[859] . McNelis, “Grammarians,” 287.

[859] . McNelis, “Grammarians,” 287.

[859]. McNelis, “Grammarians,” 287.

[860]. Ibid., 289, speaking of rhetoricians focused on persuasive composition.

[861]. Pliny the Younger mentions the plight of an orator and advocate, exiled from Rome, now able merely to teach rhetoric (Ep. 4.11.1).

[862]. Gamaliel supposedly taught the “seminary” in the Sanhedrin (Le Cornu, Acts, 454, cites t. Sanh. 2:6; for his prominence, she also cites m. Giṭ. 4:2–3; Roš Haš. 2:5; Soṭah 9:15). Although such a seminary could not have existed in the Sanhedrin assembly per se, the report may preserve tradition about his teaching.

[863]. Luke 22:66; 23:10; Acts 4:5; 6:12; 23:9.

[864]. Davies, Paul, 6 (citing t. Soṭah 15:8; b. Soṭah 49b); see also b. B. Qam. 83a; cf. b. Giṭ. 58a. After 70 C.E., rabbis forbade teaching Greek (m. Soṭah 9:14) or Greek learning (b. Menaḥ. 64b, bar.; 99b; though it has been argued that this applied only to teaching children, Lieberman, Hellenism, 101–2) but made an exception for R. Gamaliel’s household because of its necessary involvement with Rome (t. Soṭah 15:8). Interestingly, already in the nineteenth century Lightfoot, following others, suggested (on Acts 17:28) that Paul may have studied classics “in Tarsus after his conversion . . . or even under Gamaliel” (Lightfoot, Acts, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]).

[865]. The later R. Gamaliel also did not object to bathing in an Akko bathhouse with Aphrodite statues, so long as one understood they were not divine (m. ʿAbod. Zar. 4:3, cited by Freund, “Image,” 364).

[866]. Although Deut. Rab. 1:1 is a much later report, it reflects the tradition of R. Gamaliel’s bias toward Greek.

[867]. E.g., t. ʿAbod. Zar. 1:20 (R. Joshua). Despite many Greek loanwords in rabbinic literature, there is little technical knowledge of Greek philosophy (Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 219).

[868]. Yet even Josephus notes of his past training that his nation did not emphasize non-Jewish learning (Ant. 20.264).

[869]. B. B. Qam. 83a; Soṭah 49b.

[870]. With Légasse, “Career,” 377. Cf. Park, Jew or Gentile, 27, who rightly views the argument from lack of mention as an argument from silence.

[871]. With Riesner, Early Period, 154; cf. his Pharisaic hermeneutic in Cohn-Sherbok, “Paul and Exegesis.” Admittedly, although this claim supports Luke’s portrayal indirectly, it does not prove the connection to Gamaliel (Park, Jew or Gentile, 28).

[872]. Rapske, Custody, 94–95; Marshall, Acts, 354; Conzelmann, Acts, 186; Quast, Corinthian Correspondence, 6. Most of these follow Jeremias, “Paulus als Hillelit”; cf. Kennedy, Epistles, 15.

[873]. Rapske, Custody, 95, following Jeremias, Jerusalem, 255n32; Youngblood, “Gamaliel,” 393; Rivkin, Revolution, 238; Sanders, Judaism, 423. “Son” (e.g., Strack, Introduction, 109) is more difficult chronologically.

[874]. Still less probable is Hillel’s descent from David (Gen. Rab. 98:8; cf. b. Šabb. 15a).

[875]. Or, failing that (on account of Shammaite parallels at other points!), simply as a Pharisee. Wright, Founder, 30, thinks that Paul’s similarities to Hillel arose because of his conversion.

[876]. On Hillel’s middoth, which may, in fact, predate Hillel and reflect hermeneutics also used in Greek sources, see Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:81; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 103 (citing Cic. Inv. 2.40.116); Brown, Israel and Greece, 43.

[877]. See Chilton and Neusner, “Gamaliel”; idem, “Paul and Gamaliel.”

[878]. Klausner, Jesus to Paul, 309–10, tentatively, citing b. Šabb. 30b.

[879]. Citing the pre-Tannaitic sage Joshua ben Perahyah. Bonsirven, Judaism, 90, cites similarly m. Pesaḥ. 4:5, but in context this passage probably simply invites imitating rabbinic disciples. Disciples are generally responsible for acquiring their own teachers of the law or philosophy (Socrates Ep. 4; Diog. Laert. 7.1.3; m. ʾAb. 1:6, 16; ʾAbot R. Nat. 3, 8 A); Jesus’s calling disciples (Luke 5:10–11, 27–28) was exceptional (cf. Malina, Anthropology, 78) and may reflect the prophetic way of choosing a successor found in 1 Kgs 19:19–21 (cf. Luke 9:61–62).

[880]. Probably the case, e.g., with the relatively high-status students of Epictetus (see Oldfather, “Introduction to Epictetus,” xiv).

[881]. Watson, “Education,” 311. Typically, an entire town might hire a single teacher to instruct boys in an age-group (Plut. Cam. 10.1; cf. Beck and Thomas, “Education,” 508–9); a larger city such as Jerusalem, of course, would need more.

[882]. See Klauck, Context, 46; comment on Acts 19:35.

[883]. CPJ 1:157, §21; 1:188–89, §43; Lewis, Life, 82.

[884]. Cf. Goodman, State, 59; Sanders, Figure, 179.

[885]. Cf., e.g., Stern, Authors, 1:8–11, 46, 50.

[886]. The function of Diaspora synagogue “scribes” is unclear; see discussion at Acts 4:5.

[887]. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 79–80; idem, Figure, 170–71.

[888]. Cf. Sanders, Figure, 177–78. Rivkin, Revolution, 138, 177–79, points to a genuine overlap but identifies Pharisees too closely with the sages.

[889]. ʾAbot R. Nat. 36 A; cf. Overman, Crisis, 205. For distinctions between legal scribes and more authoritative rabbis, Overman, Crisis, 205, cites m. Kelim 13:7; ʿOr. 3:5; Sanh. 11:3; Ṭehar. 4:7; Yad. 3:2. For further documentation on scribalism, see also Orton, Scribe, 39–133; Keener, Marries Another, 23, 145–46; Scott, Customs, 165–68; see discussion at Acts 4:5.

[890]. Though schools with more basic levels of instruction sometimes lacked classrooms; teachers often used their homes (Watson, “Education,” 312); for Jewish teachers in open areas, see Young, Parables, 214; Safrai, “Home,” 762. On Roman education, see Shelton, Romans, 100–122; for teachers and schools, see esp. 102–8.

[891]. Watson, “Education,” 310. On various kinds of Greek chairs, see Hurschmann, “Furniture,” 623 (Roman forms resembled Greek, except often striving for greater elegance [624]).

[892]. Cambridge Geniza Text, col. F, lines 14–15.

[893]. Later Palestinian synagogues often had a special chair for teaching (fitting rabbis’ stone chairs known in some literary sources), which came to be known as a “chair of Moses,” hence representing the succession of teachers from Moses’s day (see, e.g., Manson, Sayings, 228; Filson, Matthew, 243; Avi-Yonah, “Archaeological Sources,” 53; Newport, “Seat of Moses”; Rahmani, “Synagogue Chairs”; Young, Jewish Theologian, 185–86; see esp. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:7; Song Rab. 1:3). Although in the minority, I suspect that Matt 23:2 reflects an earlier formulation that the later title of the chair merely represents—namely, that scribes claimed to be Moses’s successors (cf. Meier, Matthew, 262; Carson, “Matthew,” 472).

[894]. See comment on Acts 13:14.

[895]. Scholars often note this custom (e.g., Barclay, Train a Child, 37–38; Reicke, Era, 151).

[896]. Schooling could be called “sitting” (cf. שיבה in m. ʾAb. 2:7, attributed to Hillel). For students sitting before teachers, see, e.g., ʾAbot R. Nat. 38 A (R. Simeon ben Gamaliel); b. Pesaḥ. 3b (early Amoraic); y. Sanh. 10:1, §8.

[897]. The interpretation of m. Šabb. 18:1 in Goodman, State, 76.

[898]. For reclining at banquets, see, e.g., Plato Rep. 2.372D; Xen. Anab. 6.1.4; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 47.5; Mart. Epig. 3.30.1 (recumbis); Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 2.14; Athen. Deipn. 1.18ab; Let. Aris. 181, 183; t. Ber. 4:20; Sipre Deut. 41.2.5; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 6:3; b. Ber. 37a, 42b–43a; Eccl. Rab. 9:8, §1.

[899]. Safrai, “Home,” 737.

[900]. E.g., Xen. Mem. 2.3.16; Val. Max. 4.5.ext. 2; Ps.-Phoc. 220–21; Plut. S. Sp., Lycurgus 14, Mor. 227F; y. Bik. 3:3, §§4–6.

[901]. E.g., Hom. Il. 1.535; Philost. Hrk. 35.4; t. Sanh. 7:8; b. Hor. 13b; Hurschmann, “Greeting,” 1023; cf. b. Taʿan. 20b; Meg. 28a.

[902]. E.g., m. ʾAb. 1:4; ʾAbot R. Nat. 6, 38 A; 11, §28 B; b. Pesaḥ. 3b; y. Sanh. 10:1, §8. Refusing to stand could constitute an insult (Plut. Caes. 60.3, 5; Suet. Jul. 78.1–2).

[903]. M. ʾAb. 2:7, attributed to Hillel. In a different setting, a master sits and the disciple stands in y. Hor. 3:5, §3.

[904]. To be “lover of one’s people” was honorable (e.g., CIJ 1:372, §509).

[905]. Conzelmann, Acts, 186. On Paul’s reaction against his previous zeal, see Dunn, Theology of Paul, 353.

[906]. In Paul’s own writings, his usage of ζῆλος is fairly evenly divided between positive and negative (cf. Dunn, Romans, 586; BDAG), the common factor being intensity of feeling. The potential ambiguity could help inform the usage in Acts 22:3, somewhat like Paul’s ambiguous “compliment” in the sense of “religious” in Acts 17:22, although, as we note here, ζηλωτής is not used negatively by Luke.

[907]. E.g., Polyb. 6.39.8; Dion. Hal. Isaeus 20; Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 64.14; frg. 37, p. 134.19; Lucian Peregr. 24; Men. Rhet. 2.3, 380.21–22; 2.11, 421.30–32; Philost. Hrk. 33.37. In this sense, ζηλωτής means “devotee” or “disciple” (so, e.g., Lucian Dem. 48; cf. Libanius Anecdote 4.1), which is appropriate here. This is, in a sense, the positive side of jealousy; cf. Winter, Left Corinth, 38–39; the discussion of Arist. Rhet. 2.9.5–11.7 in Winter, Philo and Paul, 174.

[908]. Paul may prefer μιμητής to ζηλωτής for imitation precisely because the latter was so connected with zeal for the law or the nation in Jewish circles (Harrison, Grace, 319).

[909]. Josephus points out that the “Zealots” claimed to be zealous for good things but were really zealous for evil (War 4.161). On zeal in Philo and Qumran, see Berthelot, “Zeal.”

[910]. With zeal for God, van der Horst, “Musonius,” 309, compares Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 64.14; 37, p. 134.19. Zeal for the law sometimes facilitated sectarian conflict within Judaism (cf. Donaldson, “Zealot and Convert”).

[911]. The rabbinic tradition quotes (b. Yebam. 63b) but does not emphasize Sirach, perhaps because its lack of resurrection hope and connection to Zadokites linked it with Sadducees (cf. Rost, Judaism, 68).

[912]. See Philip, Pneumatology, 131–32.

[913]. Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 190, emphasizing that many Jewish groups were zealous for God and the law.

[914]. See Nikiprowetzky, “Josephus and Parties.”

[915]. Cf. what might represent Eleazar of Modiim on a bronze coin from Bar Kokhba’s revolt (Carmon, Inscriptions, 81, 178, §177).

[916]. Nikiprowetzky, “Josephus and Parties,” 233.

[917]. Keener, Acts, 1:744–46.

[918]. Some Gentiles, by contrast, portrayed Antiochus as a reformer seeking to supplant Jewish superstition with Greek culture (Tac. Hist. 5.8; see also Griffith and Sherwin-White, “Antiochus,” 109).

[919]. The text omits mention that Phinehas’s act was counted to him as righteousness (Ps 106:30–31), though using the same phrase (borrowed from Gen 15:6) for Abraham in 1 Macc 2:52, part of the same historical retrospective (2:52–60). For early Jewish views on Phinehas, see further Tassin, “Foi et violence” (regarding him as a secondary figure); cf. violent zeal for the law in Kruse, Romans, 398–400.

[920]. Goulder, Type and History, 11–12; Eisenman, Maccabees, 7–9.

[921]. Later rabbis also praise his zeal (b. Sanh. 82b; Num. Rab. 21:3), though they also praise the zeal of others like Moses (Exod. Rab. 1:29). Earlier, see Phinehan zeal in 4QMMT C 31–32 (Sharp, “Zeal,” arguing that 4QMMT especially opposes intermarriage with Gentiles).

[922]. In other battles, e.g., Philo Virtues 45 (using a different term). Conversely, 4Q471 2 4–5 condemns one for engaging in war when unfaithful to God.

