1152 . Sherwin-White, Society , 51.

1152 . Sherwin-White, Society , 51.

1151. With Fitzmyer, Acts, 753. The phrases προάγω and ἐφ᾽ ὑμῶν appear in legal settings (Haenchen, Acts, 677), though, of course, not exclusively (see BDAG).

1152. Sherwin-White, Society, 51.

1153. Cf. O’Toole, Acts 26, 16.

1154. Cf. Agrippa’s role in ibid., 16. Because the charge is an internal Jewish affair, Paul addresses Agrippa (Acts 26:2, 19; with Dunn, Acts, 325).

1155. Mistreating legates, envoys, or messengers of any sort was reprehensible and merited punishment (e.g., Eurip. Heracl. 272; Xen. Anab. 5.7.18–19, 34; Polyb. 2.8.12; 20.10.10; 38.10.5; Diod. Sic. 36.15.1–2; 40.1.1; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.43.4; Val. Max. 6.6.3–4; Dio Chrys. Or. 76.5; Dio Cass. 19.61; Hdn. 6.4.6; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.35, 37). Mistreating a ruler’s agents was a grave insult to the ruler (Diod. Sic. 4.10.3–4; Jos. Ant. 8.220–21).

1156. See Keener, John, 956–61, 1030–35.

1157. With verbs of petitioning, περί can function as the equivalent of ὑπέρ, hence “on behalf of” (thus “speak for yourself” in most translations), but the term’s broader semantic range allows exploration of the “concerning” nuance as well (as the following speech, primarily narratio about Paul and his mission, illustrates).

1158. Porter, Paul in Acts, 151n1, resists imposing classical rhetorical categories on Paul’s defense speeches. Rhetorical genres were often mixed in practice (see, e.g., Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 307, 419).

1159. Aside from his private knowledge of the previous conspiracy presumably involving them (Acts 23:14–15), and the reasonable assumption that their insistence on relocating the trial venue (25:3) indicated continuing involvement. On this occasion, the chief priests are not present because Festus is inviting only Agrippa’s perspective. (It is not likely that many are out of the country, although some leading Jewish inhabitants of Caesarea had sailed to Rome to accuse Felix; Jos. Ant. 20.182.)

1160. Luke does not see a conflict between depending on the Spirit (Luke 12:11–12; 21:15) and using rhetorical and legal argumentation (see Kurz, Acts, 361–62). From an apologetic standpoint, it is notable that this king finds no political threat in Paul’s preaching of “another king” (Acts 17:7; cf. Luke 19:38; 23:2–3, 38), understanding the Jewish messianic doctrine.

1161. See Padilla, Speeches, 225.

1162. See Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 223–24; cf. Witherington, Acts, 735.

1163. O’Toole, Acts 26, 160, sees its principal aim as defending the Christian claim of resurrection in Christ.

1164. With ibid., 35.

1165. Ibid., 36.

1166. Perhaps, though not certainly, because of its outcome; see discussion of Paul’s possible second imprisonment at Acts 28:30–31.

1167. Cf. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.2, where Apollonius discusses philosophy more than he defends his life.

1168. Perhaps this is comparable to how the central event of Jesus’s resurrection remains fairly constant in the different evangelistic speeches (in Acts 2:24–32; 3:15; 13:30–37; 17:31; for the resurrection as the central summary, cf. 1:22; 4:33), as in other early Christian preaching (1 Cor 15:3–4). See Witherington, “Editing,” 335–44; idem, Acts, 309; further discussion at Acts 9:20, 23–25. As Witherington, Acts, 311, notes about the differences, “ancient historians were not nearly so concerned as we are today about minute details.”

1169. Hedrick, “Paul’s Conversion/Call,” 432 (arguing for more traditional material in Acts 9 and 22); cf. Humphrey, Voice, 97–99.

1170. Fitzmyer, Acts, 755, thinks that this passage presents Paul as a prophet through allusions to Ezek 2:1–6; Jer 1:8; Isa 35:5; 42:7; 61:1.

1171. Given the repetition of θεός in four cases in Acts 26:6–8, 18–22, Parsons, “Progymnasmata,” 58, identifies God as the subject of the speech (though, given Luke’s Christology, it would seem forced-choice logic to lay this theocentric reading against O’Toole’s christocentric reading). Cheng, Characterisation, 133, concludes that all seven of Paul’s Lukan speeches are fundamentally theocentric.

1172. For the significance of this claim for Lukan apologetic, see this commentary’s introduction, Keener, Acts, 1:449–56.

1173. Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 330–31; Witherington, Acts, 736.

1174. Presumably those within the narrative world, even Festus (cf. Acts 25:19), are aware that Jesus himself was executed on a treason charge, but Paul (who in Acts tends to emphasize the resurrection more anyway) is more prudent than to emphasize Jesus’s execution, which would require explanatory digression, in this speech.

1175. Johnson, Acts, 431, 440; Witherington, Acts, 736–37, both suggesting that this may be Paul’s “most elegant” speech in Acts. I find this sophistication even in the narratio. Bruce, Acts3, 66–67, finds Atticisms in Acts 26:2, 4, 5, 13, 26, 29 (though he notes [67n6] some “awkward constructions” in 26:3, 20). Witherington, Acts, 736–37, notes that Paul had more opportunity to prepare than for the speech in Acts 22. Of course, Acts 22 is meant to be translation Greek, not following the rules of Greek rhetoric; and even here (though Paul had had up to two years to prepare a case in general) Paul had at most a day’s advance notice of a hearing before Agrippa (25:22). On rhetoric in the defense speeches in general, see introduction to them in Keener, Acts, 3:3195–200, esp. 3199–200; also commentary on these speeches, passim.

1176. Bligh, Galatians, 99.

1177. Bruce, Acts1, 440; idem, Commentary, 488.

1178. With, e.g., Porter, Paul in Acts, 113; despite less flexible handbooks (cf. Carcopino, Life, 114–21).

1179. Quesnel, “Analyse rhétorique,” 173–74. Differently but plausibly, Parsons, Acts, 338, regards Acts 26:1–8 as the exordium, identifying elements characteristic of one (Quint. Inst. 4.1.6–11).

1180. Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 330.

1181. Aune, Environment, 126.

1182. So also Witherington, Acts, 737–38, though he points out that Luke also provides Paul with a refutatio (Acts 26:25–26) and peroratio (26:27, 29), despite interruptions (26:24, 28); whether they function thus in the narrative world, Luke can employ them with this function. Witherington rightly notes that the intended proofs are alluded to in the narratio and propositio and suggests (perhaps too specifically) that they appear in earlier speeches in Acts 22–25.

1183. E.g., Cic. Quinct. 3.11–9.33 (though this is briefer than the proofs, 11.37–27.85). Ideally a narratio was brief (e.g., Dion. Hal. Lysias 9), but Luke is writing narrative and focuses on the narrative element in speeches, perhaps abbreviating it less than other elements. Here, however, a lengthy narrative is necessary, since Paul’s case rests mainly on the divine commission he has received.

1184. O’Toole, Acts 26, 19–20, argues that the speech has features intended for Luke’s audience more than for Agrippa or Festus (he acknowledges traditional material, but presented from a Lukan perspective [156]).

1185. As in Quesnel, “Analyse rhétorique,” 173–74; or with Acts 26:21 as the refutatio, Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 330.

1186. See, e.g., Ap. Rhod. 1.344; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.541; see further comment on Acts 13:16. Hall, “Delivery,” 224, notes that speakers often began with dignified, gentle movement of the arm (Rhet. Her. 3.26), distinct from the more vigorous movement characterizing more emotional phases of the speech (3.27). Orators would emphasize points with an outstretched hand (including extended index and middle finger; Hurschmann, “Gestures,” 832; but Shiell, Reading Acts, 74–75, says that, for emphasis, the orator pointed toward the ground). Quintilian offers the most detailed extant survey of rhetorical gestures but probably preserves or refines broader practice (see Hall, “Delivery,” 226–27; idem, “Cicero and Quintilian”). A statue shows a Roman orator holding his toga or text with the left hand, keeping the right hand free for gestures (Shiell, Reading Acts, 41).

1187. With, e.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 209 (noting Apul. Metam. 2.21 and two statues). Bruce, Commentary, 488, envisions merely a salutation here (contrasting Acts 13:16; 21:40). But Shiell, Reading Acts, 153–54, is undoubtedly right in identifying the gesture with the beginning of a judicial speech’s exordium, a motion that he identifies (154) as pressing together the ends of the thumb and the middle finger, the other fingers spread out, while “moving the arm gently from right to left.”

1188. Rapske, Custody, 309; at 26:29, Padilla, Speeches, 210.

1189. The secular sense of μακάριος as “fortunate” (see at length sources in BDAG) reflects the high level of Greek here (Johnson, Acts, 431). Another sign of rhetorical elegance is “the classical use of the perfect ἥγημαι as a present” (Witherington, Acts, 737). Not flattery, Paul’s captatio connects with the message (Kurzinger, Apostelgeschichte, 90).

1190. Because one could gesture toward persons in the audience (Shiell, Reading Acts, 57–62), it is possible that Luke’s audience would envision Paul gesturing toward Agrippa, although this would need to be expressed in a particularly respectful manner.

1191. E.g., Isoc. Antid. 323; Cic. Quinct. 2.1; 30.92; Verr. 2.1.7.18; P.Ryl. 114.3–5 (from ca. 280 C.E.); see fuller comment at Acts 24:2, 10.

1192. O’Toole, Acts 26, 17 (with two talmudic references).

1193. Ibid. (with eight talmudic references), noting that if these refer to Agrippa, they corroborate his interest in the law.

1194. Ibid., 18.

1195. Cf. Porter, Paul in Acts, 159.

1196. E.g., Aeschines Embassy 44; Cic. Verr. 2.3.5.10; Mil. 2.4; Quinct. 1.5; Apul. Apol. 13; 91 (plus the praise for his patience in 35); see further comment on Acts 7:2.

1197. Conzelmann, Acts, 209–10; Witherington, Acts, 737. Perhaps this was just the right admixture for such an audience (in view of Luke 1:1–4, it is not the case that Luke can construct nothing more elegant).

1198. Both these sources are cited in BDAG; Bruce, Acts1, 441, both following Ramsay on the inscription (which is partly reconstructed, [βί]ωσιν). Bruce notes no other use before the sixth century C.E.

1199. Conzelmann, Acts, 210, compares Lucian Peregr. 8, which also engages apologetic biography. Luke employs ἄνωθεν as in Luke 1:3, his other use (quite different from Johannine usage).

1200. E.g., Malina and Neyrey, Portrait, 81. Commentators recognize the claim for Jerusalemite upbringing whether they agree with it (van Unnik, Tarsus, 46) or not (Haenchen, Acts, 682). The hypothesis that “this people” refers to Cilicia (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 315) is forced.

1201. E.g., Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 371.17–372.9; 2.3, 385.5–6; 2.11, 420.11, 18–21; Hermog. Issues 46.14–17.

1202. Apul. Apol. 5 (trans. Hunink, p. 29).

1203. Rhet. Her. 3.6.14. If someone lacked an illustrious heritage, the speaker could emphasize that virtues and education were what really showed a person’s value (as in Apul. De deo Socr. 174–75).

1204. On apologetic autobiography, see also Lyons, Autobiography; for an example, see Jos. Life 336–67.

1205. E.g., Isaeus Cleon. 31–32, §37; Lysias Or. 3.14, §97; see comments on Acts 10:39–42; 24:19.

1206. E.g., Fronto Ad am. 1.1; see further comment on Acts 24:14–17.

1207. E.g., Isaeus Cleon. 11.36; Lysias Or. 3.27, §98 (claiming more than two hundred witnesses, though it is doubtful that all testify).

1208. E.g., Aeschines Embassy 14; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 37. See also comment on Acts 26:26.

1209. Trans. H. N. Fowler, LCL, 1:119 (πολλοὶ μάρτυρες).

1210. Cic. Verr. 1.5.15; 2.1.40.103.

1211. E.g., Isaeus Pyrr. 40. Matters of public knowledge were grounds for citizen votes (Aeschines Tim. 77–78).

1212. In ore vostro; rhetoricians liked to recreate scenes before their audience’s eyes (e.g., Quint. Inst. 9.2.40; Theon. Progymn. 7.53–55; see discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:135).

1213. Sall. Sp. G. Cotta 4 (trans. J. C. Rolfe, LCL, 409, 411).

1214. Isaeus Astyph. 18 (trans. E. S. Forster, LCL, 337).

1215. Van Unnik, Tarsus, 46.

1216. Witherington, Acts, 740, emphasizes the aorist (attributing the present tense in Acts 23:6 only to Paul’s resurrection belief). For Dunn, Acts, 326, this text still counts Paul as a strict Pharisee. To the extent that Pharisees belonged to “associations” (as haberim; see comment on Acts 23:6), Paul could not have continued as one; but he regarded his beliefs as consistent with, and indeed the natural outgrowth of, the culturally open form of Pharisaism that he had learned (see Davies, Paul, passim). On Pharisaism, see comment on Acts 5:34–39.

1217. See Jos. Life 10, 12, 191, 197; Ant. 13.171, 293; 20.199; War 2.118, 122, 137, 142, 162; Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 123. It already designated philosophic schools (e.g., Epict. Diatr. 2.19.20), to which Josephus compared Jewish schools (Life 12).

1218. Gaventa, Acts, 341. For “religion,” cf. the outside perspective also in 4 Macc 5:7, 13.

1219. Roth, “Subject Matter of Exegesis”; Kugel and Greer, Interpretation, 79; but others demur (Meier, “Halaka”).

1220. Abegg, “Introduction to 4Q251.” Certainly the Pharisees were more lenient regarding capital sentences than Sadducees were.

1221. Men. Rhet. 1.3, 363.7 (ἀκριβέσι); 364.10–14 (ἀκριβῶς).

1222. Men. Rhet. 1.3, 360.12–13 (Russell and Wilson, 61; ἀκριβῶς).

1223. Jos. War 1.110; 2.162; Life 191; cf. Ant. 13.297. But different Jewish groups apparently debated appropriate degrees of strictness (in the rabbis, cf., e.g., Lieberman, “Light,” 396–400, though these examples need not oppose Qumran as he thinks).

1224. Emphasis on the promise was widespread in early Jewish Christianity—e.g., in Hebrews. Through unbelief, Israel failed to achieve the promise of rest (Heb 4:1), but those who believe and persevere will inherit the promises (6:12), related to the promise to Abraham (6:13) of blessing and multiplying (6:14), received through waiting (6:15). Waiting in faith is rewarded by God’s promise at his coming (10:36; 11:40), which even OT heroes did not yet receive (11:13, 39; probably related to resurrection, 11:35). God’s promise to Abraham and his promise of the Melchizedek priesthood are both confirmed by God swearing by himself (6:17–18).

1225. Ezek 37 portrays Israel’s restoration as resurrection; those who affirmed literal resurrection could connect the images (Sipre Deut. 306.28.3; y. Šeqal. 3:3; Exod. Rab. 48:4; cf. the Dura-Europos mural of Ezek 37:1–14, e.g., in Philonenko, “Ossements desséchés”).

