[218] . McLaren, “Ananus, James, and Christianity.”

[218] . McLaren, “Ananus, James, and Christianity.”

[209]. DeSilva, Honor, 274–75. For Diaspora Jews coming early to purify themselves, see, e.g., Safrai, “Temple,” 876–77 (citing, for purification in the temple, e.g., Jos. War 1.229) given the numbers of pilgrims, it was undoubtedly wise to arrive early for purification, in any case (cf. John 11:55).

[210]. Cf. SIG² 566.2–9 (Grant, Religions, 6); Plut. Isis 75, Mor. 381D; Mylonas, Eleusis, 248; Wild, Water, 129–48.

[211]. Le Cornu, Acts, 1191–92, thinks that most impure Jews came for cleansing to the eastern gate after the morning incense offering (m. Tamid 5:6).

[212]. The same play between περιπατέω and στοιχέω appears in Gal 5:16, 25; Phil 3:16–18.

[213]. This situation is similar to how gospel tradition portrays Jesus’s relationship with the people and their leaders (cf., e.g., Mark 12:12).

[214]. Euseb. H.E. 2.23.4–7, following Hegesippus (Le Cornu, Acts, 799; cf. Reicke, Era, 209, 215). The Ebionite portrayal of James probably makes him appear too legalistic (Davids, James, 19), but his Jewish piety is unquestioned. On James more generally, see comment on Acts 12:17; 15:13.

[215]. On his martyrdom, see further Martin, James, lxii–lxix. Regev, “Concerns,” 77, notes that Ananus’s means of condemning James was unprecedented; on the basis of a core tradition behind the early Christian accounts (77–79), he suggests that James preached in or concerning the temple (79), perhaps both (82). I am less convinced, but perhaps James might be accused by association with Paul.

[216]. Times of transition proved ideally suited for revolution (e.g., Tac. Hist. 1.21).

[217]. Jos. Ant. 20.200–203; Eusebius H.E. 2.23 elaborates further (scholars often allude to these events, e.g., Caird, Apostolic Age, 141; Hengel, Atonement, 56; Reicke, Era, 209; Martin, James, lxii–lxix; Regev, “Concerns,” 77–79 [for Pharisees defending James, 86]). On the usually accepted authenticity of this passage in Josephus, see, e.g., Hare, Persecution, 32–33; Feldman, “Methods,” 591; Paget, “Observations”; Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 185–89; pace Schürer, Time of Jesus, 214. Even parts of Josephus’s more contested passage about Jesus are likely authentic, one supporting factor being Jesus’s passing mention in this passage on James (Betz, Jesus, 9–10; Feldman, “Methods,” 591; see brief discussion at Acts 21:20, above).

[218]. McLaren, “Ananus, James, and Christianity.”

[219]. Euseb. H.E. 2.23. The height of the temple can be enormous at points, especially the height of the platform above the valley of the Kidron (see Mare, Archaeology, 142, citing Jos. Ant. 15.412).

[220]. On the possible site, based on Jerome’s claim, see Murphy-O’Connor, “Where?” For its supposed proximity to the temple, see Jerome Vir. ill. 2 (TU 14:8, 24/25); Bede Comm. Acts 21.18 (L. Martin, 166).

[221]. E.g., van der Horst, “Grafschrift” (later more tentatively but rejecting the negative Israeli Antiquities Authority report, van der Horst, “Nogmaals”); Evans, “Ossuary” (tentatively); Lemaire, “Evaluation”; idem, “Flawed”; idem, “Ossuaire”; idem, “Rejoinder.” Some of the ossuary’s original critics (including the Israeli prosecutor) have retracted their objections (“Prosecutor Repudiates Report”).

[222]. E.g., Eisenman, “Ossuary”; Silberman and Goren, “Faking”; Magness, “Ossuaries”; Carlson, Hoax, 94. It allegedly was one of the forgeries from an indicted forgery ring (“Finds or Fakes”). Flesher, “Dialect,” argues that its Aramaic is closer to a form used in the second century C.E., which could make it a forgery or simply a later ossuary. For a recent summary of the debate, see Fitzmyer, “Ossuary.”

[223]. Eisenman, “Ossuary.” But cf. Jude 1.

[224]. “Cleanser Used”; Lemaire, “Flawed”; Harrell, “Final Blow.” For a claim of some ancient patina, cf. Shanks, “Sample.”

[225]. Gibson, “Lost Cause.”

[226]. Many argue that the statistical odds favor this (e.g., Fuchs, “Demography”), though not all agree (e.g., Puech, “James”).

[227]. The textual variations in the requirements, as in Acts 15:29, reflect a desire of some later scribes to interpret them solely in moral categories (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 431–32; Porter, Paul in Acts, 183n75).

[228]. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 650.

[229]. Cf. Stagg, “Mission,” 270. (Idem, Acts, 12–17, argues that Acts’ focus is the expansion of the gospel beyond Judaism.) Historically, it appears that Paul was the long-range prophetic visionary for God’s larger plan; James was the sensitive pastor of his Jewish flock.

[230]. Spencer, Acts, 199.

[231]. Luke may “tame” Paul to make him accept the continuing validity of law (or temple; cf. Ravens, Restoration, 251–55), but this might better portray Paul’s own general approach than would mere excerpts from selected polemical passages in his own letters (cf. Larsson, “Paul: Law and Salvation”).

[232]. Some scholars have argued that he affirms even their obligation to keep the law (Wyschogrod, “Christianity and Law”; cf. Gal 5:3), a thesis more open to debate (cf. 5:6). Le Cornu, Acts, 1182, notes that even some who emphasized the symbolic value of circumcision expected its literal practice (Philo Migr. 89–90) and argues that circumcision obligates law keeping even for Paul (Gal 5:3).

[233]. Johnson, Acts, 378, citing Gal 2:3; Pervo, Acts, 543.

[234]. See esp. Horn, “Nasiräat.” On Paul’s continuing fidelity to the law (in some form), see, e.g., Fuller, Gospel, 202–4; Reicke, “God of Abraham,” 191–93; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 716–22; Hill, Hellenists, 146; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 8; Cranfield, “Response”; cf. Scott, “Deuteronomic Tradition”; note also the challenge to the Tübingen approach here already in Lightfoot, Acts, loc. cit. (forthcoming; courtesy of Witherington). In response to criticisms near this time (Rom 3:8), perhaps in part due to the heated rhetoric of Galatians, Paul may have been more temperate in Romans (with, e.g., Haacker, Theology, 17).

[235]. Perhaps also (as James’s martyrdom only a few years afterward suggests) its safety, if it is to be identified at all with Paul. But Paul was accommodating specifically the Jerusalem church, not other Jerusalemites.

[236]. Luke also recognizes the law’s value for Jewish Christian practice, although allowing that the current situation in salvation history has superseded some of its elements (see Bovon, Studies, 59–73).

[237]. See C. Williams, Acts, 24; Dunn, Acts, 284–85; Klauck, “Sacrifice”; Parkes, Conflict, 56. Moreau, “Right Thing,” 278–79, views it as a form of missionary contextualization; cf. Cox, “Purification.” Chrys. Hom. Acts 46 (Martin, Acts, 264–65) views Paul as accommodating Jewish expectations here. Such accommodation need not be viewed as deceptive. Both Luke and Paul’s letters make unlikely that Paul here “accommodates” merely as a pretense to counter rumors; rather, he continued to observe the law himself (Rudolph, “Jew to Jews,” 67–73).

[238]. Flender, Theologian, 117.

[239]. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 110–11. Cf. Bruce, Commentary, 432; idem, History, 318; Porter, Paul in Acts, 182. Paul seems to have upheld biblical ethics while not requiring behavior that he regarded as specific to Israel.

[240]. In addition to studies on missionary “reentry shock,” cf. Grunlan and Mayers, Cultural Anthropology, 24–26, 85–88; Mayers, Christianity Confronts Culture, 188; Luzbetak, Church and Cultures, 96–103; among students returning from abroad, see Seiter and Waddell, “Reentry Process”; Lerstrom, “Transitions.” On acculturation, see, e.g., Nash and Schaw, “Achievement”; and the following sources (from Frey and Roysircar, “Acculturation and Worldview”): Berry, “Acculturation”; Berry et al., “Attitudes”; Chataway and Berry, “Experiences”; Cuellar, Harris, and Jasso, “Scale”; Franco, “Scale”; Marin et al., “Scale”; Mena, Padilla, and Maldonado, “Stress”; Montgomery, “Comfort”; Olmedo, Martinez, and Martinez, “Acculturation”; Roysircar-Sodowsky, “Acculturation”; Roysircar-Sodowsky and Maestas, “Acculturation”; idem, “Assessment”; Roysircar-Sodowsky, Lai, and Plake, “Effects”; Roysircar-Sodowsky and Plake, “Differences.” For the impact of cultural fusion on societies, see, e.g., Spicer, “Acculturation.”

[241]. “Fulfilling days” had a more general usage (Gen 35:24; 1 Chr 17:11; CD X, 1; 4Q270 6 IV, 14; 4Q367 1a–b 8; Sib. Or. 1.282; 4 Ezra 14:45), but the Nazirite context is obviously closer.

[242]. Later rabbis believed that apostates (the Aramaic equivalent of meshummadim, not minim) were not welcome to bring offerings (Tg. Ps.-J. on Lev 1:2). A min might consider Israel apostate (b. Yebam. 102b), and an Amora might deny a min’s Jewishness (b. Sanh. 39ab).

[243]. The Syrian legate Vitellius went to Jerusalem with those offering sacrifice at Passover but then replaced the high priest while there (Reicke, Era, 192–93); more positively, see 1 Sam 16:2–3.

[244]. On Acts 21:27–22:29 as a narrative introduction to the more explicitly judicial defenses of Acts 23–26, see Bechard, “Case.” Baker, Identity, 201, suggests that Luke’s apparent harshness toward “unbelieving Judeans” reflects not anti-Semitism but the way that in-groups define themselves against out-groups. The observation about in-groups is true, but ancient audiences would not view with hostility people defending the sanctity of their temple; although Luke is unfavorable toward the Judean nationalism that led to the revolt, it is Paul’s false accusers from Ephesus here who bear the brunt of Luke’s dismay. Moreover, other Jewish groups also had conflicts, and Josephus prefers his in-groups as much as Luke prefers his. For Luke’s diverse treatment of Pharisees, see Gowler, Host, Guest, 177–296; Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 84–106; Keener, Acts, 1:471–72.

[245]. Regev, “Concerns,” argues that the charges against Stephen, Paul, and (in later sources) James are historically likely, fitting the known historical context, including elite Sadducean hostility toward actions that could undermine the temple’s sanctity.

[246]. For early intra-Jewish conflict concerning the Christian movement, see Keener, Acts, 1:462–65.

[247]. It should go without saying for twenty-first-century readers that given Paul’s Jewishness and the collusion of the Roman system (esp. Felix) with the chief priests, this portrayal reflects an issue of power, not of ethnicity. Luke values the Jerusalem church; he has little respect, however, for the integrity of the leaders of the priestly aristocracy, whose hostility toward Paul he witnessed.

[248]. Given their recognition of Paul, these are likely festival visitors, not (pace Strelan, Artemis, 271) immigrants. For Diaspora Jews visiting Jerusalem for Pentecost, Talbert, Acts, 188, cites Jos. Ant. 14.337; 17.254; War 2.42–43; Philo Spec. Laws 1.69; see further comment at Acts 2:1.

[249]. With Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 95; cf. Dunn, Acts, 288. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 95n177, notes that rabbinic references to Asia mean Ephesus. Cf. Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.1. Breytenbach, “Reasons,” 165, suggests Galatia, but this suggestion does not fit Luke’s usage (esp. Acts 16:6).

[250]. Indeed, even his name, which observers would not have known, was used by some Diaspora Jews (CIJ 1:121–22, §169; see further comment on Acts 20:4). The proposal that Trophimus was Jewish (Malina and Pilch, Acts, 155) violates the very point of 21:27–29.

[251]. Emphasized rightly by Tannehill, Acts, 236.

[252]. Other crowd situations in antiquity led to deaths by trampling when people tried to escape during a panic (Livy 24.39.5).

[253]. On the latter, see Rappaport, “Yhsy.” For an analogy of resistance to imperial-sponsored oppression, Horsley, Religion and Empire, 47–73, compares the Shiite revolution in Iran (turning [74–92] to ancient Judean movements). Although not all first-century Palestinian Jews experienced Roman rule as oppressive (see data in Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem), conflict appears increasingly obvious by this period.

[254]. On temples for asylum, see comment at Acts 19:29, 37; also Keener, Matthew, 557n72. On the centrality of the temple in this narrative, note in Acts 21:26–30 the repetition of the term in various cases (polyptoton, klisis) and the use of synonyms (interpretatio; Parsons, Acts, 305).

[255]. In view of Luke’s previous portrayal of Paul, Luke uses the false accusations against him to tell us more about Paul’s accusers (cf. Thompson, “Accusations”).

[256]. The consistent wording is Lukan and sounds as if Luke is answering charges against Paul (see comment on Acts 24:5–6).

[257]. Soards, Speeches, 110. For the minor alliteration here, cf. comment on Acts 24:3.

[258]. The use of νομίζω for false suppositions is common in Luke-Acts (Luke 2:44; 3:23; Acts 7:25; 8:20; 14:19; 16:27; 17:29; possibly excepting Acts 16:13). Greek intellectual thought often emphasized the distinction between truth and opinion (e.g., Diog. Laert. 9.3.22; Dio Chrys. Or. 67; 68; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, p. 94.13–22; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 52).

[259]. Barrett, Acts, 1020, notes that the plural “may be an inference, willful exaggeration, or a pluralis categoriae (cf. 19.38).” Context suggests exaggeration.

[260]. Where useful, Cicero could denounce Greeks as deceitful (Quint fratr. 1.2.2.4), yet appreciate their art and philosophy (1.1.9.28) and consider himself genuinely philhellenic (Att. 1.15). See fuller discussion at Acts 14:1.

[261]. He was even relatively respectful toward those whom he regarded as corrupt leaders in Jerusalem (Acts 13:27; 23:5). Paul’s letters certainly reveal that he was not against his people (Rom 9:3–5; 11:1–32; 2 Cor 11:24).

[262]. Cf., e.g., Rom 2:25–27; 3:19–21, 27–31; 7:12, 14, 16, 22–25; 8:2–4; 9:4; 13:8–10; 1 Cor 9:8–9; Gal 3:19–21; 6:2; cf. 1 Tim 1:8–9.

[263]. Paul’s letters address the spiritual temple (1 Cor 3:16–17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16) but not the status of the earthly one; probably Paul respects the priesthood (Rom 9:4; 1 Cor 9:13) but anticipates the temple’s defilement (2 Thess 2:4).

[264]. Fiensy, “Composition,” 221–22; see further comment on Acts 6:11–13.

[265]. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 197.

[266]. Ironically, Tac. Hist. frg. 2 (if authentic) viewed it also as an attack on Christianity, which sprang from Jewish roots.

[267]. I have argued for especially Egyptian influence (Keener and Usry, Faith, 139–46, and sources cited, 201–6; Keener, “Tabernacle”; idem, “Worship”; cf. also Kitchen, “Background,” 8–13; Scott, “Tabernacle,” passim, e.g., 109, 315).

[268]. Fritz, “Temple”; Albright, Stone Age, 225; idem, Biblical Period, 60; Aharoni, Archaeology, 212, 227–28; Wright, Archaeology, 141–44; Bright, History, 218; Kitchen, World, 103. Given the stated cooperation with Phoenicians (1 Kgs 7:13–14, 40, 45; cf. 5:8–10; 9:11; 2 Chr 4:11), one could hardly expect otherwise. Some Egyptian influence continued both in Solomon’s building techniques (cf. Milson, “Design,” on Solomonic gates) and on first-millennium Phoenician iconography (Hölbl, “Kunstelemente”).

[269]. See Jacobson, “Roman Temple.” On Herodian architecture generally, see Netzer, Architecture.

[270]. For Hellenistic architecture and sculpture in third- to first-century B.C.E. Palestine, see Fischer and Tal, “Decoration.”

[271]. Stern, “Province,” 344–45.

[272]. For some of the recovered seats, see Reich and Billig, “Theatre Seats.”

[273]. Both mentioned by Josephus (War 2.44; Ant. 15.268) but not certainly attested archaeologically (McRay, Archaeology, 127). One might suppose this to be Josephus’s apologetic for Hellenist readers (to prove how “civilized” predestruction Judeans were), but it probably simply reflects the vagaries of surviving evidence (his description of Caesarea’s amphitheater is also confusing, yet cultural resistance there would have been minimal). Josephus also locates a hippodrome at Taricheae (Life 132, 138; War 2.599).

[274]. The eschatological Jerusalem would exclude foreigners (Joel 3:17 [4:17 MT]), but even the temple would not exclude, in another vision of the future, righteous Gentiles (Isa 56:4–7; cf. Luke 19:46).

[275]. Guilt had to be atoned for (e.g., Deut 21:1–9) to avoid a curse on the land (2 Sam 21:3–6). Larkin, Acts, 314, argues that the temple remained profaned until the execution took place.

[276]. The temple courts explain the imagery of Eph 2:14 much better than supposed gnostic imagery does (see, e.g., Wilson, Gnosis and New Testament, 39; Bruce, “Myth,” 93; idem, Documents, 93–94; idem, Apostle, 434–35; cf. Barclay, “New Man,” 74; Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 85). The structure of the temple was probably known to many Diaspora Jews, given the large number of pilgrims (cf. Deissmann, Paul, 87; Davies, Paul, 231).

[277]. Cf. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 104–5; Safrai, “Temple,” 865–70.

[278]. Lundquist, “Biblical Temple,” 329.

[279]. See also m. Kelim 1:8–9. Some cite m. ʿArak. 2:1 as allowing women passage for the whole-offerings (Cornfeld, Josephus, 356n199b); but this interpretation is unlikely, and Josephus’s information is earlier and likelier.

[280]. According to rabbis, a known menstruant would not even enter the Temple Mount (m. Kelim 1:8). The concerns reflect the wider milieu: some pagan sacrifices also barred women to avoid defilement (Heliod. Eth. 10.4); a temple of Aphrodite in Cyprus barred women (Strabo 14.6.3). For divisions of holiness in the ideal temple, cf. 11QT III–XLVIII.

[281]. Among the rabbis, see, e.g., m. Kelim 1:8 (including the rampart); on the other side of the question, later rabbis believed that Gentiles, unlike Israelites, were welcome to sacrifice to the true God anywhere (Sipra A.M. par. 6.187.1.1, on Lev 17:1–7).

[282]. Jos. Ant. 3.318–19; War 6.426–27.

[283]. He does not address the problem of widespread illiteracy (on which see, e.g., Harris, Literacy), though probably literacy was less limited than in the ancient Near East (see Demsky, “Literacy”). Samaritans had already been excluded from Jerusalem Passover celebrations (Jos. Ant. 18.30).

