb. 2.56.7 (trans. Paton, LCL, 1:377). Phylarchus, Polybius complains, always keeps “horrors vividly before our eyes” (2.56.8 [LCL, 1:377]).

[1212]. See, e.g. (but most obviously), Luke 23:27, 48 (Jerusalemites lamenting Jesus). Luke omits Paul’s martyrdom and narrates quite concisely mourning over Stephen (Acts 8:2).

[1213]. Tears stirred pathos in narrative; e.g., Gen 37:35; 42:24; 43:30; 45:2, 14–15; 2 Sam 15:23, 30; Livy 23.8.4; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11; Jos. Ant. 20.58; rhetorical narratives, e.g., in Cic. Rosc. Amer. 9.24; Livy 1.26.12. Sorrowful texts could also move rabbis to tears (Jacobs, “When Rabbis Cry,” on b. Ḥag. 4b–5b). Pelikan, Acts, 227, notes that Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Luther all recognized the value of affections. Thinkers both ancient and modern have disagreed among themselves as to whether “aesthetic” emotion is stronger or (more likely) weaker than the direct experience; see Munteanu, “Misericordia.”

[1214]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.23.

[1215]. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 6.1.47; Heliod. Eth. 7.7; Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.12–13; Apoll. K. Tyre 45; for relatives, Gen 33:4; Jub. 31:6; Test. Benj. 3:7; Num. Rab. 9:9; Song Rab. 5:16, §3; 8:1, §1; Livy 4.40.3; Appian Hist. rom. 2.5.3; Heliod. Eth. 5.11; for a friend, e.g., Jos. Ant. 14.446; Plut. Cic. 39.4.

[1216]. Vestals in Cic. Cael. 14.34; Font. 21.46.

[1217]. Such as meeting a relative for the first time (Gen 29:13; 48:10; Jub. 31:7, 11, 21), delight at a religious experience (Philost. Hrk. 56.4, with tears; cf. 11.2), and, of course, sexual contexts (Song 2:6; 8:3; Jub. 39:9; Test. Jos. 3:8). Some Stoics opined that wisdom showed the best ways to show affection and embrace (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 88–89.24–25).

[1218]. E.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.534 (Antoninus to Polemo). Cf. Polyb. 13.7.8 (but the text may be confused by the epitomator).

[1219]. Plut. M. Cato 17.7 (trans. Perrin, Lives, LCL, 2:353); Cato said that he embraced his own wife only during thunderstorms, which made him glad for thunderstorms. Some traditional Greeks disdained as feminine excessive hugging between fathers and sons (Eurip. Erechtheus frg. 362.32–35).

[1220]. See Shiell, Reading Acts, 165–66 (citing Thucyd. 1.137.1; Char. Chaer. 3.5.3; or for kneeling to touch what is low, Soph. Ajax 1171–75).

[1221]. See further Keener, “Kiss” (which I have adapted and expanded at points here); Binder, “Kiss” (Greco-Roman, 55–59; Judaism, 59–60); Hurschmann, “Kiss”; Klassen, “Kiss.”

[1222]. E.g., Gen 29:11; 45:15; Tob 7:6; Luke 7:38.

[1223]. E.g., Tac. Hist. 2.49; Suet. Otho 12.2; Gen 50:1; Jub. 23:5.

[1224]. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.7.1; Apoll. K. Tyre 45; Ahiq. 5.12; Gen 33:4; Jub. 31:8; Philo Jos. 182. For parting, see Ruth 1:14; 1 Sam 20:41; cf. Jos. War 7.391.

[1225]. E.g., Suet. Otho 10.2 (with embracing, as here); in Persia, Xen. Cyr. 1.3.2–3; 2.2.31; 5.5.6, 36 (to fail to grant the kiss signaled trouble in the relationship, Xen. Cyr. 5.5.37).

[1226]. E.g., Hom. Od. 16.190–91; Xen. Cyr. 1.4.28; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.7.1; 4Q158 1–2 14; 4Q538 1 6; also bodies of those killed (Tac. Ann. 4.63). One might kiss a relative who had just arrived from a distant land, weeping for joy (Gen 33:4; Tob 7:6–7), or any other relative whom one had not seen for a long time (Exod 4:27; 18:7). A kiss might also function as an affirmation (e.g., 1 Sam 10:1) or welcoming back into fellowship (2 Sam 14:33), as when John kisses the repentant Callimachus in Acts John 78. Discovering that a relative was safe might produce the same emotional response (Song Rab. 8:1, §1).

[1227]. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 1.4.27; 6.4.10; one might kiss a child (Gen 31:28, 55; Tob 10:13) or other relative (Ruth 1:9, 14; 1 Kgs 19:20) who was about to depart. See also Binder, “Kiss,” 57.

[1228]. Longus 4.22–23. One might rise and kiss a cousin who had greeted him (Ach. Tat. 1.7.3); sisters would kiss (Num. Rab. 9:9), as would a sister and brother (Song 8:1; Jos. Asen. 8:4/3). For more distant relatives, cf. discussion in Deissmann-Merten, “Kinship,” 53.

[1229]. Plut. Rom. Q. 6, Mor. 265B.

[1230]. Ovid Metam. 10.525.

[1231]. Eurip. Andr. 416. Sons also kissed fathers in Jewish culture (Gen 27:26–27; Jub. 22:10–11; 26:21).

[1232]. Heliod. Eth. 1.9.

[1233]. Val. Max. 1.5.3. Fathers kissed their children (Virg. Georg. 2.523; Gen 31:28, 55). Jewish people also counted it natural for a father to kiss and embrace a son whom he loved (Jub. 31:21; Test. Sim. 1:2; Song Rab. 5:16, §3).

[1234]. E.g., Val. Max. 7.8.9 (a dying man kisses his friend, though deceitfully, since he has just disinherited him).

[1235]. E.g., Hom. Od. 21.224–27; Jewish friends also kissed at separation (1 Sam 20:41; Acts 20:37) and in greeting (2 Sam 15:5; 19:39; 20:9). Pagans thought kissing a friend signified a good omen in a dream (Artem. Oneir. 2.2).

[1236]. Dio Chrys. Or. 7.59, recounting the urban laughter attending a rural person kissing his friend.

[1237]. Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.8.7 (if original); 5.33 (48); 5.42 (57).

[1238]. Arrian Alex. 4.11.3; cf. Lucian Dial. D. 365 (20/10, Charon and Hermes 2), involving a tyrant; 4Q550c II, 8; Luke 7:38, 45; see further Binder, “Kiss,” 55–56. A monarch might expect others to kiss his image (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.27).

[1239]. Toner, Culture, 135.

[1240]. On the neck, hands, eyes, or other body parts (mocked in Epict. Diatr. 1.19.24). After coming to an agreement, a Roman general and an Armenian prince parted with a kiss (Tac. Ann. 15.29).

[1241]. E.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.13.2.

[1242]. E.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.3.3; Eccl. Rab. 9:5, §1. The kiss of a disciple is relevant to Luke 22:47–48 (as is Prov 27:6).

[1243]. Fronto Ad verum imp. 2.8; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.537 (both adults). One teacher who practiced this exclusively with boys, not with adults, gave grounds for suspicion (Lucian Alex. 41).

[1244]. E.g., y. Peʾah 1:1, §13; cf. Luke 7:45.

[1245]. Lucian Men. 12 (mocking one who thought that this granted others happiness to so kiss him); Alex. 41, 55 (Lucian bites him instead [55]); sycophantic supplicants kissed the emperor’s hand in Tac. Ann. 15.71; a parasite like a slave kisses the master’s hand (Quint. Decl. 298.11). In one Jewish story, Abraham, in respectfully kissing Death’s hand, died (Test. Ab. 20:8–9 A); cf. Moses dying by the Memra’s kiss in Tg. Ps.-J. on Deut 34:5. Eventually, even hands might appear too elevated for kisses; in the later empire, people counted it an honor “to be allowed to kiss the hem of the emperor’s purple cloak, while lying prostrate on the floor” (Toner, Culture, 136).

[1246]. E.g., Nero toward senators (Suet. Nero 37.3); perhaps Simon toward Jesus (Luke 7:45; cf. Bailey, Peasant Eyes, 6, 8; on the stock character of the insulted guest in symposium settings, cf. Smith, Symposium, 49).

[1247]. Thus God is said to have kissed some Israelites who became circumcised (Exod. Rab. 19:5). One source similarly reports that Miriam’s father kissed her hand when he thought her prophecy fulfilled, though he struck her head when he later (wrongly) concluded it a false prophecy (b. Soṭah 13a).

[1248]. This practice is reported for Johanan ben Zakkai (t. Ḥag. 2:1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 6 A; 13, §32 B; b. Ḥag. 14b; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §4), R. Gamaliel II (y. Roš Haš. 2:9, §2), R. Simeon ben Yohai (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:3), and R. Abba bar Kahana (y. Hor. 3:5, §3; Eccl. Rab. 6:2, §1). In Lucian Critic 23, one kisses his pupils or hearers.

[1249]. Binder, “Kiss,” 56.

[1250]. See ibid., 58–59.

[1251]. Val. Max. 6.1.4. Numidian kings allegedly avoided kissing, to retain the proper use of kisses; but this claim appears only in Valerius Maximus (Val. Max. 2.6.17).

[1252]. Cf., e.g., Suet. Tib. 34.2; on public reticence, cf. also Brown, Death, 255. Still, few went so far as Cato, who expelled from the senate a man for kissing his own wife in front of their daughter (Plut. Bride 13, Mor. 139E). For erotic kissing, see, e.g., Fronto Ad Ant. imp. 1.2.4; Prov 7:13; Song 1:2.

[1253]. The basium was an “erotic banquet kiss” distinct from the innocent, familial osculum; the basium “may have been just a slight brushing of the lips,” a hint pointing to something more (Dupont, Life, 285).

[1254]. Ellington, “Kissing.” An aged priestess might kiss a departing hero merely on the hand (Ap. Rhod. 1.313); a sick person might kiss the physician on the hand (Libanius Topics 3.15); R. Akiba reportedly respected the Medes because they kissed only on the hand (b. Ber. 8b).

[1255]. With, e.g., Witherington, Corinthians, 323n2 (following Benko, Rome and Christians, 79–102). This could apply even to casual greetings (Lucian True Story 1.8, though he is writing science fiction).

[1256]. Jos. Asen. 8:6 takes this for granted; in Persia, see Xen. Cyr. 1.4.27–28.

[1257]. Plut. Rom. Q. 6, Mor. 265B; see also Fitzgerald, “Egnatius,” 120–21.

[1258]. Ovid Metam. 2.356–57.

[1259]. Virg. Aen. 12.434.

[1260]. Ovid Metam. 10.362.

[1261]. Eurip. Phoen. 1671.

[1262]. Eurip. Alc. 403–4. Likewise, for a deceased father; cf. facial kissing in Gen 50:1.

[1263]. Toner, Culture, 135, citing Pliny E. N.H. 26.3. On 133, Toner notes the frequency of foul breath (citing, e.g., Philogelos 231, 235; also noting 232–34, 236–40, 242), which may have reduced the duration of much social kissing.

[1264]. Char. Chaer. 2.7.7; cf. Jos. Asen. 8:3–7.

[1265]. The “holy kiss” in Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26; the “kiss of love” in 1 Pet 5:14. Given the pervasiveness of ancient kissing documented above (and utter lack of initiatory significance in our NT texts), a writer’s association of early Christian kissing with Mysteries’ “rites of recognition” (Mack, Lost Gospel, 220) unfortunately reflects the writer’s inadequate acquaintance with the range of sources.

[1266]. Cf., e.g., Conzelmann, Corinthians, 299; Morris, Romans, 537; Banks, Community, 88; Mounce, Peter, 92; for the perspective that it expresses traditional Mediterranean “tactile” culture, see Malina, Windows, 22–23. Some others read the later liturgical significance back into these passages (e.g., Cullmann, Worship, 20). Paul would hardly need to command a rite; rather, he encourages such greetings on the receipt of his letter. Secondary kissing, as a greeting sent through letters, appears elsewhere at least occasionally; see, e.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.8.7 (if original); 5.33 (48); 5.42 (57).

[1267]. See further (Bray, Romans, 375) Tert. On Prayer 18; Origen Comm. Rom. on 16:16 (CER 5:258).

[1268]. Cf. also Grant, Paul, 101; for concerns with abuses, see (Bray, Romans, 375) Clem. Alex. Instr. 3.11; Ambrosiaster Comm., on Rom 16:16 (Vogels, 487). Neil, Thessalonians, 135–36, notes that later Christians believed that they were returning to the original custom. Given charges against the church (such as incest, Athenag. Plea 3; Theoph. 3.4; Min. Felix Octavius 31.1; Tert. Apol. 2.5, 20), such restrictions were perhaps ultimately necessary even without abuse.

[1269]. Chrys. Hom. Rom. 31 (on 16:16; Bray, Romans, 375).

[1270]. Ehrlich, “Rituals” (also noting that the person bows and steps backward, probably not a widespread custom presupposed here).

[1271]. Relatives and close friends would encourage the traveler by accompanying them to the ship (Hierocles Parents, in Stob. Anth. 4.79.53). Accompanying a departing guest is similarly a sign of proper hospitality in much of Africa today.

[1272]. Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.12 (trans. Anderson, CAGN 136).

[1273]. E.g., Cic. Fam. 7.14.2; 12.12.1; Fronto Speeches 2; Ad M. Caes. 1.3.1–2, 4; 3.2; 4.1; 4.2.1; 5.52 (67); Ep. graec. 7.1–2; 2 Cor 2:4.

[1274]. The verb for “parting,” ἀποσπάω, however, does not, by itself, specifically convey the sense of anguish or force (which Bruce, Commentary, 420, suggests; cf. Acts 20:30; Luke 22:41), though it does where the context warrants (Job 41:17; Jer 12:14; 4 Macc 13:18).

[1275]. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 178 (citing Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11–12; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 13.1.2–3; see further comment in the introduction to Acts 27; esp. comment at 20:13–16). Such narrative itineraries may be distinguished from list itineraries used by the Roman military (adapted for geographic description only much later; see Purcell, “Itineraries”) and earlier literary descriptions of coastlines (periploi) (Purcell, “Periploi”; probably rarely available to sailors; Souza, “Navigation”).

[1276]. E.g., Philost. Hrk. 6.3. Such observations are in addition to Luke’s still more detailed emphasis on Paul’s final trip to Jerusalem (see Parsons, Acts, 301, regarding Luke’s lingering on this topic), which climaxes the pattern of Jerusalem’s rejection of God’s agents (cf. Luke 19:41–44).

[1277]. Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 380.

[1278]. E.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 264; Hock, “Novel,” 139; Johnson, Acts, 369.

[1279]. With Bruce, Acts¹, 384.

[1280]. Wilson (correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011) estimates that Cos was 51 mi. (82 km.) beyond Miletus, and Rhodes 79 mi. (128 km.) beyond Cos.

[1281]. For archaeological and geographic details, see briefly Vos, “Cos”; Laidlaw and Sherwin-White, “Cos”; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 67–73; Wallace and Williams, World, 202–3. Greek islanders saw themselves differently from Greek mainlanders (see Constantakopoulou, “Islander”).

[1282]. Pliny E. N.H. 5.36.134 (also mentioning Mount Prion there).

[1283]. Strabo 14.1.15; 14.2.19; Pliny E. N.H. 14.10.79. Some also associated the painter Apelles with it (N.H. 35.36.79) because some of his paintings were there. Pliny thought that Cos originated the process of weaving silk (11.26.76) and also that the island had silkworms (11.27.77); cf. also Pekridou-Gorecki, “Silk,” 463.

[1284]. Laidlaw and Sherwin-White, “Cos”; Sonnabend, “Cos,” 858.

[1285]. Strabo 8.6.15; 14.2.19; Pliny E. N.H. 20.100.264; Tac. Ann. 4.14. For the excavated Asklepieion, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 71–73; Klauck, Context, 157; Engels, Roman Corinth, 101; on the temple’s design, see Owens, City, 120. At much greater length, Schazmann, Asklepieion. Cos sought renewal of the sanctuary’s asylum status in Tac. Ann. 4.14. Philost. Hrk. 8.14 might recall local mythology.

[1286]. Casson, Mariners, 141. Strabo 14.2.19 also mentions physicians, as well as poets and singers, from Cos.

[1287]. Lucian True Story 2.7.

[1288]. Also Larkin, Acts, 301; Sonnabend, “Cos,” 858. Nero may have made Rhodes free from tribute as well (Jones, Chrysostom, 27).

[1289]. Klauck, Context, 323–24 (citing Price, Rituals, catalogue nos. 3–4). For Egyptian cults there, see Koester, Paul and World, 146–47.

[1290]. Stern, “Diaspora,” 154.

[1291]. On Rhodes, see further briefly Dio Chrys. Or. 31 (whether actually heard by the Rhodians or merely written as an academic exercise); Couch, “Rhodes”; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 111–15; Sonnabend, “Rhodos”; Carroll, “Rhodes”; for early and late bronze-age Rhodes, see Knapp, “Aegean Islands,” 20–21; inexpensive guidebooks provide photographs (e.g., Decopoulos, Rhodes). For more extensive archaeological reports, Clara Rhodos; Kypriou and Zapheiropoulou, ΡΟΔΟΣ; much earlier, Torr, Rhodes. Pliny E. N.H. 2.89.202 named it as an island formed from the sea during seismic activity.

[1292]. Xen. Hell. 1.5.1; Strabo 10.5.14; Jos. Ant. 16.17. Pliny E. N.H. 2.112.24 estimates Cnidus (Acts 27:7) at 86.5 mi. from Rhodes, Cos at 25 mi. beyond Cnidus, and Samos (20:15) at 100 mi. beyond Cos; these estimates are high, but approximate the relations among the locations. Wilson (correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011) estimates Rhodes as 79 mi. (128 km.) beyond Cos.

[1293]. The island is 540 sq. mi. (1,398 sq. km.). Pliny E. N.H. 5.36.132 estimates 103–125 mi. around.

[1294]. It bears some similarities to Piraeus, which tradition attributes to the same architect (Owens, City, 57).

[1295]. Casson, Mariners, 164. In the first century, Rhodes continued to control many smaller islands in its vicinity (Pliny E. N.H. 5.36.133).

[1296]. Pliny E. N.H. 14.10.79. Rhodian wine was imported into Jerusalem, especially under the Seleucids (Avigad, Jerusalem, 79).