[923]. At the least including Deut 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; 29:20; 32:19; Ps 78:5 [79:5 MT]; Ezek 5:13; 16:42; 23:25; 36:6; 38:19; Nah 1:2; Zeph 1:18; 3:8; Zech 8:2.

[924]. Kim, Origin, 42; Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 285–86; Witherington, Acts, 302–3; Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 70–71. Fairchild, “Associations,” points out that the terminology came to apply to extremists zealous for upholding the law, applicable to Paul persecuting Jesus’s followers.

[925]. See Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 284; idem, “Zealot and Convert.”

[926]. For a similar connection, cf. 1 Tim 1:13, 20: there might be hope for a present blasphemer (1:20) just as Paul, a former blasphemer, had been converted (1:13).

[927]. Cf. Rhet. Alex. 15, 1431b.37–41.

[928]. See Fitzmyer, “Christianity in Light of the Scrolls,” 240; further comment at Acts 9:2.

[929]. The prison may have been run by the Sanhedrin near the temple (Schnabel, Acts, 901).

[930]. Berger and Lintott, “Prison”; Lintott, “Punishment”; Hemer, Letters, 68; Aune, Revelation, 166 (citing Dig. 48.19.8.9; 48.19.35); cf. Lane, Hebrews, 514. The sources refer to the general legal purpose of imprisonment; in practice, prolonged stays did prolong suffering.

[931]. Cf. also the tradition in 1 Tim 1:13: Paul was a “violent” aggressor.

[932]. The verb τιμωρέω appears in the NT only here and at the parallel in Acts 26:11. It can apply to vengeance against the persecutors of God’s people (4 Macc 9:24; 12:18; 17:21; 18:5; cf. Wis 12:20; 18:8) but also to the suffering of martyrs (2 Macc 7:7). It applies to punishment or vengeance generally but can be motivated by anger (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.10c, pp. 60–61.8–9).

[933]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 705.

[934]. Marshall, Acts, 354.

[935]. On the reluctance to try much earlier offenses, in any case, see comment on Acts 28:30–31; cf. Lysias Or. 7.17, §109; Aeschines Tim. 39; Hermog. Issues 44.10–12; Robinson, Criminal Law, 21.

[936]. Witherington, Acts, 666; cf. Hedrick, “Paul’s Conversion/Call.” The specific idea of development from a man to a Jew to a people (Reymond, “Paul sur le chemin”) is harder to sustain.

[937]. Rosenblatt, “Narration,” 104–5 (emphasizing that these retellings make this the longest-running substory within Acts’ larger plot). Recapitulation and repetition were common in ancient writing; see, e.g., Burchard, “Introduction,” 186, regarding words in Joseph and Aseneth.

[938]. See Tannehill, Acts, 321.

[939]. Cf. some brief but early examples in Simpson, Literature of Egypt, 401–13; more generally Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 68–70.

[940]. See esp. Lyons, Autobiography, who helpfully compares ancient autobiographic conventions. For apologetic autobiography, see, e.g., Jos. Life 336–67; in Paul, 2 Cor 11:8–33; Gal 1:11–24; for apologetic uses of biography in general, see the discussion in Burridge, Gospels, 151, 180.

[941]. Perhaps with Paul as an embodiment of his message, fitting philosophic expectations for consistency of life and message (Lyons, Autobiography, 171).

[942]. Ibid., 53–59, notes techniques used to diminish the offensiveness of autobiography. On self-praise, see Plut. Praising, Mor. 539A–547F; Hermog. Method 25.441–42; discussion at Acts 20:18b–21. For “necessity” as a justification, see, e.g., Hermog. Method 25.442–26.443, on Demosthenes Or. 18.4, 112, 299 (Cor.).

[943]. Such instructions were subject to change (Acts 16:6–7 vs. 19:10), and Jesus wanted him to testify in Jerusalem now (21:13–14; 23:11); whatever the outcome, the gospel had to be offered to his own people again before his mission to Rome (cf. 28:26–28, following the earlier pattern of the narratives).

[944]. Jerusalem’s suffering under Gentiles (Luke 21:24) may echo Jesus’s own (18:32), as Paul’s does (Acts 21:11).

[945]. See Malina and Neyrey, Portraits, 81. After background comes “deeds” (Gibson, “Notes,” 195), when one might demonstrate the value of one’s education (Libanius Encomium 1.4).

[946]. Luke is explicit that bright light causes blindness in Paul’s case (Acts 22:11; medically, potentially damaging the retina; Wilkinson, Healing, 159), but is also explicit as to the light’s source.

[947]. C. Williams, Acts, 244.

[948]. For angels, see Dan 10:6; Matt 28:3; Rev 10:1; 2 En. 1:5; 19:1; 3 En. 14:5; 18:25; 22:4; 26:7; 35:2; Test. Ab. 7:3; 12:5 A; 7:5 B; Apoc. Zeph. 6:11–15; probably Christian material about the Messiah in Test. Levi 18:4; probably Test. Jud. 24:1. The righteous could shine after death (4 Ezra 7:97) or in the eschatological time (2 Bar. 51:3), as could various heroes of the past (e.g., 1 En. 106:2, 10; 1Qap Gen^ar II; Luke 9:30–31), especially Enoch (1 En. 71:11; 2 En. 22:10; 3 En. 15:1). But most relevant here, in view of Luke’s theology, are God himself (Dan 7:9–10; 1 En. 14:18–20; 46:1; 71:10; 3 En. 28:7) and Jesus (Luke 9:29–32; Rev 1:16).

[949]. Rhetoric emphasized vividness, though its descriptive scenes tended to be far more detailed than Paul’s here.

[950]. Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 56, suggest 1,600–2,000 inhabitants on the basis of the tombs; cf. 27. More-recent estimates suggest below 500 (Stanton, Gospel Truth?, 112; Horsley, Galilee, 193).

[951]. Cf. Keener, John, 483–84.

[952]. Cf. ibid., 228–32; on Galilee, see esp. Freyne, Galilee, Jesus; Horsley, Galilee.

[953]. Bratcher, “Acts ix.7”; Wallace, Grammar, 133–34, decisively.

[954]. Witherington, “Editing,” 342–43; cf. Schnabel, Acts, 903.

[955]. It seems to have occurred also to early interpreters such as Arator Acts 2 (Schrader, 86–87); Bede Comm. Acts 22.9 (L. Martin, 173; Martin, Acts, 270). Some later rabbis spoke of times when only Moses heard God’s message and others inferred from his face that he had heard it (Pesiq. Rab. 5:11).

[956]. Speakers (Rhet. Her. 4.28.38) and writers (Aul. Gel. 1.4) employed synonyms for rhetorical variation, so we should not press too much into differing grammatical forms that could function as equivalent in Koine (though such changes had risks in some works; cf. Aul. Gel. 2.5.1). Even the most popular Greek epics could vary in their vocabulary in different parts of their works: thus, e.g., Homer’s Odyssey often prefers διοτρεφές, “fostered by Zeus” (Od. 4.26, 44, 63, 138, 156, 235, 291, 316, 391, 561; 5.378; 10.266, 419), but suddenly switches to διογενές (born from Zeus), regardless of the speaker (10.443, 456, 488, 504; 11.60, 92, 405, 473, 617; 13.375; 14.486). After this, Menelaus is διοτρεφές (15.64, 87, 155, 167; so also Nestor’s son in 15.199) whereas Odysseus is διογενές (16.167; 18.312; 22.164; 23.305; 24.542), and διοτρεφές recurs in 22.136; 24.122. Some terms are more prominent in some sections just because they are on the writer’s mind; e.g., Homer employs λευκώλενος, “white-armed,” for various women in the Odyssey, but does so far more often in Books 6 (6.101, 186, 239, 251) and 7 (7.12, 233) than earlier. John’s Gospel is known for its use of variation (with, e.g., Morris, Studies, 293–319).

[957]. With, e.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 706; Dunn, Acts, 294. Cf. perhaps also Vanhoozer, “Meaning,” 229.

[958]. Even minute contradictions in one’s testimony invited the charge of lying from hostile speakers in court (Cic. Vat. 1.3), but in ordinary conversation, they might not be taken so seriously. Oral history and storytelling included considerable performance variation (see, e.g., Dunn, Perspective, 110–12, 122), and Luke began this volume with an obvious example (Acts 1:3–11 compared with Luke 24:36–53).

[959]. Gentiles also recognized that deities often revealed themselves very selectively; see, e.g., Apul. De deo Socr. 145, referring to Hom. Il. 1.198 and Virg. Aen. 12.468ff.

[960]. Paul’s question about what to do (Acts 22:10) parallels his earlier question, “Who are you?” (22:8), which in turn responds to Jesus’s question to Paul (22:7). These elements of 22:7–8 appear in Luke’s earlier account.

[961]. Blindness in brightness was also a stark image, akin to (though not, in this case, as strong as) an oxymoron; on oxymorons, see Rowe, “Style,” 143; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 582; on paradox, see, e.g., Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.12, pp. 102–3.2–3.

[962]. Paul himself followed everything “according to the law” (Acts 24:14). For the phrase, see, e.g., Josephus (about fifteen times); for a different kind of law, Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11k, pp. 80–81.16.

[963]. Cf., e.g., Riesner, Early Period, 238; but many interpret the Qumran passages metaphorically (Rabinowitz, “Reconsideration of ‘Damascus’ ”; Jaubert, “Pays de Damas”; Wieder, “ ‘Damascus’ and Redemption”). For further comment, see the discussion of Jews in Damascus at Acts 9:2.

[964]. It might owe more to an older pan-Qumranism than to the text itself.

[965]. On various views concerning the continuing activity of the Spirit of prophecy and (more controversially) prophets in early Judaism, see, e.g., Keener, Spirit, 10–13.

[966]. It was not, of course, limited to them (cf., e.g., Mus. Ruf. 15, p. 96.26, 30; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11).

[967]. See comment on Acts 21:14.

[968]. E.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.48; Mus. Ruf. 53, p. 144.24–25; Plut. Isis 2, Mor. 351F, 352A; Pyth. Sent. 16 (Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 110); Heraclitus Ep. 4; Philo Conf. 145; 1QH^a VII, 18 (with 4Q427 8 I, 10). Such knowledge was rare (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 31.10). See more fully (for both Jewish and Gentile examples) Keener, John, 234–40.

[969]. E.g., Porph. Marc. 11.194–95; 13.229; 17.282; 20.331; 21.347–48; 22.355, 359; 24.379–81. Although Porphyry reflects the later dominance of Platonism, similar sentiments in Philo attest such interests in the first century (e.g., Conf. 145).

[970]. In Paul’s letters, see 2 Cor 12:1; Gal 2:2; cf. 1 Cor 14:18; Eph 3:3–5.

[971]. Used more loosely, it would be compatible with subsequent revelations (such as in Acts 22:18–21) that would also be past tense (“seen” and “heard” are perfect and aorist, respectively) by the time he was testifying of them. The awkward future perfect construction, “will have seen,” was not particularly frequent (though cf. Matt 16:19; 18:18; Heb 2:13; Luke 12:52; Dana and Mantey, Grammar, 233).

[972]. For the contrast between Balaam and Moses, see, e.g., Sipre Deut. 357.18.1–2; with Abraham, e.g., m. ʾAb. 5:19. See further the subsection “Prophecy in the Rabbis” in the excursus on prophecy at Acts 2:17–18 (Keener, Acts, 1:905–8, esp. 907).

[973]. See, e.g., Philo Conf. 159; Mos. 1.48; Jos. Ant. 4.104; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 4a; Ber. 7a; B. Bat. 15b; Sanh. 105b–106a; Bowman, “Prophets,” 108–14; the subsection “Prophecy in the Rabbis” in the excursus on prophecy at Acts 2:17–18 (Keener, Acts, 1:905–8, esp. 907).

[974]. Viewing Paul as a “unique ‘thirteenth’ witness . . . who first really fulfils the promise to the Eleven in 1:8” (so Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 42) probably underestimates the extent to which he is a model, especially in view of Stephen also as a witness in Acts 22:20. That Paul is strategic, however, is clear (see 13:47).

[975]. Similarly Witherington, Acts, 672.

[976]. If taken as “what” rather than as “why,” it could ask what he is about to do (cf. Acts 5:35; 22:26; 2 Macc 7:2; Herm. 50.5), but this makes less sense here.

[977]. Cf., e.g., Hermog. Progymn. 6, “On Commonplace,” 14.

[978]. Conzelmann, Acts, 187 (suggesting a use in initiation rites by citing Apul. Metam. 11.22; Corp. herm. 1.26; Acts Thom. 73, 78; but this suggestion is too narrow).

[979]. On the uses with prepositions, see Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 201–3; further comment on Acts 2:38; 8:12, 16.

[980]. Cf. Chrys. Hom. Acts 47 (Martin, Acts, 272): calling on Jesus’s name shows his deity, since it is unlawful to “call on” the name of “anyone else except God.” On Jesus and exalted figures, cf., e.g., Keener, “Parallel Figures,” esp. 105–10.

[981]. See the subsection “Ritual Washings” in the excursus “Proposed Backgrounds for Baptism” at Acts 2:38 (Keener, Acts, 1:977–79). The water image may also fit the “filling” with the Spirit in Acts 9:17 (likewise Luke 3:16; Acts 2:17; cf. 1 Cor 12:13; the Spirit washing and being poured out in Titus 3:5–6).