[284]. Ancient decrees were typically promulgated in both languages, though only Greek inscriptions have been discovered (Porter, “Inscriptions,” 533; on trilingual inscriptions in the East, the translations sometimes adapted to local culture, see Neumann, “Trilingual Inscriptions,” 921). Certainly, other Latin inscriptions appear in Judea (Aune, “Latin,” 335), and the misconduct of Roman soldiers (albeit perhaps not able to read Latin) was a concern (Jos. War 2.224–27).

[285]. One may see these conveniently also in Carmon, Inscriptions, 76, 167–68, §169 (including a photo of the inscription); in translation only, see Deissmann, Light, 80–81 (with photo); Barrett, Documents, 50; Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 333.

[286]. See Finegan, Archeology of New Testament, 119–20; Cornfeld, Josephus, 354, 356; Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 53; Yamauchi, Stones, 120; Thompson, Archaeology, 314. Among early sources, Fitzmyer, Acts, 698, cites Bickerman, “Inscriptions”; and Zeitlin, “Inscription.”

[287]. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 197; Robinson, Ephesians, 59–60, 160; Sandmel, Judaism, 54; Bruce, Documents, 93; Pervo, Acts, 550.

[288]. Temple worship should avoid Gentile grain and vessels (4QMMT [4Q394–399] B 3–8; the translators compare m. Parah 2:1 [R. Eliezer, not most sages]), and Gentiles should not be permitted to sacrifice there (4QMMT B 8–9, if I understand correctly). Refusing Gentile gifts may have contributed to precipitating the war (Jos. War 2.408–9, as understood by Haacker, Theology, 16).

[289]. Some Jews may have believed that the intruding Gentiles incurred a divine death decree, which the priests would then execute (Segal, “Penalty”; cf. idem, “Death Decree”).

[290]. Baumgarten, “Exclusions” (despite opinions of the Qumran sect).

[291]. For wider ancient Mediterranean taboos against trespassing sacred space, see deSilva, Honor, 251–52 (citing, e.g., Soph. Oed. Col. 466–90).

[292]. E.g., Grant, Religions, 6–7, translating SIG² 566.2–9 (= SIG³ 982); SIG² 560 (= SIG³ 338; IG 12.1.677); SIG² 563 (= SIG³ 980; BCH 7 [1883]: 477.1).

[293]. See Schiemann, “Death Penalty.”

[294]. While differing from the concept of religious toleration urged by early Anabaptists and formulated by John Locke and others, Roman policy followed both pragmatism and the logic of pious polytheism in accepting local religious customs (what people in the U.S. might call religious freedom) insofar as it did not overstep the bounds of civil order.

[295]. For the Eleusis example, see O’Rourke, “Law,” 174; cf. Demosth. Mid. 175; Plut. Ten Or. 2, Andocides, Mor. 834CD. The penalty for betraying the Mysteries was also death (e.g., Livy 39.13.1–8; 13.18; Mylonas, Eleusis, 224–27; cf. Thucyd. 6.53.1–2; Ovid Metam. 3.710–20).

[296]. Sanders, Judaism, 61 (on Jos. War 6.126; following Segal, “Penalty”). So sacred was the temple that even “seemingly minor offenses could cause riots” (Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 285).

[297]. In light of other sources, Rabello, “Condition,” 737–38, doubts the authenticity of this claim, thinking that the killing would be by a mob rather than by execution.

[298]. So Broer, “Death,” 166–67 (citing the epigraphic work of Müller, “Möglichkeit,” 68).

[299]. The soldier was probably an auxiliary and thus not a Roman citizen, but the politics of crowd control demanded his execution in any case.

[300]. A defendant could object to being personally discredited on account of some of the company he keeps (Rhet. Alex. 7, 1429a.1–5).

[301]. Larkin, Acts, 313 (citing b. ʿErub. 104b for the principle, although it explicitly addresses only creeping things).

[302]. See, e.g., Sherwin-White, Society, 32–43; Stewart, “Procedure”; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 17; Benoit, Jesus, 1:135; Bruce, “Trial,” 12–13; Keener, John, 1107–9.

[303]. Keener, Acts, 2:1431–32.

[304]. On this passage, see Segal, “Death Penalty.”

[305]. Naturally, hope for an eschatological temple became more pervasive after 70 C.E. (e.g., 2 Bar. 4:3; 32:4; t. Roš Haš. 2:9; Šabb. 1:13; y. Ber. 1:5, §5; Gen. Rab. 65:23; Num. Rab. 14:8; 15:10; Lam. Rab. proem 33), but it is well attested beforehand (1 En. 90:28–29; 91:13 [Ethiopic]; Tob. 13:10; 14:5; Sib. Or. 3.657–60, 702, 772–74), especially at Qumran (11QT XXX–XLV; 4Q174 1 I, 2; 4Q504 1–2 IV, 12; 4Q511 35 3; notes in Maier, Temple Scroll, 98–116; Yadin, “Temple Scroll,” 41); cf. also restored vessels and ark (2 Macc 2:4–7; 2 Bar. 6:7–9; 29:8; 4 Bar. 3:10–11, 19; 4:4; m. Šeqal. 6:1–2; Yoma 5:2; t. Kip. 2:15). See further Keener, John, 525–26; but esp. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 77–90.

[306]. The motif in various sources likely suggests a common Christian tradition; cf. perhaps also Rev 21:14.

[307]. This image could, in fact, support rather than challenge temple piety (see Horn, “Tempel,” 186–87; on Paul’s priestly mission in Rom 15:16, see p. 202). If Paul’s collection evokes the temple tax, it could also honor the temple as easily as compete with it; but it might not seem such to outsiders (cf. Horn, “Tempel,” 202–3).

[308]. Potentially a live issue in and around Ephesus (Acts 19:17).

[309]. Cf. also the “us” and “you” in Eph 1:3–14.

[310]. Noted in this connection also by others, at least as early as Lightfoot in his survey article concerning Acts (see Lightfoot, Acts; courtesy of Ben Witherington). By contrast, 4Q174 1 I, 4 emphasizes the eschatological exclusion of foreigners (Schnabel, Mission, 113); cf. Zech 14:21.

[311]. Cf. Keener, “Reconciliation,” 118–22, 182–86; idem, “Temple,” 76–79.

[312]. Ray, Irony, 60, suggests another irony: “By taking the gospel to the Gentiles Paul had indeed brought Greeks in to worship the God of the Jews.” Such activity would arouse significant Judean hostility only because of the unrelated political situation.

[313]. But in Luke, the “trial” is just a morning hearing and is brief (Luke 22:66–71). He includes the corresponding rending of the veil (Luke 23:45; Mark 15:38).

[314]. Cf. Matera, “Luke 22,66–71,” 533; cf. Regev, “Concerns,” 82–84 (connecting the accusation against Jesus with accusations against his followers such as Peter, Stephen, Paul, and James). For Luke 19:41–44 in terms of mandatory herem—i.e., Jerusalem “devoted to destruction” in judgment (for killing prophets, etc.)—see Park, Herem, 123–24.

[315]. Matthew makes the same curious omission. Even if Mark added the line to a shared source like Q, Matthew and Luke followed Mark in the context, and so their omissions of the words at this point are noteworthy.

[316]. That Matthew (Matt 21:13) also omits precisely these words, despite his emphasis on the nations, seems equally curious (see Keener, Matthew, 500–501).

[317]. Other scholars also recognize the parallel with Stephen; for some detailed comparisons between Luke’s narrative of Paul here and his narrative about Stephen, see Penner, Praise, 297.

[318]. On “like” retribution, see, e.g., L.A.B. 44:9–10; Jub. 4:32; m. ʾAb. 2:6/7; comment on Acts 3:2.

[319]. Readers can enjoy reading a story multiple times precisely because they can suspend preconceptions, agreeing to the story world’s conditions.

[320]. Cic. Verr. 2.5.5.10–11; Philost. Hrk. 25.16–17.

[321]. E.g., Polyb. 3 closes with Carthage ready to destroy Rome and then (following the demands of chronology) shifts to an account of Greece during the same period.

[322]. Confessing a “crime” that was not genuinely a crime was a good rhetorical strategy (e.g., Xen. Hell. 1.7.16–17; Cic. Sest. 69.145–46; Jos. Life 142; see comment on Acts 24:14).

[323]. Skinner, Locating Paul, 176. Though constrained by physical limits, Paul the prisoner remains Paul the missionary (194–95). Although I address apologetic and historical issues related to custody elsewhere, Skinner addresses the crucial theological issues, and I have chosen to summarize (and occasionally develop or tweak) his cohesive insights especially here rather than split them among various commentary pericopes.

[324]. Ibid., 181–82, noting also “safety and privileged access” (177). In contrast with other detentions in Acts, there is no emphasis on Paul’s physical suffering here, despite predictions for the future earlier in the narrative (180–81) and without denying negative elements (194–95).

[325]. Ibid., 200. Skinner offers the same basic thesis in idem, “Unchained Ministry,” 79–95, but with a greater sociopolitical emphasis (see esp. 94–95): Paul’s continuing ministry subverts the government’s quarantining purpose and hence shows that no political structures are absolute. While Luke would certainly agree that God’s authority is greater, however, does the narrative suggest that Rome was “quarantining” him to deliberately inhibit his ministry? (That it would wish to preempt riots is, of course, plausible.)

[326]. Skinner, Locating Paul, 186. It remains a place of mission but also allows for Luke’s political apologetic (cf. discussion in Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 531).

[327]. See Skinner, Locating Paul, 187.

[328]. I say “probably” because our second-century evidence suggests that Paul’s letters were far more widely read than Acts. But Acts may have had a generative influence far beyond its immediate readership (or may have simply articulated most fully one perspective already circulating among Paul’s surviving colleagues).

[329]. Although Acts 21:30 is part of the riot scene that continues through 22:22, I have retained it with the preceding context to highlight the Roman captivity in 21:31–40 and because Paul’s accusers began stirring the crowds in 21:27.

[330]. Longenecker, Acts, 318.

[331]. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 44.

[332]. Ibid. The part of the Herodian-period citadel from Jerusalem so far excavated fits the standard Greco-Roman model of intersecting streets with houses around them (Bahat, “Jerusalem,” 230).

[333]. See Schnabel, Acts, 894, taking the throngs from the city more literally. As he observes (895), they could have entered via four outer gates “and two bridges.”

[334]. Fiensy, “Composition,” 233.

[335]. Johnson, Acts, 381, cites Jos. War 1.88–89; 2.8–13, 42–48, 169–74, 223–27, 229–31, 315–20, 406–7, 449–56. Specifically at Pentecost, Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 43, cites Jos. Ant. 17.254.

[336]. Competing political ideals may have surged at festivals, spurring more violence (see, e.g., Weitzman, “Feasts”), but the dense crowds also lent themselves more readily to mob violence.

[337]. Luke’s lack of explicit mention could mean that he ambiguously allows a Pentecost interpretation that does not correspond with the facts, but the presence of an augmented garrison may support the idea that festival crowds have not completely diminished.

[338]. For governors coming for the festivals, to secure crowd control, see, e.g., Jos. War 2.223–27; Ant. 20.105–12; cf. 20.208. If we should envision festival strength, Felix presumably remained in Caesarea on this occasion, unless he left part of the additional force for some reason.

[339]. So also Quadratus in Jos. War 2.244, though for special circumstances.

[340]. Barclay, “New Man,” 74, estimates the outer court as 750 ft. square, but this is impossibly small for even the inner courts in this period (he presumably means 750 ft. by 750 ft., following Mishnaic measurements; i.e., 562,500 sq. ft.); from the map in Finegan, Archeology of New Testament, 117, it appears closer to 65,000–70,000 sq. m. The Temple Mount as a whole takes up ca. 35 acres (118).

[341]. Cf. the difficulties for Roman soldiers attempting to carry out actions in Jerusalem’s narrow streets in Jos. War 2.329 (though it was easier without resistance, 2.306).

[342]. The outer court was an appropriate place for the striking down of those wishing to desecrate the temple (4 Macc 4:11).

[343]. This charge would, however, conveniently neglect the point that Trophimus, though uncircumcised, was nevertheless not an idolater and hence would not communicate impurity on his own account.

[344]. Noted also by Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 43 (rightly citing Matt 23:35; Jos. Ant. 18.30). Cf. Luke 20:15 (possibly partly concerned with the purity of the harvest, Lev 11:37–38). Bloodshed in a sanctuary revealed the wickedness of the killers, inviting judgment (e.g., Eurip. Tro. 69; Apollod. Bib. 1.9.8, 16; Virg. Aen. 1.349; Appian Bell. civ. 5.1.9; Diod. Sic. 13.90.1; 17.13.6; Paus. 7.24.6; Jos. Ant. 20.165; Ag. Ap. 2.57; cf. Nieto Ibáñez, “Grove”); for other acts against temples, see comment on Acts 19:37; for sanctuaries as places of refuge for suppliants, see comment on Acts 19:29.

[345]. E.g., Diod. Sic. 14.4.6–7; 38/39.17.1; Sil. It. 4.791; Dio Cass. 51.15.5; Iambl. V.P. 28.153; Jos. Ant. 20.166.

[346]. E.g., Aristoph. Knights 1311–12; Thucyd. 3.81.5; Plut. Demosth. 29.5; Sulla 31.5; Philost. Hrk. 31.4; cf. Polyb. 9.29.4; see further comment at Acts 19:29. (Only the sacred area would count as a place of refuge; Aeschylus Suppl. 509.)

[347]. So Tac. Hist. 1.43. Paul’s accusers would see him as having desecrated the temple rather than having taken sanctuary there, but the perspective of Luke’s audience would differ markedly.

[348]. Cf. Cic. Sest. 38.80: Sestius committed no crime by staining the temple with his blood—for others shed it.

[349]. E.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 275; Cadbury, Acts in History, 67; Bruce, Commentary, 435; Witherington, Acts, 655.

[350]. 1 Chr 9:17–27; 15:18, 23–24; 16:38; 23:5; 26:1, 12, 19; 2 Chr 8:14; 23:4, 19; 34:12; 35:15; Ezra 2:42, 70; 7:7; 10:24; Neh 7:1, 45, 73; 10:28–39; 11:19; 12:25, 45, 47; 13:5, 22; Ezek 44:10–11, 15–17. Outside Scripture, see, e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.29 (priests).

[351]. It is too subtle to think that Luke plays on words, recalling the temple’s doors being shut when it fell into disrepair (2 Chr 29:7; cf. 29:3) or was abandoned for idols (28:24).

[352]. Bruce, Commentary, 435; Witherington, Acts, 655; Schnabel, Acts, 894.

[353]. For purity reasons, burials were, e.g., conducted outside Jerusalem and other ancient cities (cf. Acts 14:19; 4 Bar. 7:13; Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 146).

[354]. Cf. again m. Sanh. 9:6, though this does not settle the question.

[355]. When the Samaritans deliberately desecrated the temple, they did so under cover of night (Jos. Ant. 18.29–30).

[356]. Witherington, Acts, 652.

[357]. Talbert, Acts, 187, helpfully cites in this connection Lucian Hist. 56–57: the writer should focus on the most relevant and useful points. For “dwelling on the point,” see Anderson, Glossary, 53. On Paul’s captivity in Acts in greater detail, see Skinner, Locating Paul (for a narrative approach); Rapske, Custody; Tajra, Trial.

[358]. Cf. Spencer, Acts, 203. Given the earlier dramatic hostilities that Paul faced, these are not implausible, but whereas Luke omits most others, he includes these.

[359]. Luke identifies Paul with both Judaism and Rome (cf. Jankowski, “Messianische Realpolitik?”).

[360]. Often argued, e.g., Dunn, Acts, 277–78.

[361]. To notice Luke’s emphasis is not to deny Jesus’s crucifixion near Jerusalem, or subsequent persecution in that region (1 Thess 2:14–15), or that Paul himself expected hostility there (Rom 15:31).

[362]. Puskas, “Conclusion: Investigation,” 151–52.

[363]. With, e.g., Riesner, Early Period, 325.

[364]. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 77, doubts that Luke remained during the interim, thinking Judea dangerous “for a Gentile-Christian follower of Paul” after the accusation against Trophimus (Acts 21:29). But Caesarea was primarily a Gentile city with a church that had already welcomed him. Hengel agrees that Luke accompanied Paul to Rome (27:1; p. 78), but does not address how Luke knew when to return.

[365]. These are more relevant comparisons than the more positive uses in Acts 2:6 and 9:22, though the former also indicates confusion. Only Luke employs this verb in the NT; the noun cognate occurs four times in the LXX. The verb applies to confusion in Herm. 25.4; 47.1–2.

[366]. E.g., Sen. E. Controv. 7.7.intro.; Jos. Ant. 20.79; cf. Keener, John, 912–13, esp. n. 161.

[367]. Polybius disliked deus ex machina as a solution to an improbable plot (Polyb. 3.48.7–8). So did Aristotle, complaining that this solution was extrinsic to the plot (Poet. 1454a37–b2; Zimmermann, “Deus ex machina,” 324).

[368]. Noting the convenience of the intervention is not to deny that an intervention occurred; sometimes crowds could deliver innocent victims from mistreatment (1 Sam 14:45; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.39.3), and at other times, leaders could deliver individuals from crowds.

[369]. Probably not originally “protective custody,” pace Cadbury, Acts in History, 67, and Lysias (Acts 23:27).

[370]. E.g., Knowling, “Acts,” 453; Cadbury, Acts in History, 65–66; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 276; Thompson, Archaeology, 402; for the Antonia here, see also Netzer, “Reconstruction.”

[371]. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 27. It is true that a Jewish or God-fearing author could have visited the temple on other occasions (Theissen, Gospels, 17–18), but when the author presupposes accurate information especially in the “we” material, we should take note of it (see comment on Acts 16:10). Luke himself was likely not with Paul in the temple, especially if Luke comes as a representative of the Gentile churches (cf. Acts 20:4–5; 21:29), but (again if he was a Gentile) Luke likely captured his picture of the outer court on this visit, perhaps at Pentecost.

[372]. For archaeological observations, see, e.g., Wightman, “Fortresses in Jerusalem”; Cornfeld, Josephus, 362–66; Finegan, Archeology of New Testament, 119; Mare, Archaeology, 160–61; Lichtenberger, Baupolitik, 35–39.

[373]. For a recent debate about the Antonia’s location, see Murphy-O’Connor, “Antonia”; J. Schwartz, “Birah”; Bahat, “Down Under.” Josephus makes this identification (Ant. 13.307; 15.409; 18.92; War 1.75, 118, 401), and as D. Schwartz, “Antonia,” 347–48, notes, it seems generally wiser to trust our ancient sources than modern inferences (though he deliberately limits his focus to only one aspect of the debate). The evidence is, however, complex, and the debate unresolved.