1226. Cf. the “eternal hope” promised to Jacob through Isaac’s blessing in Jub. 31:32.

1227. After the initial enthusiasm for a completely realized eschatology (opposed by some, e.g., Morris, Judgment, 57–60), most scholars, including C. H. Dodd himself, moved toward the view that eschatology was inaugurated yet awaited a future consummation (see Cullmann, State, 87–88; Hunter, Predecessors, 147; Perrin, Kingdom, 58–78, esp. [on Dodd’s change] 67; Ladd, Theology, 59). For some realized eschatology in the OT prophets, see Morris, Apocalyptic, 63 (in contrast, he argues, with apocalyptists, on 67); at Qumran, see Sanders, Judaism, 368–70; Aune, Cultic Setting; in Egyptian eschatology, the nature of time may yield something analogous (Book of Dead Spell 17, part S-3 [p. 27]).

1228. Tannehill, Acts, 320. Western readers currently have the luxury of spiritualizing such hopes away more than do some other readers; Luke seems to accept both the spiritual and the political hope, albeit only the first for this age (happily for his apologetic; cf. Acts 17:7).

1229. Tannehill, Acts, 319; followed also by Peterson, Acts, 661.

1230. For Israel’s restoration, see, e.g., Isa 40:9–11; Jer 32:42–44; Ezek 37:21–28; Hos 11:9–11; 14:4–7; Amos 9:11–15. On one level Luke would see preliminary fulfillment in the Messiah’s first coming, but he also expected a fuller completion in the future (Acts 1:6–7; 3:19–21; the limitation of the “times of the Gentiles” in Luke 21:24).

1231. E.g., Rome (Polyb. 6.14.7; Val. Max. 2.3.9b; 6.3.4; Tac. Ann. 3.4; Suet. Jul. 13; Aug. 56.1; 57.2; 101.2; Tib. 3.2; cf. Rapske, “Citizenship,” 215, noting that it functioned as “a political and legal fiction”; Galsterer, “Tribus,” 912, noting it was rarely used outside Rome); Athens (Lysias Or. 23.2, §166; Aeschines Tim. 33; Ael. Arist. Panath. 382, in 314D) and Attica (Graf, “Eponymus,” 1166; about ten tribes); Corinth (Winter, Left Corinth, 190n19, notes ten tribes known from inscriptions); an estimated 118 tribes in India (Arrian Ind. 7.1); see further Smarczyk, “Phyle” (on Greek usage, starting among Ionians and Dorians but spreading [210]). Egypt had five “peoples” (Manetho Aeg. frg. 2.1). Alexander conquered twenty-two non-Greek nations and fourteen tribes of Greeks (Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 3.35), and Cyrus more tribes (Xen. Cyr. 1.1.5); Trajan’s rule over innumerable tribes (Dio Chrys. Or. 3.6) was equivalent to ruling the world (3.7). On the “tribes” in cities of the Greek East, see MacMullen, Social Relations, 131–32; cf. Philost. Vit. soph. 1.11.495.

1232. So Persia in Xen. Cyr. 1.2.5; cf. its “twelve nations” in Quint. Curt. 3.3.13; cf. also the league of twelve Etruscan cities (Eder, “Cities”).

1233. As in, e.g., Exod 24:4; 39:14; Deut 1:23; Josh 3:12; 4:4–5; Ezra 6:17; Ezek 47:13; Sir 44:23; Sib. Or. 3.249; 1QM II, 2–3; Philo Sobr. 66; Prelim. St. 168; Flight 185; Mos. 1.189, 221, 306; 2.160, 175, 178; Spec. Laws 1.79; 2.161; Rewards 57; 2 Bar. 77:2; 78:4; 84:3; Test. Naph. 5:8; Gen. Rab. 68:11; 70:18. Awareness of the phrase continues much later (e.g., Qur’an 5.12; 7.160). Many scholars think that the phrase in Jas 1:1 refers to the church (Ropes, James, 118–19; Moffatt, General Epistles, 6; Dibelius, James, 66; Laws, James, 47–48; Kee, Origins, 149; Sloyan, “James,” 29; Barth, People of God, 14; Davids, James, 63; tentatively, Sidebottom, James, 26); others think that it applies to messianic Jews (Martin, James, 9) or to Diaspora Jews more generally (Mayor, James, 29–30). (It is possible that James addressed a primarily Jewish audience but the edited letter was circulated and applied more widely.) The same division of opinion occurs at Rev 7:4–8, with many viewing the tribes as all Christians (Schlier, Principalities, 70; Barth, People of God, 14; Mounce, Revelation, 168–70; Johnson, Revelation, 85; Bauckham, Climax, 215–16, 399; Keener, Revelation, 230–22) and others only as ethnically Jewish followers of Jesus (González and González, Revelation, 55; Geyser, “Tribes”; Tenney, Revelation, 78; Walvoord, Revelation, 143).

1234. E.g. Test. Benj. 9:2 (though preceding a clear Christian interpolation); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:9; Jeremias, Theology, 235; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 96–97; Wright, Paul, 139–63. Speculations on the current location of the “lost” tribes varied (4 Ezra 13:40–43; Gen. Rab. 73:6; Pesiq. Rab. 31:10). Some rabbis affirmed the ten tribes’ wickedness (Gen. Rab. 28:5) and doubted that they would return (m. Sanh. 10:5) or be saved (t. Sanh. 13:12; a minority view in b. Sanh. 110b, bar.). For Israel’s eschatological regathering, see, e.g., Bar 4:37; 5:5; 2 Macc 2:18; Tob 13:6; Pss. Sol. 8:28; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 5:3; Gen. Rab. 98:9.

1235. In BDAG, cf. Hdt. 5.66.2; Sib. Or. 2.171. The only occurrence in the Apostolic Fathers is 1 Clem. 55.6, but BDAG compares the adjective in G. Jms. 1:3. The idea, of course, is common (e.g., among Christians, Jas 1:1; Rev 21:12; 1 Clem. 31.4; 43.2; Barn. 8.3; Herm. 94.1–2).

1236. Paul’s letters also use it in the cultic sense in Rom 1:25; Phil 3:3 (cf. 2 Tim 1:3) and for Paul (Rom 1:9; cf. 2 Tim 1:3); also the noun cognate for Israel’s (Rom 9:4) and the church’s (12:1) worship. It stands for worship frequently in its many LXX uses. Rhetorically, “God” is emphasized in Acts 26:6–8, 18–22 (Parsons, “Progymnasmata,” 58; idem, Acts, 339).

1237. Cf. Neh 1:6; Esth 4:16; Pss 22:2 (21:3 LXX); 77:2 (76:3); 87:2 LXX; Jdt 11:17; 2 Macc 13:10; 2 Tim 1:3; contrast Jer 16:13; Rev 14:11.

1238. “Night and day” often indicates zeal (e.g., Ps 1:2; Men. Rhet. 2.3, 384.29–30).

1239. The repetition of the noun after the cognate verb ἐλπίζει resembles διλογία, in which a word not strictly necessary is repeated for clarity (Anderson, Glossary, 37). The repetition, found in some translations (e.g., NRSV; NASB), of “promise” in Acts 26:6–7, however, is the translators’ addition for clarity, not Luke’s.

1240. E.g., Aeschines Tim. 1–2; similarly, a prosecutor could call all who love the senate to hate the defendant (Rhet. Her. 4.35.47). Not only Agrippa but the Gentile Romans present would regard love of country as a very high virtue (e.g., Val. Max. 2.2.1a).

1241. So Rhet. Alex. 7, 1428a.26–30.

1242. Whether temporary, like the Stoics (Klauck, Context, 358; cf. Sen. Y. Dial. 11.9.3; 12.11.7; Ep. Lucil. 57.9), or permanent, like the Platonists (e.g., Plato Phaedo 64CE; Max. Tyre 10.5; Porph. Marc. 12.212–15; Philo Creation 135). See, e.g., brief discussion in Keener, Corinthians, 177–78.

1243. Unbelief (or unfaithfulness) was a moral failing (Luke 12:46), sometimes corporate (9:41). Luke, like some other early Christian writers, may understand unbelief as a moral failing in the face of contrary evidence, though “ignorance” (Acts 3:17; 17:23; this could include being uninformed and, further, being enmeshed in the corporate sin of alternative cultural plausibility structures) may reduce the degree of culpability vis-à-vis those who most should have known better.

1244. BDAG cites Bacchylides Carmina 17.117; Xen. Cyr. 3.1.26; Plato Theag. 130; Corp. herm. 9.10; Let. Aris. 296; Philo Creation 114 (and passim); Jos. Ant. 6.198; Justin Dial. 73.5–6; Athenag. Plea 30.3; and, as a closer parallel to the language here, Jos. Ant. 18.76.

1245. See, e.g., Hermog. Inv. 3.5.142. Classical rhetorical handbooks favored probability over direct evidence, though later orators used personality, motivation, and hard evidence as a basis for probability more than did earlier rhetoricians (Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 20–21).

1246. Cook, Interpretation, 55–58, esp. 59–61, notes that Celsus (esp. in Origen Cels. 3.22, 42, on p. 58) attacks as impossible the notion of resurrection from a Hellenistic perspective (comparing the apotheosis of Greek heroes). But (59–61) Celsus relied especially on the philosophic argument (see also comment on Acts 17:18).

1247. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 9, 1430a.14–21, 26–27; Hermog. Inv. 3.5.142–43, 146; 3.15.167; 4.14.211. See further Anderson, Glossary, 37. For one example (the improbability of a release having been by lower, unauthorized officials), see Pliny Ep. 10.31.4.

1248. For the method, see later Hermog. Issues 46.4–8.

1249. Trans. E. S. Forster, LCL, 18–19. Isaeus offers other arguments from probability (e.g., Cleon. 12.36; Astyph. 14–15; Pyrr. 27).

1250. Josephus challenges an account’s probability on the basis of intrinsic inconsistencies (Ag. Ap. 1.267, 286; 2.8–27, 148).

1251. Here he asks how he, rather than Justus, could have caused the problem.

1252. E.g., Polyb. 3.20.1–5; 3.47.6; 3.48.7–9; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.35.5–6; Plut. Themist. 25.1–2; 27.1. Also religious novelists (Philost. Hrk. 48.13; Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, lxiv).

1253. So Pliny E. N.H. 25.5.13–14.

1254. Hermog. Progymn. 5, “On Refutation and Confirmation,” 11; Inv. 4.12.202; Aphth. Progymn. 5, “On Refutation,” 27–28S, 10R; Nicolaus Progymn. 6, “On Refutation and Confirmation,” 30.

1255. Cf. Aphth. Progymn. 7, “On Commonplace,” 35S, 20R; Nicolaus Progymn. 7, “On Commonplace,” 44.

1256. E.g., Thucyd. 2.35.2–3 (on war exploits recounted at the funeral, when epideictic license was expected).

1257. Cf. also Hermog. Inv. 4.12.202–3 (offering the example of Hom. Od. 9.481). What seems too improbable is saved for the end (Rhet. Alex. 30, 1438b.4–10), as in Acts 17:31; but because Paul’s hearers will already be aware of his view (and his defense is based on his affirming this particular view), he introduces it earlier here.

1258. So Lucian Hermot. 75.

1259. Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.27 would have objected that not even God could raise the dead, but this is a less powerful conception of God than in Judaism. Various deities proved unable to raise their beloved ones (e.g., Ovid Metam. 2.617–18; 4.247–49), though mythology paradoxically granted this power to others, such as Asclepius.

1260. Anderson, Glossary, 14.

1261. See Luke 1:37; Mark 10:27; Matt 19:26. See similar ideas in Callim. frg. 586; Iambl. V.P. 28.139, 148; cf. Philo Mos. 1.174; on Wisdom, Wis 7:27. For nothing being impossible to God except what violates his character by lying, see, e.g., 1 Clem. 27.2 (cf. Hermog. Issues 33).

1262. See Heath, “Invention,” 91; fuller comment at Acts 15:13–21.

1263. Rhet. Alex. 15, 1431b.37–41 (trans. H. Rackham, LCL, 345). Many philosophers recommended dwelling more on positive memories of the past (Sorabji, Emotion, 231), but some also found valuable use for unpleasant memories in context (233).

1264. Cf. the rhetorical use of headings or summaries to introduce or conclude topics (cf. Isaeus Cleon. 48; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b2, pp. 14–15.24; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.3.3).

1265. Note here Schnabel, Acts, 1005. If δεῖ suggests a divine passive, as elsewhere in Luke-Acts, it here belongs to Paul’s former, mistaken notion of God’s will (see Kurz, Acts, 357).

1266. Luke (and the NT) elsewhere uses the verb only for Antipas (Agrippa’s relative) imprisoning John (Luke 3:20); it applies to chains (3 Macc 3:25) but especially to confinement (Jer 32:3; 2 Macc 13:21; Jos. War 4.327; OGIS 669.17; BDAG).

1267. For John (Luke 3:20), all believers (21:12), the apostles (Acts 5:19–25), Peter (12:4–10, 17), and Paul himself (16:23–40). The apostles, Peter, and Paul are released.

1268. Perhaps an ancient auditor would imagine a gesture of abhorrence (turning away the face; on the gesture, Shiell, Reading Acts, 76–77) or, less likely here, of memory (plucking the ear, cf. Sen. Y. Dial. 7.10.3). The text, however, gives us no clear guidance to this extent.

1269. Perhaps because they expected eschatological events there (cf. Dan 7:18, 21–22, 25, 27). On Luke’s usual application to those in Judea, see Trebilco, “Self-Designations,” 45–49.

1270. Contrast Jesus’s gift of authority for benevolent activity (Luke 9:1; 10:19; cf. Acts 8:19) and promise of future authority (Luke 19:17).

1271. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 742 (following Keener, Background Commentary, 399). Of course, although this argument works rhetorically, it is “high priests” more generally, not the specific ones now accusing him (who probably were not the same leaders who commissioned him), who were complicit. Catchpole, Trial, 250, thinks that Acts 26:10 attests the Sanhedrin’s authority to pass capital sentences but (against Winter) not to execute them without Roman approval; although this might be true, the present text indicates people (or, if a generalizing plural for Stephen, a person) being executed.

1272. Luke employs the verb ἀναιρέω especially for Jesus (Luke 22:2; 23:32; Acts 2:23; 10:39; 13:28) and Paul (Acts 9:23–24, 29; 23:15, 21, 27; 25:3); also for the apostles (5:33), including James (12:2). But Stephen (22:20) is the most relevant example here.

1273. Roman law did not regard mere advice or exhortation as creating liability; a request or an order to act illegally would be liable (Robinson, Criminal Law, 19–20). Most of those originally involved would now be deceased or could claim ignorance of the illegal part of Paul’s activity. Conversely, involvement in such activity could be viewed as the forerunner of the current assassins (Acts 23:12–14). By implying the involvement in subversive activity of members of the elite (an implication borne out in some cases in Josephus), Paul could have offered the rhetorical strategy of pleading for the opposite of what the state’s enemies would want (Hermog. Inv. 1.1.100).

1274. E.g., Libanius Declam. 36.42; 44.50–52, 61.

1275. If we construe “casting pebbles” literally, a majority approved of condemnation (Romans counted a tie vote as acquittal, Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.64.6).

1276. I have used material here in Keener, “Vote.”

1277. Paul’s letters mention persecution but not execution, even in 1 Thess 2:15. One cannot argue from silence that no one or few were executed, but neither need one press the plural so as to be certain that it happened on multiple (still less, many) occasions. For a literal plural, see Peterson, Acts, 663–64; for its being rhetorical, see Marshall, Acts, 393.