[982]. See discussion in France, “Exegesis,” 274–75; cf. Horton, Acts, 361.

[983]. See discussion at Acts 2:38; Keener, John, 444–47.

[984]. Application of Acts 22:16 only to a “transitional” period in salvation history (cf. Tanton, “Gospel and Baptism: Acts 22:16”) is theologically driven; by excluding as irrelevant for the church the evidence of Acts, one narrows the pool of potentially disconfirming data detrimental to one’s hypotheses.

[985]. D. Williams, Acts, 379, suggests, “get yourself baptized.” See, in the LXX, 2 Kgs 5:14; Jdt 12:7; Sir 34:30. Other forms of the verb in the NT that could be middle could also be passive.

[986]. Jewish proselyte baptism was self-administered, with others present only as witnesses (Lampe, Seal, 25, though he does not view John’s baptism thus).

[987]. The image was at least sometimes associated with baptism (1 Pet 3:20–21; perhaps Heb 10:22; cf. comment on Acts 16:33; cf. Ign. Eph. 18.2), but apparently not always (perhaps esp. in Johannine literature; 1 John 1:7, 9; Rev 7:14; 22:14; cf. perhaps 1 Clem. 60.2; Barn. 5.1; Herm. 7.1; 10.2; 39.7; 59.2–3; 66.2; 77.3; 100.5).

[988]. Cf. also Sir 23:10; 34:4; 38:10; perhaps Pss. Sol. 3:8; 9:6 (but cf. Syriac); 10:1–2; 18:5; 1QS XI, 14; 1QH^a IX, 34; XI, 22; XIX, 13; 4Q370 II, 3; 4Q512 29–32 9; 11Q5 XIX, 14; 11QT XXVI, 10; corporately in 1 En. 10:20–22; Jub. 21:19; 22:14; 50:5. The specific term that Luke uses appears in Job 9:30 LXX, probably as a figure for washing away sin (9:29).

[989]. Early Judaism could appeal to Ezek 36 for eschatological deliverance from sin (see the allusion in Jub. 1:23; later, b. Sukkah 52a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:17; Pesiq. Rab. 14:15; Exod. Rab. 41:7; Lev. Rab. 35:5; Song Rab. 6:11, §1).

[990]. See Keener, John, 546–50; note also the allusion to both spirits of Ezek 36:25–26 in John 3:6 and the allusion to Ezek 37:9–14 in John 3:8 (Keener, John, 551–54, 557). The Qumran scrolls also likely associate cleansing with the Spirit and Ezek 36, though they connect it with ritual purity (1QS III, 4, 7–9; IV, 21) whereas John may seek to transcend it (John 1:26, 33; 2:6–9; 4:13–14; Keener, John, 440, 509–13, 603–5, 634, 638–39, 725, 1153; idem, Spirit, 135–89, esp. 139–43, 162). Both Qumran and some later rabbis applied the text to eschatological cleansing (cf. Num. Rab. 7:10).

[991]. Philo Alleg. Interp. 3.141; Worse 170; Heir 113; Names 49, 229; Dreams 1.82, 148; 2.25; Mos. 2.64; Spec. Laws 1.207, 261; cf. 3.89, 205–6.

[992]. Those who have studied my work on the Fourth Gospel will see that my conclusions there differ; John may be correcting an overemphasis on ritual washing (though he probably has Jewish ritual washing in mind, he replaces it with the Spirit rather than with Christian water baptism). Paul associates baptism with conversion (Rom 6:3; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:27; cf. 1 Cor 10:2), but how far he pushes the ideal connection in practice has been debated (cf. 1 Cor 1:14–17).

[993]. Conzelmann, Acts, 187, reads Acts 22:21 as though it conflicts with Paul’s account (Gal 1:17–2:2) and Luke’s other accounts. Cf. Park, “Berufung.” Thompson, “Paul in Acts,” 430, points out that the complaint that Paul does not mention this experience is an argument from silence; this observation is all the more the case when we consider how many visions Paul suggests that he had and how few he narrates. Morray-Jones, “Paradise,” thinks that the substance of Acts 22:17–22 reflects the experience of 2 Cor 12:2–4; although this is not impossible, the subject of the revelations seems different, and Paul had numerous visions in addition to his resurrection appearance (1 Cor 15:8); see 2 Cor 12:1, 7; cf. Gal 2:2. It is the chronology (2 Cor 12:2, ca. 42–43 C.E.), however, that appears most problematic; see Riesner, “Pauline Chronology,” 21.

[994]. Pilch, Visions, 141, argues that prayer, because it entails intense concentration, can neurologically induce a trance; see discussion at Acts 13:2.

[995]. Le Cornu, Acts, 1215, suggests that Paul’s prayer in the temple evokes priestly service, but while Paul could use this language for himself (Rom 15:16), Israel in Luke-Acts worships God in the temple area (Luke 1:10; cf. Acts 26:7).

[996]. E.g., Plut. Luc. 12.1; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.536; Iambl. Myst. 3.3; Athen. Deipn. 10.422D; earlier, AQHT A.1 (ANET 150); KRT A.1 (ANET 143). See further Graf, “Incubation” (OCD³); idem, “Incubation” (BrillPauly); idem, “Healing Deities,” 26; Wickkiser, “Asklepios”; Patton, “Correction”; Klauck, Context, 158–59 (including the parody in Aristoph. Plut. 653–748), 165; fuller discussion on incubation in the excursus on dreams at Acts 16:9.

[997]. Gnuse, “Temple Theophanies,” points to parallels between Luke’s depiction of Zechariah in the temple (Luke 1:5–23) and the temple theophanies in Jos. Ant. 11.326–28; 13.282–83. As noted above, however, temple theophanies were common (though Gnuse has found the most relevant, i.e., some in a Jewish historian). The proposed points of contact are not profound, as using the OT as a control would illustrate: OT theophanies also invariably included a message; OT theophanies eventually terminated; temples were a familiar place for revelations in the OT and elsewhere; before one entered a temple, one would have to prepare; and before one could be in the temple, one had to enter it.

[998]. Cf. Marshall, Acts, 357. Conzelmann, Acts, 187, suggests that this vision replaces the preaching in Damascus and Jerusalem. Certainly it has this effect for Paul’s audience in the narrative world (all the better for Paul’s connecting positively with them), but from Luke’s larger narrative standpoint, it merely supplements it.

[999]. Whether Paul responds to rising agitation in the crowd in the narrative world or, more likely, begins provoking it here, we cannot say (cf. Acts 22:22). His persona is believable: having once opposed the truth and discovered his error, he could understand the opposition but also could not be silent now.

[1000]. As noted earlier, such warnings need not be permanent (compare Acts 16:6 with 19:10), but in this passage the response does confirm the warning.

[1001]. Chrys. Hom. Acts 48.1 likewise observes that Jesus’s warning is confirmed by the result in this case: Acts 22:22 shows that, in fact, they do not receive his testimony.

[1002]. Safrai, “Synagogue,” 942–43 (citing m. Mak. 3:12; Šebu. 4:10; b. Yebam. 65b; Ketub. 63b; Euseb. H.E. 5.16.12; Epiph. Her. 30.2).

[1003]. These ideas also appear in Jewish moral exhortation, e.g., regarding lust as adultery (Test. Iss. 7:2; Test. Reub. 4:8; b. Nid. 13b, bar.; Šabb. 64ab; Lev. Rab. 23:12; Pesiq. Rab. 24:2; see Keener, Marries Another, 16–17; cf. Deming, “Male Sexuality”); others also viewed anger as murder (cf. Test. Gad 1:9; 4:4; Sen. Y. Ben. 5.14.2; texts in Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:509; Keener, Matthew, 183).

[1004]. Who once unwittingly supported “false witnesses” against Stephen, Acts 6:13; 7:58–59. On Stephen as witness, cf. Malipurathu, “Mission.”

[1005]. With Tannehill, Acts, 100. The “pouring out” of Stephen’s blood might contrast with the spilling of Judas’s innards in 1:18 but especially recalls the shedding of prophetic blood in Luke 11:50 (also Matt 23:35; cf. the idiom in Rom 3:15; Rev 16:6; Philo Dreams 1.74; Flacc. 190; Jos. Ant. 19.94; and often in the LXX, e.g., Gen 9:6; Num 35:33; 2 Kgs 21:16; 24:4; Jer 22:3, 17; Lam 4:13; Ezek 22:3–12, 27; 24:7; Joel 4:19 [3:19 ET]; 1 Macc 1:37; 7:17; 2 Macc 1:8) and the implicit shedding of Jesus’s blood in Luke 22:20 (also Mark 14:24; cf. 1 Clem. 7.4), possibly evoking sacrificial imagery (e.g., LXX Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34; 8:15; 9:9).

[1006]. Keener, Acts, 1:556–62.

[1007]. Barrett, Acts, 1032.

[1008]. The command is not exclusively—but it is particularly—Lukan (this second-person-singular present-imperative form of the verb appears twelve times in Luke-Acts, the only other NT uses being once in Matthew and twice in John).

[1009]. Tannehill’s emphasis on a tragic reading of Luke-Acts (“Rejection,” esp. 98–99, 101) is relevant here. The Gospel opens with the hope of a ruler who would deliver Israel from all its enemies (Luke 1:74), but rejection of God’s agents led to judgment (19:42, 44) at the hands of its enemies (19:43). The consequences of this judgment would not, however, be permanent but would last only during the Gentile era (21:22–24), i.e., until Jesus’s return (21:27–28).

[1010]. Gordon, Slavery, 116–18.

[1011]. I have traced some of these issues in Usry and Keener, Religion, 83–138; Keener and Usry, Faith, 20–41.

[1012]. Including missionary movements that identified with culture, such as many Jesuits and the China Inland Mission (see, e.g., Neill, History, 146–209 passim, 334; Spence, Palace); cf. Woodberry, “Roots”; some examples concerning reconciliation in the United States in Usry and Keener, Religion, 122–33.

[1013]. Cf. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 7; Conzelmann, Acts, 189.

[1014]. See now extensively and usefully Smith, Rhetoric of Interruption, who also addresses interrupted speech in Greek (27–120, esp. 42–120) and Jewish (121–66) historiography as well as in Luke’s Gospel (186–210).

[1015]. In contrast to those who miss Luke’s skillful literary deployment of interruption, exploiting literary convention, see Smith, Rhetoric of Interruption, noted above.

[1016]. The people shouted out so much that Catiline could never make his defense (Plut. Cic. 16.3).

[1017]. The Hebrew blessing from Acmonia in southern Asia (MAMA 6.334) is an OT quotation (not replicated in other Acmonian Jewish inscriptions; 6.177, 316, 325, 334, 335, 335a, 347).

[1018]. This difference reflects a contrast between the two provinces; Asia embraced Roman rule and required only scant military occupation in this period (Calder, Gray, and Mitchell, “Asia,” 190).

[1019]. A uniquely Lukan expression in the NT (Luke 11:27; Acts 2:14; 14:11); eleven of the nineteen uses of the verb in the NT are Luke’s.

[1020]. The crowd may have cried additional, different words both before (Acts 21:34) and perhaps after (22:2), but the reported summary of its cries brackets Paul’s speech and provides a comparison with Jesus’s passion.

[1021]. A people might well want someone destroyed if it was believed that this would protect the people from dangers to their safety (Cic. Phil. 3.8.19; Philo Flacc. 144).

[1022]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 12.36; 40.8–9, 20–23; 51.3; Lucian Peregr. 11–13, esp. 13; see esp. Marshall, Enmity, 341–48. It need not do so (cf. Luke 9:9; 18:16; 1 Cor 16:16–18; 2 Cor 12:2–5; Gen 41:38; 1 Macc 10:16), but context suggests it here (cf. perhaps 2 Cor 10:11; 11:13). Of course, apart from his Asian Jewish accusers (Acts 21:27) and those who remembered the address to him (22:6), few would have a personal name to call him. Character descriptions could calm or enrage an audience (Cic. De or. 3.204; Or. Brut. 138, in Anderson, Glossary, 60).

[1023]. Technically, it is not “fitting”; the term καθήκω appears in Stoic philosophy (e.g., Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 66.8; frg. 31; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b2, pp. 14–15.5, 25–26; 2.7.6, pp. 38–39.11–12; 2.7.7b, pp. 44–45.27; 2.7.8, pp. 50–51.35–36; 2.7.8a, pp. 52–53.21–23, 25–26; 2.7.11a, pp. 62–63.33; 2.7.11m, pp. 90–91.34; pp. 92–93.2; cf. the equivalent term in Epict. Diatr. 1.11.12; frg. 6); elsewhere in the NT, it appears only at Rom 1:28, where many scholars have compared Stoic ethical usage (e.g., Kennedy, Epistles, 26; Hunter, Romans, 34). Yet it is certainly not intended philosophically here.

[1024]. See the latter part of the comment on Acts 21:21.

[1025]. Van der Waal, “Temple in Luke,” argues that Israel’s apostasy in rejecting its rightful king led to the temple’s demise. For archaeological and literary data relevant to the war of 66–70, see Cornfeld, Josephus.