[374]. The base rock was also smooth, making it difficult to scale (Jos. Ant. 5.239). The hill on which it rested was ca. 75 ft. high; the fortress proper was ca. 60 ft. high, with three towers each ca. 75 ft., and the southeast corner tower ca. 105 ft. high (Mare, Archaeology, 160–61).

[375]. Cf. also a purported subterranean passageway (Jos. Ant. 15.424). The Antonia counted as part of the Temple Mount (War 5.192). On staircases more generally in this period, see discussion in Höcker, “Stairs.”

[376]. Cf. Johnson, Acts, 382; also, e.g., Florus’s orders to strike the innocent on the slightest pretext (Jos. War 2.325–26). At the same time, there is evidence that some soldiers also converted to Judaism (Bamberger, Proselytism, 232–33).

[377]. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 197; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 275; Rapske, Custody, 138; e.g., Jos. Ant. 20.110.

[378]. For its likely architecture, based on Josephus but also other Herodian works such as the Herodium, see Netzer, “Reconstruction,” 49.

[379]. Cf. Jos. War 2.223–27, esp. 224; Ant. 20.105–12.

[380]. Cf. Jos. War 5.244; Ant. 20.106–7. Even smaller detachments could be employed for special assignments (Pliny Ep. 10.21.1–10.22.2; 10.27–28; 10.77.1–10.78.1).

[381]. Originally so called because, in the Macedonian and Ptolemaic armies, he commanded a thousand troops (Bonfante, “Chiliarchos”).

[382]. At least early legions had ten cohorts (Parker, Watson, and Coulston, “Cohors”), but current legions apparently had six tribunes (Campbell, “Tribuni militum”).

[383]. Pliny the Younger held this office in Syria before his later governorship (Ep. 3.11.5); we also read of a tribune preparing to run for office (6.31.4).

[384]. Campbell, “Tribuni militum”; cf. Stevenson, “Army,” 226. On the equestrian order, see Jones, Empire, 134–40.

[385]. This might be especially the case if he was experiencing resentment against the local culture (analogous to culture shock).

[386]. Campbell, “Manipulus.” Fitzmyer, Acts, 699, cites Polyb. 6.24.5 for the older usage.

[387]. Parker, Watson, and Coulston, “Cohors.”

[388]. See Fitzmyer, Acts, 699 (he reports 600 [p. 449]).

[389]. Campbell, “Auxilia,” 420. Reicke, Era, 140, has 600 in each cohort (perhaps thinking of the cavalry cohort, or closer to their paper strength; but see comment below and on Acts 23:23). Cf. further discussion at Acts 10:1.

[390]. Campbell, “Auxilia,” 420. Reicke, Era, 140, estimates 500 infantry and 100 cavalry. The exception would be if the garrison simply has reinforcements for the festival; but if it is still the festival, governor Felix, at least, has not come.

[391]. Reicke, Era, 140.

[392]. I would compare ethnic-religious riots in northern Nigeria (where eyewitnesses shared with me accounts that conflict starkly with some published media reports; cf. also Keener, “Mayhem” [I did not compose the title]; some conflicting versions in Boer, Decades of Blood, passim); I believe that most of the early conflicts were provoked by extremists acting for one side, but tensions once inflamed (especially through atrocities) are not easily quenched for any party. In another instance (June 2, 1998), I myself was present during an attack (not religiously motivated) on hundreds of people completely unreported even by the local media (and possibly unknown to them).

[393]. By the late republic, each centurion, whether in legions or in auxiliary cohorts, commanded about eighty men (Campbell, “Centuria”), and so they presumably commanded more than 160 men. Given the urgency, perhaps those on duty advanced first, backed up by others on hand, who might be ready, given the situation of insurgencies, to gird on their gear. Romans had long emphasized readiness for emergencies (for the Roman state as a whole, cf. Treves and Cornell, “Tumultus”). Specifying centurions as distinct from other soldiers is not unusual (despite literary reason to notice Luke’s frequent interest in them); common soldiers could distinguish themselves from centurions and tribunes (Tac. Hist. 1.80).

[394]. Cf. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 337; Lane, Mark, 524, citing b. Pesaḥ. 57a, bar.; t. Menaḥ. 13:21. For Romans using clubs for “crowd control” in Jerusalem, cf. Jos. War 2.176, 326; cf. Ant. 18.61.

[395]. Given the number of law-zealous believers in Jerusalem (Acts 21:20), it is possible that some are in this crowd, oblivious to Paul’s identity. If so, it is impossible to be certain whether under mob influence all would have followed the more peaceful views attributed to James (Jas 1:19–20; 3:9–10, 13–18; 4:1–2, 11–12; 5:7–11) and the Jerusalem church (Euseb. H.E. 3.5.3). The assault was based mainly on misinformation at this point; if any Jerusalem believers did participate, they surely would have abandoned the riot’s resumption at Acts 22:22, however.

[396]. Many cases of police brutality today have occurred where police forces perceive the environment to be hostile, a perception that tends to escalate the level of force.

[397]. Rapske, Custody, 9, 25–28; idem, “Prison,” 828; cf. Lam 3:7; 1 Esd 1:40; Heb 11:36; Dio Chrys. Or. 18.10; for an exception for some ancient Roman rites, see Livy 5.13.8; in deference to his rank, a captured king was kept in gold chains in Vell. Paterc. 2.82.3. One who was not suspected of wanting to escape might even be left unchained (Polyb. 32.3.5). Chaining restricted mobility (Apul. Flor. 17.7); its purpose was, however, to ensure appearance for trial, not to constitute a legal penalty (O’Rourke, “Law,” 174).

[398]. Rapske, Custody, 140.

[399]. With Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 276; Witherington, Acts, 657. Certainly we need not think of the neck (as in Polyb. 32.3.6–7; Quint. Curt. 7.5.36).

[400]. Rapske, “Prison,” 828, cites Jos. Ant. 18.189–237; Ign. Rom. 5.1; Sen. Y. Ep. 5.7; Tranq. 10.3.

[401]. Rapske, Custody, 140.

[402]. Arrest shortly before trial characterizes eight of the thirteen trial scenes in the five “canonical” Greek novels, often with binding (Schwartz, “Trial Scenes,” 112). But the novels here reflect what was sometimes social reality; what is striking in Luke’s account is how well the Romans treat Paul (once he reveals his status). Luke does not heighten Paul’s mistreatment to match Jesus’s in the gospel tradition or the adventures of novels. But given his apologetic use of Paul’s status, it would not serve his purposes to do so anyway.

[403]. Although most preserved denunciations were written, they could be oral (Tajra, Trial, 69).

[404]. Indeed, Jerusalem supported Felix’s attack on the Egyptian false prophet (Jos. War 2.263).

[405]. E.g., whenever anyone was stabbed, those around cried out in dismay (Jos. War 2.255).

[406]. E.g., Plut. Cic. 36.4.

[407]. See Jos. Life 28, 46–47, 77, 106, 145, 175, 206; Ant. 20.121, 124, 161, 163, 165, 167, 172, 185–86, 210, 215, 255–56; War 2.228–29, 253–54, 271, 425, 431, 434, 441, 541, 587, 653; 4.138, 199, 242, 244, 409, 504, 510, 555; 5.421, 448, 515, 524, 546; 6.123, 129, 195, 324, 363.

[408]. Cicero Prov. cons. 7.15.

[409]. Including even in the senate (Diod. Sic. 40.5a.1); how much more difficult was it to hear during a mob (18.67.1–4)?

[410]. Corn. Nep. 3 (Aristides), 1.4. Although this report may reflect aristocratic disdain for the masses, it is hardly impossible; polls suggest that many voters even in the comparatively literate United States express minimal knowledge of issues about which they are voting.

[411]. Less alert sentries (perhaps in a time of less dramatic unrest) might have prevented such rapid, hence lifesaving, intervention (cf. the failure of either Levite guards or the Roman garrison to intervene in the possibly brief scene in Luke 19:45).

[412]. The testudo; cf. Barth, Ephesians, 2:772. A crowd could also carry victors above them after games (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 9.14).

[413]. Conzelmann, Acts, 183; cf. Pervo, Story, 76.

[414]. Even if he needed to attribute it to supernatural restoration; cf. Acts 14:19–20.

[415]. Having been beaten more than once in my younger days at some length (complete with blows, my head being slammed repeatedly onto the ground, and my hair being pulled out), I can testify that although the experience leaves one sore, it is not always fatal or immediately immobilizing (as noted below, I was much stiffer the following day).

[416]. From my own experience of having been beaten for my witness on several occasions in the years after my conversion (including by one whose stated intent was to kill me and another who repeatedly slammed my head against the ground, tearing out my hair), the ability to physically act and/or preach in the urgent aftermath was easier than after the injuries had stiffened and skin blackened some hours later. Again, of course, such abilities would depend on the extent of injuries. I continued seeking to persuade my aggressor as my head was being slammed, and would have continued until my demise had I not finally been forcibly removed from the aggressor’s reach. (Then again, I was not in a position to leave voluntarily.)

[417]. With Bruce, Commentary, 435–36; Johnson, Acts, 382; Witherington, Acts, 658; Schnabel, Acts, 896. The cries may be preserved independently in Johannine tradition (John 19:15).

[418]. Cf. discussion in Keener, John, 1000–1001, concerning John 15:2.

[419]. E.g., Gen 40:20–22; Cic. Verr. 2.4.10.24; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 2.21.7–11; cf. Artem. Oneir. 2.53.

[420]. Many other ancient writers also preferred speeches; but rapid exchanges occurred, and they could take place even at great length in some scenes in tragedies (see Brown, “Stichomythia”).

[421]. For a perspective on Greek novelists’ views of Egyptian outlaws, see Rutherford, “Boukoloi.”

[422]. E.g., Suet. Tib. 71; Juv. Sat. 6.184–99; on traditional differences between the cultures, Rhet. Her. 4.2.4–4.3.4; Florus Carm. 7; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.8.1. See further discussion at Acts 18:12–17.

[423]. Even the soldier in Apul. Metam. 9.39 knows both Latin and Greek (in contrast to the poor peasant gardener, who speaks Greek only; cf. Lucian Lucius 44).

[424]. Sherwin-White, Society, 150–51. In Palestine, about 150 of the 400 Latin inscriptions are milestones, with about 120 from Caesarea and only 30 from Jerusalem (Eck, “Spiegel”; lead weights in Latin discovered so far are from Caesarea [Kushnir-Stein, “Weights”]).

[425]. Highly educated Romans, however, prided themselves on their good Greek (e.g., Pliny Ep. 7.9.2).

[426]. Horsley, Documents, 5:23–24. See discussion of Greek and Aramaic use in Palestine at Acts 6:1.

[427]. Levine, Hellenism, 78. The percentage is much higher in Beth She‘arim (78 percent), Jaffa (90 percent), and Rome (78 percent; ibid., 182).

[428]. Porter, “Papyri, Palestinian,” esp. 766.

[429]. Levine, Hellenism, 46–95, esp. 94–95.

[430]. Koskenniemi, “Background,” 109, suggests that Josephus uses the anonymous title “Egyptian” (in contrast to, say, Theudas) because this figure wanted to repeat miracles performed by Moses in Egypt. Witherington, Acts, 661, suggests that the tribune’s questions imply that Paul’s Greek is too good for a Jerusalemite but more expected for an Egyptian. Written Greek is probably more pervasive in Egypt (it began to displace Demotic already in the Ptolemaic period, until Demotic became merely a sort of literary glossolalia in late antiquity). But well-educated Jerusalemites would speak Greek as well as well-educated Egyptians.

[431]. Rathbone, “Egypt,” 512; cf. Greek use in Tebtunis, not a large city (Merola, “Letters”).

[432]. See Kraus, “(Il)literacy.”

[433]. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 250. Popular inquiries at oracles may have shifted by the early first century C.E.; Ripat, “Language,” suggests that Rome encouraged this process to solidify political control.

[434]. Dickey, “Latin Influence”; cf. Rochette, “Bilingualisme” (also idem, “Papyrologica bilinguia”). Egyptian papyri reveal some distinctively Egyptian characteristics, but in many respects, they resemble other papyri from antiquity (Arzt, “Ägyptische Papyri”).

[435]. Haenchen, Acts, 621, attributes the ignorance to Luke rather than to the tribune. Luke probably had little direct contact with Egypt, but as an easterner he might be more familiar with the good Greek of an Alexandrian Jew (Acts 18:24) than a Roman equestrian would. Nevertheless, Lysias is originally Greek (23:26), and if Luke deliberately portrayed the tribune as clueless for comic effect, this would have been lost on his audience. See comment on Acts 21:38.

[436]. Gaventa, Acts, 305, citing, on suspicion of Egyptians, Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 29–30; Strabo 17.1.12; Philo Dreams 1.240; 2.255; Alleg. Interp. 2.84; 3.13, 37–38, 81, 87.

[437]. See, e.g., the later emphasis in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.4, 7, 17; 4.5; 5.41 (though this may be more blatant than in the first century). See further comment on Greeks versus barbarians at Acts 28:2. Elite Romans, meanwhile, treated “linguistic corruption” as an aspect “of moral vice” (McNelis, “Grammarians,” 291, citing Sen. Y. Ep. 114; Tac. Dial. 32).

[438]. McCoskey, Race, 71, citing Quint. Inst. 8.1.3.

[439]. Malina and Neyrey, Portraits, 169–72, deal with group-oriented societies’ tendency to think in stereotypes, addressing (171–72) ethnic stereotypes (citing Jos. Life 352; Ag. Ap. 2.269; Strabo 16.2.23; 16.4.24; Virg. Aen. 2.65). Ancient rhetoric could use ethnicity and fatherland alongside other characteristics to define a person’s character (see Malina and Neyrey, Portraits, 70, 72).

[440]. See Horsley, Documents, 5:24, 31. Less literary bilingual activity also often yields linguistic interference (Rochette, “Papyrologica bilinguia,” on Latin-Greek confusion; “Multilingualism,” 271).

[441]. Cf. perhaps Acts 2:7–8; cf. Wall, “Acts,” 298.

[442]. Thus Josephus, though a Jerusalem aristocrat presumably fluent in Greek, had an accent affected by years of Aramaic usage (Ant. 20.263), a cultural disadvantage that might afflict Paul less, with his larger number of years in ministry in the urban north (though cf. 2 Cor 11:6).

[443]. Conzelmann, Acts, 183, citing Lucian Ship 2; cf. the frequent lack of fluency in a prestige language, depicted in Alexander, Context, 250 (contrasting Jewish Greek with Atticism). One might compare the noticeable differences in, e.g., Australian, U.S., Kenyan, and British accents in speaking English (with some proud of the “Queen’s English”) or, more analogously (i.e., with more status value attached in some circles), the difference among various Francophone African accents, those from other regions of France, and the “purest” Parisian French.

[444]. Mussies, “Greek,” 1056.

[445]. One could also distinguish elite from nonelite Latin speakers by their correct speech; see Toner, Culture, 139–41 (esp. Petronius’s mockery of Trimalchio’s speech on 141); standards were probably higher for sophists (Apul. Flor. 9.7–8). One might compare the same linguistic attitude in England at a time when Wesley had to learn to communicate with the nonelite intelligibly (cf. his attitude in Outler, Wesley, 88–89; cf. also p. iii).

[446]. Pliny claims that his correspondent’s Greek was unimaginably good “for a Roman—Athens herself . . . could not be so Attic” (trans. Radice, LCL, 1:249).

[447]. Maclean and Aitken, 13. The gardener learned this in a city with teachers and philosophers (Philost. Hrk. 4.6).

[448]. McCoskey, Race, 74, noting that this and other elements of shared Greek identity did not compete with the different self-definition offered by Romans.

[449]. Binder and Niehoff, “Diglossia.”

[450]. Judge, First Christians, 369–71.

[451]. Cf., e.g., Mus. Ruf. frg. 31; Epict. Diatr. 1.1.21–22; note various discussions in Conzelmann, Corinthians, 108; Marshall, Enmity, 215, 285–89; Winter, Left Corinth, 81–82, 95. For “lawfulness” in other terminology, cf. Mus. Ruf. 12, p. 86.7, 15; 14, p. 92.38; Epict. Encheir. 51.2.

[452]. BDAG notes that the verb occurs followed by a personal dative and an infinitive not only in stylish writers (e.g., Jos. Ant. 13.252) but also in the papyri (BGU 1127.20; PSI 203.7) and in Mark (Mark 6:18; 10:2).

[453]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 66.8; frg. 31; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b2, pp. 14–15.5, 25–26; see further comment at Acts 22:22.

[454]. For a survey of some likely features of traditional Greek pronunciation and their development, see Davies, “Pronunciation, Greek” (noting the divergence from both modern Greek and Western scholars’ Greek).

[455]. See, e.g., Pliny Ep. 6.11.2 (on one’s Latin). Hearers could complain, e.g., about an Indian who spoke Attic words with an Indian accent (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.8.490; instead of more appropriately appreciating the speaker’s linguistic versatility). They could also lampoon those who spoke with lisps (Hermog. Method 34.451).

[456]. Jos. Ant. 20.263. Josephus used style editors to help his Greek (Ag. Ap. 1.50), but he may partly be lowering expectations; he was familiar with at least one Semitic language (War 1.3; Ag. Ap. 1.1; cf. Ant. 1.129; 3.32, 134, 159; 7.10; War 4.145; 5.151) and certainly he knew Greek (as Ant. 20.263 affirms), or he would not have been communicating with the people with whom he communicated (e.g., Life 16; War 3.399–404). Philostratus emphasizes that Apollonius’s Greek accent was not corrupted by living outside Greece proper (Vit. Apoll. 1.7; 6.36).

[457]. Or pressing the analogy further, particular words might distinguish even an Anglophone Canadian from a speaker from the United States; or one could easily distinguish a Mississippi from a Massachusetts accent; and so forth.

[458]. It is possible that accent was a factor in the Corinthians’ earlier disdain for his speech; but other factors are also possible (cf. Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 278–79), and Corinthians’ expectations in Corinth would be higher, in any case, than those of an average Greek-speaker’s expectations in Jerusalem. Born in Tarsus, Paul would have known Asian Greek as his first language and acquired Aramaic only after reaching Jerusalem (for his likely age range at that time, see comment on Acts 22:3); this fits Luke’s portrayal (cf. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 34; pace van Unnik, Tarsus, 55–56).

[459]. Lucian Ship 2 (trans. Kilburn, LCL, 6:433). Cf. misunderstanding dialect in Aristoph. Acharn. 751–52.

[460]. On a popular level, some have used the confusion with Paul as an Egyptian to suggest that his complexion was dark. Egyptians ranged in complexion from somewhat to much darker (close to Nubian) than Mediterranean peoples to their north (Trigger, “Nubian, Nilotic?,” 27; Du Bois, World and Africa, 103; Usry and Keener, Religion, 66). But Josephus refers to an Egyptian Jew (though one might guess that Judeans were on average not much lighter than northern Egyptians). Tensions between Jews and not only Alexandrian Greeks but local Egyptians eventually led to the destruction of most of Egyptian Judaism (116–17 C.E.; Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 206–7).