[1297]. Quint. Curt. 4.5.9 (remaining on good terms with him, 4.8.12).

[1298]. On Tiberius’s sojourn there, see also Tac. Ann. 2.42; 4.15.

[1299]. Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.12 (noting that Corinth had some association with Helios, 37.11); Lucian Affairs 7; Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.11.

[1300]. E.g., Strabo 6.3.1; Pliny E. N.H. 34.18.41; Statius Silv. 1.1.104; Lucian Hist. 24; Z. Rants 11; Paus. 1.18.6; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.21. The term was used for massive statues even before Rhodes’s Colossus, though this was the most famous (Dickie, “Kolossos”; Neudecker, “Kolossos”; cf. Pliny E. N.H. 34.18.39–47, esp. 43; also 34.19.78).

[1301]. Polyb. 5.88.1; Strabo 14.2.5.

[1302]. Brodersen, “Seven Wonders.”

[1303]. Though cf. his island in Hom. Od. 12.269, 274.

[1304]. Strabo 14.2.11; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.30; Philost. Elder Imag. 2.27. On Lindus, see further Rice, “Lindus” (including mention of the Temple Chronicle of Lindus, FGH 532); Sonnabend, “Lindus” (including discussion of the Athena temple, 611–12); Pliny E. N.H. 5.36.132; it was supposed to be the island’s most rugged part (Philost. Elder Imag. 2.24).

[1305]. Sonnabend, “Lindus,” 612.

[1306]. Tinh, “Sarapis and Isis,” 103; Koester, Paul and World, 144–46, 164–65. For Rhodian cult and myth, see further Rose and Dietrich, “Rhodes.”

[1307]. It appears alongside Athens in Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 104.8 and (as second to Athens) Tac. Dial. 40. Educating sons was a high priority there (Polyb. 31.31.1), and Dio Chrysostom points out that no one would mistake it for Syria or Cilicia (Or. 31.163). In one account, a disciple of Socrates shipwrecked there was greatly rewarded for his teaching (Vitruv. Arch. 6.pref. 1).

[1308]. Thomas, “Literacy,” 869.

[1309]. Plut. Demosth. 24.2; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.18.509; negatively, Libanius Comparison 3.15.

[1310]. Cf. Suet. Jul. 4, where the most prominent rhetorical teacher was at Rhodes early in Caesar’s career. In Sorabji, Emotions, 432, note also the Stoic thinker Posidonius (ca. 135–51 B.C.E.).

[1311]. Cf. also Suet. Tib. 32.2, though Diogenes was a “grammarian,” not a rhetorician. For Tiberius’s stay, see also Vell. Paterc. 2.99.4; 2.103.1.

[1312]. Aul. Gel. 6.3.1; Lucian Affairs 7. The famous painter Apelles helped another painter become known in Rhodes (Pliny E. N.H. 35.36.88).

[1313]. Dio Chrys. Or. 32.52, 54.

[1314]. Livy 37.31.7; Aul. Gel. 6.3.2–55. Dio Chrysostom diplomatically emphasizes their many victories (Or. 31.19). For Rhodes’s strategic allegiances with major Greek city-states even in the fifth century B.C.E., see, e.g., Androtion Atthis frg. 46 (Paus. 6.7.4–7).

[1315]. See also Vell. Paterc. 1.9.2. Rhodians participated in a battle against Macedonians near Chios in Polyb. 16.7.4–16.8.5, and Macedon used a noted Rhodian tactician in Lucian Zeuxis or Antiochus 9. Rhodes and Chios (Acts 20:15) sometimes acted in concert (Polyb. 5.24.11; 5.28.1; 5.100.9); ships traveled between them frequently (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.21). Rhodes did support Rome against Mithridates (Vell. Paterc. 2.18.3); Cassius, battling Augustus, subdued Rhodes against the Rhodians’ will (Vell. Paterc. 2.69.6).

[1316]. Mee and Rice, “Rhodes,” 1316.

[1317]. Rhodian ships also appear in Caesar Alex. W. 1.11, 14–15.

[1318]. Stern, “Diaspora,” 153–54, esp. 154. In an earlier period, Jerusalem also imported wine from Rhodes (Avigad, Jerusalem, 79).

[1319]. Further on Patara, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 259–64; Marek, “Patara”; Wineland, “Patara.” Wilson (correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011) estimates that Patara was 63 mi. (102 km.) beyond Rhodes and that Patara was 432 mi. (697 km.) beyond Alexandria Troas by ship.

[1320]. For the oracle of Apollo there, see Bryce, “Lycia,” 386; Marek, “Patara,” 594; it was known and condemned by the Jewish author in Sib. Or. 3.441.

[1321]. Hemer, Acts in History, 125.

[1322]. “Trade Routes,” 1179–80.

[1323]. Riesner, Early Period, 316; Hemer, Acts in History, 125; Fitzmyer, Acts, 687.

[1324]. Some (e.g., Hanson, Acts, 206, 208; some follow Ropes, Text; Clark, Acts) suggest that the reading may be original, but this seems less likely (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 482, also noting the tradition in Paul Thec. 40).

[1325]. Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 167.

[1326]. Ibid. Mitchell also notes the necropolis, the large Roman “bath building and the paved, orthogonal R [Roman] street system adjoining it,” and some Roman temple tombs.

[1327]. Chrys. Hom. Acts 45 estimates a five days’ voyage from Patara to Tyre.

[1328]. This term for “left” was originally a euphemism because the left hand was considered unlucky (Fitzmyer, Acts, 687). Although a negative association with “left” sometimes remained (Matt 25:33, 41; Test. Ab. 12:10 A; Court, “Right”; Lachs, Commentary, 394), it was not always present (e.g., Prov 3:16; Song 2:6; 8:3; Matt 20:21), and certainly not in geographic contexts (e.g., Jos. War 1.413) like this one.

[1329]. Tac. Hist. 2.2; cf. Ann. 2.78.

[1330]. See esp. Hock, Social Context, 28 (citing Epict. Diatr. 3.9.14; Dio Chrys. Or. 7.2–7; Ach. Tat. 2.31.5–6; Lucian Lucius 55); Casson, Travel, 152–58; idem, Mariners, 209; cf. Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 390.

[1331]. Conzelmann, Acts, 178. The pirates’ lair near Tyre (Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.14) was not their only one (3.4).

[1332]. Witherington, Acts, 629.

[1333]. E.g., Isa 23:1, 8; Ezek 26:2–6, 17; 27:3, 9, 29, 32; Hom. Il. 23.743–45; Od. 14.288, 295. On Phoenicia, see, e.g., Niemeyer, Röllig, and Eder, “Phoenicians”; also my comment at Acts 11:19; 12:20–21.

[1334]. Many plausibly suggest, by those scattered in Acts 11:19 (e.g., Dormeyer and Galindo, Apostelgeschichte, 318).

[1335]. Casson, Mariners, 210, estimates a month for Alexandrian grain ships in Puteoli. In one second- or third-century papyrus, the ship landed June 30, unloaded July 12, went to Rome July 19, but had not yet (with the rest of grain vessels) been allowed to leave (August 2).

[1336]. Ibid., 172.

[1337]. Ibid., 173.

[1338]. Ibid., 191.

[1339]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 688. Mark Wilson, who has measured carefully, suggests 46 km./29 mi. (personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011).

[1340]. Several ancient writers comment on their close proximity (Strabo 16.2.26; Pliny E. N.H. 5.17.76). Tombs lined the Roman road outside Tyre, which resembled Rome’s Appian Way (McRay, Archaeology, 193).

[1341]. People normally considered it an honor to extend hospitality to members of their in-group, and by the guest refusing them that honor the refusal of hospitality could prove offensive. The honor would be all the greater when shown to influential leaders (such as Paul) and to people of status; most people who could afford to travel much were people of status or wealth. Receiving the representatives of the northern Mediterranean churches would be viewed as hospitality shown to their churches, to whom they would report.

[1342]. Quint. Curt. 4.4.19 credits it as the place that invented writing and as founder of various Phoenician colonies. Classical Athenian myth portrayed ancient Europa (one of Zeus’s love interests) as being from Tyre (Eurip. Hyps. frg. 752g.21–22; cf. the Phoenician connection in Hom. Il. 14.321). In fact it was already famous in the second millennium B.C.E. (Liverani, “Tyre,” 932–33), and appears even in Ebla texts and excavations from the third millennium B.C.E. (Katzenstein, “Tyre,” 686–87, followed in Long, “2 Samuel,” 435, 485).

[1343]. Quint. Curt. 4.2.4.

[1344]. Quint. Curt. 4.2.1, 7.

[1345]. Quint. Curt. 4.2.7–9. The Tyrians also depended on their colony Carthage for aid (4.2.10–11), a hope in which they were disappointed (4.3.19–20).

[1346]. Quint. Curt. 4.2.18 notes rocks from old Tyre and wood from Mount Libanus. Obviously, the plan faced numerous obstacles (e.g., 4.2.22–24; 4.3.3–7).

[1347]. Quint. Curt. 4.4.19. Angry over the city’s long resistance and his consequent delays, Alexander massacred the men who failed to escape (4.4.14–17).

[1348]. Pliny E. N.H. 5.17.76.

[1349]. Ward, “Tyre,” 249. In the Byzantine period, these colonnaded streets were, if one includes the sidewalks, ca. 70 ft. wide, probably about the same as the earlier Roman street (McRay, Archaeology, 193).

[1350]. Ward, “Tyre,” 249.

[1351]. McRay, Archaeology, 193.

[1352]. Ibid., 84. On multistory buildings, see comment on Acts 20:8.

[1353]. With Malherbe, Social Aspects, 68.

[1354]. Sidon was roughly 24 mi. (38 km.) from Tyre (Wilson, personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011).

[1355]. We also know of Jewish people living in Tyre (Jos. War 2.478; Stern, “Diaspora,” 142; cf. 1 Kgs 7:14; Jos. Ant. 8.76)—not surprisingly, given the proximity.

[1356]. See the survey of views in Hill, Prophecy, 7.

[1357]. Israelite prophets were not like Arrian’s portrayal of Indian sophists, whose oracles addressed only public affairs because private affairs were less important or less dignified (Ind. 11.5).

[1358]. See discussion of divination in the excursus on prophecy at Acts 2:17–18 (Keener, Acts, 1:887–88 and esp. 897–98); more briefly, comment on Acts 16:6–7.

[1359]. Rives, Religion, 27, on divination. I have noticed analogies in societies today where many people still anticipate supernatural revelation. To give one example of which I am aware at close hand: When my wife was an infant in central Africa, someone prophesied that she would go to a far country yet return in a time of war, and perhaps die during fighting in the airport. The family prayed until they were convinced that the danger had been averted. Years later, war, indeed, began when she was doing doctoral work in Paris; when she finished, she inadvertently missed her flight, and the day she would have arrived, there was fighting around the airport. She returned safely by another route. Examples of such prophecies even in her own life could be multiplied, but often the meaning or application of them appeared clear only in retrospect.

[1360]. For the ambiguity of such oracles in general, see, e.g., Virg. Aen. 6.98–101; Quint. Curt. 4.7.26–28; Dio Chrys. Or. 74.4; Lucian Z. Cat. 13; Sourvinou-Inwood, “Delphic Oracle,” 445; Aune, Prophecy, 51–52; Klauck, Context, 189; cf. Judg 20:18–28. Retrospect provided the appropriate perspective on purported oracles (e.g., Aeschylus Ag. 1112–13; Soph. Oed. tyr. 439; Wom. Tr. 1169–73; Lycophron Alex. 1–15; Apollod. Bib. 2.8.2; 3.5.7; 3.15.6; Statius Theb. 1.495–96; Plut. Alex. 37.1; Arrian Alex. 7.26.2–3; Dio Cass. 62.18.4; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.6–7; Philost. Hrk. 15.2–3, 5; Jos. War 1.80).

[1361]. See Hdt. 1.46–48; 1.53.3; 1.91; Max. Tyre 5.2. Cf. Philip of Macedon (Diod. Sic. 16.91.2–3); Cyrus (Philost. Hrk. 28.11–12); Hamilcar (Val. Max. 1.7.ext. 8); cf. also Val. Max. 1.5.4; 1.8.10. Misplaced political agendas could be held to distort the interpretations of oracles (Plut. Lys. 22.5–6).

[1362]. E.g., Quint. Curt. 4.7.29; Lucian Z. Rants 28, 31; Dial. G. 244 (18/16, Hera and Leto 1).

[1363]. E.g., Lucian Z. Rants 20, 43; Alex. 48; Charon 11; Lucian Patriot 5; cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 10.23–27.

[1364]. In Valerius Flaccus, see Manuwald, “Humans.”

[1365]. Lucian Conversation with Hesiod passim, esp. 2, 8.

[1366]. E.g., Aeschylus Ag. 1112–13; Soph. Oed. tyr. 439; Lycophron Alex. 1–15; Apollod. Bib. 2.8.2; 3.5.7; Dio Chrys. Or. 13.9 (solved in 13.10); Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.11, 13; 6.11; Hrk. 15.5; Sib. Or. 5.14–42; cf. Marcus Aurelius in Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.12. Vague and unfalsifiable predictions appear in some groups today (e.g., the spirit mediums studied in Chandra shekar, “Possession Syndrome,” 89).

[1367]. Cf. the supposed Jewish misinterpretation of messianic prophecy, which really applied to Vespasian (Tac. Hist. 5.13; Suet. Vesp. 4.5; cf. Jos. War 3.401). Yet sometimes deities offered prophecy to those who they knew would disobey (Epict. Diatr. 3.1.16–17).

[1368]. See comment at Acts 20:23; compare also the divergent approaches of early Christian and other Jewish interpreters to biblical “messianic” prophecies.

[1369]. Cf. Josiah in 2 Chr 35:21–24 (perhaps modeled on the unrighteous Ahab in 2 Chr 18:27, 33). Given the emphasis on moving from Jerusalem to the nations in Luke’s pneumatology (Acts 1:8), one might suppose that the mention of the “Spirit” (21:4) involves this larger pattern. But the mission keeps circling back to Jerusalem (15:4; 16:4; probably 18:22) and the Jewish people (13:5, 14; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8; 28:17), grounding mission in heritage; the Spirit was involved in Paul’s decision to go (probably 19:21); and Luke accepts the more general early Christian association of the Spirit with prophecy (e.g., 2:17–18).

[1370]. Theissen, Gospels, 77–78.

[1371]. Cf. Aune, Prophecy, 264 (cf. 217–22).

[1372]. A prophet could revise an earlier understanding (2 Sam 7:3–5); God could under new circumstances revise a prophecy (1 Sam 2:30–36; Jer 18:7–10; Ezek 18:21–29; Jonah 3:10); he could even give a command simply to test or teach the prophet (Gen 22:2, 12; Jer 35:2–19). Appearances could also be deceptive; in Gen 19:27–28, it could appear that God had not heard Abraham’s prayer, but the reader knows better (19:29).

[1373]. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 178; Gaffin, Perspectives, 66; Mittelstadt, Spirit, 123–24.

[1374]. Rapske, Custody, 407–8; cf. similarly D. Williams, Acts, 360. Some philosophers linked intellect with prophecy (as a manifestation of divine intellect; e.g., Max. Tyre 13 passim, esp. 13.2–3), but this does not fit Luke’s portrayal.

[1375]. See further Longenecker, Ministry and Message, 78. Although more a Pauline than a Lukan emphasis, their love for Paul could also be seen as motivated by the Spirit (Rom 15:30; Gal 5:22; Phil 2:1; Col 1:8).

[1376]. As Tannehill, Acts, 263, notes here, “It is seldom easy to separate divine revelation from human interpretation.” Cf. further Miller, Convinced, 226–29, 238.

[1377]. Uncomfortable with the ambiguity of a true prophet misleading another in 1 Kgs 13, Josephus turns him into a false prophet (Ant. 8.236–45).

[1378]. These also characterized prophecy in ancient Israel, e.g., 2 Sam 7:3–5; 1 Kgs 13:18; 2 Kgs 8:10; esp. Jer 18:7–10; 35:2, 14; Jonah 3:10–4:2. Most relevant here is the partial revelation in 2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 16–18, noted above. For one modern example from a society with an oracular tradition: Though the white percentage in her country is less than 1 percent, multiple unrelated Christians from the mainline church in Congo-Brazzaville independently prophesied to my wife that someday she would marry a white minister (one or two also prophesied, an American). When my wife thought of a different white minister she knew, a prophetess objected, “Not this white man, but a different one.” One, however, expressed severe displeasure concerning interethnic marriage, foreseeing it happening but personally disapproving of it. My wife was not charismatic and did not accept all prophetic claims, but years later could retrospectively count those prophecies accurate—despite one prophetess’s disapproval!

[1379]. Strelan, Strange Acts, 97.

[1380]. On the historical probability that Jesus would have foreseen his death, given what we know of his activity (he provoked it!), see Keener, Historical Jesus, 287–92, 295–301; idem, Matthew, 431–32.

[1381]. Hemer, Acts in History, 125. The latter term does not necessarily emphasize rocks, however (Jos. War 2.643), and can even include a shore with sand (Philo Mos. 2.42).

[1382]. Bruce, Commentary, 422n6. Idem, Acts¹, 385, notes that the smooth beach remains today.

[1383]. Pliny E. N.H. 36.65.191 (this one is closer to Ptolemais). On Sidon’s glass industry, see 5.17.76; 36.66.193; on glass uses in antiquity, see Stern and Schlick-Nolte, Early Glass.

[1384]. See, for the principle, Hermog. Issues 52.14–17; for examples in histories, see Polyb. 2.56.7; Cic. Sest. 69.144; Quint. Curt. 3.13.12; 5.6.7; Jos. Ant. 4.320; Life 207. In most of these cases, even if the mention heightens the dramatic element, the claims remain historically plausible (i.e., they need not be invented).

[1385]. Though even these might include wives and children, when welcoming a new provincial governor (Men. Rhet. 2.3, 381.8–10) or even groups hailing a hero passing through (Cic. Pis. 22.51).

[1386]. Or one caretaker while the other remained at work, depending on the nature of their employment. Situations would vary widely—e.g., household slaves who could not easily come themselves, and persons who could sacrifice some income by leaving their booth temporarily. Perhaps the ship left early in the morning, before the normal workday.

[1387]. On children’s presence in house churches, see, e.g., MacDonald, “Reading,” 49; Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 69–78, esp. 74–78.