1278. E.g., Blaiklock, Acts, 86; Rapske, Custody, 103; LaSor, Knew, 91–92; cf. Talbert, Acts, 193, who allows the possibility that Luke portrays Paul thus in Acts 22:5; Pervo, Acts, 630, thinking that Luke so portrays him (absurdly) here. Others rightly demur (e.g., Witherington, Acts, 742; Bock, Acts, 715; Lenski, Acts, 1033).

1279. Rapske, Custody, 103, notes that many Pharisaic members were scribes (following Jeremias, Jerusalem, 236) and that only the wealthiest of the Pharisees, now moving into the bourgeoisie, would be admitted (citing Jos. War 2.411). See discussion on Paul’s family background at Acts 22:3 (esp. Keener, Acts, 3:3217).

1280. Though Libanius Anecdote 3.13 might allow it for the educated, elders were more respected (cf. Aeschines Ctes. 4; Tim. 23, 25; 1 Tim 4:12); classical Athenians disallowed men below age thirty from sitting on the council (Xen. Mem. 1.2.35). See fuller discussion at Acts 7:58.

1281. The rule (b. Sanh. 36b) dates from after Jerusalem’s destruction (Longenecker, Ministry and Message, 23–24), but it probably reflects mainstream Jewish expectations for leaders (see the excursus “Why Mention Their Virginity?” in Keener, Acts, 3:3094–102, here 3100). Many in antiquity considered ruling a family an important qualification for demonstrating ability to rule a city or others; Isoc. Nic. 41 (Or. 3.35); Ad Nic. 19; Demon. 35; Sen. Y. Ben. 4.27.5; cf. Plut. Dinner 12, Mor. 155D; Marc. Aur. Med. 1.16.4; Verner, Household, 152; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 99n21.

1282. Rapske, Custody, 102–3. The term ψῆφος usually applied to a voting pebble but came into “rabbinic literature as a loan word for a voting tablet or verdict” (Le Cornu, Acts, 1397, rightly noting Jastrow, Dictionary, 1196, on Lam. Rab. 2:1, §3). For metonymy, see, e.g., Rhet. Her. 4.32.43; Anderson, Glossary, 77 (citing Quint. Inst. 8.6.23–27 and other sources); Rowe, “Style,” 126; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 578; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 85; Caird, Language, 136–37; Mickelsen, Interpreting, 186.

1283. E.g., Iambl. V.P. 35.260. White pebbles were used for acquittal, black ones for condemnation (Plut. Alc. 22.2; cf. Hemer, Letters, 97; Ford, Revelation, 399; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 88); potsherds could be used to ostracize (Corn. Nep. 2 [Themistocles], 8.1; 5 [Cimon], 3.1). The traditional Roman oath was to hold a stone while swearing that the violator should be cast away like the stone, then hurling away the stone (Polyb. 3.25.7–9).

1284. E.g., a hollow disk for conviction and a solid-stem one for acquittal (Aeschines Tim. 79).

1285. Some scholars thus allow its application to “unofficial action” (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 317; Bruce, Acts1, 443) or a figurative sense (Witherington, Acts, 742), such as siding with those so voting (Fitzmyer, Acts, 758). Cognates shifted accordingly; despite its etymology, ψήφισμα usually applied to a decree (Rhodes, “Psephisma,” 110).

1286. Johnson, Acts, 434 (suggesting that the phrase could be used to emphasize the Sanhedrin’s responsibility and Paul as their agent).

1287. E.g., ψῆφος in Xen. Symp. 5.8 (in a jest); figuratively cooperating (he uses συμψήφους, which has a broader semantic range [LSJ]) with God’s decree in Mus. Ruf. frg. 38, p. 136.4–5; an analogy in Max. Tyre 16.3–4; evaluating truth in 33.1; Libanius Encomium 3.19; Speech in Character 6.1; 23.7. This usage probably retained a figurative element instead of becoming a standard part of the term’s meaning; the term continued to mean voting (for its literal usage, see, e.g., Rhodes, “Katacheirotonia”).

1288. Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 1, 1D; Libanius Invective 6.1; Symm. Ep. 1.96.

1289. When deciding whether to publish a speech, one could ask a friend to cast his vote (calculam [pebble], Pliny Ep. 1.2.5).

1290. With Johnson, Acts, 434.

1291. For the idiom, BDAG adds Philo Unchangeable 75; Jos. Ant. 2.163; 10.60.

1292. Witherington, Acts, 742. Admittedly, Luke is not particularly fond of wordplays (unlike John); their occasional use might, however, suit the elevated rhetoric of this speech. (Elevated rhetoric avoided excessive puns, however; Anderson, Glossary, 93, 127; esp. idem, Rhetorical Theory, 283–85; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 108.12.)

1293. E.g., Rhet. Her. 4.21.29–4.22.31; Suet. Jul. 50.2; Lucian True Story 2.20; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.35; Jub. 26:30; cf. Rowe, “Style,” 132; homonyms in Porph. Ar. Cat. 61.10–68.3. On the word “head,” see, e.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.3.3; CD VIII, 10–11; 1 Cor 11:3.

1294. Herodes, Cercidas, and the Greek Choliambic Poets (trans. A. D. Knox, LCL, 60–61 [ψηφῖδι]).

1295. Lucian Fisherman 11 (trans. A. M. Harmon, LCL, 3:19).

1296. If later sources are accurate, a person would be bound to a post and beaten, presumably outside the synagogue proper (m. Mak. 3:12; or lying on the ground, Sipre Deut. 286.4.1). There—if later records, again, reflect earlier procedure (or if there was a single, universally observed procedure)—a servant of the synagogue would stand on a stone behind the condemned person and strike with multiple straps of animal hide (m. Mak. 3:12) as hard as possible, one-third on the chest and two-thirds on the shoulder (m. Mak. 3:13; Sipre Deut. 286.5.1).

1297. Matthew adapts the language to parallel Jesus’s experience (Matt 20:19, using μαστιγῶσαι) but probably appreciates this particular parallel because it belongs to the experience of his community. Warning of beatings in the synagogue likely derives from the earliest stratum of gospel tradition, when (or before) disciples remained in submission to the discipline of their synagogue communities (Anderson, Mark, 293). This is the period when the Jesus tradition would have been transmitted most reliably (Keener, Matthew, 322–23). Cf. also John 16:2.

1298. Fitzmyer, Acts, 758, also suggests synagogue floggings like Paul’s own.

1299. Ezek 5:17; 14:15; 4 Macc 9:24; 12:18; 17:21; 18:5; Wis 12:20; 18:8.

1300. See comment on Acts 6:11; cf. Brown, Death, 522–23. There were other ways to “profane” God’s name (e.g., y. Taʿan. 3:10, §1).

1301. Paul’s attempt to “compel” (ἠνάγκαζον, 26:11) them might contrast with the compulsion of evangelism (Luke 14:23; cf. Paul himself being compelled to appeal in Acts 28:19); Paul applies the term to “Judaizing” in Gal 2:3, 14; 6:12. Stoics, with their emphasis on freedom, despised such compelling or being compelled (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11g, pp. 72–73.26).

1302. D. Williams, Acts, 417 (arguing that the imperfect suggests repeated attempts). Conzelmann, Acts, 210, prefers a descriptive imperfect rather than a conative imperfect (“tried to make them blaspheme”) but notes, “Nothing is said about the results of this effort” (cf. also Bruce, Acts1, 443, comparing the imperfect συνήλλασσεν in Acts 7:26; Horton, Acts, 387).

1303. Philo chooses words carefully lest he be compelled to utter what would appear blasphemous (Embassy 141). But usually the activity of “compulsion” was successful (e.g., 1 Esd 4:6; Jdt 8:30; Philo Embassy 61).

1304. Josephus here exploits Stoic ideals of freedom to follow reason (e.g., Mus. Ruf. 16, p. 106.6–8, esp. 8; see further Keener, John, 750–51).

1305. So also Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 317; Conzelmann, Acts, 210.

1306. That is, for rhetorical effect. On the possibility of generalizing plurals in some sense, see Wallace, Grammar, 402–6.

1307. Although the thought of Acts 26:12 fits the preceding context, I have kept it with 26:13 to avoid dividing the sentence; it provides the setting for what follows.

1308. Rome accepted Josephus when he switched sides against its enemies; Paul now appears more pro-Roman than the priests.

1309. In contrast to OT usage, the NT (e.g., Mark 2:26; 14:55; 15:11; Acts 5:24; 23:14; 25:15; cf. 4:6), other early Christian texts (e.g., the agraphon in Jeremias, Sayings, 51), Josephus (e.g., War 2.243, 316, 318, 320, 322, 336, 342, 410–11; 4.314), and probably the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QM II, 1) apply “high priests” in the plural to the members or leaders of the priestly aristocracy, not to the chief priest alone (see Stern, “Aspects,” 601, 603; Reicke, Era, 147–48; Feldman in Josephus, LCL, 10:157). The rapid transition of officeholders under the Romans may have rendered the usage more fluid as well.

1310. For the shaliach acting on the sender’s authority, see, e.g., m. Ber. 5:5; t. Taʿan. 3:2; b. Naz. 12b; y. Giṭ. 1:1, §1. This commissioned authority was effective even when the shaliach’s status was low (b. Ketub. 99b–100a) or even when the shaliach was a slave (b. Giṭ. 23a; cf. y. Giṭ. 2:6, §1). This was also true for other envoys or messengers in the ancient Mediterranean world (Diod. Sic. 40.1.1; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.88.2; 2 Macc 1:20; Jos. Life 65, 72–73, 196–98; Ant. 18.1, 265).

1311. See Keener, John, 310–11, and sources there (including in ancient Israel, Prov 10:26; 13:17; 22:21; 25:13; 26:6; cf. 2 Macc 1:18).

1312. Tyrants were often ready, however, to dispose of those who carried out their crimes (e.g., Tac. Ann. 14.62, albeit without his execution).

1313. Gaventa, Acts, 342, rightly.

1314. O’Toole, Acts 26, 57, cites Philo QG 4.1 (on Gen 18:1–2); cf. Abr. 119.

1315. Ellens, Light, 109–10, suggests the possibility of something like a sunstroke, albeit not from a skeptical perspective (he believes that Paul encountered God through it).

1316. So also Haenchen, Acts, 685.

1317. Everyone recognized that the sun was brighter than anything natural (e.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 2.8.580). For revelations like the sun, see 1 En. 14:18, 20; 2 En. 1:5; Rev 1:16; probably Christian material in Test. Levi 18:4.

1318. Cf. the Pythagorean claim that respectable women went out at midday, i.e., when nothing was hidden (Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 105, §107).

1319. Also, e.g., Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 4.2.18; Dio Chrys. Or. 35.23–24; for plants, cf. Philost. Hrk. 3.2.

1320. Aeschylus Seven 430–31.

1321. E.g., to boxers (Cic. Brut. 69.243; cf. Philost. Hrk. 15.6). Virgil reportedly died from sunstroke (Suet. Vergil 35).

1322. E.g., Gen 18:1; Jos. Asen. 3:2/3; Alciph. Farm. 9 (Pratinas to Epigonus), 3.12, ¶1.

1323. E.g., Suet. Claud. 34.2.

1324. E.g., Catull. Carm. 32.10; Test. Ab. 5:2 A; probably also in Dio Chrys. Or. 1.29.

1325. E.g., Sil. It. 13.637–38; Plut. Themist. 30.1; Suet. Aug. 78.1; Vesp. 21; Vit. Aes. 6; Heliod. Eth. 4.8; Philost. Hrk. 11.7; 16.3; Pliny Ep. 1.3.1; 7.4.4; 9.36.5 (though Pliny omitted his during the winter, when nights were longer, 9.40.2).

1326. E.g., Thucyd. 6.100.1; Polyb. 9.17.3; perhaps Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.13; Dio Chrys. Or. 36.15; cf. 2 Kgs 20:16–18 (feasting unprepared at midday). Also because of midday exhaustion from thirst and heat (Jos. Ant. 18.365); cf. some trained to endure the heat of the midday sun (Lucian Anach. 25).

1327. Yamauchi, Stones, 113.

1328. The use of καταπίπτω is unique to Luke in the NT (Luke 8:6; Acts 28:6), though it occurs in the later LXX (Neh 8:11; Ps 144:14 [145:14 ET]; 3 Macc 2:20; Wis 7:3; 13:16; 17:15); none of these uses is close in sense here, but compare another response to an encounter with the heavenly host in 4 Macc 4:11 (perhaps from the first century C.E.).

1329. E.g., Tob 12:16; 1 En. 14:13–14; 60:3; 71:2, 11; 2 En. 21:2; 22:4; 4 Ezra 4:12; 10:30; Jos. Asen. 14:10–11; Test. Job 3:4/5; Apoc. Zeph. 6:9–10; Rev 1:17. Cf. fear in Gen 15:12; 1 En. 89:30–31; 102:1; Ach. Tat. 1.3.4–5.

1330. E.g., 2 Chr 20:18; 29:30; 1 Esd 9:47; Jdt 6:18; 9:1; 1 Macc 4:40, 55; 3 Macc 5:50–51; Sir 50:21; Sib. Or. 3.716, 725; L.A.B. 4:5; Test. Ab. 20:12 A; 4:4 B.

1331. E.g., John 18:6; cf. 1 Sam 4:18. This may be a response to the divine name (Artapanus in Euseb. P.E. 9.27.24–26; Sipra Sh. M.D. 99.5.12); Talbert, John, 233, adds later traditions in which priests fell on their faces when hearing the divine name (b. Qidd. 71a; Eccl. Rab. 3:11, §3).

1332. For example, Acts 26:15 is the same as 9:5 and 22:8 (except that 22:8 adds “the Nazarene”).

1333. Conzelmann, Acts, 210; on this as the Aramaic (and not Hebrew) form, see Bruce, Acts1, 444.

1334. Johnson, Acts, 435.

1335. Witherington, Acts, 743, thinks that Agrippa and Berenice would understand. They probably had learned some Aramaic but, having grown up in Rome, should not be supposed fluent in it; Paul would hardly quote the saying in Aramaic, then add a Greek proverb to contextualize. One might speak in Hebrew to prevent outsiders from understanding (4 Macc 16:15; the speech in 16:16–23 is given only in Greek), but Paul lacks any such motive here.

1336. E.g., b. Ber. 40b; B. Qam. 83a (distinguished from both Aramaic and Greek); Meg. 17b; Gen. Rab. 18:4; 74:13.

1337. See Abegg, “Hebrew Language.”

1338. Y. Meg. 1:9, §2. But some rabbis thought that even secular matters could be spoken in the holy language (b. Šabb. 41a).

1339. E.g., fourth-century teachers in Gen. Rab. 18:4; 31:8.

1340. Y. Meg. 1:9, §1.

1341. B. Sanh. 38b.

1342. B. Ber. 13a, bar.

1343. Gen. Rab. 74:14 (R. Samuel bar Nahman, third-century Palestinian rabbi).

1344. Some thought that God exiled Israel to Babylonia because the language was similar to that of Torah (b. Pesaḥ. 87b). Others (probably later) welcomed the law in any language, or at least in Greek (Deut. Rab. 1:1).

1345. Gen. Rab. 52:5. In rabbinic polemic, angels did not understand even Aramaic (Yahalom, “Angels,” citing b. Soṭah 33a; b. Šabb. 12b).

1346. E.g., b. Soṭah 33a; Song Rab. 8:9, §3. God addressed the Israelites in Egyptian because this was their language in Egypt (Esth. Rab. 4:12, attributed to a fourth-century source). Le Cornu, Acts, 1399, argues that most examples of the bat qol are in Hebrew, even when in Aramaic contexts, so that those who heard it in Aramaic (t. Soṭah 13:6) were on a lesser level.