[461]. See Hansen, “Preaching,” 318–19.

[462]. Ironically, Josephus claims that it was Felix’s use of dagger-assassins to eliminate a contentious high priest (Ant. 20.163–64) that spread the assassins (20.165); but his source here might be slander.

[463]. See Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 48–50, 63–85, 250–51; Crossan, Jesus, 168–70; Sampathkumar, “Bandits”; cf. Donaldson, “Bandits,” who draws attention to urban unrest as well. Egyptian papyri offer at best mixed evidence for popular collusion with bandits, but they do reveal some ties to the establishment (McGing, “Bandits”). Romans sometimes recognized kin networks as a mitigating factor in harboring bandits (Robinson, Criminal Law, 28). At some point Roman law began requiring landowners to hand over captured thieves (Justin. Cod. 9.39.2); significant for the suspense here, the conventional penalty for armed group robbery was death (Ebner, “Latrocinium”). For the sorts of conditions producing such “banditry” in Jewish Palestine, see Lincoln, “Banditry.”

[464]. Spawforth, “Brigandage”; Souza, “Piracy,” 1185; cf. Shaw, “Brigandry.”

[465]. See Hobsbawm, Bandits; followed by Horsley and Hanson, Bandits; Crossan, Jesus; and others. Some, however, regard the portrait as too romanticized; see, e.g., McGing, “Bandits”; Toner, Culture, 172.

[466]. Spawforth, “Brigandage,” citing examples of “super-brigands” such as Julius Maternus and Bulla Felix; cf. also the fictitious robber hero in Xen. Eph. Anthia 4–5.

[467]. Pervo, Dating Acts, 161–66, suggests that such confusion reflects Luke’s dependence on Josephus, but it seems more improbable than not that one would blatantly contradict Josephus at the very point where one was supposed to be dependent on him.

[468]. Witherington, Acts, 662 (quotation); Rapske, Custody, 136.

[469]. See Brighton, “Sicarii,” esp. 556; idem, Sicarii, 141–50. Both Brighton’s evidence and the intrinsic probability that Luke, whatever his limitations, knew more about Judean usage than we do suggest that Brighton’s case warrants serious consideration; see evidence below, pp. 3176–77.

[470]. As a member of the Judean elite, Josephus naturally had little reason to appreciate the revolutionary movements of the commoners; Jerusalem’s destruction undoubtedly generated further distaste for their methods in retrospect. Although later rabbinic sources interpret the Talmud’s “Ben Stada” as Jesus, Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 21–22, sought to identify him (in b. Šabb. 104b; t. Sanh. 10:11) with Josephus’s Egyptian prophet.

[471]. For its eschatological significance, see comment on Acts 1:12.

[472]. His proposal to make Jerusalem’s walls fall (Jos. Ant. 20.170) suggests a Joshua, new-Moses figure (an association that some have proposed even for Mattathias; see Schipper, “Mattatias”). For messianic associations with these prophetic figures, see Freyne, Galilee, Jesus, 194–95; for attempts to become royal figures, see Jos. Ant. 17.271–76, 278–85; War 2.56, 433–34; 7.29–31, 36, 153–55; Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 110–17 (though not emphasizing any connection with a Davidic restoration, which seems best to presuppose); for various kinds of prophets, including those leading movements, see also Grappe, “Jésus”; Evans, “Prophets”; and esp. Webb, Baptizer, 333–39, 348, on “leadership popular prophets.” Not all the examples in Josephus are equally clear, but given his general tendency to suppress messianic ideology, they are not unlikely.

[473]. Jos. War 2.259; Ant. 20.167.

[474]. Hemer, Acts in History, 170; Riesner, Early Period, 219; cf. Witherington, Acts, 662. Those who favor a date in 57 C.E. note that it fits Passover in Acts 20:6 (Riesner, Early Period, 219).

[475]. Riesner, Early Period, 219. But cf. Jewett, Romans, 20, who places that revolt in October 54 and Paul’s probable arrival in 56.

[476]. The discrepancy is not a new observation but was already addressed by Nathaniel Lardner (1684–1768) in Works, 1:434–39, and the much earlier sources he cites (such as Grotius). Recognizing in our primary sources a probable mistake, which often means acknowledging that a discrepancy appears intractable, is typically a last resort for scholars, at least those addressing nonbiblical ancient sources (e.g., Finamore and Dillon, “Introduction,” 4, noting that regarding Eunapius as simply “confused . . . seems to be a counsel of despair”).

[477]. Given the broader sense of sicarii, the tribune might reflect a popular usage linking them, just as Josephus once labels earlier revolutionaries by this title (War 7.253–54).

[478]. E.g., Sandmel, Judaism, 480n49 (if Luke used Josephus). The thesis of Luke’s literary dependence on Josephus is unlikely; aside from this proposal’s dating Luke-Acts too late (see the commentary introduction, Keener, Acts, 1:383–401, esp. 394), it is strange to postulate dependence when Luke here contradicts Josephus, and without good reason (except possibly a transcription error). Pliny the Elder overlaps with Josephus in his information about the Essenes (Pliny E. N.H. 5.15.73; Jos. War 2.120–21; cf. 2.160–61), yet we cannot postulate Pliny’s dependence on Josephus (Pliny died in 79 C.E.). We recognize that they shared some common information, which may have been based on facts—despite some scholars’ reticence to make such a claim when the NT is involved.

[479]. But even if Luke had the report directly from Paul (cf. Acts 24:23), would Paul have remembered the tribune’s precise figures, given more urgent matters on his mind during his arrest? It would be more likely that Luke reconstructed the number afterward, based on other (probably) oral or (possibly) written reports available in Caesarea.

[480]. Noting the widely ranging casualty figures in some recent ethnic clashes in northern Nigeria, usually adjusted up or down for political advantage depending on which side was reporting, I suspect that anyone’s numbers are guesses unless they have counted all the corpses (using some distinctive marker, as in Judg 8:6; 1 Sam 18:25; 2 Kgs 10:8). That being said, Josephus is probably further off for reasons noted above.

[481]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 277; Conzelmann, Acts, 184. Writing in the eighteenth century, Lardner, Works, 1:436, attributes this conjecture first to Henry Aldrich’s work on Josephus. Lardner himself (1:437) thinks that the four thousand were the followers drawn out from Jerusalem (Acts 21:38), and the thirty thousand (Jos. War 2.261) included also those in the countryside.

[482]. Lardner, Works, 1:435, cites Grotius for the number swelling (a plausible suggestion) and Whitby for the three thousand; he also cites Valesius as reckoning just four thousand as Sicarii but the entire number of followers as thirty thousand.

[483]. Josephus’s self-contradiction was already observed in the eighteenth century in Lardner, Works, 1:436, though he finds an ingenious way to save Josephus’s accuracy as well as Luke’s (1:437–38).

[484]. By ancient reckoning, this need only include parts of two years; but even a year in Judea would not change the picture.

[485]. On some points Josephus is less polemical and more accurate in the later Antiquities (Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 83).

[486]. E.g., Gasque, “Acts and History,” 57; Hemer, Acts in History, 126–27; Kistemaker, Acts, 23; D. Williams, Acts, 372; Witherington, Acts, 238n175; 661; Lightfoot’s survey article on Acts (see Lightfoot, Acts; courtesy of Witherington).

[487]. This approach might also account for Josephus’s calling an earlier resistance movement sicarii, though the title elsewhere begins in the 50s C.E.

[488]. Jos. War 7.253–54 dates the Sicarii back to the time of Judas the Galilean, probably employing the title anachronistically (cf. Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 248) or perhaps loosely (on the basis of the term’s more general sense); or perhaps Felix’s repression created a resurgence that reappropriated the title (like the two major phases of the Ku Klux Klan title in U.S. history; on the first and lesser known, see Foner, Reconstruction, 425–44, 454–59); or some combination of the above. Elsewhere Josephus seems to date the widespread rise of dagger assassins to a point after Paul’s capture (Ant. 20.163–65), i.e., after Ananias (20.131), who appears in Acts 23:2. But Josephus (who blames Felix for their start) is eager to blame the Roman governor for insurgents, and it is unlikely that Luke is incorrect chronologically, at least by much. The approximate period agrees with Josephus, and this mention appears in a “we” section; whether Luke offers a report of the conversation from Paul or offers merely a sample of the sort of conversation topic, the “we” source’s author was present in Judea during the period that Josephus here describes (see Acts 27:1–2) and presumably not later. The Sicarii grew particularly numerous about the time of Festus’s arrival (Jos. Ant. 20.186), but Josephus acknowledges (20.187) that he mentioned them before, under Felix (20.165).

[489]. Hemer, Acts in History, 180, emphasizes their connection here and in Josephus.

[490]. Tajra, Trial, 70; on the crooked Roman small swords, see Jos. Ant. 20.186. Feldman, in Josephus, LCL, 10:101 n. e, cites the lex Cornelia de sicariis and Cicero Rosc. Amer. 8.39.103. Application to circumcisionists, such as James’s agents in Gal 2:12 (Eisenman, “Sicarii Essenes”), is hard to reconcile with the dominant usage in first-century sources.

[491]. On them further, see Horsley, “Jewish ‘Terrorists’ ”; Heard and Evans, “Revolutionary Movements,” 944–45; Heard and Yamazaki-Ransom, “Revolutionary Movements,” 795–96.

[492]. Though they multiplied further under Festus (Jos. Ant. 20.185–86).

[493]. They also burned and plundered villages (Jos. Ant. 20.185–87). In undisciplined wars, armies “living off the land” often exploit their own people (often on the pretext of demanding support). On their curved daggers, see 20.186.

[494]. Jos. Ant. 20.182, 186. Under Albinus, they kidnapped people to secure release of their own members, a tactic escalated by its own success (20.208–10); they were still fighting when the revolt began (War 2.425), but after other revolutionaries opposed them, they fled to Masada (4.516), where they held out against Flavius Silva for some time (7.253, 275; Josephus also portrays their bad behavior in 7.262, 444). Afterward, some fled to Egypt (7.409–10), and their “madness” spread to Cyrenaica (7.437). More fully on the Sicarii (and esp. Josephus’s rhetorical depiction of them), see recently Brighton, Sicarii.

[495]. See here especially Brighton, “Sicarii”; idem, Sicarii, 141–50.

[496]. Cf. Farmer, Maccabees, 114–22; Theissen, Sociology, 48–50. Pirates (Heliod. Eth. 1.28), robbers (b. B. Qam. 116b; cf. desert police, in Lewis, Life, 141), and other fugitives (1 Sam 22:1–2; 23:19; 24:1; 25:4) also found greater safety in the wilderness.

[497]. See Pilch, “Desert.” The patterns of habitation and cultivation have changed significantly since antiquity (see, e.g., Lönnqvist and Lönnqvist, “Phenomena”).

[498]. E.g., 1QS VIII, 13–14; 1QM I, 2–3; X, 13; 4Q171 III, 1.

[499]. For the wilderness’s associations with purification, revelation, etc., see, e.g., Najman, “Wilderness.” The desire for solitude contrasted with the usual preference for social relationships (Stoics in Cic. Fin. 3.20.65).

[500]. For refuge in the wilderness, see, e.g., 1 Kgs 17:2–6; 2 Kgs 6:1–2; Heb 11:38; Rev 12:6; Pss. Sol. 17:17; Song Rab. 2:13, §4; Tac. Ann. 14.23. Cf. John in Jos. Ant. 18.118; Mark 1:3. For robbers there, see, e.g., Libanius Invect. 6.11.

[501]. Cf. also Glasson, Moses, 15–19; Daube, Exodus Pattern, passim. For the wilderness in the prophets, see Eggleston, “Wilderness”; for the exodus and new exodus there, see Watts, “Exodus Imagery.”

[502]. The Qumran community applied the same Isaiah text to their own mission in the wilderness (1QS VIII, 14; cf. 4Q176 1–2 I, 7; 4Q259 III, 5; Brownlee, “Comparison with Sects,” 71; Brown, “Scrolls,” 4; Hatina, “Exile,” 349), especially to their knowledge of the law (1QS VIII, 15–16). The new exodus probably appears in 4Q389 2 (though it is fragmentary); it may be alluded to in CD V, 19 (but cf. VII, 21).

[503]. Emulating Moses or his prophetic successor Joshua, as in Jos. Ant. 20.97 (Moses and esp. Joshua), 170 (Joshua); see detailed discussion in Gray, Figures; more briefly Bauckham, Testimony, 215–21 (with the caveat on 216); Webb, Baptizer, 348; Eve, Miracles, 324; earlier discussion in Barnett, “Prophets”; idem, “Eschatological Prophets.” The idea became still more prevalent in later sources, e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:8; b. Ber. 12b; Exod. Rab. 1:5; 2:6; 15:11; 19:6; Lev. Rab. 27:4; Num. Rab. 11:2; Deut. Rab. 9:9; Ruth Rab. 5:6; Eccl. Rab. 1:9, §1; 3:15, §1; Song Rab. 2:9, §3; Pesiq. Rab. 15:10; 52:8; Rev 12:6; cf. t. Ber. 1:10; y. Ber. 1:5, §8; Longenecker, Christology, 39–40. Cf. Moses and Israel in Acts 7:30, 36–38; 13:18; see comment on the new Moses (Deut 18:18) at Acts 3:22.

[504]. Keener, Acts, 1:744–46.

[505]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 700.

[506]. Rapske, Custody, 136–37; Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 29–30; Witherington, Acts, 662; Spencer, Acts, 207 (citing Strabo 17.1.12; Philo Dreams 1.240); Gaventa, Acts, 305. After noting Moses’s Egyptian learning (Acts 7:22), Luke emphasizes that he indeed fought an Egyptian who was oppressing his people (7:24, 28; these are Luke’s—and the NT’s—only other uses of that term). See Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 23, for the emphasis on Paul’s status in Acts 21:27–23:11 (including the sorts of issues augmenting status noted in ibid., 116–17). Others, however, preserved the older Greek respect for Egyptian wisdom (Apul. Flor. 6.2, even while demeaning Judeans as “superstitious”).

[507]. E.g., for such stereotypes used in medieval Arab as well as later Western slavery, see, e.g., Lewis, Race and Slavery, 92–94, 97, plates 21–23; Gordon, Slavery in Arab World, 102–3; Usry and Keener, Religion, 88–90.

[508]. Cadbury, Acts in History, 33.

[509]. See further Jones, “Apion.”

[510]. Cf., e.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.70–72, 85, 99, 132–33, 137, 139, 142.

[511]. See comment on Acts 7:41.

[512]. Spencer, Acts, 207 (citing Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.41).

[513]. Aelian Farmers 20 (Phaedrias to Sthenon), end.

[514]. Conzelmann, Acts, 183–84 (also noting Paul’s right to enter the temple as a Jew; but again, the Egyptian leader had the same right).

[515]. See the distinction between urban and rural culture in the commentary introduction (Keener, Acts, 1:589–96), including the discussion of the relative status implications of each. Paul’s worldview is urban (Meeks, Urban Christians, 9).

[516]. See discussion at Acts 18:24. The nome capitals were centers for agricultural districts.

[517]. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 27–32; cf. Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 103.

[518]. MacMullen, Social Relations, 59; Meeks, Moral World, 34; Rapske, Custody, 141.

[519]. Witherington, Acts, 663 (estimating that Tarsus eventually reached half a million residents). Excluding slaves, settlers, and members of noncitizen trades reduces the citizen proportion substantially.

[520]. See Cadbury, Acts in History, 32–33.

[521]. Christes, “Education/Culture,” 827–28; see further comment on Tarsus, below; esp. at Acts 9:11.

[522]. Men. Rhet. 1.3, 359.16–367.9 (e.g., for its orators and scholars in various disciplines, 364.14–16); Hermog. Progymn. 7, “On Encomion,” 18 (education as one topic). That Tarsians were sometimes also viewed as insubordinate in this period (Jones and Mitchell, “Tarsus,” following Dio Chrys. Or. 33, 34) we should not expect Paul to emphasize!

[523]. Magness-Gardiner, “Cilicia,” 10.

[524]. Hemer, Acts in History, 127; Bruce, Acts³, 453; Hock, “Paul and Education,” 217; cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 700.

[525]. Conzelmann, Acts, 184 (citing Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 2.35.7; Ach. Tat. 8.3.1); Munck, Acts, 215; Johnson, Acts, 383–84; Pervo, Acts, 554n34. Ach. Tat. 8.3.1 offers similar words in the context of a beating at a temple, as in (but later than) Acts; Hock, “Paul and Education,” 217, finds a Euripides allusion in this passage, though the context is quite different.

[526]. Jos. Life 1; he is contrasting the nobility of the priesthood for Jews with other peoples’ grounds for claiming nobility.

[527]. Rhet. Her. 4.37.50 (in Anderson, Glossary, 20–21; here also Parsons, Acts, 306). Even if the function of litotes was sometimes humor (Clark, “Construction”), that is not its function here.

[528]. Harris, “Did Paul Quote Euripides?,” 36–37 (cited in Longenecker, Paul, 32n41).

[529]. Longenecker, Paul, 32n41, emphasizing Paul’s Jewishness; but Greeks would dispute the premise even for the city.

[530]. On litotes, see, e.g., Rowe, “Style,” 128; for an example, see Dio Chrys. Or. 54.3.

[531]. Longenecker, Paul, 32n41. For dwelling on a point, see Rhet. Her. 4.45.58; Anderson, Glossary, 48–49, 53.

[532]. E.g., Hom. Od. 19.104–5; Soph. Oed. Col. 206; Eurip. Cycl. 102, 275–76; Hel. 86; Iph. Taur. 495, 505; Rhes. 682; Prop. Eleg. 1.22.1–2; Pindar Pyth. 4.97–98; Philost. Letters 5 (41); Hrk. 1.1; Gen 16:8; 29:4; 42:7; Josh 9:8; Judg 13:6; 17:9; 19:17; 1 Sam 25:11; 30:13; 2 Sam 1:3, 13; Jonah 1:8; Luke 13:25, 27; John 7:27–28, 42; 8:14; 9:29–30; 19:9; Rev 7:13.

[533]. E.g., Eurip. Temenidae frg. 729; Dio Chrys. Or. 41.4. Prominent among Romans (Rhet. Her. 3.3.4; Cic. Prov. cons. passim, e.g., 9.23; Inv. 2.22.65; 2.53.161; Val. Max. 2.2.1a), for whom the homeland was Rome; and Jews (Let. Aris. 249, though as universalized Hellenistic counsel), including for cities (Gen. Rab. 34:15, third-century Palestinian tradition). Portraying one’s city as one’s mother (Pindar Isthm. 1.1, 5) also invited filial respect.