[1026]. Similar phrases apply to God’s judgment in the OT, on Israel or its enemies (e.g., Isa 34:8; 61:2; 63:4; Jer 46:10; 51:6).

[1027]. For further samples of stripping before conducting violent actions, see also now the examples in Jones, “Meaning,” esp. 116–17 (which I had not yet seen when writing on 7:58). I do not see this possible explanation (useful for understanding historical motivations) as necessarily conflicting with my literary one (concerning what Luke was implying in context).

[1028]. That Luke ambiguously allows such wording, though this sense is improbable, might present a horrifying image in the temple of God, where a soldier exposing his genitals created a riot (Jos. Ant. 20.107–10). But again, the mere casting off of outer garments in these circumstances involves nothing scandalous. Their inner garments were probably mostly white (see Croom, Clothing, 131); on white garments in temples, see comment on Acts 1:10.

[1029]. Conzelmann, Acts, 189 (comparing also P.Lond. 2785.36–37 if properly reconstructed and interpreted); cf. Cadbury, Acts in History, 38. The verb ῥιπτέω, like the related ῥίπτω, suggests a violent or strong action (cf. Luke 4:35; 17:2; Acts 27:19, 29; cf. ῥιπίζω in Jas 1:6). Abbott, Acts, 232, notes that in the Middle East of his day, some would throw off and then trample an outer cloak “as an expression of anger and scorn.”

[1030]. People would wear their best clothing (see comment on Acts 1:10; in other cultures, Croom, Clothing, 70) in the temple, itself a potential disincentive to tearing the clothes, though not sufficient if hearers had thought that someone had blasphemed God’s name.

[1031]. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 3.1.13; 5.1.6; Plut. Cic. 31.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 46.12; Lucian Fun. 12; Dio Cass. 48.31.6; Brown, Death, 517, adds Dio Cass. 54.14.1–2; 56.23.1. Dramatic action augmented rhetorical force (Cic. Brut. 55.203; cf. Cic. Verr. 2.5.62.161; Quint. Inst. 6.1.31). See further comment on Acts 14:14.

[1032]. Gen 37:34; 44:13; 1 Esd 8:71; 1 Macc 2:14; 4:39–40; 5:14; 11:71; ʾAbot R. Nat. 4, 25 A; Char. Chaer. 1.3.4; 3.5.6; 3.10.3; 5.3.4; 7.1.5; Sipre Deut. 43.3.8; y. B. Meṣiʿa 2:11, §1; Sanh. 2:1, §4; Tg. Ps.-J. on Num 20:29. See further comment on Acts 14:14.

[1033]. E.g., m. Sanh. 7:5; cf. b. Moʾed Qaṭ. 25b–26a; y. Moʾed Qaṭ. 3:7, §§7–8; Sanh. 7:6, §7.

[1034]. Nowhere else in Acts do two uses of ἱμάτιον occur so close together. For the reversal of guilt in Acts 7:58, see Keener, “Inverted Guilt.”

[1035]. Cf. Bruce, Commentary, 445. For stoning, see comment on Acts 7:58. People normally threw whatever was available, such as roof tiles (see Barry, “Roof Tiles”).

[1036]. Cf. Marshall, Acts, 358.

[1037]. For this substitution in a different setting, cf. 1QpHab IV, 4, where piling up dust (soil) probably refers to siege ramps used to capture a fortress. A cloud of dust could also signify a commotion (Hom. Il. 16.374–75; see comment on Acts 2:19–20). Carter and Earle, Acts, 337, attribute the dust throwing to a conventional Eastern “expression of strong feeling,” comparing an American example as well. In some urban settings, people allegedly hurled dung (Toner, Culture, 160, citing Plut. Pomp. 48; Suet. Vit. 17), whether procured from chamber pots, perhaps public toilets, or more spontaneous means.

[1038]. E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.59.1; 9.48.2; Paus. 2.32.2; 8.23.7; in a synagogue, Jos. Life 303; see comment on Acts 7:58.

[1039]. Jos. War 4.200; cf. also Acts 5:26; John 8:59; 10:23, 31; earlier, 2 Chr 24:21; perhaps John 8:2, 5, 7.

[1040]. Hom. Od. 24.316–17; Char. Chaer. 1.4.6; 5.3.4; Lucian Fun. 12; Max. Tyre 5.7; Rev 18:19. Earlier, Baal g. 1* AB (vi) (ANET 139).

[1041]. Josh 7:6; 1 Sam 4:12; 2 Sam 1:2; 15:32; Neh 9:1; Lam 2:10; Ezek 27:30; 2 Macc 10:25; 3 Macc 1:18; 4 Bar. 2:2–3; Philo Embassy 228; Jos. War 2.322; L.A.E. 31:3; 36:1; 40:2; Rev 18:19. Ashes are so employed in Jdt 4:11; m. Taʿan. 2:1.

[1042]. Marshall, Acts, 358; Cadbury, “Dust and Garments.”

[1043]. Indeed, in the NT as a whole; the other use is Matt 10:14 (Q material).

[1044]. One might argue that Luke intends some irony: if Paul sat at Gamaliel’s feet (Acts 22:3), in the “dust” (cf. m. ʾAb. 1:4), his hearers now unwittingly place themselves beneath dust, as if his involuntary students. But Luke does not mention dust in 22:3, and they are not sitting respectfully in dust.

[1045]. Larkin, Acts, 323. Cadbury, “Dust and Garments,” 276, rightly connects the action with shaking out sandals or garments (cf. Acts 13:51; 18:6) and rending garments (14:14) but wrongly thinks of “the old prophylactic of magic.”

[1046]. Many auxiliaries in Palestine would have been Syrian recruits, at least some of whom (in contrast to urban Syrian Greek-speakers) could have found much of Paul’s Judean Aramaic intelligible; but as his name “Lysias” (23:26) and interest in Paul’s Greek (21:37) suggest, the chiliarch was probably culturally Greek.

[1047]. Skinner, Locating Paul, 117, notes that the barracks perform a positive narrative function, serving as a place of refuge and also (Acts 22:25–29) allowing Paul’s status to emerge. The irony of protective captivity is not lost on Luke (cf. Acts 23:27).

[1048]. Netzer, “Reconstruction,” 49.

[1049]. Ibid.

[1050]. Sherwin-White, Society, 54.

[1051]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 282; Bruce, Acts¹, 406; Tajra, Trial, 74.

[1052]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 35.

[1053]. See, e.g., Rhet. Her. 2.7.10; Tac. Ann. 3.67; 4.29; further comment under “Torture” in the excursus “Slaves and Slavery” at Acts 12:13 (Keener, Acts, 2:1920–22).

[1054]. Rapske, Custody, 139 (citing Dig. 48.2.6; 48.18; 48.19.10, 28; Juv. Sat. 6.474–85; Hor. Sat. 1.3.119). Parsons, Acts, 313, cites various texts for interrogation by torture, including Char. Chaer. 1.5.2; 3.4; Ach. Tat. 7.12.2–3.

[1055]. Lintott, “Torture” (noting Dio Cass. 57.19; Dig. 48.18.1.13).

[1056]. Rapske, Custody, 139.

[1057]. Ibid.

[1058]. Ibid.; Bruce, Commentary, 445; see comment on Acts 22:25, below. See further discussion of Valerian and Porcian laws regarding provocatio at Acts 25:11. Unlike the lesser fustigatio (beating), the severer disciplines of flagellatio (flogging) and especially verberatio (scourging) accompanied the death sentence (Brown, John, 2:874), although Luke’s audience might not have recognized these fine distinctions (2:851). Whereas Romans used rods on freemen and sticks on soldiers, they used scourges on slaves or provincials of equivalent status (Dig. 48.19.10; 68.28.2; Blinzler, Trial, 222). Preliminary scourging before execution was common (Jos. War 2.306–8; 5.449; Livy 2.5.8; 9.24.15; 10.1.3; 26.40.13; 41.11.8; Appian Hist. rom. 3.9.3; Polyb. 11.30.2; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.40.3; 5.43.2; 7.69.1; 9.40.3–4; 12.6.7; 20.16.2; 20.17.2; Quint. Curt. 7.11.28; Arrian Alex. 3.30.5; Cic. Verr. 2.5.62.162). On stripping before execution, see comment on Acts 7:58; Paul was presumably stripped before this beating as well.

[1059]. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 157; Tajra, Trial, 73; Witherington, Acts, 677; cf. y. Naz. 4:3, §1; Blinzler, Trial, 223. He is now also several years older than in the Philippi beating (Acts 18:11; 19:8, 10; 20:3). It is also not impossible that Paul did not know how seriously his Roman citizenship could aid him until discussion with his newly converted jailer in Philippi. Those being scourged sometimes pleaded to have the number of blows reduced (Polyb. 30.31.3).

[1060]. Rapske, Custody, 139. Bruce, Commentary, 445, is more emphatic (if the victim survived, he or she “would certainly be crippled for life”). More sadistic torturers might add fire to whips (a pirate in Xen. Eph. Anthia 2.6); anyone wielding a whip could kill or maim if unrestrained (cf., e.g., Lucian Lucius 38).

[1061]. E.g., Cic. Pis. 34.84; Polyb. 6.37.1–3. It also normally preceded executions (Val. Max. 5.8.1; Tac. Hist. 3.77; Blinzler, Trial, 223), as noted above.

[1062]. Cf. the Latin flagellum, whose cognate verb form entered into Greek as the loanword φραγελλόω (Mark 15:15; Matt 27:26; cf. the noun in John 2:15).

[1063]. Tajra, Trial, 73.

[1064]. Ibid.

[1065]. Rapske, Custody, 139.

[1066]. Ibid., 265.

[1067]. Ibid.

[1068]. Campbell, “Centurio,” 127; e.g., a reconnaissance mission in Tac. Ann. 15.10.

[1069]. At the crucifixion, probably a contubernium of four men (Jones, “Army,” 193–94; cf. John 19:23); for centurions supervising executions, see, e.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 3.18.4. Cf. also the assassinations in Tac. Ann. 14.59, 64; 16.9, 15; a centurion as an emissary in 2.65; 15.5, 25; to announce that one was to be executed in 15.61–62; announcing each new watch in 15.30. A centurion could even be involved in a high-level conspiracy (15.49, 68; cf. the false report in 15.65).

[1070]. On centurions, see extended comment at Acts 10:1.

[1071]. See Stevenson, “Army,” 226; comment on Acts 10:1.

[1072]. Rapske, Custody, 219.

[1073]. Possibly meaning his hands, though usually this was specified (and for entreaty, 2 Macc 3:20; 7:10; 14:33–34; 15:12; 3 Macc 2:1); in any case, to make his back taut for the flogging.

[1074]. Witherington, Acts, 677. The term applies elsewhere in the NT only to sandal thongs (Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16; John 1:27; cf. also Isa 5:27).

[1075]. “Thongs” often applies to ropes or tying elsewhere in the LXX (Job 39:10; Isa 5:18; Sir 33:27).

[1076]. The echo of Acts 16:37 is likely deliberate; that verse provides the only other NT or LXX use of ἀκατάκριτος.

[1077]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 712 (citing the Augustan lex Iulia de vi publica in Ulp. Dig. 48.6.7); Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 283; Hemer, Acts in History, 180; Treves and Lintott, “Coercitio.” A Roman citizen was not to be punished without trial (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.70.2); a tribune ordering floggings for soldiers (Polyb. 6.37.8–9) is not relevant.

[1078]. Rapske, Custody, 142–43; idem, “Citizenship,” 217.

[1079]. Some scholars more reasonably object that he could have mentioned it in Acts 21:39; but it was not germane to his request to speak to the people, the way his Jewishness was (21:39–40), nor did it answer the question about his Greek the way his Tarsian citizenship would (21:37). See comment on Acts 21:39.

[1080]. On the indignity of such a stripping, especially for Jews, see comment on Acts 7:58.

[1081]. Witherington, Acts, 678. But he rightly challenges Haenchen’s skepticism here (679) and notes that Paul elsewhere likewise raised the matter of his citizenship only under duress (680).

[1082]. Most recruits in the Eastern legions were from the Greek-speaking East (Stevenson, “Army,” 226–27), and the chiliarch Lysias surely is (see comment on Acts 23:26); most extant military texts from the East are in Greek (Adams, “Romanitas”). Roman citizens were not obligated to speak Latin (see fuller discussion on language use at Acts 18:12–17).

[1083]. Palestinian inscriptions suggest even some nonofficial uses, and a wider knowledge of basic Latin even in Palestine (though not Egypt) than previously thought (Porter, “Latin Language”).

[1084]. Riesner, Early Period, 149–50; Jeffers, World, 202.

[1085]. Rapske, Custody, 143.

[1086]. Cicero claims that a citizenship claim even provoked Verres to harsher action, in defiance of the law (Verr. 2.5.62.162–63); Verres did not deny his action (2.5.64.165). As Rowe, World, 69, points out, the appeal’s success remains uncertain, and hence “Paul’s peril remains real.”

[1087]. With Rapske, Custody, 265. Superiors sometimes sacrificed subordinates in controversies, however, so the centurion may also be protecting himself. Subordinates were certainly often deemed more expendable; cf., e.g., the harsher fate against a tribune than a governor in Jos. Ant. 20.136; War 2.245–46.