1347. For the latter suggestion, see O’Toole, Acts 26, 47.

1348. Because the Greek proverb emphasizes future conduct, some apply it to the futility of Paul’s future resistance (Fitzmyer, Acts, 759); “from now on you will have no discharge” from Christ’s service (Munck, Salvation, 20; cf. idem, Acts, 242). This proposal may, however, import too much of the proverb’s usual application into a context that applies it differently. Paul’s current activity is futile, and so sooner or later he must submit to his owner (Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 189).

1349. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 188–89; Munck, Acts, 48–49; Renehan, “Quotations,” 22; Conzelmann, Acts, 210–11; Witherington, Acts, 743; Fitzmyer, Acts, 758; Barrett, Acts, 1158; Talbert, Acts, 207; Gilbert, “Acts,” 248.

1350. Luke does use σκληροτράχηλος (Acts 7:51) and σκληρύνω (19:9) for hard hearts. Here the sense is “difficult” because it is “unpleasant”; cf. BDAG. Σκληρός can also mean “harsh” (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 32.26; BDAG, s.v. σκληρός, 2, 4).

1351. Scholars cite Pindar Pyth. 2.94–95 (the earliest reference, with the singular); frg. Iambi adesp. 13 Diehl; Aeschylus Prom. 323–25; Ag. 1624; Julian Ap. Or. 8.246B (where it is a παροιμία, or “proverb”); in Latin, Terence Phorm. 1.2.27–28; Plaut. Truc. 4.741; cf. the divine goad against a temple robber in Quint. Decl. 325.9. BDAG also lists additional sources (including an inscription from Asia Minor published in 1887).

1352. Similar references elsewhere in Euripides appear (scholars cite Iph. Taur. 1396; Peliades frg. 604 Nauck, from Stob. 3.3.22; LCL compares Pindar Pyth. 2.94–96, Aeschylus Ag. 1624, Eurip. Bacch. 794–95).

1353. Renehan, “Quotations,” 22–23 (comparing also Eurip. Iph. Aul. 1408 if genuine); most recently, MacDonald, “Poetry,” 480–81. By itself, the term and its cognates could apply to deities battling each other (as in Proclus Poet. 6, bk. 1, K149.5).

1354. Besides Acts 5:39, Luke may also likely evoke Euripides in Luke 4:23 (see Nolland, “Parallels to ‘Physician,’” even more persuasively than he claims); on Acts 5–12, see Lang, Kunst, 201–50. Euripides was a common part of the core curriculum in antiquity (Hock, “Paul and Education,” 203; Jeffers, World, 254); Dio recommends him most highly among tragedians (Or. 18.6; some will complain that he is too basic, but really he is most useful, 18.7). Although Luke’s internal literary connection with Acts 5:39 suggests his own deliberate allusion, Paul himself might employ Euripidean language (see Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 260–63; Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 232–34, 242; Bryan, Preface, 143–44; cf. Renehan, “Quotations,” 24–26; Bendemann, “Diastase”; but contrast Jewett, Romans, 463). If Luke and/or Paul knew Euripides, it might be in written rather than acted form; most theater performances were consecrated to local deities and available inexpensively at their festivals (Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 153); R. Levi regarded attendance as sinful, perhaps for moral reasons (Gen. Rab. 67:3). On quotations, see comment on Acts 17:28.

1355. See Malherbe, Social Aspects, 42; idem, Moral Exhortation, 115. Euripides was one of the most excerpted poets in gnomologies at the primary level (Padilla, “Παιδεία,” 430), and the play was widely known (cf. Schäfer, “Funktion,” arguing for Luke’s interpretive use of the allusions).

1356. Heath, Hermogenes, 13–14; quotation, 14. Paul is not developing a moral essay around the saying, but the educated Agrippa inside the narrative world and Theophilus outside it may have caught the allusion.

1357. Longenecker, Paul, 100; Witherington, Acts, 311, 743n487.

1358. Munck, Salvation, 20 (also citing Jer 20:7); Fitzmyer, Acts, 759.

1359. Redford, “Contextualization,” 291–92, treats such adaptation as a model for contextualization.

1360. Jos. Life 359. Hellenism was even more dominant with Agrippa’s ancestor Herod I, although not every example attributed to him is clear (see, e.g., the debate in Jacobson, “Colors”; Brenner, “True to Form”).

1361. With Conzelmann, Acts, 211; Longenecker, Acts, 348; idem, Paul, 99; idem, Ministry and Message, 32. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 85, associates “kicking against the goads” with rage against a deity, and hence with madness, in Eurip. Bacch. 795, and thus views it as appropriate to prepare for Acts 26:24; but in 26:24, Paul is considered mad in his converted rather than preconverted state.

1362. For this term’s use for “kicking,” see further BDAG.

1363. The LXX uses κέντρον for a bee sting (4 Macc 14:19); more relevantly, for discipline to make a horse move (Prov 26:3; see also Pss. Sol. 16:4) or to motivate an ox with a plow (Sir 38:25). For the semantic range, see also Thiselton, Corinthians, 1300; esp. BDAG.

1364. Johnson, Acts, 435. It has a long history; nineteenth-century Palestinian peasants used a goad that “was a strong pole, eight or ten feet long, with a pointed prick” to strike the oxen (Abbott, Acts, 110; cf. Judg 3:31). Mesopotamians also knew something like goads for horses (Gilg. 6.46ff. [ANET 84]). Oxen were “prodded to pull steadily or to make a straight furrow” (Dunn, Acts, 328).

1365. Val. Max. 9.3.2 (stimuli); but Sen. Y. Dial. 5.2.1 is not relevant.

1366. Val. Max. 9.11.3 (stimulis); cf. Philo Decal. 87 (though not using the same term); perhaps verbal encouragement in Pliny Ep. 1.8.1; 3.7.15; calcar as a stimulus in Symm. Ep. 1.62 (though it might be already a dead metaphor). Dunn, Acts, 328, doubts pangs of conscience here (cf. Acts 23:1; 24:16). The LCL translation of Lucian Nigr. 6 (quoting Hom. Il. 8.293) does not seem to be literal here (the context in Homer mentions horses, 8.290, but not relevantly); likewise, although Philod. Crit. col. 8b illustrates painful correction, it lacks the term κέντρον.

1367. Sen. Y. Dial. 1.4.6 (stimulos).

1368. E.g., Philo Embassy 169; for alienation of mind in Conf. 5.

1369. Philo Prelim. St. 158 (a spear better than a mere “goad” for such unruly horses).

1370. Philo Worse 46; BDAG mentions also PGM 4.2911. This image draws on the other use of the noun, for animal stings (e.g., Rev 9:10).

1371. Philo Prelim. St. 74. He uses the verb κεντρίζω for spurring one (Joshua) to action (Virt. 69).

1372. E.g., ʾAbot R. Nat. 18 A; b. Ḥag. 3b; Pesiq. Rab. 3:2 (some adding also the words of the scribes); Lev. Rab. 29:7 (against the evil impulse); Num. Rab. 14:4.

1373. People often associated donkeys with folly and sluggishness (Raepsaet, “Donkey,” 669). An ass might kick against an abusive owner more justly (cf. Lucian Lucius 31); horses and oxen kick when grieved (apparently goaded; Libanius Encomium 8.12).

1374. Those who destroyed temples fought not only against people but against God (Polyb. 32.15.13); see further discussion at Acts 5:39.

1375. Cf. Spencer, Acts, 227, who also connects Acts 26:14 with 5:38–39. Lang, “Self,” 163–64, also makes the connection.

1376. Perhaps as much as three years after, given the chronology of Gal 1:18; but Luke’s audience would not know this.

1377. With, e.g., Dupont, Salvation, 30; Munck, Salvation, 27; Stendahl, Paul, 10; Witherington, Acts, 745; Fitzmyer, Acts, 755; Crowe, Acts, 187.

1378. Fitzmyer, Acts, 755.

1379. Many scholars find echoes of Jeremiah (e.g., Le Cornu, Acts, 1403, who notes that Paul himself connected his call with Jeremiah in Gal 1:13; in Acts, Schnabel, Acts, 1010; in Galatians, Das, Galatians, 131).

1380. The verb ἐξαιρέω appears more than 130 times in the LXX. Apart from Acts 23:27, most of the uses in Acts are biblical allusions (7:10; probably 12:11) or quotations (7:34)—none from Jeremiah.

1381. This conjunction of the verbs is much more significant statistically; the verbs ἐξαιρέω and ἀποστέλλω appear together in only three verses, none possibly relevant; ἐξαιρέω appears with ἐξαποστέλλω in Ps 143:7 (144:7 ET), also irrelevant. Broadened to paragraphs (as in Jer 1:7–8) or chapters, there are about seventeen examples, of which only Jer 1:7–8 is relevant.

1382. On the level of Luke’s narrative, cf. perhaps Jeremiah as a “youth” (Jer 1:6–7); but this was a logical way for Luke to describe Paul in Acts 7:58, and had Luke intended a connection, he would have used Jeremiah’s νέος (νεώτερος instead of νεανίας).

1383. Stendahl, Paul, 10; Fitzmyer, Acts, 755; Crowe, Acts, 187.

1384. Some scholars connect the opening of the eyes also with Isa 35:5 in the messianic era; although the idiom of opened eyes is frequent (as noted above), this would be a natural midrashic connection. With light to darkness, some connect Isa 42:16 in the immediate context of the dominant allusion (Dupont, Salvation, 30; Mufwata, Extrémités, 11–13; Marshall, “Acts,” 599). Kim, New Perspective, 101–2, acknowledges Isa 42:7, 16 (with Isa 61:1) here and argues for hints of Isa 42 in Paul’s call even in his letters (2 Cor 4:4–6, alluding to Isa 42:6–7; 49:6; Gen 1:3). Kim finds (102n4) several parallels between Acts 26:6–8 and 2 Cor 4:4–6, suggesting that Luke intentionally echoes Pauline language.

1385. Riesner, Early Period, 236, also notes the connection. See Luke 2:32, where Jesus is the salvific light for the Gentiles (as well as glory to Israel). DeSilva, Galatians, 80, suggests possible allusions to Isa 49:6 both here and in Gal 1:15.

1386. It is possible that Paul’s “revelation” in Eph 3:3 is the same revelation of Christ in Gal 1:12, 16, fitting the link between Paul’s conversion and commission (Acts 9:15; 26:17). In this case, it would suggest that much of his gospel was implicit in his first encounter with Jesus (for which thesis see Kim, Origin, passim).

1387. E.g., Kim, New Perspective, 101–2; Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 47–50. Considering that Luke is a distinct writer, the correspondences appear noteworthy.

1388. E.g., Ezek 2:1–2; Dan 8:18; 10:11–12; Matt 17:7; Rev 1:17; Tob 12:17; 1 En. 60:4; 71:3; 2 En. 1:8; 20:2; 21:3; 22:5; 3 En. 1:7–9; 4 Ezra 5:15; 2 Bar. 13:1–2; Jos. Asen. 14:11; cf. PGM 1.77–78.

1389. Trans. Burchard, OTP 2:225; in the Greek text, the enumeration is 14:7 (Philonenko, 178). This text may echo biblical texts such as Ezek 2:1; Dan 10:11.

1390. Despite Ananias’s importance to his narrative (noted in, e.g., Hounsa, Figure, 40–42). For telescoping the narrative to suit the audience (although the revelation remains from Jesus, in any case), see Witherington, “Editing,” 342. Such abbreviation by omitting intermediaries probably appears in Matt 8:5; 9:18 (cf. Luke 7:3; Mark 5:35). Spotlighting a specific character and so condensing a narrative was not unusual; the technique also appears in Plutarch’s biographies (Licona, “Plutarch’s Biographies”).

1391. Cf., e.g., Park, “Berufung”; Dupont, Salvation, 30.

1392. Cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 430. Paul claims that he saw Jesus (1 Cor 9:1) in a sort of belated resurrection appearance (15:8).

1393. Cf. the similar term προχειροτονέω in Acts 10:41, also a NT hapax legomenon.

1394. Despite the many evocations of Scripture in the context, LXX uses of this term (Dan 3:22; 2 Macc 3:7; 8:9; 14:12) appear irrelevant; the cognate in Josh 3:12 is only a little better.

1395. “Grasp your hand” in the same verse could suggest Luke’s term, but Luke’s terminology here is more likely suggested by his own earlier usage (Acts 3:20; 22:14) than by the LXX.

1396. BDAG amply documents both the official and the serving nuances that can attach to the term. For the serving nuance, cf. also, e.g., Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 42.7–8; Test. Job 15:1; Thiselton, “Semantics,” 81; as a Jewish title, usually in synagogues, see CIJ 1:xcix; 1:124, §172; Leon, Jews of Rome, 190.

1397. More generally, inviting one to recount not merely a message but what one has seen reflects biblical idiom in which Luke and his audience would be steeped (see, e.g., Gen 45:13, though most immediately Jesus’s invitation in Q Luke 7:22//Matt 11:4).

1398. Although the LXX also uses the terms otherwise, it often enough employs them as here, e.g., Isa 62:10; 1 Macc 1:13; 4:58; 5:19, 43; 2 Macc 13:11; 14:15; Wis 10:15. For the church sometimes differentiated from both (cf. 1 Cor 10:32), see Minear, Images, 71.

1399. Despite Paul’s commitment to both groups, the language is likely Luke’s; in his letters, Paul combines the terms only in his quotations in Rom 15:10–11. In this passage, Paul’s primary audience includes both Jews (Agrippa and Berenice) and a Gentile (Festus), and many other Gentiles are present.

1400. The other is Matt 10:5 (making the opposite point); after that, the first instance in extant early Christian literature is Diogn. 11.3.

1401. The same situation occurs in Acts 15:17, where “humanity” supplies the masculine to the neuter “Gentiles.”

1402. In Eph 3:2–3, it was specially revealed to him and was his special call; cf. also 1 Tim 2:7.

1403. Jewish opposition in Ephesus had already occurred (Acts 20:19), but in this case Luke makes no direct connection with the Gentile persecution afterward.

1404. Deliverance from wicked nations (employing these terms) appears in 1 Chr 16:35; 2 Chr 32:17 (though we should not envision allusions to these passages or even to the exodus narrative). The LXX employs the verb for delivering his “people” rather than delivering from the “people” (Exod 18:10).

1405. For Jer 1:5 in Acts 26:17, see, e.g., Mufwata, Extrémités, 10–11.

1406. Witherington, Acts, 737; on litotes, see Rowe, “Style,” 128; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 579. But Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 206, §400.6, think that the articular infinitive is used to clarify the grammar and appears only in NT passages reflecting OT language. Articular infinitives also appear, e.g., in Matt 2:13; Phil 3:10 (Dana and Mantey, Grammar, 284).

1407. Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.18 (oculos). For the soul’s vision without use of eyes, cf., e.g., Marc. Aur. 10.26; 11.1.1.

1408. Cf. also Luke 2:30; 19:42.

1409. In Jewish sources, see, e.g., 1 En. 1:2 (cited by O’Toole, Acts 26, 72); 3 En. 1:12; 4Q424 3 3; 4 Bar. 9:3; cf. t. B. Meṣiʿa 2:30; Hor. 2:5; y. Moʿed Qaṭ. 3:7, §5; Meg. 1:5, §3; Gen. Rab. 15:2; in philosophy, e.g., Max. Tyre 10.6; Marc. Aur. 4.29; Iambl. V.P. 32.228. It applies to Israel’s receiving spiritual vision in 1 En. 89:41 and to eschatological vision in 90:35.