[1388]. On the last point, see Stamps, “Children,” 200.

[1389]. Despite some later exemption of women from such duties (apparently, primarily men attended the festival in Jos. War 2.515; cf. women’s exemption from some commandments in m. Naz. 9:1; y. Ber. 2:2, §5; from some festival requirements, m. Sukkah 2:8; Ḥag. 1:1; t. Taʿan. 2:14).

[1390]. Greetings constituted an essential aspect of social etiquette in Mediterranean antiquity (Soph. Oed. tyr. 596; Isoc. Demon. 20; cf. y. Taʿan. 1:4, §1; 4:2, §8), and social convention dictated particular rules for who was to greet persons of varying rank and how to do so (Matt 23:7; cf. t. Ber. 2:20; y. Hor. 3:5, §3; Ketub. 12:3, §6; 2 John 10), as they still do today in most Middle Eastern societies (Eickelman, Middle East, 234).

[1391]. Xen. Cyr. 5.5.35 (here it is a kiss, 5.5.36); Sir 41:20; b. Abot 6:10.

[1392]. Cf. other angels (1 En. 71:14) and revelatory figures (Herm. 1.4; 2.2; 23.2; 25.1).

[1393]. See also Ign. Magn. 1.0; 15.1; Trall. 1.0; 12.1; 13.1; Rom. 1.0, 1; 9.3; Phld. 1.0; 11.2; Smyrn. 11.1; 12.1–2; 13.1–2; Pol. 8.2–3.

[1394]. Letters frequently included greetings to or from others than the main recipients and senders (e.g., Cic. Att. 5.9, last ¶; 6.3, last ¶; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.8.3; 3.12; 4.10; Ep. graec. 6; Char. Chaer. 8.4.6; P.Oxy. 114.16–18; 1296.9–19; CPJ 2:210–11, §424; Let. Aris. 41; cf. Weima, Endings, 39–45).

[1395]. People were also prudent to prepare in case winds delayed a ship at sea (Philost. Hrk. 53.9).

[1396]. For ancient Acco and the later history of the site, see Porter, “Acco” (including a photo of rebuilt fortifications there); Dothan, “Acco”; briefly Pliny E. N.H. 5.17.75.

[1397]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 267; cf. Pliny E. N.H. 5.17.75.

[1398]. Let. Aris. 115. Rajak, “Ptolemais,” cites here P.Cair.Zen. 25004.

[1399]. Pliny E. N.H. 5.17.75; Sherwin-White, Levick, and Bispham, “Colonization,” 364; Rajak, “Ptolemais.”

[1400]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 688, citing Pliny E. N.H. 5.17.75; Rajak, “Ptolemais.”

[1401]. See Kashtan, “Akko-Ptolemais.” Syria’s new governor wintered there when Gaius Caligula sent orders to erect his statue in Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. 18.262).

[1402]. Pliny E. N.H. 36.65.190–91. Cf. Nissen, “Ptolemais.”

[1403]. See Jos. War 2.477 (mentioning at least two thousand); Stern, “Diaspora,” 142. The Isis cult catered to some Gentiles there (see Bricault, “Deities”).

[1404]. It appears seventy-seven times in Josephus.

[1405]. Rajak, “Ptolemais.”

[1406]. Atrocity reports tend to be exaggerated by both sides for rhetorical effect (though Josephus never enters the category of rabbinic laments about Bethar, e.g., y. Taʿan. 4:5, §10; Lam. Rab. 3:51, §9). Nevertheless, ethnic cleansing can be rapid and large scale, especially if preplanned; cf., e.g., among others, the Turkish genocide of Armenians in 1915, the well-known Nazi Holocaust (against Roma [Gypsy] and other peoples and best known for its attempt to annihilate Jewish people), the massive slaughter of Igbos in Nigeria’s civil war (1966–69), and the Rwandan genocide (mostly with machetes and other traditional weapons) in 1994.

[1407]. Some argue that Caesarea had probably had the fourth or fifth largest urban Jewish population of any city in the ancient world (Cornfeld, Josephus, 190n457b).

[1408]. The distance is roughly 59 km./36.7 mi. (Mark Wilson, personal correspondence, May 13, 2013).

[1409]. Hemer, Acts in History, 125, estimating 30 mi. Others estimate nearly 40 mi. (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 267) or 50 km. (Conzelmann, Acts, 178). Wilson measured 40 mi. (64 km.; personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011).

[1410]. Although διανύω (Acts 21:7) usually means “to complete” (hence that the sea voyage ended at Ptolemais), it can also be used for continuing a journey (Conzelmann, Acts, 178, noting Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11.2, 5; 1.14.6).

[1411]. See 14:20, though in that case it may be significant that the arrival is not emphasized with its own verb, in contrast to here.

[1412]. See Witherington, Acts, 326, who compares the same technique in Hellenistic historians.

[1413]. Lüdemann, Christianity, 235.

[1414]. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 57 (though suggesting the reverse, that Philip’s Samaritan mission began there, which fits Luke’s chronology less well). On Samaritans in Caesarea, see also Zangenberg, “Samaria,” 402 (noting Pummer, “Samaritanism”).

[1415]. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 58, citing Euseb. H.E. 3.31.2–5; 3.39.9; 5.24.2 (see also Martin, Acts, 259–60). That Philip’s daughters remained virgins into their old age may reflect an emphasis of later generations, but in any case, it seems likely that many Judeans did emigrate (cf. Jos. Ant. 20.256) to Asia in the wake of the war (see Keener, John, 144; cf. Beasley-Murray, John, xlvi; Bruce, Peter, 121–22; Aune, Revelation, l [Roman numeral 50], 164), and it is not implausible that Philip and his daughters would have been among them. One might think also of the possible association of a later church with Philip, suggested in Avner, “Account,” but this is neither certain nor early.

[1416]. See Spencer, Philip, 250–62. Hospitality also provided leisure and opportunity to renew strength (cf. 1 Cor 16:18; 2 Cor 7:13; Phlm 7; 2 Tim 1:16; Sen. E. Controv. 1.pref. 15).

[1417]. Cf. Spencer, Philip, 262–69 (citing also Euseb. H.E. 3.37; 5.10), who hinges the distinction between evangelists and apostles instead particularly on the latter’s direct commission by Christ.

[1418]. Also angels (Luke 1:19; 2:10), John (3:18), and the apostles (9:6).

[1419]. Moses appears as a herald of good news in 4Q377 2 II, 11 (possibly alluding to Isa 61:1–5, since 2 II, 5 calls him “anointed”; see Wise, “Introduction to 4Q377,” 338).

[1420]. Even if the church remained mainly Jewish, both the conversion of Cornelius’s household (Acts 10:1–48) and the activity of Philip there (8:40, in light of 8:26–39) strongly suggest that this church had welcomed Gentiles from its early years. New converts may have brought with them some of the growing prejudices of the larger society, however, especially if house churches remained mostly segregated according to the ethnic enclaves in which they would be located.

[1421]. Though tensions could be a matter of degree among different groups. For example, Josephus, who favors elites, emphasizes the presence of moderates among the Jewish elite there (Ant. 20.178).

[1422]. For the Christian community in Caesarea in later (third and fourth) centuries, see Levine, Caesarea, 113–34; for the Byzantine period, 135–39. For a summary in the NT period, see 24–26.

[1423]. By travelers, e.g., Ezek 24:26; Eurip. El. 361–62; Pindar Nem. 5.2–3; Apul Metam. 1.26; Apoll. K. Tyre 8. In letters, e.g., Cic. Fam. 2.4.1; 14.1.6; 15.18.1; Att. 1.1–3; 6.3, last ¶; 10.4; Quint. fratr. 2.12.5; Pliny Ep. 2.11.24; 2.12.7; 4.11.15; 5.5.1; 5.17.1, 6; Symm. Ep. 1.15.1; sometimes supplemented orally, Cic. Fam. 1.6.1; 3.1.1; 9.2.1; 12.30.3; Symm. Ep. 1.11.2; 1.28; 1.46; P.Oxy. 32; Col 4:9.

[1424]. See Barrett, Acts, 51; Chance, Acts, 6. Many early Christian traditions were probably associated with prominent named individuals in the movement, sometimes named in the narratives (see Bauckham, “Eyewitnesses” [also noting Euseb. H.E. 3.39.3–4]; idem, Eyewitnesses, 55). Spencer, Philip, 249, thinks it reasonable to suppose that Luke learned much of Philip’s story there, but doubts that Luke mentions this simply to signal Philip as his informant. Hengel, Peter, 80, 85, suspects that Luke’s time in Judea helped reshape his Paulinism.

[1425]. See Fornara, Nature of History, 47–48, 56.

[1426]. Although Luke mentions Philip as “one of the seven” to distinguish him from the apostle by that name (Acts 1:13), this designation also draws attention to the circle of which Philip was originally a part, a circle that had included Stephen. On groups designated by their numbers, see comment on Acts 1:26.

[1427]. See further Spencer, Philip, 246.

[1428]. It seems historically more likely than not that Paul and Philip had already met and perhaps “reconciled” during a previous visit to Caesarea (Acts 9:30; 18:22), but as I have often observed, the “we” narratives are more detailed.

[1429]. Spencer, Philip, 260.

[1430]. Ibid. Cf. also Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 58, though Spencer is right to eliminate James from the contrast (Philip, 260–62).

[1431]. With Knox, Jerusalem, 350. Paul, too, had highlighted such an encounter on previous occasions, even in a context emphasizing his independence; see Gal 2:7–10.

[1432]. Keener, Acts, 1:447–48, 457.

[1433]. Ancients might think of other hosts in travel narratives whose families included daughters (nothing unusual in itself); for the biblically literate, the most obvious example would be Jethro’s daughters in Midian (Exod 2:16); but that Luke does not compose the account on the basis of such an example is suggested by the different number (four instead of seven) and the fact that this is eyewitness “we” material. In contrast to Agamemnon’s three daughters in Homer, Cypria frg. 20, from scholiast on Soph. El. 157 (GEF 99, 101), gives him four, but Acts offers no allusions here (no sacrifice of a daughter, for example); more relevant would be Job’s three daughters (Job 42:13–14), said in Test. Job 48–50 to prophesy—but this later source might reflect Acts (except for, presumably, the charismatic cords or sashes, which would hardly reflect Agabus’s belt). Charismatic girding appears in L.A.B. 20.2 as well as Testament of Job (cf. also the garment in Apoc. Zeph. 8:1–4; see the thorough study of charismatic girdles in Omerzu, “Emancipation,” 90–94, esp. here 93), but here the girdle illustrates, rather than induces, prophecy (cf. Jer 13:1–11).

[1434]. Children’s activity often reflected on parents in antiquity (see, e.g., Sir 3:10; Xen. Apol. 31; comment on Acts 21:9; 23:6). For a connection between Philip’s earlier prophetic activity by the Spirit and his prophetic daughters, cf. Stronstad, Prophethood, 91. As Philip crossed the “all flesh” barrier of Acts 2:17 in 8:5–40, here he is shown to have crossed the gender barrier of 2:17.

[1435]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 689, focusing on the verb’s sense, suggests perhaps “inspired preaching” or “charismatic speech.” See the excursus on prophecy at Acts 2:17 (Keener, Acts, 1:886–909).

[1436]. Hill, Prophecy, 100–101; Schnabel, Acts, 856.

[1437]. Dunn, Acts, 282. A number of scholars (e.g., Kisau, “Acts,” 1337) have adduced them as an example to support women in ministry today (see further discussion at Acts 2:17).

[1438]. Pace Barrett, Acts, 994, who thinks Luke prefers the participle because “for Luke prophecy was a function rather than an office” (contrast Acts 21:10). See Belleville, Leaders, 142, 146–47, 182. Origen Comm. 1 Cor. 4.74.6–16 (Bray, Corinthians, 146) wishes to emphasize that their prophesying occurred outside the church, but by this standard, so did that of Agabus (Acts 21:10–11; cf. Luke 1:67). Yet the church met in homes in this period, and so the distinction is not relevant in any case.

[1439]. The LXX also often conjoins the title with the verb’s present participle, both for true (1 Sam 10:5; 1 Esd 7:3) and false (Jer 14:15; 23:26, 32; 34:15–16; Ezek 13:16) prophets.

[1440]. Probably because Acts 2 portrays the theological ideal whereas Paul emphasizes especially those filling the role in practice (Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:10, 28–29); Paul’s ideal, however, is apparently also universal prophetic activity (1 Cor 14:1, 39 and esp. 14:31).

[1441]. These exceptions for apostles constitute about 7 percent of his uses in Acts or 3 percent in Luke-Acts.

[1442]. Some held leadership roles (Acts 13:1; 15:22, 32), but so did Deborah (Judg 4:4–5).

[1443]. Luke’s term in Luke 2:36 is the LXX term in Exod 15:20; Judg 4:4; 2 Kgs 22:14; 2 Chr 34:22; Isa 8:3.

[1444]. Spencer, Acts, 197. Others demur (e.g., Gaventa, Acts, 294; Schnabel, Acts, 856n124; see further below).

[1445]. We may assume that Agabus is at least not young, on the basis of the span of years that have passed since Acts 11:27–30 (at least in Luke’s narrative world, if some would move Agabus’s prophecy at that point instead to the later collection). Although Luke’s attention to a more prominent figure would not need to be sexist, the attitudes that determined prominence in Christian (and other communities) may have been sometimes shaped by such factors.

[1446]. As Reimer notes, denying competition between Agabus and the women, “He had come directly from Judea and could give prophetic interpretation to the situation in Jerusalem” (Women, 249; so also Gaventa, Acts, 294). That one could come from “Judea” to Caesarea, though the latter was part of Roman administrative Judea, suggests a Jewish Judean perspective that “excluded pagan Caesarea” (Hemer, Acts in History, 126), perhaps reflecting what Luke heard from Agabus himself (or the many others who would have shared this perspective).

[1447]. Though Luke reintroduces him here for first-time readers unfamiliar with his name. Luke himself may have focused more on Agabus than other prophets (Acts 11:27) in part because he knew of him more than other Diaspora Christians did, precisely because he was present (and active) in this “we” section (21:10–14).

[1448]. Agabus’s prophecy is the climax of this series of warnings (with Haenchen, Acts, 603–4).

[1449]. Some allow that the work is independent of the NT, sharing common motifs because of the LXX and Hellenistic Judaism (Rahnenführer, “Testament des Hiob”); some date the work to the first century B.C.E. (McNamara, Judaism, 91); others allow an early date for most of the work (first century B.C.E. or C.E.; Spittler, “Introduction,” 833–34) but attribute the account of Job’s daughters to Montanist redaction (834). If the account of Job’s daughters does not belong to later redaction, however, the work as a whole might be later (though before Tertullian; for Jewish Christian authorship, see, e.g., Forbes, Prophecy, 45–47, 182–87); others contend that the entire work can be explained without recourse to Christian activity (Omerzu, “Emancipation,” 88–89). Job’s daughters are exceptional, and so this section should not be treated as a separate source from the rest of the work on the basis of contrasts with Sitis (Omerzu, “Emancipation,” 95).

[1450]. The depiction of Job’s daughters in this document fits contemporary Jewish descriptions of heavenly journeys and revelatory trances (see Omerzu, “Emancipation,” esp. 89, 94).

[1451]. The transition is not implausible; other young itinerants in history have also sometimes transitioned to a more settled life, especially after having a family (see, e.g., Wolffe, Expansion, 76).

[1452]. E.g., Eurip. Hel. 136, 200–202; Xen. Apol. 31; Corn. Nep. 15 (Epaminondas), 10.1; Cic. Invect. Sall. 5.13; Plut. Themist. 2.6; Gaius Inst. 3.221; Parth. L.R. 35.1, 3–4; Prov 15:20; 19:26; 28:7; 29:15; 4Q213 2 18–20; 4Q541 24 II, 5; Sir 3:10; 22:3–5; 42:9–11; cf. Diog. Laert. 2.114. Cf. Garland, “Delinquency.”

[1453]. Less common in the sources but nevertheless evident (e.g., Val. Max. 4.4.pref.; Prov 10:1; 15:20; 23:24–25; 27:11; 29:3).

[1454]. Cf. Isoc. Nic. 41 (Or. 3.35); 1 Tim 3:4–5; less relevant, Eurip. El. 386–87; Isoc. Demon. 35; Ad Nic. 19; Diod. Sic. 12.12.1; Diog. Laert. 1.70; Sipre Deut. 32.5.12.

[1455]. Lüdemann, Christianity, 235, thinks them historically credible, though his appeal to Test. Job 48–50 for a Hellenistic preaching context may be anachronistic.

[1456]. The suggestion that the women prophesied only in “non-church” gatherings (Holmyard, “Prophesying”) is difficult to sustain, given the issue of head coverings, the appeal to angels (1 Cor 11:10) and appeal to other churches (11:16), and especially the fact that the church was meeting in homes, so that Christian meetings there de facto constituted “church.”

[1457]. For women in Philippi, see comment on Acts 16:13.

[1458]. On the Sibyl, see the section “Surmounting Gender and Other Barriers” at Acts 2:17 (Keener, Acts, 1:882–86); on the Pythia, see comment at Acts 16:16.

[1459]. Contrary to what some suppose, people’s coming to inquire of Huldah does not make her of less authority than male prophets; it means that she was the most notable prophet to whom Josiah could send, analogous to Isaiah during Hezekiah’s reign (2 Kgs 19:5). That Deborah received inquirers (Judg 4:5) again reflects her authority (cf. Samuel in 1 Sam 9:6–7; Ahijah in 1 Kgs 14:2); she was, after all, judge of all the land (Judg 4:4).

[1460]. Some have also counted Noadiah, though she appears in the canon as a false prophetess (Neh 6:14), like John’s “Jezebel” (Rev 2:20).

[1461]. See Keener, “Head Coverings,” 445–46; cf. Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.2; Plut. S. Sp., Charillus 2, Mor. 232C. In some romance novels, premarried girls conceal their beauty anyway, but these might be portrayed as exceptionally diligent.

[1462]. Cf. Le Cornu, Acts, 95.

[1463]. But whereas Josephus notes that Deborah was a prophetess, he omits her being a judge (Ant. 5.201).

[1464]. Views toward Huldah varied from positive to negative (van der Horst, “Graf”). On Huldah’s grave, see t. B. Bat. 1:11; ʾAbot R. Nat. 35 A; comment on Acts 2:29; for her prophetic authority, see, e.g., L.A.B. 33:1–2; but Pesiq. Rab. 26:1/2 limits her prophesying to women (against the clear sense of the biblical narrative, which includes her).