[1088]. Parker and Watson, “Centurio,” 311; Campbell, “Centurio,” 127; idem, Army, 46.

[1089]. Higher officers often appreciated centurions’ experience and welcomed their advice (Campbell, Army, 47), and we do read of their influence alongside that of tribunes (e.g., Tac. Ann. 13.9, 18).

[1090]. Pliny Ep. 6.31.12 (Radice, LCL, 1:473); cf. Jos. Life 312; Herm. 50.5; perhaps Philo Jos. 107.

[1091]. As a rhetorical invitation, see, e.g., Mus. Ruf. 14, p. 92.17 (εἰπέ μοι, where it functions as rhetorical apostrophe); Gal 4:21; Matt 21:24; Jdt 11:3; Jos. Ant. 17.336; Philo Unchangeable 149; Dreams 1.65; Embassy 91; Jub. 35:5; 1 En. 65:3.

[1092]. Granger-Taylor, “Toga”; Jeffers, World, 202. The toga was a semicircular cloth up to 19.5 by 10 ft. (which he also estimates as 5.5 by 2.75 m.), held in place by hand (Granger-Taylor, “Toga”).

[1093]. Witherington, Acts, 680–81 (noting that this was a matter of convention, not of law). Usually officials could get away with what they chose, however; the poor had little recourse and rarely even sought legal redress (Toner, Culture, 162).

[1094]. This contrast is quite credible. In many respects, injustice has changed little; the privileges of a powerful nation’s citizens in its international embassies or consulates remain vastly different from those accorded locals.

[1095]. See Rapske, Custody, 131–33; Witherington, Acts, 682–83 (following Sherwin-White, Society, 146–49); comment on Acts 16:22, 37. Cities kept records of land allocations (cf., e.g., Campbell, “Libri coloniarum,” for especially Italy), victors at games, state rituals (e.g., Rose and North, “Libri pontificales”), etc. (cf. Rome’s records office in DeLaine, “Tabularium”).

[1096]. Citizenship records normally appeared in a city’s “taxation tables” (Jeffers, World, 202), which would remain relevant after a relocation. Romans emphasized record keeping, and provincial cities kept copies of relevant documents; but falsified documents and especially negligence in keeping them were common (Thomas, “Records”).

[1097]. See Thomas, “Archives.” Archives include public acts, contracts, etc. (Vössing, “Archive,” 1026); the Greek East used archives even before the Roman period (p. 1025), and others did before the Greeks (Daniels, “Scribes,” 501; Veenhof, “Libraries,” 352–55; Black and Tait, “Archives,” 2202–4).

[1098]. Cf. Jos. War 2.427; 6.354; 7.55; Life 6; Ag. Ap. 1.31, 36.

[1099]. Witnesses could be used if archives proved inaccessible (cf. Veenhof, “Libraries,” 355); courts would often dispense with defendants sending for distant witnesses, however (Pliny Ep. 5.20.1–2, in a governor’s prosecution; cf. Quint. Inst. 5.7.9).

[1100]. Witherington, Acts, 678, cites Epict. Diatr. 3.24.41; Suet. Claud. 25.

[1101]. Rapske, Custody, 139.

[1102]. Cf. Cic. Verr. 1.5.13; 2.1.3.7–9; 2.3.3.6; 2.3.24.59; 2.4.11.26; 2.5.66.169; Florus executed even equestrians in Jos. War 2.306–8, esp. 308 (his heavy-handed tactics, far from deterring resistance, inflamed it more).

[1103]. Romans charged with having other Romans killed could face severe punishment (Pliny Ep. 2.11.8–9, though admittedly the victims are equestrian).

[1104]. Their preservation as the best extant witness to provincial administration in the late republic (Badian, “Verres,” 1589) is significant.

[1105]. On the high status of Roman citizenship in the early empire, before it became common (especially by the time of Hadrian), see, e.g., Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 115–16; Meeks, Moral World, 34.

[1106]. A military tribunate could well be a political stepping-stone (e.g., Pliny Ep. 3.11.5; 6.31.4), although, as a Greek, Lysias would seek advancement in the East, not office in Rome.

[1107]. Some (e.g., Shiell, Reading Acts, 186) may be right to see humor here, but the joke is between Luke and his audience, not the characters in the narrative world (even if Paul responded with some drily humorous irony, the situation is still potentially dangerous).

[1108]. The exception, in legions, being one senator, who served for a year as a step in his political career (Campbell, “Tribuni militum”).

[1109]. Even much earlier, sufficient wealth could purchase gold rings that were traditionally supposed to signify equestrian status (e.g., Cic. Verr. 2.3.76.176; 2.3.80.187); Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 45, suggests that tribune rank might also enable one to become equestrian. Probably no more than 0.1 percent of the empire held equestrian status, with perhaps ten to twenty thousand total and concentrated in Italy (Jeffers, World, 184).

[1110]. Campbell, Army, 47; in urban cohorts after retiring, see Stevenson, “Army,” 226. Military careers could advance through minor posts and various levels of centurion, but this did not normally involve tribunes (Levick, “Careers,” 291). Among cohorts other than the first, probably nothing but seniority distinguished status (Parker and Watson, “Centurio,” 311).

[1111]. LCL, 7:411, trans. Cary. Commentators frequently note this passage (e.g., Munck, Acts, 220; cf. Black, “Law,” 213; Schille, Apostelgeschichte, 424); Claudius’s “generosity” with citizenship is regularly noted (e.g., Balsdon and Levick, “Claudius,” 338).

[1112]. Cf. Sherwin-White, Society, 154–56; Gasque, “Acts and History,” 57.

[1113]. See also Jones, Empire, 288.

[1114]. E.g., Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 2:237; Hemer, Acts in History, 127, 170; Johnson, Acts, 392.

[1115]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 284.

[1116]. They also failed to leave him something in their will, but Claudius forbade their punishment for this (Dio Cass. 60.17.7).

[1117]. Cadbury, Acts in History, 79; Jones, “Army,” 203.

[1118]. Campbell, “Legion,” 839. In the West, this was especially true after the Flavian period; in the East, however, Eastern recruits had long dominated the Eastern legions (Stevenson, “Army,” 226–27).

[1119]. Crawford, “Citizenship,” 334; cf. also Cadbury, Acts in History, 74.

[1120]. Even as late as Claudius’s reign, auxiliary units usually retained their own national identity and lived near their home areas (Stevenson, “Army,” 230, citing, e.g., Tac. Ann. 4.46); some years later, Lysias is now an officer, but we cannot say where he began. Purchase of citizenship had Greek antecedents in the Hellenistic period (Davies, “Citizenship,” 334).

[1121]. Campbell, “Diploma.” Various public or private records were folded and sealed as diplomata, including passports (Gizewski, “Diploma,” citing Tac. Hist. 2.54.1; 2.65.1).

[1122]. Bruce, Acts¹, 407 (citing Demosth. Aphob. 1.10; Plato Laws 5.742C; LXX Lev 6:5; Num 5:7); Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 342 (BGU 4.1200.17; P.Oxy. 2.268.7; 10.1281.7; 1273.19; P.Tebt. 2.339.6; OGIS 509.18); BDAG (Let. Aris. 24; Jos. Ant. 12.30, 155).

[1123]. With, e.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 712; Conzelmann, Acts, 190; Witherington, Acts, 681.

[1124]. This rule applied also to auxiliary units (Campbell, “Auxilia,” 225). Equestrians were in charge of “auxiliary units and held the tribunates of . . . five of the six tribunates in a legion” (idem, Army, 56; cf. idem, “Legio,” 358; the sixth was of senatorial rank). Naturally, most equestrians at the beginning of the empire were from Italy, but more Roman provincials achieved this rank over time (idem, Army, 56–57).

[1125]. Millar and Burton, “Equites,” 551.

[1126]. Jeffers, World, 205; Witherington, Acts, 681. In the second century, soldiers might still need bribes to procure their advancement (Shelton, Romans, 260, citing P.Mich. 8.468, lines 35ff.).

[1127]. Llewelyn, Documents, 6:153, §20.

[1128]. Paul’s constituency was unknown, but that he was an eloquent citizen and accused of leadership in some movement allowed the possibility that he had a significant one. Lysias mistrusts but tries to avoid directly challenging the Sanhedrin, except where necessary; but Felix himself set an example of conflict with some of Jerusalem’s leadership.

[1129]. Following Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 31.

[1130]. Sometimes, Josephus claims, entire nations received it (Ag. Ap. 2.40; cf. Cic. Phil. 2.92).

[1131]. For citizenship for special services, see, e.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.16.3 (first century B.C.E.). Being the child of a friend of a friend of the emperor could also help (Pliny Ep. 10.106–7). A governor’s doctor and other benefactors might request him to petition the emperor for their or their relatives’ citizenship (10.5.1; 10.11.1), and the emperor might grant such requests (10.6.1). When someone bequeaths to Pliny his freedmen of merely Latin status, Pliny requests that some receive Roman citizenship (10.104); Trajan grants these citizenship requests quickly and is ready to grant others as well (10.105).

[1132]. Cf., e.g., citizenship grants to discharged sailors (ILS 1986; CIL 16.1; Sherk, Empire, 99–100, §58); generally, cf. Southern, Army, 165 (though at some point citizens were allowed in auxiliary units, 143). Earlier, legionaries “must often have been given citizenship on enlistment” (Stevenson, “Army,” 226; Cadbury, Acts in History, 74).

[1133]. E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.23.3; Gaius Inst. 1.16–17; Pliny Ep. 7.32.1; Lyall, “Slave and Freedman,” 78. On freedmen, see further Friedländer, Life, 1:202–6; comment on freedpersons in this commentary’s excursus on slavery at Acts 12:13, passim (e.g., Keener, Acts, 2:1927); esp. the excursus on freedpersons at Acts 6:9 (2:1304–6); for the three classes (one being citizens), see Gaius Inst. 1.12.

[1134]. Finley and Treggiari, “Freedmen” (certainly in legions, MacMullen, Social Relations,105); but cf. Stevenson, “Army,” 226. Slaves could not serve (in an attempt to gain citizenship), on penalty of death when discovered (Pliny Ep. 10.29.1; the emperor reluctantly enforces this in 10.30.1–2).

[1135]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 115.

[1136]. Stegemann acknowledges that Luke’s description fits historical data but thinks that this is merely Lukan verisimilitude to fit such records (noted in Llewelyn, Documents, 6:154, §20). Naturally, had the text not matched other sources, it would be dismissed for not fitting; when it does match them, it is dismissed for imitating them!

[1137]. Demosth. Aristocr. 200 (slandering his opponents). Athenian citizenship was not easily obtained (see Demosth. Neaer. 89).

[1138]. Augustus’s regulations, which included limiting manumission (Suet. Aug. 40.3), do not seem to have been altogether successful (42.2–3).

[1139]. There may have been roughly as many auxiliaries as legionaries by 23 C.E., though numbers and locations fluctuated (Tac. Ann. 4.5); under the Flavians, the empire had about 180,000 auxiliaries (Campbell, “Auxilia,” 420).

[1140]. Kelly, “Corruption,” 403.

[1141]. Bruce, Commentary, 446. Haenchen, Acts, 634, thinks that the point is “the value of Roman citizenship.”

[1142]. Since the annalistic context of Dio’s remark (Dio Cass. 60.17.5–7) is 43 C.E. (60.17.1; see Hemer, Acts in History, 170), the practice likely began early in Claudius’s reign; Lysias may thus have been a Roman citizen for up to fifteen years before he meets Paul—but discovers that Paul has been one much longer.

[1143]. Some suggest a sarcastic use (Hemer, Acts in History, 127; cf. Witherington, Acts, 678, though he thinks this less likely).

[1144]. Chance, Acts, 415 (citing esp. Malina, Anthropology, ch. 1). For challenge-riposte, see, e.g., Malina and Pilch, Letters, 334–35; Malina and Rohrbaugh, Gospels, 41–42; Robbins, Texture, 80–82.

[1145]. Rapske, Custody, 144–45, noting also (144) that a magistrate could not even judge a case against one of superior status (Suet. Jul. 17.2); Witherington, Acts, 678. For a judge to pass sentence on a defendant of higher social rank than the judge could appear a breach of justice (Pliny Ep. 9.13.2, a praetorian against one of consular rank).

[1146]. The use of ἐγώ is redundant, hence emphatic, though not demeaning to Lysias.

[1147]. Cadbury, Acts in History, 68. The Latin term more generally connotes “native,” “noble” and relates to terms designating good birth or innate qualities.

[1148]. Conzelmann, Acts, 190, cites, for “the higher esteem accorded citizens by birth,” Ovid Tristia 4.10.7–8 (though this may refer to other elements of status).

[1149]. E.g., Gaius Inst. 1.10; Justin. Inst. 1.3–4; see further the excursus on freedpersons at Acts 6:9 (Keener, Acts, 2:1304–6); in more detail, cf. studies of freedpersons, e.g., Treggiari, Freedmen; Weaver, Familia; Petersen, Freedman; earlier, Duff, Freedmen; esp. and most recently, Mouritsen, Freedman.

[1150]. Jeffers, World, 201 (following Crook, Law of Rome, 46–47).

[1151]. McCoskey, Race, 71, citing Quint. Inst. 8.1.3.