1410. Cf. Gen 3:5, 7; Num 22:31; see also 4Q434 1 II, 3–4; Philo Spec. Laws 3.6.

1411. For spiritually blind eyes, see Isa 6:10; 29:10; 43:8; 44:18; perhaps 59:10; for spiritual perception, 6:5; 30:20; 33:17; for healing blind eyes in the messianic era, 29:18; 32:3; 35:5. (The unity of Isaiah is a modern question that would not have affected ancient readings.)

1412. E.g., Max. Tyre 6.1.

1413. I adapt most of the background information here from Keener, John, 247–50.

1414. E.g., Plato Phaedo 65E; 66A; noted also by subsequent writers, e.g., Diog. Laert. 6.2.53; Justin Dial. 2; 4.1. On Plato and the vision of God, see Kirk, Vision, 16–18.

1415. Plato Phaedo 83A. Cf. also Iambl. V.P. 6.31; 16.70; 32.228. Later writers continued to find in Plato’s Socrates an appeal for intellectual vision into the invisible world (Lucian Phil. Sale 18).

1416. E.g., Cic. Tusc. 1.19.44; Marc. Aur. 11.1.1 (cf. 10.26).

1417. For the opening of the soul’s eyes, O’Toole, Acts 26, 72, cites Philo QG 1.39. Philo also speaks of the soul’s eyes in Spec. Laws 1.37; 3.4, 6; Unchangeable 181; Sacr. 36, 69, 78; Posterity 8, 118; Worse 22; Plant. 22; Drunkenness 44; Sobr. 3; Conf. 92; Migr. 39, 48, 165, 191; Heir 89; Prelim. St. 135; Names 3, 203; Abr. 58, 70; Dreams 1.117; 2.160; Mos. 1.185, 289; Rewards 37; elsewhere, e.g., Rhet. Alex. pref. 1421a.22–23.

1418. Epict. Diatr. 1.18.4, 6; 2.20.37; 2.24.19; cf. 4.6.18.

1419. Marc. Aur. 4.29.

1420. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 87.21, cited in Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 335. Ep. Lucil. 115.6 uses physical vision as an analogy for the mind’s seeing virtue. Even a mythographer could speak of Numa seeing the heavenly deities through his mind (Ovid Metam. 15.62–64).

1421. He allegorized Odysseus’s travels as a visionary tour of the cosmos (similar to apocalyptic texts) by his soul (Max. Tyre 26.1).

1422. Cf. Philost. Hrk. 7.3; 1 Cor 13:12.

1423. Those unable to see God himself could be satisfied with worshiping his offspring (stars, daimones, etc.), below him in the cosmic hierarchy (Max. Tyre 11.12).

1424. Case, Origins, 93–94; cf. also Osborn, Justin, 72. Josephus expects his readers to understand (and perhaps react negatively) when he declares that an Egyptian ruler wished to “see the gods” (Ag. Ap. 1.232–34).

1425. Plot. Enn. 1.6, esp. 1.6.9.

1426. Case, Origins, 94. For his disciple Porphyry, by contrast, the wise person’s soul continually “beholds” God (Marc. 16.274).

1427. E.g., Philo Flight 19.

1428. Philo Worse 22; Dreams 1.164.

1429. E.g., Soph. Oed. tyr. 371, 375, 402–3, 419, 454, 747, 1266–79.

1430. Philo Sacr. 78; cf. Abr. 57–58; also the citation of Mos. 1.66 in Aune, Prophecy, 148. In later Platonism, see Proclus Poet. 6.2, K182.19–20. For accessibility of divine vision through mystical encounter or intermediaries, see Mackie, “Seeing God.”

1431. Isaacs, Spirit, 50; Dillon, “Transcendence in Philo”; Hagner, “Vision,” 89–90. On parallels to ecstatic vision, see also Kirk, Vision, 23.

1432. Philo Conf. 92.

1433. Philo Names 3–6; cf. Posterity 8–21 (summarized in LCL introduction to Posterity).

1434. Philo QG 4.138.

1435. Philo Conf. 92, 146; Dreams 1.171; Abr. 57.

1436. Philo Abr. 80.

1437. Frequently, e.g., Philo Spec. Laws 2.165; Cher. 101; Planter 18; Abr. 75; Migr. 183; Names 14; Dreams 1.72; Decal. 60; 120; for the Logos as invisible, see Creation 31.

1438. Philo Dreams 1.66; contrast QE 2.39 (where the Logos is a vantage point for envisioning God).

1439. Philo Rewards 39; Hagner, “Vision,” 89, cites both this and Names 62.

1440. Philo Rewards 40 (LCL, 8:335). Cf. 1 Cor 2:11.

1441. Philo Spec. Laws 1.37.

1442. Philo Spec. Laws 1.40 (LCL, 7:121).

1443. Philo Rewards 36; cf. Dreams 72. Conzelmann, Corinthians, 228, contrasts the eschatological vision in 1 Cor 13:12 with Philo’s usual mystical, ecstatic vision; Hagner, “Vision,” 86, contrasts John and Philo’s σῶμα-σῆμα conception.

1444. Esp. Isa 6:9–10; see also Deut 29:4; Isa 29:9–10; 35:5; 42:7, 16, 18–20; 43:8; 44:18; Jer 5:21; Ezek 12:2; cf. Dan 5:23.

1445. 1 En. 90:35; 4 Ezra 7:98 (after death); Asc. Is. 9:38 (though this is probably Christian).

1446. E.g., Wis 2:21; 1 En. 89:33, 41, 54; 93:8; 99:8; cf. Test. Dan 2:2, 4; Test. Jos. 7:5; Test. Benj. 4:2 (the last may be interpolated). Vision apparently functions as a symbol for knowing more of God in 1 En. 89:28.

1447. E.g., 1QS X, 10–11; XI, 5–6.

1448. E.g., Gen. Rab. 97 MSV, on Jacob’s prophetic sight.

1449. E.g., ʾAbot R. Nat. 1 A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:9; Pesiq. Rab. 15:8.

1450. Cf. b. Sukkah 45b.

1451. ʾAbot R. Nat. 1 A; Sipra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.5; Sipre Deut. 310.6.1; Pesiq. Rab. 12:9; 37:2; cf. also Tanḥ. 4.18 and Agadath Bereshith 73.48 in Marmorstein, Anthropomorphism, 95; and discussion, 96–99; Kirk, Vision, 14–15.

1452. Marmorstein, Anthropomorphism, 105–6; this was also the prerequisite for the eschatological vision of God (96, 101).

1453. Chernus, “Visions”; Kirk, Vision, 11–13.

1454. Cf. Hamm, “Blindness and Healing.” That Luke employs the event symbolically need not mean, of course, that he did not believe that it happened literally; otherwise we should expect to find much more creative narrative symbolism than we do. Luke uses narrative symbolism, but sparingly (certainly far less than John), as a Hellenistic historian, not as an epic poet.

1455. For this verb for turning to God in Isaiah, see also Isa 6:10 (significant in Acts 28:27); 19:22 (concerning Egypt); 31:6; 44:22; 55:7; cf. also Hos 3:5; 5:4; 6:1; 7:10; 11:5; 12:6; 14:1–2; Amos 4:6, 8–11; Joel 2:12–13; Sir 5:7; 17:25, 29; 18:13; 21:6. Luke is influenced by the LXX rendering of the Hebrew shub (Dupont, Salvation, 79).

1456. Cf. Mal 4:6 (3:23 LXX) for the idea but Sir 48:10 for the wording.

1457. For “turning” as repentance, cf. also Luke 17:4; 22:32. Paul uses ἐπιστρέφω for Jews (2 Cor 3:16) and Gentiles (1 Thess 1:9) turning to Christ, as well as for Christians falling away (Gal 4:9).

1458. Fitzmyer, Acts, 760, rightly compares “Belial’s dominion” in the Qumran scrolls (1QS I, 18, 23; II, 19; 1QM XIV, 9) or (relevant to the “lot” or “inheritance” in Acts 26:18) “Belial’s lot” (1QS II, 5, versus God’s in II, 2).

1459. Unless Satan there exaggerated his delegated authority, as Luke might have surmised in light of Dan 4:32; but at least some authority was permitted to Satan (Luke 22:53). Human “authority” could be used negatively (Luke 20:20; 23:7; Acts 9:14), but many interpreters understand it as a delegated sphere distinct from spiritual authority (Luke 7:8; 20:25, on Caesar; Acts 5:4; see Walaskay, Came to Rome, 66).

1460. E.g., Sipre Deut. 27.2.1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 24, §51 B; cf. Jub. 25:23 (“Lord of the age”). Satan assumes this role (κοσμοκράτωρ) only in some later texts (e.g., Hoskyns, Gospel, 426, cites Exod. Rab. on 24:7, following Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar). Some gnostics later argued that the Jewish God was the lord of the world, whom they identified with Satan, inviting apologetic (Marmorstein, Names, 64, 99).

1461. CD V, 18; “the prince of light” in 1QM XIII, 10 (Israel’s helper).

1462. 1QM XVII, 5–6; Perkins, “John,” 972, cites 1QM I, 1, 5, 13; IV, 2; XI, 8; 1QS I, 18; II, 19; III, 20–21. Cf. repeatedly “Prince Mastema,” though his rule is specifically over the evil angels (Jub. 11:5, 10; 17:16; 18:9, 12; 48:2, 9, 12, 15; cf. 10:8; 19:28; 49:2); the “Prince of Darkness” (Pesiq. Rab. 20:2; 53:2).

1463. 1QM XV, 2–3. Pagans applied titles such as “ruler of the world” to prominent deities (Lucan C.W. 6.742–43; Segal, “Ruler,” 248–49; the demiurge in Iren. Her. 1.5.4; cf. demonic “world rulers” in Eph 6:12; Test. Sol. 8:2–7; in the magical papyri, see Arnold, Power, 65; later astrological powers in MacGregor, “Principalities”; Lee, “Powers,” 60) as well as the emperor (Ovid Metam. 15.758–59, 859–60; cf. other rulers in y. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:1, §3; Exod. Rab. 5:14).

1464. On the apocalyptic image, see, e.g., Segal, “Ruler,” 247. Asc. Is. 2:4 presents Beliar as the angel of sin who rules the world; but whereas Knibb thinks Asc. Is. 1–3 pre-Christian, I am doubtful.

1465. In this context, it seems possible that Paul links Satan’s authority with that which the chief priests exercised to persecute Christians (Acts 26:10, 12; cf. 9:14), but the shared term may be simply coincidental.

1466. For figurative darkness in Luke, see Luke 1:79; 11:34–35; 22:53. The power of darkness (probably including acting under the cloak of night, but cf. also John 13:30) in Luke 22:53 was involved in arranging Jesus’s crucifixion; but even here, God remains sovereign over the outcome (Acts 2:23).

1467. See Rom 2:19; 13:12; 2 Cor 4:4, 6, 17; 6:14; Eph 1:18; 3:9; 5:8–9, 11, 13; 6:12; Col 1:12–13; 1 Thess 5:4–5; cf. 1 Cor 4:5; 2 Cor 11:14; 1 Tim 6:16; 2 Tim 1:10.

1468. Eph 6:12; Col 1:13; cf. 2 Cor 4:4; 6:14–15; 11:14; 1 Thess 5:5.

1469. E.g., 2 Sam 22:29; Pss 18:28; 27:1; 36:9; 43:3; 119:105, 130; Isa 2:5; 5:20; 9:2; 42:6; 49:6; 51:4. For the figurative use of “light” conjoined with opening eyes, see, e.g., Isa 42:6–7. For this background material, I am adapting Keener, John, 382–85.

1470. E.g., Matt 4:16 (Isa 9:1); 5:14 (Ps 27:1; I would cite here esp. Isa 42:6; 49:6); Luke 2:32 (Isa 42:6; 49:6), as noted by Painter, John, 33. In Platonic metaphysics, see Meyer-Schwelling, “Light”; e.g., Apul. De deo Socr. 124.

1471. E.g., 1QS III, 3 and passim; 1Q27 1 I, 5–6; 4Q183 II, 4–8 (and perhaps 4Q185 1–2 II, 6–8); Test. Job 43:6/4; Sib. Or. frg. 1.26–27 (OTP 2:377); cf. 1 En. 108:12–14.

1472. E.g., Sir 31:17.

1473. E.g., 1QS III, 19–22; 1QM XIII, 5–6, 14–15. They also employ “day” figuratively with “light,” and “night” with “darkness” (1QS X, 1–2). The scrolls added dualism to the OT images (Brown, John, 1:340; cf. Charlesworth, “Comparison”). Though acknowledging OT influence, Treves, “Date,” 421, thinks that the imagery is “ultimately of Iranian origin,” but Hebrew emphasis on contrasting opposites (e.g., “day” and “night”) to represent a whole (cf. Gordon, Near East, 35n3) allows that the image’s Jewish roots lay in the OT, despite exilic Persian influence accentuating the dualism (cf. similarly Manson, Paul and John, 118–19).

1474. It existed before visible things (2 En. 24:4, A, J; cf. Exod. Rab. 50:1) or appeared on the first day (e.g., b. Ḥag. 12a; Gen. Rab. 42:3; see fuller discussion in Urbach, Sages, 1:208–10), and by it one could see from one end of the world to the other (3 En. 5:3; b. Ḥag. 12a; y. Ber. 8:6, §5; Gen. Rab. 42:3; Lev. Rab. 11:7; Num. Rab. 13:5; Ruth Rab. proem 7; Pesiq. Rab. 23:6). Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:169, points to the “way Jewish-Palestinian and Pythagorean-Platonic and Stoic conceptions are intermingled in Aristobulus” on the primeval light; cf. perhaps the sun’s scattering of chaos in Men. Rhet. 2.17, 438.20–24. Cf. the Yozer Or (“The Creator of Light”) prayer in later synagogue liturgy (Bowman, Gospel, 68); Philo Creation 30–35.

1475. E.g., 2 Cor 4:6; the first-century C.E. pagan writer Longinus (Subl. 9.9) also attributes it to Moses. Cf. the Memra and the creation of light in Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 1:3–5; God distinguished light from darkness for humanity’s sake in 4Q392 frg. 1.

1476. Because of human sin, it was hidden until the eschatological time (cf. b. Ḥag. 12a; Gen. Rab. 11:2; 42:3; Exod. Rab. 18:11; Lev. Rab. 11:7; Num. Rab. 13:5; Pesiq. Rab. 23:6; 42:4).

1477. E.g., 1 En. 1:8; 5:7; 108:11–14; 1QM XVII, 6–7; 4Q541 9 I, 4–5; Sib. Or. 2.316 (probably in Christian redaction); ʾAbot R. Nat. 37, §95 B; b. Ḥag. 12b; Pesaḥ. 50a; Sanh. 91b; Taʿan. 15a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:3–5; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 5:1; Exod. Rab. 14:3; 18:11; Lev. Rab. 6:6; Song Rab. 1:3, §3; Eccl. Rab. 11:7, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 36:1; 42:4; Matt 13:43; Rev 22:5.