[1465]. Bronner, “Prophetesses through Rabbinic Lenses,” on b. Meg. 14b.

[1466]. Spittler suggested Montanist influence; others disagree (see discussion above). Despite Montanist prophetesses, however, it appears that even Montanists limited women’s authority (Montanist oracles in Cat. Cor. 14.36 [Bray, Corinthians, 147]). Others rejected Montanism not for its view of creation or Christology, nor only for its women prophetesses (Priscilla and Maximilla; the male prophet Montanus was also rejected), but for the alleged content of their revelations (cf., e.g., Hippol. Ref. 10.21).

[1467]. The charismatic sashes of Test. Job 46–50 do not appear to be derived from Christian influence; one could seek to argue even for their dependence on this passage (Acts 21:11), but the lack of verbal echoes makes this suggestion unlikely.

[1468]. Keener, Acts, 1:886–909.

[1469]. His approach is not unique; e.g., L.A.B. 40:4 views Jephthah’s daughter as wiser than Jephthah himself (as Luke presents Mary as more receptive to Gabriel’s message than Zechariah is).

[1470]. Some scholars have also suggested placing 1 Cor 7 in the broader context of Greco-Roman cultic virgins (Cha, “Virgins”; cf. Oster, Corinthians, 159). In an earlier era, cf. the apparent cultic use of virgins among Hittites (ANET 349).

[1471]. For regulations for the Vestals, see, e.g., Aul. Gel. 1.12; for further discussion, see Worsfold, Virgins; Cancik-Lindemaier, “Vestals” (noting on 340 that the pontifex maximus recruited them between the ages of six and ten); Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 249–50.

[1472]. E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.40.3–4; Plut. Rom. Q. 83, Mor. 284AC.

[1473]. Cic. Cat. 4.1.2; 4.6.12.

[1474]. Pliny E. N.H. 34.11.25. Using Mary Douglas’s approach to purity and danger to explain the Vestals’ ambiguous status, Beard, “Virgins,” argues that the Vestals were viewed partly as virgins but partly as matrons and perhaps partly as men; I am not fully persuaded.

[1475]. Plut. Publ. 8.4 (noting that she was even granted permission to marry but refused to use the privilege).

[1476]. Cic. Font. 21.46–47. One king was said to have made Rhea Silvia a Vestal to keep her from having children (Appian Hist. rom. 1.1.2).

[1477]. Ovid Tristia 2.311–12.

[1478]. Sen. E. Controv. 1.2.intro. The case is argued both ways as to whether a virgin captured and forced to work in a brothel, who nonetheless kept herself chaste, could be a Vestal (1.2.1–16). On the necessity of the virgins’ mothers being just once-married, see Schneider, “Univira” (citing Propertius 4.11.36; Tac. Ann. 2.86). A father’s divorce could count against one, other factors being equal (Tac. Ann. 2.86, noting that the rejected potential Vestal was consoled with a million sesterces for her dowry).

[1479]. Fronto Eloq. 3.1 (Fronto naturally dislikes stammering, Speeches 8).

[1480]. Gordon, “Vesta.” The process for appointing Vestals developed in the three centuries before Paul’s time; see Mekacher and van Haeperen, “Choix.”

[1481]. Gordon, “Vesta.” For their special hair arrangement with ribbons, see the description in Croom, Clothing, 114.

[1482]. Pliny Ep. 7.19.2.

[1483]. Gardner, Women, 25 (citing Plut. Numa 10.4; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 2.67). One served fifty-seven years, through the Augustan era and beyond (Tac. Ann. 2.86).

[1484]. Val. Max. 1.1.6 (in this case, a flogging); another Vestal was allegedly vindicated by placing her cloth on the extinguished hearth, with new fire coming out (1.1.7). The Vestals guarded Vesta’s sacred fire (Plut. Cam. 20.3).

[1485]. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.78.5; 2.67 (cf. 3.67.3); Livy 14 summary; Plut. Rom. Q. 96, Mor. 286EF (Babbitt in LCL, 4:143 n. e, cites also Plut. Numa 10, 67AC; Ovid Fasti 6.457–60; Pliny Ep. 4.11.6); Hdn. 4.6.4. Parker, “Vestals,” suggests that Rome could treat young Vestals’ lives so cavalierly because they symbolized the state, with which they were connected by the sort of analogy present in sympathetic magic.

[1486]. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.40.3–4. In another case, the corruption of three Vestals’ virginity brought judgment until the gods were appeased by sacrificing two Greeks and two Gauls (Plut. Rom. Q. 83, Mor. 284AC).

[1487]. Livy 4.44.11–12. Another Vestal was found innocent in the case in Plut. Crass. 1.2; cf. Cic. Brut. 43.160.

[1488]. Livy 8.15.7–8; her name was Minucia. Symmachus claims to have condemned to death an unchaste Vestal (Salzman, “Introduction,” xxiii–xxiv, noting Symm. Ep. 9.147, 148).

[1489]. E.g., Val. Max. 1.1.7; perhaps Hdn. 1.11.4–5 (unless this is a priestess of Magna Mater; the text may be corrupt).

[1490]. Sen. E. Controv. 6.8 (this hypothetical case is argued both ways).

[1491]. Suet. Nero 28.1 (but some of what Suetonius reports may be simply anti-Nero gossip). Later the emperor Antoninus married one of the Vestal virgins, excusing his behavior as manly passion (and divorcing her soon afterward; Hdn. 5.6.2); yet Antoninus allegedly buried Vestals alive for unchastity (4.6.4).

[1492]. Pliny Ep. 4.11.5–6. Pliny (who had reason to hate Domitian) thinks that she was innocent (4.11.9) and that the senator invented a confession only to prevent worse punishment for himself from Domitian (4.11.11, 13). Suetonius, however, thinks her guilty (Dom. 8.4), reporting that one of those whom he executed he buried alive (8.3–4). Technically, they were supposed to be buried alive, but Domitian chose some different methods (Dio Cass. 67.3.3–4). Apollonius allegedly denounced Domitian for executing three Vestals on the charge of breaking their vows (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.6).

[1493]. Appian Bell. civ. 1.6.54. They could testify in court but were not to be interrogated at home (Tac. Ann. 2.34).

[1494]. Cic. Cael. 14.34. A Vestal who defended her father could be praised (Val. Max. 5.4.6).

[1495]. Cic. Font. 21.46.

[1496]. Because Ceres’s priestesses had this privilege at Olympia (Suet. Nero 12.4).

[1497]. See North, “Bona Dea.” Cf. Plut. Cic. 19.3–4.

[1498]. Pliny E. N.H. 28.3.13.

[1499]. King, “Chastity,” 320. The priestess of Heracles at Thespiae remained a virgin until death (Paus. 9.27.6). In the cult of Pudicitia, priestesses were allowed to have been married once (Schneider, “Univira,” citing Val. Max. 2.1.3; Livy 10.23.3–10).

[1500]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 11.153–54 (portraying Cassandra as a κόρη, a young girl, a term not applicable in the sense of age by the end of the Trojan War). Cf. Käppel, “Manto.” One could also be consecrated to Isis for temporary virginity (Xen. Eph. Anthia 3.11; 5.4).

[1501]. Cf. Pindar Paeans 8.81; see fuller comment at Acts 16:16.

[1502]. Second-century theories of Christian asceticism mirrored those of philosophic schools; see Rousseau, “Asceticism.”

[1503]. This also reflects earlier tradition (cf., e.g., eunuch priests in Ephesus’s Artemis temple in Strabo 14.1.23; the Greek Artemis’s request for perpetual virginity in Callim. Hymns 3 [to Artemis], lines 4–6), though it was not practiced for the leading priests of Paul’s day (see comment on the Artemis cult at Acts 19:23–41).

[1504]. King, “Chastity.” Later, Galen respected that of the Christians (Judge, Athens, 65).

[1505]. Reimer, Women, 248–49; Hill, Prophecy, 101.

[1506]. Lucian Astr. 23.

[1507]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 11.153–54.

[1508]. E.g., Strabo 12.5.3; Aul. Gel. 1.19.

[1509]. E.g., Heracl. Hom. Prob. 76.16.

[1510]. Probably, the original point of their virginity was more likely that their purity and necessary lack of subordination to a male allowed them to inspire males.

[1511]. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 100–101; ʾAbot R. Nat. 2 A; 2, §10 B; cf. Le Cornu, Acts, 475; Baer, Categories, 101–2; Moses’s abstinence for holiness in the Tannaim and Aphrahat (Koltun-Fromm, “Sexuality”). The rabbis did not approve of this behavior for their own era.

[1512]. Marx, “Racines” (but the Philo reference is more concrete and persuasive than 1 En. 83:2; 85:3). For Moses, see esp. Philo Mos. 2.68; also Tg. Ps.-J. on Deut 5:31. In Test. Naph. 8:8, a husband may temporarily abstain for prayer; the same might be implied in Rachel’s abstinence in Test. Iss. 2:1 (a portrait possibly rooted in Hellenistic conceptions; see Jonge, “Behavior”). Cf. similarly 1 Cor 7:5, a position that Paul concedes rather than promotes (7:6; cf. Fee, Corinthians, 282), though some scholars think that Paul himself abstained for prophetic ability (Poirier and Frankovic, “Celibacy”). Some Corinthians may have linked abstinence and inspiration (cf. Gundry-Volf, “Pneumatics”). The link between abstinence and prayer seems to have become more common later (e.g., Aug. Serm. 209.3; Bray, Corinthians, 61).

[1513]. Seim, Double Message, 184, rightly notes that of Luke’s particular prophesying women, only Elizabeth (herself following the biblical model of the barren wife) is neither a virgin nor a widow. But I would not regard this exception as insignificant; although Elizabeth’s prophetic activity is less explicit, we may compare similar proportions of celibates among males and the lack of any virginity specification in Acts 2:17–18 (where Luke emphasizes diversity of age as well as gender). Among the prophetesses, Anna is a widow; only Mary (Luke 1:27, 34) and Philip’s daughters are virgins, and this probably partly because of their age. The pool of examples is too small to play down “exceptions” or infer more than that Luke (like Paul and apparently Jesus) appreciates the commitment of celibacy.

[1514]. In view of Luke 16:18, this probably supposes the believer’s spouse abandoning the believer over the believer’s obedience to God’s calling rather than the reverse (cf. 1 Cor 7:10–16) or is hyperbolic for temporary separations for ministry (cf. Luke 5:11; 9:58; 1 Cor 7:5; 9:5).

[1515]. Contrast the pleasant speculation that he married Lydia, since he stayed behind in Philippi (Wagner, Acts, 391). Luke and Lydia were probably not the only single Christians in Philippi, and commentators are not always accurate matchmakers!

[1516]. At least under normal circumstances, many would protest such arrangements (m. Ketub. 5:6; ʿEd. 4:10). As for taking his wife with him (cf. 1 Cor 9:5), Luke would likely have mentioned such an arrangement, given his interests (Luke 8:2–3). In practice, it would have been more difficult to supply housing for a mixed-gender group, especially if one was attempting to keep spouses together; mixed-gender groups also did not normally travel on such errands (presumably especially if intending to make a favorable impression when arriving in Jerusalem).

[1517]. Contrary to one possible reading of Luke 20:35, Luke certainly does not make celibacy a prerequisite for eternal life. Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 6, contend that, in general, “women in ministerial roles in the first century were more likely married or widowed than celibate ascetic.”

[1518]. Some argue that the reference does not cover all of them, but all agree that it covers at least one (Reimer, Women, 248; Witherington, Acts, 633).

[1519]. Keener, “Marriage,” 681–82, and sources cited there.

[1520]. Schiemann, “Furor,” 625 (citing Paulus Sent. 2.19.7).

[1521]. In stories, e.g., Aeschylus Suppl. 1030–32; Callim. Epig. frg. 401.

[1522]. E.g., Aeschylus Suppl. 287; Statius Ach. 1.352–53; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 3.25; see comment at Acts 8:27. It could be said that they hated all men (Aeschylus Prom. 723–24).

[1523]. Plut. Dinner 21, Mor. 164B. Some ancients cited the adage of not being able to keep a beautiful woman to oneself, or wanting an ugly one (Diog. Laert. 4.48; 6.1.3).

[1524]. Ach. Tat. 1.8.1–2.

[1525]. A grieving widower might wish to avoid remarriage (Orpheus in Guthrie, Orpheus, 31–32), but the no-remarriage ideal more often applied to widows (see Keener, Marries Another, 92–95). Some may have avoided remarriage to spare children a hostile stepmother (cf. Diod. Sic. 12.14.2–3).

[1526]. Carneades avoided marriage, though he had a woman to feed him (Val. Max. 8.7.ext. 5).

[1527]. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 3.22.69–76; Lucian Phil. Sale 9; True Story 2.18; Diog. Laert. 6.2.29, 54; cf. Max. Tyre 36.5; Diogenes Ep. 44, 47. For the exception, Crates and Hipparchia, see Goulet-Cazé, “Hipparchia”; comment on Acts 17:34. Diogenes allegedly recommended masturbation as the least expensive method of relieving appetites (Dio Chrys. Or. 6.16–20; cf. Diogenes Ep. 42).

[1528]. Lucret. Nat. 4.1146–48; cf. Brennan, “Epicurus.”

[1529]. Diog. Laert. 10.119.

[1530]. Epict. Diatr. 3.7.19. Even the early Stoic Zeno wanted to abolish marriage (as part of his larger anarchist vision of doing away with the state and institutions; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 75); but Stoics generally supported marriage (Mus. Ruf. 14, p. 92.6–17; Hierocles Marr. 4.22.21–24 [in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 102–3]; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 90–91.9–11; cf. Epict. Encheir. 33.8; Diog. Laert. 7.1.21; Deming, Celibacy, 51–57), albeit not always eagerly (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.8, pp. 52–53.11–14; 2.7.11b, pp. 64–65.18–21; cf. Epictetus’s personal reluctance in Lucian Dem. 55).

[1531]. Cf. Diog. Laert. 6.1.3.

[1532]. Cf. Pliny E. N.H. 28.16.58; Soranus Gynec. 1.7.30, 32; discussions in Brennan, “Epicurus”; Martin, Body, 222–26; Balch, “Families,” 266–67; but cf. also the important critique (against some scholars’ application to Paul) in Deming, Celibacy, 44–45. Lack of intercourse could be unhealthy for women (Martin, Body, 222–24; cf. Soranus Gynec. 1.7.31). Cf. the practice in Pliny E. N.H. 34.166 (on which Dugan, “Ciceronianism,” comments).

[1533]. Some traditional societies have a long postpartum sex taboo (two years in Fernandey, “Brotherhood,” 343–44; Nukunya, Kinship, 159; cf. Stephens, Family, 68), but I have not so far detected this in Greco-Roman sources.

[1534]. For marriage on auspicious days more generally, see Hesiod W.D. 782–84; Apul. Metam. 2.12; cf. Plut. Rom. Q. 86, Mor. 284F; Virg. Georg. 1.276–86; Ovid Fasti 3.393–94; 6.221–24; for inauspicious days more generally, see Aul. Gel. 5.17; Ovid Fasti 1.8, 45–48; Plut. Alc. 34.1; Cam. 19.1; Dion. Hal. Epid. 3.266–67; Iambl. V.P. 28.152; b. Pesaḥ. 112b; Šabb. 129b. Widows married on a different day of the week than virgins (Plut. Rom. Q. 105, Mor. 289A); in the rabbis, virgins married on the fourth day, and widows on the fifth (m. Ketub. 1:1; b. Ketub. 2a; y. Ketub. 1:1, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:2).

[1535]. Grant, Religions, 6; deSilva, Honor, 251; cf. Apoll. K. Tyre 27. Alciph. Court. 1 (Phrynê to Praxiteles), frg. 3, cites an exception; Pythagoras disagreed with the prohibitions (Iambl. V.P. 11.55). So also Israel’s high priest before Yom Kippur, in Jewish tradition (Bonsirven, Judaism, 160). Sometimes this prohibition also occurs in anticipation of a revelation, as in the ten days before Dionysiac initiation in Klauck, Context, 116.

[1536]. Diog. Laert. 8.1.9. Pythagoreans apparently esteemed, but did not mandate, celibacy (Wilson, Gnosis and New Testament, 41).

[1537]. Iambl. V.P. 31.209–10.

[1538]. Val. Max. 4.3.ext. 2.

[1539]. Hesiod Theog. 607–12 (claiming women’s nature as evil in Theog. 601–2).

[1540]. E.g., deSilva, Honor, 251.

[1541]. E.g., Porph. Marc. 28.439–40 (though this is late).

[1542]. One could be praised as holy and keeping perpetual virginity (Ovid Tristia 4.2.14).

[1543]. E.g., Orph. H. 32.7, 10 (on Athena); 42.4 (a deity both male and female). In philosophy, cf. Porph. Marc. 33.511–16, esp. 515–16.

[1544]. M. Ketub. 5:6; ʿEd. 4:10. A worker’s absence may not exceed a week without the wife’s permission (y. Ketub. 5:7, §4).

[1545]. Cf. Ostmeyer, “Sexualethik.”

[1546]. Without permission, for thirty days (m. Ketub. 5:6; y. Ketub. 5:7, §2), but longer with the wife’s permission (y. Ketub. 5:7, §2); note stories in ʾAbot R. Nat. 6 A; Gen. Rab. 95 MSV.

[1547]. T. Yebam. 8:7.

[1548]. So y. Taʿan. 1:6, §8; cf. Num. Rab. 14:12.

[1549]. So b. Šabb. 33b.

[1550]. Cf. McArthur, “Celibacy”; nonrabbinic sources in Chapman, “Marriage,” 211–15.

[1551]. See Horsley, “Marriage” (also suggesting a spiritual marriage with Wisdom).

[1552]. Jub. 25:4; cf. Test. Iss. 2:1–2.

[1553]. L.A.B. 9:2 (but cf. 9:5).

[1554]. Philo Hypoth. 11.14–18; Jos. Ant. 18.21; Pliny E. N.H. 5.15.73.

[1555]. E.g., Marx, “Racines”; Hübner, “Zölibat”; Regev, “Cherchez.”