[534]. On civic pride, see MacMullen, Social Relations, 60–62; for one example from Asia Minor, see Lebedos, on Asia Minor’s coast (in Ager, “Civic Identity”). This also pertained to regions; thus a long-term resident of Italy (albeit not one born there) boasts that it is the most fertile and advantaged country, though others in Egypt or Libya (later the real breadbaskets of the empire!) would disagree.

[535]. Georgi, “Socioeconomic Reasons,” 27–28.

[536]. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 140.

[537]. Yamauchi, Cities, 164–65; Rizakis, “Elites,” 318.

[538]. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 2.5.26 (the state as a microcosm of the universe; cf. 3.22.4); Marc. Aur. 10.1; 10.6.2 (the world as a state); Philost. Ep. Apoll. 11 (one’s highest loyalty obligation next to that to the gods); Epicurus in Diog. Laert. 10.1.10. See Hadas, Aristeas, 197, for both common views and limits.

[539]. Gummere, LCL, 2:18 n. a, compares also Cic. De or. 1.196.

[540]. Zeno regarded only the good as true citizens (Diog Laert. 7.1.33). A city could be praised for the famous intellectuals who hailed from it (Men. Rhet. 1.3, 364.14–16); in one of history’s ironies, Paul is now Tarsus’s most famous son.

[541]. E.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 28.4; Mus. Ruf. 9, p. 68.15–16, 21–22; Epict. Diatr. 2.10.3; Max. Tyre 36.3; Marc. Aur. 10.15; 12.36; Diog. Laert. 2.99; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 44; Philo Creation 142; cf. Heracl. Ep. 9; Diog. Laert. 6.5.93; for citizens of heaven, see Heracl. Ep. 5, 9; Diog. Laert. 2.7; Philo Contempl. 90; QG 3.45; Phil 3:20; Diogn. 5.9. Particularities reflected fallenness from the original universality (Proclus Poet. 5, K52.7–19), including attachment to particular zones of the world, cities, or families (K52.23–24). World citizenship was especially applicable to Cynics, who applied it radically (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 4.13; Lucian Phil. Sale 8; Diog. Laert. 6.2.63, 72). Occasionally other kinds of scholars borrowed this claim of world citizenship (e.g., Vitruv. Arch. 6.pref. 2).

[542]. Cf. Crates, who reportedly declared poverty to be his homeland (Diog. Laert. 6.5.93).

[543]. Matheson, Epictetus, 35 (citing Epict. Diatr. 2.5.26).

[544]. E.g., for city titles (see Friesen, “Cult,” 236–39); or holding gladiatorial combats (Lucian Dem. 57); generally, Savage, Power, 24–25; Yamauchi, Cities, 165. On rivalry as a way of life in Greek culture, see Instone and Spawforth, “Agōnes.”

[545]. MacMullen, Social Relations, 58–59. If the zenith population of Tarsus was indeed half a million (Witherington, Acts, 663), it competed well with the majority of towns in the empire, which rarely had more than fifty thousand residents.

[546]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 40.11; 47.13, 16–17; also provoking jealousy of enemies to enable war (Plut. Themist. 4.2). Orators could employ rivalry to spur on groups (Pliny Ep. 10.100), soldiers (Xen. Cyr. 2.1.22; 7.1.18; Polyb. 6.39.8), or even friends (Pliny Ep. 3.7.15), though not all agreed that it was good among friends (Iambl. V.P. 22.101).

[547]. E.g., between Nicomedians and Nicaeans, their near neighbors in Bithynia (Dio Chrys. Or. 38–39; they competed for primacy [38.24], but such primacy was not significant [38.29–30]); or Prusa and Apamea (Or. 40). For cooperation and rivalry between cities of Asia Minor, see, e.g., Levick, Roman Colonies, 121–29. Cities there often competed for the honor of building imperial temples (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 151).

[548]. Dio Chrys. Or. 40.22 warns against strife with even the smallest of towns, but above all with neighboring cities.

[549]. See Mitchell, Anatolia, 1:206; Jones, Chrysostom, 71–82.

[550]. Dio Chrysostom admitted that some accusations were false (Or. 34.43), but pointed out that it was excessive pride to require other Cilicians to come to Tarsus for litigation and sacrifice (34.47).

[551]. Quint. Inst. 3.7.26; e.g., Aelius Aristides on Rome and Athens; earlier, Isocrates’s Panegyricus and his later Panathenaicus. Writers might also praise a particularly deserving city (Pliny E. N.H. 5.11.60–61).

[552]. Russell and Wilson, 179. Likewise, a visiting orator could emphasize that his hearers belonged to a city “inferior to none” of the most distinguished (Dio Chrys. Or. 35.13; 39.1).

[553]. Also emphasized by Neyrey, “Location of Paul,” 269. If earlier sources are preferred, often those listing advantages afforded by Fortune included one’s city early in the list (Val. Max. 7.1.1, before parentage).

[554]. Witherington, Acts, 663. See, e.g., Dion. Hal. Epid. 3.268 (praising one’s birthplace); Dio Chrysostom claiming to be “a nobody from nowhere” (Or. 32.22, probably to lower expectations); John 1:46; comparisons in Libanius Comparison 1.2; 2.2; denigrating one from an “insignificant” city, Libanius Invective 3.2. Individuals were also expected to be a credit to their hometowns (Philost. Ep. Apoll. 44, 47, 69).

[555]. Plutarch was from Boeotia, not particularly famous in recent history. Still, he opined that a writer ought to live in a famous city to have access to a wider range of books (Demosth. 2.1).

[556]. Rapske, Custody, 73 (for details, 73–75; including educational level, 74); cf. also Neyrey, “Location of Paul,” 271.

[557]. See Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 115.

[558]. Ibid., 223.

[559]. Conzelmann, Acts, 184.

[560]. See Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 169–73, 178–83. The view that Romans may have trusted local Jews more than Greeks (p. 199), however, seems more questionable.

[561]. Interpreters may vary regarding whether protecting one’s life (or seeking occasion to preach to the crowds) is adequate grounds for appealing to one’s social advantages, depending on their moral structures, but I suspect that most people, including those who lack such advantages, would use them in such circumstances if they could. What matters for historical comment is that Luke did not mind nor does he appear to expect his audience to mind. Even within Luke-Acts Paul contrasts with Jesus, who was a Galilean villager, but this need not constitute a negative verdict on Paul’s limited use of status where he can make use of it (cf. Luke 23:50–52); to postpone the passion is not necessarily to reject it (cf. 4:29–30; Acts 20:24; 21:13).

[562]. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 24–25; cf. 43. This fits his view that Luke portrays Paul as elite, since Tarsian citizenship would suit this portrayal (29). Yet the academic level of Paul’s own letters supports Luke’s assessment that Paul was not from an average home. In Jerusalem, his tertiary training may have focused on Scripture, which replaces the expected classical citations for those in the Greek and Roman elite; but tertiary training it appears to have been (see comment on Acts 22:3). For skepticism, see also Pervo, Acts, 554–55 (allowing Paul’s Tarsian residence but questioning the likelihood of his citizenship, given his Jewishness).

[563]. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 25. He argues that a high degree of hellenization was necessary for both local and Roman citizenships (pp. 25–26), yet we know that this is false for Roman citizenship (for which descent from freed slaves should have been sufficient).

[564]. For Alexandria, see Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 63–71, esp. 66–70 (citing, e.g., CPJ 144; Philo Migr. 91; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.38–72); for Asia Minor, see Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 271 (citing Jos. Ant. 12.125–26; 14.235, according to the likeliest reading; 14.259; inscriptions).

[565]. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 32–43. Lentz concedes that they were better off than many other residents (32–33) and often very integrated (34), but he regards their strict Jewish practice as a deterrent to full Greek citizenship in cities (35). For most cities, this portrayal of Jews as a class is probably correct.

[566]. Ibid., 42. Lentz notes that some are listed as “former Jews,” i.e., apostates (in CIG 3148, from Smyrna). As noted below, this is not true everywhere (certainly not in Rome or Ephesus).

[567]. Barclay, “Paul among Jews,” 104n21; in antiquity, see Bede Comm. Acts 21.39 (L. Martin, 169; Martin, Acts, 267), following Jerome Vir. ill. 5 (FC 100; TU 14:9, 17/21), who regarded Paul as merely a resident, not a true citizen, of Tarsus (claiming that he moved from Gischala [which Bede rightly places in Galilee] after a Roman attack [probably 6 C.E. if accurate, but likelier a later local tradition]); this tradition contradicts Acts 22:3. Likewise, some have doubted that the citizenship in view is legal and political (cf. Tajra, Trial, 78–80); but then why emphasize “of no insignificant city”? The context here is legal and political, indicating that such citizenship is in view (Rapske, Custody, 75–76).

[568]. See Gruen, Diaspora.

[569]. Légasse, “Career,” 367; Hemer, Acts in History, 127.

[570]. Hemer, Acts in History, 127.

[571]. With, e.g., Rapske, Custody, 79 (possibly from a grant in 171 B.C.E., p. 80); Johnson, Acts, 383–84; earlier, see Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 178–79.

[572]. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 5–6, 98–99n43.

[573]. But Tarsians viewed even these as “citizens in some sense” (τρόπον τινὰ πολίτας), albeit not one granting legal rights and recognition. Dio Chrysostom urges them to grant full citizenship to these linen workers (Or. 34.21–23). For citizen registries, see, e.g., Aeschines Tim. 18; Cic. Fam. 13.36.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 31.29, 84.

[574]. Or, if one doubts that, then at least it is unlikely that, without his family’s significant resources, Paul would have attained the level of Hellenistic as well as Jewish education that his letters almost certainly presuppose (see comment on Acts 22:3).

[575]. With also Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 227.

[576]. Citizenship grants were more common in the Hellenistic period than previously, though they were not obtained easily (Applebaum, “Legal Status,” 434; rabbinic rules were much more lenient on this point—cf. p. 434, citing b. B. Bat. 7b; 8a). On Jewish citizenship and Judea, cf. Let. Aris. 4. On honorary citizenship grants, see, e.g., Pliny Ep. 10.114.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 38.1; 41.2; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 62.

[577]. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 226; Dio Chrys. Or. 34.23.

[578]. See Rapske, Custody, 77–83. Religious practice and citizenship were not related; cf. Krauter, Bürgerrecht (brought to my attention by Andreas Bendlin).

[579]. Trebilco and Evans, “Diaspora Judaism,” 287.

[580]. By contrast, in Alexandria, he is aware of many Jews unsuccessfully agitating for citizenship (though Josephus tries to marshal historical precedent favoring their citizenship, he is aware of detractors; cf. Ant. 12.8, 121; 14.188; Ag. Ap. 2.32, 41, 49, 65).

[581]. Hemer, Acts in History, 127; Witherington, Acts, 663, citing (for Antioch) Nock, Essays, 961; see esp. Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 271. Appealing to a lack of excavated evidence from Tarsus would be the worst form of argument from silence, since Tarsus has not been well excavated; see comment on Acts 9:11; Finegan, Apostles, 54; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 325.

[582]. Légasse, “Career,” 368.

[583]. Rapske, Custody, 141–42. Still, it is true that Roman citizenship took precedence over the others (Tajra, Trial, 76–77), at least politically for a traveler in the East.

[584]. Jeffers, World, 208–9, also notes that Roman citizenship’s effects on daily life in the East were limited; Paul thus cites it only when necessary.

[585]. Also Corn. Nep. 25 (Atticus), 3.1.

[586]. As Luke himself, a citizen of the Greek East, would have likely been aware had this been a recent innovation. Multiple local citizenships were common enough (Pliny Ep. 10.114.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 38.1; 41.2); the Pompeian law preventing this (Pliny Ep. 10.114.1–2) was widely disregarded (10.114.3; cf. the compromise, even for municipal senators, in 10.115.1).

[587]. Rapske, “Citizenship,” 215; Witherington, Acts, 664 (following Sherwin-White, Society, 182–83; Lüdemann, Christianity, 241), 682 (but was the Tuscan of Cic. Leg. 2.2.5 whom he also cites still a citizen?); cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 184 (citing Sherwin-White, Society, 249–50).

[588]. Momigliano and Spawforth, “Cyrene.”

[589]. Rapske, Custody, 83–84. In terms of adding local citizenship to Roman citizenship, if Paul was anything like his father, his father may have been an ambitious man (cf. Paul in Gal 1:14; cf. perhaps Phil 3:5–6; 1 Cor 15:10).

[590]. Crawford, “Citizenship,” 335.

[591]. Riesner, Early Period, 148. This was the only city in Egypt where Roman citizenship was possible (Rathbone, “Alexandria,” 62).

[592]. On Tarsus as a free city, see Appian Bell. civ. 5.7; Pliny E. N.H. 5.22.92.

[593]. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 5 (suggesting “a large number”). Nevertheless, Dio Chrys. Or. 34.23, which Fitzmyer, Acts, 427, cites, addresses Tarsian, rather than Roman, citizenship.

[594]. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 227.

[595]. Indeed, a decree of Augustus expected new citizens to continue to contribute to the well-being of their towns (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 31).

[596]. See van Unnik, Tarsus, 49.

[597]. Spencer, Acts, 207.

[598]. Karris, Invitation, 199.

[599]. Although Paul’s letters do not specifically comment, it would have been his ideal to preach despite suffering (2 Cor 4:7–15; 6:4–5); discussion of spiritual help aside, adrenaline might even help temporarily.

[600]. E.g., Miller, Wesley, 94–96. Particularly on one or two of the occasions when I was beaten for my witness, I continued preaching during the beating, as my vocal organs were not injured; among those prepared to die for their preaching, as in some circumstances persons of committed faith may be, I do not suppose that my own experience was unusual.

[601]. Bruce, Commentary, 437.

[602]. An objection to the narrative reasonably offered by Haenchen, Acts, 621.

[603]. Witherington, Acts, 663–64, basing this on Paul’s derivation from Tarsus, his educated Greek, and (showing his manners) his respect for the tribune. None of these factors would be sufficient by itself, however, since Paul is not yet known to be a Roman as well. More plausible is the possibility that, in addition to these other factors, Lysias is compensating Paul for having shamed him by believing him a revolutionary or putting him in chains (p. 664); but Lysias would not have done so by risking more unrest!

[604]. So also Talbert, Acts, 190–91 (comparing a speaker quieting a crowd in Virg. Aen. 1.148–53; cf. Lintott, Romans, 112, who applies this portrait to social reality).

[605]. Haenchen, Acts, 621.

[606]. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 7.

[607]. Cf. also Jesus as an advanced student there in Luke 2:46–47. For temple teaching, see, e.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.2; and comment on Acts 2:46; 3:11–12; 5:20.

[608]. Cf. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 45n71, though Acts 22:15, 21 do not support his point well.

[609]. Pervo, Profit, 35 (citing Virg. Aen. 1.148–53); cf. Talbert, Acts, 190–91. People also listen silently, hence respectfully, to another’s speech in Virg. Aen. 11.241, 300; in Ap. Rhod. 1.513–15, people remained silent even after Orpheus finished, hoping to hear another song.

[610]. How, e.g., did Menenius Agrippa persuade the plebeians to hear out his argument (cf. a later rendition of the speech in Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.83.2–6.86.5; Dio Cass. 4.17.10–13; cf. Sen. Y. Dial. 12.12.5), which Karl Marx understandably called “an absurd fable” (Manifesto, 176)?

[611]. See comment esp. at Acts 19:35. In a situation where a mob is not shouting, speakers could take turns in an orderly manner (Polyb. 9.32.2; 1 Cor 14:27; cf. 1QS VI, 10–13; Smith, Symposium, 110, 121–22, 201). Speakers also prided themselves in stilling a crowd to attentiveness in calmer situations (e.g., Pliny Ep. 2.10.6–7).

[612]. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 45n71 (who nevertheless regards the occasion as historical, minus some details, 43–44).

[613]. If he had a noticeable amount; compare the discussion of Acts 21:26 with 18:18.

[614]. Pliny Ep. 2.3.9; 6.11.2; Lucian Prof. P.S. 20; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.24.529; 2.5.572; cf. Suet. Claud. 30; Philost. Hrk. 29.2; Winter, Left Corinth, 34–35; idem, Philo and Paul, 212; Danker, Corinthians, 155; Marshall, Enmity, 62; for exceptions, see Dio Chrys. Or. 12.15; Pliny Ep. 7.25.6. For philosophers’ relative lack of concern, see, e.g., Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 603; cf. the excursus “Paul as a Cynic Preacher?” at Acts 14:8–10 (Keener, Acts, 2:2131–42).

[615]. One could even portray a herald as maintaining public silence during an execution to keep it solemn (Sen. E. Controv. 9.2.10).

[616]. Dunn, Acts, 292–93.

[617]. On gesture here, see, e.g., Botha, “Exploring Gesture.” Ancient Mediterranean gestures did not always bear the same meaning as modern Western equivalents; see Lateiner, “Gestures,” and bibliography there.

[618]. So Shiell, Reading Acts, 150–51; see also 52–54 (noting Quint. Inst. 11.3.98).

[619]. Noll, History, 93. (Of course, Franklin had a pecuniary interest in promoting Whitefield [cf. Lambert, “Couple”]; yet even allowing for the possibility of exaggeration, this estimate is a remarkable one, and Whitefield’s spells of vomiting blood attest to the strain on his own body that such volume produced.)

[620]. E.g., Val. Max. 8.7.ext. 1 (Bailey in LCL, 2:229, cites also Cic. De or. 1.260–61).

[621]. Cf., e.g., Miller, Wesley, 92–97. Reports of protection from hostile crowds are even more frequent; see, e.g., Hang, Wall, 75 (in Bali).

[622]. On polysyndeton’s rhetorical function, see comment on Acts 15:20.

[623]. This would be even more the case if Paul spent time in Gischala in Galilee, as some church fathers report (Schnabel, Missionary, 42), though this tradition appears unlikely. One may compare the children of missionaries, consular personnel, and others abroad, who typically acquire language more quickly and naturally than their parents. As an anecdotal, personal illustration (among the sort that many others could likewise offer): when our son was three, he transitioned from a local language to French; at four, he began to learn English; and once he reached the United States less than a year later, he was completely bilingual (French and English) within several months (though he had also completely lost his first language, and admittedly his French eventually grew weaker from less use), also reading English at the age of five.

[624]. Cf. here also Campbell, Deliverance, 139, who adds also “Hebrew” in 2 Cor 11:22. In 2 Cor 11, Paul’s rhetorically skilled rivals (cf. 11:5–6) sound more competent in Greek than Aramaic. “Hebrews” could be used to mean simply “Jews” (2 Macc 7:31; 11:13; 15:37; 4 Macc 4:11; 8:2; 9:6, 18; 17:9), though Judean “Hebrews” apparently spoke the language of the Hebrews (4 Macc 12:7; 16:15).