1478. Simon ben Onias in Sir 50:6–7; possibly Samuel in L.A.B. 51:4; R. Eliezer in ʾAbot R. Nat. 13, §32 B; Honi the Circle-Drawer in y. Taʿan. 3:9, §4; Daniel’s three friends in Exod. Rab. 15:6; the patriarchs in Pesiq. Rab. 8:4; possibly priests in 4Q504–506; cf. the righteous in general in ʾAbot R. Nat. 24 A and Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 40:4; righteous deeds in Gen. Rab. 1:6. The expression must have been a fairly widespread one; Anna considers her son Tobias “the light of my eyes” (Tob 10:5); a source may have been 2 Sam 21:17 (cf. 1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19). In the eschatological time, see Wis 3:7–8 (cf. 5:6); Matt 13:43; Rev 22:5; L.A.B. 26:13; 4 Ezra 7:97; 2 En. 65:11 A; Sipre Deut. 47.2.1–2; b. Sanh. 100a; Lev. Rab. 30:2; Eccl. Rab. 1:7, §9; Abelson, Immanence, 89, cites Yal. Pss. 72. Cf. a pagan metaphor for a skillful sophist (Eunapius Lives 495), heroes (Men. Rhet. 2.11, 419.18–20; Philost. Hrk. 44.5; 45.5), or any great and beloved person (Fronto Ad M. Caes. 4.7).

1479. ʾAbot R. Nat. 9, §25 B; y. Šabb. 2:6, §2.

1480. Test. Ab. 7:14 B; Gen. Rab. 2:3; 30:10; Pesiq. Rab. 20:2.

1481. Ruth Rab. 2:12 (probably fourth century).

1482. Sipre Num. 93.1.3; b. Soṭah 12a; 13a; Exod. Rab. 1:20, 22, 24; Pesiq. Rab. 15:4; cf. L.A.B. 12:1.

1483. 11Q5 XXVII, 2; b. Sanh. 95a (following 2 Sam 21:17).

1484. ʾAbot R. Nat. 25 A; b. Ber. 28b.

1485. 1 En. 48:4 (from the Similitudes, alluding to Isa 42:6; 49:6); the eschatological high priest in 1QSb IV, 27; and Amoraic sources in Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 6:5; Gen. Rab. 1:6; 85:1; Pesiq. Rab. 36:1–2; 37:2; kingship in general in Tg. 1 Chr. 8:33.

1486. E.g., Sir 17:19; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 5:1; uses of Isa 60:3 in the late Song Rab. 1:3, §2; 1:15, §4; 4:1, §2. For the association with Israel more generally, cf. b. Pesaḥ. 103b; 104a; Ḥul. 26b.

1487. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:4 (citing Isa 60:3); Gen. Rab. 59:5 (citing Isa 60:3). Some see Jerusalem in Matt 5:14 (cf. Campbell, “Jerusalem,” 346; Jeremias, Promise, 66; idem, Sermon, 33; idem, Parables, 217). A great city could be called a light (Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.120, on Ephesus and Smyrna).

1488. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5, bar.; Gen. Rab. 2:5 (the temple in the messianic era; citing Isa 60:1); 3:4 (fifth century, citing Jer 17:12; Ezek 43:2).

1489. 1QHa VII, 24–25; 4 Bar. 9:3; L.A.B. 12:9; L.A.E. 28:2; Test. Zeb. 9:8 (paraphrasing Mal 4:2); PGM 4.1219–22; perhaps 4Q451 24 7; cf. Sib. Or. 3.285; b. Menaḥ. 88b (late second century); Gen. Rab. 3:4 (third century, citing Ps 104:2; also in Exod. Rab. 50:1); 59:5 (citing Isa 60:19); Num. Rab. 15:2; Pesiq. Rab. 8:5 (citing Pss 27:1; 119:105); 21:5 (citing Isa 60:19); Rev 21:23. In rabbinic texts, this often alludes to the Shekinah (e.g., Sipre Num. 41.1.1; b. Ber. 60b); the Shekinah of the first exodus is also depicted as light (e.g., Wis 17; 18:1–3; b. Menaḥ. 86b; Exod. Rab. 14:3). Later, Allah’s truth is portrayed as light (Qur’an 9.32).

1490. Wis 6:12; 7:26, 29–30; 1QS II, 3; XI, 5–6; 1QM I, 8; 4 Ezra 14:20–21; cf. Sir 22:11; Tatian Or. Gks. 13; Philo Alleg. Interp. 3.45 (the Logos). Cf. the light of knowledge in both LXX and Qumran readings of Isa 53:11, perhaps adding light to what became the MT (cf. Seeligmann, “Phōs”). For light representing wisdom and law in the OT, see the references in Malatesta, Interiority, 99–102; Boismard, Prologue, 114 (esp. Pss 19:9; 119:105; Prov 4:18–19; 6:23; Eccl 2:13).

1491. Bar 4:2; 4Q511 1 7–8; 18 7–8; CIJ 1:409, §554; L.A.B. 9:8; 11:1–2; 15:6; 19:4, 6; 23:10; 33:3 end; 51:3; 2 Bar. 17:4; 18:1–2; 59:2; Sipre Num. 41.1.2; y. B. Meṣiʿa 2:5, §2; Hor. 3:1, §2; Sukkah 5:1, §7; Gen. Rab. 26:7; Pesiq. Rab. 8:5; 46:3; cf. L.A.B. 37:3; Sipre Deut. 343.7.1; Gen. Rab. 3:5; Exod. Rab. 36:3; Num. Rab. 14:10; Deut. Rab. 4:4; 7:3; Eccl. Rab. 11:7, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 17:7. Torah also appears as fire (m. ʾAb. 2:10; Sipre Deut. 343.11.1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 43, §121 B, citing Deut 33:2; b. Beṣah 25b; Taʿan. 7a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 3:2, citing Jer 23:29; Song Rab. 5:11, §6; the Ten Commandments as lightnings in Tg. Neof. 1 on Exod 20:2–3; Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 20:2–3; Tg. Neof. 1 on Deut 5:6–7) or summons heavenly fire (y. Ḥag. 2:1, §9; Song Rab. 1:10, §2), and specific commandments, such as the Sabbath, appear as light (Pesiq. Rab. 8:4). God’s words shine the light of understanding on the willing heart (4Q511 1 7–8; 18 7–8). Later, Islamic tradition claimed that Jesus’s gospel contains light, confirming Torah (so Qur’an 5.46).

1492. E.g., Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 1a (Socrates); Max. Tyre 29.5.

1493. E.g., Hom. Il. 4.503, 526; Lycophron Alex. 705–6; Sil. It. 7.586 (because those in the netherworld could no longer see the light of the world). See also discussion of “black” and death at Acts 1:10.

1494. E.g., Matt 8:12; 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6; 1 En. 103:8; cf. 10:4–6; 63:6, 11; 92:5; 108:14. Cf. other sources in Keener, Matthew, 269.

1495. See, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 21–22.

1496. E.g., Max. Tyre 34.1. Orators also praised the brilliance of deities (e.g., Men. Rhet. 2.17, 438.12–13, 20–24); writers also used light to symbolize the divine nature or care (Iambl. Myst. 1.9, 13).

1497. E.g., 2 Cor 6:14–16; Max. Tyre 34.1.

1498. See, e.g., the contrast between light and darkness in 1QS III, 3, 19, 25; X, 2; 1QM I, 1, 11; XIII, 5, 15; XIV, 17; 4Q462 1 9–10; 4Q548 1 10–16; 11Q11 V, 7; cf. 1QHa XVII, 26; XX, 9; XXI, 15; 4Q257 III, 5; 4Q299 5 2; 4Q392 1 4–6; 11Q5 XXVI, 11; 11Q17 X, 5.

1499. Cf. Apollo as the sun god appearing to destroy darkness in Men. Rhet. 2.17, 438.20–24.

1500. Or perhaps a midrash on creation (2 Cor 4:6); or liturgical language (Pss 18:28; 112:4).

1501. With Conzelmann, Acts, 211. Whether Joseph and Aseneth includes Christian influence remains debated.

1502. The material might be unattributed or stem from Gamaliel II, but the tradition would be especially relevant if it could be attributed to Gamaliel I, who is early enough and also Paul’s teacher (see Nunnally, “Acts,” 396, noting b. Pesaḥ. 116b); Rabban Gamaliel is the last-named rabbi, though anonymous material could follow Gamaliel’s material.

1503. See, e.g., 1 Tim 6:16; 2 En. 25:4; cf. 1QM XII, 2; 2 En. 1a:6; 20:4; 42:5; Num. Rab. 14:3; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5; also the “throne of glory” or “glorious throne” in 1 En. 9:4; 47:3; 60:2; 71:7; 3 En. 2:3–4; Test. Levi 5:1; b. Ḥag. 13a; Menaḥ. 43b; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 27:1.

1504. Lohse, Colossians, 36 (also noting Acts 20:32; 26:18).

1505. See Eph 1:1, 4, 15; 2:19; 3:5, 8, 18; 4:12; 5:3; 6:18; Col 1:2, 4, 22, 26; 3:12.

1506. Although Luke often uses ἄφεσις and ἁμαρτία together (Luke 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; and here) as in Mark 1:4 and Matt 26:28, this is the only use in Pauline literature.

1507. Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 330, notes that ὅθεν is appropriate for opening a confirmatio (P.Oxy. 2131; P.Fouad 26.13). It is relevant, however, for any transition predicated on what precedes (see the abundant sources in BDAG).

1508. Cf. also 1 En. 93:2, where Enoch speaks of his “heavenly vision.” In the NT, only Paul (in a summary of his visionary experiences, 2 Cor 12:1) and Luke (Luke 1:22; 24:23) employ the term ὀπτασία (in the Apostolic Fathers, Mart. Pol. 5.2; 12.3); for the idea of visions, see comment on Acts 2:17.

1509. So Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 115. Some ancient sources speak of visions in the heavens (e.g., Jos. War 6.298–99; cf. Livy 21.62.4–5; Plut. Themist. 15.1), which fits one use of the adjective (cf. Jos. Ant. 1.69, 158; War 3.374; 5.214; Ag. Ap. 1.14, 255; Philo Creation 117) and Stephen’s vision (Acts 7:55–56; cf. Luke 21:27), but the term can apply to anything heavenly or originating in heaven (e.g., 1 Esd 6:15; 2 Macc 7:34; see comment below).

1510. Outside Luke 2:13, the only other NT use is in Matthew (seven times for the heavenly Father); it appears in later portions of the LXX (1 Esd 6:15; 2 Macc 7:34; 9:10; 3 Macc 6:18; 4 Macc 4:11; 9:15; 11:3), but never describing a “vision.” Cf. Luke 11:13. Many regarded the heavenly realm as purer and closer to the divine (e.g., Plato Phaedr. 248A–249A; Cic. Resp. 6.15.15; 6.17.17; 6.19.20; 6.26.29; Tusc. 1.19.43–44; 1.31.75; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref. 6, 11–13; Dial. 5.6.1; 11.9.3; 12.8.5; 12.11.6; Max. Tyre 9.6; 11.10; 41.3; Diog. Laert. 8.1.27, 31; Philo Spec. Laws 1.66; 3.1–2; Flight 62; QG 3.45; Test. Job 33:3; 36:3; 41:4–5; 48–50 passim; cf. 1QM X, 12; discussion in Aune, Revelation, 318; idem, “Duality,” 228–30).

1511. This adjective, appropriate for Hellenistic hearers, does imply a celestial origin, as in Acts 14:17; 4 Macc 4:10; Philo Dreams 1.112.

1512. Talbert, Acts, 208 (citing Livy 2.36; Plut. Coriol. 24). Paul recognizes in 1 Cor 9:17 that his calling is mandatory if he does not accept it voluntarily. An agent who failed to fulfill his commission could be penalized (b. B. Qam. 102ab, bar.). The “disobedient” in Luke-Acts are hostile toward God and his ways (Luke 1:17; Acts 14:2; 19:9; cf. John 3:36; Rom 2:8; 15:31; Eph 2:2; 5:6; Col 3:6; 1 Pet 3:20; 4:17; Sir 2:15; 16:6; 1 Clem. 57.4; 58.1; 59.1; Poly. Phil. 2.1; Ign. Magn. 8.2; Barn. 12.4).

1513. See Anderson, Glossary, 17 (though especially on the deliberative, rather than judicial, use; he also notes its use in refutatio); more fully in refutatio, see ibid., 40.

1514. Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.9; Jos. Ant. 18.73 (though both these examples concern mortals merely pretending to be a god).

1515. See now helpfully and in detail McConnell, Testimony.

1516. Cf. also Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 69n124 (noting the inclusion of Damascus and the omission of Samaria, fitting Luke’s earlier narrative).

1517. See BDAG, s.v. τε 2b and examples there; in the immediate context, see Acts 26:10, 16.

1518. “All the region of Judea” is accusative, in contrast to the other places being named in the dative; this might be the accusative of extent (Witherington, Acts, 746; on this use of the accusative, see, e.g., Robertson, Grammar, 469; Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 88, §161; Wallace, Grammar, 201–3). Schnabel, Missionary, 286, argues plausibly that Paul did indeed preach “in some of the smaller towns (and perhaps villages) of Judea.” He probably did not do so in very many, however, or it would be difficult to understand Gal 1:22 (despite its hyperbole; cf. also Gal 1:19). Greater Judea could include Galilee (as in Acts 10:37; Pliny E. N.H. 5.15.70), but there is no reason to extend the sense here far outside Jerusalem.

1519. Witherington, Acts, 746.

1520. See Kurz, Acts, 359.

1521. Michaels, “Paul and Baptist,” doubts that the echoes are deliberately Lukan; if correct, this observation would suggest that they preserve Paul’s way of preaching. For Paul’s preaching to those who were not yet believers, see again 1 Thess 1:9.

1522. Although “repentance” was especially a Jewish category (see comment on Acts 17:30), others would understand the moral point here.

1523. Although Paul’s epistles employ the concept (using ἐπιστρέφω, as noted above on Acts 26:18), the specific term is relatively rare (Rom 2:4; for Christians, 2 Cor 7:9–10; 12:21; cf. 2 Tim 2:25); it appears in Petrine literature only at 2 Pet 3:9; Mark applies it once each for John (Mark 1:4), Jesus (1:15), and the disciples (6:12).

1524. Witherington, Acts, 737.

1525. This phenomenon tends to continue among Christian renewal movements today that expect continuing revelations because they believe that they continue to live in “biblical” times, instead of relegating biblical experiences to a past era. Although such movements often need more careful discernment measures (as also suggested in Acts), their openness to the Spirit’s activity seems more consistent with the early Christian view of salvation history than does the extreme cessationist attribution of such activities to a bygone era, generally with postbiblical (or, at best, very tenuous biblical) explanations.

1526. Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 330, takes this as the refutatio, which is plausible, though it might also be the propositio, or part of it, depending on the rest of the outline.

1527. Undoubtedly, Luke and Paul genuinely saw it as benevolent, but Paul’s way of summarizing it would look more benevolent to the current court than would his opponents’ way of summarizing the same information.

1528. See also Bruce, Commentary, 493.

1529. Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 330 (comparing P.Oxy. 2131.8, 17–18 [exordium and peroratio]; peroratio in P.Fouad 26.55–56; cf. τυγχάνοντες, “obtaining,” in the exordium in Acts 24:2). The term for “help,” ἐπικουρία, was appropriate for answers to supplications, i.e., something granted by an official (Jos. Ant. 2.94, ἐπικουρίας τυγχάνειν), though it most often connoted “aid as an ally” (BDAG); one petitions a deity for ἐπικουρία in Wis 13:18, the only other use in biblical Greek.