[1556]. Probably, some were married and others were celibate (Jos. War 2.120–21), although some scholars think that their marriage was part of the non-Essene authors’ apologetic (cf. Zias, “Confusion,” 470). Perhaps many of those in the cities were married (as suggested in the Damascus Document [CD] and the Temple Scroll) whereas the wilderness group was celibate (Manual of Discipline), if (as I and most scholars still think; e.g., Broshi, “Essenes”) the primary sectarian documents at Qumran reflect Essene practice (despite the reasoned arguments of many detractors).

[1557]. Elder, “Question,” suggests that one-third of the skeletons are women’s. Perhaps during one period, married men brought their wives. Yet the women are treated separately and no children are present (Schultz, “Cemetery”).

[1558]. The celibate period at Qumran could be the Essene period, distinct from later burials there (see, e.g., Zias, “Confusion”).

[1559]. Baumgarten, “4Q502.”

[1560]. Cf. t. Šeb. 3:14–15, comparing her with unworked, “virgin” soil and an uncut, “virgin” tree. Since fathers were concerned to protect daughters’ virginity (Menander Sikyonioi 370–73; Sir 42:9–10; 2 Cor 11:2–3), welcoming Paul’s company into his home also indicates trust.

[1561]. Widows and divorcées of course also married but, other factors being equal, husbands normally preferred virgins (Hesiod W.D. 699; Apul. Apol. 92; Jos. Ant. 4.244).

[1562]. Le Cornu, Acts, 1159. Probably, Philip married a woman in her mid- or late teens (as was common; see Jeffers, “Families,” 134; Cohen, Law, 297–98; cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:6) sometime after he settled in Caesarea (Acts 8:40); she might still be of childbearing age. Not knowing whether he married immediately or whether she became pregnant immediately, we cannot know whether they also had some older children.

[1563]. Stamps, “Children,” 197. See, e.g., boys enchanted to prophesy (Apul. Apol. 42); see further comment at Acts 2:17–18.

[1564]. Cf. again the Sibyl; or Phineus (Ap. Rhod. 2.183).

[1565]. Gentile women in this period usually married for the first time around the ages of twelve to eighteen (Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 146) or twelve to sixteen (MacDonald, “Reading,” 48). Treggiari, “Marriage,” 389, estimates around age twenty; Wiesehöfer, “Marriage, Age,” 394, in the teens. For late teens, see Shaw, “Age” (but Scheidel, “Commemoration,” while noting that this estimate coheres with the data, notes that it is difficult to prove). In any case, the disparity between genders for age of marriage was significant (see Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 131–32). The limited evidence for Palestinian Jewish women suggests marriages between twelve and eighteen years (Chapman, “Marriage,” 186).

[1566]. Indeed, his point would be likelier that it is available even to, rather than especially to, single women; Luke must know very well that most biblical prophetesses were married (Judg 4:4; 2 Kgs 22:14; 2 Chr 34:22; Isa 8:3).

[1567]. The readers of Luke-Acts probably also stereotypically associated many of the other widows with old age, though Luke provides no explicit indicators in other cases (Luke 4:25–26; 7:12; 18:3; 20:47; 21:2; Acts 6:1; 9:39; I have suggested evidence with reference to age only in Acts 6:1).

[1568]. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 632, emphasizing the “symbolic or prophetic value” for bringing Gentiles and their offering at this time (citing Zech 8:18–23). Even if Tabernacles would have been more effective (Zech 14:16), it was too long to wait.

[1569]. On Pentecost as the festival of firstfruits, see Exod 23:16; 34:22; Num 28:26; cf. Keener, Acts, 1:788.

[1570]. Implied also in the “other languages” of Acts 2:4, and probably the “all flesh” of 2:17 and “all who are far away” in 2:39.

[1571]. As in the Gospel of Luke, the sympathy of the masses at one point does not guarantee it later (Luke 23:4; this is, however, much reduced from Mark’s passion narrative, Mark 15:11, 15).

[1572]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 267, suggest that Luke reserves “Judea” for Jewish territory, a designation for which Caesarea hardly qualified.

[1573]. See, e.g., Philo Spec. Laws 1.65; cf. 1 Kgs 18:7–16.

[1574]. Cf. the warnings as Apollonius went to Rome (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.9–16, esp. 12, in Pervo, Profit, 47; though stories about Jesus and Paul were circulating widely by the time that Philostratus wrote; see Keener, Miracles, 53–56, and the sources cited there).

[1575]. See Suet. Jul. 81.1–4 (such as a door flying open, 81.3); Claud. 46; Nero 46; Galba 1, 18–19; Vit. 9; Dom. 15.2–3; 16. The dream warning Alexander in Val. Max. 1.7.ext. 2 appears nowhere else (so Wardle, Valerius Maximus, 233).

[1576]. E.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 102, 195; Aune, Prophecy, 263. To contend that Luke modeled the actions and formula on OT prophets (Aune, Prophecy, 320, though accepting a likely historical basis), however, too readily supposes that Agabus could not have done so himself. Early Christians recognized that prophets sometimes acted symbolically (cf. Did. 11.11).

[1577]. Forbes, Prophecy, 287; Aune, Prophecy, 263–64 (who finds in this an argument that Luke “derived it from Christian tradition” rather than composed it, a conclusion that need not follow; in my view of the “we” narratives, Luke would, in any case, be an eyewitness). (Pervo, Acts, 537, by contrast, uses the Greek form to suggest Lukan composition, which also would not need to follow, given significant cultural overlap. But Luke undoubtedly would put it in his own wording, in any case; even if he was a witness, as I think, he would have recalled it in terms of his own cultural framework, and Jewish oracles in the Diaspora certainly could adopt Greek forms, e.g., in the Jewish Sibylline oracles.) Even among Greeks, of course, prophetic experience took different forms (Paus. 9.39.11).

[1578]. Symbolic actions appear most often in the biblical prophets (Aune, Prophecy, 100; cf. also the Egyptian “Potter’s Oracle” (in Aune, Prophecy, 76–77, 100).

[1579]. In one source, Job was healed through the use of a charismatic “sash” (Test. Job 47), but this is not likely relevant here, especially given questions about this source’s date.

[1580]. Johnson, Acts, 370.

[1581]. Cf. Xen. Mem. 1.1.4; Philost. Hrk. 16.5; 2 Macc 2:1; John 12:33; 18:32; 21:19; Rev 1:1; Barn. 15.4; Beale, Revelation, 50–51 (citing Dan 2:28–30, 45 LXX). It also applies to signalling, as with a horn (Xen. Anab. 4.3.32; Cyr. 5.3.44).

[1582]. The term ζώνη applies to “a man’s belt or girdle” (BDAG). Such “girdles” were fairly standard (e.g., Ps 109:19 [108:19 LXX]; Isa 3:24; 5:27), though both Scripture and Josephus often focus on the distinctive sashes of the high priest and (made of leather) Elijah (2 Kgs 1:8; found in Mark 1:6 but omitted in Luke). Abbott, Acts, 225, contends that girdles were a pervasive element of clothing. In fact, many wore their tunics unbelted (Croom, Clothing, 127), although moneybags were sometimes hung from belts (25). Although girdles were out of fashion in John Chrysostom’s day, he believed that they were in wide use in NT times (Hom. Matt. 10.4 [Martin, Acts, 260]).

[1583]. Haenchen, Acts, 601n5; cf. Witherington, Acts, 634; this assumes, probably rightly, that the leather girdles were significantly wider or less flexible than our belts. Luke offers no comparison with John’s girdle (Mark 1:6), which Luke omits; this was simply a common feature of clothing.

[1584]. See the description in Schnabel, Acts, 857.

[1585]. On the Spirit as a specific actor in Luke-Acts, see Shepherd, Narrative Function.

[1586]. Cf. Holladay, “Statecraft,” 31–34, esp. 34. It remains a messenger formula in Test. Job 7:10/8; for God’s messenger in Test. Ab. 8:5 A.

[1587]. Horsley, Documents, 2:32–34, §4; Lucian Sat. 10 (parodying Solon’s law giving); Deissmann, Light, 375.

[1588]. See Keener, Spirit, 10–13.

[1589]. Aune, Prophecy, 263, 320 (but note his correct observation, 264). Aune argues (263) that this OT formula appears only rarely in early Judaism, and there in imitation of the OT (Test. Job 4:3; 7:8; cf. “says the Lord of spirits” in 1 En. 50:5); but could not the Spirit-centered early Christians have borrowed it from the same source as did these other references, only following the OT pattern more consistently?

[1590]. E.g., Lucian Dial. G. 205 (5/1, Prometheus and Zeus 2). Pliny E. N.H. 28.4.17 suggests that omens are generally conditional on what people make of them.

[1591]. Aune, Prophecy, 60–61, 264 (believing that it is rarer in the OT, where it tends to appear late).

[1592]. E.g., Apollod. Bib. 3.5.7; Lucian Z. Cat. 12; Babr. 136. Alexander evades an oracle’s threat in Quint. Curt. 3.1.16–18.

[1593]. In strict rhetorical terms, some suggest that it might be “epideictic” (Soards, Speeches, 109), though some of the prophecy’s hearers in the narrative world apparently treated it as deliberative (Acts 21:12).

[1594]. Grudem, Prophecy, 79, 82; Hill, Prophecy, 107–8. Interpretations of prophecies were often open to dispute, especially when some had political incentives to dispute the other interpretation (Plut. Lys. 22.5–6).

[1595]. Barrett, Acts, 995–96, doubts that Luke shared the modern fixation on “neat correspondences (witness his three accounts of Paul’s conversion).”

[1596]. Cf. Chance, Acts, 383, who notes that ancient narratives required prophecies only to foreshadow generally what would follow, not to fulfill details precisely.

[1597]. See Gaffin, Perspectives, 65–66; Rapske, Custody, 409–10; Porter, Paul in Acts, 90–91.

[1598]. Thus Theagenes’s dream in Heliodorus Eth. 8.11 promised that he and Chariclea would come to Ethiopia, but only after they are captured does he recount that the dream predicted that they would enter as prisoners (8.16).

[1599]. On comparison of characters in Luke-Acts, see the commentary introduction (Keener, Acts, 1:555–74, esp. 556–62) and comment on Acts 1:8–11.

[1600]. With Haenchen, Acts, 602; Marshall, Acts, 340; Tannehill, Acts, 265; Rapske, Custody, 409; Dunn, Acts, 277.

[1601]. Men. Rhet. 2.5, 396.1–397.9.

[1602]. Johnson, Acts, 372. Releasing Paul to his fate would ultimately yield greater blessing to them, just as Jesus’s death brought resurrection (cf. the argument in Bovon, “Saint-Esprit,” 358).

[1603]. Cf. Rapske, Custody, 410.

[1604]. Cf. Val. Max. 4.1.3: the people breached the rules to reelect an honorable man, and he rebuked them in view of the rules; both, Valerius remarks, acted rightly. Cf. probably also Acts 15:37–39.

[1605]. E.g., 2 Macc 6:21–22; 7:24–25; Mart. Pol. 8.2; 9.2; 10.1; 11.1–2.

[1606]. As in Plato (esp. Phaedo 116E–117A) and frequently in Philostratus’s portrait of Apollonius’s approaching encounter with Domitian (Vit. Apoll. 4.36; 7.12–13; cf. 8.13). As here, the protagonist insists on his mission, sometimes even persuading his comrade (7.14–15). Disciples questioning teachers also can function as literary foils (e.g., 7.22).

[1607]. See Barton, Honor, 272.

[1608]. Such internal conflict does appear in the Gethsemane narrative for Jesus (e.g., Luke 22:42). Contrary to some later idealizations, the historical Paul had internal struggles (e.g., Rom 9:1–3; 2 Cor 7:5; 11:28–29; 1 Thess 3:5).

[1609]. Cf. Livy 23.8.4; comment on Acts 20:19, 31, 37. On other occasions, too, followers persuaded leaders to adopt a particular course of action (e.g., Tac. Hist. 3.64; 1 Sam 14:45), although this is not always viewed as positive (cf. 1 Sam 13:11; 15:15).

[1610]. Josephus claims that when Agrippa I saw the people pleading with God for his recovery, he was so moved that he wept (Ant. 19.349, adding pathos).

[1611]. Cf. the comparable emotional pressure in Jos. Life 205–7, amplified by women and children (Life 207, 210), in that case yielding Josephus’s compliance (Life 212).

[1612]. Cf. Crates’s rebuke of Hipparchia, which nevertheless commends her concern for him (Stowers, Letter Writing, 89). Contrast rulers who refused to hear anything negative (Plut. Luc. 25.1).

[1613]. Romans limited, because of the needs of the state and its religion, the duration for women’s mourning of fallen soldiers (Val. Max. 1.1.15). One should not mourn what one cannot control, as if one controlled it (Epict. Encheir. 14).

[1614]. Cf. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 269, contrasting the use of “name” in Acts 3:6, 16; 4:18, 30; 5:40, though there is more overlap than they acknowledge. For Luke 22:42 and other parallels with Jesus’s Lukan Gethsemane experience, see also Pervo, Acts, 538.

[1615]. Tannehill, Acts, 264–65.

[1616]. Conzelmann, Acts, 178. Among Greeks, this would fit especially the paradigm for the Stoic sage; Paul’s letters sometimes resemble such Stoic ideology (cf. Phil 1:21–23, though not exactly Stoic).

[1617]. E.g., Lucian Hermot. 23.

[1618]. See, e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.68.2–3; Eurip. frg. 994; comment on Acts 20:23–24; Keener, John, 875.

[1619]. This example reflects Josephus’s adaptation of the narrative (contrast Lev 10:16–20). Popular philosophy warned against the futility of grief in the face of Fate (see comment on Acts 20:37; cf. the excursus on fate at Acts 2:23 [Keener, Acts, 1:927–38]; comment on Acts 16:25).

[1620]. E.g., Libanius Invective 1.7. Romans in particular valued the ability to remain stern, despite compassion (e.g., Appian Hist. rom. 8.12.81–82, 86).

[1621]. Plut. Themist. 10.5.

[1622]. Diod. Sic. 10.4.4–6; Val. Max. 2.6.11; 4.7 passim; Mus. Ruf. 7, p. 58.23; Epict. Diatr. 2.7.3; cf. Iambl. V.P. 33.235–36; Fitzgerald, “Friendship,” 338.

[1623]. Cf. Val. Max. 4.6.2–5; 4.6.ext. 1–3.

[1624]. E.g., Val. Max. 6.8.6; Appian Bell. civ. 4.4.26; Tac. Hist. 4.50; cf. Val. Max. 3.3.ext. 7.

[1625]. Cf. Eurip. Alc. 12–18; Heracl. 547–601; Andr. 413–15; Xen. Anab. 7.4.7–10; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 4.pref. 15.

[1626]. See Jaquette, “Life and Death.”

[1627]. Bainton, Stand, 180–81.

[1628]. This would assume his awareness of something like our current passion tradition, but this is not a difficult assumption (1 Cor 11:23–26).

[1629]. Bainton, Stand, 179.

[1630]. Much less so in Acts 22:2, which precedes a speech about God’s will. As noted at Acts 21:4, disciples could have conflicting interpretations of the Spirit’s guidance.

[1631]. As often noted; see Tannehill, Acts, 264; Spencer, Acts, 197. Cf. also Conzelmann, Acts, 178, who views it therefore as “a positive affirmation” rather than “an expression of resignation” (comparing also Mart. Pol. 7.1). Luke provides other models of embracing God’s will as well (e.g., Luke 1:38; Acts 13:22; for a negative warning, Luke 12:47).

[1632]. E.g., Socrates Ep. 1; in Jewish texts, e.g., CD III, 15–16; Jub. 21:2–3, 23; m. ʾAb. 5:20 MSS; Sipre Num. 42.1.2; Sipre Deut. 47.2.9; 306.28.2; cf. 1QS IX, 24; cf. also Qumran examples in Lohse, Colossians, 25. Israel faces judgments in the present when it disobeys God’s will (Sipre Deut. 40.4.1; 40.6.1; 305.2.1; cf. 114.1.1; 118.1.1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 34 A).

[1633]. Ancients understood the concept of a point of no turning back; cf. Caesar’s oft-cited crossing the Rubicon (e.g., Suet. Jul. 31.2, though it figures much more in this later account than in Caesar’s own).

[1634]. The LXX uses the term more often for repairing or restoring something (2 Chr 24:4, 12; 29:3; 34:10; 1 Macc 12:37), but “getting ready” for an activity was basic to its sense (BDAG; Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary).

[1635]. On this expectation of hospitality from early Christian communities, see Malherbe, Social Aspects, 68.

[1636]. See Hengel, “Geography of Palestine”; idem, Jesus and Paul, 97–128. This only makes sense: if Luke accompanied Paul for the collection, he was, presumably, a Gentile, and rural Judea and Galilee were probably not the friendliest locations for foreign, Greek-speaking, and probably uncircumcised Gentiles to be exploring alone ca. 60 C.E.

[1637]. Although the group presumably took a well-traveled road, we need not assume that we know all the possible lesser roads; periodically, new routes come to light (e.g., O’Hea, “Note”).

[1638]. See Le Cornu, Acts, 1166.

[1639]. Especially if they continue on for the festival. But they could all be Jewish.

[1640]. Similar to the name of a Greek geographer from the third century B.C.E. (see Sacks, “Mnaseas”).

[1641]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 270.

[1642]. Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 15, §29.3; Barrett, Acts, 1003.

[1643]. Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 414.

[1644]. Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 30, §53.2 (Mnaseas father of Zenon of Cyprus, and Cyprian Μνασῆς and Μνασέας for “Mnachem” in a bilingual inscription); Barrett, Acts, 1003.

[1645]. CIJ translates “Mnaseas (= Manassé).”

[1646]. One expects them to be added in haggadah (Jub. 11:14–15; Liv. Pr. 19 [Joad] [Schermann, §30]; Jos. Ant. 8.231; L.A.B. 40:1), but this is not a haggadic text. Although names are sometimes added as traditions grow (cf. perhaps Plut. Alex. 20.4–5), the common belief that added names betray lateness does not even work with Matthew’s use of Mark (compare Matt 9:18 with Mark 5:22; Matt 20:30 with Mark 10:46).

[1647]. Cf. Bruce, Commentary, 426; idem, Acts¹, 390; Witherington, Acts, 635.

[1648]. Philost. Vit. soph. 1.22.524.

[1649]. The Cyprian Jewish community was large (Stern, “Diaspora,” 154–55); see discussion at Acts 4:36.

[1650]. Cf. Knox, Jerusalem, 350.