[625]. My wife, who is from southern Congo-Brazzaville in Francophone Africa, notes that use of the mother tongue in her region would have a similar effect.

[626]. Witherington, Acts, 667, suggests Paul’s use of insinuatio here (following Tannehill, “Paul’s Defense,” 257–58).

[627]. Like the vast majority of Mediterranean Diaspora Jews in our sources (see CPJ; CIJ passim). For some, even familiar terms such as “rabbi” or “Messiah” required translation; see, e.g., John 1:38, 41; 4:25 (cf. here Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 13); Matthew, whose Jewishness is almost certain (Keener, Matthew, 45–51), rarely translates; but he usually omits Mark’s Aramaic.

[628]. E.g., Buth, “Aramaic Language”; Horton, Acts, 357. “Hebrew” could be construed as Aramaic in Let. Aris. 30, 38 but is almost certainly genuine Hebrew (Let. Aris. 11), since the Scriptures are meant.

[629]. Poirier, “Narrative Role,” appeals to philology and, especially helpfully, to narrative logic. He suggests that Hebrew fits the context, since Paul wished to exclude the tribune’s understanding and the latter would have understood Aramaic. But Paul had no deliberate reason to exclude the tribune; the tribune would have necessarily understood Aramaic only if he was a rural (rather than urban) Syrian, and he turns out to be primarily Greek-speaking, in any case. (Greek dominated in Syria’s cities, and Aramaic the countryside outside them; Rives, Religion, 63.) Paul is probably more concerned to exclude his Asian Jewish accusers, if anyone; although they probably knew little Hebrew, they knew even less Aramaic.

[630]. E.g., Grintz, “Hebrew”; Buth, “Aramaic Language”; cf. Cook, “Aramaic Language,” 183. Even in later centuries, it seems to have remained one of several languages (e.g., y. Meg. 1:9, §2).

[631]. Safrai, “Spoken Languages”; idem, “Literary Languages.”

[632]. Abegg, “Hebrew Language”; cf. Millard, Reading and Writing, 117–25 (suggesting also some more commonplace uses, most significantly citing a deed [123]; though we have a few materials [from the elite] even in Latin [127–28]). For comments on the form of Late Biblical Hebrew (such as in the Qumran scrolls), see Blau, “Hebrew Language,” 11.

[633]. E.g., Tobit (e.g., Grelot, “Noms”; Aramaic fragments appear at Qumran [Bright, History, 432]); Judith (Rost, Judaism, 53); Prayer of Manasseh (Leicht, “Version”); Bar 1:1–4:4 (Rost, Judaism, 70); Sirach (Rost, Judaism, 66–67; Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 69); perhaps 4 Ezra (Rost, Judaism, 121); see esp. Jubilees (Jub. 12:25–27; Wintermute, “Introduction,” 43; Grintz, “Jubilees,” 324; Charles, Jubilees, xxx–xxxiii; pace Torrey, “Fragment,” 41). See more generally Noack, “Qumran and Jubilees,” 191. Fragments of an expanded Test. Naph. 1:6–12 appear in Hebrew, but of something like Testament of Levi in Aramaic (Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and Research, 211; McNamara, Judaism, 89–90; Cross, Library, 44).

[634]. Recalling Zeph 3:9; Wise, Abegg, and Cook in DSSNT 402 cite Midrash Tanḥuma on Gen 11:7 as applying Zeph 3:9 the same way. Scraps of Hebrew appear in the Diaspora (e.g., Cross, “Inscriptions from Sardis”), but the Hebrew attested among those in the Diaspora tends to be basic.

[635]. Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 11:1; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 11:1. Everyone spoke “God’s language” before Babel (y. Meg. 1:9, §1).

[636]. Eilberg-Schwartz, “What Happens?” (Hebrew, like Torah, was preexistent).

[637]. Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 22:1.

[638]. Sipre Deut. 333.6.1; y. Šeqal. 3:3.

[639]. See t. Ḥag. 1:2. Certainly not everyone followed rabbinic prescriptions, of course; by rabbinic standards, most people were likely amme haaretz, probably lacking both knowledge of and ability to fulfill many rabbinic ideals.

[640]. Sipre Num. 39.2.1.

[641]. Abegg, “Hebrew Language,” 462 (as a probability only).

[642]. Cf. Safrai, “Literary Languages.”

[643]. For one nuanced discussion considering various positions on Jesus’s literacy (concluding that John 7:15 addresses only scribal literacy), see Keith, “Claim.” As here, Luke seems pleased to note linguistic versatility, but his claims are not themselves implausible; carpenters would have much better access to education than would peasants (Hengel, Property, 26–27; Freyne, Galilee, Jesus, 241), and the claim of Mark 6:3 that Jesus was a carpenter fits independent extant evidence (cf. Jos. War 2.68, 574; Ant. 17.289; 18.27). Mark may have reworded an earlier tradition known to Luke (cf. Luke 4:22 with Matt 13:55).

[644]. The situation would thus be the reverse of an earlier preexilic situation when the common people spoke Hebrew and only a specially educated elite spoke Aramaic (2 Kgs 18:26–28).

[645]. Familiarity with the stories and other elements would help; catching the gist of a Torah reading that one had heard paraphrased or interpreted in the vernacular on earlier occasions would differ from catching the gist of Paul’s speech.

[646]. Fitzmyer, Apocryphon, is surely right to date the Aramaic of 1Qap Gen^ar closer to the NT period than the Targumim are (despite criticism from McNamara, “Review”; cf. skepticism of the Aramaic materials originating among Essenes, in Segert, “Review [1968],” 282; idem, “Review [1972],” 274).

[647]. Just as the children of ambassadors, missionaries, and other foreign residents often acquire the local language, provided they are not isolated in foreign enclaves.

[648]. Greek appears as an official language in the Hellenistic and Roman Near Eastern inscriptions, with Aramaic offering translation for the vernacular (Drijvers, “Inscriptions,” 165).

[649]. Cf. Binder and Niehoff, “Diglossia” (suggesting that only a small elite read Hebrew; this restriction might go too far, though it is commonly argued today); cf. Jos. Ant. 18.228 (unless Josephus means Aramaic here).

[650]. Levine, Hellenism, 80–84; Millard, Reading and Writing, 85–102, esp. 91–102; for Palestine generally, Poirier, “Linguistic Situation.” Some have attributed Dalman’s preference for Aramaic to his anti-Semitic milieu (Thompson, “Dalman”), but given both Dalman’s other writings and the widespread evidence for Aramaic in the East, such an attribution cannot be used to neglect the arguments for Aramaic.

[651]. Wilcox, “Influence,” 1094. We cannot be sure how far the extant written form may be from what was spoken (Wise, “Palestinian Aramaic,” 237).

[652]. See Lange, “Revival.”

[653]. Wilcox, “Influence,” 1094–98, esp. 1095.

[654]. Some suppose that Josephus was not competent in Greek on the basis of his use of helpers in Greek in Ag. Ap. 1.50; this may be, however, simply the familiar ancient rhetorical technique of playing down expectations and may reflect no more than use of style editors. He notes what is probably his weakness in pronunciation in Ant. 20.263. Yet Josephus elsewhere claims that he rendered Israel’s Scriptures into Greek in the Antiquities (Ag. Ap. 1.1, 54; War 1.3), an exaggeration in the other direction.

[655]. Witness esp. Ezra 4:8–6:18; 7:12–26; Dan 2:4–7:28; 2 Macc 15:36; also the Elephantine papyri in Egypt.

[656]. Segert, “Review (1972),” 274, doubted that the Aramaic materials originated with the sectarians themselves, but if we grant that they authored many of the documents found at Qumran (a point of some debate today), there is no reason to distinguish sectarian documents by language. At least a substantial portion, probably the majority, of 1 Enoch was composed in Aramaic (Rost, Judaism, 139; Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and Research, 98); though this work or compilation need not have originated at Qumran, it was highly respected there.

[657]. Bruce, Acts¹, 399, even suggests that Josephus’s first draft of the Jewish War addressed Babylonian Jews in Aramaic. If so, that draft was quite different in substance from the hellenized audience that the current form presupposes. Josephus’s reference to language help may simply involve style editors to catch Aramaic interference in his Greek unacceptable by purist standards in Greece and Rome.

[658]. Not everyone approved of written Targumim then existing (m. Šabb. 16:1; t. Šabb. 13:2–3), but Amoraim took the use of an oral Aramaic interpreter for granted (b. Ber. 45a; Ḥag. 14a; Meg. 23b; Taʿan. 4b; y. Meg. 4:1, §2; Taanit 4:1, §14; Pesiq. Rab. 5:1; perhaps Num. Rab. 9:34; cf. Safrai, “Education,” 968; much earlier, Neh 8:8). Some traditions may be early (Tg. Neof. to Gen 32:25 [cf. 4Q158 1–2 4]; cf. Brownlee, Habakkuk, 122–23; Ohana, “Prosélytisme”; Hayward, “Jerome”; Schäfer, “Geist”; Safrai, “Education,” 966), but our current standardized Targumim are surely later than the NT era (pace McNamara, “Novum Testamentum”; idem, “Review”).

[659]. Pace Tal, “Raison d’Être,” who argues (against the majority view) that Targumim were meant to keep readers from “modernizing” the Hebrew, not to make it intelligible to Aramaic-speakers.

[660]. Smelik, “Language.”

[661]. Cf. van der Horst, “Languages,” who argues the same for Samaritan usage in Samaria (although Samaritans, being less urbanized, were also somewhat less hellenized).

[662]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 701.

[663]. The clearest Semitic elements in his letters are the “liturgical” Aramaic that he had apparently taught the believers, such as “Abba” (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6), “Marana tha” (1 Cor 16:22), and the pervasive “Amen” (Rom 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 15:33 most MSS; 16:27 most MSS; 1 Cor 14:16; 2 Cor 1:20; Gal 1:5; 6:18; Eph 3:21; Phil 4:20; 1 Thess 3:13; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:16; 2 Tim 4:18).

[664]. To offer but one concrete example, I have sometimes observed my African wife shifting easily from one language to another, communicating in three to four languages (and occasionally a fifth: French, English, Munukotuba, Kitsangi, and Lingala) in a single conversation as her main interlocutors shifted, typically without advance notice.

[665]. Perhaps with some fellow Judeans in Antioch (11:19–20), though most may have also been Hellenists (cf. 13:1); also perhaps with some Syrians in Antioch, though differences in dialect may have rendered communicating in Greek easier. It is also possible, though far from certain, that Paul may have conversed in Aramaic at times with Barnabas or Silas; though Barnabas was, like Paul, born in the Diaspora, his Semitic nickname might suggest his familiarity with local Aramaic (4:36).

[666]. Though perhaps with occasional “loanwords” from the customary language. My wife’s reflexive use of languages that she grew up with yet no longer regularly speaks, when conversing with those who speak those languages, noted above, is a case in point.

[667]. See Acts 21:8–27; 23:16. Speaking with pure Hellenists (probably including Philip) would be in Greek, but he could have shifted to Aramaic with Aramaic-speakers (just as my wife, speaking with Congolese persons in Europe or North America, is as likely to speak their shared local languages as French).

[668]. Pace Hickling, “Portrait in Acts 26,” despite the correct observation of the difference in texture.

[669]. Again, Luke does not invent these releases, given 1 Cor 15:32; esp. 2 Cor 11:23.

[670]. E.g., Légasse, “Apologétique,” 254; Aletti, “Testimoni”; Green, “Acts,” 763; esp. Omerzu, “Verhältnis.”

[671]. Cf. Chrys. Hom. Acts 53: it was providential that Paul should be in custody, for so his Lord was counted as a transgressor (Mark 15:28; Luke 22:37).

[672]. Goodenough, “Perspective of Acts,” 55–56, uses this to dismiss “nearly the whole last quarter of Acts”!

[673]. Pervo, Profit, 47 (who also notes that “Apollonius was sustained by right-thinking officials and despised by tyrants” in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.9, 11, 16).

[674]. See especially thoroughly Schwartz, “Trial Scenes.” For the emphasis on court scenes in novels, see also Fullmer, Resurrection, 30; Fernández-Garrido, “Stasis-theory” (emphasizing novelists’ rhetorical skills); but public hearings appear also in histories where they are relevant (e.g., Tac. Ann. 14.42–45), and they do appear relevant to the public opinion about Paul in Luke’s day (see the commentary introduction, ch. 7).

[675]. Schwartz, “Trial Scenes,” 111.

[676]. Assuming, of course, an orderly situation warranting a full hearing. Interruptions were common (see Crook, Advocacy, 66–67, but also noting that these documents are abstracts and some “set speeches” do occur). In Acts 24–26, the governor’s authority could allow speakers the full presentation expected in trials (our samples from forensic orators are generally much longer than any in Acts). Once a speaker had favor with an audience, interruptions also were rarer, appearing unfair to other hearers (Lucian Prof. P.S. 20).

[677]. Despite differences in genre, novelistic accounts are comparable in “the formal construction of the narratives” (Schwartz, “Trial Scenes,” 118). The novels “illustrate the pervasiveness of trials in narratives” of this period, and both kinds of works show that readers of the period found sensational judicial narratives entertaining (132).

[678]. Cf. also the summary of Antipater’s next defense (Jos. Ant. 17.99–105) followed by the prosecution speech of Nicolaus (17.106–23, esp. 17.110–20); also the parallel in War: Herod’s accusation with Antipater’s defense (War 1.622–36; Nicolaus’s prosecution is here summarized in 1.637–38).

[679]. Cf. the speech summaries in Jos. Ant. 14.141–42; 16.362–66 (and the related speech of 16.379–83); the corporate issue in 18.257–60; War 5.530. See comments about Josephus’s creativity in speeches in Keener, Acts, 1:301–4. Clearly Josephus felt free to create (e.g., Ant. 1.317–19) or expand (2.100–104; 6.219) defense speeches where his sources lacked them, but sources such as Nicolaus of Damascus and the more recent period would provide more material (see comment on Acts 24:2–8, especially Winter’s observations).

[680]. As in Acts, Tacitus’s forensic speeches reflect a broader pattern of speeches of various kinds (e.g., the personal defense and reply in Ann. 14.53–56). Given historical practice elsewhere (elaborating without verbatim renditions; see discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:258–319; on Tacitus, 272n125, 276–77, 303, 308), Tacitus may simply flesh out the nucleus of what was known about speeches on these occasions, most of which (unlike, say, his reports of the speeches of leaders opposing Rome) would have been preserved as matters of public record. Where Tacitus has less interest, proceedings are merely summarized (e.g., Ann. 1.74; 3.17, 22–23, 38; 6.49); cf. Tiberius’s speech (3.12) before a trial summary (3.13–16).

[681]. For arguments against Acts being a novel (without rejecting the literary value of the comparisons), see Keener, Acts, 1:62–83. Schwartz, “Trial Scenes,” 117, also notes that Acts differs from novels in being contemporary, Roman, and historiographic (for different propagandistic purposes, see also 132–33). Acts may include more trial scenes than the five standard Greek novels put together (118).

[682]. Vivid detail could be used to elaborate a matter, thereby drawing attention to it (Men. Rhet. 2.13, 423.19–25).

[683]. Tannehill, “Paul’s Defense.” Neagoe, Trial, 213–18 (who does focus on apologetic), concludes his detailed study of Paul’s trials by noting that the common element defended in his speeches is the gospel (as with Paul historically, in Phil 1:7).

[684]. Hansen, “Preaching,” 321, suggests that Luke’s Christian audience was “threatened by Jewish neighbours and Roman authorities because of Paul.” Both are possible; Roman authorities are probable (cf. Phil 1:7, 30).

[685]. Serious charges against Paul could discredit his mission (Hansen, “Preaching,” 320).

[686]. Most scholars emphasize the apologetic focus (e.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 200; Rapske, “Defense of Prisoner”; idem, “Pauline Imprisonment”). Dunn, Beginning, 969, notes that Paul is caught in the conflict between Roman officials suspicious of Jewish unrest and Jewish voices that resist obligations toward Rome.

[687]. That Paul has defense speeches in obvious contrast to Jesus (Luke 23:9; cf. 22:67–69; 23:3; Tannehill, Acts, 274) suggests that Luke does not invent parallels for which he lacks basis in his sources. Paul’s role in his passion narrative, unlike that of Jesus’s in his passion narrative, does not deliberately provoke his execution.

[688]. See, e.g., Callistr. Dig. 47.21.2 (in Sherk, Empire, 205, §160); Shelton, Romans, 9–11; Mitchell, “Rich”; Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 110–15. Although the explicitly formalized distinction of penalties according to class comes later (beginning in the time of Hadrian; Krause, “Honestiores,” 472–74; Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 115–16), it emerged because of earlier practice (even assumed for the gods, Val. Max. 1.1.17) and was probably fairly constant between the first and third centuries (Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 110–11, citing, e.g., Cic. Resp. 1.43); indeed, the distinctions existed explicitly in earlier Mesopotamian legal collections. Status does affect Paul’s treatment in Acts, but always unofficially (hence we lack explicit status terminology) as we would expect in the first century; the later legal situation followed prior custom. Where status is the clearest—this distinction between freeborn and born citizen—is not official legal treatment.

[689]. Perhaps also in connections that he developed in Ephesus (Acts 19:31), though his experience in Ephesus does not conclude as favorably as Luke would have liked even in Luke’s own narrative, and Paul’s letters suggest that his sufferings there were probably longer and heavier than Luke reveals.

[690]. Paul’s own letters may offer a hint that the outcome of his hearings could set precedent for the treatment afforded other Roman citizens (Phil 1:7, 30).

[691]. Witherington, Acts, 660–61. For common elements among Paul’s three defense speeches in Acts 22–26, see Borgman, Way, 353.

[692]. With, e.g., Haenchen, “Acts as Source Material,” 278.

[693]. Légasse, “Apologétique.”

[694]. Ibid., 254. Others also emphasize the parallel between Jesus’s passion and Acts 22–26 (Aletti, “Testimoni,” though the argument about the absence of mention of the Spirit seems questionable; see esp. Omerzu, “Verhältnis”). Heusler, Kapitalprozesse, contends that Luke adapted Mark’s passion narrative to more closely resemble Roman procedures, resembling Acts.

[695]. Légasse, “Apologétique,” 253.

[696]. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:441–58, and sources noted there.

[697]. Hansen, “Preaching,” 318–19. For discussion of “apostasy,” see comment on Acts 21:21.

[698]. Witherington, Acts, 668 (who cites, on defense speeches, Quint. Inst. 3.9.1; Cic. Inv. 1.14.9; for the term, Wis 6:10 [the only LXX use]; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.147); Fitzmyer, Acts, 704. See also Porph. Ar. Cat. 55.3–4. Munck, Salvation, 329, notes that Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7–8 use ἀπολογία or ἀπολογεῖσθαι in about twenty passages; Apollonius’s defense comes toward the end of Philostratus’s work, before his disappearance.