1530. O’Toole, Acts 26, 159; expanded in Witherington, Acts, 747.

1531. On this usage, see, e.g., Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 215, §418.1; Dana and Mantey, Grammar, 227, §201.3; Wallace, Grammar, 631–32.

1532. See, e.g., Buckland, Roman Law, 88, 130; cf. Xen. Cyr. 1.2.6; Val. Max. 2.6.6; Jos. Ant. 19.361; as the worst of offenses, Cic. Att. 8.4; Sen. Y. Ben. 1.10.4; fuller comment on Acts 23:17–18.

1533. Cf. ʾAbot R. Nat. 46, §128 B; Rom 1:21; Harrison, Grace, 349–50. On gratitude due deities, see, e.g., Ael. Arist. Panath. 21, 161D–162D; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 437.7–9, 13–15; Diog. Laert. 8.1.24.

1534. See deSilva, Honor, 145–46.

1535. Cf. perhaps also τυχούσας in Acts 19:11; but this most likely reflects part of an idiom for “extraordinary” (see comment there).

1536. It is possible that ἕστηκα (from ἵστημι) also reflects a play on the command to “stand” in Acts 26:16, but the verb is so common (about sixty times in Luke-Acts) that no secure conclusion can be drawn.

1537. Esp. Gen 19:11; Deut 1:17; 1 Sam 20:2; 30:2, 19; 1 Kgs 22:31; 2 Kgs 23:2; 1 Chr 25:8; 26:13; 2 Chr 18:30; 34:30; Esth 1:5; Job 3:19; Pss 104:25; 115:13; Jer 16:6; Jonah 3:5.

1538. Jdt 13:4, 13; Wis 6:7; Bar 1:4; 1 Macc 5:45; 4 Macc 5:20; 1 Esd 1:54; 4Q266 1 18; 2 En. 61:4; Rev 11:18; 13:16; 19:5, 18; 20:12.

1539. In contrast to the more common phrase “the law and prophets” (as in Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; cf. Matt 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; John 1:45; Rom 3:21; also 4 Macc 18:10; synthetic parallelism in Zech 7:12; Test. Levi 16:2), the phrase “Moses and the prophets” is particularly Lukan in the NT (cf. later 1 Clem. 43.1; cf. m. ʾAb. 1:1).

1540. With Bruce, Commentary, 493–94, Luke offers the categories but not the specific testimonia or texts that Paul employed.

1541. Cf. the use of ὁρισμός, “definition,” in rhetoric (on which see Anderson, Glossary, 84). Technically, Paul may here employ a conditional construction (“if . . . then he would”; Parsons, Acts, 343).

1542. That Jesus’s suffering and resurrection were central to Paul’s evangelistic preaching, and that he believed that he found these in the Scriptures, is impossible to dispute (1 Cor 15:3–4).

1543. Note also Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 86, arguing that Acts 26:23 includes the same three elements as Luke 24:46–47, but with the third element of mission to Gentiles phrased as a “light to the nations” (evoking Isa 42:6; 49:6; and 51:4; but Isa 49:6 is the verse that Luke has quoted).

1544. Dupont, Salvation, 29, rightly argues that Paul carries forward this mission in Acts, but he overstates the case here: “Through him the work of Christ is carried on to the end, and the history of salvation is brought to completion.” Paul himself becomes a model for the church’s (and, more particularly, apostles’ [albeit not in the Lukan sense of the term]) continuing mission. Paul’s letters emphasize Christ’s primacy, though especially with regard to resurrection itself (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:20, 23; Col 1:18), on which Christ’s primacy of proclamation here is predicated, though Paul often respects primacy more generally (Rom 1:16; 2:9–10; 11:16; 16:5; 1 Cor 16:15; 2 Cor 10:14).

1545. On Luke 2:32 and Luke-Acts, see Radl, “Beziehungen,” 305–6.

1546. The NT always uses the noun πάθος for passion, but the verb πάσχω (in the form παθεῖν) is often used for Christ’s suffering in Luke-Acts; see comment on Acts 1:3.

1547. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 321.

1548. On the concept of the “suffering Messiah” in later Jewish sources, probably stemming from the failed Bar Kokhba revolt, see the section “Views of Messiahship” in the excursus on messiahship at Acts 2:23 (Keener, Acts, 1:964–68).

1549. Johnson, Acts, 443. Haenchen, Acts, 688, thinks that Luke employs Festus to exemplify the Roman government’s inability to address the theological questions.

1550. Failure to persuade hearers could be judged as rhetorical failure (cf., e.g., Litfin, Theology, 191), but Luke is more interested here in political and legal apologetic; in an era when most Christians endured some marginalization, that people of such status listened to Paul could encourage much of Luke’s audience. (Luke can also portray as legitimate rhetorical success accurate refutation without full persuasion; Acts 6:10.)

1551. With Haenchen, Acts, 688; see discussion in Aune, Environment, 127; esp. Smith, Rhetoric of Interruption; and discussion at Acts 2:37. Pervo, Acts, 635, helpfully notes the parallel with Acts 22:21–22: Paul’s narration is ended once he brings up the subject of the Gentile mission.

1552. Crook, Advocacy, 66 (though noting [67] that some were able to complete their speeches—at least so far as we can tell from the records); see, e.g., Apul. Apol. 61.

1553. Hostile interlocution proved more precarious once the speaker held the primary audience’s favor (Lucian Prof. P.S. 20).

1554. An accuser interrupted Apollonius’s defense by clarifying the charge, and Apollonius continued (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.7).

1555. For a brief survey of the history of the interpretation of madness, including in classical Greece, see Leme Lopes, “Diagnostico”; for historical descriptions of what is now called schizophrenia, Jeste et al., “Schizophrenia”; more fully from Homer to Plato, see la Croce, “Concepto” (focusing on possession). The Furies could drive one such as Orestes mad (Juv. Sat. 14.285; Pers. Sat. 3.118; madness is also attributed to Furies elsewhere, e.g., in Quint. Decl. 314.17).

1556. Xen. Cyr. 2.2.16.

1557. See, e.g., Plut. Demosth. 11.4; Cic. 5.4; 27.1; 38.2–6; 39.1; 40.3.

1558. Sall. Invect. M. Tull. 1 (opening words).

1559. E.g., Apul. Apol. 52–53. Senility could be associated with madness (Apul. Apol. 53), but an older person who thoroughly refuted the charge could leave the court thinking the accuser mad instead (Apol. 37).

1560. Lucian Lover of Lies 5. One might rebuke someone as “mad” for an act of mortal folly (e.g., Quint. Curt. 7.2.6). Other signs of madness could include, e.g., jeering (Quint. Decl. 364 intro.) and misbehavior (367.1).

1561. Munck, Acts, 244–45, citing Acta Appiani, P.Yale. inv. 1536, col. 4.9–15; Conzelmann, Acts, 212, citing Acta Appiani in P.Oxy. 33.4.9–15; also cited in Pervo, Acts, 635.

1562. See Meggitt, “Madness,” with considerable documentation regarding ancient madness. I would explain the same data in light of Pilate’s viewing Jesus as a harmless sage (Keener, John, 1113–14; idem, “Truth”; briefly, “John,” 425), although, as we shall see, the charge of madness overlapped with some characteristic sage behavior.

1563. Dunn, Acts, 331, suggests that Festus may have reacted against “the thought of the same national religion for all the diverse nations” (in Acts 26:23); although this is possible, it might overestimate the degree of success that Festus will have attributed to Paul.

1564. E.g., Hermog. Issues 58.19–59.3; Schiemann, “Furor” (citing Gaius Inst. 3.106); Libanius Invect. 5.18; cf. Eurip. Herc. fur.; Libanius Descr. 20.3; 23.1. An insane person was not legally liable but might be subject to physical restraint (Robinson, Criminal Law, 16), sometimes by his or her own family (Libero, “Disability,” 535). Insane persons were not supposed to contract marriages (Paulus Sent. 2.1–9, in Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 193, §196). Coupled with drugs, insanity could impair the senses (Isaeus Astyph. 37).

1565. See Dio Chrys. Or. 18.11; Hermog. Progymn. 8, “On Syncrisis,” 20; Fredrickson, “Tears,” 175. Paul was often forceful in his letters, more than in his personal dealings with the Corinthians (2 Cor 10:9–10; Fredrickson, “Tears,” 167–72; Winter, Philo and Paul, 207; Savage, Power, 65).

1566. Trans. G. L. Hendrickson, LCL, 5:413.

1567. See Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 108.7; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 61; Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 30–31. I refer to the Stoics; some philosophers, such as Cynics, were less concerned about such restraint.

1568. Unfamiliar with glossolalia, outsiders could view it as μανία (Smit, “Tongues”; Forbes, Prophecy, 180); see further comment on Acts 2:13.

1569. Hubbard, “Out of Mind,” applies Paul’s claim in 2 Cor 5:13 to poor rhetorical skill (cf. similarly Fredrickson, “Tears,” 174–76, noting that some ancients associated rhetorical emotional outbursts with being out of one’s mind); but in the context of 2 Cor 3:13 and 12:2–4, it better fits a private experience with God (see Keener, Corinthians, 183–84). Bede Comm. Acts 26.24 applies it here.

1570. Cf. also the insanity charge against Jesus in John 10:20.

1571. E.g., Ovid Metam. 2.640–41. For a link between madness and spirit possession in some cultures, see, e.g., Firth, Ritual, 296–97.

1572. Proclus Poet. 6.1, K157.25–26; 6.2, K166.20–21; K180.29–30; K181.1–2. Cf. Homer “possessed” by the Muses in K198.30–199.1.

1573. Poet. 6.2, K178.24.

1574. Poet. 6.2, K182.17–19. Poetry without this sort of madness was “imperfect” (K182.16–20). In K180.11–12, Proclus cites as his authority Plato Phaedrus 245A.

1575. On ecstasy, sometimes in various cults, including that of Dionysus (see, e.g., Plut. Rom. Q. 112, Mor. 291AB; Artem. Oneir. 2.37), see discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:852–53, 858–59, 887, 898–905. On traditional Roman mistrust of frenzied cults, see, e.g., Livy 39.15.2–3; for unsoundness of mind and frenzy, see Cic. Tusc. 3.5.11; for the madness of the Galli, see Ovid Fasti 4.236, 243, 245–46. Magical spells could allegedly mar their victims’ sanity (Apul. Apol. 80).

1576. Cf. also Hermog. Inv. 2.5.117. Normally madness was attributed to the gods (Quint. Decl. 314.17–19; Libanius Speech in Character 6.1) or Furies (Quint. Decl. 314.17). Insanity could also come from emotional trauma such as loss of sons (Val. Max. 1.1.20; for lesser loss of mind due to emotion, see, e.g., Men. Rhet. 2.9, 413.13–14). Cf. also the insanity of Ben Zoma, from beholding too much of God’s glory in a merkabah vision (b. Ḥag. 14b, bar.).

1577. Soph. Antig. 955–65.

1578. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 226–27 (applying it to Paul’s oratory); Johnson, Acts, 438–39 (as one lexical option, citing Hdt. 4.79). Witherington, Acts, 748n520, opposes this view; elsewhere, however, he associates the noun cognate with ecstasy (as opposed to hysteria or insanity; idem, Corinthians, 278–79).

1579. On “prophetic” madness in ecstasy, see further discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:887, 898–905.

1580. So Bede Comm. Acts 26.24 (L. Martin, 184; Martin, Acts, 297), on Paul’s spiritual madness.

1581. Commentators (Johnson, Acts, 439; Fitzmyer, Acts, 763) cite Let. Aris. 121; Xen. Cyr. 1.2.6; Plato Apol. 26D. The issue is not knowledge but the arduous study that it required (Haenchen, Acts, 688n3) or perhaps too much study of Jewish Scripture (Witherington, Acts, 749, tentatively; but while Paul so employs γράμμα, Luke does not). Much study produces weariness (Eccl 12:12), in the context of the teachings of sages being goads (12:11; cf. Acts 26:14). Boundaries between orality and literacy were not decisive; see, e.g., Goldhill, “Anecdote”; Habinek, “Literacy”; Parker, “Books,” esp. 215–17. Although writing literacy was not widespread over the entire ancient population, reading literacy was probably significantly higher in urban settings; see, e.g., Hurtado, “Fixation,” esp. 330–34 (cf. inscriptions from Roman Britain in Woolf, “Literacy,” 54–56; public inscriptions in Ephesus in Burrell, “Reading”; and esp. Virgil in Pompeii’s graffiti in Milnor, “Literacy”). People were literate on various levels and for various purposes (e.g., basic “name literacy” in Thomas, “Writing,” 18–24, on classical Athens) without being able to compose literature (ibid., 41). Judging from his letters, Paul’s literacy was much higher than average even in urban settings.

1582. Noted by Malherbe (Philosophers) and others.

1583. See further discussion of the attribution of madness to Cynics in Malherbe, Philosophers, 159 (adding Socrates Ep. 6.1; 9.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 66.25; 77/78.41; Lucian Cynic 5).

1584. Nevertheless, he also opined it “madness” to confront the hostile masses too directly (Dio Chrys. Or. 32.28) and wondered if it was madness for him to address a crowd that despised Cynics (34.4). Calling sane persons “insane” long enough will make them lose their mind (35.7).

1585. Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 339, §112D.

1586. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 1.12.9 (μαινόμενος); 1.21.4 (μαινομένων); Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b13, pp. 26–27.28–30; 2.7.5b13, p. 28.1–2; cf. Quint. Decl. 283.1; Lucian Nigr. 38; Diog. Laert. 1.87.

1587. Cic. Parad. 27–32; Mus. Ruf. 20, p. 126.2–3; Diog. Laert. 7.1.124; cf. Cic. Tusc. 3.5.10. Cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 28, even regarding an ecstatic prophetess (in Virg. Aen. 6.78–79). Ignorance is madness in Pyth. Sent. 28.

1588. Malherbe, Philosophers, 160, notes that Dio Chrysostom appeals to the association of madness with inspiration when he is accused of madness, and in Or. 45.1 denies madness.

1589. He claims that Anacharsis the Scythian viewed Greek love of athletics in general as madness (Dio Chrys. Or. 32.44). Any nonsensical behavior could lead to one’s appearing out of his or her mind (Dion. Hal. Isoc. 17; Dio Chrys. Or. 17.21; Alciph. Fish. 12 [Charopê to Glaucippê], 3.2, ¶1; cf. Test. Job 35:1–38:6, where Job’s comforters test his sanity).

1590. Dio Chrys. Or. 32.91, using γυναιμανεῖς, “crazed for women.”

1591. Philost. Ep. 69 (15). The heat of anger also produced temporary insanity (Ep. Apoll. 86).

1592. On which, see Evans, “Mad Ritual.”

1593. A bystander interrupts (Quint. Curt. 6.10.36) after a speech (6.10.1–35), and the speaker concludes with final words (6.10.37).

1594. In the LXX, the term applies to inspiration positively in 1 Chr 25:1; negatively in Mic 5:12; Ezek 13:9, 19; Zech 10:2; and possibly to other speech in Ps 58:8 (59:7 ET); cf. also inspired speech in Philo Heir 259; Joseph 117; Mos. 2.253, 263. A cognate is oracular in Philo Joseph 95; Jos. War 2.159. Cf. Dupont, Salvation, 51.