[1152]. Paul chooses the weaker adversative δέ rather than ἀλλά; the καί probably simply functions as “also,” adding another status dimension to Paul’s citizenship.

[1153]. On the importance of both parents sharing the same status, see comment on Acts 16:1; Keener, Marries Another, 59–60.

[1154]. Jeffers, World, 201. In the first century B.C.E., it spread more widely (Malherbe, “Life,” 9, cites Cic. Phil. 2.92).

[1155]. Légasse, “Career,” 372.

[1156]. Longenecker, Acts, 324. Caesar granted citizenship to physicians and liberal-arts teachers to encourage them to live in Rome (Suet. Jul. 42.1).

[1157]. Longenecker, Acts, 324.

[1158]. Légasse, “Career,” 372, noting a one- to two-generation interim.

[1159]. This would not count against the family’s acquiring Tarsian citizenship (Acts 21:39), even in the first generation; at least some freedpersons became citizens in cities alongside the freeborn (Harland, Associations, 101–2).

[1160]. Cf. the freedman of Queen Agrippina in Hachlili, “Goliath Family,” 62.

[1161]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 115.

[1162]. E.g., Dunn, Acts, 299; Légasse, “Career,” 372; Schnabel, Missionary, 42 (noting patristic support).

[1163]. Jos. Ant. 18.83–84; Tac. Ann. 2.85; Suet. Tib. 36.

[1164]. Jeffers, World, 201.

[1165]. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 48, suggesting that the stigma of slave ancestry outlived a generation. Aside from multiple generations in this case, the characters in the narrative are not in Rome, and Lysias procured his citizenship by means less honorable than freed status (for which Roman law long provided). Lentz’s skepticism about evidence in Acts that Paul is from a freed family (60) overlooks Acts 6:9. But Lentz’s correct emphasis on Luke’s interest in Paul’s high status (passim) does help explain why Luke would not specify this background more explicitly. Lentz also correctly emphasizes (19–20, 172) that Luke relativizes worldly status in light of Christian values (so also Paul, Phil 3:4–7; 2 Cor 10–12).

[1166]. With Tajra, Trial, 75.

[1167]. Not a mistake of mere political correctness, of course, but of transgressing the law of the Roman state, for whose honor they worked. Even minor offenses against powerful interests might require urgent attempts to make up for the offense (Pliny Ep. 1.5.8, 11–13).

[1168]. Haenchen, Acts, 634; so also Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 124–30.

[1169]. Rapske, Custody, 145n60. When a former governor was convicted (posthumously, Pliny Ep. 3.9), the tribune of the cohort under him received a two-year sentence of exile (3.9.18).

[1170]. Certainly the interrogators would not wish to be implicated; but they were acting under the tribune’s orders, and so responsibility for having had Paul bound was his.

[1171]. Witherington, Acts, 677.

[1172]. They could appear as just punishment for shameful persons (Lucian Men. 11).

[1173]. Rapske, “Prison,” 828; idem, Custody, 9, 25–28.

[1174]. With Rapske, Custody, 145–46. For governors’ discretion, see, e.g., Ferguson, Backgrounds, 50–51; Brown, John, 2:885. Paul is no genuine escape risk (cf. Acts 16:28), but he is a political liability whose public chains would at least reduce complaints of favored treatment.

[1175]. Rapske, “Prison,” 828, citing, on the last point, ARS 8 (Twelve Tables 3.3); Ovid Con. Liv. 273–74; Suet. Nero 36.2; Sen. E. Controv. 1.6.2; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.36.

[1176]. As often recognized; e.g., Witherington, Acts, 5.

[1177]. Goulder, Type and History, 40.

[1178]. Witherington, Acts, 7.

[1179]. See, e.g., Heath, “Invention,” 97.

[1180]. Karris, Invitation, 204. Marshall, Acts, 360, notes that this is one of Luke’s most often questioned scenes (although he himself supports it [360–61]).

[1181]. With Witherington, Acts, 688.

[1182]. Cf. Socrates’s greater interest in discussing philosophy with disciples than in preparing his defense (Xen. Mem. 4.8.4).

[1183]. This militates against the argument for reliability offered by Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 206—namely, that Luke would hardly laud Paul by portraying him escaping “condemnation by the none too creditable stratagem of setting his judges by the ears.” His other argument, based on the not typically Lukan interruption of Paul’s speech from the outset, might fare better.

[1184]. On the character of Paul’s judicial rhetoric in his four statements, see Soards, Speeches, 114–15, though he may unify Paul’s disparate statements too much.

[1185]. Conzelmann, Acts, 191.

[1186]. See Rapske, Custody, 145–46.

[1187]. Cf. Josephus’s honorable treatment of high-status prisoners, releasing their bonds, in Life 332 (cf. 318).

[1188]. Hall, “Antonia,” rightly citing Jos. Ant. 5.241. Although Acts 12:4 may refer to the Antonia, even that passage need not connote a dungeon; the passage mentions chains, guards, and an outer gate, but while it mentions a door to Peter’s chamber, it is silent about a bolt needing to be removed, allowing that Peter could leave that door by natural means. With guards inside and outside, there may have seemed little reason to bolt it, in any case, but normally one would add such a simple precaution.

[1189]. Rapske, Custody, 146.

[1190]. Ibid., 146–47. Lysias avoids underestimating the danger in Acts 23:23.

[1191]. Perhaps he is making up for his earlier lapse; in any case, the chief priest seems ready to compensate in the other direction (Acts 23:2). The courtesy of appearing without guards would not facilitate an escape, of course, with Roman and undoubtedly Levite guards outside. The Sanhedrin would have also appreciated not having Roman soldiers inside its chamber, releasing Paul into custody of its own Levite guards; but Gentiles cannot have been totally excluded from the premises, since Lysias is in visual distance. Wherever the meeting place is, it is no more sacred than the temple’s outer court, where Gentiles were welcome; but some present are priests who might have sacred duties, and not bringing in soldiers unnecessarily was a diplomatic courtesy, in any case.

[1192]. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 687.

[1193]. Conzelmann, Acts, 191. A hearing occurs the day after an overnight confinement in three of the thirteen trial scenes in the major ancient novels (Schwartz, “Trial Scenes,” 112–13). Courts did not always act quickly, but if this Roman citizen proves innocent, the sooner Lysias can release him, the better.

[1194]. With Witherington, Acts, 684; Fitzmyer, Acts, 716.

[1195]. Cf., e.g., Pliny Ep. 10.97; Harvey, History, 16–17, on Jesus’s trial; Sherwin-White, Society, 47.

[1196]. See, e.g., Pliny Ep. 10.30.1 (where only the governor can exercise capital authority).

[1197]. Cf. Bruce, Commentary, 447.

[1198]. Were Paul not a Roman citizen, the tribune could have dispensed justice as needed; in some Egyptian papyri, a centurion, as the highest-ranking available officer of the government, might do so.

[1199]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 716.

[1200]. Cf. Celer’s responsibility in Jos. Ant. 20.132 (to his own demise, 20.136).

[1201]. This probably requires taking ἐκέλευσεν as closer to “urged,” though it remains an official request with a polite expectation of compliance (see use in invitations in BDAG). Admittedly, Luke elsewhere uses κελεύω for a command from one of superior rank to a subordinate. But even if Luke and/or the tribune saw them as subordinate, the Sanhedrin probably would not have agreed. On Lysias’s sometimes grandiose and inaccurate perspectives in the narrative, see, e.g., comment on Acts 21:38.

[1202]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 716, compares the summoning of a judicial body in the Ptolemaic period; Barrett, Acts, 1054–55; Witherington, Acts, 686–87.

[1203]. González, Acts, 255.

[1204]. In later rabbinic sources, most decisions were made by courts specialized in various issues rather than by the entire Sanhedrin gathered together (Le Cornu, Acts, 1234). In reality, we cannot expect that all members would have been present on all occasions.

[1205]. Not all days were appropriate for legislative meetings in ancient cities (Rhet. Alex. 36.18–20, 1443a); but courts would meet regularly, and the Sanhedrin presumably functioned in both capacities, though not every member would always be present.

[1206]. The problem here is probably acting as if it had capital jurisdiction. Certainly the Sanhedrin answered to higher Roman authorities (cf. Kee, “Central Authority,” even if overstated; Rome appointed high priests or, in this period, determined who could), as whose agent the tribune is acting.

[1207]. Witherington, Acts, 686. Nonmilitary tribunes held a more authoritative office (e.g., Pliny Ep. 1.23.2–4).

[1208]. In capital offenses under the law, it would wish to have a say (cf. Jos. Ant. 14.167). The current high priest was also very pro-Roman (see comment on Acts 23:2).

[1209]. Val. Max. 2.2.6 (extolling the Roman senate of earlier times).

[1210]. McRay, Archaeology, 110.

[1211]. Less than 500 m. (see Jerusalem map B, BrillPauly 6:1171; McRay, Archaeology, 110; see comment on Acts 23:10, 15).

[1212]. Later tradition plausibly emphasizes that the Sanhedrin sat in a semicircle, so the members could see each other (m. Sanh. 4:3; b. Sanh. 36b; Ḥul. 5a; Exod. Rab. 5:12; Eccl. Rab. 1:11, §1).

[1213]. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:562–74, esp. 568–74.

[1214]. It appears in the LXX only in the later works, 1 Esd 6:28; 3 Macc 2:26; Pr Man 9. Often its object is introduced by a preposition, but Luke seems to prefer a simple dative (see BDAG).

[1215]. Witherington, Acts, 687 (his secondary suggestion, proper rhetorical eye contact, may be stronger).

[1216]. The other instance at the Sanhedrin, Acts 6:15, refers to the council looking on Stephen, rather than the reverse.

[1217]. Shiell, Reading Acts, 188 (citing Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.6; also noting use of a serious gaze while one is mocking, Cic. De or. 2.55.225).

[1218]. Le Cornu, Acts, 1235. In later traditions, the older chamber of hewn stone also arranged the Sanhedrin in a semicircle (m. Sanh. 4:3; b. Sanh. 36b; Exod. Rab. 5:12; Eccl. Rab. 1:11, §1; cf. Bowman, Drama, 43), which would certainly have allowed Paul to stand in its midst.

[1219]. Dunn, Acts, 302–3 (though one could argue for an equivalent concept; Uribe Ulloa, “Syneídësis”). Even the Greek term did not carry this sense until the Hellenistic and especially the imperial period (Versnel, “Sin,” 1410).

[1220]. Isaeus examines their character in Nicost. 27–31, the strategic, final part of the speech.

[1221]. E.g., Lysias Or. 16.10, §146. One might appeal to past virtuous acts, e.g., Hermog. Inv. 2.5.118.

[1222]. Even in epideictic rhetoric, one could protest that he had always done honorably “from the beginning of my life” (Apul. Flor. 17.4; trans. Hilton, p. 164).

[1223]. Cf. also Xen. Apol. 3.

[1224]. In Roman culture, ordeals defined one’s position and identity, and so the stakes in contests for honor were high (Barton, “Moment”). For one discussion of “honor-shame societies,” cf. Malina and Pilch, Letters, 368–71; for pursuit of honor in Roman society, see Harrison, Authorities, 205–32. Historians sometimes spoke directly of characters’ wholly (or almost wholly) blameless character (e.g., Vell. Paterc. 1.12.3; 2.1.1–2; 2.13.1; 2.29.3; 2.35.2; 2.59.2; 2.79.1; 2.97.2; 2.105.2).

[1225]. See discussion in Forbes, “Self-Praise”; Keener, Corinthians, 221–22.

[1226]. Witherington, Acts, 687; see BDAG (though it lists more examples under “live” without an emphasis on citizenship). Ramsay, Discovery, 92, suggests that Paul employs the term for Lysias’s sake, but when directly addressed to the Sanhedrin, it would not likely refer to his Roman citizenship.

[1227]. Lane, Hebrews, 225. Greek thinkers had, however, often emphasized accurate self-knowledge (Keener, John, 236–37).

[1228]. Though a Roman freedman, he probably at least knew of the concept (he spoke Greek and would hardly have been posted in the East otherwise). If Luke implies that his summary of Paul’s words reflects Paul’s usage, the latter employs common Greek philosophic language with Felix in Acts 24:25.

[1229]. Cf. Jos. Ant. 16.103, 212; War 4.189, 193. He claims that the reward for keeping the laws is one’s conscience (technically, Josephus uses only the cognate συνειδός [from σύνοιδα] here; but this performs the same function; cf. Selwyn, Peter, 177) testifying to one’s fidelity (Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.217–18).

[1230]. Cf. Wallis, “Conscience in Philo” (though noting [9] his lack of “a coherent metaphysical theory”); idem, “Conscience”; Klauck, “Accuser.”

[1231]. E.g., Test. Jud. 20:2.

[1232]. Test. Reub. 4:3. For “bad” conscience in Hellenistic Jewish texts, see also Dunn, Romans, 101 (citing Wis 17:11; Philo Worse 146; Spec. Laws 2.49; Virt. 124; Test. Reub. 4:3; Jos. Ant. 16.103).

[1233]. In its Latin equivalent, bona conscientia, Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 43.5; 97.12; Dial. 7.20.5; cf. a “true” conscience in Pliny Ep. 5.1.10.