[1651]. With Faw, Acts, 238 (who also compares the generous character of another Cypriot Jew, Barnabas); cf. Bruce, Acts¹, 390; Larkin, Acts, 306. The same complication may count against Paul’s staying with his nephew (Acts 23:16; pace Bishop, Apostles, 103, although, as he points out, if Luke was genuinely a physician, he might have been welcome somewhere!). Paul’s nephew probably would not have been directly privy to information about the plot (23:16) had Paul stayed with him; but the language of 23:16 allows (at the least) the possibility that he learned indirectly.

[1652]. E.g., Abbott, Acts, 226; Haenchen, Acts, 607 (following Loisy, Actes, 791); Bruce, Commentary, 426; Marshall, Acts, 341 (cautiously); Bock, Acts, 639 (cautiously); apparently Longenecker, Acts, 313. On some Hellenist believers in Jerusalem in this period, note the arguments in Mosser, “City,” 172–76.

[1653]. With Fitzmyer, Acts, 690; probably also suggested by The Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies), 3rd and 4th eds., and translations that make a break between Acts 21:16 and 21:17. One could argue that Mnason lives along the route but also owns a home in Jerusalem, where he will host Paul; but Jerusalem would more likely be his primary residence if he had two, and without Luke spelling out this alternative, readers would probably have simply assumed that Luke intended just a house along the way. If Mnason lives in Caesarea, the escort from Caesarean disciples makes no sense. Mnason could live just outside Jerusalem, hosting Paul’s company there because of Pentecost crowds (cf. Mark 11:11–12; 14:3; Matt 21:17; 26:6), though probably fewer Hellenists lived there.

[1654]. Conzelmann, Acts, 179; Hemer, Acts in History, 126.

[1655]. Somewhat higher, Wilson estimates 68 mi. or 106 km. (personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011). This estimate makes three days even more likely.

[1656]. Rapske, “Travel,” 10–11. The roads would be good (on Roman roads in Judea, see Dorsey, “Roads,” 432).

[1657]. Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 398.

[1658]. A logical assumption, given other details in Luke’s itinerary; but Luke cannot be detailing stopovers at this point, since he does not tell us where Mnason lived.

[1659]. Conzelmann, Acts, 179; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 483.

[1660]. This would be likelier along the coast, but they may have taken the sort of inland route designated in Acts 23:31–33.

[1661]. It is not impossible that Agabus returned to Judea ahead of Paul, but it is not likely unless he came to Caesarea only to deliver this prophecy (Acts 21:10–11). Other believers would, no doubt, be traveling regularly.

Dangers in Jerusalem (21:17–23:35)

[1]. With Johnson, Acts, 379.

[2]. Jervell, “Church,” 20; idem, Luke and People of God, 198–99.

[3]. Wilson, Luke and Law, passim, argues that Luke portrays zeal for the law as acceptable for Jewish Christian piety (not salvation) but not necessary for his largely Gentile audience. Blomberg, “Law,” argues that Luke accurately reports Jewish Christians’ law observance, but emphasizes movement toward (p. 398) “a law-free, Gentile Christianity.”

[4]. Although Jerusalem Christians are hostile to Paul in Acts 21:21, Tyson (“Problem,” 137) goes too far in viewing this as their most important narrative function; even aside from positive earlier views of Jerusalem Christians, Luke does have a positive apologetic purpose in recounting them.

[5]. Luke hardly portrays everything in the church as harmonious (an exaggeration implied by Pervo, Profit, 39–42). Nevertheless (and this may be what some critics particularly intend), he does put the best face on it.

[6]. The attempts to isolate a pristine Pauline gospel later compromised by an early catholic synthesis with its legalistic antithesis expand Luther’s “analogy of faith” hermeneutic but misread the Pauline gospel (against this misinterpretation of Paul’s “analogy of faith,” see Fuller, “Theology,” 210n13).

[7]. Johnson, Acts, 378. Pervo, Acts, 543 (who does believe that the collection failed), also acknowledges that this is an argument “from silence.” Others also view negatively “their tacit failure to protect Paul” (Thompson, Church, 240); but the majority of the church was poor (Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 8:14) and even cumulatively wielded limited social power in an ancient Mediterranean society.

[8]. The potential support of Nazarenes may also have influenced Felix against a hasty condemnation (Acts 24:5); though it is unlikely that much of the Jerusalem church proved vocal, even letters from its leaders would have strengthened Paul’s hand. But outside the speeches, the narrative is too sketchy for us to be sure, and the church would not likely have given Felix the one incentive he expected—namely, a bribe (24:26).

[9]. Cf. Wedderburn, “Collection”; Dunn, Acts, 266, 284 (cf. idem, Romans, 880); idem, Beginning, 972; Hurtado, “Collection,” 56 (as a possibility). Haenchen, Acts, 614, thinks that they accepted it only after negotiating with Paul to pay for the Nazirites and that Luke chooses not to record this connection; such an approach requires considerable speculation.

[10]. For refusals of gifts as initiating enmity in ancient Mediterranean society, see Marshall, Enmity, 13–21. At the least, such a refusal could show contempt (Pliny Ep. 8.6.9).

[11]. Esp. Nickle, Collection, 145–46.

[12]. With, e.g., Bruce, Peter, 102–6; Moo, Romans, 911.

[13]. With others, e.g., Campbell, “Journeys,” 85. Tradition also suggests that James cared very much for the poor (Jas 1:9–11; 2:1–9, 15–16; 5:1–6).

[14]. Witherington, Acts, 644.

[15]. Luke would hardly omit such primary leaders by accident; perhaps he presupposes knowledge of their departure well before 70 C.E. If they were fulfilling Acts 1:8, one might expect him to state this, unless perhaps it was already known (as it might have been, since their movements were discussed; cf. περιάγειν in 1 Cor 9:5). They may have gone on missionary journeys, as early Christian tradition claimed (see evidence in Schnabel, Mission, 526–33).

[16]. See also Haacker, Theology, 15–16. Haacker also notes (16) that rejection of Gentile gifts proved a major factor in the impending war (Jos. War 2.408–9).

[17]. Bauckham, “James,” 479–80, attributes the omission instead to the irrelevance of Jerusalem’s eschatological significance after 70, in contrast to Paul’s earlier expectation. Jerusalem’s central (not necessarily eschatological, though cf. comment on Acts 1:12) role in Luke-Acts might reduce the likelihood of this proposal, however.

[18]. Cf. Bruce, Peter, 108–10, on the likely aftermath of the arrest. Even many preachers in the Diaspora did not stand with Paul during his imprisonment (cf. Phil 1:17; 2 Tim 1:15–16).

[19]. Indeed, about a discredited person whom they could not help and who, after all, did get himself into this situation by insisting on preaching the Gentile mission to those who could neither participate in it nor, given their situation of political repression, understand it (cf. Acts 22:21–22).

[20]. Bruce, Peter, 108–9, thinks that the Gentile Christians probably returned “home as quickly and unobtrusively as possible.” This is probably true at least of the Asian delegates (Acts 20:4), in view of 21:29 and previous conflicts (19:9, 33–34). Conflicts in other locations may have focused on Paul alone (20:3).

[21]. With Spencer, Philip, 260–62. That neither here nor anywhere else do visits to Jerusalem entail reported interest in Jesus’s tomb contrasts with the common veneration of holy persons’ tombs (Luke 11:47–48; see comment on Acts 2:29) but is consistent with Luke’s and the early Christian belief in Jesus’s resurrection.

[22]. By this I do not mean to imply that they would have treated him violently, but they might not have welcomed him joyfully (Acts 21:17).

[23]. Perhaps it would be safest for returned or newly immigrant Hellenist Jewish Christians. The rise in conservative, anti-Gentile sentiment on the popular level since Agrippa I’s support for nationalism and subsequent governors’ mismanagement could compromise others’ positions. But Josephus’s accounts show that some Jerusalemites still hoped for peace and rapprochement.

[24]. Certainly, at the least, some Jerusalemites in Caesarea knew of Paul’s intention (Acts 21:10–11), and some may have returned to Jerusalem before Paul left Caesarea (cf. 21:15). Likewise, other Caesarean believers would presumably be leaving for Pentecost earlier to secure better lodging; Paul had every opportunity to provide advance notice now, even if he had not done so (despite all his work on the collection and despite the leaders’ probable knowledge of the collection, Gal 2:10) long beforehand.

[25]. Tradition suggests that they had left on missionary work (Bruce, Commentary, 429; Neill, History, 50–52; see esp. and most thoroughly Schnabel, Mission, 720–28, 739–80, 819–910 passim); this is a reasonable inference. Though some could also have died since Acts 15, this would not have accounted for the majority of the Twelve only about a decade later. Hengel, Peter, 48–49, argues that Peter must have ventured beyond Palestine, given his status in the Diaspora (see 1 Cor 1:12; 1 Pet 1:1).

[26]. So also the other NT use, Heb 9:6; and entering sanctuaries or inner courts in Exod 28:29, 35; 3 Macc 1:11; 2:28. For entering a temple, BDAG cites also Jos. Ant. 3.269; War 3.325; SIG 982.3; Mart. Pol. 9.1. Some (e.g., Bruce, Apostle, 153; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 545; Bauckham, “James,” 442–49) view Paul’s “pillars” (Gal 2:9) as temple imagery (cf. Rev 3:12), but it probably reflects simply an image for strong persons (Cic. Verr. 2.3.76.176; Pindar Ol. 2.81–82; Ps 144:12; ʾAbot R. Nat. 25 A; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 46:28; 49:19; on Exod 15:15; on Num 20:29; for a strong city, Sen. Y. Troj. 6–7; cf. 1QSa [1Q28a] I, 12; 4Q550b 1 4, reconstructed; 2 Bar. 2:1; 4 Bar. 1:2; 1 Clem. 5.2; Lightfoot, Galatians, 109; for the patriarchs, Gen. Rab. 43:8; 75:5; Aus, “Pillars”).

[27]. For meeting a person of rank, Barrett, Acts, 1005, cites Xen. Cyr. 2.4.5; Hdt. 1.99.1.

[28]. Probably also 1 Pet 5:1–2, but ἐπισκοποῦντες is missing in some key early manuscripts (א*, B) though found in 𝔓⁷², א², and A and fitting the author’s predilection for participles (see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 695–96).

[29]. Thus Timothy is to exercise authority over other elders, 1 Tim 3:14–15; 4:11–13; 5:17–19. This is, however, more in a sense analogous to Paul (though in a limited way; cf. 1 Tim 4:13) and the Jerusalem apostles than to the Jerusalem elders.

[30]. Euseb. H.E. 2.1.2, noted by Fitzmyer, Acts, 692.

[31]. Romans used the raised, open hand when greeting (Hurschmann, “Gestures,” 832–33; idem, “Greeting,” 1023). Formal agreements and special signs of affection included clasped hands (see comment on Acts 23:19; Greeks and Romans shook with the right hand, 1022–24), and embraces and kisses were used, just as for departures (see comment on Acts 20:37).

[32]. Attested among Greeks and Romans for guests, kin, and close friends, in Hurschmann, “Greeting,” 1022.

[33]. See, e.g., ibid.

[34]. Ibid., 1023.

[35]. E.g., Apul. Flor. 21.6–7. Though the person with superior status could waive the right by greeting the other first (Manson, Sayings, 99); some texts do praise the humility of scholars (such as Johanan ben Zakkai) who greeted others first (b. Ber. 17a; Lachs, Commentary, 367). Protocol in greeting rabbis is essential (Goodman, State, 78, citing t. Ned. 5:1; Sipre Deut. 32, p. 57), and teachers should show respect to one another as well (b. Sanh. 24a), bowing before one another in greeting (Gen. Rab. 33:3). On the importance of appropriate recognitions of others’ status (lack of which constitutes childishness) in the Middle East, see Eickelman, Middle East, 236.

[36]. Paul also has apparently come “in” (Acts 21:18) and hence greets those inside as in Luke 1:40.

[37]. This passage repeats usual patterns for retelling narratives within Luke-Acts (cf., e.g., Acts 4:23–31; 11:1–18; see Maloney, Narration of Works, 173–88). The reader might also recall that the most recent mention of Paul’s “ministry” concerned risking death in Jerusalem (20:24).

[38]. Johnson, Acts, 374.

[39]. If Luke’s purpose were identical with Paul’s here, Jervell’s view of an apologetic toward Judaism would likely be correct; but I am suggesting analogy rather than identity.

[40]. Segal, Convert, 113, contrasts the positions of Paul and James more starkly: James does not require “conversion” or transformation of Jewish believers whereas Paul does not accept faith in Jesus as enough. This dichotomy is not easily workable, however. The Jerusalem Jesus movement grew, as a distinct community within Jerusalem, and this happened because of persuasion, not by accident. We lack firm evidence for any form of the early Jesus movement that accepted Abrahamic descent without faith in Christ as adequate (Matt 3//Luke 3 = Q; John 8). Acts, which offers the solidly Jewish portrait of James underlying later accounts, also indicates baptism in Jesus’s name from the start, and this baptism certainly predates Paul’s Gentile mission (see comment on Acts 2:38). The other side of the charge likewise falters. For Paul, initial faith in Christ constituted conversion (the beginning of transformation). To say that a Jew who accepted Christ must convert does not make sense when, for Paul, the theologically necessary component of “conversion” had taken place. What Paul demanded was that Jewish and Gentile believers accept one another in Christ’s kingdom. For Paul, “moral” transformation included issues of the heart (including challenging religious “boasting”).

[41]. Luke makes considerable use of the term δοξάζω, which appears in his work fourteen times. The hearers may have continued glorifying God “for some time,” though the imperfect verb need not require this (Porter, Paul in Acts, 175; Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 169, §327).

[42]. Bauckham, “James,” 475.

[43]. Porter, Paul in Acts, 175, thinks that even the leaders were probably suspicious of Paul. But even in Gal 2:12, which implies James’s excess conservatism (without specifying the reason), Paul claims that Peter in principle agreed with him yet simply accommodated the majority in withdrawing from table fellowship with Gentiles. To anyone familiar with personality variations (forceful, mediating, etc.) and ecclesiastical politics today (on the left or the right), the political shifts in how issues are framed should appear plausible enough.

[44]. Nazirite vows in Jerusalem identified with Israel; Gentiles would not perform them and, in later tradition, were not permitted to perform them (b. Naz. 61b).

[45]. Witherington, Acts, 645, compares Thucyd. 1.68. See comment on Acts 4:23–24.

[46]. But Schnabel, Mission, 745, plausibly argues that the figures in Acts 21:20 include all of Judea and Galilee.

[47]. Porter, Paul in Acts, 176, associates it with the problematic situation; but “you see” may apply only to Acts 21:20 whereas the problem arises in 21:21.

[48]. Cf. Jervell, Luke and People of God, 45. For Luke’s grounding his story in Israel’s heritage as part of his apologetic, see Keener, Acts, 1:455–56, 459–60. I use much of this material regarding Luke’s presentation of the Jesus movement’s early growth in Keener, “Plausibility.”

[49]. For the many towns and villages that the apostles could have evangelized even within a fifteen-mile (25 km.) radius around Jerusalem, see Schnabel, Mission, 739–44.

[50]. Johnson, Acts, 374.

[51]. Marshall, Acts, 343–44 (tentatively); Dunn, Acts, 285; Fitzmyer, Acts, 693; Porter, Paul in Acts, 176 (also listing various views); Pervo, Acts, 544.

[52]. Haenchen, Acts, 608–9, citing ancient exaggerations. Even ancient historians often inflated their statistics (or perhaps guessed high), though this could subject them to other historians’ critique (Polyb. 12.17.1–12.22.7), and very careful historians might explain what factors rendered an estimate impossible (Thucyd. 5.68.2); see comment on Acts 4:4.

[53]. Patzia, Emergence, 142, thinks Rodney Stark’s maximum of 7,530 by the end of the first century is probably closer to correct (though perhaps on the low end) than Glover’s half million, noting that Stark’s model accounts for growth to about six million, i.e., 10 percent of the empire, by the time of Constantine. Yet the growth rate would not have been constant, and the revival fervor of the first generations probably yielded a more rapid growth rate than later, as in the history of most subsequent revival movements (see comment on Acts 2:41). It also seems interesting that if we depend on the common low estimates for the numbers of Christians in that period, manuscripts from early Christianity seem overrepresented among ancient manuscripts (Bagnall, Books, 16–18, as cited in Porter, “Efforts,” 74).

[54]. Luke elsewhere uses it only in a specified way, in Acts 19:19. Early Christians applied it to angels but probably genuinely believed them innumerable (Heb 12:22; Jude 14; Rev 5:11).

[55]. E.g., Eurip. Med. 965; Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 34.19; Diog. Laert. 6.7.98; Iambl. V.P. 16.70; 28.135; Philo Abr. 1, 64; Lev 26:8; Deut 32:30; Jos. Ant. 19.1, 67; Ag. Ap. 1.38; 1 Cor 14:19; Justin Dial. 115; perhaps Luke 12:1 (though this is unclear); a huge but indefinite number in Dio Chrys. Or. 17.4, 20; on deliberately losing count, see Catull. Carm. 5.7–13; 7.3; for other clearly hyperbolic numbers, e.g., 48.3. Cf. also Rowe, “Style,” 125.

[56]. Munck, Salvation, 241.

[57]. Fiensy, “Composition,” 214 (noting also the claim in Pliny E. N.H. 5.70 that it was “the ‘most illustrious city in the east’ ”); Reinhardt, “Population Size,” 241–43; Wilkinson, “Population”; Broshi, “Population de l’ancienne Jérusalem.”

[58]. Reinhardt, “Population Size,” 237–38.

[59]. Noll, Rise, 190. More conservatively, Wigger, Saint, 10, notes “more than two hundred thousand” at Asbury’s death in 1816, but (402) more than 250,000 by 1820 and nearly 500,000 by 1830 (nearly three million by 1876). Cracknell and White, Methodism, 45–46, note a few thousand in 1784; about a quarter million by 1820; half a million a decade later; more than a million thirteen years later, in 1843; Kidd, Awakening, 322, notes that Methodism grew from twenty churches in the U.S. in 1770 to nearly twenty thousand churches ninety years later. For rapid Methodist growth in the United States and Great Britain, see also Wolffe, Expansion, 40–41, 70.