[699]. Veltman, “Defense Speeches.” Interruptions were apparently common also toward the beginning (Rhet. Alex. 18, 1432b.35–40) and thereafter (1433a.14–18).

[700]. Veltman, “Defense Speeches,” 252.

[701]. Ibid., 251.

[702]. See, e.g., Cic. Or. Brut. 46.156; Quinct. 10.35; Wuellner, “Arrangement,” 57; Heath, Hermogenes, 4. Indeed, the handbooks themselves diverged from one another (see Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 35).

[703]. Bligh, Galatians, 97; followed also by Talbert, Acts, 191.

[704]. Neyrey, “Forensic Defense Speech,” 220.

[705]. Ibid., 221.

[706]. Witherington, Acts, 665; cf. Malina and Neyrey, Portraits, 81, on manner of life.

[707]. Hogan, “Defense,” focusing on Acts 24 and 26.

[708]. Quesnel, “Analyse rhétorique,” 166. Pervo, Acts, 560, views nearly the entire speech as narratio, which may also be correct.

[709]. Gentiles could understand the possibility of a divine element in effective rhetoric (cf. Pernot, “Rhetoric,” on ancient rhetoric and religion). Paul may omit an explicit refutatio because, in the narrative world, he does not yet know the charges (Parsons, Acts, 310) or he has heard the slander in Acts 21:28 but doubts that the Aramaic-hearing crowd understands them (21:34).

[710]. See comment on Acts 14:14–17.

[711]. Cf. Philost. Vit. soph. 1.482; 2.9.583; see further comment on Acts 14:14–17. Being able to embellish speeches during delivery was also important (Dion. Hal. Demosth. 53).

[712]. By “two years,” Luke could mean even thirteen months; see comment on Acts 24:27.

[713]. The exception would be if Luke was Jewish and visiting for the late autumn festivals (Acts 27:9); but visiting Paul seems more probable, and remaining in continued (albeit long-thwarted) hopes of a speedy resolution more probable still.

[714]. With Witherington, Acts, 309. See again on speech composition, Keener, Acts, 1:258–319.

[715]. Kurz, “Approaches,” 204–20, compares the narrator’s absence during Paul’s trials to Peter’s during Jesus’s trials (both being present for the journeys). But Luke links Peter with Paul, not with himself, and the narrator is not afraid like Peter in the Gospel’s passion narrative, or the narrator would hardly accompany Paul for his hearing in Rome.

[716]. Especially for Acts 24–26, these events would have to include forensic speeches, which would prove inevitable if Paul had any hearings that would help determine his treatment and eventual referral to Rome.

[717]. Karris, Invitation, 199, who resolves the problems in terms of Luke’s literary purpose.

[718]. Witherington, “Editing,” 335–44. Cadbury, “Features,” 92, rightly notes the proclivity toward variation in Luke-Acts, following the practice of ancient literary and rhetorical culture. On variations in the retellings, see also comment at the introduction to Acts 22:6–11; on Greek appreciation for variation, see Nock, “Vocabulary,” 137; Malherbe, “Theorists,” 17. Proclus Poet. 6.2, K171, contends that Plato imitates Homeric arrangement; since Odysseus’s wanderings are narrated three times (K171.1–5), Plato narrates three times (K171.6–10).

[719]. Witherington, “Editing,” 336.

[720]. Aune, Environment, 126; Pervo, Acts, 560. On the exordium, Witherington, Acts, 668, cites Quint. Inst. 4.1.1–79; on the narratio, 4.2.1–132; Cic. Inv. 1.19.27.

[721]. Normally, a concise narratio was helpful (Dion. Hal. Lysias 9; see also Anderson, Glossary, 113, citing Rhet. Alex. 30.4–5, 8–9; Rhet. Her. 1.14; Cic. Inv. 1.28; De or. 2.326–28; Theon Progymnasmata [RG 2:83, line 14, to 2:84, line 17]; Quint. Inst. 2.31–32, 40–51), but not if one needed to establish rapport there.

[722]. Witherington, Acts, 667. (Idem, Corinthians, 98–99, recognizes the normal importance of a concise narratio.)

[723]. Rhet. Alex. 30, 1438a.6–19 if the advice remained relevant in this era.

[724]. Narrative was not strictly necessary in deliberative speech, but it was in judicial (Heath, “Invention,” 105–6).

[725]. Witherington, Acts, 666–68.

[726]. See Anderson, Glossary, 43 (citing Quint. Inst. 4.2.63; Cic. Top. 97; De or. 2.264).

[727]. One might infer that he missed the feast and hence was no longer in a hurry; but if so, given that he was not making slow progress beforehand, he and his colleagues poorly judged the possibility of reaching Jerusalem by Pentecost. Given Paul’s travel experience during various seasons, such a major miscalculation is unlikely.

[728]. Historically, such a future desecration of the temple was probably a genuine concern of Paul’s (see 2 Thess 2:3–4, surely not penned after 70 C.E., despite frequent assertions that it is pseudepigraphic).

[729]. Jesus’s warning came in his final long speech in Jerusalem (perhaps public, Luke 21:37; cf. 20:45) in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 21), corresponding to the function of Paul’s final public speech in Jerusalem.

[730]. The “visitation” that Jesus intends is messianic (Luke 1:68, 78; 7:16), but Luke allows extended analogies (cf. ἐπισκέπτομαι in Acts 7:23; 15:14), which is all I intend here.

[731]. Witherington, Acts, 668 (citing Arist. Rhet. 3.14).

[732]. Often noted; e.g., Bruce, Commentary, 437.

[733]. Witherington, Acts, 668, suggests respect for those who passed down the traditions. Chance, Acts, 402, rightly emphasizes the note of rapport.

[734]. Dunn, Acts, 293. Cf. Jos. Ant. 4.35, where the people quiet down after Moses’s speech.

[735]. Unless, as Wall, “Acts,” 305, suggests, it also counters his Diaspora Jewish accusers (in the event that anyone figured out who his original accusers were).

[736]. Some of Paul’s opponents may have critiqued his Diaspora origins (cf. 2 Cor 11:22; but the opponents whom Paul answers there certainly had Hellenistic rhetorical training [see 2 Cor 10:10–12; 11:5–6; Keener, Corinthians, 227]).

[737]. E.g., Theon Progymn. 5.52–56; on dwelling on a point, see Rhet. Her. 4.45.58; Anderson, Glossary, 53, and the sources that he cites.

[738]. Cf., e.g., Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436b.17–19, 38–40; 1437a.1–1438a.2; 1442a.22–1442b.27.

[739]. Men. Rhet. 2.11, 420.10–12, 18–21; cf. also Hermog. Progymn. 7, “On Encomion,” 16. As encomiastic topics, cf. also Aeschines Embassy 147; Cic. Inv. 1.25.35; Men. Rhet. 2.3, 385.5–6. Cf. also Malina and Neyrey, Portraits, 27–28; Parsons, Acts, 308 (citing Hermog. Progymn. 15–16; Nicolaus Progymn. 50–52, but also noting the topics, such as wealth, omitted); Gibson, “Notes,” 195. Stoics debated the degree of emphasis to be placed on nature relative to nurture (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 86–87.21–34).

[740]. In this passage, the author refers to the emperor, but the principle is more broadly applicable.

[741]. See Gnuse, “Vita apologetica,” comparing Josephus and Luke’s portrait of Paul. (Again, an apologetic focus does not require fabrication; Josephus undoubtedly did have an excellent education.)

[742]. Montefiore, Judaism and Paul, passim (e.g., 77, 93–98, without sufficient documentation); without value judgments, Sandmel, Genius of Paul, 9; for a refutation, see thoroughly Davies, Paul, 1–16. Some have overplayed Paul’s Hellenistic background while ignoring his Judaism (e.g., Reitzenstein, Religions, 84, 533–43, though cf. also his acknowledgment of Paul’s Judaism, 89); this is not to deny crucial Diaspora influence on Paul, which many scholars rightly note (e.g., Roetzel, Paul, 63, though Paul’s Diaspora education is questionable; Chilton, Rabbi Paul, 14–22; Barclay, “Paul among Jews,” 90), and as I have noted also in this commentary. A balanced approach allows for Paul to participate in and speak to both realms, which already overlapped (e.g., Martin, Body, 133; Meeks, Moral World, 126; Sampley, “Introduction,” 4–5; cf. Deissmann, Paul, 41; Dibelius and Kümmel, Paul, 15). The scholarly dichotomy between Judaism and Hellenism has served both anti-Judaism and Christian apologetic (see Meeks, “Birth”; Martin, “Dichotomy”).

[743]. Sandmel, Genius of Paul, 13.

[744]. Certainly the overlap of cultures is intelligible to those familiar with modern Diaspora Judaism; e.g., Jewish citizens of the United States (even those with the strongest attachments to Israel) are nonetheless also English-speaking North Americans. Nor are modern Israelis isolated from larger world events or contacts with the Jewish Diaspora.

[745]. See, e.g., Tcherikover, Civilization; Lieberman, Hellenism; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism; Avi-Yonah, Hellenism; Levine, Hellenism. Alexander, “Hellenism,” 72–79, finds little “hellenization” in rabbinic literature (in contrast to the rest of early Judaism) but defines Hellenism narrowly, in terms of rhetorical education. It is true that some parts of Judaism (such as the rabbis or especially the Qumran scrolls) were less hellenized than others (for extremes, see, e.g., Philo and esp. Artapanus and some Sibylline Oracles).

[746]. Many scholars note that this could be done only in Jerusalem (e.g., Kim, Origin, 33–34; cf. Campbell, Deliverance, 147). The Gospels (in contrast to Josephus) might allow us to suspect some Pharisees beyond Jerusalem, but none of our sources places them beyond Palestine (cf. Horsley, Galilee, 150–52, 256; Lohse, Environment, 79; doubting even their presence in Galilee, see Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 390n90).

[747]. Ramsay, Teaching, 40–41. Turner, Grammatical Insights, 84, suggests that “this city” in 22:3 refers to Tarsus (just mentioned) rather than Jerusalem (where Paul speaks), but this approach probably falters on Lukan usage (Acts 16:12; 18:10; esp. 4:27; cf. 1 Sam 9:6; Jer 21:6–7, 9; 45:2 [38:2 ET]; Ezek 11:2, 6; 1 Macc 2:17). Cf. the usual meaning of ἀπὸ νεότητος (BDAG cites Marc. Aur. 8.1.1; P.Tebt. 276, 38; Jos. War 4, 33; 1 Macc 1:6; 16:2; with genitive, Num 22:30; Jer 3:25); in the LXX and NT, usually ἐκ is preferred.

[748]. See Longenecker, Ministry and Message, 21; cf. Forbes, “Paul,” 135. Some writers have even suggested that he had Jewish Scripture training (in the LXX) in the Diaspora (Goppelt, Times, 71–72).

[749]. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 34–35; Hengel, Acts and History, 81.

[750]. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 35 (arguing that Paul settled in Jerusalem as an adolescent, 38; cf. 3).

[751]. It seems odd especially in view of Hengel’s own awareness of Greek-speakers in Jerusalem (ibid., 54–62)! Immigrant children often speak their parents’ language at home.

[752]. Though the nephew could have been sent, with his mother remaining in Tarsus.

[753]. See Watson, “Education,” 312; more extensive discussion in the commentary introduction, Keener, Acts, 1:629–34.

[754]. Van Unnik, Tarsus, 18–22, citing Plato Alcib. 1.122B; Laws 6.783B; 8.842E; Menex. 5, 237A; Epin. 973D; Crito 50DE (cf. Crito 51C).

[755]. Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.99; Flacc. 158; Dreams 2.147.

[756]. Plut. Table 8.7, Mor. 727B; Flatt. 25, Mor. 65F; Numa 5, 63B; Comparison of Agis and Cleomenes and the Gracchi 41, 843F.

[757]. Isoc. On the Team of Horses 2 (28); Nicolaus of Damascus Vitae Caesaris proem; and further examples. Cf. van der Horst, “Musonius,” 309, on Mus. Ruf. 4, pp. 44.35–46.2 (Lutz).

[758]. The verb and its noun cognates normally refer to early rearing (e.g., 3 Macc 5:32; 4 Macc 10:2; 11:15; 13:24; 16:8; Wis 7:4; sources in BDAG; cf. the cognates in Sib. Or. 3.254; Jos. Asen. 17:4), and it is distinguished from later education (4 Macc 13:21–22; Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 371.17–372.2; 2.11, 420.11–12).

[759]. Van Unnik, Tarsus, 44. It is the expansive description, however, rather than the location, that provides the last point’s emphasis; its location stems from chronology: one should address rearing first (Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 371.17–372.2).

[760]. Van Unnik, Tarsus, 44, emphasis his.

[761]. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 186; Johnson, Acts, 387; Kim, Origin, 33; Ladd, Theology, 360; Martin, Reconciliation, 17; Banks, Community, 20; Witherington, Acts, 269; Pervo, Acts, 562; cf. Philip, Pneumatology, 126–28 (on the greater importance of Jerusalem’s influence in Paul’s life). By contrast, Du Toit, “Tale,” argues that Paul could have come to Jerusalem much later in life. Not all scholars would agree with Luke’s claim, but most understand this to be his claim. The matter is not beyond question (see Schnabel, Acts, 900, noting the ambiguity of the terms used), but Luke’s own usage encourages confidence that this is what Luke meant here.

[762]. See the anonymous “Review of Tarsus.” Thompson, “Paul in Acts,” 429, also appeals to Paul’s Pharisaic background to counter arguments from silence against Paul’s Jerusalemite background.

[763]. Also Dunn, Acts, 293; cf. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 30–32 (though he thinks [38] that Paul moved there only as an adolescent).

[764]. Hellenistic education (as opposed to Roman education in the West; cf. Muir, “Education,” 509) proceeded especially by age-groupings (Beck and Thomas, “Education,” 508). Josephus mentions his prodigious knowledge of Torah at age fourteen (Life 9) in a boast comparable to Paul’s in Gal 1:14.

[765]. So Polyb. 6.11.4 (using συντροφίαν and ἐκ παίδων). Rearing affects ability to adapt to a philosophic lifestyle (Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 34.8–12).

[766]. On historians’ Tendenz, see the discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:148–65.

[767]. Some Romans also started as young as possible (Quint. Inst. 1.1.15–19; Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 46.35–36; Plut. M. Cato 20.3), though many did not (see Dixon, Roman Mother, 141). Socrates reportedly urged that parents not only feed but seek to teach their children and send them to teachers at cost where necessary (Xen. Mem. 2.2.6).

[768]. Safrai, “Home,” 762, citing, e.g., b. Ber. 17a; Pesiq. Rab. 43.

[769]. Sir 30:3; 4 Macc 18:9–19; b. Qidd. 29a; Pesaḥ. 113a; Eccl. Rab. 4:1, §1; cf. Let. Aris. 248; Safrai, “Education,” 947, citing, e.g., t. Qidd. 1:11; Sipre Deut. 46; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.178; Philo Embassy 210; Safrai, “Home,” 770; Goodman, State, 72, citing, e.g., t. Ḥag. 1:2; Mek. Pisha 18.111–13; Moore, Judaism, 2:127; among Gentiles, see Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.23.19; grandfathers could also play a part (Safrai, “Home,” 771; cf. b. Qidd. 30a; y. Šabb. 1:2, §2), as could grandmothers (Tob 1:8; 2 Tim 1:5).

[770]. If the saying is rightly attributed to Judah ben Tema in the late second century, by “mishnah” it refers not to the written compilation edited under Judah ha-Nasi but to many traditions therein. Cf. the similar, later Babylonian tradition in b. Ketub. 50a. Early education involved recitation, not reading (Oesterley, Liturgy, 112).

[771]. Safrai, “Education,” 953 (see, more extensively, passim); Gerhardsson, Memory, 57; more extensively, 56–66 (cf. his argument for schools for study of oral Torah, 85–92). Also on Jewish education, see material in Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 516–22; Shiell, Reading Acts, 27–29.

[772]. Paul either worked to support himself or came from a wealthy family (Riesner, Early Period, 154); given Paul’s opportunities for advancement (Gal 1:14), a fairly well-to-do family is more likely than many hours of employment, though a particularly brilliant student can balance both well (and cf. comment on Acts 18:3). Although Paul’s attitude toward manual work may not identify his wealthy background (see Still, “Loathe Labor”), neither does it count against it.

[773]. Goodman, State, 76. For a comparison between classics-centered Egyptian and Torah-centered Galilean curricula, see 72–73. Josephus depicts the Pharisees in Greek terms (78); but this may partly reflect his audience. For the widespread availability of primary and secondary education in second-century Eretz Israel, see Watson, “Education,” 311; for later, Amoraic development and expansion of the Babylonian curriculum (from b. B. Bat. 21a on), see Leibowitz, “Heroes.”

[774]. Romans also appreciated those who devoted themselves to study from boyhood (Cic. Fam. 3.10.7; 13.16.4).

[775]. Watson, “Education,” 312; apparently many first-century Jewish boys attended primary and secondary levels (310). It is possible that such study went longer among Qumran’s sectarians (cf. 1QSa I, 7–8). Although elite training would include reading, many believe that wider Jewish learning at a more basic level may have focused on oral memory and recitation.

[776]. Akiba reportedly began late (e.g., b. Pesaḥ. 49b), but it was normally best to begin in youth (ʾAbot R. Nat. 23 A). We later read of adult, married disciples in some of the same passages that address children’s education (b. Ber. 17a; Soṭah 21a).

[777]. Stamps, “Children,” 198.

[778]. A student in Lucian Hermot. 2 claims that he does not understand philosophy after twenty years of study (Hermot. 13 shows he started at age forty), but Lucian may be mocking.

[779]. See Légasse, “Career,” 375–76; Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 35–37.

[780]. Légasse, “Career,” 377 (pointing [378n41] to midrashic methods in Rom 4; 5:12–20; 9–11; 1 Cor 10:1–11; Gal 3:6–18; 4:21–31). See also Longenecker, Exegesis, passim. Some also point to connections with Qumran (e.g., Donfried, Thessalonians, 221–31), but I do not find these distinctive enough to prove compelling.

[781]. By “advanced,” I mean beyond the grammar level of studying texts to seeking to explain and articulate interpretations, hence in his mid-teenage years at the youngest.

[782]. On Pharisaic training available in this period, see Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 40–53.