[1234]. The Greek and Latin terms translated “conscience” referred to “consciousness of right and wrong” (Versnel, “Sin,” 1410).

[1235]. Publ. Syr. 194; for the terrors of a guilty conscience, see Juv. Sat. 13. Even if others do not know one’s shameful deeds, one’s conscience would know (Isoc. Demon. 16); conscience was worth a thousand witnesses (Quint. Inst. 5.11.41). Malina, Anthropology, 51, treats the ancient Mediterranean role of conscience in terms of internalized social approval.

[1236]. Sen. Y. Ben. 4.21.5. For “conscience” in Seneca, see the discussion in Sevenster, Seneca, 84–92 (for a comparison with Paul, see 92–102).

[1237]. See discussion on this passage in Klauck, “Accuser”; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 28.9–10. Philo normally uses it negatively, for a “guilty” conscience (Bosman, “Conscience”).

[1238]. A high concentration appears in the Pastorals (1 Tim 1:5, 19; 3:9; 4:2; 2 Tim 1:3; Titus 1:15). Paul does not use it fully precisely and consistently (Harris, “ΣΥΝΕΙΔΗΣΙΣ”). Some believe that Paul echoes Stoic usage (Moffatt, First Corinthians, 110), though the usage was much wider (see, e.g., Selwyn, Peter, 177; Dibelius and Conzelman, Pastoral Epistles, 18n22; esp. BDAG); on the autonomy of the conscience in Stoicism, see Klauck, Context, 365–71, but “conscience” was not a specifically Stoic technical term (Nock, Christianity, 95) and was more prominent in Philo than in Stoicism (Kennedy, Epistles, 26n1). Nock, Christianity, 95, believes that even Rom 2:15, which sounds most Stoic, reflects more influence from Jer 31:33. Fumagalli, “Concezione,” emphasizes the distinctiveness of Paul’s usage. In any case, Paul certainly has no problem using Greek concepts to communicate in Greek (cf. Isaacs, Spirit, 75). Thrall, “ΣΥΝΕΙΔΗΣΙΣ,” thinks that Paul applies “conscience” to Gentiles the way “law” applied to Jews.

[1239]. Campbell, Deliverance, 139, does rightly warn that too much should not be hung on a single word in Phil 3, noting that the more extensive description in Gal 1:14 addresses only external matters.

[1240]. See Hemer, Acts in History, 128, 170–71. Hemer dates Paul’s hearing to 57 (p. 171).

[1241]. According to Tac. Ann. 12.54 (Hemer, Acts in History, 170).

[1242]. See Jewett, Chronology, 44; concurring with his official retirement in 58, see also, e.g., Bruce, Acts¹, 409; Munck, Acts, 222; Marshall, Acts, 362; Hemer, Acts in History, 170–71; Fitzmyer, Acts, 717; Witherington, Acts, 78; Dunn, Acts, 303.

[1243]. Earlier passed by in Jos. Ant. 19.316.

[1244]. From later rabbinic sources, some scholars prefer a longer reign for Ishmael, from 49 to 59 C.E. (b. Yoma 9a); even in such a reading, Luke’s “Ananias” would retain the high-priestly title from his former office (Le Cornu, Acts, 1238). But the evidence of Josephus (and of Luke) predates that of the Talmud by centuries.

[1245]. The conjunction of his behavior in Acts with Josephus is noted also by others (e.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 717; Witherington, Acts, 688).

[1246]. Various scholars (including Bruce, Commentary, 449; idem, Acts¹, 409; Hemer, Acts in History, 170–71) cite b. Pesaḥ. 57a as another testimony to the brutal character of the high priest (it mentions Ishmael son of Phabi and other priestly aristocrats of the era).

[1247]. Bruce, Commentary, 449.

[1248]. Other aristocratic priests also favored the Romans (e.g., Ananus son of Jonathan tried to let them into Jerusalem; Jos. War 2.533–34). But some had their own ideas; Eleazar, son of a high priest, Ananias, declared war on Rome by stopping sacrifices for Caesar (2.409).

[1249]. The aristocratic priests opposed the revolutionaries, fighting their desecrations (Ananus in Jos. War 4.193–94); Idumeans killed many of them (4.236–38, 288–89, 301; Ananus, killer of James, in 4.315–16).

[1250]. Examples could be multiplied, even in some cases I witnessed fairly directly.

[1251]. E.g., 1QpHab IX, 4–5; Jos. Life 216; Ant. 20.181, 206; Test. Levi 14:1.

[1252]. Perhaps Josephus’s literary model was 1 Sam 2:14–16, but the behavior of many medieval church leaders, not to mention quite a few since that time, confirms the temptation of sacerdotal power.

[1253]. Avigad, Discovering, 130, citing t. Menaḥ. 13:21; b. Pesaḥ. 57a.

[1254]. Felix would be “sent” because he had to return to Rome with Cumanus and others for the hearing.

[1255]. Barrett, Acts, 286, notes that those of the house of Ishmael ben Phiabi were known for their fists (citing b. Pesaḥ. 57a).

[1256]. The general defends this by comparing it with the actions of parents or teachers disciplining children (Xen. Anab. 5.8.18).

[1257]. The Pharisaic tendency is dominant in later rabbinic Judaism (cf. also, e.g., Tg. Neof. 1 on Num 9:8; 15:34; 27:5; Tg. Ps.-J. on Num 9:8; 15:34; 27:5). Pliny (early second century) felt that the judiciary of his time had also grown too indulgent (Ep. 2.11.21; 2.12.2, 5–6; 3.3.5; praising strictness in 4.29, esp. 4.29.3).

[1258]. See Malina, Windows, 37–38.

[1259]. The aristocracy might interpret laws as needed for the public interest (cf. Jos. Life 189–95; t. B. Qam. 9:12; Sanh. 1:7); the powerful elsewhere sometimes circumvented legal procedures (Petron. Sat. 14), and later rabbis recall violent abuse by the high priests (cf. t. Menaḥ. 13:21; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 337; Lane, Mark, 524, citing b. Pesaḥ. 57a, bar.). Yet even those in authority who struck soldiers for discipline (Xen. Anab. 5.8.12–13) might afterward need to justify it (5.8.18; but this might not be applicable to one with rank as high as the high priest).

[1260]. In Matt 24:49, the context may use Israel’s own leaders as a warning (23:4–36), but this is Matthew’s, not Q’s, arrangement (though cf. also Luke 11:42–12:1).

[1261]. Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 76.20–26; Plut. Plat. Q. 9.4, Mor. 1010F; Lam 3:30; m. B. Qam. 8:6; cf. Jeremias, Sermon, 28; idem, Theology, 239; Moore, Judaism, 2:151n3; Daube, New Testament and Judaism, 260–61; Malina, Anthropology, 35; Lachs, Commentary, 106, cites Sipra Lev. 24:19; t. B. Qam. 9:29; b. B. Meṣiʿa 59b; Sanh. 58b. For the cultural expectation that insults invite retaliation, cf. Marshall, Enmity, 213–14. Malina and Rohrbaugh, Gospels, 55, suggest that in traditional Mediterranean cultures, friends will break up a public fight; by deferring to one’s friends’ intervention rather than avenging one’s own honor, one allows the door of reconciliation with the offender to remain open. The situation depicted in this text, however, is an insult to a social inferior, not a physical brawl.

[1262]. Because Luke and John overlap at points (especially in the passion tradition), Luke’s audience may have known this tradition, but we cannot be certain. Some scholars think that John used Luke (see discussion in Smith, John among Gospels, 85–110; for agreements with Acts, see Cribbs, “Agreements”); some appeal to common sources (Sanders, John, 12), or related traditions (Myllykoski, “Luke and John,” esp. 152), or a common document (Boismard and Lamouille, Actes, 1:15); Streeter, Gospels, 393–426, thinks that John used Mark and also Luke’s passion narrative; Matson, Dialogue, argues that Luke used John’s passion narrative; and Eller, Disciple, 47, suggests plausibly that Luke interviewed the beloved disciple (Luke 1:3).

[1263]. Zimmermann, “Iniuria.” This would not include mere forensic invective, which was standard (cf. Watson, “Invective”). In third-century B.C.E. Egypt, the fine for one blow was more than one-third of a year’s average wages (P.Hal. 1.203–5). One might admit the blow but argue that the recipient merited it (Quint. Decl. 250.9).

[1264]. M. B. Qam. 8:6; Le Cornu, Acts, 1244. One might be levied a fine for humiliating an honorable person not only with a blow (e.g., m. B. Qam. 8:6) but also without one (the heavy fine for humiliating a sage in y. B. Qam. 8:6, §1).

[1265]. E.g., Hamm. 202–6; cf. Gaius Inst. 3.220. On this and other ancient Near Eastern laws missing in the OT but preserved in the rabbis, cf. Greengus, “Gaps.”

[1266]. Le Cornu, Acts, 1244, citing b. Sanh. 58b.

[1267]. E.g., Diod. Sic. 20.62.2; see further discussion at Acts 3:2.

[1268]. Le Cornu, Acts, 1242 (citing m. Šebu. 4:13; b. Šebu. 36a); Nunnally, Acts, 373–74. See further discussion below.

[1269]. Le Cornu, Acts, 1242.

[1270]. Ibid., 1244. Luke highlights this abuse by repeating “strike” three times in Acts 23:2–3 (Parsons, Acts, 314, citing traductio in Rhet. Her. 4.14.20).

[1271]. Aug. Sermon on the Mount 1.19.58 claims that this is not reproach but prophecy (since Paul remains humble in Acts 23:5); Bede Comm. Acts 23.3 (L. Martin, 175; Martin, Acts, 277) claims that Paul prophesies the end of Levitical priesthood altogether.

[1272]. Chrys. Hom. Acts 48 (Martin, Acts, 276) rightly points out that if Paul allowed someone to strike him after dissuading the tribune from beating him, the tribune would henceforth treat him less respectfully. (The tribune is presumably watching; see Acts 23:10.)

[1273]. For seating customs, see comment on Acts 13:15–16; 22:3.

[1274]. So Johnson, Acts, 397.

[1275]. Cf., e.g., m. ʾAb. 4:8; later, y. Sanh. 1:1, §§4–5; Deut. Rab. 1:10.

[1276]. Rapske, Custody, 147, thinks that Paul may have obtained the impression that it was a trial because the tribune handed him over to the Sanhedrin, with his guards at a distance and his failure to intervene at the abuse in Acts 23:2. But would Lysias not have communicated his intention to Paul somehow? In any case, the tribune does not see it as a trial (22:30; 23:28).

[1277]. Aeschylus Suppl. 202–3, 917.

[1278]. Mus. Ruf. 9, pp. 72.31–74.3; see fuller comment at Acts 4:13.

[1279]. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:3 (although, in this case, the other sage successfully demonstrates his case from Scripture).

[1280]. Luke’s audience might expect here the gesture for indignation (on which see Shiell, Reading Acts, 62–65; for the shrill voice tone, see 88). Paul’s terse language in Acts 23:3 is appropriate; speech that was “sharp, rapid, with short abrupt clauses” communicated an angry tone (Cic. De or. 3.217–18, cited in Hall, “Delivery,” 222).

[1281]. E.g., Val. Max. 3.3.ext. 2–5 (failing to submit to a tyrant even when tortured); Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 309, §100D; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.31.625; Vit. Apoll. 7.42.

[1282]. E.g., Max. Tyre 15.6; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.11; cf. Mus. Ruf. frg. 33; Max. Tyre 14.7; Hermog. Issues 59.17–60.8.

[1283]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 42.1–2 (a woman trained in philosophy).

[1284]. Epict. Diatr. 1.25.22 (Grant, Paul, 46).

[1285]. According to Maximus of Tyre’s rare view, Socrates refused to even defend himself to the unjust jury (Or. 3.4), a contrast not only to Paul here but to the usual portrayals of Socrates’s Apology.

[1286]. Diogenes the Cynic, once accosted, allegedly complained that he forgot to don his helmet that morning (Diog. Laert. 6.2.41–42).

[1287]. It remained common at the end of the first century (Tac. Agr. 6). People remain the same; most white Americans were scandalized to discover some cases of genuine police abuse of inner-city residents (e.g., Rodney King) even though many African Americans had protested it for years.

[1288]. Philod. Crit. col. 23a; cf. 23a–24b.

[1289]. Cited, e.g., by Fitzmyer, Acts, 717; Dunn, Acts, 304 (noting also John 7:51).

[1290]. See m. Sanh. 3:6–8 (with Witherington, Acts, 689).

[1291]. Bruce, Acts¹, 410.

[1292]. E.g., Pss 25:4 (26:4 ET); 70:4 (71:4); 4 Macc 5:17, 20, 27; 8:14 (for the cognate noun, 4 Macc 2:11; 4:19; 5:13; 9:3; Pss. Sol. 4:1, 12; 8:9; 17:20; Philo Embassy 119); 1 Clem. 14.4.

[1293]. On the evils of “lawlessness,” see, e.g., Diod. Sic. 4.70.3; 33.14.1; 34/35.12.1; 36.6.1; 36.11.1; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.4.2; Epict. Diatr. 2.16.44; 4.7.36; Sir 39:24; Test. Dan 6:6; Test. Naph. 4:1; Test. Job 43:2; Jos. War 4.355; further discussion in Keener, Matthew, 553.