[60]. Pally, Evangelicals, 49 (citing Goss, History, 106). She notes that during the same time Baptists grew from 150 churches in 1770 to 12,150 in 1860, eighty-one times their earlier number; while this figure is less extraordinary, it remains striking. Also strikingly, from 1789 to 1850, U.S. Catholics grew from roughly 30,000 to more than a million, though this mostly stemmed from immigration (Brekus, “Catholics,” 13).

[61]. Noll, Rise, 216; Wigger, Saint, 139. For a chart showing the growth to more than 70,000 in 1791, see Noll, Rise, 218. Note figures showing variations in the growth rate in Wigger, Saint, 10, 165, 185 (578 percent increase in the 1780s, but only 11 percent in the 1790s), 303–4 (nearly threefold increase from 1800 to 1810); numbers of those who attended services were far higher than those on these membership rolls (196). Cf. also population proportions in Smidt, Evangelicals, 25. Less dramatically, but still dramatic, was the growth rate in England from 22,000 in 1767 to 96,000 by 1800 and 518,000 by 1850 (Bebbington, Dominance, 51).

[62]. From a single mother church in 1981 to 450 churches (40,000–50,000 people, all from non-Christian backgrounds) in 1991, to some 1,200 churches with more than 150,000 adherents by 2006 (Punnoose, “Filadelfia Church,” 32; Philip, “Revolution,” 21; Finny Philip, personal correspondence, Sept. 21, 2006). Cf. also the dramatic growth of the church in Nepal (e.g., Stephen, “Church,” 56).

[63]. Smith, Magician, 45, avers, “Since he barely mentions it we may suppose he did not think it of much importance.”

[64]. E.g., Jos. Life 10.

[65]. E.g., Josephus mentions two varieties of Essenes; later rabbis mention Boethusians as very close to yet distinct from the Sadducees (ʾAbot R. Nat. 5 A; 10 B), though they might simply be Essenes (cf. t. Sukkah 3:1; Yoma 1:8; Schremer, “Boethusians”; for study, see, e.g., Bowker, Pharisees, 53–76). Cf. Goodman, “Essenes” (though I still believe that Essenes authored the sectarian scrolls).

[66]. Avi-Yonah, “Geography,” 109–10, argues for a population of about 2,800,000 for pre-70 Jewish Palestine; some estimate it at about 2.5 (Jeffers, World, 213) or 3 million (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 83). But estimates vary between 1 million and 6 million (McRay, Archaeology, 123); some estimate 200,000 (Hoehner, Antipas, 291–95) or 300,000 (Goodman, State, 32) for Galilee (for some calculations, cf. Horsley, Galilee, 166, 193). Even at the lowest population figure, Josephus’s sects account for not much more than 1 percent of the population.

[67]. Josephus’s figures for Passover are inflated, but the same may be true for the “sects,” who may have liked to inflate their own numbers. Some scholars estimate the Passover figures at about 40 percent of Josephus’s figures (Byatt, “Population Numbers”); most other estimates are much lower still (35–40 percent of Byatt’s figures). Most regard Josephus’s estimates as unreliable (Safrai, “Description in Works,” esp. 320–21), although later rabbinic estimates of the Judean population depart even further from a plausible order of magnitude (Song Rab. 1:16, §3).

[68]. Thus Eisenman, Maccabees, 1, suggests quite plausibly that the Christian movement was unpopular and Josephus omits reference to it because he wants “to avoid certain potentially incriminating facts.” On Josephus wishing to dissociate Judaism from the Christians, see Paget, “Observations.” Josephus could not suppress mention of the Sicarii or Zealots, but he could minimize mention of Christians (but then why mention Jesus favorably, as he apparently does?). Certainly they were controversial in Rome, especially after their expulsion under Claudius and persecution under Nero.

[69]. Goguel, Life, 82. (By contrast, connection with Sicarii and other revolutionary groups was unavoidable.)

[70]. See, e.g., Feldman, “David.”

[71]. Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 83.

[72]. On his likely mention of Jesus, see, e.g., Thackeray, Josephus, 125; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 55ff.; Cornfeld, Josephus, 510; Meier, “Jesus in Josephus”; idem, “Testimonium”; Whealey, “Josephus”; idem, “Testimonium”; Gramaglia, “Testimonium”; Paget, “Observations”; Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 79; Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 90–98; idem, “Jesus, Literature, and Archaeology,” 189–92; Sanders, Figure, 50; Dubarle, “Témoignage”; Martínez, “Reevaluación”; Ehrman, Prophet, 59–62; Theissen and Merz, Guide, 64–74; Van Voorst, Jesus, 81–104; Elledge, “Sources”; idem, “Eyes,” 692–710; Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 190–98; Flusser, Sage, 12; Niemand, “Testimonium.” The Arabic version tends to confirm the thesis of a redacted original (e.g., Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 95–96; idem, “Jesus, Literature, and Archaeology,” 191–92). Less plausibly, a few have tried to defend the passage as authentic without interpolations (to my knowledge, Bruggen, Narratives, 30–37, defends this option best).

[73]. With Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 268. Such incongruency does not conflict with social reality; e.g., many modern Western Christians officially accept the eschatology of the book of Revelation yet live much like their neighbors, having abandoned an apocalyptic worldview. On Epiphanius’s later report of believers in Jerusalem, see Skarsaune, Shadow, 190–91; on a Jerusalem synagogue apparently oriented toward the Holy Sepulcher instead of the temple, see 186 (although the identification as a Jewish-Christian synagogue is hard to prove). Even in the second century, Lucian Peregr. 11 closely associates (or confuses?) Christ’s followers with Judaism.

[74]. With Longenecker, Ministry and Message, 53.

[75]. Though even in Paul’s letters this reflects only the law’s limitations, not anything negative toward it (cf. Rom 7:7–12; 8:2–4; Gal 3:21–22).

[76]. In Paul’s own language, too, it led to persecuting believers (Phil 3:6; cf. Gal 1:13–14), insofar as it was a zeal without knowledge (Rom 10:2).

[77]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 271, rightly doubt that “zealous” had “Zealot” connotations during Paul’s encounter in Acts 21:20; but such connotation cannot be ruled out for Luke’s audience, especially if they understood some of the allusions in 21:38.

[78]. Keener, Acts, 1:744–46.

[79]. The Jerusalem church reportedly also took a pacifist approach, leaving the city in obedience to prophecies (Euseb. H.E. 3.5.3) and Jesus’s warnings (Luke 21:20–22), though other Jerusalemites at the time may have viewed this as abandonment or needless panic.

[80]. See esp. Keener, Acts, 1:512–13.

[81]. Wise, “General Introduction,” 264.

[82]. Drawing on Acts 21:20, Dunn, Theology of Paul, 198, thinks that the “offense” of the cross to Jewish hearers (1 Cor 1:23) was personal, not a concern about other Jews believing, but he may be mixing Luke’s Judean evidence with Paul’s Diaspora claim. In any case, Acts 21 represents a significant shift from an earlier generation (1 Thess 2:14–15).

[83]. Nationalism was hardly limited to Judaism, though Rome was able to tame it in most of the empire by ruling through local elites (Spawforth, “Nationalism,” 1028). For nationalism affecting also Jerusalem’s believers, see Hengel, Peter, 65.

[84]. For “freedom in matters of ethnic practice,” see also, e.g., Larkin, Acts, 311. Many considered it honorable to respect various nations’ customs (e.g., Corn. Nep. 15 [Epaminondas], 1.1; see Keener, Acts, 1:516–17). As often noted, this procedure fits Paul’s own views well (1 Cor 9:19–23; cf. 7:17–18).

[85]. That the agreement of Gal 2:1–10 would have been discussed on this occasion (cf. Acts 21:25) is likely historically, since, as already noted, this was the occasion on which Paul brought the collection (Rom 15:26–31; see comment on Acts 24:17) and the collection (or something like it) was part of the agreement (Gal 2:10).

[86]. One may think today of how hearers on a popular level often categorize figures into polarized camps by political sound bites and theological litmus tests without regard for nuance or gradation of positions. Such approaches simplify thinking and market well; they naturally appeal to those untrained, unaccustomed, or unable to think otherwise, often rendering them susceptible to those prepared to manipulate language at the expense of content.

[87]. See Hodge, “Apostle to Gentiles.”

[88]. Marshall, Enmity, 46–69; see further comment on Acts 24:5.

[89]. Ibid., 56–61. E.g., Libanius Encomium 5.14; cf. anti-Jewish slanders in Diod. Sic. 34.3; Tac. Hist. 5; Jos. Ag. Ap.; the later anti-Christian charges of cannibalism (Athenag. Plea 3; Theoph. 3.4, 15; Grant, Paul, 111, citing Justin 1 Apol. 26.7; Min. Fel. Oct. 9.5) and incest (Min. Fel. Oct. 31.1; Theoph. 3.4; Tert. Apol. 2.5, 20; 4.11; 7.1; cf. Bamberger, Proselytism, 235).

[90]. E.g., Men. Rhet. 2.4, 390.10–13, albeit for epideictic purposes; in forensic rhetoric, cf. Rhet. Alex. 15, 1432a.4–9; comment on Acts 6:13.

[91]. Aeschines Embassy 144–45; Libanius Declam. 36.1–2, 10; 44.68–70, esp. 70; cf. Rhet. Alex. 15, 1432a.9–11. People viewed negatively those who always spoke ill of others (Theophr. Char. 28).

[92]. E.g., Ps.-Tibullus 3.20.1, 4; Mart. Epig. 3.28 and passim.

[93]. E.g., 1QS VII, 15–17; 4Q501 1 6; 4Q525 2 II + 3, 1; Sib. Or. 1.178; Jos. Ant. 13.294–95; 16.81; War 1.77, 443, 447–48, 532, 564; Ag. Ap. 2.89; Test. Ab. 12:6 B; t. ʿArak. 2:10; ʾAbot R. Nat. 9, 40 A; 41, §116 B; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:2; b. ʿArak. 15a; B. Bat. 39a–39b; Pesaḥ. 118a; Taʿan. 7b; y. Peʾah 1:1, §§19–27; Gen. Rab. 79:1; 98:19; Exod. Rab. 3:13; Lev. Rab. 16:6; 26:2; Num. Rab. 16:6; Deut. Rab. 5:10; 6:8, 14; Eccl. Rab. 9:12; 10:11, §1; Song Rab. 4:4, §5; Tg. Neof. 1 on Lev 19:18; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 1:16; Tg. Qoh. 10:11. Its penalty is Gehinnom in Gen. Rab. 20:1; Eccl. Rab. 3:9, §1; cf. t. Peʾah 1:2; b. Ḥag. 12b (with the Soncino note); Sanh. 103a; y. B. Qam. 8:7, §1.

[94]. E.g., Theophr. Char. 28; Pindar Pyth. 2.76; Polyb. 1.36.2–3; 29.1.1–3; Hor. Sat. 1.4.81–82; Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.32–33; frg. 4 (Stob. Flor. 3, 42.12 [Hense, 762]; 42.12 [Meineke]); Lucian Slander 12 and passim; Marc. Aur. 6.30.2; Iambl. V.P. 27.125. In laws, see, e.g., Lysias Or. 9.6, §114; Or. 10. Earlier, ANET 425–27 (Akkadian proverbs, e.g., no. 6). Cf. also Robbins, Quotes, 98, 189.

[95]. E.g., t. Peʾah 1:2; b. ʿArak. 16a; Gen. Rab. 70:4; Lev. Rab. 37:1.

[96]. E.g., Philost. Ep. Apoll. 43.

[97]. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11s, pp. 100–101.13–23.

[98]. E.g., 1 En. 102:6 (cf. 101:3).

[99]. E.g., Philo Abr. 20; Spec. Laws 4.59–60; Sipre Deut. 1.8.2–3; 275.1.1; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3b; y. Peʾah 1:1, §§19–27. (Some of these references constitute slander; I have usually chosen to follow the translators’ distinctions rather than create new ones.)

[100]. E.g., Livy 44.34.4–5.

[101]. See, e.g., Lysias Or. 10; Schiemann, “Libel”; Thür, “Kakegoria.” Lachs, Commentary, 92, notes that Jewish courts could levy fines for offenses such as slander and shaming another (cf. m. B. Qam. 8:6; b. B. Qam. 86a–87a); see penalties in 1QS VII, 17–18. Insulting a teacher could warrant both legal and postmortem punishment (see b. Ber. 19a). Philosophers would, however, prefer forgiveness (Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 78.16–19; cf. deSilva, Honor, 71–72).

[102]. Cf. Watson, Gentiles, 107: “In a potentially hostile environment (cf. 1 Thess. 2:14), the Jerusalem church stood to gain from a mission to Gentiles only if the resulting conversions were not only to the messiahship of Jesus but also to the law of Moses.”

[103]. Even there Paul objected only to demanding that Gentiles be circumcised, not to Jewish circumcision, but his portrayal of the opponents can hardly have commended him to their sensitivities (e.g., Gal 5:12; 6:12). Chrys. Hom. Acts 46 regards the problem here as not mere rumor but that Jerusalem believers had been so instructed about Paul, for so κατηχέω (Acts 21:21, 24) means. Chrysostom was a native speaker of Greek, and this meaning fits all NT usage, both Lukan (Luke 1:4; Acts 18:25) and Pauline (Rom 2:18; 1 Cor 14:19; Gal 6:6) uses (cf. also 2 Clem. 17.1). But BDAG does offer examples of both “inform” and “instruct.”

[104]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 9, p. 72.12, 18, 20–21; 10, p. 76.18–20; p. 78.11; Arius Did. 2.7.5a.12–13; Crates Ep. 16; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 48; Diog. Laert. 6.1.11; 6.2.58; 9.11.61; cf. Cic. Att. 2.5; Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.32; Plut. Profit by Enemies 7, Mor. 90A; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.10.588; Vit. Apoll. 7.35; Exod. Rab. 30:19; Diogn. 5.14. For the philosophic argument, see Fitzgerald, Cracks, 189–90. Such attitudes, however, went against the very character of ancient Mediterranean culture (see, e.g., Diod. Sic. 9.33.1; 14.1.3; Dupont, Life, 27).

[105]. Cf. Segal, Convert, 219, who rightly notes that from Luke’s perspective, Acts 16:3 shows that the criticism of 21:21 “is unjust.”

[106]. With Conzelmann, Acts, 180, who, however, citing Rom 10:4, thinks that Acts misunderstands Paul. But current scholarship often views Rom 10:4 as more favorable to the law, reading “goal” or “intent” rather than “termination” (Howard, “End,” 336–37; Cranfield, Romans, 2:520; Fuller, Gospel, xi, 84; Rhyne, Faith, 104; idem, “Nomos”; Haacker, Theology, 86–87; Johnson, Romans, 170, 175; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 236n103; Hays, Echoes, 76; pace, e.g., Käsemann, Romans, 282–83). (For this usage of τέλος, cf., e.g., Mus. Ruf. 7, p. 58.14; Epict. Diatr. 1.20.15; 4.8.12; Plut. Isis 2, Mor. 352A; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b3, pp. 16–17.18; 2.7.5b5, pp. 18–19.15–17; pp. 20–21.12, 15; 2.7.6a, pp. 36–37.30; 2.7.6b, pp. 38–39.20; Marc. Aur. 5.15; Diog. Laert. 10.131; Porph. Ar. Cat. 55.15–18; Sib. Or. 3.282; Test. Ash. 1:9; 2:1; Test. Benj. 4:1; 1 Tim 1:5; Jas 5:11; 1 Pet 1:9.)

[107]. Hansen, “Preaching,” 318–20 (he thinks [321] that these charges against Paul remained live issues in the environment of Luke’s audience).

[108]. Johnson, Acts, 375.

[109]. Haacker, Theology, 17, also notes the slanders of Rom 3:8 and views Paul’s clarifications of his gospel in Romans (more nuanced than in Galatians) as part of the thinking dominating Paul’s mind in preparation for his Jerusalem visit (15:25–31). Such a desire might also explain a desire to address the crowds (Acts 21:39–40).

[110]. Corley, “Interpreting Paul’s Conversion,” 3–5.

[111]. With, e.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 693.

[112]. See Tannehill, Acts, 269. The question was the survival of Jews as Jews. Probably, however, many mixed congregations retained their essentially Jewish identity even at the end of the first century (see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:695; Schottroff, “Aspects,” 205–7; Keener, John, 215–16).

[113]. Bauckham, “James,” 477.

[114]. See Davies, Paul, 73.

[115]. See Jervell, Unknown Paul, 58. The beatings in 2 Cor 11:24 were probably for perceived violation of law; but his voluntary submission to them indicates his declared intent to continue in synagogues.

[116]. It often bore a political sense also (e.g., Jos. Life 43, in Barrett, Acts, 1008).

[117]. E.g., Philo Jos. 254; Mos. 1.31; Conf. 2 (Le Cornu, Acts, 1176). For a particularly thorough study of hostile attitudes toward apostasy in antiquity, see Wilson, Leaving.

[118]. Cf., e.g., Luke 1:6; 2 John 6; Lev 26:3; 1 Kgs 6:12; 8:61; Ps 119:35; Jer 44:10, 23; Bar 1:18; 2:10; 4:13; CD VII, 7; Pss. Sol. 14:1; Philo Prelim. St. 86; Test. Levi 19:2; Test. Jud. 23:5; 24:3; Test. Jos. 4:5; 18:1; Test. Benj. 10:11. The phrase “walk in his ways” (e.g., Deut 8:6; 26:17; 28:9; 30:16; Josh 22:5; 1QS III, 9–10; CD II, 15–16; VII, 4–5; 1 En. 91:19; 94:1; Jub. 21:2; cf. 1QS III, 18; IV, 6; V, 10; VI, 2; IX, 8–9, 19; Jub. 25:10; contrast 1QS IV, 12, 18; CD VIII, 9) is a starker form of the same image.

[119]. Cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:3; Strack, Introduction, 6. For non-Semitic examples of the verb applied to behavior, see Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5c, pp. 28–29.8; 2.7.5g, pp. 32–33.5; 2.7.11e, pp. 68–69.14–15 (though Westcott, Epistles, 19, rightly contrasts normal classical usage).

[120]. Barclay, “Paul among Jews,” 93–95.

[121]. Ibid., 95–96 (quotation, 95).

[122]. Ibid., 97–98 (quotation, 97).

[123]. Ibid., 98–103. On Jewish assimilation levels, see also idem, Jews in Diaspora, 92–98; in Egypt, 103–24; for other Diaspora Jews, 320–35; for Paul as “An Anomalous Diaspora Jew,” 381–95.

[124]. Barclay, “Paul among Jews,” 98–100.