1595. Johnson, Acts, 439.

1596. Commentators cite, e.g., Xen. Mem. 1.1.16; 3.9.6–7; cf. also Dio Chrys. Or. 32.28 (cf. 77/78.26); Lucian Nigr. 5–6; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b13, pp. 26–27.30–31; Libanius Descr. 23.1–2 (explicit in 23.1). The full semantic range of the cognate σωφρονέω includes both self-control and sanity (BDAG; for the latter, against insanity, BDAG cites, e.g., Plato Phaedr. 22, 244A; Rep. 1.331C; Philo Cher. 69); in Luke-Acts, Luke 8:35.

1597. Also, e.g., Proclus Poet. 6.2, K178.24; K182.18–19.

1598. See, e.g., Mus. Ruf. 18B, p. 116.20; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5f, pp. 30–31.23; 2.7.11g, pp. 72–73.15; Lucian Icar. 30 (Zeus complaining that they were not living accordingly). Cf. also the moralist Plutarch in Poetry 11, Mor. 32C.

1599. See esp. Plato Charm. 159B–176C (LCL, 4:26–89); cf. Xen. Mem. 1.2.23; Iambl. Letter 3, frg. 5 (Stob. Anth. 3.5.48); also, in Irwin, Philosophy, 328, §§494–95, note Plato Gorgias 504E–507E. Plato related it to self-knowledge (though perhaps through a logical inconsistency in Plato; Rosen, “Sophrosyne”); especially moderation related to self-knowledge (Schmid, “Moderation”). On Socrates’s view of σωφροσύνη in Charmides, see, e.g., Kosman, “Definition”; McKim, “Self-Knowledge”; but the Charmides dialogue drops this subject early on (so Van der Ben, Charmides). Socrates finds it incompatible with injustice (Eisenstadt, “Teaching”; cf. further McKirahan, “Protagoras”).

1600. Ultimately said to go back to Socrates (Plato Rep. 4.428–34).

1601. I include in the discussion the adjective cognate, which usage demonstrates is normally related (at least in the many sources surveyed). Given the period and Festus’s being a Roman speaking Greek, I focus on Musonius as an example, but other sources are also fruitful.

1602. As a summary of virtue in Mus. Ruf. 5, p. 50.22–26.

1603. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 44.10–22, esp. 16–22; p. 48.1, 4, 8, 13, esp. 4; 6, p. 52.15, 17, 19, 21, esp. 15; 7, p. 58.25–26 (minus “courage”); 8, pp. 60.22–64.9, esp. 62.10–23; p. 66.7–8, esp. 8; 17, p. 108.9–10; Marc. Aur. 3.6; 8.1 (σώφρονα); Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5a, pp. 10–11.7–9 (Zeno’s views); 2.7.5b1, pp. 12–13.13–22 (and their converse in lines 22–29; as samples of virtues and vices; see lines 29–30); 2.7.5b2, pp. 14–15.1–4, esp. 3; 2.7.5b5, pp. 18–19.27–31 (with lines 21–26, 32–35). Cf. Mus. Ruf. 7, p. 58.25–26, esp. 26; 16, p. 104.32–34, esp. 33; frg. 38, p. 136.3; Libanius Thesis 3.3. See discussion in Lutz, “Musonius,” 27, including n. 113. Cf. lists of virtues including at least three of these, e.g., Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b, pp. 10–11.16–21 (esp. 17); 2.7.11e, pp. 68–69.12–16; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.20. Apart from “justice” and funerary use of sobriety, the four virtues figure little in epigraphic sources in Ephesus and presumably similar cities (Judge, First Christians, 374–75).

1604. E.g., cf. Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.20–22; 4, p. 44.18–22; 6, p. 52.15–17; 8, p. 62.14–17; 16, p. 104.33–35; 17, p. 108.11–14; frg. 24, p. 130; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b2, pp. 14–15.6; cf. Libanius Anecdote 4.8. Against sexual indulgence, see, e.g., Mus. Ruf. 12, p. 86.13–16; against gluttony, e.g., 18A, p. 112.6–7 (cf. 112.29); 18B, p. 116.4–22, esp. 19–20; p. 118.4–7, esp. 5; p. 120.2–7, esp. 6–7; against grief, e.g., Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5 L, pp. 36–37.3–5. See further Lutz, “Musonius,” 28 (noting esp. Mus. Ruf. 6, p. 54.2–25). For the fullest definition, see Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b1, pp. 12–13.18–19; 2.7.5b2, pp. 14–15.15–16, 31–35; p. 16–17.1–3; cf. also 2.7.5b, pp. 10–11.21–25 (esp. 23); p. 12.1–2. For remaining within realistic limits and avoiding hubris, see Jewett, Romans, 739–40 (on Rom 12:3).

1605. Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 60.10–23; p. 62.10–21; Dio Chrys. Or. 3.7; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.35, 36. It was precisely the need for this virtue among those who governed that made democracy impracticable (Dio Chrys. Or. 3.47). A civic official might supervise this virtue (51.6).

1606. So Eisenberg, “Sophrosune” (on Plato Rep. 4.432A).

1607. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 66.8; Dio Chrys. Or. 35.2. Roman men more generally apparently tried to control expression of emotion (see Clark, “Poetics”; e.g., Val. Max. 4.1.13); cf. Rives, Religion, 186, on educated persons of status.

1608. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.17–18, 20; 4, p. 44.16–18; Libanius Narration 37. For the virtue as appropriate for women, see also Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 48.4; for philosophy teaching women this virtue, see also 3, p. 42.26–28. See more broadly North, “Mare.” Eurip. Oed. frg. 545 links the adjective with wifely obedience.

1609. Commentators cite Plato Rep. 4.430E–431B; Phaedr. 244D; Prot. 323B; Symp. 196C; Diog. Laert. 3.91; Justin Dial. 39.4 (e.g., Johnson, Acts, 439; Larkin, Acts, 364; Witherington, Acts, 749). Cf. even Epicureans in Cic. Fin. 1.14.47 (temperantiam), a concession that Stoics exploited (Mus. Ruf. frg. 24, p. 130, with Lutz’s note, p. 131).

1610. Cf., e.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.11; Iambl. V.P. 1.1; ruling the tongue, 31.195; concerning the temptations of youth, 8.41; 31.195 (sexual); overcoming passions in Iambl. Letter 3, frg. 2–3 (Stob. Anth. 3.5.45–46); the supreme virtue in Letter 3, frg. 5–6 (Stob. Anth. 3.5.48–49). Among a variation on the four virtues, see Iambl. V.P. 30.167–33.240, esp. 31.187–213.

1611. For a more detailed treatment, see North, Sophrosyne; idem, “‘Sophrosyne’ in Criticism”; Marshall, Enmity, 190–94 (especially in opposition to ὕβρις, arrogantly overstepping bounds). Wojciechowski, “Vocabulary,” doubts that moral philosophy shaped much NT language; this observation holds true for most of Luke-Acts (and still more the other Gospels), but there are exceptions (and many exceptions in Pauline literature).

1612. Also in novels (e.g., Ach. Tat. 1.5.6; Philost. Hrk. 11.8; 26.1). Some ancients, however, thought that this virtue among the young (perhaps younger than Scipio, to whom Polybius refers?) reflected more on those who raised them than on themselves (Rhet. Alex. 35, 1441a.16–19, esp. 18–19). On self-control among young men, see, e.g., Men. Rhet. 2.3, 385.22–28, esp. 22–23; Libanius Speech in Character 10.2; 17.4 (cf. 4.1; Invect. 5.14); for the diverse standards for self-control (especially sexual) of the young in various Greek cities, see Men. Rhet. 1.3, 363.28–364.9. Some held that marriage conferred the virtue of temperance on the young (Dion. Hal. Epid. 2.263).

1613. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.17–22, esp. 17; p. 42.26; 4, p. 44.22; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.56; Lucian Hall 7; Sent. Sext. 237; Libanius Speech in Character 18 (esp. 18.3); Thesis 1.13, 26–27; perhaps 1 Tim 2:9, 15; cf. Winter, Wives, 101–3.

1614. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 35, 1440b.17–19, esp. 19 (with Rackham, LCL, 405 n. a, noting the synonym). This is conformed to the four traditional virtues (prudence being doubled) in the spurious addition in Rhet. Alex. 38, 1447b.5–6. It is linked with “virtue” (ἀρετή) in Dio Chrys. Or. 39.2; with “orderliness” in 33.48.

1615. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 35, 1440b.17–19 (with slightly different wording; cf. also the spurious addition in 38, 1447b.5–6); Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 235, §72D; 382, §128D; Men. Rhet. 1.3, 361.14–17, esp. 15. Cf. these virtues in Dio Chrys. Or. 3.58 (adapting the wording slightly); 29.8, 14 (two elements); Lucian Hermot. 22 (three elements). It is linked with other virtues in Lucian Portr. 11, 12.

1616. Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 373.7–8, esp. 8; 375.7–376.23, esp. 375.7–8 and 376.2–13. The emperor’s example of self-control affected sexual chastity in the empire (376.5–6).

1617. Men. Rhet. 2.3, 379.19–380.3, esp. 379.32; 380.31–381.2, esp. 381.2; 385.8–386.10, esp. 385.8–9, 22–28; 2.10, 415.24–416.28, esp. 415.24–26, 416.18–23.

1618. Men. Rhet. 2.5, 397.21–24, esp. 22–23; cf. Pliny Ep. 3.2.2. The orator naturally adds to the four a fifth, “excellence in speaking ability” (Men. Rhet. 2.5, 397.23–24).

1619. Men. Rhet. 2.10, 416.19. For the impropriety of dignified persons laughing in public settings, see Aeschines Tim. 84.

1620. E.g., Philost. Hrk. 11.4.

1621. Elsewhere in Judaism, see, e.g., 2 Macc 4:37; and a Greek-speaking Jew who named his son Sophronios (Σωφρόνιος, CIJ 1:37, §55, with a menorah).

1622. Regularly in Philo: Creation 73; Alleg. Interp. 1.63, 65; Cher. 5; Sacr. 27, 84; Worse 18; Posterity 128; Agr. 18; Drunkenness 23; Heir 209; Names 197; Abr. 219; Mos. 2.185; 2.216; Spec. Laws 2.62; Rewards 160; Good Person 67, 70, 159. Cf. also Feldman, “Jehu.”

1623. E.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.176, 186, 195 (Josephus employs the noun twenty-one times); Ps.-Phoc. 76; Test. Jos. 4:2; 9:2; 10:2–3.

1624. 1 Clem. 62.2; 64.1; Ign. Eph. 10.3.

1625. Witherington, Acts, 749.

1626. Cf. 2 Sam 18:13; 1 Kgs 10:3; Prov 25:2.

1627. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 94–95.16–18.

1628. E.g., Aeschines Embassy 14; Tim. 44, 55–56, 65, 77–78, 80, 89; Isaeus Pyrr. 40; Cic. Verr. 1.5.15; 2.1.40.103. See discussion at Acts 24:8; 26:5.

1629. Cic. Verr. 2.3.30.71 (trans. Greenwood, LCL, 8:85). This rhetorical method resembles what some rhetoricians meant by epitrope or permissio (see Rowe, “Style,” 147; but the definition differs in Anderson, Glossary, 54, following Rhet. Her. 4.39).

1630. E.g., Apul. Apol. 28; 59. Apuleius can also appeal to common knowledge in other rhetorical genres, e.g., Apul. Flor. 17.4; De deo Socr. 150.

1631. The less widely known something was, Xenophon opines, the more one ought to be skeptical (Ages. 5.6).

1632. Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 22 (trans. S. Usher, LCL, 2:187); likewise, there was no need to demonstrate what all acknowledged, that Demosthenes was the greatest orator (Isaeus 20).

1633. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 117.6–7 (the popular view is in 117.6; his shift to a Stoic approach appears in 117.7).

1634. See Philost. Hrk. 8.12, 14, 17; cf. Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, lxiii–lxiv.

1635. Jos. Ant. 20.200. James fits Josephus’s purview, as someone popular in Jerusalem martyred by the corrupt priesthood in the years just before the Judean-Roman war. The same priestly family was involved in both Jesus’s and James’s executions (Bock, “Blasphemy,” 608, citing Ant. 20.197–203, M. Hengel, and R. Brown). See further discussion at Acts 21:23–24.

1636. Jos. Ant. 18.63–64, minus the Slavonic additions and some others not found in the Arabic version (see, e.g., Thackeray, Josephus, 125; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 55ff.; Cornfeld, Josephus, 510; Meier, “Jesus in Josephus”; idem, “Testimonium”; Whealey, “Josephus”; Gramaglia, “Testimonium”; Paget, “Observations”; Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 79; Sanders, Figure, 50; Dubarle, “Témoignage”; Victor, “Testimonium”). That Josephus, despite his interest in revolutionaries, does not class Jesus with the revolutionaries suggests that most people could see the difference (cf. Acts 5:36–39; 24:22–23) and that the Sadducean priests were disingenuous in claiming otherwise.

1637. The surviving Greek manuscripts begin in the eleventh century, and the Latin in the sixth (Feldman, “Methods,” 591), which is not unusual for manuscripts of the period.

1638. Feldman, “Methods,” 591, cites here Jerome Vir. 13; the tenth-century writer Agapius, in Arabic; and others. On the Arabic omission of precisely the elements scholars often believed to be interpolated, see also Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 95–96; idem, “Jesus, Literature, and Archaeology,” 191–92; Evans, “Non-Christian Sources,” 468; Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 193–94.

1639. See Feldman, “Methods,” 591; Meier, “Jesus in Josephus”; idem, “Testimonium.”

1640. Romans did have a private, more secretive space in their house (the cubiculum), but even part of their house was “public” space (Riggsby, “‘Public’ and ‘Private’”), and this was honorable (Vell. Paterc. 2.14.3).

1641. Commentators (e.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 212; Longenecker, Acts, 350; Johnson, Acts, 439; Witherington, Acts, 749; Fitzmyer, Acts, 764; Peterson, Acts, 674) cite Plato Gorg. 485D; Epict. Diatr. 2.12.17; Plut. Busybody 2, Mor. 516b; cf. Plut. Mor. 777b; Terence Brothers 5.2.10. On the use of gnomes, see, e.g., Rowe, “Style,” 148 (for proverbs, Anderson, Glossary, 91); they could be added, as perhaps here, as a “finishing touch” (some rhetoricians gave this use a technical name, ἐπιφώνημα; Anderson, Glossary, 55).

1642. Cf. also Themistius Or. 23.284b; 28.341d; 34.12; 26.322b.

1643. Malherbe, Philosophers, 155.

1644. Ibid., 155–56. This criticism may have proved especially effective against Epicureans, who did withdraw.

1645. Barrett, Acts, 1169, denies that “done in a corner” was an idiom, but acknowledges the similarity of some of these texts.

1646. See Malherbe, Philosophers, 159–60; Witherington, Acts, 750.

1647. Later, Celsus scoffed at any truth in Judaism or Christianity, since they occurred in a corner of obscure Palestine (Origen Cels. 4.36); Eusebius later countered that, far from being limited to a corner, Christians were scattered everywhere (H.E. 1.4.1–2; Pelikan, Acts, 277–78).

1648. See Malherbe, “Not in a Corner,” 203; cf., e.g., Livy 39.15.11; 39.18.9; Tac. Hist. 2.54. Wonder-workers who acted in private were also thought to employ dangerous magic (Theissen, Miracle Stories, 61).

1649. E.g., Isoc. Demon. 24–25; Sir 6:9; 22:22; 27:17; Philo Sobr. 55; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.207; Mitchell, “Friends by Name,” 259; Keener, John, 1010.

1650. Among Epicureans, see Philod. Crit. frg. 40–42, esp. 41.

↑ Back to top