[1294]. Ray, Irony, 61, rightly sees Paul’s accusation of the high priest’s law transgression as situational irony, in view of the charge that Paul has violated the law (21:28). Within the narrative world, Paul’s “reversal” of charges is also likely a deliberate rhetorical strategy (see comment on Acts 24:19).

[1295]. That Paul loses his temper (Pelikan, Acts, 247) would not violate ancient biography (protagonists need not be perfect), but legal strategy seems likelier, probing to see if any of the Sanhedrists nearby will insist on proper judicial behavior, which Paul will have learned himself from the Pharisee Gamaliel.

[1296]. This need not mean that the strategy occurs to Paul only at this point; he could have been heading for it previously yet lacked sufficient opportunity for uninterrupted speech.

[1297]. Though as Sanders, Judaism, 178, notes, priests also learned Torah. As one later historical analogy of knowledge versus office, one might compare biblical scholars (such as the Catholic Erasmus or the Augustinian exegete Luther) contending about the Bible with Renaissance popes.

[1298]. Cf. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations, 212; Dunn, Acts, 300.

[1299]. E.g., Lucian Dem. 44; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.3, 85; Ant. 13.292, 293–95; Diog. Laert. 6.2.41; for mockery, see Anderson, Glossary, 126. In ancient Israel and Jesus’s ministry, see also Pilch, “Insult”; Keener, “Brood of Vipers.”

[1300]. Thür, “Kakegoria.”

[1301]. Cicero was a noted master of rhetorical insults (e.g., Pis. 27.66; Plut. Cic. 5.4; 26.6; 27.1; 38.3–6; cf. Cic. De or. 2.58.236). Cicero viewed ridiculing others as one of the most effective elements of rhetorical humor (see the discussion of Cic. De or. 2.253–63 in Rabbie, “Wit and Humor,” 211). He would have considered below him, however, the crude humor of the masses (see Toner, Culture, 101, 104–5).

[1302]. For “fool” as a title in rhetorical insults, see, e.g., Epict. Diatr. 1.18.10; 2.16.13; 2.21.2; 2.22.4–5; 3.13.17; 3.22.85; Plut. Pleas. L. 2, Mor. 1086EF; Mart. Epig. 10.100.1; Marc. Aur. Med. 5.36.1; Phaedrus 3.15.2; Diog. Laert. 10.1.7–8; Sipre Deut. 309.1.1; 309.2.1; b. B. Bat. 115b, end; Ber. 10a; ʿErub. 101a; Yebam. 102b.

[1303]. Cic. Invect. Sall. 5.13 (Rolfe, in Sallust, LCL, 513).

[1304]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 717 (citing m. Šebu. 4:13, where it occurs; Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2:766); cf. Schnabel, Acts, 926, noting from m. Šebu. 4:13 that rabbis opined that this formula had biblical support (citing Lev 5:1; cf. b. Šebu. 36a). “May God . . . to you” could function as a curse (Gen 16:5; 31:49; 2 Sam 19:13; Jub. 24:28) or a blessing (Gen 27:28; 28:3; 43:14, 29; 48:20; Num 6:24; Deut 1:11; Ps 128:5; Jub. 19:27; 22:11; Pss. Sol. 12:4; Let. Aris. 185).

[1305]. See, e.g., the optative in LXX 1 Sam 3:17; 14:44; 1 Kgs 2:23; 2 Kgs 6:31; also 1 Thess 3:12; 2 Thess 3:5, 16; Jude 9.

[1306]. Later rabbis could appeal to a “predictive curse” (Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 287; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 287), but Luke 6:28–29 and Luke’s greater emphasis on judgment than curses support a judgment reading.

[1307]. Many argue that Luke portrays Paul uttering a prophecy soon afterward answered (Haenchen, Acts, 637; Bruce, Commentary, 451; Marshall, Acts, 363; Witherington, Acts, 689).

[1308]. Also CD VIII, 12; see Dunn, Acts, 303; cf. 4Q424 1 3–4.

[1309]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 109. Some also used whitewash to mourn the temple’s destruction (b. Yoma 66b); for whitewash to beautify limestone ossuaries, see Lachs, “Matthew 23:27–28”; for warning Passover pilgrims away from tombs, cf. m. Moʾed Qaṭ. 1:2; Maʿaś. Š. 5:1; Šeqal. 1:1; b. B. Meṣiʿa 85b; y. Moʾed Qaṭ. 1:2, §7.

[1310]. Though Luke omits the “whitewash” from the parallel in Matt 23:27, which may be Matthean interpretation.

[1311]. Although the term does not appear in Acts, Acts is informed by the ideas in Luke’s Gospel. This term originally designated actors in the theater (e.g., Arist. Poetics 18.19, 1456a; Diod. Sic. 37.12.1; Val. Max. 8.11.ext. 1; Plut. Cic. 4.3; Hdn. 3.8.9; Blume, “Hypokrites”), a profession that Roman law treated like prostitutes (Gardner, Women, 32). But Jewish texts had already borrowed the literal use long before this period (Let. Aris. 219), and—more significant—both Greek and Roman (Epict. Diatr. 2.9.20; Plut. Educ. 17, Mor. 13B; Appian Hist. rom. 12.8.55; Marc. Aur. 1.11; 3.7; 9.2; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 40; Tilborg, Leaders, 13) as well as Jewish (Sir 1:29; 35:15; 36:2; cf. Gal 2:13; 1 Tim 4:2; ʾAbot R. Nat. 48, §132 B) writers frequently used this and cognate terms for moral pretense (sometimes directly evoking the literal sense, Lucian Icar. 29). For judgment on hypocrites, see, e.g., Pss. Sol. 4:6, 20.

[1312]. E.g., Lucian Runaways 19; Fronto Ad am. 2.7.7; Ad verum imp. 2.2; Max. Tyre 25.6; Diog. Laert. 1.61; 1QH^a IV, 13; 2 Macc 13:3; Ps.-Phoc. 48.

[1313]. Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 287; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 287; Fitzmyer, Acts, 717; Dunn, Acts, 303.

[1314]. Cf. Keener, Matthew, 197–99 (yet hyperbole that invites literal nonresistance, at least in analogously limited situations).

[1315]. Jesus went so far as to heal the servant of the antagonistic high priest of the passion narrative, injured by his own disciple; only in Luke (Luke 22:50–51).

[1316]. As also suggested in Lam 3:30 in context (esp. 3:29–32; cf. 2 Sam 16:11–12), as a way of showing dependence on God’s vindication.

[1317]. For the ideal among some sages, cf., e.g., Philod. Crit. col. 2a; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.39; Diog. Laert. 6.1.3; b. Ber. 17a; Šabb. 88b; y. Peʾah 8:7, §3; perhaps Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 78.11; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 92–93.4–17.

[1318]. I argued at Acts 15:39 that Luke, like most ancient biographers, could acknowledge even a favored protagonist’s failings at points. Even at Acts 15:39, however, Luke presents Paul’s motives as noble (15:38).

[1319]. Cf. also this creative tension in James: incendiary rhetoric is inappropriate (Jas 1:19–20; 3:1–12; 4:11), but prophetic denunciation is appropriate (5:1–6).

[1320]. See Tajra, Trial, 94.

[1321]. In practice this might apply more to Roman businessmen (on which see Paterson and Spawforth, “Negotiatores”) than to local aristocrats; Paul’s Tarsian citizenship raises the stakes by involving another region, though both regions belonged to the same province (see comment on Acts 23:34).

[1322]. Fitzmyer, Acts, 717.

[1323]. In some areas, Jewish Christians probably continued to face the conflict most directly (Keener, John, 194–228), but the analogy would extend to those falsely accused of disloyalty to society in general (cf. Acts 25:8). For irony in the historical Jesus’s own teachings, see Stein, Method and Message, 22–23.

[1324]. Cf. similarly Josephus, whose approach was practical (Spilsbury, “Josephus on Rise”); much of Diaspora Judaism (Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 397–98); and other Jewish sources as well (Moore, Judaism, 2:114). Both for Paul and for other Jews, however, such instructions were more a survival strategy than a political ideology (cf. Laub, “Gewalt”). Stoics of this period supported the social order (Erskine, Stoa, 181–210; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 73.1–2; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11i, pp. 78–79.7–11). Paul’s approach in Rom 13:1–7 might have prevented the Judean-Roman war had he (and others like him, cf. Abrahams, Studies [1], 64) been heeded (Haacker, Theology, 47–48). For submission to Israel’s authorities, see Neusner, “Approaches”; Urbach, Sages, 1:580.

[1325]. See, e.g., Ahiq. 100–108 (sayings 17–26); Isoc. Demon. 16; Diog. Laert. 1.70; 3.78; 8.1.23; 3 Macc 3:3–6; Jos. War 2.140; in later Christian sources, see Grant, Paul, 92 (citing 1 Clem. 60.4–61.2; Justin 1 Apol. 17.3; Athenag. Plea 27.3; Theoph. 1.11; Tert. Apol. 30.4); Gardner, Leadership, 155–86; cf. analogous apologetic for Isis’s cult in Apul. Metam. 11.17. Such submission was, naturally, qualified by the higher demands of God (Jos. Ant. 18.265–68; War 2.197; Ag. Ap. 2.76–77), and kings ought to answer to justice (Arrian Alex. 4.9.7–8); Stoics felt that disobedience to a ruler could still be obedience to what the ruler should have been (Mus. Ruf. 16, p. 102.14–16).

[1326]. The Sadducees may have insisted on the pre-Maccabean, Zadokite line (Baumbach, “Sadduzäerverständnis”; Lohse, Environment, 74; cf. Eisenman, Maccabees, 9; but contrast Manson, Servant-Messiah, 16); the authors of some Qumran texts (cf. CD IV, 1, 3; V, 5; 1QS V, 2, 9; 1QSa I, 2, 24; II, 3; 1QSb III, 22; 4Q163 22 3; 4Q174 1 I, 17; 4Q266 2 III, 19; 5 I, 16; perhaps 4Q522 9 II, 6) may have done the same.

[1327]. Even if he quotes the text in Hebrew, he would secure witnesses against himself.

[1328]. In Luke-Acts, see Luke 23:13, 35; 24:20; Acts 3:17; 4:5, 8, 26; 13:27; cf. also other officials, in Luke 8:41 (for a synagogue official); 12:58 (for a magistrate); 14:1 (leaders of the Pharisees); 18:18 (a wealthy person of prominent rank); Acts 14:5 (local leaders); 16:19 (local magistrates). The title could be granted to municipal leaders (Acts 4:8), though it belonged par excellence to the Messiah or to one who foreshadowed him (7:27, 35).

[1329]. On the defendant’s intention or motives, see, e.g., Hermog. Issues 67.6–8; on rabbinic kavanah, see Bonsirven, Judaism, 95; Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 272–94; Pawlikowski, “Pharisees.”

[1330]. Legal debates sometimes focused on whether to give priority to the letter or to the intent of the law (Hermog. Issues 40.6–19; 60.13–14; 80.4–13; 82.4–5, 13–18; 83.20; 86.4–5; 91.9–13; Heath, Hermogenes, 77; Cohen, Law, 39–42); extant rabbinic law tends to favor the letter (Cohen, Law, 50).

[1331]. In English, we distinguish between the recognition that involves mere sight and cognition, on the one hand, and the recognition that involves acknowledgment, on the other.

[1332]. Barrett, Acts, 1061–62.

[1333]. Longenecker, Acts, 327; Fitzmyer, Acts, 717; Arnold, “Acts,” 444; Horton, Acts, 365; Peterson, Acts, 614–15.

[1334]. Hemer, Acts in History, 171.

[1335]. Ramsay, Discovery, 90–91; Longenecker, Acts, 327; Bruce, Commentary, 451.

[1336]. See, e.g., 1 Sam 15:9 (though not clear in the LXX); Ezek 44:19; for other priests’ ephods (though undoubtedly less ornate), see 1 Sam 2:18, 28; 22:18. For a time, the Romans controlled the priestly vestments (Jos. Ant. 18.93), handing them over just before festivals (18.94). They had been restored to Jewish control (18.95), though nearly lost again (20.6–10). But from 18.94, it appears that the high priest would need these vestments only for his sacerdotal duties in the temple, not for political or legal discussions. In Num. Rab. 19:19, the high priest could be punished for leaving the Temple Mount in his priestly garments (cf. b. Yoma 23b; 32b; 60a; cf. 72b–73a).

[1337]. That he belonged to the priestly elite would likely follow from his honored seat (regardless of whether they were at the official site) and activity, but whether he was the chief priest, an office filled by new members of the elite regularly in this period, would be harder to say. Still, seating by rank was the standard convention (e.g., Luke 14:8–10; Xen. Cyr. 8.4.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 30.29; Lucian Z. Rants 7; Diog. Laert. 7.1.22; 1QS VII, 20; Smith, Symposium, 101, 136). Although it is possible that some members are not yet seated (though at least some must be, Acts 23:9; those standing in 23:2 are probably Levite police), the high priest appears to be (23:3).

[1338]. Conzelmann, Acts, 192. Papadopoulos, “Σαύλος,” suggests that Paul never recovered fully from the detached-retina blindness of the Damascus road experience.

↑ Back to top