[125]. Ibid., 100–101.

[126]. Ibid., 101.

[127]. Ibid., 101–2. Some interpreters of the document will disagree with this last characterization.

[128]. Ibid., 103–11.

[129]. Ibid., 103–4.

[130]. In my view, they simply were less committed to a position and more willing to compromise on this issue than Paul was; this represents an incident, not an ideological change in Antioch’s policy. One may note that even Peter’s withdrawal from Gentiles reflected accommodation rather than conviction (hence Paul’s charge of “hypocrisy,” Gal 2:13; see also Watson, Gentiles, 106–7).

[131]. His lack of requiring food laws or circumcision was only for Gentiles, not allegorizing these customs away for Jews. Others also welcomed God-fearers, and where Paul pressed beyond this welcome was his acceptance of them into God’s people for eschatological and pneumatological reasons. Barclay, “Paul among Jews,” 104, also recognizes that Paul does not go as far as Diaspora Jews integrating fully into their cities.

[132]. Ibid., 104–7.

[133]. Ibid., 105. Barclay allows (106) some knowledge of moralist topoi, but this may be superficial (even in 1 Cor 15, Paul, unlike Wisdom or Philo, refuses to concede ground to Greek anthropology); Paul uses the forms but not the content of virtue lists (e.g., he mentions ἀρετή only in Phil 4:8). But does not Paul employ Hellenistic anthropology in 2 Cor 4–5?

[134]. Although Paul is not rhetorically proficient by the standards of orators, he proves much better than average literate persons. See comment on Acts 22:3.

[135]. Barclay, “Paul among Jews,” 107–11.

[136]. In contrast to (ibid., 107) Philo, who views himself as “Greek” in Conf. 129; Mos. 2.40.

[137]. Barclay, “Paul among Jews,” 108.

[138]. Ibid., 109, citing Paul’s countercultural ideology in 1 Cor 1. Paul’s motivation is missiological: the gospel and bringing Gentiles to God matter more than secondary, cultural issues.

[139]. Barclay, “Paul among Jews,” 111. One should note that a self-confessed rejector of Jewish tradition such as Tiberius Alexander allows a clearer criterion than labeling by the “majority” of a given group, since majorities can shift, along with recipients of the labels.

[140]. Ibid., 112.

[141]. Ibid. Barclay notes (114) Paul’s immersion in Scripture but that assimilation was the decisive point for evaluating apostasy.

[142]. Ibid., 113. Barclay also thinks that Paul’s own self-assessment varies: Paul speaks of his “former” life in Judaism (Gal 1:13–14) and rejects his Jewish credentials in Phil 3:2–11. But what does Paul mean by “Judaism”? And although Paul rejects all human credentials (2 Cor 10:12–12:11), he does not reject his ethnicity (Rom 9:3–5; 10:1; 11:1–2).

[143]. Barclay, “Paul among Jews,” 115 (and noting [115–16] that the picture is confirmed in Acts).

[144]. Ibid.

[145]. Ibid., 116, likewise emphasizes this point.

[146]. Ibid., 115.

[147]. Ibid., 118.

[148]. Thompson, “Ethics,” 64–78, points to the diverse interpretations of Paul’s preaching in the synagogues; he could be understood in different ways (cf. 2 Pet 3:15–16). Whatever others might think, however, Luke portrays Paul’s harsh pronouncements in line with OT prophets, an intra-Jewish critique.

[149]. Later Ebionites (on which, see Daniélou, Theology, 55–64) repudiated Paul (Iren. Her. 1.26.2), but sources before Epiphanius allow for a significant contrast between Ebionites and Nazarenes (Pritz, Nazarene Christianity, 19–28). The Jerusalem believers depicted in Acts are probably closer to the later Nazarenes.

[150]. As noted also by Barclay, “Paul among Jews,” 116; in idem, “Paul and Jewish People,” he elaborates the ambiguity of the relationship between Paul and Judaism. Nanos, Mystery, 4–8, complains about modern scholars’ frequent caricature of Paul as a “bad” Jew, countering that Paul himself maintained his Jewish identity faithfully and at great cost (as “a good Jew,” 9). However some of his contemporaries may have viewed him, Paul never abandoned loyalty to his people.

[151]. For Paul’s continuing Torah observance with respect to this passage, see Rudolph, “Jew to Jews,” 55–73.

[152]. See, e.g., Stegner, “Jewish Paul”; Harrington, “Paul the Jew.” See further comment at Acts 16:1–3; 18:18.

[153]. See, e.g., Frankemölle, “Apostoł Paweł.”

[154]. Bauckham, “James,” 477. This problem of embarrassment might carry over to Luke’s own audience; Hansen, “Preaching,” 321, even thinks that the audience was “threatened by Jewish neighbours and Roman authorities because of Paul.”

[155]. For the prominence of the leaders in the decision, cf. Acts 15:6; Gal 2:9; though others were present at some point, insisting on circumcision, Acts 15:5; Gal 2:4–5. Denominational politics in several U.S. denominations in recent decades illustrates that, for good or ill (or some of each), church membership is often more conservative than its leadership (though this need not be true everywhere).

[156]. Cic. Inv. 2.22.65; 2.53.161; Resp. 6.16.16.

[157]. One should be slow to believe slanders (Prov 20:19; Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.1.4.13), especially about a friend (Plato in Val. Max. 4.1.ext. 2); to spread them was even worse (Prov 6:19; 10:18; 16:28; 17:9; 19:28).

[158]. Part of Paul’s apologetic in Romans includes theodicy: God’s faithfulness to his promises despite having chosen Gentiles (Hays, Echoes, 34–83).

[159]. E.g., Hesiod W.D. 760–64; Isoc. Demon. 17; Nic. 54 (Or. 3.38); Aeschines Tim. 49; Corn. Nep. 25 (Atticus), 6.4 (but cf. 9.7); Quint. Inst. 2.2.14; m. ʾAb. 2:1; t. ʿAbod. Zar. 6:6; Šeqal. 2:2; Sipre Deut. 79.1.1; y. Šeqal. 3:2; Exod. Rab. 51:2; Poly. Phil. 6.1; cf. Plut. Cic. 29.7; Profit by Enemies 3, Mor. 87D; Philod. Crit. col. 9b; Eccl. Rab. 7:1, §3.

[160]. Liv. Pr. 2:1 (Schermann, §25, p. 81); 6:1 (Schermann, §17, p. 60); 7:1–2 (Schermann, §14, p. 51); Jub. 1:12; Jos. Ant. 10.38; 4 Bar. 9:31; Pesiq. Rab. 26:1/2; see further Amaru, “Prophets”; Schoeps, “Prophetenmorde”; comment on Acts 7:52.

[161]. Contrast, e.g., John 7:11. Indeed, news did not always spread as quickly as those ambitious for attention desired (e.g., Plut. Cic. 6.3–4).

[162]. Almost in syllogistic form, Acts 21:20 and 21:21 providing the premises. For syllogisms, see, e.g., Aul. Gel. 2.8; 15.26; in rhetoric, e.g., Arist. Rhet. 1.2.14, 1357a; Cic. Inv. 1.34.57–1.35.61 (but with five parts); Quint. Inst. 5.14.24–25. In (esp. Stoic) philosophy, see, e.g., Mus. Ruf. frg. 44, p. 138.22; Epict. Diatr. 1.8.1–3; 1.29.34; 2.1.38; 2.3.5; Diog. Laert. 7.1.76; but the logic of these was often open to critique (Arist. Rhet. 2.24.1, 1400b; Cic. Fin. 4.18.48–4.19.52; Inv. 1.47.87–89; Tusc. 2.12.29; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 82.10, 19–20; 83.27; 85; Epict. Diatr. 1.22.19; Lucian Fisherman 42; Phil. Sale 22, 24, 25).

[163]. Porter, Paul in Acts, 178.

[164]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 5, p. 50.21 (cf. p. 50.9, 27); Dio Chrys. Or. 31.55, 60; 45.10; 46.9; 47.14; 77/78.19–20; Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 376.4; Lucian Book-Coll. 3; Rom 3:3, 9. See further Stowers, Diatribe, 125–26; fuller comment on Acts 19:3.

[165]. Cf., e.g., Mus. Ruf. 15, p. 98.26, 27; 16, p. 104.8.

[166]. Likewise, though Carter and Earle, Acts, 323, rightly note that it “is characteristic of Paul’s epistles (e.g., Rom. 3:9; I Cor. 14:15, 26)” (cf. also Rom 4:1; 6:1), it is hardly limited to them.

[167]. Anderson, Glossary, 18 (citing Cic. Or. Brut. 138; De or. 3.204; Quint. Inst. 9.2.20–24).

[168]. Witherington, Acts, 648.

[169]. Moderation was highly praised as a virtue (Cic. Fin. 3.22.73), although, naturally, especially emphasized by Aristotle. It also appears in Diaspora Judaism (Let. Aris. 223, 256); the Jerusalem elders may not, however, have thought in such terms.

[170]. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 213, notes that the widespread view in the Jerusalem church put James in a difficult situation, which in turn required him not to concede too much to Paul.

[171]. Haacker, Theology, 85, also notes that Jerusalem was radicalized in the 50s C.E., pointing out that Paul’s earlier course was now the dominant one in his culture; Paul had changed course by revelation, but others had not had this revelation.

[172]. With Reicke, Era, 214–15. I say “insufficient” rather than “counterproductive” because some of Paul’s accusers could have spotted him in Jerusalem or even the temple at some point whether or not he had gone there on an errand of reconciliation. The latter errand stands him in good stead, however (cf. Acts 24:17), especially for Luke’s narrative (see comment on Acts 24:5).

[173]. Paul’s ethnic universalism may have been, in his day, the weaker position in the church, which later prevailed through the success of his letter to the Romans (so Haacker, Theology, 26), the growth of the churches in the East—and perhaps partly the dispersal of his nationalist competitors. Certainly the growth of the Diaspora church initially came more slowly than in Jerusalem (with, e.g., Just, Luke, 28). Another factor could be that, ultimately, whatever the respective proportions of believers among Jews and among Gentiles, there were far more Gentiles to convert.

[174]. Porter, Paul in Acts, 179; cf. the negative assessment of the Jerusalem church’s failure to help Paul in Thompson, Church, 232–34. In favor of James’s consent, Porter cites the possibility that Judaizers came from James (Gal 2:12; Paul in Acts, 179n48). Yet such disagreement need not lead to a plot to destroy Paul! Yet Porter seems to imply only a plan to publicly show Paul’s subordination to the Jerusalem church leaders—though one wonders why this would be a “trap” obscure to Paul. Against the “trap” interpretation, see, e.g., Bauckham, “James,” 478; Rudolph, “Jew to Jews,” 61–62.

[175]. Josephus indicates that others also sponsored Nazirites near this period (Jos. Ant. 19.294). On the association of Nazirites with “holiness,” see Chepey, “Samson” (for one suggestion on LXX Judg 13:7; 16:17).

[176]. Against a trap, some others appeal to Luke’s portrayal of harmony (Thompson, Unfolding Plan, 190); had Luke believed that James and the leaders deliberately trapped his hero, he might have presented them less favorably elsewhere (e.g., in Acts 15:13–21).

[177]. Bauckham, “James,” 478–79. James was, indeed, just a few years later executed on the judgment of the chief priests (Jos. Ant. 20.200, accepted by almost all scholars as authentic; cf. Feldman, “Methods,” 591).

[178]. Cf., e.g., disgust for national traitors in Xen. Hell. 1.7.22; Cic. Fin. 3.9.32; Virg. Aen. 6.621; Livy 1.11.6–7; 5.27.6–10 (though cf. 4.61.8–10); Val. Max. 1.1.13; Sen. E. Controv. 7.7.intro. Even the traitor’s family might hate him or her (Livy 2.5.7–8; Corn. Nep. 4 [Pausanias], 5.3).

[179]. See documentation in Keener, John, 912–13.

[180]. One might contrast Acts 23:5, but if Paul is mocking the high priest here (see discussion on that verse), he does it openly, not genuinely and maliciously concealing his intention.

[181]. This could, however, prove dangerous (e.g., Jer 40:16).

[182]. E.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 196–97. Luke does not offer a simplistic portrayal of good intentions always prevailing, at least in the human short run (cf. likewise, e.g., 1 Sam 22:22; perhaps Gen 47:19–20, 25–26).

[183]. E.g., Hermog. Issues 68.10–69.21 (esp. the argument from mitigation, 69.15–17); Libanius Declam. 36.42; 44.50–52, 61. In practice, this caveat was often forgotten (unfairly, felt Pliny in Ep. 5.9.7).

[184]. Given the possibility that James had denounced rich oppressors, he would probably not have needed Paul’s help to make enemies among them (cf. Jas 5:1–6; Martin, “Life-Setting,” 100). For sectarian halakic disputes (pitting Sadducees against James and possibly Pharisees) leading to James’s death, cf. Dunn, Beginning, 1091–92; for the accounts of James’s martyrdom in Hegesippus and other post-Josephus sources, see ibid., 1093–95.

[185]. One might distinguish them according to Conzelmann’s reading of salvation history in Luke 16:16, but the connections among major figures in Luke-Acts suggest that the emphasis is on continuity and development rather than radical displacement. Nazirite vows may have originally been conditional promises in response to granted prayer (cf. 1 Sam 1:11; Cartledge, “Vows”).

[186]. Goulder, Type and History, 30–31, even fits this into his cyclical view of the book’s patterns.

[187]. See Johnson, Sharing Possessions, 24; idem, Function, 31.

[188]. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 255, think that the collection was Paul’s only possible source of funds for this situation and relate this to Paul’s concern that the funds would be rejected (Rom 15:31). This proposal is plausible and perhaps even likely, but expensive as the offerings would be, they would not consume the entire collection.

[189]. Often noted (e.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 196; Bruce, Commentary, 431); m. Naz. 2:5–6 has been construed in terms of sponsoring Nazirites (Johnson, Acts, 376).

[190]. On Israelite sacrifices, see, e.g., Anderson, “Sacrifice” (though too tied to the traditional documentary hypothesis); especially in our period, see Reid, “Sacrifice”; for NT approaches to the subject, see Klauck, “Sacrifice.” For Greek and Roman votive offerings (including locks of hair or toys when one was entering puberty), see Malkin, “Votive Offerings.”

[191]. Porter, Paul in Acts, 181.

[192]. There was some debate on what constituted defilement (m. Naz. 7:1–4); on graveyards affecting Nazirite vows, see m. Naz. 3:5; y. Naz. 3:5, §§1–7. Purification remained on the seventh day from shaving (Num. Rab. 10:13).

[193]. M. Naz. 3:6. Cf. the older practice of thirty days’ mourning (Num 20:29; Deut 21:13; 34:8; Jos. Ant. 4.78, 85, 259, 330; cf. Philo Virt. 111). Even if Paul had vowed only seven days and did them all over, he could not meet the thirty-day standard of the Mishnah within this time frame. Because Luke describes the zeal of the Jerusalem believers (Acts 21:20) in ways reminiscent of the Pharisees (cf. 15:5; 26:5) and it may have been Jerusalem Pharisees (those meticulous about the law) who protested James’s extrajudicial execution (Jos. Ant. 20.201), it is reasonable to guess that many of the Jerusalem believers respected and perhaps sought to imitate Pharisaic strictness. But it is also possible that just the leaders and a proportion of the people, equivalent to the proportion of Pharisees in the general populace, did so. After all, Pharisees probably usually came from a higher economic bracket than most Christians (cf. their title, “the poor,” in Rom 15:26).

[194]. Later rabbis certainly proved eloquent on the subject; the edition of the Soncino Babylonian Talmud that I read included about 250 English pages for the tractate Nazir. In the late Numbers Rabbah, see 10:5–25.

[195]. Jos. Ant. 4.72 omits discussion of the preparatory period. Though Josephus was also a Pharisee, at least peripherally (Life 10, 12), Berenice, whom he depicts in War 2.311–13, was not (though women could take Nazirite vows; m. Naz. 9:1; b. Naz. 61a; Num. Rab. 10:7).

[196]. See Bruce, Commentary, 430–31. Lightfoot suggests that the seven days might be simply the week leading up to Pentecost, on the premise that Jewish people may have celebrated it for seven days on analogy with the festivals of Tabernacles and Unleavened Bread (Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 21:24, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]). The dearth of extant evidence for such an extension, however, contrasts with evidence for other long Jewish festivals.

[197]. Cf. D. Williams, Acts, 366.

[198]. Purification or consecration preceded sacrifice from early times (1 Sam 16:5), and the LXX employs a cognate of the term for the Nazirite’s rededication after corpse impurity (Num 6:11–12).

[199]. On the soil from Gentile lands communicating impurity, see m. ʾOhal. 2:3; 17:5; 18:6.

[200]. Haenchen, Acts, 610n3; Fitzmyer, Acts, 694; Larkin, Acts, 309; Schnabel, Acts, 876. Conzelmann, Acts, 180, suggests confusion with purification from uncleanness (citing Num 19:12, referring to corpse impurity; cf. also “seven days” [Acts 21:27] for corpse impurity in Ezek 44:25–27, but for other reasons in Ezek 43:26–27).

[201]. Witherington, Acts, 649.

[202]. Porter, Paul in Acts, 181.

[203]. The Essene purity standard was, however, much higher than even that of Pharisees or Sadducees (see McNamara, Judaism, 141, citing esp. 11QT XLV–XLVII; and contrasting the rabbinic view on excrement in sacred areas with Essene evidence, Jos. War 2.137, 147–49; 5.144–45).

[204]. For a variety of purification ceremonies, see comment on Acts 2:38; for Jerusalem’s water installations, see comment on Acts 2:41.

[205]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 272; cf. Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 21:24, forthcoming (courtesy of Witherington). Le Cornu, Acts, 1192, plausibly suggests that “each of them” (ἑνὸς ἑκάστου, Acts 21:26; rather than “all of them”) means that the four were finishing separately, at distinct (though close) times (Paul not being under a vow).

[206]. Porter, Paul in Acts, 181.

[207]. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 109. Though using a different term and associating the idea with Peter, Luke emphasizes spiritual purification (Acts 10:15; 11:9; 15:9; cf. 1 Pet 1:22; 2 Pet 1:9) but does not object to cultic purification.

[208]. Jos. Ant. 12.145; Philo Laws 3.89; cf. Jos. War 1.148; 5.100; Philo Laws 1.193; 2.148; John 11:55.

↑ Back to top