[783]. Légasse, “Career,” 376n33 (also viewing its absence from Phil 3:5 as notable, but less plausibly in view of the title’s lateness); cf. Ladd, Theology, 360. Although the title “rabbi” predates 70 C.E. (as a respectful title for “teacher”; see the inscription in Brown, John, 1:74), the more formal process for securing rabbinic ordination is later. Given Palestinian Judaism’s diversity before 70, no one supervised accreditation and anyone could have followers (Cohen, Maccabees, 122), no matter how much traditions in common Judaism normally dictated some standards (cf. Acts 4:13; John 7:15). Although Paul may not have held the title “rabbi,” it is a mistake to doubt his expertise in Torah (pace Nock, Paul, 30); despite his Hellenistic competence, he does handle Scripture like one who had what came to be identified as rabbinic training (Deissmann, Light, 381; Schoeps, Paul, 39; cf. Sandmel, Genius of Paul, 26), and from a Pharisaic perspective (cf. Cohn-Sherbok, “Paul and Exegesis”; Davies, Introduction, 27–28; idem, Paul, 216; Grant, Hellenism, 136; Ramsay, Other Studies, 89–90; Bruce, “History,” 50).

[784]. On which, for some of what follows, see, e.g., Heath, Hermogenes, 11–12; Hock, “Paul and Education,” 199–207; Beck and Thomas, “Education,” 508; Stamps, “Children,” 198; Watson, “Education,” 310–12; Stowers, Letter Writing, 32; Kaster, “Grammaticus.”

[785]. Even smaller towns needed to attract teachers for children instead of sending the children elsewhere (Pliny Ep. 4.13.3–5); these were best chosen for the town by the children’s parents (4.13.9–11). Aristotle, who distinguished equity from equality, opposed universal education (Pol. 2.4.6, 1266b).

[786]. Christes, “Education,” 821–22.

[787]. Hock, “Paul and Education,” 201; idem, “Curriculum,” 19. Under the republic, Romans learned especially reading, writing, law, and morality, supplemented by premilitary “physical training” (Dupont, Life, 225), but they were also allowed pets to inculcate maturity (Bradley, “Sentimental Education”). Some valued moral instruction highly (cf. Xen. Cyr. 1.2.2–3, on the Persians). Below seven, a child might learn especially from a mother (Barclay, Train a Child, 157); for mothers’ role, see Verner, Household, 137; e.g., Quint. Inst. 1.1.6; Plut. Educ. 20, Mor. 14B. Though some preferred learning at home, Quintilian advocates schooling with other children, provided the classes were small (Quint. Inst. 1.2.1–6, 17–31).

[788]. For beatings for discipline (from fathers or teachers), see, e.g., Aristoph. Clouds 1409–10; Xen. Lac. 6.1–2; Columbanus, (probably) Catonian lines, line 52; Ahiq. 81 (saying 3); Sir 30:1–2, 12; t. B. Qam. 9:11; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:4; cf. Pilch, “Beat”; Safrai, “Education,” 954; idem, “Home,” 770–71; Goodman, State, 78; Carcopino, Life, 105; Townsend, “Education,” 145; pedagogues could also administer beatings (Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 380, §127); apprentices could also be beaten (Jos. Ant. 18.314). For limiting discipline of children, see, e.g., Quint. Inst. 1.3.13–14 (cf. 2.4.10; but he also affirms discipline, 2.2.4); Plut. M. Cato 20.2; Ps.-Phoc. 150 (cf. 207); b. Sanh. 107b, bar.; perhaps Eph 6:4; cf. also Safrai, “Education,” 955.

[789]. Others might be sent to learn a trade instead at some point in their teens (e.g., Lucian Career 1).

[790]. On the grammaticus, see further Christes, “Grammaticus”; idem, “School,” 79–81; on this secondary level, see also Hock, “Paul and Education,” 201–4; idem, “Curriculum,” 21; McNelis, “Grammarians,” 286–87 (on 286 noting several subjects in Dionysius Thrax 1.1.5–6, the Latin translation of this in Varro Gramm. Rom. Frag. 234; narrowed esp. to studying the poets, and so learning proper speech, in Quint. Inst. 1.4.2); for late antiquity, cf. Gibson, “Notes,” xx. But Shiell, Reading Acts, 15–17, argues that by the first century, the grammaticus taught only at the elementary level and that his instruction in poetry had given way to grammar. Too recently for fuller incorporation into the description above, Sandnes, Challenge, 26–31 (after surveying the case for the tripartite schema on 20–25), joins others as critiquing the tripartite system as an oversimplification and overgeneralization, as distinctions between primary and secondary levels were hardly universal.

[791]. On these, see comment on Acts 17:28; 26:14.

[792]. On this tertiary stage, see, e.g., Hock, “Paul and Education,” 204–8; idem, “Curriculum,” 23 (suggesting ages fourteen to fifteen); its beginning often coincided with the recognition of manhood (Watson, “Education,” 310). Often Greek students would continue some work with the grammarian while beginning studies with the rhetorician; in Roman schools, the grammaticus introduced some elementary rhetoric (Cic. De or. 1.187).

[793]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.7; Quintilian’s students were entering manhood (Inst. 2.2.3). In McNelis, “Grammarians,” 286, boys entered the grammatical stage after finishing basic instruction at around age seven or eight. The levels were ideals that varied by period and location (Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 143; esp. Sandnes, Challenge, 16–17). Nevertheless, only bad teachers would allow students to skip the introductory stages (e.g., Lucian Prof. P.S. 14).

[794]. Parents and teachers negotiated fees, but grammar teachers at Rome received four times the pay, and rhetoric teachers five times the pay, of elementary teachers (Watson, “Education,” 311); Jewish fathers and village taxes supported scribes (312). Wealthy locations such as Rhodes might fund teachers (Polyb. 31.31.1).

[795]. See esp. Heath, Hermogenes, 11–12; Beck and Thomas, “Education,” 508; Stamps, “Children,” 198; Stowers, Letter Writing, 32; Kaster, “Grammaticus.” Educational stratification is not an exclusively ancient phenomenon (cf., e.g., Collins, “Theories”).

[796]. Beck and Thomas, “Education,” 508–9.

[797]. Christes, “Education,” 822.

[798]. With Hock, “Paul and Education,” 208; cf. discussion in Sandnes, Challenge, 250–54 (treating it as probable); for at least secondary study, cf. Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 17 (and 77, on Paul’s comfort in elite circles); for one particularly nuanced treatment of both Paul’s literary skills and his limitations, see Keith, “Grapho-Literacy.” For skepticism, see, e.g., Glover, Paul, 19 (but also rightly contrasting [15] Paul with the papyri). Shea, “Educating,” argues that one can infer Paul’s educational level only from his letters, but I believe that they are sufficient to meet this challenge.

[799]. Hock, “Paul and Education,” 209, 215. Hock (215) follows Hengel (Pre-Christian Paul, 57–62) in noting that this was available even in Jerusalem.

[800]. For examples, see, e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 25–28, 32. But Keck, “Pathos,” 78–79, is correct that “use of rhetorical devices does not necessarily” require training in “rhetorical theory.” Classen, Rhetorical Criticism, 29–40 (esp. 30–31, on Rom 13:9; 33–36), may be right to argue that Paul sometimes used terms in their technical rhetorical sense. Nevertheless, we should not expect this often when the terms were not also used more generally; otherwise, his audience would not have understood him.

[801]. I like to compare his rhetorical proficiency with that of a bright student who took some seminary homiletics courses (without that being Paul’s “major”), then honed what he learned.

[802]. Church fathers often thought Paul’s rhetoric weak (e.g., Jerome Ruf. 1.17); but they wrote after the Second Sophistic (see Judge, First Christians, 711), and most also came from a higher level of academic training (e.g., Augustine was himself a teacher of rhetoric). I believe that he studied rhetoric but did not train to become a professional orator, and certainly not a professor of rhetoric. Even Cicero does not fill his letters with rhetorical flourishes; it was not expected in personal letters, but Paul includes some (probably because his argumentation involves a more rhetorical genre than most letters would).

[803]. Mere recollection of texts could come at the secondary level (Hock, “Paul and Education,” 208). But his ability to recall particularly useful texts undoubtedly not central in his curriculum (such as the only two texts combining faith and righteousness, Gen 15:6; Hab 2:4), his skill in connecting texts by means of common key words (gezerah shevah), and other details suggest more advanced work.

[804]. See Davies, Paul, passim. We should make some allowances for Paul’s abundant use of Greek language and rhetoric—but on a range from Philo to Josephus to the less hellenized rabbis and Qumran, Paul’s use of Scripture is not particularly or distinctly “Hellenistic.”

[805]. With Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 35–37.

[806]. E.g., Nock, Paul, 30, therefore doubting Paul’s “expertise” in the law.

[807]. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 36. See discussion of “scribes” at Acts 4:5.

[808]. See discussion in Keener, John, 468–69.

[809]. Hock, “Paul and Education,” 216, also concurs that Gal 1:14 indicates that Paul was well educated in Pharisaism.

[810]. Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 534–35. Tarsus was known for its philosophic and rhetorical training (Strabo 14.5.13); Paul’s move to Jerusalem would have shifted the primary focus to Scripture study (Gal 1:14), befitting a Jewish education.

[811]. Légasse, “Career,” 378–79.

[812]. See m. ʾAb. 1:10 (a pre-Christian tradition); Riesner, Early Period, 154–55.

[813]. Haacker, Theology, 110.

[814]. Hengel, Acts and History, 81 (citing later traditions in b. Soṭah 49b; B. Qam. 83a); Malherbe, Social Aspects, 34–35.

[815]. Watson, “Education,” 312; on the value of rhetorical education for the elites, see Christes, “Education/Culture,” 833.

[816]. His letters reveal comfort with Greek and the LXX (Légasse, “Career,” 374).

[817]. Avigad, Jerusalem, 120.

[818]. Sperber, “Note.”

[819]. E.g., b. B. Bat. 140b; at greater length, Sevenster, Greek, 38–61; Veltri, “Loanwords.” Some even argue for Greek words behind “Metatron” (Orlov, “Origin”). For the diatribe approach, see Ulmer, “Advancement.”

[820]. For allusions to five texts in Homer and six of Aesop’s fables, see Manns, “Source de l’aggadah.”

[821]. E.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:6; Gen. Rab. 81:5 (third century); Lam. Rab. proem 31; 4:15, §18. For parallels with Greek hermeneutics (though not all profound), see Lieberman, Hellenism, 47–82; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:80ff.; Levine, Hellenism, 113–16; Sambursky, “Gematria”; Cavigneaux, “Herméneutique”; Stemberger, “Hermeneutik”; cf., e.g., Arist. Rhet. 2.23.4–5, 1397b, with haggadic techniques; also compare Diog. Laert. 2.30, with pilpul.

[822]. Cf., e.g., Jos. Ant. 1.73; Lieberman, Hellenism, 113; the cameo of (probably) Diomedes stealing the Athena image from Troy, in Jerusalem (Rahmani, “Cameo”; on that Palladium, see also Sib. Or. 8.43). This is clear with regard to the borrowed Sibyl (e.g., Sib. Or. 3.827). Josephus adopts the Hellenistic expression “by Zeus” (Ag. Ap. 1.255); see further discussion in the introduction to Acts 17:22–31.

[823]. E.g., Nereus in Sib. Or. 1.232; Circe in 3.814 (cf. Hom. Od. 8.448; 9.31; 10 passim; here esp. 10.210; Virg. Aen. 7.19–20); Zeus (negatively) in Sib. Or. 11.134; Sirens in Mic 1:8 LXX; 1 En. 19:2; 2 Bar. 10:8.

[824]. E.g., Sib. Or. 3.110–13, 121–55, 551–54, 723 (cf. “dead deities,” 3.588); Let. Aris. 136. As lots divided the cosmos to Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades, so now to Ham, Shem, and Japheth in Sib. Or. 3.114–16.

[825]. E.g., Ares for war (ranging from pre-Christian to Christian material, see Sib. Or. 5.334; 7.46; 8.141; 11.104, 147, 187, 205, 219, 278; 12.53, 278; 14.56, 115); Hephaestus’s flame serving God’s purpose (2.19); Tethys as the sea (3.22).

[826]. E.g., Sib. Or. 8.43–47 (perhaps Christian); see comment on Acts 14:15–17.

[827]. E.g., Sib. Or. 2.15.

[828]. Likewise, other texts are full of allusions but oppose them (Sib. Or. 3.401–32, probably from pre-Christian Asia).

[829]. See, e.g., CIJ 1:lxvii; Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 104; comment on Acts 18:24. One may take as an example names related to “Hermes” (CIJ 1:23, §26; 1:75, §108; 1:255, §324; CPJ 3:175–76; 3:9, §453; perhaps, but probably not, Rom 16:14).

[830]. Sib. Or. 2.337 (in probably Christian redaction).

[831]. Sib. Or. 2.338 (in probably Christian redaction); 5.485; Apoc. Mos. 37:3 (cf. 3 Bar. 10:2; 1 En. 17:6).

[832]. E.g., Sib. Or. 1.10, 101–3; 2.291, 302; 4.186; 5.178; L.A.B. 60:3; Test. Sol. 6:3; 2 Pet 2:4; cf. related imagery in Sib. Or. 1.307–23; 2.231; y. Ḥag. 2:2, §5; Sanh. 6:6, §2. Even the earlier OT rephaim resemble the Greek shades.

[833]. Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 277.

[834]. See Hock, “Paul and Education.” Although Paul employs philosophic language at points, it was common philosophic language; the content of his training was probably Scripture rather than philosophy.

[835]. His letters reveal far more Jewish education (in Scripture) than Hellenistic (if we may judge by the rareness of his classical quotations); so, e.g., Reiser, “Heiden.” But acquaintance with rhetoric differs from knowledge of the classics that rhetoricians regularly quoted.

[836]. He was apparently proud and “successful” as a zealot for the law, not consciously struggling under it as some traditional Protestant interpreters have portrayed him (see Stendahl, Paul, 12–14).

[837]. Cf., e.g., Davies, Paul, 216; Bruce, “History,” 50.

[838]. Jos. Ant. 13.297, 408; 17.41; cf. Goodman, “Note”; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 128–29, 236.

[839]. With Johnson, Acts, 388. The Essenes, however, probably considered them lax; some scholars even think that “speakers of smooth things” in 4QpNah refers to Pharisees (see Roth, “Subject Matter of Exegesis”; Kugel and Greer, Interpretation, 79), though others demur (Meier, “Halaka”). (Some early opinions that the Qumran sectarians may have been Pharisees [e.g., Marcus, “Scrolls,” 25–28] were rightly rejected later [Dupont-Sommer, Manuscrits, 33].)

[840]. If he was a leader ca. 30–50 C.E. (Sandmel, Judaism, 241), Paul probably studied with him before the period of his greatest prominence. Gamaliel may have also been a priest, with enough respect among Sadducees to have a son achieve a short-lived high priesthood (Jos. Ant. 20.213, 223 if the Gamaliel is the same).

[841]. On Gamaliel I, see discussion at Acts 5:34–39.

[842]. Koester, Introduction, 2:99. He also cites Gal 1:22, but it refers to the church, and Jerusalem was a significantly sized city by ancient standards.

[843]. Chilton, Rabbi Paul, 34–35.

[844]. Hock, Social Context, 22. (As Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 118–19, notes, Hock trusts Acts for its portrait of Gamaliel’s tolerance in Acts 5:34–39; why one claim and not the other?)

[845]. E.g., Val. Max. 8.15.ext. 1; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 108.17, 20, 22; 110.14, 20; Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 36.6–7; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.22.

[846]. For Seneca’s friendship with Demetrius, see, e.g., Griffin, “Demetrius.”

[847]. But cf. Mason, “Was Josephus a Pharisee?,” who argues that Josephus associated with the popular Pharisees but never in fact joined the sect.

[848]. E.g., Kim, Origin, 330; Wright, Founder, 26; tentatively, Park, Jew or Gentile, 27–28 (citing b. Šabb. 15a). On this characteristic of Shammaites as opposed to the Hillelites, see, e.g., Bowker, Pharisees, 43; Falk, Jesus, 24–33, 75 (although some of this work is speculative).

[849]. Paul might have compensated for his Hellenistic and Roman backgrounds by being more radical than Gamaliel and Hillelites would have approved. Wright, Founder, 30, does not deny Paul’s study with Gamaliel, only that he shared his position. Some entertain the possibility that Paul could have initially learned Pharisaism through Gamaliel (Roetzel, Paul, 7), though Acts 23:6 suggests otherwise (Roetzel [7] accepts its claim as another possibility).

[850]. See, e.g., m. Ber. 1:3; 8:1–8; Peʾah 3:1; 6:1, 2, 5; 7:6; Dem. 1:3; 6:6 (and passim in the Mishnah); t. Šabb. 1:16; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 6:4; b. Ber. 11a; comments in Neusner, Traditions, 1:211, 339; cf. also comment on Acts 5:34. Some traditions even report lethal violence (y. Šabb. 1:4); these are surely exaggerated (Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 87–88), though Josephus reports stone throwing between groups of Sadducees.

[851]. It does serve a literary function (see comment on Acts 5:36–37) and hence serves Luke’s literary purposes. But I have argued here repeatedly that historians often used historical data or traditions for their purposes.

[852]. As Genesis uses two related Egyptian names among its very few Egyptian names (Gen 37:36; 39:1; 41:45, 50; 46:20); but specifying only these names may have been for a deliberate literary connection (the one who resisted Potipher’s wife married Potiphera’s daughter).

[853]. A number of scholars support the connection, e.g., Rapske, Custody, 94–97; Harrison, “Acts 22:3”; others cited below.

[854]. With Légasse, “Career,” 377.

[855]. Cf. similarly Townsend, “Education,” 157. Presumably, Paul could become a student of Gamaliel only after showing promise and reaching sufficient age and maturity (Le Cornu, Acts, 454).

[856]. Shammaites allegedly preferred rich students, but Hillelites welcomed all (ʾAbot R. Nat. 3 A; 4, §14 B), though this tradition reflects the Hillelite perspective (i.e., is favorable toward Hillelites). But opportunities to study with one of the most prominent and aristocratic teachers would be more limited. Riesner, Early Period, 154, adds the possibility of Paul’s supporting himself by a trade, but this probably underestimates his youth and overestimates his earning potential. Grant, Paul, 52, cites parallels between Paul and Musonius Rufus (an equestrian) to support Paul’s rank, but he overstates the correspondence between the two figures. It was believed that children from more educated or wise homes begin with an educational advantage (Mus. Ruf. 1, pp. 32.34–34.2, 8–10; Wis 3:12). Most members of the Jewish intellectual elite did not belong to the top economic elite (Ehrensperger, Power, 11), but some means were necessary to secure the best education.

[857]. Or, at the absolute minimum, that his prominence (and perhaps fees) propelled his son into the aristocracy. Some teachers did become wealthy through fees (Suet. Gramm. 23). Later tradition links him with Hillel, who was (reportedly) originally poor, but even if the genetic link holds, probably at least one generation intervened.

[858]. Beck and Thomas, “Education,” 509 (“little more pay than a skilled workman”). Roman elementary teachers also had low status, with about a quarter of the pay of a grammaticus and a fifth that of the rhetor (the advanced level); see Muir, “Education,” 510.

↑ Back to top